Is Creationism actually science?

[AV1611VET]

Sure. and so can Elf, or Unicorn, or Hobgoblin.
Getting them to actually do so however, is a bit more tricky.

If they did, would they be implying that the globe was flat?

 

[AV1611VET]

Because the bible does reflect the flat earth cosmology of the people who wrote it.

Assuming you're right, does that qualify them to be made fun of because of their honesty?

And because scholars have no time for making fun of people who believe silly things.

Ya ... they're so busy doing other things, aren't they?

 

[Mr Laurier]

If they did, would they be implying that the globe was flat?

Ask them.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Assuming you're right, does that qualify them to be made fun of because of their honesty?

Your total non-sequitur is bizzare

Ya ... they're so busy doing other things, aren't they?

Pretty much.

 

[Estrid]

Really what they are doing is showing that the Bible teaches a 6000 year-old Earth no more definitively than it teaches a flat one and pointing out that hypocrisy to creationists. Being able to make fun of flat-Earthers is a sport all can enjoy.

For a person to insist on the 6k yr old earth is every bit as
ludicrous as flat earth.

It is far easier to show the earth is round,
very difficult to deny the obvious evidence.
Showing the earth is ancient and there
was no flood is more involved but no less clear.

We had a maid who thought the earth is flat.
It was such fun to see her struggle with it and
then, epiphany! She got it!
Of course, she came from rural third world
where they be believe it's a lizard trying to eat the
moon that causes eclipse.

Americans generally have less excuse,
though educational and cognitive handicaps
limit some, while others who have the capacity
to do better choose to go the used car salesman
route, and surrender integrity to expedience.

 

[AV1611VET]

For a person to insist on the 6k yr old earth is every bit as ludicrous as flat earth.

What if a person thinks the earth is much older, but has only been around for 6000 years?

Do they get the LUDICROUS AWARD as well?

 

[VirOptimus]

What if a person thinks the earth is much older, but has only been around for 6000 years?

Do they get the LUDICROUS AWARD as well?

Yes.

 

[tas8831]

Edgar a creationist wrote at Peaceful Science

"Creationism is actually science. By now, empirical science has made it perfectly obvious that viable life is so functionally complex that it could not possibly have happened by chance.
In effect, Abiogenesis-by-Chance has officially been declared a superstition - not to mention, an insult to human intelligence.

Faced with the scientific impossibility of chance, the only rational - and therefore, scientific - explanation for the origin of life is design, or more specifically, divine creation. Voila! … Creation is science. Get used to it."​

Strawmen wrapped in misrepresentation covered in an enigma.
Such is creation 'science.'

 

[tas8831]

Science is constantly in a flux. Everything taught to me about the human cell in high school and college science courses in the 1950s turns out to be pathetically wrong.

Really? Like what?
Was it wrong or incomplete?

And science lies: about when life begins in the womb; about gender reassignment; about Darwinism, etc., etc.

You seem so certain. Pseudocertainty, I suppose.

Creationism was considered science for the better part of two millennium and it offers consistent answers and not the ever-changing consensus of the 'modern' scientific community.

Constant unsupported and ridiculous answers, sure.

 

[tas8831]

If Creationism is not science then Evolution-ism is not science.

I would agree that evolutionism is not science because " evolutionism" is made up.

The Theory of Evolution, on the other hand, is very much a scientific theory. Creationism, on the other hand, is play science - it takes the rantings of ancient middle eastern folk and claims it is totally true, no matter what. Just like Kenny Ham admitted in public - no evidence will change his mind about creationism.

 

[tas8831]

Today's science is tomorrow's giggle.

So you tell yourself to justify this illogical position:

Whereas the Holy Bible's creation account is 'the same yesterday, today and tomorrow'.

 

[tas8831]

Actually, it is not. Sources differ and translations differ too. Not to mention views and explanations.

Old earth v. Young earth....

 

[tas8831]

It is God's account of creation.

Science gives you guesses that lean on other guesses or nothing at all.

That is a false claim.
At this point, I am OK referring to it as a result of ignorance. But I have the feeling that you will never adjust this error, at which point your claim becomes something else.

 

[tas8831]

"The real, measurable world doesn't care what you believe." - Joe Halderman.

Ironic that you would present that quote, given your position.

