Can the Bible’s Creation account be explained or debunked by Science?

In terms of the question of the o.p in regards to the creation account in the bible being debunked by science here is my answer since I am in the creationist camp, for those that want to know;Firstly, Genesis does not go into scientific-detail generally but it does make some science claims that can be analysed.If we take the plain meaning of the text it says animals reproduce according to kind which is basically just the law of identity. (X is X)I don't want to get into the whole, "define kinds" debate I instead just want to focus on the question of the science debunking it.In that sense if I look in the fossil record for all types of pinnipeds, what I find from every kind is that they will firstly appear abruptly in the fossil record and then remain unchanged without any evolutionary-history. That's if you assume deep time of course, rather than assuming a record-of-death rather than a passage of time.If I look for flying things that were to be invented such as with pterosaurs and the pteroid bone and elongated finger, or the pterodactyl or birds or the flying insect, whatever kind you look at be it a dragonfly or a bat (and even a specialised bat such as one with echolocation), what you find is what you found with the pinnipeds.Indeed, if I then get more scientific and TRACE where evolution MUST have occurred within a WINDOW of time for specific organisms, I did not find one window that contained any evolution of that kind, just it's presence. It either remained extant and unchanged today such as with the coelecanth or Wollemi pine or whatever, or it persisted until extinct, again unchanged.Conclusion; I cannot scientifically say that kinds can be debunked in the sense that everything I find would be what I expected to find under a world-flood scenario. Under that scenario I wouldn't expect an evolutionary history, nor would I expect pine trees to persist between their last representative and today's living pines because if the rocks are not eons then why would I expect pines between then and now, found in inbetween layers?Then I go to Genesis pertaining to the other claim of humans being made directly from the dust of the ground. While this language is not scientific, the science shows that our biochemistry is made up of amino-acids. (edit; yes I am explaining quickly here, I know it's not all aminos, the point is, we are all made up of the dust of the ground in a sense, in that it contains all that is needed if the correct simple molecules are present such as aminos and nucleotides)To refute this notion scientifically I would look for evidence the human being is not designed but evolved.The arguments put forward for that include things such as the recurrent laryngeal nerve, the wiring of the retina, the blind spot, the vas deferens, etc.....with all such arguments each argument focused on one aspect of a system and ignored the vast majority of the design of the specific system in question.Example of error; the most beautiful woman on the earth with perfect body, perfect face, perfect hair, everything just the epitome of beauty is inferred to be an ugly person because of a skin tag. (slothful induction fallacy)CONCLUSION: I cannot "scientifically" debunk the creation account when I only find what I expected to; unchanged kinds and superior design, all over the place.The only thing I really find is that the scientific community has made a CHOICE, rather than a finding. That freewill CHOICE is that they choose to believe that it was macro-evolution and abiogenesis.

Both of which seem to be false claims given, 1. I am still here. 2. You only barely asserted I, "crashed" into my own fallacies.Which means you didn't seem to realise you were committing something as basic as a bare-assertion fallacy.Are you sure you don't mean that YOU crashed into me and came off the worse? That would seem consistent with all of our prior encounters. Lol.Didn't you once thinkg a formal fallacy should mean logic as a subject is not valid and should be ignored. That's right, you didn't even know the difference between a sound syllogism and a formal fallacy and I remember it quite well.No wonder you stick to bare assertions, you dare not utter anything else in my presence I would suppose, without risking great embarrassment.Run away now little doggy, and stop nipping at my heels.

I also don't get the comment, "shit all over the board". Do you mean to say you don't understand the function of a debate board?What I see are topics, and naturally if I have a view as a member I can then presumably write down my opinions, arguments and retorts, right?Have I missed something?To which at this point Tangle would quote mine the question, "have I missed something" and reply with something he THINKS clever, but is predictable and stupid to me.

