Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[YWN666]

Daws how absurd of a response. You have evidence all around you of living organisms producing more living organisms and not one example of life coming from non-living matter.

I'm sure you see it that way...but as with all your observations it's false.
ALL LIFE HAS NON LIVING COMPONENTS: MINERALS AND WATER...without those there is no life...
procreation or life from life is not proof it started that way..

Daws that is a fact.

The life that began life was the living being that designed it.

There is NO evidence to support that nonsense.

 

[eots]

my favorite is the bullshit chart saying there is empirical data for creationism..

The theory of creationism is not based solely on the supernatural but biblical evidence. Evidence in science that supports what is stated in the bible. You nor I can prove or disprove Gods existence. Nor can science prove origins through natural processes. There is no evidence of the origins of anything happening through natural processes.

There is no theory of creationism. The entirety of creationist dogma is rooted in Christian apologetics.

The term "creationism" is simply a ruse for Christian extremists.

Simply not true ,that is only you reactionary interpretation of the concept

 

[Hollie]

You're correct that creationism can't be tested through the scientific method and that is why it isn't science! It is a fairy tale disguised as science as a tactic to get mandatory religion back into public schools. To the scientific community, it is a juvenile joke.

You to believe that creationism is based solely on supernaturalism. Life forming through natural processes can also be considered supernaturalism because the origins of life is beyond our understanding.

Even if someday we figure it out and can produce a living organism it would have be done through intelligence not naturalism.

Here is an excellent article that explains why creationism is not science. Maybe you can learn from it:

Why Creationism Isn?t Science

Why Creationism Isn’t Science

There is no doubt that the most central issue in the evolution/creationism debate is whether creationism deserves to be called science. Creationists argue vehemently that it does, for obvious reasons: if that were the case, creationism would be a competing scientific hypothesis deserving of teaching time in public schools alongside evolution. Most scientists, on the other hand, dismiss creationism as religious and inherently non-scientific.

The “demarcation problem” – where exactly to draw the line between science and non-science – is a thorny issue that has occupied many prominent philosophers without producing a clear answer, and this essay will not attempt to solve it. However, notwithstanding the fact that the exact boundary between science and non-science is somewhat fuzzy, there are some cases that clearly fall on one side or the other of that line. This essay will argue that creationism is one of these – that it fails the most crucial requirements for science, and moreover, fails so obviously that there can be no doubt of its status.

A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science.

Various forms of creationism fail on all three counts here. For example, “intelligent design” creationism makes no testable predictions at all – it makes no checkable claims about how to identify design, who the designer is, what the designer’s goals and motives are, what the mechanism of design is, or when and where the design takes place. In fact, it makes no positive claims whatsoever, other than the hopelessly vague assertion that some intelligent being played a role in the diversification of life. Unless additional details are provided – and advocates of ID have so far steadfastly refused to provide them – ID is untestable and unfalsifiable, and can thus be firmly excluded from the domain of science.

Other forms of creationism, such as the young-earth creationism derived from a literal reading of the Bible, do make some testable claims. However, when these claims do not pan out, YEC advocates typically seek to rescue them from falsification by adding additional qualifications that make them untestable. For example, when radiometric and other dating methods show the Earth to be older than the 6,000 years YEC predicts, advocates of this idea often respond by saying that the world was created with an “appearance of age” – that it came complete with false evidence of a history that never happened. No conceivable evidence could prove this idea wrong even in principle, making any version of creationism that relies on it unambiguously not science.

Even some of creationism’s defenders admit this. Henry Morris writes in his textbook Scientific Creationism that “Creation… is inaccessible to the scientific method”, and that “It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a process can take place.” His colleague and fellow creationist Duane Gish agrees, writing in Evolution: The Fossils Say No! that “We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.”
A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic, relying only on principles of cause and effect and laws of nature to explain observed phenomena. An idea that is not naturalistic – i.e., that incorporates supernatural intervention and miracles – cannot be part of science, because it is impossible to test, disprove, or further investigate. Once one has concluded a miracle has occurred, there is nothing more that can be done. The proposal that a miracle happened can explain absolutely any imaginable scenario with equal ease, which is the same as saying that it really does not explain anything at all. On this score, there is abundant evidence that creationism in all its forms is not naturalistic, and indeed is absolutely dependent upon miracles, as creationists themselves admit (see below).
A scientific hypothesis is almost always fertile, suggesting new areas to study and expand our knowledge and giving rise to new hypotheses in turn. Creationism does not do this; it is scientifically sterile. It explains observed facts in an ad hoc way but suggests no surprising consequences, nowhere to focus our efforts on next, and cannot be used to derive further predictions. Whatever we find, whatever patterns or evidence we uncover, the creationist explains it simply by assuming that that is how God must have wanted it, for unknowable reasons of his own. This does not add to our knowledge and does not lead to new avenues of research.
Finally, a scientific hypothesis, in addition to being testable, must actually be tested. The essence of science is its self-correcting mechanism, in which hypotheses are constantly revised and refined to comply with new evidence. Those ideas that survive the test of time, that pass every test to which they are subjected, become generally accepted knowledge and are added to the scientific canon. Nevertheless, no theory is ever considered to be proven beyond any further possibility of doubt, since there’s always the chance that that one startling bit of evidence might turn up tomorrow. In short, doing science means always accepting the possibility of error, and always being willing to test your ideas and accept the results whatever they may be.

This, more than anything else, is the one thing creationists refuse to do. Creationism starts with the Bible and goes nowhere. Most major creationist institutions, despite annual budgets in the millions of dollars, do not fund or perform any original scientific research at all. Indeed, such research would be redundant as far as creationists are concerned; they are already so convinced of the correctness of their conclusions that they see no need to test them. (If any reader thinks this is in any way an exaggeration, see below.) The moment you say, “I know I’m right and nothing could ever convince me otherwise”, you are no longer doing science.

Click the link for the entire article.

Speaking of creationists doing no research, this is no better exampled than by the charlatans at the Disco'tute. They were exposed as the frauds they are when they put Ann Gauger in front of a green screen with a stock lab photo as a background

Amateurish? Sleazy? Dishonest?

Yes to all three.

The Disco 'Tute's fake laboratory - The Panda's Thumb

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why are rabbits considered fluffy, but snakes are not?

Why are kittens considered cute, but scorpions are not?

Why ask why?

 

[YWN666]

You to believe that creationism is based solely on supernaturalism. Life forming through natural processes can also be considered supernaturalism because the origins of life is beyond our understanding.

Even if someday we figure it out and can produce a living organism it would have be done through intelligence not naturalism.

