Creation "Science" and the Scientific Method

This video debunks all "evidence for creation" in one efficient blow. You'll see why "evidence that fits the creationary hypothesis/model" is irrationally thinking. You'll see why it's irrational to start with a predetermined conclusion, then find "evidence" to support it. You will see why creation "science" is equivalent to Santa "science", Greek mythology "science", and Cinderella "science." But note that this ISN'T an attack on Christianity per se. It's defending the boundaries of science. "Scientific evidence for creationism" just doesn't make any logical sense. Also, as you can see, any other religious creationism cannot be approached scientifically either.

Remember, just because you put on a lab coat and poke at some fossils doesn't mean you're doing science.

Take note that this is often the method used to "prove the veracity of some holy book," by showing that it is "consistent with the observable universe." Hopefully, you can see here that this method of thinking is backwards and irrational.

Music: Chopin-Funeral March

ID is circular reasoning. You'll also see that you can NOT deduce "intelligent designer" from "complex life" without circular reasoning. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0sK8qNkMdY

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Creation
• Intelligent
• Design
• ID
• Science
• Evolution
• Method
• Pseudoscience

[aricdared]

Don't make any more videos. Very lame. Where ever a person stands on this issue, I think we can all agree that this video is nonsense. There is no saving grace for this one, not even the music.

[Jonathanhcook]

@Nominator546 I'm sorry some of your statements are incorrect. The Bible is a historical account and also the word of God of instructions to people, not a theory. I would argue that the Bible has very compelling lines of evidence that you should investigate. Especially the reliability of the new testament manuscript evidence. To know how much Jesus loves you and want you to have a personal relationship with Him. I would implore you to look at the evidence. For He died for your sins and mine.

[Nominator546]

@dragoon414 He never said he did, this is simplt anecdotal evidence of intellect. He did ask for an objective definition of intelligence, he did not provide one.

[Nominator546]

@yourfaceisyummy That's fine, perhaps it is, but just because it's possible doesn't mean you should assume that it is a record of observations.

[Nominator546]

@dayzmelttogether Then they observed moons around another planet, which shows that you must either imagine an incredibly complex path for these moons to follow so that they only appear to orbit the planet, or you must concede that not everything orbits the earth. From this evidence, real scientists did not conclude that every portion of the theory was wrong, but only that portion of the theory was wrong and the rest unproven.

[Nominator546]

@dayzmelttogether Those may be true, but what moment in and time, what size, and how is it situated. For example, the thiests orginally accepted a model of the universe with the earth at it's center, the planets and sun orbiting the earth, and the starts painted upon "shells" at the limits of the universe.

[Nominator546]

@Jonathanhcook Origin of Species was written as the theory, your bible was written in the same way. The key differences are that Darwin a.) provided empirical and anecdotal evidence for his theory b.) presented it as a theory, not as fact, and c.) did not hold as a theory or a "fact" not subject to disapproval or alteration to better fit empirical evidence. In fact, Darwin himself suggested ways to disprove his theory wholesale.

[dragoon414]

its funny how you think building a car or doing math is intelligent....lol