Is creation "science" really science?

[fenriz218]

I'm surprised there haven't been any Lord of the Rings- or Star Trek-fans coming forward, saying: "hey, by the way, this is ALSO science!!"

[SteveeB41]

"Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, It will bring you closer to G-d." Nanoscientist James Tour, Rice University, Ph.D. T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science. / Psalm 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no Creator."

[warriorprince1010]

Creation is supported by all scientific data we are aware of. Evolutionism breaks many laws of science. It is purely and anti God myth and nothing else.

[ScrewGlennBeck]

@warriorprince1010 As a scientist myself I read your drivel above and had a giggle at your expensive. You don't know science. You very clearly are a "lalala I don't care what you say" brainwashed indoctrinated fool.

[warriorprince1010]

@ScrewGlennBeck You are no scientist.

[ScrewGlennBeck]

@warriorprince1010 Another asshole claiming they know a person without ever meeting the person. Kind of like the certainty you people have in a GOD. Unfounded in reality and simply untrue.

[warriorprince1010]

@ScrewGlennBeck Another loud mouth evolutionists insulting people because there is no evidence for evolutionism.

[ScrewGlennBeck]

@warriorprince1010 The evidence and proof for evolution is astounding. Only an idiot would disagree with the evidence. If you don't like it I'm afraid I don't give a fuck. Blasphemy is a victimless crime, fuck you and fuck "GOD" fuck religion. How's that? You have NO proof whatsoever for God or religion.

If you can not respect me I'll not respect you.:) Religion hasn't earned respect anyway. When's the last time you saw a scientist stone a woman for walking outside without a hat on?

[warriorprince1010]

@ScrewGlennBeck As I have said there is NO evidence for evolutionism, and you are indeed a loud mouth.

[ScrewGlennBeck]

@warriorprince1010 You're clueless. You aren't a scientist yet you are claiming a certainty over the understanding of all science. You're showing true arrogance and mental illness on a scale that is egregious at this point in time. I'll be ignoring you now.

[fadelapouit]

@warriorprince1010 there is no evidence, or you simply dismiss it? About 5-7 years ago, scientists were able to prove, with rather great accuracy, that we indeed shared a common ancestry with monkeys thanks to the genome.

And what about superbugs? aren't they a proof that living organisms can evolve to fight invaders?

[warriorprince1010]

@fadelapouit Science has indeed proven the creation claim of common designer by finding similarity between living creatures.

ANY form of similarity is evidence of "common designer" and hence creation. Superbugs are the result of imperfection and loss of information. Bugs lose data so they can survive.This is the opposite of evolutionism and again supports creation. Oh and bugs always remain bugs, they never become toads.

[fadelapouit]

@warriorprince1010 by bugs I meant bacteria. You know, those who have EVOLVED to resist medication. And your fallacy of "not evolving to toads" isn't working. Evolution is totalyl random

"Science has indeed proven the creation claim of common designer by finding similarity between living creatures." I suppose you have many studies to support your claim?

[warriorprince1010]

@fadelapouit Evolutionism is impossible. Bacteria always remain bacteria, they lose information, not gain it.

[Necro12511]

There is no "ballance" required in the scientific method. either something is right or it's wrong; if evolution happens to be the only right answer we know of that explains the deversification of life then so be it. Even so, we can't obatian your "ballance" be teaching things that have been proven wrong in every way imaginable.

[ilikezappa]

I want a Eugenie T Shirt !

[coolvideo28]

If You want the truth read the Bible Gods living word and put your Faith in God or you can put your Faith in man who lies all the Time just like this lady

[byteresistor]

@coolvideo28 "or you can put your Faith in man who lies all the Time"

The bible was written by man...oh snap

[coolvideo28]

@byteresistor Nope the Bible was writen by man inspired by God

[byteresistor]

@coolvideo28 Still written by man. You admitted men lie. Prove the men who wrote the bible didn't lie... Try not to use circular reasoning... I dare you, it's a double dare.

