Poll concerning Creation(ism)

[Ed Edwards]

Revmitchell: //Mans science is faulty and ever changing//

IMHO you understand neither 'man', 'science', nor 'faulty'.

Revmitchell: in #106 //What science was used to prove pluto was a planet?//

Your 'what science?' is not a proper form for a question - I sure can't figure it out and I have two University degrees in 'Science". One of my Science degrees is 'Bachelor of Secondary Education, Math' (1969) and the second science degree is 'Bachelor of Electrical Engineering, Computer (1975). Is that what you mean by 'what science': Secondary Education or Electrical Engineering?

BTW, people who agree on what the definition of 'planet' is have declared that Pluto no longer fits the definition of 'planet'. By the same token the people in Norman, Oklahoma (National Weather Center) who define what the criteria for different types of tornadoes measured a windspeed inside of a tornado that killed some 68 people in central Oklahoma on 3 May 1999 - that windspeed was 318MPH*. They really did not know that winds even got that high a speed on earth (some on Jupter have been measured at 600MPH+). So the old level 1 to 5 tornado system has a new category 6 tornado: 300MPH+

* note: MPH = miles per hour

Revmitchell: in #106 //What science was used to prove the claim that the earth was headed toward an ice age? //

The same science that investigates ice cap core samples that seems to indicate that about every 40,000 years for the last 3 Million years there is an ice age. WE seem to be 30,000 years since the last ice age. Therefore in about 10,000 years or so; there will be a new ice age.

By the same logic, if we burn 98% of all the coal & oil on the surface of the earth from 1948-2048; we will raise the average temperature of the earth about 20 degrees F. That would make the climate of Newfoundland like the current climate of Florida. There is more place to plan orange trees in Florida than in Newfoundland.

 

[Allan]

I agree with MP on this one...Which is why one of my Science profs said that it can never be proven that God does not exist.

Science is a tool to understand the the natural.
Faith is the tool to understand the supernatural.

If Faith is involved in Science, it is no longer Science..
And if Science is required for faith, it is no longer faith.

Science cannot disprove the existence of God because in order to set up a controlled experiment one would have to have somewhere that God is not present... which is incompatible with the very meaning of God.

At the same time, and for the same reasons, Science can never prove there is a God.

When a "scientist" says there is no God, they are basing that statement on faith, and not science.... and is not really upholding their dogma of only making conclusions on observable facts.

So a true scientist will never say there is no God... it can't be proved.. it can't be observed.. There is no way to even conduct the experiment...

The same is said when a 'scientist' says evolution is true, they are basing that statement on faith and not science.

The old earth theory and or evolution is based specifically and entirely upon faith since there is no testable or verifiable way to know the beginning for evolution (or even creationism) except on expert opinions which are based upon their own ideas.

That is why I will take Gods word on it since He not only was there, He is the one who did it all. So there is no opinion but a first hand account.

By the way, you can prove via science that there is a God. That is the whole point of creationism. When you take all the facts you are left with only one conclusion - there is a God. Though the answer is very general and vague you still must conclude in the very least there is - a God.

I like this quote from my old Prof (Dr. Carson - The Wheel) from SEBTS:

God said it, that settled it, whether you believe it or not

 

[Revmitchell]

Revmitchell: //Mans science is faulty and ever changing//

IMHO you understand neither 'man', 'science', nor 'faulty'.

Revmitchell: in #106 //What science was used to prove pluto was a planet?//

Your 'what science?' is not a proper form for a question - I sure can't figure it out and I have two University degrees in 'Science". One of my Science degrees is 'Bachelor of Secondary Education, Math' (1969) and the second science degree is 'Bachelor of Electrical Engineering, Computer (1975). Is that what you mean by 'what science': Secondary Education or Electrical Engineering?

BTW, people who agree on what the definition of 'planet' is have declared that Pluto no longer fits the definition of 'planet'. By the same token the people in Norman, Oklahoma (National Weather Center) who define what the criteria for different types of tornadoes measured a windspeed inside of a tornado that killed some 68 people in central Oklahoma on 3 May 1999 - that windspeed was 318MPH*. They really did not know that winds even got that high a speed on earth (some on Jupter have been measured at 600MPH+). So the old level 1 to 5 tornado system has a new category 6 tornado: 300MPH+

* note: MPH = miles per hour

Revmitchell: in #106 //What science was used to prove the claim that the earth was headed toward an ice age? //

The same science that investigates ice cap core samples that seems to indicate that about every 40,000 years for the last 3 Million years there is an ice age. WE seem to be 30,000 years since the last ice age. Therefore in about 10,000 years or so; there will be a new ice age.

