Will Creation Science Ever Be Accepted By Mainstream Scientists?

mindlight said:

Mainstream science spent centuries holding fast to the Ptolemaic system. People devoted their lives to the observations and explanations by which the model was able to predict the movements of stars and planets and yet they were wrong.

At the same time the bible talks about 2 kinds of workers, those who worked their whole lives for the Master and those who came late but were paid the same wage. What mattered was the fact that they served Him not the rights that they thought they might have accumulated by service.

Click to expand...

Completely irrelevant to my post. I was responding to the suggestion that Christians who accept evolution need to spend time thinking about what we believe -- as if we weren't already doing that. A tad condescending.

ChetSinger said:

Hello trutheverlasting, and welcome!

Speaking as a YEC, I think the answer is usually "no".

One reason is that creation science and naturalistic science start off with two different assumptions regarding our origins:

• Creation Science - What we see came about as spoken by the God of the Bible.
• Naturalistic Science - What we see came about using natural laws only.

Click to expand...

I'm willing to listen to any theory that explains the data we see, whether or not it includes supernatural acts. So far, creationists have failed spectacularly to address real scientific data, even though they can invoke the supernatural whenever they want. Science, meanwhile, has done an extraordinary job of explaining and predicting natural phenomena even though they're restricted to purely natural explanations.

sfs said:

I'm willing to listen to any theory that explains the data we see, whether or not it includes supernatural acts...

Click to expand...

You are, but then you're a Christian. You also believe in God, the resurrection of Christ, and our own eventual resurrection.

Science is, by definition, limited to the natural. That's why events such as the resurrection of Christ are called supernatural. They are outside the realm of scientific investigation or explanation.

I see the creation, however it happened, as a supernatural event because of the first verse in Genesis: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". That is, at some level creation is beyond scientific explanation because it was instigated by an outside force, that being the will of God.

I see the only differences among we Christians is how literally we want to take those words. I see the real gulf as being between theists and atheists. Every Christian has to accept Gen 1:1, imo, because every Christian has to accept its NT expansion in John 1.

My $.02, anyway.

I really think there is a lot of evidence to support creation, it's just a matter of putting it all together, backing it up with proper research, and presenting it professionally... then maybe, just maybe, it might be taken seriously by mainstream scientists!

Click to expand...

Question for you - why don't you think that's happened yet?

Because it's not like creationists don't have money. I think there's this image a lot of creationists have, that creation scientists are all downtrodden and picked on and that they can't get decent jobs because the mean atheists are picking on them, but that's far from the truth. Creationism is actually big business, and unlike with actual scientists, they don't have to consistently produce research to make money. Go on a site like CMI or AiG and compare the work there with a typical paper on evolution you can find on Google Scholar. You'll find the creationist work is much less intensive, with fewer citations, if any, while the Google Scholar work will be far larger, more detailed, and have numerous sources.

But getting back to your point, there's nothing stopping creationists from doing what you suggest - not research, not money, not time. So why don't they do it?

ChetSinger said:

I see the only differences among we Christians is how literally we want to take those words. I see the real gulf as being between theists and atheists.

Click to expand...

There are lots of ways to 'interpret' the Bible, and you're right that YEC tend to "want" to interpret various passages of that book "literally" in an effort to make their case. The problem is that science studies nature, not a religious text, and nature does tell us something about reality.

The problem with a "literal" interpretation of the Bible was well expressed by Strathos. One ends up having to believe that God went out of his way to intentionally trick and confuse us if they try to interpret certain passages literally, which really wouldn't be in line with the character of God as portrayed in the Bible.

A more "metaphorical" interpretation of various passages seems a lot more logical from my perspective, particularly since it doesn't call God's character into question, and it doesn't come into any conflict with 'science' or the study of nature.

I personally see the real gulf as being between people of various faiths, and the way they practice their faith.

Atheists tend to simply 'trust science', and while their beliefs may change over time as scientific evidence changes, their beliefs typically don't come into conflict with any scientific evidence.

Michael said:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html

FYI, raising doubts isn't the same as supporting your own assertions. Anyone can "raise doubts" on virtually any topic.

Click to expand...

I would prefer if you could argue this in your own words to demonstrate that you actually understand it.

