The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

samb

The fact that science states that the first man lived 84,000 years after the first woman – means that science is obviously WRONG about the time periods involved.
Yes, it is obvious you are not a scientist. That is not a fact stated by anybody. Michrocodrial eve refers to the most recent female ancestor from whom we are all decended. Male Y cromosome. Not first male or female, I think you know this anyway and are simply trying to spread you ''message'' to the uneducated.
The “Cambrian Explosion” IS consistent with the rapid burial under sediment of billions of different organisms at the bottom of the World’s oceans during the start of Noah’s Flood.The regression values are incorrect – just like many of the ‘millions of years’ dates regularly attributed to the age of rocks and fossils, by evolutionists
And how long ago do you believe this happened, <10,000 years ago? It is not evolutionists who look at rocks and fossils, it is geologists. What is under you right now. What is under me is aproximately 600m of limestone, do you know what this is? have you seen the Grand canyon. Your biology arguments are deluded, self serving, and ill informed. But your believe in a young earth shows you have no concept of the mountains, rivers, and earth you live on.

I was merely pointing out that a set of NEW non-functional wings, is more of a liability than an asset for the organism involved – and it will be eliminated by N S. It is therefore NOT evidence of ‘evolution in action’

Imagine these experiments being carried out over millions of years and thrillions of individuals (in case of fruit fly). Any benefit will spread.


Questions
Why are all geologists conspiring against the ''Young Earth''. Is all the evidence a hoax by God? or what?

Why is there thousands of speices of beetles and other insects. Why would a god spend so much time on insects and bacteria so little (comparitivly) on humans and other mammals (in terms of you ''Information'')?

Why is genetic data so consistant with the tree of life incompletely told by the fossil record? (your nonsense will be gone very shortly due to this).

robindch

> the diversity of [...] Polar Bears [...] is proof of Creation and The Fall.

This is wonderful stuff -- keep it coming!

> I hope that you have an enjoyable time in Russia

Indeed, I'm having a great time. The food, beer and music suit me so well, that only an omniscient god could have created them all -- just for me!

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

>

Indeed, I'm having a great time. The food, beer and music suit me so well, that only an omniscient god could have created them all -- just for me!

See Robin, He does love you.

Is the Canada - Russia World Jr. Hockey game on TV there tonight? It starts at 5:00pm Mountain Time (-7 GMT). We'll be glued to our tellies. GO CANADA

robindch

> See Robin, He does love you.

Indeed! The way that he's had the good folks over here working for thousands of years to produce Russia just for me really does demonstrate his infinite love!

Excelsior

As I savour my morning coffee and catch up on a week of Boards.ie activity I have to concur and commend Yahweh for evolving/creating coffee beans and inspiring the culinary genius who made the leap to what sits in my mug at the moment. Coffee is good. Therefore, God must have made it for me.

J C

Quote Whiskey Priest
The tools of science are irrelevant to faith, and the tools of faith are inappropriate to science.

This is an invalid distinction which protects the Theory of Materialistic Evolution from being effectively questioned.

Could I also point out that nearly all leading scientists acknowledged the existence of God and saw Science as a means of coherently studying His Creation right up to the late 19th Century.
Indeed, this continues to be the case for a substantial minority of conventional scientists right up to the present time.

It is important to appreciate the difference between phenomena, which are NOT repeatably observable, (and therefore can only be BELIEVED IN by Faith) – and repeatably observable phenomenon (that can be OBJECTIVELY VERIFIED by Science).

’Muck to Man’ Evolution is NOT repeatably observable and so can ONLY be held through Faith – most of the evidence for Creation IS repeatably observable and so it is verifiable by Science.

The choice is basically between an evolutionary statement of faith that “muck evolved into man” or Sir Fred Holye’s scientifically valid conclusion that the emergence of life through undirected processes is an impossibility – based on his detailed mathematical calculations and observations. I think that professional scientists are duty bound to recognise the scientific validity of the latter – and indeed the scientific invalidity of evolution.

Sir Fred Hoyle’s observations and conclusions in relation to the odds of producing even a single-celled creature using undirected processes, strictly follow the Scientific Method and are repeatably observable. They also continue to remain scientifically valid – and therefore should be accepted by all professional scientists unless and until they are proven to the contrary.

