Evidence for Creation Science?

[BlindSight]

(This topic has probably been over-discussed... but here's another thread just to annoy you... )

I was just wondering if there was any valid evidence for creation science...
Dont even bother with something that modern science has already answered (example: Grand Canyon), or attempts at disproving the Theory of Evolution (Creation Science should be able to stand on it's own if its actually valid).

 

[Oncedeceived]

(This topic has probably been over-discussed... but here's another thread just to annoy you... )

I was just wondering if there was any valid evidence for creation science...
Dont even bother with something that modern science has already answered (example: Grand Canyon), or attempts at disproving the Theory of Evolution (Creation Science should be able to stand on it's own if its actually valid).

What is Creation Science? The study of Creation? The science of creation? Creation is Creation and Science, ALL Science studies it. Science experiments within it and uses its laws and functions to understand it.

 

[flyer]

Creation is not science. Science is natural, creation is religious. Literal creation denies the evidence for a spiritual book.

 

[Arikay]

I think he means creation science as in Creationism.

Nope there is no evidence to support modern day creationism as a valid unfalsified scientific theory.

If you wander the forum a bit, there is however, quite a bit of evidence that falsifies modern creationism as science.

That is why its often considered to be a falsified theory. Similiar to the geocentric model.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Creation is not science. Science is natural, creation is religious. Literal creation denies the evidence for a spiritual book.

Oh???? And how is that?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think he means creation science as in Creationism.

Nope there is no evidence to support modern day creationism as a valid unfalsified scientific theory.

If you wander the forum a bit, there is however, quite a bit of evidence that falsifies modern creationism as science.

That is why its often considered to be a falsified theory. Similiar to the geocentric model.

Modern day Creationism? And what is that? Modern day Science is Science. Creation is not falsified, only the interpretation of it.

 

[flyer]

The young earth views are falseified. Old earth and evolution has ban proven beyond reasonabel doubt.

 

[Arikay]

Modern day creationism is basically what you see when you go to AIG or ICR.
I just called it modern day because its different than older creationist views (like the view that no animal has ever changed).

Yep your right, "creation" has not been falsified. "creationism" has though.

"creation" is the belief that god created. and is philosophy.
being philosophy, it cant be falsified by science.

"creationism" is a theory about How god created, and is science.
Being science, it has been falsified by science.

Modern day Creationism? And what is that? Modern day Science is Science. Creation is not falsified, only the interpretation of it.

 

[BlindSight]

yes, i did mean creationism... however the ICR and other such organizations refer to it as creation science so i thought i would just use that... i agree that it is in no way a science... i'm sorry, i should have put it in quotation marks...

i'm hoping to get answers from some christians on the board as to what the evidence is. unfortunately... i doubt i will get a ground breaking reponse...

oh well... it was worth a try.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The young earth views are falseified. Old earth and evolution has ban proven beyond reasonabel doubt.

Not necessarily, there are views that would bring young and old earth into agreement and as far as evolution, are you talking abiogenesis? The whole of evolution is far from being proven beyond a reasonable doubt if you consider all aspects of it, if you are considering Darwinism and whether you are talking micro/macro and whether you are talking about universal beginnings or life/animal and human beginnings.

 

[Jet Black]

oncedeceived.... have you actually looked at the massive amounts of evidence from all sorts of fields... right from virology, genetics, taxonomy, paeleantology and so on?

 

[Oncedeceived]

oncedeceived.... have you actually looked at the massive amounts of evidence from all sorts of fields... right from virology, genetics, taxonomy, paeleantology and so on?

massive amounts of evidence of what?

 

[Drotar]

Hey, blindsight, perhaps you would like to discuss this matter in a formal debate with me?

I too am a student, and think it would be interesting to see what you might have to offer. What you have in stock to back up your claims against Creation Science.

And yes, by definition, the term "Creation SCIEnce" is slightly contradictory. But semantics aside...

Well, if you really want to observe the evidence, invite me to a formal debate, which is private, and I'll meet you there. TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[T.R.D.]

Young-earth CreationISM is an ancient myth, it has been completely falsified. There is not one shred of evidence that supports YEC.

 

[Drotar]

Oh, hi, well welcome to the Christianforums.

Perhaps we could discuss evidence for both sides.

I'm not the best YEC here, but I'm still learning.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Oh, hi, well welcome to the Christianforums.

Perhaps we could discuss evidence for both sides.

I'm not the best YEC here, but I'm still learning.

YEC has no credible evidence for it and many falsifications

One problem with a young earth is providing an explaination how all these catastrophies happened in merely 6,000 or so years with no one noticing

http://christianforums.com/t50702

A central tentent of YEC is the worldwide flood

The worldwide flood is falsified by the fossil record

http://www.christianforums.com/t42599&page=1

and biogeography

http://christianforums.com/t40474

and many geological features

http://christianforums.com/t41209

including enormous salt layers intermixed with deposits that are supposed by YECs to be flood deposits.

http://www.christianforums.com/t50900&page=1

and trace fossils.

http://www.christianforums.com/t50735&highlight=coconino

Of course this is not a complete list of the falsifications of YEC. There is also biodiversity, for instance most species show no evidence of recent genetic bottle necks and the fact that there are continous archeological records stretching back through the time of the alleged worldwide flood just to name two more out of many.

The evidence for an old earth is so compeling that it caused Christian Geologists of the late 18th and early 19th centuries to reject their young earth paradigm and this was both before Darwin and before radioactive dating methods showed just how old the earth really is.

As far as evidence for evolution, there are thousands of articles in hundreds of scientific journals. Douglas Theobald has a nice summary on Talk Origins.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I suggest discussing specifics on specific threads since this one could quickly get out of hand.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[BlindSight]

Hey, blindsight, perhaps you would like to discuss this matter in a formal debate with me?

I too am a student, and think it would be interesting to see what you might have to offer. What you have in stock to back up your claims against Creation Science.

As much as I love debating, I'm not too familiar with the formal debate style... I much prefer a one on one discussion (in the counter-point, counter-point format) with no time limit. In my experience it's much easier to get to the core of an issue that way.

Until next time...

 

[Oncedeceived]

oncedeceived.... have you actually looked at the massive amounts of evidence from all sorts of fields... right from virology, genetics, taxonomy, paeleantology and so on?

I was serious about asking you about what massive amounts of evidence? I was talking about abiogenesis and other references in my post so I really don't know which evidences you were referring to.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Is there any actual evidence for creation science posted anywhere on this thread?

 

[lucaspa]

What is Creation Science? The study of Creation? The science of creation? Creation is Creation and Science, ALL Science studies it. Science experiments within it and uses its laws and functions to understand it.

"Creation Science" is the name of a specific theory. It was defined in the 1982 MacLean vs Arkansas case in Act 591. I'll have to get that for you.

Your points are well-made, but they are not part of the issue. "Creation Science" is a very SPECIFIC set of statements about the physical universe and a very specific HOW of creation.