Creation science

A great replacement for this false so called “oxymoron” would be “Unbaised Science”…. In order for you to make observation and conclusion there will presupositions involved. We always observe science in light of our worldview. Some may believe its possible to be nuetral on things, but this is a major fallacy!! My question to you would be…”Do you believe the bible is true about creation?”….(If you're answer is “No or Yes”..you are biased!! Its okay to be biased, but its a major fallacy to claim you don't take sides, then say a particular worldview is false. Many atheist an other worldly secularist make this error. An evolutionists will assume that all things came about naturally. So when doing emperical observation will use that assumption/biased in determining their conclusion. Science is often thought as of being seperate from “Intelligent Design”. Science is an instrument in whigh we use to make emperical observation. Key word here is “instrument”.. Saying that Science is opposite of Intelligent Design is similar to saying that Alternative Rock is opposite to Music, or Country is opposite to Guitar. Science is always used as an instrument in light of a worldview. Worldviews contain our strong hold conviction on life, how it came to be, and how it ought to be etc… Its impossible to not have a worldview. You would literally need to be brain dead. Point being there is no neutral. If the bible is right then those who die in their sins without the salvation of Jesus Christ will fry eternally. If you say you're neutral and end up being wrong you will see to not make a choice was a choice in itself. more info on how science and creation are not opposites

http://www.answersingenesis.org God bless! Choose Jesus as your Savior. There is no other way to heaven.

Although “His” makes some good points about “unbiased science”, the fact of the matter is that his link to answersingenesis(dot)com brings some skepticism and his first statement is untrue: “unbiased science” cannot replace “creation science” as an oxymoron. As Craigede states, “‘Creation Science’ is definitely an oxymoron.”

If you look at AiG’s Statement of Faith, they have the same proclamation dribble as most churches; the Bible’s inerrancy, it being written by God, and its many delusional claims on the Bible, e.g., “All mankind are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually (by choice), and are therefore subject to God’s wrath and condemnation,” and delusions of granduer “Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting conscious punishment, but believers enjoy eternal life with God.” (http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith)

The problem is that it leaves no room for science. The Bible undermines Christian theology because the religion has take it out of context and ignores the thousands of clear contradictions that cannot be disputed. The science of psychology alone crumbles the House of God to the ground.

Religious ideas are not exempt from academic criticism. Avoiding contrary facts just so you do not have to use critical thinking, assess your beliefs and possibly restructure them goes against academic/personal integrity, honesty and learning.

In effect, “Craigede” is right on with his comments about how “Creation Science” discounts contrary evidence for faith. Faith – which is not based on knowledge, experience or rational thought arising from doubt – replaces the search for truth.

The fact of the matter is that Bible inerrancy and the refusal to acknowledge contrary evidence creates a serious roadblock in using science to prove the Bible to be inerrant.

Christians claim that humans are inherently sinners because Adam and Eve disobeyed. This is false.

Genesis Chapter 3 tells us that God deceived Adam and Eve by not telling them the full consequences of eating the fruit of knowledge and it also tells us that death by sin did not come into fruition by disobedience.

It was the desire for knowledge and the gaining of a conscience that caused Adam and Eve to “become like God”. This threat to his omnipotence caused him such a big scare that he cursed them and denied them eternal life. (The bible never explains why he changes his mind and makes eternal life mandatory for everyone.)

The irony of this story is that God put this on himself by creating Adam and Eve, the consequences of which he should have foreseen. God’s plans often go awry in the bible. God also placed temptation in the Garden in the form of trees and was responsible for putting all the circumstances in place that led to the fall from grace. A perfect God who foresees the future and creates an imperfect world has acted irresponsibly.

If humans were to be responsible, fairness and justice requires that God gave Adam and Eve knowledge and a conscience – the tools needed to make informed decisions, understand consequences, be less susceptible to deception, give them free will, enable them to build their own character and be responsible for their own thoughts, emotions and actions; and able to manage their own personal behavior. The fact he had not intentions of doing so and cursed them for gaining this ability is odd for a deity so hung up on behavior patterns.

His inability to forgive without bloodshed shows he is not all-powerful, benevolent and his love is fallible because of his sadistic desire for blood. A God who creates a hell and puts people there by mere error or simple disbelief is a sadistic God who cares more about his ego than how we treat others. His fear of intelligence and being questioned shows his lack of security. His inability to stop an insurrection in his own domain shows he is not all-powerful and allowing evil so he can prove himself shows he is malevolent. A God who can see the future and knows he has to murder humans and send them to eternal torture is a God who premeditated murder and pain for his creation.

The bible tells us to rely on faith, not reason. Faith – which is not based on knowledge, experience or rational thought from arising doubt, replaces the search for truth. Faith is a cop out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith then you are conceding that it cannot be accepted by its own merits. Ignorance is content to stand with its back turned to the truth.

Belief in God & Jesus as Savior is the only way for man to escape damnation, but Paul claims that it is impossible to comprehend God, which makes it impossible to understand him. This makes studying the bible, going to church, asking for clarity & proselytizing useless. This image of a humanity incapable of grasping concepts is a fit companion for the Christian requirement that people accept it on faith alone. Hunger for knowledge caused the downfall of humanity. Intelligence leads to hellfire and Paul writes several times that God destroys & confounds the wisdom of the wise. The bible tells us that the “gift of reason” which apparently makes us higher than animals maybe be the match that lights the fires of hell for all who dare use it, since whatever is not faith is sin.

The putdown of intelligence & any use of the intellect is so woven into the Bible that it must be concluded that one must strive to be dumb, gullible, unquestioning & imprudent (lacking discretion, wisdom, or good judgment) to accept Christian theology & that those who are not are doomed.

An “educated Christian” is as much of an oxymoron as “Creation science”, “Christian scientist” and “Christian scholar.”

Jesus loves you I hope you know that!!!!!!!!!!! You are completely WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!

 jesus* is dead, get over it

*depends on which jesus youre referring to as he was most likely been an amalgamation of previously existing mythical archetypes or at best a common con artist

what is called “science” is not a thing but a process. it is based on very few assumptions, like: the universe is comprehendable, accurate observations of the universe can be made, predictions can be made from theories based on observed data.

now the process known as science can begin. this process involves testing the validity of theories by testing their predictions against observable data. if the predictions do not match the observed data, either the entire theory is thrown out or it is modified to account for observations of the universe.

“creation science” denies one basic assumption required of science. it assumes that observations made in the universe cannot be trusted. this alone removes “creation science” from the realm of science. apparently, if the observations of geologists and paleontologists are self-consistent and consistent with the observable universe but are enormously wrong about the age of dinosaur fossils, then science is invalid and using the word “science” to name a belief such as “creation science” is rather stupid, self-serving and deliberately misleading.

i, for one, hope that i am not in a universe where some god with a really whacked-out sense of humor arranged for fossils just to fu(k with scientists. if this is the case, and there is an afterlife, i’m going to have some harsh words for whatever is in charge.