Why Creation Science is Bogus

[d taylor]

The creating of light in Genesis 1
Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

Was just that, God created light and divided the light from the dark. Just like God divided the waters at the Red Sea.

Take a round room, what God did (in Genesis 1:3) was to have one half of the room in light and the other half in darkness. And with Genesis also stating So the evening and the morning were the first day. It can be believed that this created light God made was a moving light.

Just picture the below image rotating

 

[Dale]

I understand what you are saying. Is there anything in Genesis that is history?

There are a series of verses in Matthew, Mark and Luke where Jesus treats Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as real people. Jesus tells us that they are in heaven, which means they were real. Jesus doesn’t specifically say that about Adam, Eve, or Noah.

I say to you that many will come from the east and the west,
and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.
-Matthew 8:11 NIV

 

[Dale]

Well actually the bible does say how long. It says the evening and the morning was a day. And if you look closely at Genesis 1:20 it does not say the animals came FROM the sea. It says Gode created creatures in the water and birds in the sky.

This in itself contradict evolution which states creatures came from the sea to land and then later evolved to the sky.

Genesis says birds were created at the same time as the sea creatures and AFTER they were created he made the land animals.

The Bible just isn't a literal scientific text, it's irrational to suggest that it is with respect to the interpretation of Yom. Here's a video indicating some of the issues with scientific biblical literalism.

The ancient Israelites, they didn't view the cosmos as we do today. It's reasonable to take their cosmological view at a modern 21st century scientific face value, lest we believe in a solid dome in the sky just the same:

Isaiah 41 reminded us that the Bible is not a “literal science text” in post #33.

Here is an example of that.


But you, O God, are my king from of old; you bring salvation
upon the earth.
It was you who split open the sea by your power; you broke
the heads of the monster in the waters.
It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan and gave him
as food to the creatures of the desert.
Psalm 74:12-14 NIV


The psalmist tells us that there is, or was, at least one multi-headed sea monster until God killed it. This can be taken as a symbol of evil, but undoubtedly many people have taken it literally. On CF, one creationist told me that the dinosaurs are still around, for instance.

The story of a multi-headed monster may have come from someone seeing a giant octopus or squid, and not understanding what they were seeing. It looks like this is something people believed at the time but it isn’t something we should take seriously. There is a similar passage in Isaiah, although it doesn’t mention multiple heads.

In that day, the LORD will punish with his sword, his fierce,
great and powerful sword, Leviathan the gliding serpent,
Leviathan the coiling serpent; he will slay the monster of the
sea.
Isaiah 27:1 NIV


Again, Leviathan, pictured as a sea monster or sea serpent, seems to be a symbol of evil. I’m sure that God’s sword, pictured here, is symbolic. God doesn’t need a sword to destroy a monster, if there was one. Nevertheless, some have probably taken this passage literally.

 

[Dale]

Yes I know that is a possibility. However Genesis doesn't just say "a day". There are further qualifiers. Genesis says morning and evening which is a specific reference to a period of recognized time to the readers. Also in Exodus gif himself clarifies the time for the Israelites.

ד “Remember the day, Shabbat, to set it apart for God.You have six days to labor and do all your work,but the seventh day is a Shabbat for Adonai your God. On it, you are not to do any kind of work — not you, your son or your daughter, not your male or female slave, not your livestock, and not the foreigner staying with you inside the gates to your property.For in six days, Adonai made heaven and earth, the sea and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. This is why Adonai blessed the day, Shabbat, and separated it for himself. - Exodus 20:8-11 Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 20:8-11 - Complete Jewish Bible

The combination of these verses leads to the belief it was six days not 6 thousand years.

You bring up the Sabbath as a reason for believing that the days in the six days of creation are literal.

Let me give you a different way of looking at this.

Old Testament Judaism is very equalitarian. Compared to the surrounding peoples, the Jews put a lot of emphasis on the dignity of every person. The Sabbath is part of this. The Sabbath is a day of rest, it is a rule for the community that everyone gets a day off. If you have employees or servants, give them the day off on the Sabbath. If you are the head of the family, give everyone the day off. Getting everyone to abide by this rule was often difficult.

