Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[Subduction Zone]

Apologies, science isn't my forte but noting patterns that may result in inconsistencies is. What if a billion years ago a year was 782 days?

Well, I went through a lengthy disillusionment process. I looked at textual variants and tested for the best fruit/results and went with that. In general, the bible is useless without a heart connection to God, so that's the main thing, and everything springs from there.

I am sorry, but you are not making much sense. The Earth was known to be at least hundreds of millions of years old before evolution became a theory. An old Earth was not invented for evolution. It was known to exist. For example just one small part of the geologic column has millions of years of annual varve deposits. The Green River Formation is well known One can go their oneself and see the endless repeating layers. There are example after example of such kinds of evidence. Meanwhile we keep asking creationists "Where is your evidence?" All we get back is crickets.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The rhetoric in this post is not much different than religious speak.

You can believe that, but until I can independently verify it myself, me taking your word for it would just be another religion.

Hardly rhetoric. You could always learn. What education have you pursued? Even a community college biology or geology class would help immensely. Or you could use online resources. One thing that you could do is to start with the concept of evidence. It is key to the sciences and is the same whether that science is biology, physics, chemistry or geology.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I am sorry, but you are not making much sense. The Earth was known to be at least hundreds of millions of years old before evolution became a theory. An old Earth was not invented for evolution. It was known to exist. For example just one small part of the geologic column has millions of years of annual varve deposits. The Green River Formation is well known One can go their oneself and see the endless repeating layers. There are example after example of such kinds of evidence. Meanwhile we keep asking creationists "Where is your evidence?" All we get back is crickets.

Apparently, even if we could raise people from the dead no one would believe. Speaking of a parallel dimension (where God is) when everyone discussing it has no access to the location to examine it and see how the environment behaves does not result in scientific discovery.

However, I accept the earth is old, really old. And I also accept the earth was created.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Hardly rhetoric. You could always learn. What education have you pursued? Even a community college biology or geology class would help immensely. Or you could use online resources. One thing that you could do is to start with the concept of evidence. It is key to the sciences and is the same whether that science is biology, physics, chemistry or geology.

That wouldn't really help so much since the story is constantly changing, since I cannot be on the cutting edge of discovery - I'll always be fed second hand information, no thanks.

See my previous post though.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apparently, even if we could raise people from the dead no one would believe. Speaking of a parallel dimension (where God is) when everyone discussing it has no access to the location to examine it and see how the environment behaves does not result in scientific discovery.

However, I accept the earth is old, really old. And I also accept the earth was created.

"Created"? Why could it not have come about by natural means? Why lower God to the point of a laborer?

Perhaps you are asking the wrong questions. It is better to ask "How do they know that?" than simply denying the science that one does not understand.

Have you heard of Biologos? It is a Christian site started and run by Christian scientists. They have no problem with evolution:

BioLogos - God's Word. God's World.

You might be more comfortable learning from them.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

"Created"? Why could it not have come about by natural means? Why lower God to the point of a laborer?

Perhaps you are asking the wrong questions. It is better to ask "How do they know that?" than simply denying the science that one does not understand.

Have you heard of Biologos? It is a Christian site started and run by Christian scientists. They have no problem with evolution:

BioLogos - God's Word. God's World.

You might be more comfortable learning from them.

Actually, I said I didn't have a problem with evolution (adaptation) - but something I said triggered a debate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That wouldn't really help so much since the story is constantly changing, since I cannot be on the cutting edge of discovery - I'll always be fed second hand information, no thanks.

See my previous post though.

Of course it is changing. All of the sciences are changing. There is no scientific dogma and the change shows it. But if you look at the nature of the changes they keep getting smaller over the years as we learn more and more. Now they are merely debating the details of how evolution occurred. No one is debating whether it is real any longer. That problem was answered a long time ago.

Demanding a complete explanation now is unrealistic and is asking for dogma. Dogma, assumptions, all of those things are not allowed in the sciences.

 

[Hammster]

The Bible is the claim. It is not the evidence. What you will find in the Bible is that many believed the six day creation, but that is not evidence for it. And many modern Christians have a different interpretation than you do. I am sure that you are aware of that.