Isn’t it amazing that ‘Muck to Man’ Evolution which is supposed to be scientifically-based doesn’t have any objective evidence to support it – while the existence of God, which is actually a faith-based belief – can be objectively proven using evidence from direct observations!!!!

God has also told us that this is the case in Rom 1:19-20 ”Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (NIV).

Quote JustHalf
I just think God's sovereignty is established because God is God, and not because of any particular act He has done. Although His acts are great indeed, God is great apart from them.

The most important cause to establish is not where we came from, it is why we still live. Why are we alive? What is the purpose, if any, to our lives? Whose purpose is that? Ours? God's? If it is by God's purpose and will that we live, what does that mean? How will He use us? How can we best serve our King?

I fully agree with you on all of these faith-based sentiments.
I even agree with you that ultimately WHY we exist IS more important than HOW we came to exist – but I believe that answering BOTH questions is important.

Equally I don’t see why, as a scientist, I shouldn’t investigate the evidence for Direct Divine Creation.

I believe that this is a valid way to serve God in our technology-focussed society.
For you it is obviously some other way – and I pray that you succeed in whatever you choose to do for God – so why don’t you, as a fellow Christian, pray for and support conventional scientists who study Creation?


Quote Samb
Mitochondrial Eve refers to the most recent female ancestor from whom we are all decended. Male Y cromosome. Not first male or female,

By definition the “most recent female ancestor from whom we are all descended” has to be the first woman – who else could it logically be?


Quote Samb
It is not evolutionists who look at rocks and fossils, it is geologists. What is under you right now. What is under me is aproximately 600m of limestone, do you know what this is? have you seen the Grand canyon. Your biology arguments are deluded, self serving, and ill informed. But your believe in a young earth shows you have no concept of the mountains, rivers, and earth you live on.

Some conventionally qualified Geologists are Creationists and some are Evolutionists.

Where do YOU think that the 600m of PURE Limestone under your feet came from?
Certainly not from the breakdown of animal bones or by gradual deposition as postulated by Evolutionary Geologists.
It came from the instantaneous release and deposition of massive quantities of water saturated with pure Calcium Carbonate welling up from deep within the Earth in the “fountains of the deep” during Noah’s Flood.
The great PURITY of most Limestones rules out gradual deposition or animal bone breakdown, which would have produced significant contamination with organic matter and other materials – which is not generally observed in Limestone quarries.

The Grand Canyon is evidence of the catastrophic effects of large amounts of water acting over a relatively short period of time to gouge out the canyon before the rock had fully hardened.

Similar ‘canyon formation’ processes were observed to occur in a matter of hours during a sedimentation event triggered by the overflow of waters in Spirit Lake during the Mount St Helens volcanic eruption in 1980.

Quote Samb
Originally posted by J C
I was merely pointing out that a set of NEW non-functional wings, is more of a liability than an asset for the organism involved – and it will be eliminated by N S. It is therefore NOT evidence of ‘evolution in action’

Imagine these experiments being carried out over millions of years and thrillions of individuals (in case of fruit fly). Any benefit will spread.

Yes, just imagine trillions of seriously injured Fruit Flies having untimely deaths from the effects their mutations. This would achieve absolutely NOTHING.

Please bear in mind that ALL mutant fly ‘appendages’ have been observed to be functionally USELESS. Trillions of defective and damaged Fruit Flies will NOT spread any benefit – and will indeed be eliminated by Natural Selection. They are therefore NOT plausible proof for Evolution, irrespective of the time period involved.


Quote Samb
Why is there thousands of speices of beetles and other insects. Why would a god spend so much time on insects and bacteria so little (comparitivly) on humans and other mammals (in terms of you ''Information'')?

You are confusing quantity with quality.
In any event, God didn’t spend more time on insects and bacteria. The genetic information needed to construct an insect is significantly less than that required for a Human Being.

I do accept however, that the total biomass of insect and bacterial life is quite impressive – but that is due to the important scavenging and recycling role that insects and bacteria play within ecological systems.
It’s a dirty job that somebody has to do – and I am glad that insects and bacteria do it.
I also don’t begrudge insects and bacteria their biomass advantage over Humans.


