If creationism is a scientific theory, put your money where your mouth is.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
I start a thread discussing whether or not ID and/or creationism should be considered a scientific theory and what happens? You come in an say ID and/or creationism is not a scientific theory.

If that is all you've gotten out of this discourse, so be it.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
My question to you is why are you still posting in this thread?

It is your thread. If I'm not welcomed to try to assist in understanding of the topic (as you claim you truly do which I doubt given your comments and disregard for information presented) then also so be it. All the best in your "search" for answers.

Originally posted by melatonin
To show some sort of false equivalence between ID creationism and evolutionary biology?

I make no attempt at false equivalency, but surely your bias is apparent. And, if that's all you've gotten out of this discussion, so be it.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Saint,

This isn't proof of a creative and intelligent designer, which is what I'm asking for.

All the best in the attempt for finding proof. I never claimed to be able to provide proof to you, nor should I have been expected to deliver it.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
This thread is about showing your stance to be scientific.

No, this thread is about people providing evidence towards creationism as a scientific theory. I was merely trying to help get the ball rolling.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
In order to accomplish this, you need to give us some observable, empirical, and measurable evidence of a sentient designer or force,

This is neither my job nor my ability...nor any other person's job or responsibility I'm familiar with.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
or at least explain the means one would go about collecting this evidence

If you truly meant this, I would ask you to U2U me. This extends beyond the parameters of the topic.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
You don't seem to understand how complex biological systems can come about without an intelligent designer.

This is an incorrect assessment. I merely find it unsubstantiated and in discord with The Scientific Method, the staple of modern science.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
That's opinion though, not evidence. It's like saying that the Giant's Causeway on Ireland was really created by giants because you don't see how it could have happened naturally, and then citing it as evidence that there were giants in Ireland.

What are you talking about? Nevermind, I don't wish to follow this rabbit trail.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
For the record, I'm not interested in what Evolution can bring forward, so please don't give me the "evolution can't provide any evidence!" argument - We're talking about intelligent design, after all.

As am I, but in order to understand Intelligent design, you have to understand a basic principle of ecological diversity and interdependancy. Evolution claims this as their child, but it is not. See previous posts for details.

[edit on 31-3-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
It is your thread. If I'm not welcomed to try to assist in understanding of the topic (as you claim you truly do which I doubt given your comments and disregard for information presented) then also so be it. All the best in your "search" for answers.

I never said you weren't welcome here. I merely meant you have nothing to add to the ID and or creationist view of whether or not it should be considered a scientific theory and this is what the thread is about.

I shouldn't even be posting this often in this thread, considering I am not well educated in creation or ID, but you come in and start talking about how ID and creationism isn't a theory and how evolution is just an idea. What I am suppose to do?

This thread was intended to let supporters of ID and creation science discuss their views on why it is a theory. Again, if you have already claimed it is not a theory, then what is it you want to say exactly?

Originally posted by saint4God
All the best in the attempt for finding proof. I never claimed to be able to provide proof to you, nor should I have been expected to deliver it.

I asked for proof, you brought forward biodiversity. That seems to be an ttempt, at least

No, this thread is about people providing evidence towards creationism as a scientific theory. I was merely trying to help get the ball rolling.

And how do you imagine the theory of creationism will be recognized as science, if the existence of the creatrix remains unproven and furthermore, unprovable?

This is neither my job nor my ability...nor any other person's job or responsibility I'm familiar with.

If you want it to be recognized as a scientific theory, it needs to follow the structure of the scientific method. This requires tangible evidence. What evidence of a creative force is there? The existence of life and its many organisms can be explained any number of ways and is not conclusive evidence of a creator - We need proof of that force's existence for creationism to have scientific validity.

If you truly meant this, I would ask you to U2U me. This extends beyond the parameters of the topic.

No, it doesn't. And if you were going to suggest reading the bible, been there, done that. Doesn't really back up "creationism as science" thing.

This is an incorrect assessment. I merely find it unsubstantiated and in discord with The Scientific Method, the staple of modern science.

Good for you, can you back up the idea of a creative force behind an ecosystem, through tangible evidence in order to support your favored theory?

What are you talking about? Nevermind, I don't wish to follow this rabbit trail.

Simple enough - Off the north coast of Ireland, there's a huge assortment of interlocked hexagonal basalt pillars. These were created by volcanic activity in the Eocene period. Back when they were discovered, people didn't know that these weird pillars were the result of volcanism, so they made stories about how Cu Chullain or giants built the "causeway" to get to Scotland.

"I don't understand how this natural phenomena could have occurred, so I'm going to believe a supernatural force that I cannot provide empirical evidence of created this thing"

As am I, but in order to understand Intelligent design, you have to understand a basic principle of ecological diversity and interdependancy. Evolution claims this as their child, but it is not. See previous posts for details.

