Creation vs. Evolution

[Sas]

I guess what you are getting at is how do creation scientists do experiments to prove that God created the universe? It can't be done. There is no single experiment that can be done to prove that.

Thanks!

Yes, that was what I was getting at. Thanks for at least being honest about admitting to the fact that creationists cannot follow the scientific method as their hypotheses are untestable. Not many creationists will admit to that. Which I believe was my point when I said they'd struggle with the fourth step.

 

[coachpill]

Yes, that was what I was getting at. Thanks for at least being honest about admitting to the fact that creationists cannot follow the scientific method as their hypotheses are untestable. Not many creationists will admit to that. Which I believe was my point when I said they'd struggle with the fourth step.

You are most certainly welcome!!!

However, you made a huge jump in conclusions...you made the statement that "their hypotheses" (plural) are untestable. Not necessarily. I mentioned one untestable hypothesis in my previous post (about God existing and creating). Many of creationists other hypotheses can be answered (see my other post about the different kinds of experiments that creation scientists perform).

The unfortunate other side of the coin is that there is no single experiment to prove that millions of years of random mutation acted upon by natural selection on a prokaryote could produce a human...which is the evolutionist hypothesis.

So since I answered most honestly that the underlying philosophical construct of "God exists and created" cannot be answered via the scientific method, I guess the next logical question is to find one single experiment that proves what I stated in the paragraph above; that being that a human can be produced by natural selection acting on random mutations of a prokaryotic organism over millions of years.

If you decide to do that experiment, make sure you ask for the fiancial support for that experiment "up front" as the length of the experiment would surely outlast you.

Yes, there have been experiments done on bacteria that have gone into the 10,000s of generations over many, many years. The result? Yes, they mutated. Yes, they probably produced even a novel species. But they are in fact still bacteria.

Again, thanks for the posts! I appreciate all things scientific.

 

[Soggy]

Oh, gee, a myriad of topics...from determining the best crop rotation, to experiments on disease causes and cures, to innovative ways to grow plants in differing environments, to physics/engineering studies on building better motors, etc...

Huh? How has creationism influenced these studies? And can you CITE them. Scientific claims without citation are worthless.

I guess what you are getting at is how do creation scientists do experiments to prove that God created the universe? It can't be done. There is no single experiment that can be done to prove that.

Thanks for admitting that there is no such thing as creation science.

 

[coachpill]

Huh? How has creationism influenced these studies? And can you CITE them. Scientific claims without citation are worthless.



Thanks for admitting that there is no such thing as creation science.

First, the question was about creation scientists. There are plenty of scientists that work in the aforementioned fields that adhere to a strictly biblical account of creation. Hopefully that answers that.

You clearly are trying to put words into my online mouth, aren't you? Read my previous post. Funny statement, though! I laughed hysterically when I read it! Seriously, I just about spewed my milk all over my keyboard!

Thanks guys! Again, I really appreciate the conversation...you guys are great!

 

[ChilledMammal]

"Originally Posted by AXL72 View Post
Finally, I find it appalling that the bible and christianity in general would stoop so low and be so blatant to actually come out with the first of the 10 commandments, "You shall have no other gods before Me,"

The level of historical and cultural ignorance required to believe that the first commandment is about cash flow is really quite amusing.

Sorry all this was a few posts back but really requires a reply.

The logic to prove that god does not exist is within the supernatural texts themselves.

If you assume the evidence for any religion is the same and all religions are equally valid, then there can be no true gods and the founding statement for these supernatural religions is false.

Steps:
1. There are at least 2 religions (Islam and Christianity for starters, but there are obviously many many more) which state that their god is the one and only true god.

2. Given that only one can be the true god, yet there are more than one, and they all state they are the true one. They must all be false, there cannot be one true god.

3. Therefore the statement in these religious texts cannot be true, therefore these texts are false. And it follows the texts have no credibility beyond words written by people to convey a particular agenda at that time in history.


