|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is creationism science? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
4Pillars writes: Here's what the Scripture says in full context and not what you cited. Interesting that your so-called "full context" ignores the parts that disagree with you. Before your so-called "full context" - two days before and nine verses before - the plants were created, from the earth, not the water. Science says that plants and animals came from the same ancestors, so science and the Bible do not agree.
I would appreciate if you clarify the things you don't understand first before you embarrassing yourself. I am trying to clarify the things you don't understand. Let's let the readers decide who should be embarassed, okay? This Bible talk is all off-topic here. Come on over to Bible Inaccuracy and Errancy and we'll see if we can teach you a thing or two. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4Pillars Inactive Member |
RINGO >>>Before your so-called "full context" - two days before and nine verses before - the plants were created, from the earth, not the water. Science says that plants and animals came from the same ancestors, so science and the Bible do not agree<<<
Dear Ringo I don't know why you insist on demonstrating your biblical ignorance? You speak of things you have NO knowledge of, by your own admission. Please stop embarrassing yourself. I can not stand it ANYMORE!!! Here, let me reconcile the Scripture for your additional learning. "Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God (YHWH or Jesus) made the earth and the heavens, (Plural) The "Day" is the 3rd Day. One can see this because it is the "Day" in which the "Earth" is made. Gen. 1:9-10 confirms that the "Earth" was made on the 3rd Day. Heavens is Plural and shows that Jesus also made "Heavens", on the 3rd Day. The 1st Heaven was made on the 2nd Day. Gen. 1:6-8 Gen 2 is showing that on the 3rd Day, Jesus made other "Heavens". Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. Note: No water yet at this time but look next succeeding verses... Further confirmation that these verses are speaking of the 3rd Day, BEFORE the plants, and herbs, which were made on the 3rd Day, according to Gen 1:11-12 Why do you suppose Scripture is going into such detail of the events of the 3rd Day? Gen 2:6 BUT WENT UP A MIST (evaporation) FROM THE EARTH, and WATERED (condensation) the whole face of the ground. Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the MAN whom he had formed. Gen 2:4-7 is obviously showing us the "Day" when Adam was formed, physically -BEFORE THE PLANT & THE HERBS. Adam and Eve were later Created, in God's Image spiritually, on the 6th Day. This is the Spiritual Creation of Adam and Eve, at the same time, on the 6th Day. Gen. 1:27 and Gen 5:1-2 I would suggest Ringo that you are fast to judge, but slower to refute the Truth of God, with Scripture. Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2332 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
If you want to preach, please take it to the faith side of the board. THIS thread is in the science forums and in on the topic of whether or not creationism is science.
If you continue to post off topic preaching you will be suspended for a time out. AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
4Pillars writes: When Jesus made the creatures...etc... I think you meant when God made the creatures, but that's really beside the point because you're continuing to make the same mistake. This thread asks the question, "Is creationism science?" Every time you make religious arguments in this thread it makes clear that the answer is a resounding "NO!" --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
platypus Member (Idle past 5783 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
Wow, a lot has happened in the last 24 hours.
quote: Let's bring this back to topic. In response to 1), tell me what realm of science says anything remotely like this. In response to 2), put your money where your mouth is. Cite at least one of these "testable predictions" if you can, cite several if you think you are smart. Also, use [quote ] [ /quote] to cite other people, it makes things easier to read. You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4Pillars Inactive Member |
I deny that science can explain everything in our universe naturally, the origin of the universe and the origin of life are the 2 biggest examples that science has not been able to explain with any validity.
Oh and I'm not attacking the true science, I'm attacking the opposition’ definition of science which attempts to exclude creationism, when the fact is the opposing parties are just as guilty of the things they have accused creationism so far, like knowing empirical truth apriori. It is actually IM-possible to separate philosophy from science or the methods of science. That's because the question, "what is science?" is itself a philosophical question. Try as you might but there is no such thing as an authoritative definition of science or the scientific method. Scientists and philosophers of science until today are in disagreement on it and struggle to define all of its essential attributes. So for evolutionists to claim that creationism is not science simply begs the question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
4Pillars writes: Oh and I'm not attacking the true science, I'm attacking the opposition’ definition of science... Perhaps it would help if we agreed upon a definition of science. This is from something I posted once before over at Message 144.
