If creationism is true, then why is it useless?

[PsychoSarah]

The Bible says that the sky is blue and grass is green. Science and the Bible agree. If you agree then you are not qualified to enter into kindergarten. How far do you think you can progress from there?

-_- you... misunderstand what science is for. Science is explanation of how and why. Also, incorrect, scientifically speaking, color perception is subjective to the cones in an organism's eyes, and how the color spectrum is organized is based on normal human eyes. So, the scientific conclusion is that the particles in the air refract light such that it is wavelengths humans perceive as blue, not that the sky itself is objectively that color. In fact, since the blue wavelengths are what the sky reflects rather than absorbs, an accurate description of the sky's color would be "every color except blue".

 

[AV1611VET]

You need the part of the bible which says that too.

No, you do -- but your education won't allow you to see it.

 

[Astrophile]

Branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation.

• Physics: Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin
• Chemistry: Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
• Biology: Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
• Geology: Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier
• Astronomy: Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
• Mathematics: Pascal, Leibnitz

The Creationist Basis for Modern Science

Can you give me more details about Herschel's belief in creation?

William Herschel (1738-1822), talking with the poet Thomas Campbell in 1813, said 'I have looked further into space than ever human being did before me. I have observed stars of which the light, it can be proved, must take two million years to reach the earth.' (Michael D. Lemonick, The Georgian Star (W.W. Norton and Company, 2009)), p. 171). These does not sound like the words of a young earth creationist.

John Herschel (1792-1871) was a devout Christian, but he was not a young earth creationist. In a letter to the geologist Charles Lyell (1797-1875) written on 20 February 1836, he wrote, in a discussion on the age of languages, 'Time! Time! Time! - we must not impugn the Scripture Chronology, but we must interpret it in accordance with whatever shall appear on fair enquiry to be the truth for there cannot be two truths. And really there is scope enough: for the lives of the Patriarchs may as reasonably be extended to 5000 or 50000 years as the days of Creation to as many thousand millions of years.' (Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin (Penguin Books, 1992), p. 215, quoted in John Herschel - Wikipedia).

Do you agree with William Herschel's estimate of the time that light has taken to reach the earth from distant astronomical objects, or with his son's estimate of the length of the days of Creation?

 

[Astrophile]

-_- you... misunderstand what science is for. Science is explanation of how and why. Also, incorrect, scientifically speaking, color perception is subjective to the cones in an organism's eyes, and how the color spectrum is organized is based on normal human eyes. So, the scientific conclusion is that the particles in the air refract light such that it is wavelengths humans perceive as blue, not that the sky itself is objectively that color. In fact, since the blue wavelengths are what the sky reflects rather than absorbs, an accurate description of the sky's color would be "every color except blue".

Strictly speaking, the colour of the sky is the product of scattering of light by molecules (Rayleigh scattering), not of refraction or absorption by larger particles. The sky is blue because atmospheric molecules (mainly nitrogen and oxygen) scatter short-wavelength (blue) light more than yellow and red light; the light of longer wavelength reaches us directly from the sun, without being scattered. The scattering of light by larger particles, such as water droplets, does not depend on wavelength, which is why clouds look white.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think you win the prize for the most crazy statement ever. I am saying the Bible agrees with "99.9% of the scientific community".

And I am saying that you can say that as much as you want, it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority disagrees with you on that.

It is just what YOU believe.

They know nothing about the Bible. It could be they do not even have a third grade level of understanding of the Bible even if they have a Phd in science because a degree in science teaches you nothing about the Bible.

That's certaintly true. Degrees is science only help in understanding reality better.
Take a hint.

If you want to hunt dogma then you don't have to leave your own back yard. You got all the dogma there that anyone could ever want or imagine. Let me know if you ever manage to get your own back yard cleaned up.

No clue what you are talking about.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I do that constantly, but people ignore it because they are not able to refute my findings.

People don't ignore you.
It's you who's ignoring their responses. You know... those posts where they are correcting yoru misconceptions.

Ignoring those posts, doesn't make them disappear.

 

[DogmaHunter]

We have physical evidence for the resurrection. This is called the Shroud of Turin.

Ow boy

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, you do -- but your education won't allow you to see it.

