Is creationism science or not?

[alwight]

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.

Creationism seems to include creating an unlikely mythical story and then believing in it come hell, high water or science. lain:

 

[Jose Fly]

Creationism seems to include creating an unlikely mythical story and then believing in it come hell, high water or science. lain:

Well the consensus view here seems to be that creationism is not science and is just a religious belief.

It's always nice when everyone can agree.

 

[themuzicman]

There are scientists seeking to prove the hypothesis of creationism, just as there are scientists seeking to prove the hypothesis of evolution.

Thus, when looking at the science of creationism, creationism is a science.

 

[Cross Reference]

Creationism seems to include creating an unlikely mythical story and then believing in it come hell, high water or science. lain:

Why say "mythical" when you can't defend your own unbelievable opinion due to absence of facts?

 

[Stripe]

Well the consensus view here seems to be that creationism is not science and is just a religious belief.

:darwinsm:

Darwinists will say anything.

 

[Jose Fly]

There are scientists seeking to prove the hypothesis of creationism, just as there are scientists seeking to prove the hypothesis of evolution.

Thus, when looking at the science of creationism, creationism is a science.

Interesting, in that you disagree with 6days and Stripe (both creationists) who insist that creationism is a belief and not science.

Can you give an example of creationists scientifically testing their creationist hypotheses?

 

[Cross Reference]

Interesting, in that you disagree with 6days and Stripe (both creationists) who insist that creationism is a belief and not science.

Can you give an example of creationists scientifically testing their creationist hypotheses?

LOL!! Copulation for procreation! How does evolution accomplish the same thing and with such pleasure?? Yeah!! Don't leave out the "pleasure " part!! Go fer it. I can hardly stand it!!! LOL!! I love these scientific experiments!!

 

[alwight]

Why say "mythical" when you can't defend your own unbelievable opinion due to absence of facts?

Just because you say it is unbelievable, whatever specifically you are referring to, doesn't actually mean that others don't find the explanation of the evidence compelling enough to accept it as rational and true.

If you have the evidence to lift your creationist claims above "myth" status then now would be a good time to produce it.

 

[Cross Reference]

Just because you say it is unbelievable, whatever specifically you are referring to, doesn't actually mean that others don't find the explanation of the evidence compelling enough to accept it as rational and true.

No evidence that compels to accept. Not even a little bit that is rational and true. Yer dreamin'

 

[alwight]

No evidence that compels to accept. Not even a little bit that is rational and true. Yer dreamin'

If you ever try to consider some of the evidence for yourself and want some actual understanding of it then by all means do let me know.lain:

 

[themuzicman]

Interesting, in that you disagree with 6days and Stripe (both creationists) who insist that creationism is a belief and not science.

It doesn't need to be an either/or.

Can you give an example of creationists scientifically testing their creationist hypotheses?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=creationist+scientists

 

[Jose Fly]

It doesn't need to be an either/or.

That's true, but in this case the creationists on this board agree that creationism is a belief and not a science. You are the exception.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=creationist+scientists

Cute, but basically a non-answer. If you ever come up with actual examples of creationists scientifically testing their creationist hypotheses, let me know.

 

[Cross Reference]

That's true, but in this case the creationists on this board agree that creationism is a belief and not a science. You are the exception.



Cute, but basically a non-answer. If you ever come up with actual examples of creationists scientifically testing their creationist hypotheses, let me know.

I would take you up on that if you could come up with a cure for a common cold.

 

[Jonahdog]

I would take you up on that if you could come up with a cure for a common cold.

A bit irrelevant to the question that was asked.

 

[Stripe]

There are scientists seeking [to provide evidence for] the hypothesis of creationism. Thus, when looking at the science of creationism, creationism is a science.

:thumb:

 

[alwight]

There are scientists seeking to prove the hypothesis of creationism, just as there are scientists seeking to prove the hypothesis of evolution.

It is not science to "prove" formal theories. "Proof" is only for mathematics and whiskey. Thus anyone who seeks to "prove" Darwinian evolution is no scientist.

Thus, when looking at the science of creationism, creationism is a science.

Calling creationism science because of "the science of creationism" is a bit daft, but is in fact only an adherence to a literal Genesis rather than an examination of any facts and evidence.
Thus creationism has no right to be called science since an ancient scripture will always be deemed to trump any contradictory science, however rigorous, which clearly isn't science.

 

[Cross Reference]

It is not science to "prove" formal theories. "Proof" is only for mathematics and whiskey. Thus anyone who seeks to "prove" Darwinian evolution is no scientist.

Calling creationism science because of "the science of creationism" is a bit daft, but is in fact only an adherence to a literal Genesis rather than an examination of any facts and evidence.
Thus creationism has no right to be called science since an ancient scripture will always be deemed to trump any contradictory science, however rigorous, which clearly isn't science.

Calling evolution theory, fact, is the apex of stupidity. Therefore it makes no sense to continue . .:deadhorse: No disrespect intended but, you do smell like used wet hay.

 

[alwight]

Calling evolution theory, fact, is the apex of stupidity. Therefore it makes no sense to continue . .:deadhorse: No disrespect intended but, you do smell like used wet hay.

Your reading comprehension is about on a par with the straw man who wanted a brain since I didn't actually say the ToE is fact.:nono:
However formal theories are never formally proven, but if it helps I personally consider it a virtual fact for all intents and purposes. If that makes me stupid in your eyes then that's just something I'll have to learn to live with. lain:

 

[Stripe]

It is not science to "prove" formal theories. "Proof" is only for mathematics and whiskey. Thus anyone who seeks to "prove" Darwinian evolution is no scientist.

Calling creationism science because of "the science of creationism" is a bit daft, but is in fact only an adherence to a literal Genesis rather than an examination of any facts and evidence.
Thus creationism has no right to be called science since an ancient scripture will always be deemed to trump any contradictory science, however rigorous, which clearly isn't science.

Nope.

Science is about testing ideas against evidence, regardless of the idea.

You're a bigot, pretending that people who holds to ideas you hate cannot practice science, while Darwinists get a pass.

 

[alwight]

Nope.

Science is about testing ideas against evidence, regardless of the idea.

Science is actually about rationally explaining the evidence not plucking ideas out of thin air to put to the test.

You're a bigot, pretending that people who holds to ideas you hate cannot practice science, while Darwinists get a pass.

Straw man, firstly you make up a lie about what I supposedly hate and then use it to falsely imply bigotry. You are a very dishonest fellow indeed Stripe, but most of us already know that and wouldn't want you any other way.