[_ Old Earth _] Can "Creation Science" be dropped?

[Deep Thought]

Over the course of recent threads, the resident Creationists here have admitted (by omission) that a Creationist view of the Bible is their interpretation and has no scientific evidence to support it.

Therefore, can we please consign "Creation Science" to the dustbin of history and advance human knowledge forward?

 

[Barbarian]

It's kinda in the dustbin now. Originally, it was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists as "Flood Geology." Later it was sold to many Christians as "Scientific Creationism." And when that too became a liability, it became "intelligent design."

And when ID collects enough baggage, they'll change the name again.

 

[BobRyan]

Over the course of recent threads, the resident Creationists here have admitted (by omission) that a Creationist view of the Bible is their interpretation and has no scientific evidence to support it.

Therefore, can we please consign "Creation Science" to the dustbin of history and advance human knowledge forward?

Over the course of these threads we see examples of atheist Darwinists ADMITTING to the hoaxes and junk-science frauds used to prop up atheist darwinism AND we see them ALSO admitting to the blind-faith orthodoxy that is at the heart of Darwinism.

For example -

Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution)

A 1981 lecture presented at New York City's American Museum of Natural History

Colin PATTERSON:

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view,well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

Patterson - again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge [/u], apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

They admit to the NON-SCIENCE basis for their "Story telling" about "how one thing came from another" --

Patterson writes to Sunderland
You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “

[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]

[/quote]

Yes -- sadly for the atheist darwinist devotee those "stories" about "how one thing came from another are stories easy enough to tell but they are NOT science"!!

So with the atheist religionist dogma fully exposed in atheist darwinism -- AS WELL AS THE junk-science frauds and hoaxes partially exposed (debunking is always an ongoing clean up job in junk-science models like darwinism) -- WILL the DARWINSTS admit to the glaring facts of history and leave their junk-science religion in the dustbin of "bad atheist ideas exposed in fraud after fraud over time"??

No?

Still clinging too dearly to Darwinist orthodoxy and blind faith to embrace real science and objective logic?

What is up with you guys? Even your own atheist darwinist leadership is giving you "clues" as we see in the case of Patterson.

BY CONTRAST to the "deny-all" antics of atheist darwinist devotees on this board the YEC group is much more honest about it's claims AND does not have the history of junk-science hoaxes that the non-science atheist religionists of atheist darwinism have to their name.

One MIGHT argue that no one can blame atheist darwinist devotees for being so befuddled if Patterson is publically ADMITTING to their logical fallacies and people like Barbarian are so happy to DEMONSTRATE the "anti-knowledge" problem Patterson speaks to in Darwinism with each Barbarian post based on story telling" (taking a tip from his religion of atheist darwinism) about how --YEC people are no longer going with the Bible but are going with ID "instead" --! If that is any indicator of darwinist's struggle to "grasp the point at hand" no wonder they are so confused.

I have tried time after time to let Barbarian know that "pretending not to understand the argument at all" is NOT as compelling a position for him as he imagines. (But then I am not affected by the anti-knowledge factor in Darwinism so who knows how Barbarian's antics look to the "skulls and barbarians" of fellow atheist darwinists)

Bob

 

[Snidey]

I guess the question now is, can anyone think of a thread topic Bob feels is not appropriate for some Patterson quote-mining?

 

[Orion]

bbppppppbbbb. . . . LOL!! :

 

[KenEOTE]

I guess the question now is, can anyone think of a thread topic Bob feels is not appropriate for some Patterson quote-mining?

What is wrong with that? Every thread that has to do with ID the only ID scientist that seems to be quoted is Michael Behe.

 

[Snidey]

I guess the question now is, can anyone think of a thread topic Bob feels is not appropriate for some Patterson quote-mining?

What is wrong with that? Every thread that has to do with ID the only ID scientist that seems to be quoted is Michael Behe.

That's not true at all, Behe is probably less discussed here than Hovind, for example. Also, do you know what quote-mining is? If you did, you wouldn't have asked what is wrong with it.

 

[KenEOTE]

Yes I know what quote-mining is. You can always skip over his posts if it annoys you. I just don't see the big deal. Its a forum people can post what they want. Its your choice to read it or not.

Back to te topic. Can it be dropped. The real question is can it be held? In order to drop something you have to be able to hold it. So the answer is no it can not be dropped.

 

[Snidey]

He can posts what he wants, and others can comment on it freely.

 

[KenEOTE]

But if you comment on it, that will only encourage him to continue. However that is not the subject of this thread. Perhaps you could start a thread about it elsewhere.

