Creationists: Explain how the designer created and/or modified living things on Earth

[eleos1954]

Which is why I'm not asking for Bible quotes.

Yeah, I know ... just like to argue ... not interested in spiritual things.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

How does Hugh Ross say these things are specifically created? What is the process involved?

Well for animal life it would be the ex-nihlo out of nothing (what you have termed magic in the thread).
For the natural world, earth etc. I believe it is the typical big bang cosmology that you are familiar with.

I know you don't like the out of nothing kind of explanation but I don't think its unreasonable for a number of reasons. (Now mind you I'm a social science guy, and physics and most natural sciences are not my strong suit). There are a number reasons why a creator being would not be bound by laws of physics etc ,but be outside of them like being outside of time. I would have to look up Hugh but I believe that there is some aspect of General Relativity that points that out. There are other things like the Flatland parable of higher dimensions etc.


As far as my take on Creation it is basically some kind of energy to matter conversion, essentially divine Star Trek replicator. Which might seem weak, but it goes get at things like "the Cambrian Explosion". (Of course I already am aware of Dawkins objection on the fossil record, mentioning how worms and some other life forms are hard to fossilize etc.).

 

[AV1611VET]

This thread is to see if creationists have anything to offer.

ALRIGHT! ALLL-RIGHT!

I'll tell you.

But you have to keep this information a deep, dark secret.

If it falls into the wrong hands, who knows what could happen?

Remember the killer bees?

That's what happens when things "get out."

Anyway, here's your answer -- please keep it to yourself:

Spoiler: TOP SECRET

Mix some unobtainium with ectoplasm under shekinah light.

 

[Brightmoon]

Since we can already modify genes....we'd have to recognize that God could of course, and more: we would expect He could do more/better than us.

(even under the assumptions of naturalism)

Why shouldn’t scientists assume materialistic naturalism to do science. Science can only study natural phenomena. Philosophical naturalism is something else and believers don’t accept that but scientists and the scientifically literate don’t mix up the 2

 

[AV1611VET]

Philosophical naturalism is something else and believers don’t accept that but scientists and the scientifically literate don’t mix up the 2

No, the scientifically literate just fuel airships with hydrogen (Hindenburg), vote instead of investigate (Challenger), demand safety checks be waived (Deepwater Horizon), or rush unfinished products into place (Florida footbridge).

 

[Halbhh]

Why shouldn’t scientists assume materialistic naturalism to do science. Science can only study natural phenomena. Philosophical naturalism is something else and believers don’t accept that but scientists and the scientifically literate don’t mix up the 2

Totally agree with all this. There is though the interesting out-there quantum mechanics interpretation, such as the one where the observer determines the outcome not merely in collapsing the wave function, but more creatively, and other interpretations, to compete with the Copenhagen Interpretation (which basically says we don't know what's happening, if you don't mind my spin on it). Such speculations cannot yet be ruled out.

 

[Brightmoon]

So when scientists say the universe is "expanding," when God said it was "stretched", God can take a hike ... right?

You do know the difference, don't you?

Expanding comes from forces inside pushing outward.

Stretching comes from forces outside pulling.

my understanding of the Big Bang is that a small dense something expanded and eventually became the current universe . Astronomers can see back to within a few million years after this happened so . I have no reason to quibble over a few creationist buzzwords

 

[Brightmoon]

No, the scientifically literate just fuel airships with hydrogen (Hindenburg), vote instead of investigate (Challenger), demand safety checks be waived (Deepwater Horizon), or rush unfinished products into place (Florida footbridge).

those were engineering mistakes and ....?

 

[AV1611VET]

Astronomers can see back to within a few million years after this happened ...

No, they can't.

As I pointed out elsewhere, reverse-engineering the universe is a digital endeavor; not an analog one.

Too many gaps to hurdle.

 

[AV1611VET]

those were engineering mistakes and ....?

... products of scientific idio literacy.

 

[Halbhh]

No, they can't.

As I pointed out elsewhere, reverse-engineering the universe is a digital endeavor; not an analog one.

Too many gaps to hurdle.

Suggest you defer to a believer that has more information on that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Brightmoon, what was the "mistake" with the Hindenburg?

Engineers: Oops! Did we put hydrogen in there!? We meant to use helium! Wrong valve!

 

[AV1611VET]

Suggest you defer to a believer that has more information on that.

"More information"?