I once posed a question to a minister: Since God sustains the universe, if God rested, wouldn’t the universe cease to exist?

When Genesis says that God rested at the end of the first creation story, it looks like the intent is to show God setting an example of resting on the Sabbath. God did it, so follow His example.

The second creation story points to Adam and Eve and says that husband and wife “become one flesh.” Both creation stories have a moral. The first says to uphold the Sabbath, the second says to uphold marriage.

 

[Gottservant]

I think what you need to appreciate, is that God uses people as constants.

If God wants to communicate a fact, He gathers the faithful together and holds them together, until the fact is revealed among them.

Which fact does God want to use? That depends on God; it is enough that we remain objective, giving praise to Him!

 

[Job 33:6]

Isaiah 41 reminded us that the Bible is not a “literal science text” in post #33.

Here is an example of that.


But you, O God, are my king from of old; you bring salvation
upon the earth.
It was you who split open the sea by your power; you broke
the heads of the monster in the waters.
It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan and gave him
as food to the creatures of the desert.
Psalm 74:12-14 NIV


The psalmist tells us that there is, or was, at least one multi-headed sea monster until God killed it. This can be taken as a symbol of evil, but undoubtedly many people have taken it literally. On CF, one creationist told me that the dinosaurs are still around, for instance.

The story of a multi-headed monster may have come from someone seeing a giant octopus or squid, and not understanding what they were seeing. It looks like this is something people believed at the time but it isn’t something we should take seriously. There is a similar passage in Isaiah, although it doesn’t mention multiple heads.

In that day, the LORD will punish with his sword, his fierce,
great and powerful sword, Leviathan the gliding serpent,
Leviathan the coiling serpent; he will slay the monster of the
sea.
Isaiah 27:1 NIV


Again, Leviathan, pictured as a sea monster or sea serpent, seems to be a symbol of evil. I’m sure that God’s sword, pictured here, is symbolic. God doesn’t need a sword to destroy a monster, if there was one. Nevertheless, some have probably taken this passage literally.

I find it interesting that some young earthers expect Jesus to battle a pleisiosaur in the end times.

“Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook, or press down its tongue with a cord? Can you fill its skin with harpoons, or its head with fishing spears? From its mouth go flaming torches; sparks of fire leap out. Out of its nostrils comes smoke, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes.
Job 41:1‭, ‬7‭, ‬19‭-‬20 NRSV

(A dinosaur that breathes fire?)

You crushed the heads of Leviathan; you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.
Psalms 74:14 NRSV

(This dinosaur has multiple heads?)

On that day the Lord with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea.
Isaiah 27:1 NRSV

(The Lord has a vendetta against pleisiosaurs?)

And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads; and on its horns were ten diadems, and on its heads were blasphemous names.
Revelation 13:1 NRSV

(Jesus goes out of His way to combat dinosaurs in the book of Revelation?)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is a strong movement to teach creation science in the schools. The name “creation science” is attached to a number of organizations and websites.

Does creation science have a sensible basis? Can an idea that came out of religion be turned into a science? Not really.

You don’t have to know much about science to know that serious science always uses mathematics. Any branch of physics or chemistry uses equations. As soon as you use mathematical formulas, there are always constants. As a chemist, I am very familiar with the gas constant. Astronomers make heavy use of the universal gravitational constant. The speed of light is one of the most well known constants. It is actually the speed of light in vacuum that is the real constant. The speed of light in water is about three-fourths of the speed of light in vacuum. There are many other constants. Physics texts list constants like the permittivity of free space. The rate of radioactive decay is a constant for each isotope.

Science always involves calculations and calculations always use constants, things that have been measured in the past. Constants are things that experience shows do not change. The problem is that creationists don’t believe in constants. If I say that the speed of light is constant, creationists say, no, the speed of light is wherever God left it the last time He got finished fiddling with it. It doesn’t occur to them that God made up His mind at the beginning and stuck with His decision.

