Scientific Creationism?

[Thanatocoenosis]

 

[LittleNipper]

Science is science; however, opinion and theory that are not observable nor duplicable should not expect dominance merely because such are seen as a "natural" excuse to exclude the supernatural.

 

[Thanatocoenosis]

Science is science; however, opinion and theory that are not observable nor duplicable should not expect dominance merely because such are seen as a "natural" excuse to exclude the supernatural.

It is apparent by your response that you don't have a clue what defines a theory.

 

[LittleNipper]

Science is science; however, opinion and theory that are not observable nor duplicable should not expect dominance merely because such are seen as a "natural" excuse to exclude the supernatural.

It is apparent by your response that you don't have a clue what defines a theory.

And it is apparent from your own response that Creation Scientists are not encouraged to publicly present theories of their own in governmentally controlled situations.

 

[Thanatocoenosis]

Science is science; however, opinion and theory that are not observable nor duplicable should not expect dominance merely because such are seen as a "natural" excuse to exclude the supernatural.

It is apparent by your response that you don't have a clue what defines a theory.

And it is apparent from your own response that Creation Scientists are not encouraged to publicly present theories of their own in governmentally controlled situations.

You keep using that word "theories". It does not mean what you think it means. Creationists are anti-intellectual ideologues that couldn't find science if they were being led to it by a GPS, map, and a sherpa leading the way.

 

[LittleNipper]

Science is science; however, opinion and theory that are not observable nor duplicable should not expect dominance merely because such are seen as a "natural" excuse to exclude the supernatural.

It is apparent by your response that you don't have a clue what defines a theory.

And it is apparent from your own response that Creation Scientists are not encouraged to publicly present theories of their own in governmentally controlled situations.

You keep using that word "theories". It does not mean what you think it means. Creationists are anti-intellectual ideologues that couldn't find science if they were being led to it by a GPS, map, and a sherpa leading the way.

You keep saying things like, "Creationists are anti-intellectual ideologues..." That is a blanket statement. A theory is an "educated guess." One cannot prove that the Universe is millions of years old. One can say that various measurements seem to point to such a conclusion; however, there is logic to the belief that God created everything as He saw necessary to run a Universe in a matter of moments.

One can say that humans are the end product of evolution that brought about multicellular complexity; however, one would have to prove that theory for it to be fact. And unfortunately, German experimentation during the mid 20th century in that regard was inconclusive. At the same token, no evolutionist has been able to fabricate a living biological organism from water, minerals, electricity, explosions, sunlight, etc., etc., etc.... So, the theory that God did it is far ahead of those who wish to believe otherwise.

One sure way to destroy education is to call those you don't agree with unintellectual. That is the way to turn the thinking process off and develop a system based purely on memorization of important things as only you wish to define them.

 

[Hollie]

Science is science; however, opinion and theory that are not observable nor duplicable should not expect dominance merely because such are seen as a "natural" excuse to exclude the supernatural.

It is apparent by your response that you don't have a clue what defines a theory.

And it is apparent from your own response that Creation Scientists are not encouraged to publicly present theories of their own in governmentally controlled situations.

ID'iot creationists don't propose theories. The entirety of ID'iot creationism amounts to attacks on valid theories and supported principles of established science. ID'iot creationists certainly could publish in peer reviewed science journals but don't, for obvious reasons: supernatural intervention by the gawds is not testable or demonstrable.

 

[abu afak]

You keep saying things like, "Creationists are anti-intellectual ideologues..." That is a blanket statement. A theory is an "educated guess." One cannot prove that the Universe is millions of years old. One can say that various measurements seem to point to such a conclusion; however, there is logic to the belief that God created everything as He saw necessary to run a Universe in a matter of moments...

1. A Scientific Theory is NOT "a guess".
You know NOTHING.
2. Scientists Can and HAVE proved the universe is Millions, Indeed BILLIONS, of years old ... unless you are a brain-dead YECer who denies at least a Dozens sciences.
ie,
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American
By John Rennie - Editor in Chief
June 2002
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - Scientific American

1. Evolution is Only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however.

According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

n addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of theFACT of evolution.
The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling."...."

-

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those who do not understand or will not accept the standard definition of scientific theory fail in this thread.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Scientific Creationism?"

Jumbo shrimp.

Military intelligence.

An oxymoron if there ever was one.

 

[LittleNipper]

Those who do not understand or will not accept the standard definition of scientific theory fail in this thread.