Here is an excellent article that explains why creationism is not science. Maybe you can learn from it:

Why Creationism Isn?t Science

Why Creationism Isn’t Science

There is no doubt that the most central issue in the evolution/creationism debate is whether creationism deserves to be called science. Creationists argue vehemently that it does, for obvious reasons: if that were the case, creationism would be a competing scientific hypothesis deserving of teaching time in public schools alongside evolution. Most scientists, on the other hand, dismiss creationism as religious and inherently non-scientific.

The “demarcation problem” – where exactly to draw the line between science and non-science – is a thorny issue that has occupied many prominent philosophers without producing a clear answer, and this essay will not attempt to solve it. However, notwithstanding the fact that the exact boundary between science and non-science is somewhat fuzzy, there are some cases that clearly fall on one side or the other of that line. This essay will argue that creationism is one of these – that it fails the most crucial requirements for science, and moreover, fails so obviously that there can be no doubt of its status.

A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science.

Various forms of creationism fail on all three counts here. For example, “intelligent design” creationism makes no testable predictions at all – it makes no checkable claims about how to identify design, who the designer is, what the designer’s goals and motives are, what the mechanism of design is, or when and where the design takes place. In fact, it makes no positive claims whatsoever, other than the hopelessly vague assertion that some intelligent being played a role in the diversification of life. Unless additional details are provided – and advocates of ID have so far steadfastly refused to provide them – ID is untestable and unfalsifiable, and can thus be firmly excluded from the domain of science.

Other forms of creationism, such as the young-earth creationism derived from a literal reading of the Bible, do make some testable claims. However, when these claims do not pan out, YEC advocates typically seek to rescue them from falsification by adding additional qualifications that make them untestable. For example, when radiometric and other dating methods show the Earth to be older than the 6,000 years YEC predicts, advocates of this idea often respond by saying that the world was created with an “appearance of age” – that it came complete with false evidence of a history that never happened. No conceivable evidence could prove this idea wrong even in principle, making any version of creationism that relies on it unambiguously not science.

Even some of creationism’s defenders admit this. Henry Morris writes in his textbook Scientific Creationism that “Creation… is inaccessible to the scientific method”, and that “It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a process can take place.” His colleague and fellow creationist Duane Gish agrees, writing in Evolution: The Fossils Say No! that “We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.”
A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic, relying only on principles of cause and effect and laws of nature to explain observed phenomena. An idea that is not naturalistic – i.e., that incorporates supernatural intervention and miracles – cannot be part of science, because it is impossible to test, disprove, or further investigate. Once one has concluded a miracle has occurred, there is nothing more that can be done. The proposal that a miracle happened can explain absolutely any imaginable scenario with equal ease, which is the same as saying that it really does not explain anything at all. On this score, there is abundant evidence that creationism in all its forms is not naturalistic, and indeed is absolutely dependent upon miracles, as creationists themselves admit (see below).
A scientific hypothesis is almost always fertile, suggesting new areas to study and expand our knowledge and giving rise to new hypotheses in turn. Creationism does not do this; it is scientifically sterile. It explains observed facts in an ad hoc way but suggests no surprising consequences, nowhere to focus our efforts on next, and cannot be used to derive further predictions. Whatever we find, whatever patterns or evidence we uncover, the creationist explains it simply by assuming that that is how God must have wanted it, for unknowable reasons of his own. This does not add to our knowledge and does not lead to new avenues of research.
Finally, a scientific hypothesis, in addition to being testable, must actually be tested. The essence of science is its self-correcting mechanism, in which hypotheses are constantly revised and refined to comply with new evidence. Those ideas that survive the test of time, that pass every test to which they are subjected, become generally accepted knowledge and are added to the scientific canon. Nevertheless, no theory is ever considered to be proven beyond any further possibility of doubt, since there’s always the chance that that one startling bit of evidence might turn up tomorrow. In short, doing science means always accepting the possibility of error, and always being willing to test your ideas and accept the results whatever they may be.

This, more than anything else, is the one thing creationists refuse to do. Creationism starts with the Bible and goes nowhere. Most major creationist institutions, despite annual budgets in the millions of dollars, do not fund or perform any original scientific research at all. Indeed, such research would be redundant as far as creationists are concerned; they are already so convinced of the correctness of their conclusions that they see no need to test them. (If any reader thinks this is in any way an exaggeration, see below.) The moment you say, “I know I’m right and nothing could ever convince me otherwise”, you are no longer doing science.

Click the link for the entire article.

Speaking of creationists doing no research, this is no better exampled than by the charlatans at the Disco'tute. They were exposed as the frauds they are when they put Ann Gauger in front of a green screen with a stock lab photo as a background

Amateurish? Sleazy? Dishonest?

Yes to all three.

The Disco 'Tute's fake laboratory - The Panda's Thumb

During the Dover Intelligent Design trial, these charlatans were exposed a number of times and under oath, they had to admit to it. In his decision, the judge said:

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. "

and

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

 

[Youwerecreated]

my favorite is the bullshit chart saying there is empirical data for creationism..

The theory of creationism is not based solely on the supernatural but biblical evidence. Evidence in science that supports what is stated in the bible. You nor I can prove or disprove Gods existence. Nor can science prove origins through natural processes. There is no evidence of the origins of anything happening through natural processes.

Hello in there? Hello????? Creationism CANNOT QUALIFY AS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY. End of story. You can go home now. You lose. You can make up all of the lame crap you want but that doesn't change the fact that creationism is religion masquerading as science and as they say, a pig with a dress and lipstick is still a pig.

Wrong here are some examples. The bible states 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind. Since life has begun and currently that is what we see kinds bringing forth after their own kind. Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Here are some more examples.

Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems.

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Another.

Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information.

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Another.

Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

A Theory of Biblical Creation


So explain to me why creationism is not Empirically Falsifiable ? Why does the science community rule out this evidence and a creator when they have no answer as to how life could have originated through natural processes ? I thought the science community was not suppose to be biased.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're correct that creationism can't be tested through the scientific method and that is why it isn't science! It is a fairy tale disguised as science as a tactic to get mandatory religion back into public schools. To the scientific community, it is a juvenile joke.

You to believe that creationism is based solely on supernaturalism. Life forming through natural processes can also be considered supernaturalism because the origins of life is beyond our understanding.

Even if someday we figure it out and can produce a living organism it would have be done through intelligence not naturalism.