One of the most basic, and obvious, arguments against creationism is that from earth we can see light that has been traveling through space for millions, even billions, of years. Creationists say that this is an illusion, that God changed the speed of light. There is no reason to believe that God works this way. Creationists simply believe whatever is convenient.

Since creationists don’t believe there are any constants in nature, creation science is not a meaningful term.

The laws of classical physics were considered immutable constants for a long time. While notions of underlying, mysterious, unpredictable guiding forces were considered 'religious pseudoscience'- at least before quantum mechanics/ subatomic physics. No coincidence then that Max Plank was a skeptic of atheism.

Likewise, much of scientific discovery did come from a religious perspective, the desire to understand God's work. "Nature is the executor of God's laws' as Galileo said.

 

[coffee4u]

I knew I would come back to the same old verbiage from you Dale. Where you construct an imaginary caricature of a creationist or of creation science so you can then neatly demolish us and go on your way as if you achieved something. Bravo.

There is a strong movement to teach creation science in the schools. The name “creation science” is attached to a number of organizations and websites.

Does creation science have a sensible basis? Can an idea that came out of religion be turned into a science? Not really.

Does evolutionary science have a sensible basis?

The scientific method has 7 steps.
Ask a question
Perform research
Establish your hypothesis
Test your hypothesis by conducting an experiment
This should be able to be repeated by another scientist.
Make an observation
Assess your scientific process and make sure that the conditions remain the same throughout all testing measures. If you change any factors in your experiment, keep all others the same to maintain fairness. After you complete the experiment, repeat it a few more times to make sure the results are accurate.
Analyze the results and draw a conclusion
If what you hypothesized happened during the experimentation phase, the final step is putting together your findings and presenting them to others.
Present the findings

No scientist has ever proven evolution to be true using the scientific method. Since there are no peer-reviewed, repeatable scientific experiments proving any organism can and has evolved into a completely different kind of organism, evolutionists must believe it happened.

The foundation of evolution is the belief that evolution occurred. This sprang from man's belief that nature itself drives the process with God not needed or playing some superfluous role. All research is done with a purely secular mindset using only naturalistic methods. It is also based on them believing that the world and its laws hold true for every time and every place. "there are always constants." to quote you.

The foundation of creationism is a belief that God created a few thousand years ago. This sprang not from religion but from the pure unadulterated reading of scripture. All research is done keeping in mind both the supernatural and what the scriptures say has happened to the natural. It is also based in the belief that the natural laws have changed. "There has not always been constants"

Both are rooted in belief.

You don’t have to know much about science to know that serious science always uses mathematics. Any branch of physics or chemistry uses equations. As soon as you use mathematical formulas, there are always constants. As a chemist, I am very familiar with the gas constant. Astronomers make heavy use of the universal gravitational constant. The speed of light is one of the most well known constants. It is actually the speed of light in vacuum that is the real constant. The speed of light in water is about three-fourths of the speed of light in vacuum. There are many other constants. Physics texts list constants like the permittivity of free space. The rate of radioactive decay is a constant for each isotope.

You are familiar with the gas constant now.
You are familiar with the speed of light constant now.
You are familiar with the radioactive decay rate constant now.

Since you can't time travel back to when God created Adam you are assuming that the gas constant was the same, that the speed of light constant was the same, that the radioactive decay rate constant was the same.
Creation scientists are not debating that those things are constant now. We all agree these are the constants now.

What they are debating is the idea that these constants were always constants and you have no way to prove they were. If you can't prove that the speed of light was the same in the garden of Eden as it is now all you have is an assumption.

Reminding you again that an assumption is not proof.

assumption
Oxford’s English dictionary
1.a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

Science always involves calculations and calculations always use constants, things that have been measured in the past.

Someone measured the speed of light before the flood and before the fall?
Unless they also had a time machine I think you will find all these constants were measured and established well after these events.

Constants are things that experience shows do not change.

They don't change now. You have no idea how they changed after the fall or the flood.

The problem is that creationists don’t believe in constants.

Of course we do. There are many things that are constant now and will remain so until the second coming of Christ. After which many constants will once again change.

