Science vs. Creationism

[MVP]

To be clear, that's not my view. My own personal view is that the days spoken of in Genesis chapter 1 are symbolic time periods of much longer duration. But my point was that the scientific evidence (including such things as the Cosmic Microwave Background) makes it very clear that the universe is far, far older than 6000 years... so the only real way to hold on to the view that the earth was created 6000 years ago is to believe that God made it to look much older.

To be clear I was referring to your point that fossil's are "created" the way they are to confuse us. Carbon dating, fossil records and science tells us life started in the water. Bible says land animals were created first. So did the creator misarranged and misdated fossils to confuse us?

 

[One Brow]

That is assuming that the science done is correct and has already been discovered on that subject. Still thousands upon thousands of things science has not discovered/learned yet.

These newly learned things will need to be incorporated with previously learned things. Relativity created new equations for gravity, but they had to be equations that resembled Newton's equations in the types of situations Newton tested. There will be discoveries that change how we think of evolution around the edges, but at this point, there is too much evidence to do away with it completely.

 

[One Brow]

Fish never evolved into human, not sure why you being so primitive here. To remind you fish evolved into amphibians.

The better way to say it is amphibians are a specialized type of fish and humans are a specialized type of amphibian.

 

[carolinajazz]

How about a Principle of Human Credulity? The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.

...so the biggest lie/hoax ever promulgated by science/humans is that man and all living things as we know them today.....are a product of "evolution?"

 

[sirkickyass]

And that's the main thing that Nye seems to be missing--that Ham's view is fundamentally unfalsifiable. There's no way to tell the difference between something (e.g. the earth) that was created 4.5 billion years ago, and something that was created 6000 years ago but made to LOOK like it was much older. But by talking about what is science, and emphasizing the predictive nature even more, he could have made it very clear that an unfalsifiable theory, one with no predictive power, is not science at all. (I hope he made that point in a part of the debate after I stopped watching.)

This is a focal point of later portions of the debate, specifically the question and answer session near the end. Bill pressed Ken repeatedly on the issue that creationism can't predict future discoveries.

 

[carolinajazz]

We've been over this before....but here's the "Readers Digest" version!

Many people claim that science disproves the Bible’s account of creation. However, the real contradiction is, not between science and the Bible, but between science and the opinions of Christian Fundamentalists. Some of these groups falsely assert that according to the Bible, all physical creation was produced in six 24-hour days approximately 10,000 years ago.

The Bible, however, does not support such a conclusion. If it did, then many scientific discoveries over the past one hundred years would indeed discredit the Bible. A careful study of the Bible text reveals no conflict with established scientific facts.

The Genesis account opens with the simple, powerful statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) A number of Bible scholars agree that this statement describes an action separate from the creative days recounted from verse 3 onward. The implication is profound. According to the Bible’s opening words, the universe, including our planet, Earth, was in existence for an indefinite time before the creative days began.

Geologists estimate that the earth is 4 billion years old, and astronomers calculate that the universe may be as much as 15 billion years old. Do these findings—or their potential future refinements—contradict Genesis 1:1? No. The Bible does not specify the actual age of “the heavens and the earth.” Science is not at odds with the Biblical text.

What about the length of the creative days? Were they literally 24 hours long? Some claim that because Moses—the writer of Genesis—later referred to the day that followed the six creative days as a model for the weekly Sabbath, each of the creative days must be literally 24 hours long. (Exodus 20:11) Does the wording of Genesis support this conclusion?

No, it does not. The fact is that the Hebrew word translated “day” can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. For example, when summarizing God’s creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4) In addition, on the first creative day, “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” (Genesis 1:5) Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term “day.” Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long.

How long, then, were the creative days? The Bible does not say; however, the wording of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 indicates that considerable lengths of time were involved.

The Bible’s narrative allows for the possibility that some major events during each day, or creative period, occurred gradually rather than instantly, perhaps some of them even lasting into the following creative days. And there is no way of knowing if those "days" were of equal length as well! Some may have been longer than others.

So, in conclusion, the "creative days" of the Genesis account not only were NOT 24 hr periods, but they allow for those "days" to be millenniums of time, perhaps even millions of years long, since there is no way of accurately determining there length! In simple terms, if a "paleontologist" wants to say that his dinosaur bone is "1 million years old" that does NOT disagree with the Genesis account of creation!