Here is an excellent article that explains why creationism is not science. Maybe you can learn from it:

Why Creationism Isn?t Science

Why Creationism Isn’t Science

There is no doubt that the most central issue in the evolution/creationism debate is whether creationism deserves to be called science. Creationists argue vehemently that it does, for obvious reasons: if that were the case, creationism would be a competing scientific hypothesis deserving of teaching time in public schools alongside evolution. Most scientists, on the other hand, dismiss creationism as religious and inherently non-scientific.

The “demarcation problem” – where exactly to draw the line between science and non-science – is a thorny issue that has occupied many prominent philosophers without producing a clear answer, and this essay will not attempt to solve it. However, notwithstanding the fact that the exact boundary between science and non-science is somewhat fuzzy, there are some cases that clearly fall on one side or the other of that line. This essay will argue that creationism is one of these – that it fails the most crucial requirements for science, and moreover, fails so obviously that there can be no doubt of its status.

A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science.

Various forms of creationism fail on all three counts here. For example, “intelligent design” creationism makes no testable predictions at all – it makes no checkable claims about how to identify design, who the designer is, what the designer’s goals and motives are, what the mechanism of design is, or when and where the design takes place. In fact, it makes no positive claims whatsoever, other than the hopelessly vague assertion that some intelligent being played a role in the diversification of life. Unless additional details are provided – and advocates of ID have so far steadfastly refused to provide them – ID is untestable and unfalsifiable, and can thus be firmly excluded from the domain of science.

Other forms of creationism, such as the young-earth creationism derived from a literal reading of the Bible, do make some testable claims. However, when these claims do not pan out, YEC advocates typically seek to rescue them from falsification by adding additional qualifications that make them untestable. For example, when radiometric and other dating methods show the Earth to be older than the 6,000 years YEC predicts, advocates of this idea often respond by saying that the world was created with an “appearance of age” – that it came complete with false evidence of a history that never happened. No conceivable evidence could prove this idea wrong even in principle, making any version of creationism that relies on it unambiguously not science.

Even some of creationism’s defenders admit this. Henry Morris writes in his textbook Scientific Creationism that “Creation… is inaccessible to the scientific method”, and that “It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a process can take place.” His colleague and fellow creationist Duane Gish agrees, writing in Evolution: The Fossils Say No! that “We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.”
A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic, relying only on principles of cause and effect and laws of nature to explain observed phenomena. An idea that is not naturalistic – i.e., that incorporates supernatural intervention and miracles – cannot be part of science, because it is impossible to test, disprove, or further investigate. Once one has concluded a miracle has occurred, there is nothing more that can be done. The proposal that a miracle happened can explain absolutely any imaginable scenario with equal ease, which is the same as saying that it really does not explain anything at all. On this score, there is abundant evidence that creationism in all its forms is not naturalistic, and indeed is absolutely dependent upon miracles, as creationists themselves admit (see below).
A scientific hypothesis is almost always fertile, suggesting new areas to study and expand our knowledge and giving rise to new hypotheses in turn. Creationism does not do this; it is scientifically sterile. It explains observed facts in an ad hoc way but suggests no surprising consequences, nowhere to focus our efforts on next, and cannot be used to derive further predictions. Whatever we find, whatever patterns or evidence we uncover, the creationist explains it simply by assuming that that is how God must have wanted it, for unknowable reasons of his own. This does not add to our knowledge and does not lead to new avenues of research.
Finally, a scientific hypothesis, in addition to being testable, must actually be tested. The essence of science is its self-correcting mechanism, in which hypotheses are constantly revised and refined to comply with new evidence. Those ideas that survive the test of time, that pass every test to which they are subjected, become generally accepted knowledge and are added to the scientific canon. Nevertheless, no theory is ever considered to be proven beyond any further possibility of doubt, since there’s always the chance that that one startling bit of evidence might turn up tomorrow. In short, doing science means always accepting the possibility of error, and always being willing to test your ideas and accept the results whatever they may be.

This, more than anything else, is the one thing creationists refuse to do. Creationism starts with the Bible and goes nowhere. Most major creationist institutions, despite annual budgets in the millions of dollars, do not fund or perform any original scientific research at all. Indeed, such research would be redundant as far as creationists are concerned; they are already so convinced of the correctness of their conclusions that they see no need to test them. (If any reader thinks this is in any way an exaggeration, see below.) The moment you say, “I know I’m right and nothing could ever convince me otherwise”, you are no longer doing science.


Click the link for the entire article.

They are wrong I gave you examples.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You to believe that creationism is based solely on supernaturalism. Life forming through natural processes can also be considered supernaturalism because the origins of life is beyond our understanding.

Even if someday we figure it out and can produce a living organism it would have be done through intelligence not naturalism.

Here is an excellent article that explains why creationism is not science. Maybe you can learn from it:

Why Creationism Isn?t Science

Why Creationism Isn’t Science

There is no doubt that the most central issue in the evolution/creationism debate is whether creationism deserves to be called science. Creationists argue vehemently that it does, for obvious reasons: if that were the case, creationism would be a competing scientific hypothesis deserving of teaching time in public schools alongside evolution. Most scientists, on the other hand, dismiss creationism as religious and inherently non-scientific.

The “demarcation problem” – where exactly to draw the line between science and non-science – is a thorny issue that has occupied many prominent philosophers without producing a clear answer, and this essay will not attempt to solve it. However, notwithstanding the fact that the exact boundary between science and non-science is somewhat fuzzy, there are some cases that clearly fall on one side or the other of that line. This essay will argue that creationism is one of these – that it fails the most crucial requirements for science, and moreover, fails so obviously that there can be no doubt of its status.

A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science.

Various forms of creationism fail on all three counts here. For example, “intelligent design” creationism makes no testable predictions at all – it makes no checkable claims about how to identify design, who the designer is, what the designer’s goals and motives are, what the mechanism of design is, or when and where the design takes place. In fact, it makes no positive claims whatsoever, other than the hopelessly vague assertion that some intelligent being played a role in the diversification of life. Unless additional details are provided – and advocates of ID have so far steadfastly refused to provide them – ID is untestable and unfalsifiable, and can thus be firmly excluded from the domain of science.

Other forms of creationism, such as the young-earth creationism derived from a literal reading of the Bible, do make some testable claims. However, when these claims do not pan out, YEC advocates typically seek to rescue them from falsification by adding additional qualifications that make them untestable. For example, when radiometric and other dating methods show the Earth to be older than the 6,000 years YEC predicts, advocates of this idea often respond by saying that the world was created with an “appearance of age” – that it came complete with false evidence of a history that never happened. No conceivable evidence could prove this idea wrong even in principle, making any version of creationism that relies on it unambiguously not science.

