• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

My Problem with Creation Science

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I'll let you have the last word since I can see it is so very important to you.
That's awesome. Thanks. 👍

Genesis is an essential part of the Bible and the history in it central to the gospel. Your notion that science and scripture must not be mixed is to be ignored.

👍👍👍
 

Trump Gurl

Credo in Unum Deum
Temp Banned
And the OP stands as unrefuted Truth.

QUOTE
Science is science, the systematic study of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

The Bible is the Bible, writings inspired by the Holy Spirit to explain why God created the all things, why He created man in his own image, and the ultimate destiny of man.

They mix like Oil and Vinegar, and those who mix them are often led down rabbit holes of the most insane theories.

A quote:

159 Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”​
283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: “It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me.”​
284 The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called “God”? And if the world does come from God’s wisdom and goodness, why is there evil? Where does it come from? Who is responsible for it? Is there any liberation from it?​

Source Link

Some things go beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences, as was quoted. The Bible is not a science book and was never intended to be, despite the claims of some that it is. It does not lay out facts and figures in nice orderly verifiable ways like science books does. It is a spiritual work, written in the literary style of the human author, and inspired by the Holy Spirit to deliver a certain truth.

The Holy Spirit teaches us Faith and things of the Spirit. That is what we should look for from the Bible. We should not be looking to the Bible to figure out precise dates and timelines and so forth.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
OP stands as unrefuted Truth.

The claim:

Science is science... The Bible is the Bible... They mix like Oil and Vinegar.

The refutation: Because you say so?

Yep, that's good enough. That which is presented without evidence can be sensibly rejected for any reason.

But just to make doubly certain that we are on the right side here, let's go through some of the science in the Bible: 👍👍👍👍

Genesis​
1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.​
Deuteronomy​
4:19 And take heed, lest you lift your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, you feel driven to worship them and serve them, which the LORD your God has given to all the peoples under the whole heaven as a heritage.​
Job​
8:11-12 Can papyrus grow where there is no marsh? Can reeds flourish where there is no water? While yet in flower and not cut down, they wither before any other plant.​
9:9 Who made the Bear and Orion, the Pleiades and the chambers of the south​
26:7 He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.​
28:25 When he gave to the wind its weight and apportioned the waters by measure.​
35:11 Who teaches us more than the beasts of the earth and makes us wiser than the birds of the heavens?​
36:27-33 For he draws up the drops of water; they distill his mist in rain, which the skies pour down and drop on mankind abundantly. Can anyone understand the spreading of the clouds, the thunderings of his pavilion? Behold, he scatters his lightning about him and covers the roots of the sea. For by these he judges peoples; he gives food in abundance.​
38:4-30 Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements?​
1 Kings​
4:29-34 And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding beyond measure, and breadth of mind like the sand on the seashore, so that Solomon's wisdom surpassed the wisdom of all the people of the east and all the wisdom of Egypt. For he was wiser than all other men, wiser than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, Calcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol, and his fame was in all the surrounding nations. He also spoke 3,000 proverbs, and his songs were 1,005. He spoke of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of the wall. He spoke also of beasts, and of birds, and of reptiles, and of fish.​
Ecclesiastes​
11:5 As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.​
Psalms​
104:5 He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.​
111:2 Great are the works of the Lord, studied by all who delight in them.​
Proverbs​
6:6-8 Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise. Without having any chief, officer, or ruler, she prepares her bread in summer and gathers her food in harvest.​
25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.​
Isaiah​
40:12 Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand and marked off the heavens with a span, enclosed the dust of the earth in a measure and weighed the mountains in scales and the hills in a balance?​
40:22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in.​
Amos​
4:13 For behold, he who forms the mountains and creates the wind, and declares to man what is his thought, who makes the morning darkness, and treads on the heights of the earth — the Lord, the God of hosts, is his name!​
9:6 Who builds his upper chambers in the heavens and founds his vault upon the earth; who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out upon the surface of the earth — the Lord is his name.​
Joel 2:30-31 And I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke. The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes.​
Daniel​
2:43 As you saw the iron mixed with soft clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage, but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay.​
Jeremiah​
33:2-3 Thus says the Lord who made the earth, the Lord who formed it to establish it—the Lord is his name: Call to me and I will answer you, and will tell you great and hidden things that you have not known.​
John​
3:12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?​
Romans​
1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.​
Colossians​
1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.​
Hebrews​
11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.​
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.​
H/T
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You're wrong of course. I just got through proving it.