I should say here, I don't accept the arguments specifically. With the eye the blind spot has to be shown to you unlike the blindspot on a side mirror of a car which is an example of reductio ad absurdum. (the absurdum; obviously if it was a true design error, you wouldn't need the blindspot showing to you)IRRC the blindspot only represents 0.2% of the visual field.As for the wiring of the retina, experts in all things eye disagree with atheists. You see to get refreshment from the choroid creates a heating problem. In fact having the net in front of the receptors isn't a problem if you can negate the net. That is done by the Muller cells, most excellently if you look into it. Do your own homework instead of just repeating these ad-nauseam canards predicated on nothing more than parroting Dawkins.As for the layrngeal nerve and the vas deferens, basically they're the rhetorical device called, "playing it up" where you make more of a system's deliberately-weak areas by pretending it's bad design.The truth is, even bad design wouldn't prove there wasn't a designer but what you actually find is bad arguments from evolutionists. When you look into the matter and do the real science as so many creationists do, then you discover the evolutionist only studied enough to get them the argument against creation, they didn't study enough to be correct. (which reveals their motives are not scientific or they would be open to being wrong, but are in fact anti-God)

This is the tu quoque fallacy, also know as whataboutism. Did you want to defend Mr. Henshaw's position? Again, nothing here about anything from Mr. Henshaw. What are you responding to? The word "designer" doesn't even appear in my messages. Okay. How does this bear on anything Mr. Henshaw said? Or that I said? You don't quote anything, so since this has no bearing on anything I said I have no idea what you're responding to. Mammal and human would both be accurate. Which is the better term would depend upon context. I called what Mr. Henshaw describe in Message 1 and Message 7 religious mumbo jumbo. I suggest you read Mr. Henshaw's words and see if you agree with them and wish to defend them. That is correct. Mr. Henshaw's claims do not appear to spring from the Bible. I called Mr. Henshaw's contributions religious mumbo jumbo, not Bilbical mumbo jumbo.--Percy

It's only really tu-quoque in my opinion if I am saying that his argument is not incorrect, because yours is also incorrect.Though technically I agree it is tu-quoque but it seemed a bit rich that you should call it, "religious mumbo jumbo".It's more that I was responding in kind towards your attitude problem of constantly trying the dichotomy of "religion or science". Religion to guilt us by association with the absurdly false (99.9999% of which we reject), and science to make you look all shiny and correct by your associating yourself with it. I think you miss the point here to be honest. The point is if there is a more accurate term to use such as, "Christian" then there must be a reason to use a more vague word. (you can associate me with many things by calling me, "religious", none of which are true about me)With people like you that have a prejudice against Christians that believe their bible, naturally we see words like, "religionist" used a lot. That it fits me as a descriptor is not important if it is used as an epithet so as to commit an association fallacy of some type or some implication of "guilt-by-grouping".I am also a mammal but it just doesn't tell us much UNLESS you have some motive to associate me with rats perhaps!

Do you have anything to say on the topic of Mr. Henshaw's thread?--Percy

I reject 99.999% of religion, I accept probably 95% of science or at the least the parts I dispute I am either firmly against because I see no science to them (abiogenesis) or I am just unsure about because they are not repeatable or experimental or deductively provable like with operational science.So really I hear myself called, "religious" a LOT by atheists on boards like this, by evolutionists. But didn't I take a series of science and evolution tests a few years back where I scored the same on science or close to the same? I have a good long term memory, I think I got 88% on the biological evolution test and 90% on the general science test.As for religion, I would spend a year telling you my thoughts on how the majority of it can be classed and dismissed but I would only need five seconds to tell you about how, "religious" I am in that I believe in the supernatural God that transcends nature. That is not much of a sharing if you understand the other, "religious" people. Indeed, we would be like chalk and cheese!

That's right my boy, gloss over your errors quickly so we all forget! I thought I did say something on the topic. The title asks something about creation being debunked by science, yes? I wrote a post.However we are told that creation as an account cannot be a part of science therefore strictly speaking you can't then come out of your subject of science, drag creation as an account into the classroom for five minutes then give a list of science reasons why it is wrong, if you are to be consistent, because science doesn't study religion, right?

