The science of creationism: where is it?

[corvus_corax]

I doubt I could, Corvus.

Science, as psychoheresy, has infiltrated our churches and poisoned our members.

The wheat and the tares are truly growing together.

Quite right!
Even right here on CF
I mean really, witness Cabal and other "heretics" like him, right?

On another note, I think you're extending psychoheresy beyond its actual application regarding secular psychological counseling.
Biological science is not psychological counseling.
(Of course, you may have found different sources than I have and therefore have an "expanded definition" of psychoheresy)

 

[corvus_corax]

But really, despite my previous post, an actual believer in the Messiah (as defined by Nicene Christians), and an actual biblical literalist might, just MIGHT have a better chance than us "unbelievers" to convince the others (specifically those that want Creationism taught as science in our schools) that Creationism is not scientific has no objective empirical evidence backing it up.

Perhaps you can start here on CF and (gently, without risking variance, a simple discussion perhaps, instead of a pointed debate), point out to the other Biblical literalists their incorrectness?

 

[AV1611VET]

On another note, I think you're extending psychoheresy beyond its actual application regarding secular psychological counseling.
Biological science is not psychological counseling.

Okay --- point taken on that one --- I'll acquiesce ---

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps you can start here on CF and (gently, without risking variance, a simple discussion perhaps, instead of a pointed debate), point out to the other Biblical literalists their incorrectness?

You do it, Corvus --- what do you need me for?

Feel free to use my Apple Challenge as well.

It should be able to stand on its own merit ---

Just don't let anyone pull you out of Genesis 1 --- for any reason.

I'd love to see how you do.

 

[juvenissun]

Consider the following taken from the opening paragraph of the article in Wikipedia explaining "Creation science."

"Creation science or scientific creationism is the movement within creationism which attempts to provide support for the religious Genesis account of creation, and disprove accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms on the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution."
​

So I would think that in order to "provide support for the religious Genesis account of creation, and disprove accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms on the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution" that one would have to marshal scientific evidence to make any kind of a case. Now there are scientists who are creationists. In fact, several creation web sites like to tout the credentials of their scientifically trained members; however, I have yet to find any peer reviewed work by any scientist, creationist or otherwise, whose findings support creationism to the detriment of evolution; to say nothing of any such scientific work that's been specifically aimed at doing so.

So I again ask: where is all this science that is suppose to give credence to the "science" by which these creationist like to identify themselves? As far as I can see this use of "science" is no more meaningful than had they called their enterprise, "Lollipop creationism." which just might be a more accurate label.

So, I answer you one more time:

Take ANY peer reviewed science journal and take a look of ANY article in it. Take off the interpretation part, and then you see the creation science.

Ignorant question.

 

[Washington]

So, I answer you one more time:

Take ANY peer reviewed science journal and take a look of ANY article in it. Take off the interpretation part, and then you see the creation science.

Ignorant question.

No more so than your bewildering reply here. Care to explain what you're talking about?

 

[corvus_corax]

Take ANY peer reviewed science journal and take a look of ANY article in it. Take off the interpretation part, and then you see the creation science.

Creation Science is a contradiction in terms.

 

[juvenissun]

No more so than your bewildering reply here. Care to explain what you're talking about?

What is the problem? I think it is clear enough.

 

[biggles53]

What is the problem? I think it is clear enough.

Only in your mind mate...!

Remove the "interpretation" or conclusion from any scientific paper, and what is left is the evidence collected and the means by which it was analysed. Those who champion creation 'science' (cough, spit!), have nothing to analyse as they have ZERO evidence...!

 

[corvus_corax]

What is the problem? I think it is clear enough.

Gee, "scientist" who has the "highest education possible" (BWAHAHAHA ), why do you pointedly ignore your fellow Christian?
To wit-

There is no science involved in the Creation Week --- none whatsoever.

There is no science in Genesis 1

Creation Science is a contradiction in terms.

