why creation "science" isn't science

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
From Britannica:

​

Science- any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.

​

...

---

Hmm, sounds like evolution...

quote:

---

"Schraf: If you want to call Creationism science, then you must abide by the rules of science. Creationism does not abide by the rules of science. The last time religious leaders were involved in deciding what was science or not people like Galileo were persecuted."

​

John Paul:First take a history course. It was the Aristotelians at the universities that opposed Galileo. It was their influence that turned the Church.

---

Since we're talking history here, I think is fairly clear that church history is replete with interference in secular affairs. I really don't think that you want to go there, JP.

quote:

---

schraf:
A falsification of Creation "science's" claims would be, for example, the geologic column, radiometric dating methods, ice core data, tree ring data and our understanding of physics falsifying the idea that a Noachian flood occurred.

​

John Paul:
You can't have it both ways. You can't on one hand say it is unfalsifiable and then it has been falsified. And anyway, that would falsify the Creation model of geology.

---

True it can be falsified scientifically, that's why creationism is an abandoned theory. However, the fallback position is always that the bible says this or that, or that god wanted it that way. That part of the creationist argument cannot be falsified.

quote:

---

John Paul:
But that has nothing to do with the point I am making, which is today's ToE is full of gaps and should not be taught in public schools because those gaps are filled in with faith & beliefs. ...

---

The problem you have is that the ToE explains what we see in the natural world, while you have no theory that can do the same. And if you are worried about gaps in knowledge we'd better cancel history classes as well.

quote:

---

John Paul:
I have been over this. Theories change when new evidence is brought to the front.

---

Wait! I thought that was bad! What kind of theory do you have that it keeps changing all the time?

quote:

---

John Paul:No one said God is necessary for evolutionary processes.

---

Ah, good. Does this mean you are about to tell us who the designer was/is?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Hypocritical statement. Scientists never question whether or not evolution occured, they only question HOW it occured.

​

If you can show me that I'm wrong I will be very suprised.

---

Well, "never" is a long time, so on principle I will disagree. Besides, evolution is tested virtually every day. The point is that it works virtually everytime. It is so well established that, yes, it is treated as a "fact" and is no longer questioned. However, if some contradicting evidence arose, I assure you that the questions would blossom.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I respectfully disagree with you. I think certain concepts of evolution are being challenged on a daily basis.

---

I thought that you said scientists never question evolution. What is your point?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I thought that you said scientists never question evolution. What is your point?"
--The challenges are presented frequently, though it is seldom you get a response, and when you do, it is even more seldom that it is not filled with bias or a chuckle.

---

That means your evidence is inadequate. It also means that we've heard this on before and refuted it so many times that it's not worth our time. I'm not sure what you mean here in relation to you last post.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]"However, if some contradicting evidence arose, I assure you that the questions would blossom"
--I would wish that they would, just a word of caution, if you wan't to get someone to question whether the basic fundementals of evolution have ever occured or not, don't ask the smithsonian, and other wealthy evolutionary organizations.[/QUOTE]You really think that some scientist wouldn't love to make a name in replacing the evolutionary paradigm? Your problem is that there is history here. Your side has obviously lost credibility. Follow the lead of Darwin and come back with overwhelming evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"That means your evidence is inadequate. It also means that we've heard this on before and refuted it so many times that it's not worth our time."

​

--These challenges are 'new' at the time challenges, thus it is simply wrong and a bias assertion to say that you shouldn't look at it or give a response without lying or lowering its meaning because, 'we've heard it before and refuted it so many times that it's not worth our time'.

---

Then why do we keep hearing them over and over after being soundly refuted? I keep hoping to find something new from creatonists in these debates, but to no avail.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"1- There are trees which have been identidied as being about 8000 years old through their rings. If there had been a world wide flood 4450 years ago,then the oldest living tree could only by 4449 years old."
--I have encountered this problem before, I wrote this short article a couple months back using many quotes.

---

Umm, TC? Why do you go to such lengths regarding carbon dating when the example Ludvan gave you has nothing to do with it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Shrafinator:
"Young Earth Creationism HAS been refuted about 200 years ago."

​

Cobra (me!):
That's a pretty bold statement and it's also a baseless assertion.

---

Not really. Hutton understood that a young earth was not viable as early as the late 18th century.

quote:

---

Shrafinator:
"Be careful. I do not generally assert that which I cannot back up."

​

First of all, I must say I am impressed that you had something to back up your claim. However, are you implying that because 200 years ago, Creation scientists didn't think a Noachian flood was possible, and because of this YEC shouldn't even be considered?

---

It shows that science has been through this before. You are setting us back a couple hundred years.

quote:

---

If your answer was yes, you should prepare to eat your words.

​

20 years ago, a conference of evolutionists took place in Chicago. The primary question of the meeting was: whether or not the mechanisms underlying microevolution could be extrapolated to explain the phenomenon of macroevolution. Can you take a wild guess as to what their conclusion was? NO!

---

So, everybody make mistakes.

quote:

---

So, if I must withdraw my ideas based on the conclusions of Creation geologists 200 years ago, CERTAINLY you must withdraw your ideas based on the conclusion of Evolutionary scientists merely 20 years ago!

---

What did they say about the age of the earth?

quote:

---

(My source was the book Creation: Facts of Life by Gary E. Parker.)

---

I don't suppose your book tells you that...

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"We've gone out of our way to provide Statements of Faith for your inspection. Did you fail to read them? Are you claiming that they do not exist?"
--No its that these statments of faith do not represent creation science. ...

---

Nonsense. Every creationist ultimately retreats to scripture. Several posters on this board has as much as said so. Baumgardner has publically stated that the Bible says so and that's that! Or is he wrong on this point? I think you are pretty much alone on this one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Nonsense. Every creationist ultimately retreats to scripture."
--Odd how I have never resorted to retreating to scripture in the way you put it in context.

​

"Several posters on this board has as much as said so."
--Mabye, but that doesn't mean they are right, and through experience throughout debate and discussion on the Creation and Evolution topic I have found that you need not to do such a thing.

---

Well then, for you to say what creationists do, or what creation science is, would be presumptuous, eh?

quote:

---

"Baumgardner has publically stated that the Bible says so and that's that! Or is he wrong on this point?"
--Depends on what point your trying to get, I don't remember him saying anything like "We have to retreat to scripture!", or somthing simmilar.

---

Perhaps it was on the Discovery Channel show on evolution. I was shocked that he would admit his reliance on scripture for guidance.

quote:

---

"I think you are pretty much alone on this one."
--That doesn't mean I am wrong, and it only takes one to stand out and prove a point.

---

The point is that you are the one who said creation science does not rely on scripture. If you are in the minority can you really say this? (this para edited)

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 02-10-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
What I am saying about the geological column (while admitting my relative ignorance on the subject) is that it is probably not quite as linear as you think it is. For example, the Cambrian Explosion reveals a large number of phyla appearing in relatively brief geological time (which, I am pretty sure, would not be predicted by evolutionists).

---

You would be wrong. You see, the main purpose of the theory of evolution is to explain what we see in the biological world, including the fossil record. If explosions of diversity were not known, then evolution couldn't and wouldn't have to explain them. However, we do know about them and evolution MUST explain the "explosions" of life.