Is creationism science or not?

[Stripe]

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

False dichotomies are a favorite fallacy of the Darwinist.

Science can be used to test any idea that would affect the physical world.

Straw man.

Nope.

Firstly you make up a lie about what I supposedly hate and then use it to falsely imply bigotry.

I might be wrong about what you hate, but when you say: "Creationism ... is in fact only an adherence to a literal Genesis rather than an examination of any facts and evidence" and it "has no right to be called science since an ancient scripture will always be deemed to trump any contradictory science," it shows that you believe people of a particular worldview cannot practice science. Hence, bigotry. This bigotry is based on a hatred for anyone who rejects your religion.

You are a very dishonest fellow indeed Stripe, but most of us already know that and wouldn't want you any other way.

And now we know your hatred is of people.

 

[Greg Jennings]

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

You must be joking......What evidence do you have to support anything you believe, remind me?

 

[alwight]

I might be wrong about what you hate,

Yes, indeed you are wrong, clearly that probability doesn't prevent you from making up stuff anyway.

but when you say: "Creationism ... is in fact only an adherence to a literal Genesis rather than an examination of any facts and evidence" and it "has no right to be called science since an ancient scripture will always be deemed to trump any contradictory science," shows that you believe people of a particular worldview cannot practice science. Hence, bigotry. This bigotry is based on a hatred for anyone who rejects your religion.

I don't try to account for all YECs while the OECs can at least accommodate some science into their perhaps more realistic timescales.
I'm actually saying that even if YECs try to apply real scientific methods that the bottom line will always be to adhere to Genesis if there is an apparent contradiction and that that alone negates any scientific intent.
The AiG statement of faith includes:
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/
If you now disassociate yourself from this statement then I will reconsider that you at least can be scientific.

And now we know your hatred is of people.

I couldn't possibly hate you Stripe, you are too funny.

 

[Cross Reference]

You must be joking......What evidence do you have to support anything you believe, remind me?

Life itself!! Chew on that before before trying to explain it by your psuedo scientific thought processes. Speak of something that has evolved without mans 'injections' into the substance of the organism? Follow up with success stories of the completeness of it all.

 

[Stripe]

Yes, indeed you are wrong.

The evidence says otherwise.

I'm actually saying that even if YECs try to apply real scientific methods that the bottom line will always be to adhere to Genesis if there is an apparent contradiction and that that alone negates any scientific intent.

Which makes you a bigot. Creationists are just as capable as anyone else of adjusting what they believe in the face of the evidence.

The AiG statement of faith.

Repeating your bigoted ideology doesn't make you less of a bigot. The exact opposite, in fact.

It does not matter what a person believes; it matters that their ideas are subject to the evidence.

If you now disassociate yourself from this statement then I will reconsider that you at least can be scientific.

I don't work for AIG. I'm not associated with it to begin with.

Did you have something of value to contribute?

I couldn't possibly hate you.

I didn't make this personal. You hate those you show apathy for. Try to deal with what you say instead of pretending you said something else.

 

[gcthomas]

Life itself!! Chew on that before before trying to explain it by your psuedo scientific thought processes. Speak of something that has evolved without mans 'injections' into the substance of the organism? Follow up with success stories of the completeness of it all.

Injections!!??? What injections?

 

[Cross Reference]

Injections!!??? What injections?

Given birds of a feather, flock to together and "every species produces after its own kind" when left to themselves, is It plain enough. Now what do you suppose it can only mean irrespective of what means man uses? Perhaps for you I should have used the term, "interfered with"?

 

[gcthomas]

Perhaps 'placed in novel and sub-optimal environments to see what evolution can do'?

 

[Cross Reference]

Perhaps 'placed in novel and sub-optimal environments to see what evolution can do'?

Why? Creation covers the whole spectrum if it is left to itself to be understood.

Creation has a purpose. What purpose can there be for believing evolution except to discredit creation, which is really what it is all about, correct?

 

[alwight]

Yes, indeed you are wrong.

The evidence says otherwise.

Nevertheless you are wrong.

I'm actually saying that even if YECs try to apply real scientific methods that the bottom line will always be to adhere to Genesis if there is an apparent contradiction and that that alone negates any scientific intent.

Which makes you a bigot. Creationists are just as capable as anyone else of adjusting what they believe in the face of the evidence.

I will actually agree that creationists are sometimes just as capable of science as anyone, only they will reject even their own scientific conclusions if it seems to contradict Genesis, which is rather the opposite of science.

I don't know what makes you think I'm intolerant of creationists (bigoted)? I don't want creationists locked up or banished from society like so many of them seem to want to be the fate meted out to those that they deem as undesirables (gays, atheists, adulterers etc), according to their interpretation of an ancient scripture. Far from it, creationists are very entertaining and since flat Earthers are rather thin on the ground these days then it's the anti-science of YE creationists particularly that I find to be of great interest and entertainment value rather than not to be tolerated. :up:

The AiG statement of faith.

Repeating your bigoted ideology doesn't make you less of a bigot. The exact opposite, in fact.

Responded to above.

It does not matter what a person believes; it matters that their ideas are subject to the evidence.

Yes agreed, science stands or falls by the testable evidence, real facts and the laws of physics, not something merely asserted as true, which requires that something miraculous and/or supernatural occurred, typically only from an evidence-free adherence to an ancient scripture.

If you now disassociate yourself from this statement then I will reconsider that you at least can be scientific.

I don't work for AIG. I'm not associated with it to begin with.

Not what I asked you, do you reject it?
If you don't then I will simply continue to conclude that you reject science.

Did you have something of value to contribute?

Attack is the best form of defence perhaps? If what I do contribute is of some value then that is for others to decide and something you can respond to it or not.

I couldn't possibly hate you.

I didn't make this personal. You hate those you show apathy for. Try to deal with what you say instead of pretending you said something else.

Many creationists seem to want to project the hate they personally seem to have for those who reject their ideology. Perhaps because they are frustrated that mainstream science does not seem to support their beliefs and cannot be distorted into fitting, nor can their beliefs be presented as science in school science classes, perhaps because creationism just isn't science? :think:

 

[Stripe]

Nevertheless you are wrong.

Your words betray hostility toward our ideas — see your closing rant — while the only counter you have is "you're wrong."

Convincing would be to engage rationally with the ideas and challenges you face rather than responding solely with ridicule and illogic.

You smearing your bigotry far and wide and claiming innocence when called on it does not convince.

I will actually agree that creationists are sometimes just as capable of science as anyone.

And you should know by now that I'm far too smart to be caught by your dissembling tactics.

This is called being damned with faint praise; creationists are not "sometimes" just as capable, they are always just as capable. Anything else is bigotry.

only they will reject even their own scientific conclusions if it seems to contradict Genesis, which is rather the opposite of science.

Nope.

I don't know what makes you think I'm intolerant of creationists.

Your words expose your bigotry. See your closing rant.

Not what I asked you

Your exact wording, in fact. Of course I do not want to be "disassociated" with the contractual terms of an organization I do not have any connection to. Your question is a non sequitur.

do you reject it?

AIG can make whatever rules they like for the people they have in their outfit. This line of questioning does nothing to diminish the fact you are a bigot.

Shall we start demanding that you "reject" all the problematic ideas Darwinists have before we will accept that you can join a scientific discussion?

If you don't then I will simply continue to conclude that you reject science.

Only because you're a bigot; terrified to put your ideas up for examination. You'll talk about anything before you'll allow a rational discussion that might challenge your precious religion.

If what I do contribute is of some value then that is for others to decide and something you can respond to it or not.

We're waiting. :up:

Many Darwinists seem to want to project the hate they personally seem to have for those who reject their religion. Perhaps because they are frustrated that science does not support their beliefs and cannot be distorted into fitting, nor can their beliefs be presented as science in rational discussions, perhaps because Darwinism just isn't science? :think:

 

[gcthomas]

Why? Creation covers the whole spectrum if it is left to itself to be understood.

Creation has a purpose. What purpose can there be for believing evolution except to discredit creation, which is really what it is all about, correct?

I have no interest in disproving creationism. Really.

All I am interested in is stopping the misrepresentation of science. So much of that goes on here that it seems a deliberately dishonest group activity.

 

[Stripe]

All I am interested in is stopping the misrepresentation of science. So much of that goes on here that it seems a deliberately dishonest group activity.

Darwinists like to gang together to produce a wall of noise so that rational discussion is impossible.

Have a look at any sensible OP challenging their precious religion. As soon as a threat is perceived, a torrent of nonsense and ridicule will rain down. It's the only means of survival the Darwinist has.

 

[alwight]

Your exact wording, in fact. Of course I do not want to be "disassociated" with the contractual terms of an organization I do not have any connection to. Your question is a non sequitur.

AIG can make whatever rules they like for the people they have in their outfit. This line of questioning does nothing to diminish the fact you are a bigot.

