My Problem with Creation Science

[Idolater]

How about in general?

Well of course!

Do you know how fossils are made?

Yeah, God made them. Also, who cares?

 

[Idolater]

In fact it can be proven that life COULD NOT have come into being purely by natural means.

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.

The most fundamental laws of science and perhaps the most tested single idea in all of human history is the law on entropy. The effect very simply cannot be greater than the cause. Substance does not come from nothingness, life does not come from lifelessness, logic does not come from the irrational, intelligence does not come from mindlessness.

Clete

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.

 

[Idolater]

. . . as a Catholic, according to the Church, you are perfectly free to hold that belief and not be in conflict with Catholic dogma for the simple fact that Catholic dogma can only be proclaimed in matters of faith and morals, not science. Science is not the purview of the Church and therefore it makes no dogmatic definitions on it one way or the other.

I look at it as permission to disbelieve in evolution and "billions of years", because I find them spectacularly improbable, and I see no evidence that's inconsistent with the six days theory (Genesis taken plainly). You don't get that permission in schools, or in general company, political discourse, etc., etc., but you do get it in Church.

 

[Idolater]

That is one of the craziest things that I've ever seen posted on TOL.

How do you justify this from scripture? You think that God CREATED the earth with lots of DEAD remains in it?

No. Dead implies first there was life, which I reject. They're just fossils. Objects. They tell a story, they along with all the other physical evidence tells a story that it took billions of years, and so very many stupendously unlikely events all happening one right after the other, with the universe in general and right here on the earth, that only a very confused person would consider this story anything other than a fable.

You should realize that "dark matter" is a rescue device for a failed theory. It has never been observed and only exists to save a failed theory that opposes God's Word.

It doesn't matter, and are you a mainstream physics professor with a PhD that I should take your word for it regarding what is or what is not dark matter?

What does that mean, exactly?

It's in contrast to the story written in the rocks, that this all began billions of years ago. It began less than 10 thousand years ago.

I'm not a deist, if that's what you're asking.

The Bible never actually uses a term like that, but I can see why you might say that.

Because it's necessarily true, based on the evidence? Or for some other reason?

 

[Idolater]

...Since you are here, let me ask you the question that Clete does not want to answer:

I mentioned earlier that knowing the number of years between Adam and Jesus does not affect my walk in Christ. He said he disagrees with that. So I asked him: I will be interested to know 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 thy neighbor. I asked him to explain how so many wonderful saints from the past, from Saint Francis to Mother Theresa, were able to love unconditionally without such scientific facts.

What do you think? And thank you for your thoughtful post, a rare commodity these days.

If someone told me that it affects their life and in a positive way as regards their Christian (Catholic) faith, then I can't think of a reason why I'd doubt them is all. I might not feel that way, and I might feel that way, but regardless, I still wouldn't immediately think that they're wrong.

I have no trouble telling someone I think their idea is wrong or even dumb or unreasonable, but this isn't that type of idea, I wouldn't be telling them that they're wrong, I'd be telling them that they're lying, and this is why I couldn't think of a reason to doubt them.

I think that for some people, and I'm not sure I can exclude myself from that group, having a cosmology that is consistent with the literal words of Scripture is a boon to the Christian life, and so spending what seems like inordinate energy on sorting out the matter seems incorrect to all you normal people but it might be that it's not worth interfering with, and it might even be worth encouraging such pursuit, and I think that's just what Catholicism does in letting us all disbelieve in evolution and "billions of years" if we want to.

 

[Right Divider]

No. Dead implies first there was life, which I reject. They're just fossils. Objects.

No, fossils are dead remains of living plants and animals.

They tell a story, they along with all the other physical evidence tells a story that it took billions of years, and so very many stupendously unlikely events all happening one right after the other, with the universe in general and right here on the earth, that only a very confused person would consider this story anything other than a fable.

You're the one telling a story... a fable and a myth.

You believe that God is a faker, putting what appears to be dead things in the ground that are not really dead things at all.

It always stuns me the lengths that some who call themselves Christians will go through to force the Bible to agree with unbelief instead of taking God at His Word.

It doesn't matter, and are you a mainstream physics professor with a PhD that I should take your word for it regarding what is or what is not dark matter?

Again I'm dealing with a person that uses FALLACOUS arguments. That is called an appeal to authority and it is FALLACIOUS.

PhD's do NOT determine what is true, FACTS do!

It's in contrast to the story written in the rocks, that this all began billions of years ago. It began less than 10 thousand years ago.

I have NO idea what that is supposed to mean.

I'm not a deist, if that's what you're asking.

No, that's not what I'm asking. But now I must ask you if you're a lunatic with these crazy things you keep saying.

Because it's necessarily true, based on the evidence? Or for some other reason?

The evidence is in favor of God and His Word.