If I say that the speed of light is constant, creationists say, no

Lol we say yes, its been constant at least since the flood or maybe since the fall.

the speed of light is wherever God left it the last time He got finished fiddling with it. It doesn’t occur to them that God made up His mind at the beginning and stuck with His decision.

God told us of many changes and many times changed what he had previously said.

At creation God said:
“I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food." Genesis 1:29

After the flood God said:
“Every creature that lives shall be yours to eat.” Genesis 9:3

Later he gave the Israelite's food laws and said:
"You shall not eat, among all things that swarm upon the earth, anything that crawls on its belly, or anything that walks on fours, or anything that has many legs; for they are an abomination. Leviticus 11

And yet later said:
9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”


14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
(referring back to the Old Testament food laws that he was brought up on)

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

Unless you have gone and asked God and he told you directly or you have taken a time machine back, saying "God made up His mind at the beginning and stuck with His decision." Is pure speculation on your part. You have no way of knowing and neither does anybody else. Which is the whole point. You have no evidence to say that God did not change constants. Pointing to known constants only tells us what they are now and nobody is debating what they are now. Something you have still yet to grasp regardless of how many time you are told.

One of the most basic, and obvious, arguments against creationism is that from earth we can see light that has been traveling through space for millions, even billions, of years. Creationists say that this is an illusion, that God changed the speed of light. There is no reason to believe that God works this way. Creationists simply believe whatever is convenient.

I think you mean evolutionists believe whatever is convenient.

Creationists have a variety of things to say on that.
Starlight & Time by Dr. Russell Humphreys Ph.D. is one of them. Mathematics based.

Since creationists don’t believe there are any constants in nature, creation science is not a meaningful term.

There you go again with your created fake straw man. Creationists do believe in constants, we just don't believe they all go back to your mystical big bang but came about after the fall.

 

[sfs]

The scientific method has 7 steps.

...

Test your hypothesis by conducting an experiment

You're not a scientist, are you? Where did you get the idea that all science involves doing experiments? If it did, most of astronomy, geology, meteorology, and archeology wouldn't be sciences (not to mention a good chunk of physics) -- but they are.

You are familiar with the gas constant now.
You are familiar with the speed of light constant now.
You are familiar with the radioactive decay rate constant now.

Since you can't time travel back to when God created Adam you are assuming that the gas constant was the same, that the speed of light constant was the same, that the radioactive decay rate constant was the same.

Scientists don't just assume that the laws of physics haven't changed; they test that hypothesis. They do things like look at remains of ancient natural reactors and the decay constant of radioactive elements after supernovae.

Creation scientists are not debating that those things are constant now. We all agree these are the constants now.

There are no creation scientists, since creation science isn't science. If it were science, its advocates would propose a consistent set of hypotheses about what actually happened and when, and would then propose tests of those hypotheses. What would supernovas look like if the speed of light had changed? What happens to the energy produced by speeded up radioactive decay? And on and on, through the vast range of scientific data that is inconsistent with a young universe. That's what creationists would do if they were interested in explaining physical reality, rather than just offering ad hoc excuses for ignoring real science.

 

[The Barbarian]

No scientist has ever proven evolution to be true using the scientific method.

It's been directly observed again and again. Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" means in biology. What do you think it means? Even many YE creationist associations now admit that new species come from existing ones.

The foundation of evolution is the belief that evolution occurred. This sprang from man's belief that nature itself drives the process with God not needed or playing some superfluous role.

Since Darwin himself wrote that God created the first living things, you've been really misled about that.

The foundation of evolution is the belief that evolution occurred.

The foundation of evolution is the observation that it happens.

The foundation of creationism is a belief that God created a few thousand years ago.

Only for some creationists.

Both are rooted in belief.

No. Creationism is a new, non-scriptural religious belief. Evolution is an observed phenomenon. Would you like to learn about that?

assumption
Oxford’s English dictionary
1.a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

Like your assumption without proof that physical constants were different in the past? Why do you think Christians don't accept your assumptions?

