Posted on 03/21/2016 9:30:20 AM PDT by fishtank
Evolutionary Tyranny Still Casts Cloud Over Science
by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. *
A recent scientific paper, published in the high-profile journal PLOS ONE, made three separate references to the amazing design of the human hand…and rightly attributed them to the Creator.1 Evolutionists cried foul and raised such an uproar that the journal retracted the paper.
Evolutionary scientists often claim they are objective in their work as researchers and educators. They also claim that creationist research isn't valid because creationists don't publish in secular journals. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The reality is that evolutionists are seldom objective in their pursuit of truth, but instead often abuse their power as gatekeepers and suppress anything that points to a Master Creator as the source of design and complexity in living systems. The irony is obvious: Secular scientists censor creation research, then they mock creation scientists for not publishing in secular journals.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Don’t evangelize to me—your words fall on deaf ears. Your time would be better spent elsewhere.
What makes you think I hate Israel? And what is the point behind you posting the link?
Actually it’s clear that there was at least part of a day 0 before day one. Day one is, as is the Hebrew sense of days, from a sunset to a sunset, an evening and then a morning, a night and a day.
His announcing the dawn, “Let light be”, didn’t happen during the night and day reckoned to be day one, but instead on this “day 0”, IOW the separation of night from day happened after He said “Let light be” just as the text presents it.
Creation of physical existence happened before He said “Let light be”.
A first reckoned day can be nothing more than the first day of a new epoch, an official calendar. Have you not read that there has been more than one such epoch recorded in the Bible: the times before the flood and the times after it in particular, wherein both Earth and the heavens have been changed?
The earth was already present before the first reckoned day. YEC is unnecessary to a literal reading of Genesis and is a superfluity.
If god did not create the universe and the laws of physics, all of it works whether a human believes or not.
Time is relative. From our perspective on Earth, it may be billions of years, yet from a perspective elsewhere in the universe, Earth's age will vary. Gerald Schroeder, an MIT PhD in nuclear physics, a former member of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, and a teacher at Aish HaTorah College of Jewish Studties in Jerusalem, believes that from the perspective of the point of origin of the 'Big Bang', the universe has just begun its sixth day. He suggests that if the universe is 15 billion years old from the perspective of Earth, from the perspective at the origin of the 'Big Bang', we have just finished the sixth day. His theory is based on Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
Evidence for the relativity of time was shown in the Hafele-Keating experiment. The link also briefly discusses the University of Maryland experiment conducted in late 1975 and early 1976 which Dr. Schroeder discusses in several videos posted on Youtube.
I can't say as I necessarily agree with the Doctor, but I believe there is too much evidence against a 'young Earth' of 6-10,000 years that Young Earth Creationists (YEC) claim. Likewise, since evolution, at least 'macro' evolution lacks evidence, Old Earth Creationism (OEC) is also suspect in my view.
Since nothing of Jesus' existence and teachings in the Gospels have ever been discredited, and nothing in the other books of the NT has been found to be incorrect, I'll stand on, and trust His Word, that He is God and His Word is true. Since He never 'corrected' any 'errors' in the OT, including Creation and the Fall, as outlined in the Book of Genesis, I'll take it at face value. 'Everything', including time, space and matter, were created by God, in six days. Does that mean six days on Earth? Not necessarily since in Genesis 1, the Earth is not created on the first day, so how can a 'day' be measured when the point of reference has not yet been created?
Whether Dr. Schroeder is correct, or OECs, or YECs are correct, or none are correct, it does not matter to me. As noted above, there is no evidence of falsehood or error in the NT, so I must believe Jesus is who He said He was. Since He made no 'corrections' to the OT, then I must believe that God created everything in six days, however He defined 'six days'! Jesus only corrected the actions and interpretations of the Pharisees and Saducees, who, having spent their lives studying and interpreting the Tanakh, BADLY misinterpreted God's Word, to their advantage, against the people.
To this I would add that materialistic naturalism is also unscientific, unfalsifiable.
It is not the case, as is often presumed, that science is somehow supportive of the idea of atheism, or even that theism is not needed. Rather the existence or non-existence of anything “beyond nature” are equally non-falsifiable.
