Is creationism science or not?

[musterion]

Nope, not a chance, not an outside one, nor an inside one. Not a chance that the earth is 6000+/- years old, nor that the universe was created in a week by your god, nor that there was a world wide flood, nor that evolution is not true and an accurate explanation of the real world.

Then what difference does it make.

 

[alwight]

Hold on a second.

Why are you and others so hell bent on convincing us we're all just hypercranial thumbed primates who accidentally arose from sunlight, water and minerals?

TELL US RIGHT NOW, PLEASE, WHAT WOULD YOU GET OUT OF YOU CONVINCING ANY OF US THAT YOU'RE RIGHT?

If Genesis is false, then it doesn't matter that we believe it. When we die, we'll never know we were wrong.

Firstly I have to say that I think that you do have a point here but I'd suggest that most non believers here don't claim to know any ultimate truths but would like rational answers.
When some theistic people claim that in fact they do know the ultimate truth of life the universe and everything then that is perhaps when those who don't think they know will say in so many words "excuse me but how can you possibly know any such thing?"
The bottom line is that it seems some believers don't want to look beyond what they have concluded they know while non-believers look for answers from those who claim they do know and generally don't get them it seems. lain:

 

[musterion]

Firstly I have to say that I think that you do have a point here

Thank you but what is that point? Spell it out, please, because your fellows will ignore it, assuming they even see it.

but I'd suggest that most non believers here don't claim to know any ultimate truths but would like rational answers.

That is false and you know it. Some here go out of their way to insult our faith as if it's the most utterly asinine thing ever conceived. They're not drive-by trolls -- they're regulars who have said such for years. Do not pretend they're being objective and dispassionate about it. You've seen them at work: they cannot tell us exactly how Life, The Universe and Everything began but THEY KNOW BEYOND ANY DOUBT the Genesis account is false. Why? Just because. Whenever they do that -- daily -- it is a claim to ultimate truth.

When some theistic people claim that in fact they do know the ultimate truth of life the universe and everything(a) then that is perhaps when those who don't think they know(b) will say in so many words "excuse me but how can you possibly know any such thing?"(c)

a) Because we -- unbelievers all, some formerly harder against God than you are -- chose to taste of what He invites all to taste and see. That invitation is open to all; it is closed only to those who have rejected it, and even then it's closed only on their end.

b) Those in hardened unbelief are just as convinced and certain of whatever they believe as we are. That's why they're here, hence the post you replied to.

c) Ask them - and yourself - the exact same thing about your unbelief. Not about why you think the Bible is false, but about how you KNOW that whatever you believe is absolutely and exclusively true.

The bottom line is that it seems some believers don't want to look beyond what they have concluded(b) they know while non-believers look for answers from those who claim they do know(b) and generally don't get them it seems.(d)

d) Because their minds are made up a priori that no possible answer we can provide will be satisfactory, thus any questions they ask are, at best. dishonest. They're looking for debate and argument of closed minds, not the discussion between open ones.

And guess what? Same goes for theists (at least those like myself) who ask questions of you. In our minds, your view is utterly exploded. Vice versa is true. So actual honest discussion is not even remotely possible because no one on either side is really looking for it. Which, I'll be blunt, makes your objections above likewise less than honest.

I do thank you again for allowing my point.

 

[Cross Reference]

Firstly I have to say that I think that you do have a point here but I'd suggest that most non believers here don't claim to know any ultimate truths but would like rational answers.
When some theistic people claim that in fact they do know the ultimate truth of life the universe and everything then that is perhaps when those who don't think they know will say in so many words "excuse me but how can you possibly know any such thing?"
The bottom line is that it seems some believers don't want to look beyond what they have concluded they know while non-believers look for answers from those who claim they do know and generally don't get them it seems. lain:

How more stupid can thinking be written?

 

[alwight]

How more stupid can thinking be written?

Thank you for not going into any specific detail, it would be too tortuous to unravel I'm sure.
But you can consider me insulted if it make you happy.

 

[Cross Reference]

Thank you for not going into any specific detail, it would be too tortuous to unravel I'm sure.
But you can consider me insulted if it make you happy.

Actually, it's pathetic.

 

[CabinetMaker]

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.

: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.


Nope. We provide evidence.

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

Your assertions are demonstrably false.

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.

 

[alwight]

Thank you but what is that point? Spell it out, please, because your fellows will ignore it, assuming they even see it.

I think that if someone is generally happy with what they believe and it gets them through life then browbeating them and trying to perhaps take away that belief might in many cases be wrong and even cruel.
Cross Reference however I don't mind so much.

That is false and you know it. Some here go out of their way to insult our faith as if it's the most utterly asinine thing ever conceived. They're not drive-by trolls -- they're regulars who have said such for years. Do not pretend they're being objective and dispassionate about it. You've seen them at work: they cannot tell us exactly how Life, The Universe and Everything began but THEY KNOW BEYOND ANY DOUBT the Genesis account is false. Why? Just because. Whenever they do that -- daily -- it is a claim to ultimate truth.

We both have a perspective and I don't lie about what I think I know. I've been here a while now and I still have to walk on eggshells regarding what is deemed to be insulting to faith. If YECs claim to know beyond doubt then it really isn't very good to moan when a similar level of certainty is bounced back at you. In my experience most non believers, outside a heated debate, simply don't often claim to be absolutely certain. But (say) knowing that the age of the universe is measured in billions of years not thousands is something I'm virtually as certain about as makes no difference.
I also have as little doubt that Genesis was never even meant to regarded as a literal narrative as makes no difference.
I very much doubt that the Christian God is true but I don't reject the idea of some divine entity, only not one based in an ancient scripture clearly written by people who filled in the gaps in their knowledge with supernatural suppositions.

a) Because we -- unbelievers all, some formerly harder against God than you are -- chose to taste of what He invites all to taste and see. That invitation is open to all; it is closed only to those who have rejected it, and even then it's closed only on their end.

The same applies to any religious group, if there was only the one religion then I might even be religious myself, that alone would be excellent evidence of something real, but since people have always tended to create their own individual beliefs then I can easily discount them all.

b) Those in hardened unbelief are just as convinced and certain of whatever they believe as we are. That's why they're here, hence the post you replied to.

I don't agree that it is being certain about disbelief, that doesn't really make sense to be certain about something negative, for me it's more about being certain that the other guy's beliefs are untrue.

c) Ask them - and yourself - the exact same thing about your unbelief. Not about why you think the Bible is false, but about how you KNOW that whatever you believe is absolutely and exclusively true.

It's those like you who are proclaiming a "truth", it's the positive claim which needs to be scrutinised not a disbelief.

d) Because their minds are made up a priori that no possible answer we can provide will be satisfactory, thus any questions they ask are, at best. dishonest. They're looking for debate and argument of closed minds, not the discussion between open ones.

That's not how it seems to me, some people simply require at least some rational evidence based reasoning which is not what seems to be available.

And guess what? Same goes for theists (at least those like myself) who ask questions of you. In our minds, your view is utterly exploded. Vice versa is true. So actual honest discussion is not even remotely possible because no one on either side is really looking for it. Which, I'll be blunt, makes your objections above likewise less than honest.

I do thank you again for allowing my point.

I have no problem with people who believe perhaps by tradition, intuition or just spiritual feeling, but that isn't what science is about, and if you want to trump any inconvenient science with an ancient scripture alone then I think you must expect some flak not to mention disbelief.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why are you and others so hell bent on convincing us we're all just hypercranial thumbed primates who accidentally arose from sunlight, water and minerals?

What makes you think I'm trying to convince anyone of anything?

If Genesis is false, then it doesn't matter that we believe it. When we die, we'll never know we were wrong.

If materialism is true, then it still doesn't matter. When you die, you'll never know you were right.

Either way, if you're correct then it doesn't matter. NOTHING matters, ultimately. When we die it's the big Lights Out for us all.

Yes, yes....we're all familiar with Pascal's Wager.

So why are you debating this?

Because it's hilarious.

I'm going to guess that it's not because you're convinced that materialism is true. That's not what's driving you and the others like you. If you really believed it, you wouldn't waste your time. I know I wouldn't.

Awwww, looks like your guess was wrong. Tell him what he's won Johnny! Well Jose, Musterion will be going home with "Theology online, the home version". :chuckle:

What's bugging you is the chance -- and you have admitted that there is a chance, even an outside one -- that Genesis is true.

That's what you can't abide. That is the only thing to explain you arguing for years against (if you're correct) our equivalent to having faith in the Lucky Charms leprechaun.

Either that or this is just a really, really funny subject to engage in.

In other words, you're not fooling anyone. You're clearly unconvinced of what you claim is the truth. That is what drives you to the chronic irrationality of arguing against (if you're correct) the meaningless phantoms of our minds which do not affect you in the slightest.

It shows you are possessed by a form of insanity.

Does that equally apply to those who've been arguing on the other side of the aisle for years? Or does the "arguing for years = insecurity and insanity" pathway only apply to people who disagree with you?

 

[Cross Reference]

I think that if someone is generally happy with what they believe and it gets them through life then browbeating them and trying to perhaps take away that belief might in many cases be wrong and even cruel.
Cross Reference however I don't mind so much.


We both have a perspective and I don't lie about what I think I know. I've been here a while now and I still have to walk on eggshells regarding what is deemed to be insulting to faith. If YECs claim to know beyond doubt then it really isn't very good to moan when a similar level of certainty is bounced back at you. In my experience most non believers simply don't often claim to be absolutely certain, but say knowing that the age of the universe is measured in billions of years not thousands is something I'm virtually as certain about as makes no difference. I also have as little doubt that Genesis was never even meant to regarded as a literal narrative as makes no difference.
I very much doubt that the Christian God is true but I don't reject the idea of some divine entity, only not one based in an ancient scripture clearly written by people who filled in the gaps in their knowledge with supernatural suppositions.



The same applies to any religious group, if there was only the one religion then I might even be religious myself, that alone would be excellent evidence of something real, but since people have always tended to create their own individual beliefs then I can easily discount them all.

I don't agree that it is being certain about disbelief, that doesn't really make sense to be certain about something negative, for me it's more about being certain that the other guy's beliefs are untrue.

It's those like you who are proclaiming a "truth", it's the positive claim which needs to be scrutinised not a disbelief.

That's not how it seems to me, some people simply require at least some rational evidence based reasoning which is not what seems to be available.

I have no problem with people who believe perhaps by tradition, intuition or just spiritual feeling, but that isn't what science is about, and if you want to trump any inconvenient science with an ancient scripture alone then I think you must expect some flak not to mention disbelief.

Evolution isn't what science is about either, at least until there are some proven facts to build upon.

"Water wets, fire burns." As much as some may argue to the contrary, the truth is the truth.

 

[alwight]

Evolution isn't what science is about either, at least until there are some proven facts to build upon.

Would you like to discuss something specific about it? :sherlock:

 

[Cross Reference]

"Water wets, fire burns." As much as some may argue to the contrary, the truth is the truth.

 

[gcthomas]

"Water wets, fire burns."

Vagueness suits your arguments.

Interestingly, water needs help with wetting quote often, since it can bead into droplets a lot. Photographers need to add a wetting agent to it to make the water wet properly. And for doesn't always burn things.

There is simplified and simplistic. Do you always go for simplistic?

 

[Stripe]

Vague or specific, Darwinists will never engage rationally with the challenges to their precious religion.

 

[Cross Reference]

Vagueness suits your arguments.

Interestingly, water needs help with wetting quote often, since it can bead into droplets a lot. Photographers need to add a wetting agent to it to make the water wet properly. And for doesn't always burn things.

There is simplified and simplistic. Do you always go for simplistic?

Only if something more simple is needed.

 

[CabinetMaker]

I think that the idea of "creation science" is a sad commentary on faith. Instead of stating that I believe in a young Earth because I believe Genesis is literally true, people like Stripe and 6days and others feel compelled to instead use the same methods employed by their opponents in an effort to reason with their opponents. To me, it speaks of a weakness in faith because they simply do not believe God's word is enough, they must somehow prove to scientific standards that God did it in 6 days.

 

[Stripe]

I think that the idea of "creation science" is a sad commentary on faith. Instead of stating that I believe in a young Earth because I believe Genesis is literally true, people like Stripe and 6days and others feel compelled to instead use the same methods employed by their opponents in an effort to reason with their opponents. To me, it speaks of a weakness in faith because they simply do not believe God's word is enough, they must somehow prove to scientific standards that God did it in 6 days.

The Bible says "six days." You reject the plain teaching of scripture. So perhaps you should sod off with your accusations of faithlessness. :loser:

 

[alwight]

Only if something more simple is needed.

I think that you provide all the "simple" we need. lain:

 

[Cross Reference]

What is wrong in believing for a young Earth if our own existence is the plumbline. There is no written history beyond Genesis to refute that. Having said that, there is plenty of evidence given from the Earth itself that more than says there was an existence before the Genesis acount to which we should all say, "So what"? What is to be gained by arguing it out?

 

[Cross Reference]

I think that you provide all the "simple" we need. lain:

Apparently, by your inability to understand, that isn't so.