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

[Frank Robert]

Have you ever used collective concentration to stop a tornado in its tracks?

I don't claim superhuman powers but the Tao has wonders beyond belief.

“Water is fluid, soft, and yielding. But water will wear away rock, which is rigid and cannot yield. As a rule, whatever is fluid, soft, and yielding will overcome whatever is rigid and hard. This is another paradox: what is soft is strong.”​

― Lao Tzu

 

[Frank Robert]

If I was an astrophysicist, I would focus my work in the field of wormholes, since I believe the Christian teaching that the universe has only been in existence for some 6000 years.

That would be a personal choice which you are entitled to hold but if you tried to put it into a textbook I don't think you would sell many such textbooks outside of bible to schools. But as several scientists have learned, there is a lot of money to be made within particular Christian schools and circles.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't claim superhuman powers but the Tao has wonders beyond belief.

“Water is fluid, soft, and yielding. But water will wear away rock, which is rigid and cannot yield. As a rule, whatever is fluid, soft, and yielding will overcome whatever is rigid and hard. This is another paradox: what is soft is strong.”​

― Lao Tzu

Water is a solvent.

So while it might have been a "wonder beyond belief" to Lao Tzu back then, what is it to you today?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Erosion is not a solubility issue. It is about force from the water acting on the rocks (and especially of tiny hard particles carried in the water).

 

[driewerf]

That would be a personal choice which you are entitled to hold but if you tried to put it into a textbook I don't think you would sell many such textbooks outside of bible to schools. But as several scientists have learned, there is a lot of money to be made within particular Christian schools and circles.

And he wouldn't get a lot of telescope time either.

 

[Hammster]

If you think it is a non sequitur tell us how and why you think scientists should take Christianity teaching into consideration. The only religion that I can think of that science might fit in with is the Tao te ching.

See:
Tao Science: The Science, Wisdom, and Practice of Creation and Grand Unification

God left us His word that says what He did. Science should reflect that.

 

[AV1611VET]

That would be a personal choice which you are entitled to hold but if you tried to put it into a textbook I don't think you would sell many such textbooks outside of bible to schools. But as several scientists have learned, there is a lot of money to be made within particular Christian schools and circles.

And if I was to discover wormholes -- (because God gifted me to find them) -- what then?

Would the headlines read:

CHRISTIAN DISCOVERS WORMHOLES

--- or ---​

ASTROPHYSICIST DISCOVERS WORMHOLES

 

[AV1611VET]

God left us His word that says what He did. Science should reflect that.

Not only that, but in the case of Creationism, He says what He did, when He did it, where He did it, why he did it, how He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were: some by name.

 

[Frank Robert]

God left us His word that says what He did. Science should reflect that.

Not all religious people serve the Christian god. If you want to serve your god give your best in the job you are being paid to do.

 

[Bradskii]

God left us His word that says what He did. Science should reflect that.

Here's a simple question for you: In your opinion, should all science that contradicts the bible be terminated?

 

[Hammster]

Not all religious people serve the Christian god. If you want to serve your god give your best in the job you are being paid to do.

Another non sequitur. Why do you keep doing that?

 

[Hammster]

Here's a simple question for you: In your opinion, should all science that contradicts the bible be terminated?

It should be corrected.

 

[Hans Blaster]

God left us His word that says what He did. Science should reflect that.

If "His word" is accurate and relevant, then science will reflect it.

 

[Hammster]

If "His word" is accurate and relevant, then science will reflect it.

Science, when it’s understood correctly, does just that.

 

[Bradskii]

It should be corrected.

So you are saying that science as it is taught should be discontinued when it contradicts the bible. The galactic amount of information that has been accrued over milleniums in regard to geology, biology, astrology, oceanography, physics, chemistry, botany, zoology, archaeology, anthropology, microbiology, radiology, astrophysics, paleontology, genetics etc etc etc must be put to one side.

But you must know that all science is interconnected. Not just within each discipline but between disciplines. So you are proposing that science, as it exists today, must cease to exist. None of it can be trusted. So it must all be rejected.

