What Makes Creationism a Valid Scientific Alternative?

[Loudmouth]

I am just telling you want the Bible says. If you want to accept or reject the Bible is your choice to make.

I don't accept empty assertions. Why should I?

 

[steveo52988]

A simple reason Creationism should be taught in schools along with the Big Bang theory is simply that it is one of the many views on the beginning of the world. Personally I believe in Creationism as the truth, but that does not sway my feelings. Before I ever got saved, before I knew anything about the Bible, I thought that it should be taught simply to give a more rounded view. Our jobs as educators is to get the student thinking for themselves, only providing them with one view is not doing that, it is persuading them to think and believe what ever the leading scientific theory is at that time. To get students to think for themselves we must give them varying points and views and allow them to decide what they believe from there.

 

[46AND2]

A simple reason Creationism should be taught in schools along with the Big Bang theory is simply that it is one of the many views on the beginning of the world. Personally I believe in Creationism as the truth, but that does not sway my feelings. Before I ever got saved, before I knew anything about the Bible, I thought that it should be taught simply to give a more rounded view. Our jobs as educators is to get the student thinking for themselves, only providing them with one view is not doing that, it is persuading them to think and believe what ever the leading scientific theory is at that time. To get students to think for themselves we must give them varying points and views and allow them to decide what they believe from there.

Creationism should not be allowed to circumvent the gauntlet of peer-review and the scientific method in general, and be taught as science.

If you can get ID through peer-review, then I'm all for it, but until then it has no business in a science classroom.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism should not be allowed to circumvent the gauntlet of peer-review and the scientific method in general, and be taught as science.

If you can get ID through peer-review, then I'm all for it, but until then it has no business in a science classroom.

Creationism should be taught in history class as history.

 

[46AND2]

Creationism should be taught in history class as history.

I'm cool with it being taught in philosophy or religious studies. And I'm also not opposed to the Bible being part of the curriculum in literature classes.

 

[Dieselman]

No, science does not include claims that have no support. The only people separating mechanisms into the natural and supernatural are creationists, not scientists. For all intents and purposes, the supernatural is nothing more than an invented realm that allows you to excuse yourself from supplying evidence.

In a word, WRONG!
Let's take an event. Any event will do, but let's feed 5,000 people with a couple of loaves of bread and some fish. Then after feeding them, we'll gather up more in remnants than we started with. Was that observed? Yes, by over 5,000 people. Was it testable? Yes, we knew what the start value and the ending value was. Was it falsifiable? There were plenty of witnesses who could have spoken up and said that it did not happen if it did not. It is, then, a recorded fact. Now the 5,000 people pass away, but we still have the record. Father tells son of what he had witnessed and all affirm the greatness of God.

Now centuries pass. Man can no more duplicate this event now than he could then. Jesus is not here to once again perform His well witnessed miracle. Now you claim that there is no evidence that it ever happened because you don't believe the written record and did not see it for yourself. In your mind, that proves it didn't happen; that it's religious mythology. By that same reasoning, nothing that you've ever read happened either. If you didn't perform the experiment yourself then you have no reason to trust the writing of those who did. Your doubt, then, is the extent of your acceptance of science. Only what you can see and what you have experienced is scientific in your mind. Only what is published in a science journal full of words you can't pronounce is relevant.

You don't expect us to take you seiously, do you?

Where are the witnesses that saw Darwin at the Galápago Islands? I didn't see him there, and therefore neither did anyone else. All we have is a book. Darwin is no more real than Icabod Crane or George Washington. All are myths and fairy tales because you didn't witness it and you place no value in the written record.

Not at all. There is nothing in the definition of natural that would preclude a natural beginning to our universe.

It's called physics, Einstein. Everything that exists in the physical world had a beginning. The universe did not and could not spring out of nothingness. Amazing what one can convince himself of if one is desperate to believe that there is no Creator. Most scientists know that science is the study of the physical world around us and is limited to those things which are observable and testable. It can neither preclude or include something which exists in a state which cannot be tested. If you don't understand the limitations of science then you don't understand anything about science. Science CANNOT DISPROVE the existence of God, and the assumption that He cannot exist is completely unscientific.

 

[Jamin4422]

Why should I?

Why should you accept the truth? Because it is the truth that sets you free. If you want to remain in bondage then that is your choice.

“If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

 

[Jamin4422]

Alright, next time you get sick, you should use some of that 20,000 years old medicine. It will work very well!

