How did animal get to isolated places after the flood?

really?I had no clue that the fact that the US revolution started in 1775 was a part of science. Or the two russian revolutions of 1917. Or the french revolution of 1789.or, that WWII started in dec, '41 for the US.or, that we built the A-bomb before anyone else (granted, this is a history of science bit).I hope you get the picture here.

---

"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant" One useless man is a disgrace. Two are called a law firm. Three or more are called a congress" --paraphrased, John AdamsWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

quote:

---

What is the difference between teaching about Creation, as a possibility, and life on other planets?

---

Well, we have evidence of life on one planet, but we don't have any evidence of any gods at all.It is reasonable, therefore, to think about life on other planets, since there ARE other planets.In any case, one could talk about the supernatural in science class in the section on pseudoscience and unscientific claims.

quote:

---

Of course it (Creation Science) is part of science nator.

---

No, it isn't.

quote:

---

Any data can be part of science.

---

Science is not merely a big pile of facts, rat.Science, first and foremost, is a method.I will repeat what I wrote previously:If they do not use the scientific method, then their conclusions aren't just wrong. Their conclusions are not science.

​

Even if their conclusions were correct, it still doesn't make what they are doing science.If you don't use the method, then it isn't science. Period.There is no wiggle room here.

quote:

---

I am not an expert on it, but I would hope that they are at least in search of something genuine.

---

One would hope that too. I don't know if they are or aren't.The point is, the way they are searching is not scientific. Not even close.So, it isn't science.

quote:

---

Just like spending all your efforts in search of a cure for cancer.

---

Or spending all of your efforts to make a free energy machine.

I think science is a little bit more than just the scientific method. Take a look at the scientific revolution that occurred in the 1600s. You have two competing methods--a strictly empirical, and deductive (favored by Britain); the other (favored by France) was more inductive, and less stringent on empirical grounding.The result? A method that is grounded in empirical observations and tends to be inductive.by deductive, you need to see every case to make a statement
inductive, is, because 4 birds are black, all are black.
(just in case I screwed up the meanings of the two up above, and yes, these are very simple definitions.)If anything, science is methodological naturalism. In other words, mums the word about the supernatural, and the natural world is the focus. As soon as you start positing the supernatural as an explanation, it isn't science. However, that does not mean that science says the supernatural does not exist (for those of you who love to confuse ontological and methodological naturalism). To me, that's what science is, at the heart (brain?).

---

"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant" One useless man is a disgrace. Two are called a law firm. Three or more are called a congress" --paraphrased, John AdamsWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

quote:

---

If anything, science is methodological naturalism.

---

Right.Isn't that what I said?

i'm being nit-picky here. there's a difference between the method, and methodological.all methodological requires is being methodical in your search for answers.the method just so happens to be the one we use (to be methodical), formed over a century or more in the scientific revolution.yeah, fine lines. it's where I tend to live.

Of course it does. If you were carbon dating something from the revolutionary war, it is helpful to know when it started.

If your talking about the meteor that we think is from Mars, I think that evidence is about as highly subjective as all religions. I see no difference in the two. It is reasonable because we exist here. The same reason to wonder if a God exists or not. It's not science, it's creation science. I don't know if your wrong or right, I really don't focus too much of my efforts on it. I am as guilty as they are because I believe there is a God, based on my own personal subjective evidence. Then I am like you because I would love to prove it. In other words, I am seeking God, even though I feel I know Him.
There are many unanswered questions, and when regular science starts to rebuke some of what I believe it, then I need to find out if science is right or not. I think that is why creation science was formed (or at least I hope that is why). But if creation science was only formed to protect a religion, and not truely to seek if we were created or not, then it is all BS.
But still any facts that they may uncover, could still be used in a more productive way.
So if creation science teams are doing archeology in Israel for instance, even though their conclusions may be wrong, the data they collect can still be valid. Shit you found me out, how did you do that?

LOL, Look down RR that is the planet that we have evidence about. Well, of course, as long as you recognize that the people of 2,000 years ago would consider us gods. You logic only holds if we are an example of gods. You agree again it's not science; then why do they (and you) insist on having "science" in the name of whatever it is? Are you prepared to explore the "if" in that sentence? We can assure you that it is, for sure, formed only to protect a religion -- actually not protect so much as to force it into schools and on other people. Would you like to demonstrate your interest in learning by starting a thread asking that question?

quote:

---

So if creation science teams are doing archeology in Israel for instance, even though their conclusions may be wrong, the data they collect can still be valid.

---

'Valid' as science?Not if they fail to collect the data in a scientific manner, nor if they fail to allow the evidence, rather than their preferred outcome, to inform their conclusions, nor if they mysteriously 'misplace' the artifacts they say prove this or that part of the Bible as true, nor if they say they have such artifacts but do not allow anybody else but believers to examine them.The so-called 'Biblical Archaeology' that I've seen has been, at best, pseudoscientific religious field trips where ignorant and deluded people see mountains where there aren't even molehills. Edited by nator, : No reason given.

---

'Explanations like "God won't be tested by scientific studies" but local yokels can figure it out just by staying aware of what's going on have no rational basis whatsoever.' -Percy"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."- Richard Feynman"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders

I have explored the if, by sifting through much on these forums. I have learned enough to realize that it may as well be BS.In theory, the idea of creation science sounds like a good idea to me. After all I believe in God, and I feel something from God, that is enough for me to start exploring if God really did create us. That is what I hope would have sparked a creation science movement. If it was only to protect a religion, then I am very against it, as I am against most religions, even though I am involved in one. I exploit my religion(in a good way), so that I can carry out what I think God wants me to do, where as creation science might be exploiting people to carry out there religion. A big mistake IMO, and will only hurt religion in the long run.Actually, if your going to call something "creation science" you better be prepared if you found out we were created, but not by God.
So I find the label "creation science" inappropiate, unles they are unbiasly trying to find out if we were created, regardless of who did the creating. But I am pretty sure I remember reading that they are driven by the God only idea.I need not explore it more, unless I have to vote on it. I don't really voice my opinion, because I don't have all the answers on it.
I am not for it, or against it at this point. I have no way of proving or disproving many of the things I have learned from "creation scientists" on TV and web-sites. Some things I have read here have been sort of disproved, but again, I am not qualified to get to deep into it.I remain curious, because as I said, I do believe in God, and it is more than just faith for me. Somehow, if God exists, it has to make sense. Maybe we were created to evolve, whatever...

In another thread, specifically the "how does science disprove the bible" thread, shiloh has made some (I think) rather miraculous claims about the animal on the ark and such. I'd like to see shiloh's comment on this topic if I may.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

I think we are in agreement. If there is any real creation science in the sense that you seem to mean it it is science without any adjective in front.All scientists struggle to understand how the world works. Some are believers as you are others not. The believers want to understand how their god created what we see.Those self-styled "creation scientists" of AIG and ICR do not want to understand how God created everything. They want their ideas of how he should have created it to be taught as science.As Jar says (who agrees with your post I'm sure) the AIG and ICR sort believe in a tiny, weak little God. One more like Zeus or Odin than the God that Jar and you believe in.

because earth worms are mostly sex organs.oh sure they only have 4 children per year, but they sure put a lot of effort into it!

maybe they got to all kinds of places, but they just didn't have what they needed everywhere and just died... and instead of fossilizing, just um. disintegrated.