Creationism is the ultimate science

So you finally have a new forum for people to talk about other possible origins of mankind, but you have lable it "and other non scientific.."

Creationism is science at it's best an intelligent being creating life through science.

Who ever created life on earth was far more advanced scientifically than any human scientist is thus far. It seems obvious that life was created to me. Even if it was created by one simple DNA like molecule or grain of sand from which all life evolved. Life on earth has played itself out exactly the way the program was written by it's creator. How can you be so pompous and arrogant to think that your scientific views are the only ones that could possibly be right? Why does evolution have to be lifes path without a creator at it's beginning? Is it not science to right such a complex plan and install it on earth to see come to fruition in all the diverse life forms that have lived on earth. I think that their have been numerous creators though. I don't think that was simply one progam written.

One thing is for certain that whoever wrote "and other non scientific theories of origin" is overconfident and extremely closed minded.

I wrote a longer more elaborative post earlier, but I forgot to put a subject title and lost it.

I left this forum only to come back and see the same closed minded jackass freakin' stupid stuff being employed here by the powers that be.

Originally posted by Ghostchild777778888181515
I left this forum only to come back and see the same closed minded jackass freakin' stupid stuff being employed here by the powers that be.

Yet you have provided absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to prove that these other entities exist or that evolution is designed. When you can.. we may consider it science.. while you can't.. well we still are not going to take you seriously because of the infantile attack I just quoted.

I'm wondering.. did you leave this forum because you were banned or did you come back under a new alias hoping to have more success pushing your agenda?

[edit on 5-2-2006 by riley]

Originally posted by Ghostchild777778888181515
So you finally have a new forum for people to talk about other possible origins of mankind, but you have lable it "and other non scientific.."

I'll have to admit that the lable bugged me initially aswell. But whether creationism (of any stripe) is scientific or not is debateable.... also, "non-scientific" doesn't mean wrong necessarily just not experimental/testable, ie scientific.

Creationism is science at it's best an intelligent being creating life through science.

If it's science we have to be able to devise a way to experiment and test our hypothesis. Concepts like irreducible complexity and information theory (et al) are attempting to test for design; however they are far from being validated scientifically. Even if they are eventually shown valid we still wouldn't have validated "creationism," and I say that as an old-earth creationist myself... if anything we may be able to show that "a god type thing" is/was necessary. But i've even seen some counter "theories" to that dealing with quantum mechanical type interactions. The truth is that whatever inferences we make about a designer or creator are going to be un-scientific... given our current tools, methods and scientific understanding/abilities. Again not right or wrong necessarily just untestable; therefore more philosophy, theology, theoretical physics, etc., etc, than experimental science - depending on the person.

How can you be so pompous and arrogant to think that your scientific views are the only ones that could possibly be right? Why does evolution have to be lifes path without a creator at it's beginning?

Just to be clear you're issue is with philosophical naturalism (atheism), which represents a very small percentage of people on this planet... scientists or not. Again saying that an idea/belief is psuedoscientific does not make it wrong. I believe some theistic evolutionists make a pretty good case for this POV (ie, unscientific yet still true.)

One thing is for certain that whoever wrote "and other non scientific theories of origin" is overconfident and extremely closed minded.

Well Skeptic O. is an atheist; The FSME for the origins forum is an atheist. I don't doubt they'd be skeptical, in the very least, towards any 'type' of creationism or ID. With that being said i've never had my posts deleted or modified in any way. I've never been discouraged from posting my point of view. Infact the skeptics here (the more reasonable and informed) have really helped me step my game up, so to speak. Also moving the ToE, creationism, and ID 'type' discussions out of sci-tech and into a dedicated forum makes sense for several reasons. I thought the thread announcing the forum was more biased than i'd like to see in an 'official' ATS announcement... but we all have our opinions and i'm in no position to tell the owner of this site what/where/how he can post on, his website, ya know.

I wrote a longer more elaborative post earlier, but I forgot to put a subject title and lost it.

When you edit a post do not use the 'hyperlink' buttons to add url/img/quote/whatever. Write in the BB code manually.

For example.

*substitute [ ] for ( ) for code to work properly*

(img)image url(/img) - to add an image to your post

(quote)text from ATS member(/quote) - to quote material found on ATS

(ex)text from external source(/ex) - all other non ATS material

(url)website URL address(/url) - add a link to your post (will show url 'As is')

(url=website URL)renamed URL(/url) - To replace http:// with text.

(color=red/blue/green etc)colored text(/color)

Hope that helps. Had several of my posts deleted when i tried to edit in a forgotten link or quote. Do a search for "Zed's handbook"... everything a newbie needs to know (including more BB code info) is in there.

I left this forum only to come back and see the same closed minded jackass freakin' stupid stuff being employed here by the powers that be.

Do you honestly expect a critic to take you seriously? I understand your frustration, somewhat i guess, but that type of commentary makes all creationists look bad... it's bad enough we all get lumped into one group as it is. No need to fuel the fire with petty accusations and namecalling imho.

