So apparently nobody actually believes in creationism.

[Guy1]

Real science always points to a Creator

It points to evolution.

or at least does not intentionally try to take God out of the equation

Nobody does that.

...which is impossible.

The taking one out or not adding one in? The former is something nobody does, the latter is what's (Not) done regularly.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I believe in creationism. Real science always points to a Creator, or at least does not intentionally try to take God out of the equation...which is impossible.

Then why do the vast majority of real scientists disagree? Let me guess, one of the following:

A) Satan tricked them
B) They're all lying
C) They're all dumb

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Then why do the vast majority of real scientists disagree? Let me guess, one of the following:

A) Satan tricked them
B) They're all lying
C) They're all dumb

D) They have been coerced to this Evolution Theory rather than entertaining other theories.
E) Scientists who believed in Creationism have been shunned.

Mankind can be deceptive and downright evil in the works; scientists who supports evolution are no exception.

 

[Guy1]

D) They have been coerced to this Evolution Theory rather than entertaining other theories.
E) Scientists who believed in Creationism have been shunned.

Mankind can be deceptive and downright evil in the works; scientists who supports evolution are no exception.

Yes cry conspiracy. You can't really respond to anything else anyone has to say, so you might as well go out with a bang!

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

D) They have been coerced to this Evolution Theory rather than entertaining other theories.
E) Scientists who believed in Creationism have been shunned.

Mankind can be deceptive and downright evil in the works; scientists who supports evolution are no exception.

Are you saying scientists who support evolution are evil?

Here's a tip: if it's not your field of study and you think that every expert is wrong, maybe it's you who is wrong. Instead of forming a premature opinion with your amateurish knowledge, why not ask the people in the field why they accept evolution (openly and honestly), without trying to derail it with your ignorance?

Here's an example: I'm not a chemist. So why would I go bust down the doors of a chemistry discussion and claim the majority of chemists are incorrect on a topic? How should I honestly know? Even if I read a few articles online...how do I know those articles are correct when I don't have the tools to assess the topic anyway?

Show some humility. You likely have this mindset that everyone's opinions are equal. In science, they aren't. No one is going to give you any ground if you don't have evidence, and you can only make a fool out of yourself if you start attacking a topic when in reality you know very little about it.

 

[Norman321]

Then why do the vast majority of real scientists disagree?

How can they disagree? What science do you have that can show there is no God?

 

[Guy1]

How can they disagree? What science do you have that can show there is no God?

There is no such thing. There is only the null hypothesis to turn to; and you've failed to reject it.

 

[Norman321]

Scientists who believed in Creationism have been shunned.

Why would anyone care if a Scientist was a Creationist or not? What difference would that make? Lots of leading Scientists have been Creationists.

 

[Norman321]

There is no such thing. There is only the null hypothesis to turn to; and you've failed to reject it.

Are you saying that you can not test if there is a God or not? So all we can do is test the Bible to see if the Bible is true?

 

[Guy1]

Scientists who believed in Creationism have been shunned.

Why would anyone care if a Scientist was a Creationist or not? What difference would that make? Lots of leading Scientists have been Creationists.

I'm with you for once (Though the examples and reasons we have in mind are probably different). It's completely irrelevant if a scientist is a creationist or not. Nobody pays them to believe anything; just to do science.

Are you saying that you can not test if there is a God or not? So all we can do is test the Bible to see if the Bible is true?

In simpler terms: Is there evidence to suggest a supernatural being capable of defying all we know at will? No? Then we fail to reject the null hypothesis ("There is no supernatural being"). Personally I think we could test for it's existence if there were one; but as it stands I have no reason to believe one exists.

PS. That last bit sounds like an excellent idea. We can subject any of the claims it makes about the natural world to the scientific method.

 

[MostlyLurking]

And that is why both scientists (believers in creationism and believers in evolution) are in a stalemate until God re-appears.

I am a retired scientist. And I believe God created everything (so I'm a creationist according to the word's original definition) and I affirm that the theory of evolution is our best explanation for how God chose to adapt living organisms to new environments and to diversify life on earth. So there is NO STALEMATE at all.

Now if by "creationism" you mean Young Earth Creationism, then you are dealing with some additional beliefs of SOME of the world's Christians. But their YEC beliefs are based on their church's INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible according to their favored TRADITIONS. In other words, the Bible doesn't directly claim the following but some Christians THINK that the Bible does claim such ideas:

1) "The universe was created 6,000 years ago." [But the Bible makes no such claim.]