Even some of creationism’s defenders admit this. Henry Morris writes in his textbook Scientific Creationism that “Creation… is inaccessible to the scientific method”, and that “It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a process can take place.” His colleague and fellow creationist Duane Gish agrees, writing in Evolution: The Fossils Say No! that “We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.”
A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic, relying only on principles of cause and effect and laws of nature to explain observed phenomena. An idea that is not naturalistic – i.e., that incorporates supernatural intervention and miracles – cannot be part of science, because it is impossible to test, disprove, or further investigate. Once one has concluded a miracle has occurred, there is nothing more that can be done. The proposal that a miracle happened can explain absolutely any imaginable scenario with equal ease, which is the same as saying that it really does not explain anything at all. On this score, there is abundant evidence that creationism in all its forms is not naturalistic, and indeed is absolutely dependent upon miracles, as creationists themselves admit (see below).
A scientific hypothesis is almost always fertile, suggesting new areas to study and expand our knowledge and giving rise to new hypotheses in turn. Creationism does not do this; it is scientifically sterile. It explains observed facts in an ad hoc way but suggests no surprising consequences, nowhere to focus our efforts on next, and cannot be used to derive further predictions. Whatever we find, whatever patterns or evidence we uncover, the creationist explains it simply by assuming that that is how God must have wanted it, for unknowable reasons of his own. This does not add to our knowledge and does not lead to new avenues of research.
Finally, a scientific hypothesis, in addition to being testable, must actually be tested. The essence of science is its self-correcting mechanism, in which hypotheses are constantly revised and refined to comply with new evidence. Those ideas that survive the test of time, that pass every test to which they are subjected, become generally accepted knowledge and are added to the scientific canon. Nevertheless, no theory is ever considered to be proven beyond any further possibility of doubt, since there’s always the chance that that one startling bit of evidence might turn up tomorrow. In short, doing science means always accepting the possibility of error, and always being willing to test your ideas and accept the results whatever they may be.

This, more than anything else, is the one thing creationists refuse to do. Creationism starts with the Bible and goes nowhere. Most major creationist institutions, despite annual budgets in the millions of dollars, do not fund or perform any original scientific research at all. Indeed, such research would be redundant as far as creationists are concerned; they are already so convinced of the correctness of their conclusions that they see no need to test them. (If any reader thinks this is in any way an exaggeration, see below.) The moment you say, “I know I’m right and nothing could ever convince me otherwise”, you are no longer doing science.

Click the link for the entire article.

Speaking of creationists doing no research, this is no better exampled than by the charlatans at the Disco'tute. They were exposed as the frauds they are when they put Ann Gauger in front of a green screen with a stock lab photo as a background

Amateurish? Sleazy? Dishonest?

Yes to all three.

The Disco 'Tute's fake laboratory - The Panda's Thumb

Credible source lol.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Uh oh naturalists.

nat·u·ral·ism
noun \ˈna-chə-rə-ˌli-zəm, ˈnach-rə-\
Definition of NATURALISM
1
: action, inclination, or thought based only on natural desires and instincts
2
: a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena
3
: realism in art or literature; specifically : a theory or practice in literature emphasizing scientific observation of life without idealization and often including elements of determinism

 

[Hollie]

Here is an excellent article that explains why creationism is not science. Maybe you can learn from it:

Why Creationism Isn?t Science

Why Creationism Isn’t Science

There is no doubt that the most central issue in the evolution/creationism debate is whether creationism deserves to be called science. Creationists argue vehemently that it does, for obvious reasons: if that were the case, creationism would be a competing scientific hypothesis deserving of teaching time in public schools alongside evolution. Most scientists, on the other hand, dismiss creationism as religious and inherently non-scientific.

The “demarcation problem” – where exactly to draw the line between science and non-science – is a thorny issue that has occupied many prominent philosophers without producing a clear answer, and this essay will not attempt to solve it. However, notwithstanding the fact that the exact boundary between science and non-science is somewhat fuzzy, there are some cases that clearly fall on one side or the other of that line. This essay will argue that creationism is one of these – that it fails the most crucial requirements for science, and moreover, fails so obviously that there can be no doubt of its status.

A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science.

Various forms of creationism fail on all three counts here. For example, “intelligent design” creationism makes no testable predictions at all – it makes no checkable claims about how to identify design, who the designer is, what the designer’s goals and motives are, what the mechanism of design is, or when and where the design takes place. In fact, it makes no positive claims whatsoever, other than the hopelessly vague assertion that some intelligent being played a role in the diversification of life. Unless additional details are provided – and advocates of ID have so far steadfastly refused to provide them – ID is untestable and unfalsifiable, and can thus be firmly excluded from the domain of science.

Other forms of creationism, such as the young-earth creationism derived from a literal reading of the Bible, do make some testable claims. However, when these claims do not pan out, YEC advocates typically seek to rescue them from falsification by adding additional qualifications that make them untestable. For example, when radiometric and other dating methods show the Earth to be older than the 6,000 years YEC predicts, advocates of this idea often respond by saying that the world was created with an “appearance of age” – that it came complete with false evidence of a history that never happened. No conceivable evidence could prove this idea wrong even in principle, making any version of creationism that relies on it unambiguously not science.

Even some of creationism’s defenders admit this. Henry Morris writes in his textbook Scientific Creationism that “Creation… is inaccessible to the scientific method”, and that “It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a process can take place.” His colleague and fellow creationist Duane Gish agrees, writing in Evolution: The Fossils Say No! that “We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.”
A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic, relying only on principles of cause and effect and laws of nature to explain observed phenomena. An idea that is not naturalistic – i.e., that incorporates supernatural intervention and miracles – cannot be part of science, because it is impossible to test, disprove, or further investigate. Once one has concluded a miracle has occurred, there is nothing more that can be done. The proposal that a miracle happened can explain absolutely any imaginable scenario with equal ease, which is the same as saying that it really does not explain anything at all. On this score, there is abundant evidence that creationism in all its forms is not naturalistic, and indeed is absolutely dependent upon miracles, as creationists themselves admit (see below).
A scientific hypothesis is almost always fertile, suggesting new areas to study and expand our knowledge and giving rise to new hypotheses in turn. Creationism does not do this; it is scientifically sterile. It explains observed facts in an ad hoc way but suggests no surprising consequences, nowhere to focus our efforts on next, and cannot be used to derive further predictions. Whatever we find, whatever patterns or evidence we uncover, the creationist explains it simply by assuming that that is how God must have wanted it, for unknowable reasons of his own. This does not add to our knowledge and does not lead to new avenues of research.
Finally, a scientific hypothesis, in addition to being testable, must actually be tested. The essence of science is its self-correcting mechanism, in which hypotheses are constantly revised and refined to comply with new evidence. Those ideas that survive the test of time, that pass every test to which they are subjected, become generally accepted knowledge and are added to the scientific canon. Nevertheless, no theory is ever considered to be proven beyond any further possibility of doubt, since there’s always the chance that that one startling bit of evidence might turn up tomorrow. In short, doing science means always accepting the possibility of error, and always being willing to test your ideas and accept the results whatever they may be.

