Jump to content


Photo

Is Biblical Creation A Science


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#21 Robert Byers

Robert Byers

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Toronto,Ontario,Canada

Posted 07 March 2009 - 01:13 PM

Creation science is not like other science.
The whole point is not to do science but to discover the truth of the natural world.
We start from Gods witness and then do "science' to confirm or contend as the need requires.
It is a true criticism of evolution that we do not only make our case on the data.
We start from presumptions. Then use the data.
Evolution etc claims its presumptions are purely from proven data.
Yet in fact its just from the latest accepted ideas.

Its fine for evolution to say we don't reach our conclusions just on raw data.
Yet in the end we do discount evolutions claims based on discounting their evidence.

Yet creation science starts from biblical presumptions.
Our opponents in making this point try to further say we reject practical science. We don't despite our presumptions.

#22 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 09 March 2009 - 04:06 PM

The existence of God and his creation are axioms of our system. The bible never attempts to prove the existence of God; it assumes it from the start and considers any denial of God's existence to be culpable folly.

The function of science is to discover how the world works. The reason science can operate at all is that God is faithful and unchanging and his continuing maintenance of the world can therefore be described by physical laws.

Science can inform an enquiry into the details of the history of creation, but that history cannot be discovered by science. That is because history is not about how the world now works; it is about what happened in the past. History depends on witnesses; science (proper science) depends on experiment. You cannot experiment on the past.

Science that leaves God out of account is always culpable. In investigations of how things work, you can get away with it because God's faithfulness means that the laws don't (currently) change; that may cease to be the case soon, when the heavens are rolled up like a scroll...

Evolution not only ignores God's present maintenance of the world but also tries to deny that he was ever involved. The assumptions of methodological naturalism, which are valid for enquiry into current physical processes, are utterly inappropriate to an historical account of origins, because they close off by definition half of the solution set. Either the world was created or it is somehow eternal or self-created. Naturalism insists on the latter before enquiry starts, so it is clearly never going to be able to make a proper assessment of any evidence to the contrary.

We can therefore see that the difference between creation science and materialistic science is one of a clash of worldviews. The naturalist declares that there is no god (or at least none that acts in the world) whereas the Christian insists that God is and always has been involved in his creation. The two sides can hardly talk to each other, because of the gulf of assumptions. One can however judge between them on the basis of how well their system deals with all available data. We contend that YEC (creation, fall, flood) best accounts for the current state of the world and the historical, archaeological and physical data, whereas evolution (naturalism) fails to describe valid mechanisms for the events that it claims to have taken place.

There are certain areas where a scientist explicitly using the data of Genesis might be expected to get better results than one using evolutionary assumptions. A geologist might get better practical results by assuming the flood rather than long ages of sedimentation. In medicine, evolutionary assumptions may hinder research and treatment. For example, evolutionary prejudice claimed that our spines are poorly designed for our upright posture, whereas they are in fact perfectly designed for it. As a result, inappropriate treatment was prescribed for back problems (link to CMI article). Finally, evolutionary assumptions have frequently tended to write off whole organs as vestigial and large parts of our genetic code as junk, whereas there are no vestigial organs and junk DNA is being found to be functional. A creation scientist would not have made those errors.

#23 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 March 2009 - 06:56 PM

Robert Byers and Oliver,

Welcome aboard and thanks for participating in the thread.

#24 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 March 2009 - 07:05 PM

Isaac Newton

Sir Isaac Newton is credited with many scientific and mathematical contributions and is considered by many to be the father of modern science. Along with being an ardent believer in the Bible and Genesis, he was a physicist, a mathematician, an astronomer, a philosopher, and an alchemist.

He said: "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."(Perloff, p241.)

And also: All my discoveries have been made in answer to prayer.(Perloff, p241.)