If you came here to find support for your creationist and/or ID ideas...well you made a wrong turn somewhere. There's some constructive criticism to be had... if you can stomach the radicals, on both sides, that is. Unless of course you're one of those 'radicals' in which case use the logout function and search for the evolutionists are evil/stupid godless infidels forum board (almost want to do it myself... i bet there really is such a place too. )

Otherwise welcome (back?) to ATS... enjoy.

-Rren

(edit)format and an extra "is."

[edit on 5-2-2006 by Rren]

No , i was not banned. I forgot my password and no longer have acces to the email address with which I registered.

It seems to me that modern scientist with all their wisdom and technological advances and seemingly getting closer to actually being able to create life themselves should be able to see how life on earth could have been created or programmed to evolve the way it has. Isn't this happening to some degree in scientific community?

I could see how some people could become really miffed at the "modern american christian", and then shut off their cognitive process and not allow themselves to ponder creation at all, or numerous other religions for the same reason. The religious deciet and close mindedness often leads to the closed mindedness of those who see through their lies, but it shouldn't be this way. I am by no means saying everyone who denies the possibility of creation is this way, but I know that some are.

I don't have a single belief or belief system; I have an open mind to all possibilities. My moto is "All things are possible- no matter how crazy or bizarre". Afterall, I believe that the universe is infinitely large/outward and infinitely small/inward, and with this as the stage for reality all things are absolutely possible.

I still don't like the way that you have limited science. I believe that DNA and the way it effects every aspect of our lives is scientific proof of creation. Supposedly scientist are all the time now altering the DNA code and can theoritically alter peoples written program. If scientist who did not even create the program can adjust it, how can we absolutely rule creation out of science.

When I scientist isolates and alters dna he is in a since creating a new life or atleast rewriting part of the program. If we have come to this point that we can actually see the program that controls all aspect of the life form and even reconstruct that program, how could anyone possibly deny the fact that program was initially created by scientist of another race or species or even dimension/one that access to multi dimensions.

There are endless scientific theories that cannot or have yet to proven, and they considered scientific by the large majority of the scientific community. I think that there is a large amount of evidence for creation. I feel this way just experiencing life through my eyes. Through looking at all the diversity in life on earth. By realizing the fragile balance in which life hangs on this earth it seems that life on earth's program had to be written specifically to live on this planet, or other planets elsewhere with the same conditions.

Originally posted by Ghostchild777778888181515

It seems to me that modern scientist with all their wisdom and technological advances and seemingly getting closer to actually being able to create life themselves should be able to see how life on earth could have been created or programmed to evolve the way it has. Isn't this happening to some degree in scientific community?

Surely. The debate however is whether or not we can say it was by chance or by design... scientifically speaking. It's not a black & white issue imho. It does seem obvious to me... i tend to see design from biology to cosmology, however, testing the design inference is the issue, re: is design scientific.

I don't have a single belief or belief system; I have an open mind to all possibilities. My moto is "All things are possible- no matter how crazy or bizarre". Afterall, I believe that the universe is infinitely large/outward and infinitely small/inward, and with this as the stage for reality all things are absolutely possible.

The counter argument is that if the universe is, as you stated, infinite both outward and inward how can we rule out chance? It can always be argued, regardless of current knowledge, that we may not have a naturalistic scenario figured out yet... but we will someday. Technically, if you follow opposition logic, neither design nor chance are scientific statements (on the "theory" level that is.) Maybe the ID theorists are on to something. Perhaps a viable methodology with which to detect/test for design is forthcoming... time will tell.

I still don't like the way that you have limited science. I believe that DNA and the way it effects every aspect of our lives is scientific proof of creation. Supposedly scientist are all the time now altering the DNA code and can theoritically alter peoples written program. If scientist who did not even create the program can adjust it, how can we absolutely rule creation out of science.

I agree with you... actually, believe it or not, many Darwinists would also. The problem/issue is how would you test for that. I like the Anthropic Principle arguments, but it's as much philosophy as scientific observation. Irreducible Complexity in biology holds some promise... again time will tell. Science is limited... certainly, with time, we'll push those edges back, but
I wouldn't risk a dime guessing where that will take us... here and now it may be out of our reach. Time will tell.

When I scientist isolates and alters dna he is in a since creating a new life or atleast rewriting part of the program. If we have come to this point that we can actually see the program that controls all aspect of the life form and even reconstruct that program, how could anyone possibly deny the fact that program was initially created by scientist of another race or species or even dimension/one that access to multi dimensions.

Again you'd have to be able to test that, would you not? You could just argue that we figured out how nature did it by chance? I'm on your side here believe it or not... i'm just not sure if this debate ever ends. Been going on, more or less, since (civilized) man starting thinking and i can't see an end any time soon. I personally think that ID theorists like Behe, Dembski et al are on to something... but again only time will tell. Don't let anyone fool you into thining that chance origins are anymore scientific either. They are not imho.

There are endless scientific theories that cannot or have yet to proven, and they considered scientific by the large majority of the scientific community.

