Creation Science/Making Headway - Dallas News

[DriftingSand]

August 14th & 15th, Dallas News featured a story about the ICR (Institute for Creation Research). As far as mainstream media goes the article was written in a pretty fair manner. Anyone who is truly interested in science (whether religious or non-religious) should give ICR a look-see. They do present some compelling evidence for the literal interpretation of the Genesis account of Creation:

Dallas researchers out to scientifically prove biblical version of creation | Dallas Morning News

“Our attempt is to demonstrate that the Bible is accurate, not just religiously authoritative,” said Henry Morris III, CEO of the nonprofit with a 49-person payroll and an annual budget in the $7 million range.
“The rationale behind it is this: If God really does exist, he shouldn’t be lying to us,” he said. “And if he’s lying to us right off the bat in the book of Genesis, we’ve got some real problems.”

The Institute for Creation Research
Institute for Creation Research

But as Farwell reported, "Young-earth creationists like those at ICR argue that everything in the known universe began 6,000 to 10,000 years ago."1 He included statements from ICR's scientists about numerous compelling evidences for recent creation such as galaxies' spiral winding problem, genetic mutation clocks, and soft tissues found in fossils. But Farwell ended the article with a quote from SMU professor Dr. Ronald Wetherington, who claimed ICR scientists "are not scientists" and that they "cherry-pick data" to justify the Genesis account.1

 

[Mr. H.]

If there is such a thing as "creation", "science" speculates that it was an event that occurred around 13 billion years ago.

If there is such a thing as "evolution", common sense dictates that it began around 13 billion years ago...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘Creation science’ is an oxymoron.

Creationism is religion, not ‘science,’ it’s just as false and subjective as all other religion.

 

[Rikurzhen]

If liberalism can make headway towing the anchor of the wreckage of its history, then I'm not surprised that people can come to believe the bilge of Religious Creationism. Look how many people believe in Liberal Creationism.

 

[konradv]

It's funny how the ICR worries about "God lying to us" because of a book written by men, but don't have a problem with being lied to if the earth is really six thousand years old but appears be much older because of fossils, geology, DNA, radioisotopes, etc. Wouldn't all of that evidence also be a lie, if it proved not to be true?

 

[Mr. H.]

‘Creation science’ is an oxymoron.

Creationism is religion, not ‘science,’ it’s just as false and subjective as all other religion.

What if creationism is science?

 

[g4racer]

Italics are taken from the article.

As is usually the case the “Fundamental, Evangelical Christians” are not always honest. Beginning with their belief that they take the Bible Literally. If you take it literally you can’t disregard the parts which don’t support the lifestyle you want to lead. When these areas are pointed out reply is, “The Bible doesn’t mean that.”
A person came up to me one day and said, “I’m a Bible Believing Christian.” My reply was simple, “You don’t have to tell me you are. If you are I will know it. If you have to tell me you should be taking a close look at yourself.” Check the circumstances for the first occurrence of followers of Jesus being called Christians and let me know how close you come to it.
“The biblical story of Genesis is literally true, they say. God created the heavens, earth and life in six sequential days lasting about 24 hours each.” On which day were night and day created?
“Colleges and universities have taught evolution almost exclusively for the last 200 years.” Not bad, your only off by 25 to 33%, the late 1800’s would be closer.
“And some subscribe to the “Intelligent Design” theory, which proposes that the universe is so beautiful and complex, logic suggests it is the work of an omnipotent architect, rather than the result of an unguided process like natural selection.” What does natural selection have to do with the creation of the universe? Natural selection is not really a part of the creation of the universe.
If you spent more time with the Gospels and less time in the Old Testament and Revelation and take the Writings Literally you might have a different attitude and still be able to retain your belief on Creation. A discussion on Creation has little to do with the message, just as a discussion of Revelation has little to do with it.

 

[Rikurzhen]

‘Creation science’ is an oxymoron.

Creationism is religion, not ‘science,’ it’s just as false and subjective as all other religion.

What if creationism is science?

It can't be. That's the point of calling it an oxymoron.

The heart of science is the test of falsification. What this means is that a scientist sets out to disprove a hypothesis rather than prove it. For instance, I set out to disprove that gravity exists. Every time I fail to disprove, I strengthen the theory of gravity. If in one test I open my hand and the ball fell upwards and this could be repeated by other people, then every single other test out there which helped strengthen the theory would be valueless - I falsified the theory of gravity.

How do you create a test to falsify the hypothesis that "God created man?" Science involves tests, not just word games and arguments and references to The Bible. Religious Creationism doesn't have any such tests, it never puts itself in front of the speeding car to test itself. It's not science. It's storytelling. It tries to find convincing arguments to strengthen its position but it never tries to disprove any hypotheses.

