Total Posts:251|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Creationism

Renzzy
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2008 7:36:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Unfortunately It does not allow enough room in the topic box to post the details of the topic I wish to be discussed. Creationism standing alone as a topic could be many things, so I wish to narrow the field to whether or not creationism is a valid scientific theory. Every debate on the topic of creationism turn out debating whether or not it is even a valid theory.

My question is this: Do you think it is a valid theory? Why do you answer the way you do?

Those of you who cannot discuss this without keeping a level head, please do not contribute to the conversation. I want this to be a round table discussion, not an argument.

Thanks!

Renzzy
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 5:11:01 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/13/2008 7:36:57 PM, Renzzy wrote:
Unfortunately It does not allow enough room in the topic box to post the details of the topic I wish to be discussed. Creationism standing alone as a topic could be many things, so I wish to narrow the field to whether or not creationism is a valid scientific theory. Every debate on the topic of creationism turn out debating whether or not it is even a valid theory.

My question is this: Do you think it is a valid theory? Why do you answer the way you do?

Those of you who cannot discuss this without keeping a level head, please do not contribute to the conversation. I want this to be a round table discussion, not an argument.

Thanks!

Renzzy

Creationism, as well as evolutionism (to an extent) cannot be scientifically proved. Everyone just says Creationism is valid because of 'x' function of an organ is 'designed', and people say Evolutionism is valid because 'y' particle of DNA in humans is related to monkeys.
I believe in both. Someone created something, then it evolved.
But if I have to choose Evolutionism or Creationism, then I choose Evolutionism because Creationism relies on a book, whereas Evolutionism relies on logic.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
jjmd280
Posts: 209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 5:32:11 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
No, it is not science.
- by definition, it is untestable and unfalsifiable.
- A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic, not supernatural.
- Science must suggest new areas to study and expand our knowledge and give rise to new hypotheses in turn. Creationism does not do this; it is scientifically sterile.
- It's whole goal is to disprove evolution and further religion. It adds nothing to science.
-The moment you say, "I know I'm right and nothing could ever convince me otherwise", you are no longer doing science.
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 8:31:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/14/2008 5:32:11 AM, jjmd280 wrote:
No, it is not science.
- by definition, it is untestable and unfalsifiable.
- A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic, not supernatural.
- Science must suggest new areas to study and expand our knowledge and give rise to new hypotheses in turn. Creationism does not do this; it is scientifically sterile.
- It's whole goal is to disprove evolution and further religion. It adds nothing to science.
-The moment you say, "I know I'm right and nothing could ever convince me otherwise", you are no longer doing science.

False; creationism has nothing to do with disproving evolution. Evolution is compatible with creationism. Creationism uses science to create the world not the magic that you think that we claim.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 8:35:32 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/14/2008 8:31:39 AM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:


False; creationism has nothing to do with disproving evolution. Evolution is compatible with creationism. Creationism uses science to create the world not the magic that you think that we claim.

So you're now saying god is a scientist? Unless he sat down with chemicals he is not a scientist. The periodic table didn't exist when he was around, so how do claim he used science?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 8:39:11 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/14/2008 8:35:32 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/14/2008 8:31:39 AM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:


False; creationism has nothing to do with disproving evolution. Evolution is compatible with creationism. Creationism uses science to create the world not the magic that you think that we claim.

So you're now saying god is a scientist? Unless he sat down with chemicals he is not a scientist. The periodic table didn't exist when he was around, so how do claim he used science?

So you believe that God created the world in 6 days or that God doesn't exist? How did God created the world, do you know? His acts were within science and can only be explained with science. If you believe in God, tell me how did he create the world. If it was "poof" and according to his will, the universe appeared is not really satisfying to any scientist. We use science to find out how God created the world, not why.
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 9:36:55 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/14/2008 5:32:11 AM, jjmd280 wrote:
No, it is not science.
- by definition, it is untestable and unfalsifiable.
- A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic, not supernatural.
- Science must suggest new areas to study and expand our knowledge and give rise to new hypotheses in turn. Creationism does not do this; it is scientifically sterile.
- It's whole goal is to disprove evolution and further religion. It adds nothing to science.
-The moment you say, "I know I'm right and nothing could ever convince me otherwise", you are no longer doing science.

