Is Creationism actually science?

[dlamberth]

How did they get it so right?

Right for those ancient times. But not so right with our knowledge of today.

 

[dlamberth]

In addition, if there is a god who created then surely that god's account of creation is creation itself.

And that account, as the Earth itSelf has shown us is through the process of Evolution.

 

[Estrid]

Science is constantly in a flux. Everything taught to me about the human cell in high school and college science courses in the 1950s turns out to be pathetically wrong.

And science lies: about when life begins in the womb; about gender reassignment; about Darwinism, etc., etc.

Creationism was considered science for the better part of two millennium and it offers consistent answers and not the ever-changing consensus of the 'modern' scientific community.

The falsehoods lie thick about in your first two sentences,
no need to read further for more.
Or would, if you knew better and were not sincere
in the sad ignorance expressed.

 

[adderbolt]

Right for those ancient times. But not so right with our knowledge of today.

You have as much right to be wrong

The falsehoods lie thick about in your first two sentences,
no need to read further for more.
Or would, if you knew better and were not sincere
in the sad ignorance expressed.

There is a certain sadness permeating this thread.

 

[Speedwell]

You have as much right to be wrong


There is a certain sadness permeating this thread.

You mean the part about telling fibs for Jesus?

 

[adderbolt]

Telling Fibs for Jesus

Girl's punk band?

 

[Mr Laurier]

How did they get it so right?

By not getting anything right.
The people who wrote the bible, were barely literate. They were two or three generations removed from nomadic herdsmen, still trying to figure out how to live in settled communities. They were borrowing heavily from the mythologies of the peoples they suddenly found themselves ruling over. Trying to imitate the more advanced civilizations that had fallen to famine just a century earlier. They desperately needed a mythos that let them be better than their new subjects. So they made one up.

 

[renniks]

Edgar a creationist wrote at Peaceful Science

"Creationism is actually science. By now, empirical science has made it perfectly obvious that viable life is so functionally complex that it could not possibly have happened by chance.
In effect, Abiogenesis-by-Chance has officially been declared a superstition - not to mention, an insult to human intelligence.

Faced with the scientific impossibility of chance, the only rational - and therefore, scientific - explanation for the origin of life is design, or more specifically, divine creation. Voila! … Creation is science. Get used to it."​

Of course. And as it becomes increasingly evident that a Creator was involved, one would hope that this would eventually be universally accepted.

 

[Speedwell]

Of course. And as it becomes increasingly evident that a Creator was involved, one would hope that this would eventually be universally accepted.

That may be, and we can hope and pray that it will come to pass. But a literal interpretation of Genesis will remain the eccentric belief of a few minority Protestant sects.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Eye of the beholder. The Bible pretends nothing.

I said (YE) creationism pretends to be science. Plenty of people reject pseudoscientific creationism, but accept the Bible.

 

[dlamberth]

You have as much right to be wrong

I don't believe the Earth is wrong in what it's showing us.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science has opened the window into a new Creation story that has become completely relevant to the Earth and life on it.

Yup ... and in came all sorts of new cooties.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope.
The Biblical Creation story is how an ancient middle-eastern people understood their cosmology.

It's also how a modern North American people see [their] cosmology as well.

(Okay ... some of us North Americans.)

 

[dlamberth]

Wrong. Its Jewish account of creation.

Knowing how religions are build on the beliefs of previous religions, I suspect the Biblical account of Creation is pre-Jewish in nature.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't believe the Earth is wrong in what it's showing us.

You mean that it is rocking and reeling in pain?

 

[dlamberth]

It's also how a modern North American people see [their] cosmology as well.

(Okay ... some of us North Americans.)

In the mean time, the old and ancient middle-Eastern Creation story is being replaced by a new one that reflects what we actually see in the Earth and Cosmos.

 

[Speedwell]

Knowing how religions are build on the beliefs of previous religions, I suspect the Biblical account of Creation is pre-Jewish in nature.

And that was the point of it, really--to spin familiar creation stories with a new theology.

 

[dlamberth]

You mean that it is rocking and reeling in pain?

More that the Earth is alive and vibrant with Life and Creativity.

 

[AV1611VET]

In the mean time, the old and ancient middle-Eastern Creation story is being replaced by a new one that reflects what we actually see in the Earth and Cosmos.

Do you see in the cosmos, for example, Gemini as twins, or one and the same person?

 

[AV1611VET]

More that the Earth is alive and vibrant with Life and Creativity.

Oh ... only the dead rock and reel in pain?