Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What is Creation Science or "Biblical Creation"? Simple words, but how to flesh out?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What is Creation Science or "Biblical Creation"? Simple words, but how to flesh out?

    Perhaps this thread topic is too broad as was my "Consilient Evidence for YEC". But here I'd the like the YECs (and maybe certain OECs?) to:

    (1) give their definition of "Creation Science" or "Biblical Creation" or "Literal Narrative" as some call it.

    (2) Then perhaps we can choose the version that best matches the Genesis stories, as well as other references to Creation in the Bible, and proceed fleshing out the "literal" aspect of it. Of course if the reading is supposed to be "plain and simple" then you should all (pretty much?) agree on this part.

    Well, let's see how this goes. If you argue by hyperlink, please give a brief summary of the reference in your own words.

    Thanks!

    K54

  • #2
    It was Henry Morris that coined the term "Biblical Creationist" and defined it as someone who relies solely upon the Bible to make his case that the earth and surrounding universe are a few thousand years old and everything was created in six sequential 24 hour long days. He called those who used the Bible and science to support this view "Scientific Biblical Creationists."

    IMHO, he did this in order to attempt to make it seem that YECs are supported by the Bible and that anyone who disagrees with their position is anti-Biblical. The fact is that all Christians are Biblical Creationists of some type in that I think it is safe to say that we all agree that God is responsible for the Creation. We just disagree over the details of how this was accomplished.

    Disagreeing with the YEC reading of Scripture is not disagreeing with the Bible but how YECs interpret it.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
      Perhaps this thread topic is too broad as was my "Consilient Evidence for YEC". But here I'd the like the YECs (and maybe certain OECs?) to:
      (1) give their definition of "Creation Science" or "Biblical Creation" or "Literal Narrative" as some call it.
      (2) Then perhaps we can choose the version that best matches the Genesis stories, as well as other references to Creation in the Bible, and proceed fleshing out the "literal" aspect of it. Of course if the reading is supposed to be "plain and simple" then you should all (pretty much?) agree on this part.
      K54
      Creation is magic. Science is the investigation of natural phenomena. Creation Science is an oxymoron. Creation Science also goes by the name Intelligent Design. Why would you have a topic about magic in Natural Science?
      “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
      “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
      “not all there” - you know who you are

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        It was Henry Morris that coined the term "Biblical Creationist" and defined it as someone who relies solely upon the Bible to make his case that the earth and surrounding universe are a few thousand years old and everything was created in six sequential 24 hour long days. He called those who used the Bible and science to support this view "Scientific Biblical Creationists."

        IMHO, he did this in order to attempt to make it seem that YECs are supported by the Bible and that anyone who disagrees with their position is anti-Biblical. The fact is that all Christians are Biblical Creationists of some type in that I think it is safe to say that we all agree that God is responsible for the Creation. We just disagree over the details of how this was accomplished.

        Disagreeing with the YEC reading of Scripture is not disagreeing with the Bible but how YECs interpret it.
        Yeah! You tell 'em, big brother!
        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
          Creation is magic. Science is the investigation of natural phenomena. Creation Science is an oxymoron. Creation Science also goes by the name Intelligent Design. Why would you have a topic about magic in Natural Science?
          The belief this universe was created is not necessarily 'magic' nor does it necessarily involve magic. It is a religious/philosophical concept, yes. But that does not make it 'magic'. Creation Science is therefore not an oxymoron for the reason you cite. Further, it is conceivable that if the universe has a Creator, there are historical records of His hand left in the creation that can be discovered scientifically. So the possibility of viable Creation Science can only be dismissed a priori based on personal belief, not objective fact.

          The problem with YEC is that the elements that are claimed to point to a 6 day creation 6000 years ago do not in fact do that. They, specifically, are in the vast majority simply 'not science'. And the people the push the claims at the top theoretically have the education that would allow them to understand the problems with what they are selling, which points to some form of self-deception or conscious/willful deception. These are the issues with YEC. And they do in fact belong in Nat Sci, as this is the forum on this site where people qualified to debate the 'science' in 'Creation Science' tend to hang out. Not to mention most of the other forums don't like their world sullied by the complexities and abrasiveness that tend to accompany vigorous scientific debate.

          Jim
          Last edited by oxmixmudd; 04-12-2014, 09:20 AM.
          He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

          "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            Yeah! You tell 'em, big brother!
            You know that any time you agree with me it forces me to carefully reconsider what I said

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              You know that any time you agree with me it forces me to carefully reconsider what I said
              I should hope so!
              "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                Creation is magic. Science is the investigation of natural phenomena. Creation Science is an oxymoron. Creation Science also goes by the name Intelligent Design. Why would you have a topic about magic in Natural Science?
                Because the "firstfloor" of this website is theology and this portion deals with science. Hence "Scientific Creationism" is the ideal location for this thread.