Quote Samb
Why is genetic data so consistant with the tree of life incompletely told by the fossil record? (your nonsense will be gone very shortly due to this).
Once again you are incorrect. There are identical genetic sequences that have been found in creatures that have no plausible evolutionary relationship and supposedly ‘evolutionary close’ creatures that have widely divergent sequences.

In fact it IS the major new insights provided by ‘cutting edge’ Molecular Biology that have given Creation Science it’s biggest boost in recent years.

This explains why Creation Science is currently enjoying such a resurgence in America, which is one of the most technologically advanced nation on Earth – and it also explains why the Japanese are also beginning to take an active interest in Intelligent Design.

Practically every discovery from Mitochondrial Eve to Critical Amino Acid Sequences to the amazing density of information present in DNA have been absolutely devastating for Evolution and fully supportive of the Creation Hypothesis.

J C

robindch wrote:

> I hope that you have an enjoyable time in Russia

Indeed, I'm having a great time. The food, beer and music suit me so well, that only an omniscient god could have created them all -- just for me!

It IS important to not confuse the exercise of Free Will by Human Beings and God's Creation by Divine Fiat.

Great to know that the beer in Russia is so good that it compares favourably with the 'handiwork of God'.
BTW what was the brand name of this amazing beer?
I really must buy some!!!!

J C

The following are my responses to Whiskey Priest's answers to my original questions 1-4. I seem to have truncated these responses at the end of my post number 382.

Quote Whiskey Priest
Because science cannot answer or investigate questions of faith. If, therefore, life did not originate through natural mechanisms, the question cannot be investigated by science. For science to investigate a question necessarily involves this initial assumption. However, it is possible for scientists to conclude that a question is not properly in the domain of science after initial investigations - for example, a biologist starting to investigate the origin of life using the assumption might abandon the investigation on concluding that life has a divine origin.

I don’t accept that science cannot investigate questions of faith.

Could I point out that unless and until science establishes a valid scientific theory about any phenomenon, the current popular explanation IS ALWAYS in the realm of faith.

For example, the atheistic BELIEF that God doesn’t exist and that life originated through spontaneous and exclusively natural processes is just that – a BELIEF, that is still in the realm of FAITH.
However, this fact hasn’t stopped evolutionists utilising the Scientific Method to investigate their belief in Materialistic Evolution – and I have no problem with them doing so - the ethical pursuit of knowledge is what academic freedom is all about.

However, ‘what is sauce for the Goose should be sauce for the Gander’ - Science is also capable of investigating the evidence for Creation – it is just the willingness to do so that is sometimes lacking.

There ARE scientifically valid means of investigating whether ‘an external intelligence’ has been the cause of a particular effect. For example, Forensic science is largely based upon assessing the evidence for the involvement ‘external intelligent agents’ in crimes.

The ‘origins question’ is a classic “who done it?” type question. I suppose if you are an atheist, it is a “what done it?” question.
Either way, the appliance of science to answering the question is possible. The massive research effort by Evolutionists and the current, very fruitful, research effort by Intelligent Design and Creation advocates amply demonstrates that science HAS a definite role to play in answering the question of origins.

If a Biologist discovers that life has a divine origin they would be ethically bound to inform Humanity of their discovery – and such a discovery would certainly NOT be a reason to abandon the investigation!!!!.


Quote Whiskey Priest
Originally Posted by J C
2. Please explain in your own words how Evolution "Muck to Man" 'WORKS'

In brief - through natural selection, the accepted mechanism. Slightly less briefly - all organisms are the expression of data stored in genetic codes. These codes are subject to damage and alteration through the actions of the environment, and such altered codes are passed to the next generation, increasing, decreasing, or not affecting the adaptation of such offspring to their environment and thereby their chances of passing on the altered code to their offspring in turn.

This explains how Natural Selection works in an established population of viable, reproducing, live organisms.
It doesn’t explain how the “genetic codes” arose in the first place, how the organisms became alive or started reproducing. Indeed it also doesn’t explain how “damage and alteration through the actions of the environment”, (aka mutations) which have been invariably observed to REDUCE genetic information, could possibly cause inanimate chemicals to evolve into Man.


