YE-creation: science , pompous dogma or faith message?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]JoeWe could almost agree if you didn't ignore the part where I say that our claim has much scientific backing regardless of the fact that it originates as a faith message. A slight shift in perspective and your millions of years look like a global flood. That's how subtle it was in the garden too. [/QUOTE]JM: No, not a slight shift. It requires a complete abandonment of science, observation and logic and a requires a reliance on supernatural dogmatic superstition.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

JM: No, not a slight shift. It requires a complete abandonment of science, observation and logic and a requires a reliance on supernatural dogmatic superstition.

​

Cheers

​

Joe Meert

---

I like how you avoid slanted language. I think you forgot Intolerant Radical Right-Wing Christian Fundamentalist witch-burner though.I can't take evolutionists any more seriously than you take creationists. Science, to you, by definition must always exclude God regardless of what the truth is. Science, to me, by definition must not contradict God's teaching. After all - he was the only person that was actually there to witness the beginning. Not you or I.All Scientists (Creationists and Evolutionists) are human -- all have biases. This image of objective men seeking the truth and trying to prove themselves wrong is a complete joke.David

[QUOTE][B]Science, to you, by definition must always exclude God regardless of what the truth is. Science, to me, by definition must not contradict God's teaching.[/QUOTE][/B]Science, by any correct definition of the word, deals only with the phenomena and mechanisms acting in or upon nature. Because God is "supernatural", God has no role in the way science works because God is outside the limits of natural phenomena. Science can never deny nor promote the concept of God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
Science, to you, by definition must always exclude God regardless of what the truth is.

---

I am really getting tired of this one. Produce some evidence and science can include god. Its that simple.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Sorta like abiogenesis-produce evidence that it happened and then science can include abiogenesis.

[QUOTE][B]And the apostle Peter (2Pet 3) tells us precisely in what way mankind would come to doubt the reality of creation, the flood and the 2nd coming - it will be becasue they cry 'everything has continued from the beginning as it always has'![/QUOTE][/B]2 Peter 3 KJV, courtesy those YECs at BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages. Verse 4: [QUOTE][B]And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.[/QUOTE][/B]The reference to "all things continue as they were" in context appears to be a reference to the apparent absence of the things to occur before the Second Coming, (the return of Elijah, the apostasy, etc)My comments as to the global flood being recounted by apostles is that apostles did not themselves have perfect knowledge either but did have the Flood myths as history so it would be only natural that in their correspondence they would use them to make an example. Or the Flood might have been local. (I actually don't have a position on the Flood except that there is no geological evidence of a *global* Flood so it probably didn't happen)There is something in this chapter that at least some YECs should be seriously troubled by. [QUOTE][B]But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.[/QUOTE][/B]Now see the AiG SoF

quote:

---

The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six (6) consecutive twenty-four (24) hour days of Creation.

---

Now please note that BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages. and Answers in Genesis are both members of the Gospel Communications Network.

[QUOTE][B]I hope I don't offfend too many Christians here but surely the church has fallen and has been in the process of getting up since Martin Luther et al![/QUOTE][/B]How can it be restored, without prophecy?

quote:

---

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

---

Uh huh... so I guess Jonah was in the belly of a fish for 3,000 years And Christ hasn't risen from the dead yet, since it's only been two "God Days."David

quote:

---

The reference to "all things continue as they were" in context appears to be a reference to the apparent absence of the things to occur before the Second Coming, (the return of Elijah, the apostasy, etc)

---

Second Coming = Christ, is what I get by reading the whole passage.I never got Evolution from it... but I do get people denying the Flood ever happened.David

quote:

---

Science, by any correct definition of the word, deals only with the phenomena and mechanisms acting in or upon nature. Because God is "supernatural", God has no role in the way science works because God is outside the limits of natural phenomena. Science can never deny nor promote the concept of God.

