50 essays by PHD level scientists in support of literal 6-day creation

[lismore]

Well now, in this case they're crowded together to have their essays published on a creationist site. They're not standing up for the truth, if they were they wouldn't be dishonest so frequently. That's why many Christians, myself included, do not trust them one bit. God bless you as well.

Hi Go Braves. I am aware of Creation Scientists and their ministries, more aware than familiar. By Creationists I mean those who believe the bible, e.g what God said in Exodus 20:11. God Bless

 

[miamited]

Here's a fun resource. An online book consisting of 50 essays, each by a scientist with a PHD in their fields, discussing why they believe in a literal 6-day creation by God.
In Six Days

Hi laptoppop,

I too, thank you for the resource link. As I understand the Scriptures, belief in God is never going to be the 'majority' position of mankind. Just as in the days of Elijah, God said that He had reserved 5,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal. Israel at that time was likely several million people. 5,000 would be just a drop in the bucket. So today, out of several thousand scientists, I'd say that 50 (and of course there are more than that, but the author of this resource only picked a certain 'cream of the crop' so to speak) scientists who have studied both the creation model and the evolutionary model that have found evidence to support the creation model is probably right in line with that same percentage.

Ultimately, however, faith in the truth of God's word and His claims as to all that He has done that just seem totally impossible to us, is going to be about faith. Faith that God cannot lie. Faith that God wants us to know the truth. That He did part a sea. A sea that was at least deep enough to have parted and created congealed walls on either side of the opening. A sea that pretty much just as quickly as it parted, then closed upon an army of soldiers and was at least deep enough to drown not only them but also their horses. That He did stop the sun in its course across the sky at one time. At another caused the shadow cast by the sun to go backwards.

But to believe these accounts of the Scriptures, then one has to have some understanding of the power of God. That by His power, if He wanted, He could cause the sun to move billions of light years from the earth in mere moments, and the life of man still exist and live on this planet. He holds that power over His creation.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

Here's a fun resource. An online book consisting of 50 essays, each by a scientist with a PHD in their fields, discussing why they believe in a literal 6-day creation by God.
In Six Days

Sir Isaac Newton was maybe the greatest of all scientists. He agreed with Harry Potter that there was a "Philosopher's Stone." Do you also believe that there is a Philosopher's Stone?

Many scientists with PhDs believe the Quran is correct. Many many more than 50. Do you also the Quran is correct?

 

[Archivist]

Sir Isaac Newton was maybe the greatest of all scientists. He agreed with Harry Potter that there was a "Philosopher's Stone." Do you also believe that there is a Philosopher's Stone?

Sir Issac Newton was perhaps the greatest of all scientists of his time. That he believed in a "philosopher's stone" simply means that he was a man of his time. Many alchemists of that time had similar beliefs. That Newton's beliefs were correct on some things does not mean that we in these modern times should agree with him on everything.

 

[lismore]

That he believed in a "philosopher's stone" simply means that he was a man of his time. Many alchemists of that time had similar beliefs .

Ya. In five hundred years time in the Lord tarries academics will look back and say 'remember that evolution theory people in the 20thc used to believe'.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

Ya. In five hundred years time in the Lord tarries academics will look back and say 'remember that evolution theory people in the 20thc used to believe'.

Perhaps. But if this happens it will be science and not religion that produces the new theory that replaces the TOE.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

Sir Issac Newton was perhaps the greatest of all scientists of his time. That he believed in a "philosopher's stone" simply means that he was a man of his time. Many alchemists of that time had similar beliefs. That Newton's beliefs were correct on some things does not mean that we in these modern times should agree with him on everything.

Thank you for stating this clearly. It was the point I was trying to make, but you have said it much better.

 

[NobleMouse]

Perhaps. But if this happens it will be science and not religion that produces the new theory that replaces the TOE.

I agree that it would be science that produces the new theory... and it will be the word of God (again) that stands when that theory fails as well.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

I agree that it would be science that produces the new theory... and it will be the word of God (again) that stands when that theory fails as well.

Could you say it had "failed"?

You can not say this about the Theory of Evolution even if it is replaced by an improved theory in the future. The TOE is the basis of much of our modern medicine for fighting diseases such as HIV, cancer, and flu. It has been a huge success if you think staying alive is a good thing.

I am thinking that someone you love is probably alive today because of the TOE. Is that not a success?

 

[NobleMouse]

Could you say it had "failed"?