2) "Everything was created in six 24-hour days." [The Bible only states that six YOM were involved, and YOM has multiple definitions besides the 24-hour day. And because the same YECs insist that the sun wasn't created until YOM #4, when it says that DAYS and YEARS were first used for time-keeping purposes, YOM in Genesis 1 couldn't have refered to 24hour days. Indeed, "the evening and the morning" drives that point home because that is a Hebrew idiom for the end of one era and the beginning of another.]

3) "Each kind was created instantaneously as a fixed form organism." [Yet, the Bible doesn't say that. Genesis says nothing about the processes God used nor how long those processes required.]

4) "Noah's Flood was global." [No. Genesis only says ALL PEOPLE were involved and the KOL ERETZ, "the entire land", was covered in water, and "everything under heaven" (which is synonymous to KOL ERETZ.) Anyone who insists that KOL ERETZ means "the entire planet earth" must somehow claim that ERETZ YISRAEL means "the Planet Israel" instead of "the Land of Israel"!

So as you can clearly see, true creationism and science have no conflict. Only when one adopts the man-made TRADITIONS of Young Earth Creationism is one forced to ignore the evidence from God's creation and pretend that the earth is 6,000 years old -----and pretend that there is ANY KIND of actual "scientific conflict" about such nonsense. Young Earth Creationism isn't just pseudo-science; it is pseudo-scriptural. Christians should avoid it, just like any other cult-like belief system.

Both theories cannot be scientifically proven; both requires a leap of faith in that what happen thousands (millions, billions, whatever) of years ago, actually happen.

1) If you understood scientific theories, you would know that they are NEVER PROVEN. "Proofs" and "proving" only applies to mathematics. In other fields of science, it is a matter of overwhelming evidence, such as 2-sigma attestation.

2) Billions of years is not a matter of "faith" (or a "leap of faith".) It is a matter of EVIDENCE. Once again, you are confusing science with religious belief.

As a Bible-believing Christ-follower, I rely upon the EVIDENCE which God has provided within his creation and within his scriptures. Because they have the same "author", God's creation and God's Bible have no conflict. The conflicts and contradictions come when man-made TRADITIONS (such as a 6,000 year old earth) are imposed upon the bible and the harmony is destroyed.

So YOU may have to wait for some imaginary "stalemate" to be resolved. But those of us who have full confidence that God is NOT a deceiver----so he doesn't lie or deceive us through planting wrong information in his creation nor in his scriptures----we enjoy that harmony NOW.

As with the Pharisees of the first century, only those who prefer man-made TRADITIONS to the scriptures have any "stalemate" to worry about. The rest have the peace of God knowing that God's "books" (of science and the Bible) are in harmony.

 

[Norman321]

We can subject any of the claims it makes about the natural world to the scientific method.

Correct, so all you have to do to prove God is to go beyond the placebo effect.

 

[MostlyLurking]

E) Scientists who believed in Creationism have been shunned.

1) How many scientists have been "shunned" for "believing in Creationism?" You appear to know, so tell us.

[I assume you understand the meaning of the word "shunned", right? Shunning is a term for something done within religious sects. So your choice of the term is rather ironic.]

2) What are the names of some of those scientists who have been shunned?

3) How many of those "shunned scientists" did you personally know and can demonstrate that they genuinely suffered discrimination for creationist beliefs and not for bad job performances, workplace violations, etc?

4) I was a science professor who openly expressed believe in creationism on a state-university campus in the American Midwest. I was never "shunned". In fact, when they need a creationist for a speaker's panel at some lecturer or conference, they always asked me.

5) I can name MANY professors on evangelical and fundamentalist Christian university and college campuses who WERE SHUNNED (and even dismissed mid-semester) for daring to make statements which were considered "sympathetic" of evolution.

In fact, I would bet that for every creationist scientist you know who was "shunned", I can name TWO scholars/professors who were shunned OR MUCH WORSE by their "creationist" institutional employers. Are you up for the challenge?

I'll even start the challenge: Dr. Bruce Waltke.

 

[SkyWriting]

Then why do the vast majority of real scientists disagree? Let me guess, one of the following:

A) Satan tricked them
B) They're all lying
C) They're all dumb

What are most scientists saying that disagrees that there is a God?
Or are you claiming something else? And you may as well show your
data to support it.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

How can they disagree? What science do you have that can show there is no God?

Science is silent on the issue of the existence of God.

Science is not, however, silent on the claims of creationism that can be tested.

Either way, it's not a "God vs evolution" dichotomy though the preachers and professional creationists have tried to tell you that. The majority of evolution supporters are religious.

 

[BobRyan]

I am a retired scientist. And I believe God created everything (so I'm a creationist according to the word's original definition) and I affirm that the theory of evolution is our best explanation for how God chose to adapt living organisms to new environments and to diversify life on earth. So there is NO STALEMATE at all.

