Is Creationist Science Worth Believing?

[geoseph]

ngano maabot paman jud sa away?

I think that for each one of us to answer to one' self.

I'm not suggesting to condemn anyone. Because, who has not had a fight or argument in his or her life? What I seek is that we can temper our posts. That's all. I believe it's for each one of us to change, as we see the reason to. Personal change can't be forced, or a person might end up being false to himself or herself (there's a force-to-change technique only some seem able to do). It will also take time (some persons are amazingly adaptable though).

It is a fact of life, after all, to be tempted. It's improvement that catches my attention. These are just my opinions.

It's similar to creationism (para di ma-OT). It can choose to pick the best of both religion and science to come up with a decent proposal of how things came to be (science in a religious light or religion in a scientific light). It's currently partial only to one side but, perhaps one day, it can see the light of both sides.

[munzter666]

I'm guessing what you mean by "cherry pickers" are those who only eat the fruit, and the rest eat the leaves and small branches as well, "just in case" ... That's funny and sad to me at the same time.

i really dont have the authority for such meaning(it was a believer who labeled such believer). just because they dont follow "blindly" ba. thats why i dont generalize "believers" that much...nor different faiths for that matter...

It's similar to creationism (para di ma-OT). It can choose to pick the best of both religion and science to come up with a decent proposal of how things came to be (science in a religious light or religion in a scientific light). It's currently partial only to one side but, perhaps one day, it can see the light of both sides.

i find that somewhat impossible. cut away science's "objectivity"...you'll end up with another religion for that matter.haha

[geoseph]

i really dont have the authority for such meaning(it was a believer who labeled such believer). just because they dont follow "blindly" ba. thats why i dont generalize "believers" that much...nor different faiths for that matter...

Thanks, I think I get what you mean.

i find that somewhat impossible. cut away science's "objectivity"...you'll end up with another religion for that matter.haha

You have a point. The creationists today look like they will probably stay with their intended course.

[IdontCare]

Padayon sa imong gibati dodong, kay nabasahan na na namo sa www.answersingenesis.org. Hey u better search for more kay karaan na kaau na imong data dodong..the people would be so happy to see your "Labor of Love" nga updated heheheh...

Happy Hunting!

Good nga nabasahan ninyo para makita ninyo nga di ni ako ako ra.

karaan? natural kay wa may bag-ong pangilad,kay hadlok naman sila masakpan.

Mao nay CORRECT science nimo,ay sus. Ikaw pod naliwat ka nila mas FANATIC pa man diay ka kaysa nako.

[IdontCare]

@rodsky

I admire the way you prsent your argument, you have your sources quoted and you did well unlike other people here they assumed that they understood SCIENCE WELL.

but dude the stuff you mentioned above are applicable only to operational science and not on philosophical science. And kindly specify w/c scientific theory you think w/n the creationist point of view you think belong to psuedo science?

Can we discuss it?

[IdontCare]

lol... ako pa nimo dhong... basa na lang ug komiks. You're statements proved to be more "ignorant" than intellectual... kindly read your statements below.
In your previous posts dhong, was that your scientific "theories" are trying to prove your god. Di ba mao na imong punto? You want to merge your outdated scientific theories to prove your god's existence? Again, you use your outdated science to disprove my scientific datas? For what basis on your biblical fact? Facts gud tawn nga bible is not intended for science unya you're trying to disprove and merge them with your outdated scientific facts? Genius... sheer genius (in case you don't know, I'm sarcastic).

huh? asa lagi ko nag gamit ug scientific data to prove the existence of God? SUS, wa kay mai pakita noh? e post palihug beh kay kapoy nang liko liko. ang scientific data diha NOY kay gi gamit na nako to refute your scientific data nga kuno mo disprove sa story sa Noah's flood.

[IdontCare]

Mao! some people just don't know when to stop. Now, being narrow-minded will never get you anywhere but riding the same track. Ang pagtoo man gud ani nila nga ang kita nga lain ug huna-huna is against sa ilang tinuohan. Well, you all got to wake up dudes and dudettes!

Ah so dili diay ka against sa among tinohoan nga naay Ginoo ug tinood ang bible? toink. ka bakakon, imong pagka bugal bugalon sa bibliya ug sa butang nga involve ang ginoo naa diha ay gusto ka akong e quote, nya diri mo ingun ka nga among huna huna nga AGAINST ka sa among tinohoan pag klaro oi.

[IdontCare]

These people talk as if they are not a victim of of their own blind fanaticism.

Their datas or so called evidence are weak yet here they arrogantly branding their so called TRUTH.

[rodsky]

@rodsky

I admire the way you prsent your argument, you have your sources quoted and you did well unlike other people here they assumed that they understood SCIENCE WELL.

but dude the stuff you mentioned above are applicable only to operational science and not on philosophical science. And kindly specify w/c scientific theory you think w/n the creationist point of view you think belong to psuedo science?

Can we discuss it?

There is only one science. And that is science. Trying to define something as "philosophical science" is already tugging science into the realm of Philosophy. You have to understand nga Philosophy is the precursor to science, it came first. It's similar to astrology and astronomy. Astrology came first, and when people figured out that astrology cannot answer some questions it had, it got refined further and gave birth to astronomy. Mao nga bothered kaayo ko kay hangtod karon, mas daghan ka pa mapalit nga basahon about astrology compared to astronomy sa bookstores, and rarely do you find articles on astronomy sa local newspapers, pero sa Zodiac signs, perti ka daghan. So sad.

So you see, without asking the question (being "philosophical") it becomes impossible to seek the answer. If no one ever asked "What is the smallest thing?" wala unta na imbento ang quantum physics and mga particle accelerators. If we never wondered about the heavens, we would still believe the earth was the center of a very small universe. So can I ask you diay, do you still believe the Earth is the center of the Universe, or the Solar System, for that matter?

All science is based on philosophical pondering. It is a testament to mans creative genius in formulating the most stimulating of philosophical questions that we live in an age of such stunning scientific achievement. But to categorize science as "philosophical science" in my opinion, aims at regression and shrouding truth back into vagueness.

So let science be science. There are no gray areas.

According to Carl Sagan, the worst crime that a scientist can create is suppression of any idea, no matter how ludicrous or ridiculous it may sound. I am just being true to this statement, and it doesn't mean I believe in whatever it is you say, but I keep my mind open. By doing that I achieve something that most people miss...I learn more about things, and I am happy about it.

It takes more than food to satisfy my hunger.

-RODION

[brownprose]

Good nga nabasahan ninyo para makita ninyo nga di ni ako ako ra.

karaan? natural kay wa may bag-ong pangilad,kay hadlok naman sila masakpan.

Mao nay CORRECT science nimo,ay sus. Ikaw pod naliwat ka nila mas FANATIC pa man diay ka kaysa nako.

Do I know you?