| Osc89 said:
The problem with creationism is that it can't actually be a science. It doesn't have any evidence to contribute, given that there is no new evidence for God or any means of testing for God. It either contradicts or compliments, but cannot actually be part of science. The graph I posted was just data, nicely presented and designed to have impact. It is just a tool to get people to question the validity of the Bible, not a rigorous examination of every point. But it is important that it isn't taken as 100% true, given aspects that are intolerant. Ultimately there are parts that have to be fought against. |
It is completely misleading is what it was. Basically the opposite goal of science, which is to find answers. No, a fancy edge-graph of supposed contradictions doesn't offer anyone any kind of truth on the world, especially not on religion. Let's face it, most naturalists are hostile to religion, so the point of the graph was to shame religion. You're not going to argue the contrary with me unless you're totally dishonest.
Creationism does have testable claims. There are claims in the bible and the creationists are constantly looking to submit the biblical claims to the accepted scientifit principles held around the world. They also hold evolution against the same set of rules, so it is completely fair.
Any claim in the bible can be scientifically verified, and many NON-creationists have also attempted the same exercise, but to discredit the bible instead of to affirm its validity. But when they do it it's science, am I right?