The real medicine will be the tree of life: "[FONT=Corbel, Verdana, sans-serif]The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations."[/FONT]

BTW, don't you keep saying the world is 12,900 years old?

I never said the world was 12,982 years old. I said that was when the age or era we now live in began. This is the Holocene extinction to end the last age and this is when the Neolithic Revolution began. Heb 5:12 "[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Instead of [/FONT]eating[FONT=arial, sans-serif] solid food, you still have to drink [/FONT]milk" Your doing a lot of shadow boxing. You make up stuff and argue against it. This all has NOTHING to do with me because you are not even in the same ball park when it comes to understanding what I believe.

 

[Jamin4422]

Let's take an event. Any event will do.

If you say any event then your going to be in trouble, because most of the events in the Bible have physical evidence. The infidels have to work long and hard to try and find an event that does not have physical evidence. What about the temple in Jerusalem for example. There is evidence for just about everything the Bible says about the temple. The origional temple Solmon built 3,000 years ago. The second temple around 2500 years ago, that became known as Herolds Temple because he made improvements. Even there is evidence for the story of when Babylon conquered Jerusalem. When they were searching through the rubble they found some arrowheads that fit that story perfectly. So there is a lot of physical evidence to back up what we read in our Bible. For well over 200 years science has done a diligent study on all the evidence that we can find.

Look at it this way. If a married man is having an affair the wife often will look long and hard for evidence. When she finds that evidence then he will do what he can to try and convince her that evidence is NOT valid. I see the same thing here. You got a bunch of infidels trying to get away with something and they are trying to deny the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why should you accept the truth?

Why should I believe that it is the truth?

 

[Loudmouth]

If you say any event then your going to be in trouble, because most of the events in the Bible have physical evidence. The infidels have to work long and hard to try and find an event that does not have physical evidence. What about the temple in Jerusalem for example. There is evidence for just about everything the Bible says about the temple.

Yes, just as there is evidence for the London spoken of in the Harry Potter books. Therefore, Harry Potter is real.

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's take an event. Any event will do, but let's feed 5,000 people with a couple of loaves of bread and some fish. Then after feeding them, we'll gather up more in remnants than we started with. Was that observed? Yes, by over 5,000 people.

Where is your evidence for this?

Was it testable? Yes, we knew what the start value and the ending value was.

No, we have the CLAIM. That's it.

Was it falsifiable? There were plenty of witnesses who could have spoken up and said that it did not happen if it did not. It is, then, a recorded fact.

Now you are shifting the burden of proof. This is exactly what I am talking about. You have CLAIMS of eye witnesses, but no eyewitnesses. You have CLAIMS about what happened, but no evidence.

Now centuries pass. Man can no more duplicate this event now than he could then. Jesus is not here to once again perform His well witnessed miracle.

Is God still here? Or does God no longer exist? Is God incapable of performing miracles?

If you didn't perform the experiment yourself then you have no reason to trust the writing of those who did.

I do have reason to accept the facts discovered in scientific research when the same facts are found by multiple people in different labs.

You don't expect us to take you seiously, do you?

Creationists surely do. They try their best to make creationism look like science. They are trying to force creationism into science classrooms. They are trying to get rid of science that contradicts their religious beliefs. The actions of creationists tells us all we need to know. They do take science seriously.

Where are the witnesses that saw Darwin at the Galápago Islands? I didn't see him there, and therefore neither did anyone else. All we have is a book. Darwin is no more real than Icabod Crane or George Washington. All are myths and fairy tales because you didn't witness it and you place no value in the written record.

The species that Darwin spoke of are still there. The fossils that Darwin describes are still in the ground to be studied. The morphology of living species that Darwin describes are still available for study in the here and now. All of the empirical evidence that supports the theory of evolution is available to you right here and now.

It's called physics, Einstein. Everything that exists in the physical world had a beginning. The universe did not and could not spring out of nothingness. Amazing what one can convince himself of if one is desperate to believe that there is no Creator.

What is amazing is the leap in logic it takes to go from something to Creator. Why couldn't the universe emerge from something that was not a creator? Lightning has a beginning, but does that mean it comes from the supernatural?

Most scientists know that science is the study of the physical world around us and is limited to those things which are observable and testable. It can neither preclude or include something which exists in a state which cannot be tested. If you don't understand the limitations of science then you don't understand anything about science. Science CANNOT DISPROVE the existence of God, and the assumption that He cannot exist is completely unscientific.

