Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Creation science is a question of faith. And whether you subscribe to the belief or not, you should respect the faith of others.
Climate change is a characteristic of our planet. The climate has changed repeatedly over time. To some the issue seems to be whether humans have caused it or not. It seems obvious that as the human population has grown substantially over the centuries, that human activities would contribute to climate change, but not cause climate change. And at any rate, what's the point of that discussion? Shouldn't the discussion be on whether the science can accurately predict how the climate will change in the future, and the impact such changes will have on human populations (and whether we can prepare for those changes)?
My friend, ALL science is based on hypothesis that is supported by some experimentation thus creating theory. All theory can be challenged.
I would also say in many instances the arguments for and against Evolution are very similar to the arguments for and against Creation Science.
I would not advocate either as “gospel”. Nor would I suggest inquiry into one is valid while inquiry into the other is worthless.
Science is always advanced by inquiry. Always.
"Creation science" has a supernatural basis. Science seeks to understand and explain the natural world. Relying on a supernatural explanation renders "creation science" not science.
The explanations of "creation science" are not based on empirical evidence - they are not subject to observation and experiments that are reproducible and verifiable by others. Empirical evidence is the fundamental cornerstone of science. Lacking that, "creation science" is not science.
The "hypothesis" underlying "creation science" (biblical creationism) is not a hypothesis at all, but rather a fundamental assumption. It is not subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. Because of this, "creation science" is not science.
[color=black][font=Verdana]My friend, ALL science is based on hypothesis that is supported by some experimentation thus creating theory.
That being the case then by definition we can determine that Creationism isn't a theory, which reduces your argument to meaningless fence straddling gibberish.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
