People Don't Know What Creation Science Is

I'm not opposed to it at all.The problem is that the evidence goes against it.

"and you failed to tell us anything we didn't already know"I think the fact that you all seem to think that creation science has to do with religion or God proves that you don't "already know" just what creation science really is. The continued ad hominem posts avoiding discussing the actual scientific aspect of creation science is blatant.

It surprises me when a man of faith has really no faith at all.Although creation science itself can and is studied apart from God's Word...a person of faith actually has an extra tool at his disposal. It is a wonderful thing to discover just how trustworthy God's Word really is. It's a faith builder.I feel sorry for those who claim to have faith, yet have no foundation for that. You disregard and reject the one thing that reveals God when you deny creation as revealed in life and in His Word.Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

But you are the one who doesn't know what it is...Here's the google search on "Creation Science"creation science - Google SearchAll those hits are religious. Center for Creation Research

quote:

---

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

---

religious Institute for Creation Resesarch

quote:

---

Our Mission
ICR equips believers with evidence of the Bible's accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework.

---

religious, specifically mention the Bible wikipedia on creation science

quote:

---

Creation science or scientific creationism is the movement within creationism which attempts to use scientific means to disprove the accepted scientific facts and theories on the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution and prove the religious Genesis account of creation.

---

Again, the Bible.Can you show any creation science that isn't religious? I can't find any.

I recommended the very source needed to see the difference. "What is Creation Science?" Morris/ParkerJust because many religious groups adhere to Creation Science doesn't mean that the study is about them or their religion.

Not a single person has made an ad hominem attack on you, Kelly.An ad hominem fallacy takes the form of ", ergo you are wrong."For example, "because Kelly is a dumb Creationist, Kelly's points are all invalidated" is an ad hominem.However, "Kelly, you don't comprehend the Second Law of Thermodynamics; here is what it actually says, and why you are wrong" is not an ad hominem despite the insinuation that you're ignorant, because you are refuted not by an insult but by the actual reasoning that explains why you are wrong.In fact, "Kelly, you moron, you don't even comprehend thermodynamics at the High School level. Go read a physics book written by a physicist and come back to us. Thermodynamics has no such "law of decay," and it says nothing about complexity being impossible with increasing entropy!" is not an ad hominem, despite the insults - the insults are not used as the refutation, but are side comments independent of the refutation of your understanding of thermodynamics. It would certainly be an example of poor manners and excessive hostility, but it still wouldn't be an ad hominem.Again, you don't have sufficient competency in the fields of logic or science to even recognize your own lack of competence. Your concepts of virtually every facet of science you've presented in your time on this forum have been so far from what is recognized by actual scientists that you may as well bring up Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles asan example of "mutations" or "transitional forms." It would have the same relevancy to actual science as your own claims.

I've given you the opportunity to tell me otherwise. You seem to have two positions:1) Creation Science. There is a documented strong correlation between Creation Science and religion. That's just a fact. It doesn't have to be the case, I'm not suggesting it is, but you've not convinced me that whatever you are trying to describe is both science AND divorced from religion. Tell me about how this 'principle of disintegration' can be derived from the Creation Model or why it is built into the model in the first place depending on whatever position you want to take on it is. I might learn something new, and that excites me.2) Teleology. This is literally 'the argument from design'. This isn't a science, it is a philosophical argument, often used to argue for the existence of God, though not necessarily. I don't consider this to be Creation Science. I have attacked your position but when have Ia) attacked you personally
b) said that your personal flaws are evidence that your position is wrong?I'm really really keen to discuss just the science part. Forget personalities, forget religion, just the science. I have a few outstanding questions about the science. If those questions aren't answered I can only conclude that we are talking about science here at all but pseudoscience. I'm sorry if you happen to take that personally but I tried to stress that it wasn't your fault.Do you have anything else, or have you presented the best case for Creation Science?Would you like to see what my best case for Evolution might look like? You can compare and contrast how much detail there is and see why I might be of the opinion that you haven't really established much of a position at all.

And it can be as simple as addressing the source of my argument, rather than the argument itself.

quote:

---

I feel sorry for those who claim to have faith, yet have no foundation for that. You disregard and reject the one thing that reveals God when you deny creation as revealed in life and in His Word.

---

I am sure Catholic Scientist appreciates your condescension and pity.So because he believes in a god (I am only guessing), it makes CS more valuable to him personally? What a strange science. Does it also apply to me if I believe in Zeus?

But to spend the time only to watch you totally disregard it and act as though your disgreement proves that what I am saying is not derived by scientific study is just so false that I can hardly bare to spend any time at it at all. Why not simply consider taking a look at the book I recommended. I think everything I have posted so far would become more clear to you. I just can't keep up with this board. So sorry : (

But hey, evolution certainly is valuable to you and must strengthen your faith in nothing. Yes?

Kelly, no one is disregarding what you are saying.For example, you have brought up the second law of thermodynamics several times. Others have pointed out to you that you are wrong about this. You have not been willing to learn how you are wrong. It is you who are disregarding answers you are given.Until you are willing to learn from people that are actually being totally honest with you (which you don't seem to want to believe) you are wasting your time.Not everyone here is as competent in any given area as some others and not everyone here is as good at explaining things as others. However, everyone is actually, honestly trying to help you understand that you are wrong in some things. They do know what they are talking about.

I'm familiar with the book....All it does is attack evolution. It offers no positive evidence of creation, it does not lay out a theory, it does not provide supporting evidence, it does not make predictions. If anything, it show just how unscientific creation science is.

You have said over and over that faith has nothing to do with the discussion; it is science that you are talking about.Evolution really does have nothing to do with faith. You are being very disrespectful a n d showing that you really do think that this discussion is about religion and god and faith when you insist that if CatholicScientist argues against your scientific points (like the 2LOT) then he is not a real believer. He can be a very strong believer and still understand and accept the science. You have no right to claim otherwise when you don't know him.You are showing, at best, inconsistency, at worst, dishonesty.

quote:

---

But hey, evolution certainly is valuable to you and must strengthen your faith in nothing. Yes?

---

I do not "pick" a science based on my presuppositions of there being a god or not. If there was concrete evidence of a god I would be mad not to accept it. There just simply is not.I also do not appreciate what you are insinuating here. You know nothing about me. George Michaels was wrong, you don't "got to have faith". I live my life to the fullest, god or not.And the ToE is valuable to all scientific fields. Do yourself a favor and read some scientific literature.