Of course they say whatever they want but, as I seem to never stop telling people, saying it doesn't make it so.


So you allow an argument that you openly admit that you don't really understand to defeat the single most tested idea in all of human thought?

Do you believe in perpetual motion machines? Do you believe that they are at all possible? Do you believe that if a machine is sufficiently complex that it might somehow be able to function in the opposite direction, away from entropy? Isn't it true that the more complex a system, the higher the rate of entropy?

No! That is not the argument. It is not about how unlikely it is. It is not unlikely it is impossible. "Unlikely" implies that it is possible. It is not possible - period. The "likelihood" is ZERO. It cannot have happened. Let me repeat - It CANNOT have happened.

There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that the batteries in your favorite flashlight are going to maintain their charge while the light is on. It isn't just unlikely that such a thing will happen, it CANNOT happen at all. Your car will run out of gas, the Earth will not spin on its axis forever, the Sun will eventually burn itself out. It DOES NOT happen the other way around - ever!

That is not my opinion nor is it a theory. It is not only the most tested and repeatedly proven fact of existence, it happens to be one of the foundatonal laws of the whole of science.

Clete
This reminds me of the football analogy that proves the point of impossibility. How far away can a field goal kicker score a field goal? We don't really know the farthest for sure beyond which it becomes impossible. Let's say the longest is 64 yards. Will 65 ever be possible? If that is achieved then how about 66? No? Impossible? Hmmmm... I don't think you could prove 66 is impossible.

The problem is... the length of the field goal is not the point. The point is to win the game. Same with Common Descent. The point is not if a particular succession of mutations over generations is possible, but whether that is the best way to get the detailed information we see in life today. Just like a coach will not try a 75 yard field goal over just about any other play, Common Descent will have to abandon the argument of mutation+natural selection because what was always true it will be known to be, even by their own admission when they don't have complete control of the narrative, impossible.
 

Right Divider

Body part
This reminds me of the football analogy that proves the point of impossibility. How far away can a field goal kicker score a field goal? We don't really know the farthest for sure beyond which it becomes impossible. Let's say the longest is 64 yards. Will 65 ever be possible? If that is achieved then how about 66? No? Impossible? Hmmmm... I don't think you could prove 66 is impossible.

The problem is... the length of the field goal is not the point. The point is to win the game. Same with Common Descent. The point is not if a particular succession of mutations over generations is possible, but whether that is the best way to get the detailed information we see in life today. Just like a coach will not try a 75 yard field goal over just about any other play, Common Descent will have to abandon the argument of mutation+natural selection because what was always true it will be known to be, even by their own admission when they don't have complete control of the narrative, impossible.
Also, most evolutionists do not seem to understand that common descent works in the creationist model as well. The difference is that creationists believe that the common descent is NOT from a SINGLE common ancestor, but the created kinds.

They typically start begging the question about the SINGLE common ancestor, like pointing out that DNA is common to all life.... DUH. The Creator used a common coding system for all life that He created. Problem solved.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
This reminds me of the football analogy that proves the point of impossibility. How far away can a field goal kicker score a field goal? We don't really know the farthest for sure beyond which it becomes impossible. Let's say the longest is 64 yards. Will 65 ever be possible? If that is achieved then how about 66? No? Impossible? Hmmmm... I don't think you could prove 66 is impossible.