Notable Scientific Accomplishments

He formulated his law of universal gravitation adding mathematical strength to Johannes Kepler's mathematical formulations of planetary motion.
He developed the theory of calculus at the same time as Leibniz.
He discovered that white light was made up of all the colours of the visible spectrum, by passing white light through one prism to form all the colours, and then passing it through another prism to recombine the colours back into white light again.
Using that knowledge of light, he improved the telescope.
He formulated his three famous laws of motion, including the law of inertia.
He summarized a lot of his formulations in his book Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica (mathematical principles of natural philosophy), and his work made great contributions to mathematics, physics and astronomy even for today.

Publications

July 31 - De analysi sent is to John Collins,
February 8 of 1672 Newton publishes a letter entitled, Light & Colors in the Philosophical Transactions,
November of 1684 - Newton sends his short treatise De motu to London,
May 19 - Royal Society publishes Principia,
1704 - Newton publishes first edition of Opticks.

Quotes

"The planets and comets will constantly pursue their revolu-tions in orbits given in kind and position, according to the laws above explained; but though these bodies may, indeed, continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws" (Principia, “General Scholium,” 1713).

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being."(Principia, “General Scholium,” 1713)

"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."

http://creationwiki.org/Isaac_Newton

#25 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 March 2009 - 09:19 PM

So far I have found that every "Father" of science,throughout history,has been a bible believing christian.(Biology,Genetics,Medicine,Taxonomy,Physics,Astronomy,Ecology,Geology,etc).In fact,I have'nt found a single ateist yet that is the "Father" of any science.

Let us say with absolute certainty that Ken Miller's claim that Creation is a "science stopper" is not only falsified,but the biggest scientific dishonesty ever spoken by anyone.




Enjoy.

#26 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 March 2009 - 11:18 PM

Louis Pasteur-Father of Micro Biology



In past years revisionist historians have been rewriting the worldview of Christians who have made some of the major discoveries in biology and medicine. It appears that postmodern revisionists are rewriting history to support their agenda of a more “secular” explanation to science. The Judeo-Christian worldview is not politically correct in most universities. This is true in regard to past scientists such as Louis Pasteur who believed in creation. According to reliable, primary sources such as René Vallery-Radot, Pasteur’s son-in-law, Pasteur’s unique view and application of operational science gave him a significant advantage, benefiting mankind in a number of critical areas.

Shortly after Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, Pasteur began to challenge the idea of spontaneous generation—the foundation of the evolutionary view on the origin of life. Pasteur’s simple, but elegant swan-necked flask experiments not only put to rest the organic life-from-non-life idea, but also set the foundation for the law of biogenesis: life only comes from life. The genesis of germs in hospital patients were the result of microbes having parents, not a result of spontaneous generation. This revolutionary idea would have application in many areas of medicine. It forms the basis of sterilization, asepsis in surgery, and the germ theory of disease.

Pasteur had the uncanny ability to combine theoretical, operational, and applied science—the mark of a truly gifted scientist. Pasteur understood the variability of microbes and how he could apply this principle in vaccine preparation. For example, he noticed that Bacillus anthracis cultures sometimes lose their pathogenic ability when heated, and then retain this modified, nonvirulent, or “attenuated” trait through many generations. He applied this concept to vaccinate dozens of sheep that would have otherwise died at a critical time in France. His understanding of this natural variation was also successfully applied in developing vaccines for chicken cholera and rabies.

Although his scientific pronouncements were sometimes abrasive to his fellow scientists, he remained firm in his convictions, borne from painstaking research. Pasteur had a strong religious and humanitarian spirit. He firmly believed in God, as the Creator of all living things. From his knowledge of the Gospels, he wanted to benefit mankind by having his ideas used to “heal the sick.”


Table 1. Louis Pasteur and his major milestones in microbiology.

Date: Milestones in Microbiology:

1822) Birth of Louis Pasteur in Dole, France

1844–1848) Discovers crystal rotation of polarized light to the right and left

1857) Shows lactic acid formation in milk and butter is due to bacteria

1861–1864) Disproves spontaneous generation

1862) Elected to the Academy of Sciences

1864) Invents pasteurization for wine and other foods

1867) Helps Joseph Lister develop aseptic surgery

1870) Publishes his studies on the diseases of silkworms

1873) Elected to the Academy of Medicine

1877) Propounds the germ theory of disease

1879) Discovers immunization against chicken cholera, using attenuated bacteria

1881) Successful experiment of vaccinating sheep against anthrax

1881) Awarded the Grand Cross of the Legion of Honor

1882) Elected to the Academie Francaise

1885) Successfully tests his first vaccine against rabies on Joseph Meister

1894) The Pasteur Institute succeeds in producing vaccine for diphtheria

1895) Death of Louis Pasteur at Saint Cloud (near Paris), France



http://www.answersin...-pasteurs-views

#27 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 10 March 2009 - 04:20 AM

So far I have found that every "Father" of science,throughout history,has been a bible believing christian

View Post


Given that these "Fathers" were around before Darwin, and before the considerable amount of evidence that has come post Darwin to supports the TOE then its not surprising.

Until the TOE, there was no credible alternative to the Biblical story. It is also worth considering that those "fathers" were products of their generation and also held views on other things that we would find unacceptable today...such as the acceptance of slavery. At the end of the day who knows what they would think in light of modern science? Therefore their views on the validity of creation have absolutely NO relevence to an argument concerning creation science and should be ignored.

The Cathalic church did not believe in heliocentrism despite Galileo's evidence. Catholic scientists since have changed their views in light of the evidence, but one would'nt hold up scientists prior to Galileo as being correct. Science is constantly evolving, with each discovery being built on the back of another. It is wholly arrogant to assume what someone would think given todays knowledge and understanding.

#28 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 10 March 2009 - 05:22 AM

Given that these "Fathers" were around before Darwin, and before the considerable amount of evidence that has come post Darwin to supports the TOE then its not surprising.

Until the TOE, there was no credible alternative to the Biblical story. It is also worth considering that those "fathers" were products of their generation and also held views on other things that we would find unacceptable today...such as the acceptance of slavery. At the end of the day who knows what they would think in light of modern science? Therefore their views on the validity of creation have absolutely NO relevence to an argument concerning creation science and should be ignored.

The Cathalic church did not believe in heliocentrism despite Galileo's evidence. Catholic scientists since have changed their views in light of the evidence, but one would'nt hold up scientists prior to Galileo as being correct. Science is constantly evolving, with each discovery being built on the back of another. It is wholly arrogant to assume what someone would think given todays knowledge and understanding.

View Post


Not so with Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics. Evolution failed the breeding test, and you know what... the breeding test is the only test. Gregor Mendel tried to tell the not so intelligent scientist at the time that breeding uses existing information combinations to breed the animals we see, and no where in the history of mankind during the breeding process has evolution occured.

Evolution has failed, and will continue to fail, just go to your local farm, and you'll see the truth without all the fancy textbook diagrams that are full of imaginary tales and lies.

#29 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 10 March 2009 - 01:40 PM

Most of them were around at the same time as Darwin or after Darwin.Everyone of them rejected evolution because it was not scientific nor is their any "scientific law" of evolution today.Evolution is still contradictory to every know law of science discovered by Creationists.

#30 Robert Byers

Robert Byers

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Toronto,Ontario,Canada

Posted 11 March 2009 - 07:36 PM

So far I have found that every "Father" of science,throughout history,has been a bible believing christian.(Biology,Genetics,Medicine,Taxonomy,Physics,Astronomy,Ecology,Geology,etc).In fact,I have'nt found a single ateist yet that is the "Father" of any science.

Let us say with absolute certainty that Ken Miller's claim that Creation is a "science stopper" is not only falsified,but the biggest scientific dishonesty ever spoken by anyone.
Enjoy.

