|
| 15 Jul 2013 07:48 PM |
Alternate title: Creationism cannot be scientific.
Solving our origin is like solving an equation. We know the final outcome, or the solution, but not precisely what it took to get there. Let's look at an equation for an example:
q + r + s + t + u + v + w + x + y + z = 42
So we start with all of these variables and are given the challenge to figure out what they are in order to get 42. Well, currently, there are infinite possible combinations in which may all be completely valid if we were to try and do this problem with guess and check. But only one answer is actually true.
What scientists do is avoid the guess and check method and try to find the true answers from scratch by consulting the creator of the equation to figure out what her intent was. That creator being nature herself.
But Creationism does something a little complicated. First, they take the equation and fill in some of the blanks with their Bible. So in the end, we would get a new equation like so:
god + 6 + 12 + 3 + t + u + v + w + x + y + z = 42
The numbers filled in represent things like the creation story and the flood of Noah.
But we have hardly solved the problem. There are still so many gaps to how these things actually occurred, and since the equation started on an assumption, the Bible, we cannot consult nature to see what she herself has to say, so, the only thing left to do is guess and check, which is how every Creationist hypothesis is formed.
Guess a plausible solution then check it against the laws of nature and see if it's possibly true.
However, there are still plenty of unsolved variables, meaning, even if your guess completely abides with the laws of nature, it still doesn't mean it's true. Because there are still infinite combinations in which could fill the gaps of this equation and come out with the same result.
Not to mention that we would then have to explain God, which is three more variables in itself which only makes the issue more complicated than it was before.
So in conclusion, if you start with assumptions, you create the ability to get an infinite number of different conclusions in which could all be completely valid, so you'll never know the truth. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| 15 Jul 2013 07:49 PM |
what about historically
jk lol |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| 15 Jul 2013 07:50 PM |
| I lol'ed at the "three more variables" part. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
| |
|
| 15 Jul 2013 07:51 PM |
@ConverseGirl121 History and science are one in the same. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|