There is no Creation Debate

[dad]

There is no creation debate. What we have is science showing how limited it is in trying to talk of creation. The debate is all about the misconceptions, limitations, and changing fables of science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I thought that dad was right for once. He is right that there is no debate, but that is only because his side lost over 100 years ago. Now all we have is rather foolish denial.

 

[SkyWriting]

There is no creation debate. What we have is science showing how limited it is in trying to talk of creation. The debate is all about the misconceptions, limitations, and changing fables of science.

Science is limited to looking forward in time.
This is nailed into place by the scientific method.

Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute -
Cooking Up the Scientific Method
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/2009/3/09.03.02.x.html

Harvard - The Nature of Scientific Thinking
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/smg/Website/UCP/pdfs/NatureofScienceUnit.pdf

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science is limited to looking forward in time.
This is nailed into place by the scientific method.

Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute -
Cooking Up the Scientific Method
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/2009/3/09.03.02.x.html

Harvard - The Nature of Scientific Thinking
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/smg/Website/UCP/pdfs/NatureofScienceUnit.pdf

Where did you get that idea from? Certainly from neither of the two articles that you linked.

 

[myownmynativeland]

There is no creation debate. What we have is science showing how limited it is in trying to talk of creation. The debate is all about the misconceptions, limitations, and changing fables of science.

.......changing fables of scienctism would I think be more correct. Science properly understood and used is a very strong tool for understanding the universe. Many scientists turn the tool into a 'religion' which amounts to atheism and is all about promoting the 'faith' no matter what.

 

[Subduction Zone]

.......changing fables of scienctism would I think be more correct. Science properly understood and used is a very strong tool for understanding the universe. Many scientists turn the tool into a 'religion' which amounts to atheism and is all about promoting the 'faith' no matter what.

Since atheism is not a religion it seems that you are merely ranting against a concept that you disagree with.

When I see what looks like an ad-hom attack I have to wonder about the motives of the poster. "Sceintism" is almost always a false charge by those that do not understand science against others that do.

What do you mean by " Science properly understood and used is a very strong tool for understanding the universe. "? Science properly understood has refuted pretty much all of the first two books of the Bible. That of course does not mean that there is no God. It only means the obvious, that there are flaws in the Bible. Now if I wanted to be nasty I cold point out that many Christians make a false idol of the Bible and call that "biblism". But let's try to be reasonable here.

 

[Hieronymus]

I thought that dad was right for once. He is right that there is no debate, but that is only because his side lost over 100 years ago. Now all we have is rather foolish denial.

Then you need to be explained why it is that creation can not be debunked.

First off:
Nobody knows how exactly living nature as we know it came about.

Therefore it is always possible that living nature is created.

Even if there would be a theory as to how it MIGHT have come about without intelligence, skills and (thus) a purpose, you can never state it was not created, you can only state it COULD have come about accidentally (the opposite of purposeful).

Now then, the question remaining is probably off-topic, but:
Is there a naturalistic theory that explains all we see today?

 

[myownmynativeland]

Since atheism is not a religion it seems that you are merely ranting against a concept that you disagree with.

When I see what looks like an ad-hom attack I have to wonder about the motives of the poster. "Sceintism" is almost always a false charge by those that do not understand science against others that do.

What do you mean by " Science properly understood and used is a very strong tool for understanding the universe. "? Science properly understood has refuted pretty much all of the first two books of the Bible. That of course does not mean that there is no God. It only means the obvious, that there are flaws in the Bible. Now if I wanted to be nasty I cold point out that many Christians make a false idol of the Bible and call that "biblism". But let's try to be reasonable here.

LMAO you seem to be a very 'faithful' evangelical atheist

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Many scientists turn the tool into a 'religion'

A somewhat weird religion at that in some cases, such as the idea of an infinite number of multiverses.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Is there a naturalistic theory that explains all we see today?

If there is, I've yet to hear one.

 

[Hieronymus]

A somewhat weird religion at that in some cases, such as the idea of an infinite number of multiverses.

That's just desperation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you need to be explained why it is that creation can not be debunked.

First off:
Nobody knows how exactly living nature as we know it came about.

Therefore it is always possible that living nature is created.

Even if there would be a theory as to how it MIGHT have come about without intelligence, skills and (thus) a purpose, you can never state it was not created, you can only state it COULD have come about accidentally (the opposite of purposeful).

Now then, the question remaining is probably off-topic, but:
Is there a naturalistic theory that explains all we see today?

Certain claims can be debunked. If you claim that life was created only 6,000 years ago or so and started with one man and one woman that claim can be debunked. If you claim that there was a worldwide flood, that claim can be debunked. If you claim that life is not a product of evolution that claim can be debunked. When you make a specific claim those claims can often be refuted. What are your beliefs? I may be able to explain to you how they have been refuted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LMAO you seem to be a very 'faithful' evangelical atheist

Why would you believe that such a thing exists? Do you even know what atheism is?

 

[Hieronymus]

Why would you believe that such a thing exists? Do you even know what atheism is?

It's a belief-system.
You even have prophets and 'scripture'.

 

[Hieronymus]

Certain claims can be debunked. If you claim that life was created only 6,000 years ago or so and started with one man and one woman that claim can be debunked.

That's what they have you believe.
You're probably unaware (because it's not popular(ized)) of the creationist view based on the same scientific evidence mankind has gathered.

If you claim that there was a worldwide flood, that claim can be debunked.

Same answer.

If you claim that life is not a product of evolution that claim can be debunked.

That's just bluff.
Same answer applies though.

When you make a specific claim those claims can often be refuted.

That depends on many things.

What are your beliefs?

I believe truth is true.
Iḿ trying to find out what is and what is not true, or likely / plausible / possible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's a belief-system.
You even have prophets and 'scripture'.

Nope, try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's what they have you believe.
You're probably unaware (because it's not popular(ized)) of the creationist view based on the same scientific evidence mankind has gathered.

Most creationists have no understanding of what scientific evidence is. There is no scientific evidence that I know of that supports creationism. There is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

Same answer.That's just bluff.

Why do you make such foolish claims? It only shows your ignorance. The simple fact that ice floats tells us that there was no global flood.

Same answer applies though.That depends on many things.I believe truth is true.
Iḿ trying to find out what is and what is not true, or likely / plausible / possible.

If you are really trying to find out what is "true" then you need to drop your bias. You need to learn what evidence is and how to use it.

 

[Hieronymus]

Most creationists have no understanding of what scientific evidence is.

Most PEOPLE don't.

There is no scientific evidence that I know of that supports creationism.

Then why don't you educate yourself before you come here boasting and scoffing?
(not just you).

There is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

There is even more scientific evidence to show it is impossible or at least very very very unlikely.
Creation is the logical view.
Otherwise you have to believe in dead unconscious things outperforming humanity by lightyears.

 

[Hieronymus]

Nope, try again.

Don't make me spoon-feed you.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

It's a belief-system.
You even have prophets and 'scripture'.

I am unaware of this scripture and these prophets. Could you please elaborate because I have never heard of such things.