"Evidence and Faith"

I wanted to ask if creation science is valid at all, but this is too broad of a question. Obviously most here think that the method of creation science is not valid, as it does not follow the scientific method, or at least the people doing it seem not too.But in all the years so far that creation science has been around, has there every been any solid (objective) evidence that the world was created?I ask this question because believe it or not, in my church I am an outspoken component against mentioning things of science in church, or things like orbs in pictures, and gems found on peoples lawns are evidence of God. I speak against "proving God", or more correctly, "objectively proving God"
I am not well liked when I speak these things out, and I have been told that people can believe what they want to believe, and I guess they obviously can say whatever they want to say. I am not comfortable with that. About the only one that really has a realistic view on it, is the senior Pastor, and when I point these things out to him, he corrects himself, and realizes that the church should not be promoting these ideas.I am planning on approaching the entire elder committee, and Pastors, as well as the core leaders (I am one of the core leaders) on this matter, but I want to put it together in a manor that they will realize that what they are doing is incorrect. Answering this question is one step in that direction.This whole issue may determine if I stay in the church or not. This is a difficult decision, as I influence many people, and I am a mentor for many.I had a meeting with my Senior Pastor, and explained this to him. He will accept what I give him, and consider it. If it is truth, then he will present it to the church, as it would probably go over better coming from him. With your help, I can help rid one church of phoney miracles, and possibly preaching about creation science. But I need to get my facts on order.I already have the proof about orbs in pictures, and enough evidence about the phoney gems. Also, the phrase "proving God" should be eliminated for obvious reasons, as nothing in science is ever "proven."Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

You are finding yourself in an interesting situation, Rat. I have grown to believe that I can never "prove" God on an intellectual and/or empirical level. I believe that God is evident in my heart and through my spiritual growth, however. Both you and I know that as believers, we have been taught that neither God nor creationism can ever be proven. (at least I don't think so.)Does that make our faith any less valid as Christians? IMO, No.BTW, where do you want to go with this topic? What is your central question?

I would echo the sentiments of AdminPhat in Message 8. You seem to be wrestling with issues revolving around how intertwined faith should be with evidence. I would suggest one of the religious forums, probably [forum=-6], and perhaps a title change to "Evidence and Faith".

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

My central question is in bold, and yes I agree with you phat.faith and belief sounds fine, and changing the title is fine with me also.

I changed it around a bit, can we promote it? I want to move on this subject in my church.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

There is absolute proof that the world was created.It exists.The question is "How was the world created?"And we are learning more and more each day about that question.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think that you need to be clear on exactly what you are asking.By "the world" do you mean the planet Earth, our Universe or something else ?By "created" do you mean that some intelligent entity somehow had a hand in the origin of the world - perhaps indirectly - or that an intelligent entity directly made the world or even that the world simply had an origin ?Taking the liberty of assuming that you mean to ask if there is solid objective evidence that an intelligent entity directly constructed the planet Earth I would have to answer that there is none that I am aware of.

I think we should go with the creation science definition found in wikipedia for this discussion.
Creation science - WikipediaI do not agree with jar, the fact that the earth exists, is not proof that it was created. It is proof that it exists, as we percieve it, and nothing moreThe creation of the bible, and of God, is saying that He made something from nothing. This is what creation science is trying to find out and prove.I do not even agree with this. I feel that if you were truely performing creation science, you would be looking for unbiased evidence that the world was created, doesn't matter by who.

You are still getting this wrong. True science doesn't start out with a conclusion. If the term "creation science" doesn't demonstrate conclusion first, I don't know what is.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

That of course is impossible and pointless.We can learn how the Earth was created, in fact we already have a pretty good idea of that. We can find examples of planet forming areas. Unfortunately we will not live long enough to actually observe the whole process but will likely be able to observe many of the stages.So we do know that the Earth was created. As soon as you put the "by" in there, you stop doing science.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I am not getting wrong. The world exists, that is a fact.
There can be hypothesis that say, the world was created, and then try to prove it, or come up with a theory. I don't know, and I don't care really.To me, it is no different than knowing cancer exists, and spending all my days trying to find a cure.The way the creation scientists, and AiG go about it, seem wrong to me. They should label it Christian science, os something else, for the time being until they could prove something.But your input is not helping me.I am not here to argue for the validity of creation science, or if creation science is science at all. I am only asking if there has been any valid evidence of the creation of the world, do not turn this into a creation science, is not science thread. Please refer to the op question in bold.

riVeRrat What would have to be evidenced in order for us to determine that a planet has been created or not RR?

Created? No, it was formed, or made, from existing materials.Created implies that someone or something did the creating, something other than physics, or the laws of the universe. You are drifting off topic. No you don't. You only stop doing one kind of science. Forensic science studies how people did something, it looks to find the "by".As I asked Taz, please do not turn this into the cretion science is not science thread.I am looking for evidence of the world being created, NOT FORMED.

I don't know. Isn't that what creation science is trying to prove?Isn't there always some other explanation for the evidences that creation science always comes up with? One more practical and realistic?I am turing to the experts for answers.