Debate:Is creation science scientific?

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

By this I mean "is creation science falsifiable?" I was reading about the starlight problem and the solution according to creation science is that God created the light in transit. While this seems plausible, it doesn't seem like something that an experiment can be devised to test this claim. Hence it is not falsifiable. Of course if it were possible to disprove the existence of God, then it would be falsifiable, but that isn't possible. Any thoughts? PeterHockey 09:24, 5 September 2016 (EDT)

Origins science is a historical science and not operational science. It is like archaeology. See:
However, the biblical creation model makes certain predictions which the evidence very strongly suggests are true. For example, the universe had a beginning, big gulf between life and non-life [1], large gulf between man an animals (For example, no animal orchestras), no life on other planets has ever been found is a reasonable inference of the biblical model [2] whereas the evolutionist SETI project as an expensive failure and they are getting desperate now [3], etc. etc. etc. Conservative (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2016 (EDT)
Ok, I think I see what you mean, but concentrating on the starlight problem, it doesn't make any predictions other than what it's trying to explain. So how is that valid?

PeterHockey 11:08, 5 September 2016 (EDT)

I think it is important when resolving questions to not have a myopic focus. In deciding an issue, it is important to utilize the principle of using the total evidence (see: fallacy of exclusion). When you compare the biblical worldview vs. the liberal Christianity/theology worldview and the Western atheist/agnostic worldviews (which typically have evolution as one of their underlying beliefs), the biblical worldview comes out on top (see: Evidence for Christianity and Stagnation of atheist apologetics and Liberal Theology’s Struggle with Modern Archaeology).
The starlight issue is one of the cloudier areas. For example, the big bang model has a starlight problem called the horizon problem (See: ).
When choosing between worldviews, I think it is important to focus on areas where there is more clarity and less cloudiness. For example, there is a big gulf between life and non-life and that life is far more complex than the evolutionists first thought.[4] The creation model is a great fit when it comes to the origin of life issue. And leading evolutionists such as PZ Myers, Nick Matzke, etc. have indicated that the origin of life issue is part of the evolutionary paradigm (see: ). Conservative (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2016 (EDT)