Percy writes: Until there is agreement about the nature of science there is no common basis for discussion of this thread's topic. In the hope that it will help discussion move forward, here is how scientists view science. These are its qualities:
Science also has a process that is more or less followed. The path taken by original trailblazers is often chaotic, but once the path is blazed then it can be followed in a more or less straightforward fashion. The process has been described many times, but very briefly, here it is again:
The reasons usually offered for why creationism is not science are:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4Pillars Inactive Member |
Dear Percy,
Well I'm glad that you agree with me that science can't explain everything. But, obviously your FAITH in science is very deep, you think science can eventually explain everything. Sorry, but unless science can create a time machine that will allow us to observe events in the past like the beginning of the universe, all you can ever come up with, no matter scientific sounding, is a best GUESS and SPECULATIONS.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
4Pillars writes: Well I'm glad that you agree with me that science can't explain everything. I do happen to agree with you that science cannot explain everything, but I never remotely said anything like this.
But, obviously your FAITH in science is very deep, you think science can eventually explain everything. I never said anything remotely like this, either.
Sorry, but unless science can create a time machine that will allow us to observe events in the past like the beginning of the universe, all you can ever come up with, no matter scientific sounding, is a best GUESS and SPECULATIONS. If true wouldn't this mean that unless you can create a time machine to observe events in the past like creation and the flood, all you can come up with is a best guess and speculations? Obviously there's a flaw in your thinking somewhere, because otherwise you're arguing that creationism isn't science. Since you believe creationism is science, why do you keep offering arguments against your own position. If you were a boxer you'd be punching yourself, so knock yourself out! The thread asks the question, "Is creationism science?" I listed the qualities of science and provided an outline of the scientific method, then provided an assessment of how creationism measured up against them. Have you any response or rebuttal that is on-topic and that is actually favorable to your position? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
platypus Member (Idle past 5783 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
Let me rephrase my question. Since you seem to to have a problem with the definition of science, let me be extremely clear. Please provide an example of a creationist viewpoint which
a) makes a testable prediction b) is falsifiable I don't even care if the prediction is true or not. Stop criticizing evolutionists about a field of science that you obviously do not know about, and put your money where your mouth is: give us an example. If you can't even do this simple task, then creationism is not anything remotely like science, which is what this thread is about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Sorry, but unless science can create a time machine that will allow us to observe events in the past like the beginning of the universe, all you can ever come up with, no matter scientific sounding, is a best GUESS and SPECULATIONS. It is in fact possible to know about the past without owning a time machine. Claiming otherwise, even if you use capital letters to do so, is not likely to fool anyone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If science is "by definition" philosophical, then why do I not see mention of this in any definition of "science"?
Or ... wait, of course, this is the fundie use of the phrase "by definition". Meaning "not by definition, but I wish it was, 'cos then something I've said would be true".
Oh and I'm not attacking the true science, I'm attacking the opposition’ definition of science which attempts to exclude creationism, If you think you have a definition of science which includes the ravings of Hovind, Morris, Gish et al, please produce it.
when the fact is the opposing parties are just as guilty of the things they have accused creationism so far, like knowing empirical truth apriori. But of course we do not claim to know empirical truth a priori, which is why you cannot quote us doing so and have to resort to making stuff up. Preceding a blatant falsehood with the phrase "the fact is" doesn't make it any truer, you know.
It is actually IM-possible to separate philosophy from science or the methods of science. That's because the question, "what is science?" is itself a philosophical question. No, not really. Not more so than the question "what is a pig?" is philosophical: and yet it is perfectly possible to separate pigs from philosophy.
Try as you might but there is no such thing as an authoritative definition of science or the scientific method. Scientists and philosophers of science until today are in disagreement on it and struggle to define all of its essential attributes. And yet they are all able to agree that biology, physics and chemistry are sciences and that chocolate cake, the movie Gone With The Wind and the number 7 are not sciences. Just because scientists have not reached complete accord on the exact definition of science does not allow creationists to arbitrarily go around claiming that stuff is science when it clearly isn't.
