Which science is the biggest threat to Creationism?

[gluadys]

If you are talking about old earth creationism of the Hugh Ross variety then the biggest threat is probably biology, specifically molecular biology with observations like shared pseudo genes and retroviral insertions.

Yes, that is why I chose biology over geology. Though, if OECs subscribe to a global flood, geology refutes that anyway.

 

[JohnR7]

Insofar as creationism has been falsified, you're correct.

I guess that would depend on what "ism" your talking about or even just what a "ism" is. YEC does not seem to be holding up, but GAP & OEC are doing just fine.

Although GAP is more of a recreationist theory. It tends to lean at least somewhat on the KJV use of the word: replenish.

 

[gluadys]

I guess that would depend on what "ism" your talking about or even just what a "ism" is. YEC does not seem to be holding up, but GAP & OEC are doing just fine.

Although GAP is more of a recreationist theory. It tends to lean at least somewhat on the KJV use of the word: replenish.

In so far as GAP envisions a recent re-creation of heaven and earth, it is falsified in much the same way YEC is. For one thing---where is the geological evidence for a devastating global catastrophe prior to the flood, which required a complete re-doing of creation as described in Genesis? And then they want a flood as well? Its even more dizzy than YEC.

 

[unclemonkey]

Pick from the larger fields of science and decide which is viewed as the biggest threat to Creationism?

There is no "science" that is a threat to Creationism. Worldview based interpretations can disagree with Creationism, but there is not the least bit of empirical evidence that is a threat at all.

 

[unclemonkey]

Any well-practiced science is a threat to superstition and mythology.

That is why evolution relies on pseudo-science rather than observational science.

Prove me wrong by presenting empirical evidence of genome building evolution.

At another forum I have been asking for empirical evidence that supports goo to you evolution for almost two years and to date not one bit of empirical evidence has been presented. Several attempts were made though demonstrating that the evolutonists at that forum don't know the difference between empirical evidence and interpretation.

What has been presented was all easily refutable as either 'bait and switch con', circular reasoning, unjustifiable assumptions or outright fraud.

Can you do any better?

 

[unclemonkey]

To accept creationism you must reject all those sciences at a fundamental level.

Not really. All that has to be rejected is the worldview based interpretations.

 

[Mistermystery]

They've done a good job brainwashing you. Can you explain how craterimpacts work in a young Earth model?

 

[mark kennedy]

Pick from the larger fields of science and decide which is viewed as the biggest threat to Creationism?

None of the above, metaphysics is the biggest threat to Creationism.

 

[Aron-Ra]

None of the above, metaphysics is the biggest threat to Creationism.

Now that's an answer I didn't expect. But you know what? You may be right!

Of course metaphysics are limited to the subjective, and therefore can't be included in this poll.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Not really. All that has to be rejected is the worldview based interpretations.

Including the "Literal Bible" worldview...

 

[HRE]

Metaphysics? Does talk.origins have a page on this that I can learn from?

 

[Nathan Poe]

That is why evolution relies on pseudo-science rather than observational science.

Prove me wrong by presenting empirical evidence of genome building evolution.

At another forum I have been asking for empirical evidence that supports goo to you evolution for almost two years and to date not one bit of empirical evidence has been presented. Several attempts were made though demonstrating that the evolutonists at that forum don't know the difference between empirical evidence and interpretation.

What has been presented was all easily refutable as either 'bait and switch con', circular reasoning, unjustifiable assumptions or outright fraud.

Can you do any better?

Can you do any better than "goo to you?"

 

[the_gloaming]

how about we start a new thread for the benefit of unclemonkey, rather than taking over this thread ?

 

[PaladinValer]

All of those show strong evidence against Creationism, although since biological evidence IMO is the most important (as it encompases the rest in many respects), I chose it as the biggest threat.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

That is why evolution relies on pseudo-science rather than observational science.

Prove me wrong by presenting empirical evidence of genome building evolution.

At another forum I have been asking for empirical evidence that supports goo to you evolution for almost two years and to date not one bit of empirical evidence has been presented. Several attempts were made though demonstrating that the evolutonists at that forum don't know the difference between empirical evidence and interpretation.

What has been presented was all easily refutable as either 'bait and switch con', circular reasoning, unjustifiable assumptions or outright fraud.

Can you do any better?

Nonsense like this shows that nothing can threating YEC in the carefully closed minds of its brainwashed followers.

The empirical evidence that falsifies YEC has been discussed on thread after thread. The YECs keep claiming it is a "matter of interpretation" but self consistent YEC interpretations of the data are never forthcoming.

As to alleged evidence against evolution, it must be pointed out yet again that YEC is falsified independantly of the validity of evolution. Alleged evidence against evolution is no more evidence for the Hebrew creation myth that it is for the Hopi or Hindu or any of several hundred other creation myths. Logical errors abound in YEC but the false dichotomy it one of their favorites.

the frumious Bandersnatch