I realise that calling me a bigot may well be all you can muster as a somewhat unconvincing response, but being the dyed in the wool creationist you are may take its toll on the grey cells over the years or so it seems.:kookoo:

I wasn't asking you to disassociate yourself from AiG Stripe, I wanted you to tell me that if science seemed both to you and mainstream science to contradict a literal Genesis, you wouldn't simply conclude nevertheless that the Genesis scripture must nevertheless somehow be right anyway, that it always trumped everything else, even if your own conclusions matched with mainstream science, regardless of how rigorous, well evidenced and conclusive the science seemed to be. Is that really so hard for you to put on the record?

I think you know very well what I was asking you to confirm, so how about you stop playing dumb for once and give an honest answer, does a literal Genesis scripture automatically trump any genuine science for you or not?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Life itself!! Chew on that before before trying to explain it by your psuedo scientific thought processes. Speak of something that has evolved without mans 'injections' into the substance of the organism? Follow up with success stories of the completeness of it all.

I agree with you that life exists. But can you provide actual evidence that it definitely came from God or nah?

 

[Cross Reference]

I agree with you that life exists. But can you provide actual evidence that it definitely came from God or nah?

Your own body should suffice for ratonal thinkers. What would it take for science to duplicate it? How many sensors would MIT need just to make one robotic knee to simulate a human one? The number would astound you! Next, you might think of asking the same question re the human eye? Naah, evolution is nonsense.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Your own body should suffice for ratonal thinkers. What would it take for science to duplicate it? How many sensors would MIT need just to make one robotic knee to simulate a human one? The number would astound you!

That would all be excellent testimony if the conversation we are having was, "Can humans create life?" But nobody said that humans can create complex living things so it's a moot point. However, experiments do show that organic molecules develop from inorganic ones in early Earth conditions. If you don't understand the significance of that, please look it up.
Once life developed, it makes sense that it would have evolved and adapted just as life does now until all ecological niches were filled.

So what evidence do you have that humans are God-made? How do you know they aren't Zeus-made?

 

[Cross Reference]

That would all be excellent testimony if the conversation we are having was, "Can humans create life?" But nobody said that humans can create complex living things so it's a moot point. However, experiments do show that organic molecules develop from inorganic ones in early Earth conditions. If you don't understand the significance of that, please look it up.
Once life developed, it makes sense that it would have evolved and adapted just as life does now until all ecological niches were filled.

So what evidence do you have that humans are God-made? How do you know they aren't Zeus-made?

Make a life is what I asked. Can you do that from your lab? What is required? What kind of results do you need to see from the organic molocule testings to make heart beat?

 

[Stripe]

I wasn't asking you to disassociate yourself from AiG.

You want to demand that its contract conditions are applicable to your assertion that creationists do not practice science.

Your demand is simply inadmissible. Are you going to disassociate yourself with all the things Darwinists say before you enter a discussion?

I wanted you to tell me that if science seemed both to you and mainstream science to contradict a literal Genesis, you wouldn't simply conclude nevertheless that the Genesis scripture must nevertheless somehow be right anyway, that it always trumped everything else, even if your own conclusions matched with mainstream science, regardless of how rigorous, well evidenced and conclusive the science seemed to be. Is that really so hard for you to put on the record?

Then ask me. Stop pretending AIG's contract conditions have something to do with whether creationists can practice science.

Does a literal Genesis scripture automatically trump any genuine science for you or not?

Begging the question is a logical fallacy. I don't hold to a "literal" Genesis. I accept the plain meaning, unless there is good reason otherwise.

False dichotomies are also irrational. There is more to life than science. Genesis — which is founded on the power of God — could be true, while no scientific inquiry could ever penetrate the entirety of His work.

You need to learn to respect what we believe and what science is, as well as recanting your bigoted notions that creationists are less scientific.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Make a life is what I asked. Can you do that from your lab? What is required?

Are you asking for a human to make a human being from scratch? What do you think this is, Frankenstein? We can clone a human, sure. And we can grow organs, like your beating heart. But we cannot magically poof a human being into existence.

What kind of results do you need to see from the organic molocule testings to make heart beat?

You are aware that hearts aren't present on the vast majority of organisms, aren't you? At any rate, we can grow them.

Your question doesn't make much sense. Hearts are pure organic material. We are quite well aware of the action potential electrical system that powers the beating motion.

Beyond that, I don't know what you are referring to.


You've yet to offer any evidence of your God being the universe's creator other than offering your own inability to conceive how nature could've done it herself.


I'm not saying that you're totally wrong. Maybe God did create everything. But if he did, then he did it in the way that we've learned the universe and our planet was formed from scientific research. He didn't throw it all together in six days