Creationists: What Was Wrong With The Dover Trial?

[mark kennedy]

You can't scientifically support events not of natural origin.
Events from the spiritual realm only can be supported by
personal testimony.

Well that's that rub isn't it. God can't be an explanation for the origin of life legally because it's against the first amendment. It can't be scientific because inductive science is an exploration of natural phenomenon. That must mean it never happened, surely we all see the leap in logic based on naturalistic assumptions here.

 

[Audacious]

Well that's that rub isn't it. God can't be an explanation for the origin of life legally because it's against the first amendment.

Actually, He can, but it would have to be proven in an objective manner that basically anyone would be able to admit. So you'd need a lot of evidence and absolutely no references to religious texts.

It can't be scientific because inductive science is an exploration of natural phenomenon. That must mean it never happened, surely we all see the leap in logic based on naturalistic assumptions here.

I've never understood the supposed difference between natural and supernatural. It seems to me that if a miracle occurs because God did something, the laws didn't change -- He just took advantage of what was already there.

So, for instance, if God heals someone's blindness, He isn't stopping the laws of physics -- he's part of the laws of physics. They already account for Him, or His actions wouldn't be possible.

It's like if you went back in time and showed someone in 1200 AD an iPhone. It's magic!!! ... except it's not, they just don't understand physics or whatever enough to see that it can be understood.

 

[SkyWriting]

You can if they have any affects on the rest of nature. For example: a a noadic flood. Or did God just decide to flood the Earth and then leave absolutely no evidence of any kind behind? Because that would be kind of weird.

Not nearly as weird as:

2 Kings 5:14
Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like to the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.

John 5:4
For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatever disease he had.

John 9:7
And said to him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

Water: Collected Into One Place
Water: God Originally: Created Fowls and Fishes From
Water: God Originally: Created the Firmament to Divide
Water: Jesus Walks Upon
Water: Brought from the Jaw-Bone of an Ass
Water: Brought from the Rock
Water: Consumed by Fire from Heaven
Water: Divided and Made to Stand on Heap
Water: Healing Powers Communicated To
Water: Iron Made to Swim In
Water: Our Lord Walking On
Water: Trenches Filled With
Water: Turned Into Blood
Water: Turned Into Wine
Water: Miraculously Supplied: To Jehoshaphat's Army
Water: Miraculously Supplied: To Samson
Water: Miraculously Supplied: To the Israelites
Water: Red Sea Divided
Water: Turned Into Blood

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually, He can, but it would have to be proven in an objective manner that basically anyone would be able to admit. So you'd need a lot of evidence and absolutely no references to religious texts.

It doesn't work that way, the historical narrative Scripture is history, whether you conclude it's true or false.

I've never understood the supposed difference between natural and supernatural. It seems to me that if a miracle occurs because God did something, the laws didn't change -- He just took advantage of what was already there.

Sometimes God can take advantage of something that was already there, he can also create something that wasn't there before, like the universe, life and man.

So, for instance, if God heals someone's blindness, He isn't stopping the laws of physics -- he's part of the laws of physics. They already account for Him, or His actions wouldn't be possible.

God is not subject to natural law, he authored them. God does not submit to them, they bend to his will. If God choses to do a miracle that's based on the dictates of his perfect will.

It's like if you went back in time and showed someone in 1200 AD an iPhone. It's magic!!! ... except it's not, they just don't understand physics or whatever enough to see that it can be understood.

It's more like if God reveals his acts of creation, that is called revelation.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well that's that rub isn't it. God can't be an explanation for the origin of life legally because it's against the first amendment.

The first amendment allows for both freedom of speech
and free exercise of religion, so it's certainly not that.

 

[Audacious]

It doesn't work that way, the historical narrative Scripture is history, whether you conclude it's true or false.

If the Bible is literally true in these cases, then you should be able to prove it without using the Bible to back you up. For instance: Noadic flooding and geology.

Sometimes God can take advantage of something that was already there, he can also create something that wasn't there before, like the universe, life and man.

Yeah, my view is that perhaps there is some weird thing going on where you can create matter from without the universe, but not within.

God is not subject to natural law, he authored them. God does not submit to them, they bend to his will. If God choses to do a miracle that's based on the dictates of his perfect will.

I don't think God violates nature when He does things; rather, He is apart of nature, as He is interacting with it.

 

[pitabread]

If the Bible is literally true in these cases, then you should be able to prove it without using the Bible to back you up. For instance: Noadic flooding and geology.

If there is one thing I've learned from creationists, it's that evidence is irrelevant where faith is involved.

 

[expos4ever]

To expect evidence of that shows a misunderstanding of science.

Please explain. Sounds like a dodge.

 

[KWCrazy]

Well that's that rub isn't it. God can't be an explanation for the origin of life legally because it's against the first amendment. It can't be scientific because inductive science is an exploration of natural phenomenon. That must mean it never happened, surely we all see the leap in logic based on naturalistic assumptions here.

Exactly.
Non-believers demonstrate their lack of understanding of science by thinking they can find a scientific explanation for a supernatural creation. Science is the study of the natural world, not the supernatural world. Science can not ever find the correct answer. It doesn't look in the right place.
If you believe a man could return to life after three days of decomposition you completely reject biology. If you don't believe Christ returned from the dead, you reject the foundation of Christianity.

