This is the question I have!

[AV1611VET]

Their 'shepherd' (whoever they listen to) : A wolf, a lion roaming the earth to devour souls, through religion, non-religion, ecumenicism, world church , politics, money, greed, entertainment, hollywood, tv, .....

... science.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

... science.

Only to you.

 

[Shemjaza]

Really? Their website includes this as part of AiG's definition of the scientific method:

"Is Answers In Genesis Anti-Science?​

Not at all! Answers in Genesis (like other creationist groups) affirms and supports the teaching and use of scientific methodology, and we believe this supports the biblical account of origins.

Two Kinds of Science​

To understand what science is, it is helpful to distinguish between operational science and origin science and compare how each one seeks to discover truth. Operational science uses observable, repeatable experiments to try to discover truth. Origin science relies on relics from the past and historical records to try to discover truth."

This is not a definition of the Scientific Method.

It's also a total mischaracterisation of the evidence and conclusions they disagree with. The evidence for geology and biology is absolutely real and operational and and be re check and re examined with any other investigatable evidence found.

But the real reason that AiG should be labelled as Anti Science is their Statement of Faith:
Statement of Faith

They don't even permit the suggestion that their personal religious convictions about origins are wrong.

Feel free to tell me if I've misunderstood the context of:
Scripture
No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field of study, including science, history, and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture obtained by historical-grammatical interpretation.

Man
The special and unique creation of Adam from dust and Eve from Adam’s rib was supernatural and immediate. Adam and Eve did not originate from any other preexisting lifeforms

 

[Shemjaza]

Every day the carnal continue dying, apart from and without Jesus.

This is an irrelevant point to the investigation of evidence.

 

[Aaron112]

This is an irrelevant point to the investigation of evidence.

What is relevant ?

Sheep without a shepherd!

This is not a definition of the Scientific Method.

Feel free to tell me if I've misunderstood the context of:
Scripture

yep!

 

[Shemjaza]

What is relevant ?

Things that can be demonstrated, tested and confirmed.

yep!

Okay, so you assert that I've misunderstood scripture... but how can you show what's right?

Your personal conviction is no more clearly correct than the interpretation of any other.

 

[Aaron112]

People are wrong.
YHVH the Almighty Creator of Life is Right.

how can you show what's right?

 

[timothyu]

Right idea, wrong world? Perhaps God's Garden was His little place of order amongst the chaos of an outer world under the rule and perhaps creation of an adversarial god. Was it not our adversarial ways that forced us out of perfection and into the chaotic creation? Was not that perfect world closed off to all? Perhaps our layered sandstone castle is not the world of the creation story. We were cast into an outer creation which would take time and evolution to form as the creator of it was also chaotic and imperfect. People seem to forget who the ruler of this adversarial world is/was and that we humans came from someplace else, cast out when we became adversarial also.. Perhaps the desire to see God as Mono has led us to combine two different creations into one. Elohim, the original word in Genesis is plural. We need to remember this world we comprehend is full of lesser gods, who have pulled the strings and have been given credit for controlling nature. Is it any wonder the true God has gone to a lot of trouble to overcome the adversarial spirit out here and give those who reject it a new home, a place of light from out of this darkness?

 

[Aaron112]

In total error, sinfully , lesser 'gods' are feared or deferred to.

We need to remember this world we comprehend is full of lesser gods, who have pulled the strings and have been given credit for controlling nature.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Really? Their website includes this as part of AiG's definition of the scientific method:

And why should anyone, let alon[e] scientists, accept AiG's definitions of the scientific methods?

"Is Answers In Genesis Anti-Science?​

Not at all! Answers in Genesis (like other creationist groups) affirms and supports the teaching and use of scientific methodology, and we believe this supports the biblical account of origins.

AiG isn't even just interested in "biblical account of origins", but their particular interpretation of such.

Two Kinds of Science​

To understand what science is, it is helpful to distinguish between operational science and origin science and compare how each one seeks to discover truth. Operational science uses observable, repeatable experiments to try to discover truth. Origin science relies on relics from the past and historical records to try to discover truth."

Only creationist ministries divide science in this fashion.

The only "origin" sciences I can think of are abiogenesis (orgin of life) and the parts of physical cosmology involving the formation of this Universe from other stuff (a pre-existing substrate, eternal inflation, etc) or nothing (if there was such a thing as nothing). [Other aspects of cosmology are not concerned with how/why the Universe came to exist, but how it evolved.]

We know how stars and galaxies form, where the elements come from, how planets form, how rock layers form, how species form. These are not "special" branches of science, they operate the same way as every other branch.

 

[AV1611VET]

The only "origin" sciences I can think of are abiogenesis (orgin of life) and the parts of physical cosmology involving the formation of this Universe from other stuff (a pre-existing substrate, eternal inflation, etc) or nothing (if there was such a thing as nothing). [Other aspects of cosmology are not concerned with how/why the Universe came to exist, but how it evolved.]

People can harp on AiG all they want.

They claim there was science involved, and I claim there was absolutely no science involved; and we are both treated with incredulity.

It's not the science that bugs unbelievers.

It's the claim that God did it.

 

[Aaron112]

I think making a claim is a human thing.
YHVH did not claim He did it. He simple did it, and told what He did, as He was Pleased so to do.

It's the claim that God did it.

 

[Aaron112]

Did this get answered for you yet ?

but how can you show what's right?

 

[AV1611VET]

I think making a claim is a human thing.
YHVH did not claim He did it. He simple did it, and told what He did, as He was Pleased so to do.

God says what He did, when He did it, where He did it, how He did it, why He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were (some by name).

And it takes academians to scratch their heads wondering what happened.

 

[Aaron112]

While little children look on with wide eyed awe and wonder at the Creator's Greatness and Power !

 

[Astrid]

Flaws in that though...how do they determine the age of those?

How can you find it ethical to claim there’s a“flaw” in
something you know nothing about?

 

[Aaron112]

The more posts anyone makes, the easier it is to see their flaw when they are opposed to Jesus.

How can you find it ethical to claim there’s a“flaw” in
something you know nothing about?

 

[Astrid]

The more posts anyone makes, the easier it is to see their flaw when they are opposed to Jesus.

You, sir, ain’t Jesus.

Sooo easy, you pretend, yet you cannot do it.


Why are you in a ” debate” forum when
rather than address even one statement of fact Ive
msde, all you can do is asperse my integrity,
which is, frankly, getting tiresome besides being
vapid. And low.

Is not such behaviour opposed to the teachings of he
whose name you use in vain?



But keep it up, as it suits. You merely demonstrate
a paucity of thought or content on your part.

 

[Lost4words]

How can you find it ethical to claim there’s a“flaw” in
something you know nothing about?

You dont know what i know. Your claim is baseless.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

View attachment 358781

I guess some of this comes down to how any of us defines a 'Solar Day' ....