Young Earth Creationism

[buffalo]

Buffalo,

You might be going beyond your data. If the Australian researchers you speak of are Setterfield and Norman, they did not perform any new experiments of their own; they made a statistical analysis of old experimental data. (And how easy is it to go back to a two-hundred-year-old experiment and put accurate error bars on the data?) I’ve seen Setterfield’s work before.

As McHale has said, science popularizers tend to sensationalize things and add significance where there is none. For sources backing your position, I would like to see something like an article in Nature or some other highly reputable journal. And even a single article is no guarantee of correctness; I invite you to google “hydrino” and see what you come up with.

As I said before, the “coincidence” that the speed of light stopped changing just as our instruments got sensitive enough to detect such a change unambiguously is entirely too much for me to swallow.

• Liberian

[**Speed of Light, Other Constants May Change ** (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/constant_changing_010815.html)

**[THE DECREASE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT

• AN UPDATE ON DEVELOPMENTS](THE DECREASE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT - AN UPDATE ON DEVELOPMENTS)**

… The measurements of “c” have been made with very great accuracy; more than enough to determine whether it has decreased or not. The fact that virtually all the past measurements were above the present value should surely indicate that it could not have been due to “errors of measurement with inaccurate instruments” - which is the usual ploy used to dismiss them. Michelson was a Nobel prizewinner in the subject and surely the fact that he believed that “c” had decreased is worthy of some recognition.

There has been much ridicule and false mathematics directed at Setterfield’s work, but those with qualifications in statistics agree that the evidence is FOR a decrease in the speed of light. Many readers of such diatribes will consider the case closed. Those that do are committing the crime of failing to listen to the case for the other side DIRECT; i.e. not a critics version of it which is then demolished as a ‘straw man’. The information set out above is only part of the massive evidence that exists on the subject and I leave the reader to draw his own conclusions.
Speed of light slowing down after all?

…Physicist Keith Wanser, a young-universe creationist and full Professor of Physics at California State University, Fullerton, told Creation magazine in 1999 that he was open to the idea of changing c (see God and the Electron8). He said:
‘I don’t go along with Barry’s statements on this; he’s well-meaning but in my opinion he’s made a lot of rash assumptions … and there’s a misunderstanding [of many of the consequences of changing c].’
But Wanser, also said:
‘there are other reasons to believe that the speed of light is changing, or has changed in the past, that have nothing to do with the Setterfield theory.’

other:

Nature

					 Lene Vestergaard Hau.; SE Harris; Zachary Dutton; Cyrus H. Behroozi. [Light speed reduction to 17 metres per second in an ultracold atomic gas](http://www.rowland.harvard.edu/organization/past_research/atomcool/lightspeed.pdf). Nature 397, 594-598 (1999).

• Reprinted by permission fromNature, 397, 594-598, copyright (1999) Macmillan Magazines Ltd.

 

[GoodNews]

‘There are no theological problems with evolution if you understand that science doesn’t deal with the supernatural. None of those questions can be dealt with in science.’

But don’t you see, that is the problem. Science is inherintly godless. The whole structure of it is based on the premises that God does not exist, or even if He does, that He has nothing to do with nature. Therefore there conclusions will be godless. Why should a God-fearing Christian therefore listen to the godless conclusions of practical atheists rather than the Holy Scriptures or scientists who base their work on God’s Word?

‘The soul entered the body when God inserted it. It wasn’t a human body until then because humans are the combination of physical body and soul. Without one, there is no human.’

The theory of evolution teaches a very slow transitional process. When exactly did the monkey cease to be a monkey and become human? And what two people did God put the soul into? According to the theory of evolution we all have different parents (apart from the single cell) so what parents commited Original Sin?

‘Science doesn’t have anything to say about sin, original or otherwise. It doesn’t say that it doesn’t exist, it does not say anything at all.’

It might not directly say it but it has consequences for theology. Science interferes with Christian theology and that is a fact. Christians should not let it. Rather, Christians should be dictating to sicence Christianity.

‘Cruelty is a subjective term. God has His reasons for what He does, even if we don’t understand why.’

True. But why should have to ask ‘why’ God did a cruel act when His Word says He did something very different?

‘Sure, anyone can interpret the evidence anyway they choose. However, if the interpretation isn’t backed by solid science, it isn’t accepted by the scientific community. I can believe that fossils really are just animals that crawled into the rock and died within the last 10 years, but if I don’t have solid scientific reasons for believing that, my interpretation won’t be given any credence, and rightfully so.’

What about giving the Bible credence?

‘So is all of science. God isn’t part of any scientific theory and the bible isn’t a science book. Does that make all of science non-sensical?’

But the Bible is a science book! When it says Jesus walked on water, that contradicts mainstream science. When the Church teaches that Mary was physically assumed to Heaven, that contradicts mainstream science. When Christians insist that God created the world as Genesis explains, that contradicts mainstream science. You cannot pretend to be a Christian and accept the scientific method. They simply do not go together. When your faith is not in God, the Bible and the Church then it is in the wrong place.

‘Not at all. In fact, that statement is only true if one doesn’t understand science. There isn’t ANY scientific evidence that can be better explained by the Genesis version of creation than by science.’

Then you are not looking at the evidence hard enough. Genesis is correct. The Bible says so and the Church says so. Godless scientists say it is not. Who do you trust?

 

[buffalo]

You cannot pretend to be a Christian and accept the scientific method. They simply do not go together. When your faith is not in God, the Bible and the Church then it is in the wrong place.

Faith and reason cannot be opposed for they both come from God. He cannot deceive or be deceived.

Emperical science is a valuable resource. The Catholic church has always supported it.

Science by its own definition cannot say anything about the supernatural. It is the study of natual causes. Our ability to interpret science is limited to our 5 senses. The problem becomes when its emperical nature becomes our God. The doubting Thomas paradigm if you will.

 

[steveandersen]

Well, obviously I’m in no position to say the Catholic view but I think there are serious theological problems to believing in evolution.

evolution is not about belief

When did the soul enter the human (whenever that officially appeared) body?

We are not told exactly when it happened just that it did
Knowing the exact date is unimportant for belief
Conjecturing about the soul is impossible for science

What is the point in baptism to removed original sin if original sin never happened?

Evolution says nothing (nor can it) about original sin

Why did God create humanity is such a cruel way?

I’m not sure what you mean by that.

As for modern science, two things. One, science is not objective.

It is probably one of the most objective creations humanly possible.

It is down to many interpretations.

Maybe some cutting edge stuff is hotly debated but for a hypothesis to be called a theory there must be general consensus in the peer reviewed literature and an agreement with a preponderance of the data

A more cynical man than I would point out the vast array of biblical interpretations and the oft-cited “30,000 Protestant sects”.
But I couldn’t possibly do that.

The evolutionary belief is down to interpreting evidence in a godlless, unbiblical way.

No science can comment on the God or the Bible one way or another
It is not its place
The Bible is not a science textbook
It is not its place

Evidence makes just as much sense, if not more, when interpreted according to Genesis.

You’re making the assumption that the two are mutually exclusive.

In fact, I have never seen any piece of evidence held up by an evolutionist which cannot be explained perfectly well by a Creationist.

Well…a blanket statement like that is a bit of a stretch.
They answer different questions.

If “Goddidit” satisfies you then that is great. Some of us enjoy a more nuts and bolts approach.

I don’t think that knowing the mechanism of Creation to be a distraction from it.

 

[mchale]

Well, obviously I’m in no position to say the Catholic view but I think there are serious theological problems to believing in evolution. When did the soul enter the human (whenever that officially appeared) body? What is the point in baptism to removed original sin if original sin never happened? Why did God create humanity is such a cruel way?

Well to begin with, believing the scientific account of evolution (while keeping in mind that it was initiated by God and follows a divine plan) does not remove the concept of original sin. Rather, original sin remains fully in force. Regardless of how human beings came to be, there were still first humans with souls and these first humans sinned against God and the legacy of that sin persists in their descendents until this very day as Original Sin. Baptisim and more importantly Jesus’s Death on the Cross are still necessary ingredients in our redemption from that sin and all sin.

When the soul entered the human body is essentially theological trivia. It really makes no difference if it was 100,000 years ago or 10,000 years ago. It happened that is all that matter.

As for cruelty? Cruelty suggests needless pain. Regardless of how God created the Earth and Man, he did it that way to create the greatest possible good, therefore it can’t be regarded as cruelty on God’s behalf anymore than the existence of Hell can be.