The problem is... the length of the field goal is not the point. The point is to win the game. Same with Common Descent. The point is not if a particular succession of mutations over generations is possible, but whether that is the best way to get the detailed information we see in life today. Just like a coach will not try a 75 yard field goal over just about any other play, Common Descent will have to abandon the argument of mutation+natural selection because what was always true it will be known to be, even by their own admission when they don't have complete control of the narrative, impossible.
Well, true enough but any discussion about common descent or any other aspect of evolution jumps well past the point of how life began in the first place. When asked how life could have arrisen from lifelessness, the best answer you get from any evolutionists is "I don't know." and they think that such a response ends the debate. When confronted with the implications that come from the most basic laws of science they simply squeeze their eyes as tightly shut as they can and pretend that its a problem that some future generation will solve.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Well, true enough but any discussion about common descent or any other aspect of evolution jumps well past the point of how life began in the first place.
Which is why they avoid that topic like the plague.
When asked how life could have arrisen from lifelessness, the best answer you get from any evolutionists is "I don't know." and they think that such a response ends the debate.
Sad for them, isn't it?
When confronted with the implications that come from the most basic laws of science they simply squeeze their eyes as tightly shut as they can and pretend that its a problem that some future generation will solve.
The typical atheist scientist is of the mind that "someday we'll figure it all out on our own".
 

Idolater

Well-known member
@Idolater -- You subscribe to a global flood, right?
Correctamundo, and I also subscribe to the other verses in 2nd Peter chapter three as well, like verses 10 and 12, we all Catholics believe in those verses, so I don't understand the position where Genesis chapter one and two are other than 2nd Peter 3:10 and 12. But, at the same time, I'm told to not worry about it, so I don't.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
This question you asked completely undermines your own position. There is no reason to think that the soil in the garden was anything other than fertile soil.
Course there isn't. That was my whole point. And so, the conclusion is, that, since we know what fertile soil is, that it's made from sand and silt and clay (all rock), and from organic matter . . .

which is dead stuff. But there was no dead stuff in Eden. That soil had never been alive before, God made it in situ, in place, as perfectly as perfectly fertile soil could possibly be, and so we know of course that it was chock full of nutrients including organic matter, which had been degraded so well, that it was easy for plants' roots to absorb all the water and nourishment that it could from that soil, because it was made from what we now call decayed, degraded organic material, compost in other words. There wasn't any decayed plant or animal or fungal matter available. God had to make it right then. There wasn't any cattle feces, there wasn't any cattle yet. Well maybe there was cattle feces. Maybe that's how God made the soil from Eden, He took some cow poop and mixed it with sand and silt and clay, and bedded the Garden with it.

Well I was going to say, that God is the obvious originator of this idea of sustainable and renewability. He knew that making soil for Eden wasn't going to sustain itself, the soil would be used up, consumed, and it'd have to be replaced, somehow basically automatically, to ensure that the earth never ran out of good fertile soil, so He created the sustainable process of producing fertile soil all the time basically automatically.

Which is like a perpetual motion machine, really, in at least one important way. I actually believe the miracles of the Catholic faith, because there are these basically perpetual motion machines all over creation, almost as if someone playful was just setting things up for us to find, that were set up "billions of years" ago for us, just so that we today still, never have to consider the problem of, "We're literally running out of fertile soil and we don't know how to change the whole earth's process so that we don't run out of fertile soil, in like 100 years".

We never have to come together as a globe and figure out, "How are we going to get more of this water? We're all like two-thirds water by weight, and we don't know where to get it." Because it rains all the time. We never, especially not now as a globalized world, have to endure anything like a worldwide drought. Someone, somewhere, is getting rained on. But my point is that this earth couldn't have been designed any more imaginatively and creatively and cleverly and frankly, efficiently, and safely, I guess it could be summed up with the word "wondrously". It could not have been more wondrously made, especially when seen through the eyes of mankind, this whole universe was obviously designed around us, we are the whole point of this.

And that's just called the anthropic principle.

So why insist that there were also fossils in the ground?

It's simply adding to scripture, reading something into scripture that just isn't there to begin with. Eisegesis, rather than exegesis.
There's no scripture licensing you or anybody else to consider yourself a Christian without being under the pastoral authority of your own bishop. You're adding to Scripture, reading something into Scripture that just into there to begin with. And the irony is that all the bishops say, that you are a Christian anyway, even though you add to Scripture, reading something into Scripture that just isn't there to begin with.

All they really say is that you have to believe in Christ, to be a Christian. All the Catholic bishops say that, all together with one voice.

