Creationism

Post anything. Spill it all out.

Random Stranger: You just titled "creationism", explain what exactly you mean by that.

Random Stranger: If you mean (and you probably do) young earth creationism, it is just a religious group trying to shove their religious beliefs into science.

Random Stranger
What do you think of it?

Bi0Hazard: I believe in Creationism, but I admit that it is not a scientific theory.

Also, I may have electronically seen you before. Does the YouTube channel "islandonlinenews" ring a bell?

Random Stranger: Also, I may have electronically seen you before. Does the YouTube channel "islandonlinenews" ring a bell?
No, what makes you think that you have seen me before online?

Bi0Hazard: If you mean (and you probably do) young earth creationism, it is just a religious group trying to shove their religious beliefs into science
How is it not science? It seems perfectly reasonable to me. And believing that you came from a rock is, in a word, stupid.

Bi0Hazard: Sorry, I debated people over Creationism on YouTube comments, and there was an evolutionist that has the same YouTube profile picture as your edb8 picture. The video was made by someone named Islandonlinenews.

Krazy: I agree with your rock hyperbole, but as much as I hate to admit it, Creationism is not science because it starts with a conclusion, and then tries to hold it up, which is against the scientific method.

Random Stranger: Creationism is not science because it starts with a conclusion, and then tries to hold it up,
It is called a model (a religious one). You fit observations in science (like fossil record) into a model of specific prehistory of our universe. It is their interpretation.
It is trying to push religion into science, by trying to use scientific observations to support their religious beliefs.
which is against the scientific method.
Yes, but in that case, evolution (Darwin) wouldn't count as science either (even though the majority of scientists accept it as factual). It has a conclusion, and fits the empirical evidence into it.
We obviously didn't discover that Humans and Chimpanzees have a common ancestry in a lab test. We interpreted the fossil record (and DNA) to fit the theory.
The difference with creationism is that it is based on a religious view with a literal interpretation of a book. It has scientifically untestable claims based on supernatural causes.

Krazy: How is it not science?
I hope this answers your question:
" The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view. It fails to qualify as a science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science
Basically, it is based on religion, not science. It is pushing religion into science. Creationists may use some empirical evidence, but it is used to support their own religiously assumed view.

Random Stranger: I agree with your rock hyperbole...
It's not a hyperbole, that's really what evolutionists believe. They believe that it rained on rocks for millions of years and then life appeared out of it.

...but as much as I hate to admit it, Creationism is not science because it starts with a conclusion, and then tries to hold it up...
I see evolutionists just claim that the earth is billions of years old, life came from non-life, and dinosaurs didn't co-exist with man, and then try to desperately find the evidence to support their hypothesis.

...which is against the scientific method.
Creationists invented the scientific method. So this idea that creationists are against the scientific method is quite ludicrous and ironic.

Bi0Hazard: The overwhelming consensus...
So basically, majority opinion. That's not science.

It fails to qualify as a science because it lacks empirical support...
It's one thing to say that, another thing to prove it.

...supplies no tentative hypotheses...
Again, they're just saying that. They didn't explain how.

...and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.
You want to know something untestable is that evolutionists claim that we came from fish, but that has never been observed nor tested. They claim that life comes from non-life, but nobody has ever seen that or tested it, but they still believe it.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science
Well if it came from Wikipedia, it must be true.

I hope this answers your question:...
No, Wikipedia did not answer my question.

Krazy: Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:

Physical and natural world...

Science can't touch on God, so for science to say that God created the universe would be "wrong."

That's why you and I have and advantage. We don't just look at the world through the narrow window of science, we get the full picture. If people only trust something that isn't permitted to deal with a potential aspect of the universe,(science) then they need to reconsider.

Creationists invented the scientific method. So this idea that creationists are against the scientific method is quite ludicrous and ironic. Yes, but they didn't come up with it to create Creationism. They used it to study God's creation, and unfortunately, Darwin misused observations, and created evolution.

Random Stranger: Science just means "knowledge". That's it. It's not just within the physical reality. It came to mean your definition because people with naturalistic philosophies hijacked the scientific field and changed the definition over the centuries to fit in with their beliefs. But it's original meaning is "knowledge".

Krazy: It's not a hyperbole, that's really what evolutionists believe. They believe that it rained on rocks for millions of years and then life appeared out of it.
I am not sure where you got that from, but that isn't true.

