Why can't creation scientists do "science"?

[Subduction Zone]

Well, it seems to me like the induciveness of life isn't understood/explained well enough through science... That's the reason why you have Creationists in science.

What do you mean by the "inducivness of life"?

 

[pitabread]

Curious that this thread seems to have stirred up a hornet's nest response, yet nobody is actually refuting or even really addressing anything posted in the OP.

 

[Rescued One]

They say as they send such a message around the world at the speed of light for a global audience to view.

Science suggests solutions that don't work and claim answers that can't be proven. I haven't claimed that science is incapable of discovering solutions or being helpful. But science doesn't prove there is no god so claiming to be an atheist is disingenuous.

 

[Hans Blaster]

As they failed to comprehend the science behind monsanto GMOs (of which atheists were the largest supporting demographic).

You're one of those people that don't want to eat anything with foreign DNA in it aren't you?

 

[Landon Caeli]

What do you mean by the "inducivness of life"?

Well, you know what "induce" means... It means to make happen.

...People are left feeling unsatisfied with the current data in regards to what induces life to behave the way it does, and that's why Creationism still lingers.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Science suggests solutions that don't work and claim answers that can't be proven. I haven't claimed that science is incapable of discovering solutions or being helpful. But science doesn't prove there is no god so claiming to be an atheist is disingenuous.

Do you know what science is?

Why do you hate it? (At least that's what it looks like to us.)

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

Curious that this thread seems to have stirred up a hornet's nest response, yet nobody is actually refuting or even really addressing anything posted in the OP.

Why wouldn't there be more scientific truth on creationism.

When we live in a world where no one is rewarded for speaking the truth but mountains of money are thrown at those who speak lies.

 

[pitabread]

There are people with scientific training, and even some actual scientists, that are creationists. Yet none of them can seem to do any science when it comes to creationism.

Does anyone have an explanation for that?

Odds are that we will have to go over the basics of science in this thread.

Just an FYI, but I've been reporting a bunch of the random off topic posts in this thread. Hopefully mods will clean things up.

I do think the OP is worth exploring, since I do find the whole area of "creation science" to be a fascinating subject.

 

[pitabread]

Why wouldn't there be more scientific truth on creationism.

When we live in a world where no one is paid to speak the truth but mountains of money are thrown at those who speak lies.

I've long said that if claims of 'creation science' were actually true, the first place you'd be hearing about it would be in industry. There are numerous areas of applied science in trillion dollar industries that 'creation science' would have direct implications for.

Yet inexplicably the only real-world applications of 'creation science' seem to be merchandizing and tourism. Rather telling, that.

(Also you might want to check the financial statements of various creationist organisms. They rake in millions of dollars in donations and other revenue. And a number of senior fellows in those organizations take home six-figure salaries.

So if you're going to accuse people of just doing things for the money, professional creationists might be the first ones you take a look at.)

 

[Rescued One]

There are people with scientific training, and even some actual scientists, that are creationists. Yet none of them can seem to do any science when it comes to creationism.

Does anyone have an explanation for that?

Odds are that we will have to go over the basics of science in this thread.

Okay, let's look at this. You say you're an atheist. How do you know there is no god? Or is atheism a belief you desire but can't prove?

My mother had six children. I'm the only one who became a Christian.

 

[pitabread]

But science doesn't prove there is no god so claiming to be an atheist is disingenuous.

Science cannot make any claims about god one way or the other. I'm really not sure what your point is, unless you are mistakenly equating science and atheism?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Curious that this thread seems to have stirred up a hornet's nest response, yet nobody is actually refuting or even really addressing anything posted in the OP.

Are you really that surprised?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[pitabread]

Are you really that surprised?

Well no, but the response fascinates me nonetheless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science suggests solutions that don't work and claim answers that can't be proven. I haven't claimed that science is incapable of discovering solutions or being helpful. But science doesn't prove there is no god so claiming to be an atheist is disingenuous.

LOL!
Seriously, you need to learn what an atheist is. This thread has nothing to do with atheism versus theism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you really that surprised?

-CryptoLutheran

Not really. I am mildly disappointed. I did not think that this would be very controversial at all.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

You're one of those people that don't want to eat anything with foreign DNA in it aren't you?

I'm one of those who remember scientists promising cross contamination of GMO genes was impossible.

It didn't stay "impossible" for long.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Curious that this thread seems to have stirred up a hornet's nest response, yet nobody is actually refuting or even really addressing anything posted in the OP.

I'm pretty sure I nailed it when I pointed out that Creationism still exists in the sciences, due to widespread feelings of unsatisfactory explanations in regards to the induciveness of life.

...It's so widespread, that even scientists have taken up creationism.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

I've long said that if claims of 'creation science' were actually true, the first place you'd be hearing about it would be in industry. There are numerous areas of applied science in trillion dollar industries that 'creation science' would have direct implications for.

Yet inexplicably the only real-world applications of 'creation science' seem to be merchandizing and tourism. Rather telling, that.

(Also you might want to check the financial statements of various creationist organisms. They rake in millions of dollars in donations and other revenue. And a number of senior fellows in those organizations take home six-figure salaries.

So if you're going to accuse people of just doing things for the money, professional creationists might be the first ones you take a look at.)

I think everyone knows Stephen Hawking was open minded and supportive of creationism.

Until considerable pressure was applied for him to support the opposite stance.

The motive behind schools endorsing atheism involves money and power in the world overwhelmingly supporting that view over religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm one of those who remember scientists promising cross contamination of GMO genes was impossible.

It didn't stay "impossible" for long.

Citation needed.

Of course the anti-GMO crowd has of yet to show how GMO's are a threat.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Okay, let's look at this. You say you're an atheist. How do you know there is no god? Or is atheism a belief you desire but can't prove?

Wrong question, because it fundamentally misunderstands "atheism".

Take any number of things that you or I don't believe in: pixies, unicorns, other gods such as Zeus or Odin, anything. Is non-belief in those things something that needs to be proved in order to not believe them?

I'll be honest, I've done no rigorous testing to figure out if pixies do or do not exist. I wouldn't even begin to know how to do that. Yet I do not believe in pixies.

My lack of belief in pixies is not a belief, but an absence of belief.

So there is no burden of proof on atheists to prove there is no god.
In the same way that there is no burden of proof on you or me to prove there are no pixies.

Atheism isn't a belief system, it is simply the absence of a belief in this one particular thing, namely the existence of God(s).

And most importantly, the subject of atheism is immaterial to the topic of this thread.

Creationism vs Evolution isn't a Theist vs Atheist, or a Religious vs non-Religious, or a Christian vs non-Christian debate.

I'm a Christian. A Bible-believing, Creed-confessing, devout and dedicated Christian passionate for the Gospel.

I'm also an "Evolutionist".

-CryptoLutheran