• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Will Creation Science Ever Be Accepted By Mainstream Scientists?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
Or neither of us really understand Gods methodology. Just cause their are consistencies in dates determined by the decay rates of different isotopes does not mean that we have to assume 100% parent isotope in an original sample. If it is not 100% we do not know how old the original rock was.

We can directly observe zircons forming, and they exclude Pb while including U. We can date brand new lavas and look for ourselves how much parent product is present when these rocks form. We can also use isochron methods that allow us to actually measure the amount of daughter product that the rock started out with.

It isn't assumed. We have the evidence and techniques to back it. Simply saying that your religious beliefs make everything a mystery does not make the facts go away.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Creationism tells you that their is a Creator that has designed the universe we inhabit and who sustains it.

Even if one subscribes to the concept of "creationism", the basic concept of God creating all things doesn't tell us when that may have occurred.

Creationism therefore provides a foundation that explains the seen and unseen causes of our existence. Thus it both encourages science as a legitimate and reasonable exploration of Gods creation and sets limits to what science can find out.

Technically speaking one can choose to believe that the Earth and universe itself was "created", albeit at a much early date than you seem to believe. Why pick a date that conflicts with all the scientific evidence, even if one supports 'creationism'?
 
Upvote 0

Chicken Little

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2010
1,342
288
mid-Americauna
✟3,163.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Funny how you can't even address the evidence.
what evidence ? it is all made up in your mind and thin air and big sticks. .
you have never addressed God's evidence. I won't until you do!
 
Upvote 0

Chicken Little

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2010
1,342
288
mid-Americauna
✟3,163.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
God's evidence? Since virtually all Catholics and most Christians embrace an ancient Earth, what evidence might that be?
have you read the new testament? how about 1 john 1 , and Jesus claims to be the creator a thousand times and then backs it up with the appropriate miracles ..
but you won't know that if you follow christian churches, catechism or anything else man has for ideas..... it seems that they got their own roots growing or are growing with out him.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
have you read the new testament? how about 1 john 1 , and Jesus claims to be the creator a thousand times and then backs it up with the appropriate miracles ..

Unfortunately such passages tell us nothing about when such a creation event may have occurred.

but you won't know that if you follow christian churches, catechism or anything else man has for ideas..... it seems that they got their own roots growing or are growing with out him.

I don't personally believe that it's even possible to live without God, even if one imagines that they do.

You're sort of missing my point from my perspective. Most Christians embrace the concept that God created all things, but most of them also embrace an ancient Earth. What makes your personal interpretation of the Bible any more accurate than the majority of Christians?
 
Upvote 0

Chicken Little

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2010
1,342
288
mid-Americauna
✟3,163.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Unfortunately such passages tell us nothing about when such a creation event may have occurred.



I don't personally believe that it's even possible to live without God, even if one imagines that they do.

You're sort of missing my point from my perspective. Most Christians embrace the concept that God created all things, but most of them also embrace an ancient Earth. What makes your personal interpretation of the Bible any more accurate than the majority of Christians?
your joking right?
If the book wrong He wasn't going to make sure they fixed it !!
I'm done.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Even if I can't convince the mainstream scientists that creation is logical and scientific

Creation is scientifically logical, but not testable through the scientific method.

The vast majority of science is based on the idea that every result comes from
an equal or greater source.

If you could ever get out more than you put in, you'd have a perpetual motion
machine. We wish.

So unless you support perpetual motion machines, then you must admit that
the source of all we see and know.....is bigger. Science readily admits that
examination of the "Pre-Cosmos" is impossible. Christians must agree.
Special Creation is outside the scope of scientific examination.
They should stop insisting it is testable.
 
Upvote 0

LoricaLady

YHWH's
Site Supporter
Jul 27, 2009
19,082
12,671
Ohio
✟1,288,482.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
For whatever help it might be, here is something I have shared many times on the net:

-Below are some Qs for you to answer which require only logic and science. There is no reference to Deity or the Bible since evolution stands or falls based on science and logic alone. When you see that you cannot answer the Qs - and no evo. devotees ever answer them, only change the subject, make excuses and dodge, evade, ignore them - be honest with yourself and notice that your...faith....in evolution is not really founded on understanding of the scientific issues.

