Creation scientists - do they exist?

[DogmaHunter]

They can dispute that all they like. The fact remains.

Indeed. And the fact is that none of the religions are "special" or "unique".
They all make the same kind of claims, they are all centered around the same kind of supernatural shenannigans and all of the followers believe their particular religion is somehow special.

 

[sfs]

The point is though, these people, like any scientist, are dealing with scientific matters on a daily basis and yet they still come to the conclusion that macro evolution is false. If the evidence were so conclusive in favour of evolution, then logic dictates that they would be happy to accept it.

That does not follow at all. You can find individual scientists with any number of weird beliefs, including some that are wildly at odds with scientific evidence. Why pay attention to the minuscule fraction of scientists who reject macroevolution, and not the vast majority who find the evidence for it compelling?

Two items you haven't responded to:
1) You suggested that evolution wasn't being used to do science. I pointed out that your suggestion was wrong. Comment?
2) You claimed that creationism was valid science. I asked you to point me to some of the valid science being done, and you didn't. Where's the science?

 

[Loudmouth]

Not at all. Jesus told many parables as part of his teaching methods and this was clearly one of those, as everyone would have understood at the time. However, whenever Jesus quoted from Genesis or other parts of the Old Testament, He never referred to them as just made-up stories.

Jesus never referred to the Prodigal Son as a made-up story.

You don't think people could figure out that Noah was a retelling of the Babylonian myth?

So here we have the Creator of the universe, confirming the authority of Scripture; the only one who has walked the face of this earth who knows everything.

We have stories written by men.

 

[The Cadet]

The point is though, these people, like any scientist, are dealing with scientific matters on a daily basis and yet they still come to the conclusion that macro evolution is false. If the evidence were so conclusive in favour of evolution, then logic dictates that they would be happy to accept it.

And what of the vast, vast, vaaaaast majority that accept it and reject creationism?

You can find a handful of legitimately credentialed cranks on just about any subject. Their existence is not evidence of any sort of controversy. The fact that Peter Duesburg has run his career into the ground because he wouldn't give up his insane ideas about about AIDS doesn't mean that HIV causing AIDS is somehow controversial.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Jesus never referred to the Prodigal Son as a made-up story.

It hardly seems relevant as your clearly don't believe the Bible to be the word of God, but the story described here is typical of Jesus's style in teaching by using parables. Here's a typical opening summary from a well-known Bible commentary, "We have here the parable of the prodigal son, the scope of which is the same with those before, to show how pleasing to God the conversion of sinners is, of great sinners, and how ready he is to receive and entertain such, upon their repentance; but the circumstances of the parable do much more largely and fully set forth the riches of gospel grace than those did, and it has been, and will be while the world stands, of unspeakable use to poor sinners, both to direct and to encourage them in repenting and returning to God..."

You don't think people could figure out that Noah was a retelling of the Babylonian myth?

There's no proof of that. It could be that many of the flood legends around the world, and I understand there are dozens of them, are based on the real-life event described in the Bible. The Babylonian story may even have borrowed some of the Biblical account, embellishing it in the process.

We have stories written by men.

So you apparently believe. I believe otherwise.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

And what of the vast, vast, vaaaaast majority that accept it and reject creationism?

Truth isn't counted by a majority vote. Jesus even stated as much 2000 years ago, so it's a well-known fact.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Why pay attention to the minuscule fraction of scientists who reject macroevolution, and not the vast majority who find the evidence for it compelling?

I fail to see how the evidence can be so compelling when it goes against everything we see around us in nature. I think I'm going to conduct a little survey of my own and find out what proportion of those I ask think that evolution is a good explanation for how life came to be. I think I'll also ask a question or two about the alleged Big Bang while I'm at it.

Regarding the other points, I can't find the thread, but clearly there are some scientists who find no conflict between the real science they do in their research/employment and their views that evolution is nothing more that pseudo science.

 

[Loudmouth]

It hardly seems relevant as your clearly don't believe the Bible to be the word of God, but the story described here is typical of Jesus's style in teaching by using parables.

And yet you won't allow Noah to be a parable. How ironic.

Here's a typical opening summary from a well-known Bible commentary,

That would be the words of men, would it not?

There's no proof of that. It could be that many of the flood legends around the world, and I understand there are dozens of them, are based on the real-life event described in the Bible. The Babylonian story may even have borrowed some of the Biblical account, embellishing it in the process.

The Enuma Elish predates Genesis by centuries. It is really, really obvious that the authors of Genesis borrowed the story from the Babylonians during their captivity.

So you apparently believe. I believe otherwise.

You don't believe that the Bible was written by men?

 

[Loudmouth]

I fail to see how the evidence can be so compelling when it goes against everything we see around us in nature.

You haven't shown that it goes against anything.

I think I'm going to conduct a little survey of my own and find out what proportion of those I ask think that evolution is a good explanation for how life came to be. I think I'll also ask a question or two about the alleged Big Bang while I'm at it.

Regarding the other points, I can't find the thread, but clearly there are some scientists who find no conflict between the real science they do in their research/employment and their views that evolution is nothing more that pseudo science.

"Truth isn't counted by a majority vote."-NotByChance

 

[Not_By_Chance]

I didn't tell you what I believe.

You asserted something and I asked how you determined that.



Why are you turning it around, when I merely asked you a question about YOUR assertion?

I'm not making any claims here. I'm just questioning YOUR claims.

I don't claim to know how life started.