Religious creationism has an agenda, it wants its positions to grow stronger. Science doesn't have such an agenda, science is willing to throw out everything if you can falsify a hypothesis. Science wants to create deeper understanding.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

August 14th & 15th, Dallas News featured a story about the ICR (Institute for Creation Research). As far as mainstream media goes the article was written in a pretty fair manner. Anyone who is truly interested in science (whether religious or non-religious) should give ICR a look-see. They do present some compelling evidence for the literal interpretation of the Genesis account of Creation:

Dallas researchers out to scientifically prove biblical version of creation | Dallas Morning News

“Our attempt is to demonstrate that the Bible is accurate, not just religiously authoritative,” said Henry Morris III, CEO of the nonprofit with a 49-person payroll and an annual budget in the $7 million range.
“The rationale behind it is this: If God really does exist, he shouldn’t be lying to us,” he said. “And if he’s lying to us right off the bat in the book of Genesis, we’ve got some real problems.”

The Institute for Creation Research
Institute for Creation Research

But as Farwell reported, "Young-earth creationists like those at ICR argue that everything in the known universe began 6,000 to 10,000 years ago."1 He included statements from ICR's scientists about numerous compelling evidences for recent creation such as galaxies' spiral winding problem, genetic mutation clocks, and soft tissues found in fossils. But Farwell ended the article with a quote from SMU professor Dr. Ronald Wetherington, who claimed ICR scientists "are not scientists" and that they "cherry-pick data" to justify the Genesis account.1

You can't prove a negative. Genesis can't be proven because it isn't literally true. Thinking the human race must have started off with 1 man and a 1 woman is logical, but wrong. Genesis is actually a story based off the Epic of Gilgamesh in the pre-extant Babylonian religion which preceeded Judaism.

Radiometric dating methods like carbon-14 dating tell us how old things are. And if you accept the dates for things like the Shroud of Turin using such methods you really have to ask yourself why c-14 dating is unreliable when it was reliable enough for the Shroud and various religious texts. And other methods are used for the ages of fossils and other things going further back than c-14 can tell us maxxing around 60,000 years.

The Earth is billion of years old, not thousands. If your faith requires you to reject science, and embrace lies you really gotta ask what kind of religion is that?

 

[Statistikhengst]

It's funny how the ICR worries about "God lying to us" because of a book written by men, but don't have a problem with being lied to if the earth is really six thousand years old but appears be much older because of fossils, geology, DNA, radioisotopes, etc. Wouldn't all of that evidence also be a lie, if it proved not to be true?

The Pentateuch, although attributed to Moshe, was written by at least 5 authors. This is incredibly easy to prove, not just because of the very disparate writing styles, but also because the 5 books were finished AFTER Moshe died. LOL.

So, men wrote holy books.

I fail to see why Fundamentalistic Christians, who are very quick to remind that Jesus taught in parables, suddenly want to take everything else quite literally. What if one day as described by Ad-shem actually means 1 billion years of our time? Hmmm???


Creationism is a belief system, not a science. To try to turn it into a science is just plain old batshit crazy.

To use scientific methods, however, to support what is purported in the Torah, is absolutely acceptable, in my opinion. But there is a strong difference between the two.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Much more likely that instead of one man and one woman suddenly coming into being, or even evolving to that stage, there were many all over the world who evolved to that point simultaneously. And going backwards to the first living cells there were many cells that became alive at once and not just a first one.

When the big bang created the universe it didn't create anything one at a time, but many en masse'. Many particles, many atoms, many molecules which over time became many stars, many planets, many galaxies. So it's inconcistent with the rest fo the universe to assume life evolves one at a time instead of many at a time. Thinking we descended from 1 couple is logical, but ultimately wrong.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Interestingly, Torah actually substantiates the many at once idea since 1 man 1 woman who make 2 sons couldn't have started the human race without unprecedented inbreeding. Plus when Cain goes off into exile where'd he eventually wind up but among other humans who weren't his relations. (Genesis 4:14-16)

 

[Statistikhengst]

Interestingly, Torah actually substantiates the many at once idea since 1 man 1 woman who make 2 sons couldn't have started the human race without unprecedented inbreeding. Plus when Cain goes off into exile where'd he eventually wind up but among other humans who weren't his relations. (Genesis 4:14-16)

Correct. There is not just one, but 2 creation epics in the Torah.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Simple way to put this whole issue to bed once and for all: If creationism, intelligent design, young earth models are correct then logically, models opposite that like in science must be wrong. So go ahead and using all original physics and chemistry and geology build working computers, particle accelerators, and nuclear weapons.

 

[Steven_R]

If your faith requires you to reject science, and embrace lies you really gotta ask what kind of religion is that?

