Is Creationist Science Worth Believing?

[rcruman]

---

According to the creationists the Earth is about 6,000 years. And yes, time is a non-issue to God.

how about according to the bible?

I don't quite get what you mean here. You say that science does not contradict the Bible and yet you say that Physics (another branch of Science) is contradictory? Can you please clarify your definition?

but I didn't say "all branches of science".
tell me bro will Physicist believed on spirits?

Agree...however, there are people whose faith is reasoned after the objective truth...and i think they needed to be understood than to be scorned at.

scorned? i don't think so.
we can't do anything about them, its up to God not us.

Peace!

[brownprose]

how about according to the bible?

Why don't you ask them? I am no believer of Creationism.

but I didn't say "all branches of science".

And what's your point?

tell me bro will Physicist believed on spirits?

If you're asking my opinion, most Physicists do not believe in spirits...much less believe in the science of the Bible.

scorned? i don't think so. we can't do anything about them, its up to God not us.

No what's your whole point to this thread?

[rcruman]

Why don't you ask them? I am no believer of Creationism.

do you want the bible to be asked and let the bible answer?
why you didn't believed in Creation?

And what's your point?

Because this particular Branch of Science will lead us to "to see is to believe".
And the bible has two parts, spiritual and literal.

If you're asking my opinion, most Physicists do not believe in spirits...much less believe in the science of the Bible.

then when dealing with physicist its impossible/hard for them to show the spiritual side of the bible. So Physicist must be convinced to believe first in spirit but a tons of try and effort is needed.

No what's your whole point to this thread?

that beyond our reach we can't do more.
I mean I will give my best shot and I will leave the rest to God.

PEace!

[tripwire]

Very nice argument brownprose!

Here's what I also think about creation science... one thing that I have ask a favor to all readers that don't react too much on this. Because you and I have purpose to continue our understanding about God, his works and our knowledge to fill in ourselves. The same reason why literal reading causes more debating issues rather than solutions.

Now, most Creation Scientists today are Young Earth Creationists, making a literal reading of the Bible the central feature of their scientific arguments (although, strictly speaking, most references to the Bible tend to be left aside as part of the effort to create the appearance of scientific legitimacy). Nevertheless, the Creation Research Society, an important organization which promotes Scientific Creationism, expects all members to accept this Statement of Belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

Notice that each of the four points does not simply make explicit references to the Bible, but in fact relies upon particular, literalist readings of certain passages and a conservative theological position with regards to the Bible; that, rather than science, is what Scientific Creationism is all about.

[IdontCare]

u know what bro, gabalik balik man na imong "dili mabuntang sa lab" in the other thread. The reason why I didnt answer it is because frankly it's too LAME. Just because dili mabuntang sa lab, you can't have your science at all.
The whole point to all this is (and this thread) is to endeavor a rational and acceptable approach to (no matter how feeble our attempts are to explain) the science of origin.

At this point bro, many people have abused the Bible to explain just about anything that we cant explain in there by (i hate to say this) literalizing the Bible to the letter so as to arrive at a conclusion that suits the supernatural fancy of ordinary people.

Personally, I feel that depriving people of their right to know the "objective truth" is like depriving them their right to a reasonable faith.

As I have said before in the other thread, many people are guilty of transforming God into some kind of a magician so as to negate the idea that God is not a God of process, order and reason but of magic. And I'm sorry to say that, most or if not all, Creationists are among them.

kung SCIENTIFIC model gani ang pangayoon dapat mo agi jud na ug lab or any kind of experimentation kay mao ma na ang ilang SOP. kasabot ka bro kung unsa ng scientific model? before man gud mo approve ang science community og osa ka SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSION dapat naa kay ika pakita nga MECHANISM.

Kung dili gani na mo agi ug experimentation, didto nana ma linya sa PHILOSOPICAL SCIENCE thus ni sulti si Henry Morris nga any attempt to explain creation ang makuha ra jud nga conclsion belong ra sa philosopical realm .

Bro from what you said maka ingun jud ko nga gi out of context jud nimo ang pasabot ni Henry Morris when he said nga ang creation dili scientific.


No one is making God a God of disorder. Well He can do magic. hehehehe

[IdontCare]

I see your point about changing the title. My intent really is to throw a question to its proponents or advocates to clarify the science creationists thought or taught in many churches, in school and to the public at large. In effect, we have the same goals. Further, however, is to seek a healthy exchange why creationists refer to the Bible as the ultimate source of reference when there are other creationist viewpoints outside of Christian literature such for example the Koran and why the same outrightly reject widely held scientific beliefs and the empirical data it presents.

Yes, I do agree with you that many modern creationists we know today in this field are men of impeccable credentials like Henry Morris (The Father of Modern Creationism), George McReady Price, Dean Kenyon and John Whticomb to name a few and I must admit they are among those esteemed for their great contribution towards a more positive and godly view of the origin of man and the world.

However, what confuses many independent thinkers (like myself) is why all of a sudden a Christian perspective comes into the picture to explain everything about our origin. If they said that their is no scientific model to prove the origin of man, then why use the Bible as a "valid authority" when much of what it says have remained contested and questioned by the scientific community and even those who have professed themselves to be authentic Bible believers? Is it right or much less proper for creationists to support a theory using a controversial and a heavily-disputed source?

What about the Koran or the Vedas? Why rule out other books when many of them have also been validated or regarded as authority in other established religions? If creationists believe that world origin is a matter of faith and not science then why dismiss all other faiths?

Aside despondency in scientific objectivity, I find the Christian creationist philosophy a paradox and no less a selective/partial and elitist dogma that berates all other creationists beliefs.

I am a Christian, and I feel creationism is one of the greatest hoax ever spread in Christendom.

Bro you got to gather all the reasons why creationists reacted the way they are reacting now.

1) evolutionists wanted to monopolise the idea of origin
2) they are using science to push the idea that we all came from a single cell. (whne in fact this is not scientific at all).


Now creationist scientists got involved and started to investigate for themselves.

1) They wanted to offer an alternative view to students and to the public.
2) They are using science to refute the THEORIES behind evolution.

ana ra na bro.

Then about sa VEDAS,ingun didto nga the universe including our planet is eternal (no beginning no end),the bible said that it has a beginning and it will have an end. Ang kanindot lang ani bro kay ang bible ni coincide sa finding sa science nga indeed the universe had a beginning and it will have an end.

So w/ science as our tool asa may toohan nato ang vedas or ang science?

[IdontCare]

he must be ONE HUGE GOD that can float/fly over the WATERS... as in the entire continental waters... literally speaking. Sorry, but I don't buy this kind of story.

As for me, creationists sceintists are ideals that is/are dependent on biblical mumbo jumbo. If they can't prove scientifically... they have to seek help, which is the bible.

huh? biblical mumbo jumbo?

creation scientists are using the bible? hahahaha

FYI, they are using science to disprove evolution.

[brownprose]

do you want the bible to be asked and let the bible answer?
why you didn't believed in Creation?

Why don't you RE-READ my post bro...I only said I don't believe in CREATIONISM. It does not follow I DON'T believe in "the work of creation" by God. Having said that, God's work of creation is not to be literally read or understood as six days or what others would call " The Hexaemon" as written in the Bible. The Hexaemon as like many other verses in the Bible is to be interpreted metaphorically since the Bible cannot put into scientific detail "how it was created." Therefore, it is fruitless to insist a literal interpretation since science will never find it acceptable.

My faith in the issue of Creation is very simple - That God is responsible for everything He has put in this Universe. And that is enough for me to keep my faith alive on the subject.

My Science in the issue of Creation is very simple as well. The Universal Laws ever since the world began, have never changed. Therefore, creation is a "process" (and a long one at that) dependent upon these Universal Laws to establish natural order of things for life to exist in relative perpetuity.

Because this particular Branch of Science will lead us to "to see is to believe".
And the bible has two parts, spiritual and literal.

As I have said, it is the business of Science to find the objective truth. Science gives particular attention to historic or literary construction of Bible verses/texts at most. Beyond that, Science pay no particular interest in the cryptic/spiritual meaning of the Bible as the latter presents very subjective issues.

Except Creationist Science, mainstream science is a straightforward attempt to dig "physical realities" and yes you are right, science is generally a "To see is to believe" pursuit and there is nothing wrong with that. It is the nature of science to understand/investigate "conceived" events, processes or occurrences. We are given the mental faculties/intelligence to improve our understanding of the world around us and science has been a great help to achieve/find answers to some of the things we didn't know before.

then when dealing with physicist its impossible/hard for them to show the spiritual side of the bible. So Physicist must be convinced to believe first in spirit but a tons of try and effort is needed.

