"Evidence and Faith"

In other words, no miracles....ever?Or just no objective miracles?

Then what science are they claiming that they do?

They are claiming that they do real science.They are actually doing pseudoscience.Pretend science, in other words.

Is it that you have a rpoblem with what they do, or what they call themselves? OR both?What would you call it?You see, I do not have a problem with what they do, and I do not really even call what they call it, unless they are purposefully lying to us.If a search for creation was genuine, I would be for it.And just so you know, I haven't spent as much time in the science forums here, and do not argue about creation science on a regular basis. I stay more in the faith, and coffee house forums, so I haven't been through all the material.I mean even creation science whole objective was to show that evidences we use for evolution are false, then I am for it. But, again, not if they are going to lie about it.I want to know the truth about things, spiritual, and scientific. Right, what I didn't understand is to what extent.This is my problem, and how I will presenting it. On one hand, we believe in God by faith, but on the other hand, when we are sick, and God has not cured us, we go to the doctor, we drive cars, we use technology (Even to preach) all formed from "real science" not creation science. We even pray and thank God for the ability to do science.So we are hypocrites.

No, in this case, I am trying to educate people, and if they are ignorant to the facts, then I will probably offend them. My purpose is to educate, not offend. MY purpose is to get closer to the heart of God.

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

In other words, no miracles....ever?

---

Why not think of the universe itself as THE miracle? Why do we need any more miracles than that? If there's a God who created it all, why did he or she need to keep performing miracles? Whatever God did at that one moment where everything started was obviously all that was needed for everything and every living being in our wonderful universe to develop. Why do you need more miracles?

---

W.W.E.D.?

Certainly no "scientific" miracles.You are talking about proof and by definition, "miracles" cannot ever be proven.The most that can ever be said scientifically would be "cause unknown."

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Say what! I've explained that they are at best misrepresenting creation science as actual science, and at worst are simply lying, and you're having trouble figuring out why people see this as a bad thing? If I have to explain why misrepresentation and lying are bad then I give up. I call it telling people that there is scientific support for the Genesis accounts when there isn't. When someone says something that isn't true, what do *you* call it?This is why I asked you if you could name any creation science effort that had properly followed the standards and methods of true science, and had also come up with a result that supported any view of young earth creationism.In fact, can you name any contribution to science of any creation science research over its entire half century of existence?These are rhetorical questions because the answers are obvious, and the implications of the answers are equally obvious. Creation science has not made a single contribution to science over it's entire existence, and that's because they're not doing science. They're doing religion. They are doing religion and calling it science. They are taking their religion to school boards, textbook publishers and state legislatures and calling it science. Is that misrepresentation? Lying? Ignorance? What label do you want to give it? Certainly not honesty or knowledge, I hope. A scientific search for creation is in progress as we speak. It's called cosmology. They lie about it. By "lie" I mean they say things that aren't true, though often out of ignorance. Now what? Spiritual truth and scientific truth are two different things. This is where creationism goes so wildly wrong, by assuming that spiritual truth and the findings of science should be weighed on the same scales. They should not. Christianity assumes a supernatural realm inhabited by God. Science makes no such assumption (nor exclusion) and by its very definition keeps its focus on the natural world. Seems like it should be easy for Christians to avoid this label just by telling the truth, which includes saying "I don't know" when you don't know. But instead they say, "The Bible says the world is 6000 years old and there was great flood, and if science says otherwise then it's wrong."Where in your experience has religion ever shown itself to you to be an effective way of learning how the natural world works? Think about this, and then ask the same question about science. The list of contributions of religion to our knowledge of the natural world is nil, that for science nearly endless. In fact, the history of religion is one of holding back scientific progress.If creation science were truly science in that they adhered to the standards and methods of science then they would be successful in the halls of science. In science it isn't the answer you get, but the scientific quality of your approach.You should be telling your pastor that he should avoid bringing the kind of "science" he's familiar with into the church, and that the reason is because the information he's being provided is highly suspect, has no legitimate scientific support, and is very probably wrong from scientific standpoint. If he wants to say that we don't understand why science gives different answers than Genesis, then that's at least a religiously honest answer from a believer's standpoint.--Percy

I do think of the universe itself as a miracle.We need more miracles than that we can come to know God. It gives people hope, and faith.No matter what I present to my church, I am sure I will never be able to say: "there are no miracles."I have witnessed miracles in my own life.If science doesn't want to admit to miracles, or if science is unable to prove miracles, then that is fine. That is where we draw the line. But the "cause unknown" will forever be miracles in the minds of those that have faith.I will not even attempt to take that away from people.

Thanks Percy for your replies, it all makes sense to me. This is significant, and what I am looking for. Is there anyway of proving this?

As someone said before, Creation Science cannot be proven wrong.
But that doesn't mean you can't make it look silly...Someone quoted this in another thread, I find it appropriate..

quote:

---

I asked them one question.

​

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

​

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!'

---

Full articleEdited by Kader, : No reason given.

You mean proving that they've never made a single scientific contribution? Let me reply by way of example. I claim there are pink unicorns living on a small planet in the Andromeda galaxy. You say I'm wrong. Can you prove I'm wrong? No, of course not. Does that mean these pink unicorns exist? No, of course not.You have to approach the issue from the opposite direction. It isn't for me to prove creation science has never made any scientific contributions. In other words, it isn't my job to prove a negative. Proving a negative is usually not possible. Rather, it is up to creation science to support their claims of being legitimate science by producing examples of some actual legitimate scientific research that they've conducted. I'm not aware of any examples, and no one else here is aware of any, either.But if you instead were asking if there was any way of proving that they're doing religion and not science, all I can tell you is that every single time they've marched into court, creation science has been ruled to be thinly disguised Genesis, or in the more recent case of Dover and intelligent design, ruled to be thinly disguised creationism which had already been ruled to be thinly disguised Genesis.Look at it this way. If an objective examination of the evidence revealed the world to be 6000 years old and modern geology to be the result of a global flood 4500 years ago, then scientists of all faiths and nationalities would be able to see this. But the only "scientists" who see the evidence this way are "creation scientists", all of whom happen to be Christian evangelicals. No non-evangelical Christian scientists see it this way. No Islamic scientists. No Buddhist scientists. No Jewish scientists. No Hindu scientists. Just evangelical Christian scientists.The reason for this is that evolution, and as time went by geology and cosmology, flatly contradict the Genesis account, and evangelical Christians see the teaching of these subjects as a threat to the faith of their children, who they dearly love and who they want to receive the blessings that come as a result of faith and trust in the Lord. And so they just decide that the science is wrong and go about doing their best to raise doubts about science, not among scientists but among those least qualified to make judgements about science: the lay public, school board members, textbook publishers and legislators.But beliefs don't change facts. God wrote his word in the rocks, it was fallible men who wrote God's word in the Bible. Scientists trust the rocks.--Percy

This is a negative statment: "There are NO examples of...". You can't prove that without an exhaustive search.However, it is easy to disprove such a statment, produce an example.I'm prepared to believe that it might be possible. I'm also prepared to believe that the example will only make creation science look really silly when compared to the examples from real science. I look forward to the attempts.

Ask them. When you start from a conclusion (ie: the flood happened/the earth is young) you're not doing science, you're twisting reality to try to support your mythology.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

That's the problem.To science, it's "cause unknown yet". The cause might be discovered tomorrow and religion will have to retreat again.People of faith need to come to a better understanding of what miracles are. Miracles do not have to defy the laws of the universe.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC