How do you do creation science research?

[Self Improvement]

The creationist quick reference, 2010 edition.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationist research....

Yesterday's science.....

 

[AV1611VET]

The creationist quick reference, 2010 edition.

I love to pwn Internet scientists here with children's stories they should have learned in Sunday school.

 

[Jazer]

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

There is no contradiction at all. You have OEC that deals with old earth Creationism, you have GAP that covers mostly from 14,000 to 6,000 years ago. Then you have YEC that covers the last 6,000 years. Creationism is very simple. Look at the History for an example. Look at what Science says about the Jewish people 6,000 years ago and look at what the Bible says. Science and the Bible tend to agree. There is no disagreement or contradiction. Only Science gets obsolete and outdated very fast. The Bible remains the same for over 3500 years now. The Bible is timeless and does not get obsolete and outdated.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

There is no contradiction at all.

The Bible is timeless and does not get obsolete and outdated.

I think that is mostly because people will twist themselfs and it into a pretzel to find excuses for its laughable errors. Such as the world being flat as a coin clearly stated in the original hebrew, but must be explained away with far fetched nonsense because its clearly false and the bible cant be false so obviously the guy who wrote it simply was terrible at hewbrew .

 

[Delphiki]

There is no contradiction at all. (blah blah blah)

OEC - The sequence of events is probably largest inconsistency with science. Plants before sun? Birds before land animals?

GAP - The one that merely supplements the bible by saying there was more than one creation... which contradicts both the bible and science.

YEC - This one should be pretty obvious... To quote Lewis Black, "FOSSIL!"

And let's not over look that all three of these contradict each other! Of course, do you know how many endings there are to Little Red Riding Hood? Same reasons.

Biology, geology, cosmology, and chemistry, on the other hand, all support each other... Probably because they were all build on observations of the material universe... Ya think that might have something to do with it?

The most hysterical thing about creationism is that no creationist has ever thought to actually study... gee, i dunno... what was created.

 

[AV1611VET]

OEC - The sequence of events is probably largest inconsistency with science. Plants before sun? Birds before land animals?

GAP - The one that merely supplements the bible by saying there was more than one creation... which contradicts both the bible and science.

YEC - This one should be pretty obvious... To quote Lewis Black, "FOSSIL!"

You need to add three more to this list, just to match the number of [major] theories concerning our moon (or moons); and then you need to downgrade one of them, just to catch up to Pluto.

 

[Delphiki]

You need to add three more to this list, just to match the number of [major] theories concerning our moon (or moons); and then you need to downgrade one of them, just to catch up to Pluto.

Before you go commenting all willy-nilly, please note the context and the post I was replying to.

Try even arguing against the points presented to keep conversation consistent. How about that?

In regards to you once again bringing up the moon and Pluto after they have been explained COUNTLESS times to you I can only conclude that you are a complete imbecile. I've given you hundreds of chances to prove otherwise, but I've never met anyone so proud of their idiocy, and frankly I couldn't care less if you notify your forum chaperones again for telling you this. I feel you need to know the truth. You're an idiot and a troll. I mean seriously, how can someone with your level of comprehension even manage to wipe himself, let alone figure out how to use a computer.

 

[Delphiki]

What are you even doing here, AV? You're not here to learn anything, you reject reality, and you just constantly make idiotic unrelated comments. You obviously have no desire for truth or knowledge. You don't even believe the bible because you add your own mythology to it to make yourself happy! What are you even doing here?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

GAP - The one that merely supplements the bible by saying there was more than one creation... which contradicts both the bible and science.

GAP is taken legitimately from the Genesis account. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and then the earth became empty and chaotic. "Became" is a legitimate translation of the word rendered "was". Follows is the restoration of the surface of the earth including the atmosphere. The bible doesn't address the ancient earth as it just isn't that important (God left that for science to explore).

 

[AV1611VET]

What are you even doing here, AV? You're not here to learn anything, you reject reality, and you just constantly make idiotic unrelated comments. You obviously have no desire for truth or knowledge. You don't even believe the bible because you add your own mythology to it to make yourself happy! What are you even doing here?

You don't mind if I refuse to vacate the area in deference to someone who is acting like he's disgusted, do you?

 

[driewerf]

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.

I don't think so. Because 'belief in the creation event' might mean that you believe the Muslim account of the creation event, or the hindu account, or the Sikh account etc.

Biblical literalism refers clearly to the christian bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think so. Because 'belief in the creation event' might mean that you believe the Muslim account of the creation event, or the hindu account, or the Sikh account etc.

Biblical literalism refers clearly to the christian bible.

But just like you have to have the right religion (Christianity, in this case), you need the right Bible (KJV, in this case).

After all, the Bible says:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

... not:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 

[Nathan Poe]

But just like you have to have the right religion (Christianity, in this case),

Well, there's the rub, eh?

 

[mzungu]

But just like you have to have the right religion (Christianity, in this case), you need the right Bible (KJV, in this case).

After all, the Bible says:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

... not:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Genesis was originally written in Modern English

 

[Nostromo]

Early Modern English

 

[mzungu]

Early Modern English

Yank English or Brit They do have a KJV American version now!

 

[Naraoia]

The most hysterical thing about creationism is that no creationist has ever thought to actually study... gee, i dunno... what was created.

They do sometimes study it... it just looks a bit different with Morton's Demon processing the data.

 

[AV1611VET]

Genesis was originally written in Modern English

No comment.

 

[juvenissun]

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?

I am a little bit tired of you. It seems you can't ask good question.

If you tell me a few steps involved in a research work, then I can tell you how would creationism fit in. I guarantee you that it would be better than the version done by an evolutionist.