Why doesnt creationism need any data?

[DaveISBG]

None has ever been presented to support it.

im curious why the believers dont need any.

They'd surely need some before investing in a get rich scheme.

Or if they are told their kid committed a crime.

Or that the roof needs replacing.

Why not for creationism?

Data for creationism is certainly out there for those that want to find it. Just about every creation website I've visited offer very compelling data for creationism. Anyway believers don't need data for what is obvious to us. We see design in all God's creation, which to us points to the Designer. Take my little snow flake. If someone drew it and hung it on a wall wouldn't you probably think, a design and would you not conclude that an artist drew it or made it on their computer? You wouldn't need data, other than that you recognize it as a design, to come to that conclusion. God said in, His word, His creation can clearly be seen, like the design in my snowflake, and there will be no excuse.

 

[Psudopod]

If you know how flawed are the sciences of Boeing airplanes, you won't dare to take any flight. And that is why airplanes still fall from the sky.

What science is wrong concerning aeroplanes? How many boeings have fallen out of the sky due to a failure of science, rather than a mechanical one?

Basically, I don't trust any doctor and I don't trust any medicine. I take a medicine not because they are scientifically correct (far far away from it), but because it will effectively stop my immediate problem. I pretend that it will do no other damage to me. Don't believe it? Simply read the list of side effects.

So you take medicine not because it will work but because it will work? (Bolding mine)

 

[Greg1234]

None has ever been presented to support it.

im curious why the believers dont need any.

They'd surely need some before investing in a get rich scheme.

Or if they are told their kid committed a crime.

Or that the roof needs replacing.

Why not for creationism?

You're trying to re-establish a known force. You're also discarding knowledge gained through the primary field (theology) while embracing a secondary and supplementary division of inquiry (biology). When done this way, the evidence goes toward Creationism through the process of elimination.

Geologist- Blood clotting is caused by earthquakes

Micro biologist- No it isn't (earthquake theory refuted)

g- So you think you can just refute my theory? Where's the evidence that your enzymes cause blood clotting. Provide geological evidence.

mb- using your eyes you can see that the process conforms to the enzymatic actions.

g- So thats it?

mb-- thats all that can be given

g- So enzymes did it

mb- yes

g- that's not a seismographic explanation

mb- no it isn't

g- this will not get published in a geography journal

mb- no it wont

g- [something about geography doesnt deal with enzymes, gnomes, fairies and other imaginary beings]

mb- they aren't needed, see the perceptible portion of the blood clotting phenomenon explained in Enzymatic Design.

g- fairies did it. Faries are causing the blood clots

mb- you could call them that if you want.

g- All hail the flying spaghetti monster, king of blood clotting

mb- different name, it doesnt matter. Again see Enzymatic Design

g- no

mb- fine

g- new evidence that earthquakes cause blood clotting

mb- this was refuted.

 

[Delphiki]

You're trying to re-establish a known force. You're also discarding knowledge gained through the primary field (theology) while embracing a secondary and supplementary division of inquiry (biology). When done this way, the evidence goes toward Creationism through the process of elimination.

This is word salad for: If you are devoutly religious and put that as higher priority over scientific data, then you believe in creationism.

Well, no duh. That's why in science, scientific data, and not one's religion, is what counts.

Geologist- Blood clotting is caused by earthquakes

Seriously, it boggles the mind how you don't understand why your "analogies" fail so badly.

 

[Split Rock]

Data for creationism is certainly out there for those that want to find it. Just about every creation website I've visited offer very compelling data for creationism.

Only if you consider misinformation and deliberate falsehoods to be "compelling."

Anyway believers don't need data for what is obvious to us. We see design in all God's creation, which to us points to the Designer. Take my little snow flake. If someone drew it and hung it on a wall wouldn't you probably think, a design and would you not conclude that an artist drew it or made it on their computer? You wouldn't need data, other than that you recognize it as a design, to come to that conclusion. God said in, His word, His creation can clearly be seen, like the design in my snowflake, and there will be no excuse.

You put your primary agrument last. Do you really believe that your god designs every single snowflake individually? Rather, snowflakes follow specific laws of physics and chemistry.... not design.

 

[Cabal]

Data for creationism is certainly out there for those that want to find it. Just about every creation website I've visited offer very compelling data for creationism. Anyway believers don't need data for what is obvious to us. We see design in all God's creation, which to us points to the Designer. Take my little snow flake. If someone drew it and hung it on a wall wouldn't you probably think, a design and would you not conclude that an artist drew it or made it on their computer? You wouldn't need data, other than that you recognize it as a design, to come to that conclusion. God said in, His word, His creation can clearly be seen, like the design in my snowflake, and there will be no excuse.

Still making the same fallacious argument? I seem to recall paddling this one a couple of years back.

