[Guado]

Originally Posted by Rachel Bronwyn

Yes, via the scientific method. If it doesn't follow the scientific method it isn't science. Creationism is unscientific because it insists a scientific theory can be based on the assumption supernatural beings with the ability to create life exist. Supernatural and science can't play together. One is verifiable and, therefore, scientific. The other isn't.



Being that there is no evidence for the sky fairy creationism is based on or the idea any lifeform is too complex to evolve or the notion life can't occur without the aid of magick, creationism is not a scientific pursuit. It's a religious one. Should creationism prove true it will be via supernatural means, not scientific ones, as the idea of a creator is innately unverifiable and, therefore, no scientific theory can ever spring forth from it.

Provide verifiable evidence beings with the ability to create life exist and creationism will have the potential to be scientific.



Stupid is the word we're using to describe you here, actually. I'll add intentionally obtuse and scared.



I nearly peed myself when I read that. Someone whose superstition outweighs their value of science preaching critical thinking. Serious lulz.



Wrong, wrong, wrong. Science is about the pursuit of understanding via the scientific process. Religion is about the pursuit of understanding via woowoo. Science is verifiable. Religion is not. That's why it's called faith; you have to be faithful to believe it because you'll never get verifiable proof your religion is right. Not in this life, at least.

Unless religion discards the bits that contradict concrete truths it will become irrelevant. It's called progress.



No. You, sir, are imposing your religion on science. How many times must we say SUPERSTITIOUS IDEAS (which are, by definition, unverifiable) ARE NOT SCIENTIFIC. No where in science can superstition occur. If it isn't verifiable, nothing scientific can come of it. All scientific ideas are based on verifiable truths. Gawd isn't a verifiable truth.

Science is not the pursuit of understanding. It's the pursuit of understanding by verifiable means. Were the existence of a being with the ability to create life verifiable, creationism would have the potential of being scientific.

Unfortunately, there would still be no evidence in it's favour and one-hundred and fifty years of evidence for evolution. Even if creationism were based on something more than an assumption, evolution would still trump it.

Why are you so scared to understand what we do know about the world around us? Why is your faith so engrained that it can't transform to accomodate what we do know about this crazy, complex, fascinating, deadly, beautiful world?




What's annoying is people think the Big Bang and evolution have something to do with one another. They don't. Evolution answers how all lifeforms came to their current state. It has nothing to do with the creation of the universe nor is it responsible for answering that question.

I will have to hold on continuing debataing with you tonight polar. I am quiet worn out and any rebuttals will be half assed. Admittedly I have yet to read your post but at the very least you actually read the rebuttals I post. This person does not.

Are you blind or just lack reading comprehension Rachel? One by one.

I never said that creationism uses science, if you'd bother to read I've been saying the exact bloody opposite of that this entire thread. My entire point was that if in some circumstance through whatever means that it was proven that creationism exists that that would be very useful to a pursuit of understanding as it brought understanding. I never said that would happen I said IF it happened, child.

Considering three fourths of your post is just you forgetting to actually read before your finger muscles spasm and make you press the post button there really isn't a whole lot else to respond to. I said it in three different posts that trying to prove that creationism exists via science is hilariously misguided, I also however mentioned that trying to disapprove it is ALSO hilariously misguided.

I wouldn't consider anyone in this thread stupid but you come very close. If you don't want to bother reading don't try a half assed formulation of failed wit.