Uses of Creationist Science

[AV1611VET]

Now what would be the point of that exactly?

I'm not too sure --- I suspect it ties in with the Anthropic Principle, which says that this universe is extremely fine-tuned to sustain human life.

I use Adam and Eve as my favorite examples. Had they been created 1 day old, they would have died of exposure; but instead, they appeared on the face of the earth as 20-year-olds (or so).

The plants, of course, had to be ripe, so as to provide nourishment for them.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll tell you what. Tone down the hostility several notches, and I'll continue dialogue with you, and ask the specific question. I didn't come here to fight.

Deal?

What???

No hostility intended --- and I apologize if I offended. It certainly wasn't my intention to do so.

Yes --- it's a deal.

 

[Chalnoth]

I'm not too sure --- I suspect it ties in with the Anthropic Principle, which says that this universe is extremely fine-tuned to sustain human life.

The anthropic principle says nothing of the sort. The anthropic principle doesn't say that the universe is fine-tuned. It explains why it may appear to be fine-tuned (but I think we know far too little about physics to say whether or not the universe is fine tuned at the current time).

I use Adam and Eve as my favorite examples. Had they been created 1 day old, they would have died of exposure; but instead, they appeared on the face of the earth as 20-year-olds (or so).

No species could survive from just two parents. And besides, the genetic evidence shows conclusively that Adam and Eve never existed (i.e. there are no two people from whom all humans descended).

 

[TheBear]

What???

No hostility intended --- and I apologize if I offended. It certainly wasn't my intention to do so.

Yes --- it's a deal.

I'm glad we cleared up any misunderstandings.

You claimed that 6,000 years ago, trees did not have rings. Most research shows that tree rings give an unbroken record back more than 11,000 years ... (which is also a major problem for the global flood crowd, but that's another discussion).

Given that, how exactly are you concluding that there were no tree rings 6,000 years ago? Please give a detailed reason for this conclusion.

 

[AV1611VET]

Given that, how exactly are you concluding that there were no tree rings 6,000 years ago? Please give a detailed reason for this conclusion.

First of all: I'm not a scientist, so I can't help you here.

Second of all: no single scientist can help everyone --- they're just not that educated.

I've been asked to explain in detail astronomy, botany, chemistry, definitions of words, electromagnetism, fossils, geology, hydrology, idols, Jesus, etc.

This of course, is because I make claims, then support them with Scripture.

BUT --- to answer your question the best I can --- the inclusion of tree rings on the trees that God specifically called into existence would support the Omphalos Hypothesis, which I deny.

Tree rings, navels on Adam and Eve, skinned knees, memories of things past; all that stuff, in my opinion, didn't exist in Genesis 1.

If most research shows that the tree rings give an unbroken record back more than 11,000 years; I say "whoop-dee-do".

If that's a major problem for the global flood crowd, then let the global flood crowd handle it; and if they come up with an answer, good for them; and if they don't come up with an answer, good for them.

People need to stop asking me scientific questions, then getting all sore and pouty about it when I can't answer (I'm not talking about you, specifically).

 

[pantsman52]

People need to stop asking me scientific questions, then getting all sore and pouty about it when I can't answer (I'm not talking about you, specifically).

We ask that you back up your claims with actual verifiable evidence. If you can't do that then you have no business on this board.

 

[AV1611VET]

We ask that you back up your claims with actual verifiable evidence. If you can't do that then you have no business on this board.

You're quite wrong there, my friend.

When I see that KJVO/sola scriptura believers are not allowed to register, then I'll believe you.

 

[TheBear]

First of all: I'm not a scientist, so I can't help you here.

Second of all: no single scientist can help everyone --- they're just not that educated.

I'm not asking for a scientific reason, per se. I am asking for your own reasons why you concluded this, what logic you used, things like that.

This of course, is because I make claims, then support them with Scripture.

Or the other way around. Either way, this explains your overall mindset, and your seeming difficulty to change views in the light of new evidence. I understand it well. It's the "House of Cards" mentality - if anything in the Bible is proven wrong, then the whole thing must be thrown out. The Bible has to be 100% correct. Therefore, at all costs and to any lengths, you must defend it....no matter what.