"More information"!???

I'm talking about gaps in information.

People already think they know too much.

 

[Halbhh]

"More information"?

"More information"!???

I'm talking about gaps in information.

People already think they know too much.

Certainly anyone thinking they already know most everything all about such fields as astrophysics, or all that can be known, doesn't. We'll always have gaps in information here, since we are not God.

 

[Halbhh]

While the left over radiation from the big bang, the 'cosmic background radiation' is thought to be from about 400,000 yrs after the big bang, here's something more localized, the currently oldest observed galaxy:

GN-z11 is a high-redshift galaxy found in the constellation Ursa Major. GN-z11 is currently the oldest and most distant known galaxy in the observable universe.[4]GN-z11 has a spectroscopic redshift of z = 11.09, which corresponds to a proper distance of approximately 32 billion light-years (9.8 billion parsecs).[5][note 1]

The object's name is derived from its location in the GOODS-North field of galaxies and its high cosmological redshift number (GN + z11).[6] GN-z11 is observed as it existed 13.4 billion years ago, just 400 million years after the Big Bang;[2][7][8] as a result, GN-z11's distance is sometimes inappropriately[9]reported as 13.4 billion light-years, its light-travel distance measurement.[10][11]
GN-z11 - Wikipedia

 

[Speedwell]

Brightmoon, what was the "mistake" with the Hindenburg?

Engineers: Oops! Did we put hydrogen in there!? We meant to use helium! Wrong valve!

Engineers: "You know hydrogen burns, don't you? Why not use helium?"
Airship owners: "Because hydrogen gives more lift and thus more profitable payloads. Besides, the Americans have all the helium and they won't sell us any because they don't like our Fuhrer Hitler."
Engineers: "OK, but don't say we didn't warn you."

 

[AV1611VET]

Engineers: "You know hydrogen burns, don't you? Why not use helium?"
Airship owners: "Because hydrogen gives more lift and thus more profitable payloads. Besides, the Americans have all the helium and they won't sell us any because they don't like our Fuhrer Hitler."
Engineers: "OK, but don't say we didn't warn you."

Then what changed their minds? the Hindenburg disaster?

Why do we still drive cars on gasoline then?

 

[Speedwell]

Then what changed their minds? the Hindenburg disaster?

After the Hindenburg disaster the Germans went out of the airship business altogether.

Why do we still drive cars on gasoline then?

Because it is a useful fuel and safe if handled properly. There is a big difference between the seven million cubic feet of hydrogen in the Hindenburg and the ten gallons or so of the much less flammable gasoline in your car.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I personally might have considered just how dangerous Hydrogen was before I weighed out using it for profit or it's payload capabilities in favor of the gas.

After the Hindenburg disaster the Germans went out of the airship business altogether.

Guess they eventually figured it out.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

So when scientists say the universe is "expanding," when God said it was "stretched", God can take a hike ... right?

You do know the difference, don't you?

Expanding comes from forces inside pushing outward.

Stretching comes from forces outside pulling.

Here's the rub, AV. "God" didn't say any such thing. A book written by men says that. The "authority" of the bible is a whole other rabbit hole that even biblical scholars don't agree on. At best, the bible simply presents observations by ancient middle-easterners who lacked a lot of knowledge about how things work. It is descriptive. Anybody could write that the sun rises in the east or that tides go in and tides go out because that's just what we see. That is not the explanation as to why and how those things happen, it's just a description. That's why what the bible does or doesn't say is not relevant. I could present different writings from earlier than the biblical text that say something different. Why should we give one authority over the other?

More importantly, why should we take either at their word as authority when our own observations contradict and better explain the world?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

but that’s exactly the problem. There’s no DEFINITIVE evidence for God-did-it and scientists need that kind of verification to say that something is scientific. I’m a Christian and I would love it if scientists found this. They haven’t! And the only thing creationists seem to do is lie about what scientific research has already confirmed. Some of these creationist lies have been floating around for over a century.

There actually is evidence for God. However, the evidence is not found through empirical measurements. It is found through logic and putting together the pieces that science have already discovered. Advances in micro biology and organic chemistry have revealed that the possibility of the spontaneous generation of life is practically impossible. The advances in astronomy and astrophysics have revealed that the universe has a definite beginning which requires a supernatural cause. Even if every religion in the world were to be scientifically proven to be false, it still would require more faith to reject deism as a possibility.