The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

Ah, yes, science is for science classes, creation science for seminaries, and only evolutionary science gets taught in the schools. A brilliant way of censoring under the pretence of reason.

If it was science is for science classes, evolutionary science for institutes of ideological indoctrination, and only creation science gets taught in the schools - would that be reason? No, it would be censorship.

Anything contrary to your theory is to be thrashed, but you boast in your open-mindedness.:(

a hypothetical person wrote:

Damn schools teaching about the holocaust!
Everyone knows its a big conspiracy, the holocaust never happened!!

Seems unreasonable? But all the evidence supports that the holocaust did happen. Due to this massive amount of evidence the vast majority of people, particularly those with actual experience examining the subject, believe it to be true. That's why they don't teach the holocaust denier's POV in school.
Same reason they don't teach about Xenu in school.
Same reason they don't teach that the world is flat in school.
Same reason they don't teach the Earth is 6,000 years old in school.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Or more formally:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionist

Don't you guys know about dictionaries? Or do your copies have all the words you feel uncomfortable with blacked out?

Hmm, the latter seems more likely, given evolutionist's partiality to censorship.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gravitationalist

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entropist

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chaosist

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stringist

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativityist

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tectonictist

iUseVi

wolfsbane wrote: »

See the sites I gave for the evidence, for example:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/radioisotopes-earth

As to peer-review, it sort of begs the question: it seems an a priori assumption is made that creation science is religious and therefore cannot be considered regardless of its scientific argument. The creation scientists have set up their own peer-review system and publish peer-reviewed journals, for example:
CRS Quarterly
http://creationresearch.org/crsq.html

Sections such as:

...This would suggest that, because the Bible indicates the earth is young (about 6,000 years old), this large quantity of nuclear decay must have occurred at much faster rates than those measured today.

should really set off some alarm bells. They have a pre established outcome, into which they try to cram data.

NO TESTABLE THEORY.

You might notice that they don't say something like: "The age of rocks can be shown to be young by performing such and such an experiment".

Galvasean

All the seem to be saying there is, 'well the evidence says one thing, but we know (somehow) the evidence is wrong'.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

As a self-confessed non-science expert, on what basis do you make that conclusion?



What catch22? - what are you talking about? We have already discussed this. To recap: science involves novel or confirmatory investigations, where a study design is implemented to test (i.e. falsify or not falsify) a specific hypothesis. Creation science, if such thing exists, would test hypotheses related to the creation story.

I haven't moved the goalposts, wolfsbane; I've been asking you for just this for months. Aren't you even slightly frustrated at the fact you can't find even a single example? Not even one? What are all these so-called creations scientists doing with their time? They are writing essays, speculation, opinion, NOT SCIENCE, and you know it.

EDIT: my interest in this thread is not atheism vs. creationism, it is science vs. non-science. You claim science's authority but don't have any science. Science is, at best, irrelevant to your beliefs so why do you seek to claim it so aggressively? And why, given your obsession with science, have you not decided to read up on and learn about the current state-of-play in the several years that have gone by since this thread started? Are you happy to remain a non science expert as you so frequently refer to yourself as? Are you willing to take the word of J C and others instead of finding out for yourself?

I base my conclusion on the basic science I do have and on common sense. I see, for example, the creation scientists examining the radio-isotope data and finding a lot that contradicts the millions of years model/invalidates the dating methods, and so permits a recent creation model.

I see modeling for deep sea-floor sedimentation to test the Flood hypothesis:
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_lv_r01/

Are these not science? Are they not testing hypotheses related to the creation story?

I am convinced by God's Spirit about the truth of the Bible. But when anyone - scientist or otherwise - contradicts the Bible, I gladly speak up. Science and the Bible both know the truth. It is men whose interpretation of either may err. Evolution is an ideologically driven intrepretation of the scientific evidence, not the science itself. That's what I debate with you here - your ideologically blinded beliefs. JC takes you to task on the specifics of your scientific claims.

Should I leave my work to get a degree in geology, biology, physics, etc.? No, I have a different calling. Does this leave me unable to challenge your dogma? No, with the help of JC and the many scientists whose material I point you to, I am content we have exposed the nakedness of Evolution.