You can read it right in the Catechism, it was first published in the mid-1990s and includes the last council, that occurred in the 1960s.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Correctamundo, and I also subscribe to the other verses in 2nd Peter chapter three as well, like verses 10 and 12, we all Catholics believe in those verses, so I don't understand the position where Genesis chapter one and two are other than 2nd Peter 3:10 and 12. But, at the same time, I'm told to not worry about it, so I don't.
Can you please be more precise. What is the issue?

In 2nd Peter, Peter is explaining why the Lord is delaying His coming and the associated judgement. They (those that Peter is responding to) were ignoring the great judgement of the FLOOD.
2Pe 3:4 KJV 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.
They were willfully ignoring the flood, much like most of the world today.

Peter also defers to Paul to help explain the delay in the Lord's return.
2Pe 3:15-16 KJV And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; (16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Notice that Peter talks about wisdom given to PAUL. He does NOT say wisdom given to US (i.e., all apostles).

Why does Peter say that some of Paul's epistles contain things that are hard to understand? I can explain, but not many will listen to sound reason regarding that.
 
Last edited:

Idolater

Well-known member
Sounds like a platitude. Is there some takeaway?
It's not. It's specifically correcting a notion where one's ecclesiology is thought to determine his or her or neither his nor her status with regard to God.
You do know that soil can be fertile even after having all of the life boiled out of it, right?
That was my point. But in the Garden there was no life-container that had to die and get boiled in order for its soil to be fertile.
It's not important. I read your explanation of what you believe a bit more and my response doesn't really apply. :)
OK.
Why do you believe this?
Because I don't believe that all the dating methods used to calculate "billions of years" are wrong, even though I don't believe in "billions of years". So that means that our instruments and methods are telling us a story, a story that's written in the rocks. And so I'm just saying that the story written in the rocks is a fairy tale. God never explained why He wrote that story, so I could only guess.
There doesn't seem to be much point if Idolater is simply going to say that God made the fossils in situ. He's a smart fella. I reckon he knows the mainstream explanation for why we see fossils. The Darwinist explanation is more scientifically satisfying than his.

The best explanation for his posts in this thread that I can come up with is that he's trolling us. :D
The biggest problem I'm having is getting people to agree that almost all of the PhDs who are PhDs in relevant fields or domains, say that the fossils themselves are "millions of years" old. It's like, we can't even agree on that? We're never going to agree if we can't even agree on that.
 

Right Divider

Body part
The biggest problem I'm having is getting people to agree that almost all of the PhDs who are PhDs in relevant fields or domains, say that the fossils themselves are "millions of years" old. It's like, we can't even agree on that? We're never going to agree if we can't even agree on that.
It does not matter how many PhD's believe something. That does NOT make it true.

You just cling to logical fallacies. You're not alone.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
Can you please be more precise. What is the issue?

In 2nd Peter, Peter is explaining why the Lord is delaying His coming and the associated judgement. They (those that Peter is responding to) were ignore the great judgement of the FLOOD.

They were willfully ignoring the flood, much like most of the world today.

Peter also defers to Paul to help explain the delay in the Lord's return.

Notice that Peter talks about wisdom given to PAUL. He does NOT say wisdom given to US (i.e., all apostles).

Why does Peter say that some of Paul's epistles contain things that are hard to understand? I can explain, but not many will listen to sound reason regarding that.
The issue is that we're told the fate of this earth in 2nd Peter 3:10 and 12, we hear it read to us in Mass. It sounds just as fantastical as Genesis one does, but I've never heard Catholics try and say that 2nd Peter 3:10 and 12 aren't science, is all. We believe this is all going to be burned up! Somehow. But that it will all be burned up, we are all in agreement. It just seems arbitrary to me to take 2nd Peter 3:10 and 12 literally but not Genesis one and two. But I'm still told not to worry about, so I don't worry about it. I just go to Mass like I'm told.

And I'm happy.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
It does not matter how many PhD's believe something. That does NOT make it true.

You just cling to logical fallacies. You're not alone.
I'm not claiming that they're really that old! I'm only claiming that all the relevant PhDs (with a small minority of exceptions) say that all of their methods and instruments calculate that the dinosaur fossils are "millions of years" old.

Do you agree or not? Not with the content. But with that they are saying that content.
 
Top