[coolvideo28]

@byteresistor Thats easy all of the History not known to the rest of the world at least in our time Now has been proven 100% acurate and more is proven perfect the more finds there are. Now you try to date somthing anything using any evolutionary dating method and get it published without circular reasoning... Its impossible because you have to use the geologic column that exists in whole no were on earth its called a Scam (evolution) please open your eyes

[scourfish]

Personaly, if creationists need to start searching for "scientific evidence for creationism" it means that their faith is not strong enough to take their own creation story at face value.

[Unicron4ever]

Dr. Scott, I'd raise my hat to you... would I be wearing one. ^_^

Cheers to you!!!

[toelesshoe]

Does this have to go through every state before creatards will stfu? It seems like a waste of money and precious court time. Does precedent not apply here?

[badpanda84]

I though the Flying Spagetti Monster "defeated" creationism.

[sihsobhk]

Ramen! I, for one, have been touched by his noodly appendages and so should we all. The word from the mighty FSM must be heard in school as Intelligent Design theory.

[winterstellar]

SocStudent. Yeah, and how long ago did Aristotle live, 2 or 3 thousand years? Hehe, kinda shows how retarded the creationists are, eh? They're literally thousands of years behind the scientists. : )

[preyseeker1530]

aristotle was a genius and genius is timeless if a argument is correct 2,000 years ago its still gonna be correct even if its old if no t that means the truth is puddy undefined and none of this is worth any time and creationism actualy uses science

only thing diff is us saying we don't believe that ramdom sqencing of a dna cuases us to be better

go mess with your computers code just ramdomly delete a few letters of program and replace it in some made up order and see how much better it gets

[types10001]

hi, as a programmer and a person who understands evolution i would just like to point out that you are a twit.

random mutations in the genome occur, this is observable fact, it is also fact that these mutations have benefited organisms, eg. bacteria ingesting nylon.

[IsLikeThat]

Have you coded any evolution simluations? I've been searching for such programs. I'm currently trying to code one myself, though programming is more of a hobby with me (I'm majoring in engineering physics). I'm also interested in software that uses the rules of biological evolution to evolve things (design from the bottom up from a tinkering 'nature', rather than from the top down by an 'intelligence'). This has been done for electronic circuits, & NASA uses such processes to design antennas.

[artyfarty2]

"I've been searching for such programs"

Dawkins did some himself. Pretty sure you can still find that stuff.

[IsLikeThat]

And in case you were wondering, I'm an atheist. I only care about objective evidence and logic. Mainstream naturalistic science is the only subset of philosophy that I subscribe to. Also, do you at all have an interest in self-organizing/evolving computer software?

[DirzoRasec]

@preyseeker1530: what of argument of Aristotle are you alluding to? Thanks.

[mypreciouz]

creation science is not sciense bochose it starts from the idea that god must exsist and only exsepts facts that they think will suport they ideas creationism is theology

[SocStudent00]

Creationism implies an intelligent designer, Ariistotle implied a similar concept with 'The unmoved mover'. The theory doesn't neccessarily have to involve a Judaeo-Christian God. It's just a philisophical standpoint, or was before Insane American Evangalists got involved. (fully worth the caps there)

[types10000]

"It's just a philisophical standpoint" - no actually, creationism is specifically a Judaeo-Christian God always has been always will.

intelligent design is closer to what your talking about however it is simply an attempt to make creationism more acceptable and it too only relates to the Judaeo-Christian God, altho some have attempted to apply it to other

[IsLikeThat]

No, creationism is actually a rather generic term. Many cultures have their own creation myths. A creationist is simply someone who believes in any of the many creation myths out there. It is not only the Judaeo-Christian god. However, the sheer popularity of biblical creation in relation to the many other such ideas strongly empowers this misconception. That is, most people simply say creationism when they mean 'biblical creationism'. Just as "the president" is assumed to be the US's president.

[types10001]

actually it's not, creationism refers specifically to the book of Genesis.

it's titles implies that it can refer to all manner of creation myths but it does not, creationism refers only to the Judeo-Christian God

[IsLikeThat]

No, it doesn't. Look up creationism in the encyclopedia. That's like saying that marriage is inherently christian. It's not. Besides, arguing over semantics is pointless.

