What is creation science?

[Perfection]

When there is evidence that contradicts it, just make an ad hoc solution. I mean inflation is a great example, because it means that all laws of physics had to be working in reverse for a time period tat we don't know how it started or it finished.

What's the contradictory evidence that inflation cosmology covers up?

 

[peter grimes]

That's because you're missing their points.

 

[Arakhor]

"No it isn't" aint a rebuttal, nor is something about random numbers.

You're not interested in a rebuttal. In that regard, you're identical to CH and other fervent creationists.

 

[brennan]

What is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

 

[El_Machinae]

I listened to a talk about the BICEP2 experiment before they collated their results, let alone before they reported them. They really had a plan going in. That's what good theories allow

 

[peter grimes]

From a news article about BICEP2's implications:

[QUOTE ] This would be the first observed evidence of the nature of the universe when it was extremely small, dense and hot. That polarized light would not merely be evidence for inflation; it would be a measure of it — actual data that describes the intensity of the event. [/QUOTE ]

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...7bc9e6-02c6-11e4-b8ff-89afd3fad6bd_story.html

 

[El_Machinae]

yeah, Inflation Theory is really interesting. It fell out of the math a few decades ago, but everyone thought it was a mistake until Dark Energy was found, and then suddenly inflation looked reasonable. BICEP2 was founded on some really interesting theory, they're looking for the effect of gravity waves, which propagated through the Cosmic Microwave Background when it was too hot to see through

 

[Berzerker]

That's because you're missing their points.

What points? "No it isn't" aint a rebuttal or point, as Brennan said himself, he rejects it and he doesn't need to explain why.

You're not interested in a rebuttal. In that regard, you're identical to CH and other fervent creationists.

So much for debating science in the science forum, you've turned it into a psychic hotline

What is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

I offered evidence - you did not. The description of the world in Gen 1:2 fits with a planet at the solar system's freeze line and thats where we find our water and the asteroid belt.

 

[brennan]

You didn't offer evidence Berzerker, you asserted that some lines in the Bible were good scientific descriptions of reality. That assertion was plan nonsense.

 

[Agent327]

The description of the world in Gen 1:2 fits with a planet at the solar system's freeze line and thats where we find our water and the asteroid belt.

Maybe. But Genesis 'describes' the creation of Earth, not the solar system. It's an evidently unscientific description, as is to be expected from an evidently unscientific book. If anything, Genesis is evidence of a lack of science; it has also two creation versions, without explaining why. If there was an act of creation, it certainly did not start with Earth, as Genesis seems to suggest, but rather with the universe at large - the description of which is again very unscientific. (It does show similarities with Sumerian creation stories, which seems more relevant than any supposed science therein.)

 

[timtofly]

You didn't offer evidence Berzerker, you asserted that some lines in the Bible were good scientific descriptions of reality. That assertion was plan nonsense.

Yes, but unexplained "plain nonsense" is not science, but philosophy. You have settled on your philosophical "scientific" views and instead off pointing to evidence that shows the earth has always been the 3rd planet from the sun, you offer your opinion, instead of science.

At least Berzerker offered a physical objective hypothesis. It would seem that it may be a hard task to prove though.


I would like to point out that what was written in the Bible seems to be the predominate view of science or history when we do see it written down or portrayed in written records. It would seem that they did not get their science from the Bible, but it was the common view of humans at that time. Even then the Bible does not agree with how humans used to view the earth, unless people twist it to fit their imagined view of the past. The account fits more into the current observed view, but even then it is not an absolute rendition of the current view, because even that can change and the biblical account can be twisted to fit any new accepted current scientific view. Science is the changing human perspective. The Bible seems to be a relatively vague account that could be interpreted any way a human needs to twist it. That would be my philosophical view on why humans try to interpret the Bible to fit their "science".

It seems that people complain when their interpretation gets challenged. Even those who oppose what the Bible says has an opinion of the Bible and it is generally just "false". Others at least try to put substance into their interpretation.

