Use of Science to Support Creationism

BAEI'm not sure that I understand what you are saying in this paragraph...Are you saying that if something can be shown to be 12,000 years old it is proof of Creation?Are you saying that it is impossible to have an elbow arise in any manner other than Creation?And is supernatural intervention the only way that you can get large oil fields?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Actually, it really is and you can, if you are willing, find more than ample evidence that it is so on your own. Actually, there is little evidence that is not laughably silly in support of a young earth. There is even less evidence supporting a young universe and you can check that out for yourself through direct observation.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Damn, SI once again wakes up to throw the debate in Congress into termoil.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Let's look at your selected quote. Please read it fully. Here it says that the necessary beginning chemicals and state are easy to obtain. So that part should not be a problem. Here, it shows that the question next is to explain how that mix changed into something that was alive. And that there is evidence that suggests the change from inert to live might well happen. Many experiments certainly show things move towards increasing complexity. The last part. Just what does this sentence mean?The key word is tentative.Here. all that is said is that all of the results are not yet in. And that is correct. No one has yet demonstrated exactly how the chemical stew made the next transition from inert to living. But as he says, that is the direction that all the research seems to be pointing.So even the good Dr. Leslie Orgel seems to think that it is only a matter of time before the exact process itself is known, understood and demonstrated.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You said but that is not exactly how things work.First, there are changes and mutations going on all the time. These changes can be beneficial, neutral or bad. All three happen. The changes that are very bad are the changes that will not let that individual reproduce and so those changes very quickly get weeded out of the pool.The neutral changes are just there. They continue until something in the environment changes and they become either a good or bad change. Again, if they are very bad, the individual gets weeded out of the reproducing pool.The good changes are the ones that allow the individual to compete better in a given environment or to move into a new, less competitive environment. They help the individual reproduce.But remember, we are also talking about many individuals, not one individual.Consider the dice analogy. The odds of rolling one die and it coming up two are 6 to one. But if you roll ten dice, what do you think the likelyhood of one of those ten coming up two will be?This is a simple test that you can do for yourself. Just get ten dice and roll them. Record the number of times that one of the ten comes up two and repeat this experiment ten times. Let us know what happens.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Actually, you got most of the phrase in order. {Added some spaces to break the above into seperate lines, to restore page width to normal. - Adminnemooseus}But that still is not how Evolution works exactly.Imagine millions of folk typing at random, just as you were.But then there is natural selection working. It is a copiest that walks around the room looking over everyones' shoulder. It does none of the typing, has nothing to do with what's typed, but does take those phrases that work and discard those that don't.So you produced "To be or Not" just that quickly. Given one day you would have certainly completed the whole sentence.Natural selection is similar to the copiest. Random changes that help something survive and reproduce are kept. Those that do not help are either archived (a copy of what you typed kept to see what else you wrote of worth) or discarded (the individual dies and doesn't reproduce).This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-10-2004 12:16 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Let's see if we can wander back towards the topic.The Topic is "Use of Science to support Creationism".Instead of posting stuff that has NO meaning in the thread like Luke 21:33, maybe we can narrow things down.You keep saying that the Earth is 6000 years old.How could Science validate or invalidate that assertion?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That did not asnwer the question.Frankly, AIG is embarassing and as a Christian you should be very wary of them. But that will come later in your growth.So back to you, what Science would show the Earth was 6000 years old?What Science would show the Earth was older then 6000 years?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

How far away do you think the stars might be?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

is actually fairly recent. For many Billions of years there were no Grasses.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

IMHO, and in the opinion of most Christian Churches, the two are not mutually exclusive.The TOE deals with HOW. That is not the provence or orientation of religion. Religion deals with WHY.Science is great at helping us understand the HOWs of the universe. And most Christian Churches, as I have said, have no problems with the TOE and actually oppose the teaching of classic Genesis based creationism.But as a Christian, when I look at the order found at the most basic level, when I look at evolution, when I look at the way everything works together at the most basic level, I and many others see the hand of GOD.Is this Creationism? I'm not sure.Does it mean that I and others believe that GOD created the Universe? Well, yes.But it also does not exclude any of the things we've learned through science, or that we will learn in the future.So IMHO, all that we have learned and will learn using science simply helps support Creation, if not Creationism.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I wasn't trying to contradict you at all. What I am trying to do, as I have tried to do here in the past, is to show that the two, science and religion, are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary. Science teaches us HOW, religion provides the WHY.It seems that all too often what I see here are the biblical literalists that deny science and the scientific literalists that deny religion. For me, that seems to cripple both of them, leaving them as less than they might become.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

To see how people do things you can click on the RAW button under each post.For example, clicking on the RAW button will show you how I quoted your comment.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm sorry but it seems to me by your logic that there would not have been a GOD until man came along.As I see GOD's place in this universe, the existence of man is but a passing moment.If GOD exists, and I believe HE does, then HE existed long before man and will exist long after man. Our knowledge of GOD, our theology, is manmade. It is but a construct of mankind and may be, in fact likely is, but a pale image of what is true.You ask: Hopefully, as observations grew and knowledge accumulated, something would once again puzzle out the HOW, puzzle out evolution.But, as I have mentioned once or twice, the map is not the territory. Our theories, no matter how closely they approximate reality, are not reality itself. They are but tools we use to try to understand, to make sense of what we see. Probably not. If bacteria were capable of such thoughts, possibly.But once again, the knowledge of GOD, even the worship or denial of GOD has nothing to do with either the existence or nonexistence of GOD.edited to fix grammer.This message has been edited by jar, 10-26-2004 01:39 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion