• 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

marke

Well-known member
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.
Most unsaved people have been duped into believing false science, like evolution, is real.
 

marke

Well-known member
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.
Creation 'science' explains the origin of the universe and life on earth as a result of God's miraculous creation. God-rejecters have no explanation for origins but they still ignorantly insist that God was not involved. That is not science, it is stubbornness.
 

marke

Well-known member
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.
Humans have weaknesses that cause them to often misunderstand and misinterpret the Bible and even more often to misunderstand and misinterpret scientific data. When humans arrive at conclusions that lead them to think facts disprove God's Word then they are wrong.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Humans have weaknesses that cause them to often misunderstand and misinterpret the Bible and even more often to misunderstand and misinterpret scientific data. When humans arrive at conclusions that lead them to think facts disprove God's Word then they are wrong.
Trump Gurl is very confused about the Bible because she is an RC.
 

marke

Well-known member
(y)

That's a very philosophical statement you just made!

I'm not sure what you mean. I understand that any use of sound reason tacitly concedes the existence of God but that's a far cry from "the fear of the Lord", right? There are a great many scientific advancements that have been made by people who don't even believe God exists, never mind have any fear of Him. Plato and Aristotle certainly had no understanding of the God who created them but the whole field of philosophy as we know it owes its very existence to them both.

Additionally, one cannot fear a thing without a knowledge of that thing and the threat it represents to one's safety. In other words, the fear (i.e. respect) of God is a rational reaction to the truth concerning Him and your position under the influence of His authority and power. Or put in fewer words, the fear of God is philosophy.
Nobody, whether saved or lost, can deny that God created the universe and life on earth. There are no other valid possibilities.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
You are right. Fools deny God created heaven and earth and everything in them. But they don't know what to believe and are not right to deny God just because they are fools.
Paul put it best when he stated the following...

Roman 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.​
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I believe the first sentence in the Bible to be an absolute truth; In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. The rest of the Bible is a lifetime journey to be encouraged and inspired by.
Who cares what you believe?

The creation of the universe is history, you can't change history.
Why would I ever suggest otherwise?

Either at least one God created the universe or there is no god.
That's not entirely sound logic but, okay...

You could be 100% right or wrong on the toss of a coin.
If all you were doing was wildly guessing with no thought at all to the evidence, then yeah, you'd have a 50-50 chance of guessing correctly.

So what?

There cannot be a maybe or probable god.
True. A claim is either true or it is false. Thus, the claim that God exists either either true or it is false. This is called the law of excluded middle. It is one of the fundamental building blocks of all knowledge.

Now prove that the universe and life came into being purely by natural means. It can't be done.
You cannot prove that which is false to be true so, agreed, it can't be done.

So what?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Nope. Whenever you argue for an idea while naming as your source an authentic expert in that domain, who also claims what you are claiming, and that expert teaches what is uniformly taught by all the other authentic experts in that domain, that is a valid appeal to authority.
No, it is not!

Look, I don't know who told you that but they are flatly wrong. A proper appeal to authority would be one where the expertise itself was in question, not the conclusions of his science.

So, lets say that you offered some scientific evidence of XYZ theory is true and then someone challenged your argument on the basis of the validity of the scientific evidence. THEN you could cite your source as Mr. Suchnsuch PhD and THAT would be a proper appeal to authority.

If, on the other hand, you simply claim that XYZ theory is correct because Mr. Suchnsuch PhD says it is, then that is absolutely a classic textbook example of an appeal to authority fallacy because the opinions of a PhD aren't any more true than yours or mine, in and of themselves. Simply pulling a PhD out of your back pocket is not a rational alternative to making an actual argument. Presenting the science that the PhD has performed, citing his published scientific papers, and the like would be perfectly valid but simply stating there there are PhD's that exist who agree with your side of the debate is definitely fallacious.

The important thing to note, which makes this particular fallacy difficult to spot, is that the types of claims that you can establish through the valid appeal to authority is limited to what all of that domain's authentic experts uniformly agree upon, which means you're limited to establishing noncontroversial claims, you cannot validly appeal to authority when that domain's experts do not all agree among themselves about that claim.
NO! All the cosmologists can be wrong.

You can debunk this nonsense by asking one question...

Who gets to decide what is and what is not "controversial".

Logical validity is not subject to anyone's personal opinion, no matter the size of the group that agrees with that opinion.