Ice cores are not a proof because the facts are only that there are differences and consistencies between the ice layers which creationists will agree to. The explanation that evolutionists give is that these layers are consistent with yearly seasons and that therefore we are looking at hundreds of thousands of years of history, That is a massive assumption as is the assumption that yearly patterns could not be duplicated by a long protracted period of unstable even catastrophic weather conditions. You cannot eliminate doubt from this proof.

My assertion is that God did it 6000 years ago in 6 days. Quite clear. But I defend that from revelation not science. My scientific view is that science has nothing of definite value to say about origins that cannot be taken apart.

sfs said:

Completely irrelevant to my post. I was responding to the suggestion that Christians who accept evolution need to spend time thinking about what we believe -- as if we weren't already doing that. A tad condescending.

Click to expand...

Then you missed the point of my response. You do not tell a person who lives in the light to walk into a dark room just because you have spent decades sitting in it.

mindlight said:

I would prefer if you could argue this in your own words to demonstrate that you actually understand it.

Ice cores are not a proof because the facts are only that there are differences and consistencies between the ice layers which creationists will agree to. The explanation that evolutionists give is that these layers are consistent with yearly seasons and that therefore we are looking at hundreds of thousands of years of history, That is a massive assumption as is the assumption that yearly patterns could not be duplicated by a long protracted period of unstable even catastrophic weather conditions. You cannot eliminate doubt from this proof.

Click to expand...

The "layering" as you put it is easily correlated with yearly variations in temperature and conditions, and in some cases those layers contain volcanic ash and other debris that can be directly linked to known past events.

Probably the most convincing evidence however comes from radiometric dating techniques since various elements have very stable, and well understood decay rates. Such techniques show that that the Earth is actually billions of years old.

The problem here with your basic argument is that it's based entirely upon 'doubt', not 'scientific evidence'. Doubt of another theory isn't an actual scientific argument to support your own theory, it's simply a technique that is typically used to try to discredit another concept. Science however requires that you support your own ideas with actual physical evidence, not simply cast doubt upon some other random theory. If you expect scientists to embrace creationism, you'll need to actually come up with real physical evidence to support your belief in a 6000 year old earth, not simply try to 'cast doubt' on the various techniques that are used by scientists to support an ancient Earth concept.

like how about here


http://forums.familytreedna.com/showthread.php?t=35431
only can scientism and it mighty minions get by with bullying and calling someone grandma a liar and a harlot and get the person to help do to that. because she is believer.
all because they won't let anything disagree with
" the "scientific facts' that everyone knows! and if you don't know your grandma is a liar and a harlot , then you are anti science. and now you can't use your toilets.. "
Might I suggest that grandma is going to be given the rights to slap up along side some fools head.. for " baring false witness" on some scientist and their grandchild someday.

mindlight said:

Then you missed the point of my response. You do not tell a person who lives in the light to walk into a dark room just because you have spent decades sitting it.

Click to expand...

From my vantage point that's exactly the argument of a creationist. They usually wish to get you to 'doubt' standard scientific evidence, and live in the dark, simply because they live in doubt. It's not really much of a scientific argument from where I sit.

mindlight said:

Ok show me. Give one of your fool proof examples. Because legitimate doubts can be raised against everyone of the "proofs" you allude to.

Click to expand...

One of the examples I use quite often is endogenous retroviruses. I would suggest that you read the following thread and make any arguments you might have in the other thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/creationist-arguments-against-ervs.7898737/

Chicken Little said:

like how about here


http://forums.familytreedna.com/showthread.php?t=35431
only can scientism and it mighty minions get by with bullying and calling someone grandma a harlot and get the person to help do to that.
all because they won't let anything disagree with
" the "scientific facts' that everyone knows! and if you don't know your grandma is a liar and a harlot , then you are anti science. and now you can't use your toilets.. "
Might I suggest that grandma is going to be given the rights to slap up long some fools head.. for " baring false witness" on some scientist and their grandchild someday.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you can join this thread where I don't call your ancestors any names.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/creationist-arguments-against-ervs.7898737/

Michael said:

The "layering" as you put it is easily correlated with yearly variations in temperature and conditions, and in some cases those layers contain volcanic ash and other debris that can be directly linked to known past events.

Click to expand...

Volcanic ash is always flying around up there. You cannot claim that the ash always appears in the expected layer. That temperature and conditions which were not measured at the time can be linked to ice layers is also taking speculative leaps. Any lack of precision here is a reason to doubt and I know that I would find these inconsistencies without even having to look for them based on the scientific debate there has been about the meaning of the various layers.

Probably the most convincing evidence however comes from radiometric dating techniques since various elements have very stable, and well understood decay rates. Such techniques show that that the Earth is actually billions of years old.

Click to expand...

If you assume that radiometric dating means that 0% daughter element was present in the original sample that there was no seepage and a constant rate of decay over thousands of years and in every conceivable condition then maybe you would have the beginning of a case here. But you have no way of demonstrating the audit trail here. So there are grounds for doubt.

The problem here with your basic argument is that it's based entirely upon 'doubt', not 'scientific evidence'. Doubt of another theory isn't an actual scientific argument to support your own theory, it's simply a technique that is typically used to try to discredit another concept. Science however requires that you support your own ideas with actual physical evidence, not simply cast doubt upon some other random theory. If you expect scientists to embrace creationism, you'll need to actually come up with real physical evidence to support your belief in a 6000 year old earth, not simply try to 'cast doubt' on the various techniques that are used by scientists to support an ancient Earth concept.

Click to expand...

Yes scientifically regarding origins I am an extreme sceptic, mere acid on your peer reviewed articles I am afraid. My method is entirely based on doubt because of the higher commitment I hold to revelation.

If we tack on science to Hare Krishna creationism, Mesoamerican creationism, Rangi and Papa, Buddhist Cosmology, or Greek mythology, will mainstream science then accept them?

I'm thinking the answer will be no.

Loudmouth said:

Perhaps you can join this thread where I don't call your ancestors any names.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/creationist-arguments-against-ervs.7898737/

Click to expand...

no because you call my ancestors monkeys.
and you all , all militantly called the rest liars everyday.

mindlight said:

Volcanic ash is always flying around up there.

Click to expand...

Not in quantities that can/would be deposited in various layers it doesn't. Furthermore these "non typical' ash layers correspond quite nicely to known large scale eruptions.

A catastrophic change of some sort wouldn't even necesarily produce "layers", let alone layers with materials that can be traced to known historical events.

You cannot claim that the ash always appears in the expected layer.

Click to expand...

Why not?
http://climatechange.umaine.edu/icecores/IceCore/Ice_Core_101.html

That temperature and conditions which were not measured at the time can be linked to ice layers is also taking speculative leaps.

Click to expand...

How so?

Any lack of precision here is a reason to doubt and I know that I would find these inconsistencies without even having to look for them based on the scientific debate there has been about the meaning of the various layers.

Click to expand...

A perceived "lack of precision" would ultimately correlate to a few years at best, certainly not enough to get you from 800,000 years all the way down to 6,000 years.

If you assume that radiometric dating means that 0% daughter element was present in the original sample that there was no seepage and a constant rate of decay over thousands of years and in every conceivable condition then maybe you would have the beginning of a case here. But you have no way of demonstrating the audit trail here. So there are grounds for doubt.

Click to expand...

The only way that daughter species would be present would be for God to go completely out of his way to make the Earth *appear* to be older than it is, simply to confuse us. Why would God even do such a thing?

Yes scientifically regarding origins I am an extreme sceptic, mere acid on your peer reviewed articles I am afraid. My method is entirely based on doubt because of the higher commitment I hold to revelation.

Click to expand...

Your 'method' isn't an actual scientific method, and therefore it's not going to be convincing to "scientists". If you're going to get "scientists" to take YEC seriously, you'll have to at least make an attempt to support a young Earth concept with actual evidence. Doubt of any other random theory isn't the same thing as supporting your own assertions. Science requires evidence and support for all assertions, not just 'doubt' about another idea.

Keep in mind that your argument is ultimately based upon the presumption that your personal "revelation' is somehow more "enlightened and true" compared to say the Pope, or any other "Christian" that just so happens to support the concept of an ancient Earth, which by the way happens to include the *majority* of all Christians. What makes your personal 'revelation' more accurate than any other Christian revelation? Catholics tend to embrace an ancient Earth, and YEC is a minority viewpoint even inside of Christian circles.

ChetSinger said:

Science is, by definition, limited to the natural. That's why events such as the resurrection of Christ are called supernatural. They are outside the realm of scientific investigation or explanation.