Now if by "creationism" you mean Young Earth Creationism, then you are dealing with some additional beliefs of SOME

That is total nonsense.

Darwin himself stated that there is no compatibility between darwinism and Christianity. So also do well known evolutionists like Dawkins, Provine and P.Z. Meyers.

There are those who hold to self-conflicted ideas like the Theistic Evolutionists, the Mormons, etc who believe two conflicting ideas and try to bend-the-bible to meet the demands of their agenda. With enough lack of attention to detail when it comes to the Bible - that is possible.

In the Bible God places this in "legal code" summarizing the Genesis 1-2:3 account by saying "SIX Days YOU shall labor ... for in SIX DAYS the Lord made the heavens and the earth the seas and ALL THAT IS IN THEM".

The Bible account for how all complex life came to be on earth is nothing at all like blind-faith evolutionism and even Darwin himself admitted it.

The blind faith evolutionist ideas about amoebas turning into horses - given enough time on "mount improbable" are simply story telling and junk-science, which amounts to its own kind of "bad religion".

No serious student of the Bible can bend and wrench the Bible enough to shoe horn it into evolutionist mythologies.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Science is silent on the issue of the existence of God.

That is true of real science -- of the hard sciences.

It is not true of junk-science blind-faith-evolutionism about amoebas turning into horses given enough time and chance on mount-improbable or about prokaryotes turning into eukaryotes given enough time and chance.

That is true junk science even by some atheist standards.

Science is not, however, silent on the claims of creationism that can be tested.

Either way, it's not a "God vs evolution" dichotomy though the preachers and professional creationists have tried to tell you that. The majority of evolution supporters are religious.

Intelligent Design is so glaringly obvious as well known Atheists have pointed out - like Martin Reese and Leonard Susskind that they need to "imagine" a multiverse with something like 10^500 other entire universes out there - to "escape" the conclusion for I.D.

This demonstrates the lengths to which these atheist scientist will go in order to avoid what God says is glaringly obvious "in nature" as observations "IN Nature" in places like Romans 1.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Darwin himself stated that there is no compatibility between darwinism and Christianity. So also do well known evolutionists like Dawkins, Provine and P.Z. Meyers.

Please show that Darwin said this. If I recall history correctly, he didn't lose his faith until the lost of a loved one.

But who cares anyway what Dawkins, Provine, and Myers say? Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and John Polkinghorne are all religious and accept evolution. Are you saying they aren't True Christians™?

There are those who hold to self-conflicted ideas like the Theistic Evolutionists, the Mormons, etc who believe two conflicting ideas and try to bend-the-bible to meet the demands of their agenda. With enough lack of attention to detail when it comes to the Bible - that is possible.

You're skirting very close to rule-breaking here. You're not allowed to imply that other peoples' faith is incorrect or unreal.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

That is true of real science -- of the hard sciences.

It is not true of junk-science blind-faith-evolutionism about amoebas turning into horses given enough time and chance on mount-improbable or about prokaryotes turning into eukaryotes given enough time and chance.

That is true junk science even by some atheist standards.

The only thing you're demonstrating here is how little you understand evolution.

Intelligent Design is so glaringly obvious as well known Atheists have pointed out - like Martin Reese and Leonard Susskind that they need to "imagine" a multiverse with something like 10^500 other entire universes out there - to "escape" the conclusion for I.D.

This demonstrates the lengths to which these atheist scientist will go in order to avoid what God says is glaringly obvious "in nature" as observations "IN Nature" in places like Romans 1.

in Christ,

Bob

If ID/Creationism was measurable, there would be data. But no data exists. Until that data exists, it doesn't not warrant serious consideration.

 

[BobRyan]

If ID/Creationism was measurable, there would be data. But no data exists. Until that data exists, it doesn't not warrant serious consideration.

Apparently you did not watch the "What we still do not know" internet (youtube) video by world renown atheist Cosmologist Martin Reese and atheist Physicist Leonard Susskind. They deal with the fine tuning "observations in nature" and when they get to the cosmological constant they simply throw up their hands and say "well that's it!!" -- they have no way at all to cling to "denying I.D" with that staring them in the face.

So they "invent" 10^500 OTHER UNIVERSES as their "way out".

They show the true nature of determined atheist scientists when it comes to trying to deny what Romans 1 says cannot be denied even by pagans when it comes to "observations in nature" when it comes to the "invisible attributes of God clearly seen in the things that have been made".

When Christians join them in denying observations in nature - they not only are at odd with Romans 1 - they are unwittingly making a distinctly atheist argument against God.

So to those Christians I say "wake up!" -- because even some of the atheists themselves are not that blind.

in Christ,

Bob