It's simply a fact that there has never been a peer-reviewed, scientific publication that has argued for any creationist claim. Doesn't that prove that creationism is unscientific?If creationism is false, then why has NO scientific paper ever disputed it?!?
You need to get to more libraries, methinks. Bible as scientific publication = non sequitur. There’s so many good scientific ones out there that your comment is a slight on all science - it's akin to me calling Darwin’s “Origins” a more important *religious work* than the Bible. Do you see that?
Report Abuse
The Bible is only one of many religious books written by humans. The fact that believers need a ';scientific prove'; for their content, is merely an indication of the weakness in their faith.
Report Abuse
No one serious scientist can argue with a myth that claims, against every evidence, that the world was created when the Jews start counting the time.
Report Abuse
there has never been a peer-reviewed, scientific publication that has disputed or argued against the existence of dragons either...
No. Scientists have better things to write papers on. Like stuff they can collect real, tangible evidence for.
I looked up the scientific method on the Internet for you:
Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning.
No. It just proves that science doesn't have a problem with religion. No one is trying to disprove your god. It's the religious fanatics who put that in peoples head.
Really? Now I see why the United States is declining when someone would ask such as stupid red herring question. CREATIONISM IS NONSENSE GET OVER IT!!!
Creationism has been shown for the fraud it is over and over again.
The United States National Academy of Sciences has stated ';the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested. These observations lead to two fundamental conclusions: the teaching of evolution should be an integral part of science instruction, and creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes.';[4] and ';Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.';[5] It is viewed as a pseudoscience that does not conform to the scientific method; there are admissions by its proponents that the means of creation cannot be proven.[6] Creation science literature generally consists of compilations of alleged weaknesses in current models of evolution and geology.';
';If creationism is false, then why has NO scientific paper ever disputed it?!?';
Because it is not worth the time of any credible scientist. It's just not a valid theory worth discussing.
Oh stop it. Nobody's THIS stupid.
Because any scientist with the brains of a gnat knows that it useless, and speaking against it in a professional journal would be a complete waste of time. If you want to argue that creationism is scientific, show some effect that it predicts which can be tested by some means. Which would be a challenge, since it can be proven that creationism can predict nothing. You cannot bake a cake if one of the recipe steps is ';Then a miracle happens!';. By the way, evolution is now a proven fact (details on request).
I don't know.... maybe science has better things to do, like finding cures for aids, cancer, leukemia... maybe science is more concerned with prolonging human life rather than the origins of it.
And, no, it doesn't prove that something claimed in a book is scientific. Creationism is just that - something someone claimed. In a book.
No-one needs to argue against creationism; the onus is upon Creationists to prove their position, not the other way around.
';Creationism'; is based on a religious story. It presumes there is a particular god who created the world.. coming to the answer before asking the particular question. The Biblical story of creation is as valid as any of the other thousands of creation stories.
Because it's not falsifiable, which is why it's not a scientific theory in the first place, which is why it has no place in scientific publications.
wait for it
wait for it
wait for it
almost there
Farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrtttt
ahhh.... Great question.
............why even bother anymore?(rolls eyes) *sigh*
There has never been a Creationist claim that had sufficient merit to be tested. It is not scientific because it cannot be tested by predictions it makes.
Creationism is unscientific because it posits a being whose one-time or continued action cannot be reproduced, observed or measured. Science is mostly concerned with observable, measurable or reproducible phenomena which are capable of rational explanation. This is why scientists do not usually bother with ghosts, magic, ESP or ';alien abduction';. None of them are reproducible.
And here's a question for creationists, ';What/who created the creator?'; And who or what created that creator?
Your contention that there has never been a scientific paper disputing creationism is probably erroneous. Creationists do not read the scientific literature, by and large, so they would probably not know. Millions of papers have been published since the 17th century. No-one can read them all.
Someone in a recent court case had to admit he had not read some immunology papers which had been advanced as evidence.
Many scientific papers implicity (but not explicitly) deny some aspects of creationism. However, whether there have been explicit papers or not, scientists from disciplines as diverse as biology and geology have written books disputing the validity of creationism or the truthfulness of several prominent creationists. I cite ';Telling Lies for God'; by geologist Professor Ian Plimer and ';The God Delusion'; by biologist Professor Richard Dawkins.
As far as scientific papers are concerned, scientists have better things to do with their time than to bandy words with what they see as a silly or moronic religious minority. And as a DNA and genetics expert said recently, creationists go for soft targets like school boards and school teachers, not practicing scientists. Practicing scientists generally are too difficult for creationists because they are able to expose the whole mass of error, misinformation and straight out lies that creationism is.
No - not in the least. Creationism is based on a book that could well have been a work of collective fiction during its time and instead has been misunderstood and misused as fact.
The idea of having to teach this so called ';theory'; has been discussed in many scholarly and scientific publications, however.
I am sure there are scientific papers out there disputing creationism. Check out wikipedia's take:
The claim that Creation science is a valid science is disputed. The worldwide scientific community overwhelmingly supports the position that creation science is not a valid science. The United States National Academy of Sciences has stated ';the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested. These observations lead to two fundamental conclusions: the teaching of evolution should be an integral part of science instruction, and creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes.';[4] and ';Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.';[5] It is viewed as a pseudoscience that does not conform to the scientific method; there are admissions by its proponents that the means of creation cannot be proven.[6] Creation science literature generally consists of compilations of alleged weaknesses in current models of evolution and geology.[
I am a creationist. I'd like to think I'm rational and intelligent. My way of ACCEPTING creationism is this: I consider the Bible to be the word of God, and therefore infallible. I consider scientific ';papers'; and ';theories'; to be the work of mankind, and therefore quite fallible. So there.
Like mentioned by most people, creationism is not a scientific theory thus not for science to talk about. If you want to read theories on the existence of god, which it what creationism relies on, then check of philosophy. There are many philosophical publications on the subject for both the existence of god and the nonexistence of god.
One thing to watch out for with philosophy is that some people love it and others hate it. There is valid reasons for the feeling on both sides, so if someone doesn't like philosophy, I recommend not trying to force them into a debate.
Many have tried to dispel what, for the sake of argument, I will call the ';theory of creationism.'; It is disputed, much like evolution. But if creation could be ';proved'; by human standards, faith would be without effect. For scientific theory to become a law, it has to be tested in a controlled environment. That can't be done with evolution or creation. BTW, I'm a creationist.
I dont belive in creationism....but damn Science dosnt kno ******* everything. Einstein said it best 'religoin without science is blind, and science witout religion is lame' Why dosnt science explain why the universe decided to appear one day somehow from 'nothingness'. So it was the big bang....but was does that really esplain...like what caused it to happen? I was once spiritually blind until I experimented with certain entheogenic substances. I see the concept of 'god' as very abstract...anywho I dont think there is a need for a creator....I tend to think time is really an illusion. Can there really be a beginng to everything??
No comments:
Post a Comment