God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[outhouse]

Not only that look at what they produce.

It sickens me.

 

[Sapiens]

Would you hire a graduate for a job that required critical thinking?

 

[outhouse]

Would you hire a graduate for a job that required critical thinking?

How could you?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I apologize for my long absence.

My background is in secular colleges and universities--I'm enrolled this semester for my third degree. A careful look at creationist sites posting their versions of peer-reviewed literature reveals they show their theories, facts and concepts and also show--openly and without mocking--opposing views. Will you find opposing views in Scientific American, et al? No.

I cannot lead a horse to water nor make anyone here more open to God. But there is evidence of a young Earth and solar system inside of a larger, older universe.

 

[leibowde84]

I apologize for my long absence.

My background is in secular colleges and universities--I'm enrolled this semester for my third degree. A careful look at creationist sites posting their versions of peer-reviewed literature reveals they show their theories, facts and concepts and also show--openly and without mocking--opposing views. Will you find opposing views in Scientific American, et al? No.

I cannot lead a horse to water nor make anyone here more open to God. But there is evidence of a young Earth and solar system inside of a larger, older universe.

What evidence? And, creationism isn't scientific in any way, as it doesn't utilize the scientific method. Creationism starts with a conclusion and attempts to find evidence to support that conclusion. The scientific method requires us to allow the evidence to take us wherever it leads.

 

[outhouse]

But there is evidence of a young Earth and solar system inside of a larger, older universe

There is factually none that is credible, NONE.

Its all faith based wishful thinking and a sever perversion of the scientific methods.

My background is in secular colleges and universities--I'm enrolled this semester for my third degree.

Non sequitur

A careful look at creationist sites posting their versions of peer-reviewed literature reveals they show their theories, facts

Peer review is laughable in this context. They have no facts in support, and no credible university EVER teaches this as anything else but religious faith and mythology.

 

[leibowde84]

I apologize for my long absence.

My background is in secular colleges and universities--I'm enrolled this semester for my third degree. A careful look at creationist sites posting their versions of peer-reviewed literature reveals they show their theories, facts and concepts and also show--openly and without mocking--opposing views. Will you find opposing views in Scientific American, et al? No.

I cannot lead a horse to water nor make anyone here more open to God. But there is evidence of a young Earth and solar system inside of a larger, older universe.

If you start with the assumption of any scripture being accurate, there isn't much "science" to speak of.

 

[Milton Platt]

I apologize for my long absence.

My background is in secular colleges and universities--I'm enrolled this semester for my third degree. A careful look at creationist sites posting their versions of peer-reviewed literature reveals they show their theories, facts and concepts and also show--openly and without mocking--opposing views. Will you find opposing views in Scientific American, et al? No.

I cannot lead a horse to water nor make anyone here more open to God. But there is evidence of a young Earth and solar system inside of a larger, older universe.

Creationists do not have a theory, in the scientific sense of the word.

 

[leibowde84]

I apologize for my long absence.

My background is in secular colleges and universities--I'm enrolled this semester for my third degree. A careful look at creationist sites posting their versions of peer-reviewed literature reveals they show their theories, facts and concepts and also show--openly and without mocking--opposing views. Will you find opposing views in Scientific American, et al? No.

I cannot lead a horse to water nor make anyone here more open to God. But there is evidence of a young Earth and solar system inside of a larger, older universe.

Creationism is not a "scientific theory", as it doesn't meet the high evidential bar associated with that term. Thus, creationism is merely a hypothesis. The Theory of Evolution is a "scientific theory", as it does meet the high evidential bar associated with the term.

1. 
   A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Will you find opposing views in Scientific American, et al? No.

Actually, if you read these journals, they do have opposing viewpoints, contradicting evidence, and scientists (or doctors, philosophers, whatever area you're looking at) do go back and evaluate the data and research methods, they do argue with each other, they do debate, they do offer rebuttals, and that is how the scientific method works, what makes it tick, what keeps it going, and why it's currently our best system for learning about natural phenomena.

