Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
33 online now:
AZPaul3, Captcass, DrJones*, ramoss (4 members, 29 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,615 Year: 16,651/19,786 Month: 776/2,598 Week: 22/251 Day: 22/23 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is creationism science?
b b
Member (Idle past 4385 days)
Posts: 77
From: baton rouge, La, usa
Joined: 09-25-2005


Message 106 of 114 (393876)
04-08-2007 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by ReverendDG
04-08-2007 4:09 AM


Re: science
That just means you don't really want to find out the truth. If your life ever gets bad enough you may reach out for the truth. or maybe not. If you want to know bad enough you will ask him to show you who he is and genuinely mean it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by ReverendDG, posted 04-08-2007 4:09 AM ReverendDG has not yet responded

  
b b
Member (Idle past 4385 days)
Posts: 77
From: baton rouge, La, usa
Joined: 09-25-2005


Message 107 of 114 (393878)
04-08-2007 4:38 AM


the important thing here is that I do not believe creationism is a science. Science can "change" the word of God can't. If you choose to stand firm on ideas that won't even be the same next generation go ahead. But stop attacking creationists for believing in "constant" and not the "variable." lol

Edited by b b, : revise


Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Coragyps, posted 04-08-2007 9:32 AM b b has not yet responded
 Message 111 by jar, posted 04-08-2007 10:15 AM b b has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6800
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 108 of 114 (393888)
04-08-2007 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by b b
04-08-2007 4:06 AM


quote:
It's that God is right.

I know what creationists believe. If creationists believe that God says that he created the earth 6000 years ago, then they are wrong. Either God is wrong, or that is not what God is saying.

-

quote:
The scientific method would be to say the eggs were scrambled from the heat of the skillet accompanied by the adjutation from the movement of the spatula. Creationists would say mom made them.

That is not what the scientific method would say, and we are not talking about mom scrambling eggs. We're talking about conclusive evidence that the earth is billions of years old and that life has had a long history during that time. Creationists claim that God is a liar.

-

quote:
But it's really hard to see that "Mom" heated up the skillet and was holding the spatula if you don't believe in a mom.

Sure. Except that I have good evidence that mom exists and scrambled the eggs. Hell, the creationists cannot even make a decent argument whether God exists.

Edited by Chiroptera, : Removed inappropriate comments.


Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by b b, posted 04-08-2007 4:06 AM b b has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5398
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 109 of 114 (393893)
04-08-2007 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by b b
04-08-2007 4:38 AM


Science can "change" the word of God can't.

OT, I know, but brief: has "the word of God" remained unchanged over the last couple of centuries as it applies to slavery? To interracial marriage? To women wearing hats to church or being deacons or ministers?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by b b, posted 04-08-2007 4:38 AM b b has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 110 of 114 (393898)
04-08-2007 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by b b
04-08-2007 3:48 AM


Re: science
OK, then. Show us that it isn't mythology.

quote:
I can't show you only God can.

LOL!

Already you are bringing superstition into what is supposed to be a scientific discussion.

quote:
Unfortunately the bible says you have to believe in him to see it.

...which is another symptom of myth.

quote:
If you really want to find out donate 1 year of your life to truly seek him. I bet you would find out. I don't mean going to church either. I mean reading his word and praying to him. It won't hurt. No one would know (until you get blessed and tell everybody you meet like I do). Nothing to lose. you'll be living for a year right.

Dearheart, I had 18 years of religious instruction. I was a believer.

I live more right now than I ever did then.

Do you really think that your avoidance of my point is going to impress me so much that I will do what you suggest? How do you know I haven't done what you suggest, or more?

(As an aside, can you explain how choosing the username "bytchbeater" fits into "living right"?)

Creation "science" is an attempt by religious people to dress up their superstition in a lab coat and shove a beaker in it's hand, hoping that nobody will notice that it's only pretending to have anything at all to do with science other than outward appearances.

Edited by nator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by b b, posted 04-08-2007 3:48 AM b b has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31258
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 111 of 114 (393900)
04-08-2007 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by b b
04-08-2007 4:38 AM


Worship the Bible?
the important thing here is that I do not believe creationism is a science. Science can "change" the word of God can't. If you choose to stand firm on ideas that won't even be the same next generation go ahead. But stop attacking creationists for believing in "constant" and not the "variable." lol

More nonsense from the Christian Cult of Ignorance.

