why creation "science" isn't science

which is why it is needed. theres black and white you need opposites to see anything.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

If Creationism is the opposite of science, then logically, it is not science. Correct?

arguable. you still need it to make any assumptions.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

"Nope, science doesn't use Statements of Faith, remember? Also the scientific method doesn't allow data shoehorning. Creationism runs off it."
--Ehem.. Come on, if you wan't to go up and say these sertain organizations work like this, great go for it, you might even win. But with your notion that Creationism and creation science are one in the same, you stand to be corrected.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
arguable. you still need it to make any assumptions.

​

---

Indeed but scientists make assumptions based on PLAUSIBLE probabilities. They dont assume things in a void and most importantly,they dont use small amounts of data that seem to agree with their vision of things and then immediatly jump to conclusions without having first put their assumptions through grueling tests to see if it can stand on available data. And while "creation scientists" may not be quite as bad as evengelical creationists like that coot Hovind,they still are often guilty of getting ahead of themselves more often than not.

[QUOTE][b]Ehem.. Come on, if you wan't to go up and say these sertain organizations work like this, great go for it, you might even win.[/QUOTE][/b]That's the first part of my claim, that those organizations do work like that. The second part of my claim is that these aren't isolated groups but the leaders of Creationism, that essentially define what "Creationism" and "Creation Science" are.I still don't see the dichotomy between the two.

i think its time to turn on the leaders and make sure theyre doing what they should be.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

"That's the first part of my claim, that those organizations do work like that. The second part of my claim is that these aren't isolated groups but the leaders of Creationism, that essentially define what "Creationism" and "Creation Science" are.I still don't see the dichotomy between the two."
--The thing is, is that a word is not defined by an organisation that is based on that word, the word defines the organization. Now in this case they are Creationist organisations, not purely creation science. thus creation science does not define their method of research. I could go through huge Evolutionist organisations such as talk.origins, and find things in there that would say that they don't know what they are talking about, and do not consider the facts. Now does this mean that they are not scientific organizations, sertainly doesn't. That would be a problem higher in the hierarchy, more braudly classified. I would call them Evolutionism organizations, that use science. Now whether an organization supporting evolution were to make it look like a tinker toy, that wouldn't make any difference.-------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i think its time to turn on the leaders and make sure theyre doing what they should be.

​

---

Indeed...it would be time for you to turn to your creationist leaders and tell them to drop the bible completely from this debate and concentrate on the pure,imperical science of the debate of evolution and creationism because thats where the answers are...not in some dusty old book writen ages ago by scientific illiterates ans superstitious fools.

i wasnt saying anything about the bible. i was just saying that our incompetent leaders need to be more open. along with you atheist evolutionists.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

"Indeed...it would be time for you to turn to your creationist leaders and tell them to drop the bible completely from this debate and concentrate on the pure,imperical science of the debate of evolution and creationism because thats where the answers are...not in some dusty old book writen ages ago by scientific illiterates ans superstitious fools."
--Take a good reading of the questions God asks Job in the Book of Job. I'm sure you will find in every one how it illistrates its scientific accuracy. I don't think anyone beamed up Job to the 21st century to teach him any science. But really, I don't think that they are using the bible to prove science, they are using science to prove the bible (or atleast give evidence thereof).------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Indeed...it would be time for you to turn to your creationist leaders and tell them to drop the bible completely from this debate and concentrate on the pure,imperical science of the debate of evolution and creationism because thats where the answers are...not in some dusty old book writen ages ago by scientific illiterates ans superstitious fools."
--Take a good reading of the questions God asks Job in the Book of Job. I'm sure you will find in every one how it illistrates its scientific accuracy. I don't think anyone beamed up Job to the 21st century to teach him any science. But really, I don't think that they are using the bible to prove science, they are using science to prove the bible (or atleast give evidence thereof).

​

---

Would you care to tell me what exactly i'm supposed to find impressive about the incessant questions God put to Job. There is absolutely nothing in those question that requires a scientific mind. They merely describe things that can be observed by just about anyone. They are cosmetic description of animals and events,not scientific explanations. And as a side note,i spoke with a friend earlier and she pointed out something about the behemot and the leviatan described in the book of Job. It appeared to her that God was describing an elephant(behemot) and a whale(leviathan) and NOT dinosaures as is often implied by creationists

Cobra: You've now had over a week to respond. I answered your post in good faith. Seems you've decided that my effort was unworthy or something. Please advise whether you intend to continue our discussion or not.

"Would you care to tell me what exactly i'm supposed to find impressive about the incessant questions God put to Job. There is absolutely nothing in those question that requires a scientific mind. They merely describe things that can be observed by just about anyone. They are cosmetic description of animals and events,not scientific explanations."
--Lets take a look at some of them shall we?"Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb"
--Topographical plate tectonic shifting."when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness"
--Effects of the Flood, Emense clouds of vapor."when I said, `This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt'?"
--Topographical shifting."Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep?"
--Springs of the sea, self explanitory (I should surely hope). Recesses of the deep could be the less volcanic activity after the Flood."What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?"
--The place where lightning is dispersed surelly would not be known back then by Job, as we know where it resides today. East winds take some meteorology."From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens
when the waters become hard as stone, when the surface of the deep is frozen?"
--Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research"Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion?"
--All other star groups visible to the naked eye are unbound, with the possible exception of the Hyades. Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups.I found some good other ones here: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html"And as a side note,i spoke with a friend earlier and she pointed out something about the behemot and the leviatan described in the book of Job. It appeared to her that God was describing an elephant(behemot) and a whale(leviathan) and NOT dinosaures as is often implied by creationists"
--Goodness, hehe, I always get a kick out of this argument, it always reminds me of this classic picture:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
Cobra: You've now had over a week to respond. I answered your post in good faith. Seems you've decided that my effort was unworthy or something. Please advise whether you intend to continue our discussion or not.

---

Ok, here we go. Sorry it took so long.