A theist, asnwer this if you can?

Question

Okay, God loving folks, Gen. 1 meets the scientific criteria for creation, can you name the list of 5 criteria for science

it is in there, so look at it and answer up, this is one of the many reasons I say to be a real scientist, you need to have God as your instructor, after all, he made it all

Bajingo, I like science. I grew up with it. In science, for something to be science, 5 criteria have to exist. it is nothing new, it is just something that all science majors learn, and forget.

the question is addressed to theist. I figure atheist would join in. I am disappointed in corrosive though, he has yet to write a decent paragraph to anything.

primoa1970 that the scriptures do meet the criteria to silence critics is often overlooked.
yesterday I read part of a transcript of a christian debating an atheist, and the christian was unschooled in basic science and had not business trying to debate anyone. As a christian, I have found talking to some people to be difficult since all knowledge resides in them. But as a christian, you should be prepared to defend the Gospel intelligently when people have a honest question and want honest, provable answers. Evidence for God exists. It is dismissed and that is unprofessional on the part of those who do actually know the truth

magley64, you are not well aquainted with educated christians. your education is lacking, but there are actually some things that you learned but have forgotten, come on now, think, remember, use that ability to do abstract thought

Cathy, if you did not believe in God, but were working a chemistry experiment, there are still conditions that have to be met in order for this to be science, and so far, people are striking so close but not answering it. You learned this in school, it is the basis for secular science, it is the basis for christian science, it is what science does to prove something, remember your basic science class!

st ash, if you know the scientific method, you know the answer, come now, I keep hearing people act like they know science, so I take the most basic application of science and no one is giving the correct answer

i'm not going to post the answer yet, however, when you mix oxygen and hydrogen you don't get water, not unless it is acted on by something to combine the two elements. This is what i'm talking about, the use of Genesis was to check objectivity of the answer to see if anyone was reading it. Genesis meets the requirements, but THE REQUIREMENTS are what i'm looking for.

come on, all of you know this, it is 8th grade science, it is the building block of current science. It is physics, it is chemistry, it is the basis of observation to test anything to see, record, and have peer review

Answer 1

Tell you the truth.....I didn't know science had 5 criteria for anything.


All I know is that the Genesis account of creation is truth. I don't need criteria for Scripture to be true......all I need is the indwelling Holy Spirit to confirm it in my heart & spirit as absolute truth

Answer 2

Why are you asking this question of a thiest, rather than of atheists? Theists already believe in a god.

What do you mean by "5 criteria for science? The criteria for proving or disproving a hypothesis are chosen based on what will prove or disprove a particular hypothesis. There are no "criteria for science" in the way you state them.

In science, a hypothesis is an idea that a scientist will test to whether or not it is true. Evolution was once a hypothesis. A hypothesis, once tested and / or observed and / or measured, will then, if shown to be true repeatedly, with substantial evidence, be accepted as a theory..

Chapter 1 of Genesis contains nothing that can be tested or observed. Evolution is something that is indirectly observed through the fossil record. It makes sense that oldest objects are buried deepest. We find that the distribution of species follows, through time, that distribution predicted by Evolutionary theory.

Genesis, Chapter 1 has a great number of things that simply go against any idea of science. For instance, the concept of separating light from darkness: darkness is not a thing, but an absence of thing. One cannot "add darkness", one can only remove light. The idea that God separated light from darkness makes no scientific sense.

You may ask this question to a theist and get a response you like, particularly of a Fundamentalist Christian theist. To a knowledgeable atheist though, it makes no sense.

BTW ... I am a theist. I am simply not a Christian.

Answer 3

Genesis does not accord with the history of the universe as determined by cosmologists, for the following main reasons:

1: Genesis does not know that the Earth is just one planet in a solar system with a star at its centre, nor does it know that the sun is just one star out of billions in the galaxy, nor does it know that our galaxy is just one of billions of galaxies throughout the universe. It describes the sun, moon and stars as merely lights in the atmosphere (in 'the firmament', the same place where the birds are flying).

2: Genesis has the Earth existing right at the beginning of the universe -

"[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"

Science tells us that the universe is about 13 billion years old, with the Earth only forming 4.5 billion years ago, so Genesis is wrong here.