It is particularly off-putting to see such narrowness from both sides. To call creationism scientifically sterile shows both an inadequate understanding of history and creationism as a theory. You shouldn't be surprised that some of the greatest scientists operated with the supposition of God. Even still, Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, insists that our very DNA is the "language of God." Believing the universe to be created is not a hindrance to science; but, more often than not, it is a great encourager thereof.
You get mad at creationist because they seem unwilling to posit a completely natural process. Yet you yourself admit that positing a supernatural cause is no possible. If the truth IS supernatural, science will never find it because it is unwilling to see it where it may exist.
Moreover, the scientific method operates by hypothesis, testing and replicable observation. Unfortunately, we cannot replicate the origins of our universe - so neither side can rightly lay claim to "pure science."
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 9:56:35 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/14/2008 8:39:11 AM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
At 12/14/2008 8:35:32 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/14/2008 8:31:39 AM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:


False; creationism has nothing to do with disproving evolution. Evolution is compatible with creationism. Creationism uses science to create the world not the magic that you think that we claim.

So you're now saying god is a scientist? Unless he sat down with chemicals he is not a scientist. The periodic table didn't exist when he was around, so how do claim he used science?

So you believe that God created the world in 6 days or that God doesn't exist? How did God created the world, do you know? His acts were within science and can only be explained with science. If you believe in God, tell me how did he create the world. If it was "poof" and according to his will, the universe appeared is not really satisfying to any scientist. We use science to find out how God created the world, not why.

There was no poof. I believe that no religion captures the essence of God. I think that God was a spirit, and he did something (like the big bang) and started everything. I don't believe he dictates our lives in anyway.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 9:58:45 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/14/2008 9:56:35 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/14/2008 8:39:11 AM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
At 12/14/2008 8:35:32 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/14/2008 8:31:39 AM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:


False; creationism has nothing to do with disproving evolution. Evolution is compatible with creationism. Creationism uses science to create the world not the magic that you think that we claim.

So you're now saying god is a scientist? Unless he sat down with chemicals he is not a scientist. The periodic table didn't exist when he was around, so how do claim he used science?

So you believe that God created the world in 6 days or that God doesn't exist? How did God created the world, do you know? His acts were within science and can only be explained with science. If you believe in God, tell me how did he create the world. If it was "poof" and according to his will, the universe appeared is not really satisfying to any scientist. We use science to find out how God created the world, not why.

There was no poof. I believe that no religion captures the essence of God. I think that God was a spirit, and he did something (like the big bang) and started everything. I don't believe he dictates our lives in anyway.

So what is your religion?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 11:42:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/14/2008 9:58:45 AM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
At 12/14/2008 9:56:35 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/14/2008 8:39:11 AM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
At 12/14/2008 8:35:32 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/14/2008 8:31:39 AM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:


False; creationism has nothing to do with disproving evolution. Evolution is compatible with creationism. Creationism uses science to create the world not the magic that you think that we claim.

So you're now saying god is a scientist? Unless he sat down with chemicals he is not a scientist. The periodic table didn't exist when he was around, so how do claim he used science?

So you believe that God created the world in 6 days or that God doesn't exist? How did God created the world, do you know? His acts were within science and can only be explained with science. If you believe in God, tell me how did he create the world. If it was "poof" and according to his will, the universe appeared is not really satisfying to any scientist. We use science to find out how God created the world, not why.

There was no poof. I believe that no religion captures the essence of God. I think that God was a spirit, and he did something (like the big bang) and started everything. I don't believe he dictates our lives in anyway.

So what is your religion?

Obviously I'm a Deist.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 12:06:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/14/2008 11:44:50 AM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
That would explain a lot.

Yes, to a person with reasoning.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 12:55:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
A catholic deist? What's next? A reptilian monkey?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Labrat228
Posts: 330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 1:01:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Regardless of your belief, according to many atheist you must have proof. We can offer what the bible says and back up the bible with various historical accounts. What do you have to offer us?
VOTE INNOMEN

How much pot does Charlie Sheen do?
Enough to kill Two and a Half Men!
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 1:10:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/14/2008 12:55:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A catholic deist? What's next? A reptilian monkey?

