Right ok, this is why creationism ISN'T a Science?

Question

It cannot be falsified by empirical evidence. If there is no way to falsify it empirically, it also cannot be taken as a Scientific theory.

Look here perhaps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

And a similar response to religion by Anthony Flew (though not a scientific respose)- believers (often) WILL NOT accept any evidence against their religion. It cannot be disproved to them.

All scientific theories ALLOW a margin for error, and peer review etc. Creationism does not. People who believe in creationism would (probably) not give up their belief due to scientific evidence (even if there was full evidence for evolution.)

Many of you here argue against evolution with valid scientific points. But I'm sure a lot of you started from the conclusion that there is a God and he made the world, picking up the scientific evidence to prove it. This is not a scientific method.

I disagree with you 'spiritwal...' - most (sane) people would discard evolution if there was more evidence against that for it. But at the moment there is not. Even the 'creation science' evidence (or 'evidence' depending on your views) is not enough to outweigh evidence for evolution yet. And even then, God would still have to be proven.
I think that if people do prove evolution wrong, it'll be easy to give it up. There is no reason to believe in evolution other than it being logical and it seeming to fit with the world. If we find something more logical, sure!

A lot of generalisations here, folks... Some people who defend evolution may be very attached to it, but many are not. They only argue so crazily because of the ideas held by creationists.

I'm not saying either belief is wrong. But creationism is not a science. Scientific doesn't equal right.

Answer 1

I believe that both creation and evolution rely on religious belief and are supported by scientific observation. The fundamental beliefs vary as well as the interpretation of the scientific facts.

As for your points:

1. I would agree that Creationism does not fit the description of a testable, repeatable, scientific theory... but neither does evolution. However, there are theories as to how observable scientific facts fit together to support both creation and evolution.

2. Some "believers" WILL accept evidence against their religion and some NON-believers WILL NOT accept any evidence supporting religion. But this is irrelevant and does not lend scientific credibility to either side.

3. There are theories supporting both creation and evolution that allow for error and are peer reviewed. In fact, many theories for both sides are continually modified, updated, or rejected based on new evidence. In this way both ideas are very similar to all other pure scientific fields.

4. When talking about the origin of the universe and life, ANY theory must have its origin in belief of something that was not observed, cannot be repeated, and will not happen again, as well as the assumption that something existed in the first place to start it all. Creationists believe in God and creation while Evolutionists believe in the Big Bang and a monstrously long list of extremely statistically improbable occurrences that take place in an amazingly perfect order. Almost sounds like it needs "divine intervention"...

Answer 2

Q: What is the principle evidence for Creationism?
A: The Holy Bible, of course. After all, is it likely that the author
of the Universe would be mistaken about its age?

Q: But isn't the Bible religion and not science? A: Truth is truth. It's a poor sort of science that ignores truth.

Q: But isn't there a lot of evidence for evolution? A: Not really, most of it is from university professors writing papers for each other. If they didn't write papers they wouldn't have jobs.

Q: But what about radioactive dating? A: Hey, everybody knows that stuff is bad for you. Stick with good Christian girls.

Q: What about the fossil evidence? A: The real fossils are university professors writing papers for each other.

Q: Is there any other evidence for Creationism besides the Bible? A: Yes.

Q: Can you give us some? A: Yes.

Q: Could you give us a specific example? A: Yes.

Q: What be a specific example of evidence for Creationism? A: I've already answered that question.

Q: Aren't Hawiian wallabies an example of Evolution in action? A: No.

Q: Why not? A: Because they aren't.

Q: Some scientists state that the earth's continents are drifting around on top of a molten interior which has shaped life as we see it now. Are they right? A: As you well know the Bible says that beneath the surface of the earth is Hell where there is eternal fires and brimstone. If the continents appear to be moving around that is Satan's doing.

Answer 3

Creationism is completely encrusted in science. Specially in Anthropology and Paleology. The creationist scientist do not question so much the evolution just justify different finding and accept other proof, for example they believe in the Homo Habilis, while the Darwinists do not consider it a Homo at all.

The main difference is that they question the bible but not that god created the world. Starting with bacteria to monkeys etc.

About the scientific method is much less scientific than most scientist think. Just look today at the statistic systems of gathering data and mathematical formulas to extrapolate the answers obtained from10 interviews to the whole USA
BR
San2

Answer 4

technological information classification is for coaching theories that are backed up with the aid of examine and medical data, not with the aid of "seem how a lot of human beings believe this". Evolution is supported with the aid of a brilliant physique of examine; creationism isn't. this is not fascist to tutor in basic terms the thought that 2 + 2 = 4, thoroughly ignoring the competing thought that 2 + 2 = 3. in certainty, in case you propose those 2 theories are the two supported, you at the instant are not any greater coaching math in any respect.

Answer 5

Creationism is a science, we serve a God that made a earth that follows normal scientific processes. You say we argue our point against evolution by starting with the idea of a God, but you are lying to your self if you didn't start out without any initial idea, everyone does. Maybe for you it is no God. The point is that creationism is proof that the accounts in the Bible are true and science relating to our present nature and planet verifies it when you use the accounts like the flood in the Bible to fill the gaps. You might use time, millions and billions of years to fill the gap in your theory. But using dating methods such as carbon dating and others only make assumptions that the earth had a constant amount of carbon 14 or other materials, but that cannot be verified or proven. You have to have faith in evolution and I have to have faith in creation, seeya at the end.

Answer 6

The Bible and science go hand in hand. I have no tolerance, however, for the marginal splinter group of scientists who like to try to prove that they're smarter than God by coming up with these ridiculous theories of EXACTLY HOW the world began. And when I hear them talking about fossils and how old they are by determining the age of it with their little carbon dating kits, I admit it...I snicker. A MAN-MADE test can determine that something is a million years old? Why not just take it to the gypsy fortune teller down the street....for ten bucks she'll give you as good a guess. OR BETTER STILL, why not just BELIEVE GOD?

Answer 7

I make a clear distinction between Faith and science. I am a Christian who accepts evolution.

I look to God with Faith, not science. I know that God is I AM. I know that the Spirit of God is in me and will guide me, oddly enough keeps guiding me to more information that helps me reconcile Faith and science.

I look to science to answer questions about the fossil record, and to build greater understanding about our planet. I believe that God wants us to study and understand.

Science cannot teach us about God. Science cannot prove or disprove God.

Faith has no place is scientific investigation.

They are apples and oranges, but there is no reason why one cannot appreciate science and still serve God.

Answer 8

Yes, the scientific method involves observing the natural world, and coming to a conclusion based on the data gathered.

Their perverted version involves declaring a conclusion and finding data to support that conclusion, disregarding any evidence that does not support their idea. This excludes other ideas that might better explain the data...

Answer 9

Right Ok, This is why Evolution is not a Science
because the evidence they have and what they call"empirical evidence" has been fabricated, people who say that it cannot be fabricated are just ingnorant.
people who believe in Evolution will not give up that belief regardless of what evidence is shown because they do not wish to believe that they will be held accountable for anything.
And therefore will not accept any evidence against their "religion"

Answer 10

In our defense evolutionist do the same thing. There are a set of facts and both sides try to manipulate them for their side. I think that creationism just fits the facts better. If you could give be facts that are just facts and not the interpretation there of that proven beyond any doubt then you could convince me. The problem is that no such artifacts exist and therefor I remain unconvinced.