 

[tas8831]

Of course. And as it becomes increasingly evident that a Creator was involved, one would hope that this would eventually be universally accepted.

Science by slogan - THAT is the creationists' way!

 

[adderbolt]

adderbolt said: ↑
It is God's account of creation.

Science gives you guesses that lean on other guesses or nothing at all.
.

That is a false claim.

How so? What scientific account of creation is not based on guesswork?

 

[tas8831]

Evo is not science actually, that intelligence and conciousness can come from non intelligence and build brains bit by bit like evo explains is harder to believe than God, at least with God you have the perfect excuse, he is eternal he existed forever has power and he is smart.

I see.... So, because "evo" is 'harder to believe' you opt for what is easier to believe - that an entity for whose existence there is no evidence merely did thus at time X.
Because believing stories is, after all, much easier - simpler, if you will - than actually working to understanding things.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[adderbolt]

Science is constantly in a flux. Everything taught to me about the human cell in high school and college science courses in the 1950s turns out to be pathetically wrong.

Really? Like what?
Was it wrong or incomplete?

High School and College biology textbooks have been revised many many times in the last 70 years. No responsible educator today would teach the properties of the human cell with a textbook written in the 1950s and not since revised.

 

[tas8831]

adderbolt said: ↑
It is God's account of creation.

Science gives you guesses that lean on other guesses or nothing at all.
.
How so? What scientific account of creation is not based on guesswork?

Science does not have an account of 'creation.' There is research into the origin of life, and that is based on observation and experimentation. For example:

2017

Moore EK, Hao J, Sverjensky DA, Jelen BI, Meyer M, Hazen RM and Falkowski PG Geological and chemical factors that impacted the biological utilization of cobalt in the Archean Eon. (in review)

Hao J, Sverjensky DA and Hazen RM Limits on the partial pressure of H2 in the Archean atmosphere during weathering of basaltic minerals. Geochemica et Cosmochimica Acta (in review)

Estrada C, Sverjensky DA and Hazen RM Selective adsorption of calcium-aspartate ligands onto [Mg(OH)2]-brucite: Implications for calcium in prebiotic chemistry. Astrobiology (in review)

Estrada C, Sverjensky DA and Hazen RM Enhanced and inhibited adsorption of D-ribose with Ca2+ and Mg2+ onto brucite [Mg(OH)2]. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta (in review)

Hazen RM Chance, necessity, and the origins of life. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A (in review)

54. Estrada CE, Mamajanov I, Hao J, Sverjensky DA, Cody GD and Hazen RM (2017) Aspartate transformation at 200 °C with brucite [Mg(OH)2], NH3, and H2: Implications for prebiotic molecules in hydrothermal systems. Chemical Geology 457:162-172

53. Gherase D, Hazen RM, Krishnamurthy R and Blackmond DG (2017) Mineral-Induced Enantioenrichment of Tartaric Acid. Synlett 28(1):89-92

Wenge J, Pacella MS, Athanasiadou D, Nelea V, Vali H, Hazen RM, Gray JJ, McKee MD (2017) Chiral acidic amino acids induce chiral hierarchical structure in calcium carbonate. Nature Communications 8:15066​

No "guesses" there. And that is just from group of researchers.

Where is the creation 'science' equivalent? And do not refer to their usual, tired failures in which they try to attack some aspect of evolution or old earth geology, but actual research into 'creation'.

I've seen creation 'science' and ID 'science.' I have Wells' book and ReMine's book and Behe's book and Sarfati's book. I have multiple volumes of CRSQ. I have read literally hundreds if not thousands of essays claimed to be 'technical papers' and such. I have seen no real research - especially research that does not start with an answer and seek to support it (which is not really science).

 

[adderbolt]

No "guesses" there.

Perhaps "no guesses" in the individual research examples that you offer -- perhaps (?). But putting all these things in a mix to create life is a joke. Science can't create life -- they don't have a working formula.

Where is the creation 'science' equivalent? And do not refer to their usual, tired failures in which they try to attack some aspect of evolution or old earth geology, but actual research into 'creation'?

The well known creation story in Genesis (Holy Bible) is not a research project. It is an eyewitness account.

And if you want to refer to something like the changes of bird beaks over time as microevolution you will get no quarrel from me. But things like the changing a whale into a cow over a period of billions of years of time is a fantasy. Evolution of this sort is patent nonsense.