No, reptilian-dolphin-monkey.
Proof: http://www.bgc-albany.org...
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 1:11:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Obvious shoop is obvious.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 1:55:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/14/2008 1:10:01 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/14/2008 12:55:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A catholic deist? What's next? A reptilian monkey?

No, reptilian-dolphin-monkey.
Proof: http://www.bgc-albany.org...

Not even worth the fake. This isn't even a good hoax. Next.
roughneck
Posts: 81
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 2:03:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/14/2008 1:01:28 PM, Labrat228 wrote:
Regardless of your belief, according to many atheist you must have proof. We can offer what the bible says and back up the bible with various historical accounts. What do you have to offer us?

Agree. I hear they are trying to "replicate" events right after the big bang somewhere in Holland or some armpit. We can duplicate these events but we can not cause these events. They may be able to create the same effect but this is nothing more then figuring out that things go towards the earth due gravity.

Creationism is a science. Evolution is nothing more then observing and evaluating. There can be no solid answers to how.

Creationism helps to explain how. When we speak about logic, there is only one logical answer for how these complex beings came to be. Supreme Being.
jjmd280
Posts: 209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 2:09:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/14/2008 8:31:39 AM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
At 12/14/2008 5:32:11 AM, jjmd280 wrote:
No, it is not science.
- by definition, it is untestable and unfalsifiable.
- A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic, not supernatural.
- Science must suggest new areas to study and expand our knowledge and give rise to new hypotheses in turn. Creationism does not do this; it is scientifically sterile.
- It's whole goal is to disprove evolution and further religion. It adds nothing to science.
-The moment you say, "I know I'm right and nothing could ever convince me otherwise", you are no longer doing science.

False; creationism has nothing to do with disproving evolution. Evolution is compatible with creationism. Creationism uses science to create the world not the magic that you think that we claim.

You are correct, Creationism is indeed compatible with evolution. But the most vocal and political proponents of this myth are apologists, whom would never admit this. That is their goal - to "satanize" evolution. My comment is an observation of that fact.

The problem with calling what creationists do "science" is their bastardization of the scientific process.
Science - The earth looks old. What happened to make it that way? To the scientific method....
Creationism - God made the earth. How did he do it? To the Bible.....

The principle difference is science starts with an observation, and then forms a theory around that. Creation begins with the theory, then looks for observations to fit the theory. See the problem??
jjmd280
Posts: 209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 2:13:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/14/2008 2:03:40 PM, roughneck wrote:
At 12/14/2008 1:01:28 PM, Labrat228 wrote:
Regardless of your belief, according to many atheist you must have proof. We can offer what the bible says and back up the bible with various historical accounts. What do you have to offer us?

Agree. I hear they are trying to "replicate" events right after the big bang somewhere in Holland or some armpit. We can duplicate these events but we can not cause these events. They may be able to create the same effect but this is nothing more then figuring out that things go towards the earth due gravity.

Creationism is a science. Evolution is nothing more then observing and evaluating. There can be no solid answers to how.

Creationism helps to explain how. When we speak about logic, there is only one logical answer for how these complex beings came to be. Supreme Being.

Creationism only answers the question with another question. I have shown how it is not science. You are claiming logic - I see such delusion.
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 2:14:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/14/2008 2:09:19 PM, jjmd280 wrote:
At 12/14/2008 8:31:39 AM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
At 12/14/2008 5:32:11 AM, jjmd280 wrote:
No, it is not science.
- by definition, it is untestable and unfalsifiable.
- A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic, not supernatural.
- Science must suggest new areas to study and expand our knowledge and give rise to new hypotheses in turn. Creationism does not do this; it is scientifically sterile.
- It's whole goal is to disprove evolution and further religion. It adds nothing to science.
-The moment you say, "I know I'm right and nothing could ever convince me otherwise", you are no longer doing science.

False; creationism has nothing to do with disproving evolution. Evolution is compatible with creationism. Creationism uses science to create the world not the magic that you think that we claim.

You are correct, Creationism is indeed compatible with evolution. But the most vocal and political proponents of this myth are apologists, whom would never admit this. That is their goal - to "satanize" evolution. My comment is an observation of that fact.

