Creationism Is Not Science

[popsthebuilder]

The evidence for evolution is staggering and indisputable. I have posted such evidence here many times, but it is dismissed without even a glance.



So, while those with no background in science might dispute the mass of evidence, those who have actually studied the issue overwhelmingly are led to the conclusion that evolution is a fact. When the evidence is examined, it is the only conclusion one can make.

Evolution and creation are both fact and go hand in hand in unity under the will of God.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[MarkFL]

Evolution and creation are both fact and go hand in hand in unity under the will of God.

Where is the evidence for creationism? I have asked this many many times already, and always get the same tired "passing of the buck." If the complexity of the universe demands a creator, then so too would the creator demand a creator, being even more complex that its creation, so that just answers one question by introducing an even more difficult question.

The simple and undeniable truth is there is no compelling evidence for a creator. Creationism is a religion, not a science. It is a faith-based belief, not a fact. Unlike evolution, creationism has no place in the science classroom.

 

[psalms 91]

Where is the evidence for creationism? I have asked this many many times already, and always get the same tired "passing of the buck." If the complexity of the universe demands a creator, then so too would the creator demand a creator, being even more complex that its creation, so that just answers one question by introducing an even more difficult question.

The simple and undeniable truth is there is no compelling evidence for a creator. Creationism is a religion, not a science. It is a faith-based belief, not a fact. Unlike evolution, creationism has no place in the science classroom.

Depends on your view but I am thinking this discussion should be split from the thread as this one is about Russian troops in Syria. If you agree Mark oplease do it as I cant

 

[MarkFL]

Depends on your view but I am thinking this discussion should be split from the thread as this one is about Russian troops in Syria. If you agree Mark oplease do it as I cant

It's really not a matter of point of view, unless your view is that creationism should be given a pass on the requirement for evidence and testable predictions before being raised to the status of science. If we do that, then we weaken science, which would be a great disservice to all of humanity.

Sometimes threads change course like a game of word association. I will split this thread very soon.

 

[MarkFL]

you have never posted evidence of evolution .. and you will never be able to do so. you post lots of informations about other people's opinions and conjecture and theory and guess work .. no evidence

there is no evidence except the evidence that you're a liar and the son of your father the devil you was a liar from the beginning .
because if ANYTHING you say on the matter had ANY truth to it then you are openly practicing Blasphemy of the christian faith by calling the most high God a liar .

If you can willfully deny the mass of evidence for evolution, then your eyes and mind are tightly shut. It is plainly there for all the world to see, beautifully documented and all tied together into a cohesive theory.

Calling me a son of your devil has no meaning to me.

 

[psalms 91]

It's really not a matter of point of view, unless your view is that creationism should be given a pass on the requirement for evidence and testable predictions before being raised to the status of science. If we do that, then we weaken science, which would be a great disservice to all of humanity.

Sometimes threads change course like a game of word association. I will split this thread very soon.

Thank you and I think you know that I do believe in creationism and not evolution and I dont think there is scientific proof of evolution either. There are theories but not absolute proof. I would ask that you examine the gap theory which is how I was able to reconcile both together, it is also a theory about the bible but a realisatic one I think. It believes that there is a time gap between Genesis verse 1 and verse 2, it also leads one to take a look at a preadamite world

 

[Ruth]

well when you repent of unbelief ..you are welcome to follow the lord Jesus and i advice you to begin doing so soon ,as i advice all people to turn from the sin of unbelief and rebellion and receive the grace of god displayed to us in the lord Jesus .because there is no other way unto life eternal and no self merit will ever be enough .

Who the heck do you think you are telling me what to believe and that I don't believe. Please don't respond to me anymore. If I can I am putting you on ignore.

 

[MarkFL]

Thank you and I think you know that I do believe in creationism and not evolution and I dont think there is scientific proof of evolution either. There are theories but not absolute proof. I would ask that you examine the gap theory which is how I was able to reconcile both together, it is also a theory about the bible but a realisatic one I think. It believes that there is a time gap between Genesis verse 1 and verse 2, it also leads one to take a look at a preadamite world

From my experience, there is no such thing as absolute proof outside of mathematics. In the other softer sciences, we use the word proof in much the same way that a lawyer would in the courtroom, by the preponderance of the evidence.

There is a great deal of evidence supporting evolution from a wide variety of scientific fields. All compelling evidence from all of these different fields converge on one theory, namely evolution. Creationism is not supported by evidence and makes no testable predictions. Being a creationist is fine, as long as it is not seen as a science. Once we try to elevate it to the status of science, then we have destroyed science and made it useless.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I agree that Creationism is not science.

 

[Stravinsk]

It's not only backwards, it's reprehensible. In some parts of the U.S. the school must inform parents before evolution is taught in biology, so that they may remove their children from the class for excused absence. Such parents are in effect saying, "I don't understand evolution, and I want to protect my children from understanding it as well."

In my own school district, the religion of creationism is presented alongside the science of evolution in the science classroom as if it were actually science. It has been dressed up as "Intelligent Design" and given pseudo-scientific presentation, but no one with any background in science doesn't see it for what it is...the religion of creationism. It is a crime against our children.

I doubt you can speak for everyone who has a "science" background. Science I put in quotes because it is often a misapplied term to lend credibility to any argument one wants to make.

As for Evolution, isn't it also a form of Creationism that is simply supposed to be a random and unintended set of grand coincidences when viewed from a macro scale?

 

[Stravinsk]

The evidence for evolution is staggering and indisputable. I have posted such evidence here many times, but it is dismissed without even a glance.



So, while those with no background in science might dispute the mass of evidence, those who have actually studied the issue overwhelmingly are led to the conclusion that evolution is a fact. When the evidence is examined, it is the only conclusion one can make.

No, sir, it isn't. I'm a Deist, and while I have respect for many biblical teachings, I do not need to quote one verse from it to dispute what you are calling established fact.

The "Science" you are quoting and referring to is simply data that is interpreted, most of the time with a bias, and much of the time with assumptions filled in.

Here is the salient and simple fact: The Scientific method cannot be used to establish either Origins, or Cause of Origins. That is because *in order for it to be used*, one must NOT RELY on assumptions about the past. Real science makes no assumptions, it can be used to test things in the here and now. In order for both the age of the earth and the *cause of the earth* to be established by the Scientific Method - it must be testable, NOW, and it CANNOT rely on extrapolated, guessed at, or assumed data that cannot be tested, as that data is in the distant past. That applies to both dating methods that are said to give ages of millions of years, and other guessed at and assumed hypothesis regarding transitional forms, their relative scarcity, etc.