Taking Questions on Creationism

[pitabread]

* I'll bump this thread, rather than start a new one. *​

1) What is the specific process by which God made living things? For example, if they "breathed" life into clay (e.g. creation of Adam, how exactly does that process work? How does breath turn clay into a living thing?

2) What specific applications of creationism are there with respect to modern biology? In particular, how does creationism get applied to comparative genomics (in lieu of current applications of biological evolution)?

3) If creationism is true and evolution is false, why is nobody in the applied biosciences using creationism instead? Why aren't creationist organizations self-funded in that regard? Why do they still rely on donations and merchandising?

 

[AV1611VET]

1) What is the specific process by which God made living things? For example, if they "breathed" life into clay (e.g. creation of Adam, how exactly does that process work? How does breath turn clay into a living thing?

2) What specific applications of creationism are there with respect to modern biology? In particular, how does creationism get applied to comparative genomics (in lieu of current applications of biological evolution)?

3) If creationism is true and evolution is false, why is nobody in the applied biosciences using creationism instead? Why aren't creationist organizations self-funded in that regard? Why do they still rely on donations and merchandising?

1. Tough question. I don't know.

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

This ingredient, the "breath of life", is not described.

2. None that I know of. Science has nothing to do with creation, so there would be no scientific applications to follow.

3. Because creation is HISTORY, not SCIENCE.

 

[SelfSim]

1. Tough question. I don't know.

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

This ingredient, the "breath of life", is not described.

SS#1: Are Creationists free to choose the scientific process and science's subsequent explanations, seeing as Genesis said nothing about that?

 

[AV1611VET]

SS#1: Are Creationists free to choose the scientific process and science's subsequent explanations, seeing as Genesis said nothing about that?

Nope.

The Creation Week was a series of one miracle after another, and had nothing to do with science whatsoever.

 

[SelfSim]

Nope.

SS#2: Why not? (ie: is there a Biblical 'not permitted' somewhere?)

The Creation Week was a series of one miracle after another, and had nothing to do with science whatsoever.

Sure .. no problems.
Still can't see how any of that vetoes science's explanations and process .. when it provides no explanations of its own though.

 

[AV1611VET]

SS#2: Why not? (ie: is there a Biblical 'not permitted' somewhere?)

Let's put it this way:

There are no known scientific processes that contributed to the appearance of the universe, which mainly occurred ex nihilo.

In other words, the level of mass/energy started out at zero; then God raised it to its current level over a period of six days.

 

[pitabread]

2. None that I know of. Science has nothing to do with creation, so there would be no scientific applications to follow.

Then why make a dichotomy out of creationism and science?

That seems odd, especially if creationism has nothing to bring to the table in the first place.

3. Because creation is HISTORY, not SCIENCE.

You know that history *is* a science, yes?

 

[Kylie]

Nope.

The Creation Week was a series of one miracle after another, and had nothing to do with science whatsoever.

If it was all miracles, why does it looks exactly like what evolution would have done?

 

[pitabread]

If it was all miracles, why does it looks exactly like what evolution would have done?

I've always wondered this too. Every time creationists try to apologize for the way things look in nature, they invariably fall back on the idea that the creator was bound by evolutionary constraints. It's really odd.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why make a dichotomy out of creationism and science?

The answer is in your question.

Dichotomy: a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different.

Creation: 1
Science: 0

That seems odd, especially if creationism has nothing to bring to the table in the first place.

Just a clean slate.

You know that history *is* a science, yes?

I suppose so.

 

[AV1611VET]

If it was all miracles, why does it looks exactly like what evolution would have done?

Because we're on the inside looking out.

We're looking at the product of those miracles and building a house [of knowledge] ... on the sand, I might add.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've always wondered this too. Every time creationists try to apologize for the way things look in nature, they invariably fall back on the idea that the creator was bound by evolutionary constraints. It's really odd.

But you can't look at how the universe is configured now, and retcon it back to Genesis 1.

Things were a lot different back then.

That's like looking at a snowman that is half melted and thinking that's the way he's always been.

 

[Kylie]

Because we're on the inside looking out.

We're looking at the product of those miracles and building a house [of knowledge] ... on the sand, I might add.

That doesn't answer my question.

 

[AV1611VET]

That doesn't answer my question.

I don't see why not.

We've acclimated ourselves to our surroundings by linking the past with the present; not to mention linking things together that was never linked in the first place.

Like DNA.

Reminds me of Douglas Adam's puddle analogy.

 

[Kylie]

I don't see why not.

We've acclimated ourselves to our surroundings by linking the past with the present; not to mention linking things together that was never linked in the first place.

Like DNA.

Reminds me of Douglas Adam's puddle analogy.

Yeah, this still doesn't explain why created life looks exactly the same as what we would expect to see if life had evolved. How can two entirely different methods both leave exactly the same evidence? You aren't explaining that, you are just resorting to quasi-mystical sounding hand waving.

 

[inquiring mind]

Yes, too much linking... Science and Evolution just try to project backwards too far. If for no other reason, and with faith aside, the rock wall that all the unanswerable questions present for abiogenesis should make Creation and a Creator the most reasonable answer for our beginning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, too much linking... Science and Evolution just try to project backwards too far. If for no other reason, and with faith aside, the rock wall that all the unanswerable questions present for abiogenesis should make Creation and a Creator the most reasonable answer for our beginning.

That is an argument from ignorance. It has not worked out well in the past. But I am glad to see that yo you accept the theory of evolution. You see you moved the goalposts all the way to abiogenesis and evolution does not depend upon that. All that evolution requires is the existence of life. It does not matter if it arose naturally, was planted by aliens, or miraculously poofed into existence. Once self reproducing single celled life existed evolution followed.

 

[SelfSim]

SS#2: Why not? (ie: is there a Biblical 'not permitted' somewhere?)

Let's put it this way:
...
In other words ...

SS#2: Is there a Biblical 'not permitted' somewhere?

 

[SelfSim]

... If for no other reason, and with faith aside, the rock wall that all the unanswerable questions present for abiogenesis should make Creation and a Creator the most reasonable answer for our beginning.

SS#3: Occams' Razor asserts that the simplest theory that agrees with data, leads to the best path of understanding .. where it does, then that is clearly the best theory. However, the act of Creation and the existence of a Creator, must be reasoned from miracles .. which cannot be understood.
Therefore, how does Creation become 'the most reasonable answer for our beginning .. with faith aside'?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, this still doesn't explain why created life looks exactly the same ...

Actually it doesn't.

The created generation had no scars and was created not to die.

It's telomeres were not moving toward separation; not like they are today.

Again, you can't compare today with what existed back in 4004 BC.