If they already know the who=God then they have it almost figured out! the how and why then become most pressing questions! If you know that God did it, then half of your question is already answered! that is why i believe in CREATION 100%! that knowledge answers tons of questions and is GOOD!
Hello Martin,
Who is studying the most pressing how and why questions?
Creationist and evolutionist are!
Can you name a few, please?
Answers in Genesis and Creation.org, J M Tour -Steven C Meyer- Micheal Behe all are great scientist! or at least study about the results that science shows us!
@martin
Do you realize that the scientists you are citing would agree with much of what is presented on BioLogos and are not young earth Creationists at all?
Michael Behe accepts common descent and an ancient earth. Interview with Michael Behe on The Edge of Evolution | Discovery Institute
Stephen Meyer believes the earth is 4.6 billion years old, that the Big Bang is a good theory, and he does not categorically reject common descent, though he thinks the current model is incomplete⌠Can DNA Prove the Existence of an Intelligent Designer? - Biola Magazine - Biola University
James Tour just says he âdoesnât understandâ the chemistry behind macroevolutionary changes." He is not a Creationist or an ID proponent. He thinks Neo-Darwinism overreaches in its claims of certainty.
From one of his own blog posts: Likewise, I do not well-understand the stance of many of my creationist friends regarding their scientific evidence for creation or intelligent design, but they seem to be quite comfortable in most respects with the natural and historical suggestions for its claims. I am happy for them, but I hope that their position does not cause them to trump brotherly love or charity in thought or words. When they write on these topics, they are too quick to cite each other or to refer to 40-year-old studies, and slow to consider the newer findings in the mainstream scientific literature. The scientist is not the creationistâs enemy, and most scientists are quite sincere in producing research that is accurate to the best of todayâs measurement abilities. For example, the gross dismissing of radiometric dating experiments that use even multiple corroborating nuclei, not by a mere 20% or even 100%, but by 4-5 orders of magnitude, based on antiquated âscientificâ arguments, is unscientific and unfair. Moreover, to simply suggest that âGod made it look older than it really isâ is also unreasonable. With what else is God deceiving us? The virgin birth, the crucifixion or the resurrection, perhaps? Never. God is not in the business of deception, but in causing man to seek so that he could find. And my creationist friends need some thoughtful explanations for their children because, in my experience, young college-aged people seek truth, and if you threaten them, try to brow-beat them, or show them a select set of cloistered âscientificâ data, theyâll smell hypocrisy, and sooner or later in life, reject it altogether.
2 Likes
I do agree in part, but seeing that evolution from one celled animals to humans has never been seen or observed in any type of reality as the evolutionist so claim and I have never witnessed one animal evolving into or out of any other animals what so ever,as the evolutionist so claim and would necessarily must be for evolution to be true. that alone make me wonder who is pulling whoâs leg? Are the evolutionist who claim 'God did it" fooling the kids or are the instant creationist believers fooling the Kids? If you watch the you tube video expelled: no intelligence allowed It shows you very well what the evolutionist scientist do to others that have a instant God created it view. they get shut out and ostracized by the scientific community and are unable to give their side of the evolution/creation debate. The establishment scientist will have nothing to do in accepting that view or giving any credence to it what so ever. J M Tour claimed this himself on his website.J M Tour is a firm creationist but can not say it out in public because of the anti creation bias in the scientific community. there is a video on you tube where he say this exact thing and it is actually posted on your Bio logos web site, thatâs how i saw it! he said in the end that he hoped that todayâs students would grow up to change the bias that does exist and make everything more fair for all ideas! It is a truly fascinating video, he didnât say God did it one time but he kept asking how such complexity could happen by accident being that he makes nano cars and had to star over so many times just making his nano cars!
You donât understand what he is saying, if that was your takeaway.
If you go to his J.M tour web site and look it up he does say it! also in Answers in Genesis has an excellent article written by John Up church that is named The danger of Bio logos: Blurring the line between creation and evolution. you would be wise to read it it tells the truth and dangers about the organization you are part of in a way i cannot.At the bottom is a wonderful video as well! of how evolution is wrongly and evilly being taught to our kids. by doubting the Bible as Gods word and claiming man made evolution to be science! the things I tell you are very accurate and true and I do have and show evidence of what the Bio logos is preaching and why it is wrong. It is not out of hate that i say these things but to bring to your knowledge that this kind of stuff is really happening in the county of the U.S. that people with different ideas and different knowledge are being intentionally shut out or shut up from the discussion of how things could have come about! Steven C. Meyer talking about his book "The signature in the cell} says the same thing about how the scientific establishment will ostracize him as unscientific as well when he shows you what the human cell has in it and what science has found that it does and since we are the land of the free and the home of the brave I need to be brave enough to speak up and NOT shut up! and that is my goal here. Not to be mean or rude but just present the argument that this anti God creation stuff is real and happening! That may make many un comfortable,and it should because when the beginnings of life are considered all options should be on the table and if science finds out that the universe was spoke into existence by God instantly, science should not run from it but ,embrace it and be thankful to God that he is that will not make science any less real.But just give more meaning to it and direction. Thank you for your time.-Martin
The latter is not the same as the former. Meyer and Behe donât do any science. Meyer has never done any science.
Doesnât that suggest a problem with portraying creationism as actual science?
Hi Ben - IIRC Meyer published a couple of geology papers a long time ago. But it would be fair to characterize him as specializing in philosophy of science, rather than the practice of science.
No Not a bit, because the things that Meyer talks about is something that has been discovered by science in DNA as true.{ see the book the signature in the cell} Meyer is just making a point about it that no evolution scientist will say about that which has been found.He is just pointing it out. He is a philosopher of science so i figure he should know what science points to and what science is when he sees it! if the scientist were not telling us everything they find about an issue{DNA} science says because telling the public will point to creation as being true, that is akin to lying! shame on the scientist for that! they should tell the truth an shame the devil.
Hello Eddie,
That doesnât make sense. Can you point us to an actual real-life paper in which real scientists merely limit themselves to the detection of human design and completely avoid addressing who, how, and when?
A scientist would be extremely interested in finding out who made the object in question. I mean, who would say, âWe found evidence of a previously unknown civilization. Here are the artifacts they created. We donât know who these people were, and quite frankly, we donât give a flying fig about itâ
In making a case whether a stone of a particular shape found at an archaeological dig is a human-modified tool, scientists first have to determine whether there is additional evidence that humans were located at the site around the period in question. Iâm told that a combination of things like possible fire pits, bone dumps, additional similar objects and other human-related signs of nearby presence are what makes the case. For example, this is a problem with assessing the timings of the earliest human colonization of the Americas. In such cases, âdesignâ is not determined in the absence of additional orthogonal evidence. âRarefied Designâ assessment is not the norm.
That remains a completely unsupported assertion with no precedent in the real scientific world.
[quote=âEddie, post:43, topic:4733â]
My point was only that such further investigations arenât necessary to establish the fact of design.[/quote]
You havenât established anything of the sort. You merely assert.
[quote]âŚSo I have to give up trying.
[/quote]You never really tried because you have no evidence to support your assertion. Merely asserting isnât trying.