creationism science?

Question

or whatever they call it. i mean, i don't care if you believe in creationism. that's your thing. but it's not science. please stop calling it science. does it make anyone else's head hurt every time they see this?

jenn b: there's no observation or experimentation involved. it's all 100% theory with no quanitfiable evidence. therefore, it's not science

Answer 1

My brain actually falls out, and I have to put it back in my head every time I see "creation science".

The problem is, this happens to others too, they just don't replace their brains after they fall out.

"Hmm... creation science..." *plop* "Makes sense to me!"

Answer 2

It irritates me to no end... it is libel, grossly inaccurate propagandist wordplay and it's a direct contradiction which violates the very principles of science.

Creationists have offered no tests, no experiments, no studies, have forwarded no testable hypothesis, and so on. They simply look at some evidence, they horridly distort it (such as spreading lies that evolution claims we evolved from apes/chimps, when evolution really says we share a common ancestor or the obnoxious lie that it's "random chance" when it clearly isn't) and then spread the distortions with some persuasive fallacies and rhetoric to make christians feel better about their backward beliefs.

Creationists set out to prove their myths, while science tries to disprove educated guesses. They take the complete opposite approach. There is no way you could understand both concepts/methodologies and think they are the same thing, it would take a degree of stupidity/ignorance beyond anything I'm comfortable imagining. "Creation science" is like saying "Black-ish white." It can not possibly, ever exist.

(On a side note, the term "Christian science" first appeared over 100 years ago when the "Germ Theory of Disease" came out. Christians argued that it was "just a theory" and that germs couldn't possibly exist because the bible clearly states all diseases come from demons, witches, and evil powers. Interestingly, almost every single tactic and argument they now use against evolution was brought up against germ theory - I guess they're too uncreative to come up with new arguments.

Answer 3

indexed under are the stairs of the medical approach in gentle of the creation theory. one million. define the question the place did we come from? 2. collect counsel and supplies (word) go searching and word the complexities of life that scientists nevertheless have not been in a position to be certain. 3. style hypothesis We would desire to have come from sensible layout. 4. carry out test and assemble archives No scientist for this reason a approaches has been in a position to create life. No scientist has been in a position to make the relationship of macro-evolution. No test has shown that an accident can create complicated life varieties. 5. study archives that would desire to be self explanitory. 6. Interpret archives and draw conclusions that function a commencing factor for sparkling hypothesis there isn't any evidence that a writer exists, yet there is a lot evidence for sensible layout. 7. post effects 8. Retest (commonly carried out by making use of different scientists)

Answer 4

It just makes me really, really sad. Kids today are going to grow up not even knowing what science IS because of this sort of nonsense. They're being taught that simply believing in something gives it scientific credibility. Look at the answer a few above me. (I rest my case) "I choose to believe that an incredibly intelligent, all-powerful God who is above and not affected by His Creation made everything that we see. This is not an "unscientific" belief..." and then says that it takes "faith". This person has NO CLUE what science is. There is nothing more UNscientific than believing in something for which there is NO evidence. That's what "faith" is. Faith is the opposite of science.

Answer 5

It IS science. Creationists use the exact same scientific facts that evolutionists use. The only difference is the INTERPRETATION of those facts. Two people can look at the same exact thing and come away with two completely opposite interpretations of how it got that way. It doesn't make the other one "unscientific". It all depends upon where you want to place your faith.
You place your faith in evolution; you "believe" that the Earth/universe is "millions/billions of years old", even though you weren't there to witness it. You "believe" that the dog and the cat had a common ancestor, despite evidence to the contrary and the fact that you also weren't there to witness it. You rely completely on the imagination of "scientists" (who also weren't there) to provide the details of your belief.
I choose to believe that an incredibly intelligent, all-powerful God who is above and not affected by His Creation made everything that we see. This is not an "unscientific" belief - it requires just as much faith as believing that the dog and the cat had a common ancestor.

Answer 6

The term creationist science is simply a contradiction in terms. Creationism has no basis on science at all. They are using the term to try and persuade the gullible.

Atheism. You know it makes sense.

Answer 7

The only way they can make it sound credible is if the call it science.

The sad thing is that they actually think that is all it takes to make it science.

It really is too bad that natural selection isn't a strong factor in human evolution anymore.

We are in desperate need of some "pruning".

Answer 8

It seems to fit the definition of science: The investigation of natural phenomena through observation, theoretical explanation, and experimentation, or the knowledge produced by such investigation.

Just because their explanation differs from yours doesn't make it invalid.

Edit: Perhaps you should look into it more, you will find that in fact they do experiment and investigate.

Answer 9

all our actions are due to our thoughts&all our thoughts are due to feeding to our senses(of organs)+our dynastrical-hyrarchy+our cicumstances&habits. Of all these we can control our food&circumstances&habits ,but not our ancestral/hyrarchicals at all &also our past karmas..... which we are ,however powerful must&should face.
but by the yoga to some extent one can lower our karmas& by knowledge to one can lower our karamas to some more extent &by KUNDALINI YOGA ANY Male&Female can bring down ones` karmas to the lowest lewel .
If one can know what is kundalini power & then he/she can
live longer&love all . THe kundalini power is nothing but our
reproductive strength&vitality(for both male &female) & if one goes to the level of understanding the nature &power of our KUNDALINI POWER we can ,then only go to the level of understanding the real nature &meaning of LIFE,DEATH,BIRTH& G O D and in the process the Science.

N.B. :----- Practise first , Preach next (No Inter mediaterity )

Answer 10

Creation Science uses the same facts as Evolutionists do. The only difference is that our is based on proven outcomes, while the Evolutionists twist the facts to support their false theory. if you want to see the truth, go to www.drdino.com or www.creationevidence.org