Creationism vs Science

You probably realized from the thread title where i stand. creationism is not science. so let's draw some parallels. let's see how members of each draw conclusions, how each reason.

for starters here are 2 links which discuss noah's flood. i will let you guess which belongs to which movement.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noah-s-ark

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
You probably realized from the thread title where i stand. creationism is not science. so let's draw some parallels. let's see how members of each draw conclusions, how each reason.

for starters here are 2 links which discuss noah's flood. i will let you guess which belongs to which movement.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noah-s-ark

Second site is hilarious.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
You probably realized from the thread title where i stand. creationism is not science. so let's draw some parallels. let's see how members of each draw conclusions, how each reason.

for starters here are 2 links which discuss noah's flood. i will let you guess which belongs to which movement.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noah-s-ark

Oh yea, well I say that science is not theology.

Take that science man!!! 😠

Originally posted by whodey
Oh yea, well I say that science is not theology.

Take that science man!!! 😠

the first sentence is obvious. i already said that in mah first post. and the second i do not understand. what am i supposed to take? why should i feel defeated because you iterated something obvious that i agree with?

how about you compare the two sites. a hint: if you come to the conclusion that the second site is not science, you are not denying god.

I think that the noah's story is quite interesting in the way that many other creation stories mention a flood (such as the sioux creation story).

I personally don't think it should be taken literally though.

Originally posted by generalissimo
I think that the noah's story is quite interesting in the way that many other creation stories mention a flood (such as the sioux creation story).

Floods happen all over the world, that doesn't mean that they were all the same one.

it's as if you feel that all life revolved around the flood of Noah's time.
Devastating natural weather has been documented and a fact of life we all live with.
Could it be that as a baby comes from a mothers womb to walk life's journey and learn from life experiences, that we to through our evolving as a human race over the ages have mistaken science as not one of many of God's gifts to mankind, that man has done well in learning the wonders of the world in which he lives in and ever more seeking answers for the uncharted mysteries of space, that we might crawl before we walk, walk before we run as to be able to leap into space. The Creation of Science is mankind at school, we've but scratched the surface of what's out there AND the only deities able to truly find humor in this is God and Satan. I've chosen God as my teacher, what I learn may not be as academic but the message is powerful when the free will of man is behind it. Amen

Originally posted by kinswhey
it's as if you feel that all life revolved around the flood of Noah's time.
Devastating natural weather has been documented and a fact of life we all live with.
Could it be that as a baby comes from a mothers womb to walk life's journey and learn from life experiences, that we to through our evolving as a human race over the ages have mistaken science as ...[text shortened]... t be as academic but the message is powerful when the free will of man is behind it. Amen

we know the flood was a metaphor. and we know floods existed. what can we learn from a mass murder that was supposed to wipe the wicked from the earth but failed miserably and that was later contradicted by jesus's message <the wicked shall be allowed to repent>?

but why is the lesson of the flood, whatever that may be, any less important if we deny the fact that it really happened(on a world wide scale as the bible implies). Jesus spoke in parables yet the message was received. Why is the new testament allowing parables yet the old testament is considered history. Why is it considered history when jesus dismissed and changed quite a few parts of the old testament?

Originally posted by kinswhey
it's as if you feel that all life revolved around the flood of Noah's time.
Devastating natural weather has been documented and a fact of life we all live with.
Could it be that as a baby comes from a mothers womb to walk life's journey and learn from life experiences, that we to through our evolving as a human race over the ages have mistaken science as ...[text shortened]... t be as academic but the message is powerful when the free will of man is behind it. Amen

the purpose of this thread is analyze how creationists and scientists reach their conclusions.

kelly solved the problem of "how did the predators feed on noah's arc" by answering "they were all vegetarians". woodmorappe i believe thought that predators could survive on vegetables.
here is what i have trouble accepting. you have a problem. and your answer solves the problem. but how did you come to that answer? scientists would require proof. but creationists don't. they have a "proof" (the bible) about a distant related subject (noah's flood happened exactly like in the bible). having accepted that subject as absolutely true, creationists feel they can get to new "truths". so they say god made predators eat vegetables. and here comes another problem in creationist thinking:
some say god made all animals vegetarians
some say god made the carnivores eat veggies for that trip
some say god made most of the animals hibernate
these are different answers yet no creationist is saying "hey, my hibernation theory is better than your "let them eat veggies" theory". why? because none of them really have proof of what they claim. so they cannot really argue. as long as their theory fits the axiom that the bible is the literal historical document of those times, it goes. so i could say that the carnivores on noah's arc ate nothing at all because god sustained them. who can disprove me?