"Evolution" is an ever-evolving term (there is macro-, micro-, divergent, convergent, etc, etc...) so to the extent that evolution states anything other than God created kinds (google baraminology if unfamiliar with the kind classification... generally tracks closely with what is conventionally labeled as "family"), and these created kinds were created on days 3, 5, and 6 of creation (approx 6-10k years ago), and these kinds are created with the ability to adapt to the environment (hence "multiply and fill the earth")... and that kind A does not become kind B and there is not a last universal common ancestor kind from which all other kinds evolved... anything from TOE contradicting these high-level truths from the word of God is a failure.

You can not say this about the Theory of Evolution even if it is replaced by an improved theory in the future. The TOE is the basis of much of our modern medicine for fighting diseases such as HIV, cancer, and flu. It has been a huge success if you think staying alive is a good thing.

Adaptation. Richard Lenski experiment demonstrated that after 50k+ generations of E.Coli the E.Coli was able to adapt to citrate and remained... E.Coli - didn't become a different bacteria... or a mouse holding a sword.

I am thinking that someone you love is probably alive today because of the TOE. Is that not a success?

Everyone who is alive is so because God upholds them, He holds all things together - this is why he knows how many hairs our on their head, the hour, minute, and second of our death, etc... Not TOE. The success of modern medicine is not rooted in evolution, but the study of biological life, mechanisms, and processes... here in the present - has nothing to do at all with making up stories about dinosaurs becoming birds and fish becoming tetrapods and protozoa eventually becoming a human with trillions of deaths and billions of years before God created man and the origin sin.

 

[lismore]

You can not say this about the Theory of Evolution even if it is replaced by an improved theory in the future. The TOE is the basis of much of our modern medicine for fighting diseases such as HIV, cancer, and flu. It has been a huge success if you think staying alive is a good thing.

Hello There. But people were producing medicines well before the TOE was thought of! Luke in the NT was a physician! God Bless

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

Hello There. But people were producing medicines well before the TOE was thought of! Luke in the NT was a physician! God Bless

What does this have to do with fact that TOE is basis of much in modern medicine? And that this makes it a huge success?

And even if TOE is replace by a different theory, it will be science that finds that new theory, not religion.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

"Evolution" is an ever-evolving term (there is macro-, micro-, divergent, convergent, etc, etc...) so to the extent that evolution states anything other than God created kinds (google baraminology if unfamiliar with the kind classification... generally tracks closely with what is conventionally labeled as "family"), and these created kinds were created on days 3, 5, and 6 of creation (approx 6-10k years ago), and these kinds are created with the ability to adapt to the environment (hence "multiply and fill the earth")... and that kind A does not become kind B and there is not a last universal common ancestor kind from which all other kinds evolved... anything from TOE contradicting these high-level truths from the word of God is a failure.


Adaptation. Richard Lenski experiment demonstrated that after 50k+ generations of E.Coli the E.Coli was able to adapt to citrate and remained... E.Coli - didn't become a different bacteria... or a mouse holding a sword.


Everyone who is alive is so because God upholds them, He holds all things together - this is why he knows how many hairs our on their head, the hour, minute, and second of our death, etc... Not TOE. The success of modern medicine is not rooted in evolution, but the study of biological life, mechanisms, and processes... here in the present - has nothing to do at all with making up stories about dinosaurs becoming birds and fish becoming tetrapods and protozoa eventually becoming a human with trillions of deaths and billions of years before God created man and the origin sin.

In science there is no such thing as macro and micro evolution. This is nonsense made up by lying scammers like Kent Hovind to fleece the flock.

The earth is billions of years old. Many fields of science show this independently. You saying it is not is you saying you know more about physics than Albert Einstein, more about astronomy than Neil De Grasse Tyson, more about Biology than Dawkins. Does that seriously make sense to you?

Every argument being made today for YEC is thoroughly debunked.

 

[NobleMouse]

In science there is no such thing as macro and micro evolution. This is nonsense made up by lying scammers like Kent Hovind to fleece the flock.

The earth is billions of years old. Many fields of science show this independently. You saying it is not is you saying you know more about physics than Albert Einstein, more about astronomy than Neil De Grasse Tyson, more about Biology than Dawkins. Does that seriously make sense to you?