Quote Whiskey Priest
Originally Posted by J C
3. What is the postulated mechanism for the spontaneous generation of life - or is there one postulated?

Currently, this is under investigation, but various mechanisms have been suggested, including clay catalysis. A review of all postulated mechanisms would be very time-consuming. Most of them involve a gradual increase in complexity of chemicals, such that the dividing line between 'life' and 'non-life' is somewhat fuzzy. Divine intervention remains a possible mechanism at this time.

Could I gently point out that Clay Chemistry is based upon Silicate Mineralogy – while life on Earth is a distinctly Carbon-based phenomenon.

There is NO fuzzy dividing line between ‘life’ and ‘non-life’ – DNA/RNA is the unmistakable ‘fingerprint’ of all life on Earth.

Divine intervention is the ONLY plausible mechanism currently identified – and it is therefore all the more amazing that conventional science is REFUSING to investigate the most likely cause for the origin of life – while expending enormous effort in pursuing alternatives – that have significantly less evidential or logical support.


Quote Whiskey Priest
Originally Posted by J C
4. What is the postulated 'primitive' mechanism that provided the diversity upon which Natural Selection supposedly worked?

Errors in the replication of genetic code, as stated. Also possible is multiple 'origins of life' in the very basic sense of life.

So you believe that the mechanisms that produced the highly complex, tightly specified and precisely sequenced living systems that are observed in living organisms were “errors in the genetic code” aka mutations.
Your belief that “the more errors the better” is certainly a novel quality control approach !!!
You have also failed to demonstrate how the genetic code originated in the first place and you also haven’t explained how mutations (that are invariably observed to REDUCE genetic information) could possibly be the mechanisms that produced the massive amount of purposeful information observed in all life.

zod

J C wrote:

Quote Zod
Hey J_C did%2

what happened to the T-Rex explanation?

bmoferrall

J C wrote:

I believe that this is a valid way to serve God in our technology-focussed society. ...so why don’t you, as a fellow Christian, pray for and support conventional scientists who study Creation?

The hostility to creation scientists' endeavours from fellow Christians here and elsewhere is truly perplexing (One Body with Many Parts); that it should at times descend into mockery and caricature is shameful. I guess it can be put down to immaturity.

I look forward to enlightening revelations in this field of study in the coming years.

Excelsior

Bm, in the case of JC, he doubts that many of us are Christians because we don't agree with his ultra recent readings of Scripture. Join with me in mocking myself any day but please at least include me in the fold though I think God is God because he is God and not because I think a 6 day creation is more impressive than a 14 billion year one!

bmoferrall

Excelsior wrote:

Bm, in the case of JC, he doubts that many of us are Christians because we don't agree with his ultra recent readings of Scripture.

To be honest I haven't seen any expression of such doubts in his posts.

As Paul says, we have all been given different gifts. Though we may all argue about the importance of this particular issue, I believe JC is excercising his considerable gifts in good faith and with divine purpose.

JustHalf

J C wrote:

Quote JustHalf
I just think God's sovereignty is established because God is God, and not because of any particular act He has done. Although His acts are great indeed, God is great apart from them.

The most important cause to establish is not where we came from, it is why we still live. Why are we alive? What is the purpose, if any, to our lives? Whose purpose is that? Ours? God's? If it is by God's purpose and will that we live, what does that mean? How will He use us? How can we best serve our King?

I fully agree with you on all of these faith-based sentiments.
I even agree with you that ultimately WHY we exist IS more important than HOW we came to exist – but I believe that answering BOTH questions is important.

Equally I don’t see why, as a scientist, I shouldn’t investigate the evidence for Direct Divine Creation.

I believe that this is a valid way to serve God in our technology-focussed society.
For you it is obviously some other way – and I pray that you succeed in whatever you choose to do for God – so why don’t you, as a fellow Christian, pray for and support conventional scientists who study Creation?

Remember, that though Paul said we should pray for our leaders, it does not necessarily mean that we must support their policies, agree with them or try to further their goals.