Science can detect changes in the natural world, and test for the causes. That is well within the purview of science. If you are claiming that God causes things to happen in the natural world then God is within the purview of science. Creationists claim that there was a recent global flood. Are you seriously telling me that this would leave no evidence that science could detect? Are you also telling me that science can not determine if two species share a common ancestor?

 

[Jamin4422]

Yes, just as there is evidence for the London spoken of in the Harry Potter books. Therefore, Harry Potter is real.

You do not think that the people we read about in the Bible were real people? You can take a tour of the Harry Potter studio and see that they made a movie there. You can take a tour of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and see that there was a temple there at one time. So just what point is it that you are trying to make here? Also I do not understand why you would put so much energy into trying to prove that the Bible is not the absolute truth.

Question: "What does it mean to kick against the pricks?"

Answer: “It is hard for you to kick against the pricks” was a Greek proverb, but it was also familiar to the Jews and anyone who made a living in agriculture. An ox goad was a stick with a pointed piece of iron on its tip used to prod the oxen when plowing. The farmer would prick the animal to steer it in the right direction. Sometimes the animal would rebel by kicking out at the prick, and this would result in the prick being driven even further into its flesh. In essence, the more an ox rebelled, the more it suffered. Thus, Jesus’ words to Saul on the road to Damascus: “It is hard for you to kick against the pricks.”

 

[46AND2]

You do not think that the people we read about in the Bible were real people? You can take a tour of the Harry Potter studio and see that they made a movie there. You can take a tour of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and see that there was a temple there at one time. So just what point is it that you are trying to make here? Also I do not understand why you would put so much energy into trying to prove that the Bible is not the absolute truth.

Question: "What does it mean to kick against the pricks?"

Answer: “It is hard for you to kick against the pricks” was a Greek proverb, but it was also familiar to the Jews and anyone who made a living in agriculture. An ox goad was a stick with a pointed piece of iron on its tip used to prod the oxen when plowing. The farmer would prick the animal to steer it in the right direction. Sometimes the animal would rebel by kicking out at the prick, and this would result in the prick being driven even further into its flesh. In essence, the more an ox rebelled, the more it suffered. Thus, Jesus’ words to Saul on the road to Damascus: “It is hard for you to kick against the pricks.”

Really? You don't get what he is saying here? I've seen him explain this at least a half dozen times.

He is saying that it doesn't matter if the people or places were real or not, that is not proof of the infallibility of the Bible. It doesn't address it in any way. Indeed it is not even evidence of divine authorship--you can write a story yourself that is historically and geographically correct. That doesn't make you God.

 

[verysincere]

Of course, this comes from a "Bible-affirming evangelical Christian" who doesn't believe what is written in the Bible[/color].

Lie much? Is denial all you've got? I do believe what is written in the bible (including the abiogenesis described in Genesis 2:7: man (biological life) from dust of the ground (non-biological material.) That is abiogenesis [life from non-living matter; whether or not God was involved is a theology issue, not a science issue because only deals with natural processes and test under the scientific method.] So if the Bible describes abiogenesis, I'm certainly not going to deny it simply to agree with your church's favorite traditions. (And don't retreat to the lame claim I often hear from creationists who say "But God is alive!" God is NOT a biological organism! Secondly, even though ENGLISH applies the word "life" to spirits as well as animals, the Biblical languages do not. In NT Greek, BIOS and ZOE are very different words and meanings even though they get rendered under one English word family: life/living. Hebrew in Genesis does likewise. So don't lie and try to claim that both God and man are the same kind of "life".]

Your ignorance of science was demonstrated with this gem:
"Okay, so the FACT that abiogenesis is impossible as Louis Pasteur proved is not in dispute."

1) Pasteur demonstrated that SPONTANEOUS GENERATION, such as the old belief that maggots spontaneously arose in rotten meat, could not happen. Pasteur did NOTHING to prove that life was eternal. (You see, if you are going to claim that there was NOT some point when life came from non-living ingredients, you must claim that all biological life came from previous biological life (which is biogenesis.) You only have abiogenesis or biogenesis to choose from.

2) But EVEN IF Pasteur had be silly enough to "prove" what you claim, what makes you think some claim of some scientists centuries ago would serve as as "rule" binding on scientists forever after?

Your ridiculous claim IS in dispute. Indeed, it is often listed in "arguments which creationists shouldn't use."

