User talk:Cahir231

Creation Science
Why can there not be a creationist theory that can be verified experimentally? I mean, look, there's quite a good deal of evidence for a Flood. That proves part of the Bible is accurate (as well as other myths and legends from other cultures that refer to the Flood). Is there absolutely 100% no evidence that a god created the earth? How about evolution? We (the human race) have not changed physically since our reckoning of history began. We have only changed socially, technologically, culturally, etc. The only difference is that our lifespan is getting shorter and shorter (a proven fact). And that only serves to support the Bible once again. I mean, I can't possibly think of evolution as being an aspect of religion, but it takes faith to believe that evolution is correct. Now, I know we are only promulgating a theory here and not a fact, but what exactly separates science from religion? Some things (such as logic, which we use extensively in debate and science) must be accepted in faith that they exist, because you cannot use your senses to determine anything about logic. You cannot taste it, feel it, smell it, see it, or hear it. It just is. Therefore, how can we be certain that evolution is a theory of completely observable science? If it is not, then does it deserve to be categorized as a theory, while creationism is not? Or if it does deserve to be categorized as such, then does that not qualify creationism, since the acceptance of it also must include some degree of faith? Cahir231 19:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Cahir231, May 3, 2007


 *  I mean, look, there's quite a good deal of evidence for a Flood. That proves part of the Bible is accurate (as well as other myths and legends from other cultures that refer to the Flood). 

There is no evidence that a earthwide inundation happened, as the bible says. There is evidence that the biblical flood story may have been based on pre-biblical legends describing the inundation of the valley where the black sea is now (i.e. it was a variation on a legend that described an actual historical event). Thats much different than saying the bible was right about "The Flood". That'd be like saying Monty Python and the Holy Grail was historically accurate because Arthur may have actually existed. Brentt 03:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Its not that creation science can't be scientific. Its just that it hasn't been done scientifically. Brentt 09:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)