An unbiased observer would concede at least that we have called into question the nature of its clothes - is it a body-stocking or bare-nakedness?

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gravitationalist

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entropist

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chaosist

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stringist

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relativityist

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tectonictist

Yes, as I thought. You guys cull the terms you don't like and make up the ones you do. My term - evolutionist - exists in the real/honest/open world, as can be found by merely clicking on the site.:cool:

wolfsbane

Galvasean wrote: »

Seems unreasonable? But all the evidence supports that the holocaust did happen. Due to this massive amount of evidence the vast majority of people, particularly those with actual experience examining the subject, believe it to be true. That's why they don't teach the holocaust denier's POV in school.
Same reason they don't teach about Xenu in school.
Same reason they don't teach that the world is flat in school.
Same reason they don't teach the Earth is 6,000 years old in school.

Your analogy falls down when we get to the facts. Creationists and evolutionists share the same evidence, but differ on the interpretation.

The Holocaust-deniers have to explain away the witnesses, the documentation, the admissions. I don't think they have been able to do that. At best they can bring doubt on the exact numbers, reducing it by a million or so. But it still ends up with millions murdered.

Evolutionists and creationists both produce credible interpretations of the evidence - both have their problems and gaps in the explanations, but a case can be made for each. Further research will make the issues clearer no doubt.

The majority argument is not be so strong, if ideological bias and peer-pressure is factored in.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, as I thought. You guys cull the terms you don't like and make up the ones you do. My term - evolutionist - exists in the real/honest/open world, as can be found by merely clicking on the site.:cool:

Allow me to explain my point, perhaps I was being too vague. Evolutionist is a word that was in usage in the early days of Evolutionary Theory and had the meaning as defined in the link you provided. Prior to this, it referred to adherents of cultural evolution hypotheses which had nothing to do with modern evolutionary theory. This meaning was discarded with along with the theories they referred to (scientists do that when they disprove something). The word was then adopted to describe those who accepted the newly emerging Darwinian theory of evolution. What dictionary.com neglects to mention is that the word has fallen out of usage in favour of the terms "evolutionary biologist" or "evolutionary scientist". The advent of "Evolutionism"- a term invented by creationists to create the impression that the Theory was on some kind of par with other "isms", changed the connotations of the term "Evolutionist" and indeed the word came to be used almost exclusively by creationists in their fun little word games. "Evolutionist" is a term that was rarely used by scientists in the past and never used now. "Evolutionism" is a fabrication.

J C's use of the term is a cheap attempt to belittle his opponents. This is the ground that your cause is reduced to fighting on.

MrPudding

wolfsbane wrote: »

- both have their problems and gaps in the explanations,

Yes, but in science they do not fill the gaps with magic.

MrP

wolfsbane

BTW, I find listening in on evolutionists really helpful. They speak so freely when addressing their own, and a lot of the evasion and distortion are missing.

Here's some I was reading lately:

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/natscilh.html

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/natscimn.html

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your analogy falls down when we get to the facts. Creationists and evolutionists share the same evidence, but differ on the interpretation.

The Holocaust-deniers have to explain away the witnesses, the documentation, the admissions. I don't think they have been able to do that. At best they can bring doubt on the exact numbers, reducing it by a million or so. But it still ends up with millions murdered.

Again, sounds a bit like the young Earth proponents. They can cast a very small shadow of a doubt over certain elements of orthodox science, but still a massive amount of other equally valid evidence goes against them.

Eschatologist

wolfsbane wrote: »

... creation science is religious and therefore cannot be considered regardless of its scientific argument.

This part of your comment is exactly right. When you have your forgone conclusion and try to force the facts to fit your 'theory' regardless of the mountain of evidence for the blatantly opposite - then that is not science. A peer-review system founded on this ideal makes no sense.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The creation scientists have set up their own peer-review system and publish peer-reviewed journals, for example:
CRS Quarterly
http://creationresearch.org/crsq.html

:pac: That is so cute! So they didn't like the established system and set up their own. If their models are as robust as the rest of actual science and they're putting forward valid hypotheses with their experimental methods set out - then why can't they just get their ideas published in the existing journals?