By the same logic, if we burn 98% of all the coal & oil on the surface of the earth from 1948-2048; we will raise the average temperature of the earth about 20 degrees F. That would make the climate of Newfoundland like the current climate of Florida. There is more place to plan orange trees in Florida than in Newfoundland.

Apparently my post went over your head.

 

[Allan]

BTW, people who agree on what the definition of 'planet' is have declared that Pluto no longer fits the definition of 'planet'.

Sorry, not 'everyone' in that group agreed. The majority determined.

Revmitchell: in #106 //What science was used to prove the claim that the earth was headed toward an ice age? //

The same science that investigates ice cap core samples that seems to indicate that about every 40,000 years for the last 3 Million years there is an ice age. WE seem to be 30,000 years since the last ice age. Therefore in about 10,000 years or so; there will be a new ice age.

The term 'faulty science' comes into play here because they begin with a false premise

It comes from not taking into account there was a 'world wide flood' and all the climate change that would entail. Sorry but the earth isn't millions of years old. Now in a few million years it will be but as of now it isn't even close.

By the same logic, if we burn 98% of all the coal & oil on the surface of the earth from 1948-2048; we will raise the average temperature of the earth about 20 degrees F. That would make the climate of Newfoundland like the current climate of Florida. There is more place to plan orange trees in Florida than in Newfoundland.

So much for the next 'ice age'.

 

[StefanM]

By the way, you can prove via science that there is a God. That is the whole point of creationism. When you take all the facts you are left with only one conclusion - there is a God. Though the answer is very general and vague you still must conclude in the very least there is - a God.

I don't think the empirical evidence can truly be considered "proof."

I think it is weighty, but I don't think it's philosophically impenetrable. It still requires faith.

 

[Allan]

I don't think the empirical evidence can truly be considered "proof."

I think it is weighty, but I don't think it's philosophically impenetrable. It still requires faith.

True in a sense

But the conclusion is drawn from the evidence obtained. Is that not how we also prove facts as well through deductive reasoning?

Just a basic Example - God created the Heavens and the Earth:
IF the evidence determines that "A" show design due to complexity.
And if the evidence determines that "B" (macroevolution) is not possible.
And if the evidence determines that only "A" and "B" are possible conclusions.
Must we not conclude that "A" is the only factual answer?

Is not the conclusion drawn from the decution of those provable things just as factual as the ones that are specifically observed and able to testably re-create them?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ed Edwards: // ... seems to indicate ... //

Duh, which part of that is hard to understand?
But, if somebody says 'the evidence seems to indicate that in 10,000 years or so there will be a new ice age' it totally changes the comment for someone to say: "there is an ice age coming in 80 years". But that is the mistake that some made. Personally I was studying (on my own, not for someone else) in 1976-1984 (when I got sidetracked by personal computers, bulletin boards, etc.) what the ideas for the future was. I even have half a Master's degree studying what people say about the future. I aught to tell my outlook. I even made a good sermon on the matter (I'm a layman, I only have 2 or 3 sermons over 24seconds long). Anyway, in the early, middle, and late 1970s there was NOBODY seriously predicting an ice age before AD 11,780. However, there were people at that time figuring out what would happen if we burnt all our hand oil in the next 100 years -- total collapse of society. And just for good sport, if there was a NUCLEAR WINTER, it would freeze the world for 3½-years. But the athiests in Russia decided that since this world is all you get, no reason to blow it up. The Liberal Christians in the USofA decided it was unkind to blow up 98% of the people in the world.

Anyway, be careful when you change what someone else says to your frame of reference. If I guy says he thinks (for whatever reason) that there will be an ICE AGE in 10,000 years - don't assume he is suggesting that in 50 years there will be an ice age. Now some people say if we burn 98% of the oil in 100 year period we will damage the earth for 10,000 years or so. That isn't nice and violates both the earth and the God who created it.

Allan: //The term 'faulty science' comes into play here because they begin with a false premise //

I showed in an earlier post that to make science valid, there would have to be order and principle, everybody here knows that that would be God, no matter what someone else would believe, admit. Science started that way - it would be worthwhile to duplicate what you can, explain with math what you can, study what you cannot duplicate.

"God said it, I believe it, and that settles it."

This conclusion comes from the anti-education (pro-ignorance) faction of off-the-deep-end hyper-fundamentalism. The counter argument is "what did God say"?

I believe in a literal 6-yom creation. I believe in an old earth (God specially created Adam about 5800 years ago).

I believe in a literal 6-yom creation.
God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.

God specially created Adam about 5800 years ago
God said it, I believe it, and that settles it. (well, it is the Jews that come up with the 5800 or so years ago, but God said the rest in His Bible.)

