Climate Change and Creation Science. (ethical, laws, million, stunning)
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.
I'm sorry, but I can't respect the faith of someone who believes the earth is 6-10 thousand years old. I can understand if you have a mental handicap, but most of these people are relatively normal functioning human beings.
There is absolutely not one shred of any evidence that any scientist has ever unearthed that suggests our planet was created in 7 days, 6000 years ago. The only reason this myth perpetuates to this very day is the ignorance of people to question their childhood indoctrination out of fear or whatever reason they have.
I'm sorry, but I can't respect the faith of someone who believes the earth is 6-10 thousand years old. I can understand if you have a mental handicap, but most of these people are relatively normal functioning human beings.
There is absolutely not one shred of any evidence that any scientist has ever unearthed that suggests our planet was created in 7 days, 6000 years ago. The only reason this myth perpetuates to this very day is the ignorance of people to question their childhood indoctrination out of fear or whatever reason they have.
A couple of points... first, creations science does not mean scientists believe the earth was created 7 thousand years ago in 7 days.
Second, not all of us who believe the bible is the infallible word of God, and who take it literally believe the creation story in Genesis means the earth was created 7,000 years ago in 7 days.
I hate it when people start talking bible in a secular arena, so please forgive the following. It isn’t an attempt to convert, simply to provide additional information.
The creation story (as expressed in Genesis) shows God creating time on the 4th day. Everything before that took place in eternity. No one can give a date certain for anything that happened before time was created…. At least those that believe the bible.
Second, the bible intimates that “days” listed in this record may not mean physical days. Instead, it could mean periods of time that are separated by action. That period of time could be many thousands of years, or it could mean a real day. But only days 5 and 6 would fit the Actual day concept.
And that would only be applied to “creation scientists who believe the Old Testament account of Creation. Not all Creation Scientists are even Christian or Jewish in faith.
"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.
Denverkid, much of the evolution theory cannot be reproduced and at its most fundimental level, requires commitment to a belief (faith) that some natural force (as opposed to some supernatural force) caused life to come from innert matter.
that "spark" if you will occured and has never been reproduced.
I for one am happy to see science push all boundries as doing so benifits mankind.
arguing for one direction in a science like this, while arguing that another is invalide seems strange.
I'm sorry, but I can't respect the faith of someone who believes the earth is 6-10 thousand years old. I can understand if you have a mental handicap, but most of these people are relatively normal functioning human beings.
There is absolutely not one shred of any evidence that any scientist has ever unearthed that suggests our planet was created in 7 days, 6000 years ago. The only reason this myth perpetuates to this very day is the ignorance of people to question their childhood indoctrination out of fear or whatever reason they have.
Regardless of evidence or the lack thereof, science cannot prove that it didn't happen. People believe in all sorts of things, but the Biblical creation belief is a part of a faith that many subscribe to. Belittling such faith with suggestions such as mental handicaps is not an argument. It's an attempt to discredit their beliefs and religion. While you or I may not share in these beliefs, it's important to recognize that science is an assemblage of beliefs as well. Those beliefs may be supported by physical, observable evidence, and yet if one shred of contradictory evidence should arise, then the theory must be discarded. Religious faith does not have the same rigorous standard, which is why religion does not have any place in the science classroom. But religious faith does not deserve to be demeaned. In fact, the ideal would be a mutual, respectful regard.
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.
Really? Then neither is evolution.
They rely on some very basic concepts that could only be evaluated if one had a time machine.
That is the point here.
By the way, I am neither advocating the validity of Creation Science as the proper course, nor am I arguing that evolution is incorrect.
I am simply arguing that it is odd, that one should be seen as valid and the other invalid.
Science lives at the boundaries of man’s understanding. And everything we have today is a result of pushing those boundaries.
I find it difficult to understand why anyone would say one boundary is fine to study an another is unworthy.
A couple of points... first, creations science does not mean scientists believe the earth was created 7 thousand years ago in 7 days.
Second, not all of us who believe the bible is the infallible word of God, and who take it literally believe the creation story in Genesis means the earth was created 7,000 years ago in 7 days.
I hate it when people start talking bible in a secular arena, so please forgive the following. It isn’t an attempt to convert, simply to provide additional information.
The creation story (as expressed in Genesis) shows God creating time on the 4th day. Everything before that took place in eternity. No one can give a date certain for anything that happened before time was created…. At least those that believe the bible.
Second, the bible intimates that “days” listed in this record may not mean physical days. Instead, it could mean periods of time that are separated by action. That period of time could be many thousands of years, or it could mean a real day. But only days 5 and 6 would fit the Actual day concept.
And that would only be applied to “creation scientists who believe the Old Testament account of Creation. Not all Creation Scientists are even Christian or Jewish in faith.
Sorry for the bible talk. Please resume…
Ferd, I agree with your points and I should have stated I was only referring to young earth creationists. For many years I believed that the christian version of god provided the spark that ignited all life. I don't really believe that anymore, but I can understand why people might hold onto that belief.
