Is Creationist Science Worth Believing?

[Hellblazer 2.1]

---

all hail the Child, the Brainiac!

cheers!

[The_Child]

@The_Child

I dont know what's your problem dude.. you really uptight

about winning an argument by attacking the semantics of the

other person and telling him he cannot comprehend your

posts.. its really weird you act this way..

i found it unnecessary to even point out the

"imaginativeness" of your responses..

to clarify that point, here they are:

1.) Comparing archaeology to physics, and even called

physics a hard-science? gee, whereever did you get that

term? I have physicists friends and they don't even use

that "hard-science" term, let alone belittle archaeology in

the face of physics..

2.) Comparing archaeology to economics, and also called

economics a soft-science? i dislike resorting to

name-droppings, but never had I colleagues in economics who

had this attitude about it.. i really fail the need to

explain this no matter what the circumstances.. so read up

your literature, get into it, and stop making such

superficial comments on fields of study you don't even know

a rat's ass about..

3.) To sum up archaeology in that little anecdote? Ingon

ana na lng jud diay imong tan-aw sa mga archeologists? 500

puzzle pieces and 50 pieces ra and they would resort to

story-telling? I'd like you to say that to real

archaelogists and see how they would respond..

sheeesh, to think that I am still explaining this one.. get

down your high horse dude.. you're missing a lot of reality

because of that ivory-tower position you are in..

and about your eloquence and intellectual acuity of words,

not a lot of people can or are willing to do that.. i've

seen that you are.. i've known other people like you

before, and its such a waste that a mind like that gets

stuck there.

and about that "i know the latest trends banner"? haaay..

sorry if you got that impression dude, but please dont

liken me to you.. i know the latest trends, and i do my

research before yapping my mouth off..

let me get this straight, i have no quarrel with you or

whoever in this thread.. i despise debates like these

because it shifts the focus on actual development of ideas

to satirical insinuations and insults.

i'm not trying to win an argument, i'm just discussing at

first, and then you came around lambasting people with your

wonderful statements which "trivializes" the others reply.

any person reading this thread could realize that if they

read the development of this thread.

bout the comprehending posts comment: i think your the only

person i told that to a few times.


about the archaeologists thing? I'm sorry, its not my

original idea. Our professor who happens to be one, taught

us how Narratives are created from History and archaeology.

So i dont have to tell that infront of an archaelogist,

suffice to say that one told us that such is so. And i

think any archaeologists and historians would agree with

that, although the former uses a scientific framework,

most of the "gaps", which are alot, is filled in with historical

interpretation - historicism- in both studies.


hard-sciences, soft-sciences? thats a discussion by the

scientific community along time ago. most economists feels

bad whenever they are called the soft-sciences but this

name-calling in the scientific community did not came out

from my own imagination. you could google that, but if you

have no time ill cite you a statement from the late prof.

Gian Carlo Rota co-authored by Jeffrey thomas Crants intro.

to the philo of science, ed. stanley rosen uk: randomhouse,

2006.
they write:
--------------------------------
"There is hope for the Soft Sciences"
In days gone by, economics used to be label the "dismal

Science" More recently, it has ceded this dubious

distinction to more outstanding fellow travelers:

psychology, sociology, linguistics, and other "sciences" of

later vintage. Haughty physicists used to dismiss these

undertakings as the "slums of science," but such a rude

exclusion is now believed to be unfair. Economics,

psychology, sociology and linguistics are abuzz with

activity and with results of lasting value."
----------------------------------

with this, youd realiza that prof. rota mentioned this out

from the background of academic discussion. So i did not

made it up, unlike you said. ergo, your more speculative

than i am. i once had a classmate who happens to be an

economics professor, last sem., and he shared how some physicists tend to
look considered economics as such.


apparently, you do your research before you yap your mouth

as you said, but youve never made any reference to any

study, corroborating your claim. now did you? NOTTTT.


you could also check this out:

