The tip of the ice berg

[AV1611VET]

I don't know how old the earth is AV

I don't either.

I really don't.

That's why I say now that the earth is as old as God willed it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science starts with observation then asks what. It is open to questioning which never stops and it changes based on new information.

Creationism starts with answers (beliefs) and interprets observations to fit those answers. It is not open to questioning and does not change no matter what new information is discovered.

Ah ... but which one is the cart, and which one is the horse?

 

[Astrid]

Science starts with observation then asks what. It is open to questioning which never stops and it changes based on new information.

Creationism starts with answers (beliefs) and interprets observations to fit those answers. It is not open to questioning and does not change no matter what new information is discovered.

Different religions have different creation stories none of which are the same as Genesis.

So is creationism science

 

[AV1611VET]

That may be why creationism is not science.

Nope.

Creationism is not science, because God did not use science to create the universe.

His method of choice was miracles -- not science or nature.

 

[BPPLEE]

Science starts with observation then asks what. It is open to questioning which never stops and it changes based on new information.

Creationism starts with answers (beliefs) and interprets observations to fit those answers. It is not open to questioning and does not change no matter what new information is discovered.

Different religions have different creation stories none of which are the same as Genesis.

I don't think you can speak for everyone who believes in creation

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Oh, my!

Where did that term come from?

Did you just make that up?

From the sermon on the mount. Do you know what it warns against?

 

[BPPLEE]

So is creationism science

No. But there are some that say they are not mutually exclusive. There are views that account for an old earth and creation.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't think you can speak for everyone who believes in creation

I think they can -- Creationism is a religious belief, and like many religious beliefs, there are doctrines that are taken on faith, and not subject to debate.

 

[Astrid]

I think they can -- Creationism is a religious belief, and like many religious beliefs, there are doctrines that are taken on faith, and not subject to debate.

How do you know that no creation idea can be tested scientifically.

 

[Astrid]

No. But there are some that say they are not mutually exclusive. There are views that account for an old earth and creation.

So youd say some views of how the
universe and everything in it came to be
are entirely based on science, some based
In part on science, in part on religion, some based
wholly on religion but in no way contrary to anything
known to science, and others based on religion and
wholly contradicted by science?

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you know that no creation idea can be tested scientifically.

Because they were miracles, not natural processes.

 

[TLK Valentine]

How do you know that no creation idea can be tested scientifically.

Because any such idea is going to require God to be the one responsible... and science can't test for God.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because any such idea is going to require God to be the one responsible... and science can't test for God.

You can't test His products either.

Even though He lists them in Genesis 1.

(You're even standing on it.)

 

[Astrid]

Because any such idea is going to require God to be the one responsible... and science can't test for God.

Suppose tho that someone actually showed
there is some intelligent design somrwhee?

Say at the million trillionth place of
pi the message appears..." took you swabs
long enough to get here".

 

[AV1611VET]

Suppose tho that someone actually showed
there is some intelligent design somewhere?

Nope -- still wouldn't work.

 

[BPPLEE]

So youd say some views of how the
universe and everything in it came to be
are entirely based on science, some based
In part on science, in part on religion, some based
wholly on religion but in no way contrary to anything
known to science, and others based on religion and
wholly contradicted by science?

There are attempts to explain the discrepancy between the biblical account and billions of years such as the Gap Theory and Progressive Creationism but Valentine is probably correct that anyone who believes in creation is beholden to a religious belief and not a scientific one.
Hugh Ross said the following;
In my opinion, the best guidelines for constructively integrating science and the Bible were codified by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) in their Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics. Their affirmations and denials relevant to science-faith integration (articles 19–22) are as follows:

• We affirm that any preunderstandings which the interpreter brings to Scripture should be in harmony with scriptural teaching and subject to correction by it.
• We deny that Scripture should be required to fit alien preunderstandings, inconsistent with itself; such as naturalism, evolutionism, scientism, secular humanism, and relativism.
• We affirm that since God is the author of all truth, all truths, biblical and extrabiblical, are consistent and cohere, and that the Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or anything else. We further affirm that in some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations.
• We deny that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it.
• We affirm the harmony of special with general revelation and therefore of biblical teaching with the facts of nature.
• We deny that any genuine scientific facts are inconsistent with the true meaning of any passage of Scripture.
• We affirm that Genesis 1–11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.
• We deny that the teachings of Genesis 1–11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Here is an argument for old earth creationism The Sixth Creation Day: Biblical Support for Old-Earth Creationism But you are probably correct with what you stated

 

[ottawak]

There are attempts to explain the discrepancy between the biblical account and billions of years such as the Gap Theory and Progressive Creationism but Valentine is probably correct that anyone who believes in creation is beholden to a religious belief and not a scientific one.
Hugh Ross said the following;
In my opinion, the best guidelines for constructively integrating science and the Bible were codified by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) in their Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics. Their affirmations and denials relevant to science-faith integration (articles 19–22) are as follows:

• We affirm that any preunderstandings which the interpreter brings to Scripture should be in harmony with scriptural teaching and subject to correction by it.
• We deny that Scripture should be required to fit alien preunderstandings, inconsistent with itself; such as naturalism, evolutionism, scientism, secular humanism, and relativism.
• We affirm that since God is the author of all truth, all truths, biblical and extrabiblical, are consistent and cohere, and that the Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or anything else. We further affirm that in some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations.
• We deny that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it.
• We affirm the harmony of special with general revelation and therefore of biblical teaching with the facts of nature.
• We deny that any genuine scientific facts are inconsistent with the true meaning of any passage of Scripture.
• We affirm that Genesis 1–11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.
• We deny that the teachings of Genesis 1–11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Here is an argument for old earth creationism The Sixth Creation Day: Biblical Support for Old-Earth Creationism But you are probably correct with what you stated

The difficulty is that the Statements rests on assumptions not widely shared throughout Christendom so it is of somewhat limited application.

 

[BPPLEE]

The difficulty is that the Statements rests on assumptions not widely shared throughout Christendom so it is of somewhat limited application.

I'm just trying to keep an open mind. If I believe in creation I don't have to be a YEC and reject everything else.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You can't test His products either.

Even though He lists them in Genesis 1.

(You're even standing on it.)

Wrong. We can test everything listed in Genesis 1... except His involvement in them.

And since creationism only has two goals, and one of them is to draw attention to God via pseudoscience, real science is of no use to it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Suppose tho that someone actually showed
there is some intelligent design somrwhee?

Say at the million trillionth place of
pi the message appears..." took you swabs
long enough to get here".

Then you've proved the existence of a designer.

Now, prove that "designer" is God.