Originally posted by JerryH Does this mean then that Creation Science is reduced to Creationism as The Scientific Method must not be applied to the tenets of Creationism? Or does it mean that Creation Science is reduced to Science as The Scientific Method is applied to the now only hypothesis ,"God created All" and all honest means are use to test, edit, expand and reject this hypothesis?
No, the scientific method is the same as for those attempting to obtain evidence for evolution and that no Creator is required. The only difference is that instead of doing it with from the atheist/evolutionist viewpoint in mind, it is done with the viewpoint that a creator is involved.
For example, when looking at the coding language in the DNA, the fact that we only know of coding languages like it that are a result of intelligent design by humans gives evidence against it happening by chance occurances as required by evolution and in favor of creative design by a creator.
Originally posted by RJHinds No, the scientific method is the same as for those attempting to obtain evidence for evolution and that no Creator is required. The only difference is that instead of doing it with from the atheist/evolutionist viewpoint in mind, it is done with the viewpoint that a creator is involved.
For example, when looking at the coding language in the DNA, the fac ...[text shortened]... ning by chance occurances as required by evolution and in favor of creative design by a creator.
"For example, when looking at the coding language in the DNA, the fact that we only know of coding languages like it that are a result of intelligent design by humans gives evidence against it happening by chance occurances [sic] as required by evolution and in favor of creative design by a creator."
Why couldn't chance bring about a being that could write code?
You all just try to make evolution unlikely, but you need to prove it impossible. Why not just admit it's your faith?
Originally posted by sonship Take a break. Watch a short video on a Quntum Physicist Werner Heisenberg's belief in God.
[b] Werner Heisenberg vs. the New Atheists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzu8as5sanY[/b]
How about comparing Werner Heisenberg with someone like Steven Weinberg? Tell me either one of them is stupid and I'll smack you across your head with the proverbial dumbcraft. I dare you.
Also, besides revealing logical inadequacy and being off-topic, I find it exquisitely ironic how you link to a video that ridicules an "athiest" for his bad spelling and grammar, with the words: "...a short video on a Quntum Physicist Werner Heisenberg's belief in God".
Originally posted by JS357 "For example, when looking at the coding language in the DNA, the fact that [b]we only know of coding languages like it that are a result of intelligent design by humans gives evidence against it happening by chance occurances [sic] as required by evolution and in favor of creative design by a creator."
Why couldn't chance bring about a being that could ...[text shortened]... ake evolution unlikely, but you need to prove it impossible. Why not just admit it's your faith?[/b]
I have said evolution takes faith to believe. It is obviously not proven fact.
Originally posted by C Hess How about comparing Werner Heisenberg with someone like Steven Weinberg? Tell me either one of them is stupid and I'll smack you across your head with the proverbial dumbcraft. I dare you.
Also, besides revealing logical inadequacy and being off-topic, I find it exquisitely ironic how you link to a video that ridicules an "athiest" for his bad spelling and ...[text shortened]... mar, with the words: "...a short video on a Quntum Physicist Werner Heisenberg's belief in God".
I see the missing "a" in Quantum, but how should the grammar be corrected? Is it that "the" is better than "a" before Quantum?
Originally posted by RJHinds No, the scientific method is the same as for those attempting to obtain evidence for evolution and that no Creator is required. The only difference is that instead of doing it with from the atheist/evolutionist viewpoint in mind, it is done with the viewpoint that a creator is involved.
Have beliefs not part of science been added? Is it fair to say Creation Science is science plus beliefs like, "the earth is 6000 years old" and these added beliefs will not be subjected to the scientific method?
Originally posted by JerryH Creationism is the doctrine in which the pronouncements of the Holy Bible are sacred beliefs held without question.
Science is the doctrine in which no beliefs are sacred and all beliefs must be questioned and independently verified.
Does anyone take exception with the above? Please reword the above, as one thinks correct, to be similarly reviewed the ...[text shortened]... nce here. Lets just settle the question, "What is Creation Science?" to the satisfaction of all.
Originally posted by JerryH Have beliefs not part of science been added? Is it fair to say Creation Science is science plus beliefs like, "the earth is 6000 years old" and these added beliefs will not be subjected to the scientific method?
Have beliefs not part of science been added?
Yes, in the same way as evolutionists add beliefs not part of science.
The belief in the age of the earth may not be something that can be subjected to the scientific method, because assumptions seem to be necessary in any method of dating the age of the earth.
Originally posted by RJHinds Have beliefs not part of science been added?
Yes, in the same way as evolutionists add beliefs not part of science.
The belief in the age of the earth may not be something that can be subjected to the scientific method, because assumptions seem to be necessary in any method of dating the age of the earth.
For science to be useful, it must always follow the evidence, wherever it leads. Evolutionary theory has been discovered in this manner. If you start with the conclusion, and ignore evidence that doesn't quite fit, you will have a completely useless explanation on your hands. You will have learned nothing new, and you will believe in something that isn't even true to begin with. It's a complete waste of energy to do "creation science", as it ignores large chunks of reality, and it cannot lead to new, important discoveries. Why should the scientific community sit back and watch this successful enterprise be tarnished for religious reasons? We shouldn't. If you can't square your religion with scientific findings, it's because your religion is utterly wrong. Deal with it like a man and accept reality for what it really is.
Originally posted by C Hess For science to be useful, it must always follow the evidence, wherever it leads. Evolutionary theory has been discovered in this manner. If you start with the conclusion, and ignore evidence that doesn't quite fit, you will have a completely useless explanation on your hands. You will have learned nothing new, and you will believe in something that isn't even ...[text shortened]... our religion is utterly wrong. Deal with it like a man and accept reality for what it really is.
Evolutionary theory was never discovered. It was made up. 😏
Originally posted by RJHinds Evolution THEORY = 100% FRAUD.
[youtube]fboYpLTHBMc[/youtube]
More bogus video's. Why don't you just link to every one you found all at once and then we can just here, "#7". "#59", "#3" and so forth. It would save you a lot of typing.
What is Creation Science?
25 Jul '15 03:54
YouTube
Back to Top