Why Hasn't A Creationist Scientist Published The Scientific Proof That Creationism Is Real? (Biblical, God)

[Wendell Phillips]

Evolution is well documented. Indeed, it is etched in stone.

[urbanlemur]

Seems to me that perhaps the approach creationists are taking may not be the best way. As mentioned here in another post, scientists generally debate amongst themselves, oftentimes generating nothing more than hours of theoretical hodgepodge. Evidence is clearly the defining line when it comes to proving or disproving fact from fiction.

Therefore, instead of staying the course they are on now, wouldn't it be more condusive to the cause to gather archeological evidences related to Biblical histories and lend creedence to what is referenced in there? Those who don't believe in what is told in the Bible would probably be more inclined to consider the historical aspects seriously as more evidence is unearthed.

The nature of things, especially in relation to how everything began is quite vague simply because we were not around at the time. However, we can see the progression of time and man by the artifacts found so far and will continue to find as time goes on.

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by cg81

I can see where you're coming from, Montana, because I feel the same way some times when it comes to evolutionary "proof". The fact of the matter is.. no one has been around a million years to document evolution, and no one was there when God created a complete earth.. so both sides have to swallow some beliefs sight unseen. I have seen both sides try to go out of their way to "prove" that something happened their way, when really, some things just are not scientifically provable.

And I also wasn't around to see Joan of Arc or Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great but I know they were real people. At least, I have enough supporting evidence to make a very valid assumption that they were real people and the same goes for evolution. Again, evolution CAN BE falsified. It is science. Anything in science can be falsified. Gravity could be falsified if a better theory superseded it. However, as it stands, all of the evidence currently points to the fact that Joan of Arc, Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great were real people just as the evidence currently tells us that the theory of gravity is a real theory (which cannot really be observed) along with evolution.

It's all in what the evidence points to. It's not a matter of faith. Currently, as it stands, the evidence points to evolution and that's a scientific fact. It's stood the test of unspeakable scrutiny for well over 150 years from a once skeptical scientific community as well as a pandering religious community. Yet, scientific findings support it not because it's skewed and anti-God but because that's just what the evidence leads to. It doesn't get any simpler than that. It really doesn't. I'm not an "evolutionist" because I so badly want to disbelieve in God. I'm merely an "evolutionist" because I understand the methods and procedures in which the evidence was collected and where it points to. If the evidence pointed in the direction of a literal Biblical Creation than I would be a Literal Biblical Creationist but there is nothing done in the scientific realm to suggest that such a thing occurred.

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by urbanlemur

Seems to me that perhaps the approach creationists are taking may not be the best way. As mentioned here in another post, scientists generally debate amongst themselves, oftentimes generating nothing more than hours of theoretical hodgepodge. Evidence is clearly the defining line when it comes to proving or disproving fact from fiction.

Therefore, instead of staying the course they are on now, wouldn't it be more condusive to the cause to gather archeological evidences related to Biblical histories and lend creedence to what is referenced in there? Those who don't believe in what is told in the Bible would probably be more inclined to consider the historical aspects seriously as more evidence is unearthed.

The nature of things, especially in relation to how everything began is quite vague simply because we were not around at the time. However, we can see the progression of time and man by the artifacts found so far and will continue to find as time goes on.

While I think I understand what you're getting at, artifacts and ruins might prove that a city (or place or person or whatever) named in the Bible may have existed but artifacts do very little in the realm of biology or many other sciences. In fact, I wonder how these artifacts would be dated????

[cg81]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

And I also wasn't around to see Joan of Arc or Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great but I know they were real people. At least, I have enough supporting evidence to make a very valid assumption that they were real people and the same goes for evolution. Again, evolution CAN BE falsified. It is science. Anything in science can be falsified. Gravity could be falsified if a better theory superseded it. However, as it stands, all of the evidence currently points to the fact that Joan of Arc, Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great were real people just as the evidence currently tells us that the theory of gravity is a real theory (which cannot really be observed) along with evolution.

It's all in what the evidence points to. It's not a matter of faith. Currently, as it stands, the evidence points to evolution and that's a scientific fact. It's stood the test of unspeakable scrutiny for well over 150 years from a once skeptical scientific community as well as a pandering religious community. Yet, scientific findings support it not because it's skewed and anti-God but because that's just what the evidence leads to. It doesn't get any simpler than that. It really doesn't. I'm not an "evolutionist" because I so badly want to disbelieve in God. I'm merely an "evolutionist" because I understand the methods and procedures in which the evidence was collected and where it points to. If the evidence pointed in the direction of a literal Biblical Creation than I would be a Literal Biblical Creationist but there is nothing done in the scientific realm to suggest that such a thing occurred.

I agree with you that Joan of Arc, Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great were real people, but that really has absolutely nothing with proving evolution, or creation for that matter. "Evidence" is completely in the eye of the beholder. You have faith that this is what the evidence means.

[Simple Living]

Originally Posted by MontanaGuy

What really irritates me about these creationist websites is that they're trying to put forward an image of having a solid foundation of scientific evidence when in fact they do not. It's really a kind of fraud to deceive the believers with alot of technical sounding jargon in order to convince them that they're cutting edge scientists who are about to shake up the world with their discoveries. Creationists are playing this two ways, they're trying to appear legitimate in the scientific sense while they're also acknowledging that faith plays a large role in their endeavors and that is something that is supposedly beyond mere mortals to understand. If you want to believe in creationism that's your right but don't call it science. My point in starting this thread is to simply to point out that creationists can't possibly publish scientific evidence is a respected journal because there is no evidence that supports their viewpoint. If it really existed it would have been published a long time ago.

