Creationism Is Testable

[AV1611VET]

Glad we have that cleared up then.

Cleared what up? you're not making any sense -- (to me).

It is one of the lamest ways to prove creationism and were better off without it.

I wasn't aware creationism could be proven?

Those who look for proof of creationism are like those who [probably] went looking for Enoch after he disappeared.

I'm not really sure what you're harping about here.

There is also no independent case for creationism.

So? what's your point?

 

[Matthijs]

I think I misinterpreted an earlier post of yours and then went on a merry chase after something that was not in fact there mate

 

[AV1611VET]

I think I misinterpreted an earlier post of yours and then went on a merry chase after something that was not in fact there mate

Not a problem --

 

[mzungu]

Those who look for proof of creationism are like those who [probably] went looking for Enoch after he disappeared.

This is possibly the sanest post ever made by a creationist and I admit I totally agree with the above statement.

Creationism is faith based and faith and science do not mix. I only wish creationists actually stopped trying to dismiss science and stuck to their faith.

It would make for a less complicated world and God knows we need a little simplicity nowadays!

 

[AV1611VET]

This is possibly the sanest post ever made by a creationist and I admit I totally agree with the above statement.

Creationism is faith based and faith and science do not mix. I only wish creationists actually stopped trying to dismiss science and stuck to their faith.

It would make for a less complicated world and God knows we need a little simplicity nowadays!

My friend, I could not agree with this more!

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

This is possibly the sanest post ever made by a creationist and I admit I totally agree with the above statement.

Creationism is faith based and faith and science do not mix. I only wish creationists actually stopped trying to dismiss science and stuck to their faith.

It would make for a less complicated world and God knows we need a little simplicity nowadays!

Dunno. Based on the loony stuff espoused by the "Science can take a hike" crowd, I prefer the ID people who dabble in science. At least you can have a conversation with them about the evidence, instead of running into conversation-crushing Boolean standards.

 

[rjc34]

Dunno. Based on the loony stuff espoused by the "Science can take a hike" crowd, I prefer the ID people who dabble in science. At least you can have a conversation with them about the evidence, instead of running into conversation-crushing Boolean standards.

The issue behind ID is that it's 100% politically motivated. I don't know of a single secular scientist or organization that supports it.

They're all scientists who believe in a supernatural being, and therefore are biased in interpreting the evidence.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

The issue behind ID is that it's 100% politically motivated. I don't know of a single secular scientist or organization that supports it.

They're all scientists who believe in a supernatural being, and therefore are biased in interpreting the evidence.

I'm talking about the people who buy into ID and come here to defend it. They are usually vaguely familiar with science, making conversation possible, and rarely resort to "well I guess Satan put the ERVs and fossils there". The kinds of people that a lot of us were at some point, if raised in an Evangelical home (I was).

But professional ID people are the same as Creationists - 100% religiously motivated.

 

[scombridae1969]

...The very fact that Neandertals, Homo-Erectuces are not mentioned in The Bible proves they are made up. I mean you would think God would have mentioned them 6,000 years ago when He wrote The Bible. duh...

So this is where things go wrong for arguments rooted in faith. Before I proceed - I am not commenting on religious faith itself. This is specifically about the types of arguments as the one presented here.

To assert the Bible has authority over science itself would work out much better if you could first substantiate the basis for such authority.

In the case of the Christian Bible, the only way to make a universal claim of authority (vs. one that is seen as valid solely within Christianity) is to first prove the existence of God that has rational and emperical worth.

If this is not possible and everything is reduced to an issue of faith vs. culture (or science here) than so be it...Apologetics is rather impotent in the context of a broader scientific community without first proving that God exists.

 

[JustMeSee]

(1)evolutionists say they are so trusting of science yet they refuse to look at the evidence of creationism or (2)call a baby in the womb a life

evolution cannot be proven. why don't we ever see the (3)carcus of the monkey man?

(4)im just saying that science is filled with a lot of liberal hypocrites.

(5)evolution itself cannot be tested by the scientific method because there is nothing to compare it to

1. Is creationism a science? My impression is that it is not. If it is a science, scientists should/would consider the scientific evidence in the applicable fields.

2. To my knowledge, the abortion debate isn't not the Theory of evolution territory. Yes, a baby in the womb is a life, without going into gray areas.

3. I don't know what creature to which you refer as 'monkey man'. If this creature died long ago, there are probably no carcasses left, they would have decomposed. There may be fossils.

4. This is not a very nice or constructive way of addressing people. It would be great for you to regularly contribute in this area of the forum. You may be able to teach and learn new stuff.

5. I have been told that it does follow the scientific method. I am not sure what you mean about comparing it to something.

 

[JustMeSee]

It takes a computer to correlate the data -- computers programmed by scientists loyal to specific paradigms.

What particular paradigms do you believe that these computer programmers are following?

AV, out of curiosity, what experience do you have with any programming or scripting language?

 

[JustMeSee]

Interesting tangent. I wonder how many creationists can code.

Considering the fact that religious colleges have Comp. Sci. degree programs, I imagine that there are a fair number. Being mostly math and logic, it doesn't directly go into the Creo-Evo territory.

Completing my BS degree, I recall only two classes that mentioned this argued arena. Bio-informatics and Physical Geology. I transferred in credit from a Catholic college at which I took a Women in Religion course, which did not touch the subject.

 

[JustMeSee]

You mean code and keep their jobs?

I would say creationists who refuse to separate their beliefs from their work, don't work long.

That way, people can ask what contributions creationism make to society.

Wasn't there a Left Behind video game? I would guess that some of those programmers were Creationists. There is a decent amount of Christian software out there.

 

[rjc34]

Wasn't there a Left Behind video game? I would guess that some of those programmers were Creationists. There is a decent amount of Christian software out there.

Found it.

...the game included "kill or convert" violence against non-Christians, and characters shouting "Praise the Lord!" when non-Christians are killed.

This sounds like a game for Clirus...

 

[JustMeSee]

Found it.

This sounds like a game for Clirus...

Don't even mention it to her. She doesn't need the encouragement in this area.

I noticed that on the system specs that it has Windows 7 listed. This is a rather old game. Oh, well. Diablo 2 can still be found on store shelves, and is popular.

 

[rjc34]

Don't even mention it to her. She doesn't need the encouragement in this area.

I noticed that on the system specs that it has Windows 7 listed. This is a rather old game. Oh, well. Diablo 2 can still be found on store shelves, and is popular.

Hey, creationist gamer's don't have much choice in this heathen filled gaming universe

 

[JustMeSee]

Hey, creationist gamer's don't have much choice in this heathen filled gaming universe

If there was a substantial interested audience for creation based games, I would develop a game. I wouldn't mind getting wealthy from an untapped market.

A FSM game could be fun too. I would need to deal with trademark/copyright/royalty matters though.

 

[rjc34]

If there was a substantial interested audience for creation based games, I would develop a game. I wouldn't mind getting wealthy from an untapped market.

A FSM game could be fun too. I would need to deal with trademark/copyright/royalty matters though.

I think I'm going to make a text based adventure game based off the Gospels... I'll call it...

JESUS
King Of The Universe​

 

[Beccs]

How many of them were named, Jesus?

Yes, because all peer-reviewed papers are named after fictional characters.


One of the papers I wrote going through medschool was named Popeye.

 

[rjc34]

Yes, because all peer-reviewed papers are named after fictional characters.


One of the papers I wrote going through medschool was named Popeye.

I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say that 'non-denominational' icon under your name ain't exactly accurate