Note: journals are not prejudiced towards or censor religiously-influenced people, merely ideas based on religion which are inherently untestable. Repeatedly upholding an orthodoxy in the face of new ideas and data is grossly unscientific. We've been over this.

Eschatologist

wolfsbane wrote: »

I base my conclusion on the basic science I do have and on common sense. I see, for example, the creation scientists examining the radio-isotope data and finding a lot that contradicts the millions of years model/invalidates the dating methods, and so permits a recent creation model.

Accelerated nuclear decay to contradict millions of years? Prediction: enormous amount of heat energy released ~6000 years ago = planet-meltage. So why are most of the rocks on Earth not basalt or komatiite? Rocks should not even have the appearance of great age if this was the case, we shouldn't even see a range of ages at all. All radiometric clocks would have been reset 6000 years ago, I would predict that all isotope ages should corroborate this age or less, and radionuclides that are extinct now and their decay products should still be detectable. This isn't observed.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I see modeling for deep sea-floor sedimentation to test the Flood hypothesis:
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_lv_r01/

Are these not science? Are they not testing hypotheses related to the creation story?

This essay isn't even in the format of a standard paper. Papers in various fields also don't generally go explaining their terminology or the uses of different isotopes. Background knowledge is assumed by the writers.

"The Bible does not speak directly about sea-floor sediments or foraminifera. "

Oh really? This isn't testing an idea, it's forcing facts to the idea. Not science.

"In fact, some evolutionists are now suggesting worldwide catastrophic events at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary—namely, the impact of asteroids on the earth, a worldwide dust cloud, global winter, and the destruction of the dinosaurs and many major life forms. Many of these scenarios fit well with the devastation suggested by creationists in the global Flood of Genesis."

It would be nice if creationists could address the Ordovician, Silurian, Permian and Triassic mass extinctions too. That's the problem with randomly picking a boundary and assigning biblical history to it.

"If the "ice age" ended about 2000 years ago as suggested above, there should be evidences for recent dramatic changes in climate."

:eek: 2000 not 10,000? that's news to me! That's the thing though, graphs of climate change always appear dramatic when you zoom right in. Might help if they looked at the bigger picture.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creationists and evolutionists share the same evidence, but differ on the interpretation.

And a man who stands up and says that the sun has risen in the west shares the same evidence as a man who says that the sun has risen in the east. Only the interpretations of the evidence are different.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

it seems an a priori assumption is made that creation science is religious and therefore cannot be considered regardless of its scientific argument.

Well, when the bearded wonder says that the bible is true ahead of any evidence to the contrary, you could perhaps understand why some of the more perceptive here might suspect that creationism is somehow linked to religion.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You need to speak to aggresso so you can get your story straight. :pac: He said:

He is mistaken. JC is just being stupid, because he has already been told why that assertion isn't true. The chemical reactions that form biology are not spontanous, they take place under the energy of the Earth and the Sun. Evolution is not a spontaneous system.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your analogy falls down when we get to the facts. Creationists and evolutionists share the same evidence, but differ on the interpretation.

You guys don't have the models, so both the evidence and the interpretation is irrelevant. You don't interpret any evidence, you just state your conclusion that you got from the Bible.

No scientific models, no science. Just the way Creationists like it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Evolutionists and creationists both produce credible interpretations of the evidence - both have their problems and gaps in the explanations, but a case can be made for each.

There is no case for Creation. You don't have any testable, falsifiable scientific models for Creation.

Heck the Neo-Nazi's have a stronger argument, they at least have an a testable explanation for their assertions (the Jews all lie), you guys don't even have that.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

See the sites I gave for the evidence, for example:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/radioisotopes-earth

And here are some sites showing why its wrong:
"Decay Rates are not constant" is shown wrong here, here and here,
Claims about "Helium diffusion" are countered here (this was responded to here and the counter to the response is here),
And theories about Radiohalos are rebutted here and here

Lastly, here is a page with a dozen or so more links showing why the RATE project and the "evidence" it gives is wrong.

Anymore "evidence" ?

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

BTW, I find listening in on evolutionists really helpful. They speak so freely when addressing their own, and a lot of the evasion and distortion are missing.