The GLOBAL FLOOD is why there are tons of fossils in the ground. Not because God was a faker.
They are there to remind mankind of the JUDGEMENT of God upon the world.

 

[Idolater]

No, fossils are dead remains of living plants and animals.

You are begging the question because of what your own personal theory is, you want to defend it, you've supposed that it's true, and so of course all the fossils must be from previously living things, even though you don't have the slightest biblical evidence consistent with dinosaurs.

You're the one telling a story... a fable and a myth.

I'm rubber you're glue?

You believe that God is a faker, putting what appears to be dead things in the ground that are not really dead things at all.

You're a feeble-minded troll so I can't expect you to think anything other than this limited thought.

You know what fertile soil is, right? That component in fertile soil that's called "organic", you know what that is, right? And you know that Eden was a garden, right?

Now tell me about how God doesn't put "what appears to be dead things in the ground that are not really dead things at all". Please tell me all about that.

It always stuns me the lengths that some who call themselves Christians will go through to force the Bible to agree with unbelief instead of taking God at His Word.

I'm sure that it does. I'm even more sure that's not what I'm doing.

Again I'm dealing with a person that uses FALLACOUS arguments. That is called an appeal to authority and it is FALLACIOUS.

Appeals to authority are not fallacious.

PhD's do NOT determine what is true, FACTS do!

Facts are true. So what is true determines what is true. Thank you for clearing up that riddle.

I have NO idea that that is supposed to mean.

No, that's not what I'm asking. But now I must ask you if you're a lunatic with these crazy things you keep saying.

The evidence is in favor of God and His Word.

The GLOBAL FLOOD is why there are tons of fossils in the ground. Not because God was a faker.
They are there to remind mankind of the JUDGEMENT of God upon the world.

Well that's a nice story. Can you cite chapter and verse where you got it from please?

And no one ever said God was a faker. Except you.

 

[Right Divider]

You are begging the question because of what your own personal theory is, you want to defend it, you've supposed that it's true, and so of course all the fossils must be from previously living things, even though you don't have the slightest biblical evidence consistent with dinosaurs.

You clearly have NO idea what begging the question means.

I'm rubber you're glue?

That's about your speed.

You're a feeble-minded troll so I can't expect you to think anything other than this limited thought.

That is a feeble-minded insult from the person trolling here.... YOU!

You know what fertile soil is, right? That component in fertile soil that's called "organic", you know what that is, right? And you know that Eden was a garden, right?

Talk about BEGGING the question!

Now tell me about how God doesn't put "what appears to be dead things in the ground that are not really dead things at all". Please tell me all about that.

You have YET to provide a single shred of BIBLICAL support for your DEAD BONES in the dirt theory of creation.

Appeals to authority are not fallacious.

LOL... YES they are!

Facts are true.

That might be the first true thing that you've said.

Well that's a nice story. Can you cite chapter and verse where you got it from please?

Try 2 Peter 3:4-7
Peter compares the flood with the coming judgment on the earth.
Seeing that you're a Catholic, I can understand your complete lack of knowledge of what's in the scripture.

And no one ever said God was a faker. Except you.

I'll telling the truth. You are spouting fairy tales.

 

[Idolater]

You clearly have NO idea what begging the question means.

That's about your speed.

That is a feeble-minded insult from the person trolling here.... YOU!

Talk about BEGGING the question!

You have YET to provide a single shred of BIBLICAL support for your DEAD BONES in the dirt theory of creation.

LOL... YES they are!

That might be the first true thing that you've said.

Try 2 Peter 3:4-7
Peter compares the flood with the coming judgment on the earth.
Seeing that you're a Catholic, I can understand your complete lack of knowledge of what's in the scripture.

I'll telling the truth. You are spouting fairy tales.

Oh it's so sad when someone who is clearly not mentally diminished fails to try hard.

Yes I do know what begging the question is, for example, when you hold a pet theory, and an idea conflicts with it, and you reject that idea because and only because it conflicts with your pet theory, that is one form of begging the question, and that's exactly what you did.

I don't have any "dead bones" theory---that's yours. Fossils aren't dead anything, they are structures in the rock, and I don't have any reason to think that they used to be dinosaurs. They, like the fertile soil bedding the Garden of Eden, were created in an instant by God. To be perfect soil it has to have "dead" organic material in it, and to be a perfect earth for us, it has to have "dead" fossilized remains in it.

I don't ask why.

I "tried" 2 Pt 3:4-7 and surprisingly did not find an iota about fossils and how they came from the flood. So again your idea isn't more rooted in Scripture, you just think it is and want to believe that it is but that's untrue.

 

[Right Divider]

Oh it's so sad when someone who is clearly not mentally diminished fails to try hard.

Quit posing and start showing some support for your silly idea.

Yes I do know what begging the question is, for example, when you hold a pet theory, and an idea conflicts with it, and you reject that idea because and only because it conflicts with your pet theory, that is one form of begging the question, and that's exactly what you did.