 

[Dale]

I knew I would come back to the same old verbiage from you Dale. Where you construct an imaginary caricature of a creationist or of creation science so you can then neatly demolish us and go on your way as if you achieved something. Bravo.



Does evolutionary science have a sensible basis?

The scientific method has 7 steps.
Ask a question
Perform research
Establish your hypothesis
Test your hypothesis by conducting an experiment
This should be able to be repeated by another scientist.
Make an observation
Assess your scientific process and make sure that the conditions remain the same throughout all testing measures. If you change any factors in your experiment, keep all others the same to maintain fairness. After you complete the experiment, repeat it a few more times to make sure the results are accurate.
Analyze the results and draw a conclusion
If what you hypothesized happened during the experimentation phase, the final step is putting together your findings and presenting them to others.
Present the findings

No scientist has ever proven evolution to be true using the scientific method. Since there are no peer-reviewed, repeatable scientific experiments proving any organism can and has evolved into a completely different kind of organism, evolutionists must believe it happened.

The foundation of evolution is the belief that evolution occurred. This sprang from man's belief that nature itself drives the process with God not needed or playing some superfluous role. All research is done with a purely secular mindset using only naturalistic methods. It is also based on them believing that the world and its laws hold true for every time and every place. "there are always constants." to quote you.

The foundation of creationism is a belief that God created a few thousand years ago. This sprang not from religion but from the pure unadulterated reading of scripture. All research is done keeping in mind both the supernatural and what the scriptures say has happened to the natural. It is also based in the belief that the natural laws have changed. "There has not always been constants"

Both are rooted in belief.



You are familiar with the gas constant now.
You are familiar with the speed of light constant now.
You are familiar with the radioactive decay rate constant now.

Since you can't time travel back to when God created Adam you are assuming that the gas constant was the same, that the speed of light constant was the same, that the radioactive decay rate constant was the same.
Creation scientists are not debating that those things are constant now. We all agree these are the constants now.

What they are debating is the idea that these constants were always constants and you have no way to prove they were. If you can't prove that the speed of light was the same in the garden of Eden as it is now all you have is an assumption.

Reminding you again that an assumption is not proof.

assumption
Oxford’s English dictionary
1.a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.



Someone measured the speed of light before the flood and before the fall?
Unless they also had a time machine I think you will find all these constants were measured and established well after these events.


They don't change now. You have no idea how they changed after the fall or the flood.


Of course we do. There are many things that are constant now and will remain so until the second coming of Christ. After which many constants will once again change.


Lol we say yes, its been constant at least since the flood or maybe since the fall.



God told us of many changes and many times changed what he had previously said.

At creation God said:
“I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food." Genesis 1:29

After the flood God said:
“Every creature that lives shall be yours to eat.” Genesis 9:3

Later he gave the Israelite's food laws and said:
"You shall not eat, among all things that swarm upon the earth, anything that crawls on its belly, or anything that walks on fours, or anything that has many legs; for they are an abomination. Leviticus 11

And yet later said:
9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”


14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
(referring back to the Old Testament food laws that he was brought up on)

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

Unless you have gone and asked God and he told you directly or you have taken a time machine back, saying "God made up His mind at the beginning and stuck with His decision." Is pure speculation on your part. You have no way of knowing and neither does anybody else. Which is the whole point. You have no evidence to say that God did not change constants. Pointing to known constants only tells us what they are now and nobody is debating what they are now. Something you have still yet to grasp regardless of how many time you are told.



I think you mean evolutionists believe whatever is convenient.

Creationists have a variety of things to say on that.
Starlight & Time by Dr. Russell Humphreys Ph.D. is one of them. Mathematics based.


There you go again with your created fake straw man. Creationists do believe in constants, we just don't believe they all go back to your mystical big bang but came about after the fall.

Coffee: << Creationists have a variety of things to say on that.
Starlight & Time by Dr. Russell Humphreys Ph.D. is one of them. Mathematics based. >>

Perhaps you could summarize what this book has to say.

 

[Dale]

I knew I would come back to the same old verbiage from you Dale. Where you construct an imaginary caricature of a creationist or of creation science so you can then neatly demolish us and go on your way as if you achieved something. Bravo.



