Dialogue envisioning: Creationist vs Conventional scientist

[Spock]

Great thread starter. It certainly is a change from the other 6 threads on this topic.

Are you guys as ready to discuss the SCIENCE of this topic as I am? I believe we've hashed out Genesis 1 for five threads and I Think we all got it. I don't think anyone is going to alter the thoughts and beliefs they had going in as to inferring what the Bible says about this topic. Aren't we at a point where we can agree to disagree?

I for one am ready to move forward and discuss why the science and the science only says the YEC advocates are on solid or shaky grounds. I think this thread is wanting that too.

I hope this threads evolves (sorry to use that word) into strictly a science discussion.

Is this your desire nebula and others?

[Guest]

Anyway, I have more thoughts to formalize. But that's a start if anyone wants to comment.

 

 

Letting The Evolutionist Speak For His Or Her Self

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

 

We Can Clearly See What He And She Will Stand For

 

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

 

Rather That Turning To Jesus

 

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22

 

"It is your duty, not to bring down the gospel into a conformity with them, but to change them into a conformity with the gospel." - Robert Hall

[gray wolf]

How would science talk and YEC be different here Spock?

[Spock]

How would science talk and YEC be different here Spock?

I'd like to hear the science that supports YEC from the YEC people with no Genesis talk. They do have some science to support why they believe the universe is 10000 years old, don't they? Let's hear it, then discuss it.

[nebula]

 

Easy does it. I wasn't accusing you of qoute mining. I'd prefer a journal article to get a better understanding.

As for the interview, I'd say C is not doing very well

Yeah, well "C" isn't being accurately represented in the OP.

 

You are welcome to recreate your own conversation. I even offered that in the write-up.

[Enoch2021]

 

How would science talk and YEC be different here Spock?

I'd like to hear the science that supports YEC from the YEC people with no Genesis talk. They do have some science to support why they believe the universe is 10000 years old, don't they? Let's hear it, then discuss it.

 

 

Well the conversation was initiated with the BB theory and the Universe. There was some dialogue back to the "Scientist" for clarification and questions:

 

Define "discernment's"?

Is Cosmology science?

What's up with the (alleged) UBER young Spiral Galaxies.... goes against the stellar evolution model.

Galaxy cluster that's "to grown up" to fit with the Big Bang.

Birth of Stars Claim without evidence and cited references questioning even basic understanding of How it could be possible.

Discussion of said "birth of stars" with 2LOT/Jeans Mass/Boyles Gas Law.

BB and 1LOT conundrum.

 

Maybe the Conventional Scientist got a quick whiff and   or started Thumping on that Bible.    If I can be SAVED.....anyone can!!

 

 

As for the "Age" and evidence.....I get that from Genesis.  As for "science" to support or provide that, well.... that's a contradiction in terms.  To be "Science" it has to follow the "Scientific Method"  who's Tenets are:  (Directly) Observable, Measurable/Testable, Repeatable, and Falsifiable.

Unless you get a time machine with 1.21 gigawatts and head on back there and provide the data then it's Stories/Speculations/Bagels.....it's certainly not science.

The 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica says science is: “any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.

[Guest]

C: The Big Bang theory goes against Scripture.

 

S: Why?

 

~

 

Simply, The Earth Was Created On Day One

 

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1 (ESV)

 

The Stars Were Almost An Afterthought On Day Four

 

God made the two bright lights: the larger light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night. He also made the stars. Genesis 1:16 (GWT)

 

And The Big Bang Is Not To Be Found Except Perhaps Here And There

 

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief; when it comes, the heavens will disappear with a horrific noise, and the celestial bodies will melt away in a blaze, and the earth and every deed done on it will be laid bare. 2 Peter 3:10 (NET)

 

~
 

C: "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:11)

 

S: What are "the heavens"?

 

~

 

These Guys

 

When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them? Psalms 8:3-4 (NIV)

 

~

 

C: "Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. (Genesis 1:14-19)

 

S: So the heavens would be the sun, the moon, and the stars and the expanse that they are in?

 

C: Yes.

 

S: How about galaxies.

 

C: They are included.

 

S: How do you figure?

 

C: The simply are included in "the stars".

 

S: But galaxies could not be seen with the naked eye. The concept of galaxies was not in the paradigm of any ancient culture.

 

C: It does not matter.

 

S: This is making no logical sense whatsoever.

 

C: It does not matter, either you believe the Bible or you don't.

