SeaYoda
Contributor
I really tried to read all of this thread but it kept repeating the same old tired arguments on both sides so I didn't make it. If I repeat something that someone else has said - sorry. Definitions seem to be some of the difficulty in a discussion of this topic. I'll do my best to be clear in what I'm about to say - sorry if I'm not. Science is a lot like religion - each has many who disagree within its ranks as to particulars. Each is a system of faith - some based in truth others error. A discussion like this could never answer for all facets of either of these faiths, I don't claim to be able to either.
To start, here is some food for thought:
1. If God exists and is supreme, could he not have the power to create the universe in 6 days?
2. If God created the universe in 6 days, would it have to look brand new?
I'm a Christian who believes that the Bible is literal in the 6 days of creation and the true age of the Earth is less than 10,000 years. In the days of creation, according to Genesis, God made all things in a complete form and set the laws for the continuance of all things. How old did Adam look to be 2 seconds after his creation? There must have been "apparent age" present in Adam and all creation. Why would God mislead us with such a "false looking" creation? If you read the scriptures it is evident that God intends to give us the choice to believe in him or not. We can take him at his word or not. If the world looked 6000 years old, would we have any choice but to believe in God? Everything in "evolution" and "science" does not contradict or disprove God's existence. You and I are free to interpret the "facts" and in the end we will account for our actions. This is faith and will NEVER be replaced by sight in this world.
"Science" makes a mistake when it discounts plausible theories such as creationism or intelligent design. "Science" has always had a difficult time getting at the truth due to biases of pet theories. Look at how long some of the true scientific facts have taken to gain approval in scientific circles. Facts are nothing when they are taken out of context. "Science" learns as it understands the context better. Look at all the changing theories over time and ask why something that was once believed as fact could be totally wrong today. The fact that there is mutation and micro-evolution can be just a part of intelligent design. The fact that many animals share characteristics and are closely related genetically and are made of mostly the same stuff can be because they were created to be suited to this world. The age of rocks and the distance/time light has taken to reach the Earth may be part of a created functioning universe. To discount what we have no proof for or against is pretty arrogant and sets us up for failure. Unfortunately our children are taught in school only the faith of evolution without the balance of the other faith. I would not want my children taught a specific religion, but being taught a plausible alternative theory to evolution from a scientific point of view would be very welcome. There are scientists who can match point for point what evolutionists claim as facts and claim them as proof of intelligent design. To discount these theories is going against scientific method and should bring the same fate on evolution theory as creationism - don't teach it on my tax dollar.
How did I do?
To start, here is some food for thought:
1. If God exists and is supreme, could he not have the power to create the universe in 6 days?
2. If God created the universe in 6 days, would it have to look brand new?
I'm a Christian who believes that the Bible is literal in the 6 days of creation and the true age of the Earth is less than 10,000 years. In the days of creation, according to Genesis, God made all things in a complete form and set the laws for the continuance of all things. How old did Adam look to be 2 seconds after his creation? There must have been "apparent age" present in Adam and all creation. Why would God mislead us with such a "false looking" creation? If you read the scriptures it is evident that God intends to give us the choice to believe in him or not. We can take him at his word or not. If the world looked 6000 years old, would we have any choice but to believe in God? Everything in "evolution" and "science" does not contradict or disprove God's existence. You and I are free to interpret the "facts" and in the end we will account for our actions. This is faith and will NEVER be replaced by sight in this world.
"Science" makes a mistake when it discounts plausible theories such as creationism or intelligent design. "Science" has always had a difficult time getting at the truth due to biases of pet theories. Look at how long some of the true scientific facts have taken to gain approval in scientific circles. Facts are nothing when they are taken out of context. "Science" learns as it understands the context better. Look at all the changing theories over time and ask why something that was once believed as fact could be totally wrong today. The fact that there is mutation and micro-evolution can be just a part of intelligent design. The fact that many animals share characteristics and are closely related genetically and are made of mostly the same stuff can be because they were created to be suited to this world. The age of rocks and the distance/time light has taken to reach the Earth may be part of a created functioning universe. To discount what we have no proof for or against is pretty arrogant and sets us up for failure. Unfortunately our children are taught in school only the faith of evolution without the balance of the other faith. I would not want my children taught a specific religion, but being taught a plausible alternative theory to evolution from a scientific point of view would be very welcome. There are scientists who can match point for point what evolutionists claim as facts and claim them as proof of intelligent design. To discount these theories is going against scientific method and should bring the same fate on evolution theory as creationism - don't teach it on my tax dollar.
How did I do?
. As long as Creationists try to apply scientific methods to prove or disprove Creationism, I would more than welcome them to the scientific fold. Its just that Creationists base their belief on the Bible and do not even try to test the theory. Fitting facts to Christian faith is not Science. It is Faith. The arguments used by Creationists esp in radioactive dating have always been incomplete. They exploit weakenesses in the methodology of radioactive dating and use it to "prove" Creationism. That is the main issue I have with it. All Creationists want is to disprove Evolution as a theory, not to disprove/prove Creationism as one. There is definitely something not scientific about that.