Does evolutionary science have a sensible basis?

The scientific method has 7 steps.
Ask a question
Perform research
Establish your hypothesis
Test your hypothesis by conducting an experiment
This should be able to be repeated by another scientist.
Make an observation
Assess your scientific process and make sure that the conditions remain the same throughout all testing measures. If you change any factors in your experiment, keep all others the same to maintain fairness. After you complete the experiment, repeat it a few more times to make sure the results are accurate.
Analyze the results and draw a conclusion
If what you hypothesized happened during the experimentation phase, the final step is putting together your findings and presenting them to others.
Present the findings

No scientist has ever proven evolution to be true using the scientific method. Since there are no peer-reviewed, repeatable scientific experiments proving any organism can and has evolved into a completely different kind of organism, evolutionists must believe it happened.

The foundation of evolution is the belief that evolution occurred. This sprang from man's belief that nature itself drives the process with God not needed or playing some superfluous role. All research is done with a purely secular mindset using only naturalistic methods. It is also based on them believing that the world and its laws hold true for every time and every place. "there are always constants." to quote you.

The foundation of creationism is a belief that God created a few thousand years ago. This sprang not from religion but from the pure unadulterated reading of scripture. All research is done keeping in mind both the supernatural and what the scriptures say has happened to the natural. It is also based in the belief that the natural laws have changed. "There has not always been constants"

Both are rooted in belief.



You are familiar with the gas constant now.
You are familiar with the speed of light constant now.
You are familiar with the radioactive decay rate constant now.

Since you can't time travel back to when God created Adam you are assuming that the gas constant was the same, that the speed of light constant was the same, that the radioactive decay rate constant was the same.
Creation scientists are not debating that those things are constant now. We all agree these are the constants now.

What they are debating is the idea that these constants were always constants and you have no way to prove they were. If you can't prove that the speed of light was the same in the garden of Eden as it is now all you have is an assumption.

Reminding you again that an assumption is not proof.

assumption
Oxford’s English dictionary
1.a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.



Someone measured the speed of light before the flood and before the fall?
Unless they also had a time machine I think you will find all these constants were measured and established well after these events.


They don't change now. You have no idea how they changed after the fall or the flood.


Of course we do. There are many things that are constant now and will remain so until the second coming of Christ. After which many constants will once again change.


Lol we say yes, its been constant at least since the flood or maybe since the fall.



God told us of many changes and many times changed what he had previously said.

At creation God said:
“I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food." Genesis 1:29

After the flood God said:
“Every creature that lives shall be yours to eat.” Genesis 9:3

Later he gave the Israelite's food laws and said:
"You shall not eat, among all things that swarm upon the earth, anything that crawls on its belly, or anything that walks on fours, or anything that has many legs; for they are an abomination. Leviticus 11

And yet later said:
9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”


14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
(referring back to the Old Testament food laws that he was brought up on)

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

Unless you have gone and asked God and he told you directly or you have taken a time machine back, saying "God made up His mind at the beginning and stuck with His decision." Is pure speculation on your part. You have no way of knowing and neither does anybody else. Which is the whole point. You have no evidence to say that God did not change constants. Pointing to known constants only tells us what they are now and nobody is debating what they are now. Something you have still yet to grasp regardless of how many time you are told.



I think you mean evolutionists believe whatever is convenient.

Creationists have a variety of things to say on that.
Starlight & Time by Dr. Russell Humphreys Ph.D. is one of them. Mathematics based.


There you go again with your created fake straw man. Creationists do believe in constants, we just don't believe they all go back to your mystical big bang but came about after the fall.

Coffee: "The foundation of evolution is the belief that evolution occurred."

One of the things I’ve learned from experience is that creationists seem to think that Charles Darwin invented the idea of species change. He did not. Paleontologists and geologists had figured that out from their own observations in the field decades before. They observed that bones and other evidences of past animals and plants preserved in rock show that past organisms are very different from the ones that are around today. Darwin proposed a way of understanding why and how species change. The observation of species change leads to the theory of evolution to explain it.

