New Creation Museum to Open in Boise...

[texan]

I didn't mean to suggest their scientific research was invalid nor was I specifically attacking research they're doing. I did look at their site to see what their research amounted to. They are doing a lot of work trying to disprove scientifically accepted facts and proposing the most logical alternative be Biblical Young Earth creationism.

What I'm saying here is simply that scientific research doesn't validate or support supernatural causality. Science isn't a methodology you can apply to this, its purview is limited to the natural world. Moreover it's very important not to forget something fundamental about our knowledge of things like the age of the Earth: it was arrived at honestly and very surprisingly over the course of many years of exhaustive scientific study. As you said yourself many great scientists were and are also people of faith, but they didn't let that faith pollute their scientific understanding of the world around them. They didn't disregard logical conclusions which didn't fit their preconceptions and instead let observation and inductive reasoning guide them to more profound truths about our world then their scripture could offer.

The reason your average geologist won't take you seriously if you state the Earth is only 10,000 years old isn't because they're rejecting your faith, but because they truly know this isn't true. That doesn't mean they're not Christians themselves, it just means they don't require reconciling all scientific facts with their religion before accepting them.

[Not a Cook]

I didn't mean to suggest their scientific research was invalid nor was I specifically attacking research they're doing. I did look at their site to see what their research amounted to. They are doing a lot of work trying to disprove scientifically accepted facts and proposing the most logical alternative be Biblical Young Earth creationism.

What I'm saying here is simply that scientific research doesn't validate or support supernatural causality. Science isn't a methodology you can apply to this, its purview is limited to the natural world. Moreover it's very important not to forget something fundamental about our knowledge of things like the age of the Earth: it was arrived at honestly and very surprisingly over the course of many years of exhaustive scientific study. As you said yourself many great scientists were and are also people of faith, but they didn't let that faith pollute their scientific understanding of the world around them. They didn't disregard logical conclusions which didn't fit their preconceptions and instead let observation and inductive reasoning guide them to more profound truths about our world then their scripture could offer.

The reason your average geologist won't take you seriously if you state the Earth is only 10,000 years old isn't because they're rejecting your faith, but because they truly know this isn't true. That doesn't mean they're not Christians themselves, it just means they don't require reconciling all scientific facts with their religion before accepting them.

I think we've derailed the OP thread enough. Suffice it to say, you and I disagree. I believe science is as valuable to investigating supernatural causalities as it is to investigating theories of macro-evolution. At the end of the day, science can only take you so far. Faith is required regardless of how far someone believes scientific investigation can take them.

Also, I've asked this in another thread: why would someone claim to be a Christian and claim to believe the Bible, but then disregard the biblical account of creation as non-factual? The more I study, the more evidence I find that the Scriptures are true, including the biblical account of creation. Either the Bible is true, or it isn't. I believe and proclaim that the Bible is true, Genesis and all. I've yet to meet a Christian who can reconcile belief in macro-evolution with belief in the inerrancy of the Bible after I've had the chance to ask them some basic questions. In my experience, those who hold both beliefs have not been intimately familiar with both, and so have not realized how incompatible they truly are.

Curiously enough, the geologists I've dealt with so far have taken me seriously, although I don't recall any of them ever asking me how old I believe the earth to be. I do recall one particular instance where a geologist doubted my conclusions were correct (to put it mildly). We "put it to the test" with exploratory excavations. He was shocked I was right. He had read the site as an ancient formation; I read it quite differently. At the end of the day, he and our mutual client were glad (albeit surprised) I was right.

In life (including everything from everyday dealings with folks, college, grad school studies, and in my career) I've learned that just because someone has letters behind their name or an impressive looking c.v. doesn't mean they're correct, or even that they're necessarily technically qualified. Sometimes it just means they're more likely to be arrogant. It reminds me of an old saying of my Dad's, "I love engineers. They always think they know everything when they don't, but because of it they sure have made me a lot of money."

[mossy]

If it's a similar young earth museum brought to you by Ken Ham, I can't wait to see the dinosaur riding exhibit.

that looks like loads of fun. if they really had dino rides why did they not weaponize them? ride out of egypt on a t-rex wrecking things wile a squad of trained rapters takes out any survivors and have a triceratops clearing a path straight to the ocean where a gang of megalodon's is waiting with a lock ness monster.

found the book on amazon, the reviews are gold. http://www.amazon.com/Dinosaurs-Eden.../dp/0890513406

[sd_shooter]

There is science, and there is "science".

Real Science:
- Observe natural phenoma
- Postulate a theory
- Run experiments to test the theory
- Examples: High school lab experiments, medical research, most commercial research (aside from political efforts)

Fake Science:
- Calling anyone a "scientist" (in reality anyone can be a scientist if they practice the method)
- Ignoring facts
- Pushing theories without proof
- Claiming anything is "undisputed" or "established"
- Not allowing existing theories to be questioned
- Examples: Global Warming, and yes the ever popular theory of Evolution (macro evolution), and yes much of what is pushed by the creation institutes

This is the only outfit that I have found that honestly applies science while reconciling it with a Biblical world view:

http://www.reasons.org/

Hence, I believe in an "old earth" since carbon dating and the old age of he earth cannot be disputed based on pure science. However I also do not believe in macro evolution since the development of life on earth can be mathematically disproved as pure chance:

http://www.reasons.org/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth

[Not a Cook]

There is science, and there is "science".

Real Science:
- Observe natural phenoma
- Postulate a theory
- Run experiments to test the theory
- Examples: High school lab experiments, medical research, most commercial research (aside from political efforts)

Fake Science:
- Calling anyone a "scientist" (in reality anyone can be a scientist if they practice the method)
- Ignoring facts
- Pushing theories without proof
- Claiming anything is "undisputed" or "established"
- Not allowing existing theories to be questioned
- Examples: Global Warming, and yes the ever popular theory of Evolution (macro evolution), and yes much of what is pushed by the creation institutes

This is the only outfit that I have found that honestly applies science while reconciling it with a Biblical world view:

http://www.reasons.org/

Hence, I believe in an "old earth" since carbon dating and the old age of he earth cannot be disputed based on pure science. However I also do not believe in macro evolution since the development of life on earth can be mathematically disproved as pure chance:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/prob...-life-on-earth

I agree with much of what you wrote; except that I believe ina relatively young earth and obviously am a fan of ICR. As you noted, the age of the earth cannot be disputed based on pure science, but neither can it be deduced from pure science. You cannot perform repeated tests under controlled conditions which account for all other possible variables in order to deduce the age of the earth. While many tests can be done ( such as the much ballyhooed radiocarbon dating), those tests all entail serious assumptions which cannot be properly "controlled out". The most common assumptions are that things continue at a constant rate (which a universal flood would seriously disrupt) and that the earth would have appeared brand new on "day one" of creation (much as Adam appeared not as a newborn but instead as a mature man, so the earth appeared with mature characteristics that now make it impossible for many tests to truly determine age of the earth). The bottom line is that "popular scientific thought" includes many assumptions that are generally not acknowledged but inherently color the results of any attempts to as scientifically determine the age of the earth.

All that said, there are two particular points that interest me concerning the whole "how old is the earth" debate, namely:
1. The debate usually arises when someone wants to attack the historical validity and/or infallibility of the Bible; and
2. For Christians who hold to macro-evolutionary theories, they generally do not realize that doing so creates a major doctrinal contradiction. That is, the Bible teaches that sin entered the world through Adam, and death entered through his sin. There was no death before Adam, as death is the consequence of sin. Those that hold to macro-evolutionary theories hold to death (a whole lot of death) having occurred prior to Adam's sin, because death is a necessary component of macro-evolutionary theories. As such, their belief in such theories conflicts with basic biblical doctrine regarding death. I've yet to discuss this topic with someone that tries to reconcile belief in the Bible and belief in a macro-evolutionary theory that has been able to reconcile this obvious contradiction.

[Not a Cook]

that looks like loads of fun. if they really had dino rides why did they not weaponize them? ride out of egypt on a t-rex wrecking things wile a squad of trained rapters takes out any survivors and have a triceratops clearing a path straight to the ocean where a gang of megalodon's is waiting with a lock ness monster.

found the book on amazon, the reviews are gold. http://www.amazon.com/Dinosaurs-Eden.../dp/0890513406

I know your post is in jest, but the Bible does mention dinosaurs in several places (although it never records anyone riding a dinosaur, that's pure speculation).

Here's one passage you might find interesting:

Job 40:15-24 (NKJV)

That sounds like a dinosaur, doesn't it? Possibly a brachiosaurus or something similar.

[mif_slim]

I didn't mean to suggest their scientific research was invalid nor was I specifically attacking research they're doing. I did look at their site to see what their research amounted to. They are doing a lot of work trying to disprove scientifically accepted facts and proposing the most logical alternative be Biblical Young Earth creationism.

What I'm saying here is simply that scientific research doesn't validate or support supernatural causality. Science isn't a methodology you can apply to this, its purview is limited to the natural world. Moreover it's very important not to forget something fundamental about our knowledge of things like the age of the Earth: it was arrived at honestly and very surprisingly over the course of many years of exhaustive scientific study. As you said yourself many great scientists were and are also people of faith, but they didn't let that faith pollute their scientific understanding of the world around them. They didn't disregard logical conclusions which didn't fit their preconceptions and instead let observation and inductive reasoning guide them to more profound truths about our world then their scripture could offer.

The reason your average geologist won't take you seriously if you state the Earth is only 10,000 years old isn't because they're rejecting your faith, but because they truly know this isn't true. That doesn't mean they're not Christians themselves, it just means they don't require reconciling all scientific facts with their religion before accepting them.

The "confirmed science" before evolution theory and big bang theory said the same about the presented evolution theory. Then, it started to gain traction and became the standard science we know now. Now, a new theory (YEC) has come into the scene and so the science community goes back in circle. The Darwin proponents now are refuting it just like the ones who refuted them. But it'll take time. We are just lucky to live in the time of these views.

There is science, and there is "science".

Real Science:
- Observe natural phenoma
- Postulate a theory
- Run experiments to test the theory
- Examples: High school lab experiments, medical research, most commercial research (aside from political efforts)

Fake Science:
- Calling anyone a "scientist" (in reality anyone can be a scientist if they practice the method)
- Ignoring facts
- Pushing theories without proof
- Claiming anything is "undisputed" or "established"
- Not allowing existing theories to be questioned
- Examples: Global Warming, and yes the ever popular theory of Evolution (macro evolution), and yes much of what is pushed by the creation institutes

This is the only outfit that I have found that honestly applies science while reconciling it with a Biblical world view:

http://www.reasons.org/

Hence, I believe in an "old earth" since carbon dating and the old age of he earth cannot be disputed based on pure science. However I also do not believe in macro evolution since the development of life on earth can be mathematically disproved as pure chance:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/prob...-life-on-earth

Actually even Carbon dating is not accurate. It's accurate to thousands of years then starts to degrade. The fossils found in the sedentary rocks are classified by the layers, not how old the fossil really is. So if a fossil is found most commonly in a given layer, they will say it's that old.

I'll get more into detail once I get to a computer. On this phone its crazy looking!