Where will "Creation Science" be in 10 years?

[Matthewj1985]

What do you think?

 

[70x7]

Perhaps Jesus would have come back by then and we can all ask for ourselves if He were right or not.

 

[mark kennedy]

What do you think?

I think that point of view will endure as long as it is relentlessly attacked. It's Christian apologetics and if it's not under attack it will fade away tomorrow. As long as Darwinism continues its fatalistic march into religious conviction there will always be a response. The Bible is an anvil that has worn out many hammers and it will survive Darwinism along with the many other mystery religions that preceded it.

 

[Assyrian]

So where is geocentrism today?

 

[Mallon]

Same place it was 10 years ago.

 

[RobertByers]

Biblical and I.D creationism is advancing so strongly that it must be predicted it will either carve up present ToE ideas to smithers or be stopped by a excellent defence.
Election campaigns must address creationism which would not of happened decades ago.
Books and counter books and movies are here and coming as the money people realize there is great and growing interest in origin subjects.
Biblical creationism is becoming famous with personalities known by millions.
Museums the talk of America and creationist advanced ideas are being put forth with increasing power, confidence, and volume.
In ten years its possible that Darwinian evolution will be on the assheap of history in the world of ideas. Something else, not biblical creationism, will take its place.

Some talked here of the rapture.
Its hard to see the world embracing biblical creationism just before the rapture.
how would that work?

 

[LightHorseman]

What do you think?

In a scientifically literate world, Creation Science in 10 years time will be front and centre in the appropriate section of all good science museums and institutions... right next to the jar of phlogiston and the bottle of aether, all displayed on a turntable describing epicycles around the observer.

 

[LightHorseman]

Biblical and I.D creationism is advancing so strongly that it must be predicted it will either carve up present ToE ideas to smithers or be stopped by a excellent defence.
Election campaigns must address creationism which would not of happened decades ago.
Books and counter books and movies are here and coming as the money people realize there is great and growing interest in origin subjects.
Biblical creationism is becoming famous with personalities known by millions.
Museums the talk of America and creationist advanced ideas are being put forth with increasing power, confidence, and volume.
In ten years its possible that Darwinian evolution will be on the assheap of history in the world of ideas. Something else, not biblical creationism, will take its place.

Some talked here of the rapture.
Its hard to see the world embracing biblical creationism just before the rapture.
how would that work?

*LMAO* if Creation science and ID is "advancing so strongly" as you put it, perhaps you could provide a single example of experimentally or observationally confirmed Creationism or ID?

 

[The Barbarian]

Every generation, someone says that evolution is dying. And eventually they die, and their ideas with them.

But evolution proceeds with complete indifference to whatever we think about it.

 

[Mallon]

In a scientifically literate world, Creation Science in 10 years time will be front and centre in the appropriate section of all good science museums and institutions... right next to the jar of phlogiston and the bottle of aether, all displayed on a turntable describing epicycles around the observer.

Sounds pretty close to what Johnson envisioned in the Wedge strategy.

 

[crawfish]

When they can no longer realistically argue against evolution (some will stick to their guns no matter what, see the flat earth society), they will find some other reality to challenge their view. Neuropsychology is the best candidate right now, and will present serious challenges to our perception of free will and what the soul is.

 

[Breckmin]

Every generation, someone says that evolution is dying. And eventually they die, and their ideas with them.

But evolution proceeds with complete indifference to whatever we think about it.

We have a nomenclature problem with with creationists. The problem
is NOT evolution as the world of scientists look at the world. The problem
is specificallly "Darwinian evolutionary theory" or "universal common descent"
or "common descent with modification of ALL species" by means of a
mechanism called "natural selection" which is loaded with implication.

First, to the scientist, everything they observe speciation or what
we call "micro evolution" they are observing "evolution." So why
wouldn't they logically say evolution is FACT! Based on their
assumptions and observations, "evolution" IS fact, because they
observe it.

I really need we as creationists need to stop using the word
"evolution" and specifically address the problem of "universal
common descent" by this mechanism of "natural selection."

We also need to address the basic principle of "survival of
the fittest" which is part of creation, and actual have a term
which "differentiates" it (survival of the fittest) FROM the
mechanism of natural selection which is a deception.

Until we do this, we are just responding to each other with
incongruous points and we are missing opposing points of
view and their basic assumptions.

So "calling all creationists."

So what is a better creationist term for "survival of the
fittest" that we see in Creation? What is a principle
nomenclature we can use that differentiates it from
natural selection?

