Hmmm...245 posts; I'm probably wasting my time, but...
Abshalam (I think) writes:
even IF it were right, which it is not, it would still be dogma and propaganda
almeyda writes:
Anyone else see something odd about what this states? I certainly do.
No, this is not odd. The point, which you can get if you try, is that dogma and propaganda can happen to be right. Dogma and propaganda is no way to find truth, but by chance or circumstance it can be right.
His point is that creation science does not involve a search for truth. So, even it happened to be true, it wouldn't be because they searched for truth and found it, because creation science is about dogma and propaganda, not looking for truth.
almeyda writes:
I dont recall reading in the What is Science textbook saying science is only dealing with an old earth.
Science deals with a method for finding truth. Creation science does not look for truth. It assumes that it has truth, from the Bible, and then it does whatever it can to make all evidence fit what it believes.
Because of this creation science is net really science.
Whether something is science or not has nothing to do with old or new earth. It has to do with drawing conclusions from observable, repeatable, testable evidence. Since Creation science does not draw conclusions from evidence, but draws conclusions from the Bible, it is not science. Again, this has nothing to do with old or new earth.
Creation science does use evidence (I would say "abuse" evidence, but that's not the point here), but it does not draw conclusions from the evidence. It has a preset conclusion, made from religious beliefs.
I hope this helps.
I once heard this described (on a different topic, from
Common Sense by David Bercot, published by Scroll Publishing in Tyler, Tx) as the difference between a trial and a title lawyer. A trial lawyer is not trying to obtain truth from the evidence. He is trying to use the evidence to defend his client, no matter what is really true about his client. A title lawyer, on the other hand, is given the task by his client to find out who is the real owner of a piece of property. He uses the evidence as honestly as possible, because his client wants to know who the real owner is. No false conclusion will help the client.
Like it or not, creation scientists act like trial lawyers. Most other scientists act like title lawyers.
Sorry.
™ Version 4.2