As for modern science, two things. One, science is not objective. It is down to many interpretations. The evolutionary belief is down to interpreting evidence in a godlless, unbiblical way. Evidence makes just as much sense, if not more, when interpreted according to Genesis. In fact, I have never seen any piece of evidence held up by an evolutionist which cannot be explained perfectly well by a Creationist.

Science as science attempts to explain the natural world by natural means. It really has no role to comment on the supernatural. Yes, one can argue that God did all sorts of things, the problem is that you usually end up having to have God make changes in the way things are when there is no evidence that those changes actually ever occurred. I have been a Catholic all my life, and with the exception of some periods of doubt, I have believed in the truth the Church teaches for all of that time. For most of my life I have also been interested in Science. Frankly I have never seen a Creationist objection to modern Cosmology or Evolutionary Theory that stands up in the light of scientific evidence.

–
Bill

 

[Orogeny]

But don’t you see, that is the problem. Science is inherintly godless. The whole structure of it is based on the premises that God does not exist, or even if He does, that He has nothing to do with nature. Therefore there conclusions will be godless. Why should a God-fearing Christian therefore listen to the godless conclusions of practical atheists rather than the Holy Scriptures or scientists who base their work on God’s Word?

So you whole-heartedly reject all science?

Your claim is incorrect in that science is not based on the premise that God doesn’t exist. That just goes to illustrate your lack of understanding about what science is and what it isn’t.

And by the way, I’m not an athiest, practical or otherwise. I am a Catholic who happens to be a geologist. You can retract that claim at your leasure.

The theory of evolution teaches a very slow transitional process. When exactly did the monkey cease to be a monkey and become human? And what two people did God put the soul into? According to the theory of evolution we all have different parents (apart from the single cell) so what parents commited Original Sin?

When it happened is totally irrelevant. The fact that it happened is the only thing that is important in this discussion.

It might not directly say it but it has consequences for theology. Science interferes with Christian theology and that is a fact. Christians should not let it. Rather, Christians should be dictating to sicence Christianity.

I pity your sense of what Christianity is. Science has ZERO impact on my faith. Science may interfere with some christian’s theology, but it doesn’t do a thing to Christian theology.

True. But why should have to ask ‘why’ God did a cruel act when His Word says He did something very different?

You don’t.

What about giving the Bible credence?

The bible is a great tool for our faith. It is not a science book.

But the Bible is a science book!

No, it is not.

When it says Jesus walked on water, that contradicts mainstream science. When the Church teaches that Mary was physically assumed to Heaven, that contradicts mainstream science. When Christians insist that God created the world as Genesis explains, that contradicts mainstream science. You cannot pretend to be a Christian and accept the scientific method. They simply do not go together. When your faith is not in God, the Bible and the Church then it is in the wrong place.

You are describing miracles. They are miracles because they are not natural, they are supernatural. Miracles do occur.

There is no scientific evidence for or against any of those occurrances. There is massive evidence against the Genesis story.

And, once again, I am not pretending to be a Christian and I would thank you to drop that line of accusations. My faith is strictly in God.

Then you are not looking at the evidence hard enough. Genesis is correct. The Bible says so and the Church says so. Godless scientists say it is not. Who do you trust?

The Church says that Genesis isn’t necessarily literally true. While you may believe it is, I, as a Catholic, am free to use the intelligence God gave me to understand the difference between science and faith.

Peace

Tim

 

[GoodNews]

‘evolution is not about belief’

Well, no. Natural Selection isn’t. But molecules to man evolution is all about faith.

‘We are not told exactly when it happened just that it did
Knowing the exact date is unimportant for belief
Conjecturing about the soul is impossible for science.’

So just remain ignorant? I notice that you start off with the assumption that ‘science’ is correct and then try to fit Christianity around it. It should be the other way round.

‘Evolution says nothing (nor can it) about original sin’

Yes it does! If we all evolved then there was no Adam and Eve and no Original Sin.

‘I’m not sure what you mean by that.’

Evolution by natural selection is a long and cruel process based on survival of the fittest. The weakest die and the strongest survive and over billions of years (through mutations) we appeared. A lot of dying involved to get to us.

