Blob up above in this thread wrote:I conclude creationism itself is not science from the lack of self-criticism in the history of creationism.
You are confirming my fears - creationists will not entertain being critical of creationism or that it could be in error. That is unscientific.Jbuza wrote:Again what is the difficulty?
No I will concede that there are some interpretations of observations that pose problems for creation, and creation has answered them (including earth age).
I am sorry that your theory has many problems, but the fact that few exist in creation is not a problem for me.
there is not a chance that I am wrong.
It is the fact that evolutionists acknowledge and address those problems that make it credible science. Creationists don't do the same with creationism, as in your case.Jbuza wrote:So you are saying, and Darwin himself said numerous times, that there are a great many problems with evolution. I am sorry that your theory has many problems
I guess you are saying that evolution is so full of problems that it is credible.
Creationism too has altered, as demonstrated in the answersingenesis link. The difference is evolution is self-correcting, creationism only reluctantly changes when it becomes untenable under the pressure of external critiques.Evolution however has had to alter its theory and hide in the past because the observations themselves prove evolution is not happening.
The theory of gravity; the theory of general relativity; quantum theory and so on are all theories and are all science. Science is in the business of explaining observations and predicting future observations - that is what a theory does.OK. I disagree, Theories are not science anyway, not even your precious evolution. They are explanations of observations, that's all.
I consider it probable.If you believe evolution that's fine,
That is an generic assertion of conspiracy. It is generic because anyone can say it to anyone else about anything whatsoever: e.g. "creationists fear evolution and what it means." Let's not go there, Jbuza, it's not productive.but this evolution is science and creation is not is garbage. They are on equal footing scientifically. OF course evolution has a higher status within the scientific community because many fear creation and what it means.
Yes, evolutionists attack creationism but they also attack evolution (e.g. Gould-Dawkins and that fact that all known problems in evolution were epxosed by evolutionists not creationists). Creationists attack only evolution and never creationism (all known problems in creationism such as those at answersingenesis were exposed by evolutionists and not creationists). There in lies the credibility problem of creationism - evolutionists are doing all the work on both sides. Creationists stick together and merely defend their own position and attack the opposition collectively.Evolution dismisses problems that creationists birng up about evolution and attack creation.
Species change is an observation, yes, but evolution is the theory that explains it. Even the name gives it away - 'microevolution' comes from evolutionists and has only been around for about 150 years. Creationists have adopted it reluctantly but not contributed to it as a theory.It's really an observation that species change over time, it is not a theory, it is an observation. This is ridiculous you think that the 2000+ years of science that predates evolution now belong to evolution.
No dispute comparable to those of genuine science (e.g. Gould-Dawkins; Hawking-Hoyle and now Hawking-Greene; Freud-Jung; Vygotsky-Piaget and on and on) exists in creationism to the best of my knowledge. And apparently to the best of yours either. This agains points to a credibility problem and the unscientific nature of creationism.No. If your interested go look. There are several variations of creation that are at odds with each other.
But I could be wrong.