Webster's Dictionary - creationism: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and USUALLY (but not necessarily) in the way described in Genesis.

Jesus cries man.

[GoogleVideoMan]

Creation Science goes like this, "OK kids turn your text book to page 1." "OK, God Created everything." Any questions?

[endsnodds]

You forgot page 2 "Eviloution is from Satan and all science is wrong. How can we know the the universe is 14 billion years old if we weren't there the whole time?"

[PAKMAN52]

were you there to know no one was there!1!11?11

[SparkyLen]

Creation "Science" is an oxymoron... like "Military Intelligence" and "Postal Service".

[bibleisfake]

Creation "science" is pure bullshit.

[davemelnick]

@bibleisfake You know it. ;). Of course, literal bible nuts are "a little short" on common sense. BS is one of thier favorite past times eh.

[onefodderunit]

@bibleisfake

I'm not religious but the Atheist beliefs that the universe and life were each created by coincidence rather than intelligence is not based on science. Atheism is strictly faith based - in miraculous coincidence.

[wHisperis001]

@onefodderunit The difference between you and an atheist is that an atheist realizes that the existence of a super powerful being you would call "god' is also chance and a miraculous coincidence. You're alternative answer doesn't have any explanatory power, it only puts you one step further from the real answer.

[onefodderunit]

@wHisperis001

Agree; It seems miraculous from the perspective of consciousness which only remembers finite existence.

All evidence supports intelligence as creator of functional systems. Atheism is faith against all evidence.

[wHisperis001]

@onefodderunit and what exactly is this evidence?

[onefodderunit]

@wHisperis001

All evidence would include all functional systems: spider webs, bee hives, beaver ponds, space telescopes, etc . . .

No functional system is a consequence of other than intelligence. Atheist rejection of intelligence is contrary to all evidence.

[wHisperis001]

@onefodderunit "No functional system is a consequence of other than intelligence". A tree is a functional system which s not a consequence of intelligence. Also, you're talking about intelligence which is a result derived from matter interacting with itself. You're assuming a conclusion derived from 1 system (a system of matter) and try to use it as an analogy to a completely different system (prior to matter). Your claims are unsupported by evidence completely. Just wild assertions

[onefodderunit]

@wHisperis001

A tree is a functional system in nature. You do not know the origin of nature. All functional systems are creations of intelligence.

Your rejection of intelligence is based entirely on the desire to believe, and willful ignor-ance of all evidence. Endless examples of intelligent creation include: a bee hive, a spider web, a beaver pond, a personal computer etc . . . .

You cannot name a functional system of known origin that is not a creation of intelligence.

[wHisperis001]

@onefodderunit We know the origin of the tree and it's not from intelligent design but from evolution which isn't conscious. So again, no, I can name a functional system of known origin that is not a creation of intelligence. I'm not rejecting intelligence, but you're rejecting your own. Try again

[onefodderunit]

@wHisperis001

Try to be a functional reader. A tree is nature. You do not know the origin of nature. You must be Atheist. Are you?

You have nothing to support your rejection of intelligence.  Your faith is anti-scientific.

[wHisperis001]

@onefodderunit A tree is nature, so is a bee hive, a spider web, a beaver pond and a personal computer. What you have stated are as you call them "functional systems" that are a part of nature but you don't adress the point that first you have to have nature for these things. We have plenty of evidence of that intelligence can create "functional systems" in nature but not a shred of evidence that intelligence can exist outside of nature and create nature itself. Do you fucking get it or you dont

[onefodderunit]

@wHisperis001

A spider is nature, and creates its web with intelligence.  You do not know the origin of nature.

Still waiting for you to name a functional system that you believe is a consequence of other than intelligence.

[wHisperis001]

@onefodderunit Damn you're a retard, i rest my case.

[onefodderunit]

@wHisperis001

You're projecting. You have proven your faith is anti-scientific. Good thing you didn't admit to your Atheism.

[wHisperis001]

@onefodderunit You do realize you don't make any sense, don't you?

[onefodderunit]

@wHisperis001

There's much you don't comprehend. Still waiting for you to support your faith.