Sorry, my "Readers Digest" version morphed into something longer!

 

[One Brow]

Sorry, my "Readers Digest" version morphed into something longer!

Classical Old Earth Creationism.

 

[Nate505]

The people who composed the bible didn't believe all of it, and didn't care about the books enough to not lose many of them. How did they manage to fool you nearly 1700 years later?

Probably not the hardest task in the world.

 

[Hantlers]

Colton, I respect your opinions and that you want to use science because that's your background...but let me ask you a couple questions:

Where in science do we get the idea that a virgin birth is possible? Do you believe that as well?

Where in science do we get the idea that people coming back from the dead is possible? Do you believe that Lazaraus, and the most obvious example, Jesus, rose from the dead?

Don't get me wrong, I love science, I love what it's done for us and how it has improved human life, but it cannot explain everything that is in the Bible.

 

[colton]

Colton, I respect your opinions and that you want to use science because that's your background...but let me ask you a couple questions:

Where in science do we get the idea that a virgin birth is possible? Do you believe that as well?

Where in science do we get the idea that people coming back from the dead is possible? Do you believe that Lazaraus, and the most obvious example, Jesus, rose from the dead?

Don't get me wrong, I love science, I love what it's done for us and how it has improved human life, but it cannot explain everything that is in the Bible.

Yes, I believe in the virgin birth and in the resurrection. And I agree completely that science cannot explain everything that is in the Bible.

And like I said earlier, I have no problem with people believing the Bible, even to the extent that they trust it over science. My problem is when people try to pass off pseudo-science as actual science.

Edit: And when people say that their interpretation of the Bible (i.e. what is symbolic and what is literal) is the only legitimate interpretation.

 

[Zulu]

VMAT2....... This is the answer to the questions!!!

 

[Zulu]

Also..... What are the chances that God is an Alien or Alein civilization???

 

[PearlWatson]

I doubt, she is dead serious about fish with hands, lol.

Here is one for you Pearl. What kind of creationist would create such a creature?

What is harder to wrap your head around is what kind of creationist would create this creature:

 

[PearlWatson]

The better way to say it is ... humans are a specialized type of amphibian.

 

[carolinajazz]

...what you see there is a MARVEL of creation...NOT a miracle of "evolution!" The intricate design of that amphibian is not only breath taking but also beautiful in it's own way! Just as there are, what people would classify as "ugly" frogs, you then have the absolutely colorful and beautiful "dart frogs" from South America! The great variety in the animal kingdom testifies to not only a marvelous designer, but one with a sense of humor, too!

 

[Zulu]

...what you see there is a MARVEL of creation...NOT a miracle of "evolution!" The intricate design of that amphibian is not only breath taking but also beautiful in it's own way! Just as there are, what people would classify as "ugly" frogs, you then have the absolutely colorful and beautiful "dart frogs" from South America! The great variety in the animal kingdom testifies to not only a marvelous designer, but one with a sense of humor, too!

Drug resistant bacteria, viruses and african cichlids!!!

 

[One Brow]

Where in science do we get the idea that a virgin birth is possible? Do you believe that as well?

Where in science do we get the idea that people coming back from the dead is possible? Do you believe that Lazaraus, and the most obvious example, Jesus, rose from the dead?

Even today, humans get pregnant without sex, and the occasional coroner finds a live person on his table after being declared dead.

 

[One Brow]

Drug resistant bacteria, viruses and african cichlids!!!

Not to mention the guinea worm.

 

[PearlWatson]

To be clear I was referring to your point that fossil's are "created" the way they are to confuse us. Carbon dating, fossil records and science tells us life started in the water. Bible says land animals were created first. So did the creator misarranged and misdated fossils to confuse us?

I suggest you drop this angle of attack against "creationists." If you want to persuade people that the "evidence" is on your side you probably shouldn't start with a lie.

Genesis Chapter 1

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

[MVP]

...what you see there is a MARVEL of creation...NOT a miracle of "evolution!" The intricate design of that amphibian is not only breath taking but also beautiful in it's own way!!

Wrong. There is no miracles of evolution. But what you see here is simple example of transitional species ( one with distinctive features of two different species) and in no way any kind of marvel of creation.