Intelligent design is not actually the foil of evolution as it implicitly accepts it. Rather it is the foil of materialistic naturalism.
The stars and galaxies and even the rest of the planets were not created until day 4 so what is the point of trying to change the meaning of the first day?
Again, the actual word used and translated as “create” is really that for “prepare”
It does have a pretty good timeline beginning from the fall.
“Creator” is not a mechanism that is scientifically valid.
And there’s the rub.....science in it’s true investigative mechanisms can’t speak of arguments that can’t be proven true or false from the tools and methods we currently have available. Yet strictly speaking, a person given to such a mindset or pretends to be given to such a mind set should not be able say if there was a God who created or not. He certainly from a scientific stand point can not offer a view point as whether or not there was a ‘who” type consciousness that originated all that we call the universe since to do so would violate his scientific mind set.
Yet we find all matter of scientists or scientist wannabe writers condemning those scientists who admit to having religious viewpoints that may “color” their scientific rigorousness, according to these pre-biased antireligionists. For example, to be consistent, all genetics scientists must now throw out their science because the father of modern genetics science was a religious Catholic! Capiche...kemosabe? The creator of modern calculus was a religious Catholic. Newton searched for God! Most founders of modern science, were in fact religious in their thinking and most modern science derives from their thinking and tinkering...even Einstein believed in God.
No, it isn’t.
The text specifically speaks of a time before the first day, after His saying “Let light be” and before His separating light and darkness, which is reckoned as an evening and then a morning, that night and it’s day.
Likewise, there is significance to the actual word translated as create. Fine tuning is also a form of preparing.
YEC is unnecessary to a literal reading of Genesis.
4 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Leaving and old universe and evolution?
Much as I pointed out earlier, even if be would interpret Genesis 1:1 as agreeable to the idea of catastrophism it still follows that the time frame indicated is too short to be discernible by physical evidence we actually have. Also evidence for any such catastrophe would be obscured at a minimum by the flood, if not also the abrupt nature of the creation described.
And to those who might want to jump on the mention of the flood, there is actually a fair amount of evidence for some great upheaval on the Altiplano of South America, but I suppose if you want to assert that, for example, continental drift has been steady that it was some pre-modern-human race farming those fields now well above the permanent frost line....
“Faith are different things. By bringing in a supernatural origin for natural processes, creationism violates Occam’s Razor, which holds the simplest explanation is the correct one.”
That is one Ironic statement given that William of Ockham was a Franciscan Friar who would probably look at the confusing babble as to questions of the origins of the Universe or “all there is that exists”, apply his favorite razor and declare...”God created it” as being the simplest and there-for most correct scientific assessment of the question!
Ockham’s razor, since it was first formulated by a religious friar, must now, according to your reasoning, be discarded as a valid scientific tool...as it was developed by a pro-God, pro-Christ pre-biased religious person!
Oh I expect they probably will — I evangelize to others, who will then resist your nihilism.
Old universe yes.
Macro-evolutionism is still as legless as it ever was. The supposedly impartial science is quite blind to the probability hill.
On Earth the text requires that all creatures created by Him as described were created before the woman was made. Likewise that there are two different modes by which they are created: beforehand when He calls them from the earth or the seas and after He says it’s not good for man to be alone, and these He fashions from the ground. That is all it requires. It makes no mention of other worlds, or the earth before Genesis 1:1.
As for what He was doing when He fashioned the exemplars that He presented to Adam, I would suggest that doing so is not separable from His saying he should not be alone. That in presenting them to him, he didn’t see any of these as having a nature that was the helper that The Lord had spoken of ... so when he saw her: he got it.
Essentially it might be looked at as an object lesion, were He teaches him to look to her as his equal and partner, not to them (the animals), and also to look to Himself who provided for a need that Adam seems to have not even been aware of till she was standing before him.
“Lastly, nature is not random—it is the result of the properties of matter. What appears to be design is a reflection of that.”
Hang in there. It may come to you in a while.
Yup. This is kind of the secularist equivalent of “It’s turtles all the way down.”
Don’t let all the pomp impress ya!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.