Here's some I was reading lately:

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/natscilh.html

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/natscimn.html

If creationism is a science, it shares its weaknesses (the limits of critical human perception- wow what a weakness). If it is not, it is even weaker. Attempting to challenge the definition of science, or to undermine it in some effort to put a faith-based a assumption on equal footing with faithless testable assumptions is frankly pointless. You are not comparing like with like, there is no faith in science. It is the philosophical opposite of faith.

One of the links contains the below list, which has been dredged up by creationists before to make it appear as if science is faith-based. I consider the list to be debatable.

Some Assumptions of Scientific Knowledge:

A. THE WORLD IS REAL. In other words, the physical universe exists apart from our sensory perception of it.

The assumption that the universe exists objectively is non-testable and irrelevant to science. If the world exists only in my mind but displays reproducible rules, those rules are real within the context of that world. The assumption of objective reality is not required in the subjective performance of science.

It is instead a personal choice that relates to our functionality as humans as to whether we make this assumption. Most people will assume the universe exists objectively since assumptions to the contrary make it difficult for us to function day-to-day. It freaks people out.

B. HUMANS CAN ACCURATELY PERCEIVE AND UNDERSTAND the physical universe. In other words, we can learn correctly how the natural world works and operates.

We don't assume that everything that exists is perceivable and understandable. We merely concern ourselves with that which is perceivable and make no scientific assumptions about that which we hypothetically cannot perceive either directly or by its influence on the observable.

C. Empirically-accessible processes (that is NATURAL PROCESSES) are SUFFICIENT to explain or account for natural phenomena or events. In other words, scientists must explain the natural in terms of the natural.

Anything that would appear to be non-natural yet influencing the universe would have to be a part of a wider universe (thus re-defining the universe) and would thus be natural. It would also become empirically accessible by dint of being perceivable. There is no "unnatural".

D. Scientists ASSUME THAT NATURE "OPERATES" UNIFORMLY in both space and time (unless we have evidence to the contrary) in order to arrive at conclusions that have general applicability and utility. (This is known as the PRINCIPLE OF UNIFORMITY.)

This is not at all faith-based. It is a testable assumption. A hypothesis. That a scientist makes a testable assumption until proven wrong is the basis of science. There's nothing special about the uniformity principle in that respect.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And here are some sites showing why its wrong:
"Decay Rates are not constant" is shown wrong here, here and here,
Claims about "Helium diffusion" are countered here (this was responded to here and the counter to the response is here),
And theories about Radiohalos are rebutted here and here

Lastly, here is a page with a dozen or so more links showing why the RATE project and the "evidence" it gives is wrong.

Anymore "evidence" ?

Certainly, there is much more evidence. Check the sites I provided.

However, it will also be rebutted by those who hold to a different conclusion. Just as evolutionists rebutt each other's particular explanations - indeed, as creationists also do.

Rebuttal doesn't mean a model/hypothesis/theory is wrong or not scientific. The rebuttal may be wrong. In any event, both/several sides may produce scientific argument for their case, and ought to be accorded respect for their scientific endeavours. There seems to be little of that attitude among evolutionists about their evolutionist colleagues, and especially so toward their creationist colleagues.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

However, it will also be rebutted by those who hold to a different conclusion. Just as [...] creationists also do.

Can you point me, please, at the creationists who have rebutted the truth of the genesis tale?

.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

However, it will also be rebutted by those who hold to a different conclusion. Just as evolutionists rebutt each other's particular explanations - indeed, as creationists also do.

There's a pretty huge difference between disputing a conclusion and disputing the experiments and results themselves. The criticisms levelled against creationism go to the core of their methodolgy and data, not some question of their interpetation of sound science.

Tell me, what (hypothetical) experimental result would actually cause creationists to abandon the assumption that the earth was created in six days by the abrahamic God? They aren't open to the possibility of their "hypothesis" being disproven.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Rebuttal doesn't mean a model/hypothesis/theory is wrong or not scientific. The rebuttal may be wrong. In any event, both/several sides may produce scientific argument for their case, and ought to be accorded respect for their scientific endeavours.