Michael

 

[Breckmin]

*LMAO* if Creation science and ID is "advancing so strongly" as you put it, perhaps you could provide a single example of experimentally or observationally confirmed Creationism or ID?

In response to Robert Beyers, the "rapture" will come after most all of the
Christians have been killed so you'd better go back and "test" pre-tribulational
dispensationalism.

In response LightHorsemen. The Law of Biogenesis and the Law of
Information are both falsifiable. Anytime you want to falsify them you
go right ahead and try. They have NOT been falsified. Just as Mike
Behe also told you how to falsify Intelligent Design using the bacterial
flagellum.

ID, IDD, and creationism are all open to falsification on information
entropy alone.

If you can produce information that is useful in communication
through random processes, then you will have proven our assertions
wrong. Demonstrate abiogenesis naturally, and you will have also
falsified the Law of Biogenesis. It has not been falsified.

Michael

 

[RobertByers]

*LMAO* if Creation science and ID is "advancing so strongly" as you put it, perhaps you could provide a single example of experimentally or observationally confirmed Creationism or ID?

you first. Show a evolution thing worth talking about.
In fact thats the attack. There is no evidence of substance to back up such wild claims as evolution.
The present biology before our eyes is the evidence of a creator. clearly.
Surely you can't deny its become a big need of evolution to put money, books, and energy to desperatly fight creationism. Its everywhere.

 

[RobertByers]

In response to Robert Beyers, the "rapture" will come after most all of the
Christians have been killed so you'd better go back and "test" pre-tribulational
dispensationalism.

In response LightHorsemen. The Law of Biogenesis and the Law of
Information are both falsifiable. Anytime you want to falsify them you
go right ahead and try. They have NOT been falsified. Just as Mike
Behe also told you how to falsify Intelligent Design using the bacterial
flagellum.

ID, IDD, and creationism are all open to falsification on information
entropy alone.

If you can produce information that is useful in communication
through random processes, then you will have proven our assertions
wrong. Demonstrate abiogenesis naturally, and you will have also
falsified the Law of Biogenesis. It has not been falsified.

Michael

Your creationist?
Well evolution means the great claim for present biology of life. So it is up to them to provide evidence. Its not about minor things seen, seemly, in labs.
Evolution is a fantastic claim. The claim is what we challenge.

 

[The Barbarian]

If you can produce information that is useful in communication
through random processes, then you will have proven our assertions
wrong.

Would you consider rolling dice to be random? If so, then I can give you some examples. Want to see them?

 

[mark kennedy]

In response to Robert Beyers, the "rapture" will come after most all of the
Christians have been killed so you'd better go back and "test" pre-tribulational
dispensationalism.

Thats interesting, there will be an unprecedented persecution but I doubt seriously that all Christians will be dead. The 144,000 would seem to indicate otherwise.

In response LightHorsemen. The Law of Biogenesis and the Law of
Information are both falsifiable. Anytime you want to falsify them you
go right ahead and try. They have NOT been falsified. Just as Mike
Behe also told you how to falsify Intelligent Design using the bacterial
flagellum.

They don't falsify, they contradict.

ID, IDD, and creationism are all open to falsification on information
entropy alone.

If you can produce information that is useful in communication
through random processes, then you will have proven our assertions
wrong. Demonstrate abiogenesis naturally, and you will have also
falsified the Law of Biogenesis. It has not been falsified.

Michael

They don't do that, they just argue from their assumptions. Expect to be contradicted but they can't refute biogenesis, that is the only way life has ever been produced.

 

[The Barbarian]

If you can produce information that is useful in communication
through random processes, then you will have proven our assertions
wrong.

​

Barbarian offers:
Would you consider rolling dice to be random? If so, then I can give you some examples. Want to see them?

(silence)

Guess not.

 

[mark kennedy]

​

Barbarian offers:
Would you consider rolling dice to be random? If so, then I can give you some examples. Want to see them?

(silence)

Guess not.

Does the word meaningless occur to anyone else?

 

[champuru]

you first. Show a evolution thing worth talking about.
In fact thats the attack. There is no evidence of substance to back up such wild claims as evolution.
The present biology before our eyes is the evidence of a creator. clearly.
Surely you can't deny its become a big need of evolution to put money, books, and energy to desperatly fight creationism. Its everywhere.

Take the word "evolution" and replace it with "creationism." Then take the "creationism" that was originally there and replace it with "evolution." Now your sentence is accurate