---

I think a correct definition of Science should deal with what we can observe and test.We don't know how life first formed on the planet, do we? But Scientists will still try to show how abiogenesis is possible, slap he Science label on it, and push it as fact to the public.And the only reason it will be pushed as fact, is because we MUST explain things without God? I think that rule originally only applied to what we can observe... it was always thought that God was the creator and upholder of these natural laws.Then somewhere along the line it became God can't even be responsible for these unchanging natural laws that we depend on for Science -- so we must explain how natural laws came about without God. Doesn't matter what the truth is, we just need a natural explanation. Let the "ignorant" public think God is still responsible. Ridiculous!David

[QUOTE][B]I think a correct definition of Science should deal with what we can observe and test.[/QUOTE][/B]Let's take this definition for a spin. How can we observe and test intelligent design or creation by fiat? [QUOTE][B]But Scientists will still try to show how abiogenesis is possible, slap he Science label on it, and push it as fact to the public.[/QUOTE][/B]Chemists can generate amino acids in sterile flasks under a number of different circumstances. But can an ID proponent speak amino acids into existance? Which premise is more testable? [QUOTE][B]And the only reason it will be pushed as fact, is because we MUST explain things without God?[/QUOTE][/B]There is a very good historical precedent for not trying to explain things by God, a "naturalistic" mechanism has always come along to explain the former miracle.Now, how does abiogenesis rule out God? No matter how much precision an abiogenesis scenario gets it is impossible to ever confirm whether or not that scenario was planned and put into motion by God. So abiogenesis does not necessarily indicate a lack of God. However, to say that something happened because "Godidit" and not explain how it happened, in a *natural* context, is just glorified sorcery and it leads absolutely nowhere useful. It is an excuse to end research. [QUOTE][B]I think that rule originally only applied to what we can observe...[/QUOTE][/B]And so far we have been unable to observe God reaching down and designing life. In fact, from the YEC perspective, Creation is ended and cannot be observed. The closest you can get is through material evidence of the past...the very same things that support evolution, without the benefit of observations of modern day natural phenomena that evolutionists use to extrapolate backwards. This is another advantage evos have. [QUOTE][B]it was always thought that God was the creator and upholder of these natural laws.[/QUOTE][/B]And science just wants to explain everything within those natural laws. regardless of their ultimate origin. Is that so terrible?

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
Sorta like abiogenesis-produce evidence that it happened and then science can include abiogenesis.

---

Sorta, yeah. But only sorta.Abiogenesis is nothing but chemistry. Its a matter of working out how the chemistry happened.God is .... well.... there isn't much to go on at all.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Let's take this definition for a spin. How can we observe and test intelligent design or creation by fiat?

---

We cannot. The definition of Science, should not include the unobserveable and the untestable.

quote:

---

Now, how does abiogenesis rule out God? No matter how much precision an abiogenesis scenario gets it is impossible to ever confirm whether or not that scenario was planned and put into motion by God. So abiogenesis does not necessarily indicate a lack of God. However, to say that something happened because "Godidit" and not explain how it happened, in a *natural* context, is just glorified sorcery and it leads absolutely nowhere useful. It is an excuse to end research.

---

You're right, with my definition of Science. On the other hand, as soon as/if Scientists can explain abiogenesis, it becomes Scientific Fact in the real world. In school I was taught as a fact, that early cells swallowed up organelles like mitochondria and chloroplasts.Science should NOT be concerned with the unobserveable and untestable! If you want to say life came about naturally - fine. If you want to say God created it - fine. Both should have just as much merit. Wether God created life in the past, in your Scenario, it is IMPOSSIBLE to come to that conclusion!Why should a possibility be ruled out? Why is the Origin of life so important? Why do people say if we let God in on that, it's going to bring down Science? God was in, in the beginning of Science -- and we made plenty of progress; progress in observeable and testable Science. Practical science!

quote:

---

And science just wants to explain everything within those natural laws. regardless of their ultimate origin. Is that so terrible?

---

No, that is wonderful. It becomes terrible when Scientists go beyond what Science should, and teach the public that Evolution for all intensive purposes it how we got here, if you believe otherwise, you're ignorant. I think Common Ancestry/Abiogenesis should be completely seperated into Philosophy that is supported by Science. I think Creation should be a branch of philosophy that is supported by Science. Let people choose to believe what they want about Origins -- it isn't going to hinder practical Science one bit if we believe we were created by God or evolved from an ape-like ancestor.David