 

[McBell]

Actually, if you read these journals, they do have opposing viewpoints, contradicting evidence, and scientists (or doctors, philosophers, whatever area you're looking at) do go back and evaluate the data and research methods, they do argue with each other, they do debate, they do offer rebuttals, and that is how the scientific method works, what makes it tick, what keeps it going, and why it's currently our best system for learning about natural phenomena.

Now now.
No need to burst his obviously vastly superior bubble with truth and facts.
You might confuse him.

 

[prometheus11]

I apologize for my long absence.

My background is in secular colleges and universities--I'm enrolled this semester for my third degree. A careful look at creationist sites posting their versions of peer-reviewed literature reveals they show their theories, facts and concepts and also show--openly and without mocking--opposing views. Will you find opposing views in Scientific American, et al? No.

I cannot lead a horse to water nor make anyone here more open to God. But there is evidence of a young Earth and solar system inside of a larger, older universe.

Could you direct me to that evidence? Thanks.

 

[Milton Platt]

Could you direct me to that evidence? Thanks.[/

I apologize for my long absence.

My background is in secular colleges and universities--I'm enrolled this semester for my third degree. A careful look at creationist sites posting their versions of peer-reviewed literature reveals they show their theories, facts and concepts and also show--openly and without mocking--opposing views. Will you find opposing views in Scientific American, et al? No.

I cannot lead a horse to water nor make anyone here more open to God. But there is evidence of a young Earth and solar system inside of a larger, older universe.

Well, I can agree that the earth is younger than the universe. It took time for the stars to manufacure the heavier elements.

 

[Milton Platt]

Actually, if you read these journals, they do have opposing viewpoints, contradicting evidence, and scientists (or doctors, philosophers, whatever area you're looking at) do go back and evaluate the data and research methods, they do argue with each other, they do debate, they do offer rebuttals, and that is how the scientific method works, what makes it tick, what keeps it going, and why it's currently our best system for learning about natural phenomena.

Yes, in fact, one of the ways a scientist can make a name for himself is to poke a generous hole in a long held theory.

 

[gnostic]

Actually, if you read these journals, they do have opposing viewpoints, contradicting evidence, and scientists (or doctors, philosophers, whatever area you're looking at) do go back and evaluate the data and research methods, they do argue with each other, they do debate, they do offer rebuttals, and that is how the scientific method works, what makes it tick, what keeps it going, and why it's currently our best system for learning about natural phenomena.

Now now.
No need to burst his obviously vastly superior bubble with truth and facts.
You might confuse him.

LOL

 

[Milton Platt]

There is factually none that is credible, NONE.

Its all faith based wishful thinking and a sever perversion of the scientific methods.




Non sequitur



Peer review is laughable in this context. They have no facts in support, and no credible university EVER teaches this as anything else but religious faith and mythology.

His statement that the universe is older than the earth is credible. It took time for stars to form, create the heavier elements and in their death scatter them to be available for the formation of the planets. It does nothing, however to support creationism.

 

[outhouse]

His statement that the universe is older than the earth is credible.

That was not the context of his statement.

He stated a young earth existed, in an older universe.

So NO he does not have any credibility thank you, but NO thank you.

 

[Milton Platt]

That was not the context of his statement.

He stated a young earth existed, in an older universe.

So NO he does not have any credibility thank you, but NO thank you.

I'm with ya. I read it as younger instead of young.

 

[Thief]

If you start with the assumption of any scripture being accurate, there isn't much "science" to speak of.

chapter Two of Genesis has all the earmarks of a science experiment.

 

[Thief]

Creationism is not a "scientific theory", as it doesn't meet the high evidential bar associated with that term. Thus, creationism is merely a hypothesis. The Theory of Evolution is a "scientific theory", as it does meet the high evidential bar associated with the term.

1. 
   A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

if it were tested repeatedly....and affirmed......it's not a theory anymore.