View Post


While I don't know if bible believing is the right term but yes Science is from Christiandom. So thinking men would believe back then in God and some geneisis.
In fact modern science is actually from and was largely a achievment of Protestant Europe. especially the British peoples. this was due to the influence and raising of intellectual standards by evangelical christianity.
So science and civilization of the highest order in mankind is directly a patent of evangelical Protestants. Primarily in the Anglo-American world.
So investigation as done here would show this connection between the thinkers and inventors since the reformation until the 1800's.

#31 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 11 July 2009 - 05:18 AM

Here is a good article that fits well in this thread:

http://www.answersin...ful-predictions

#32 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 11 July 2009 - 08:56 PM

Here is a good article that fits well in this thread:

http://www.answersin...ful-predictions

View Post


Thats a great link Adam.It saves a lot of typing.LOL

#33 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 11 July 2009 - 10:31 PM

So far I have found that every "Father" of science,throughout history,has been a bible believing christian.(Biology,Genetics,Medicine,Taxonomy,Physics,Astronomy,Ecology,Geology,etc).In fact,I have'nt found a single ateist yet that is the "Father" of any science.

Let us say with absolute certainty that Ken Miller's claim that Creation is a "science stopper" is not only falsified,but the biggest scientific dishonesty ever spoken by anyone.
Enjoy.

View Post


Was Maxwell a bible believing Christian? Or Einstein? Or Hawking?

#34 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 11 July 2009 - 10:33 PM

Creation science is not like other science.
The whole point is not to do science but to discover the truth of the natural world.
We start from Gods witness and then do "science' to confirm or contend as the need requires.
It is a true criticism of evolution that we do not only make our case on the data.
We start from presumptions. Then use the data.
Evolution etc claims its presumptions are purely from proven data.
Yet in fact its just from the latest accepted ideas.

Its fine for evolution to say we don't reach our conclusions just on raw data.
Yet in the end we do discount evolutions claims based on discounting their evidence.

Yet creation science starts from biblical presumptions.
Our opponents in making this point try to further say we reject practical science. We don't despite our presumptions.

View Post


What do you do when your creation science doesn't agree with scripture? What do you do when your science actually challenges your personal beliefs?

#35 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 July 2009 - 11:28 PM

And for what it's worth, I've been unable to find any evidence supporting the myth of scientists changing their minds. Neither I, nor anyone I've asked has been able to track down even one man-of-science in the 19th century who was persuaded to give up "young earth" creationism on the "scientific merit" of evolutionism.

A process of replacement took place. Conversion did not.

View Post

I suggest that most scientists at the end of the 19th century did not accept YEC, but instead estimates of the age of the earth and the sun due to William Thompson, later Lord Kelvin. He produced several different estimates for the earth based on the time it would take to cool from molten rock.
His estimate for the sun was based on energy output and how much coal which the sun could contain - not very realistic, but the best he knew.
His age estimates were in the range 20 - 100 million years. Definitely not YEC but hardly sufficient for evolution.

Kelvin's reaction to the first estimate of an older earth is described here, on pages 163-164:-
http://books.google....result&resnum=1
He may not have been enthusiastic about the new values, but he was certainly no YEC believer.

#36 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 01 June 2013 - 12:51 AM

Louis Pasteur-Father of Micro Biology



In past years revisionist historians have been rewriting the worldview of Christians who have made some of the major discoveries in biology and medicine. It appears that postmodern revisionists are rewriting history to support their agenda of a more “secular†explanation to science. The Judeo-Christian worldview is not politically correct in most universities. This is true in regard to past scientists such as Louis Pasteur who believed in creation. According to reliable, primary sources such as René Vallery-Radot, Pasteur’s son-in-law, Pasteur’s unique view and application of operational science gave him a significant advantage, benefiting mankind in a number of critical areas.
...

Revisionist? What did they actually revise. They did make things up and in fact they are kind of main stream and hegemonic. 



#37 Dig4gold

Dig4gold

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 53
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Raleigh, NC

Posted 01 June 2013 - 09:34 AM

Great thread! My vote is for biblical creationism being not only a science but the foundation of our modern sciences.

Bonus: word of the day; hegemonic




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users