[wHisperis001]

@onefodderunit I comprehend every point you try to make but it seems you're not able to comprehend what I'm telling you. Saying I don't know the origin of nature does not mean by default that you know that the origin is intelligence. The difference is I admit I don't know and can't know while you say you know. You're dishonest and that's all there is to it

[onefodderunit]

@wHisperis001

You have proven for yourself that you know there is no functional system that is a consequence of other than intelligence. Your rejection of intelligence is contrary to all evidence.

You can't even admit you're Atheist, can you. That's amusing.

[wHisperis001]

@onefodderunit As I've already said countless times a tree is a functional system which is not a consequence of intelligence. Saying that it's part of nature and that I do not know the origin of nature does not somehow deny the fact that a tree is in fact a functional system that was not created by intelligence but by an unconscious phenomena we call evolution.

Yes I'm an atheist, not sure why you want me to say it out loud. It's pretty obvious from the context of this conversation

[onefodderunit]

@wHisperis001

We have been through this. You are now displaying psychosis.

A tree is to nature as a solar system is to universe. A subset. You do not know the origin of nature or universe, so you do not know the origin of their subsets.

Your Atheist faith that the universe and nature are unintended consequences of other than intelligence is contrary to all evidence. Your rejection of intelligence is anti-scientific.

[wHisperis001]

@onefodderunit Not sure what world you live in but here on earth the solar system is also a part of nature as the terms universe and nature can be used interchangeably. Knowing something about the subset and not knowing about the set doesn't disprove what you already know about the subset. Saying that we don't know the origin of trees is the real anti-scientific claim that you make. We know for a fact trees are not of intelligent design. However you want to spin it doesn't deny the fact

[onefodderunit]

@wHisperis001

Delusion is another symptom of psychosis. You do not "know for a fact" how a tree was designed, Atheist. Against all science and commonsense, you believe matter organized itself into life, so start from the beginning. What molecules do you believe first combined and what circumstance do you believe brought them together?

This will be fun.

[wHisperis001]

@onefodderunit First of all, I do not need to know the abiogenesis part. We know through the theory of evolution how simple one celled organisms over time developed into complex organic structures that we refer to as "trees". There was no intelligent design behind it's evolution. Everything is explained through the scientific method. Now what were the actual conditions of the first living thing is unknown. But stating that it was intelligent design 100% is not scientifically justified. Sorry

[onefodderunit]

@wHisperis001 wrote: "We know for a fact trees are not of intelligent design."

You're psychotic. You've admitted that you can't begin to rationalize your ridiculous Atheist faith that matter organized itself into life. You believe that animals gradually change into new species and it's possible pigs will someday fly?

New species always appear abruptly as occurred with a wide range of advanced life forms during the period known as the Cambrian Explosion.

Bolsheviks held your beliefs long ago

[wHisperis001]

@onefodderunit I can totally rationalize my belief in a possibility that matter unconsciously organized itself into life. The miller-urey experiments showed that inorganic compounds can be synthesized into organic compounds. This would be a rare event considering the various stages the elements have to go through, but what it shows is with enough time and spots where this can happen, and even maybe on other planets, it's totally plausible and actually inevitable.

[wHisperis001]

@onefodderunit But I guess you don't accept Evolution so explaining someone ignorant like you is probably pointless. Or do you agree evolution happens?

[onefodderunit]

@wHisperis001

No functional system of *known origin* is a product of anything other than intelligence.

You believe the universe and life are unintended consequences of whatever, so long as no intelligence was involved.

The Atheist rejection of intelligence is anti-scientific.

[wHisperis001]

@onefodderunit Nope, my stance is I don't know for sure as I don't believe in absolute certainty. However I think in various degrees of probability, and the chance that something even far more complex than the universe had to exist to create it, without an explanation of how it came to be (it's eternal just doesn't do it, sorry, because I can apply it to the universe also then), I view it highly improbable. Your argument that the universe had to be created is self-defeating

[MrKGatl]

@onefodderunit oh your right. Its much more plausible that some god snapped his fingers and we began to exist. Your thinking is similar to the ancient greeks and romans. When something is complicated you think it must be god. Just like how they used to pray to different gods for the weather. Primitive

[onefodderunit]

@MrKGatl

Are you trying to insult me, Atheist?