Biological evolution is founded on observation. Charles Darwin went on an overseas expedition and observed the birds on South American islands. In later life he spent hundreds of hours looking at barnacles through a magnifying glass. He didn’t spend his time ruminating about what he wanted to believe. He spent a lot of time looking at the real world, observing what is.

 

[The Barbarian]

Darwin proposed a way of understanding why and how species change. The observation of species change leads to the theory of evolution to explain it.

Today's winner.

 

[coffee4u]

...

You're not a scientist, are you?

Last time I checked this board didn't say 'for scientists' it said for Christians, something you might want to remember. If you don't like Christian views than don't read them.

Where did you get the idea that all science involves doing experiments?

On nearly every science based web site you care to look at.

If it did, most of astronomy, geology, meteorology, and archeology wouldn't be sciences (not to mention a good chunk of physics) -- but they are.

Meaning the claims made are not repeatable or observable.
Just because something is classed as a science does not somehow make every jot and tittle of it true. Science isn't God, it's a human endeavour and humans makes mistakes.

Scientists don't just assume that the laws of physics haven't changed; they test that hypothesis. They do things like look at remains of ancient natural reactors and the decay constant of radioactive elements after supernovae.

You don't understand the creation model.
They can't test what is no longer here to test for.
Your argument is like walking into someone else's house and arguing that the mug with tea dregs in it has always been used for tea because you see evidence of tea. Just because there is evidence of tea now does not mean that the mug was always used for tea. You don't have any means to discover what the mug has held before this. But there is an eyewitness, the home owner. If he said it held coffee you should believe him. Just because you see no visible evidence of coffee and can't test for coffee doesn't mean what they say isn't true.
God is the owner of this house and he tells us he created over 6 days so he is the expert not mankind with their tests.

There are no creation scientists, since creation science isn't science. If it were science, its advocates would propose a consistent set of hypotheses about what actually happened and when, and would then propose tests of those hypotheses. What would supernovas look like if the speed of light had changed? What happens to the energy produced by speeded up radioactive decay? And on and on, through the vast range of scientific data that is inconsistent with a young universe. That's what creationists would do if they were interested in explaining physical reality, rather than just offering ad hoc excuses for ignoring real science.

If someone has a degree in a science and they work in one of the science fields they are a scientist. Go ask one of them those question. I'm a creationist not a creation scientist.

Propose tests on what is no longer here to be tested, sure sounds like a great idea.They will get onto that as soon as you show us how you will test that mug held coffee 5 years ago.
Not everything is testable.
John 20:29
Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Creationists believe in creation because we have faith in God's word as written.

 

[coffee4u]

Coffee: << Creationists have a variety of things to say on that.
Starlight & Time by Dr. Russell Humphreys Ph.D. is one of them. Mathematics based. >>

Perhaps you could summarize what this book has to say.

My father owns this book as he was into higher mathematics when he was younger and even he said it wasn't light reading. This was a man who did calculus and trigonometry for fun. I unfortunately didn't get a mathematical bone in my entire body so I never even looked at it. All I know about it is that it's based on the mathematics of a closed system.

 

[coffee4u]

Coffee: "The foundation of evolution is the belief that evolution occurred."

One of the things I’ve learned from experience is that creationists seem to think that Charles Darwin invented the idea of species change. He did not.

I never mentioned the man. I do know that he didn't invent the idea but he made it popular and he is the most famous so he is a target.

Paleontologists and geologists had figured that out from their own observations in the field decades before. They observed that bones and other evidences of past animals and plants preserved in rock show that past organisms are very different from the ones that are around today. Darwin proposed a way of understanding why and how species change. The observation of species change leads to the theory of evolution to explain it.

They are observing what they want to observe. Many of the bones and fossils are exactly the same as they are today, along with some species that are still living, supposedly unchanged for millions of years like the Australian lungfish.
There is a difference between the actual facts and what someone thinks the facts are saying. The theory of evolution is exactly that, an theory, an explanation for the natural world invented by men. The fossils and bones don't say anything, mankind is weaving a story about them. That story can never be proven.
If you choose to believe that story is up to you, I would rather believe the words of He who created it.