You and your fellows do not just study Creation -- for that is the domain of all scientists. Instead, you insist on including the Bible in your "scientific" research. Because of this, your understanding of Creation comes not from the primary source (Creation itself) but is coloured by how you interpret a secondary source (the Bible). And when the primary source differs from the secondary, you take your particular and uncommon interpretation of the word of the secondary! This is not science.

I do not see the evidence against the evolutionary hypothesis as compelling, and I certainly think that the evidence for a young Earth and/or young Universe is just not there.

I believe that the young Earth / literal six-day Creation movement makes all Christians appear as anti-intellectual zealots (you yourself claimed that "There is NO conflict between Christianity and (real) Science", therefore insultingly rubbishing the work of the majority of the scientific establishment), and gives weight to the lie that Christianity (and by extension, Jesus) is only for stupid people.

I believe that it furthers the cause of the enemy; and where it has resulted in any conversion, this is due to God turning the plans of the enemy against himself (something He has a knack for).

You constantly mention the "muck to man" theory, and ridicule it. But never, NEVER do you describe to us or theorise about the mechanism through which God may have created a literal Adam. Surely as a scientist you are interested in this? If you assume that there was a literal Adam and Eve, then surely it is insufficient to you to hear "O, God just did it"?

This is a glaring gap in your theory, a hole as great as that in the theories about the beginnings of life held by those that believe that what followed was evolution. Perhaps even greater... at least "evolutionists" a trying to plug the hole in their theory!

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

In any event, God didn’t spend more time on insects and bacteria. The genetic information needed to construct an insect is significantly less than that required for a Human Being.

Alas, this is not so. The largest known genome so far is that of a microscopic Amoeba (Amoeba dubia), which has a genome length of 670 billion base pairs. For comparison, the human genome is 3.2 billion base pairs.

If you wish to rearrange your thinking to suit this evidence, you may find this link handy:

http://www.nature.ca/genome/03/a/03a_11a_e.cfm

cordially yours,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Some conventionally qualified Geologists are Creationists and some are Evolutionists.

Speaking as a geologist, that's incredibly misleading. Virtually no working geologists are Young Earth Creationists, because they cannot do the work. Your first 'some' there is less than 0.1%, your second 'some' more than 99.9%. This is not what most people would understand by your phrasing.

J C wrote:

Where do YOU think that the 600m of PURE Limestone under your feet came from?
Certainly not from the breakdown of animal bones or by gradual deposition as postulated by Evolutionary Geologists.
It came from the instantaneous release and deposition of massive quantities of water saturated with pure Calcium Carbonate welling up from deep within the Earth in the “fountains of the deep” during Noah’s Flood.
The great PURITY of most Limestones rules out gradual deposition or animal bone breakdown, which would have produced significant contamination with organic matter and other materials – which is not generally observed in Limestone quarries.

And again - I fear that your information is almost unbelievably inaccurate, to the extent of being diametrically opposed to the facts.

Most limestones are impure - pure limestones are sufficiently uncommon in the world to be a valuable economic resource. Most limestones are in fact contaminated with organic matter, even to the extent of constituting the mass of the rock.

It is unfortunate that your attachment to a book outweighs any love of truth you might once have felt.

cordially yours,
Scofflaw

samb

J C Some conventionally qualified Geologists are Creationists and some are Evolutionists.

Where do YOU think that the 600m of PURE Limestone under your feet came from?
Certainly not from the breakdown of animal bones or by gradual deposition as postulated by Evolutionary Geologists.
It came from the instantaneous release and deposition of massive quantities of water saturated with pure Calcium Carbonate welling up from deep within the Earth in the “fountains of the deep” during Noah’s Flood.
The great PURITY of most Limestones rules out gradual deposition or animal bone breakdown, which would have produced significant contamination with organic matter and other materials – which is not generally observed in Limestone quarries.

Having worked on as an assistant driller I have been fortunate to observe approximately 400m of core limestone straight out of the ground. I marvelled at many strange and wonderful organisms that lived over 300 million years ago. I'm not sure what limestone's you are refering to that have such great purity (I think it's called chalk, you will find it in France), but certainly not the thick fossil bed covering central Ireland. If you look at most large banks and other big buildings across this country you can see for yourself what it is made of.
Who dreamt up your young earth Geology. What do you call it ''Alternative Geology''.