I do understand it, and if it were in hte scope of the thread, I would happily explain the evolutionary take on it However in the name of scientific progress, I'm merely asking for some scientific, tangible proof that YES, there is a creative intelligence in control of life systems, at least as it pertains to the earth.

Surely if you hold creationism to be a valid scientific theory, you have tangible evidence that will hold up to investigation, yes?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
I asked for proof, you brought forward biodiversity. That seems to be an ttempt, at least

Not an attempt, but a start.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
And how do you imagine the theory of creationism will be recognized as science, if the existence of the creatrix remains unproven and furthermore, unprovable?

It's an assumption to say it is unprovable. My hope is that people on ATS are more open minded than to assume that.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
If you want it to be recognized as a scientific theory,

Care I not, but it's an interesting discussion nonetheless.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
it needs to follow the structure of the scientific method.

In the same way the idea of evolution doesn't? Already explained why. Either we consider all ideas or we should consider none of them because neither follow the scientific method.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
This requires tangible evidence. What evidence of a creative force is there? The existence of life and its many organisms can be explained any number of ways and is not conclusive evidence of a creator - We need proof of that force's existence for creationism to have scientific validity.

Evidence and proof are not the same (as stated by evolutionists on the "evolution, where's the evidence? I see none" thread). I submit that biodiversity is one evidence towards creationism in much the same way taxonomic nomenclature is for evolution.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
No, it doesn't.

And if you were going to suggest reading the bible, been there, done that. Doesn't really back up "creationism as science" thing.

More evidence that you didn't mean what you said.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Good for you, can you back up the idea of a creative force behind an ecosystem, through tangible evidence in order to support your favored theory?

Let's work on one piece of evidence at a time, which has yet to been addressed. If you're going ot get all huffy about it, I'm not interested.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Simple enough - Off the north coast of Ireland, there's a huge assortment of interlocked hexagonal basalt pillars. These were created by volcanic activity in the Eocene period. Back when they were discovered, people didn't know that these weird pillars were the result of volcanism, so they made stories about how Cu Chullain or giants built the "causeway" to get to Scotland.

"I don't understand how this natural phenomena could have occurred, so I'm going to believe a supernatural force that I cannot provide empirical evidence of created this thing"

Why dance around the insult? If you believe creationists are superstitious kooks, you should say so.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
I do understand it, and if it were in hte scope of the thread, I would happily explain the evolutionary take on it

However in the name of scientific progress, I'm merely asking for some scientific, tangible proof that YES, there is a creative intelligence in control of life systems, at least as it pertains to the earth.

Surely if you hold creationism to be a valid scientific theory, you have tangible evidence that will hold up to investigation, yes?

I do not. See, if you've read what I've posted, you'd know I don't hold creationism to be a valid scientific theory any more than evolution does as neither follow the scientific method. But, that's not to say others don't think it is/should become theory. There are many examples but since progress is slow here, let's start with one:

The Creation Evidence Museum is a non-profit educational museum chartered in Texas in 1984 for the purpose of researching and displaying scientific evidence for creation. As such the museum sponsors paleontological and archaeological excavations in addition to other extensive research projects. Dr. Carl Baugh, the museum’s Founder and Director, originally came to Glen Rose, Texas to critically examine claims of human and dinosaur co-habitation. He conducted extensive excavations along the Paluxy River, with appropriate permission of the landowners. These original excavations yielded human footprints among dinosaur footprints (see the Director’s doctoral dissertation).He then realized that a museum needed to be established in order to appropriately display this evidence, along with sustained excavations and other areas of scientific research for creation.

www.creationevidence.org...

[edit on 9-5-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
It's an assumption to say it is unprovable. My hope is that people on ATS are more open minded than to assume that.

Saying the Earth is 6000 years old and that men lived with dinosaurs is just as funny and unscientific as saying the Earth is flat. Your creationmuseum site certainly does a very bad job at showing supporting evidence. It might convince an ordinary christian into fundamentalism, but that's about it.

Originally posted by DarkSide
Saying the Earth is 6000 years old and that men lived with dinosaurs is just as funny and unscientific as saying the Earth is flat.

I'd think saying the earth is flat is funnier, but could just be my brand of comedy. I've not heard a compelling argument that supports the earth being 6,000 years old.

Originally posted by DarkSide
Your creationmuseum site

Not mine, I didn't make it.

Originally posted by DarkSide
certainly does a very bad job at showing supporting evidence. It might convince an ordinary christian into fundamentalism, but that's about it.

I was disappointed to have only seen 5 proposed pieces of evidence. But, to say no scientist, PhD or well educated person believes in Creationism as a scientific theory is incorrect. That's all I was illustrating. The only thing we've established is that they have not been on this thread yet.

I'd not make the assumption that just because they're not here on this ATS thread that they do not exist, evolution is valid, there's no God, blah blah blah.

[edit on 10-5-2007 by saint4God]