God, not natural law, is Lord of the universe. The universe serves Him. He created it in less than a week and when He's done with it He will discard it just as easily. Some people are like children who play with the box the toy came in and never realize the value of the true gift.

 

[AV1611VET]

If there is one thing I've learned from creationists, it's that evidence is irrelevant where faith is involved.

What tipped you off?

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

 

[AV1611VET]

Please explain. Sounds like a dodge.

A person immersed in science who expects an act of creatio ex nihilo to leave behind evidence, in my opinion, is misunderstanding science by trying to apply it to that act.

What is he expecting to find left over? trace radiation? extra particles?

Creatio ex nihilo, by its nature, wouldn't leave anything behind in its wake.

In fact, it wouldn't even generate a wake.

One second there's nothing, the next: a planet.

 

[Audacious]

A person immersed in science who expects an act of creatio ex nihilo to leave behind evidence, in my opinion, is misunderstanding science by trying to apply it to that act.

What is he expecting to find left over? trace radiation? extra particles?

Creatio ex nihilo, by its nature, wouldn't leave anything behind in its wake.

In fact, it wouldn't even generate a wake.

One second there's nothing, the next: a planet.

I would expect it to show something other than the evidence we have that the Earth is part of the solar system, which formed from an accretion disk billions of years ago.

 

[AV1611VET]

I would expect it to show something other than the evidence we have that the Earth is part of the solar system,

I have no idea what you mean by this.

None whatsoever.

... which formed from an accretion disk billions of years ago.

Creationism: Earth came into existence fully-formed in a moment of time.
Science: Earth came into existence piece-by-piece over a period of millions of years.

What is it you want, exactly?

Are you looking for evidence of creation so strong it overrides your accretion disk scenario?

I can't override your scenario ... or anyone else's ... with nothing.

 

[pitabread]

Non-believers demonstrate their lack of understanding of science by thinking they can find a scientific explanation for a supernatural creation. Science is the study of the natural world, not the supernatural world. Science can not ever find the correct answer. It doesn't look in the right place.

But what if life wasn't a supernatural creation? What if we eventually do solve the origin of life via purely natural means? What then?

 

[Audacious]

I have no idea what you mean by this.

None whatsoever.

Creationism: Earth came into existence fully-formed in a moment of time.
Science: Earth came into existence piece-by-piece over a period of millions of years.

What is it you want, exactly?

Are you looking for evidence of creation so strong it overrides your accretion disk scenario?

I can't override your scenario ... or anyone else's ... with nothing.

Yes, that is exactly my point. There is evidence against Earth appearing out of nowhere; no evidence that it did so (such as a lack of other apparent scenarios).

It's like saying the moon magically appeared and wasn't created early in our planet's history, when the Earth was hit by the planetoid theia.

Edit: To be clear, you don't run with a hypothesis when you have much more likely ones (with evidence backing them) available to you.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is evidence against Earth appearing out of nowhere;

Did I say the earth appeared out of nowhere?

I said it appeared out of nothing.

I submit you do not understand creatio ex nihilo.

And for the record, what is this evidence you say exists that is against the earth appearing out of nowhere [sic]?

 

[HitchSlap]

Please explain. Sounds like a dodge.

Dodge is his middle name, and obfuscation is his game.

 

[USincognito]

I have heard those things said many times on CF

No such thing as scientific proof.
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.


Dr. Jay Wile, Creationist
Science Can’t Prove Anything – Proslogion
After all, science has proven all sorts of things, hasn’t it?

Of course it hasn’t. In fact, it is impossible for science to prove anything, because science is based on experiments and observations, both of which can be flawed. Often, those flaws don’t become apparent to the scientific community for quite some time. Flawed experiments and observations, of course, lead to flawed conclusions, so even the most secure scientific statements have never been proven. There might be gobs and gobs of evidence for them, but they have not been proven.


Dr. Douglas Theobald, not a Creationist
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method

What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms 'proof' or 'prove' in this article.

 

[xianghua]

Let me put it this way: if creationism were true, you'd be able to prove it without the Bible

who said we can't? this motor prove that nature need a designer (basically it's a motor with a self repliciating system):

VCAC: Cellular Processes: Electron Transport Chain: Advanced Look: ATP Synthase

 

[KWCrazy]

But what if life wasn't a supernatural creation? What if we eventually do solve the origin of life via purely natural means?

1. Even if we find a means by which life could have come about, it wouldn't prove that it did come about by that process.
2. Considering that the origination of anything is a scientific impossibility, I wouldn't look for science to answer the question of origination any soon.
3. If God created a mature planet, as Genesis said He did, it would look exactly as it does now. The simple fact is that science can neither validate or invalidate God's miracles. They are a manifestation of God's authority in defiance of natural law.
4. Christians have faith in God over the laws of nature. We know people can't walk on water. We also know that Jesus did. We know that Jesus taught the Bible was the breathed words of God. As Christians, we trust that every word is true from the initial creation until the end of the Revelation.