The Grand Canyon is evidence of the catastrophic effects of large amounts of water acting over a relatively short period of time to gouge out the canyon before the rock had fully hardened.
Now your getting even worse, the crand canyon is sand stone (a sedimentary rock). Anyway water evaborates off hot molten rock it doesn't erode it. Please read and observe some ''conventional geology''.

By definition the “most recent female ancestor from whom we are all descended” has to be the first woman – who else could it logically be?

You are thinking of the LEAST RECENT female ancestor....concentrate..

Excelsior

The Grand Canyon thing reminds me of an interesting insight from mainstream Christianity which people might like to hear.

During the week I was having a chat with a colleague about Creation Science who works in the deepest, darkest points of the Northern Irish Bible belt and he told me that his students are all of the Creation Science camp. Even the really passionate and hungry students are lured into it and the reason is that in the culture of their kind of church, (which is very far out on the spectrum and quite rare) the only kind of "origins" discussion takes place around Ken Ham/Answers In Genesis mode.

Those writings are composed, as we can see from JC, with an allure of coherence and my colleague reckons that when an 18 or 19 year old reads them, he or she is made to feel quite clever for delving into it. Then they might choose to check out the alternative view and even Stephen Jay Gould bamboozles them, relatively speaking, with well constructed arguments, background information and not many nice informative diagrams. My colleague feels the effective methodology of the "Ham School" can be summed up by the attraction of witticisms and easily understood slogans. If you want to reach the Creation Science mind, therefore, you have to go tabloid and populist. Anyone Christians out there who fancy the challenge?

wolfsbane

Excelsior, just to make something clear to us all: you seem to be saying that a belief in a literal 6-day Creation is a very recent invention. As far as I can find out, it was THE Christian view until Darwin, then it became the majority Christian view. Even before the term 'Scientific Creationism' came into use, the basic beliefs of CS was the orthodox Christian view. Your concept - theistic evolution, is the stranger in the Christian camp.

For you to be right would mean a new discovery of truth after 2000 years of error. A big claim indeed. And what is the basis of that claim? The opinion of men, most of whom have a vested interest in debunking Christianity. When Christian scientists stand up and say their scientific research confirms the historic beliefs of the Church, you give more weight to the opinions of the ungodly than to your brethren. Don't you think you should look at this all again?

pH

Excelsior, just to make something clear to us all: you seem to be saying that a belief in a literal 6-day Creation is a very recent invention. As far as I can find out, it was THE Christian view until Darwin, then it became the majority Christian view.

This was expressed very clearly in the recent BBC docudrama about Egypt and the work of Champollion, which showed representatives of the Catholic church wanting to censor any information coming from newly translated hieroglyphs which might contradict the timescale/history of the old testament.

Work like this in the early 19th century, along with new understanding of the geological age of the earth were already putting pressure on using the bible as a literal description of creation before Darwin came along.

It would be fair to say that an average citizen of a Catholic or Protestant country in 1830 would have accepted Genesis as a literally true, and the churches would still have actively promoted that view.

Excelsior

I don't know if that would be fair to say, especially within "Protestant" circles. Modern Creation Science is, regardless, not the same thing as believing Genesis to be literally true. The position Wolfsbane argues for is a fideist position whereby the undiscovered Darwinism posed no alternative to the default mode of understanding and so questions of "scientific" didn't enter into the equation.

Theologians have understood it to be allegorical from before the time of Christ. Augustine, the grandpappa of Lutheranism and a Father of Catholicism argued that point in the 300s.

It is in no way true to say that Christians have been Creation Scientists for 2000 years. Creation Science was developed in the early 1900s by the fringe Seventh Day Adventist group. No average citizen of Europe pre Darwin would have understood Genesis to be scientific since it is patently not intended to be so. And, when Darwin published first, it met a warm reception from most church authorities until the CS movement got running and reached its rubicon in 1926.

wolfsbane

Excelsior, we're playing with words here. Literal Genesis vs Scientific Genesis! What does that mean? Did Christianity historically take Creation to be in 6, 24 hour days as per Genesis; did it believe in a young earth? Did it believe in an immediate creation of plants, animals and man? Did any Christian theologian you can name hold to other than the above?

