Is Creationist Science Worth Believing?

[dwardwarbinx]

i dont get it, you refuse to resign to fatalistic notion na kung baga magic magic lang nahimo ang life. yet you are comfortable with mudpie magic??

not comfortable with the thought na kung baga "the chips fell into place" like what you said gani. i meant it like that. and if you refer to mudpie magic, i dont believe in the genesis stories. that's like mudpiemagicwut? to me. lol

all i'm saying is that there is a supreme and highly intellectual being as nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence. and i don't believe in it because it's comforting, i believe in it coz it makes so much more sense. hehe

kindly name or point out those mysterious elements from evolution. i do understand that this theory is still in the works...but nonetheless, it still stands cause there's nothing BETTER to replace it with.

no mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.

there is a total lack of undisputed examples of the millions of transitional forms or missing links that are required for evolution to be true.

the theory violates the second law of thermodynamics. medyo hazy na ako memory ani na proof basta ang point ato kay evolutionists tend to ignore the fact that life is a closed system raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things and undirected energy just speeds up destruction. evolution is a building-up process though which suggests that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. people who know more about thermodynamics are free to correct me on this.

the theory of evolution says that life originated and evolution proceeds by random chance which is silly to me.

you say that creationism is not scientific as if naman pud evolution is as scientific as evolutionists make it appear to be. wala man gani mathematical formula ang evolution. a formula is the only reliable way to test a theory. every scientific theory has a formula, except the theory of evolution. evolutionists have never been able to derive a working Evolution Formula because the evolution theory does not work. it is not in any way better than creationism. pareha ra na sila mga theory of origins na lisod jd i-prove.

to each his own nalang jud siguro ni. whatever makes more sense to you. hehe

EDIT after breakfast (lol):

an important rule regarding scientific method is....to never jump into conclusions.

the scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins. which doesnt make the theory you believe in better than ours. micro-evolution is observable. but evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence.

what are the implications for this god in this field then? answering the how's, why's, what's, where's....with "god did it"? how does that help me? god of the gaps....in return is succumbing to "lazythingking"....and we end up, NOWHERE.

lazy thinking man pud gani tong letting the chips fall into place. :P

[brownprose]

Since when did creationism become scientific? Creationist "scientists" even admit that they are not scientific. It's a pseudo-science no less.

Evolution is a fact like gravity.

[brownprose]

Henry M. Morris, the Father of Modern Creation affirmed in his book that "The the biblical idea of creation can never be called "scientific," and why "scientific creationism" will always be a contradiction in terms." (Source: Henry D. Morris, The Genesis Record, p. 58. N. F. Gier, God, Reason, and the Evangelicals (University Press of American, 1987), Chapter 13.

[SioDenz]

Henry M. Morris, the Father of Modern Creation affirmed in his book that "The the biblical idea of creation can never be called "scientific," and why "scientific creationism" will always be a contradiction in terms." (Source: Henry D. Morris, The Genesis Record, p. 58. N. F. Gier, God, Reason, and the Evangelicals (University Press of American, 1987), Chapter 13.

So ug di maapas sa utok sa tawo ang gibuhat sa Dios, di na scientific...

[regnauld]

would it be possible that Creationism and Evolution go hand in hand? They are just two sides of the same coin as I see it.

[pixelwise]

would it be possible that Creationism and Evolution go hand in hand? They are just two sides of the same coin as I see it.

i tend to agree but that would be no fun for an istorya forum

[brownprose]

So ug di maapas sa utok sa tawo ang gibuhat sa Dios, di na scientific...

Non sequitor.

Science is a continuing endeavor and will always seek for the "objective truth" NOT the truth you read in non-scientific literature like the Bible.

Creationism has trouble accepting scientific facts. The truth about our origin (evolution) has long been established as INDISPUTABLE as gravity.

[Sinyalan]

So ug di maapas sa utok sa tawo ang gibuhat sa Dios, di na scientific...

Sayup ka pre. You choose to believe what you believe and that hits your plateau. You forget to use your abilities of your mind... expand, know... outside the box kun baga. As brownprose said, Science is a continuing endeavor and will always seek for the "objective truth" NOT the truth you read in non-scientific literature like the Bible.

[Hellblazer 2.1]

would it be possible that Creationism and Evolution go hand in hand? They are just two sides of the same coin as I see it.

i definitely agree, mr.regnauld.

[brownprose]

would it be possible that Creationism and Evolution go hand in hand? They are just two sides of the same coin as I see it.

Impossible. How can hands meet when both are not on the same side of the coin?

Creationism stands on the account of the Bible and postulates on the metaphysical/transcendent side of our origin -- it is therefore NOT SCIENTIFIC.

Evolution stands on the account of inquiry and evidence. Evolution is no longer a hypothesis but a FACT.