Is Creationism actually science?

[VirOptimus]

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.



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.

Maybe you should learn what the Theory of Evolution contains instead of your strawman version of it before trying to comment.

Optimistic, I know.

 

[adderbolt]

Maybe you should learn what the Theory of Evolution contains instead of your strawman version of it before trying to comment on it.

Optimistic, I know.

Nothing wrong with being optimistic. But I've spent too many years in debate with so-called Atheists who claim they have no faith beliefs and so they don't have to offer proofs for the non-existence of a creator.

 

[Tinker Grey]

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.

It's called learning. It's a good thing.

 

[adderbolt]

t's called learning. It's a good thing.

And there is nothing wrong with learning. But science is largely a consensus and it is ever-changing, but;

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings ..." - Hebrews 13.

 

[Tinker Grey]

And there is nothing wrong with learning. But science is largely a consensus and it is ever-changing, but;

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings ..." - Hebrews 13.

Science refines its theories. It's not as if today they like chocolate and tomorrow they like vanilla.

 

[adderbolt]

Science refines its theories. It's not as if today they like chocolate and tomorrow they like vanilla.

There's nothing at all wrong with either chocolate or vanilla. But most of the science of the past is deficient in part or the whole and the farther back in time you go the more wrong it becomes. Consider the spontaneous generation nonsense that was thought to be truth by many scientists a mere 300 years ago.

 

[VirOptimus]

Nothing wrong with being optimistic. But I've spent too many years in debate with so-called Atheists who claim they have no faith beliefs and so they don't have to offer proofs for the non-existence of a creator.

Yes, I dont need to disprove any god(s). Thats impossible to do.

It seems your ignorance is much bigger than just biology.

 

[adderbolt]

It seems your ignorance is much bigger than just biology.

Nice talking to you.

 

[VirOptimus]

Nice talking to you.

I can only judge you on your posts.

 

[adderbolt]

I can only judge you on your posts.

That says it all, my friend -- that says it all.

 

[VirOptimus]

That says it all, my friend -- that says it all.

Im certainly not your ”friend”.

 

[Tinker Grey]

But most of the science of the past is deficient in part or the whole and the farther back in time you go the more wrong it becomes.

Well, duh. Otherwise it wouldn't be called learning.

It seems, however, that most YECs refuse to learn.

 

[adderbolt]

Im certainly not your ”friend”.

Forgive my optimism. Nice talking to you.

 

[adderbolt]

It seems, however, that most YECs refuse to learn.

Did you drop your chocolate (or was it vanilla) ice cream cone?

 

[dlamberth]

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?

Totally YES!!

 

[Mr Laurier]

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.

We learn new things, which we can then use to have a better understanding of reality.
How is this a problem?

 

[Mr Laurier]

And there is nothing wrong with learning. But science is largely a consensus and it is ever-changing, but;

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings ..." - Hebrews 13.

That's the thing about characters in a story. They don't change. Its the mark of a made up story. The characters remain the same unless a new writer comes along and re-imagines them. If people just copy the same story over and over, the characters remain static.
...
But science is not a character in a story. It is a way of asking about how reality works. And it leads to new discoveries, which add to our understanding of reality.
So science does not remain static.

 

[Mr Laurier]

There's nothing at all wrong with either chocolate or vanilla. But most of the science of the past is deficient in part or the whole and the farther back in time you go the more wrong it becomes. Consider the spontaneous generation nonsense that was thought to be truth by many scientists a mere 300 years ago.

With science, we learn new things, and correct old errors.
How is this a bad thing?

 

[adderbolt]

We learn new things, which we can then use to have a better understanding of reality.
How is this a problem?

We learn new things, which we can then use to have a better understanding of reality.
How is this a problem?

My science textbooks in the 1950s were full of lies and half truths. Do you really believe that today's science truths won't be replaced by 'better' truths'?

The Holy Bible's creation account is true and in no danger of being updated or replaced.

 

[adderbolt]

With science, we learn new things, and correct old errors.
How is this a bad thing?

Things prone to errors ought not to be (fully) trusted.