Before looking at the Qs you might want to Google Quotes Showing The Credulity of Evolutionists to see Nobel Prize winning scientists, other scientists, including evolutionists (!) admitting there is no...evidence... for evolution! If they don't buy it, why should you?

Qs, # 1. We are told by people like Richard Dawkins and others that bacteria turned into things like sponges and jelly fish and then eventually into you. Give one shred of evidence for that. After all, we have been examining bacteria since 1670, pretty much 24/7 around the globe, and they multiply at rocket rates. I'll give you the real evidence. See if you can refute it.

Yes, bacteria do change somewhat. But every last one of them stays a bacteria. Always have. Ditto sponges, jelly fish etc. Bacteria can be fossilized. Examples have been found in so called "earliest, Cambrian" layers of the earth, and they are all just bacteria, w/no evidence they are turning into anything else at all. We are told that nylon eating bacteria are evidence for evolution. Yeal, they made a change. But change is not evolution. Dogs, cats, horses, cows, tulips, bees etc. have been changed for thousands of years. They give evidence against evolution because all that change has led to are....dogs, cats, horses, cows, tulips, bees etc.

Evolutionary literature tells us that nylon eating bacteria are a poster child for evolution because they learned to eat nylon from factory run off into their ponds. Nylon eating bacteria have not so much as changed their species even. They go right back to normal eating patterns in normal ponds. So explain how they are turning into uber bacteria climbing up Darwin's Tree to turn into you? Explain that now, don't dodge it. Give any evidence whatsoever that any bacteria whatsoever ever stopped being a bacteria. Theories which have no evidence to back them up, when presented as scientific fact, make only for pseudo science.

Kindly don't say, "Change is evolution." It is ultra easy to prove that is totally untrue. That's one of evolution's big myths. All those bacteria, fish, birds, bugs, plants, people, etc. etc. keep changing and changing. And they all stay bacteria, birds, bugs, plants, people etc. etc. So what change really shows is that it does NOT lead to evolution! Therefore kindly paste no links showing how eboli virus, and snow flake yeast etc. have changed - sometimes in intelligently designed (!) high tech labs, or whatever, wherever

Kindly send nothing about how bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics. Notice that all the eboli viruses, snow flake yeast and bacteria are still just eboli viruses, snow flake yeast and bacteria. Again, the real evidence is there alright and it is showing change is not leading to evolution at all. Back to Dawkins, he teaches that time, space, matter and energy and you,. everything, comes from....nothing. Rotfl! What kind of "science" is that? Don't the laws of physics, doesn't common sense, show that nothing comes from nothing? In fact, they show us that an effect can never be greater than its cause.

Qs, # 2 We are told that natural selection leads to evoltuion. Again, we see change, indeed, through natural selection. Look at all those countless species, for ex. of fish in the waterways and birds in the air....all staying fish and birds. Cite observed data that demonstrates an occurence of unique genetic information resulting through natural selection - not just the reshuffling of, or elimination of, genetic information that is already available in the life form. Name the life form and verify its before and after states. In order to turn a reptile into one of countless other varieties of reptiles there is only the need to shuffle, or eliminate, some genetic material it already has, through natural selection or even human intervention.

To turn a reptile into a bird you would need totally new, bird, DNA for things like wings, feathers, beaks etc. (Funny how, with evolution supposedly being the norm, there is not, for ex., one case example of any such changes with the countless billions of reptiles found on the planet, and ditto the countless fish that are not seen turning into reptiles but into anything but fish.)

Find me a toe on a single fish, a feather on a single reptile, for ex.. living or fossil. And no those supposed "protofeathers" found on some ancient reptile fossils have been described by some....evolutionists....as being only collagenous fibers.) Tell me where science has ever observed any such things happening with DNA. It is all very well to say "Well, it all happened so long ago...." What evidence is there in that? How do you tell a missing link from a nonexistent link?

