Creation scientists

[Rella]

   On the other hand the data in support of a 13+ billion-year-old universe is massive.

There is zero data that is evidenced by proof that any life is 13 billion years old.

It is possible that God could have created the universe 6000 years ago or so and simply made it appear as if it were 13+ billion years old. 

It is equally possible that Satan did exactly that to draw people away from the actual life sustaining portions of creation and life itself and our traceable pedigree that takes us back to Adam. Because we know... without a shadow of a doubt that Adam came into being about 6K years ago. All else is moot.

That would have been more than a little deceitful.

Well, that is exactly Satan's MO.

Why does it have to be either or?

[Alan]

The reality of the virgin birth or the resurrection need no proof for those with faith. To the unbelieving scientist, he or she would require 100% proof, which cant be obtained, but doesn't detract from the fact of either.

Why is an unbelieving scientist even being brought up in this conversation? It has absolutely no place here, and we never once referred to such views.

[Jaime]

I disagree. Yes I have been convinced of the truth of God's word, but definitely not logically. 

[Jaime]

Alan the unbelieving scientist views and scorn of him as a potential believer is EXACTLY the issue. Why else would he ask 4WD the question he asked? Of course he was concerned about what they would say about him as an illogical supporter of Christianity. Again, why else did he ask the qurstion?

[Alan]

4WD, for me and millions of Christians, faith comes from the word of God. Of course some of my faith is blind faith because I BELIEVE not because I was logically convinced of such things as the virgin birth or the resurrection of Jesus. I am not a stranger to the academia of science but have not been logically convinced of an old earth any more than you and Alan have not  been convinced of a young earth. MUCH has to be TAKEN AS truth rather than logically being convinced of it. I would say if people were educated in God's word 1% of their secular education, many would change their views on quite a few things.

I fully understand faith, especially where there is no evidence to prove/disprove the claims, however when it comes to the things that God has created, I don't believe for a second that he purposely created the universe to deceive the masses, that would incite malevolence, which isn't in God's nature.   

[Jaime]

And I don't believe  that science knows all it thinks it knows about creation or the origins of this world. We as divergent people CAN have fellowship in Christ and disagree on these and many things. Some of both camps might believe otherwise and in that I disagree. Personally I am not of the 6,000 year camp of creation, BUT if I had to bet, I would choose an age way closer relatively to 6,000 years than 4.6 Billion years on a linear scale. I probably believe a lot of things a lot of people would disagree with. Unlike the young man of 4WD's story, I don't worry too much about other people's scorn.

[Rella]

Where does that faith come from?  There is a gross misunderstanding in a significant majority of Christians about where that faith comes from.  It is not a blind faith as some would claim.  Neither is it a gift given by God to some and not to others.  Rather it is developed through a demonstration by God's written word, the Bible, that what He says there is true. It took God nearly 4000 years from Adam to Jesus to firmly establish that what He says is absolute truth. That for us is largely by the evidence of fulfilled prophecy. God's demonstrations, recorded in the OT, of His ability to "know the end from the beginning" is what gives us the basis for our faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, our Lord and Savior.

That is pure poppycock.

Back in my days of penpalling I talked to more than one about religious beliefs... and what the bible says does not convince all.

In fact... you have to have an element of faith to believe that what you are reading is true.

[Jaime]

I agree Rella.

1 Corinthians 1:18 ESV

For the word of the cross is folly (other versions say foolishness) to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

The young man in 4WD's story was deterred by the potential scorn of his peers, in my opinion over his foolishness or folly in embracing Christianity.

[Amo]

All of that is a long-winded demonstration that you haven't the slightest clue what science is all about.  It really is terribly, terribly sad.  There is, of course, nothing wrong with your being ignorant of a field of study.  But to not even know that you are is sad. 

Seriously Amo, I am surprised that you do not even understand what that passage says and means. That is speaking about God's general revelation, not His written revelation. What you present as the history of the universe is not based upon examining the things which God has made.  It is based upon a faulty translation/interpretation of a couple of words in God's special revelation, His written word. Actually examining the things that God has made is what leads us to the deep time description beginning with the Big Bang.
That is absolutely true.  Now given that it is true, I find it just a little odd that you so completely reject it.  You obviously have made no effort in the to study it and learn from it. 
Of course such a statement could only be made by someone who is ignorant in nearly all aspects of the field of science. Science doesn't exclude God.  Science is the study of the physical.  It has no ability to study the spiritual.  For that we need what God gave us in His special revelation, His written word.
And there we have yet another case of really bad translation/interpretation.  First let's consider a better translation/interpretation:

1Ti 6:20  O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called "knowledge,"

That which is there referred to as the falsely called "knowledge," has nothing to do with science, the study of the physical.  Rather it is about that knowledge "of the different kinds of inspiration bestowed on the first preachers of the Gospel, 1Co_12:8, we find the word of knowledge mentioned; by which is meant that kind of inspiration which gave to the apostles and superior Christian prophets the knowledge of the true meaning of the Jewish Scriptures. This inspiration the false teachers pretending to possess, dignified their misinterpretations of the ancient Scriptures with the name of knowledge, that is, inspired knowledge; for so the word signifies, 1Co_14:6. And as by these interpretations they endeavored to establish the efficacy of the Levitical atonements, the apostle very properly termed these interpretations oppositions of knowledge, because they were framed to establish doctrines opposite to, and subversive of, the Gospel. To destroy the credit of these teachers, he affirmed that the knowledge from which they proceeded was falsely called inspired knowledge; for they were not inspired with the knowledge of the meaning of the Scriptures, but only pretended to it."  (Per Adam Clark quoting a Dr. Macknight)

