Creationist Scientists, can it be?

What is the grande hypothesis that unifies all science together?

The universe is ordered and comprehensible to experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation and prediction of experimental measurements.Alan

I see that same thing applicable to the creation manifest by God, seeing that the obeject of research here is the universe, creationists than make there observations not on the universe but rather on the Creation of God...The Creation of God is ordered and comprehensible to experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation and prediction of experimental measurements.When looking at Moses writings we aught to be careful to assume that they are metaphorical or just theological... after all God gave Mariam and Aaron big trouble for not taking Moses word, because he (God) did not speak to Moses in riddles... Numbers 12:1-9 this is the major reason why I will not look at the first chapters of Genesis as hypothetical.[This message has been edited by Jesuslover153, 03-29-2003]

Though, by changing the discussion from "the universe" (simply all that exists, materially) to "Creation of God" you have already made a philosophical step in interpreting what you see around you - that there is a God, who creates. You may even have made an assumption about the nature of the act of creation. Science investigates the nature of the material universe - the universe is what it is, therefore the answers gained by science are what they are independent of the philosophical viewpoints of the scientists (or at least should be, as far as it is possible). If you take your philosophical assumptions and use that as a framework into which you selectively squeeze and interpret scientific data then that is particularly poor science - and it isn't just Creationist who do this, I'm wary of the likes of Dawkins for the same reason.Alan

Is not applying millions of years to the observations a philosophical assumption as well?
In stating that it was well before any real science would have made those assumptions that the time periods were invented, and through philosophical assumptions.. have not we than in our age tried to find things that would prove that?
Is it not a philosophical assumption to assume that humans came from a common ancestor of the ape? for we search and search for the proof of it...
That sounds like philosophical searching for the answers of what we observe to me...Certainly I assume that God created the universe and that the Holy Bible in its 66 books is his Holy Word, and certainly I believe that we can test it in repeatable experiments... I think you as well as I know that God is for certainly the Creator of the universe and everything in it...
I pray that we can resolve this issue, especially seeing that we are Christian brothers... please God whomever is in the wrong, correct us and edify us in you.

I'm not aware of these experiments - please could you describe them?Thank you.------------------
o--greyline--o

quote:

---

Is not applying millions of years to the observations a philosophical assumption as well?

---

One is not 'applying' millions of years to the observations. One is inferring millions of years from the evidence. There are quite a few ways to do this. I am sure you are familiar with some of those methods, but if you've been reading creationist literature you've been misled about them.

quote:

---

In stating that it was well before any real science would have made those assumptions that the time periods were invented, and through philosophical assumptions.. have not we than in our age tried to find things that would prove that?

---

It appears that you are referencing someone's statement, but I can't find it. Is this your nutshell history of science? Lets assume it is.Before real science? It was creationist scientists who realized that the time frame needed to be extended. They did this before most of the dating methods we now use were available, but they still based the conclusions on the available evidence.Have we been trying to prove that? Nope. We have been checking those conclusions ever since, and changing them as new data rolls in.

quote:

---

Is it not a philosophical assumption to assume that humans came from a common ancestor of the ape?

---

No. It isn't philosophical and it isn't an assumption. It is an inference from the data. There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that we and apes have a common ancestor.

quote:

---

for we search and search for the proof of it...

---

Not really. But there are details that need to be filled in.

quote:

---

and certainly I believe that we can test it in repeatable experiments...

---

I also would like to know what these experiments are.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

C'mon there are legitimate scientists that believe in a creation. Scientists working in their own field of expertise that are well trained and knowlegable.

---

Yup, sure are.I am not talking about those people.I am talking about the people who go looking for evidence to prove the Bible (or whatever) correct and ignore the rest.

quote:

---

Your continuous attempts to lump the whole community together as uneducated liars, is the same as saying all Indians are drunks.

---

Ah, but I am only talking about the people who say they are doing science but refuse to adhere to the tennets of science.

quote:

---

"Lying for Jesus" as you put it is not tollerated in the creationist community.