3: Genesis has the Earth initially in darkness, but cosmology shows the sun existing before the planets formed, so the Earth would never have been in darkness. Genesis is wrong again.

4: Genesis has it that everything was created in 6 days, whereas cosmology tells us that the universe has existed for 13 billion years and the Earth has existed for 4.5 billion years. Sometimes people say "Oh well a day doesn't actually *mean* a day, it means..." millenniums of time (or whatever they want it to be). However, in Genesis it says "[5] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." Day and night, light and darkness, evening and morning. Sounds like a regular 24-hour day to me. Genesis is wrong again.

5: Genesis has the Earth bringing forth living creatures 'after their kind', but we know that there is no such thing in reality as 'kinds', and all living organisms are related by common descent. Once again, Genesis has it wrong.

6: Genesis has day and night existing several days before the sun existed, which is clearly nonsense.

7: Genesis has grass and trees as the first life, but both are very new in geological terms, arising billions of years after the first life. Genesis is wrong again.

I could go on, but it's already clear that Genesis does not agree with the scientific view of the universe at all.

8

Answer 4

Genesis begins with two different accounts of creation, and that is certainly not scientific at all. You had best read some true science. You are only uttering some pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo here. Science does not deal with issues about gods. That is for Philosophy and Theology, not Science. I cannot name 5 criteria for science, and you cannot either. what you have is 5 pseudo-science statements, obviously. A real scientist does not need any gods. assuming some gods exist without proof is quite contrary to science. Other gods are just as real or as unreal as yours. Substitute Ahuramazda, Marduk, Amon, Zeus, Ma Lo Wong, Odin, Brahma or other gods- and other holy books besides the Bible- into your statement and see that it makes as much or as little sense as what you said.

Answer 5

I assume you're referring to Kuhn's 5 criteria, which are: accuracy, consistency, scope, simplicity, and fruitfulness. Let's see how it fits these:

1. Accuracy: The creation story disagrees with the fossil record. Therefore the hypothesis is not accurate.

2. Consistency: Gen. 1 is inconsistent with Gen. 2, so it fails on internal consistency.

3. Scope: I'll give you scope. Biblical creation has wider scope than competing scientific theories (except possibly M-theory).

4. Simplicity: It includes an unnecessary plank in the theory (the existence of God). The Big Bang explains creation without this extra ontological commitment, and is therefore simpler.

5. Fruitfulness: We can't make any predictions based on the Biblical account of creation, so it's not at all fruitful.

So, it fails on 4 of the 5 criteria. Care to explain how it meets them again?

Answer 6

Hey Gazoo, Did you know that Bacon, Copernicus, Brunfels, Newton, Napier,Kepler,Galileo,Descartes,Pascal, Boyle,Mendel, and Kelvin just to name a few famous fathers of Science were all Chrsitians? The list goes on and on not to mention the vast number of modern Scientists who believe today. Crap? I dont think so. The questioner is correct, God made it all... Come to Christ Gazoo .

Answer 7

I'm not 'A thiest', or whoever that is, but I am interested in your claim.

Firstly, what is scientific about religion?

And what is 'scientific criteria for creation'? Sources please?

Is this a first tasting of a new discipline in science? Mis-spelling and assumptions/claims with no source references or peer-reviews?

Ok, I give in, can't answer effectively until you give evidence, source/s or even a clue as to what you are actually saying.

Answer 8

I just love it when people who believe that grass grew and reproduced before the sun existed, and believe in a literal talking donkey, and believe that the Earth stopped rotating for several hours one day -- as I say, I just love it when those people try to pretend that they have a grasp of science.

Answer 9

This God loving woman doesn't believe that Genesis 1 happened exactly as it is described. It's an allegory that says THAT God created the universe, not HOW. The cleverest scientist today can't tell you what happened, how would those ancient people know?

Answer 10

There is nothing that science has found that even comes close to saying that all the plants were created before the Sun and all the stars. I don't know where you guys get this crap. Genesis is different from science in time, order and mechanism. Get over it.

Answer 11

Can you give proof that God created science?Or proof of anything to do with God for that matter?