Even science believes in creation.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually, I do. The mass extinction we are talking about included a large number of known species that went extinct, and a large number that didn't. It is quite well known which major groups of animals and plants survived.
If you claim I do not know this, then you are talking about a completely different event from the one the scientists are talking abou u want to associate your beliefs with scientific findings in the hope of legitimizing them.

What I don't understand is why you want to associate any of your beliefs with science when you don't accept the science. I am not claiming science pre-dates your claims, I am saying that you want to associate your beliefs with scientific findings in the hope of legitimizing them.

I think there is a misunderstanding. I accept science. I like science very much. I eagerly await what science discovers and has to say.

I also know that science updates itself. There were always nine planets in the solar system as far back as I can remember. Now the science says that there are eight planets in the solar system.

This is not to gloat. This is simply to realize that scientific pronouncements will change, altar, be discarded and updated.


I am happy when science seems to affirm my faith. But I do not put too much stock in that. Tomorrow science may say something different negating my faith.

I think that without God having told me some things there is no way I could ever know.

Some recent theories of ancient catatrophies seem to confirm my understanding of early earth history from a biblical standpoint.

Perhaps an ancient calamity involved more than one aspect. There is no reason why it may have been only volcanoes or only something else. It might have been multiple calamities.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If you define pre-scientific in this way, then, okay. But not scientific.

We don't want to be sloppy about definitions, do we?

If you define pre-scientific in this way, then, okay. But not scientific.

We don't want to be sloppy about definitions, do we?

Strictly speaking "science" just means knowledge.

So I guess it could be a good discussion. Trying to turn metal into gold was "science" centries ago. So was determining the effect of the position of stars on people's lives.

Its a discussion probably about the philosophy of science.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" I think is TRUTH.

That God DID NOT created the heavens and the earth in the beginning, I hold to be a lie, at best a terrible error, whether "science" says so or someone else.

Originally posted by jaywill

If you define pre-scientific in this way, then, okay. But not scientific.

We don't want to be sloppy about definitions, do we?

Strictly speaking "science" just means knowledge.

So I guess it could be a good discussion. Trying to turn metal into gold was "science" centries ago. So was determining the effect of the position of sta ...[text shortened]... ]lie, at best a terrible error, whether "science" says so or someone else.[/b]

So sound scientific methodology isn't important then?

If science is knowledge, then you admit that evolution is pure science?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
So sound scientific methodology isn't important then?

If science is knowledge, then you admit that evolution is pure science?

So sound scientific methodology isn't important then?

I think sound scientific methology is important.

If science is knowledge, then you admit that evolution is pure science?

Don't you think some knowledge is involved there and some speculation of what is not really known ?

I regard evolution theory that way. What ARE you trying to maneuver me into writing anyway ?

Originally posted by jaywill
So sound scientific methodology isn't important then?
I think sound scientific methology is important.
If science is knowledge, then you admit that evolution is pure science? [/quote]
Don't you think some knowledge is involved there and some speculation of what is not really known ?
I regard evolution theory that way. What ARE you trying to maneuver me into writing anyway?

"What ARE you trying to maneuver me into writing anyway?"
I'm not maneuvering you to say anything but your opinion in the matter. And I think you've said enough to satisfy my curiosity.

You write "Strictly speaking "science" just means knowledge".
I say: No, it's not. It is not strict at all. The definition of science is much more intrinsic than that. The real definition help us to differ religion from science. As your knowledge differs from others knowledge, you imply that for one something is science where it is not for others. That is not how science is known by scientists. You think creationism is science because you have knowledge about it. tha'ts not enough. You cannot present any scientific methodolgy to back your knowledge up.

When I ask you about scientific methodlogy you answer "I think sound scientific methology is important." If you stick with your definition of 'science', then your kind of scientific methodology doesn't say more than "That's my opinion, and that's it". Perhaps "The bible says so" is good enough for you, but it has nothing to do with scientific methodology.