You seem to refuse to accept that creationism isn't science, but religion. You have yet to provide a reason for that.
Creationism lacks the necessary attributes to be scientific. It is not testable and is all based on an ancient text. It is really pushing religion into science.
Science just means "knowledge". That's it.
Nobody said it doesn't mean that.
It's not just within the physical reality.
Our knowledge comes from within the physical reality.

Bi0Hazard: I am not sure where you got that from, but that isn't true
I got it from evolution textbooks, both college-level and highschool-level. That's what they teach. If your saying that the textbooks are not true, then I completely agree.

You seem to refuse to accept that creationism isn't science, but religion
Yeah, because believing that we all came from a rock is real science.

You have yet to provide a reason for that.
So I have to provide a reason for what I believe and you don't? That doesn't seem fair. You haven't provided a reason for evolution, except majority opinion. And I can show you a lot of things that the majority believed that were dumb and not true.

Creationism lacks the necessary attributes to be scientific
You mean to tell me that believing that we all came from rocks is "scientific"?

It is not testable...
Oh, so the universe coming from an explosion is testable? Life coming from non-life has been tested and proven? I would like to see that. In fact, no one has ever observed life coming from non-living material. And if you want to claim that we came from fish, then great; test that in the laboratory. Make a fish turn into a human.

...and is all based on an ancient text
It's the Bible. And evolution is based on a modern text (the textbooks).

It is really pushing religion into science
It's not science that we all came from rocks. Or that the universe came from an explosion, and the explosion came from nothing. That's religion. That's something that you have to believe, or put faith in.

Krazy: I got it from evolution textbooks, both college-level and highschool-level. That's what they teach. If your saying that the textbooks are not true, then I completely agree.
You probably are talking about a theory on how life began stating that certain critical proteins require certain metal elements.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/you-owe-your-life-rock
Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with how life began. There are separate theories for that.
So I have to provide a reason for what I believe and you don't? That doesn't seem fair. You haven't provided a reason for evolution, except majority opinion. And I can show you a lot of things that the majority believed that were dumb and not true.
So, you are not going to show me how creationism is science? If by evolution, you mean Darwinism (what I call it), I don't accept it.
You mean to tell me that believing that we all came from rocks is "scientific"?
I don't see how claiming that creationism lacks the attributes to be scientific has anything to do with claiming it is scientific to believe that we came from a rock.
Oh, so the universe coming from an explosion is testable?
If you mean the big bang, then yes, it is testable through physical and observable properties in the universe and laws of science.
Life coming from non-life has been tested and proven?
Yes, it has been tested back then but disproven (which is a part of science). http://www.pasteurbrewing.com/louis-pasteur-experiment-refute-spontaneous-generation/
And if you want to claim that we came from fish, then great; test that in the laboratory. Make a fish turn into a human.
Common ancestry is testable. You can make testable predictions, hypothesis, and theories that describe causes. A form of evolution has been observed already in other animals, and we can analyze how it happens and how it leads to even greater changes.
It's the Bible. And evolution is based on a modern text (the textbooks).
Exactly. The Bible isn't a science book. It is a historical book that is the basis for a religion.
It's not science that we all came from rocks.
It certainly can be. Life proteins and rocks have testable features.
Or that the universe came from an explosion, and the explosion came from nothing.
Creationists believe that the universe arose out of nothing.
That's religion. That's something that you have to believe, or put faith in.
So, you in a way admit that creationism isn't science, and say evolution isn't either.

Claiming that a supernatural being created the universe in six days is untestable and unrefutable. It simply isn't science. It betrays natural law and the scientific method.

@Famousdebater We share 99% of DNA with chimps, (by the highest estimates) but we share 60% with fruit flies, and 35% with daffodils. Most genes don't play a direct role in the apearence or characteristics of an organism, they turn off and on traits down lineages: http://www.whatisepigenetics.com/fundamentals/ Which, shows that evolutionists were wrong by saying that most genes were"junk DNA."

On fossils, you will have to be more specific in this area.

Random Stranger: Which, shows that evolutionists were wrong by saying that most genes were"junk DNA."

I'll get back on to this point in a minute because you've talked about something different to what I was going to talk about in regards to evolution. First I'll talk about fossils though.

On fossils, you will have to be more specific in this area.

I'll start with a simple question. What do you think that fossils of the homo erectus or the homo habilis are if they are animals that evolved into humans?