(all emphasis mine)

C'mon, sack up "teacher". Deal with what the most prevalent Christian poster on this subforum has to say.


Or just admit that you can't.
Because, you can't.

(see AV? Sometimes I'm nice )

ETA- not to mention, juv, the FACT that you exposed yourself a while ago regarding what you actually feel about creationism.

 

[corvus_corax]

Directed at the OP-
There is no objective empirical evidence for Creationism (as interepreted as a literal reading of Genesis 1)
There's also no such evidence for the "Flood" as described in Genesis (and interpreted the same way).

This kind of challenge has come up on CF C&E over and over again, and no one.....NO ONE....has produced any objective empirical evidence for Creationism (already described above) or even the Flood (again, described above).

Not even by those who claim to have the "highest education possible".


Even AV1611VET, our resident literalist, admits such.

I mean, really? When even Behe admits that ID (the modern and debunked version of Creation Science) is just as "scientific" as astrology, where do you go from there?


Really, how many so-called "creationists" would actually accept astrology as a legitimate science? And on that same basis, they should reject ID (given Behe's admission under oath)

Thankfully, our resident literalist (AV) actually does reject "Creation Science" and finds Intelligent Design to be distasteful.

All the rest (Inan, Juv, etc etc etc) are still dwelling in the deluded paradigm of "Creation Science", "Scientific Creationism", and the laughable "Intelligent Design"
And SOME of them actually claim to be educated in the relevant sciences

Deception is not a Christian trait is it? (where's that "shrug" icon when I need it?)

 

[Washington]

Directed at the OP-
There is no objective empirical evidence for Creationism (as interepreted as a literal reading of Genesis 1)
There's also no such evidence for the "Flood" as described in Genesis (and interpreted the same way).

This kind of challenge has come up on CF C&E over and over again, and no one.....NO ONE....has produced any objective empirical evidence for Creationism (already described above) or even the Flood (again, described above).

And I wasn't looking for any. If you carefully read my OP it should be apparent that I was not simply questioning creationism, but their silly use of "science" in "Creation science" and "scientific creationism."
Which is why I asked:
"Where is all this science that is suppose to give credence to the "science" by which these creationist like to identify themselves? "

I didn't expect any kind of cogent answer, but rather was looking for amusing backpedaling, hemming and hawing, and simply mindless blather.

 

[corvus_corax]

And I wasn't looking for any. If you carefully read my OP it should be apparent that I was not simply questioning creationism, but their silly use of "science" in "Creation science" and "scientific creationism."

Right
And "science" and "creationism" does not belong together, as pointed out

Which is why I asked:
"Where is all this science that is suppose to give credence to the "science" by which these creationist like to identify themselves? "

Right again, and I think that was what I was making a mockery of (perhaps overly loud, so to speak)

I didn't expect any kind of cogent answer, but rather was looking for amusing backpedaling, hemming and hawing, and simply mindless blather.

Of course
We don't disagree here.
For those who claim that there is objective empirical evidence FOR "Creation Science" and for those who claim that there is objective empirical evidence AGAINST the Toe, all they have to rely on is backpedaling, shifting goalposts, hemming, hawing and mindless banter (no to mention..ahem... claims of "Highest education)


Thread drift, gotta love it (even though I despise thread derailment, which I hope I did not do here )

 

[Steezie]

In order for something to be science, it must be demonstrable, explainable, and repeatable.

We can demonstrate evolution occurs using genetics and the fossil record.

No such demonstration exists for Creationism


We can explain evolution as the process of species reacting to changes and pressures in their natural environment.

No such explanation for Creationism exists.


We can repeat evolution on the micro (with bacteria and viruses) or the macro (our canine friends are a good example) scales with little difficulty.

We cannot repeat Creationism.


Creationists cannot explain HOW God created all that is. No explanations of any specific mechanics of this creation exists.

To have the discussion go thusly:

"And God created everything."
"How did he created everything?"
"He just...created it."
"How?"
"He made it be so"

That is not science.