This, more than anything else, is the one thing creationists refuse to do. Creationism starts with the Bible and goes nowhere. Most major creationist institutions, despite annual budgets in the millions of dollars, do not fund or perform any original scientific research at all. Indeed, such research would be redundant as far as creationists are concerned; they are already so convinced of the correctness of their conclusions that they see no need to test them. (If any reader thinks this is in any way an exaggeration, see below.) The moment you say, “I know I’m right and nothing could ever convince me otherwise”, you are no longer doing science.

Click the link for the entire article.

Speaking of creationists doing no research, this is no better exampled than by the charlatans at the Disco'tute. They were exposed as the frauds they are when they put Ann Gauger in front of a green screen with a stock lab photo as a background

Amateurish? Sleazy? Dishonest?

Yes to all three.

The Disco 'Tute's fake laboratory - The Panda's Thumb

Credible source lol.

In denial lol.

This is just another example of how your will not just excuse, but promote lies to further your extremist views.

I pointed out previously that the charlatans at the Disco 'tute acknowledged their fraud. Although, as we might have expected, they hand-waved it off.

What a shame that religious extremists are bereft an ethical and moral compass.

 

[daws101]

Whats the matter hollie,you see that creationism is every bit of a theory as evolution ?

Fable is a very good term for evolution.

Creationism is NOT a scientific theory whereas evolution is a scientific theory.

That YWC doesn't know what a scientific theory means gives lie to his claims to have worked in the DNA field.

I know and understand both theories, one is rejected by the science community with no evidence to reject.

So you take pot shots at me and the work I did for 11 years. I gave you the chance to discuss what I know but you like the normal coward ran and resorted to little insults. That is the tactic of an ignorant coward.

 

[daws101]

This makes absolutely no sense, as usual. There is nothing supernatural about the natural world. The rational (natural) world is explainable, understandable and knowable. We have no need for “faith” to understand that the force of gravity is relentlessly consistent across all of the universe we have discovered. For your enlightenment, gravity is both a fact and a theory. Over the last century, we even witnessed one theory of gravity (Newton's) as it was replaced by a newer, better theory of gravity (Einstein’s). But the fact of gravity remained through the entire time period. Apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air waiting for the outcome.

Let’s compare the concepts of “theories” using both evolution and gravity as compared to supernatural intervention. Both evolution and gravity assertions are theories. Both have aspects and elements missing (we don't have any idea what gravity even is, but we can obviously test for, examine and measure its existence. Both evolution and gravity require certain assumptions about their mechanisms. Both are "disproven" by biblical fiat-- in the holy texts, people rise to heaven in chariots, the sea separates, people walk on water-- all of these things are in direct opposition to the theories of gravity, precisely like evolution is in direct opposition to creationism. And finally neither the theory of gravity nor the theory of evolution makes any mention of gawds. None. That is not an assumption, neither says a thing about any gawd.

There is no difference between these two theories (other than mechanical ones) yet we never hear of "miraculism" being demanded as part of the syllabus in science classes because gravity defeats biblical stories. There is clearly a deeper concern, a broader agenda-- and I submit to you that evolution is so overwhelmingly presented and so difficult to dismantle, that most theists subconsciously fear that if it is true, their entire worldview is shattered. That is precisely why many creationists have such a visceral hatred for evolution and why they reel off into promoting these fantastic claims of the supernatural.

my favorite is the bullshit chart saying there is empirical data for creationism..

The theory of creationism is not based solely on the supernatural but biblical evidence. Evidence in science that supports what is stated in the bible. You nor I can prove or disprove Gods existence. Nor can science prove origins through natural processes. There is no evidence of the origins of anything happening through natural processes.

bullshit ..the bible is not empirical or quantifiable it is totally subjective those features alone make it unsupportable by science..

 

[daws101]

This makes absolutely no sense, as usual. There is nothing supernatural about the natural world. The rational (natural) world is explainable, understandable and knowable. We have no need for “faith” to understand that the force of gravity is relentlessly consistent across all of the universe we have discovered. For your enlightenment, gravity is both a fact and a theory. Over the last century, we even witnessed one theory of gravity (Newton's) as it was replaced by a newer, better theory of gravity (Einstein’s). But the fact of gravity remained through the entire time period. Apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air waiting for the outcome.

Let’s compare the concepts of “theories” using both evolution and gravity as compared to supernatural intervention. Both evolution and gravity assertions are theories. Both have aspects and elements missing (we don't have any idea what gravity even is, but we can obviously test for, examine and measure its existence. Both evolution and gravity require certain assumptions about their mechanisms. Both are "disproven" by biblical fiat-- in the holy texts, people rise to heaven in chariots, the sea separates, people walk on water-- all of these things are in direct opposition to the theories of gravity, precisely like evolution is in direct opposition to creationism. And finally neither the theory of gravity nor the theory of evolution makes any mention of gawds. None. That is not an assumption, neither says a thing about any gawd.

There is no difference between these two theories (other than mechanical ones) yet we never hear of "miraculism" being demanded as part of the syllabus in science classes because gravity defeats biblical stories. There is clearly a deeper concern, a broader agenda-- and I submit to you that evolution is so overwhelmingly presented and so difficult to dismantle, that most theists subconsciously fear that if it is true, their entire worldview is shattered. That is precisely why many creationists have such a visceral hatred for evolution and why they reel off into promoting these fantastic claims of the supernatural.

my favorite is the bullshit chart saying there is empirical data for creationism..

Which went right over your head.

you can always dream...

 

[daws101]

The theory of creationism is not based solely on the supernatural but biblical evidence. Evidence in science that supports what is stated in the bible. You nor I can prove or disprove Gods existence. Nor can science prove origins through natural processes. There is no evidence of the origins of anything happening through natural processes.

There is no theory of creationism. The entirety of creationist dogma is rooted in Christian apologetics.

The term "creationism" is simply a ruse for Christian extremists.

Simply not true ,that is only you reactionary interpretation of the concept

bahahahahaha!