So for evolutionists to claim that creationism is not science simply begs the question. Or, to put it another way, "for evolutionists to claim that chocolate cake is not science simply begs the question".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well, this is a great example of why creationism isn't science:
When Jesus made the creatures, -- including the prehistoric mankind -- He made them in various "kinds" First you make a completely unsupported assertion.
. No one knows His classification system except He, Himself. Then you refuse to define your terms.
Some theorize that the kinds could be creeping, walking, crawling, flying, etc. kinds. Then you speculate on what God might mean by the claim you made.
Microevolution or descent with modification happens every time a baby is born. It is God's way of keeping "kinds" within their own "kinds". Micro assures that dogs remain dogs... cats, remain cats...they evolve or change...but within their own "kind". Then you continue to make unsupported claims using the term you won't define.
Example: Cat's Family - A Lion (male) and a Tiger (female) producing a Giant "LIGER". See link (scroll all the way down). Detailed information on hybridisation in big cats. Includes tigons, ligers, leopons and others. You give an "example" which does not support your undefined assertion.
See, it really amazing how the discovery of Science Today support the TRUTH of the Bible written many centuries ago -- the sons of God (prehistoric mankind) producing GIANT offsprings - Mighty Men of old, men renown - AFTER their union with the Daughters of Men (human), as documented in Genesis 6!!! Then you invent a scientific fact (giants, forsooth!) and use it to support your own highly idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible.
This, of course, means that Macro is a Lie and God's Holy Word is the Truth. We did not Evolve our Human Intelligence. We inherited it from Adam, exactly as God told us we did. And finally top it off with a gross non sequitur. Preceeded by the phrase "of course" to make it sound like it's true. What were you thinking?
Evols, list down your evidence here.. For what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Try as you might but there is no such thing as an authoritative definition of science or the scientific method. Scientists and philosophers of science until today are in disagreement on it and struggle to define all of its essential attributes. So for evolutionists to claim that creationism is not science simply begs the question
Whilst what you say here does have some validity this does not mean that every method of investigation can be considered scientific. This is the logical consequence of your statement. Unless you are claiming that any investigation, no matter it's methods or aims, is scientific you are going to have to argue your case for including creationism as science a little more thoroughly. Science produces scientific conclusions by evaluating and analysing physical evidence to produce these conclusions.The methods of science such as prediction, independent verification, peer review, repeatable experimentation etc. are the best ways we have of verifying the objective validity of these conclusions. Creationism produces no scientific conclusions as the conclusions are drawn from faith based texts with no regard to physical evidence.Only once the conclusions have been made is evidence for them sought. This is the very opposite of science. For this reason creationist conclusions are not scientific and are not able to withstand the tests of refutation, verifiable prediction etc. etc. I am in fact unaware of any creationist research which even attempts to verify it's results through testable prediction (any examples?). Hence creationism is not science. Darwins theory on the other hand has not only withstood the potential refutation of increased understanding of inheritence (i.e genetics) it has actually been enhanced by it. The subsequent rsearch into genomes has validated the conclusions beyond all reasonable doubt as all the empirical evidence is entirely consistent with evolution by natural selection and genetic mutation exactly as predicted by theory. It is not brainwashing or some sort of large scale conspiracy as many creationists seem to suggest. Creationism is the result of faith based conclusions and evolution is the result of dilligent and long running evidence based research. One is very definitely science and one is very definitely not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
Sorry, but unless science can create a time machine that will allow us to observe events in the past like the beginning of the universe
As pointed out to you by Dr.A a time machine is not needed in order for science to study the past. forensic scientists, for instance, do that all the time. The interesting thing is that, when it comes to Astronomy and Cosmology, the time machine you ask about actually exist. When looking at far away objects in space we are actually looking into the past (given that the speed of light is finite).That allows us to see deep into the origin of the Universe. You might want to google "WMAP microwave background radiation". Unfortunately, it is not possible to look all the way back to the big bang bacause once upon a time the universe was opaque and no light from before that time can reach us. But still, all that can be seen is consistent with the BB theory.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024