The problem with calling what creationists do "science" is their bastardization of the scientific process.
Science - The earth looks old. What happened to make it that way? To the scientific method....
Creationism - God made the earth. How did he do it? To the Bible.....

The principle difference is science starts with an observation, and then forms a theory around that. Creation begins with the theory, then looks for observations to fit the theory. See the problem??

You're talking about creation science, which cannot replace science.

Science: The earth looks old. What happened to make it that way? To the scientific method....

Creationism: God made the earth. How did he do it? To the Bible.....

Theistic Evolution: The bible said that God made the earth. How did he do it? To the scientific method...
jjmd280
Posts: 209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 2:18:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/14/2008 9:36:55 AM, InquireTruth wrote:
At 12/14/2008 5:32:11 AM, jjmd280 wrote:
No, it is not science.
- by definition, it is untestable and unfalsifiable.
- A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic, not supernatural.
- Science must suggest new areas to study and expand our knowledge and give rise to new hypotheses in turn. Creationism does not do this; it is scientifically sterile.
- It's whole goal is to disprove evolution and further religion. It adds nothing to science.
-The moment you say, "I know I'm right and nothing could ever convince me otherwise", you are no longer doing science.

It is particularly off-putting to see such narrowness from both sides. To call creationism scientifically sterile shows both an inadequate understanding of history and creationism as a theory. You shouldn't be surprised that some of the greatest scientists operated with the supposition of God. Even still, Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, insists that our very DNA is the "language of God." Believing the universe to be created is not a hindrance to science; but, more often than not, it is a great encourager thereof.
You get mad at creationist because they seem unwilling to posit a completely natural process. Yet you yourself admit that positing a supernatural cause is no possible. If the truth IS supernatural, science will never find it because it is unwilling to see it where it may exist.
Moreover, the scientific method operates by hypothesis, testing and replicable observation. Unfortunately, we cannot replicate the origins of our universe - so neither side can rightly lay claim to "pure science."

Then call it creation metaphysics - because it is philosophical, not scientific.

replicable observation - You neglect the well-known fact in testing a scientific theory - It is considered sufficient for the model to be in principle testable at some undetermined point in the future.

Creationism can NEVER be tested - It is not science.

A theory is generally only taken seriously if:
* It is tentative, correctable, and dynamic in allowing for changes as new facts are discovered, rather than asserting certainty.
* It is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations—commonly referred to as passing the Occam's razor test.
Creationism isn't even a proper theory, much less a scientific one.
Labrat228
Posts: 330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 2:19:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Still, nobody has answered my question. If god didn't create us, what did?
VOTE INNOMEN

How much pot does Charlie Sheen do?
Enough to kill Two and a Half Men!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 2:20:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/14/2008 2:03:40 PM, roughneck wrote:
At 12/14/2008 1:01:28 PM, Labrat228 wrote:
Regardless of your belief, according to many atheist you must have proof. We can offer what the bible says and back up the bible with various historical accounts. What do you have to offer us?

Agree. I hear they are trying to "replicate" events right after the big bang somewhere in Holland or some armpit. We can duplicate these events but we can not cause these events. They may be able to create the same effect but this is nothing more then figuring out that things go towards the earth due gravity.

Creationism is a science. Evolution is nothing more then observing and evaluating. There can be no solid answers to how.

Creationism helps to explain how. When we speak about logic, there is only one logical answer for how these complex beings came to be. Supreme Being.

Science is nothing more than experiment, observation, and evaluation. It does not address "how," except for "how can I do x."

furthermore, stating that is the "only logical answer" is the fallacy of argument from ignorance. It's also an ipse-dixetism. And an undefined term, you haven't defined the supreme being in question.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 2:22:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/14/2008 2:19:41 PM, Labrat228 wrote:
Still, nobody has answered my question. If god didn't create us, what did?