---

Oh my, it most certainly is, and always has been!(Well, it has in the 20th century. The Victorian Creationists were, by and large, very good scientists)

quote:

---

Once a scientist has been shown false, or a liar they are no longer believed.

---

I am sorry, but this is simply, demonstrably untrue.Henry Morris, founder of the ICR, and Duane Gish, famous ICR frontman and lecturer, several of the most famous and respected Creation 'scienctists', constantly lie, propagate erroneous information, and misquote scientists in order to mislead, and have done their entire careers.I have read Morris' and Gish's books and transcripts of several of Gish's speeches. They lie, and/or mislead constantly. They are also sloppy in that they repeat misquotes from other sources.Check out the following pages for specifics:Scientific Creationism and Error
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html
Duane Gish and Creationism at Rutgers: Trott Critiques Gish

quote:

---

Just because they are out there doesn't mean that creationists condone what they are doing.

---

The big difference is real science is that one's work is constantly evaluated by one's peers, and honesty and integrity is almost fanatically valued.People who are as dishonest and who lack integrity like Gish and Morris are, or who are as sloppy in their scholarship as Gish and Morris are, simply do not make it as professional scientists.Instead, Gish and Morris have had long, distinguished careers and are venerated as great champions of the cause.

quote:

---

It is unfortunate that these liars still have outlets for their faulty information.

---

That they still have an outlet simply means that Creation 'scientists' are willing to accept "lying for Jesus", the propagation of disinformation, misquoting, and dishonest, sloppy scholarship from many of it's proponents as long as it wins more converts.Otherwise, it simply would not be tolerated.

quote:

---

That said, I care nothing for this argument, the intent of my original post in this thread was to encourage Jesuslover, I know how frustrating it is to constantly hear the assertion that creation science is in and of itself false.

---

I can understand your frustration, but wanting Creation 'science' to be legitimate does not make it so.------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-30-2003]

Largely what John said, but I would add one other thing I probably should have added to my synopsis of the scientific method I gave yesterday. That is that the universal laws are uniform in time and space. Thus if we, say, observe that 40K decays with a half life of 1.28Gy (10My) in laboratory measurements we assume that 40K always decays with that half life.Alan

first is prayer
second is archaeology, do the places of the old testament exist? if so how well do they match up to the events/is there evidence of the events taking place?
third is God is interactive, he is fully well willing to answer our queries... maybe not in the way we want to but none the less he does, he was there, he saw the events, either we can choose to listen to human dogma or we can choose to listen to God.

and you answer my question with that addition to John, you assume it always has been that way...Is it not true that the better at dating methods we get it continually points towards more recent times than priorly proposed?I wonder what means of dating did they give in Darwins time period? was it through scientific analysastion of decay rates of different elements?

Being a maximalist Christian, I fully beieve that the events in the Bible are accurate, including the Creation event... I believe that God calls us to believe that he created how it is written.... of course he does not give the physics of it because only few would understand it, but we are furthering science everyday and it is coming steps closer and closer to a perfect understanding... but it is yet a far cry from perfect and probably will not be perfect until the return of my Lord Jesus Christ...I take encouragement from Funkmasterfreaky in his statement...

quote:

---

Is it not true that the better at dating methods we get it continually points towards more recent times than priorly proposed?

---

No.

quote:

---

Is it not true that the better at dating methods we get it continually points towards more recent times than priorly proposed?

---

Relative dating only (ie, "this" happened before "that" but with no age in years, only in relation to other things). Absolute (nuclear) dating goes back to the sixties or so. In Darwin's time the 6,000 year old Earth was on its way out but still not nearly as old as today.

I would like some evidence to support your no...

As for estimates of the age of the earth it is clear that better scientific knowledge has always increased the estimated age (though I reckon that there's not going to be any significant changes now - we'll continue to improve our understanding of the processes and reduce uncertainties but the actual age is pretty close to 4.5by). A brief overview, with a pretty graph, is available here. Note that by the time Darwin was working on the Origin (published 1859) geologists such as Lyell were already saying the earth was 100s of million years old - and the fact that most evangelical scholars were advocating either a day=age or a gap theory to accomodate such periods of time reflects the compelling nature of the science.Alan