I don't have any "dead bones" theory---that's yours.

I don't have a dead bones theory. I have Biblical and historical FACTS.

Fossils aren't dead anything, they are structures in the rock, and I don't have any reason to think that they used to be dinosaurs.

You really are insane.

They, like the fertile soil bedding the Garden of Eden, were created in an instant by God.

Again... not a SINGLE ATTEMPT to provide support for this ridiculous idea.
Did the RCC tell you this?

To be perfect soil it has to have "dead" organic material in it, and to be a perfect earth for us, it has to have "dead" fossilized remains in it.

More unsupported conjecture.

I don't ask why.

I "tried" 2 Pt 3:4-7 and surprisingly did not find an iota about fossils and how they came from the flood. So again your idea isn't more rooted in Scripture, you just think it is and want to believe that it is but that's untrue.

I never said that that passage talks about fossils.

Your reading comprehension is very bad.

 

[Idolater]

Quit posing and start showing some support for your silly idea.



I don't have a dead bones theory. I have Biblical and historical FACTS.

You really are insane.

Again... not a SINGLE ATTEMPT to provide support for this ridiculous idea.
Did the RCC tell you this?

More unsupported conjecture.

I never said that that passage talks about fossils.

Your reading comprehension is very bad.

And also, why are you under the false impression that appeals to authority are ipso facto fallacious? Because you constantly appeal to the Bible's authority is all, to God's authority. Obviously you're wrong. Otherwise you couldn't appeal to either the authority of God or of the Bible without committing a fallacy.

 

[Right Divider]

And also, why are you under the false impression that appeals to authority are ipso facto fallacious?

Only because they are.
Truth is not determined by who says something. God is the only exception.

Because you constantly appeal to the Bible's authority is all, to God's authority. Obviously you're wrong. Otherwise you couldn't appeal to either the authority of God or of the Bible without committing a fallacy.

If you don't know the difference between the authority of the Bible and the authority of men making claims about what is true, you have some homework to do.

 

[Idolater]

Only because they are.
Truth is not determined by who says something. God is the only exception.

If you don't know the difference between the authority of the Bible and the authority of men making claims about what is true, you have some homework to do.

Begging the question and invalid appeals to authority are tough to distinguish from valid arguments.

 

[Stripe]

Well of course!

Can I ask what the point of your comment was? You started it off with "but," which makes it sound like you disagree with something.

God made them.

Did God make the cake in the oven? The point of that question being, yes, we could attribute all matter to being ultimately a part of creation, but there's no way to make scientific inquiry or technological progress without inserting the human component into our understanding of why things are the way they are.

Also, who cares?

Scientists. Interested laypeople. Me.

 

[Trump Gurl]

That last line of your post is the central point (or at least a very important one). The fact is that truth is truth. There are not multiple kinds of truth . . . .

I never said there were, ergo your posts are a straw man argument. I will give you this much though: Either the world was created in 6 literal days or it was not. It is one or the other. That is for sure.

My point is that my faith in Jesus and everything he taught does not rise or fall on which one of those scenarios is true. And despite your extremist literal interpretation, the Bible does not "prove" one or the other. Jesus taught what he taught, and he did not teach science. Thats a fact, and facts don't care about your feelings.

Quit posing and start showing some support for your silly idea

That is the last thing that you should be saying, since all you post are silly ideas.

 

[Right Divider]

Begging the question and invalid appeals to authority are tough to distinguish from valid arguments.

No, really they aren't.

Any time that someone claims that something is true because a scientist with a PhD said it is committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

 

[Right Divider]

That is the last thing that you should be saying, since all you post are silly ideas.

Says the know-nothing gurl.

Stop attacking me.

 

[Clete]

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.

You're wrong of course. I just got through proving it.

I heard the answer to the entropy challenge, they say that lifeforms aren't violating entropy somehow,...

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

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.

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?

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.

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

 

[Idolater]

No, really they aren't.

Any time that someone claims that something is true because a scientist with a PhD said it is committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Idolater]

Can I ask what the point of your comment was? You started it off with "but," which makes it sound like you disagree with something.

Just that we're all Christians, even though we disagree in our ecclesiology.

Did God make the cake in the oven?

Not like how He made the fossils. And all the stars and galaxies. And the fertile soil that bedded the Garden of Eden.

The point of that question being, yes, we could attribute all matter to being ultimately a part of creation, but there's no way to make scientific inquiry or technological progress without inserting the human component into our understanding of why things are the way they are.

I don't understand what you're saying, can you elaborate or try a different tack?

Scientists. Interested laypeople. Me.

I will elaborate. I don't believe dinosaurs ever walked the earth, I believe that their fossils tell a story, a story in the rocks, and that that story is obviously a fairy tale that makes normal fairy tales seem downright realistic.