If creationism is true, then why is it useless?

[Ophiolite]

That is open to multiple interpretations. Would you like to clarify?

 

[Everybodyknows]

That is open to multiple interpretations. Would you like to clarify?

I beg your forgiveness.

 

[pitabread]

Branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation.

Yeah, I've heard this before. But the problem is that these aren't examples of applied creationism.

Modern creationists continue to claim that creationism is on par with modern evolution insofar as being able to compete as an explanation for modern biodiversity. Evolution has various real-world application, yet creationism doesn't (insofar as applied sciences go).

So either there is some hidden, hitherto unrevealed applications of creationism that they are keeping secret from the rest of the world... or the former claim of creationists is seriously in doubt. Dare I say, made up even.

(I also find it a bit silly that creationists continue to take credit for founding various branches of science given that nobody actually uses creationism for anything within those sciences. Unless the beliefs translate into direct application, then the beliefs of the individual are somewhat irrelevant.)

 

[SkyWriting]

Yeah, I've heard this before. But the problem is that these aren't examples of applied creationism.

Modern creationists continue to claim that creationism is on par with modern evolution insofar as being able to compete as an explanation for modern biodiversity. Evolution has various real-world application, yet creationism doesn't (insofar as applied sciences go).

So either there is some hidden, hitherto unrevealed applications of creationism that they are keeping secret from the rest of the world... or the former claim of creationists is seriously in doubt. Dare I say, made up even.

(I also find it a bit silly that creationists continue to take credit for founding various branches of science given that nobody actually uses creationism for anything within those sciences. Unless the beliefs translate into direct application, then the beliefs of the individual are somewhat irrelevant.)

Creationism is a matter of faith, and that alone.
You are correct, it has no application to science.
It does provides a foundation of belief, with proof
supplied by the results.

 

[pitabread]

Creationism is a matter of faith, and that alone.

There are plenty of creationists who claim otherwise, especially on this very forum.

Add in all the attempts to either restrict/eliminate the teaching of biological evolution and/or insert some for of creationism into school cirricula and it betrays an agenda that this isn't merely about 'faith'.

 

[Ophiolite]

I beg your forgiveness.

I was not maligned. It is others whose forgiveness would be required, but I thank you for your gesture.

 

[DogmaHunter]

They have. There have been numerous documentaries on the science of creationism, and many Christian University teach and do research into creationism. There are several institutes of Creation science that do all kinds of biological applications with creationism. Just saying there is not any does not make it true.

Just saying there is, does not make it true either.

So please, point out some of these contributions, advances, technologies, applications,... that such "studies" have brought forward.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just saying there is, does not make it true either.

So please, point out some of these contributions, advances, technologies, applications,... that such "studies" have brought forward.

As I like to point out with Aron Ra's and others' videos:

We sure keep you guys busy, don't we?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Bishop Ussher wrote the book on Creationism, first published in 1658. There is no conflict between his book and modern day science.

lol!

His book has survived the test of time.

In the sense that copies still exist for us to read, just like the Iliad. In terms of content - not so much.

The reason is his book begins 6,000 years ago with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

And the Star Wars books begin a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I dated a fossil once. I had a phase where I was into older women.

For such posts, I feel the forum needs a "hilarious" button, as the "funny" button just doesn't cut it!

Nearly fell off my seat, lol-ing

 

[DogmaHunter]

Faith has benefits that don't appear until after it is practiced internally.

Branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation.

• Physics: Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin
• Chemistry: Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
• Biology: Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
• Geology: Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier
• Astronomy: Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
• Mathematics: Pascal, Leibnitz

The Creationist Basis for Modern Science

Yet none of those fields has a foundation in creationism.
Perhaps all of them had mustaches as well, but that doesn't mean jack either.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Point being, they did embrace Creationism and the results are documented.

Newton embraced alchemy as well. In fact, he wrote more about alchemy then about physics. If you look at his life, physics was more of a part-time hobby then anything else.

And it doesn't matter at all. Because both his work in alchemy as well as his religious beliefs are completely irrelevant to his laws of motion and ideas on gravity.

This is counter to your premise.

It is not.

As to your misconception: Evolutionary thought, the conception that species change over time, has roots in antiquity - in the ideas of the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Chinese as well as in medieval Islamic science. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744 – 1829) proposed his theory of the transmutation of species, the first fully formed theory of evolution. History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia

But none of them figured out natural selection.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Creationism is a matter of faith, and that alone.
You are correct, it has no application to science.
It does provides a foundation of belief, with proof
supplied by the results.

What results?

 

[sfs]

The religion of creationism. Once saved the spirit leads us to truth. Believing in evolution is evidence that one wasn't really ever saved.

I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to be promoting other religions here -- this is a Christian site.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The religion of creationism. Once saved the spirit leads us to truth. Believing in evolution is evidence that one wasn't really ever saved.

If one is saved by correct beliefs, then no one is saved. After all, I'm quite certain that every believer is wrong in some aspect of their beliefs.

 

[xianghua]

Right. And you've demonstrated this ability by being unable during an extended exchange to (a) state what the creation model is, or (b) offer a single prediction about genetics made by said absent model. But you're still confident you could do it, if you really wanted to.

no problem. i will give you such a prediction in the "proving
evolution is just a theory" thread. feel free to disprove it.

 

[Living Soul]

Not very many. Practicing Geologists--those who make a living by finding oil and minerals--don't use creationist theory because it doesn't work.

You list your religious affiliation as Anglican, but you don't seem to ascribe to God creating the Heavens and the Earth as described in Genesis 1 - 11. What is it that the Anglican church is teaching these days that makes you think this way?

 

[Living Soul]

If one is saved by correct beliefs, then no one is saved. After all, I'm quite certain that every believer is wrong in some aspect of their beliefs.

Where did you acquire this certainty? And quite seriously please, let us know which beliefs are incorrect. Don't horde this knowledge all for yourself.

 

[tas8831]

They have. There have been numerous documentaries on the science of creationism, and many Christian University teach and do research into creationism. There are several institutes of Creation science that do all kinds of biological applications with creationism. Just saying there is not any does not make it true.

I don't believe that is accurate.

Doing research and concluding 'Isn't Jesus AMAZING???' is not really 'all kinds of biological applications with creationism'.

Most creation scientists merely try to find fault with reality-based research, they do not really do research ON creation or using creationism assumptions.

 

[joshua 1 9]

In the sense that copies still exist for us to read,

Actually his book is still in print. Also his book follows the Bible and the Bible has stood the test of time for over 3500 years now. Moses, Noah and Adam were all real people. Everyone we read about in the Bible were real historical people. As a book of history the Bible is extremely accurate.