Why are creationists so threatened by science?

[AV1611VET]

It is a tough row to hoe though because if you wanted to introduce God scientifically you would have to come forward with some evidence to support your claim for a unfalsifiable idea.

Trying to introduce God to the corporate body of scientists today is like trying to introduce Rosa Parks to the corporate body of the Ku Klux Klan.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Trying to introduce reality to a creationist is like trying to introduce reality to a creationist.

 

[Split Rock]

if you work in the sciences or academia, and you not down with Darwinian Evolution (which is more accurately described as: the capability for Adaptation of an organism, as witnessed in the DNA which allows for variation and adaptation, btw, for all you Discovery Channel arm-chair 'scientists')
if you ain't down with the fairy-tale narrative espoused by the Ruling Elete, you can kiss your research grants, academic tenure and you career good-bye.

And just how would you know any of this? I seriously doubt you are working in the sciences or acedemia, because what you describe isn't what I see there.

This is how and why Al Gore gets a Nobel Prize for doing nothing more then financing and narrating a piece of tripe propaganda film,
and how & why President of the United States Corporation, Barrack Hussein Obummer, commander-in-thief, gets a Nobel Prize for doing literally, NOTHING.

Political rant non-sequiter.

The book of Nature reveals all to those not removed from Nature or who have their minds addled by the State run, Corporate Owned Media Propaganda Machine.

Creationists don't bother looking at the "book of nature," because they are only looking at their bible. That's why they claim there are no transitionals, the earth is a few thousand years old, or claim the flood explains the geological record. You could never reach such conclusions by looking at nature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All that believe in God believe in truth. "The way, the truth and the life".

Claiming ownership of truth and calling God a liar is simply stealing from God, for God is already all goodness, truth itself.

I have seen very few believers of evolution call God a liar. In fact many of them believe the theory because they believe that God is not a liar. What they are questioning is your image of God and your sources. If your sources are not correct then your image of God is not correct.

Now some of the creationists on this site do seem to believe that God is a liar. All you have to do is to look for claims like "embedded age" or other such nonsense. That is essentially a claim that God is not honest and that he had to plant false information for his creation to be "complete".

 

[variant]

Trying to introduce God to the corporate body of scientists today is like trying to introduce Rosa Parks to the corporate body of the Ku Klux Klan.

Ignoring the relationship of scientists and the KKK in that metaphor.

In terms of God being a falsifiable hypothesis that helps us explain the world and make predictions you would be entirely right the ideas are antithetical.

God is not a falsifiable hypothesis. It's barely even a defined concept.

Religious teachings do not give us pertinent predictions that are scientifically relevant.

 

[AV1611VET]

God is not a falsifiable hypothesis.

Neither is Bill Gates.

 

[variant]

Neither is Bill Gates.

Yes he is, he just happens to be in evidence.

We have a definition of Bill Gates and a set of criterion we should expect to be true or false based upon his existence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes he is, he just happens to be in evidence.

Bill Gates is a falsifiable hypothesis?

 

[variant]

Bill Gates is a falsifiable hypothesis?

Bill Gates Exists < is a falsifiable hypothesis.

 

[Loudmouth]

if you work in the sciences or academia, and you not down with Darwinian Evolution (which is more accurately described as: the capability for Adaptation of an organism, as witnessed in the DNA which allows for variation and adaptation, btw, for all you Discovery Channel arm-chair 'scientists')
if you ain't down with the fairy-tale narrative espoused by the Ruling Elete, you can kiss your research grants, academic tenure and you career good-bye.

What research do creationists need money for? What experiments do they want to run?

 

[AV1611VET]

Bill Gates is a falsifiable hypothesis?

Bill Gates Exists < is a falsifiable hypothesis.

How about the Arab phone you're using? is that a falsifiable hypothesis as well?

 

[variant]

How about the Arab phone you're using? is that a falsifiable hypothesis as well?

Since I have no idea what you're talking about I can't say.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since I have no idea what you're talking about I can't say.

You said God is not a falsifiable hypothesis.

God is a Person.

I asked if Bill Gates (also a person) is a falsifiable hypothesis, and you played the Telephone Game (a.k.a., Arab Phone) by changing my point from a person (Bill Gates) to a phrase (Bill Gates exists) to make your point stand.

That, to me, is disingenuous.

I'll ask again though, Is Bill Gates a falsifiable hypothesis?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You said God is not a falsifiable hypothesis.

God is a Person.

I asked if Bill Gates (also a person) is a falsifiable hypothesis, and you played the Telephone Game (a.k.a., Arab Phone) by changing my point from a person (Bill Gates) to a phrase (Bill Gates exists) to make your point stand.

That, to me, is disingenuous.

I'll ask again though, Is Bill Gates a falsifiable hypothesis?

You still don't seem to understand what a hypothesis is. Bill Gates is no a hypothesis, he is a person, by the way I would not denigrate God by saying he is a person but he is not a hypothesis either.

The existence of Bill Gates is a testable hypothesis.

The existence of God is not a testable hypothesis.

Do you see the difference?

 

[AV1611VET]

... by the way I would not denigrate God by saying he is a person ...

You would not call Him the 1st Person of the Godhead? or the 2nd Person? or the 3rd Person?

 

[variant]

You said God is not a falsifiable hypothesis.

God is a Person.

I asked if Bill Gates (also a person) is a falsifiable hypothesis, and you played the Telephone Game (a.k.a., Arab Phone) by changing my point from a person (Bill Gates) to a phrase (Bill Gates exists) to make your point stand.

That, to me, is disingenuous.

I'll ask again though, Is Bill Gates a falsifiable hypothesis?

Aside from some logical chicanery.

Premise 1 "God is a Person." Is not in evidence.

Yes "Bill Gates exists" is a falsifiable hypothesis.

To clarify when I refer to God not being a falsifiable hypothesis I mean anything to do with it as an explanation.

A common speaker of English might be able to grasp my meaning so what is your first language?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You would not call Him the 1st Person of the Godhead? or the 2nd Person? or the 3rd Person?

No. At best imaginary friend seems to cover the idea.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You still don't seem to understand what a hypothesis is. Bill Gates is no a hypothesis, he is a person, by the way I would not denigrate God by saying he is a person but he is not a hypothesis either.

The existence of Bill Gates is a testable hypothesis.

The existence of God is not a testable hypothesis.

Do you see the difference?

Why is the existence of God not a testable hypothesis?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why is the existence of God not a testable hypothesis?

It is not a testable hypothesis for me, I have no clue how to test for God's existence, or by anyone else as far as I have ever heard.

Talk about winning a Nobel Prize. If someone ever figured out a way to test for the existence of God we would have a lifetime winner.

 

[RickG]

Trying to introduce God to the corporate body of scientists today is like trying to introduce Rosa Parks to the corporate body of the Ku Klux Klan.

I feel really blessed that I belong to a Christian denomination that doesn't debase science.