My Problem with Creation Science

[Right Divider]

I would comment just on this.

Probably 30 years ago there were a lot of creationist videos floating around on the pre flood world and the world after the flood. The major theme was that the pre flood earth was radically different than the post flood earth. Before the flood there was a band of water surrounding the earth. It filtered out the radiation of space and stopped the influx of ultraviolet light. It also gave the earth's atmosphere a higher oxygen content and atmospheric pressure. It was very much like a biometric chamber. This caused plant growth to explode and as dinosaurs were mainly plant eaters their function was to keep the flora eaten back in areas which were not populated. They were the large scale goats of today when it came to eating back the excess foliage as a goat can eat just about any kind of woody foliage.

The "water canopy" theory is a complete failure.

As the post flood earth would have a much thinner atmosphere there would be no need for large animals to eat back flora as there would not be the same growth rates due to a greatly changed atmosphere. And there would be ice and snow during the winters which did not exist before the flood which also negates plant growth like there was before the flood.

A reasonable statement.

So, my point is that God didn't bring the dinosaurs on the ark because they would have simply starved to death in the greatly changed post flood world.

You have no way to knowing that "God didn't bring the dinosaurs on the ark". It is true that dinosaurs might have had problems post-flood and died due to the changed environment, like the much lower oxygen content of the atmosphere. But there is no evidence that God excluded them from the ark.

As evidence of this there has been found buried deep underground brass that cannot be duplicated today except in small foundries in which all ultraviolet light has been filtered out.

Pre-flood and post-flood conditions were definitely much different. Even the length of a day changed quite a bit.

 

[Omniskeptical]

With water on top.



The average size of the animals on the ark would have been about the size of a sheep.

Even smaller and limited to creatures of the earth i.e. livestock and maybe rats/mice/rodents.

Also, you're forgetting that animals, even dinos, grow in size as time goes on. The dinos we see in museums were most likely adults.

Not in forty days/nights i.e. 40 tides.

But there was no requirement for all the animals, dinos included, to be adults.

Some biologist asked me the question of how big the animals were? He was skeptical, but it was an awesome question nonetheless.

You're also forgetting that the Bible GIVES US the dimensions of the ark, in clear enough detail that Answers in Genesis has even built a life-size replica of it.

And the dimensions are much smaller than Ken Ham's suggestions.

I recommend you check it out.

Ark Encounter

Prepare to be blown away as you explore the life-size reconstruction of Noah’s Ark.

answersingenesis.org

I wouldn't bother.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes but this depends upon us knowing for certain what the unit of measurement was.

A biblical cubit is about 18 inches. A cubit is the length from the elbow to the tip of one's middle finger.

While I don't doubt the numerals given, I do doubt that we know what that unit of measurement was. It might be larger than we think.

We do, in fact, know the measurement. Not the precise length, but close enough that it's not a big deal.

 

[Omniskeptical]

I guess my opinion is worth nothing here.

 

[Stripe]

I guess my opinion is worth nothing here.

Who are you?

 

[ok doser]

Who are you?

He's Batman

 

[marke]

The problem is the claim that God wrote the Bible and that it's infallible. If that were true then there is no debate with scientific observations of the earth, physics, math etc.

Men may think science disproves the Bible but it doesn't. Men who disbelieve God also misunderstand science.

 

[marke]

The scriptures were written as if they meant what they said and said what they meant. If young earth creationism isn't accurate then its the scripture that is misleading people not the observations of science.

Scientific truth and facts do not contradict the Bible, men who misunderstand scientific facts and truth misunderstand the Bible as well.

 

[marke]

The conditions of the time that the Hebrew priest wrote the scriptures for an Israelite audience was one of complete ignorance about the origins of life, the age of the earth as well as the fact that in the future we would figure out that they were guessing.

The authors of the scriptures were human, they conveyed what they wanted to convey. God wasn't dictating what to say in ANY form. They wrote as if God were speaking in order to control the masses. Like the wizard of OZ hiding behind the curtain. Preachers often preach as if they are inspired.

Who is more ignorant about the origin of life than the best humanist minds in the secular world? Richard Dawkins, for example, has no clue how life began on earth but he says he is welcome to the idea that aliens brought life to earth on spaceships (a theory first made popular by Nobel Prize-winning DNA researcher Francis Crick), but Dawkins emphatically denies that God had anything to do with it. Naturally, Dawkins provides no science to back up his claims about either God or aliens.

 

[marke]

And, Why does the story as told "in the rocks" (fossils, sedimentary layers, dating techniques, etc.) suggest that the universe is "governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity", if it is instead governed by God? This is the trouble with this text in the Catechism imo.

Let me set out right away, that we as Christians are free to believe in evolution and billions of years and all that, there's no obligation to believe in a young earth or six days. We are also free to not believe in evolution and billions of years though.

And also I note for your sake, that I do not think this text is Apostolic in origin. For those who don't know; while the Catechism includes every Apostolic teaching that has been revealed to us to date (up to and including the second Vatican council), not every text comes directly from them---but there isn't a crib sheet to inform us which texts are directly Apostolic and which ones aren't. We do know that Apostolicity wrt teachings is limited to faith /doctrine, and morals. So any guidance on science, politics, the arts, etc., where they don't touch on either faith or morals, are categorically distinct from all that the Church believes is Apostolic in origin, and therefore divine in authority.

Peace to you.

Evolution has been made to appear to be supported by science, but it is not. The genetic code does not allow for growth and changes to itself which are supposedly based on some sort of magical natural selection power to do so. The human brain is physical but thoughts are not. Random uncaused chemical reactions do not create intelligent thoughts.

