Originally posted by RJHindsThat alone precludes it from being real science. It is in fact, intense cherry picking of data designed to convince weak minded people creationism is a fact so they can gain political power in their sick quest to force creationism to be taught as if it were a science along side evolution.
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.
Originally posted by sonhouseDNA Facts Refutes Evolution
That alone precludes it from being real science. It is in fact, intense cherry picking of data designed to convince weak minded people creationism is a fact so they can gain political power in their sick quest to force creationism to be taught as if it were a science along side evolution.
1 edit
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeThe Fool Hath Said in His Heart, There Is No God:
Nope, even finishing with the word 'Reptiles' wont get me to click that link.
Try 'Chocolate.'
HOW TO MAKE REAL CHOCOLATE BARS FROM COCOA BEANS!!!!
Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you...
(Genesis 1:29 NASB)
Originally posted by RJHindsSo dating methods of science are out and earth is just 6000 years period, okay.
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.
The Theory Of Evolution is out, I would think, right?
While we are at it we'd better throw out plate tectonics. Those pesky plates are either going to add millions of years or more unknown processes that compress millions of years. So out of science you go peskies.
What about stratigraphy? I'd say throw it out but stratigraphy is one of the easiest old earth concepts to understand, so let's take a quick look at it before we throw it away.
Stratigraphy is, put simply, life divided into layers and it's believed these layers represent vastly different periods in time. We don't find modern animal fossils in strata of older periods. We don't find people in the Jurassic. We don't find Jurassic strata animals in the Cambrian. How did things get so divided?
Imagine a world with it's fossils all nicely mixed together. Now imagine scientists find one place with life divided into layers. How would they explain this separation? Now try to explain this separation when it's everywhere.
While briefly looking for a Creation Science rebuttal to stratigraphy I happened upon a Creationist rebuttal of a Creation Science rebuttal of stratigraphy found here: http://www.oldearth.org/cstrat.htm.
I don't quite know what to think of this website yet. I've reviewed only a few pages but have enjoyed reading them so far. Interestingly the Old Earth Creationists on this website seem to think Creation Science is driving people away from God. Creation Science is making atheists, that is some charge. Look the site over and please tell what you think of it.
Anyway so stratigraphy, as scientists view it, is out of science too. This is because when one part of science disagrees with another then the two parts have to be justified or one or both have to be removed. "6000 years period", is in so all of the above and more must go out.
Is what's left called science by scientists? Don't scientists get to say what science is? I not arguing whether science is right or wrong about anything here. I'm just arguing that right or wrong science is science and Creation Science is not Creationism using science.
Originally posted by JerryHCreationists accept the scientific method when it comes to say, making new medicines, or new road materials, put out a theory, look for evidence, if it supports the theory, etc., but the exact same scientific method is somehow no good when it comes to their built in bias against those sciences that refute the age of the Earth and evidence of evolution. Creationists have their heads firmly up the ass of the tenth century and will never come out of it, EVER. They are unable to change, no matter what new evidence comes it, it is still just part of the vast atheistic conspiracy to destroy religion.
So dating methods of science are out and earth is just 6000 years period, okay.
The Theory Of Evolution is out, I would think, right?
While we are at it we'd better throw out plate tectonics. Those pesky plates are either going to add millions of years or more unknown processes that compress millions of years. So out of science you go peskies.
What ...[text shortened]... ng that right or wrong science is science and Creation Science is not Creationism using science.
What creationism is REALLY about is to put out those bogus video's that have been refuted time and time again, just put out a new one with the same tired BS and the point there has nothing to do with science but EVERYTHING to do with politics. Those video's represent an intense effort to build political power bases from which to launch their real agenda, to force creationism to be taught in science class as if it were a real science, which it decidedly is not, and MINIMUM have creationism and evolution taught in the same class and thus knowingly confuse young pliable minds where they hope to grow an even larger political power base. Their bottom line is to utterly destroy evolution and life origin sciences and Earth ages sciences.
2 edits
Originally posted by JerryHYes, the Theory Of Evolution is junk science and must be thrown out.
So dating methods of science are out and earth is just 6000 years period, okay.
The Theory Of Evolution is out, I would think, right?
While we are at it we'd better throw out plate tectonics. Those pesky plates are either going to add millions of years or more unknown processes that compress millions of years. So out of science you go peskies.
What ...[text shortened]... ng that right or wrong science is science and Creation Science is not Creationism using science.
However, Creation Science allows for plate tectonics and stratification that is adjusted to account for a worldwide flood with much less time necessary. My grandparents on my mother's side had 16 children. This was one man and one woman with 16 children.
Flood of Evidence
Originally posted by RJHindsHowever, Creation Science doesn't get to allow for whatever it would like and still call it science.
Yes, the Theory Of Evolution is junk science and must be thrown out.
However, Creation Science allows for plate tectonics and stratification that is adjusted to account for a worldwide flood with much less time necessary. My grandparents on my mother's side had 16 children. This was one man and one woman with 16 children.
[youtube]vagfcQ3gUVM[/youtube]
[b]Flood of Evidence
[youtube]ZnfXvPZhjfs[/youtube][/b]
What point were you trying to make with the videos? Was it the earth is in it's star's Goldilocks zone so it must be intelligent design? 100,000,000,000 plus stars in our galaxy and our sun's Goldilocks zone is as big as 3 times the distance from the earth to the sun and that seems like such long odds that it must be intelligent design?
What was all the Biogenesis, Biogenesis, Biogenesis? Yes science did prove that the Ancient Greeks belief in the spontaneous generation of flies from rotting food or from soil to be false, thank you Louie and thank you science. This is not a rebut of modern abiogenesis.
Dinosaur and human foot prints together? http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm
What has surprised me while looking into Creation Science is the amount of good, Creationists using science, science that's out there. Here's Creationists looking for evidence of Noah's Flood and reporting on what they have found in the strata. http://www.oldearth.org/44-138-1-PB.pdf I love the title, The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology.