Creationist Scientists, can it be?

I should add that the article I linked to is a bit of humour - the data is fine, but the conclusion drawn at the end that the universe is getting older at an exponential rate is satire on bad science - so possibly relevant here on account of that too!Alan

quote:

---

first is prayer

---

Lots of people pray and to many different gods. I know you'll hate this question, but what makes your God special? Why pray to him over any other? Circular answers don't count.

quote:

---

second is archaeology, do the places of the old testament exist?

---

Yes, of course. The Isrealites were not living in a vacuum. They mentioned the people and the cities around them in their writings, just as everyone else did and as people still do. The question should be, what does this prove? Nothing, really, just that the Isrealites were living in and around Egypt, Babylon, etc. It does not prove anything 'metaphysical' about the Bible, any more than the mention of a city is a movie makes the storyline of the movie true.Another way to look at it is that if the mention of real cities in the Bible, serves as evidence for the veracity of the religion presented in the Bible, then the mention of real cities in any other religious work serves as evidence for the veracity of that religion. I don't think you desire this consequence.

quote:

---

if so how well do they match up to the events/is there evidence of the events taking place?

---

The short answer is "not very." The Bible does not match up very well with anything we know from other sources. There is no evidence for most of the major events described-- the captivity in Egypt for example, or the Flood. The time-frames are frequently wrong, placing people of events in cities that didin't exist at the time or attributing activities to kings at times when those kings were not in power.Why not pick an event and we'll look at the evidence for it?

quote:

---

third is God is interactive, he is fully well willing to answer our queries...

---

In what way? The 'still small voice'? If this is evidence for the Biblical god then every other god on the planet is equally validated. People all 'talk' to there gods and those gods all 'talk' back in some form or other-- revelation, prophecy, the lives of avatars, dreams and trances. You must accept all those gods on the same grounds that you accept your own, or you must reject your god on the same grounds that you reject those false gods.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 03-31-2003]

and Okay, my query was about testing that the bible is God's word in "repeatable experiments". You haven't actually answered that. Archaeology is history, so whether or not it matches the bible has nothing to do with whether God wrote the bible, since men can report history without God's intervention.The problem with listening to God's word through prayer is that it is *always* filtered through humans. That's why no one can agree with each other about what God is saying.And again, none of this has anything to do with repeatable experiments.------------------
o--greyline--o

Thank you.

Okaaaayyyy....Except that science is not particulary in agreement with much in the Bible if one takes it literally.

quote:

---

but we are furthering science everyday and it is coming steps closer and closer to a perfect understanding...

---

Science can never own up to having a "complete understanding", even in theory because it is dynamic and always questioning itself.

Creationism isnt science for one simple reason. Scientists dont sign tennets of faith that say ignore any evidence that contradicts your view. How can one practice science that way?All Scientists are willing to give up their view if it is demonstrated wrong. Unfotrunatly no one has doen that with evolution. We did this with Plate Tectonics. It was laughed up until it was explained 50 years later and many gelogists gave up their view, even though it ruined their whole lives work.

Can you give it another go about "what way" this is you put in your first sentence? I would appreciate a little bit more clarity. Did you mean "said, ignore" or "do ignore" or what?

sure- "That way" is literally ignoring the results of any sort of evidence or test publsihed. The Tenets of faith mentioned above say literally that. This is why young-earth creationism isnt science.