Creationism is not a scientific endevour, for reasons stated and re-stated to you countless times over. As to making "scientific arguments"... in science competing theories exist when good data may be adequately explained in more than one way. As more data accumulates, we can establish which theory is a better fit for the known data. Creationism disregards massive amounts of current scientific data in multiple and independent fields wherever that data contradicts a particular book. It seeks to discredit not just well-tested theories but the scientific method itself (whilst at the same time trying to claim it's place amongst the sciences). Where these strategies fail, creationism will resort to semantic games. Before you condemn mainstream science for a lack of respect, remember that creationism started this war. And its losing, badly.

wolfsbane wrote: »

There seems to be little of that attitude among evolutionists about their evolutionist colleagues, and especially so toward their creationist colleagues.

Science is adversarial. Respect is earned with solid data and unbiased interpretation. Weaknesses in the data is attacked to expose the truth. It's a purifying fire. You want your movement to be a part of this system, so if you can't take the heat...

And if you want to talk about respect, kindly stop using the word "evolutionist". Evolutionary science is not an "ism".

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

You guys don't have the models, so both the evidence and the interpretation is irrelevant. You don't interpret any evidence, you just state your conclusion that you got from the Bible.

No scientific models, no science. Just the way Creationists like it.



There is no case for Creation. You don't have any testable, falsifiable scientific models for Creation.

Heck the Neo-Nazi's have a stronger argument, they at least have an a testable explanation for their assertions (the Jews all lie), you guys don't even have that.

Some scientific models:
CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS: A GLOBAL FLOOD MODEL OF EARTH HISTORY
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_platetectonicsl/

THE SANDS OF TIME: A BIBLICAL MODEL OF DEEP SEA-FLOOR SEDIMENTATION
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_lv_r01/

DISCORDANT POTASSIUM-ARGON MODEL AND ISOCHRON "AGES" FOR CARDENAS BASALT (MIDDLE PROTEROZOIC) AND ASSOCIATED DIABASE OF EASTERN GRAND CANYON, ARIZONA
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r03/

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Can you point me, please, at the creationists who have rebutted the truth of the genesis tale?

.

I of course meant that creationists differ among themselves over the various mechanisms they believe account for the evidence before them. Just as Gould differed from conventional evolutionists over how evolution works, so too creationists offer differing explanations as to how creation develops.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

I of course meant that creationists differ among themselves over the various mechanisms they believe account for the evidence before them. Just as Gould differed from conventional evolutionists over how evolution works, so too creationists offer differing explanations as to how creation develops.

Genuine question: Could you point us to some creationist criticism of creationist research? Preferably a serious challenge of the data and methods.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Tell me, what (hypothetical) experimental result would actually cause creationists to abandon the assumption that the earth was created in six days by the abrahamic God? They aren't open to the possibility of their "hypothesis" being disproven.

Quite so. What they are open to is having to admit they have no evidence to support their claim of a 6-Day recent creation. If that ever happened, if the present interpretation of evidence suggesting a young earth were shown to be not possible, then I would expect them to so say. Since the young earth interpretation is supported by the evidence, they say that too.

A brief overview:
Evidence for a Young World
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/1842/356/

Creationism disregards massive amounts of current scientific data in multiple and independent fields wherever that data contradicts a particular book. It seeks to discredit not just well-tested theories but the scientific method itself (whilst at the same time trying to claim it's place amongst the sciences). Where these strategies fail, creationism will resort to semantic games. Before you condemn mainstream science for a lack of respect, remember that creationism started this war. And its losing, badly.

They don't disregard the data, just the interpretation of the data. Not the same thing.

I don't think creationism has a problem with the scientific method, unless you equate that with naturalism:
Scientific Naturalism as Science
http://www.icr.org/article/422/

Creationism is quite pleased with its progress.

Science is adversarial. Respect is earned with solid data and unbiased interpretation. Weaknesses in the data is attacked to expose the truth. It's a purifying fire. You want your movement to be a part of this system, so if you can't take the heat...

I'm happy with weaknesses being attacked. Not with personal ridicule and/or persecution.

And if you want to talk about respect, kindly stop using the word "evolutionist". Evolutionary science is not an "ism".

