Is creationism science or not?

[CabinetMaker]

LOL!!! :loser:

Did you ever take a debate class? Do you know the rules of debate?

 

[Cross Reference]

Did you ever take a debate class? Do you know the rules of debate?

Neither God or Jesus Christ is ever not up for debate in any form or forum I care to be in..

 

[CabinetMaker]

Neither God or Jesus Christ is ever not up for debate in any form or forum I care to be in..

There is no debate about God or Jesus. We were talking about the scientific process. You did not agree to what I posted but did not appear to have anything that you could actually use to refute it.

 

[KingdomRose]

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?

What do we mean by "creationism"? Are we talking about "Intelligent Design"? Or are we talking about what Young-Earth believers teach? Usually "creationism" involves those so-called Bible believers that say the earth was created in 6 24-hour days. I'll say this: The Bible does NOT say that the earth was created in six 24-hour days, so the Bible is not as stupid as they (the creationists) would have us think.

That is why I don't associate myself with "Creationists," though I do believe in Intelligent Design. The idea of I.D. is scientific, and need not have any religious overtones. What do the scientific facts show?

"Though intelligent design may be compatible with the teachings of various religions, the theory itself is not a 'faith-based' explanation. Intelligent design is an EMPIRICALLY BASED THEORY that uses the scientific method to make its claims. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process, involving (1) observations, (2) hypothesis, (3) experiments, and (4) conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that a natural object that is designed must contain high levels of CSI. Pro-ID scientists perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, in which revers-engineering experiments on biological structures show whether they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that what is irreducibly complex must have been designed. Even if some critics disagree with the conclusions of ID, they cannot deny that the theory has an empirical basis."

(Intelligent Design 101, "Finding Intelligent Design in Nature," pp.74,75, by Casey Luskin.)


So, Intelligent Design is a viable theory, grounded in good science. Its theory is tested using the scientific method, and the conclusion is that there are biological structures that are complex and contain specified information in order to function and therefore must have been designed. Purely a scientific exercise.

:sherlock:

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

The science, knowledge and understanding of the natural world point towards an understanding that something beyond nature, a Creator, used means beyond the natural, beyond what what can be measured scientifically to make all of creation.

 

[KingdomRose]

What do we mean by "creationism"? Are we talking about "Intelligent Design"? Or are we talking about what Young-Earth believers teach? Usually "creationism" involves those so-called Bible believers that say the earth was created in 6 24-hour days. I'll say this: The Bible does NOT say that the earth was created in six 24-hour days, so the Bible is not as stupid as they (the creationists) would have us think.

That is why I don't associate myself with "Creationists," though I do believe in Intelligent Design. The idea of I.D. is scientific, and need not have any religious overtones. What do the scientific facts show?

"Though intelligent design may be compatible with the teachings of various religions, the theory itself is not a 'faith-based' explanation. Intelligent design is an EMPIRICALLY BASED THEORY that uses the scientific method to make its claims. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process, involving (1) observations, (2) hypothesis, (3) experiments, and (4) conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that a natural object that is designed must contain high levels of CSI. Pro-ID scientists perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, in which revers-engineering experiments on biological structures show whether they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that what is irreducibly complex must have been designed. Even if some critics disagree with the conclusions of ID, they cannot deny that the theory has an empirical basis."

(Intelligent Design 101, "Finding Intelligent Design in Nature," pp.74,75, by Casey Luskin.)


So, Intelligent Design is a viable theory, grounded in good science. Its theory is tested using the scientific method, and the conclusion is that there are biological structures that are complex and contain specified information in order to function and therefore must have been designed. Purely a scientific exercise.

:sherlock:

Bump.

 

[6days]

I'll say this: The Bible does NOT say that the earth was created in six 24-hour days

The JW Bible says "You are to labor and do all your work for six days" Ex. 20:9
(Does that mean billions of years? No.)

"For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them,"Ex.20:11
(Does that mean billions of years? No.)

What do the scientific facts show?

God'sWord is always consistent with science.

KR...Your interpretation method of scripture puts secular reasoning over Gods Word. "Scientific facts" shows dead men don't have power over the grave. Do you just pick and choose what to believe? Do you just follow Watchtower teachings no matter what God's Word says?

 

[Jose Fly]

This is when they bring the morons into it? Well some do, I do not. As far as I am concerned the 'I am only a random egg' people and their arbitrary sense of self distinction, their confusion as to whether they are animals, or not, and their pondering of taking animal lives and eating them as moral. All those nihilist morons are not worth trying to persuade. As far as I am concerned, they can all go to hell at their own pace, as long as they leave me alone, which they do not! They, more than Christians, try to make moral rules for other people, such as humans are animals, and all animals are equal.

You stop your relative moralizing and I will not preach my faith to you!

Um......anyone have any idea what the above post, which is apparently a rant against animal rights activists, has to do with this thread? :idunno:

 

[Jose Fly]

What do we mean by "creationism"? Are we talking about "Intelligent Design"? Or are we talking about what Young-Earth believers teach? Usually "creationism" involves those so-called Bible believers that say the earth was created in 6 24-hour days.

"Creationism" includes all of those, and other beliefs that involve creation by a supernatural entity.

That is why I don't associate myself with "Creationists," though I do believe in Intelligent Design. The idea of I.D. is scientific, and need not have any religious overtones.

