My Creation Science Challenge

[DogmaHunter]

The whole concept is FAITH.

Yep. Nothing but faith.

They look for concrete solid evidence of the scriptures.

The arrogance, right!!!
How DARE people not just believe bronze-aged stories at face value!!!
How DARE people care about being justified in believing certain claims!!!


BTW, please give me a million dollars, or the undetactable 7-headed dragon that lives under my house is going to wreck some serious havock in your home. I know, because I had a personal revelation in which he told me so.

They won't believe unless they can use the science God created, to prove God. If anything is shown to them, they dismiss it.

I've never been shown anything.

I honestly don't know why they ask.

Because "creation scientists" keep claiming that they have scientific evidence for the nonsense they keep repeating.

If Christ Himself were to come down here and enter their house and say to them that He was who He is......they would write it off to a hallucination.

Another mindreader....

Here are some verses that tell us that until you actually have an accepting heart. One that is open to God's ways... you will not understand it, see it, comprehend it. A hardened heart looking for a provable, measurable God is not going to find it. You keep leaning on the wisdom of men when mans wisdom is so weak and incomplete.

I know, I'm using the Bible as a reference. If you cannot accept the Bible, my arguments will never mean anything because it is my foundation for all truth.

You're basically saying that one needs to believe the bible before one can believe the bible. I shouldn't have to explain the fallacy here.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yep, and what's funny is it seems much more magical it all poofed out of thin air than that is was created, yet creation is the Fairy Tale and evolution is "science".

There is no "poofing out of thin air" in biology.
But there is in ex-nihilo creationism.

 

[lesliedellow]

Thanks AV, an excellent video. The title is a bit misleading, but this is something that I was unaware of. I can imagine how creation science will misuse that information.

I suppose they will have to remake Jurrassic Park now.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have never seen anything "come into being".

You won't.

Not ex nihilo anyway.

God instituted the First Law of Thermodynamics in Genesis 2.

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Genesis 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no "poofing out of thin air" in biology.
But there is in ex-nihilo creationism.

Not.

(Unless you're considering the angels part of biology.)

 

[lesliedellow]

You won't.

Not ex nihilo anyway.

God instituted the First Law of Thermodynamics in Genesis 2.

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Genesis 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

You forget the discovery of Penicilin, and General Relativity, which are also clearly set out in the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

I suppose they will have to remake Jurrassic Park now.

You should see the mistakes in that show.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You won't.

Tell it to the creationist I was responding to.

 

[AV1611VET]

You forget the discovery of Penicilin and General Relativity, which are also clearly set out in the Bible.

Ah, yes.

General Relativity.

The one thing [conveniently] left out by scientific methodists who claim the Bible speaks of geocentrism.

 

[AV1611VET]

Tell it to the creationist I was responding to.

He won't either.

 

[JacksBratt]

Yep. Nothing but faith.



The arrogance, right!!!
How DARE people not just believe bronze-aged stories at face value!!!
How DARE people care about being justified in believing certain claims!!!


BTW, please give me a million dollars, or the undetactable 7-headed dragon that lives under my house is going to wreck some serious havock in your home. I know, because I had a personal revelation in which he told me so.



I've never been shown anything.



Because "creation scientists" keep claiming that they have scientific evidence for the nonsense they keep repeating.



Another mindreader....

You're basically saying that one needs to believe the bible before one can believe the bible. I shouldn't have to explain the fallacy here.

I have asked this before so I'll ask it again. What would be a type of "evidence" that you would need in order for you to believe?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have asked this before so I'll ask it again. What would be a type of "evidence" that you would need in order for you to believe?

That question is impossible to answer, because I've never been presented with a god-model sufficiently detailed wich could be validated by evidence.

That's kind of the problem with such unfalsifiable, vague, abstract concepts.

And that's talking about some generic "god" entity.
When going into specific religions, like christianity, we can consider the stories and test them against reality to see if they hold up. And i'm afraid they don't. Adam and eve, Noah and the flood, etc.... Those are a done deal. They are definatly false stories and thus not accurate portrayels of earth's or humanity's history.

Allow me to turn your question around though....

What evidence (or lack thereof) would convince you that what you believe, is actually false?

 

[RickG]

Can we all get back on topic. The challenge is to cite creation science literature that demonstrates original research and data.

 

[lesliedellow]

Can we all get back on topic. The challenge is to cite creation science literature that demonstrates original research and data.

What is the point of asking for something you know full well doesn't exist?

 

[RickG]

What is the point of asking for something you know full well doesn't exist?

Most people, especially those that do not have science backgrounds, do not understand what original research consists of. Most creation science literature is nothing more than opinions and generally consisting of no data whatsoever.

 

[AV1611VET]

Most people, especially those that do not have science backgrounds, do not understand what original research consists of. Most creation science literature is nothing more than opinions and generally consisting of no data whatsoever.

Are you bragging or complaining?

Do you want freedom of speech or censorship?

What exactly is your beef?

 

[lesliedellow]

Most people, especially those that do not have science backgrounds, do not understand what original research consists of. Most creation science literature is nothing more than opinions and generally consisting of no data whatsoever.

So if you don't have a thread containing what you are nominally asking for, because it doesn't exist, it is either going to be a very short thread, or it is going to be a thread full of something else.

 

[RickG]

Are you bragging or complaining?

Neither, attempting to educate.

Do you want freedom of speech or censorship?

Neither, I want scientific discussion on topic.

What exactly is your beef?

Off topic posts.

 

[AV1611VET]

Neither, attempting to educate.

Do you know, Rick, that I went through 12 years of education, then two more years of college, and not once did I see a peer-reviewed article?

I don't even know what one looks like, or how they come about.

Then you show up demanding peer-reviewed articles from us.

I consider that a form of bullying.

 

[Larniavc]

So if you don't have a thread containing what you are nominally asking for, because it doesn't exist, it is either going to be a very short thread, or it is going to be a thread full of something else.

The existence and reaction to this thread does pose the question of why there is no original research being presented and this has the clear implication that Creation Science is not actually a working science.

Many readers may not be aware of that.