Creationism's contribution to science (Darwin, Earth, evolution, genesis, myth)

[Ceridwen018]

paul_an_apostle,

Quick question--what scientific proof or evidence do you have to support the theory that the earth was indeed created in 6 days, vs. the billions that evolutionists claim?

Landmarks such as the Grand Canyon, as well as modern observations of erosion, etc. all allude to a gradual forming process. The observed formation and patterns of atoms do the same.

The big problem, for me, is that Creationism is based on what fits with the bible, not with what has been found to be scientifically possible. For example, 'scientists' took the time period of 6 days directly from the bible and worked from there, instead of coming to the conclusion of six days after empirical research done independently from the bible. For all I know, the earth was indeed created in a matter of 'days'. However, what if scientists came to the conclusion that it took 8 days instead of 6? That would screw things up pretty royally. We won't really have to worry about that, however, because the only evidence they have of even the 6-day theory comes from the bible, and not to dis the ancients, but they had a lot to be desired in the area of scientific understanding.

[Mr Spinkles]

paul-- Your remarks were not inflammatory at all, don't worry.

Originally Posted by paul_an_apostle

There is a mathematical concept call the law of chaos or the chaos theory which state that 'Anything, no matter how well organized, when left to itself, eventually reverts to chaos'. This particular concept has been tested again and again and has always been proven true - except the Universe and everything in it. Strange huh? Yes it is; but there it is. Well when all other evidence has been negated, the only thing left, no matter how bizarre (to some ;-) ) must be the truth. In this case, the only explanation that remains is 'there is a higher power holding the Universe together' - that higher power is the Living God.

Your conclusion is a bit misguided...there is no need to hypothesize a higher being in order to reconcile chaos theory with the observed organization of living things. Allow me to explain: In chemistry, this is called the concept of "entropy". The concept is that the entropy (disorder/randomness) of the universe is always increasing. So, how is the emergent phenomenon of organisms (which are ordered) an increase in entropy (disorder)?

The answer is surprisingly simple: entropy CAN decrease in a system, as long as the NET entropy of the universe increases. So, out of chaos comes complexity....organisms actually facilitate an increase in the net entropy of the universe, by increasing the entropy of their surroundings (the entropy increases in their surroundings by their metabolic processes...turning sunlight into energy, etc).

Here is an example: if you run a computer program with a bunch of small balls and a few large balls bouncing around in a closed space, the small balls will "herd" the large balls into a corner. Why does this "organization" of the large balls occur? Because by doing this, more space has been created for the small balls to fly around in, and the overall, or net, entropy/disorder of the virtual "universe" has increased.

I hope I explained this clearly...I am not a college educated chemist.

[Sunstone]

The point remains that creationism has made no positive contributions to science.

[paul_an_apostle]

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

paul_an_apostle,

Quick question--what scientific proof or evidence do you have to support the theory that the earth was indeed created in 6 days, vs. the billions that evolutionists claim?

Etc. .

Excellent question -

There's 2 short answers to it:
1. Why would God lie? He's the one that said it (remember - the Bible is His word through men - not man made [this could be another discussion thread ;-)]), and what God says becomes truth by the nature of the power of His word

2. God defined the time period in which He did His work - He defined the Day - on the First day:

Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. [Gen.1:3-5]

And it took 6 of those days according to Him, for Him to accomplish all that He set out to do

Everything we know today in science, is explained in Genesis Chapters 1-3, allbeit in very brief form, but there non-the-less.

Now - there is a point of contention that I must concede to you - that is this: Some think that because 'God created the Heavens and Earth' (Gen.1:1) before He created the Day (Gen.1:3-5) that that first creation 'step' was before the 6 day period. And it was during this 'pre-day-definition' period that many scholars and scientists believe the initial creation process that we currently think of as ' the millions of years of earth's development' took place. I really can't argue either way on that, but personnally believe that it is partly, if not totally true. I do not believe that it was part of this creation that we know today, however. The evidence of pre-biblical creation (if you will allow me the term) is simply evidence that God was around doing things before He created the earth as we know it today. In my opinion, things like the dinosaurs are evidence of God 'twiddling His thumbs' or playing with His play-doe.

