Creationism is the claim. What is the evidence?

I think it would be odd if there were no flaws in the bible, considering its history, and authors--that is to say the men who actually wrote the words down. Men are infamous for making mistakes. Still I think it would be weak if that were my only argument. Go ahead and throw out some specific passages and I'll try not to use "Well, we just don't know enough about science" as a defense for each one. However tempting it may be.

Science is supposed to stem from observation. Observation is supposed to lead to a loose hypothesis about how the world works. Then scientists collect data (a more formal kind of observation.) And do tests to see if what they predicted (the hypothesis) holds true in the world - if their new theory can predict. If it does, it is published in scientific journals and other scientists repeat the experiment - this is where scientific theories either get strengthened or die. If a theory is contradicted once - doesn't hold true once under experiment - the results of that experiment are published and the theory dies (or has to change to adapt to resuslts.)
As you see, science is not trying to prove anything but consistency in observation - if it doesn't work, it is incorrect. If it works, it is correct. Consistency.

If you start out "trying to prove somthing" the study is flawed. I would welcome a study that started out with observation and resulted in somthing that supported creationism, however, biblical "scientists" will only accept information that supports their viewpoint. That is not science, it is pseusoscience. I have not read a single valid scientific study (do you know the scientific method?) that supports an exact biblical account of history. This makes sense, because the bible is a story used for moral guidance, not a scientific statement about how the universe works. It is fine if you feel this way or want to study it, but it is not science unless you use the scientific method.

Basic overview of the scientific method

You see, scientists aren't trying to disprove creationism. They are trying to understand the world. If the world doesn't correspond with biblical account, then the bible is probably not a scientific document.

Actually, that is exactly what I am interested in - what do you think?

I think it's important to know that all the books in the Bible we know today was choosen by a pagan - so who knows, maybe there was some applicable stuff that we've never been exposed to - I agree in that 'man' in charge of holy texts is highly questionable but for the most part I think they got it right- unfortunately none of us know for sure To me, it doesn't make sense that God put Adam and Eve in Eden then stuck a huge tree in the middle & told them not to eat of it or they'll die- Then satan tempted eve by saying that if they eat of the tree they will have knowledge of good and evil + be like God. Personally, I don't think it's literal and if it was it would make one wonder why He even put the stupid thing there in the first place...among other things- Even the parables are symbolic- this is why I think it's important to study and decipher the whole Bible and all ancient texts ourselves. It's also interesting that the translators have publicly admitted that there are alot of words and contexts that they could not translate properly, particularly genesis. That's the part I'm very, very interested in. I've been told that if you look at the original texts in their original language (before all the man-handling, translating, and filtering) hebrew/aramaic/greek- that even the first chapter of genesis does not mean what most people think it means- some of it is very symbolic, and that makes sense to me. I've researched and researched but it's near impossible to find a translation derived directly from the original texts- So that's why I'm doing my own investigations, I'm going to learn hebrew and look for myself. Luckily I work at home and have time for this, lol. I'm on the search for truth myself and I've found more than I've bargained for.....true love and happiness and everyday that I spend studying God's word I learn something new and wonderful that most people will never see

Welcome Investor, watch your back in here. This place is like walking into a lion's den. Some of the people in here literally foam at the mouth when they smell a new post by a Christian.

Wilso..
Science is transient. Would you be a transitory existence?

In hebrew, interestingly enough, "Elohim" is a plural word. So it can be interpretted as "Gods." As in "the gods created the world." But perhaps I don't undrstand the root well enough.
Do you believe we lived before this world?

I definitely will ~ might take a while though......lol - I've heard it's a hard language, right to left and alot of symbols and/or numbers mixed together to form a meaning. I plan on reading and studying with an open mind I can sort of understand everyone's point of view.

~Kristin

satt_focusable wrote:

Wilso..
Science is transient. Would you be a transitory existence?

Correction: some of science is transient. We still rely on many of the findings of the ancient greeks, phonecians, etc. especially in physics. Note the invention of finding the world's circumference by studying shadows at two points on the earth.

Science changes when it was incorrect in the first place or is influenced by somthing other than science (ex: biblical account that the world is flat, that zeus produced thunder, etc.)

Portal Star wrote:

satt_focusable wrote:

Wilso..
Science is transient. Would you be a transitory existence?

Correction: some of science is transient. We still rely on many of the findings of the ancient greeks, phonecians, etc. especially in physics. Note the invention of finding the world's circumference by studying shadows at two points on the earth.

Science changes when it was incorrect in the first place or is influenced by somthing other than science (ex: biblical account that the world is flat, that zeus produced thunder, etc.)

Give a brief glance at any book on the history of science.