why creation "science" isn't science

"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:

"Sorry, creationism is a religious belief, evolution is a scientific theory."
--Who ever said Creationism was anything more than a belief, and who ever said evolution was not a scientific theory? Actually 'e'volution is fact, 'e'volution even plays a part in the theory for a young earth. If someone says othewize, they are either incorrect, or should emphesize their wording.
------------------

"Christian1's platform is that both evolution and Creationism are religious in nature."
--I think a more accurate depiction would be that they both require a faith to a degree as a whole. Evolution for instance, it would be more accurate to say that it requires a faith in interperetation, or a belief, as is contrary to it being the faith or the belief. Religious I don't know if it would apply to Evolution, and I would speculate on Creationism, though my standpoint on this is that Creationism in contrast with involved faith and belif, involves but isn't the religion.------------------

"Your argument seems to be with him, not Toff."
--It seems as if my argument is with both.--Toff said Evolution is Fact (or at least scientific) and that creationism is religion.
--Christian 1 states that Creation is a religion, and likewize evolution.
--TrueCreation states that their both wrong! I think it comes down to definition.-------------------

"Excuse my language, but creation1 is a nutcase."
--*Christian*1 is not a 'nutcase', there arent any nutcases in these forums, I almost feel odd including urself in that definition , theres been ignorance, bias, etc. But no nutcases, Christian1 is on the right track, he might wan't to be a bit more open-minded, but he is still on the right track. It takes experience for you to build on your understanding and your knowledge, these forums are one of the best 'buffer-uppers' you can get into to do that on this subject. A couple of months ago I would have been arguing relatively the same position he is arguing. Fortunatelly, my debating style most of the time gives me alot of slack in the way, mostly from my more 'gentle' per se approach, rather than making accusations and the like."He's the stereotypical creationist. TrueCreation makes at least an effort to stay within the laws of creatscience. Other ionists do not."
--I know other creationists that argue the same position as I, and they are correct, everyone, some more than others, possibly like yourself and christian1 ((oops) all have experience to catch up with).------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-16-2002]

"I do not believe that Creation1 is on the right track."
--Like I said, its about experience and knowledge, even yourself has some catching up to do."I used to be a christian, by the way."
--Thats unfortunate, what made you turn, and what would make you turn back?"anyway, Creation1 refuses to accept anything of science. "A little" closed minded". Creation1 said that he/she would not even debate, and that if we read the bible there WOULDN'T be debate."
--I don't think he refuses, I would have to say that if this were the case it would be from a lack of knowledge in the area to the degree of the argument, through experience anyone can find conclusions."Fortunately, we have an evolutionist in here who has the read the bible, and did not take it literally."
--Yes, and you have a Creationist in here that has read it and doesn't take it 'literally' either , myself!"Creation1 insisted that he/she was right, but then refused to support her claim. Clearly he/she is simply operating on a platform of faith and denial."
--Who really knows what it is, I would urge him to stay in the debate, but to be more open-minded, but at the same time avoid discouragement from a missunderstandment, this used to allways get to me, untill I realized I simply don't know it enough!"i myself am not closed-minded. As i said, I was a christian, but now I'm not."
--See above"If a creationist came to me with convincing and credible evidence that Bible was indeed true, i'd listen."
--I've never encountered a fallacy, care to show me one, as I have been waiting for one for years."But as far as I'm concerned, Creationism is based on faith and the twisting of facts that originally support evolution."
--Ehem...Your new so I'll let you get in-touch with the model:

quote:

---

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?

---

quote:

---

I guess we still don't understand the full model, but atleast were getting somewhere. Creation science is simply 'science' that is given the name creation science by the perspective of the higher classified 'creationism' in the hierarchy. Creation science and faith form creationism. Creation science for instance, is science, and looked upon as 'creation science' for its interperetation for a young earth, which is fully evidence/science based. When looked upon by Creationism, creationism uses creation science to then apply it to the biblical doctrine, which is why it is intertwined with faith. Thus Creation science is not based on the validity of the bible or faith in it to substantiate it as scientific, it simply is.

---

--So what is it we twist to support creation that is suppost to support evolution?"Just listen to you speculate about the age of the Pyramid, and erosion of the sphinx."
--Hey that wasn't mine, Im not a PhD, that was from one of the dating methods they use to date structures like that, haven't you ever heard of Uniformitariansism?"This is all speculation. whenever something doesn't make sense in the Bible, some new fact or new revelation is created."
--I have yet to find any, care to list some?"At least science isn't making up things."
--Yeah, if it was, we would be in the hole."Meanwhile, you have called me unintelligent and close-minded, and accused me of violating copyright laws, which most certainly did not. This really isn't impressive."
--I didn't call you unintelligent, I didn't say you were close-minded either (though by remenince of your posts it sure is pronounced), I believe Percipient was the one that violated copyright laws in the forum, which you did. I said that you were in an intelligent debate, as this is, to tell you the truth, where the most intelligence you will find in an online debate forum. By your technique of debate you superimposed when you entered the forums you were not off to the cleanest start. I'm glad things seem to be settling down.------------------

"I would love to list some. For example, I heard one creationist say there were seeds on the Ark, and they were replanted to bring back vegetation."
--I quote myself from the other forum you posted this:

quote:

---

--Seeds were not brought on the ark, if you really wan't an answer find some seeds and throw them in your pool, they don't just sink, also if your going to have the masses of vegetation floating on the oceans your going to have seeds on them also.

---

"I have to go, so i cannot list more."
--Please do later, and take your time."I will soon."
--Thanx, please limit it to an argument of about 5-7, if it is much more than that it is a bit discouraging. Also when you use other resources as a copy/paste, use the quote UBB tag for them and then make your comment, it is easier organized in this way.------------------