Use of Science to Support Creationism

quote:

---

Yes it would be proof if the earth was that young. Creationists have plenty of it confirming the Bible. Its not a fact that the earth is billions of yrs old.

---

If the Genesis account were literally accurate, then EVERYTHING would have to be 6,000-12,000 years old. Falsifying evidence is important as well. It is not a fact that the Earth is billions of years old, but every piece of evidence on the Earth fits with the theory. The evidence does not fit an Earth that is 12,000 years old. This is how science is done, the search for supporting AND falsifying evidence. The fact that creationists focus just on supporting evidence removes them from the field of science.

quote:

---

Its fact for Evolutionists but not general science. Although the theory of Evolution has completely taken over mainstream science.

---

The age of the earth is part of geology, not biology of which evolution is a part of. Evolution has taken over science just like other supported theories, like heliocentrism, the Germ Theory of Disease, Special Relativity, and other theories that are supported and NOT FALSIFIED. The fact that young earth creationism is no longer part of science is that it was falsified by the evidence. Until you can explain the falsifying evidence, your long list of supporting evidence means squat. Again, this is how science is done. If you think young earth creationism should be part of science, then you must deal with the complete list of evidence.

quote:

---

I thought the natural state of the universe was towards disorder and decay. Or did I misunderstand the lecture on entropy?

---

Just real quickly, since this is off topic, you did misunderstand that lecture. "Order" has to do with the different energy levels a system can have. Less order (not disorder) means that things will tend to adopt the same level of energy, such as things becoming the same temperature. Order, in the thermodynamic sense, says nothing about biological or geological complexity.

quote:

---

Instead, atheists use science to imply that fossils and such evidence-against the Creator of Genesis, when in fact the evidence says no such thing but only the interpretation of the worldview is speaking = philosophic conclusion made under the disguise of scientific enquiry.

---

It is your own worldview that is entering the arena. The interpretation that life changed over millions of years does not exclude a Creator. The question becomes how an interpretation of Genesis can contradic the very Creation that it speaks about. If God created the universe and the life in it, then shouldn't we trust the evidence in the creation?

quote:

---

Get over yourselves, agnostics. There's no difference between your beliefs and atheism.

---

There is a difference, but it is subtle. Atheists take the absence of evidence as an absence of God. Agnostics take it as an absence of evidence and don't carry it any farther.

quote:

---

Why is human evolution alleged as proven fact based upon a paucity of physical fossil evidence ?

---

It is not a proven fact. Nothing in science is a proven fact. Every theory is tentative.Next, what fossils we do have fit into an evolutionary tree, no surprise. The more human like the younger the fossil, the more ape-like the older the fossil.You also forget about the large amounts of genetic evidence, such as pseudogenes and ERV's. Our DNA reflects what we see in the fossils which only strengthens the theory. I have recently posted an article here at EvC, a quick search of my recent posts should uncover it for you.

quote:

---

Millions of years to get erect yet an amount of disputed body of evidence that could fit into a medium sized box at best = so much based on so little = irrational belief not supported by the evidence.

---

Last I knew, a medium sized box could not fit hundreds of non-human hominids. Another lie that demonstrates removal of Godsense.