Regardless of evidence or the lack thereof, science cannot prove that it didn't happen. People believe in all sorts of things, but the Biblical creation belief is a part of a faith that many subscribe to. Belittling such faith with suggestions such as mental handicaps is not an argument. It's an attempt to discredit their beliefs and religion. While you or I may not share in these beliefs, it's important to recognize that science is an assemblage of beliefs as well. Those beliefs may be supported by physical, observable evidence, and yet if one shred of contradictory evidence should arise, then the theory must be discarded. Religious faith does not have the same rigorous standard, which is why religion does not have any place in the science classroom. But religious faith does not deserve to be demeaned. In fact, the ideal would be a mutual, respectful regard.
Just because science cannot prove something, doesn't mean it's always rational to believe it may have happened. And for the record, science has proven without any doubt that the earth is not 6000 years old which is the group I was referring to.
But it's fine if you choose to respect the beliefs of all people, no matter how ridiculous. I hope you apply this to all fringe sects of religion (scientologists, wierd cults, etc.)
Denverkid, much of the evolution theory cannot be reproduced and at its most fundimental level, requires commitment to a belief (faith) that some natural force (as opposed to some supernatural force) caused life to come from innert matter.
that "spark" if you will occured and has never been reproduced.
I for one am happy to see science push all boundries as doing so benifits mankind.
arguing for one direction in a science like this, while arguing that another is invalide seems strange.
Absolutely not. Believing in evolution in NO WAY requires faith. It requires analyzing the empirical evidence and reasoning as to whether it supports the theory. That's the opposite of faith.
And just because something cannot (at least yet) be reproduced exactly by science does not mean the theory and support for it is not scientifically sound and belief in it therefore requires faith. Those who believe in the big bang, evolution, quantum physics, that Canis Major Dwarf is the nearest galaxy to us, etc. do not do so out of faith. They currently believe these things because the current empirical evidence suggests its. If new evidence arises, these theories will be modified or rejected.
Again, "creation science" rejects all these major tenets of science. It believes things with no supporting evidence. Its underlying "theory" and "hypothesis" are neither theories nor hypotheses. Instead, they are supernatural, faith based "truths" - fundamental assumptions - that are not open to scrutiny, not open to examination, not open to modification, and not open to rejection.
Just because science cannot prove something, doesn't mean it's always rational to believe it may have happened. And for the record, science has proven without any doubt that the earth is not 6000 years old which is the group I was referring to.
But it's fine if you choose to respect the beliefs of all people, no matter how ridiculous. I hope you apply this to all fringe sects of religion (scientologists, wierd cults, etc.)
I actually do try to respect all people, regardless of their beliefs.
I certainly would challenge beliefs that are obviously ridiculous. The age of the Earth isn't spelled out in the Bible, some people have tried to extrapolate that age from various clues in the Bible (ironically, they employ scientific method in an effort to discredit science), so it is reasonable to challenge how they arrived at the number. But I think you can respectfully challenge the ideas other people have without suggesting mental defect. We ALL have opinions that are based on assumptions, and those assumptions are all subject to being challenged because they lack validity. The fact is that, to a large degree, humans live in a reality of their own choosing. Some choices will fly in the face of the evidence around them. While logic may dictate that we believe only in those things which have the most evidence to support them, it is the doubting of the evidence that pushes us to discovery, to moving forward. The Theory of Evolution itself is a collection of corollary theories, any one of which may be disproved as more evidence is turned over.
While a new theory will arise to explain the discrepancy, the fact is that scientific theory is tenuous. It's designed to be flexible. That's a good thing, but too many people think of science as definitive. Science is a process, not a conclusion.
Absolutely not. Believing in evolution in NO WAY requires faith. It requires analyzing the empirical evidence and reasoning as to whether it supports the theory. That's the opposite of faith.
And just because something cannot (at least yet) be reproduced exactly by science does not mean the theory and support for it is not scientifically sound and belief in it therefore requires faith. Those who believe in the big bang, evolution, quantum physics, that Canis Major Dwarf is the nearest galaxy to us, etc. do not do so out of faith. They currently believe these things because the current empirical evidence suggests its. If new evidence arises, these theories will be modified or rejected.
Again, "creation science" rejects all these major tenets of science. It believes things with no supporting evidence. Its underlying "theory" and "hypothesis" are neither theories nor hypotheses. Instead, they are supernatural, faith based "truths" - fundamental assumptions - that are not open to scrutiny, not open to examination, not open to modification, and not open to rejection.
you keep telling yourself that.
eventually you might believe it.
I dont know anyone who suggests that near galaxies arent there because life was made by intelegent design. how silly.
and while there may be some evidence of a bang. there is no evidence as to how that bang.... banged....
ergo... faith is required.
you've broken no new ground but you have proven a lack of understanding about creation science.
thanks for playing.
how about we allow all science to move forward, we work to discredit all theories (the real work of all science) and then lets see what is still standing?
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.