 

S: But galaxies are not mentioned in the Bible.

 

C: It does not matter, they are included with the stars.

 

S: By what passage do you base this claim?

 

~

 

The Galactic Dump

 

Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. Revelations 20:11 (NASB)

 

And The Precious Jewel

 

I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth have passed away, and the sea is no more. I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared like a bride adorned for her husband. Revelation 21:1-2 (WEB)

 

Thank You Beloved For Trusting In God's Take

 

Look up to the skies above, and gaze down on the earth below. For the skies will disappear like smoke, and the earth will wear out like a piece of clothing. The people of the earth will die like flies, but my salvation lasts forever. My righteous rule will never end! Isaiah 51-6 (NLT)

 

Over Men' Imagination

 

“You heavens above, rain down my righteousness; let the clouds shower it down. Let the earth open wide, let salvation spring up, let righteousness flourish with it; I, the Lord, have created it. “Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker, those who are nothing but potsherds among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you making? ’Does your work say,‘ The potter has no hands’? Isaiah 45:8-9 (NIV)

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

 

"It is your duty, not to bring down the gospel into a conformity with them, but to change them into a conformity with the gospel." - Robert Hall

[Spock]

Okay, here is some science I would like to hear a rebuttal on from the YEC camp:

Cosmic microwave background

Here is an article to help refresh you on this. It includes other evidence to support BB, but we can start at the Cosmic stuff. Sound good

http://www.universetoday.com/106498/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/

[LookingForAnswers]

As for the "Age" and evidence.....I get that from Genesis.  As for "science" to support or provide that, well.... that's a contradiction in terms.  To be "Science" it has to follow the "Scientific Method"  who's Tenets are:  (Directly) Observable, Measurable/Testable, Repeatable, and Falsifiable.

Unless you get a time machine with 1.21 gigawatts and head on back there and provide the data then it's Stories/Speculations/Bagels.....it's certainly not science.

The 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica says science is: “any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.

 

 

what utter and total nonsense.  The observations do not have to be of the actual event, nobody limits science this way except for a few YEC folks and those that spend too much time listening to  them.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

As for the "Age" and evidence.....I get that from Genesis.  As for "science" to support or provide that, well.... that's a contradiction in terms.  To be "Science" it has to follow the "Scientific Method"  who's Tenets are:  (Directly) Observable, Measurable/Testable, Repeatable, and Falsifiable.

Unless you get a time machine with 1.21 gigawatts and head on back there and provide the data then it's Stories/Speculations/Bagels.....it's certainly not science.

The 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica says science is: “any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.

 

 

what utter and total nonsense.  The observations do not have to be of the actual event, nobody limits science this way except for a few YEC folks and those that spend too much time listening to  them.

 

Science is all about what can be observed.

 

The Big Bang is not falsifiable because there was no one there to observe it and it cannot be empirically tested in a lab.  There are all kinds of hypoethesis out there based on radiation, and the movement of stars away from each other.   But there is no way to falsify the claim that the universe began as singularity and expanded in all directions.   That is untestable hypothesis.

 

And that is also true for Evolution which by definition is also not science.  It is an untestable hypothesis.   Yet with both Evolution and the BB, you are considered a crackpot if you don't believe in one or both of them. 

 

There is an unwritten assumption that certain fundamental claims made by scientists are to accepted without question.   While scientists will often admit that science is self-correcting, there are aspects of science that comprise line that cannot be crossed

 

There are some funadmental assumptions in the scientific community that are considered untouchable and despite not ever having been  tested, much less proven.  These assumptions are protected at all costs, even when there is evidence that suggests that the assumptions are false.   For example, C14 was used for a long time in dating even though it was known to be inaccurate, but an acknowledgement of that fact would stand in the way of claiming an older earth, so the evidence was simply ignored and the assumption was maintained.

 

Enoch2021 makes an excellent distinction between scientific claims and claims that scientists make.  

 

I have found that  the scientific community moves the goal posts as to what really comprises science whenever it is convenient to do so.  Evolution is considered proven fact and is taught as proven fact, despite no empirical data to back up such claims.   The BB is considered proven fact and you are denigrated for not accepting if you are in the scientific community, despite no empirical data to back it up. 

 

Scientists are all about empircal data until they have a "theory" or assumption that has no empircal data and suddenly the empirical character of science is overrated and only those crazy YEC'ers have this silly notion about science needing to prove anything.   The standard of proof is rather fluid depending on the issue.