Why can't creation scientists do "science"?

[pitabread]

The shift in his stance is documented and known.

What Stephen Hawking believed about death, afterlife and the creation of the universe

This doesn't support your claim:

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

 

[Hans Blaster]

One of many disturbing possibilities relating to GMOs and glyphosate.

What does this have to do with whether I am or am not a GMO?

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

Christians often talk about having a personal relationship with God. I am of a mind that christians should know basic science as a way to better understand the world around them, which in turn can only deepen their relationship with God.

Science supports creationism. There's no reason to hide from what the facts and science say. And every reason to try to be informed and educated. To cut down on the volume of fake news and lies.

FYI, if you want to quote sources, it's better to quote as proper text (e.g. not images) and include a link to the source.

Sources were lost when my old laptop died. All I have are screenshots of excerpts in some cases.

 

[pitabread]

Science supports creationism.

That's patently false.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

This doesn't support your claim:

There are plenty of other quotations that show his inclination to supporting creationism.

I get the feeling you don't know what I'm talking about though.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

That's patently false.

Claiming creationism is "patently false".

Is identical to claiming atheism is a scientifically validated and proven point of view.

Do you want to make those claims?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The shift in his stance is documented and known.

What Stephen Hawking believed about death, afterlife and the creation of the universe

That in no way at all implies that he supported creationism. Do you even understand what creationism is?

That post also indicates that someone did not understand what an atheist is. Most atheists are agnostics. Atheism is a big tent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Claiming creationism is "patently false".

Is identical to claiming atheism is a scientifically validated and proven point of view.

Do you want to make those claims?

No one on the evolution side has made those claims.

And it also appears that you do not understand what atheism is.

 

[pitabread]

Claiming creationism is "patently false".

I'm claiming that your claim that "Science supports creationism" is patently false. Science does not support creationism and even a cursory examination of the scientific fields in question will quickly reveal that.

Heck, if science really *did* support creationism then creationist organizations wouldn't need statements like this as part of their faith statements:

No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation.
​

They're blatantly telling us that science is irrelevant to their beliefs.

Is identical to claiming atheism is a scientifically validated and proven point of view.

Do you want to make those claims?

I'm not claiming that and I'm not aware of anyone on this forum making those claims either.

(I'm also not an atheist.)

 

[pitabread]

There are plenty of other quotations that show his inclination to supporting creationism.

I get the feeling you don't know what I'm talking about though.

I get the feeling that your definition of "creationism" is different than the common usage on these forums.

I think what you really mean is theism. Creationism as used on this forum typically refers to a subset of theistic beliefs that may include things like Young-Earth Creationism, Old-Earth Creationism, and sometimes various forms of Intelligent Design beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Christians often talk about having a personal relationship with God. I am of a mind that christians should know basic science as a way to better understand the world around them, which in turn can only deepen their relationship with God.

Science supports creationism. There's no reason to hide from what the facts and science say. And every reason to try to be informed and educated. To cut down on the volume of fake news and lies.



Sources were lost when my old laptop died. All I have are screenshots of excerpts in some cases.

I am sorry, but "Science supports creationism" is a claim that you need to support. From what I have seen the opposite is true. I am pretty sure that you do not even understand what science is now.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Science supports creationism.

Its a fact.

The whole point of the OP was about how creationsts fall apart when they try doing actual science.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I get the feeling that your definition of "creationism" is different than the common usage on these forums.

I think it's more a different definition of "science".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Claiming creationism is "patently false".

Is identical to claiming atheism is a scientifically validated and proven point of view.

Do you want to make those claims?

LOL! What has been claim is that creation "scientists" cannot seem to use science to support their beliefs. If you have any examples to the contrary I am very open to them.

 

[pitabread]

I think it's more a different definition of "science".

At this point I'm thinking they've got a different definition for everything.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I am sorry, but "Science supports creationism" is a claim that you need to support. From what I have seen the opposite is true. I am pretty sure that you do not even understand what science is now.

Are hypotheses considered not to be science? I'm asking honestly, at what point does an idea about nature become "science"..?

...A point of "conception"..?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are hypotheses considered not to be science? I'm asking honestly, at what point does an idea about nature become "science"..?

...A point of "conception"..?

Of course falsifiable hypotheses are part of science. So what?

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

All I know is, atheists made this thread to discuss "science".

Being the resident creationist, I'm the only one posting any real science in this thread.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Of course falsifiable hypotheses are part of science. So what?

...Then I don’t know what this thread is all about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All I know is, atheists made this thread to discuss "science".

Being the resident creationist, I'm the only one posting any real science in this thread.

Nope, you have only made unsupported, and apparently false claims. Do you even know what science is? I have my doubts. You do not seem to even understand what creationism is. Creationism is about. Creationism is not about the existence or nonexistence of a God. It is about the biological diversification of life.