 

[Snidey]

It was Bob who derailed, not myself.

 

[Deep Thought]

Back to te topic. Can it be dropped. The real question is can it be held? In order to drop something you have to be able to hold it. So the answer is no it can not be dropped.

So are you saying that Creation Science can't be dropped as it was never valid in the first place?

 

[KenEOTE]

Fine that darn Bob.

 

[BobRyan]

I guess the question now is, can anyone think of a thread topic Bob feels is not appropriate for some Patterson quote-mining?

the point is that GIVEN the horrible contrast of atheist darwinist blunders where EVEN the atheist darwinists THEMSELVS are whining about it -- why in the world would we FIRST go after YEC that is LACKING those hoaxes frauds blunders etc?

It makes no sense to BYPASS the elephant in the living room and then say "yes but the YEC guy is ALSO a religioinist just as the atheist darwinist devotee -- he just doesn't have that glamorous hoax-history of Darwinism to ADD to it".

But -- I suppose another way to approach that is to "gloss over the details and pretend not to understand the point."

I will grant you that this is a common solution lately.

Bob

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Over the course of recent threads, the resident Creationists here have admitted (by omission) that a Creationist view of the Bible is their interpretation and has no scientific evidence to support it.

Therefore, can we please consign "Creation Science" to the dustbin of history and advance human knowledge forward?

My two cents: My belief that God created the Heavens and the Earth is first and formemost a matter of faith.

However, there are scientists who base their "creationism" on scientific grounds, and they have access to much more "human knowledge" and scientific data than Darwin did. And, if you want to throw in Mathematics, the odds against life just springing into being accidentally are so astronomical that it constitutes a "statistical impossibility". Therefore, mathematically, God is the more likely answer to the mystery of creation.

Now I have a question for you:
Do you love anyone?
If so, can you prove to me the existance of your love scientifically? If you cannot, I must assume it does not exist. Is that correct? I must "advance human knowledge forward" and reject your statement that you love anbody.

 

[KenEOTE]

So are you saying that Creation Science can't be dropped as it was never valid in the first place?

Well if by what I said then I guess Evolution must be dropped as well. I can not hold evolution in my hand. So then by your same argument it is not a valid science. Perhaps we can come up with a third new explanation for life on earth.

 

[freeway]

Now this is a posting "can creation science be dropped" just to start argument.. Creation Science has the same outlook as evolution science...
Creation Science look at the best evidence it can find and attributes it to God.. or if you prefer ID
Evolution Science look at the best evidence it can find and attributes that to a rock, that somehow can to life....

So who do I choose,, Rock or God..................... I think I will go with God... 8-) 8-)

 

[Deep Thought]

However, there are scientists who base their "creationism" on scientific grounds, and they have access to much more "human knowledge" and scientific data than Darwin did. And, if you want to throw in Mathematics, the odds against life just springing into being accidentally are so astronomical that it constitutes a "statistical impossibility". Therefore, mathematically, God is the more likely answer to the mystery of creation.

Life didn't spring into existence accidentally. If it did, then it would indeed be highly improbable. I suggest you read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html to get a full scientific analysis of the probability.

Now I have a question for you:
Do you love anyone?
If so, can you prove to me the existance of your love scientifically? If you cannot, I must assume it does not exist. Is that correct? I must "advance human knowledge forward" and reject your statement that you love anbody.

Yes, I love my wife and children. It can be detected scientifically as the brain produces certain chemical reactions and brain wave patterns when you are in love.

Regardless of my answer, your question and assumption is a bad analogy. "Creation Science" seeks to replace real science that is testable and tangible.

 

[Deep Thought]

So are you saying that Creation Science can't be dropped as it was never valid in the first place?

Well if by what I said then I guess Evolution must be dropped as well. I can not hold evolution in my hand. So then by your same argument it is not a valid science. Perhaps we can come up with a third new explanation for life on earth.

Your logic is baffling and quite frankly mystifying. I have no idea how you came to the above conclusions.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

....Yes, I love my wife and children. It can be detected scientifically as the brain produces certain chemical reactions and brain wave patterns when you are in love.....

Talk about bogus science!! If I look at some chemical reactions and brain wave patterns, that doesnt prove they are "love". We have only the word of the subject whose patterns are being tested that he is in love. He could be lying. That is not proof. If that is proof, then I have the word of armies of saints that they have had visions of God, and I can test their chemical reactions and brain wave patterns to prove it as well.

You have justy destroyed your credibility. Score "one" for the Catholic dude.

And on that high note, I'm outta here.