Maybe. But Genesis 'describes' the creation of Earth, not the solar system. It's an evidently unscientific description, as is to be expected from an evidently unscientific book. If anything, Genesis is evidence of a lack of science; it has also two creation versions, without explaining why. If there was an act of creation, it certainly did not start with Earth, as Genesis seems to suggest, but rather with the universe at large - the description of which is again very unscientific. (It does show similarities with Sumerian creation stories, which seems more relevant than any supposed science therein.)

Actually Genesis 1:1 is the placement of matter in the framework of the big bang, but most people out right reject it on principle. The matter was in place but did not have the interaction of "photons" which were added later to the earth first and then to the rest of the universe. And most would accept that it is still ongoing. Light is still interacting with matter and new galaxies are still being formed.

It does explain that humans were created in the first version. The second "version" was God calling out a unique human to carry out a unique plan. This is consistent with God calling out Noah, Abraham, Moses, the tribe of Israel and the twelve disciples.

God allows humans control over their own scientific endeavors and they are free to use them in any way they see fit. They do not have to align with the Bible. That is part of the issue where current Christians err. They try to force culture into the framework of the Bible instead of letting the Bible speak through the current culture.

 

[peter grimes]

What points? "No it isn't" aint a rebuttal or point, as Brennan said himself, he rejects it and he doesn't need to explain why.



So much for debating science in the science forum, you've turned it into a psychic hotline



I offered evidence - you did not. The description of the world in Gen 1:2 fits with a planet at the solar system's freeze line and thats where we find our water and the asteroid belt.

His rebuttal was that you are shoehorn in a specific interpretation onto Genesis in order to make the story align closer with what we know about the formation of Earth. That's not science, clearly.

We know that the earth formed from an accretion disk gradually over an extended period of Time. Photons had been present for billions of years at this point. An old poem talking about day and night doesn't even come close to describing how it really happened.

For that matter, I know you're pretty keen on the late heavy bombardment stuff - why doesn't Genesis mention that? Or the formation of the moon as the result of a catastrophic impact? That's kind of a big detail to leave out.

You're starting from the premise that Genesis has something true in it, but you're not critically trying to find flaws in your hypothesis. That's not a scientific approach at all, so you're right to scoff at discussing it in the SCIENCE and technology forum.

 

[Berzerker]

You didn't offer evidence Berzerker, you asserted that some lines in the Bible were good scientific descriptions of reality. That assertion was plan nonsense.

Why is it nonsense? And I did offer evidence, you just ignored it. "No it isn't" and "plan nonsense" are not rebuttals.

Maybe. But Genesis 'describes' the creation of Earth, not the solar system.

True, the solar system existed before God created Heaven and Earth. But what is "Earth"? It is not this planet, its just the dry land that appeared from under the waters. We know plate tectonics built up the landmasses, the question becomes: did water cover the world before plate tectonics?

Our oldest "rock" says its possible, we have zircons forming in water a 1/2 billion years before plate tectonics and life at a time we thought the world was a molten cauldron, hence the Hadean. Turns out we were wrong about that and any land that appeared back then was quickly eroded away by the atmosphere and tidal action, but something happened ~4 bya that allowed the formation of land to outpace erosion.

Genesis is evidence of a lack of science; it has also two creation versions, without explaining why. If there was an act of creation, it certainly did not start with Earth, as Genesis seems to suggest, but rather with the universe at large - the description of which is again very unscientific. (It does show similarities with Sumerian creation stories, which seems more relevant than any supposed science therein.)

Genesis doesn't deal with the universe, just Heaven and Earth and their definitions are limited to the firmament dividing the pre-existing waters and dry land. Now, why does Genesis make a point of describing a dark, water covered world before Heaven and Earth were formed? If God created the universe why does Genesis say this water world preceded God's appearance in the story?

His rebuttal was that you are shoehorn in a specific interpretation onto Genesis in order to make the story align closer with what we know about the formation of Earth. That's not science, clearly.

If rebuttals include contrary evidence then that aint a rebuttal.

We know that the earth formed from an accretion disk gradually over an extended period of Time. Photons had been present for billions of years at this point. An old poem talking about day and night doesn't even come close to describing how it really happened.

The Earth did not form that way, the word refers to the dry land, not this planet. So how did night and day come to exist? This world was hit by something(s) large enough to change its orbital parameters and this happened long after the giant impact forming the Moon.