 

[marke]

What has any of that got to do with science.

God has declared the fact of the origin of the universe and of life on earth is irrefutable proof of His supernatural creation so that any human refusing to believe that clear evidence is without excuse.

 

[marke]

Three times you could not answer a simple question and three times you deflected with insults.

You are the liar sir, and you certainly are not behaving like a Christian.

But, I will give you a fourth chance:

I will be interested to know how knowing the number of years between Adam and Jesus actually helps you feed the poor, clothe the naked, visit those in prison, And love thy neighbor.​

​

Perhaps you might also explain how so many wonderful saints from the past, from Saint Francis to Mother Theresa, were able to love unconditionally without your scientific facts!​

​

Mother Theresa walked the walk. She did not waste time with these STUPID arguments. She held the lepers to her bosom and actually went to where the poor are and was Christ to them.​

​

Are you Christ to the poor the way Mother Theresa was? Or are you just one of those blowhards arguing about dinosaurs and stupid crap as you pass judgement on others.​

​

(NOTE to other readers: The fourth time asking this, as with the first three, contains no whining or crying, just a simple question that seems to be too difficult for Clete to answer.)​

Knowing the details of dates in the Bible has a purpose, but that purpose is not to answer all the questions pertaining to the creation of the universe or how to conduct lives on earth in the here and now. We have to use some common sense when dividing the Scriptures.

 

[marke]

I think you have a fixation with me. You love trolling me and starting every one of your posts with a snotty intro.

My fixation is on getting a simple question answered. I told Clete that I did not feel that me knowing the number of years between Adam and Jesus actually helps me be a better Christian. He disagreed. Ever since then I have asked him how knowing the number of years between Adam and Jesus actually helps him feed the poor, clothe the naked, visit those in prison, and love his neighbor. I have asked four times, and so far he has responded only with insults and deflections, sort of like you do.



I am sure it does. What I am saying again is that knowing the exact number of years between Adam and Jesus does not help me be a better Christian. If it helps you be a better Christian then perhaps you can give me the answer that Clete refuses to give: Please tell me how knowing the number of years between Adam and Jesus actually helps you feed the poor, clothe the naked, visit those in prison, And love thy neighbor.



I have never said otherwise.



No, that is what you do. Mother Theresa did what you do NOT do, be Christ to others, as real Christians are called to do.



Yes of course, because moment on the boob tube is certainly enough to judge a great Christian with - NOT.

That might be one of your most ignorant statements ever, and that is quite a feat.

@Boomer keeps telling me to put you on ignore and Boomer is right every time.

Jesus died on the cross for the propitiation of the sins of the whole world. While that knowledge may be useful in feeding the poor, there are thousands of other Scriptures which would be more helpful.

 

[marke]

How about in general?



Do you know how fossils are made?

Most fossils are made when living creatures or recently expired creatures are rapidly buried and preserved by flood deposited mud and then compacted under extreme pressure, such as would be supplied by thousands of feet of ocean water coverage.

 

[marke]

It can't be proven, but it can easily be demonstrated to be far more fanciful a notion than that there simply is a God and that He is the source of life.

I heard the answer to the entropy challenge, they say that lifeforms aren't violating entropy somehow, it was a little over my head but suffice to say I don't consider the violation of entropy to be a good argument against evolution and "billions of years", whatever that term means. The argument against it as you alluded to above, is that it's just so unlikely to have occurred on its own that it makes fairy tales seem realistic, and an insistent rejection of the God theory appear to be increasingly unreasonable.

Life forms do not gain functions and strengths over time, they lose them. There is hardly any more universal fact of life than that.

 

[marke]

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.

The Bible says God created life on earth. Science says it cannot explain how life began on earth except that God did not do it. I see a problem between science and the Bible.

 

[Clete]

The Bible says God created life on earth. Science says it cannot explain how life began on earth except that God did not do it. I see a problem between science and the Bible.

Science does not say any such thing. Scientists say that but not because of any science they've performed.

There can be no conflict between truths. What is true is true and cannot contradict another truth - by definition. The bible is true and science (i.e. real science) is the systematic and dispationate search for truth. Thus a conflict between science and the bible means that someone is making an error, either in doctrinal or scientific methodology (or both).

 

[marke]

Science does not say any such thing. Scientists say that but not because of any science they've performed.

There can be no conflict between truths. What is true is true and cannot contradict another truth - by definition. The bible is true and science (i.e. real science) is the systematic and dispationate search for truth. Thus a conflict between science and the bible means that someone is making an error, either in doctrinal or scientific methodology (or both).

In the above example, science proves the origin of life on earth was not something that could have occurred without God, so science and the Bible agree.

 

[Idolater]

In the above example, science proves the origin of life on earth was not something that could have occurred without God, so science and the Bible agree.

Clete's trying to explain the distinction between scientists as a group, and what he calls "real science", which is the unbiased and honest search for the truth, wherever it may lie. He accuses the scientists of being corrupt on the latter mark, that they are blind to the truth and promulgate instead a lie, which is that there is no God, and God didn't make all of this, and He didn't make us either. That story, or that narrative, is the lie that Clete accuses the scientists of promoting, and I agree with him. So Clete resists calling what these corrupt scientists say about origins and cosmology "science". Clete believes in science (his "real science"), but that actually means that he disagrees with most scientists on the question of how things got started or began or developed here on earth for us.

 

[ok doser]

This is hilarious!

3:22 "well of course they're still finches"