 

[daws101]

The theory of creationism is not based solely on the supernatural but biblical evidence. Evidence in science that supports what is stated in the bible. You nor I can prove or disprove Gods existence. Nor can science prove origins through natural processes. There is no evidence of the origins of anything happening through natural processes.

Hello in there? Hello????? Creationism CANNOT QUALIFY AS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY. End of story. You can go home now. You lose. You can make up all of the lame crap you want but that doesn't change the fact that creationism is religion masquerading as science and as they say, a pig with a dress and lipstick is still a pig.

Wrong here are some examples. The bible states 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind. Since life has begun and currently that is what we see kinds bringing forth after their own kind. Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Here are some more examples.

Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems.

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Another.

Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information.

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Another.

Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

A Theory of Biblical Creation


So explain to me why creationism is not Empirically Falsifiable ? Why does the science community rule out this evidence and a creator when they have no answer as to how life could have originated through natural processes ? I thought the science community was not suppose to be biased.

Baraminology


Template:Creationism2 In creation science, baraminology is a system for classifying life into groups having no common ancestry, called "baramins". Classification is based on a literal creationist reading of "kinds" in Genesis, especially the distinction between mankind and other animals. Supplementary criteria include the ability of animals to interbreed and the similarity of their observable traits. Like all of creation science, baraminology is pseudoscience and is unrelated to science: modern biological facts have shown that all life descended from one common ancestor.[1] The scientific alternative to baraminology is cladistics, which classifies species based on evolutionary history.

Biblical Kinds

The Bible mentions kinds on several occasions. Genesis 1:12-25 gives an account of the creation of living things:

“ 24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. ”

Genesis 7:13-16 states that there are distinct kinds of cattle. In Deuteronomy 14:11-18 varieties of owl, raven, and hawk are presented as distinct kinds. Leviticus 19:19 states that kinds might interbreed. Apart from what is implied by these passages, the Bible does not specify what a kind is.

Traditional interpretations, such as those of St. Augustine[2], Thomas Aquinas[3], John Calvin[4], and the Vatican[5], hold that the Bible makes theological and not scientific statements about reality, and that no conflict exists between science and the Bible. A typical interpretation of Genesis, with focus upon the kinds, is that all things were created, that the ordered multitude of creation is as God intended, and that the Darwinian model "is strongly animated by [a] fundamental feeling of solidarity with the whole of creation", the latter in reference to parallel concepts of common descent and common creator.Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag.

Baraminology

Baraminology is founded upon a biblically literal young earth creationist interpretation of the Bible: that each kind was brought into direct physical existence by God and that these kinds share no ancestry. Baraminology emerged as an effort to make this view scientifically appealing.[6] The idea of a baramin was proposed in 1941 by Frank Marsh, but was criticized for a lack of formal definition. In 1990 the work of Kurt Wise and Walter ReMine introduced baraminology as the pursuit of an acceptable definition.[6] ReMine's work specifies four groupings: holobaramins, monobaramins, apobaramins, and polybaramins. These are, respectively, all things of one kind; some things of the same kind; groups of kinds; and any mixed grouping of things. [7] These groups are similar in name to the concepts of monophyly, paraphyly and polyphyly used in phylogenetics

Conditions for membership in a (holo)baramin and methods of classification have changed over the years. These include the ability to create viable offspring, and morphological similarity.[8] Some creationists have suggested that kind refers to species, while others believe it might mean any animal which may be distinguished in some way from another.[9] Another criterion is "baramin distance" which is calculated based on the similarity of the animals' characters, using methods borrowed from phenetics.[10] In all cases, methods that have been found to place humans and primates into the same baramin have been discarded. [11][12]

Criticism

Baraminology has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous testing and post-study rejection of data to make it better fit the desired findings.[13] Baraminology is a pseudoscience, and has not produced any peer-reviewed scientific research,[14] nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of zoology and botany since 1924.[15] Universal common descent, which states that all life shares a common ancestor, is well-established and tested, and is a scientifically-verified fact.[16] However, neither cladistics, the field devoted to investigating the ancestral relationships between living things, nor the scientific consensus on transitional fossils are accepted by baraminologists.[17]


http://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/Baraminology

 

[Youwerecreated]

my favorite is the bullshit chart saying there is empirical data for creationism..

The theory of creationism is not based solely on the supernatural but biblical evidence. Evidence in science that supports what is stated in the bible. You nor I can prove or disprove Gods existence. Nor can science prove origins through natural processes. There is no evidence of the origins of anything happening through natural processes.

bullshit ..the bible is not empirical or quantifiable it is totally subjective those features alone make it unsupportable by science..

Did you just slip and hit your head, I just gave you examples.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hello in there? Hello????? Creationism CANNOT QUALIFY AS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY. End of story. You can go home now. You lose. You can make up all of the lame crap you want but that doesn't change the fact that creationism is religion masquerading as science and as they say, a pig with a dress and lipstick is still a pig.

Wrong here are some examples. The bible states 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind. Since life has begun and currently that is what we see kinds bringing forth after their own kind. Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Here are some more examples.

Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems.

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Another.

Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information.

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Another.

Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

A Theory of Biblical Creation


So explain to me why creationism is not Empirically Falsifiable ? Why does the science community rule out this evidence and a creator when they have no answer as to how life could have originated through natural processes ? I thought the science community was not suppose to be biased.

Baraminology


Template:Creationism2 In creation science, baraminology is a system for classifying life into groups having no common ancestry, called "baramins". Classification is based on a literal creationist reading of "kinds" in Genesis, especially the distinction between mankind and other animals. Supplementary criteria include the ability of animals to interbreed and the similarity of their observable traits. Like all of creation science, baraminology is pseudoscience and is unrelated to science: modern biological facts have shown that all life descended from one common ancestor.[1] The scientific alternative to baraminology is cladistics, which classifies species based on evolutionary history.

Biblical Kinds

The Bible mentions kinds on several occasions. Genesis 1:12-25 gives an account of the creation of living things:

“ 24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. ”

Genesis 7:13-16 states that there are distinct kinds of cattle. In Deuteronomy 14:11-18 varieties of owl, raven, and hawk are presented as distinct kinds. Leviticus 19:19 states that kinds might interbreed. Apart from what is implied by these passages, the Bible does not specify what a kind is.

Traditional interpretations, such as those of St. Augustine[2], Thomas Aquinas[3], John Calvin[4], and the Vatican[5], hold that the Bible makes theological and not scientific statements about reality, and that no conflict exists between science and the Bible. A typical interpretation of Genesis, with focus upon the kinds, is that all things were created, that the ordered multitude of creation is as God intended, and that the Darwinian model "is strongly animated by [a] fundamental feeling of solidarity with the whole of creation", the latter in reference to parallel concepts of common descent and common creator.Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag.