But Christians don't require "scientific" proof because God is the one who gave men science. Science is not the "be all, end all" in proof for something. Science has been wrong so many times in the past, but God has never been wrong. God may have used science to create the world, I don't know. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me at all. The fact is that He created it, using whatever method He wanted. That's enough for us. And it's enough because God has shown, and proven, Himself to us.

I can fully understand non-believers needing science to prove things, but science is fallible and not 100% reliable. Even if I were a non-believer, I couldn't simply accept "scientific evidence" as proof so freely. There are several different scientific theories on how the world came to be. Even science can't agree on it. They're all theories. There is no solid proof that any of them are truth.

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by cg81

I agree with you that Joan of Arc, Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great were real people, but that really has absolutely nothing with proving evolution, or creation for that matter. "Evidence" is completely in the eye of the beholder. You have faith that this is what the evidence means.

I was merely using it as an analogy as to how and why supporting evidence can look into the past and prove fact from fiction. That was in response to you saying that we "weren't there" so we couldn't know for certain. So, just like you have faith that Joan of Arc was a real person based on what that evidence means, the evidence for evolution is just as tightly knit (and I must say with all of the substantiated testing done for it, it is probably more tightly knit).

[cg81]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

I was merely using it as an analogy as to how and why supporting evidence can look into the past and prove fact from fiction. That was in response to you saying that we "weren't there" so we couldn't know for certain. So, just like you have faith that Joan of Arc was a real person based on what that evidence means, the evidence for evolution is just as tightly knit (and I must say with all of the substantiated testing done for it, it is probably more tightly knit).

Not quite. Like I mentioned, evidence is completely in the eyes of the beholder. For example, the age of the universe. You calculate the distance of the stars from the earth, the speed of light and say "earth has to be at least this many millions of years old." To me that is not evidence, because I believe that God created a complete earth a few thousand years ago with the stars in place. Many more examples of evolutionary "proof" can be interpreted in two ways... and it all depends on whether you think the origin of the universe came about solely by natural causes or if a supernatural event was involved. Whatever you believe about this, that is what you think the evidence points to.

[PanTerra]

Originally Posted by cg81

You calculate the distance of the stars from the earth, the speed of light and say "earth has to be at least this many millions of years old."

WHat does the speed of light have to do with the age of the earth?

[GCSTroop]

Real quick before I go to bed...

Originally Posted by Simple Living

But Christians don't require "scientific" proof because God is the one who gave men science. Science is not the "be all, end all" in proof for something.

And that's the whole point and the answer to the OP. The reason why Creationists do not publish papers is because they know their "theories" are not rooted in scientific merit but in faith and faith alone. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but I'm saying that they shouldn't try to put up the facade of masquerading as scientists when they know full well it isn't science. If they want to say they're theologians than I'm not going to argue, but to say they're scientists... That's a whole other matter.

Originally Posted by Simple Living

Science has been wrong so many times in the past, but God has never been wrong. God may have used science to create the world, I don't know.

This is something I've thought about recently. Regardless of the supernatural entities that is God, once there was an Earth and a Universe we are now in what is called the "natural" realm. God would "exist" in some sort of supernatural realm. What I'm getting at is that in order to find out things about nature or the natural realm, we use science to figure it all out. We don't use science to figure out the supernatural realm. We can leave that up to theology.

Originally Posted by Simple Living

Frankly, it doesn't matter to me at all. The fact is that He created it, using whatever method He wanted. That's enough for us. And it's enough because God has shown, and proven, Himself to us.

That's fine. I don't have a problem with people believing that God exists. I really don't.

Originally Posted by Simple Living

I can fully understand non-believers needing science to prove things, but science is fallible and not 100% reliable.

Yes, science is fallible and it is not always 100% reliable. But, you have to look also at what the unreliability rate is to the reliability rate. In other words, if someone gaffed while doing a formula that proved String Theory true, it doesn't mean that ALL of String Theory is negated. It depends on the "core" of what was unreliable. Was it one tenant of the science or was it the science as a whole? My weatherman makes mistakes all the time but we'd still call meteorology science.

Originally Posted by Simple Living

Even if I were a non-believer, I couldn't simply accept "scientific evidence" as proof so freely. There are several different scientific theories on how the world came to be. Even science can't agree on it. They're all theories. There is no solid proof that any of them are truth.

That's the beauty of the way science is performed. No, we wouldn't just accept "evidence" as proof so freely. That's why the empiricism of the scientific community is so important. No one wants to be laughed at when they propose something to the community so they first and foremost do their best to present accurate information. They will then open their work up for criticism and other scientists to willingly attempt to destroy it. When nothing can be found, it is retested and retested and retested. Sometimes, people find nuances and slight mistakes, other times one's entire life work may get thrown out. It's all about the peer review process. But, the beauty of scientists disputing other scientists is that those who make conjecture are also subject to scrutiny themselves from the other members of the scientific community. It's kind of like in Algebra when you were told to check and re-check your work to make sure you have the best possible answer.

Good Night