You try to use the word "science" as a quality mark. You use it to back your opinions up, and you disregard other science not backing your opinions up by thinking 'no more that theories'. That is not what science is. If science shows that creationism is wrong, it is stilll science. Science back ups evolution very strongly, you cannot change that with your opinions.

Strictly speacking, science is something very different as you think it is. Creationism isn't science. If you want to enter the playground of science, you have to learn the rules of science, or else you will lose. In the playground of chess, chessplayers define the rules, an outsider cannot change the rules and think he plays better than real chessplayers.

If creation is knowledge for you, I say fine. That's according to your religion. But don't call it science. Because it isn't.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
"What ARE you trying to maneuver me into writing anyway?"
I'm not maneuvering you to say anything but your opinion in the matter. And I think you've said enough to satisfy my curiosity.

You write "Strictly speaking "science" just means knowledge".
I say: No, it's not. It is not strict at all. The definition of science is much more intrinsic than that ...[text shortened]... ding to your religion. But don't call it science. Because it isn't.

It might be strickly science if it were not for the atheist evolutionary Biologists.
They have introduced a stinking smell that tarnishes much of what should be
strickly science. If it were not for them, we would not have the argument on
science vs. religion, either.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It might be strickly science if it were not for the atheist evolutionary Biologists.
They have introduced a stinking smell that tarnishes much of what should be
strickly science. If it were not for them, we would not have the argument on
science vs. religion, either.

I asked you a question, remember?: Where was the first living cell created?
You gave me the coordinates to a point 850 km outside the coast of Somalia.
Please answer this: Do you still think that the bible is wrong regarding this point of creation?

Originally posted by RJHinds
It might be strickly science if it were not for the atheist evolutionary Biologists.
They have introduced a stinking smell that tarnishes much of what should be
strickly science. If it were not for them, we would not have the argument on
science vs. religion, either.

BULL.

You believer in young earth creation which is contradicted by the entirety of physics,
geology, chemistry, and biology.

The scientific method and everything it has accomplished contradicts your view of the world.

Belief in things on faith is in direct conflict with belief based on evidence and reason.
It always has been and always will be.

Science is a process, it isn't what it discovers, it's how it discovers.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It might be strickly science if it were not for the atheist evolutionary Biologists.
They have introduced a stinking smell that tarnishes much of what should be
strickly science. If it were not for them, we would not have the argument on
science vs. religion, either.

Pease, plese, answer the question I give you, don't avoid them. Because if this is what you do, as a true creationist, then I have to conclude that creationism cannot answer any questions.

The place where the first living cell is created was 850 km outside of the coast of Somalia. Do you believe in this lie yourself?

Originally posted by googlefudge
BULL.

You believer in young earth creation which is contradicted by the entirety of physics,
geology, chemistry, and biology.

The scientific method and everything it has accomplished contradicts your view of the world.

Belief in things on faith is in direct conflict with belief based on evidence and reason.
It always has been and always will be.

Science is a process, it isn't what it discovers, it's how it discovers.

That doesn't mean one can't believe some things on faith and some things on evidence and try to envision where these two sorts of things might mesh.

Those who rely entirely on evidence are just as wrong as those who rely entirely on faith.

Originally posted by Suzianne
That doesn't mean one can't believe some things on faith and some things on evidence and try to envision where these two sorts of things might mesh.

Those who rely entirely on evidence are just as wrong as those who rely entirely on faith.

Those who rely entirely on evidence are just as wrong as those who rely entirely on faith.

Come again?!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]Those who rely entirely on evidence are just as wrong as those who rely entirely on faith.

Come again?![/b]

You heard me. 😛

Originally posted by Suzianne
You heard me. 😛

I 'read' you. 😉

Sounds bonkers to me.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Those who rely entirely on evidence are just as wrong as those who rely entirely on faith.

What is your faith based on? Random guess work? Your hearts desire? If not some sort of evidence then how can you claim to be even partly right.
If your faith is based on evidence then you are back in the evidence boat.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What is your faith based on? Random guess work? Your hearts desire? If not some sort of evidence then how can you claim to be even partly right.
If your faith is based on evidence then you are back in the evidence boat.

What is your evidence that there is no God based on?