Creation in the realm of science comes in as the hypothesis. Trying to determine from the predictions (Genesis 1) to what we find in our universe (Science).Where does the word Creation come in then?
That's kinda what I thought.
I'll say it again:
Creationism is not science.
Science can get lost.
If anyone disagrees with me -- let's discuss it.
Unlike some though, let's do it like adults.
Why stop with the bible? all the religions have a creation myth, will your reasoning work for them as well? I think it might.Creation in the realm of science comes in as the hypothesis. Trying to determine from the predictions (Genesis 1) to what we find in our universe (Science).
What seems to confuse you?Sorry, I don't see how you test your hypothesis.
No -- let me make this perfectly clear:I think AV that you get caught up in the philosophy of science rather than the actual science.
Then please feel free to show us the data that says God created this universe ex nihilo, raising its level of mass/energy from zero to its current amount over a period of six days.Oncedeceived said:Science only is that data that we can discover,
It certainly can be accomplished. Is there any scientific evidence that the universe came from breaking into two parts from a cosmic egg? Is there any scientific evidence to support for whata
Why stop with the bible? all the religions have a creation myth, will your reasoning work for them as well?
No -- let me make this perfectly clear:
In the light of creationism, SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE.
That means it can take its philosophy & actuality with it.Then please feel free to show us the data that says God created this universe ex nihilo, raising its level of mass/energy from zero to its current amount over a period of six days.
And I'll even greatly simplify it.
Just use Day One of the creation week (i.e., just the earth -- not the whole universe) and show me exactly what discovery you would test.
So no change then?Typical Evo response...... I guess the pictures of actual existing monstrosities of engineering are "shopped" too.
When I was young I used to just put my hands over my ears and yell LALALALALLALALALAA!
You seem to be agreeing with me all of a sudden.In the light of creationism, science MUST take a hike.
No -- let me make this perfectly clear:
In the light of creationism, SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE.
That means it can take its philosophy & actuality with it.Then please feel free to show us the data that says God created this universe ex nihilo, raising its level of mass/energy from zero to its current amount over a period of six days.
And I'll even greatly simplify it.
Just use Day One of the creation week (i.e., just the earth -- not the whole universe) and show me exactly what discovery you would test.
I'm not interested in what we don't have.Lets take the Earth, we don't have the earliest crust from its creation.
Excuse me, but I tried to make this as simple as I could by paring creationism down to Day One -- where the earth is the only thing in existence with mass.Oncedeceived said:There is no direct way to date the sun,
There were hundreds of discoveries of groups of giant human skeletons throughout the 19th century all over North America. Ranging from 7 to 12 feet tall. These discoveries were routinely reported in the mainstream news (all the original newspapers clipping are freely available online), and official archaeological teams and museums like the Smithsonian were even involved in some of the discoveries. Apparently some were even on display in museums at one time but have since been 'misplaced'. It's pretty amazing when you see all the historical evidence. A world of archaeological discovery that was considered relatively mundane and commonplace little more than a century or so ago just seemingly vaporized into thin air (coincidentally about the same time Evolution theory was rising to prominence) and is now talked about like it is Bigfoot or UFOs.
Richard Dewhurst did a good job of compiling all the information if anyone's interested.
I'm saying that there is no scientific evidence that provides falsification to the earth being in existence first.I'm not interested in what we don't have.
I'm interested in these "discoveries" that can supposedly be tested in a lab to confirm creationism.Excuse me, but I tried to make this as simple as I could by paring creationism down to Day One -- where the earth is the only thing in existence with mass.
Are you trying to complicate it now by factoring in the sun, which didn't come into existence until Day Four?
Lets take the Earth, we don't have the earliest crust from its creation.
I'm saying that there is no scientific evidence that provides falsification to the earth being in existence first.
That doesn't sound like a hard number or anything.
60%? 80%? 95%?
Or is the number
your opinion?
Creation in the realm of science comes in as the hypothesis. Trying to determine from the predictions (Genesis 1) to what we find in our universe (Science).
We do have meteorites which mark the beginning of planet formation in our solar system. Meteorites consistently date to 4.5 billion years.
"There are 3 important things to know about the ages in Table 1. The first is that each meteorite was dated by more than one laboratory — Allende by 2 laboratories, Guarena by 2 laboratories, and St Severin by four laboratories. This pretty much eliminates any significant laboratory biases or any major analytical mistakes. The second thing is that some of the results have been repeated using the same technique, which is another check against analytical errors. The third is that all three meteorites were dated by more than one method — two methods each for Allende and Guarena, and four methods for St Severin. This is extremely powerful verification of the validity of both the theory and practice of radiometric dating. In the case of St Severin, for example, we have 4 different natural clocks (actually 5, for the Pb-Pb method involves 2 different radioactive uranium isotopes), each running at a different rate and each using elements that respond to chemical and physical conditions in much different ways. And yet, they all give the same result to within a few percent. Is this a remarkable coincidence? Scientists have concluded that it is not; it is instead a consequence of the fact that radiometric dating actually works and works quite well. Creationists who wants to dispute the conclusion that primitive meteorites, and therefore the solar system, are about 4.5 Ga old certainly have their work cut out for them!"
http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work