Always a laugh

As always, the creationist 'arguments' on these pages make me laugh. They take some scientific fact, bend it completely out of shape, and then cite it as evidence against evolution, despite the fact that their piece of 'evidence' has been refuted any number of times before. Honestly, guys, why don't you stop wasting your time and go preach to people about religion, instead of trying to talk about science, about which you clearly know nothing?Incidentally, ever wonder why all of the prominent creationists (people like Gish, etc.) have either spurious degrees from diploma mills or degrees in subjects unrelated to evolution? Because anyone who actually studies the facts, rather than the creationist propoganda, realises that evolutionary theory is accurate, and creationism is a religious belief having no basis in fact.

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
The problem is, that creation science, all it is is the evidence

---

No, TrueCreation, creation 'science' has nothing to do with the evidence. As has been amply shown above, one of the tenets of creation science is to completely discard evidence that does not fit the creationist model. Creationists do not look for evidence, and then mold a theory around what they find (as scientists do). Creationists have a theory, and look for evidence to confirm it, discarding that which does not. That is not science, it's not even intellectually honest.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Thats their Creationist accusations, not making relevance to creation science. Creationism and Creation science are different concepts.

​

---

No, that's creation 'science' (which is, in any case, identical to creationism, except that they try to pretend it's 'scientific'). See the quotes from the ICR's principles - the largest creation 'science' institute in the world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"No, that's creation 'science' (which is, in any case, identical to creationism, except that they try to pretend it's 'scientific'). See the quotes from the ICR's principles - the largest creation 'science' institute in the world."
--Creation Science and Faith are intertwined to form Creationism. Thus Creationism has included faith and science, and is unscientific in its whole, contrary to creation science. Do we see the model here yet?

---

I see the model, certainly - but it's false. There is no such thing as creation 'science'. There is absolutely nothing scientific about it. It is merely a label put on creationism in an attempt to make it sound more than what it is - a religious belief. Now, if you say it's a religious belief, well and good; to attempt to call it a science is simply dishonest.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I see the model, certainly - but it's false. There is no such thing as creation 'science'. There is absolutely nothing scientific about it. It is merely a label put on creationism in an attempt to make it sound more than what it is - a religious belief. Now, if you say it's a religious belief, well and good; to attempt to call it a science is simply dishonest."
--So, your argument is, because you don't like my model for whatever reason, (I see it as no doubt, it being too right thus you must attempt to validify your assertion by saying it is false) you think that you can just pass it by and go right back down to ground zero.
--Tell me then, what is wrong with the model? For you to argue with Creation science, you must argue with that, do you have any more ammo?

​

---

I am arguing (in this thread, at least) about the model you are proposing that differentiates creationism (a religious belief) from creation science (a scientific discipline/area of study). I am not arguing (in this thread) against the beliefs of creationism. My sole point is that creation 'science' does not exist - all of it is merely an attempt to make creationism seem more 'respectable' to the outside world, by making it sound like a type of science. It's not. It's a religious belief. Creation 'science' does not in any way follow the scientific method; it is not a science.