Baraminology

Baraminology is founded upon a biblically literal young earth creationist interpretation of the Bible: that each kind was brought into direct physical existence by God and that these kinds share no ancestry. Baraminology emerged as an effort to make this view scientifically appealing.[6] The idea of a baramin was proposed in 1941 by Frank Marsh, but was criticized for a lack of formal definition. In 1990 the work of Kurt Wise and Walter ReMine introduced baraminology as the pursuit of an acceptable definition.[6] ReMine's work specifies four groupings: holobaramins, monobaramins, apobaramins, and polybaramins. These are, respectively, all things of one kind; some things of the same kind; groups of kinds; and any mixed grouping of things. [7] These groups are similar in name to the concepts of monophyly, paraphyly and polyphyly used in phylogenetics

Conditions for membership in a (holo)baramin and methods of classification have changed over the years. These include the ability to create viable offspring, and morphological similarity.[8] Some creationists have suggested that kind refers to species, while others believe it might mean any animal which may be distinguished in some way from another.[9] Another criterion is "baramin distance" which is calculated based on the similarity of the animals' characters, using methods borrowed from phenetics.[10] In all cases, methods that have been found to place humans and primates into the same baramin have been discarded. [11][12]

Criticism

Baraminology has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous testing and post-study rejection of data to make it better fit the desired findings.[13] Baraminology is a pseudoscience, and has not produced any peer-reviewed scientific research,[14] nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of zoology and botany since 1924.[15] Universal common descent, which states that all life shares a common ancestor, is well-established and tested, and is a scientifically-verified fact.[16] However, neither cladistics, the field devoted to investigating the ancestral relationships between living things, nor the scientific consensus on transitional fossils are accepted by baraminologists.[17]


Baraminology - wikidoc

I proved creationism is a falsifiable theory deal with it.

 

[Hollie]

Wrong here are some examples. The bible states 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind. Since life has begun and currently that is what we see kinds bringing forth after their own kind. Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Here are some more examples.

Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems.

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Another.

Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information.

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Another.

Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

A Theory of Biblical Creation


So explain to me why creationism is not Empirically Falsifiable ? Why does the science community rule out this evidence and a creator when they have no answer as to how life could have originated through natural processes ? I thought the science community was not suppose to be biased.

Baraminology


Template:Creationism2 In creation science, baraminology is a system for classifying life into groups having no common ancestry, called "baramins". Classification is based on a literal creationist reading of "kinds" in Genesis, especially the distinction between mankind and other animals. Supplementary criteria include the ability of animals to interbreed and the similarity of their observable traits. Like all of creation science, baraminology is pseudoscience and is unrelated to science: modern biological facts have shown that all life descended from one common ancestor.[1] The scientific alternative to baraminology is cladistics, which classifies species based on evolutionary history.

Biblical Kinds

The Bible mentions kinds on several occasions. Genesis 1:12-25 gives an account of the creation of living things:

“ 24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. ”

Genesis 7:13-16 states that there are distinct kinds of cattle. In Deuteronomy 14:11-18 varieties of owl, raven, and hawk are presented as distinct kinds. Leviticus 19:19 states that kinds might interbreed. Apart from what is implied by these passages, the Bible does not specify what a kind is.

Traditional interpretations, such as those of St. Augustine[2], Thomas Aquinas[3], John Calvin[4], and the Vatican[5], hold that the Bible makes theological and not scientific statements about reality, and that no conflict exists between science and the Bible. A typical interpretation of Genesis, with focus upon the kinds, is that all things were created, that the ordered multitude of creation is as God intended, and that the Darwinian model "is strongly animated by [a] fundamental feeling of solidarity with the whole of creation", the latter in reference to parallel concepts of common descent and common creator.Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag.

Baraminology

Baraminology is founded upon a biblically literal young earth creationist interpretation of the Bible: that each kind was brought into direct physical existence by God and that these kinds share no ancestry. Baraminology emerged as an effort to make this view scientifically appealing.[6] The idea of a baramin was proposed in 1941 by Frank Marsh, but was criticized for a lack of formal definition. In 1990 the work of Kurt Wise and Walter ReMine introduced baraminology as the pursuit of an acceptable definition.[6] ReMine's work specifies four groupings: holobaramins, monobaramins, apobaramins, and polybaramins. These are, respectively, all things of one kind; some things of the same kind; groups of kinds; and any mixed grouping of things. [7] These groups are similar in name to the concepts of monophyly, paraphyly and polyphyly used in phylogenetics

Conditions for membership in a (holo)baramin and methods of classification have changed over the years. These include the ability to create viable offspring, and morphological similarity.[8] Some creationists have suggested that kind refers to species, while others believe it might mean any animal which may be distinguished in some way from another.[9] Another criterion is "baramin distance" which is calculated based on the similarity of the animals' characters, using methods borrowed from phenetics.[10] In all cases, methods that have been found to place humans and primates into the same baramin have been discarded. [11][12]

Criticism

Baraminology has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous testing and post-study rejection of data to make it better fit the desired findings.[13] Baraminology is a pseudoscience, and has not produced any peer-reviewed scientific research,[14] nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of zoology and botany since 1924.[15] Universal common descent, which states that all life shares a common ancestor, is well-established and tested, and is a scientifically-verified fact.[16] However, neither cladistics, the field devoted to investigating the ancestral relationships between living things, nor the scientific consensus on transitional fossils are accepted by baraminologists.[17]


Baraminology - wikidoc

I proved creationism is a falsifiable theory deal with it.

You demonstrated that creationism is a laughable joke.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hello in there? Hello????? Creationism CANNOT QUALIFY AS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY. End of story. You can go home now. You lose. You can make up all of the lame crap you want but that doesn't change the fact that creationism is religion masquerading as science and as they say, a pig with a dress and lipstick is still a pig.

Wrong here are some examples. The bible states 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind. Since life has begun and currently that is what we see kinds bringing forth after their own kind. Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Here are some more examples.

Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems.

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Another.

Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information.

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Another.

Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

A Theory of Biblical Creation


So explain to me why creationism is not Empirically Falsifiable ? Why does the science community rule out this evidence and a creator when they have no answer as to how life could have originated through natural processes ? I thought the science community was not suppose to be biased.