Economist.com

y_ID=2121822

http://economistsview.typepad.com/ec...iew/2007/06/is

-economics-a-.html

(if i were close to a univeristy, i would have given you

citation entry from a journal)


about archaelogy:

http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/A...icalInterpreta

tion.html


====================================

for the sake of someone who thinks i'm imaginning things.
Get yourself check on these matters.
unlike you, i have the decency to say things that are

actually there and not make them up. For short, im not

dishonest, if i do not know, i say i do not know. if im

uncertain i'd say its my opinion, if i quote, i cite.



the shifting of insinuations was started by you. remember

your last few replies ? statements such as "gitika ko"

"imagining things" et al. are these not insinuations?
as ive said when i say something definite i can corroborate it.




to end: and getting my point back in this thread so we wont be so lost with all the convolutions you lit up, i argue that, evolution is not empirically observable, and it does not mean that creationism is an alternative.




cheers!


p.s i'm not a creative literature major, though many friends are, im not good with imaginning things, i fint creative writing very difficult in my part.

[kebot]

Brod, saludo kaau ko nnu stack knowledge wa koy ma say. I guess evolution is winning on this thread....

YouTube - (Kent Hovind) Creation Seminar 1 - Age of the Earth Part 1 <------ this is a serious challenge to all of you evolutionist... (sak2 b ako term)

FYI: these are series of Scientific Evidence conflicting evolution that harmonize Creation. Its Science and Logic at its best to defend Evolution but in this case. Creationism is winning.

Well you watch it then you find flaws. I am a pro evolution bro I was thinking Yes there is creation but there is evolution afterwards... I tried to investigate and found some flaws but not enough.

If you think you can handle another interpretation aside from evolution you watch it yourself. It is worth rather than blogging here with just a few evidence.

It maybe more like entertainment but woa its also appealing as dan brown... You just judge it then...

Creationism a lot of proof here. GO get it.

Evolution do your best.

I am so interested on this topic. No insult please...

[handsoff241]

I guess evolution is winning on this thread....

Atm i'm on no one's side, but I guess you are wrong.

[brownprose]

Along the rigors of science and facts, evolution undoubtedly stands the measure of verity of conclusion. Creationist science miserably fails because no matter how much it feigns to have passed the rigors of scientific measure, the very foundation for which it stands (bible) is weak and unscientific to begin with.

[handsoff241]

You are using the standards of science to measure the credibility of the source of Creationism. Sounds unfair.

Maybe "Creationist" should not be dubbed as science in the first place, cause it is based on something(weak and unscientific) not related to science.

[kebot]

Atm i'm on no one's side, but I guess you are wrong.

--------------
I dont have much to say about this matter bro. Knowledge not sufficient. But if you will see the video in you tube... wow You will say evolution never stand a chance... hehehe! I just don't have the capacity to start blogging here...

[brownprose]

You are using the standards of science to measure the credibility of the source of Creationism. Sounds unfair.

How else do you measure evolution then? Would sacred scripture like the Bible be enough to measure the claims of evolution or enough to disprove the same?

Maybe "Creationist" should not be dubbed as science in the first place, cause it is based on something(weak and unscientific) not related to science.

Unfortunately, that is how they would like to believe of what they stand for. The Institute of Creationist Research (the science of biblical creationism) strongly believes that the sixth-day creation is scientific.

[handsoff241]

@kebot I saw the video it was quite old.

[handsoff241]

How else do you measure evolution then? Would sacred scripture like the Bible be enough to measure the claims of evolution or enough to disprove the same?

I was referring to creationism's source called "unscientific" it was exactly unscientific in the first place.
In other ways not used by it's opposing idea, because science is not a standard for the bible and science itself.

Unfortunately, that is how they would like to believe of what they stand for. The Institute of Creationist Research (the scientific of biblical creationism) strongly believes that the sixth-day creation is scientific.

Urgh.
Can we drop bombs at them sir brown? Mental bombs I mean.