quote:
and if design can be proven, show me the test for it
Theres design everywhere. The fact that humans are more than just about survival and have a soul and can reason is design. As there is no semi human line up leading up to such complexity. DNA, Non-life not being able to become life on its own. Design in animals etc. All this is evidence of design that creation scientist can look for among all the other research they do. You are truly ignorant if you think a scientist who looks for design and complexity is not science. The only reason you belive it is not science is because their theory of origins is not evolution.
quote:
it's not a matter of belief. it's a matter of having seen and studied it myself. creationism is not science, and never will be, because it concludes first, ignore counter evidence, and has nothing to test.
It does not conclude first. It bases its evidence on the Bible. Evolutionists base their evidence on an evolutionary framework. Their bible states in the beginning life evolved from natural processes. Therefore they build the evidence upon this. Creation belive their is a designer behind it all. And evidence can be built upon this. They are both science! This is a topic that preschoolers should be arguing about. Not a mature group of people such as in this board. Surely the ones with wisdom like Nosyned or Crashfrog can see this. The only thing that stops people from accepting creation as another form of science is their own willingness to accept it.
quote:
which is dogma? understanding, or having observed that animals change from generation to generation, or believing against all facts that they do not and that god created the world in six literal days? evolution is not dogma, it is strict scientific fact.
What animal in the history of mankind has changed from one specie to another?. I am talking about an undisputed claim. Nothing like bird to dinasaurs, apes to human. Give me a transitional form that has been proven by the evidence and the fossils. Evolution is not scientific fact. It is a theory. It has become the only accepted theory within the mainstream scientific community as it takes away the need of a creator.
quote:
the problem is that for creationism, it goes like this:
1. inference: the bible is 100% literally true.
2. conclusion: god created everything 6k years ago, in 6 days
3. research, including quote mining, and disregarding any and all facts that do not fit the conclusion (almost all of them)
4. no first hand observations
5. no testable hypothesis
6. no tests
7. publish, straight to public, not scientific journals.
Ok lets go through your list here. Number one goes for evolutionists also. Evolution is true and did occur. The book Teaching about Evolution & the Nature of Science states "There is no debate within the scientific community over weather evolution occured, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occured" p4. Hmm sounds awfully similar to creationists accepting the Bible as fact. Do you see a bias developing?. Or should i say developed. Number 2 well evolutionists again have concluded evolution has occured through natural processes and man has also biologically descended from a common ancestor. Once again we see the evolutionary framework that evolution must apply its evidence to. Number 3 once again evolution discards any evidence against evolution. "But it isnt evidence thats why!" Thats simply your own bias. Creation dont accept anything evolutionary either. Do you see the similaritys? they are both science and they both contradict each other. Number 4 states no first hand observations. Well thats definately not true as creation magazine shows real science in the present with real scientist using their 5 senses. Evolutionists look for old earth, creation look for young earth, creation looks for design and complexity, evolution looks for transtional forms,natural selection evolving into higher beings, creation looks for evidence consistent with the Bibles account of origins, evolution looks for evidence supporting their natural processes into life and so on. Do you see, they are both science. Both using the same method. There is one difference and that is creation are basing their evidence on a creator and evolutionists do not want a creator just natural processes. Therefore anything with a creator cannot even be considered.Number 6 states no test?. Well thats nonsense as they test all their evidence thats how they come to conclusions. They dont dogmatically cling on to the Bible if the evidence is against them, they stay with creation because they believe the evidence does fit with what Gods word says. Number 7 states no publising in journals, well many creationists have had their work published, unfortunately the mainstream secular world would never even think about publishing something against the fact of evolution. Not in school, not in journals, not in the media. Nowhere, they are not science just religion.
quote:
even IF it were right, which it is not, it would still be dogma and propaganda
Anyone else see something odd about what this states? I certainly do.
quote:
evolution has no doctrine, and no followers
Umm what about humanists?, darwinists?, atheists?, naturalist?, evolutionists?, theistic evolutionists?. Yes they do have a doctrine. Evolution gives mankind a foundation with no deity. Therefore man by himself can determine truth because we evolved through natural processes. The universe is all their is was ever will be. Man can now control their destiny. Evolution does not directly give this doctrine. But of course once man accepts evolution he comes to the conclusions such as humanistic philosophy.
quote:
evolution would be true even if the earth was only 6000 years old
The reason evolution needs billions of yrs is to give the impression that anything can happen over time. Evolution could not possibly occur in 6,000yrs. For particles-to-people evolution to have occured, the earth needs to be billions of yrs old.
quote:
creationism is the idea that god created the earth in 6 days, 6000 years ago. this is not science. it just isn't. it's religion
I dont recall reading in the What is Science textbook saying science is only dealing with an old earth. Oh yes i do remember now, that book was a secular university textbook. I stand corrected. Science can only deal with an old earth and evolution. Anything else is wrong. By the way creation find evidence to be consistent with what God says. This is science being used to prove Gods existent. If the Bible is right when it talks about a flood, design, complexity, no missing links, no evolution then the Bible is consistent therefore we can trust what God says. This is all creation is. It is not a religion, it is the science of a religion. Just as evolution is the science of a naturalist. Who thinks the world can come about without a creator but through natural processes.
™ Version 4.2