The evidence and science behind the belief in the supernatural is all the same the evidence for gods, religion, creationism, fairies, gnomes, father christmas, Bunyips (australian billabong creature) is all same and is a belief in the supernatural, completely unfounded feel good stuff. I am loath to put the poor old Bunyip in there but there is the same amount of evidence for it as there is for god or the tooth fairy.

 

[ChilledMammal]

First, the question was about creation scientists. There are plenty of scientists that work in the aforementioned fields that adhere to a strictly biblical account of creation. Hopefully that answers that.

Could you please list three for my education? As I am not aware of any.

 

[Soggy]

First, the question was about creation scientists. There are plenty of scientists that work in the aforementioned fields that adhere to a strictly biblical account of creation. Hopefully that answers that.

Please identify a few of them and cite their work.

You clearly are trying to put words into my online mouth, aren't you? Read my previous post. Funny statement, though! I laughed hysterically when I read it! Seriously, I just about spewed my milk all over my keyboard!

Now you know how I've felt for the past 460 pages of this thread.

 

[coachpill]

Please identify a few of them and cite their work.
Now you know how I've felt for the past 460 pages of this thread.

Funny! I'll try not to put any words into your mouth. Maybe I'll try a new fandangled technique of asking for you to clarify something before I comment! Lol. Wouldn't that be a change?

Alrighty then.

I could give you a couple of names of people that work in science fields that adhere to a Biblical account of creation, but they have no published documents. A couple of them are personal acquaintances so I'm fairly sure you wouldn't know them. So I guess I need to ask you one of those clarifying questions now, don't I?

Are you asking for published scientists (in secular peer reviewed journals) that adhere to a Biblical account? Or are you simply asking for scientists working in science fields that adhere to a Biblical account?

Thanks for the comments! I appreciate it much.

 

[Kingpatzer]

If you assume the evidence for any religion is the same and all religions are equally valid, then there can be no true gods and the founding statement for these supernatural religions is false.

Steps:
1. There are at least 2 religions (Islam and Christianity for starters, but there are obviously many many more) which state that their god is the one and only true god.

And both those religions recognize each other's God as the same being. They quibble on how we, as human beings, understand and relate to that God, but the identity of the diety is not questioned. Toss in Judaism in there as well.

Muhammed recieved Christians and Jews as "People of the Book." So your already on shaky ground.

You can read plenty about how Orthodox, Catholic and main-line Protestant churches think about non-Christian religions, but what it comes down to is that your statement above is lacking both any understanding of history and theology of at least 2 major religions.

2. Given that only one can be the true god, yet there are more than one, and they all state they are the true one. They must all be false, there cannot be one true god.

It is also equally possible that you have multiple views of the same human interraction with the transcendent from people with radically different world-views. Indeed, within the New Testment books, Paul notes that "For now we see through a glass, darkly."

3. Therefore the statement in these religious texts cannot be true, therefore these texts are false. And it follows the texts have no credibility beyond words written by people to convey a particular agenda at that time in history.

Or maybe you've built a straw-man argument based on ignorance of normative beliefs, historical development, and sound theology. But hey, why should the fundaholic believers have all the fun. Ferverent adherence to one's own arrogance doesn't happen just with those who are religious.

The evidence and science behind the belief in the supernatural is all the same the evidence for gods, religion, creationism, fairies, gnomes, father christmas, Bunyips (australian billabong creature) is all same and is a belief in the supernatural, completely unfounded feel good stuff. I am loath to put the poor old Bunyip in there but there is the same amount of evidence for it as there is for god or the tooth fairy.

Uh, yeah. Ok.

 

[Soggy]

Are you asking for published scientists (in secular peer reviewed journals) that adhere to a Biblical account? Or are you simply asking for scientists working in science fields that adhere to a Biblical account?

I'm asking for published scientists that adhere to a biblical account that are published in journals that do not have a creationist slant and peer reviewed by scientists that do not have a creationist bias. Without that, their research has no value, as it does not hold up to scrutiny.