Creationism is science simply because there is no conflict between science and creationism. Look at miracles. When God performs a miracle He simply restores things back to the way He intends for them to be. The problem then is not to "prove" the miracle, the problem is to prove that there was ever a problem in the first place. It is to easy to say the test results were not right or something of that sort.
17 comments
"Creationism is science simply because there is no conflict between science and creationism."
With the exception of everything, yes, you're right.
"Look at miracles."
I've never seen a miracle and neither have you.
"When God performs a miracle He simply restores things back to the way He intends for them to be."
If "God" is omnipotent and omniscient, how did he let things get off track to begin with? Miracles should be unnecessary because "God" should have foreseen the problems and kept things moving in the right direction before the problems could arise.
"The problem then is not to "prove" the miracle, the problem is to prove that there was ever a problem in the first place."
You contend that "God" uses miracles to solve problems and then you contend that problems do not and/or never did exist. That's pretty stupid, but regardless, proof of miracles is still required before intelligent persons will believe in them.
"It is to easy to say the test results were not right or something of that sort."
If you and your friends understood how to conduct good, controlled, relevent scientific tests, pointing out flaws in them might not be so easy.
It is easy to say that the test results were not right or something of that sort, true. But that doesn't make it any less worng.
r
And Creationism is the exact opposite of science because it just pulls an explanation out of thin air an calls it the absolute truth. Real science takes easonable hypotheise that can be tested for veracity, tests them enough to show it can be proven/falsified and calls it a scientific theory, and then passes it into scientific law after it has been proven multiple times by multiple people.
So, Creationism=Pulling it out of your ass, Science=Thinking about it, trying to find an explanation that fits in with the known laws of nature, testing, retesting, saying "I'm not positive, let's have others test it as well," findiing out something is missing, reworking it, all until you have something that has been proven multiple times. In short, science=Admitting your idea is fallible and letting it be held under the electron microscope.
Sorry, what the fucking fuckety fuck WHAT fucker whaaa?
Creation science is science because it isn't science meaning God must exist? Gotcha!
Talking of experiments: Let's look at fuckwit mechanics, and today's lesson is the JohnR7 Uncertainty Principle.
NAMELY!
1. If you know where he's coming from you sure as shit can't see where he's going?
2. If you manage to quantify the stupidity of his comment, due to the dual nature of brainwaves and the particles of his brain bouncing about in his skull, you cannot measure any cognitive improvement, and any changes must be random rather than causal.
3. If you can determine his path, you know his data is spurious, or possibly even antidata particles.
4. All of this high speed orbiting, backflips, illogical jumps, fallacy pairings etc, revolve around the incredibly DENSE central core known as the "Goddidit" support!
<<<Creationism is science simply because there is no conflict between science and creationism.>>>
There is a rather huge conflict between science and creationism. In science, you come up with a hypothesis, test it many times, and if it passes, tentatively accept it until something comes along to disprove it. In that case, change your idea or throw it out. On the other hand, creationism is about coming up with an idea out of nothing, claiming it's an absolute truth, and cherry-picking evidence to support it. If creationism is science, then how come Answers in Genesis and the lot have statements of faith in which members must pledge not to let any evidence change what they already believe?
<<<Look at miracles.>>>
OK, show me some, and I'll look.
<<<When God performs a miracle He simply restores things back to the way He intends for them to be.>>>
I'm gonna pull out my Acme Translator on this one.
[Acme Translator is starting up.]
Machine translations are imperfect. Single-tired-person translations may be equally flawed. Fundiebabble-to-English translator now engaged.
Translation:
A being made up by some primitive goat-herder exists and is omnipotent, even though there is no evidence for either. Despite being omnipotent, he makes a lot of mistakes, and corrects them with miracles for which there is no evidence.
[End Translation]
<<<The problem then is not to "prove" the miracle, the problem is to prove that there was ever a problem in the first place.>>>
So rather than proving that a miracle happened, you will show that there was a problem which you claim only a miracle could solve, then you will claim that the solution reached was actually a miracle from God.
<<<It is to easy to say the test results were not right or something of that sort.>>>
Yes, it's very easy to say anything. We've already established that you don't know much about science, so I'll just tell you this: In the scientific world, if you say there is a flaw in a test, you are expected to show exactly where that flaw is, and why it is a flaw.
Napolean the Clown: <<<Real science takes easonable hypotheise that can be tested for veracity, tests them enough to show it can be proven/falsified and calls it a scientific theory , and then passes it into scientific law after it has been proven multiple times by multiple people.>>>
Actually, the emphasized part would be a hypothesis, not a theory. Once validated enough, the hypothesis may become a law or a theory depending on its content.
“Creationism is science simply because there is no conflict between science and creationism.”
There’s no conflict between Science and Marvel Comics, either, because no matter how outrageous the writers’ claims, it’s FICTION.
“Look at miracles. When God performs a miracle He simply restores things back to the way He intends for them to be.”
Ah, so the evidence is indistinguishable from God Never Doing Shit.
"The problem then is not to "prove" the miracle, the problem is to prove that there was ever a problem in the first place.”
No, if you’re going to claim a miracle happened, then you have to prove that divine action is the ONLY way to explain the observed events.
"It is to easy to say the test results were not right or something of that sort.”
It’s easy because it’s possible, and assuming human error does not require abandoning all science and cnocluding ‘magic.’
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.