Very true. Those ideas/theories don't have the (apparent) theological implications as design/creationism do, so they aren't so hottly debated. The argument over the demarcation line between science and psuedoscience is still relevant... just not as sexy as the "ID -vs- ToE" issues i guess. Hence nobody really talking about it much... *Shrug*

I think that there is a large amount of evidence for creation. I feel this way just experiencing life through my eyes. Through looking at all the diversity in life on earth. By realizing the fragile balance in which life hangs on this earth it seems that life on earth's program had to be written specifically to live on this planet, or other planets elsewhere with the same conditions.

I agree... but alas if we can't test and experiment it's just philosophy... the atheists have counter arguments to all this stuff (see: Dawkins). Perhaps the issue is not something science can ever settle. New data/information only raises more questions (remember infinite 'out & in'). I like to read and research origins... but the "debate" is rather tiresome, and somewhat futile for a layman like myself.

Cool to have another creationist on the board though.

I assume you believe in an alien 'type' designer, yes? Or atleast a "natural" designer... ie not God? Although i would disagree (i'm Christian) it's cool to see some (creationist) diversity on the board... just go easy on the rhetoric. It's never good, but around here you'll get blasted nine ways to Sunday... we are the minority on an alternative topics board that lists our beliefs under "origins conspiracy." Not much love here for our world-view... atleast not those who post (which ain't many in this forum to be fair.)

Anyways welcome back... use the gripe/idea button to tell the staff about not being able to access your old account (include your current screen name otherwise it's submitted anonomously) maybe they can get you fixed up.

Originally posted by Ghostchild777778888181515

I left this forum only to come back and see the same closed minded jackass freakin' stupid stuff being employed here by the powers that be.

You 'left'? Did you forget your password or something, why the new account?

Are these projects scientific? Why not? They are afterall testing a hypothesis.
www.icr.org...
I for one cant wait for the "technical" results, seeing how ATS members seem so enlightened and interested in details.

Soz double post.
Wait on second thought...
Do you think it is safe to say that science is fast becoming the new world "religion". In the past the average person would look to religion to guide him/her morally, spiritualy and give meaning to life.
Nowadays, with the advent of evolution, especially evolutionary psycology, science seem to set the standard in almost every regard. Not only evolutionary science but other sciences (although hardened evolutionists will argue that science is were it is today because of evolution theory) as well.
Eg.
1) Old days: You cant do that... be a homosexual because the bible says so.
2) Today: What's wrong being a homosexual, science says it is natural.

It is just an example (no harm intended), can you think of any other examples where science challenges religion...?

[edit on 6-2-2006 by Hehe]

Originally posted by Hehe
Are these projects scientific? Why not? They are afterall testing a hypothesis.
www.icr.org...
I for one cant wait for the "technical" results, seeing how ATS members seem so enlightened and interested in details.

Very cool, had no idea the young-earthers were taking it to the lab so to speak. Not a young-earther myself but definately will be interesting to see the results... and interpretaion(s) thereof.

We have some experts around ATS that can probably speak to the specific projects and what, if any, merit they have.

I would of thought some of human genome studies ('Gene Project') would have already been done... but i'm no expert so i could be wrong. The 'Cosmos Project' looks interesting too. Guess the proof will be in the pudding (re: results)... of course they may interpret the pudding as Jello. Then we're right back where we started.

www.icr.org...
The RATE Project (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) ends in 2005 after eight years of intense research and writing. The project was successful beyond all expectation in helping resolve the apparent conflict between the billions of years estimated by the conventional scientific community for the age of the earth and the thousands of years stated in the Bible. The results of this project will be reported in a final technical book, a lay summary, and a video documentary to be released at a conference in San Diego on November 5, 2005.

Anyone able to get that technical book? If its good research it should be publically available no?

Originally posted by Nygdan

www.icr.org...
The RATE Project (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) ends in 2005 after eight years of intense research and writing. The project was successful beyond all expectation in helping resolve the apparent conflict between the billions of years estimated by the conventional scientific community for the age of the earth and the thousands of years stated in the Bible. The results of this project will be reported in a final technical book, a lay summary, and a video documentary to be released at a conference in San Diego on November 5, 2005.

Anyone able to get that technical book? If its good research it should be publically available no?

Here's some stuff i found with a quick search Nygdan.

www.icr.org...

Dr. Larry Vardiman, Professor of Atmospheric Science, recapped the results of the RATE research project with the following summary points and implications.


Main summary points:
- A large amount of radioactive decay has occurred.

-Conventional radioisotope dates differ radically.

-Nuclear processes were accelerated during certain periods of earth's history.

-Helium diffusion and carbon-14 in diamonds is strong evidence for a young earth.

Implications:
-Creation and the Flood are genuine historic events.

-The Bible is scientifically reliable—the Scriptures mean exactly what they say!

Found this link on ICR's website[ here ]

"Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth -- A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative" [2.8MB PDF File]... could that be it? haven't had the chance to read it yet, but thought it could be what you're looking for.

(edit)Alot of the research papers appear to be on the ICR link i gave; "here."

[edit on 6-2-2006 by Rren]