Ussher of Dublin surely represents the historic Christian position. It makes no matter that they did not enter scientific arguments in support of Creationism -they believed exactly what Creation Science is seeking to prove.

Excelsior

Not at all! Creation Science does not seek to prove the Bible to be "literally" true. It seeks to prove the Bible to be scientifically true. Genesis 1 and 2 were never meant to be scientific and were never interpreted scientifically until just over 100 years ago.

It is not playing with words to point out that although the scientific method had been developed, the average person still did not feel a need to interpret "God said let there be x and there was x" as a scientific description.

I take the account of Genesis to be profoundly and utterly true and inspired by God but I line myself up with Jewish contemporaries of Jesus in proto-Talmudic writings and with Augustine and many other writers up to Erasmus famously in the 1600s by saying that Genesis is an allegory.

Wolfsbane, I do not have an arrogant position on this, even if my frustration sometimes come through. I have no doubt that modern Creation Science seeks to be authentic and respectful to Scripture. But in the manner that it seeks to do that it ostracises many fellow believers who are driven by their quest for truth to accept that evolution is irrefutable. I hold that all truth is God's, including the truth of evolution and I seek great solace in knowing that the schools of the apostles understood it as I do. If the early Church fathers, so close to Jesus himself, understood Genesis in this way, then I feel I am on more secure ground.

Basically, none of the early Christians could have been CS followers because CS was invented in the late 1800s. That is not wordplay. That is a clear statement of fact. Those that read Genesis to be "literally" true were actually reading it literally. Read literally it is not a scientific document and so their view would not have given rise to Creation Science had they just happen to be born 20 years to the day before Origin of the Species was published.

Scofflaw

I think Excelsior's point is that, since science itself has a track record of about 200 years, it is clearly impossible for Christians to have been Creation Scientists before that.

Genesis may been read literally before that, but with a non-scientific mental framework that made it less likely for the reader to think they were reading God's creation diary.

Only since science and the scientific method have become the mainstream mental framework for viewing the world has it become important for some people to have Genesis be scientifically true.

Dades

wolfsbane wrote:

For you to be right would mean a new discovery of truth after 2000 years of error. A big claim indeed. And what is the basis of that claim? The opinion of men, most of whom have a vested interest in debunking Christianity.

Pot. Kettle. BLACK!

Christian scientists: Must ensure bible version prevails at all costs - all effort directed at this single goal.
Objective scientists: No agenda other than the truth - all theories entertained.

wolfsbane

Excelsior said:

I hold that all truth is God's, including the truth of evolution and I seek great solace in knowing that the schools of the apostles understood it as I do. If the early Church fathers, so close to Jesus himself, understood Genesis in this way, then I feel I am on more secure ground.

Can you substantiate your claim regarding the Early Fathers? My reseach suggests the opposite. See this for example: http://www.rae.org/FAQ08.htm

Creation Science does not seek to prove the Bible to be "literally" true. It seeks to prove the Bible to be scientifically true.

That's what I mean by playing with words. Tell me how 6, 24 hour days can be literally true without being scientifically true, or vice versa. Your objection seems to me to be not to the methodology but to the truth they seek to establish - the Genesis account is literally true, ie. creation occurred over only 72 hours. That is the literal truth accepted by the historic Church. Neither Origen nor Erasmus could be defined as Christian in any reasonable sense.

The fact that Christians prior to Darwinism felt no need to offer scientific proof in support of the Bible account does not mean CS has not the same beliefs as them. CS believes what the historic Christian church believed. Theistic evolution has departed from that.

I greatly appreciate the efforts of CS folk to demonstrate that Genesis is in line with the findings of science, but Biblical theology is enough to rule out an old earth and any evolutionary model that goes with it. That is, plain teachings of Scripture must be false if evolution stands.

For example: The Bible teaches that God made the universe and all in it 'very good'. Evolution teaches that suffering and death have been with us from the beginning. That would make suffering and death 'very good'.