Qs, # 3 We are told that mutations are the 2nd mechanism leading to evolution. Where is the evidence for that? Yes, mutations happen all the time. They are generally neutral or harmful, and the few "beneficial" ones are debatable. Even if they are beneficial in some very slight way, though, where is the evidence that mutations build on one another like leggos to create new structures, say to turn a fin into a foot?Fish don't have DNA for feet. To change a fin into a foot you need new. foot, DNA. Explain how mutations could create DNA. Give evidence for where that has ever been seen to happen. In fact, explain how DNA came about period by any mechanism. Please don't tell me that the sickle cell anemia mutation is leading to evolution, as some evolutionists have claimed. No, it just replaces one horrible disease for another through bent blood cells. How is that going to make the hapless victims more likely to produce healthy, viable, offspring? How do bent blood cells have the capacity to turn the victims some day into uber people, climbing up Darwin's Tree?

Do your research in peer reviewed evolutionary literature and when you do check for theoretcal, faith, words like "Probably....must have...likely....we can infer...it appears that...similar homology [Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy which undergirds all of evolutionary theory]....millions of years ago [stated as Gawd's truth scientific fact though such happenings in those periods of "time" are untestable, unobservable, unrepeatable....ev-i-dence-less.]..." etc. I promise you, you will always find those kinds of "faith factor" words, usually in the first paragraph. And I promise you that speculations piled on logical fallacies piled on presumptions mixed in with sophistry will almost always be counted as "evidence" in the peer reviews.

Qs, # 4 Pick any "transitional" fossil you like, Lucy, Ida, whatever. Then answer these Qs with data, with evidence. How do you know it ever had a single descendant significantly different from itself in any way much less that it eventually changed from say Ambulocetus, a little animal with four legs and hooves, into a great whale? How do you know a "transition", like Tiktaalilk and all the others, isn't just what it looks like - what the only evidence shows - a dead end, extinct, life form? And btw look at modern day lobe finned fish that are virtually the same as Tik.

Research the history of how they told you another lobefinned fish, Coelacanath, WAS a transition. They used their Correlation Does Not Imply Causation, Fallacy of the Single Cause , etc. and Presuming Omniscience magic crystal ball that sees into the past to tell people that. Tons of peer reviews said the presumed to be extinct Coelacanth was turning into a reptile. Then they found some live ones. You can see the pretty blue...fish period...swimming on Youtube.

There are countless billions of fossils out there but that's an example of the best they can do to prove there ae transitional forms. Please don't say "walking catfish". They are 100% fish with 100% fins used in a novel way, similar to "flying fish" which no way are turning into birds. Fish and dolphins, etc. have astronomically more "characteristics of" and "similar homology" features than amabulocetus and a whale. Ditto Tiktaalik and a tetrapod. Bats, birds and bees fly. Bats and whales, both mammals, have sonar. Chimps and tobacco have 48 chromosomes. Cockatoos and people dance to music. So what? Correlation Does Not Imply Causation is a logical fall-a-cy.

The only matching "characteristics of" ambulocetus is a minor similarity in the inner ear to that of a whale and eyes that are elevated on the skull somewhat above the average. Based on that we're supposed to believe ambulocetus turned into a great whale? Again Correlation Does Not Imply Causation is a logical fallacy,not scientific evidence. To use it as evidence is illogical, therefore antiscience.

Oh, and before you say "Geologic Column" that is a mythical construct developed by a 19th century lawyer named Charles Lyell. He never saw one and no one else has either. Sites like Talk Spin, aka Talk Origins, claim they found part of one on this entire planet. What does the fossil record really show?

Fossils are jumbled. There are so called Cambrian and PreCambrian seashells, mollusks, etc. littering the tops of most mountains. Dino bones from the so called lower level Jurassic area stick out of mountain ranges in the northwestern states. Where I grew up, in a midwestern state, you can find extinct, ocean floor trylobytes in the hills. If you want more documentation I can give you quotes from evolutionary scientists admitting that the dating of the rocks is "very subjective" and that people try to match their dates to presumed Darwinian expectations.