Here's one of those examples:

Tree rings, navels on Adam and Eve, skinned knees, memories of things past; all that stuff, in my opinion, didn't exist in Genesis 1.

If most research shows that the tree rings give an unbroken record back more than 11,000 years; I say "whoop-dee-do".

You conclude that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and that there were no tree rings 6,000 years ago. When I present research figures dating tree rings back 11,000 years ago, you wave it off with a "whoop-dee-do". How does one have meaningful dialogue with that?

People need to stop asking me scientific questions, then getting all sore and pouty about it when I can't answer (I'm not talking about you, specifically).

I never asked you scientific questions, and I'm not sore or pouty. This remark, combined with what I thought was a misunderstanding, and your "whoop-dee-do" responses, tells me it's time we part ways. Good job. You alienated another.

 

[Logic_Fault]

I'm not too sure --- I suspect it ties in with the Anthropic Principle, which says that this universe is extremely fine-tuned to sustain human life.

Really? You should tell NASA that they don't need to bother developing those pesky space suits any longer since the universe is so, to quote you, "extremely fine-tuned to sustain human life."

I use Adam and Eve as my favorite examples. Had they been created 1 day old, they would have died of exposure; but instead, they appeared on the face of the earth as 20-year-olds (or so).

Says the Bible. Where's your evidence?

The plants, of course, had to be ripe, so as to provide nourishment for them.

Obviously.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You're quite wrong there, my friend.

When I see that KJVO/sola scriptura believers are now allowed to register, then I'll believe you.

Allow me to clarify the misstatement.

Of course you're welcome on this board. But when you make statements of a scientific sort, and are unable/unwilling to support them, the rest of us are equally welcome to evicerate them. (so long as we focus on the statements, and not the person making them).

And rest assured, they shall be evicerated.

 

[BVZ]

AV, what the people here have a problem with is that you beleive things with no reason for beleiving them. You make stuff up, without reasons to do so... and then beleive it.

For instance, you say that trees did not have rings 6000 years ago. If tree rings are found to go back 11000 years, your statement is wrong. It has been shown to be wrong by the evidence.

This is what you do now:
You say: "Oh ok. I didn't know that.. thanks for the update."

And then discard the idea that has been shown to be false.

 

[Herman Hedning]

I heard it was something like 13.7 billion.

Yes --- 6000 years --- and it's done a lousy job.

OK, we've been over this interesting belief of yours of embedded age many times on this forum. As I understand it, you are claiming that everything is created ex nihilo with an embedded age to show whatever current science claims the age to be - age of universe 13.7 billion years, age of life on earth one billion years, and so on.

And you are also claiming that the processes science uses to measure said age are also embedded, e.g. nuclear decay, stellar processes, varves, tree rings, and evolution. Or, at least you should be claiming that, otherwise the illogic of your ideas rises to truly staggering heights.

So, for all purposes the universe is 13.7 billion years, and evolution on earth has been going on for about a billion years, since this is what we can see, detect, measure though science. If some deity really created the whole shebang 6000 years ago (or last Tuesday for that matter) is really irrelevant.

Don't you agree, AV1611VET?

 

[nvxplorer]

The plants, of course, had to be ripe, so as to provide nourishment for them.

Going back to your denial of natural selection before the Fall; you do realize that plant life is subject to natural selection?

While there may have been insufficient time to result in speciation pre-Fall, the ability of Adam & Eve to effect their environment (because of free will), was there from the beginning.

Therefore, and I repeat, the Fall is irrelevant.

What you need to show is how the processes involved in natural selection became possible only after the Fall.

 

[AV1611VET]

Allow me to clarify the misstatement.

Of course you're welcome on this board. But when you make statements of a scientific sort, and are unable/unwilling to support them, the rest of us are equally welcome to evicerate them. (so long as we focus on the statements, and not the person making them).

And rest assured, they shall be evicerated.

By all means --- eviscerate to your heart's content.

 

[nvxplorer]

By all means --- eviscerate to your heart's content.

I'll be a bit more blunt.

