Believing in creationism is a sin

[Napoléon]

Just because you and I don't like their classifications doesn't mean we can ignore them.

What you were saying is grossly incorrect.

I'm not ignoring anything.

Creationism is as much a scientific theory, as dog shit on toast is a Michelin standard meal.

You may want to call it a theory, they might want to call it a theory, fact is it fucking isn't. And it most certainly isn't treated like one in the scientific community. So when you say "their classifications", I think you're being as misleading as the cretinists themselves who try and palm this shit off as though it is on the same level as other scientific theories. When you were saying that we can't know for certain that these 'theories' are true, you were being, intentionally or not, misleading about the statuses of both evolutionary theory and creationism. The point, as I'm trying to be clear here with, is that creationism is not a scientific theory, and should be not treated as such. It is at best a hypothesis, with little to no evidence to support the ludicrous claims this idea makes.

[CleanShavenJesus]

Just because you and I don't like their classifications doesn't mean we can ignore them.

What you were saying is grossly incorrect.

I'm not ignoring anything.

Creationism is as much a scientific theory, as dog shit on toast is a Michelin standard meal.

You may want to call it a theory, they might want to call it a theory, fact is it fucking isn't. And it most certainly isn't treated like one in the scientific community. So when you say "their classifications", I think you're being as misleading as the cretinists themselves who try and palm this shit off as though it is on the same level as other scientific theories. When you were saying that we can't know for certain that these 'theories' are true, you were being, intentionally or not, misleading about the statuses of both evolutionary theory and creationism. The point, as I'm trying to be clear here with, is that creationism is not a scientific theory, and should be not treated as such. It is at best a hypothesis, with little to no evidence to support the ludicrous claims this idea makes.

Yes, there was a little misunderstanding.

Creationism IS NOT a scientific theory, that I agree with.

A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

Creationism does not fit this definition.

However, there is a difference between scientific theories and just plain old theories. Creationism IS a theory.

A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something.

Creationism fits this definition.

It is correct to say "the theory of Creationism". It is not correct to say that Creationism is a scientific theory or is in any way compatrable to the scientific theory of evolution.

Alas, they are both theories. But only one is backed by evidence, and that can make it a scientific theory.

I'm just being a technical bastard.

[archangle]

I personally know a man with a PhD in physics who is born again. I have heard him prattle on about how carbon dating is flawed, amongst other things. There are very gifted people who are very gullible.

But physics proves that creationism is impossible. Time did not exist before the big bang so therefore "god" could not have created the universe as "god" did not have time to. Maybe he is just trolling or parodying those people.

absolutly wrong. My guess is you can't really talk about what time may or may not be.

Your as stupid as creationist.

[Napoléon]

You were conflating the theory of evolution with the 'theory' of creationism as though they were on the same level. The post you made certainly indicated that you were discussing it in the scientific sense.

You wrote:

Creationism is known as a theory. Evolution is also a theory.

Your post is flat out misleading.

You go on to say:

I don't think we can use absolutes with these, definitely saying one is true and the other false. While I do believe creationism is false and evolution is true, technically, because of their statuses as "theories", we cannot say that they ARE true or that they ARE false. We can only believe them or not.

Well, frankly that's bullshit.

One is a scientific theory (and is proven), one isn't.

Hence my earlier posts.

[CleanShavenJesus]

Well, then I suck. Sorry about that.

[ThomM]

Is it lying if they actually believe it? Creationists earnestly argue they are correct.

THey also argued that they were correct to Burn at the Stake - Giordano Bruno - for saying that the earth was NOT the center of the Universe

Or Of convicting Galileo of heresy for saying essentially the same thing.

OF course - John Paul II FORGAVE Galileo posthumously (How magnanimous of him) of telling the truth

The problem with Xtians and creation is that they will simply say - that there is no proof of evolution - which of course there is plenty - because they refuse to actually read the scientific papers on it. Head in the sand stuff.

but then - they also believe in the existence of a god - and yet they offer NO proof of that either

[Godscreated]

I personally know a man with a PhD in physics who is born again. I have heard him prattle on about how carbon dating is flawed, amongst other things. There are very gifted people who are very gullible.

But physics proves that creationism is impossible. Time did not exist before the big bang so therefore "god" could not have created the universe as "god" did not have time to. Maybe he is just trolling or parodying those people.

The statement you made about Adam and Eve and this bolded statement shows you have never read the Bible. Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters.
As for time, God is eternal, time is not even a part of Him. Let's give you some time for creation from scripture, Gen. 1:1 says In the beginning God created the heavens and earth. See God began time before He created anything else.

[Cyberman]

That's called creative interpretation, GC. Or "making shit up and adding it to the bible".

[jstrodel]

There have been plenty of distinguished creation scientists. The inventor of the MIR was a a young earth creationist. So is the inventor of the gene gun, who is also a professor at Cornell. It is a very radical position, but there are some reputable scientists that hold to it.

[Cyberman]

Question is, how much of their undoubted credited work is based on their creationist beliefs? For example, Sir Isaac Newton was, among many things, a firm believer in alchemy, yet it is his contributions to physics and mathematics which have stood the test of time.