What Makes Creationism a Valid Scientific Alternative?

[joshuacox]

Simple. Because the anti-creationism does not provide a full answer.

So then the flying spaghetti monster should be taught as well? Horrible reply

 

[AV1611VET]

How about addressing his actual point?

He's much too chatty and emotional for my blood.

 

[46AND2]

He's much too chatty and emotional for my blood.

Then why address him at all?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why address him at all?

Is this line of questioning going somewhere?

 

[46AND2]

Is this line of questioning going somewhere?

Just trying to make sense of your rationale, as it seems completely foreign to me.

 

[verysincere]

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.

I find your lying, false dichotomies, and obfuscation very annoying. But here you go again. I suppose you assume that nobody checks out your claims. No, I won't play your games.

And if you are going to play your Edward Current character to demean the Bible and Christians in general, I'd prefer you at least played it consistently.

But at least you are consistent about ignoring/denying the scientific evidence. But as you proudly proclaim, "Science can take a hike."

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

I find your lying, false dichotomies, and obfuscation very annoying. But here you go again. I suppose you assume that nobody checks out your claims.

They are more than welcome to check it out. All they have to do is qv your profile and see for themselves.

Perhaps you would like to highlight which part of my post is in error? or are you no stranger to snap judgements?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.)

While you may include God in everything science leaves him out of everything.

A galactic traveler would necessarily observe that life on earth "ain't natural", and the more closely it is observed the less 'natural' it gits.

 

[CabVet]

A galactic traveler would necessarily observe that life on earth "ain't natural", and the more closely it is observed the less 'natural' it gits.

This traveler would have to know nothing about biology to come to such conclusion.

 

[Loudmouth]

You can take a tour of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and see that there was a temple there at one time.

Finding a temple does not prove that a deity resided in a part of that temple 2,000 years ago. Do you understand how evidence works or not?

Also I do not understand why you would put so much energy into trying to prove that the Bible is not the absolute truth.

I am challenging your claims that you have evidence. You don't.

 

[Loudmouth]

While you may include God in everything science leaves him out of everything.

Then show us how to include God in science. Let's start with germ theory. How do we include God in the causative agents that produce malaria?

A galactic traveler would necessarily observe that life on earth "ain't natural", and the more closely it is observed the less 'natural' it gits.

And now you are just making stuff up.

 

[AV1611VET]

Finding a temple does not prove that a deity resided in a part of that temple 2,000 years ago. Do you understand how evidence works or not?

I agree.

So why waste your time looking for Noah's Ark, when it won't prove Noah lived in it?

 

[CabVet]

I agree.

So why waste your time looking for Noah's Ark, when it won't prove Noah lived in it?

Nobody in their right mind is looking for it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nobody in their right mind is looking for it.

I agree.

 

[jpcedotal]

heh...

 

[Loudmouth]

I agree.

So why waste your time looking for Noah's Ark, when it won't prove Noah lived in it?

Instead, you should be pointing to evidence that a global flood would leave behind, such as a global flood layer. Ohh, that's right . . . God made the evidence disappear.

 

[RickG]

Instead, you should be pointing to evidence that a global flood would leave behind, such as a global flood layer. Ohh, that's right . . . God made the evidence disappear.

I find it interesting how AV suggests that God cleaned it all up but put a rainbow in the sky to remind everyone of the flood. There just seems to be some kind of contradiction there.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This traveler would have to know nothing about biology to come to such conclusion.

My galactic traveler has toured the entire universe and found no life, or biology. What is 'natural' on earth is so unique in the universe as to be quite 'un'natural in the greater context.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then show us how to include God in science. Let's start with germ theory. How do we include God in the causative agents that produce malaria?

By believing what He says about it (He says that he created diseases for the purpose of inflicting man).

And now you are just making stuff up.

Yup. Pretty good, eh?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Instead, you should be pointing to evidence that a global flood would leave behind, such as a global flood layer. Ohh, that's right . . . God made the evidence disappear.

Receding waters from a global flood would wash away much of this evidence. Even small local floods do this.