I don't quite understand what you mean by this. But as I have said, Scientists or physicists for example, find the Bible the least of their concerns on matters of natural or physical laws. We must understand that the Bible offers no evidence or reasonable amount of scientific data to start with for scientist to derive explanations what has or had transpired.

that beyond our reach we can't do more.
I mean I will give my best shot and I will leave the rest to God.

PEace!

Science is a discipline of "continuous learning" and will always expand its scope beyond "the present understanding." Like science, spirituality is also a continuous learning about You and your relationship with God.

[brownprose]

Very nice argument brownprose!

Here's what I also think about creation science... one thing that I have ask a favor to all readers that don't react too much on this. Because you and I have purpose to continue our understanding about God, his works and our knowledge to fill in ourselves. The same reason why literal reading causes more debating issues rather than solutions.

Now, most Creation Scientists today are Young Earth Creationists, making a literal reading of the Bible the central feature of their scientific arguments (although, strictly speaking, most references to the Bible tend to be left aside as part of the effort to create the appearance of scientific legitimacy). Nevertheless, the Creation Research Society, an important organization which promotes Scientific Creationism, expects all members to accept this Statement of Belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

Notice that each of the four points does not simply make explicit references to the Bible, but in fact relies upon particular, literalist readings of certain passages and a conservative theological position with regards to the Bible; that, rather than science, is what Scientific Creationism is all about.

Excellent find!

Bro, actually, I take no offense to what they believe. In fact, as I have said, I find it a very positive way to offer an alternative philosophy to creation. It's just that I personally think they're more inclined to "doctrine" than science.

I think I have explained myself well about (Christian) Creationism. I can only sum up my views that their position on creation is elitist.

[rcruman]

The Hexaemon as like many other verses in the Bible is to be interpreted metaphorically since the Bible cannot put into scientific detail "how it was created." Therefore, it is fruitless to insist a literal interpretation since science will never find it acceptable.

add Faith to Science and it will be detailed.

My faith in the issue of Creation is very simple - That God is responsible for everything He has put in this Universe. And that is enough for me to keep my faith alive on the subject.

Then with this "faith" of yours, do you still have questions about "how it was created"?
Can you still call it faith if you have questions about "how it was created"?

My Science in the issue of Creation is very simple as well. The Universal Laws ever since the world began, have never changed. Therefore, creation is a "process" (and a long one at that) dependent upon these Universal Laws to establish natural order of things for life to exist in relative perpetuity.

can you explain to me this "Universal Law" if you don't mind.
What is "Universal Law"?
Where did you get it ?

As I have said, it is the business of Science to find the objective truth. Science gives particular attention to historic or literary construction of Bible verses/texts at most. Beyond that, Science pay no particular interest in the cryptic/spiritual meaning of the Bible as the latter presents very subjective issues.

because science needs Spiritual side or the lacking side of it in order to figure everything.
The bible is a spiritual and literal book, how come when studying the bible only taking the side of literal.
It should be both to be taken in order to have a whole picture of it.

Except Creationist Science, mainstream science is a straightforward attempt to dig "physical realities" and yes you are right, science is generally a "To see is to believe" pursuit and there is nothing wrong with that. It is the nature of science to understand/investigate "conceived" events, processes or occurrences. We are given the mental faculties/intelligence to improve our understanding of the world around us and science has been a great help to achieve/find answers to some of the things we didn't know before.

and the problem is that they didn't realized that this "science" came from God and once people known it they claimed that they have found it and believed that they are superb being.
Everything came from God and people forget God when they achieved something and rely on their own understanding.
Spirit has known science but science didn't known Spirit yet.
We should both use it, science and spirit then its perfect and will lead us to Him.

I don't quite understand what you mean by this. But as I have said, Scientists or physicists for example, find the Bible the least of their concerns on matters of natural or physical laws. We must understand that the Bible offers no evidence or reasonable amount of scientific data to start with for scientist to derive explanations what has or had transpired.

Why not consider first the time frame.

Science is a discipline of "continuous learning" and will always expand its scope beyond "the present understanding." Like science, spirituality is also a continuous learning about You and your relationship with God.

then why not expand its scope beyond which is the spirit world.
linking science to spirit world was limited by peoples capabilities.
Surrender everything to God and be humble upon Him then it will be a clear view.
People rely on their own (specially scientist), they didn't thank what they have known and attributed it to God instead they believed that its them who found it.


This will be a long discussion if you will alllow me to post mine and the same way with you and others.

Peace!