Now please, instead of answering my question with another (irrelevant) question, please explain how you determined that which YOU claimed.

When I see odds against life starting as being more than the number of atoms in the known universe, that tells me it's impossible and that would be the logical conclusion of anyone who hadn't got an anti-God agenda to adhere to. And 10 to the power of 80 is nothing compared with what others have quoted. Look at this...

Two well known scientists calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes. They estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000power that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000power is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it!

- "...life cannot have had a random beginning...The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the 40,000power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court....The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems...cannot in our view be generated by what are often called "natural" processes...For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly...There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago."

Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe,
Evolution from Space [Aldine House, 33 Welbeck Street, London W1M 8LX:
J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981), p. 148, 24,150,30,31).

And you wonder why I find it more reasonable to believe that "In the beginning God..."

 

[Not_By_Chance]

And yet you won't allow Noah to be a parable. How ironic.

It's not ironic. In the first example, Jesus is teaching using stories or parables, but the style he uses in remembering Noah is very different...
Luk 17:25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.
Luk 17:26 "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man.
Luk 17:27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's not ironic. In the first example, Jesus is teaching using stories or parables, but the style he uses in remembering Noah is very different...
Luk 17:25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.
Luk 17:26 "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man.
Luk 17:27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

How is it different? Why can't Jesus tech with parables using two different methods?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Islam has been around for the past 1500 years. They number in over a billion and are the fastest growing religion world wide.

Islam was founded on force, and that force continues today. Also, there are only a fraction of the number of manuscripts compared to those of the Bible, plus the Biblical documents of the New Testament can be traced back to within a few years of Jesus's ministry on earth - far too soon for legends to creep in.

 

[Loudmouth]

Islam was founded on force, and that force continues today. Also, there are only a fraction of the number of manuscripts compared to those of the Bible, plus the Biblical documents of the New Testament can be traced back to within a few years of Jesus's ministry on earth - far too soon for legends to creep in.

There is a much better history for the Book of Mormon than there is the New Testament. Does that mean the Book of Mormon is more accurate than the New Testament?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

How is it different? Why can't Jesus tech with parables using two different methods?

Jesus could and did use different ways to teach his flock, including the use of miracles. The style in these two examples is different too. In the first, He is telling a story, rather like a school teacher might tell to the children at storytime, whereas in the second example, Jesus is being deadly serious and giving a stark warning about what will happen if people don't change their ways. May I suggest you read the whole book of Luke in order to get the fuller picture? Just quoting little snippets here and there doesn't make much sense on its own because it's hard to understand the all-important context in that way.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

There is a much better history for the Book of Mormon than there is the New Testament.

Better in what way? It's not regarded as a cult by most Christians without good reason. Jesus warned about adding to or taking away his words when he said...
Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
Rev 22:19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
How many prophesies from cult groups have actually come true? That's a good measure of whether they are the truth or just false teachings, as warned about in the Bible. Much of what we see happening today was prophesied in the Bible a very long time ago. Ask a local Pastor to go through it with you, or if you want a DIY job, get hold of the excellent book entitled "The Stranger on the Road to Emmaus" which does a great job of explaining what the Bible is all about (from Genesis to Revelation).

 

[Loudmouth]

Better in what way?

Better in every way that you listed. There are tons of manuscripts for the Book of Mormon, tons of eye witnesses. There are even photographs of Joseph Smith.

It's not regarded as a cult by most Christians without good reason.

Muslims say the same of Christianity.

 

[Loudmouth]

The style in these two examples is different too.

Why can't they be different and both be parables?

May I suggest you read the whole book of Luke in order to get the fuller picture?

I have read all of the gospels, beginning to end.

Perhaps you should start looking at the evidence around you.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

the authors of Genesis

God is the author of Genesis. Moses wrote it down under God's direction, but it's God account. So the Babylonian myth idea actually post-dates the real account given in the Bible. Also, you can see by comparing the two stories that the Biblical account is devoid of the fancy bits added to the Babylonian story. There are other parts of the Bible, when it is dealing with historical topics, that give it a ring of truth. Here's just a couple of examples: the women being first at the empty tomb after the resurrection of Jesus. If the story were made up, women wouldn't have been given such a centre-stage role in those days because they were largely thought of as being second-class citizens. The fact that they were, is strong evidence that what is being told actually happened. Then there is the part where Jesus wrote something on the ground. They don't tell you what He wrote, so why mention it if it were simply made up? Another example has just come to mind as well - the disciples were not exactly your normal hero types, so if the accounts given were simply fiction, why not choose some real hero-type characters to play the parts?

 

[Loudmouth]

God is the author of Genesis. Moses wrote it down under God's direction, but it's God account.

So writes a man.

Also, you can see by comparing the two stories that the Biblical account is devoid of the fancy bits added to the Babylonian story. There are other parts of the Bible, when it is dealing with historical topics, that give it a ring of truth. Here's just a couple of examples: the women being first at the empty tomb after the resurrection of Jesus. If the story were made up, women wouldn't have been given such a centre-stage role in those days because they were largely thought of as being second-class citizens. The fact that they were, is strong evidence that what is being told actually happened. Then there is the part where Jesus wrote something on the ground. They don't tell you what He wrote, so why mention it if it were simply made up? Another example has just come to mind as well - the disciples were not exactly your normal hero types, so if the accounts given were simply fiction, why not choose some real hero-type characters to play the parts?

The geologic evidence demonstrates that the flood account isn't a real event.

So take your pick. It is either a parable or it is false.