                And no matter how much of a strident anti-God ontological naturalist and materialist you are (one who BELIEVES that scientific method can answer all questions), you still have that nasty origins issue, which at this stage is scientifically "explainable" only by wild conjecture.

                This thread is mainly for YECs to focustheir interpretation of the Bible and science and to measure how much variability there is in the same.

                K54

                P.S. "Intelligent Design" is not at issue here. ID differs from "Creation Science" in that the former is untestable because it means whatever anyone wants it to mean, while the latter is in principle testable since it SHOULD involve a precise mapping of the Genesis stories (not a general anything-you-want-it-to-be "intelligence") to the body of scientific knowledge.
                Last edited by klaus54; 04-12-2014, 01:15 PM. Reason: Added P.S.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  The belief this universe was created is not necessarily 'magic' nor does it necessarily involve magic. It is a religious/philosophical concept, yes. But that does not make it 'magic'. Creation Science is therefore not an oxymoron for the reason you cite. Further, it is conceivable that if the universe has a Creator, there are historical records of His hand left in the creation that can be discovered scientifically. So the possibility of viable Creation Science can only be dismissed a priori based on personal belief, not objective fact.

                  The problem with YEC is that the elements that are claimed to point to a 6 day creation 6000 years ago do not in fact do that. They, specifically, are in the vast majority simply 'not science'. And the people the push the claims at the top theoretically have the education that would allow them to understand the problems with what they are selling, which points to some form of self-deception or conscious/willful deception. These are the issues with YEC. And they do in fact belong in Nat Sci, as this is the forum on this site where people qualified to debate the 'science' in 'Creation Science' tend to hang out. Not to mention most of the other forums don't like their world sullied by the complexities and abrasiveness that tend to accompany vigorous scientific debate.

                  Jim
                  Good words, Jim.

                  I'm also interested in theological issue of more-or-less precise exegesis of the Genesis stories in the light of what the ANE people understood vis-a-vis what we understand today.

                  If, for example, literalists can't agree on what "Let there be Light" means, then what sense is it to put forth these stories as a substitute for what we can observe via scientific method? For the theist, the latter is referred to as the "other book of creation."

                  To ME, "literal" implies unambiguous. Without that, at the very least you have interpretation -- not a clear plain reading, and YEC science basically becomes a type of very very strong concordism.

                  K54

                  P.S. ThisJorge character should chime in here, don't you all think?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                    Because the "firstfloor" of this website is theology and this portion deals with science. Hence "Scientific Creationism" is the ideal location for this thread.
                    And no matter how much of a strident anti-God ontological naturalist and materialist you are (one who BELIEVES that scientific method can answer all questions), you still have that nasty origins issue, which at this stage is scientifically "explainable" only by wild conjecture.
                    This thread is mainly for YECs to focustheir interpretation of the Bible and science and to measure how much variability there is in the same.
                    K54
                    P.S. "Intelligent Design" is not at issue here. ID differs from "Creation Science" in that the former is untestable because it means whatever anyone wants it to mean, while the latter is in principle testable since it SHOULD involve a precise mapping of the Genesis stories (not a general anything-you-want-it-to-be "intelligence") to the body of scientific knowledge.
                    I think you will soon find that nobody will be able to write anything scientific on this topic.
                    “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                    “not all there” - you know who you are

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                      I think you will soon find that nobody will be able to write anything scientific on this topic.
                      If you ONLY KNEW Oxmixmudd's background!
                      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                        I think you will soon find that nobody will be able to write anything scientific on this topic.
                        Well, if so it will be an interesting (yet another?) null result.

                        K54

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Not sure of the appropriate place to post photos on TheologyWeb, but I snapped this an hour ago at the local carwash and found it amusing. Are there still AKJV-onlyers out there?

                          Doesn't the translation of "raqia" as "firmament" cause trouble for them?

                          K54

                          0412141733a-1.jpg
                          Last edited by klaus54; 04-12-2014, 07:45 PM. Reason: No photo uploaded?!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                            Are there still AKJV-onlyers out there?
                            Try Jorge.

                            Roy
                            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                            mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                            Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                            Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Roy View Post
                              Try Jorge.

                              Roy
                              Jorge,

                              Firmament?

                              Unicorns?

                              K54

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Juvenal, 11-30-2020, 04:47 PM
                              3 responses
                              42 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Terraceth  
                              Started by rogue06, 11-28-2020, 12:54 PM
                              4 responses
                              37 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-26-2020, 09:46 PM
                              0 responses
                              12 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by lee_merrill, 11-23-2020, 10:25 PM
                              5 responses
                              52 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Seeker
                              by Seeker
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-22-2020, 08:25 AM
                              5 responses
                              74 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X