Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

fogus · Feb 9, 2004, 06:41 pm

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

interesting...

i'm new here, so i didn't have the time to read all 200 posts on this thread, and i appologize if what i say has been said already. How is creationism a science, when it is built entirely on making one claim, and searching for evidence of that one particular claim? In every college science class I've had so far, the professors have explained that science is based on the progression of ideas from one to the next, and whereas the "truth" of evolutionism is constantly evolving (new hypotheses being made about the mechanisms of evolution), creation "science" is not refined to fit the data, in fact, the exact opposite is true. the data of creation scientists is refined to fit the claim. there are some aspects of the scientific method that are present, but as a science, creationism is fundamentally flawed.

one thing that confuses a lot of creationists is the nature of evolutionary biology. its designed to explain mechanisms by which these things happen, and have happened over large amounts of time, but not necessarily origins. whatever makes us human, or makes something alive is some entirely different debate, and perhaps where creationists should focus their efforts, rather than take the words of evolutionary biologists out of context to justify their claims.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

You make it look as though creationists have manipulated numbers to fit their beliefs. You go further to say that evolutionists have not changed their data but have hanged their theories. You also claim that creationism is not a science because it searches for data to fit the belief that God created the earth in 6 days which are 24hrs. long each. What do you think the “scientists” were doing when they dug up Nebraska “man”? What do you think the mars rovers are doing? Why are we spending millions of dollars looking for water, or even a simple sign of life from outer space? What are we doing with all of the millions of dollars of research going towards evolutionary “science”? If science really changes its truth to match reality then why does it not look at the other 90% of dating methods which point to a young earth? Why is the dynamo theory of the earth’s magnetic field accepted when the rapid decay theory fits the data with extreme accuracy in comparison? The answer is that every “scientist” has a bias! You can’t escape from it! I will agree with all of your numbers about the similarity between the DNA of humans and apes. In fact I will agree with you on everything you can observe. You can use carbon dating, but I won’t agree that the world is millions of years old because your math can pump out big numbers; carbon dating can’t give ages larger than 50,000 years accurately.

Feb 9, 2004, 06:41 pm	#212 (permalink) (top)
fogus Molten Ash Posts: 67	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by interesting... i'm new here, so i didn't have the time to read all 200 posts on this thread, and i appologize if what i say has been said already. How is creationism a science, when it is built entirely on making one claim, and searching for evidence of that one particular claim? In every college science class I've had so far, the professors have explained that science is based on the progression of ideas from one to the next, and whereas the "truth" of evolutionism is constantly evolving (new hypotheses being made about the mechanisms of evolution), creation "science" is not refined to fit the data, in fact, the exact opposite is true. the data of creation scientists is refined to fit the claim. there are some aspects of the scientific method that are present, but as a science, creationism is fundamentally flawed. one thing that confuses a lot of creationists is the nature of evolutionary biology. its designed to explain mechanisms by which these things happen, and have happened over large amounts of time, but not necessarily origins. whatever makes us human, or makes something alive is some entirely different debate, and perhaps where creationists should focus their efforts, rather than take the words of evolutionary biologists out of context to justify their claims. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You make it look as though creationists have manipulated numbers to fit their beliefs. You go further to say that evolutionists have not changed their data but have hanged their theories. You also claim that creationism is not a science because it searches for data to fit the belief that God created the earth in 6 days which are 24hrs. long each. What do you think the “scientists” were doing when they dug up Nebraska “man”? What do you think the mars rovers are doing? Why are we spending millions of dollars looking for water, or even a simple sign of life from outer space? What are we doing with all of the millions of dollars of research going towards evolutionary “science”? If science really changes its truth to match reality then why does it not look at the other 90% of dating methods which point to a young earth? Why is the dynamo theory of the earth’s magnetic field accepted when the rapid decay theory fits the data with extreme accuracy in comparison? The answer is that every “scientist” has a bias! You can’t escape from it! I will agree with all of your numbers about the similarity between the DNA of humans and apes. In fact I will agree with you on everything you can observe. You can use carbon dating, but I won’t agree that the world is millions of years old because your math can pump out big numbers; carbon dating can’t give ages larger than 50,000 years accurately. ~Fogus