The Bible teaches that death entered the world with man's sin. Evolution says it is just a natural event.

The Bible teaches that nature proves the existence of God, and leaves man without excuse. Evolution offers an alternative - it all occurs naturally. All theistic evolution can say is that God started it of billions of years ago. How is a man to see God in nature if evolution brought 99.9999% of it about?

wolfsbane

Atheist said:

Objective scientists: No agenda other than the truth - all theories entertained.

Wonderful. I would be glad to have a list of them. So they entertain Intelligent Design, Young Earth Creation, Uniformitarian Evolution, Punctuated Equilibrium Evolution, etc. as possible models? That's all I would expect of honest unbelieving scientists.

pH

The fact that Christians prior to Darwinism felt no need to offer scientific proof in support of the Bible account does not mean CS has not the same beliefs as them. CS believes what the historic Christian church believed. Theistic evolution has departed from that.

As I pointed out earlier, it's disingenuous to blame (or single out) solely this concept of "Darwinism", when you say "prior to Darwinism". Cosmology, Geology and Archeology had already seriously undermined a literal interpretation of Genesis, prior to Mr Darwin.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Atheist said:


Wonderful. I would be glad to have a list of them. So they entertain Intelligent Design, Young Earth Creation, Uniformitarian Evolution, Punctuated Equilibrium Evolution, etc. as possible models? That's all I would expect of honest unbelieving scientists.

As a scientist, I do of course entertain these theories. As a geologist, I of course have had to consider the young-earth position. Not to do so is unscientific. Similarly, when working with co-ordinates, we considered the flat-earth belief (I'm not kidding here). My college geology course in stratigraphy started with Usshers' calculations of Earth's age. My biology course at school started with spontaneous generation and creation before moving onto evolution. In every case I was encouraged to look at these theories and to decide whether they were scientifically tenable.

However, when these theories are found not to fit the observed facts, and in many cases to offer conclusions or require assumptions that conflict with the evidence, we abandon them. When others support them in direct conflict with the observed facts, we shrug and say 'these people are supporting a position that is not scientifically tenable'.

BrianCalgary

pH wrote:

As I pointed out earlier, it's disingenuous to blame (or single out) solely this concept of "Darwinism", when you say "prior to Darwinism". Cosmology, Geology and Archeology had already seriously undermined a literal interpretation of Genesis, prior to Mr Darwin.

Science also said the Earth was flat, everything revolved around the Earth, tainted meat turned into maggots. Science is always changing as new observations are made. So science for the 20th century accepted Darwinian evolution as fact and is considering the possibility of an intelligence behind creation. cience changes, God does not.

On the age of the Earth, a very good friend of mine (Christian Geologist) tells me that the Earth is billions of years old. I was citing young earth evidence. He and I have agreed that whoever is right gets to thumb his nose at the other when we are in the presence of God. He argues that rocks are aged at billions of years, I suggested that if Jesus could make aged wine at the wedding of Cana, He could easily have made aged rocks to set the foundation of the universe that He created 13,000 years ago. If my suggestion is correct then a literal interpretation of Genesis is completely valid.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Science also said the Earth was flat, everything revolved around the Earth, tainted meat turned into maggots. Science is always changing as new observations are made. So science for the 20th century accepted Darwinian evolution as fact and is considering the possibility of an intelligence behind creation. cience changes, God does not.

Science is not seriously considering the possibility of an intelligence behind creation, because it cannot do so. At no point is it scientifically possible to say "well, lads, that's it, we've exhausted every avenue of enquiry that will ever exist, and we've found no way of these things evolving by themselves", without making a leap of faith. A leap of faith is not allowed as part of a scientific method, so it is not possible for science to conclude that there is an intelligence behind creation, as long as there is no positive evidence for design.

The mere complexity of design is not evidence that something was created - it is evidence that something is complex. If you can't explain how it came to be so complex, all you've proved is that you cannot explain how it came to be so complex.

Short of a 'signature' in the rocks, or the DNA of some species, saying 'God did this', science is unable to positively conclude that complexity is the result of design, and ID is therefore not a scientific theory, because it is not testable with the scientific method.