Young earthers should say: "God created the earth 6,000 years ago with a limited amount of oil; I resolve to not use as much as my share".

Old earthers should say: "God created the earth 4 Billion years ago and oil has been being made for all that time and it sure shouldn't all be burn up in 100 years JUST CAUSE WE CAN. What if God wants Jesus to linger coming for 300 or 400 years -- should the earthers live in oil-less poverty most of that time?

I'm off to Google Earth to check the Newfoundland beaches ...

 

[Allan]

Ed Edwards: // ... seems to indicate ... //

Duh, which part of that is hard to understand?
But, if somebody says 'the evidence seems to indicate that in 10,000 years or so there will be a new ice age' it totally changes the comment for someone to say: "there is an ice age coming in 80 years" ... Anyway, be careful when you change what someone else says to your frame of reference. If I guy says he thinks (for whatever reason) that there will be an ICE AGE in 10,000 years - don't assume he is suggesting that in 50 years there will be an ice age.

What are you talking about?

I made no such assumption or reference or comment to that fashion. I merely commented on the hypothosis that the earth's temp will increase 20 degrees scientifically when just prior you spoke of science estimating an ice age every 40,000 years and we are at 30,000+. And even then all I stated was "so much for the next 'ice age' ".

If I guy says he thinks (for whatever reason) that there will be an ICE AGE in 10,000 years - don't assume he is suggesting that in 50 years there will be an ice age. Now some people say if we burn 98% of the oil in 100 year period we will damage the earth for 10,000 years or so. That isn't nice and violates both the earth and the God who created it.

Allan: //The term 'faulty science' comes into play here because they begin with a false premise //

I showed in an earlier post that to make science valid, there would have to be order and principle, everybody here knows that that would be God, no matter what someone else would believe, admit. Science started that way - it would be worthwhile to duplicate what you can, explain with math what you can, study what you cannot duplicate.

Uh, if someone begins with a false premise and begins to build both order and principles around that view it necessitates that 'science' is faulty. That was I was saying.

"God said it, I believe it, and that settles it."

I didn't say that.

What I said was :

God said it, that settles it, whether or not you believe it.

 

[lbaker]

What's interesting to me is that folks who claim to ignore science and take Genesis 1 literally actually don't.

For example, how many really believe there is a solid firmament or vault over the earth that contains the stars, sun, and moon, with water on the other side of it?

That is what the text actually says and what earlier generations believed.

As I said earlier, looks like the astronauts would have bumped into it on the way to the moon. Or do y'all think the moon landings were all a hoax dreamed up by evil atheistic scientists? ;-)

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What's interesting to me is that folks who claim to ignore science and take Genesis 1 literally actually don't.

For example, how many really believe there is a solid firmament or vault over the earth that contains the stars, sun, and moon, with water on the other side of it?

That is what the text actually says and what earlier generations believed.

As I said earlier, looks like the astronauts would have bumped into it on the way to the moon. Or do y'all think the moon landings were all a hoax dreamed up by evil atheistic scientists? ;-)

I use to think it meant that there was an Ice Sheild over the Earth that created a constant greenhouse effect over the planet allowing for dinosaurs ect... Then when the flood came some how the sheild cracked collapsed into the atmposphere creating rain and that the barametric pressure changes caused water from under ground to explode upwards. And that this protection from the sun allowed us to live forever but when radiation came and effected our cells we began to die. I guess that's taking Genesis literally. Strange though there is more water in space than we had previously supposed.

 

[David Lamb]

What's interesting to me is that folks who claim to ignore science and take Genesis 1 literally actually don't.

For example, how many really believe there is a solid firmament or vault over the earth that contains the stars, sun, and moon, with water on the other side of it?

That is what the text actually says and what earlier generations believed.

As I said earlier, looks like the astronauts would have bumped into it on the way to the moon. Or do y'all think the moon landings were all a hoax dreamed up by evil atheistic scientists? ;-)

I have not yet come across any Christian who "claims to ignore science and take Genesis 1 literally". (There may be some - I don't know every one ). Science is not something disconnected with the rest of life, and scientists approach their subject with certain assumptions. Those scientists who are evolutionists will have a different set of assumptions to those scientists who are Creationists. By "assumptions" here, I mean things which cannot be proved scientifically by repeated experiment. So it is not science, but the assumptions of some scientists that are ignored, or rather, disbelieved, by people like me who believe that Genesis 1 is literal truth, just as the assumptions of other scientists are ignored by those who don't take Genesis 1 as literally true.

I am no Hebrew scholar, so you will have to explain to me where the text actually says that the "firmament" was solid.

