Science Proves God

[Faith No More]

Creation science always arrives at the same answer.

Creation science "arrives" at nothing. It assumes the very thing it is trying to prove, and then it shoehorns any facts to fit that conclusion.

Which is exactly why it's not science.

[zebo-the-fat]

I am bothered by the term "supernatural" if it happened then it happened in nature. It's a nonsense word (a bit like god!)

[VanBlane]

Creation science always arrives at the same answer.

Creation science "arrives" at nothing. It assumes the very thing it is trying to prove, and then it shoehorns any facts to fit that conclusion.

Which is exactly why it's not science.

I think the only thing "creation science" proves is creationists complete and utter inability to understand what science actually is, and what it stands for.

It annoys me when I engage in a long debate with a creationist on topics related with science, only for them to say, "Well it's only a theory, so it's not been proven."

It is pure ignorance, proven time and again.

[Jackalope]

Pahu,

You could have at least given us the decency of reading through this forum before preaching the absurdities we've already heard.

Does William Lane Craig approve of you rummaging through his underwear drawer and then using the most stained specimen?

Oh, do fuck off.

You win one internet and a rep point to boot.

[Thor]

His entire post smells like a cut-and-paste job. These retards can't even have an original thought.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

[Napoléon]

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed.” (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]

You're fucking looking at it.

[Pahu]

[The Grand Nudger]

Unfortunately the components necessary for life can come from non-living things (because they are entirely composed of non-living things at the basest level to begin with), and this has been observed in the lab. So there's problem one.

Another thing that should be troubling for you is that no one is attempting to insert evolution into any gap. People may theorize as to an evolutionary pathway for this or that but that has very little to do with the reality of evolution, which is and has been observed, and the theory of how that could have happened, which has been consistently verified by multiple angles of inquiry, and forms the basis of modern biology. Meanwhile, creationism remains now, as it always was, a belief in a particular storybook.

It is unscientific to credit god with acting in the universe if this credit cannot be demonstrated, which it has never been. This has nothing to do with anyone's assumptions. This has everything to do with the pro-god camps failure to produce anything at all on this front -and they have had a very long time to work with. You, you personally could change this if you wanted to. Go do science.

Your god of the gaps will remain a god of the gaps even if we never fill those gaps. As long as you insist on shoehorning god into a gap whether or not we know what's there (or if there is even a gap) won't change that. It's self imposed exile.

Yes, creationism (and creationists) does/do make claims. Unfortunately those claims couldn't be fleshed out by observation or demonstration, two things which are important to science, and just so happen to have overwhelmingly pointed towards our current theory of evolution. Thankfully they had another tool to fall back on, sophistry.

[Cato]