But you're right, the intelligent designer is obviously Allah.

 

[juvenissun]

What science is wrong concerning aeroplanes? How many boeings have fallen out of the sky due to a failure of science, rather than a mechanical one?



So you take medicine not because it will work but because it will work? (Bolding mine)

You do not understand what I said. Give you an example:

Apollo 11 landed on the moon: It is a success of engineering, but according to science, it should not happen. And you can see why. There is no lunar landing after the Apollo project.

By the way, a sincere advice to you: do not trust the doctor and do not trust the medicine. The science between them and you could be bad. And there is always alternatives.

 

[Cabal]

Apollo 11 landed on the moon: It is a success of engineering, but according to science, it should not happen.

Shouldn't it? Where did science claim it shouldn't?

 

[juvenissun]

Whenyou dont have data, attitude will do i guess. i think you have indirectly explained why you dont even care that not one data point supports creationism.

If I use all the data to defeat evolution (not hard at all), then creation wins by default.

 

[sfs]

If I use all the data to defeat evolution (not hard at all), then creation wins by default.

So why have you been holding back all this time on defeating evolution, if it is so easy?

 

[juvenissun]

Shouldn't it? Where did science claim it shouldn't?

Have you heard that those astronauts were pure lucky to make themselves back to earth?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

If I use all the data to defeat evolution (not hard at all), then creation wins by default.

I'm not sure if you're serious when you say that "creation wins by default," but that's how science works. It's not enough to prove something wrong, but you must have adequate evidence to support alternative claims. Creationism has not done this. I have always said that I'm not emotionally attached to ToE, other than the fact that it's wonderful in it's diversity, but I would accept whatever theory is best supported by the facts. Unfortunately for cdesign proponentsists, there is no such alternative.

What would your response to my statement, "The San Francisco Giants might be the World Series Champions, but I think the Moscow High School Falcons have a better baseball team, and could beat the Giants any day of the week" be? Just because I make a claim, doesn't necessarily make it so. That's where your hardwork begins, and unfortunately, cdesign proponentsists don't do the necessary work.

 

[Split Rock]

If I use all the data to defeat evolution (not hard at all),

Please do so. We'll wait... like we have been since the late 60's.

then creation wins by default.

No it doesn't. The fact that you feel the need to rely on a negative argument shows just how weak your position really is.

 

[juvenissun]

So why have you been holding back all this time on defeating evolution, if it is so easy?

They don't admit it. What can I do?
They have tried (to prove evolution) for decades and the situation did not improve a single bit, but is getting worse.

Hey, I recently heard that we are partially Neanderthals. Is that new?

 

[Split Rock]

Have you heard that those astronauts were pure lucky to make themselves back to earth?

Pure luck? hardly.

 

[Split Rock]

They don't admit it. What can I do?
They have tried (to prove evolution) for decades and the situation did not improve a single bit, but is getting worse.

He asked why you haven't proven evolution wrong. If we missed this seminal moment, please refresh us on it. A Nobel Prize awaits your success.

 

[juvenissun]

Please do so. We'll wait... like we have been since the late 60's.



No it doesn't. The fact that you feel the need to rely on a negative argument shows just how weak your position really is.

Some math proofs can only be worked out in a negative way. It is logically valid.

 

[Split Rock]

Some math proofs can only be worked out in a negative way. It is logically valid.

So where is this "math proof" that falsifies the biological theory of evolution?

 

[juvenissun]

He asked why you haven't proven evolution wrong. If we missed this seminal moment, please refresh us on it. A Nobel Prize awaits your success.

The proof is, in fact, everywhere. Find a journal article decades old and read its conclusion.

You may say: they did not know.
But I say: the conclusion was wrong !!

I have a friend (atheist), he gave up research 10 years ago. Why? because he discovered that doing scientific research is simply another way of make living. No more than that. Well, a little bit over exaggerated, but is mostly true.

I still do research, not because of science, but because of God. Otherwise, I would quit too.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm not sure if you're serious when you say that "creation wins by default," but that's how science works. It's not enough to prove something wrong, but you must have adequate evidence to support alternative claims. Creationism has not done this. I have always said that I'm not emotionally attached to ToE, other than the fact that it's wonderful in it's diversity, but I would accept whatever theory is best supported by the facts. Unfortunately for cdesign proponentsists, there is no such alternative.

What would your response to my statement, "The San Francisco Giants might be the World Series Champions, but I think the Moscow High School Falcons have a better baseball team, and could beat the Giants any day of the week" be? Just because I make a claim, doesn't necessarily make it so. That's where your hardwork begins, and unfortunately, cdesign proponentsists don't do the necessary work.

In a sense, you are right.
So the only way is to prove that everything evolution says is not correct. Every research work which is used to support evolution, is also saying that evolution is wrong. It depends on how do you read it.