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.
For the Creationists, I'm not trying to question your faith in the Bible, but the problem with using the Bible as your supporting evidence for Creation is that it implies that "magic" was used to create everything. All scientific theories of discussion dealing with Creationism must include "Because 'magic' occurred we should then find...." I can't imagine how far behind we would be if we implied with every scientific advance that "magic happened"?? Oh wait, yes I can, the 13th century comes to mind.
So, yes, I can understand that you believe the Bible without a doubt in your mind. However, to imply that the Bible is a viable reference for science is a calamity because the Bible does infer that magic happened. You can call it science if you want to, but true science does not postulate on 'magic' and thus Creationism cannot be called science. It can be called a lot of things, perhaps even a hypothesis, but in order to be called science it must complete the scientific method and the steps of it. Here are the basic steps of the scientific method, and this is where Creationism falls short of being labeled as science.
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
So let me break this down into where I see the problem with Creationism claiming it is science.
1. Define the question - Is there scientific proof (yes, this means proof done through the same method we're going through) that there was a flood and that there was a guy named Noah who built a magnificent boat, survived a 40 day and night flood, and sailed for a year on the high seas with the aid of God?
2. Gather information and resources (observe)- Ok, so one of the resources would be, of course, the Bible. However, we cannot use the Bible to prove itself, nor has any facet of the scientific method been used to verify it's authenticity as the work of God. It is only predicated on faith that this is the answer and no actual supporting evidence for god. Furthermore, we cannot insist that 'magic' is a credible resource or explanation.
3. Form hypothesis - The hypothesis here is that God created a flood, a man named Noah built a ship, loaded all of the animals of the earth, and sailed the world for close to a year. His ability to do so was also aided by the work of God based on....
4. Perform experiment and collect data - Simple question. Can we experiment for the presence of a deity? If not, that's ok, it still doesn't mean one doesn't exist. However, because one of the main facets of Creation is that the Bible is the unerring word of God, we must also disregard the part of step two where we gathered information and resources. The resource being disregarded must be the Bible because there is no supporting evidence that we can currently test for that advocates the presence of God. This is where Creationism fails the test of science.
5. Analyze data - Ok, so we have amassed all of the data including the realization that God cannot be tested for and thus must be discounted from the testing procedure.
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis - We have interpreted that with all of the evidence at hand that we cannot use God as a variable in the equation because we are not capable of testing for him. Therefore, although we have failed to conclude from this experiment that Noah never existed; we have realized that the fundamental explanation for Noah, his magnificent ship-building techniques, a flood of deistic proportions, and his ability to herd and disperse the animals both before and after the flood is predicated on something that cannot be tested for in the first place.
7. Publish Results - Allow others to view your work. Perhaps someone has come up with a way to test for God. And if that were true, then we could go back to number two (no pun intended ) and insert the results of those findings as "Since we know God is real based on the evidence given by such and such test result, we can now hypothesize as to whether or not Noah did the things the Bible said."
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists) - Depending on your conclusions, either negative or positive, along with publishing results, allow other scientists to perform the same tests as you and see if their results were different.
Ok, so I think, by that, that we have determined that because God is not a testable "thing" we cannot use the scientific method to prove that anything in the Bible is real. Is it with strong faith that you believe God did this? I have no doubt about that. But, that doesn't mean that it is science, regardless of what you want to call it. You can call a Ford a Chevy, make a Mustang look like a Camaro, but in the end, the car is a Ford and not a Chevy.
And no, I am not implying that Chevies are better than Ford's.
Here are the basic steps of the scientific method, and this is where Creationism falls short of being labeled as science.
The thing is, GCS, Creation and the flood, being supernatural events to begin with, clearly can't be labeled as science! That's not even an option! And that's where people run into problems trying to figure it out...
The thing is, GCS, Creation and the flood, being supernatural events to begin with, clearly can't be labeled as science! That's not even an option! And that's where people run into problems trying to figure it out...
THANK YOU!!!! That's all I'm asking for! Creationism is not science! That's all I'm trying to get at! REP POINTS FOR CG81!!!!!!