[QUOTE][B]We cannot. The definition of Science, should not include the unobserveable and the untestable. [/QUOTE][/B]Then you agree that intelligent design is not scienceB [QUOTE][B]On the other hand, as soon as/if Scientists can explain abiogenesis, it becomes Scientific Fact in the real world.[/QUOTE][/B]What is there to "explain" about abiogenesis? Replicating organic molecules emerge from a soup of organics. No laws are broken, and so far there is nothing to rule it out. The best Creationists can do is point out that we don't know the exact environment it happened in. This is, to use an example similar to the one TB used, like ruling out the theories of electric current because they don't cover spin. [QUOTE][B]Science should NOT be concerned with the unobserveable and untestable! If you want to say life came about naturally - fine. If you want to say God created it - fine. Both should have just as much merit.[/QUOTE][/B]But they don't have equal merit. We can get close to early life in the chemistry lab, and we can simulate the conditions of Early Earth.
Until you can speak AAs into existance I can't take your position seriously., Our version of the origin of life is different from your version in another way, because our version can actually be studied. [QUOTE][B]Why do people say if we let God in on that, it's going to bring down Science?[/QUOTE][/B]Because God is not scientific. You say there was a time when we used God to explain things and everything was fine...you are wrong. Back when we used God/demonic possession to explain diseases sorcery was used in place of medicine and germ theory was hindered. Nobody liked the concept of a natural explanation for disease because it was perceived that it removed God from our daily lives. In fact, the whole world was run by God and demons, even something as basic as gardening was ruled by superstition. (Parsley, being a herb of the devil, could only be sown on one day of the year and seeds took so long to sprout because they had to make the journey to Hell seven times before germination. If a woman sowed the seeds she would be impregnated by a demon). We can laugh at it now, but such absurd worldviews are no sillier than YECism. But when we removed God and the Devil from our "explanations" of the natural world things suddenly got better. If the YEC philosophy were still in force in science I'm sure we'd still be bloodletting. [QUOTE][B]Why should a possibility be ruled out?[/QUOTE][/B]Because it goes nowhere. [QUOTE][B]It becomes terrible when Scientists go beyond what Science should, and teach the public that Evolution for all intensive purposes it how we got here[/QUOTE][/B]Evolution is, for all intensive purposes, how we got here, whether or not there was ID involved. It is the best explanation for the evidence. You simply are refusing to interpret the evidence, because for what ever reason, you refuse to accept the answer. You are being dishonest to yourself in the process. [QUOTE][B]I think Common Ancestry/Abiogenesis should be completely seperated into Philosophy that is supported by Science.[/QUOTE][/B]You accept that comman ancestry and abiogenesis are supported by science, or is that a typo?Why should we make them a philosophy? What purpose would it serve? Why not move the Atomic Theory over there as well? You cannot pick and choose scientific theories, you can only refute them...either none go over or all of science goes over. Anything else would only be your own personal favoritism. [QUOTE][B]Let people choose to believe what they want about Origins -- it isn't going to hinder practical Science one bit[/QUOTE][/B]"Practical science"? What's that? All science is the same.However, refusal of common ancestry could cause great harm to genomics, and therefore medicine, because much biochemical data could no longer be extrapolated across species. Knowing how taxonomy has evolved over time gives clues to researchers about how certain operons function and a change in paradigm might profoundly change medicine.EvC from a scientific perspective is not "I'm going to believe what I want, so there..." it is very serious business that could have profound effects upon our future technological progress. I hope your reasons for being a YEC are founded on good science because by attempting to propagate YECism you could be dooming thousands of people and doing the rest of the human race tremendous injustice. Science IS serious business. [QUOTE][B]if we believe we were created by God or evolved from an ape-like ancestor.[/QUOTE][/B]Or you could have been both.

I asked a lot of questions that you answered in your previous post, and then I responded -- so make sure you read everything before starting a reply -- should you bestow me with such an honor!

quote:

---

Then you agree that intelligent design is not science.

---

It cannot be tested, we cannot observe it, and it cannot be falsified. So no, if we all went my my definition, it would not be Science.

quote:

---

What is there to "explain" about abiogenesis? Replicating organic molecules emerge from a soup of organics. No laws are broken, and so far there is nothing to rule it out. The best Creationists can do is point out that we don't know the exact environment it happened in. This is, to use an example similar to the one TB used, like ruling out the theories of electric current because they don't cover spin.

---

No, what I mean is this: If Scientists find a mechanism to naturally form the first cell, what happens? Even though there is no evidence, it will be touted as fact: "This is how we came to be on Earth." It's already said as fact WITHOUT having this mechanism. It's ridiculous. It's even worse than Common Ancestry -- there is ZERO evidence for it happening in the past! Going from "What could have happened," to "This is what happened," is horrible in my opinion.

quote:

---

But they don't have equal merit. We can get close to early life in the chemistry lab, and we can simulate the conditions of Early Earth. Until you can speak AAs into existance I can't take your position seriously., Our version of the origin of life is different from your version in another way, because our version can actually be studied.