This is the problem that people like yourself face. They haven't thought this through and their knowledge of science itself is so lacking that they don't understand what the consequences are of that which they demand. If you 'correct' science so that it aligns with the bible then it simply doesn't work. We'd revert back to a state of nature. You'd spend your day foraging for roots and nuts and chasing small animals with a pointy stick.

Luckily for us, these sort of demands are restricted to an ocassional niche within religious forums and backwater areas of places like the deep south where scientific illiteracy rears its head now and then and fundamentalists build exhibits that show people saddling up a triceratops.

If I cared about these people in the slightest then I would be depressed. If they had any influence, I'd be angry. As it is, apart from a sense of frustration that the education system has let so many down, it has amusement value only.

 

[AV1611VET]

If "His word" is accurate and relevant, then science will reflect it.

IF science applies to the passage in question.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Science, when it’s understood correctly, does just that.

Science doesn't do interpretation.

 

[Aussie Pete]

The primary objection to evolution from creationists seems to be centered on human evolution specifically. For some reason the fact of sharing hereditary ancestry with other species causes creationists no end of grief.

However, if we didn't share ancestry with other species, why are we made of all the same 'stuff' as other animals? Especially in regards to our closest relatives (other primates), we share the same body plan, organs, cell structure, majority of our genetic makeup and so on.

If it was really important that we be distinct from other animal species, why didn't God make us wholly unique? Why not give us a completely unique physical makeup and genetic structure?

Evolution at least can explain this via genetic inheritance. Independent creation... not so much.

And before you say, "God just reused common parts":

a) Why would God reuse common parts in a manner that is perfectly consistent with genetic inheritance and biological evolution?

b) Why would it matter if we consider ourselves physically "related" to animals if we're all made from the same stuff to begin with?

I have no problem with being physically related to other animals. However, I can find no evidence for evolution. And I reject outright the notion that adaptation within a specie or is evolution. The difference with the human race is that we have a soul. We are responsible for our actions and we have a conscience.

As an aside, the idea that animals have equal rights to people is absurd. Yet some try to promote that idea. When an animal can answer for itself, can be held responsible for its actions in a court of law and knows the difference between right and wrong, then OK, it can be treated as if it were human. I'm not holding my breath.

Evolutionists have no answers for things like symbiosis, instinct, the fact that some birds are able to fly vast distances with inbuilt guidance systems that humans have trouble emulating. The development of human languages defies evolution also. And the question of "why?" is unanswered. A male peacock is a ridiculous creature from an evolutionary viewpoint. That's just one example.

Your premise is incorrect. Evolutionists have looked at the creation and applied their own, wrong interpretation to what they see. Those who believe in a God (not all are Christians) see the wonder of a Being who can create amazing and wonderful creatures. That's what I see.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Evolutionists have no answers for things like symbiosis,

Symbiosis is just two creatures living side by side to the benefit of both. Any change to either that improves that mutual benefit enhances both and is selectively favored.

instinct,

Instincts are just a subset of genetically driven behaviors. When the behaviors are useful or beneficial they propagate. If they are detrimental the are selected against. The ones that survive thousands of generations are the ones we call instincts.

the fact that some birds are able to fly vast distances with inbuilt guidance systems that humans have trouble emulating.

Of course we can emulate it. It's called the air travel industry. All kidding aside, we have plenty of navigational skills without technologies, we just use them in a different fashion. (We also have no evolutionary need to fly under our own power.)

The development of human languages defies evolution also.

Human languages are just learned sets of signals using basic grammatical (and likely instinctual) patterns. Other animals have signaling systems for communication including vocalizations. Ours are just the most sophisticated.

And the question of "why?" is unanswered.

Science doesn't do "why". "Why" implies intent and evolution isn't about intent.

A male peacock is a ridiculous creature from an evolutionary viewpoint.

That is a sexual display that communicates the male's health to choosy females looking to select a mate. Maintaining an intact display demonstrates the fitness and health of the male to avoid disease and predators.

That's just one example.

I counted 4.

 

[sjastro]

I have no idea if you are regenerated, if that’s the question. Judas spent years looking like a true Christian.

The question is whether you think I am a Christian for being a scientist and no I am not Dr Who or a Gallifreyan.