What was the #1 MOST SIGNIFICANT DISCOVERY of "creation science" ?

[MrsLurking]

What has been the #1 MOST SIGNIFICANT DISCOVERY of "creation science" ?

How was that #1 scientific breakthrough of creation science achieved in terms of methodology? How did unique "creation science" methodologies facilitate discoveries which had eluded other scientists working in that same field?

(I would be pleased to see a LIST of such creation science discoveries but thought that focusing on the #1 most significant discovery would make the question more focused and manageable.)

 

[MrsLurking]

If "creation science" is TRULY science, surely this last half century of loud emphasis on creation science from various young earth creationist ministries would have HAD to have produced many scientific discoveries. Can't anyone name at least one?

 

[Split Rock]

If "creation science" is TRULY science, surely this last half century of loud emphasis on creation science from various young earth creationist ministries would have HAD to have produced many scientific discoveries. Can't anyone name at least one?

Lets see....

1. Piltdown Man was a fraud! (film at 11:00)
2. Haeckel's embryos still being used in some textbooks.
3. The revelation that the peppered moths were glued on to tree trunks for a photo, even though the authors never claimed otherwise.
4. Specified complex information.
5. Irreducible complexity.

 

[Delphiki]

You don't even have to ask for that much. How about a single practical application of creation science?

For example, a lot of science-based medicine relies a lot on evolutionary theory. Your annual flu shot is an example of a practical application of evolutionary biology.

What about "creation science" (giggle)? What's that given us?

 

[Split Rock]

You don't even have to ask for that much. How about a single practical application of creation science?

For example, a lot of science-based medicine relies a lot on evolutionary theory. Your annual flu shot is an example of a practical application of evolutionary biology.

But that's "microevolution," so its OK.

 

[juvenissun]

What has been the #1 MOST SIGNIFICANT DISCOVERY of "creation science" ?

Bible messages are scientifically accurate.

 

[juvenissun]

You don't even have to ask for that much. How about a single practical application of creation science?

For example, a lot of science-based medicine relies a lot on evolutionary theory. Your annual flu shot is an example of a practical application of evolutionary biology.

What about "creation science" (giggle)? What's that given us?

You are barking up a wrong tree.

Creation science is used to discover, not to apply.

--------

Virus changed does not mean they evolved. Can you predict the next flu virus based on the past one? Don't be ridiculous.

 

[juvenissun]

If "creation science" is TRULY science, surely this last half century of loud emphasis on creation science from various young earth creationist ministries would have HAD to have produced many scientific discoveries. Can't anyone name at least one?

Many "new" discoveries fit what the Bible says.
Need examples?

 

[MrsLurking]

Many "new" discoveries fit what the Bible says.
Need examples?

Quit changing the subject!

The OP question isn't that difficult: Name the #1 MOST SIGNIFICANT SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY brought about "creation science".

I did NOT ask:

1) Whether the BIBLE harmonizes with Science.

2) If science affirms something in the Bible.

I asked for the RESULTS of "creation science" research. If "creation science" is TRULY SCIENCE it will produce important new scientific discoveries! I simply asked you to name the most significant one.

(I'll even be impressed if you can name ANYTHING, whether significant or not!)


[I think I hear crickets coming.......]

 

[juvenissun]

Quit changing the subject!

The OP question isn't that difficult: Name the #1 MOST SIGNIFICANT SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY brought about "creation science".

I did NOT ask:

1) Whether the BIBLE harmonizes with Science.

2) If science affirms something in the Bible.

I asked for the RESULTS of "creation science" research. If "creation science" is TRULY SCIENCE it will produce important new scientific discoveries! I simply asked you to name the most significant one.

(I'll even be impressed if you can name ANYTHING, whether significant or not!)


[I think I hear crickets coming.......]

I did not change the question. I pointed out that your question is upside down.

The creation science research shows our scientific knowledge FITS the Bible message. That is a great and unique achievement of creation science.

 

[MrsLurking]

I did not change the question. I pointed out that your question is upside down.

