Why can't creation scientists do "science"?

[Hans Blaster]

Are we being Poe'd? I feel like we're being Poe'd.

We are not. This one is just flailing.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

We are not. This one is just flailing.

Remember when atheists in europe, canada, asia and australia were suckered into supporting terrible policies like open borders.

While right wing christians in the united states were smart enough to support Trump building a wall.

That's how I remember the atheist versus religion science debate going.

How about you? ^_~

 

[Bradskii]

Are we being Poe'd? I feel like we're being Poe'd.

I sincerely hope so. The alternative is too depressing.

 

[miamited]

The failing of science comes in the 'test with an experiment' step. How do you recreate a planet? Have there been scientists yet to create a star?

No! What scientists have done is to test some aspect of a theory, in the here and now, that happened at least several thousand years ago. Take the speed of light.

Every scientist, both secular and believing, know that light travels at a given speed. It's been measured in laboratory tests in the last few centuries. I believe it was in 1676 the Danish astronomer Ole Roemer made the first measurements. He took a light source in 1676 and measured its speed in 1676. Although his measurement was actually about 26% slower than what we now know as the current 'speed of light'.

However, and you're an atheist so I'm not sure you'll be able to grasp this truth, but the Scriptures describe the creation event as a miracle. That God merely spoke or commanded and things that now exist became out of things that were not. So, as a YEC, while I appreciate all the hard work done by scientists, I believe that they are wrong to ascribe what we are able to measure and produce today through scientific study and experiment, to how things might have actually worked in the moment of the creation event.

So, for me, when Science tells me that we have measured the speed of light and it is x mph. I agree. But when they then try to extrapolate that measurement back to the several thousand years to the creation event, since I ascribe that to the work of a God who performs great and unexplainable miracles, I say "hold up a minute!" Have you proved that God could not have miraculously stretched the light of the stars across the entire universe in the moment of creation? In reality, all you have proven is that light travels at a given speed...today! You have no way of knowing whether or not that 'law' was in effect at the time of the creation event. Science has no way of knowing what God did on the day that He created this realm in which we live.

As I understand a miracle, I mean a true miracle of God's command, it is something that is unexplainable with man's knowledge. Just as I asked you, how does science explain the birth of a baby to a virgin. It can't! Because it's a miracle. How does science explain that in one night in Egypt all of the firstborn of all the families of Egypt died? It can't! Because it's a miracle. How does science explain a donkey speaking to a man? It can't! Because it's a miracle. When God does something in the realm of His creating in which we live...science will never be able to explain the 'how' it was done, except to say that God did it.

Keep this in mind. In scientific experimentation, all it can test is what happens in the here and now. Extrapolating that to some time in ages past, may, or may not, be accurate. But for me, I trust that God has told me the truth of what He has done. That man just can't explain it is the very definition of a miracle. The Scriptures declare that God can do the impossible. Do you believe that it is impossible that the earth and the universe are only about 6,000 years old?

God bless,
Ted

 

[Landon Caeli]

It must be awesome to be such an expert and know that only you have all the answers and are much more clever than others?

I have better respect for someone who is patient, and understands that there's a lot of unexplained/unanswered hypotheses, as opposed to those who are hasty, and insist on a unified consensus of the current science as absolute... Seems kind of silly in the grand scheme of things.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Remember when atheists in europe, canada, asia and australia were suckered into supporting terrible policies like open borders.

While right wing christians in the united states were smart enough to support Trump building a wall.

That's how I remember the atheist versus religion science debate going.

How about you? ^_~

What the good golly what? Could you perhaps try to have a cohesive point?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hans Blaster]

Remember when atheists in europe, canada, asia and australia were suckered into supporting terrible policies like open borders.

While right wing christians in the united states were smart enough to support Trump building a wall.

That's how I remember the atheist versus religion science debate going.

How about you? ^_~

Are you lost?

This isn't the politics board, the culture board, the immigration board, or the "atheism is evil" board.

Creation/Evolution or get out.

 

[Rescued One]

Where do I even imply that?

I was merely stating a well known fact. Creationists simply do not do science when they oppose evolution. They have no scientific evidence for their beliefs. Are you willing to learn the basics? They are not that hard to understand.

Are you willing to obey God? Science isn't what it's cracked up to be.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So, for me, when Science tells me that we have measured the speed of light and it is x mph. I agree. But when they then try to extrapolate that measurement back to the several thousand years to the creation event, since I ascribe that to the work of a God who performs great and unexplainable miracles, I say "hold up a minute!" Have you proved that God could not have miraculously stretched the light of the stars across the entire universe in the moment of creation? In reality, all you have proven is that light travels at a given speed...today! You have no way of knowing whether or not that 'law' was in effect at the time of the creation event. Science has no way of knowing what God did on the day that He created this realm in which we live.