Baraminology


Template:Creationism2 In creation science, baraminology is a system for classifying life into groups having no common ancestry, called "baramins". Classification is based on a literal creationist reading of "kinds" in Genesis, especially the distinction between mankind and other animals. Supplementary criteria include the ability of animals to interbreed and the similarity of their observable traits. Like all of creation science, baraminology is pseudoscience and is unrelated to science: modern biological facts have shown that all life descended from one common ancestor.[1] The scientific alternative to baraminology is cladistics, which classifies species based on evolutionary history.

Biblical Kinds

The Bible mentions kinds on several occasions. Genesis 1:12-25 gives an account of the creation of living things:

“ 24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. ”

Genesis 7:13-16 states that there are distinct kinds of cattle. In Deuteronomy 14:11-18 varieties of owl, raven, and hawk are presented as distinct kinds. Leviticus 19:19 states that kinds might interbreed. Apart from what is implied by these passages, the Bible does not specify what a kind is.

Traditional interpretations, such as those of St. Augustine[2], Thomas Aquinas[3], John Calvin[4], and the Vatican[5], hold that the Bible makes theological and not scientific statements about reality, and that no conflict exists between science and the Bible. A typical interpretation of Genesis, with focus upon the kinds, is that all things were created, that the ordered multitude of creation is as God intended, and that the Darwinian model "is strongly animated by [a] fundamental feeling of solidarity with the whole of creation", the latter in reference to parallel concepts of common descent and common creator.Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag.

Baraminology

Baraminology is founded upon a biblically literal young earth creationist interpretation of the Bible: that each kind was brought into direct physical existence by God and that these kinds share no ancestry. Baraminology emerged as an effort to make this view scientifically appealing.[6] The idea of a baramin was proposed in 1941 by Frank Marsh, but was criticized for a lack of formal definition. In 1990 the work of Kurt Wise and Walter ReMine introduced baraminology as the pursuit of an acceptable definition.[6] ReMine's work specifies four groupings: holobaramins, monobaramins, apobaramins, and polybaramins. These are, respectively, all things of one kind; some things of the same kind; groups of kinds; and any mixed grouping of things. [7] These groups are similar in name to the concepts of monophyly, paraphyly and polyphyly used in phylogenetics

Conditions for membership in a (holo)baramin and methods of classification have changed over the years. These include the ability to create viable offspring, and morphological similarity.[8] Some creationists have suggested that kind refers to species, while others believe it might mean any animal which may be distinguished in some way from another.[9] Another criterion is "baramin distance" which is calculated based on the similarity of the animals' characters, using methods borrowed from phenetics.[10] In all cases, methods that have been found to place humans and primates into the same baramin have been discarded. [11][12]

Criticism

Baraminology has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous testing and post-study rejection of data to make it better fit the desired findings.[13] Baraminology is a pseudoscience, and has not produced any peer-reviewed scientific research,[14] nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of zoology and botany since 1924.[15] Universal common descent, which states that all life shares a common ancestor, is well-established and tested, and is a scientifically-verified fact.[16] However, neither cladistics, the field devoted to investigating the ancestral relationships between living things, nor the scientific consensus on transitional fossils are accepted by baraminologists.[17]


Baraminology - wikidoc

One more thing at one time most all scientists were creationist and you are posting nonsense by saying creationist have not contributed anything to science.

Here is a reminder dipshit.

Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past

 

[Youwerecreated]

Baraminology


Template:Creationism2 In creation science, baraminology is a system for classifying life into groups having no common ancestry, called "baramins". Classification is based on a literal creationist reading of "kinds" in Genesis, especially the distinction between mankind and other animals. Supplementary criteria include the ability of animals to interbreed and the similarity of their observable traits. Like all of creation science, baraminology is pseudoscience and is unrelated to science: modern biological facts have shown that all life descended from one common ancestor.[1] The scientific alternative to baraminology is cladistics, which classifies species based on evolutionary history.

Biblical Kinds

The Bible mentions kinds on several occasions. Genesis 1:12-25 gives an account of the creation of living things:

“ 24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. ”

Genesis 7:13-16 states that there are distinct kinds of cattle. In Deuteronomy 14:11-18 varieties of owl, raven, and hawk are presented as distinct kinds. Leviticus 19:19 states that kinds might interbreed. Apart from what is implied by these passages, the Bible does not specify what a kind is.

Traditional interpretations, such as those of St. Augustine[2], Thomas Aquinas[3], John Calvin[4], and the Vatican[5], hold that the Bible makes theological and not scientific statements about reality, and that no conflict exists between science and the Bible. A typical interpretation of Genesis, with focus upon the kinds, is that all things were created, that the ordered multitude of creation is as God intended, and that the Darwinian model "is strongly animated by [a] fundamental feeling of solidarity with the whole of creation", the latter in reference to parallel concepts of common descent and common creator.Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag.

Baraminology

Baraminology is founded upon a biblically literal young earth creationist interpretation of the Bible: that each kind was brought into direct physical existence by God and that these kinds share no ancestry. Baraminology emerged as an effort to make this view scientifically appealing.[6] The idea of a baramin was proposed in 1941 by Frank Marsh, but was criticized for a lack of formal definition. In 1990 the work of Kurt Wise and Walter ReMine introduced baraminology as the pursuit of an acceptable definition.[6] ReMine's work specifies four groupings: holobaramins, monobaramins, apobaramins, and polybaramins. These are, respectively, all things of one kind; some things of the same kind; groups of kinds; and any mixed grouping of things. [7] These groups are similar in name to the concepts of monophyly, paraphyly and polyphyly used in phylogenetics

Conditions for membership in a (holo)baramin and methods of classification have changed over the years. These include the ability to create viable offspring, and morphological similarity.[8] Some creationists have suggested that kind refers to species, while others believe it might mean any animal which may be distinguished in some way from another.[9] Another criterion is "baramin distance" which is calculated based on the similarity of the animals' characters, using methods borrowed from phenetics.[10] In all cases, methods that have been found to place humans and primates into the same baramin have been discarded. [11][12]

Criticism

Baraminology has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous testing and post-study rejection of data to make it better fit the desired findings.[13] Baraminology is a pseudoscience, and has not produced any peer-reviewed scientific research,[14] nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of zoology and botany since 1924.[15] Universal common descent, which states that all life shares a common ancestor, is well-established and tested, and is a scientifically-verified fact.[16] However, neither cladistics, the field devoted to investigating the ancestral relationships between living things, nor the scientific consensus on transitional fossils are accepted by baraminologists.[17]


Baraminology - wikidoc

I proved creationism is a falsifiable theory deal with it.

You demonstrated that creationism is a laughable joke.

You're in denial of the facts.