• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

The Creation Museum

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
t_BuckeyeScott;1896114; said:
But forget it. Creationists aren't scientists.
Click to expand...

As long as Creationists will not approach the issue with even a thought that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God, then they cannot be considered "scientists"....unless and until you change the definition of the scientific method. "The Bible says it, I believe it, so I have to find a way to make it fit" is not a methodology that is admirable, no matter what one's religious beliefs are, if you are looking for scientific credibility.

Take the issue of the stars. If they are not so far away and their light traveling at the speed of light, how can you explain them - the stars? You can either make them closer, or change the speed of light. But if you accept the speed of light, then the 6,000 year old earth collapses as a working model.
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;1896118; said:
I'm pretty sure they are all young earth creationists are why be on AiG?
Click to expand...
I'll take your word for it. It just occurred to me that I might as well be considered a creationist, since I believe in a creator G-d. What I don't believe, however, is that science is wrong about virtually everything regarding the time line of the universe and all the things that flow from it. Frankly, and we've talked about this before I think, it is my opinion that folks who deny the reality that surrounds them simply to keep this idea of an inerrant book alive is a smack in the face of any living G-d. Of course, the good news is, any such G-d would hardly care as I don't think damning people is consistent with a G-d worthy of worship.
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet said:
As long as Creationists will not approach the issue with even a thought that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God, then they cannot be considered "scientists"....unless and until you change the definition of the scientific method. "The Bible says it, I believe it, so I have to find a way to make it fit" is not a methodology that is admirable, no matter what one's religious beliefs are, if you are looking for scientific credibility.

Take the issue of the stars. If they are not so far away and their light traveling at the speed of light, how can you explain them - the stars? You can either make them closer, or change the speed of light. But if you accept the speed of light, then the 6,000 year old earth collapses as a working model.
Click to expand...
I think that's why it's important there are scientists from all those fields. I've read a theory on the formation of the universe from a creation scientists that examines that exact issue about light. I believe the theory is still in peer review.
 
Upvote 0
Not to trivialize the Bible, Tscott, but .... why not take "The Hobbit" and set out to prove it true vis a vis reality? If I call myself a "Hobbit Scientist" does that give me credibility? If I send my theory off to a like minded guy and call it "peer review" do I gain credibility?

Again, I don't mean to be trivial here, but I can't get past this notion of why its so damn important that walls were blown over by trumpets and people wandered around in desserts smelting metal into golden cows. It just strikes me as absurd. Any god that can't survive the Bible being less than literal is... well... a pretty weak god indeed. If I may put that fine a point on it.

Sorry if that is offensive... you know I've tried to tone all that down, but on this topic, I'm afraid some of my contempt might be slipping thru. And, to be clear, I don't hold you in contempt... but... I consider "Creationism" to be - as I said earlier to Kinch - completely inane at best and dangerous at worst.
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;1896122; said:
I think that's why it's important there are scientists from all those fields. I've read a theory on the formation of the universe from a creation scientists that examines that exact issue about light. I believe the theory is still in peer review.
Click to expand...

FWIW, it's scientifically known that light travels at different speeds throughout the universe; however, I don't think there is any explanation that shrinks umpteen billion years down to 6K.
 
Upvote 0
As long as gators will not approach the forum with even a thought that one is not better for having spent time with tebow, then they cannot be considered credible.
Gatorubet;1896120; said:
As long as Creationists will not approach the issue with even a thought that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God, then they cannot be considered "scientists"....unless and until you change the definition of the scientific method. "The Bible says it, I believe it, so I have to find a way to make it fit" is not a methodology that is admirable, no matter what one's religious beliefs are, if you are looking for scientific credibility.

Take the issue of the stars. If they are not so far away and their light traveling at the speed of light, how can you explain them - the stars? You can either make them closer, or change the speed of light. But if you accept the speed of light, then the 6,000 year old earth collapses as a working model.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow;1896154; said:
As long as gators will not approach the forum with even a thought that one is not better for having spent time with tebow, then they cannot be considered credible.
Click to expand...
There will always be room for questioning disparate views - like if Tebow is the Greatest Person ever on Earth, or if Tebow is the Greatest Person Ever on Earth....and in all of the other alternate universes and times too.....

We call that discussion "Free Will".
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1896130; said:
Not to trivialize the Bible, Tscott, but .... why not take "The Hobbit" and set out to prove it true vis a vis reality?
Click to expand...
fail-owned-semantics-fail.jpg
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;1895962; said:
What does it say, Max?

So elitist. I hope you would be willing to tell all these guys that they are not scientists. Calling them not scientists does no help in furthering your cause.
Click to expand...
My point in saying that Creationism has nothing to do with science doesn't relate to an attempt to "further my cause." Saying "water is wet" isn't an attempt to further a cause; it's stating a fact. Same thing.

I really think it's quite smug to say that someone is "elitist" simply for saying the truth. I haven't called Creationists any names; simply said that Creationism isn't science, which it isn't; it's theology.

By the way, I haven't said that scientists can't be Creationists; they can, demonstrably. But I know mathematicians whose wives balance the checkbooks, too.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top