 

[lbaker]

I think a solid firmament is implied by it separating waters above from waters below. If it wasn't solid the water would just fall through.

It seems obvious to me that the reason nobody takes that seriously is that consciously or not, our opinions are informed by what we know about modern cosmology.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

A solid firmament was widely believed among the ancients, with the fixed stars attached to it, and other transparent domes with the wanderers, or planets, moon and sun attached. Genesis reflects this view of the cosmos.

 

[Bob Dudley]

lbaker and MP, I have just 2 words for you - straw man.

OK, now maybe I have more words.

Your argument is so out there it is really laughable. No reputable scientist in history ever believed what you are saying about the water above. You make a ridiculous claim, atribute it to Christians that take the Bible at face value then claim they are ignorant for believing such foolishness.

Most scientists claim that they are not sure what it is but they think it might have been a water covering over the earth that was the principle source of the rain for the global flood. Since it is gone now it is all speculation. That does NOT mean that God wrote gibberish in the first chapters of Genesis.

Now, lbaker, to answer your 4 questions...

The quick answer to your 4 questions is that they deal with origin science (as opposed to observational science). Because of this, neither young earth creationists nor (on the other extreme) evolutionists can address this (pro or con) because it happened before anyone was around to observe it.

Now, a little bit longer answer. Please bear with me. I am/was a scientist (physicist, actually) and one of my assignments in the Air Force was to take observational data of foreign weapons systems, run the data through some software, then figure out how the systems worked. We had several assets that collected data. All the assets were calibrated to the best of our ability to fine tune precision and accuracy. Some were pretty accurate some not so accurate. One system, in particular, was extremely good at taking very precise and accurate data. This system was so good that, if another system contradicted its data, the good system always was used in place of the other. The Bible is like this. It is the most accurate data we have. If it says something and another asset at our disposal (a fallible and biased scientist, for example) says something else, the Bible ALWAYS wins.

Now, having said all that, if you want to read scientists that show you how observational science points to a worldview of a young earth, 6 days of creation and a universal flood try looking at www.answersingenesis.org. A good book to read is Henry Morris, Scientific creationism.

Now, in more detail.

Origianlly Posted By lbaker
1. Earth being created before any other planets, stars, etc. and then existing for some unknown period of time just sort of hanging out there in space covered with water with no gravity from other bodies to hold it in place.

Actually the period WAS known - it was 24 hours - it is well documented by God and He was there. Also, what is your point? So what if it was "hanging out there." God is God and He can hang the earth anywhere He pleases.

Origianlly Posted By lbaker
2. Light without any stars or other planets or moons. If so, where is this source of light today?

You are talking about creation (i.e., origin science). Creation is not happening today so we don't know the details. However, E = mc(squared) today and 6,000 years ago. God didn't need a source for the light He IS the source. Why is that hard for you to grasp?

Origianlly Posted By lbaker
3. Plants growing on the Earth without sunlight.

The plants were created on day 3 (yes, a literal day - study the use of yom with "day" and "night" and numbers). The sunlight (though there was light from day 1) was created the next day on day 4. So, basically, there never was a time where plantrs had to grow without sunlight.

Origianlly Posted By lbaker
4. Some sort of physical "vault" that separates layers of water in the sky and also contains the Sun, Moon, stars and other planets? Seems like the astronauts would have bumped into this barrier on their way to the moon.

See my answers above for this one.

The sarcasm was so strong in your questions I could smel it all the way over here.

 

[preachinjesus]

Well that was mean.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

lbaker and MP, I have just 2 words for you - straw man.

What in the world...or firmament...are you talking about. I made NO argument, much less a strawman. I made a statement about ancient cosmological belief. Better go get some more coffee!!!

[_]D

 

[Magnetic Poles]

As for creation not happening today, that is demonstrably incorrect. New stars are in the process of being formed, and we even have pictures! Check out the Hubble photos.

 

[lbaker]

Bob,

I think you are missing the point I was trying to make about the solid firmament.

Of course nobody believes that today even though it is right there in Genesis, IF you take the text literally. My point is that folks who claim to ignore science and take the Bible literally actually don't, or they would believe in the solid firmament separating the waters, etc.

Then the argument moves to which version of science to believe.

Les

 

[Cutter]

Well that was mean.

Have you lived such a sheltered life that you find this post offensive? If you really think that it was mean I suggest you isolate yourself from all contact with the human race.
Hyper sensitivity is not a good trait!

 

[lbaker]

As for creation not happening today, that is demonstrably incorrect. New stars are in the process of being formed, and we even have pictures! Check out the Hubble photos.

Amen!!!! I wish I had thought of that. ;-)