Those pesky studies and these evil houses of devil worship called schools, colleges and universities ha?
They should burn them all down! Burn them all down I say!!
Who got the torches?

 

[Speedwell]

Those pesky studies and these evil houses of devil worship called schools, colleges and universities ha?
They should burn them all down! Burn them all down I say!!
Who got the torches?

They're standard issue, along with the pitchforks.

 

[AV1611VET]

Those pesky studies and these evil houses of devil worship called schools, colleges and universities ha?
They should burn them all down! Burn them all down I say!!
Who got the torches?

They're standard issue, along with the pitchforks.

Bob Larson vs. Winnipeg

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

what science is for. Science is explanation of how and why.

Not on this planet (earth).


m o n e y

 

[joshua 1 9]

misunderstand what science is for.

Science is based on what they call evidence. There are artifacts and natural evidence. We talk about the flood and the evidence does not indicate a worldwide flood back in the day of Noah. The evidence indicates what we would call a local flood. So we have to question how accurate our translation is of the Bible. When I look at the original Hebrew language then I see no conflict between the Bible and
what we know from Science.

 

[joshua 1 9]

It's you who's ignoring their responses.

I can not keep up with all the responses I get. I try to stick to the people who are serious about wanting to know the truth and avoid the people who want to waste everyone's time.

 

[joshua 1 9]

No clue what you are talking about.

What language do you speak? I do not think we are talking the same language or at least we are not having the same conversation.

 

[pitabread]

Why is the world is this so difficult for you to understand? YOU HAVE TO GO WHERE THE EVIDENCE TAKES YOU. I study History, Science and the Bible including Archaeology, Geology and Botany. I go where the evidence takes me.

That's nice. What does this have to do with the Exodus or Noah's Flood not being historical events (per the Bible)?

 

[pitabread]

The problem there is you want to define creationism. For me theistic evolution is creationism.

Most people don't refer to theistic evolution as creationism, because it merely muddles the issue and makes distinguishing between forms of creationism that reject science more confusing.

So you're welcome to think that, but it's doesn't really add anything to the discussion.

 

[SkyWriting]

Do you agree with William Herschel's estimate of the time that light has taken to reach the earth from distant astronomical objects, or with his son's estimate of the length of the days of Creation?

It would take 20 million years to create one supporting data point
for an event that took 2 million years. And you'd want a couple
data points. I don't have the time.

The Creation story is regarding Paradise, not our current earth.
I am not YEC.

 

[USincognito]

Archaeologists used to believe that the Trojan War was nothing but a myth and that Troy never existed, until they found it.

And more importantly Schliemann used the Iliad to find it.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Most people don't refer to theistic evolution as creationism, because it merely muddles the issue and makes distinguishing between forms of creationism that reject science more confusing.

So you're welcome to think that, but it's doesn't really add anything to the discussion.

There are lots of different theories for creationism, each one in context is perfectly acceptable. YEC the creationism that most people argue against is perhaps the most acceptable of them all because YEC ONLY attempts to explain the last 6,000 years of man's history. Dispensationalism gets to be more difficult because they try to explain Genesis chapter one. OEC tries to reconcile Genesis chapter one with what science now believes to be the age of the earth. Each is limited in what we are able to do because we are limited in what we have to work with. If you want to build then you have to have material to build with. We do the best we can with what we are given to work with. If that is not good enough for people then that is simply arrogance on their part. Everyone in life does the best they can with what they have to work with. Only some of us know to trust in God for the rest of what we are not able to do for ourselves.

 

[joshua 1 9]

That's nice. What does this have to do with the Exodus or Noah's Flood not being historical events (per the Bible)?

Listen to what YOU are saying. Your want to know about historical events then you have to study history. No one can do that for you. People have to discover truth for themselves.

Noah's flood has very exact criteria that people talk about all the time. A big one is that the foothills and the high mountains were covered with water. Only in the original language does this become more clear because the same Hebrew word is used for foothills AND high mountains. I would consider this to be a translation problem. They did not follow the original text that Moses gave them, they followed their opinions on how to understand that test.

Do you want to take a look at this and learn or do you want to wallow in your preconceived ideas and opinions with a total lack of objectivity?