‘A more cynical man than I would point out the vast array of biblical interpretations and the oft-cited “30,000 Protestant sects”.
But I couldn’t possibly do that.’

Did I say anything in defence of Protestantism? Notice that your answer is ‘they are all wrong’ and the Church has the correct Biblical interpretation. Well the Bible has the correct scientific interpretation and that is found in Genesis.

‘No science can comment on the God or the Bible one way or another
It is not its place
The Bible is not a science textbook
It is not its place’

Where does the Bible claim that it only focusses on morality and not science. I don’t recall our Lord saying before He turned water into wine that He’d better not as this is going into the territory of science, not religion.

‘“Goddidit” satisfies you then that is great. Some of us enjoy a more nuts and bolts approach.’

I prefer to read the Word of God and see how He claims He created the world.

‘Regardless of how human beings came to be, there were still first humans with souls and these first humans sinned against God and the legacy of that sin persists in their descendents until this very day as Original Sin.’

The idea that there humanity comes from one set of parents is completely contradicted by the theory of evolution. And therefore Original Sin is contradicted.

QUOTE]‘Baptisim and more importantly Jesus’s Death on the Cross are still necessary ingredients in our redemption from that sin’

But that sin doesn’t exist if the theory of evolution is correct. And then where is the Christian faith?

‘So you whole-heartedly reject all science?’

No I don’t reject science. Only the theory of evolution (that we evolved from chemicals) as it is not testable, observable (and therefore not scientific) and contradicted by Scripture.

‘Your claim is incorrect in that science is not based on the premise that God doesn’t exist.’

Intelligent Design is rejected by scientists because they say it resorts to ‘Goddidit’. And that is the problem with science. It refuses to accept the possibility that God did do it! Science will contantly look (and fail) for a natural explanation for all things while refusing to accept the supernatural.

‘And by the way, I’m not an athiest, practical or otherwise. I am a Catholic who happens to be a geologist. You can retract that claim at your leasure.’

This is one of the few areas I agree with Prof. Richard Dawkins. To follow the scientific method (in origins science) and be a Christian would have to involve dividing your mind into segements-a religious segment and a ‘scientific’ segment. You cannot claim to follow the scientific method while believing that Mary was physically assumed into Heaven. And it is an oxymoron to be a Christian while attempting to explain everything through a process which blocks out God.

‘The fact that it happened is the only thing that is important in this discussion.’

No it is not the only important thing. Yes it happened. But your theory declares otherwise (there was no original Paradise or original parents) and the theological implications of this have to be considered.

‘I pity your sense of what Christianity is. Science has ZERO impact on my faith. Science may interfere with some christian’s theology, but it doesn’t do a thing to Christian theology’

It is hugely significant on theology! If evolution is true then Original sin is not. Now we can do what you do and attempt doublethink and try to hold both these contradictory views in our minds but as soon as any serious thought is given, the realistion that this is impossible sinks in. And it is NOT science! All things come from God. Scientific Truth comes from God. And he has told us how He created the world. Why should a Christian believe a secular scientist over God?

 

[GoodNews]

You are describing miracles. They are miracles because they are not natural, they are supernatural. Miracles do occur.

There is no scientific evidence for or against any of those occurrances. There is massive evidence against the Genesis story.
But miracles are ‘unscientific’. They contradict the scientific method. Even if all the evidence did point against Genesis, you might as well say that it was a miracle (the world was created a few thousand years ago with the appearance of age). You simply cannot dismiss Genisis as being anti-science while believing in anti-science miracles.

‘And, once again, I am not pretending to be a Christian and I would thank you to drop that line of accusations. My faith is strictly in God.’

I did not accuse you of anything. But your faith is not simply in God otherwise you would believe in the Bible. And doesn’t this contradict the Baltimore Catechism which declares Adam and Eve were the first people? That’s a genuine question out of interest.

‘The Church says that Genesis isn’t necessarily literally true. While you may believe it is, I, as a Catholic, am free to use the intelligence God gave me to understand the difference between science and faith.’

There is no difference between science and faith. You either put your faith in God or in man. Proper science flows out of the correct belief.

 

[mchale]

Well, no. Natural Selection isn’t. But molecules to man evolution is all about faith.

