Is creationism science or not?

[Jose Fly]

I've noticed a little game some of our creationist friends here at ToL have been playing. Specifically, when discussions are a bit vague and general, creationists like to make claims like "science supports creation", "creationism is the superior model", "the data fits creationism perfectly", and "creationism contributes to science". The underlying assumption in those claims is clear...not only is creationism science, it's really, really good science that perfectly explains things and contributes a lot to science.

But then it seems when the conversation starts to get specific, e.g., exploring the details of claims about mechanisms behind the flood, or genetics behind post-flood speciation, some creationists (like 6days) suddenly declare creationism to be a "belief about the past" and not science, presumably excusing creationists from having to delve into such details because after all....it's a belief, not science.

So in the interests of clarity, let's see if we can resolve this. Is creationism a science, or is it not science and just a belief about the past?

 

[Nick M]

Creationism? Isn't that something like calling construction "buildingism"?

 

[musterion]

Us: All life was created by God, Who is unbound by the universal "box" which contains us. He, not we, defines what existence means and, as Creator, is entitled to make any demands upon us.

Fly: All life accidentally arose from lifeless minerals and returns to lifeless minerals. In the meantime, existence means only as much or as little as the individual chooses to ascribe to it.

Watered down so Fly can comprehend:

Us: "God is God. We all answer to Him."

Fly: "I am God. I answer to no one but me."

Watered down even further:

Us: We are as God made us: dust imbued with His breath of life.

Fly: I am a preachy rock ape with the temporary (and ultimately meaningless) capacity for thought. My life's passion is to validate myself by convincing you that you, too, are a rock ape.

 

[Nick M]

Great response.

 

[ok doser]

So in the interests of clarity, let's see if we can resolve this.

why?

you've already admitted that your sole purpose here is to troll

 

[Cross Reference]

Creation explains the proper way science can only conclude its results.

 

[jamie]

Is creationism a science, or is it not science and just a belief about the past?

If by creationism you are referring to the young earth theory, I don't buy it.

 

[Stripe]

I've noticed a little game some of our creationist friends here at ToL have been playing. Specifically, when discussions are a bit vague and general, creationists like to make claims like "science supports creation", "creationism is the superior model", "the data fits creationism perfectly", and "creationism contributes to science".

Darwinists survive by keeping discussions vague and malleable. When they fail to be precise, we find it an invitation to make such statements.

If you were to engage rationally, we would be forced to speak within the confines of your presuppositions, use your language and consider your evidence to provide reasons to doubt your ideas.

However, you prefer to insulate your religion against such things.

The underlying assumption in those claims is clear...not only is creationism science, it's really, really good science that perfectly explains things and contributes a lot to science.

:AMR:

Would you prefer us to assume that what we believe is nonsense?

Darwinists are terrified when people have beliefs that do not mesh with their own. Get over yourself; have the discussion instead of launching these meta-threads that do nothing but put more words between your ideas and critical thinking.

But then it seems when the conversation starts to get specific, e.g., exploring the details of claims about mechanisms behind the flood, or genetics behind post-flood speciation, some creationists (like 6days) suddenly declare creationism to be a "belief about the past" and not science, presumably excusing creationists from having to delve into such details because after all....it's a belief, not science.

Nope. We provide evidence.

See any thread on the subject that you like. :up:

Your assertions are demonstrably false.

Is creationism a science, or is it not science and just a belief about the past?

Science is the practice of holding your ideas about the physical world up against data and evidence. To do this in a useful manner, you need to express concepts that are testable and falsifiable.

Creationists practice science far more than the religious devotees of Darwin do.

And it is guaranteed that your sole aim here is to pull a "creationism isn't science" quote-mine out to wave about, while having no serious devotion to understanding anything related to science.

 

[Cross Reference]

If by creationism you are referring to the young earth theory, I don't buy it.

Suppose it could be shown that there were two creations performed on this planet and that being the cause for our inability to find a "missing link"?

 

[jamie]

Suppose it could be shown that there were two creations performed on this planet and that being the cause for our inability to find a "missing link"?

:thumb: Yes, there was already water on the earth which means the sun warmed the earth when the re-creation began.

 

[Cross Reference]

:thumb: Yes, there was already water on the earth which means the sun warmed the earth when the re-creation began.

I am not thinking of a watery creation but one that existed that was destroyed by the same water written of.

 

[jamie]

I am not thinking of a watery creation but one that existed that was destroyed by the same water written of.

Scripture does not say how the pre-Adamic world was destroyed, we just know that it was destroyed and then reconstructed for humans.

 

[Jose Fly]

So far it looks like we have at least one in this thread (Stripe) who feels that creationism isn't science.

 

[Cross Reference]

Scripture does not say how the pre-Adamic world was destroyed, we just know that it was destroyed and then reconstructed for humans.

True and why should it have to since life as we know it to be purposed by God is all He has desired to be made known. . Science points to the "how of it all" and pretty much confirms such a preexistence while providing no missing link that would reveal a gradual 'change'..

 

[Stripe]

So far it looks like we have at least one in this thread (Stripe) who feels that creationism isn't science.

Nope.

Prediction confirmed.

You're an anti-science fool, chasing the religion of Darwin.

 

[Cross Reference]

Scripture does not say how the pre-Adamic world was destroyed, we just know that it was destroyed and then reconstructed for humans.

But even the unlearned would readily admit that water did the job. What's your point?

 

[jamie]

But even the unlearned would readily admit that water did the job. What's your point?

The point is simple, we don't know that God destroyed the world by water. That's your speculation but not mine.
I believe the water came later.

 

[Cross Reference]

The point is simple, we don't know that God destroyed the world by water. That's your speculation but not mine.
I believe the water came later.

Based on what when evidence says it otherwise?

 

[jamie]

Based on what when evidence says it otherwise?

What evidence?

 

[Cross Reference]

What evidence?

Yes. (my bad for the confusion)