A problem I have with creation science

Hello everyone, I am new to the board and so far the debates taht I have read have been fascinating to say the least....Here is a problem that I have with creation science/young earth philosophy...ect...Isn't it true that the creationists, in their opinion, already know the irrefutable answers (age of earth, great flood) and therefore will always immediately call any theory or evidence that disputes these answers wrong or false??It seems to me that creation science really is just an endeavor to create theories that fit with the answers they already think they have.I am curious what some of you might think about this...

You're basically right.So it comes down to whether the creationist sceanrios explain the data well or not. I think they do.The evolutionary scenarios are also proposals that initially came from only a hint in the data. So the foundations of both sides are not that different.If you think creation is not hinted at in the data I think you are extremely biased.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The evolutionary scenarios are also proposals that initially came from only a hint in the data. So the foundations of both sides are not that different.

​

If you think creation is not hinted at in the data I think you are extremely biased.

---

LOL! What data are you talking about TC? YOu have presented nothing that has not been refuted to the point of ridiculousness. The only evidence for creationism we have seen is data you have 'created' in your own mind.

"LOL! What data are you talking about TC?"
--You've done this a couple times, just making sure but don't you mean TB? Thanks.------------------

I don't see the similarity...By your own admission creationists/literal bible interpreters "know" the answer, all they are really doing is trying to make the data fit the conclusions that they "know" it has to reach.(By creationists, I mean people who believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, not just in regards to the evolution/creation debate)Meaning that no creationist will ever accept data that disproves what they "know" to be true. Science and scientific theories by their very nature have to be able to have the possibility to be proven false...creationism, by its very nature, is the exact opposite, since the bible is infallible, there is no condition or evidence that could ever disprove it.I guess what I am really getting at is why do people call it creation science? That's why I came to the "Is It Science?" board (Again, I am not talking about one specific topic in the debate; but more of a meta-view of both sides...creationism/literal bible-ism(?) vs. science; be it the flood, age of earth, evolution vs. creation, etc.)Thank you for taking the time to read my post,
em
------------------
Rather then get married again, I am going to find a women I don't like and give her a new house.
--Rod Stewart[This message has been edited by eightman2k, 01-23-2003]

Pascal used Descartes NAME but Augustine's thought. Biochange may need to learn this constitutively and if creationist CRITICISM is able to capitulate biology in to this recognition all better for Connan O Brad in. Letterman had something.

8man2kWe accept all of the data and our theories do change with the times.50 years ago creationists had no idea how to explain the data other than saying 'creation and the flood', we claimed that speciation didn't occur, that beneficial mutaitons didn't occur, that radiodecay hadn't occured, that the geo-col was an artificial construction, that paleontology was based on circular reasoning, that the stars were created in their current state etc etc etc.Almost all of these ideas have been thrown out! We now understand the flood as a catastrophic tectonic event, probably triggered by accelerated radiodecay, we accept the geo-col and the fossil order, we accept speciation and beneficial mutations, we accept the expanding universe and ancient stars and galaxies (via a creationist Big Bang) etc etc etc.In short we made some big mistakes and were not sufficently data centered. But we had to start somewhere. The creationism of the 1990s and the 21st century is good science and is data-based. Yes it is also Bible-based but I take both equally. They are both reality. And they both require interpretaiton.

My point here is:How can you call it science when there is no evidence that can ever prove you wrong?It seems to me that creationists create theories to fit the "truths" that they already know, and then use the theory that they created to prove the "truth"...

8manDo you want me to quote evolutionists admitting that evolution can be made to fit any data as well?After the postulate stage creationism is as scientific as evolution.

Have you answered Kant's question as to if or how the world is 3-D? I take it you consider this question intelligable. If the criticism of evolution by creativity remains the only domain asking the questions whose truth can absolutely be answered then it seems not right to permit wholescale teaching authority to those who DO NOT hold this belief. It is not immoral to do (or not) do so. But none of us can predict the future acutally and why not say the satalite calculations are the best we can do?? I ask this latter question because of the result being engaged with c/e talk I have been able to turn the evolutionist supported curriculm that founds ancestral areas to projection of planar dimensions by truth of the volume of biodiversity. This is not a project that can be said to have originated without the creationist appearnce and as it revives it will not ever be supported by a strict evolutionism thought it may be in line with a mendelism. hard to tell how mild this will be should we survive the next 100.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-23-2003]

TB...again you miss my point...and again you are harping on evolution where I specifically mentioned that I am talking about more then that...The question is...is there any evidence anyone could ever show you that will ever prove to you that divine intervention/God did not have a part in how man came to be? That the earth is more then 6000 years old? That there was no great flood?I am not taking a position, nor have I disclosed what I believe. I am merely asking a philosphical question...How can you call it science when you already "know" the answers...and no evidence will ever prove you wrong?------------------
Rather then get married again, I am going to find a women I don't like and give her a new house.
--Rod Stewart

8manI take your point. I admit that in its entirety creaitonism is not science. Neither is forensic law enforcement. But both creationsm and foresnic law enfgorcements invovle science.Yes, certain data could sway me away from creationism. But although data exists that is better explained by evoltuion than creaiton I do not put that data in the aforementioned category.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-23-2003]

Thank you for your answer....I appreciate your honesty.eightman2k

quote:

---

creaitonism

---

When TB started here, he was a creationist.He quickly made the transition to being a creaitonist.I hope that by the end of the year, he will have made the transition to being a cratonist, a believer in the geologicly stable cores of the continents.Moose"When the going gets wierd, the wierd turn pro" - Raul Duke

Moose started out here as an evolutionist but through some mystical poorly understood internet phenomenon became a web administrator, and a darn good one. He beleives that the world didn't exist prior to the 1986 CERN-APARNET boundary.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-23-2003]