Alright I gotta spread the love around a little bit before I rep ya.
THANK YOU!!!! That's all I'm asking for! Creationism is not science! That's all I'm trying to get at! REP POINTS FOR CG81!!!!!!
Alright I gotta spread the love around a little bit before I rep ya.
LOL! OK! OK! Calm down! Just so you don't get the wrong idea... the act of Creation itself IMO is not able to be labeled, or figured out with, science. God is not either. However, at this point scientific laws were set in order, and we can study them in an orderly way because of this, thereby "science" exists.
And the Flood is the same way, IMO. A supernatural act.. we'll run into a brick wall if we try to assign scientific labels to it... altho I do believe there is more proof than what people recognize! (mams, mams, where are you?)
BAM!!!! Cg nailed it!!! Creationism is not a science, I believe in creationism but at the same time I know that it has no scientific basis..Scientific proof does not rely on faith/belief as creationism does.
LOL! OK! OK! Calm down! Just so you don't get the wrong idea... the act of Creation itself IMO is not able to be labeled, or figured out with, science. God is not either. However, at this point scientific laws were set in order, and we can study them in an orderly way because of this, thereby "science" exists.
And the Flood is the same way, IMO. A supernatural act.. we'll run into a brick wall if we try to assign scientific labels to it... altho I do believe there is more proof than what people recognize! (mams, mams, where are you?)
The problem is that the entire fundamental philosophy of the rest of the "science" is unprovable. It's building an entire body of science on something that is unprovable to begin with. Again, as I mentioned to begin with, all creationist "science" must begin with the claim "Because magic happened...." and no matter what body of science you are trying to claim after that, it doesn't change the fact that the original rationale and analysis is that "magic happened."
Here is the true Noahs Ark with a boat load of evidence, pictures, huge anchor stones, ground penetrating radar resulting that prove it's 100% a man made structure showing regularly spaced beams the length of the boat, man made alloys, including titanium, all tested in labs such as Los Almos, Lawence Livermore with detailed results.
The bible says in Gen 8:4 that the Ark came to re in the 7 month on the 17th day upon the mountainS [plural] of Ararat. Noahs Ark was found on a sister mt. 20mi from Mt. Ararat in Turkey on the side 6300ft mountain side. From the air it looks like a huge ship buried but still has its distinct shape. Bible gives the measurements of the Ark (300 cubits) or 515 ft very close to the radar scans of 532 ft .
The locals call that translate to Doomsday mountain and the lower valley they call the Valley of 8, referring 8 survivors of the flood.
The measurements are exactly as the bible says. Ground penetrating radar records the main structure and the ribs of the structure. They marked with ribbons every anomoly mapping the 300 cubit length, 50 cubit breadth, heighth 30 cubits
Here is the true Noahs Ark with a boat load of evidence, pictures, huge anchor stones, ground penetrating radar resulting that prove it's 100% a man made structure showing regularly spaced beams the length of the boat, man made alloys, including titanium, all tested in labs such as Los Almos, Lawence Livermore with detailed results.
The bible says in Gen 8:4 that the Ark came to re in the 7 month on the 17th day upon the mountainS [plural] of Ararat. Noahs Ark was found on a sister mt. 20mi from Mt. Ararat in Turkey on the side 6300ft mountain side. From the air it looks like a huge ship buried but still has its distinct shape. Bible gives the measurements of the Ark (300 cubits) or 515 ft very close to the radar scans of 532 ft .
The locals call that translate to Doomsday mountain and the lower valley they call the Valley of 8, referring 8 survivors of the flood.
The measurements are exactly as the bible says. Ground penetrating radar records the main structure and the ribs of the structure. They marked with ribbons every anomoly mapping the 300 cubit length, 50 cubit breadth, heighth 30 cubits
Well isn't that interesting when several of the christians here say that it wasn't real event, just a fable to teach a principle.
Could you christians please try to get your acts together...before you try preaching to others.
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.
) and insert the results of those findings as "Since we know God is real based on the evidence given by such and such test result, we can now hypothesize as to whether or not Noah did the things the Bible said." 
