Is Creationist Science Worth Believing?

[brownprose]

Just got a video from National Geographic Channel (Naked Science) Stone Age Apocalypse. The video says that some 75,000 years ago a super-eruption from the site of Lake Toba in Sumatra blasted out more than two hundred cubic miles of ash over an area of over a million square miles leaving only a few humans alive to carry on the species. With the new piece of evidence culled by scientists (Anthroplogists, Geneticists, Geologists, etc) we can learn few things about this video that:

- The earth is not 6,000 years old as creationists consistently and erroneously insist.
- Human evolution begun 6 Million years ago. Despite the passage of so much time, the amount of
diversity among the DNA of all humans is minuscule and that the Sumatra catastrophy could have been
the worst event early humans experienced (not The Flood in Noah's time).

I wonder if creationists ever got any solid counter-evidence to disprove this occurrence. Hmmmm

[grovestreet]

^^OT:i think it's just a website that links to sites that host movies. via streaming...

can creationist "science" be called science? hehe

[Hellblazer 2.1]

it should be changed then, from now on let it be called, "creation stories." or maybe, just use the term "bed-time stories" instead.

[dwardwarbinx]

^^OT:i think it's just a website that links to sites that host movies. via streaming...

can creationist "science" be called science? hehe

There is actually a lot of scientific evidence for Scientific Creationism or Creation Science or whatever. It has its own share of flaws too but that doesn't make it less valid than the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution has a lot of flaws and I think it's unfair how Creation Science has not been given enough airtime sa classrooms, etc. The Theory of Evolution IS a theory many decades after it has been formulated, and I guess (aside from micro-evolution concepts) it will remain a theory for several more decades.

I am not religious nor spiritual and I don't believe in the Genesis stories - but I still do not believe in the Theory of Evolution. There is some sort of superior intelligent being that designed the complicated but highly efficient natural processes on earth and that includes the human body (how it works and how everything has been so intelligently designed) and even the ecosystem. Everything is just too incredibly contrived to be a product of randomness. hehe

it should be changed then, from now on let it be called, "creation stories." or maybe, just use the term "bed-time stories" instead.

Creation Theories will be much better. The term would also set it at par (IMO lang) with the Theory of Evolution. Which is how things should work.

[dwardwarbinx]

Point lang nako:

The Theory of Evolution is as much a scientific fairy tale as Creation Science (or Creation Theories para cool). wahehe

[baliguat]

OT:
Creation Vs. Invention

Which is:

Creation- Nothing to something
Invention - Something to Something

[munzter666]

unfortunately for creationism, it wont be recognized as scientific. hardly.
1. they did not use the scientific method properly
2. they had an answer already cooked up before even starting. god did it.

objectivity right out the window.

[dwardwarbinx]

unfortunately for creationism, it wont be recognized as scientific. hardly.
1. they did not use the scientific method properly
2. they had an answer already cooked up before even starting. god did it.

objectivity right out the window.

I am not really as well-versed on Creationism as I want to be so I have no idea whether there have been scientific methods applied to back up the arguments.

As for #2

2. they had an answer already cooked up before even starting. god did it.

I learned in my AI class na it is best and more efficient that Goal Formulation precedes Problem Formulation. Goal formulation refers to the desired world state (in this case, there is some form of god that created everything) before coming up with the Problem Formulation (defining the space or thoughts to consider or the set of states to achieve in order to come up with answers to the goal. In short, proving or disproving the goal). I think that's how research works. Mao gani naay null and alternate hypothesis diba?

[munzter666]

As for #2
I learned in my AI class na it is best and more efficient that Goal Formulation precedes Problem Formulation. Goal formulation refers to the desired world state (in this case, there is some form of god that created everything) before coming up with the Problem Formulation (defining the space or thoughts to consider or the set of states to achieve in order to come up with answers to the goal. In short, proving or disproving the goal). I think that's how research works. Mao gani naay null and alternate hypothesis diba?

that's different. more like ANSWER formulation vs. GOAL formulation.
try applying that with "god/s".(good luck)hehe


let me expound no.2, science does answer through SUPERNATURAL/mystery(mysterious) means.

who is this god/s? what is/are this god/s?....now you'll end up explaining the how's and the why's about this god/s SUPERNATURALLY.

...and we only started with a question, now we have more than one question un-answered.

for the sake of conversation....what has creationism contributed so far? in the medical field? biology?
cant seem to read any of them in my science textbooks.

[NASYO]

what has creationism contributed so far? in the medical field? biology?
cant seem to read any of them in my science textbooks.

then read your bible, go to church..