Your discussions belong in General Apologetics (or any number of other topical forums.) They do not belong here, in a science forum.

 

[AV1611VET]

For instance, you say that trees did not have rings 6000 years ago. If tree rings are found to go back 11000 years, your statement is wrong. It has been shown to be wrong by the evidence.

I hear your frustration, BVZ --- I honestly do, but at the risk of sounding like a broken MP[sup]3[/sup]: give it time, it'll go the way of Pluto.

Here's my take on this:

• The Bible conveys facts.
• Scientists disagree with those facts - based on CURRENT evidence.
• New evidence is being acquired all the time.
• Eventually --- the evidence and the facts will coincide.

IOW, scientists need to "catch up" with what the Bible says.

The best case on record, IMO, is the "evidence" against the existence of the Hittite Empire. Christians recognized the existence of said empire, some scientists did not - until it was "discovered". Then, of course, scientists got the credit for the "discovery" (name and pictures in the magazines and such, if not various awards) of something Christians said existed all along.

Imagine this dialog between a Christian and a scientist:

S: How can you say your Bible is true, when it speaks of the Hittites?
C: If God said the Hittites existed - the Hittites existed.
S: Show me evidence of this empire. If it's a whole empire, I'm sure there's something somewhere, right? A piece of pottery, a road, an abandoned chariot, some parchment, ANYTHING. Fact is, you have nothing but that Book that says they existed.
C: We have a motto: the Bible says it - that settles it.
S: [shakes head] Okay, have a nice day.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't you agree, AV1611VET?

No --- "age of life on earth one billion years"?

I never said that --- nor did I mention "embedded evolution".

You've got me quoted all wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Going back to your denial of natural selection before the Fall; you do realize that plant life is subject to natural selection?

Not before the Fall. Nothing would have changed. No subspecies would have emerged. Adam and Eve would have never known what a domestic dog was, only coyote. Same with the plants.

As plants and animals (and people) moved toward the "polar regions", absolutely no genetic changes would have taken place; for two reasons:

• the earth was one continent
• the earth was one tropical paradise

But then the Fall occurred, and the rest, as they say, is history.

While there may have been insufficient time to result in speciation pre-Fall, the ability of Adam & Eve to effect their environment (because of free will), was there from the beginning.

They were to dress and to keep the Garden of Eden. I suppose if you want to call that "effecting their environment" you can. I don't have a problem with it.

If the Fall would have never occurred 6000 years ago, we today would be living on one tropical paradise, on one continent, walking and talking with God Himself, and having dinosaurs and coyotes for pets.

Therefore, and I repeat, the Fall is irrelevant.

I disagree.

What you need to show is how the processes involved in natural selection became possible only after the Fall.

Do you believe death is a big part of natural selection, and do you believe that prior to the Fall there was no death? And do you believe everything was perfect before the Fall?

If you answered 'no' to any of the above, there's no way I can show you anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll be a bit more blunt.

Your discussions belong in General Apologetics (or any number of other topical forums.) They do not belong here, in a science forum.

Then I'll be equally blunt:

When you see a person ask me a question, remind them of the OP, not me. Telling me where I should go with my answers doesn't cut it, if you're not going to tell the other person where to go with his questions first.

And you're just as guilty. Asking me about natural selection, then telling me to take my answers elsewhere.

All I'm doing is answering questions to the best of my ability.

If I start ignoring everyone, that would be rude.

 

[BVZ]

Then I'll be equally blunt:

When you see a person ask me a question, remind them of the OP, not me. Telling me where I should go with my answers doesn't cut it, if you're not going to tell the other person where to go with his questions first.

And you're just as guilty. Asking me about natural selection, then telling me to take my answers elsewhere.

All I'm doing is answering questions to the best of my ability.

If I start ignoring everyone, that would be rude.

I think what he is trying to say is that you should not post in this section of the forum, if you dont plan on discussing science.

The OP asks what has creationism contributed scientifically, which is why the OP DOES belong here.

Remember, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. This implies that it can only be addressed scientifically.

I you plan on attacking the ToE, you should do it on scientific grounds, since it is immune on any other.