Your faith that chance caused the universe to 'just happen', and that matter organized itself into consciousness, is self-insulting. The belief that thought is material is plain simple mindedness.

You can't name a functional system of known origin which was not a creation of intelligence.

Your rejection of intelligence is anti-scientific and quite Atheistic.

[MrKGatl]

@onefodderunit Are you retarded? Saying that atheists have faith, there are just lots of things that you dont understand. You are the insulting and embarrassing one, you believe that fairy tales are true. Atheists embrace science, unlike you fairy tale believers. Im sorry that all of this hurts you head, but just because something is complicated doesnt make it divine. I dont need to insult you, you do that to yourself. As I said before, your thinking is primitive.

[onefodderunit]

@MrKGatl

You cannot begin to validate your faith in Big Bang or Abiogenesis. 

First Big Bang.; From where do you imagine the energy originates in your fantasy Bang?

[MrKGatl]

@onefodderunit the entire scientific community believes in the big bang. Your views come from an old book with silly superstitions and fairy tales. Science comes from knowledge and evidence. In the big bang, everything is made of energy and a gravitational field pulled everything in condensing the energy til it exploded outward. Please give an alternative that doesnt include magic. No offense but this stuff is clearly over your head

[lughcious]

@MrKGatl

I'm not religious. You're totally ignorant of Plasma Cosmology, and don't know what you're talking about. What an Atheist. You can't begin to validate your faith in Big Bang theory. From where do you believe the energy originated for a Bang? 

[MrKGatl]

@lughcious Plasma cosmology is not a well accepted theory, and gets less than 1% of budgets. Its mostly crackpot theories. You're an idiot, where do you think that mankind is going to discover how the big bang worked and other questions of the universe, fairy tales or science? I dont think that you have any clue what you're talking about.

[lughcious]

@MrKGatl

Faith is confidence. You have no faith in Big Bang theory, Atheist? Where did the energy come from for an imagined "Bang"?

You can't begin to rationalize your Atheist rejection of intelligence in creation of the universe and life.

You believe matter organized itself into consciousness, and have the Atheist absurdity to call people "retarded"

What an Atheist.

[MrKGatl]

@lughcious Faith is the beliefs in the absurd with no evidence. I dont need faith in the BB theory, there is evidence, which means faith is worthless. Im sorry but there is no discussing with someone like you. You dont have the intelligence or education to understand these simple concepts. You believe in fairy tales, I will believe in science. Im sorry that science, hasnt answered every single question in the universe, but dont turn to fairy tales like you do

[onefodderunit]

@MrKGatl

Primitive, mass murderous Bolsheviks shared your Atheist faith. You need to recognize that you can't begin to validate your faith in Big Bang theory. From where do you believe the energy for a 'Bang' originated?

Your faith that thought is material is quite primitive, and also invalid.

[MrKGatl]

@onefodderunit There is no such thing as atheist faith, those two words dont go together at all. Bolsheviks? Lack of belief is not a motivating factor. Do you hear me bringing up Hitler and his Christianity up as an arguement against Christianity? I dont need faith in the big bang, nor does anyone else. Just listen to the scientists who spend their whole lives studying the universe. The energy was everywhere and the BB condensed it. Dont you read?

[onefodderunit]

@MrKGatl

Only Zionists bring up Hitler at any opportunity. Are you European Atheist Jew? I have excellent news for you; You won't find a single credible gassing of anyone in WWII. Truth is not hatred, it will make you free. You're welcome.

You're denying your Atheist faith that life and the universe are each unintended byproducts of whatever, just as long as it didn't involve intelligence.

Don't be a denier

Thought is energy, not material. Matter did not turn itself into consciousness.