When the Creator tells you what He did, then that should be sufficient.

And yes, I’m aware that some have a very low view of God’s written word.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Of course it is changing. All of the sciences are changing. There is no scientific dogma and the change shows it. But if you look at the nature of the changes they keep getting smaller over the years as we learn more and more. Now they are merely debating the details of how evolution occurred. No one is debating whether it is real any longer. That problem was answered a long time ago.

Demanding a complete explanation now is unrealistic and is asking for dogma. Dogma, assumptions, all of those things are not allowed in the sciences.

Not sure what I said to trigger that. But thanks anyway.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, I said I didn't have a problem with evolution (adaptation) - but something I said triggered a debate.

I am sorry to have mixed you in with the creationists then.

 

[Hammster]

I hear what your saying, at the same time I just don't understand the objection of what the earth is telling us about how life forms evolved through evolution. It just bobbles my mind.

I trust what God says.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

In general, the bible says that faith is the evidence.

So in terms of science, there's not really much to discuss since for each person the experience of God is different.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I am sorry to have mixed you in with the creationists then.

Oh I get it, it's that either or complex. I'm more of a yes, and type of guy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When the Creator tells you what He did, then that should be sufficient.

And yes, I’m aware that some have a very low view of God’s written word.

It sounds as if you are making an idol of the Bible rather than God. The Earth should be God's work too by your beliefs and it tells us quite a different tale. Even the Bible does not say that the Bible is literally true. The verse that you will want to refer to only says that it is inspired by God and all of it is useful for instruction etc.. That is not saying that one has to take it literally. Genesis is still useful for instruction as morality tales. It need not be taken literally.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

"Created"? Why could it not have come about by natural means?

Can science reproduce creating the universe? I'd like to see this evidence reproduced.

If it cannot be reproduced as evidence, then it is not science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In general, the bible says that faith is the evidence.

So in terms of science, there's not really much to discuss since for each person the experience of God is different.

And that is really not a proper definition of evidence. With "faith" as evidence one can believe anything. Look at the endless sects of Christianity, some with quite different interpretations of the Bible. They are all faith based and they only agree on the basics at times. Sometimes not even that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can science reproduce creating the universe? I'd like to see this evidence reproduced.

If it cannot be reproduced as evidence, then it is not science.

Incorrect. The evidence, which is derived from testing models needs to be repeatable. The event itself does not need to be repeatable. Many people make this error.

In other words if another scientist runs the same experiment but gets different results there is something wrong somewhere. Either in the hypothesis being tested or how the test itself was done. But when all tests agree that is a very good sign that we are getting somewhere.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

And that is really not a proper definition of evidence. With "faith" as evidence one can believe anything. Look at the endless sects of Christianity, some with quite different interpretations of the Bible. They are all faith based and they only agree on the basics at times. Sometimes not even that.

Faith can be translated as Trust, Belief, and Fidelity/Faith - In general, if the church followed the instructions provided previously regarding faith - probably wouldn't be such a mess right now.

Faith is the evidence, yet faith has shown itself insufficient by the people of faith in this generation.

Apologies for such a poor showing.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Incorrect. The evidence, which is derived from testing models needs to be repeatable. The event itself does not need to be repeatable. Many people make this error.

In other words if another scientist runs the same experiment but gets different results there is something wrong somewhere. Either in the hypothesis being tested or how the test itself was done. But when all tests agree that is a very good sign that we are getting somewhere.

But it cannot be done at all though, so this is a valid objection.

We don't actually have the ability to create a universe yet, or someone would have weaponized it - and we would already be dead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But it cannot be done at all though, so this is a valid objection.

We don't actually have the ability to create a universe yet, or someone would have weaponized it - and we would already be dead.

We don't need to do it at all. At least not to understand the very early universe. No one has said "this explains completely how the universe started" yet. The Big Bang theory only explain the universe to an extremely tiny fraction of a second after the expansion began. Right now physicists can work backwards only so far. Will they ever be able to work back further? We don't know yet. True scientists will admit where there knowledge stops.