Quick Questions, Short Answers - No Debate

Science does not take a conclusion and look for evidence to support it. For that reason creation science is a misnomer.

Science just doesn't work that way.

Thanks everyone, for the feedback.

Before I propose a new topic I was wondering is there are any evolutionist' that would like to try to build a scientific Creation Model with me according to the Book Of Genesis?

I have to sort of echo everybody else and ask you why it has to be according to the Book of Genesis, and not just according to the physical and scientific evidence?

Basically i'm asking if some of the evolutionists here were to undertake a project of going about to try to build a Creation Model according to the book of Genesis how would you go about doing it?

Well, I guess I'd cheat - I'd make up the evidence that I needed, ignore the evidence that I couldn't explain, and accuse everybody who didn't believe me of being part of a huge conspiracy to conceal the truth. In other words I'd do exactly what creationists do.

It's worked on, like, more than 50% of Americans. Why not stick with the winning strategy?

I'm asking if you were to try to do it, how would you? Where would you start? What would you need? How would you go about doing it?

Ok, without being any more glib, I guess what you'd need - since you're talking about explaining the history and diversity of life on Earth - is a good, and broad, education in biology. There's no substitute for knowing what you're talking about, it's not "optional", you really can't contribute to science or even really use it until you actually know it. Math and science aren't just something you can say "well, we'll get a guy for that." If you're going to do this, you have to be the one who knows about living things.

So, you have to study biology. You have to know the organelles of the cell, you have to know how cells produce proteins from DNA, you have to know what proteins do, you have to know what kind of chemical reactions carbon is capable of, you have to know why, and how, we classify organisms into different groups and you have to know those groups. How are you going to explain the origin of species if you don't know what species there even are?

And if you're going to go through all of the time and expense to study all that, you might as well do it at a university and get a bachelor's degree out of it. There's no reason why the fact that you're not a biologist now should prevent you from doing the work to become one in the future.

Thanks everyone, for the feedback.

I'm sorry we couldn't be more help, but the trouble is that creationism may be beyond help. After all, you guys have had hundreds of years to come up with something. If your most hopeful idea now is to appeal to the evolutionists to see if we can do any better ... well, what are the chances of that?

Edited.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Post deleted.

Edited by crashfrog, : removed

Always willing to discuss the subject but in the words of Bishop Sims,

"In the Bible the intermingling of why and how is evident, especially in the opening chapters of Genesis. There the majestic statements of God's action, its value and the place of humanity in it, use an orderly and sequential statement of method. The why of the divine work is carried in a primitive description of how the work was done.

But even here the distinction between religion and science is clear. In Genesis there is not one creation statement but two. They agree as to why and who, but are quite different as to how and when. The statements are set forth in tandem, chapter one of Genesis using one description of method and chapter two another. According to the first, humanity was created, male and female, after the creation of plants and animals. According to the second, man was created first, then the trees, the animals and finally the woman and not from the earth as in the first account, but from the rib of the man. Textual research shows that these two accounts are from two distinct eras, the first later in history, the second earlier. "

From his Pastoral letter on Evolution.

Since there isn't even one creation model in the Bible but rather at least two mutually exclusive tales, it is a difficult undertaking.

Since there isn't even one creation model in the Bible but rather at least two mutually exclusive tales, it is a difficult undertaking.

Any idea why they would have included 2 accounts of creation?

The "Quick Questions, Short Answers - No Debate" topic is not working that way (which would reqire a miracle).

Please find or start a proper topic for whatever debate(s).

Closing in about 15 minutes.

Adminnemooseus

Sure. Two different traditions, different eras, cultures. Politics.

See message 339.

Adminnemooseus