However, once He settled into a creation He liked, it took six days, according to Him, to complete it. And during that period, He created the Universe as we know it today, in the form that we know it today.

The amazing part is NOT that He did it (He's omnipotent afterall) but why He did it. He did it for us - to give us a display of His incredible power to look at day-in and day-out, so that we know He is God.


God Bless

[paul_an_apostle]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

The point remains that creationism has made no positive contributions to science.

God created what we call science during the creation period when He generated all the laws and rules that make up science. He set in motion all the laws of Mathematics, physics, quantum Mechanics, electro-magnetism, etc that we know today as sciencific principles. Isn't that a positive contribution?

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

...not to dis the ancients, but they had a lot to be desired in the area of scientific understanding.

That, Ceridwen, is in all likelihood the understatement of the year. You have amazing tact.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by paul_an_apostle

God created what we call science during the creation period when He generated all the laws and rules that make up science. He set in motion all the laws of Mathematics, physics, quantum Mechanics, electro-magnetism, etc that we know today as sciencific principles. Isn't that a positive contribution?

God has not published even one research paper. Nor has he posited any hypotheses. Nor is there any mention of the laws you speak of in the bible. Were it left to God to create the body of knowledge known as science, science would still be where it was when the bible was written. That is, it would not yet exist.

[(Q)]

God defined the time period in which He did His work - He defined the Day - on the First day

That's amazingly circular in reasoning - nice job.

Everything we know today in science, is explained in Genesis

As I mentioned in another thread, there are other books besides the Bible.

In my opinion, things like the dinosaurs are evidence of God 'twiddling His thumbs' or playing with His play-doe.

That would depend on your definition of god and whether or not he had thumbs.

[paul_an_apostle]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

God has not published even one research paper. Nor has he posited any hypotheses. Nor is there any mention of the laws you speak of in the bible. Were it left to God to create the body of knowledge known as science, science would still be where it was when the bible was written. That is, it would not yet exist.

Science - a dictionary definition:
1.The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena

Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study:
3. An activity that appears to require study and method.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

Please notice that there is nothing in that definition that says that Science Created anything. My point here is that science only discoveres what already exists - science does not create it. Science only works within the set of laws that science knows. 'New' laws are not really new laws but already existing laws the scientists discover.

God, on the other hand, creates. But to Him, the creation speaks for itself. Oh - He did relate to us what He had done, but we continue to misunderstand the words. For example, He created the Atom as His base building block (and sub-atomic particles below that to make the atom, and ... below that, and ...), and, when He created the Sun and the stars, what He really created was thremo-nuclear power, using the structures that He use to create everything else - Atoms. But the Bible doesn't say 'He created the atom and atomic forces, ...' ; it says He created the Sun and the Stars - at that point, the forces necessary are a given. The reason the Bible doesn't get into that kind of detail is that it's primary subject is God and man and the relationship. The Given is the Power of God as displayed in the Heavens, and in the form of the tiniest flower, and in how natural forces are used to continually renew the earth. To God, the details are unimportant, but inferred. Besides nobody would read the Bible if it got into that kind of detail

We, on the other hand, get wrapped around the axle, because we go about the proofs backwards. We look at the creation and try to prove it. That's what science does - proves that creation exists - that's all it does. If we look no further, that's all we get, proof that creation exists. But there's more, so much more, just waiting for us to see and understand. For those who seek the truth, there is far more than just creation awaiting them, but you must seek - for yourself - others can't do it for you (although they can help - give you pointers - or hinder by throwing up roadblocks).

May God Bless you and open your eyes

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by paul_an_apostle

Science - a dictionary definition:
1.The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena

Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study:
3. An activity that appears to require study and method.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

Please notice that there is nothing in that definition that says that Science Created anything. My point here is that science only discoveres what already exists - science does not create it. Science only works within the set of laws that science knows. 'New' laws are not really new laws but already existing laws the scientists discover.

Laws are simply testable explanations of observed phenomena. The map is not the territory.

Originally Posted by paul_an_apostle

God, on the other hand, creates.

That is a statement of faith, unsupported and unsupportable by science. whether or not it's true.