First, that again implies the argument from ignorance. Second, presumably chance created our predecessors. third, no one event created "us," since your parents are not my parents, etc. :D
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
jjmd280
Posts: 209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 2:24:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/14/2008 2:14:28 PM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
At 12/14/2008 2:09:19 PM, jjmd280 wrote:
At 12/14/2008 8:31:39 AM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
At 12/14/2008 5:32:11 AM, jjmd280 wrote:
No, it is not science.
- by definition, it is untestable and unfalsifiable.
- A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic, not supernatural.
- Science must suggest new areas to study and expand our knowledge and give rise to new hypotheses in turn. Creationism does not do this; it is scientifically sterile.
- It's whole goal is to disprove evolution and further religion. It adds nothing to science.
-The moment you say, "I know I'm right and nothing could ever convince me otherwise", you are no longer doing science.

False; creationism has nothing to do with disproving evolution. Evolution is compatible with creationism. Creationism uses science to create the world not the magic that you think that we claim.

You are correct, Creationism is indeed compatible with evolution. But the most vocal and political proponents of this myth are apologists, whom would never admit this. That is their goal - to "satanize" evolution. My comment is an observation of that fact.

The problem with calling what creationists do "science" is their bastardization of the scientific process.
Science - The earth looks old. What happened to make it that way? To the scientific method....
Creationism - God made the earth. How did he do it? To the Bible.....

The principle difference is science starts with an observation, and then forms a theory around that. Creation begins with the theory, then looks for observations to fit the theory. See the problem??

You're talking about creation science, which cannot replace science.

Science: The earth looks old. What happened to make it that way? To the scientific method....

Creationism: God made the earth. How did he do it? To the Bible.....

Theistic Evolution: The bible said that God made the earth. How did he do it? To the scientific method...

You still don't get it.
= in Theistic Evolution, one assumes God did it, no matter what the evidence points to. Any scientific "theory" that provides for God is ultimately useless. Science HAS to be naturalistic. There is no manipulation of that sufficient enough to make it fit with Theistic anything.
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 2:26:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/14/2008 2:24:08 PM, jjmd280 wrote:
At 12/14/2008 2:14:28 PM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
At 12/14/2008 2:09:19 PM, jjmd280 wrote:
At 12/14/2008 8:31:39 AM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
At 12/14/2008 5:32:11 AM, jjmd280 wrote:
No, it is not science.
- by definition, it is untestable and unfalsifiable.
- A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic, not supernatural.
- Science must suggest new areas to study and expand our knowledge and give rise to new hypotheses in turn. Creationism does not do this; it is scientifically sterile.
- It's whole goal is to disprove evolution and further religion. It adds nothing to science.
-The moment you say, "I know I'm right and nothing could ever convince me otherwise", you are no longer doing science.

False; creationism has nothing to do with disproving evolution. Evolution is compatible with creationism. Creationism uses science to create the world not the magic that you think that we claim.

You are correct, Creationism is indeed compatible with evolution. But the most vocal and political proponents of this myth are apologists, whom would never admit this. That is their goal - to "satanize" evolution. My comment is an observation of that fact.

The problem with calling what creationists do "science" is their bastardization of the scientific process.
Science - The earth looks old. What happened to make it that way? To the scientific method....
Creationism - God made the earth. How did he do it? To the Bible.....

The principle difference is science starts with an observation, and then forms a theory around that. Creation begins with the theory, then looks for observations to fit the theory. See the problem??

You're talking about creation science, which cannot replace science.

Science: The earth looks old. What happened to make it that way? To the scientific method....

Creationism: God made the earth. How did he do it? To the Bible.....

Theistic Evolution: The bible said that God made the earth. How did he do it? To the scientific method...

You still don't get it.
= in Theistic Evolution, one assumes God did it, no matter what the evidence points to. Any scientific "theory" that provides for God is ultimately useless. Science HAS to be naturalistic. There is no manipulation of that sufficient enough to make it fit with Theistic anything.

In Theistic Evolution, science tells us HOW God did it, and the Bible tells us WHAT God did.
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 2:27:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/14/2008 2:19:41 PM, Labrat228 wrote:
Still, nobody has answered my question. If god didn't create us, what did?

The Big Bang, according to scientists.
jjmd280
Posts: 209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 2:27:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/14/2008 2:19:41 PM, Labrat228 wrote:
Still, nobody has answered my question. If god didn't create us, what did?

We don't know for sure.
We are still trying to find out. That's one of the things that makes Creationism scientifically sterile. They already have an answer. An unfalsifiable answer.