why creation "science" isn't science

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"The thing is, science has checks to correct biased results. The first scientist must be careful with his or her work, or risk looking bad when other scientists descover flawed work."
--Very much agreed, and when flaws are found, the scientists should withdraw or give an explination of the flaw, need it be a flaw.

​

"Real scientists don't do cover-ups for the mistakes of other scientists."
--Yes, Real scientists don't do cover-ups, but real scientists do revisions.

​

---------------

​

---

And it should be pointed out also that REAL scientists dont assume that any part of their theories is "innerant". They test their theories,making every attempt to knock them down and inviting anyone to do the same. If the theory can wistand all these tests,it becomes accepted as a valid interpretation of the facts at hand. When do creation "scientists" ever put the corner stone of their whole theory on the beginings of the world to the test? When do they ever ask the important all question "IS the Bible the INNERANT word of God"?

​

[This message has been edited by LudvanB, 01-19-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
Case example of scientists who apparently weren't careful enough with their research. Those guys who came up with "cold fussion". Boy, were they shot down.

​

Moose

​

---

Indeed...they were shot down by other scientists. Science is a self correcting thing. How many time have we seen Creationists put in question the fundamental beliefs in the Bible of other Creationists?

IMHO,creationism cannot exist in a religious vacuum...meaning that no one would come to the conclusion that the many geological and biological aspects of the world are the result of an all powerfull God if they had not been taught to believe this before hand. the main difference between Science and religion,which can be recognized in the creation vs evolution debate is that Science does not bother with the why...merely with the how,whereas creationist RELIGION starts off with the why(i.e. God created the earth for us because he loves us or want us to glorify him or whatever) and then go from there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

--You are associating a question irrelevant to the conversation on 'creation science' not creationism, as creationism is a higher hierarchy of creationist material, as being a creationist this includes your faith and the science and makes contrast. As creation science is purely science, thus in creation science it does nto start off with a why, but a what/when/how.

​

---

But the point is that creation "science" cannot exist by itself. Someone who was not taught about christian beliefs or other religious beliefs would not be a creationist. That someone would would not look at the strata say and conclude "oh this is the result of divine intervention". And while it is true that they would not necessarely conclude it was the result of evolution either,they would likely come to that conclusion after studying other geological phenomenon. No amount of observing the world by someone ignorant of all religious beliefs would lead that someone to conclude to divine influence.

So then you believe that if indeed there was a flood 4450 years ago,it could have been a completely natural phenomenon that happened say like an earth quake happens? You believe that it is possible that the alledged Flood was not a punishement send by God?

but wouldn't that belief be indirect contradiction with the Bible?

Because the Bible is quite clear on this. God said to Noah that mankind was filled with wickedness and that HE would destroy the world by drowning it in a flood. Now if you are saying that it is possibel that the flood may actually have had nothing to do with God whatsoever(i.e. it was not send by God at all),then you believe that it is possible for the Bible to be false?

I see. But why did you say that is was possible for the flood to be completely independant of God's will earlier?

I think you misunderstood what i said. I asked you earlier if you believed that it was possible for this aledged flood whom you say is supported by so many scientific evidence to be a purely natural phenomenon with no relation whatsoever to an outside will(i.e. God) as a causal effect and your reply was "INDEED". Then,when i point out that this would mean you believe it is possible for the Bible to be false,you said "NO IT DOESN'T" So i'm a little confused here...

Ok so then you dont believe that the flood could have been a completely natural phenomenon that occured purely by chance,like an earthquake. thanks for clearing that up

the way i am reasoning is i give absolutely no consideration whatsoever to the why because there simply is no way to know about the why. My sole interest is the how. And if you cant demonstrate to me the existance of God,you cant use IT with me as a cause for your flood.

I meant that for you...as far as i'm concerned,the Noachian world wide flood never happened so it cant have any cause. And this
will be my position until someone presents me with undeniable proof that it did...and by that i mean proof than can only be explained by a world wide flood

I'll give you three.1- There are trees which have been identidied as being about 8000 years old through their rings. If there had been a world wide flood 4450 years ago,then the oldest living tree could only by 4449 years old.2- The some glacier formation in the poles have been identified as being nearly 40 000 years in age. That kinda messes up the entire biblical time table,including the flood.3- There are civilisations,such as the Egyptians,the Babylonian/Sumerians,the Mayans and the Chinese which presents us with compelling historical evidence that their beginings date back AT LEAST well before 3000 BC...with no mention of any world wide flood in their historical records...which would mean that either the flood occured WELL BEFORE 2455 BC or it didn't happen at all. In fact,the Mayan calender represents very precisely that in 2012,we we be at the end of a mayan cycle...which lasts 26 000 years!

​

[This message has been edited by LudvanB, 01-27-2002]

The tree ring argument is considered to be valid by most scientists. Thas all i can say about it. The age of the glaciers were mesured by the amount of layers that form them. As for the ancient civilisations,they all have historical records that goes back 3000 BC and since the Mayan cycle will end in 2012 and is 26000 long. so it stands to reason that this cycle began 25992 years ago...well before the stated date for the creation of earth according to the book of Genesis. And there is good reason to believe this to be accurate,since the mayan calender is the most precise calender know to man..even more precise than the ones we use today,which are given a 1-5% error margin by historians. No historian has been able so far to find ANY fault with the mayan calender. I'm not saying that this automaticaly means that the Bible is wrong mind you but there is strong evidence to suggest that it is.

http://www.crawford2000.co.uk/maya.htmhere a short article about the end of the mayan calender.