Technically there is no such thing as molecules to man evolution. Evolution, strictly speaking does not deal with the origin of life, only with the development of that life. Abiogenesis is the study of how life came to be. Currently I think it would be safe to say that Abiogenesis has no strong theories about the origins of life, merely untested hypothesis. Further of course, even if it did explain the physical mechanisim that explained how life occured, it doesn’t rule out the fact that God guided that process.

So just remain ignorant? I notice that you start off with the assumption that ‘science’ is correct and then try to fit Christianity around it. It should be the other way round.

Actually I would submit that they assumed that both were true, but in different ways. Granted though, the results in science are always tentative, subject to revision on new Data.

Yes it does! If we all evolved then there was no Adam and Eve and no Original Sin.

To borrow from Aquinas… On the Contrary. If the human form evolved from a lower life form, it says nothing about there being a first man and a first woman endowed by God with an immortal soul. Genetic Studies have shown that there have been a minimum of two choke points in our genetic heritage that result in all men being descended from a Y Chromosme Adam and all humans descended from a mitochondrial Eve. It is likewise possible for us to be descended via such a choke point from the true Adam and Eve!

Evolution by natural selection is a long and cruel process based on survival of the fittest. The weakest die and the strongest survive and over billions of years (through mutations) we appeared. A lot of dying involved to get to us.

Its cruel only if it is uncessary. Further, you are ascribing the concept of suffering to creatures that may not be capable of suffering; that may be reserved for humans alone.

Did I say anything in defence of Protestantism? Notice that your answer is ‘they are all wrong’ and the Church has the correct Biblical interpretation. Well the Bible has the correct scientific interpretation and that is found in Genesis.

The Bible is not a scientific text book, and never was intended to be. If you believe it is, remind me never to ask you what the value of Pi is (The bible claims it is 3, not the approximate 3.1415927 that we know it to be today).

Where does the Bible claim that it only focusses on morality and not science. I don’t recall our Lord saying before He turned water into wine that He’d better not as this is going into the territory of science, not religion.

A miracle is never subject to scientific replication. If it were science, we should be able to duplicate it. We can’t, therefore it aint science.

I prefer to read the Word of God and see how He claims He created the world.

As Augustine pointed out in the late 4th or early 5th century, Christians who insist on literal interpretations of the Bible that are clearly wrong (The interpretations that is, not the Bible) ultimately create a stumbling block to those who do not yet believe.

To be continued …

–
Bill

 

[mchale]

… And the rest.

The idea that there humanity comes from one set of parents is completely contradicted by the theory of evolution. And therefore Original Sin is contradicted.

Not at all. See my argument above.

But that sin doesn’t exist if the theory of evolution is correct. And then where is the Christian faith?

I deny your premise, so I deny your implied conclusion.

No I don’t reject science. Only the theory of evolution (that we evolved from chemicals) as it is not testable, observable (and therefore not scientific) and contradicted by Scripture.

We did not evolve from chemicals. We evolved from simple life forms. Science has not yet answered how life arose from the primevial soup that predated life on Earth.

Intelligent Design is rejected by scientists because they say it resorts to ‘Goddidit’. And that is the problem with science. It refuses to accept the possibility that God did do it! Science will contantly look (and fail) for a natural explanation for all things while refusing to accept the supernatural.

Intelligent Design is rejected because it does not make testable predictions. Science does not accept God as an answer because science is interested in the natural world not the supernatural world. It could only be interested in the supernatural if there was a way to investigate the supernatural.

This is one of the few areas I agree with Prof. Richard Dawkins. To follow the scientific method (in origins science) and be a Christian would have to involve dividing your mind into segements-a religious segment and a ‘scientific’ segment. You cannot claim to follow the scientific method while believing that Mary was physically assumed into Heaven. And it is an oxymoron to be a Christian while attempting to explain everything through a process which blocks out God.

Frankly Dawkins scientific standing hardly makes him qualified to argue for the psychology of belief. Miracles by definition cannot be examined by science. Christians who accept evolution as a scientific theory are not trying to block out God; we are interested in the details of what God actually did.

No it is not the only important thing. Yes it happened. But your theory declares otherwise (there was no original Paradise or original parents) and the theological implications of this have to be considered.

Not at all. Do you think you are telling Catholics something that they haven’t been thinking about for the last 150 years? Everyone of your objections has been answered by theologians and far more eloquently than any of us are capable of.