The creation science research shows our scientific knowledge FITS the Bible message. That is a great and unique achievement of creation science.

So in other words, you've just now agreed that "creation science" is not TRUE SCIENCE. As you said, it doesn't apply the scientific method to explore and discover new explanations for the evidence. You simply described "creation science" as a religious studies exercise in demonstrating that the Bible is not in conflict with science.

So you agree with the Dover Trial decision. "Creation science" is not science and doesn't conduct science and discover new things. It simply reaffirms religious beliefs and confidence in the Bible.

Thank you. However, the original OP still remains unanswered---because many creationists do insist that "creation science" is true science and discovers new things.

 

[Split Rock]

Virus changed does not mean they evolved. Can you predict the next flu virus based on the past one? Don't be ridiculous.

Sorry, but that's what we call "evolution." Sorry if you still don't understand what it is you are arguing against here...

 

[MrsLurking]

Sorry, but that's what we call "evolution." Sorry if you still don't understand what it is you are arguing against here...

Wow, his denial post was just plain sad. (If I thought it would help, I'd buy him a clue. It is probably the only way he'll ever get one.)

 

[mark kennedy]

So in other words, you've just now agreed that "creation science" is not TRUE SCIENCE. As you said, it doesn't apply the scientific method to explore and discover new explanations for the evidence. You simply described "creation science" as a religious studies exercise in demonstrating that the Bible is not in conflict with science.

There is a reason the creation is the first line of the Bible and the Nicene Creed. Of course God being Creator is religious, what else could it be.

So you agree with the Dover Trial decision. "Creation science" is not science and doesn't conduct science and discover new things. It simply reaffirms religious beliefs and confidence in the Bible.

All that happened in Dover is they applied the Lemon test, found Intelligent Design to be religions and it was out. The Judge even said the court had no opinion about whether or not it was true. The argument was that ID was not religious, the court decided that because the Intelligent Designer must be God it's religious.

Don't you get tired of being wrong every time?

 

[Delphiki]

You are barking up a wrong tree.

Creation science is used to discover, not to apply.

Well that's utterly useless, then.

 

[juvenissun]

Well that's utterly useless, then.

It is very useful or even critical at the top research level. However, this is only a side effect.

And it is very useful in building up faith. This is the main purpose.

 

[juvenissun]

Sorry, but that's what we call "evolution." Sorry if you still don't understand what it is you are arguing against here...

If so, then evolution goes nowhere. Bad idea.

 

[juvenissun]

So in other words, you've just now agreed that "creation science" is not TRUE SCIENCE. As you said, it doesn't apply the scientific method to explore and discover new explanations for the evidence. You simply described "creation science" as a religious studies exercise in demonstrating that the Bible is not in conflict with science.

So you agree with the Dover Trial decision. "Creation science" is not science and doesn't conduct science and discover new things. It simply reaffirms religious beliefs and confidence in the Bible.

Thank you. However, the original OP still remains unanswered---because many creationists do insist that "creation science" is true science and discovers new things.

Creation science is better than "true science". It gives conclusion only, correct scientific conclusion ahead of time. So, the creation science functions as a guide to the true science.

 

[KWCrazy]

Creation science is useful in refuting the lies of evolutionists. Scientists who do not pray at the altar of Darwinism will not get their work published in "evolution only" publications, so it gives them a platform to continue thier research. For example, when carbon 14 appers in coal that is supposedly 300 million years old, or when metal gears are found embedded in coal we would never heat about the discovery via old earth only publications. It's like trying to get truth out of government approved media.

 

[AirPo]

What has been the #1 MOST SIGNIFICANT DISCOVERY of "creation science" ?

How was that #1 scientific breakthrough of creation science achieved in terms of methodology? How did unique "creation science" methodologies facilitate discoveries which had eluded other scientists working in that same field?

(I would be pleased to see a LIST of such creation science discoveries but thought that focusing on the #1 most significant discovery would make the question more focused and manageable.)

That the flood never happened.