Earth is not billions of years old. Many fields of science speculate billions of years. Name one geological, cosmological, or biological event that was ever witnessed and documented to span over even 10,000 years. None. If you didn't see it, you don't know it happened, hence it is "speculated." We can suppose deep time based upon current processes, but imagination will never meet truth where imagination contradicts the word of God. Also me saying the earth is not billions of years old is not me saying I know more about the fields of science and the people you listed, it is me saying God knows more, and I know what God's word says (see 1 Corinthians 3:19 for where our wisdom is in relation to God). Actually, you know what His word says too. So, why do you not believe it? Because some professor at a university told you otherwise? Please don't say you figured it out on your own... as if to imply you know more about God's creation than God Himself and what He has told us in His word. Check out Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11, and Exodus 31:17 again - the truth is hammered on again and again that creation was 6 days and God created life - they didn't evolve from some protozoa.

You agree this is what His word says, yes?
You agree that it is possible for God to create everything in 6 days, yes?
You agree that God does not lie, yes?

So... God said He did it, it is possible for Him to do it, and God doesn't lie. We agree right? So then you believe what men like Dawkins postulate and purport even though they've never once witnessed the things claimed to be absolutely true?? Question: Was Jesus born of a virgin? If you believe so, you too do not accept what science teaches because science states that women don't just have babies. You instead accept this because it was a miraculous conception of by the Holy Spirit. Creation was no less miraculous. Science cannot always explain what is absolutely true, though we know it to be true.

Every argument being made today for YEC is thoroughly debunked.

Just as it was in the days of Noah, I'm sure, too.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

None. If you didn't see it, you don't know it happened, hence it is "speculated."

This is a very poor methodology. According to you, we can never convict anyone of a crime unless there is actual witness for crime.

So even in middle of big party you can take person into bathroom. Close door. Kill them. Then walk out covered in blood, leaving dead body on floor. When police come to arrest you, you simply say:

"If you didn't see it, you don't know it happened. You are only speculating, so I am going home".

You sincerely think that makes sense? Even after all the witnesses say what they saw happen, admitting that they never saw knife go into ribs, that the police will not arrest you?

 

[NobleMouse]

This is a very poor methodology. According to you, we can never convict anyone of a crime unless there is actual witness for crime.

Crimes happen in the relative near term... and to this end, crimes from 10, 20, 30+ years ago are in fact become almost impossible to solve. What is most often used to solve crimes, as you point out, are eye witness accounts, interrogations, interviews etc... (you saw God's Not Dead 2, right?) As to creation there WAS an eye witness and He told us about it.

So even in middle of big party you can take person into bathroom. Close door. Kill them. Then walk out covered in blood, leaving dead body on floor. When police come to arrest you, you simply say:

"If you didn't see it, you don't know it happened. You are only speculating, so I am going home".

You're taking to an abstract level and is no longer within the realm of a reasonable analogy. It's one thing to have a crime at a party here in the present where people are seen coming and going, and another thing to speculate what happened literally billions of years ago.

You sincerely think that makes sense? Even after all the witnesses say what they saw happen, admitting that they never saw knife go into ribs, that the police will not arrest you?

What you're saying, no, makes no sense. The better question is: why are you, as a Christian, unable to believe what your God plainly tells you in His word... and the basis for your rejecting this is the postulation of scientists who weren't there? You've read the book of Job, yes? Where were you when God laid the foundations of the earth? Nobody was there - just God. God told us what happened. In fact, forget about whether we need to be there or not... why don't you believe what God says? I asked you about what God's word says in post #34, and I'm asking you again. Rather than inventing up side analogies to debate, let's start with scripture. What's Genesis, Exodus, Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others say in the Bible? They all affirm the events of creation and Noah's flood as being real events.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

Crimes happen in the relative near term... and to this end, crimes from 10, 20, 30+ years ago are in fact become almost impossible to solve. What is most often used to solve crimes, as you point out, are eye witness accounts, interrogations, interviews etc... (you saw God's Not Dead 2, right?) As to creation there WAS an eye witness and He told us about it.


You're taking to an abstract level and is no longer within the realm of a reasonable analogy. It's one thing to have a crime at a party here in the present where people are seen coming and going, and another thing to speculate what happened literally billions of years ago.


.

No.

I used your argument: If there is not an eye witness, you cannot say what happened. Evidence does not matter.

Because if evidence matters, then the world appears to be billions of years old. Unless you think God is trying to deceive us?