1. True or false: the scientific theory is an undisputed fact.
FALSE
2. TRUE OR FALSE: If continual testing of a hypothesis shows it to be valid, it may become an accepted theory.
TRUE
3. TRUE OR FALSE: A scientific theory can be proven wrong if a majority of people do not believe it.
FALSE
4. TRUE OR FALSE: A theory may be wrong but because it is accepted by a majority of the scientific community might be accepted as "fact". TRUE
4. T/F: If a scientific theory cannot be tested, it's assumed to be true.
FALSE
5. T/F: A hypothesis must always have one or more testable predictions.
TRUE

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jessika is confused, nipper.

Scientific Creationism is not science. TRUE

Evolution is science. TRUE

 

[Thanatocoenosis]

Science is science; however, opinion and theory that are not observable nor duplicable should not expect dominance merely because such are seen as a "natural" excuse to exclude the supernatural.

It is apparent by your response that you don't have a clue what defines a theory.

And it is apparent from your own response that Creation Scientists are not encouraged to publicly present theories of their own in governmentally controlled situations.

You keep using that word "theories". It does not mean what you think it means. Creationists are anti-intellectual ideologues that couldn't find science if they were being led to it by a GPS, map, and a sherpa leading the way.

A theory is an "educated guess."

... there is logic to the belief that God created everything as He saw necessary to run a Universe in a matter of moments.

the theory that God did it is far ahead of those who wish to believe otherwise.

One sure way to destroy education is to call those you don't agree with unintellectual. That is the way to turn the thinking process off and develop a system based purely on memorization of important things as only you wish to define them.

Way to straw man my argument! It is pretty easy to defeat a position if one misrepresents what the other is arguing, then proceeds to argue against the made up position. I didn't call anyone unintellectual because I disagree with them, they are anti-science/anti-intellectual for the demonstrably wrong nonsense that they are writing.

 

[abu afak]

 

[ScienceRocks]

There's no such thing as scientific creationism!!! Religion is all about faith and faith has nothing to do with science....

 

[LittleNipper]

Jessika is confused, nipper.

Scientific Creationism is not science. TRUE

Evolution is science. TRUE

Scientific Creationism involves research regarding biblical revelation. Evolution is research regarding humanistic determination of naturalism.

 

[LittleNipper]

There's no such thing as scientific creationism!!! Religion is all about faith and faith has nothing to do with science....

Every experiment is performed with some sort of expectation. Religion concerns a manmade value system. Christianity concerns a relationship with the Revealing Creator. Science is a tool that requires specific expectations to be followed. Where absolutes remain unknown there exists opinion, belief, and theory.

 

[abu afak]

Scientific Creationism involves research regarding biblical revelation. Evolution is research regarding humanistic determination of naturalism.

No.
'Biblical revelation' requires No 'research', just Blind Faith in a single Mythical book.

Unlike Voodoo and Resurrection, Evolution has 150 Years of confirmed EVIDENCE of Many SCIENCES.

Every experiment is performed with some sort of expectation. Religion concerns a manmade value system. Christianity concerns a relationship with the Revealing Creator. Science is a tool that requires specific expectations to be followed. Where absolutes remain unknown there exists opinion, belief, and theory.

You're Disingenuously engaging in/attempting logical fallacy/.
That is... Because some things by nature can't be "proven" then "everything is Just a belief" and has equal weight.
The "everything is Just a belief fallacy".

Gravity and evolution are 'only' theories and can't be proven, but there is massive EVIDENCE for them, (and are 'facts' as well), while there's NO Evidence for God.
Holding a belief for something which has not only No proof but NO EVIDENCE is Blind Faith.
Ignoring Evidence and demanding "proof" is semantically BS and/or intentionally self-serving.
An attempt at False equivalence.
Believing in god/dog/flat-earth, is NOT equivalent to believing/ACKNOWLEDGING massive observational evidence of many scientific disciplines.

Some degrees of Faith in god/voodoo/Flying Spaghetti Monster/etc, such as Young Earth Creationism, can be Disproven and those who hold it are only [more] dogmatic and irrational than those of merely lesser 'belief' but the same direction.
`

 

[jwoodie]

This topic is way too emotional for most of you to discuss it in a rational manner. But thanks for trying.

 

[LittleNipper]

Scientific Creationism involves research regarding biblical revelation. Evolution is research regarding humanistic determination of naturalism.

