Creation Science

[Loudmouth]

Notice that neither of them include evolution? Specific acts of divine creation is the opposite of evolution.

(Bold emphasis) In fact, just the opposite. Not to mention the more broad view of all physical sciences.

"Professor Darrel Falk has recently pointed out that one should not take the view that young-earth creationism is simply tinkering around the edges of science. If the tenets of young earth creationism were true, basically all of the sciences of geology, cosmology, and biology would utterly collapse. It would be the same as saying 2 plus 2 is actually 5. The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?"--Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

 

[The Cadet]

Then use the right term. Creationist means all Creationists including Theistic Evolutionists. If you are talking about YEC then use the term Young Earth Creationists. If you want to confuse the language then your only going to fail to make your point.

The point of semantics is to understand each other. Not to bash each other over the head with definitions if one feels one has misused a word. -_-

 

[RickG]

"Professor Darrel Falk has recently pointed out that one should not take the view that young-earth creationism is simply tinkering around the edges of science. If the tenets of young earth creationism were true, basically all of the sciences of geology, cosmology, and biology would utterly collapse. It would be the same as saying 2 plus 2 is actually 5. The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?"--Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

Without a doubt, I believe creation science does more harm to Christianity than anything.

 

[SkyWriting]

I dare to say that perhaps today, we know more about the universe then 2500 years ago. Wouldn't you?If you wish to learn about the world, the universe, nature... today, it's quite stupid to grab a source from 2500 years ago.

It is said we may have documented half of the species on our planet.
We are not sure what is at the core of our planet.

But for the sake of argument, we can measure from the center of earth to the surface
and know all there is to know......then measure from there to the edge of the known Cosmos

then what we know has not changed...measurably.

 

[SkyWriting]

Without a doubt, I believe creation science does more harm to Christianity than anything.

Can you quantify that in some way?
We need to measure the harm in order to support your cause.

 

[SkyWriting]

"Professor Darrel Falk has recently pointed out that one should not take the view that young-earth creationism is simply tinkering around the edges of science. If the tenets of young earth creationism were true, basically all of the sciences of geology, cosmology, and biology would utterly collapse. It would be the same as saying 2 plus 2 is actually 5. The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?"--Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

According to scripture, the sciences which lay their foundations on
whim, whimsey, and imagination, are safe from the effects of literal
creationism. Science may continue to be based on historical fictions.
The good professor is just spouting emotional distress.

 

[Loudmouth]

According to scripture, the sciences which lay their foundations on
whim, whimsey, and imagination, are safe from the effects of literal
creationism. Science may continue to be based on historical fictions.

Science is based on repeatable observations. You are yet another person from the side of creation science that has to distort the truth.

 

[juvenissun]

The article is posted on the Creation Ministries International website, and is authored by John Woodmorappe. Here is a direct quote: "Recently however, there have been a number of recurrent claims that the geological column is more than a hypothetical concept and that it actually exists."

Show us a place where we are able to see the whole sequence of a geological column.

 

[RickG]

Show us a place where we are able to see the whole sequence of a geological column.

• The Ghadames Basin in Libya
• The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
• The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
• The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
• The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
• The Adana Basin in Turkey
• The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
• The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
• The Carpathian Basin in Poland
• The Baltic Basin in the USSR
• The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
• The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
• The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
• The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
• The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
• The Jiuxi Basin China
• The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
• The Tarim Basin China
• The Szechwan Basin China
• The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
• The Williston Basin in North Dakota
• The Tampico Embayment Mexico
• The Bogata Basin Colombia
• The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
• The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta

Sources:
Robertson Group, 1989. Stratigraphic Database of Major Sedimentary Basins of the World. (Llandudno Gwynedd, England: The Robertson Group)
Trendall, A.F. et al, editors, Geology and Mineral Resources of Western Australia, Memoir 3, Geological Survey of Western Australia. (Perth, State Printing Division, 1990).
N.E. Haimla et al, The Geology of North America, Vol. L, DNAG volumes, 1990)

 

[The Cadet]

It is said we may have documented half of the species on our planet.
We are not sure what is at the core of our planet.

But for the sake of argument, we can measure from the center of earth to the surface
and know all there is to know......then measure from there to the edge of the known Cosmos

then what we know has not changed...measurably.

Uh... SkyWriting... Have you ever tried living as though you lived in 500 BC? I guarantee you'll be able to measure a change in what we know!

I mean, honestly, what kind of statement even is this?! You're talking to someone halfway across the world on a machine made up of millions of tiny switches in a house built from futuristic materials that are stable enough to weather all but the very strongest of storms. You don't need to slave away every day in subsistence farming; your food comes from the supermarket and is plentiful despite only 1% of the population producing it. Oh, and it tastes good. This is something we often forget, as taste is not something we can really preserve, but back in the day sugar and salt were both huge luxuries.

Every single part of the life of an average human has been changed through our increasing understanding of the universe and our world. I challenge you, live a life without modern science for two weeks. I bet you'll start to understand just how incredibly measurable the changes to "what we know" are. Assuming you don't die.

 

[Loudmouth]

Show us a place where we are able to see the whole sequence of a geological column.

Show us a single archeological dig that has artifacts from all points in the timeline of the Bible.

 

[RickG]

Show us a single archeological dig that has artifacts from all points in the timeline of the Bible.

Especially those of Hebrew culture during said time of Hebrew slaves in Egypt prior to the Exodus.

 

[Loudmouth]

Especially those of Hebrew culture during said time of Hebrew slaves in Egypt prior to the Exodus.

The key being that they all have to be found at the same archeological dig, just as creationists expect the entire geologic column to be found at one site. Everything from the Exodus to King David to the early church have to be found in one hole no bigger than 5m by 5m.

 

[juvenissun]

• The Ghadames Basin in Libya

I like to see the column, not the locality name.
You may show it me by indicating the strata from xxx age to yyy age. And I don't want so many. I just want to see ONE.

 

[Loudmouth]

I like to see the column, not the locality name.

Then go to those places and start digging.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Joshua, this thread is not about creationism, it is about "creation science"

Creation Science sounds like a misnomer to me.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Apologetics are strictly forbidden, not by me or anyone posting here, but by the Forum Rules. Please review those rules and abide by them.

I am not defending anything. I am just showing how 2500 year old documents apply to us today. It does not matter if it is the Bible, Greek Mythology or a clay tablet from recorded history. There is a way we handle them to make it all relevant for today. I received more of a classic education and I have noticed that people with public school educations have not been taught how to reap the benefit from these ancient documents.

 

[RickG]

I like to see the column, not the locality name.
You may show it me by indicating the strata from xxx age to yyy age. And I don't want so many. I just want to see ONE.

I listed 25 different places and the references from which they came. The thing is, you did not comprehend my post concerning Woodmorappe's description of the geologic column. Woodmorappe's geologic column doesn't exist because it isn't the same geologic column as described by geologist, i.e., the International Commission on Stratigraphy. He misrepresents what it actually is and you and the entire creation science community has latched onto his misrepresented description of it, and that is what this thread is about, it's not a different view (creation sciences) of the same evidence, it's a misrepresentation as to what the evidence actually is.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Specific acts of divine creation is the opposite of evolution.

Not really when leading evolutionary scientists are writing books teaching that DNA is the language of God.

 

[RickG]

Creation Science sounds like a misnomer to me.

Exactly, its not science. It resembles a grade school book report, except that it includes deliberate misrepresentations of the actual physical sciences.