It is hugely significant on theology! If evolution is true then Original sin is not. Now we can do what you do and attempt doublethink and try to hold both these contradictory views in our minds but as soon as any serious thought is given, the realistion that this is impossible sinks in. And it is NOT science! All things come from God. Scientific Truth comes from God. And he has told us how He created the world. Why should a Christian believe a secular scientist over God?

Sigh, they are only contradictory if you willfully insist on reading Genesis Chapter 1-3 as a literal history of the Earth.

–
Bill

 

[mchale]

There is no scientific evidence for or against any of those occurrances. There is massive evidence against the Genesis story.

But miracles are ‘unscientific’. They contradict the scientific method. Even if all the evidence did point against Genesis, you might as well say that it was a miracle (the world was created a few thousand years ago with the appearance of age). You simply cannot dismiss Genisis as being anti-science while believing in anti-science miracles.

Science deals with the natural world. Miracles, by definition are super-natural and therefore scientific method does not apply to them. (How does one do a double-blind study on an omniscient, omnipotent being? You can’t).

I can and do reject that the world was created a few thousand years ago with the appearance of a much greater age because it denies a basic premise of what I hold to be true about God. He might with-hold information from us, but he will never decieve us!

I did not accuse you of anything. But your faith is not simply in God otherwise you would believe in the Bible. And doesn’t this contradict the Baltimore Catechism which declares Adam and Eve were the first people? That’s a genuine question out of interest.

I am sure that the thousands of priests who are also scientists are somewhat shocked to find that they have put their trust in science not God! After all, what did they give up sex for; science certainly doesn’t demand that.

Lets remember the Baltimore Cathechism is a very concise summary of the Church’s teachings. It should not be viewed as the final word on any question. Rather, it should be viewed as a first gloss. One can certainly distinguish between homo sapiens as a biological species, and humanity as a creation endowed by God with an immortal soul. Humanity is is a member of the species, but it is possible that not every member of the species was, in the past, a member of humanity. Adam and Eve may simply be the first fully, truely humans endowed with a soul who may have come around long after the homo sapien species got its start.

There is no difference between science and faith. You either put your faith in God or in man. Proper science flows out of the correct belief.

Science is not about faith, nor about belief. It is about examining the natural world and learning from it.

–
Bill

 

[Orogeny]

But miracles are ‘unscientific’. They contradict the scientific method. Even if all the evidence did point against Genesis, you might as well say that it was a miracle (the world was created a few thousand years ago with the appearance of age).

And you would therefore argue that God has deceived us and I absolutely reject that. Besides, miracles don’t contradict the scientific method, they are outside the realm of science. Two different things.

You simply cannot dismiss Genisis as being anti-science while believing in anti-science miracles.

I never said that Genesis is “anti-science”. I said that the creation story in Genesis is not literally true. There is a difference. No where is the bible “anti-science” in the sense that it is against science, nor do I claim it is. The bible is not a science book.

I did not accuse you of anything. But your faith is not simply in God otherwise you would believe in the Bible.

If you didn’t before, you just did. And I will admit, I don’t “believe” in the bible, I believe in God.

And doesn’t this contradict the Baltimore Catechism which declares Adam and Eve were the first people? That’s a genuine question out of interest.

Adam and Eve were the first humans. Any other questions?

There is no difference between science and faith.

Once again, you show your lack of understanding of science and, quite frankly, faith.

You either put your faith in God or in man. Proper science flows out of the correct belief.

I do pity your idea of faith. It must really be a burden to use your computer that is based on godless science.

Peace

Tim

 

[Liberian]

Buffalo,

I read Barry Setterfield’s articles a decade or so ago and found them unconvincing; thus I do not fall into the category of “failing to listen to the other side DIRECT.”

The fact that Albert Michelson, a man whom I respect highly, believed the speed of light to be decreasing holds very little weight for me. He did not have the benefit of a half a century of measurements of the speed of light being constant. (In fact, such appeals to the past are generally very badly based. A college student who has done well in freshman physics probably knows more physics than Sir Isaac Newton and Galileo put together, simply because the state of the science has gotten that much better.)

Finally, you know as well as I do that when we say “speed of light” the default meaning is “speed of light in a vacuum.” To bring up a reduction of the speed at which light travels in an ultracold gas is pettifogging. That light travels more slowly through media than it does in a vacuum has been known for many decades; it is the basis for the phenomenon known as refraction.