I use it for convenience, as I use creationism for creation science, not implying either are non-scientific.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Genuine question: Could you point us to some creationist criticism of creationist research? Preferably a serious challenge of the data and methods.

I'm not sure this is as detailed as you want, but it may be a start. It regards the debate among creationists as to the validity of the use of the global uniformitarian stratigraphic column in natural history:

The Uniformitarian Stratigraphic Column—

Shortcut or Pitfall for Creation Geology?
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_2/ucolumn.htm

Or the debates about cosmology:
A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/cosmology.asp

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

If creationism is a science, it shares its weaknesses (the limits of critical human perception- wow what a weakness).

Quite so.

If it is not, it is even weaker. Attempting to challenge the definition of science, or to undermine it in some effort to put a faith-based a assumption on equal footing with faithless testable assumptions is frankly pointless. You are not comparing like with like, there is no faith in science. It is the philosophical opposite of faith.

One of the links contains the below list, which has been dredged up by creationists before to make it appear as if science is faith-based. I consider the list to be debatable.

I won't enter your dispute with the evolutionists who drew up the list.

Quote:
C. Empirically-accessible processes (that is NATURAL PROCESSES) are SUFFICIENT to explain or account for natural phenomena or events. In other words, scientists must explain the natural in terms of the natural. Anything that would appear to be non-natural yet influencing the universe would have to be a part of a wider universe (thus re-defining the universe) and would thus be natural. It would also become empirically accessible by dint of being perceivable. There is no "unnatural".

I'm happy with your explanation rather than theirs. Your's does not rule out a spiritual dimension that acts/acted upon the material universe. That we have no material means to measure or test that dimension does not mean it cannot be known or experienced.

Quote:
D. Scientists ASSUME THAT NATURE "OPERATES" UNIFORMLY in both space and time (unless we have evidence to the contrary) in order to arrive at conclusions that have general applicability and utility. (This is known as the PRINCIPLE OF UNIFORMITY.)

This is not at all faith-based. It is a testable assumption. A hypothesis. That a scientist makes a testable assumption until proven wrong is the basis of science. There's nothing special about the uniformity principle in that respect.

I think creationism has no problem with that as the rule. It just says the rule does not always apply. For all practical purposes, day to day processes go by the rule, but exceptionally circumstances in space or time can change the rules.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Well, when the bearded wonder says that the bible is true ahead of any evidence to the contrary, you could perhaps understand why some of the more perceptive here might suspect that creationism is somehow linked to religion.

OK, I sympathise with your confusion, to a degree.

But as I have explained before, creationism has two aspects: creation science and biblical creationism.

AiG, in common with the other Christian creation organisations, is a religiously motivated ministry using science to support their defence of the Bible.

Some of their comments will be religious, some scientific. They do not expect the religious stuff to be critiqued as science, but they do expect the scientific stuff to be so critiqued.

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote: »

I use it for convenience, as I use creationism for creation science, not implying either are non-scientific.

As long as it implies both are comparable, you don't really care whether its taken to mean scientific or non-scientific, right?

Because thats all this game is about, isn't it? As long as you can have your beliefs viewed on a comparable level to science...you don't care what that perception really is.

We exchanged a series of posts, which concluded with you apparently finally considering the possibility that science isn't making any claims about what is, but is rather concerned with modelling...with producing poredictions which will match future observations.

You asked the scientists here whether or not that was accurate, and the only disagreement you got was from JC. Put more simply...the only person who wouldn't agree that it was an accurate description of science was someone who - like you - has a vested interest in redefining what science is in order to promote their own beliefs.

You then withdrew for a while, only to return, providing links which repeat the same old fiction that science is some sort of belief-system about what is....and to make your point yet again that Creationism is just as scientific as evolutionary science. Its almost as though you had never asked that question of the scientists here, or if they had never answered. Its almost as though you had offered some reason why the creationist view of science was the correct one, and that offered by all the other posters was wrong. But no...you didn't do that. You just walked away until that was a page or two behind us, and then returned to teach the same old controversy once again, as though our discussion never occurred.

You complain about the lack of respect that science and scientists show creationists. All I can say is that if their intellectual integrity is on par with what you are demonstrating, no respect is due.