A problem I have with creation science

The short answer is, "Yep."That's why it isn't science.

quote:

---

You're basically right.

---

AAAHHHH!!!!You finally did it, TB!!!!You just admitted that Creationists take what they "know" to be true, before they ever do any research, attempt to explain nature to make these preconceptions "true", and ignore the evidence that doesn't fit those preconceptions.You admitted that Creationism is not science!!Never thought I'd see that.

quote:

---

So it comes down to whether the creationist sceanrios explain the data well or not. I think they do.

---

Why? If you just admitted that your way blatantly ignores evidence if it doesn't fit with what you have already decided is true, before doing any research or looking at any actual evidence, how on earth can you honestly think Creation Science explains anything?

quote:

---

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.

---

But this is in direct contradiction to what you just said above!You just said that the origins of Creation Science is a bunch of presupposed "truths" that you try to fit the evidence into. This is exactly the opposite to the way real scince is done. The evidence, the data, is gathered first in real science, and hypothese and theories are developed as frameworks to explain the data.

quote:

---

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

---

Biased in favor of the evidence? Of course.I must say, in conclusion, that you are one of the most nimble, adept mental gymnasts I have ever known, TB.The intellectual contorsions you go through to hold your illogical, unscientific views, all the while really believing that you think and reason scientifically must actually physically hurt sometimes![This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-24-2003]

quote:

---

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!

---

Why do you think they were thrown out, TB?Could it be because they were claimed to be true, scientifically-true in fact, when they were based on nothing but a religious book?It was all thrown out because it is ridiculous to believe any of it, and looking ridiculous and ignorant is not very good for PR. If promoting these views still drew people into the ministry, they would still use them.By the 1950's, everyone except Creationists were convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that the geologic column accurately represented geological time. What further scientific discovery finally convinced Creationists to accept it?I don't think there was one. They just gave up trying to convince people to turn off their brains and blindly accept what they said in spite of the evidence because it simply didn't work anymore.

quote:

---

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.

---

Congratulations. Now you are only 100 years behind current research.

quote:

---

In short we made some big mistakes and were not sufficently data centered. But we had to start somewhere.

---

Why not have some integrity and start using real science, like your Creationist counterparts did in the 1800's?

quote:

---

Do you want me to quote evolutionists admitting that evolution can be made to fit any data as well?

---

I found this quote that says the opposite:Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money'I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science.'Let us not play the quote game. I much prefer discussing the actual evidence.

quote:

---

After the postulate stage creationism is as scientific as evolution.

---

So, the Bible is falsifiable to you?

Wow, I never thought I'd see the day when TB admitted that Creation 'science' isn't science.Well done.'bout time.

quote:

---

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 sure looks like you are ignoring evidence in favor of baseless belief.

quote:

---

became a web administrator

---

My banning of the "reply quote" button seems to have, dare I say, eliminated Schraf's epic quotation structure manglings (note the wonderful structure of her above messages).Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

HEY!I resemble that remark!