Replies

You note the subtle distinction between a creationist and a scientist?

A creationist supports conclusions that end with “because Creation”.

A Scientist looks at facts, evidence and theory, and tries to come up with experiments that gather new facts, measurements that quantify the new evidence, and new theories that explain the facts and evidence.

Thus: Global Warming - it's MAN's fault.

A Scientist looks at facts, evidence and theory, and tries to come up with experiments that gather new facts, measurements that quantify the new evidence, and new theories that explain the facts and evidence.

Yea, like global warming?

Or how about the once scientifically accepted Nebraska Man, Neanderthal Man, Piltdown Man, Australopithecines, Zinjanthropus, Homo Habilis, Java Man and Peking Man (Homo Erectus), “Lucy”, and Richard Leakey’s new “tree of man”, all of which have been proven to be either a hoax or deformed humans.

Maybe we should discredit all scientists as your side does the church for following Greek philosophy on the flat earth beliefs. Which by the way, none of the ancient manuscripts ever taught a flat earth. It was humanism brought into the church that swayed the crooked Popes and Bishops to accept such humanistic Greek Philosophy.

You note the subtle distinction between a creationist and a scientist?
A creationist supports conclusions that end with “because Creation”.
A Scientist looks at facts, evidence and theory, and tries to come up with experiments that gather new facts, measurements that quantify the new evidence, and new theories that explain the facts and evidence.

Are you referring to science or the religion of Naturalism? Religion is exactly the right word to describe naturalism. The entire philosophy is built on a faith–based premise. Its basic presupposition—a rejection of everything supernatural—requires a giant leap of faith. And nearly all its supporting theories must be taken by faith as well. Consider the dogma of evolution, for example. The notion that natural evolutionary processes can account for the origin of all living species has never been and never will be established as fact. Nor is it “scientific” in any true sense of the word. Science deals with what can be observed and reproduced by experimentation. The origin of life can be neither observed nor reproduced in any laboratory. By definition, then, true science can give us no knowledge whatsoever about where we came from or how we got here. Belief in evolutionary theory is a matter of sheer faith. And dogmatic belief in any naturalistic theory is no more “scientific” than any other kind of religious faith.