The Theory of Creationism (briefly)

[world nonpotent]

You're asking about the world, but the Word is important as well. Nothing comes from nothing, and evolution differences itself from emanation.:tsk:

 

[michel]

And do you assert that the reason he did not have childhood scars is because he had never actually been a child?

Yes, but even if he had been (which he wasn't), it's highly-debatable that he would have gotten cuts and scars anyway. I think he would have, some say otherwise, claiming no pain or suffering existed before the Fall. We'll never know down here.

Now tell me how this applies to the sea bed, and tell me how uranium fracturing is important to this process.

I don't know.

Science doesn't start with a conclusion... which is one of the reasons Creationism isn't a science (as it starts with a conclusion and then attempts to prove it true).

Creationism does NOT start with a CONCLUSION, it starts with a FACT - (Genesis 1:1).

Sceintists often use premesis that you believe to be wrong... but I'm not sure how useful a discussion that can be in such generality.

I vote we agree to disagree then.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Creationism does NOT start with a CONCLUSION, it starts with a FACT - (Genesis 1:1).

That is no more a "FACT" than is Peter Pan.

To pretend to argue that Genesis 1 is true because it says so in Genesis 1 is both contemptuous and contemptible.

 

[michel]

That is no more a "FACT" than is Peter Pan.

To pretend to argue that Genesis 1 is true because it says so in Genesis 1 is both contemptuous and contemptible.

Where in Genesis 1 does it say Genesis 1 is true?

 

[JerryL]

Yes, but even if he had been (which he wasn't), it's highly-debatable that he would have gotten cuts and scars anyway. I think he would have, some say otherwise, claiming no pain or suffering existed before the Fall. We'll never know down here.

Unfortunately, that's the answer that poses a problem for the analogy I would use to explain the problem of "appearance of age" and fracture dating methods (the no, because he would have scarred anyway). Of course, it poses a biocehmically impossible situation (we need cells to die), but that would be too off-topic.

I don't know.

But you know that God did it?

Creationism does NOT start with a CONCLUSION, it starts with a FACT - (Genesis 1:1).

Actually, it starts with a lot of facts, which it then sets about proving true (hence, these facts are the conclusion). I'm not sure what you think a fact is, nor what you think a conclusion is, but I fear that we are running into symantic problems with your grasp of English.

I vote we agree to disagree then.

An even more confusing response under the circumstance, but we can table that topic.

 

[michel]

But you know that God did it?

If not God, then who? [Not what, but who?] And if you don't know or believe who, say so.

Actually, it starts with a lot of facts, which it then sets about proving true (hence, these facts are the conclusion). I'm not sure what you think a fact is, nor what you think a conclusion is, but I fear that we are running into symantic problems with your grasp of English.

Facts proven true by conclusions ... sounds good to me!

 

[Ryan2065]

If not God, then who? [Not what, but who?] And if you don't know or believe who, say so.

I don't believe a "who" created the universe =)

Facts proven true by conclusions ... sounds good to me!

Please read AND understand what your opponent says. He said that the bible starts with "facts" and then it tries to prove these "facts" true. When you try to prove something true, you are trying to prove your conclusion true. Therefore the actual fact becomes a conclusion.

 

[JerryL]

If not God, then who? [Not what, but who?] And if you don't know or believe who, say so.

That's not an answer. Do you believe it was God? You've already asserted "I don't know".

Facts proven true by conclusions ... sounds good to me!

This isn't even good English. Conclusions don't prove anything. The facts *are* the conclusions. Creationists then set out ro prove these conclusions true.

This is not proper science. Proper science starts with the data (support) and then attempts to draw conclusions from that. Once you have on you would like, you find a prediction that the hypothesis can make and then test for it. Among other things, you must be able to form falsifiable tests (tests which could falsify your hypothesis) and test fo them, and fail to falsify the position.

Creationism does not meet any of these criteria. The conclusion occurs before any of the data (making it not a science). Futher, the hypothesis makes no testable predictions; in short, there's no way to falisify creationism, (and therefore it's not a theory either).

 

[Fatmop]

av1611, JerryL is perfectly correct. You don't even have a rudimentary understandinf of logic, and you would do well to learn how to logically analyze a statement. It did wonders for Dan Barker, after all. Frubals to you, JerryL.

 

[ChrisP]

The best argument for creation, is represented by the concept of the theory. Every finding from every piece of research is the result of a theory. These findings are presented as fact to the public. Over the years many of these scientific findings will have their positions strengthened, some will be disproven. Maybe in a hundred years, humanity will look back at popular scientific belief and scorn our academicians, maybe not. Ultimately monotheistic books have not changed, and will never change. There is no need for a change in a system where a singular ultimate truth is the core substance.

Science attempts to explain the Universe by slowly working it's way back through it's immense and complicated mechanics. Religion strikes to the core, seeking the one underlying truth that, once understood, will explain all without the need for testing, retesting and theorising.

 

[JerryL]

Science attempts to explain the Universe by slowly working it's way back through it's immense and complicated mechanics. Religion strikes to the core, seeking the one underlying truth that, once understood, will explain all without the need for testing, retesting and theorising.

But this does nothing for its validity.

Having one consistant postion from the beginning regardless of evidence (say, for example, the position that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction) does not make it true.

 

[ChrisP]

But this does nothing for its validity.

Having one consistant postion from the beginning regardless of evidence (say, for example, the position that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction) does not make it true.

I agree it does not make it true, I should have made my point a little clearer (I forget not everyone speaks space cadet ).

I was trying to describe how both styles of understanding are trying to achieve the same thing, just working from different ends of the equation. (maybe with a little bias )

 

[Fade]

I think the bottom line, is that "their" scientists can't explain where we come from without contradicting themselves, so they turn to us to explain it, and we tell them GOD SAID SO, and they don't like it. They want to hear US contradict ourselves too, and it isn't working.

AV1611, you wouldn't happen to have been a member of the freeconservatives forum by any chance?