"Pigeon chess" or "like playing chess with a pigeon"[note 1] is a figure of speech originating from a comment made in March 2005 on Amazon by Scott D. Weitzenhoffer[2] regarding Eugenie Scott's book Evolution vs. Creationism: An introduction:“”Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory. The pro-creationist reviewers of this book clearly demonstrate this to be true.Wizz in, crap all over the board and wizz out again. Apt.

Hi Percy Does the rate of duration ever change.I thought time was used to measure the duration between events.We can measure the duration it takes for a runner to travel 100 yards.
We can measure the duration it takes to drive from New York city to Los Angles.
The resulting numbers on the clock used to measure that duration is the time it takes to go from point A to point B.God Bless,

double post

In the local frame of reference? No. The runner and the time keeper are in different frames of reference. If they both have a clock, then their clocks will show different times after each trip. The time differences might be too tiny to measure for such tiny speeds, but we've measured the difference for spacecraft many times. For example, an astronaut living on the International Space Staion (ISS) for 6 months ages about .005 seconds less than people on Earth.--Percy

Hi Percy, Are you saying his physical body would age five thousands of a second or his clock would be five thousands of a second different than one on earth?Why would duration/existence change anywhere in the universe?It would not be effected by gravity as clocks are.God Bless,

ICANT appears to not understand relativity and either he or others may try to poo-poo it away (I've seen creationists try) without recognizing a practical application, the Global Positioning System (GPS), which would not work without taking relativistic effects into account and compensating for them.The last two decades of my career as an intelligent designer (AKA "engineer") was designing the embedded software for a line of products which incorporate Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers, so I have some familiarity with how GPS works.GPS provides position and time solutions for the receiver based on the positions and ranges (called "pseudo-ranges" since they're derived from the signal's time-of-flight and the speed of light) of multiple satellites (at least three, though ideally four or more) relative to the receiver. The accuracy of those values determine the accuracy of the solutions (eg, position within 5 meters, time within less than 100 nanoseconds). Because the relativistic effects of gravity and motion would reduce that accuracy drastically, those effects must be compensated for in the position and time solutions. Our products depended on a highly accurate time solution.From that Wikipedia article:

Wikipedia: GPS:

---

History

​

. . .

​

In 1955, Friedwardt Winterberg proposed a test of general relativity—detecting time slowing in a strong gravitational field using accurate atomic clocks placed in orbit inside artificial satellites. Special and general relativity predicted that the clocks on GPS satellites, as observed by those on Earth, run 38 microseconds faster per day than those on the Earth. The design of GPS corrects for this difference; because without doing so, GPS calculated positions would accumulate errors of up to 10 kilometers per day (6 mi/d).

​

. . .

​

Timekeeping

​

. . .

​

Accuracy

​

GPS time is theoretically accurate to about 14 nanoseconds, due to the clock drift relative to International Atomic Time that the atomic clocks in GPS transmitters experience. Most receivers lose some accuracy in their interpretation of the signals and are only accurate to about 100 nanoseconds.

​

Relativistic corrections

​

The GPS implements two major corrections to its time signals for relativistic effects: one for relative velocity of satellite and receiver, using the special theory of relativity, and one for the difference in gravitational potential between satellite and receiver, using general relativity. The acceleration of the satellite could also be computed independently as a correction, depending on purpose, but normally the effect is already dealt with in the first two corrections.

​

---

So relativity is very real and we use it every day, especially if we use a cell phone. Not only do our Map apps use our smartphone's integrated GPS receiver (or else gets that position and time information from the cell tower, which in turn gets that information from its own GPS receiver (eg, the one incorporated in its frequency and time division subsystem, ie, our product)), but a GPS-based time solution is needed for the entire communications network to function. Fun Trivia and Discovery: