Creationists try to find empirical support for their ideas. This does not mean what they do is science.
This is just a semantic quibble but call it whatever you want, creationism is an attempt to show that evolutionism is wrong and in many many instances it succeeds very well.
Look at the flood discussion. A flood is employed to explain carefully preserved structures,
A worldwide deluge that soaked everything is an excellent way to explain the "carefully preserved structures" known as fossils, because otherwise the conditions for fossilization don't occur very frequently in the normal course of things, while such a flood would have provided those conditions on a grand scale, which does in fact account very nicely for all those billions of buried things that got fossilized. And the "fossil record" contains specimens of probably every kind of living thing or close to it, which fits the objective of Noah's Flood to kill all living things. It seems very odd to argue with something so obvious.
and gigantic scars carved into the earth. There's no underlying theory which explains why the waters were more powerful than a nuclear weapon arsenal, in one place but gentle in another.
The Grand Canyon, which is of course what you mean by the scar, was carved into an enormous depth of relatively undisturbed layers of sediments which are understood by contemporary evolutionism to have been laid down excruciatingly slowly over hundreds of millions of years, which raises the question why no similar enormous scar was carved somewhere along the way. Why did all those hundreds of millions of years pass without such an event occurring, and then all at once huge disturbances occur that hadn't occurred before, cutting many canyons, carving all kinds of buttes and cliffs and whatnot, AFTER all the strata were there. The answer usually is a defiant "Why not?" but is that really a satisfactory reply to such a collection of facts? No, these facts are much better evidence for a single catastrophe that both built the layers and cut into them afterward, than they are for the prevailing theory.
A flood doesn't falsify evolution.
The usual straw man versions of the flood invented by evolutionists wouldn't falsify it.
If true, it would verify a near universal extinction event.
Yes, and that occurred.
This doesn't give credence that life was created.
That isn't the aim of the Flood arguments, the aim is to show that the earth isn't billions of years old.
It doesn't demonstrate that all necessary alleles where built into life at creation and that somehow, the 4 or 12 alleles for each gene that survived the flood were either replenished or were sufficient for the rapid global diversification that followed the flood by the process of evolution.
This is an awfully rough straw man. The argument I have given does validate the idea of built-in alleles but that isn't the point of the argument, which is to show that evolutionary processes must lose genetic variability which tends toward less ability to evolve, which is a contradiction with the ToE. Evolution itself leads to this situation. And the argument holds up that the genetic material on the ark was alone sufficient for all the variety that developed afterward.
The designer doesn't support Creation. Obviously a designer is needed to design the design.
Thank you for that acknowledgment of the design argument.
The questions are a) is/was this designer intelligent? b) how did the designer realize its designs? How did life get to exist in its actual designed states, how did the finished product come to be?
That is not what creationists do and it's not what this thread is about, except the last question perhaps, which has been discussed a great deal at EvC.
Going from a story, and simply trying to confirm it is true is not science. Whether your method involves using evidence or not.
We're talking about history, not just story, and if an accurate historical account describes enough about the physical world to see that current science contradicts what it says about the physical world, those who believe it to be an accurate historical account naturally want to show that current science is wrong.
The evidence needs to be explained, not used to support a story.
The evidence has been quite thoroughly explained many times, and it's not a story, it's history that tells us what is true about the physical world with scant detail but enough so that we can see that the prevailing theories are wrong.
The explanation allows us to understand how all the evidence fits together in a coherent whole.
And it does.
The stories follow this part. Creationists like to skip to the end and retrospectively claim validation. This can work, but its fraught with the perils of confirmation bias. The same biases that lead drug manufacturers to believe they have something that works when they don't, psychics to con people, or papers to report that everything causes and cures cancer depending on the week.
The arguments, which you apparently don't understand at all, make the case fairly and squarely.
Humans fall for all sorts of traps in reasoning.
And evolution and the old earth are prime examples of such traps.
Science highly constrains the way you go about things for a reason, and that reason isn't to make it over complicated or fancy or to thwart creationists specifically, that reason is to avoid human failings as much as possible.
Which true science that can be repeated does very nicely. The sciences that give false unprovable imaginative scenarios for the past in fact are feeding human failings and setting them in concrete.
Faith and Dawn can't meet the standards of science, this has been long established.
Well, it's long been an article of faith at EvC, held by a lot of people who don't have a clue what the arguments are about. Which, sad to say, Mod dear, you are proving yourself not to have.
As I suspected this is either not understood or simply dismissed. And there is no motivation for either of them to actually adopt a scientific approach, its difficult and it tends turn people away from Creationism, a religious position that has nothing to do with science and little to do with philosophy.
I'm not speaking for Dawn, but I argue points that make the case against evolution. If that's not science, call it something else, the point is that they nicely show evolution to be a deceit, the arguments themselves, no reference to anything religious, just the arguments from the observed biological and geological facts themselves.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
