The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

J C wrote: »

... using a definition of 'science' that excludes all investigation of supernatural causes ... even when, in the case of 'origins', there is a logical and very credible alternative to the 'it did itself' hypothesis ... which is a supernatural cause.

Tell me this one thing.

What will be your approach to proving that humans represent one of the earliest lifeforms on the planet?

How will you show/prove that it is impossible for any set of physical conditions to give rise to any type of mechanism that exhibits the properties of life?

How will you demonstrate that the bible is in fact the most accurate encyclopaedia ever compiled?

How will you demonstrate that the force you credit with creation is a force that actually exists?

What would the funding board be buying with their money?

J C wrote: »

There is a ban on supernatural explantions within conventional science ... nobody is arguing that this doesn't exist.

Well I am.

Banning supernatural explanations is like sacking someone who has already resigned. They ban themselves. It's not the kind of rule one needs to stipulate.

Scientists don't do it for the same reason that you don't think that lightning is God expressing His anger.

It would be stupid.

Scientists don't like to appear stupid so in general, they don't say very much about anything until they think they can say it in such a way that other scientists won't laugh at them.

And scientists know that other scientists would laugh at them if they were to declare that they had solved the origins problem and concluding that'

"Life appeared on earth because it was the will of an unmeasurable supernatural being who is beyond the limits of physical law and whose origins are unfathomable.

Q.E.D."

How they would laugh.

They would also laugh at an atheist who concluded that,

"Life appeared on earth because of interactions between measurable forces which are constrained by the limits of physical law and whose origins are fathomable.

Q.E.D."

However, of the two conclusions, if they were entered as 'starting hypotheses' in separate applications, the latter is more likely to get the funding than the former. And the atheist would still have some work to do on his application vis a vis 'supporting evidence'.

And as scientists would laugh at the 'supernatural conclusion', the funding board would laugh at the 'supernatural hypothesis'.

So you see, everyone is laughing at creationism.

Like everyone laughed at Chicken-Licken when he declared that the sky is about to fall down. Everyone except the ones that believed him and ended up being eaten by the fox.

You must also realise that in relation to credibility, science can't afford to be tripped up by language and facts in the same way as demonstrated by yourself.

If a proper scientist made the same kind of mistakes that you have in relation to the flatfish, triceratops, four-chambered heart, the bible, etc., (this list is by no means extensive) then the rest of the science community would find it necessary to double-check every contribution he has made to science.

They would have to do this in order to avoid possible embarassment further down the line.

And they would elect a new spokes-person.

It is your 'looseness' of facts and language that betrays your scientific inadequacies much more than your hypotheses. It demonstrates 'loose thinking' and science is in part about being very disciplined in your thinking.

If only you abandoned the '10,000 year old earth' thing, you could reconcile with science and claim that science does not falsify your hypotheses.

And you could make a stronger argument from that position.

And if you were to win a few of those arguments on a scientific basis then you might have more credibility when you reduce the length of the timeline of existence.

I mean for instance, cosmology is examining the notion that the fine structure factor of spacetime might change.

This has implications on the constancy of 'c'.

Scientifically, whether you be an atheist, deist or theist, that is interesting.

Why doesn't creationism look for a grant to fund research into the fine structure of spacetime? Who knows where that might lead.

You might discover that the change of value of the fine structure constant can be plotted and forms a gradient that can be projected into the past.

It might be exponential.

It might prove that the universe is very young.

If it turned out that the earth was a mere 10,000 years old, it might come as a shock to science but it would be accepted by science and scientists would strive to understand 'How?'

They might argue that time passed much more quickly in the early universe and although only 10,000 universe-years have passed, the earth has orbited the sun 4.5-billion times.

In order to back scientists into such a corner though, you require that annoying itch that we keep calling 'evidence'.

Until you have that, you cannot land a single blow on science or financial bodies that fund science.

Sorry.

J C wrote: »

The idea that 'life did itself' is an exclusively Atheistic belief ...

But the idea that life did itself in accordance to God's will is not.

Science doesn't need to ask such questions.

Here's a scenario - a creationis and an atheist are at the scene of a crime and are discussing how the crime might have unfolded and they come up with conflicting hypothesess.

Meanwhile, the scientist examines the CCTV footage which provides a clear record of what happened.

It is pure coincidence that the CCTV footage supports the hypothesis of the atheist more than it does the creationist.

But it is not the atheist who bears witness to the truth. The record will show the meticulous methodology of the scientist whereas the atheist and creationist views will not feature at all.

You need to produce something that can be examined and tested before you can even hope to be taken seriously.