Now, among PhD cosmologists, you would probably find uniformity in their teaching that the universe is "billions of years" old, but even though it would satisfy the condition for a valid appeal to authority to name one of them as a source for arguing that the universe is that old, it wouldn't prove your point, because, as @Trump Gurl above said, either the universe was made in six days or it wasn't, and the evidence doesn't demonstrate either one to the exclusion of the other, the evidence is consistent with both theories. If it is true that all PhD cosmologists agree that the universe is "billions of years" old, then they are all guilty of presuming that they are right, that the universe was not created in six days, which is the fallacy of begging the question.
And so, in the end, you prove every word you've said up to this point in the post to be wrong and explain why its wrong!

I really really cannot understand what it is that makes people unable to see it when they do this to themselves.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
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.
I'm not sure I would say that they were all "lying" in the sense that they are intentionally trying to deceive people or that they do not believe what they say. There are clearly exceptions but generally, its quite the contrary, most professional scientists absolutely do believe what they say and also believe that they're being objective and so "lying" isn't really the issue.

It isn't about their honesty, it's about their premises and the cognitive dissension and paradigm blindness those premises create.

If you start with the premise that there is no God then that is going to have consequences that are unavoidable. And no matter how hard they pound on the table demanding that they are proceeding from a theologically neutral (agnostic) position, the fact is that there actually isn't any way to do that. Logic itself won't let you. The very use of logic itself presupposes the existence of God and so even an agnostic contradicts his own worldview, the moment he opens his mouth to make any argument whatsoever.

And whether God exists or not is way down the list, down close to where you're talking about more or less philosophical issues rather than strictly scientific issues. So you could set their atheism aside if you wanted and they'd still be up to their necks in presuppositions that predetermine the direction of their science. There are lots of atheistic scientists who reject Big Bang Cosmology, for example, and because they are not proceeding from the same premises that exist within the Big Bang paradigm, they see entirely different processes accounting for everything from how a star works to how galaxies form and everything in between and find no need whatsoever for ad hoc rescue devices such as dark energy and dark matter.

Is their science less valid because they reject the Big Bang? Most modern scientists would say it is entirely invalid. WHY? Not because their observations are wrong, not because they don't make testable predictions and not because of any other valid scientific reason but because their giving credence to ideas that compete with the Big Bang Theory, or any other theory held by the scientific establishment, threatens exactly that, the scientific establishment. In other words, there are other motives in play rather than just the quest for truth, chief among them being loads of free government money.
 

marke

Well-known member
I'm not sure I would say that they were all "lying" in the sense that they are intentionally trying to deceive people or that they do not believe what they say. There are clearly exceptions but generally, its quite the contrary, most professional scientists absolutely do believe what they say and also believe that they're being objective and so "lying" isn't really the issue.

It isn't about their honesty, it's about their premises and the cognitive dissension and paradigm blindness those premises create.

If you start with the premise that there is no God then that is going to have consequences that are unavoidable. And no matter how hard they pound on the table demanding that they are proceeding from a theologically neutral (agnostic) position, the fact is that there actually isn't any way to do that. Logic itself won't let you. The very use of logic itself presupposes the existence of God and so even an agnostic contradicts his own worldview, the moment he opens his mouth to make any argument whatsoever.

And whether God exists or not is way down the list, down close to where you're talking about more or less philosophical issues rather than strictly scientific issues. So you could set their atheism aside if you wanted and they'd still be up to their necks in presuppositions that predetermine the direction of their science. There are lots of atheistic scientists who reject Big Bang Cosmology, for example, and because they are not proceeding from the same premises that exist within the Big Bang paradigm, they see entirely different processes accounting for everything from how a star works to how galaxies form and everything in between and find no need whatsoever for ad hoc rescue devices such as dark energy and dark matter.

Is their science less valid because they reject the Big Bang? Most modern scientists would say it is entirely invalid. WHY? Not because their observations are wrong, not because they don't make testable predictions and not because of any other valid scientific reason but because their giving credence to ideas that compete with the Big Bang Theory, or any other theory held by the scientific establishment, threatens exactly that, the scientific establishment. In other words, there are other motives in play rather than just the quest for truth, chief among them being loads of free government money.
Humans come up with all kinds of theories about the origin of the universe that remain unprovable speculations. God told us He created the heavens and earth and there is not a shred of scientific evidence that proves God wrong.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Humans come up with all kinds of theories about the origin of the universe that remain unprovable speculations. God told us He created the heavens and earth and there is not a shred of scientific evidence that proves God wrong.
Are you trying to persuade me of something?
 

expos4ever

Well-known member
Humans come up with all kinds of theories about the origin of the universe that remain unprovable speculations.
False, of course.

There is plenty of evidence to support the prevailing scientific model for the origin of the universe.
 

marke

Well-known member
False, of course.

There is plenty of evidence to support the prevailing scientific model for the origin of the universe.
Scientific evidence supports the fact that God created the universe from nothing. Science does not support the erroneous speculation that matter and energy created themselves from nothing.
 
Top