Can science support creationism?

I'm not sure that anyone has been on topic here yet.It seems that many think that trying to poke holes in various scientific conclusions does something to "prove" creationism.This thread is not titled "Using Science to Disprove Biology, Physics or Geology".If someone want so use the scientific process to support the creastionist view it would be more on topic. For that creationism would have to be expressed as a scientific theory with it's own different predictions and a way to falsify it. That doesn't seem to have been tried yet. RoseBud, you will have to be careful to get your facts straight. The big band theory says nothing at all aobut how life came to be.As well, none of the chemists interesting in the origin of life (that I know of) suggest that DNA was the first form of life. They agree with you that DNA is an unlikely first replicator.And, on top of all that, you must be careful in using the word "information" unless you know what it is. There have been a number of discussions about it here. I think it is safe to say that anything you have been told about it is wrong.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-07-2004 10:41 PMThis message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-07-2004 10:45 PM

A little of your post brings up the point of the second law.You brought it up in post 13 for the first time. By post 25 you had been given a site that gives a lot of detail and a definition of it.After pointing out to you that you shouldn't have mentioned it I would expect you to drop the whole thing. Instead you kept going and going. You think that it is going to be ignored.The 2nd law is still plastered on web sites that have had time to know better. I, for one, won't ignore the dishonest misuse of science by them. If you wish to perpetuate that misuse then I won't ignore it here either. Ok it was an off the cuff remark. I kinda knew that. When it was first pointed out to you that it didn't matter to the issue at hand a good response would have been:
"You're right, it was just a quick off-the-cuff remark. I shouldn't have stuffed it in there."It was your dragging it out and not doing that that has made you look a bit foolish. Much more foolish than being wrong about the 2nd law. There is nothing in your creationist viewpoint that you have brought up that has anything to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The 2nd law is a scientific concept. Why do you mention the creationist view then? This is the sort of thing that is "obfuscating".You've run out of things to comment on the 2nd law after having thrown it out. We did the open, closed issue, the energy from the sun issue and so on. All of them attempts by you to keep bringing up some relevance of the 2nd law.Now that we've finished with going over that you're bringing up creationism but have yet to explain why it matters here.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-08-2004 12:23 AM

Now, Buz, I even suggested how you could have "dropped it". Now you are being deliberately silly. All you had to do was admit that you shouldn't have brought it up. Something which you still have not done. You continue to try to be devious (just not very successfully). No where have I mentioned the 2nd law being off topic. The original suggestion that the 2nd law as in any way pertinant was what was false. The continued dragging it out rather than admint that it didn't apply was disingenuous at best. Limiting it to post 8 and 13 is meaningless.You haven't answered the question regarding the applicabilness of your creationism to the 2nd law yet.As noted within about a dozen posts of your bringing the 2nd law up you had a detailed explanation of it available. You were told, very simply, that it didn't apply within a post or so. You said you understood it but were asking me about it for reasons you never did tell us about.Now that you have run out of attempts to bring the second law in you are going all over the map without admiting that you shouldn't have tried. It is precisely because you do this kind of thing frequently that I don't feel like letting it go until you admit to a small error. As noted you were given all you needed to know about the 2nd law within a short time of asking for it. Though why you asked when you told us you knew it already you still haven't explained.

So you've abandoned this topic too Buz. Does keep happening doesn't it?