It really comes down to people who feel threatened by the idea that something in their holy book might not be literally true and if some of it is to be taken as allegory, them maybe all of it is allegory and then what? So they disregard science and when forced to deal with the science, they go through the mental gymnastics and make the science fit their world view. Even the handful of scientists who latch on to these groups will dismiss their own knowledge because it doesn't fit in with the Bible or the Koran or the Torah or what have you.

I'm reminded of the geocentrists, and yes, there are still some people that believe the sun orbits the Earth and not the other way around. One of them is a guy named Gerry Bouw. He has a PhD in Astronomy from Case Western Reserve University, but just disregards almost five centuries of astronomy and physics because it doesn't fit in with the Bible's viewpoints on astronomy. Even when forced to confront stuff like Galileo's moons and retrograde movement of Mars, they'll just make up bizarre ideas like a mishmash of Brahe and Aristotle so they can still have moons orbit Jupiter and Jupiter orbit the sun, but the sun still orbit Earth.

http://www.geocentricity.com/
http://galileowaswrong.com/


It wouldn't be so bad, but some of them are just really good snakeoil salesmen. They talk a good game and convince everyday folk that their viewpoints have some legitimacy. That comes down to a problem of not enough scientific literacy in this country, but those people fight tooth and nail to keep science out of classrooms, such as evolution, because of the threat it brings against their perception of the universe.

 

[DriftingSand]

If there is such a thing as "creation", "science" speculates that it was an event that occurred around 13 billion years ago.

If there is such a thing as "evolution", common sense dictates that it began around 13 billion years ago...

Yes ... there is. One wouldn't know, though, if they wear blinders as a rule.

 

[DriftingSand]

‘Creation science’ is an oxymoron.

Creationism is religion, not ‘science,’ it’s just as false and subjective as all other religion.

I guess an oxymoron is better than a moron. Here ... take this oxy ... for free.

 

[DriftingSand]

It's funny how the ICR worries about "God lying to us" because of a book written by men, but don't have a problem with being lied to if the earth is really six thousand years old but appears be much older because of fossils, geology, DNA, radioisotopes, etc. Wouldn't all of that evidence also be a lie, if it proved not to be true?

Please ... inform all of us of what the "truth" is (using your words only). Thanks.

 

[DriftingSand]

August 14th & 15th, Dallas News featured a story about the ICR (Institute for Creation Research). As far as mainstream media goes the article was written in a pretty fair manner. Anyone who is truly interested in science (whether religious or non-religious) should give ICR a look-see. They do present some compelling evidence for the literal interpretation of the Genesis account of Creation:

Dallas researchers out to scientifically prove biblical version of creation | Dallas Morning News

“Our attempt is to demonstrate that the Bible is accurate, not just religiously authoritative,” said Henry Morris III, CEO of the nonprofit with a 49-person payroll and an annual budget in the $7 million range.
“The rationale behind it is this: If God really does exist, he shouldn’t be lying to us,” he said. “And if he’s lying to us right off the bat in the book of Genesis, we’ve got some real problems.”

The Institute for Creation Research
Institute for Creation Research

But as Farwell reported, "Young-earth creationists like those at ICR argue that everything in the known universe began 6,000 to 10,000 years ago."1 He included statements from ICR's scientists about numerous compelling evidences for recent creation such as galaxies' spiral winding problem, genetic mutation clocks, and soft tissues found in fossils. But Farwell ended the article with a quote from SMU professor Dr. Ronald Wetherington, who claimed ICR scientists "are not scientists" and that they "cherry-pick data" to justify the Genesis account.1

You can't prove a negative. Genesis can't be proven because it isn't literally true. Thinking the human race must have started off with 1 man and a 1 woman is logical, but wrong. Genesis is actually a story based off the Epic of Gilgamesh in the pre-extant Babylonian religion which preceeded Judaism.

Radiometric dating methods like carbon-14 dating tell us how old things are. And if you accept the dates for things like the Shroud of Turin using such methods you really have to ask yourself why c-14 dating is unreliable when it was reliable enough for the Shroud and various religious texts. And other methods are used for the ages of fossils and other things going further back than c-14 can tell us maxxing around 60,000 years.

The Earth is billion of years old, not thousands. If your faith requires you to reject science, and embrace lies you really gotta ask what kind of religion is that?

1) You're claiming that the Bible is a lie but have no evidence to substantiate the claim.
2) You're quick to tell everyone what "isn't" the truth but can't explain, in detail, what IS the truth.
3) If you can't explain what the truth IS then you can't prove what the truth is not.

 

[Mr. H.]

If there is such a thing as "creation", "science" speculates that it was an event that occurred around 13 billion years ago.

If there is such a thing as "evolution", common sense dictates that it began around 13 billion years ago...

Yes ... there is. One wouldn't know, though, if they wear blinders as a rule.