Click to expand...

Changes in species occurs in nature, so why can't it be studied by science?

Also, science only requires verifiable observations. I see no reason why supernatural processes can not produce verifiable observations.

I see the creation, however it happened, as a supernatural event because of the first verse in Genesis: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". That is, at some level creation is beyond scientific explanation because it was instigated by an outside force, that being the will of God.

Click to expand...

What about the evidence in the creation itself?

Chicken Little said:

no because you call my ancestors monkeys.

Click to expand...

I call them primates, just as humans are still primates. I try not to use paraphyletic terms such as monkey.

I see that you won't look at the evidence. Kind of predictable at this point.

mindlight said:

Volcanic ash is always flying around up there. You cannot claim that the ash always appears in the expected layer.

Click to expand...

Do you live on the ice sheets in Greenland, or in Antarctica? If not, your claims fall pretty flat. What we find in the ice layers is both ash and strong chemical signals, such as a sharp rise in sulfuric acid. We find the known volcanic eruptions in the right layers.

That temperature and conditions which were not measured at the time can be linked to ice layers is also taking speculative leaps.

Click to expand...

The ice layers record the temperature and conditions under which they formed.

Any lack of precision here is a reason to doubt and I know that I would find these inconsistencies without even having to look for them based on the scientific debate there has been about the meaning of the various layers.

Click to expand...

Any lack of precision would show up when we compare different ice records and then compare those ice records to independent records such as tree rings and lake varves. All of these methods are consistent with one another.

If you assume that radiometric dating means that 0% daughter element was present in the original sample that there was no seepage and a constant rate of decay over thousands of years and in every conceivable condition then maybe you would have the beginning of a case here. But you have no way of demonstrating the audit trail here. So there are grounds for doubt.

Click to expand...

We have exactly that audit trail. When zircons form, the exclude Pb and include U. We can watch it happen in the lab. Also, the temperatures and pressures needed to change half lives are well in excess of those needed to destroy the rocks where these isotopes are found. Again, this is all shown in the lab. We also have astronomical observations which verify that the physical laws that govern radioactive decay have been the same for billions of years.

Yes scientifically regarding origins I am an extreme sceptic, mere acid on your peer reviewed articles I am afraid. My method is entirely based on doubt because of the higher commitment I hold to revelation.

Click to expand...

I am guessing that you believe that a supernatural deity produced life through a supernatural process, and you have no evidence for any of it happening nor do you expect to find any evidence of it.

How is that being an extreme skeptic?

One of the biggest issues Young Earth Creationism runs up into is all scientific evidence points the the Earth (and the universe) at the very least being older than 4000/5000 years old (or whatever the number is that they are using). The only creationist hypothesis that doesn't "exactly" go against scientific evidence would be the Omphalos hypothesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis

This states that some thousand odd years ago, God created the universe in it's entirety, but created it with signs of great age. It's sorta like if you took a video and started watching it halfway through. Even though it "started" at he half way point, if you rewound, you'd go back past the "start".

So by this theory God, being all powerful of course, created the universe that at it's moment of creation was already 13 billion or so years old. If you "rewound" the universe, it would play out all 13 billion years of it's "false" history in reverse. By the Omphalos hypothesis, the universe created 4000/5000 years ago would still be 13 billion years old anyways.

Obviously, the vast majority of people wouldn't think this is likely the actual case.

I could state that the universe actually popped into existence the moment before I started typing out this post, it's just that is so happened to come into existence with all the signs of being here much longer, such as all human memory, all the light already moving from distant stars, all the history books, all the buildings and roads and trees, and so on and so on. There's no way to prove that the universe did indeed pop into existence like that, but there's also no way to disprove it.

And science can't 'work' with something that cannot be both proven or disproven. Science cannot confirm the existence or lack of a soul either, at this point we enter the realm of faith rather than science.

Science is grounded on what we can observe, what we can deduce, and what we can experiment with. If the universe was "created" 4000 years ago, but with all the signs of being 13 billion years old, then the universe is still 13 billion years old.

And no, I don't believe in the Omphalos hypothesis. I don't believe in YEC at all. I believe the universe is 13.82 billion years old (give or take a few), started at the Big Bang, and evolution is how we got to Homo sapiens sapiens.