For that matter, I know you're pretty keen on the late heavy bombardment stuff - why doesn't Genesis mention that? Or the formation of the moon as the result of a catastrophic impact? That's kind of a big detail to leave out.

Genesis does mention the LHB (not in those terms of course), God's spirit (sumerian "winds") interacted (collided) with a dark, water covered world and there was light. That came after the dark, water covered world described in Gen 1:2. And what was the light? The creation of day and night - the world was spinning near a star. Thats why the Sun and Moon dont become relevant until after the world was given its new orbit, its new "sky".

You're starting from the premise that Genesis has something true in it, but you're not critically trying to find flaws in your hypothesis. That's not a scientific approach at all, so you're right to scoff at discussing it in the SCIENCE and technology forum.

I started with the premise the Bible was nonsense and I learned the science. It was only after seeing the science that I went back to Genesis with an open mind.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

2) The "Light" of creation was given a name in Genesis, its called "Day" and it was separated from the darkness which became Night. That describes a spinning world.

Actually:

Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

They made the understandable mistake that the Earth was unmovable, as explicity stated

tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.

While we know now it's moving at quite some speed.

I'm also wondering how you'd explain the foundation of the earth which is mentioned a couple of times. Descriptions seem to vary though

Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken.

who shakes the earth from its place, and its pillars tremble.

Job also talks about a cornerstone placed in the foundation, but I'm going to let that slide.

Then we have that thing where the devil shows some bloke the entire Earth from some mountain.

Then there's some cryptical ones:

as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us.

Plus the talk about the ends of the world.

Then we come to Daniel

The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth

How do you have a tree in the midst of the Earth which you can see from every place on Earth? You can if you think the world is not a globe, and it's finite.

Then we get to sky, which is described as a solid encapsulation of the (flat) Earth. You may by now have the idea I have quotes at hand, so I'm going to stop providing them. If this is an issue, let me know and I'll do so anyway.

Upon this firmament were stars which could fall down.

The sun and the star were perceived as completely different things.

Genesis and other places talk about this firmament holding back the water. This is were the windows of the heavens opened and it rained quite a bit (Noah). This is were we get our saying: the heavens opened, for when it pours with rain.

Exodus and Deuteronomy talk of water under the Earth. Not beneath it's surface, under it.

I think that's enough for now.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I offered evidence - you did not. The description of the world in Gen 1:2 fits with a planet at the solar system's freeze line and thats where we find our water and the asteroid belt.

At the time of the supposed events of Genesis, Mars had already cooled to the point where there was no liquid water. There certainly wasn't any in the asteroid belt.

We know that the earth formed from an accretion disk gradually over an extended period of Time. Photons had been present for billions of years at this point. An old poem talking about day and night doesn't even come close to describing how it really happened.

The Earth did not form that way, the word refers to the dry land, not this planet. So how did night and day come to exist? This world was hit by something(s) large enough to change its orbital parameters and this happened long after the giant impact forming the Moon.

Yeah, Earth really did form that way. As for the object that collided with the early Earth, that's what was responsible for the Moon's formation. Yes, it had another effect on Earth, but it wasn't night and day. Everything in the Solar System that rotates experiences night and day (except the Sun itself). What the collision did was knock Earth over on its axis enough to give us seasons.

Source.

 

[timtofly]

Actually:

They made the understandable mistake that the Earth was unmovable, as explicity stated

While we know now it's moving at quite some speed.

I'm also wondering how you'd explain the foundation of the earth which is mentioned a couple of times. Descriptions seem to vary though




Job also talks about a cornerstone placed in the foundation, but I'm going to let that slide.

Then we have that thing where the devil shows some bloke the entire Earth from some mountain.

Then there's some cryptical ones:
Plus the talk about the ends of the world.

Then we come to Daniel

How do you have a tree in the midst of the Earth which you can see from every place on Earth? You can if you think the world is not a globe, and it's finite.

Then we get to sky, which is described as a solid encapsulation of the (flat) Earth. You may by now have the idea I have quotes at hand, so I'm going to stop providing them. If this is an issue, let me know and I'll do so anyway.

Upon this firmament were stars which could fall down.

The sun and the star were perceived as completely different things.

