Summations Only

And so once again Faith affirms that there is no Science in Creationism.

Only partially right Faith.Yes, geologists did believe in stuff like a young earth or that one of the Biblical Flood stories actually happened, but then they actually studied the earth, geology and what the result of floods looked like and so abandoned young earth and the flood nonsense. But that was over a hundred years ago Faith.AbE:Remember Faith it is only a very very small percentage even of educated Christians that think the earth is only 6000 years old or that there are actual descriptions of creation in the Bible or that either of the Biblical Flood myths actually happens. Most Christians understand and acknowledge that the Bible is often factually wrong and worthless as a Science text.Edited by jar, : see AbE;

But again Faith, the evidence shows the flood simply failed; failed miserably.In the layers with dinosaurs not ONE human ever got killed. In the layers with humans not ONE dinosaur got killed.Until you present the model, method, process, procedure that shows how a flood can do that you got diddley squat.And that is the evidence that led ALL of geology to conclude without a shadow of a doubt that neither of the Biblical Flood stories ever happened.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

We know you make that claim however this thread is about The Science in Creationism and just maybe, reality.The fact is that after the geologists actually looked at reality all of the geologists concluded that neither of the Biblical floods were even possible,Until you present the model, method, process, procedure that shows how a flood can do that you got diddley squat.And that is the evidence that led ALL of geology to conclude without a shadow of a doubt that neither of the Biblical Flood stories ever happened.Edited by jar, : neith ------> neither

It's not that small of a world Faith; it included almost all Christians as well as all Scientists and many other folk so hardly small.Maybe folk pay attention because if they test what I say against logic, reason and reality it stands up.

From Message 1:

quote:

---

In a previous thread it was loosely argued that several factors such as Falsifiability, Parsimony and other factors cause Creationism to fail as science and fail to qualify for any serious scientific investigation

​

It was further intimated that Creationism cannot stand up to empirical testing and that it could not be considered scientific in the way the term Science is currently defined

​

And lastly it was directly stated in that same thread that Creationism could not stand the test of debate and that it has failed as a testable theory

​

From this it was concluded that many creationist had abandoned this website, due to an indefensible doctrine, theory or ideology

---

Well, it seems that the reality is that even though several factors such as Falsifiability, Parsimony and other factors cause Creationism to fail as science and fail to qualify for any serious scientific investigation and the fact that Creationism cannot stand up to empirical testing and that it could not be considered scientific in the way the term Science is currently defined and the fact that Creationism could not stand the test of debate and that it has failed as a testable theory remaining true, some Creationists still want to post; not to debate or discuss or support Creationism but to whine about Evolution being wrong. Yet even though people have begged Dawn to provide any evidence in support of his position or to actually show that there is Science in Creationism (s)he has present nothing, absolutely no evidence, no model, no theory, no method, no process, no procedure and most of all NO "Actual scientic(I think that was meant to be scientific but not sure) evidence that supports Creation Science".

All of the Creationists fantasies about a global flood during the period of time humans have existed is simply Dead on Arrival until one of them can present the model, mechanism, method, process, procedure or thingamajig that can explain anything as well as the old earth and no global flood theory.No creationist has ever been able to explain sorting of geology or biology.We are now over 500 posts into this thread and still not one person has presented any evidence of "The Science in Creationism".AbE:In addition both Dawn and Faith have posted statements that would absolutely preclude whatever they are doing from being Science.In Message 180 Dawn posts "You Dr A. What your Mug factory does for you, specific revelation in the form of the word of God does for us. It supports our existing indirect evidence" ...and in Message 431 Faith posts " But I will put the witness of the Bible above any manmade evidence of anything where I think there is a contradiction."Edited by jar, : see AbE:Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

Which is exactly why Flood Geology and Creationism have been abandoned for over 100 years.Creationism and particularly Flood Geology has never been able to provide a model, method, process, procedure, explanation or thingamjig for what is seen in reality. And that is whether using plain English or even the NewSpeak mumbojumbo of the Creationist hucksters.

The issue is whether or not you are even willing to consider and examine the material? Are you willing to consider that the Bible is simply factually wrong on lots of different things?

But Faith, it is the details that actually are what is important and it is also where all of your "perfectly reasonable arguments" are simply shown to be wrong.You have never been able to present a model that actually explains any of the details in anything.You have no model that explains the details seen in fossils.You have no model that explains the details seen in the aeolian sand dunes.You have no model that explains the White Cliffs of Dover.There is no science in Creationism or Flood Geology which is why both have been abandoned by all scientists for several hundred years.

And both of those are of course simply wrong.Even if a new breed has less genetic material (a point you once again have never supported with evidence but rather just assertion) that would not reduce the overall genetic variation and in fact must increase the overall variation. Second, mutations continue to happen and so Virginia, Yes, new genetic sequences happen all the time.Details Faith, details.You have no model that explains the details seen in fossils.You have no model that explains the details seen in the aeolian sand dunes.You have no model that explains the White Cliffs of Dover.There is no science in Creationism or Flood Geology which is why both have been abandoned by all scientists for several hundred years.And in addition, you still have presented no evidence of The Science in Creationism and have admitted several times that what you do is not science and that you will refuse to actually do research unless it is research that agrees with your interpretation of the Bible.Sorry but that is not and cannot ever be Science.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

And you have evidence of where floods have done something like that?You know Faith, we see floods happen?

And so once again you prove that you do not do science and don't even know anything about what doing science requires.Any scientist that "selected the information that contributes to the arguments I want to make and set aside information that isn't relevant to them" would immediately get fired and all of the work that they had ever done be immediately suspect.What you are doing is scientifically dishonest and certainly not, and cannot be, science.

But the topic Faith is "The Science in Creationism" and what you are doing is not science or even working towards an understanding of nature. Period.What you are doing is trying to make up support for your interpretation of the Bible myths by refusing to actually study nature.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

We are now over 600 posts in this thread and still without any evidence of The Science in Creationism but with posts by Dawn and Faith proving what they are doing is NOT science and cannot be science. Sorry Faith but that process would get any scientist fired immediately and is 100% the wrong way to determine truth or reality.You have no model that explains the details seen in fossils.You have no model that explains the details seen in the aeolian sand dunes.You have no model that explains the White Cliffs of Dover.There is no science in Creationism or Flood Geology which is why both have been abandoned by all scientists for several hundred years.In the layers with dinosaurs not ONE human ever got killed. In the layers with humans not ONE dinosaur got killed.Until you present the model, method, process, procedure that shows how a flood can do that you got diddley squat.And that is the evidence that led ALL of geology to conclude without a shadow of a doubt that neither of the Biblical Flood stories ever happened.And in addition, you still have presented no evidence of The Science in Creationism and have admitted several times that what you do is not science and that you will refuse to actually do research unless it is research that agrees with your interpretation of the Bible.