No.
'Biblical revelation' requires No 'research', just Blind Faith in a single Mythical book.

Unlike Voodoo and Resurrection, Evolution has 150 Years of confirmed EVIDENCE of Many SCIENCES.

Every experiment is performed with some sort of expectation. Religion concerns a manmade value system. Christianity concerns a relationship with the Revealing Creator. Science is a tool that requires specific expectations to be followed. Where absolutes remain unknown there exists opinion, belief, and theory.

You're Disingenuously engaging in/attempting logical fallacy/.
That is... Because some things by nature can't be "proven" then "everything is Just a belief" and has equal weight.
The "everything is Just a belief fallacy".

Gravity and evolution are 'only' theories and can't be proven, but there is massive EVIDENCE for them, (and are 'facts' as well), while there's NO Evidence for God.
Holding a belief for something which has not only No proof but NO EVIDENCE is Blind Faith.
Ignoring Evidence and demanding "proof" is semantically BS and/or intentionally self-serving.
An attempt at False equivalence.
Believing in god/dog/flat-earth, is NOT equivalent to believing/ACKNOWLEDGING massive observational evidence of many scientific disciplines.

Some degrees of Faith in god/voodoo/Flying Spaghetti Monster/etc, such as Young Earth Creationism, can be Disproven and those who hold it are only [more] dogmatic and irrational than those of merely lesser 'belief' but the same direction.
`

S, yo believe if one murders someone that that individual ge

Scientific Creationism involves research regarding biblical revelation. Evolution is research regarding humanistic determination of naturalism.

No.
'Biblical revelation' requires No 'research', just Blind Faith in a single Mythical book.

Unlike Voodoo and Resurrection, Evolution has 150 Years of confirmed EVIDENCE of Many SCIENCES.

Every experiment is performed with some sort of expectation. Religion concerns a manmade value system. Christianity concerns a relationship with the Revealing Creator. Science is a tool that requires specific expectations to be followed. Where absolutes remain unknown there exists opinion, belief, and theory.

You're Disingenuously engaging in/attempting logical fallacy/.
That is... Because some things by nature can't be "proven" then "everything is Just a belief" and has equal weight.
The "everything is Just a belief fallacy".

Gravity and evolution are 'only' theories and can't be proven, but there is massive EVIDENCE for them, (and are 'facts' as well), while there's NO Evidence for God.
Holding a belief for something which has not only No proof but NO EVIDENCE is Blind Faith.
Ignoring Evidence and demanding "proof" is semantically BS and/or intentionally self-serving.
An attempt at False equivalence.
Believing in god/dog/flat-earth, is NOT equivalent to believing/ACKNOWLEDGING massive observational evidence of many scientific disciplines.

Some degrees of Faith in god/voodoo/Flying Spaghetti Monster/etc, such as Young Earth Creationism, can be Disproven and those who hold it are only [more] dogmatic and irrational than those of merely lesser 'belief' but the same direction.
`

So, you believe if one murders someone that that individual gets away scot-free? So, you believe that if a person lies, cheats, and steals that person does not reap what he sows? So, you believe that if a child curses his parents and doesn't listen to them and uses them, there are no lifetime repercussions? If there is really no God and the reason we exist hinges on random chance ----- then there is a very great opportunity to get away with it (as it were).

I however, see that most things happen for a reason. People and nations DO reap what they sow. The next rationalization is that there is absolutely NO proof that biological life just happened.

One must believe it was either created or it was brought here; however, scientists have not been able to create a Frankenstein monster from pre-existing various body parts ----- so much less any living single celled organism with water, silica, minerals, and electricity.

NOW, evolution accepting scientists working day and night for well over one hundred years have not been able to concoct any biological life from inert materials. These are not stupid people to say the least! These are thinking individuals who know what makes life remain alive!!! Mother Nature doesn't possess a brain. Time doesn't rationalize.

So, we have smart individuals who feel that they are too sophisticated to believe that there can be a Creator, yet they themselves have no clue and dish out theory after theory that they themselves cannot substantiate. And so when a Christian says that there is a God and that God reveals Himself through nature, the written Word, historical data, reward & punishment, Christ Jesus, and the lives of the saints ---- these same skeptics say ---------- "But there isn't any proof!" I have to laugh out loud. God does use the simple to make the wise into fools. And that is just additional proof of GOD.