Your posts are filled with nonsense that dismisses scientific evidence and defy the scriptures. (And lying violates the 9th commandment.) However, while I can expect you to know nothing of the science, I would have wished you would know at least a little about the Biblical text.

You are why I retired from the classroom. (I was both a seminary professor and a university professor.) As the book of Proverbs warns, the mocker and scoffer refuses instruction. Your traditions are more important to you than what the Bible says. (And you appear to have total contempt for what God reveals in his Book of Creation. You are the double-minded man of scripture, believing that God's Bible and God's creation must be in contradiction such that creation must be ignored despite its evidence your traditions are in error. Pharisees did not die out in the first century.) You need to step away from the creationist websites where you are finding your copy-and-paste myths and start educating yourself. At the very least, you need to learn the definitions of the words you are trying to use and master the fufundamentals of topics like abiogenesis [so you don't confuse it with Pasteur's spontaneous generation experiments], evolution, mutations, and natural selection. Denial of the evidence gathered in the last 153 years simply makes you appear to be a scoffer who covers his ears and eyes. (If you wish to deny evolution, suit yourself. But when you lie about the evidence and even the very definitions, you only bring more chuckles down upon your cause. And that concerns me, because as a Bible-believing Christian I get lumped in with the young earth creationists who make us all look uninformed among those who think all Christians are as clueless.)

 

[AV1611VET]

If the Bible describes abiogenesis, I'm not going to deny it simply to agree with your church's favorite traditions.

Only the Bible doesn't describe abiogenesis, does It?

Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes.

 

[AV1611VET]

I do believe what is written in the bible (including the abiogenesis described in Genesis 2:7: man (biological life) from dust of the ground (non-biological material.)

What about Eve? did she come from non-biological material as well?

Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Can you speak in tongues your way out of that one?

 

[verysincere]

Only the Bible doesn't describe abiogenesis, does It?

I already mentioned the passage. Genesis 2:7.

"Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes."

That is correct. Unless you are going to say that Genesis 2:7 explicitly rules out any and all "natural processes", then you've made my point. (If you do insist upon a conflict, you might as well deny gravity and say, "No, it was God's will that the apple falls from the tree to the ground. No natural processes are involved!")

I'm always amazed that creationists have such a small god --- not the God of the Bible who is omniscient and omnipotent. They deny that God could create a universe with physical laws which would lead to the formation of life. They deny that God could have created evolutionary processes to adapt and diversify life. They ASSUME that natural processes (which are the focus of science) somehow "rule out God."

They remind me of the Christians who used to insist that planets moved through the heavens because angels pushed them around. Newton proposed laws of motion and descriptions of gravity which described the NATURAL PROCESSES. Did that "leave God out"? No. Likewise, abiogenesis is simply a description of BIOLOGICAL LIFE coming from NON-LIVING, NON-BIOLOgICAL ingredients. Whether or not God was involved is a concern of THEOLOGY, not science. Science has no way to test the involvement of deities. So it focuses on what science does: natural processes.

Only those who are ignorant of the definition of science and the definition of biblical theology try to impose one on the other. Abiogenesis is no threat to the God of the Bible---only a threat to the small god of those who think the god of creation was unable to create a universe with natural processes which would bring about exactly what their creator intended. They insist upon a WAR between the Bible and science---largely made possible of their limited knowledge of both.

(A good example of this false and unnecessary dichotomy between the Bible and science is "Science can take a hike." Isaac Newton would have disagree. His scientific pursuits did not war against his devotion to the Bible.)

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm always amazed that creationists have such a small god --- not the God of the Bible who is omniscient and omnipotent.

Does that include yourself as well?

I notice in your profile that, under ORGIN OF THE LIFE VIEW, you have: TRUTH BASED ON SCRIPTURE, not ABIOGENESIS; which of course, is your prerogative.

If by that, you mean you believe in theistic evolution, let me point out then, that you are a creationist as well:

Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is...

So I'm asking you: Are you including yourself as well?

 

[46AND2]

Does that include yourself as well?

I notice in your profile that, under ORGIN OF THE LIFE VIEW, you have: TRUTH BASED ON SCRIPTURE, not ABIOGENESIS; which of course, is your prerogative.

If by that, you mean you believe in theistic evolution, let me point out then, that you are a creationist as well:


So I'm asking you: Are you including yourself as well?

1. Why the deflection? How about addressing his actual point?
2. You couldn't tell from context what he meant by creationists?