If you consider the Bible the literal Word of God, then you must explain why there is NO one Bible. I am, of course, not speaking of translations, but rather of the Canon itself.

The Bible is absolutely a human creation. It is an arbitrary selection of various writing from many authors, written over a period of many centuries. Which writings are chosen to be included in "The Bible" varies greatly from the smallest Canon that contains only 5 books, to Canons containing over 80 books.

We can though, observe the actual WORD of GOD. It is the universe we live in. Our job is to try to understand what has been written, and just as with interpretations of literature like the various Bibles, our understanding of the Word of GOD will increase as we learn more, gain more knowledge.

You are correct in part. Creationism is not science, and Biblical Creationism, YEC and the current ID proposals are not just not science, they are worse theology.

In the words of the Clergy Letter Project:

We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.

Biblical Creationism is nothing more than willfully and deliberately embracing ignorance.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by b b, posted 04-08-2007 4:38 AM b b has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 114 (393905)
04-08-2007 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by b b
04-08-2007 4:13 AM


well it was written so that people could understand it 2000 years ago also.

People 2000 years ago weren't idiots. They were largely just as smart as you or I, if you correct for the likelihood of undernourishment or fetal alcohol syndrome.

This idea that people 2000 years ago weren't ready to understand something that they were seeing in front of their eyes - the idea that you could make changes to a population of animals by selective breeding, and the realization that their natural environment does the same thing, for instance - is ridiculous.

Are you aware that crops like maize (corn) and wheat aren't natural? That we didn't find them that way? For instance, Central American farmers bred what we think of as corn nearly 7500 years ago, from a kind of grass. You're telling me that people like those ancient genetic engineers weren't smart enough to know facts that, today, we teach to ten-year-olds? I find that hard to believe.

The reason that the Bible is responsible for absolutely no scientific discoveries throughout it's history is because the Bible is substantially wrong on nearly every testable statement it makes about the universe and the things that live in it.

Life is our experiment. Pass or fail? It's learning the true way out the maze.

Much like House, M.D., I find it more than a little ridiculous to suggest that this life is just a test for eternity. What a pointless way to waste your life, believing it's just a test.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by b b, posted 04-08-2007 4:13 AM b b has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6800
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 113 of 114 (393908)
04-08-2007 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by b b
04-08-2007 4:06 AM


And just to fix the analogy to better reflect how people act in the real world:

it is the scientists who, on observing mom, her spatula, and the cooked scrambled eggs in the skillet would conclude that mom made the scrambled eggs.

Creationists would insist that different people would interpret the evidence according to their "worldviews", and then claim that pixies made the scrambled eggs magically appear in six days.


Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by b b, posted 04-08-2007 4:06 AM b b has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4126 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 114 of 114 (394024)
04-09-2007 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Reserve
04-01-2007 1:08 PM


Re: Science
Reserve writes:

Quetzal writes:

I can't claim to have seen even one tiny fraction of the evidence in support of evolutionary theory.

So you haven't seen evidence in support of evolution, yet nothing is in conflict with evolution? Well, all this evidence is also in harmony with creationism.

Actually, you misinterpreted what I said. I didn't say I hadn't seen evidence in support of evolution. In fact, I am literally surrounded by evidence, observations, phenomena, interactions, etc on a daily basis that simply cannot be explained by everything being poofed into existence ex nihilo in 4004 BC. I am often literally knee deep in evidence in support of evolutionary theory. I have even been stung by organisms whose behavior can only be explained by evolution. BUT, and this is a very important "but" in this context, all that myriad of evidence is yet only one, teeny, tiny fraction of the available evidence in support of the theory. One single thread in the vast tapestry of mutually supporting threads that together make up the ToE. There are gobs, mountains of evidence available - all consistent. It would, IMO, take several lifetimes to encompass it all. So when I said I personally only really understood a "tiny fraction" of the available evidence (in response to your claim that you understood all the evidence), it wasn't because the evidence wasn't there beyond my ken, it was because I personally can only vouch for one small piece. So my request to you was to enlighten me on all the rest you claim to know. Especially if that huge amount I don't know would somehow validate creationism.

Understand my position better, now?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Reserve, posted 04-01-2007 1:08 PM Reserve has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019