Creation Muesum

[dyresand]

I don't have to see it to know creationism is bullshit.

Okay, so give us your version of how the universe came to exist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNDGgL73ihY

[robvalue]

It is a mistake to assume that the universe "came to exist" and has not instead always existed in some form.

[Crossless2.0]

Here you go, Huggy . . . my version:

Before the beginning-less beginning had begun was the turtle, the bottom-most turtle of the bottomless stack of turtles, on which the foundation and pillars of the world rest forever or for all time, whichever comes first.

[downbeatplumb]

It was the sneeze of the great green arklezelser.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

It was Jesus.

Come on guys, duh. We all know it was Jesus and his friend Mohammed, before they fell out over a game of intergalactic risk.

[downbeatplumb]

It was two space turtles doing the nasty.
This is known as the big bang theory.

[Huggy Bear]

Okay, so give us your version of how the universe came to exist.

Why does anyone need to give a "version" of how the universe came into being? "I don't know" is the only honest answer anyone can give. Adopting some ancient narrative as The Truth that must be defended at all costs is arbitrary, dishonest, and idiotic.

Minimalist stated that creationism is bs. obviously that statement has to be based upon something other than "i don't know".

Okay, so give us your version of how the universe came to exist.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNDGgL73ihY

---

Here's the thing, the big bang requires just as much faith as creationism. You can't accept the idea of a creator, but you CAN seem accept creation happening spontaneously out of nothing.

Thought you guys referred to that as magic?

It is a mistake to assume that the universe "came to exist" and has not instead always existed in some form.

If that's what you want to "believe", fine. But you have no evidence for that being the case.

[Jenny A]

There isn't, and can't ever be, "Christian" science.  Christianity is fundamentally the antithesis of science, no matter how much Christianity would wish to give its primitive idiots superstition modern legitimacy by stealing the reputation of science.

I've always found this type of statement interesting.  Christianity is not the antithesis of science, and I'm amused by such generalities.

Any system of belief based on beliefs held without evidence or worse despite the evidence to the contrary is the antithesis of science.  Not only religion, but much political and philosophical ideology is also the antithesis of science.  It is possible to be religious and do science, but you have to be willing to either throw out religious and ideological beliefs where they conflict with dogma or avoid turning a scientific eye on areas of dogma. Creation science is an attempt to pretend that various fundamentalist beliefs are evidentially based.  They aren't.

 It seems that it is often made, based on the result, and not the method.  I believe this is incorrect, as the descriptor is based on the conclusion, while I believe science is more about method.

Science is the collection of data through physical observance and testing.  Then from all the data, a conclusion or inference is made, and if possible further testing can be done to verify conclusions (not all science can be tested).

I don't believe that a different interpretation of the evidence, means that the opposing view is not scientific (only that at least one view contains an error).

Certainly there have been, are, will be, conflicting scientific theories.  The difference is how the evidence is treated. Additional evidence will always support or conflict with each hypothesis.  Begin throwing out all evidence to the contrary and you are ceasing to do science. The creationists have a single hypothesis for which they only collect data (if quote mining can be called data) and ignore all evidence to the contrary of the predetermined facts.  It has nothing to do with science.

 Ideally science is objective, and the data is analyzed without a priori assumptions or bias.  In reality this, is never the case.  However this doesn't mean that we are unable to produce good science.   What I look for is what the conclusion is based on, and if it is reasonable.  Do they include all the evidence, or only the evidence which supports their case?  Do they attempt an explanation for evidence which may oppose or cause difficulties in their conclusion?  Does the conclusion follow from the evidence or is it based on something else.   I would note, that the motivation for the study being based on a view outside of science, does not mean that the work is not scientific.  This would be the genetic fallacy.

If creationists actually did that, why they'd be doing science.  Instead they quote mine and cite the Bible as evidence for things obviously outside it's competence such as the age of the earth. It is not a different interpretation of the evidence, but rather a stubborn refusal to consider the evidence.

There are some Christian's who try to force their views from outside sources into science when the conclusion is not primarily based on science.  I also see some materialist doing the same thing.  Science isn't the only basis for truth.  And we need to reconcile all the sources of truth, to get a true view of reality.

If is not the result of weighing and analyzing evidence objectively, I be interested what any other method would reveal about the reality. Emotional truths, might be reached differently, but that is really a matter of knowing oneself.  It is not revealing about objective reality beyond one state of emotional being.

[Esquilax]

I think that we are getting off topic here.  I at least am not claiming scientific knowledge for "every single core Christian claim" nor that the Bible is a science book.  What I was discussing, was a priori generalization, that anything viewed to be Christian science, is antithetical to "real science"  That is scientific claims that support a Christian worldview are automatically viewed as pseudo-science by definition (based on the result rather than the method.)  

As I said, the demarcation of science is a tough philosophical nut to crack.  And I don't know that I am qualified to draw that line.  However; for me personally my view leans towards method, and the basis of the conclusion, not the conclusion itself.

So, you disagree with me in your first paragraph, and then agree with me in your second: the basis for the conclusion one draws is the most important part of determining whether that conclusion is properly scientific, and this is precisely the reason why christian science is not science, because it skips out on a huge base element of a rationally drawn conclusion.

[Minimalist]

I don't have to see it to know creationism is bullshit.

Okay, so give us your version of how the universe came to exist.

The Big Bang, asshole.  And it doesn't need your stupid fucking 'god.'