Is Creationist Science Worth Believing?

[brownprose]

---

kinsay dili mutuo sa scientific data (take note data)?
bro ang science og spirit kay naa sa bible pero sa science walay spirit so it must be both science and spirit to have the complete picture.

Peace!

I don't need to mention names here. And that post refers to another person here. Anyways, that comment was just on the sides.

About what you said about science you find in the Bible, I think i have aptly answered you that in one of my previous posts. Anyways, I said that there may be a "speck" of science in the Bible but the Bible is not a scientific book but a spiritual book. If the Bible was a scientific book, for sure, you would find dozens of chapters that talk about science subjects we know in school.

[brownprose]

@rcruman sorry I think I miss this one.

add Faith to Science and it will be detailed.

Science operates in a different frame of mind. Assuming for example you want to include faith in science now which faith are we talking about? There are tons of faith/denominations that claim to be the real church or the real doctrine, now where do you think science should start, Buiddhism, Hinduism, Gnosticism, Taoism, Shamanism, Islam...? You figure that out.

Science cannot come to terms with faith because faith is basically more of a personal ideal or belief and is a part of our social framework or social order. In addition, faith deals primarily on spiritual and moral issues and science is amoral (neutral) on such matters and that is how they are and should or will be -- amoral.

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"?

Do I have questions? All I know is I have answers on matters of MY PERSONAL FAITH. My point of reconciliation to my science and my faith or spirituality is they are two distinct disciplines that should be left on their own so I will not confuse my faith and my science.

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

I know my Universal Law since elementary years. For your sake, Universal Law in the context of science is which that governs the order of things around us or the universe as a whole. It includes the laws of physics, chemistry, cosmology and such other physical laws that have become axioms that form part of the general scientific knowledge we know today like gravity or polarity for example sometimes it is interchangeably referred to as the Natural law or the law of nature.

because science needs Spiritual side or the lacking side of it in order to figure everything.

Again science is a method and a process. It cannot holistically accept things that are not verified. And again, you cannot also enforce to science which spiritually to adopt since spirituality is a personal or a scoial concept that is in a society -- there are zillions of spiritual concepts around. And how do you think would science narrow them all down to one?

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.
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.

Obviously, this is your own personal opinion. But then again, as I have said, matters of personal faith cannot be enforced to science. You can't just tell this people to read the Bible or force them to literally accept what the Bible says by faith. The business of science is not to validate what is or what is not a sound doctrine. Science validates material or physical events thru experiments and use or application of scientific principles. You cannot experiment doctrines, dogma or theology because they are intrinsically social concepts that are left to society for people to live by.

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.

Again this is your personal opinion. I can't do anything about what you think.

Why not consider first the time frame.

Science have ample evidences about timeframe. You will read a lot of them in many science books.

then why not expand its scope beyond which is the spirit world.
linking science to spirit world was limited by peoples capabilities.

With advances of science, it will come to that. It's probably just only a matter of time.

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.

No comment

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

Peace!

I just did

[Sinyalan]

Surrender everything to God and be humble upon Him then it will be a clear view.

Everything? Like money, house, car, family or income? Let's just talk money for now... who get's it? god or man? If you toss money up to heaven, would god catch it and say, it's all mine! There is no clear view here but imaginary. Oh wait, let's impose faith because that's what it should be... pffft... total crapeziod.

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.

Just like you. Your rely on your own. Do you think that science would listen to your preaching? Besides, who created the bible in the first palce? hmmm?

[geoseph]

Religion may also contribute to science in terms of ethics or moral philosophy (at least, in the personal lives of the scientists who follow their religion). That in itself, is not so bad. Science may contribute to religion by clarifying details of fact, such that, a devout person maybe compelled to see his or her religion in a higher light. Perhaps, due consideration to the merits of both may help remove the bigotry and intolerance a "fundamentalist on one side" may hold against the "other side." If the two really can't mix then, let's do away with the various charitable hospitals and schools (or any foundation that directly or indirectly employs science) run by religious organizations.

In response to the question of the thread, I personally think Creationism (they may call it "Creation Science") missed the above point. It looks to me like, their real target is Atheism. They may also have missed that:

- Science does not necessarily equate to Atheism. Many eminent scientists believe in the existence of God.
- Atheists do not equate with "bad" people. I have a friend (known him since high school) who does not believe in the existence of God yet, he lives a life more ethical (or moral) than many of the Christians I know. I think, his character is an order of magnitude cleaner than some religious persons. I am presuming he is not the only highly ethical (or moral) Atheist.
- They may believe it's okay to attack "non-believers" because it is also written that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees. But, if one really thinks about it, what Jesus essentially rebuked was the hypocrisy of many of the ruling priests (and unsavory practices). Was not Nicodemus also a priest yet, he was considered a friend?

[brownprose]

Religion may also contribute to science in terms of ethics or moral philosophy (at least, in the personal lives of the scientists who follow their religion). That in itself, is not so bad. Science may contribute to religion by clarifying details of fact, such that, a devout person maybe compelled to see his or her religion in a higher light. Perhaps, due consideration to the merits of both may help remove the bigotry and intolerance a "fundamentalist on one side" may hold against the "other side." If the two really can't mix then, let's do away with the various charitable hospitals and schools (or any foundation that directly or indirectly employs science) run by religious organizations.

In response to the question of the thread, I personally think Creationism (they may call it "Creation Science") missed the above point. It looks to me like, their real target is Atheism. They may also have missed that:

- Science does not necessarily equate to Atheism. Many eminent scientists believe in the existence of God.
- Atheists do not equate with "bad" people. I have a friend (known him since high school) who does not believe in the existence of God yet, he lives a life more ethical (or moral) than many of the Christians I know. I think, his character is an order of magnitude cleaner than some religious persons. I am presuming he is not the only highly ethical (or moral) Atheist.
- They may believe it's okay to attack "non-believers" because it is also written that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees. But, if one really thinks about it, what Jesus essentially rebuked was the hypocrisy of many of the ruling priests (and unsavory practices). Was not Nicodemus also a priest yet, he was considered a friend?

A post like this deserves to be pondered upon. A good one bro.

[brownprose]

Everything? Like money, house, car, family or income? Let's just talk money for now... who get's it? god or man? If you toss money up to heaven, would god catch it and say, it's all mine! There is no clear view here but imaginary. Oh wait, let's impose faith because that's what it should be... pffft... total crapeziod.

You're so mean...hehehe...

[geoseph]

A post like this deserves to be pondered upon. A good one bro.

Thanks brownprrrose.

[bcasabee]

Religion is not scientific.

Religion tries to answer questions as how and why matter existed.

Science only observes things. It doesn't care why and how the matter got there. It only measures things such mass, velocity etc.

So religion and science can go hand in hand.

[munzter666]

Re: Is Creationism Scientific?

BIG NO.

we can always try to validate earlier scientific experiments and determine whether the results correspond to reality if we want to achieve a higher degree of certainty.

so much for creationism.

[Empress_Of_Drac]

God Creations is more than Scientific its a mystery ....

agree...