• Liberian

 

[Orogeny]

Finally, you know as well as I do that when we say “speed of light” the default meaning is “speed of light in a vacuum.” To bring up a reduction of the speed at which light travels in an ultracold gas is pettifogging. That light travels more slowly through media than it does in a vacuum has been known for many decades; it is the basis for the phenomenon known as refraction.

As a clarification for those who don’t know or understand what refraction is, just think “rainbow”.

Peace

Tim

 

[NickB]

As a clarification for those who don’t know or understand what refraction is, just think “rainbow”.

Peace

Tim

Great Stuff, I am new too this subject, my son in-law is a Young Earth Creationist believer/ Fundelmentalist Christian.Great guy, well educated, great husband and father.

Wanted to pass this website along to give those like me a little more practical information on “refraction”
ps.missouri.edu/rickspage/refract/refraction.html

God Bless

 

[steveandersen]

Well, no. Natural Selection isn’t. But molecules to man evolution is all about faith.

I’m not sure what you mean by that.
Science wouldn’t make the claim of common origin unless it was supported by observable data. Things that are supported by observable data are, by definition, not articles of faith.

So just remain ignorant? I notice that you start off with the assumption that ‘science’ is correct and then try to fit Christianity around it. It should be the other way round.

Actually, science did start off with the assumption that the Bible was literally, word for word, correct; at least in the West. (IMO, The western scientific method has its origins with the work of Aquinas and Roger Bacon.)
That assumption was not supported by observable data.

It is not a question of remaining ignorant. You are asking questions about the supernatural. Science could never address those questions no matter how hard it tried.
You can’t meassure God or put Him in a petri dish.

Yes it does! If we all evolved then there was no Adam and Eve and no Original Sin.

Not necessarily.
You do know that science has time estimates and locations for most recent common ancestors (MRCA) for many individual genes? The MRCA for all humans is currently thought to have lived somewhere in central East Africa about 100-150k years ago.

While evolution is about populations and science cannot make definitive statements about individuals, it does confirm the biblical principal of the common origins of all humans.

As for Original sin… that is not in the realm of scinence.

Evolution by natural selection is a long and cruel process based on survival of the fittest. The weakest die and the strongest survive and over billions of years (through mutations) we appeared. A lot of dying involved to get to us.

That’s not quite what evolution says. Fittest and strongest are not necessarily the same thing. (Otherwise the world would be all lions and no rabbits) Altruism, cooperation, pair bonding, and other social activities all have survival benefits.

Everything on the planet lives, struggles, and dies. That is part of Creation.

If you want to ask “Why does God allow suffering?” Then science is not the place to look for answers. (it is way out of my pay grade)

Besides, unlike religion, science is not normative. Just because it observes that something does happen that doesn’t mean it is saying that it aught to happen.

Did I say anything in defence of Protestantism? Notice that your answer is ‘they are all wrong’ and the Church has the correct Biblical interpretation. Well the Bible has the correct scientific interpretation and that is found in Genesis.

I didn’t say that you defended Protestantism. You had said that science was open to many interpretations. In my unsuccessful attempt at humor I merely pointed out the obvious that the Bible is subject to many interpretations. Many Protestant denominations (I’m lead to believe) have a long tradition of encouraging individual interpretation and even within the Church there are many areas where there has not been a dogmatic pronouncement made and individual interpretations are allowed within the larger framework of Church teaching. e.g. the Church does not compel believers the interpret Genesis as supporting a specific age of the earth

Where does the Bible claim that it only focusses on morality and not science.

1 Kings where the value of pi is approximated as 3

(I know, I know, cheap shot…I’m sorry)

I don’t recall our Lord saying before He turned water into wine that He’d better not as this is going into the territory of science, not religion.

I don’t follow your argument.
A religious text would state that a miracle occurs. A science text would propose a mechanism and discuss the breaking of the bonds and the reordering of the molecules etc.

I prefer to read the Word of God and see how He claims He created the world.

While it is the Word of God it was written by and for humans. It would be no good telling Iron Age peoples about geologic time scales, molecular biology, and the like. They were still trying to get their minds around monotheism.
To mind the technical details are unimportant to the story.