Biological evolution is founded on observation. Charles Darwin went on an overseas expedition and observed the birds on South American islands. In later life he spent hundreds of hours looking at barnacles through a magnifying glass. He didn’t spend his time ruminating about what he wanted to believe. He spent a lot of time looking at the real world, observing what is.

No it isn't. Nobody observed dinosaurs turning into birds or any other animals changing into another animal. Not living or in the bones or fossils, that is pure story. It's what they want to believe. It's what they have to believe, how else can you have a Godless world if there is a creator? Evolution has never been seen and never will be, its a plot of Satan to make you disbelieve the very words of God.
You and everyone on here has scales covering your eyes because the god of this world is blinding you. God created man as the pinnacle of his creation and believing he came from some ape like ancestor is a direct attack to God creating him in his image. As is all the other satanic attacks going on in the world right now. Each one of them is aimed at destroying a Biblical concept. Marriage, gender, sexuality and protection of children. Each and everyone of these has been and is currently under attack. I knew 20 years ago we would see the day that society accepted adult attraction to children as an okay even though we we laughed and scorned -nothing has changed.
This is what happens as society moves further rand further away from God and the principles laid down in scripture. Evil is viewed as good and good is viewed as evil. This has only been possible because of the foundation of evolution. Evolution allowed ungodly men to believe there is no God, to believe he is just an animal. If mankind is just an animal made by the swirling times of chance than he gets to set the rules not some God in the sky. Sin? No such thing. God? No such thing. Being saved from sin by God? Seen as a joke.
So you believe whatever you want to believe, but for me and my house we will continue to stand on the word of God.
God created over 6 days.
Marriage is one woman and one man for life and any sex outside of that is sin.
Adults who find children sexually attractive are sick in the head whether they have acted on it or not.
Abortion is murder of the unborn.
Men are men and woman are women and one can't become the other by identifying as it.

 

[The Barbarian]

My father owns this book as he was into higher mathematics when he was younger and even he said it wasn't light reading. This was a man who did calculus and trigonometry for fun. I unfortunately didn't get a mathematical bone in my entire body so I never even looked at it. All I know about it is that it's based on the mathematics of a closed system.

So if you don't understand it, what makes you think it's right?

And it's important to remember that experimentation is only one way to do science. Astronomy involves observation, and that can also be reproduced by others who can check to see if the observations can be duplicated by others.

 

[coffee4u]

So if you don't understand it, what makes you think it's right?

And it's important to remember that experimentation is only one way to do science. Astronomy involves observation, and that can also be reproduced by others who can check to see if the observations can be duplicated by others.

They asked for a different view point, that book is a different view point. If it is correct or not I don't know. I am a creationist not a creation scientist.
My belief is based on the Bible alone.

 

[The Barbarian]

They asked for a different view point, that book is a different view point. If it is correct or not I don't know.

So you might as well have given us the view that the world is on the back of a turtle, um?

 

[Dennis_Hogg]

I have read Starlight and Time by Humphreys. It is not easy reading. I don't have the book, so this is from memory. Basically what he says is that when the universe rapidly expanded (as is describes in the Bible as God stretched out the heavens like a curtain Isa 40:22) that it caused a white hole (opposite of a black hole) and that as the white hole imploded, that time on each side of the event horizon is different. While the earth experienced 7 days, the outside imploding event horizon experienced a much different time scale, explaining both the light travel and the appearance of age.

On a different note, I observe in evolutionary science that there is an acceptance of scientific data that supports a very old time scale. Some process or observation must be at least as old as the oldest observable data point would suggest. Those who look at the same data and look at the youngest observable data point and make the claim that "this thing can't be older than ..." are ridiculed as being unscientific.

As an illustrative example. Suppose one finds a watch in a cave. The metals would date very old using radiometric dating. The leather strap would date much younger using C14 dating. The one who objects saying the watch can't be more than 10 years old because it is still ticking is ridiculed for his bad science.