It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creation vs. Scientific theory

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Does creation theory exist at all? Well, creationist argues that their theory should be taken seriously. The truth is that is not scientific theory in creation, but the truth is that this theory of creation has never been put in paper and submitted as a scientific research for the science community.

Why is that?

It seems that the reason for this is, that is better to go straight to the people of faith to back it up alone with politicians that are willing to do the job of using their judgment to make it real.

Actually are many opinions of the meaning of creation and is better to leave it open so they can fit it to suit their needs.

Many papers has been written to subjective journals calling creation a “theory” but they fall in the following categories, biblical inerrancy, the intelligent design and the ones that play safe when they know that creation doesn’t fall in any science after all, so their job is to discredit scientific research.

Creationist also fails to explain the laws governing how God made it all, in a scientific way. But rather pinned to “the mysteries of God that know it all”

Also they fail the mechanism of scientific research, (Observe, analyze, hypothesize, experiment and write conclusions) they don’t have to because the power of God can not be explain to mere humans.

Creationism can not be examine like any other scientific theory, the explanation for this is given as that “God doesn’t have to obey any laws of physics (biology, or chemistry, or even logic) he is omnipotent.

So in order to accept creationism as a “scientific theory” we most forget any scientific laws that are involve in scientific research.

So in other words the “theory of creation” is all about:

Taking the bible as faith, and ignore science and physical evidence. So the truth is that creationist never really had taken seriously to have their “scientific unproven theory” tested analyzed and explained with visual data.










[edit on 26-7-2005 by marg6043]




posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   


we most forget any scientific laws that are involve in scientific research.


And we do just that, when we consider the Big Bang .

The Big Bang and entrophy and several other sceintific laws are discussed in several other threads. If you take out 'creation science' and insert 'Big Bang' your thread works just as well.

It seems that you can only guess at how your universe was created, while we have an eyewitness account.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   
It does pain my mind to read this over and over again.
As such, I'm simply going to address your last summary statement there.

Yes the Bible is taken by faith.
But under careful, un-biased scrutiny, the Bible passess every historical test.
I could spout evidence at you forever, but I rather care not to as you probably wouldn't even listen anyways....

As for science, I'm all about science.
I simply believe science is subservient to Scriptures, meaning science must not go againt God's word. And nothing has been proven against Scriptures.
As for evidence, hahahaha. I use the same evidence you do.
I simply don't misinterpret it.
When I see the night sky, I think, "Who made the stars in the sky? It was you God, thanks!"
As for the fossil record, y'alls greatest evidence, I have no problem using it too. Global flood killed dinosaurs. Just as likely as a meteor, maybe even more likey as there are fossils and traces of sea life at the top of tallest mountains.
As for testing our theory?

haha, take a look at the mountains and tell me they're not real?
God made it all.
But we don't even need this evidence, for the book that you'll hear my quote has it all. The Bible gives the best record of creation.
There are no errors in what I just said.
If you still blindly desire to follow evolution, bring it.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Maybe tassadar you should read the nice thread on how christianity is the reasult of pagan myth and how nicely the creation myth falls in the Egyptian mythology.

Is an extensive reaserch done in that thread and worth it of reading.


Its also another one I did on young earthers vs old earthers that covers how creationist has evolved in the US to be now center stage in our politics.

Remember the bible is and always has been the work of men and the history of the jewish ancestry and their relationship with ther main God.



[edit on 26-7-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
And we do just that, when we consider the Big Bang .

Inflation Theory, which is the more modern working of the theory that's called the big bang, is a testable scientific theory. Its not simply accepted because it 'sounds good'. Its accepted so long as the evidence supports it.


It seems that you can only guess at how your universe was created

Inflation Theory is hardly a 'guess'.


while we have an eyewitness account.

If Inflation Theory is a guess, then you are just guessing that you have an eyewitness account.


But under careful, un-biased scrutiny, the Bible passess every historical test.

?

It fails utterly on the matter of the creation of the earth and the origns of species of animals. It also states that there are 'kinds' of animals, 'kinds' has no biological reality. Its definitly not a good scientific document (of course, I wouldn't require it to be), and its not much of an historical document either.

Global flood killed dinosaurs.

But there is no evidence that any global flood occured, and the order to the fossil record contradicts any of it having been laid down by a flood. The geology and the paleontology contradict there having been a flood. And there are some serious problems with the physics of the flood, such as where the water came and went. THere is definitly not enough water on or in the planet to cover everything up to the himalayas, and I don't think its reasonable to suppose that the mountains of the world were formed in the last few thousand years with people walking around.

Just as likely as a meteor

There are a number of evidences that support the meteor/asteroid theory. One is a global layer of iridium (in concentrations that only occur in space). Another is evidence for massive wildfires all across the planet at roughly the same time. Another is the pressence of spherules of glass and 'shocked quartz' mixed in with teh iridium layer, which tend to only form in large impacts, such as they've been observed to have occured with meteorites. And there is also strong evidence for a very large impact crator around the yucatan with the correct age for the event.

As for testing our theory?
haha, take a look at the mountains and tell me they're not real?

Think of it this way, science requires that theories be potentiall refutable. There are conditions and results that, if they existed, could refute darwin's theory of evolution. Infact, thats how scientists design new experiments, by essentially trying to disprove theories and hypotheses. What can possibly disprove that god made the universe? Nothing, he's god. Any evidence can be accomodated by the idea that god made everything.
But perhaps this is not too relevant for you, since you stated at the begining that science and religion are (rather obviously) different sorts of things.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   
You have to understand that scientific theories are not just ideas or hypotheses put together in paper, but they all have the basic research tools done by professionals experts in science.

What is a Theory?

Actually they are not just a collections or things, like explanations, hypotheses,test, and applications, but includes anomalies and failures. (by Kuhn 1962).

www.spaceandmotion.com...

A scientist gather data and may reproduce certain aspects of his studies in a laboratory or research area, If creationism was to be gather and presented for studies in a research area, scientist will be the first ones to used it.

Scientist do not used “theories” because they are popular with the people, like creation in the bible is, what is the use to have a theory that can not be work on or be tested.

And ideology can not be presented as a theory just because is popular scientist have no used for them.

In science professionals have to keep working on theories over and over to keep producing the results to prove them right or wrong while in creation all you have to do is have faith and believe.

So that is why creation can never be anymore than a ideology for the faithful, just and idea of another interpretation of how men was created in earth, not science applied to it will make it fall under scientific theory.

Then why should science give creation a place in their course of studies?

The only research paper to be used is the bible and that is hardly a science book at all.




top topics
 
0

log in

join