Genesis and other places talk about this firmament holding back the water. This is were the windows of the heavens opened and it rained quite a bit (Noah). This is were we get our saying: the heavens opened, for when it pours with rain.

Exodus and Deuteronomy talk of water under the Earth. Not beneath it's surface, under it.

I think that's enough for now.

Is this proof that the Writings of the Jews were influential on the Greeks?

 

[Berzerker]

How do you have a tree in the midst of the Earth which you can see from every place on Earth? You can if you think the world is not a globe, and it's finite.

The tree is in the sky, heaven is layered... It usually appears in mythology as a tree or mountain, eg ziggurats. The Maya/Toltec pyramid at Chichen Itza has 9 layers representing the 9 lords of the night.

As for the rest of that, the authors of the creation story in Genesis did not write Joshua or the later books you've referenced. The creation story in Genesis deals with pre-Abrahamic traditions.

Then we get to sky, which is described as a solid encapsulation of the (flat) Earth. You may by now have the idea I have quotes at hand, so I'm going to stop providing them. If this is an issue, let me know and I'll do so anyway.

Heaven is firm but it is not the sky, it divides the waters (planets). It is the hammered bracelet of mesopotamian cosmology. The remains of the serpent/dragon spread out so the head appears to eat the tail.

Genesis and other places talk about this firmament holding back the water. This is were the windows of the heavens opened and it rained quite a bit (Noah). This is were we get our saying: the heavens opened, for when it pours with rain.

The heavens became synonymous with the sky, but Heaven preceded the creation of Earth. The two were separated by creation. Thats true for virtually every mythology on the planet.

At the time of the supposed events of Genesis, Mars had already cooled to the point where there was no liquid water. There certainly wasn't any in the asteroid belt.

Mars was smaller than the Earth before and after the events ~4 bya... And the asteroid belt is coated in ice, thats where researchers have found our water. Thats the solar system's freeze line, the place most appropriate for a planet to form early on. And thats where the Enuma Elish places Tiamat, the celestial dragon.

Yeah, Earth really did form that way.

Earth is the word God gave the dry land when it appeared from under the water. It is not this planet...

As for the object that collided with the early Earth, that's what was responsible for the Moon's formation.

Thats irrelevant to Genesis... The collision(s) responsible for the "dry land" and life came a 1/2 billion years later.

Everything in the Solar System that rotates experiences night and day (except the Sun itself). What the collision did was knock Earth over on its axis enough to give us seasons.

And that rotation (collision) separates night and day

 

[bhavv]

Lol at the genesis.

That dumb crap actually says God made light before the sun and the stars.

 

[timtofly]

Lol at the genesis.

That <snip> actually says God made light before the sun and the stars.

So does the current scientific models. It would depend on what sun and stars you are talking about. Light did not originate in the sun. The sun was "dust" that allegedly turned into a star.

Besides Genesis did not say that. God created matter and then added light to that matter. In Genesis the earth was the first recipient of that light and then later the sun and stars received their light.

 

[brennan]

Yes, but unexplained "plain nonsense" is not science, but philosophy. You have settled on your philosophical "scientific" views and instead off pointing to evidence that shows the earth has always been the 3rd planet from the sun, you offer your opinion, instead of science.

Why is it nonsense? And I did offer evidence, you just ignored it. "No it isn't" and "plan nonsense" are not rebuttals.

Let's take just one line:

"2) The "Light" of creation was given a name in Genesis, its called "Day" and it was separated from the darkness which became Night. That describes a spinning world."

How does it describe a spinning world? The simple answer is that it doesn't. Having day an night does not necessarily imply a spinning world, in fact for well over a thousand years it was heresy to suggest that the Earth spins around the Sun. The Aristotelian model had the Sun moving in a circle around the immobile Earth.

We know now that we have a day night cycle because the Earth spins while it orbits the sun. In fact the ancient Greeks could probably have told you that, but the biblical description, far from being an accurate scientific description was a description so bad that it got the correct explanation condemned as heresy for fifteen hundred years.

That's why it's nonsense.

And note Timtofly, that this has bugger all to do with my 'scientific bias', and everything to do with the fact that the biblical description of the heavens is just plain crap.