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.

How do you define "beliefs" is it something that creationist think they are going to see and
they look at the universe with colored glasses that show them that? If so, why wouldn't it
also be true of those that believe the universe is an accident due to a big bang?

Personally I think both can be matters of faith and doctrine.

Originally posted by KellyJay
How do you define "beliefs" is it something that creationist think they are going to see and
they look at the universe with colored glasses that show them that? If so, why wouldn't it
also be true of those that believe the universe is an accident due to a big bang?

Personally I think both can be matters of faith and doctrine.

They can be believed to be so, by those who live by faith and doctrine.

Originally posted by JerryH
However, Creation Science doesn't get to allow for whatever it would like and still call it science.

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 ...[text shortened]... www.oldearth.org/44-138-1-PB.pdf I love the title, The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology.

It is becoming clear to me that you are not open to learning the truth. You seem to be firmly in the evilution camp and only want to argue for the belief of atheists and evilutionists, just like C Hess, sonhouse , and the other atheists on here.

So what is the point of me attempting to educate you on Creation Science when you have already made up your mind as to what you think about it?

Originally posted by KellyJay
How do you define "beliefs" is it something that creationist think they are going to see and
they look at the universe with colored glasses that show them that? If so, why wouldn't it
also be true of those that believe the universe is an accident due to a big bang?

Personally I think both can be matters of faith and doctrine.

I define belief on both sides the same. Belief is what we hold to be true. The difference is where belief comes from. For Creationism: The Holy Bible gives us what we hold to be true. For Science: Observation gives us what we hold to be true.

For this discussion the beliefs of both are without question. They are equal and as either defines them to be. I think this leaves Creation Science, something I think separate from Creationism, little room to hide.

Let's suppose that Creationist scientists come up with compelling evidence that radiometric dating doesn't work. They submit for publication. Their belief passes peer review. It's published. It survives counter argument. Consensus builds and then the belief becomes part of science. Building consensus to change science is part of using science.

Hinduism believes the universe to be quite old and a group calling itself Hindu Creation Science appears. Hindu Creation Science doesn't like that radiometric dating is now out and rails against it while calling Hindu Creation Science, Hinduism using science to study creation. Are they using science to study creation if they are using radiometric dating? Should Hindu Creation Science be held in the same esteem as science in the secular world? Should Hindu Creation Science be added to the curriculum in secular schools?

Originally posted by JerryH
I define belief on both sides the same. Belief is what we hold to be true. The difference is where belief comes from. For Creationism: The Holy Bible gives us what we hold to be true. For Science: Observation gives us what we hold to be true.

For this discussion the beliefs of both are without question. They are equal and as either defines them to be. I th ...[text shortened]... the secular world? Should Hindu Creation Science be added to the curriculum in secular schools?

If it is just building consensus its all about coming up with something people can believe in.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If it is just building consensus its all about coming up with something people can believe in.

Yes but for scientists to believe they require verifiable observations and rigorous logic. For scientists, it's not wanting to believe. It's being compelled by the evidence to believe.

Believe it or not but scientists don't care how old the earth is. They only care about knowing how old the earth is. When it's known how old the earth is, then however old that is, that knowledge can be built upon.

Originally posted by JerryH
Yes but for scientists to believe they require verifiable observations and rigorous logic. For scientists, it's not wanting to believe. It's being compelled by the evidence to believe.

Believe it or not but scientists don't care how old the earth is. They only care about knowing how old the earth is. When it's known how old the earth is, then however old that is, that knowledge can be built upon.

The theory of evolution and belief in animals evolving millions of years ago is not verifiable observations and rigorous logic. It is only speculation and belief. Creation scientist have the same verifiable observations and rigorous logic of those of atheists evolutions, yet they believe different things.

Some Creation scientists believe the earth is old and others believe the earth has to be young. They both believe they have it right. So both Creation scientists are out to gather more scientifically verifiable evidence for their side of the argument without providing fradulent evidence like the atheist evilutionist have for their side. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is becoming clear to me that you are not open to learning the truth. You seem to be firmly in the evilution camp and only want to argue for the belief of atheists and evilutionists, just like C Hess, sonhouse , and the other atheists on here.

So what is the point of me attempting to educate you on Creation Science when you have already made up your mind as to what you think about it?

Because creation science is an oxymoron, that's why.

Originally posted by JerryH
Believe it or not but scientists don't care how old the earth is.
They only care about knowing how old the earth is.

Well said.

I think you have hit the nail on the head there.

Scientists do not care what the answer is.
They just want an answer.

Originally posted by JerryH
I define belief on both sides the same. Belief is what we hold to be true. The difference is where belief comes from. For Creationism: The Holy Bible gives us what we hold to be true. For Science: Observation gives us what we hold to be true.

For this discussion the beliefs of both are without question. They are equal and as either defines them to be. I th ...[text shortened]... the secular world? Should Hindu Creation Science be added to the curriculum in secular schools?

Christians believe in science and those that began modern science were Christians. So there is no real conflict between Creationism taken from the Holy Bible and real science.

And please don't confuse the cult of Christian Scientists with the real science of Creation Scientists, who simply use the facts gained from real science to give evidence for the creation account as described in Genesis.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Because creation science is an oxymoron, that's why.

Evolution science is more of an oxymoron than creation science. Science has never been able to give evidence that one animal evolved into a different kind of animal as the theory of evolution supposes. However, science has produced much evidence that the universe must have been created, as well as the original life forms that now exist in millions of varieties on the earth.

Originally posted by JerryH
Yes but for scientists to believe they require verifiable observations and rigorous logic. For scientists, it's not wanting to believe. It's being compelled by the evidence to believe.

Believe it or not but scientists don't care how old the earth is. They only care about knowing how old the earth is. When it's known how old the earth is, then however old that is, that knowledge can be built upon.

I disagree, scientist are no different than the rest of us.
They want to understand, and if they are part of a group that believes in something they will
defend that group belief. There is nothing wrong with this, verifiable observations and
rigorous logic may be used, but if there is a goal in mind....than there is a goal in mind.

Defending how old the earth is, is just as important to someone who believes it to billions
of years old as it is to someone who believes it to be thousands of years old.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Defending how old the earth is, is just as important to someone who believes it to billions
of years old as it is to someone who believes it to be thousands of years old.

The key difference being that the former group can provide actual evidence and the latter group is contradicted by all the available evidence. Scientists follow the evidence. Religious people put their hands over their eyes and chant 'La la la la...'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The key difference being that the former group can provide actual evidence and the latter group is contradicted by all the available evidence. Scientists follow the evidence. Religious people put their hands over their eyes and chant 'La la la la...'.

You are wrong. Scientists who believe in evolution fabricate evidence that seem to show the earth is very old. They have no evidence that does not rely on assumptions. If you know of any perhaps you could mention one. 😏

The Near Genius

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are wrong. Scientists who believe in evolution fabricate evidence that seem to show the earth is very old. They have no evidence that does not rely on assumptions. If you know of any perhaps you could mention one. 😏

The Near Genius

Not sure God is holding us back as a species, but you certainly are.

Hurry up and evolve already.