Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Then why do all of the professional creationist sites require their workers to abandon the scientific method?Creationists are just as enthusiastic about science as evolutionists.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Then why do all of the professional creationist sites require their workers to abandon the scientific method?Creationists are just as enthusiastic about science as evolutionists.
Thank you for the points you have made. However, there is mass deception in the evolutionary area as well (remember the peppered moths, for example).
Actually, I think that creationists are strengthening Christianity, rather than weakening it, .....
... because if you start taking apart the Bible and saying that some parts can be trusted, while others cannot, how do you decide which is truth and which is not? In the following passage, note how scripture is described: "2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." [my emphasis added] If we cannot trust ALL scripture, then doesn't that indicate that God is being deceptive/economical with the truth?
The fossil record – it doesn’t support evoluti on as there should be millions of transitional forms, rather than just a handful of highly-contested examples. Even Darwin admitted that the fossil record didn’t support his theory, but he assumed that in time, further discoveries would confirm his theory. It hasn’t.
Actually there is. It is called "gravity".I have a problem with people using sites that order their workers to abandon the scientific method in a scientific argument. And please note that they make an error almost immediately, they say that "evolutionists" claim that the first stars appeared sometime after the Big Bang. That would be wrong. Evolution is a biological science when the word is not used with any qualifiers. They mean cosmologists or astronomers. If they get something that simple wrong how good can the rest of their argument be. If you want detailed answers go as Essential Saltes here.
It's quite true, I'm not a scientist, but I would say that strength in numbers doesn't necessarily equate to truth. There are scientists on both sides of the argument who are much more clever than I could ever hope to be and this is the tragedy of it all in that the general public don't know who to believe.
Perhaps the time has come for ALL scientists, whatever their beliefs, to come together and debate these issues.
This is an often-quoted fallacy, that belief in evolution is required to advance scientific discovery. It's nothing of the kind. Historical science has nothing to do with the science that made computers or put men on the moon.
A single flood would have produced many layers of rock. I have seen experimental evidence to support this. Digging vertically down into a rock layers therefore does not represent real time, since the rock layers would not have been formed that way. Dating is often a circular argument (the fossils used to date the rock layers and vice versa), so it not really that useful.
[my emphasis] How so?I could not agree with Papias more. One does not need to deny reality to be a Christian. And creationism does not seem to be a worldwide belief of Christians. It may be a majority belief among Christians in the U.S., but I doubt if that is the case worldwide. I constantly see creationists claim that evolution being true would "make Jesus a liar". Strangely enough they cannot see that creationism being true would make God an even bigger liar.
I've seen them both!I would recommend watching the second DVD by Spike Psarris for further explanations about the many problems with the naturalistic interpretation for the origin of the universe, including why gravity would not be a valid explanation for the formation of the first stars.
How do you know that sites are "order their workers to abandon the scientific method?" Also, I think they use the word "evolution" in the general sense (atheist works on subjects relating to the cosmos do exactly the same thing). The DVD by Spike Psarris actually alludes to this right at the beginning.
Just because anyone is "the laughing stock" doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong. The crowds mocked Jesus, but if they had known whom they were mocking, their laughter would have stopped immediately.
The penicillin example is not comparing like with like. The effects of penicillin can be tested; theories about origins will always remain theories because it is not repeatable.
On Darwin, in Chapter 9 he says this, "But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." Where are all these so-called intermediate forms (please name some so that I can check them out)?
On God - He doesn't need to be created as He is eternal. He created time/space/matter (which Einstein showed to be inter-dependant) so doesn't need a cause.
Noah's flood - I'd be interested to hear how this has been "debunked." I would need to research you answers as I'm not a flood expert.
Invalid sources - I don't agree. I haven't seen any hard evidence to convince me that the sources I have used are in any way invalid.
I would like to see some scientists of opposite beliefs debate the scientists who produced "Evolution's Achilles Heels" to see which ideas seem the most credible. It would make for fascinating viewing. Why doesn't someone try to set that up? It would be very helpful for the public to see this subject being brought out into the open, rather than separate camps sniping at each other as sadly, is often the case. No-one need get upset as I'm sure that everyone, whether creationist or evolutionist, just wants to get to the truth, wherever possible.
There is no scientific evidence for creationism. Not one whit. And to understand this you must be able to understand what scientific evidence is. And this is the fault of creationists. The fact is when you begin to understand science is that it supports the standard scientific model and only that. There is a reason for this. When scientists find out that they are wrong they change their minds. Therefore the standard scientific model is always changing slightly, always improving slightly. Creationists have to assume and answer and try to force science to fit in.[my emphasis] How so?
People laughed at Jesus. They laughed at Galileo. But they also laughed at Bozo The Clown.
How so?
But we've learn't a lot since then and the more knowledge we have, the more it confirms the impossibility of evolution.
Just watch the film - there are apparently plenty.
Or are these people all liars as has been suggested? Why would they lie? What could possibly be their motive? Why would Ken Ham build a creation museum and now a life-size Ark if he wasn't convinced of the truth of scripture?
But we've learn't a lot since then and the more knowledge we have, the more it confirms the impossibility of evolution.