Come out of the matrix. You are not just a modified ape who sprang from a totally fictional, made up, evidence-free primal pond. (And don't say abiogenesis isn't part of evolution. You think some creationist made up the made up primal pond?) Find out who you really are and why you are here.
=================================================================

Good for you that you came out of the pseudo science of evolution. Happened to me too. I have also experienced the attacks on creation science by people on a Christian forum who are not Christian, usually, but just want to attack Christianity.

They never answer the Qs above. Sometimes they seem to think they are answering the Qs until the Qs are repeated and they are shown that they are simply giving faith bytes, cut and paste, that no way address the Qs with data based answers. The truth is our school systems have not taught them critical thinking so they think that speculation can be presented as facts. Also they have almost never even heard of logical fallacies, which evolution is solidly built upon.

They never admit they can't answer the Qs, though, just do a lot of bluff and bluster which doesn't really fool anyone. They show a very weak grasp not only on how real science works, but even of what evolution is saying. I always pray for them because if the truth could get through to me - and it did - of course it can get through to them sooner or later. If and when they are ever ready for the truth.

In response to your original Q, well there are scientists from every origins related field coming out against evolution. The quotes I referenced show no way is evolutionary theory universally accepted, also. But I do not think mainstream "science" or academia will ever embrace creation science but will continue to fight it tooth and nail for people are generally worldly and don't like the idea of Someone besides themselves being in charge of anything...and everything.

Further, the Bible prophesies how it's gonna be:
2 Peter
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
your joking right?
If the book wrong He wasn't going to make sure they fixed it !!
I'm done.

Huh? I'm simply pointing to you out that all Christians honor the Bible, they almost all embrace the idea that God created everything, yet most of them embrace an ancient Earth. Nothing about the book is necessarily 'wrong', but either the majority of Christians or the minority of Christians interprets the book incorrectly. How do you know that your personal (and minority) interpretation is correct?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Qs, # 1. We are told by people like Richard Dawkins and others that bacteria turned into things like sponges and jelly fish and then eventually into you. Give one shred of evidence for that.

Qs, # 3 We are told that mutations are the 2nd mechanism leading to evolution. Where is the evidence for that? Yes, mutations happen all the time. They are generally neutral or harmful, and the few "beneficial" ones are debatable. Even if they are beneficial in some very slight way, though, where is the evidence that mutations build on one another like leggos to create new structures, say to turn a fin into a foot?

It's called a Hox gene:

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/newsrel/science/mchox.htm

“The problem for a long time has been over this issue of macroevolution,” says William McGinnis, a professor in UCSD’s Division of Biology who headed the study. “How can evolution possibly introduce big changes into an animal’s body shape and still generate a living animal? Creationists have argued that any big jump would result in a dead animal that wouldn’t be able to perpetuate itself. And until now, no one’s been able to demonstrate how you could do that at the genetic level with specific instructions in the genome.”
 
Upvote 0

LoricaLady

YHWH's
Site Supporter
Jul 27, 2009
19,082
12,671
Ohio
✟1,288,482.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Michael - Thank you for proving my points. I asked for any ev-i-dence that any bacteria anywhere ever have turned into non bacteria. You just cut and pasted something that is showing...faith...not evidence. For ex. in your link it says the usual, with faith factor words, namely "This could have been accomplished...would have allowed...may provide...which suggests... may explain..." They are operating here on the presuming omniscience logical fallacy. Do you understand that the article gives no evidence whatsoever? It shows no, zip, zilch, nada bacteria or bacteria fossil turning into non bacteria. It only gives this long, fanciful, never supported by any actual data, story of what "could have" or "would have" happened.

I've got real data. Bacteria stay bacteria. That's what we've seen with living examples for hundreds of years. That's what we see with so called Cambrian plant and animal fossils that contain fossilized bacteria. The bacteria are virtually identical to what we see today. Real science doesn't just push all the observable data aside and go for "could have....would have...may provide...may explain..." This is a classic case of the Emperor's New Clothes, which is part of the foundation of evolution. What you can see is ignored if it doesn't fit into the theory. What you can't see, or test, or verify in any way, what is invisible, is treated as gawd's truth fact in order to support the theory.