 

[juvenissun]

Only in your mind mate...!

Remove the "interpretation" or conclusion from any scientific paper, and what is left is the evidence collected and the means by which it was analysed. Those who champion creation 'science' (cough, spit!), have nothing to analyse as they have ZERO evidence...!

Good, at least you realized what's left.
Now, give the same data an interpretation according to creationism. That is it. Everything fits perfectly.

Care to try one? Pick up one both you and I can understand.

 

[juvenissun]

Gee, "scientist" who has the "highest education possible" (BWAHAHAHA ), why do you pointedly ignore your fellow Christian?
To wit-



(all emphasis mine)

C'mon, sack up "teacher". Deal with what the most prevalent Christian poster on this subforum has to say.


Or just admit that you can't.
Because, you can't.

(see AV? Sometimes I'm nice )

ETA- not to mention, juv, the FACT that you exposed yourself a while ago regarding what you actually feel about creationism.

This time, if you wish me to tell you something, you need to try harder.

 

[AV1611VET]

In order for something to be science, it must be demonstrable, explainable, and repeatable.

74

 

[biggles53]

Good, at least you realized what's left.
Now, give the same data an interpretation according to creationism. That is it. Everything fits perfectly.

Care to try one? Pick up one both you and I can understand.

Fine...love to.

The presence of retroviral insertions in both the genomes of humans and other primates. Their shared nature and identical locations are overwhelming evidence in support of the theory that posits that humans and the other primates shared a common ancestor.

Your creationist "interpretation"? That your god just 'magicked' them there to make scientists look silly...?

 

[Alunyel]

Good, at least you realized what's left.
Now, give the same data an interpretation according to creationism. That is it. Everything fits perfectly.

Care to try one? Pick up one both you and I can understand.

Oooh, let me, let me!

Actually, I'll pick three.

Wikipedia if you don't understand anything.

The similarities and differences between Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens, relative to where they originated. H. Neanderthalensis being native to colder climates, and also, physically better adapted to colder climates than H. Sapiens. At first glance, they'd apear human, but their DNA and skeletal anatomy are actually very different. (Our genome is actually a lot more similar to the chimp genome than H. Neanderthalensis.).

The fusion of two chimp chromosomes in our genome. Human chromosome #2, has telomeres in the middle. (Telomeres are like end caps for chromosomes, only found in the centre of chromosomes if those chromosomes are the result of a fusion of two other chromosomes.)

Atavism. Atavism is similar to when certain traits (Say blue eyes or a certain shaped nose) skip a generation. Say, someone may share common features with their grand parents, or great great grand parents, that were absent for the inbetween generations. Atavism takes this a step further, it turns on parts of an animal's genome that have been dormant for a very long time, resulting in things like chicken with teeth, humans with tails, snakes with legs, whales and dolphins with hind limbs. Of course, we only find atavisms for traits that an animal has had in its evolutionary history. You'll never find atavism say... giving a whale feathers, or an orangutan wings.

I'd be supprised if you can explain any of them from a creationist perspective.

 

[Hespera]

Juv sez..."Good, at least you realized what's left.
Now, give the same data an interpretation according to creationism. That is it. Everything fits perfefectly. QUOTE//////////////////

Hespera sez... Could you give us a quick definition of what you mean by evolution and by creation? Seems like everyone on the creationist side has a different definition for each of those terms.


Also... i think its kind of pointless to argue "my interpretation is better". I think the theologists like to talk like that, concerning the bible.

How about it you, as a scientist, self proclaimed or otherwise, wade in and defeat science on its own terms ? Science defeats its own theories all the time, using its own standards. so with truth reality and god on your side, you should be able to do this!

IF evoluiton is false it should be a cinch to bring up a bit of data to falsify it.

however.....

THAT is one thing you cant do, which i expect is why you try a different approach, one that just goes round and round on opinions.


if you want to argue like 'them scientists say this rock is old but i say its young", I guess i will just sort of watch from time to time and see how long that goes on.