[MrKGatl]

@onefodderunit You really are a fucking moron. Out of ten comments I only brought up Hitler, to show you an unfair example, since you talked about atheist bolsheviks. What a hypocrite. I am an American, but I own many history books, unlike you, who only own the bible. I cant believe that I am talking with a Holocaust Denyer. I am embarrased for you. To have the internet and books so accessible and then to be so resistant to modern knowledge. Its sad. Please go get your GED

[onefodderunit]

@MrKGatl

What "Holocaust", Atheist? You're accusing Germans of gassing millions of Jews, although you can't post a single gassing of anyone in WWII.

Eisenhower, Churchill and de Gaulle never mention a 'gas chamber', a 'genocide' of Jews, or '6 million' victimized Jews in more than 7000 combined pages they wrote for their second world war memoirs.

Zyklon B was a brand name of pesticide used to exterminate lice. Many internees were from ghettos like Warsaw, and were shaven for lice infestations.

[onefodderunit]

@MrKGatl

You believe that thought is material.  You're as primitive as mass murderous Bolsheviks.

[MrKGatl]

@onefodderunit you just not very smart. And you have trouble reading and comprehending this discussion. No where did I say that thought is material. You are just argueing with yourself. I dont believe in fairy tales, and you are pretty arrogant to want to bring up a subject about killing, when there has been more killing in the name of god than any other source aside from natural causes. Again, you really are a moron.

[onefodderunit]

@MrKGatl

You're entitled to your opinions but they are weightless considering you believe that thought is material and that matter turned itself into consciousness.

[MrKGatl]

@onefodderunit Im really embarrassed for you. To be so ignorant and have so much confidence in that ignorance

[onefodderunit]

@MrKGatl

You obviously have no idea how to support your ridiculous beliefs, Atheist.

[MrKGatl]

@onefodderunit My ridiculous beliefs? You are the one who believes fairy tales and mythology are true. Not me. You were born an atheist, but your parents and community brainwashed you into believing their bronze age religion. And to defend it from knowledge with embraced ignorance. I need very little support to be an atheist. Just be honest with yourself, there is no evidence of a god or a gods. Look back at history, given time science will disprove all religions. Moron!

[lughcious]

@MrKGatl

Do you wish to try to rationalize the ridiculous Atheist faith that matter arranged itself into consciousness, and that thought is material?

[MrKGatl]

@lughcious Atheists dont have faith, we think faith is the believe in the absurd with no evidence. Why do you say it like it has to be arranged and things cant build onto themselves, growing with tiny, gradual steps over lots of time. Its pretty simple, one you understand it. You reject scientific consensus based on your religious beliefs, which is illogical.

[MrKGatl]

@onefodderunit Typical primitive reasoning. Something is complicated, so it must be god. Your thinking is just like the ancient Romans and Greeks, praying to gods for rain, because they lacked understanding. You dont understand how nature and the universe works, so it is just easier to say its divine. There is not a shred of evidence in the known universe that there is a god, or any kind of higher power or intelligent. You cannot understand, because you apply your religion to everything

[onefodderunit]

@bibleisfake

edit: Atheist beliefs . . . . are not based on science.

For instance, what do you believe existed prior to creation of the universe?

[stephenetienne]

Please post the whole interview.

[region1111]

For christ's sake, post the whole interview. These 2 minutes sound bytes are interesting but your subscribers hunger for the whole thing.

[CranesNotSkyHooks]

lol. Took the words right out of my mouth!

[JRBendixen]

I concur.

[amoxtlacatl]

Support that - PLEASE GIVE US THE ENTIRE INTERVIEW!

Thank you.

[midare]

Yes, I'd like to see the whole run. At very least more than 2 minutes at a time, I worry about seeing things out of order with this sort of interview. Very interesting stuff, though. Thank you for posting what you HAVE put up.

[Nades129]

You're not the only one brodah... Everyone's been wanting to listen to the whole... but the dnalc(DOT)org is a great site, instead of looking for the video, I spent the entire afternoon reading about cognitive science

[herzogf22]

I second all of the above; there are very hungry listeners out there that would be highly interested in seeing the whole interview.

[MegaGayjesus]

@region1111 See "Intelligent Design on Trial" on youtube.

[Feredir28]

Hail Science.