The entire link is based on theoreticals. Yet they are being presented as done deal facts. Think about that. It should bother you. And it's totally typical of evo. lit.

They used changes in crustaceans and six legged animals to try to prove their point. Uh...did the crustaceans stop being crustaceans? Did the six legged bugs stop being six legged bugs? Of course not. But they believe in the false mantra "Change is evolution" so, on...faith....they use their magic evo. crystal ball to tell you something happened in the conveniently invisible, untestable and unverifiable distant past.

I'll ask you again: What ev-i-dence, not belief, but evidence, do you have that any bacteria anywhere, or for that matter any crustacean or any six legged insect, ever turned into a non bacteria, non crustacean or non six legged insect? Well, there isn't any. Just as with bacteria, the fossil record and living examples show crustaceans and six legged bugs may change to a limited extent but alwlays stay crustaceans and six legged bugs. Any claims to the contrary are also based on "might have...could have...probably...we can infer...." while the real evidence, in countless billions of examples, is scorned.

But give me some evidence bacteria turned into non bacteria. Evidence, not "long ago and far away in the Kingdom of Evo Land...".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MikeEnders
Upvote 0

Green Sun

404: Star not found
Jun 26, 2015
902
1,408
30
Somewhere
✟56,661.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Creation is scientifically logical, but not testable through the scientific method.

The vast majority of science is based on the idea that every result comes from
an equal or greater source.

If you could ever get out more than you put in, you'd have a perpetual motion
machine. We wish.

So unless you support perpetual motion machines, then you must admit that
the source of all we see and know.....is bigger. Science readily admits that
examination of the "Pre-Cosmos" is impossible. Christians must agree.
Special Creation is outside the scope of scientific examination.
They should stop insisting it is testable.
Right on the head!

Science cannot agree with Creationism as it is untestable. Like I said in my last post, things that cannot be either disproven or proven in any way (such as if the universe popped into existence 5 minutes ago with all human memory and all other signs of history included) do not fall under the scope of science. Those go into the realm of faith. Faith is literally belief in something that is not based on proof. Things that are not falsifiable fall under the realm of faith, not science.
 
Upvote 0

MikeEnders

Newbie
Oct 8, 2009
655
116
✟1,443.00
Faith
Calvary Chapel
So unless you support perpetual motion machines, then you must admit that
the source of all we see and know.....is bigger. Science readily admits that
examination of the "Pre-Cosmos" is impossible.


Actually Sky thats patently and obviously false. Science cannot talk, is not a person and does not exist outside of human knowledge so it certainly does not readily admit anything you just claimed. I wish people would stop with the utter nonsense that science can be personified as an entity that can speak for itself. Its almost religiously cultic. Once you realize that it can't speak or admit anything the entire argument fails because PEOPLE actually do not universally concede the pre Cosmos is impossible to examine. Present day Science DOES NOT stop at what is subject to examination or no scientists would talk about multiverses, everything coming out of nothing or try to negate the existence of God. We wouldn't have Dawkins and Krauss or even Hawkings babbling about the creation of the universe they would simply say - science stops at the beginning and you are free to logically hold to whatever you wish to prior to that .

I know you mean well but why should anyone be obliged to concede your premise when many scientist in fact do not concede what you claim. You are in a bit of denial actually. Scientific papers are published every year that deal with subjects that cannot be directly examined

Christians must agree.
Special Creation is outside the scope of scientific examination.
They should stop insisting it is testable.

Nope since the premise is incorrect and easily shown to be incorrect Christians are not obliged to your "must agree". As long as people in science (of which there are many) extend science in areas that cannot be directly examined by using deduction etc then Creation advocates can do the same.Practically every science was founded by a person that believed in intelligent design and that the logical structure of the universe is testable. You can't simply rewrite the history of science.
 
Upvote 0

MikeEnders

Newbie
Oct 8, 2009
655
116
✟1,443.00
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Those go into the realm of faith. Faith is literally belief in something that is not based on proof.

