quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
As all creation science is, is science.
I'm sorry, but this is a good example of the entire problem. Creationism is no sort of science whatsoever. It is a belief, based upon religious faith. It does not use the scientific method, nor are its conclusions either testable or falsifiable. It takes a conclusion (creationism) and then looks for evidence to support it. That is not science.
Also, TrueCreation, in one of your other posts you have asked me to "Give me an example of why I should believe your erroneous proclimation against creation science."
Sorry, but you should read more closely. My original post made no proclimations [sic] at all about creation 'science', erroneous or otherwise. It made claims about so-called creation scientists, not about creation science.
Further, TrueCreation, in one of your other posts, you say "Also, creationism is not to argue with, as it is religious indeed, it is higher on your hierarchy of systematical branches within philosophical, theological, and scientific realms." If I understand this correctly, you are saying that because you (or someone else) think that religious beliefs are higher on some heirarchy of systems than science, science cannot argue with religious beliefs? If that's not what you mean, I apologise - but if it is, it is complete nonsense. Many religious beliefs cannot and should not be argued with by science, their proof or disproof being completely outside science's realms. This has nothing to do with with how 'high' the disciplines lie on some heirarchy of systems; simply with what data the belief deals with. As far as evolution is concerned, science is more than capable of arguing with creationism (a religious belief), as the religious belief goes counter to what science observes.
And sorry, TrueCreation. Your statement that "there is no faith in the workings of creation science" is almost correct. Try 'there is no SCIENCE in the workings of creation science.' It is TOTALLY faith-based. Why else do you think virtually the only support for it comes from faith-based (ie., religious) groups? Also see gene90's quote of the tenets of ICR-based creationism. That is NOT a statement any science-based group would have anything to do with.
KingPenguin, you claimed that I "[claimed] that creationists lie." Sorry, I did no such thing, nor can you point out where I did. In any case, Gish (I only mention him because others have) is a liar, proved over and over again, cited in this thread and in any number of works on the subject.