How do you do creation science research?

[Delphiki]

Since all the evidence contradicts the biblical creation, I'm assuming you just read Genesis. Only the entire bible is finite. Does that mean that if I've read the bible, I'm just as qualified as any other creation scientist?

What about the creationist accounts of religions other than Christianity? Do I just read their holy books?

 

[AV1611VET]

Since all the evidence contradicts the biblical creation, I'm assuming you just read Genesis. Only the entire bible is finite. Does that mean that if I've read the bible, I'm just as qualified as any other creation scientist?

You'd better know your stuff, if you're going to 'just read Genesis', then come here to debate Creation.

Take this first sentence you made:

Since all the evidence contradicts the biblical creation, I'm assuming you just read Genesis.

The first thing I noticed is that you said 'Genesis' -- you did not say, 'Genesis 1'.

This is a big mistake that, in my opinion, even seasoned creationists make.

One should never go outside Genesis 1 -- for any reason -- when debating the creation week.

Even if they get you into Genesis 2, the debate is over.

Again, in my opinion though.

What about the creationist accounts of religions other than Christianity?

It depends on what point to want to make with them.

If you want to say Genesis 1 is just as valid as any other religious text, but you're an atheist -- then I usually counter with, "What difference does it make then what text you use?"

If I had a box of colored widgets, and I said only one color, blue, is the true color; and someone came along and said, "I believe widgets don't exist" -- then any widget I pull out of the box would pwn his statement.

Do I just read their holy books?

Again, it depends on what point you want to make.

If 1000 different books speak of 1000 different gods creating the universe in 1000 different ways, then someone coming along and saying, "I don't believe in creationism" is going to look 1000 times wrong in the eyes of 1000 people.

 

[Delphiki]

Even if they get you into Genesis 2, the debate is over.

How do you figure? All Gen 2 does is expound on the day man and woman was created.

Does that mean any mention of creation in the bible after Gen 1 should be ignored? What happened to following the entire infallible word of the entire bible? Or does creation science actually contradict the majority of the bible?

 

[Incariol]

So "creation science" is just a book of Genesis debate club?

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you figure?

Genesis 1 is the most detailed; and it can work like a roadblock, if used correctly.

If you detect they are bogged down with believing that God exists, or they are bogged down with the order of the creation events (because they are evolutionists), then bringing up anything else is just committing what is called feature creep.

All Gen 2 does is expound on the day man and woman was created.

Genesis 2 is used by disbelievers to say there is another, conflicting creation account; which will effectively take the discussion off-target.

Does that mean any mention of creation in the bible after Gen 1 should be ignored?

If you know what you're doing, and you want to "live dangerously", you can bring up such things as Job 38:6, where the angels predate the earth, or whatever -- but if the discussion gets sidetracked; I say it is the fault of the defender.

What happened to following the entire infallible word of the entire bible?

Like I said, Genesis 1 can alert a seasoned debater as to how far he should go -- whether he is wasting his time, or whether he wants to, as the song goes, "wade out a little bit deeper"; but again, it's his fault if the conversation dies chasing rabbits.

Or does creation science actually contradict the majority of the bible?

There is, in my opinion, no such thing as 'creation science'.

If someone has to tack the word 'science' on to the word 'creation' -- then he may just as well stay home.

 

[AV1611VET]

So "creation science" is just a book of Genesis debate club?

There is no such thing as "creation science", as God did not use science to create the universe.

And it should be 'Genesis 1', not 'Genesis', or Internet scientists will want to discuss the Fall, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, genetic this, genetic that, genetic bottlenecks and who knows what all else; anything but creation.

Forcing the debating parties to stick to Genesis 1 will cause the debate to get boring rather quickly -- (as it should) -- and the disbeliever will very soon want to change the subject.

If you refuse to acquiesce to his demands, he will usually issue some insults or ridicule, then terminate the discussion himself.

 

[selfinflikted]

There is no such thing as "creation science"...

Couldn't agree more, AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

Couldn't agree more, AV.

Thank you!

I sometimes stand in front of a mirror and talk to myself, so I can agree with myself; but then I end up arguing.

My wife says when it gets to the point that I start saying, "Okay, you two, knock it off!" -- then I'll need professional help!

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Thank you!

I sometimes stand in front of a mirror and talk to myself, so I can agree with myself; but then I end up arguing.

My wife says when it gets to the point that I start saying, "Okay, you two, knock it off!" -- then I'll need professional help!

And what does she day about the fact you have over 2.8 million posts on CF?

 

[AV1611VET]

And what does she day about the fact you have over 2.8 million posts on CF?

No comment --

 

[Nathan Poe]

So "creation science" is just a book of Genesis debate club?

Not even -- a chapter 1 of the book of Genesis debate club.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Since all the evidence contradicts the biblical creation,

Gap theory (out-of-favor but still valid) is supported by the bible account.

 

[Delphiki]

Gap theory (out-of-favor but still valid) is supported by the bible account.

Except for the bit where we all came from only two people and a few other details, maybe.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Except for the bit where we all came from only two people and a few other details, maybe.

That's where speculation comes in.

 

[driewerf]

There is no such thing as "creation science", as God did not use science to create the universe.

And it should be 'Genesis 1', not 'Genesis', or Internet scientists will want to discuss the Fall, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, genetic this, genetic that, genetic bottlenecks and who knows what all else; anything but creation.

Forcing the debating parties to stick to Genesis 1 will cause the debate to get boring rather quickly -- (as it should) -- and the disbeliever will very soon want to change the subject.

If you refuse to acquiesce to his demands, he will usually issue some insults or ridicule, then terminate the discussion himself.

That is why I avoid to use the term "Creationism", but prefer "Biblical Literalism".

 

[AV1611VET]

That is why I avoid to use the term "Creationism", but prefer "Biblical Literalism".

I like Biblical Literalism, but I think creationism is sufficient, as I define creationism as 'belief in the creation event'.

But you're right, "Biblical Literalism" is much more descriptive.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I like Biblical Literalism, but I think creationism is sufficient, as I define creationism as 'belief in the creation event'.

Any reason you chose to redefine it to the point of meaninglessness?

 

[AV1611VET]

Any reason you chose to redefine it to the point of meaninglessness?

So I can have your attention.

 

[Split Rock]

Gap theory (out-of-favor but still valid) is supported by the bible account.

So is YEC and OEC. Everything can be "supported by the bible account." That is why the bible is useless for such information.

 

[Self Improvement]

Creationist research....