You may define your faith the way you wish and it may be accurate for you but the Bible has absolutely no such definition and other Christians need not abide your definition, Thats a made up definition hundreds of years after the early church. When Thomas was saying he needed to put his hand in his side and see the nail marks he was most definitely asking for proof. When Peter was saying look at fulfillment of prophecy he was stating there was evidence. Practically every sermon in Acts appeals to evidence.

The idea that faith is based on no evidence is a bogus false doctrine (that sometimes people try to justify by twisting "not walking by sight"). I can have faith in my friends when it doesn't look like I should. I can have faith in my Parents and children and it is based very much upon evidences that make me have that faith.
 
Upvote 0

MikeEnders

Newbie
Oct 8, 2009
655
116
✟1,443.00
Faith
Calvary Chapel
They used changes in crustaceans and six legged animals to try to prove their point. Uh...did the crustaceans stop being crustaceans? Did the six legged bugs stop being six legged bugs? Of course not. But they believe in the false mantra "Change is evolution" so, on...faith....they use their magic evo. crystal ball to tell you something happened in the conveniently invisible, untestable and unverifiable distant past.

Pretty much spot on. the problem is that science is being mixed up with a whole lot of psychology and dogma in a deliberate campaign to claim there are some parts of science that in fact are Not correctable.Its one of the most amusing techniques many Darwinist and atheist employ.

Point out any of the errors that have been made in the area of evolution and Darwinism and one of the first things the proponents will do is claim that thats great and shows "science " works. That its "self correctable". Contrast that with the mantra that Evolution ( and what they mean here is Darwinian evolution) is a fact that cannot be questioned.

Notice how fast the the correctability of science is withdrawn?? It plays peekabo. Its there when the Darwinist wants to side step the many unexpected things that might punch holes in the theory but its withdrawn when the theory itself is called into question. Most of the people in this thread I guarantee you have not and will not study the issue. As you can see from the very first response to the OP - they rely on authority of this specialist or that specialist and Cadet even implied how dare you not agree with someone studied in the area as if you can't possibly be right and they be wrong. Here's the thing though- if Science is "self correcting" not only can the "specialist" be wrong from time to time they WILL be wrong. You can't have your cake and eat it too. IF science is correctable then the Scientist will be wrong at times and 100% confidence in what they say is illogical on that basis.

A lot of things are emerging that just don't mesh with darwinism some of which people in this thread claiming creationism is all wet don't even know is going on. We are now finding that species can acquire genetic material from unrelated organisms (horizontal gene transfer), very distantly (alleged) related species can have almost the same genetic sequences (and thus not be inherited similarities) and epigenetics is raising all kinds of questions of how life is designed to make fairly rapid changes in response to environmental changes.

Seriously when you really study things you realize the only thing half way solid against creationism is the age of the Earth but creationists are not all married to Ussher's 6,000 years and recently the major dating physics that was said to be a constant has shown signs it really isn't any such thing

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkna...ve-decay-rates-may-not-be-constant-after-all/

So as of the moment when they say "Science says" realize science doesn't speak and according to their own mantra it can go back on what it says tomorrow. So exactly why do I need to buy and who gets to say which parts won't do so.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Creationism will be accepted as scientific the second it makes a claim about reality that can be tested and falsified. (Falsified means that there is something that could conceivably prove it false.)

Creationism will be accepted as an accurate scientific explanation the second it is able to show something about the real world which is able to withstand investigation.

Evolution has been able to do that. Creationism hasn't even tried.
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,268
2,992
London, UK
✟1,001,895.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Re: the view that the majority of Christians believe in evolution.

In America not even a majority of people let alone Christians believe this. Naturalistic Evolution is a view most commonly held by professional scientists and atheists but is not shared by the public who favour YEC then Theistic Evolution then naturalistic evolution.

Around the world Christians and Muslims generally hold creationist views and especially those more regularly attending church or mosque. Protestants are more likely to be creationists than catholics are. Evangelicals and especially conservative Evangelicals are mainly creationist.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.