What you're saying, no, makes no sense. The better question is: why are you, as a Christian, unable to believe what your God plainly tells you in His word... and the basis for your rejecting this is the postulation of scientists who weren't there? You've read the book of Job, yes? Where were you when God laid the foundations of the earth? Nobody was there - just God. God told us what happened. In fact, forget about whether we need to be there or not... why don't you believe what God says? I asked you about what God's word says in post #34, and I'm asking you again. Rather than inventing up side analogies to debate, let's start with scripture. What's Genesis, Exodus, Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others say in the Bible? They all affirm the events of creation and Noah's flood as being real events.

So you want to take a very literal viewpoint on on the bible. This is OK. But it leads to problems.

For example: The bible states that the earth is flat. Do you believe that the earth is flat?

For example: The bible states there is a firmament above the earth. Do you believe there is a solid structure above the earth, that the stars are embedded in?

 

[NobleMouse]

No.

I used your argument: If there is not an eye witness, you cannot say what happened. Evidence does not matter.

Because if evidence matters, then the world appears to be billions of years old. Unless you think God is trying to deceive us?

God is not trying to deceive us. We only deceive ourselves when we believe a lie over His word. This just affirms you believe the speculations and assumptions of man over the word of God. Evidence didn't tell you the world appears billions of years old, the interpretation of evidence taught to you based upon uniformitarian principles believed by Charles Lyell and others lead to this conclusion. Again, no written record affirming the events of billions of years, no case studies to compare against, just speculation and imagination.

So you want to take a very literal viewpoint on on the bible. This is OK. But it leads to problems.

For example: The bible states that the earth is flat. Do you believe that the earth is flat?

For example: The bible states there is a firmament above the earth. Do you believe there is a solid structure above the earth, that the stars are embedded in?

These are old and desperate attempts to discredit the inerrancy of God's word... usually by Bible skeptics who either don't believe in God or at least don't believe in the God of the Christian Bible - always an interesting and curious motivation when this is brought up by fellow Christians. The same erroneous logic used in producing these arguments are like-natured with accepting false ideas like billions of years and evolution - taking some things out of context, and taking a small piece of information and extrapolating it to an abstract level that takes one far beyond reality.

To be accurate, the Bible nowhere concretely affirms the exact shape of the earth - though some analysis suggests that the Hebrew words point more to a spherical shape (references):

Does the Bible Teach that the Earth is Flat?
Is the ’erets (earth) flat? - creation.com
http://www.eternal-productions.org/PDFS/articles/Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth.pdf

I'll just stop at 3 as adding more feels unnecessarily redundant to any one topic. As to the firmament (Hebrew word "raqia"), is typically representative of an expanse or height above (references):

What was the "Firmament" of Genesis 1?
Is the Raqiya‘ (‘Firmament’) a Solid Dome?
The Bible Teaches That the Heavens Were a Solid Dome, Embedded with Stars?

Ever see a bird fly through solid material? Nope? Me neither. First indicator that suggesting the sky is solid is a poor exegesis of the text.

We should not have an over-literal view (taking things out of context, using turns of phrase and instances of poor english translations as arguments against the inerrancy of God's word, etc...) nor an over-liberal view of God's word (that it's all just ink on paper and can be interpreted a million different ways to suit our personal opinions). In the original Hebrew text, all the references to 6 days in Genesis and Exodus state the same as the english translation, are written in narrative form and do not use any of the Hebrew literary indicators that suggest poetic form, imagery, or symbolism.

Dr. Steven Boyd has a PhD in Hebrew linguistics and has done extensive research on this very topic. Below are a few articles for reference:

The Biblical Hebrew Creation Account: New Numbers Tell the Story
RATE in Review: Reading Genesis as History
The meaning of yôm in Genesis - creation.com

 

[lismore]

What does this have to do with fact that TOE is basis of much in modern medicine? And that this makes it a huge success?

There was medicine and medicial knowledge well before the TOE. Luke from the bible was a physician and knew zero about TOE.

And even if TOE is replace by a different theory, it will be science that finds that new theory, not religion.

Let's hope that the new science theory will not be like TOE then, a pack of lies

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

There was medicine and medicial knowledge well before the TOE. Luke from the bible was a physician and knew zero about TOE.

Yes, I know. This was the post I responded too. I asked the following question which you did not answer. Please answer this time. Thank you:

What does this have to do with fact that TOE is basis of much in modern medicine? And that this fact makes it a huge success?

Let's hope that the new science theory will not be like TOE then, a pack of lies

Well it is all supported by factual evidence. Evidence that God has supplied. So the only way I can understand you to be correct is if God is trying to deceive us with lies. I am sure this is not your belief, but it is what your words are saying.