---

First of all, all they show in the lab is, it takes intelligence to create life. And they DO have equal merit -- because NO human was there to observe life forming! This isn't science... there is no way to falsify the claim that life formed in a chemical soup. None! None! There won't ever be without a time machine.By the way, since the Universe is only 6,000 years old, what would happen if you went back a billion or two years?

quote:

---

Because God is not scientific.

---

Nor is saying life came about naturally. Unless you have a video tape of some sort. And why should it be defined that Science is the only way to find truth? Can you test empiricism empirically by the way?

quote:

---

You say there was a time when we used God to explain things and everything was fine...you are wrong. Back when we used God/demonic possession to explain diseases sorcery was used in place of medicine and germ theory was hindered.

---

Present and Observeable.

quote:

---

Nobody liked the concept of a natural explanation for disease because it was perceived that it removed God from our daily lives.

---

But couldn't have God USED disease and natural causes an... oh...

quote:

---

In fact, the whole world was run by God and demons, even something as basic as gardening was ruled by superstition. (Parsley, being a herb of the devil, could only be sown on one day of the year and seeds took so long to sprout because they had to make the journey to Hell seven times before germination.

---

It sounds to me like people weren't sticking to the Bible for the truth. I agree, that is horrible! I think it's worse now though.

quote:

---

If a woman sowed the seeds she would be impregnated by a demon).

---

non-biblical.

quote:

---

We can laugh at it now, but such absurd worldviews are no sillier than YECism. But when we removed God and the Devil from our "explanations" of the natural world things suddenly got better. If the YEC philosophy were still in force in science I'm sure we'd still be bloodletting.

---

Gene90, I'm sure you're aware that YECism, even if wrong, does not hinder ANY practical science. I really dislike this tactic of comparing something one group says happened in the past according to the Bible, with say... medical research.

quote:

---

Because it goes nowhere.

---

And where does believing we evolved from an ape-like critter get us, that believing we are made in the Image of God does not? I can think of a lot of bad things evolution gives... but nothing good. Maybe you can help? Has believing you evolved from an ape helped you design some sort of cure?

quote:

---

Evolution is, for all intensive purposes, how we got here, whether or not there was ID involved. It is the best explanation for the evidence. You simply are refusing to interpret the evidence, because for what ever reason, you refuse to accept the answer. You are being dishonest to yourself in the process.

---

No, I am not being dishonest. I believe Evolution comes from the desire to find a way to prove something happened naturally. But that assumption has no evidence. You take it on faith. If every Scientist in the world started with Creation in mind, we would have a whole different set of evidence. There would be more Scientists developing creationism, so we would have better theories. They would be better tested.The Bible says you must become a fool, in order to be wise. The wisdom of the world is foolishness with God. I will always believe what the only person alive at Creation says.

quote:

---

You accept that comman ancestry and abiogenesis are supported by science, or is that a typo?

---

Creationism and Evolution are the same, in that: They are not Science. But you try to support them by science. Since neither can be falsified, all we can do is look at data, and fit it in with the model we want. Facts do not speak for themselves!

quote:

---

Why should we make them a philosophy? What purpose would it serve? Why not move the Atomic Theory over there as well? You cannot pick and choose scientific theories, you can only refute them...either none go over or all of science goes over. Anything else would only be your own personal favoritism.

---

Atomic Theory is in the present. Testable.
Evolution is in the past. Untestable.

quote:

---

"Practical science"? What's that? All science is the same.

---

Practical Science is in the present -- has a purpose -- has a use -- is testable -- can be falsified. Naturalistic Explanations and Creation are so plastic that nothing could contradict the ideas.

quote:

---

However, refusal of common ancestry could cause great harm to genomics, and therefore medicine, because much biochemical data could no longer be extrapolated across species. Knowing how taxonomy has evolved over time gives clues to researchers about how certain operons function and a change in paradigm might profoundly change medicine.

---

Why must common ancestry be the explanation? Why can't God have created life as it is -- why can't we still do the same research on the creatures we have alive today? We can make the same charts, can't we? Common Ancestry isn't required.

quote:

---

EvC from a scientific perspective is not "I'm going to believe what I want, so there..." it is very serious business that could have profound effects upon our future technological progress. I hope your reasons for being a YEC are founded on good science because by attempting to propagate YECism you could be dooming thousands of people and doing the rest of the human race tremendous injustice. Science IS serious business.

---

It is serious business. Some people are not getting saved, because they think if they can't trust Genesis, why trust the rest of the Bible. On the other hand -- there is nothing we can't do with YEC, that we can do with CA.David[This message has been edited by halcyonwaters, 08-20-2002]