ID is a form of creationism. It was specifically crafted as a legal ploy to get creationist talking points into science classrooms. After federal courts had ruled against teaching creationism, creationists stripped their arguments of all the overt references to the Bible, the Christian God, and anything else religious and re-branded the whole thing "intelligent design". Fortunately a federal court and the scientific community saw right through that charade. It helped that ID creationists didn't cover their tracks very well. See: "cdesignproponentists"

"Though intelligent design may be compatible with the teachings of various religions, the theory itself is not a 'faith-based' explanation. Intelligent design is an EMPIRICALLY BASED THEORY that uses the scientific method to make its claims. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process, involving (1) observations, (2) hypothesis, (3) experiments, and (4) conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that a natural object that is designed must contain high levels of CSI. Pro-ID scientists perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, in which revers-engineering experiments on biological structures show whether they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that what is irreducibly complex must have been designed. Even if some critics disagree with the conclusions of ID, they cannot deny that the theory has an empirical basis."

(Intelligent Design 101, "Finding Intelligent Design in Nature," pp.74,75, by Casey Luskin.)

Well yeah...that's part of the charade. If you'd like, I can start posting some of the material that was used in the Dover trial to prove beyond doubt that ID is a form of creationism.

So, Intelligent Design is a viable theory, grounded in good science. Its theory is tested using the scientific method, and the conclusion is that there are biological structures that are complex and contain specified information in order to function and therefore must have been designed. Purely a scientific exercise.

Actually, scientifically it's dead.

 

[Greg Jennings]

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

Well boiling water both burns and wets.......what does that make it?



Fire-water, according to your rule

 

[Greg Jennings]

This is when they bring the morons into it? Well some do, I do not. As far as I am concerned the 'I am only a random egg' people and their arbitrary sense of self distinction, their confusion as to whether they are animals, or not, and their pondering of taking animal lives and eating them as moral. All those nihilist morons are not worth trying to persuade. As far as I am concerned, they can all go to hell at their own pace, as long as they leave me alone, which they do not! They, more than Christians, try to make moral rules for other people, such as humans are animals, and all animals are equal.

You stop your relative moralizing and I will not preach my faith to you!

:doh:
Fundamentalists live in a bubble sometimes

 

[Greg Jennings]

Thank you for demonstrating how the "out-of-hand" procedure works in the psuedo science department.

:rotfl:

That's hilarious

 

[Greg Jennings]

LOL!!! :loser:

Do you realize how immature and uneducated you come off as when you do this? For all I know you could have graduated summa *** laude from an Ivy League institution, but based on your "debating skills" I'd more reasonably conclude that you are a fourth grader in their break period

 

[Cross Reference]

Do you realize how immature and uneducated you come off as when you do this? For all I know you could have graduated summa *** laude from an Ivy League institution, but based on your "debating skills" I'd more reasonably conclude that you are a fourth grader in their break period

Debate?? Debate what? Your baseless opinion? Don't be so stupid as to believe your baseless godless opinion is worth any kind of consideration. So with that fact established as true knowledge, why suppose even a "fourth grader" would be interested? I am quite sure he would rather pound sand.

OMT; Evolution demands a beginning. What do you believe the source of it could only have been that it could bring into existence life in a complete and orderly way and do it from nothing in its hand to work with, as true science demands it must have to conclude anything, or even do it within a chaotic order should that have been the case? So out of nothing or chaos, how could anything as we see before us have come about by your theory?

 

[Caino]

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?

It's like alcohol and alcohol-ism. God can be seen as the creator of life and the inhabited worlds of time and space, but hardened speculation about how and when becomes a tradition in various religions. When that speculative theory becomes scripture then adherents of the religion betray their common sense in the light of scientific inquiry. In an attempt to preserve the tradition these stubborn religionist turn off people of today who could find salvation.

 

[Lon]

It's like alcohol and alcohol-ism. God can be seen as the creator of life and the inhabited worlds of time and space, but hardened speculation about how and when becomes a tradition in various religions. When that speculative theory becomes scripture then adherents of the religion betray their common sense in the light of scientific inquiry. In an attempt to preserve the tradition these stubborn religionist turn off people of today who could find salvation.

:think: 1) Sounds a bit like Darwinism indoctrination...
2) You are NOBODY to talk about common sense believing that weirdo Urantia/Alien-seeded religion :dizzy:

 

[Stuu]

OMT; Evolution demands a beginning. What do you believe the source of it could only have been that it could bring into existence life in a complete and orderly way and do it from nothing in its hand to work with, as true science demands it must have to conclude anything, or even do it within a chaotic order should that have been the case? So out of nothing or chaos, how could anything as we see before us have come about by your theory?

I bet you hate it when others are this closed-minded when discussing your religious views with you.

Stuart

 

[Caino]

:think: 1) Sounds a bit like Darwinism indoctrination...
2) You are NOBODY to talk about common sense believing that weirdo Urantia/Alien-seeded religion :dizzy:

Lon, when you grow up you should see if your parents will send you off to collage to get an education. There's a whole other world outside of the false prophets grossly exaggerated, self important history.

 

[Cross Reference]

I bet you hate it when others are this closed-minded when discussing your religious views with you.

Stuart

I hate willful ignorance regardless of what's being discussed.

 

[Silent Hunter]

I hate willful ignorance regardless of what's being discussed.

Then you must be filled with self loathing.