The speed of light has been measured as it was 100,000 years ago and a few billion years ago.

 

[pitabread]

Remember when atheists in europe, canada, asia and australia were suckered into supporting terrible policies like open borders.

While right wing christians in the united states were smart enough to support Trump building a wall.

That's how I remember the atheist versus religion science debate going.

How about you? ^_~

Politics forums are over here --> Politics

Note that mods can and do delete off-topic posts. So you might want to take these posts to the appropriate forum.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone

Personally, I'd rather know when scientists are going to be able understand what a miracle is?

You think, that because science have given you answers to questions that they can't possibly really know, that they know what they're talking about. Answer me one question: How does the scientific community explain the birth of a child from a woman who has never had sexual relations, 2000 years ago?

God bless,
Ted

There may never have been any miracles. The burden of proof is of course upon the person making the claim that they occurred in the first place.

Now as to evolution and various other concepts we do have massive evidence for those. So much so that it is more than problematic for creationists. In fact it appears that creationists have to believe in a God that lied by planting false evidence. If God can't lie, then Genesis does not appear to be read literally.

Do you realize that the "virgin birth" story did not even appear until at least 70 years after the birth of Jesus? It is not even key to believing the Jesus story itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some studies conclude between 30% and 60% of published scientific results. Could not be reproduced.

The sad truth about the scientific method is there isn't anyone involved who is paid full time to fact check anything that is published. And so a high percentage of published science is often falsified.

You did not even cite the article that you did not understand. I am familiar with those articles. They tend to deal mainly with one specific branch of the sciences, and it is not evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you willing to obey God? Science isn't what it's cracked up to be.

That has nothing to do with the fact of evolution.

Whether one is willing to obey God or not has nothing to do with the error of interpreting Genesis literally. Perhaps you might want to start a thread that is not in this part of the forum.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, someone has to make science interesting. You know, it gets kind of boring when everything is based on "negatives", e.g. : the only reason such and such exists is because this and that were weeded out through natural selection.

...Negativity is depressing.

Science is not all negatives. There are many positive confirmations of the theory of evolution. If one focuses on the negatives perhaps the fault is in the person making those observations.

And of course this has nothing to do with the scientific failure of creationists.

 

[pitabread]

How does the scientific community explain the birth of a child from a woman who has never had sexual relations, 2000 years ago?

It's hypothetically possible that such a thing could occur as an instance of hermaphroditism: Potential autofertility in true hermaphrodites - PubMed

Alternatively, it could just be a story that isn't factually true as presented.

 

[pitabread]

Science isn't what it's cracked up to be.

They say as they send such a message around the world at the speed of light for a global audience to view.

 

[Rescued One]

That has nothing to do with the fact of evolution.

Whether one is willing to obey God or not has nothing to do with the error of interpreting Genesis literally. Perhaps you might want to start a thread that is not in this part of the forum.

You might want to prove there is no god before pretending to be an atheist.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Science is not all negatives. There are many positive confirmations of the theory of evolution. If one focuses on the negatives perhaps the fault is in the person making those observations.

And of course this has nothing to do with the scientific failure of creationists.

Well, it seems to me like the induciveness of life isn't understood/explained well enough through science... That's the reason why you have Creationists in science - people are unsatisfied.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

Are you lost?

This isn't the politics board, the culture board, the immigration board, or the "atheism is evil" board.

Creation/Evolution or get out.

Let us say that COVID-19 vaccines turn out to be a disaster for human health.

Will atheists be willing to shoulder the responsibility for being their largest supporters.

Simply due to atheists failing to comprehend potential hazards of the science behind them. As they failed to comprehend the science behind monsanto GMOs (of which atheists were the largest supporting demographic).

Put simply atheists are typically not skeptical enough of things like COVID vaccines. While religious demographics often are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You might want to prove there is no god before pretending to be an atheist.

Nope. Why would I want to do that? It appears that you do not know what an atheist is. And atheism has nothing to do with this thread. Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. One does not need to believe the Genesis myths to be a Christian.

So do you have any clue as to why creationists cannot do science when it comes to their beliefs?

 

[Hans Blaster]

You might want to prove there is no god before pretending to be an atheist.

Why do you think any of us are pretending? I don't believe in your god.