So again, what am I according to 4WD, but completely ignorant, clueless, and even quite sad. Ignorant in nearly all aspects of the field of science. None of this is berating though of course. But, if I suggest such is right in line with lefty progressive tactics of personal attack and insult rather than logical progression of thought and argument, I am classified as the one berating another. What can I say but such is further evidence of lefty progressive tactics of one rule for me, and another rule for thee. So now will I be double watched, or kicked off these boards for stating the obvious truth? So be it. Some times it is just time to move on.

Apart from this, the above response from 4WD is just more of the same old same old. 4WD's faith demanding that the study of that which exists by special creation, being sustained by the Creator, cannot reveal creation or the Creator. Pitted against my faith that all of the aforesaid, is exactly proof of creation and our creator, just as scripture plainly states. Which is of course contested by 4WD again, to the extent that what the scriptures seem to plainly state, is not what it really states or means. It means what he has determined it really states or means. Of course in his case according to his opinion, his faith is actual fact, and mine is just chosen faith. Because well, I'm completely ignorant, clueless, and basically just a sad example of humanity. Not that such is berating in any way of course. No, no.

The following quotes are from scientists who obviously disagreed with your opinion. Are they all ignorant, clueless, and sad because they determined that science was not completely separate from God, but rather extolled and glorified Him?

Johannes Kepler (1571 – 1630), one of the greatest astronomers:

"God is great. Great is his power, infinite his wisdom. Praise him, heaven and earth, sun, moon, and stars in your own language. My Lord and my Creator! I would like to proclaim the magnificence of your works to men to the extent that my limited intelligence can understand."

Nicolaus Copernicus (1473 – 1543), astronomer and the first in-depth proponent of heliocentrism:

"Who could live in close contact with the most consummate order and divine wisdom and not feel drawn to the loftiest aspirations? Who could not adore the architect of all these things?"

Isaac Newton (1643 – 1727), founder of classical theoretical physics:

"What we know is a drop, what we do not know is a vast ocean. The admirable arrangement and harmony of the
universe could only have come from the plan of an omniscient and omnipotent Being."

Andre-Marie Ampere (1775 – 1836), discovered the fundamental laws of electricity:

"How great is God, and our science is just a trifle!"

Augustin Louis Cauchy (1789 – 1857), a distinguished mathematician, founder of complex analysis:

"I am a Christian, that is, I believe in the divinity of Christ, like all the great astronomers and all the great mathematicians of the past."

Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855), dubbed the "Prince of Mathematicians," because his insights contributed to many fields of mathematics and science:

"When our last hour sounds, we will have the great and ineffable joy of seeing the one whom we could only glimpse in all our work."

Justus von Liebig (1803 – 1873), a celebrated chemist:

"The greatness and infinite wisdom of the Creator will be recognized only by those who really endeavor to draw their ideas from the great book we call nature."

Robert Mayer (1814 – 1878), natural scientist (Law of the Conservation of Energy):

"I am ending my life with a conviction that comes from the depths of my heart: true science and true philosophy can not be anything but a[n introductory study] of the Christian religion."

Angelo Secchi (1803 – 1895), famous astronomer:

"From contemplating the heavens to God, there is only a short distance."

Thomas A. Edison (1847 – 1931), the prolific inventor who held 1200 patents:

"My utmost respect and admiration to all the engineers, especially the greatest of them all: God."

Carl Ludwig Schleich (1859 – 1922), famous surgeon, pioneer of  local anesthesia:

"I became a believer in my own way through the microscope and observation of nature, and I want to contribute, insofar as I can, to the full harmony between science and religion."

Guglielmo Marconi (1874 – 1937), inventor of wireless telegraphy, Nobel Prize 1909:

"I declare it proudly: I am a believer. I believe in the power of prayer, and I believe not only as a Catholic, but also as a scientist."

Robert Millikan (1868 – 1953), great American physicist, Nobel Prize 1923:

"I can assert most definitely that the denial of faith lacks any scientific basis. In my view, there will never be a true contradiction between faith and science."

Arthur Eddingtong (1882 – 1946), English Astronomer Royal, mathematician and astrophysicist:

"None of the inventors of atheism was a naturalist. All of them were very mediocre philosophers."

Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955), founder of modern physics (Theory of Relativity inter alia) and 1921 Nobel prize:

"Everyone who is seriously committed to the cultivation of science becomes convinced that in all the laws of the universe is manifest a spirit vastly superior to man, and to which we with our powers must feel humble."

Max Planck (1858 – 1947), founder of quantum physics, Nobel Prize 1918:

"Nothing prevents us, and the momentum of our knowledge requires it... to interrelate the order of the universe and the God of religion. For the believer, God stands at the beginning of their speeches; for the physicist, at the end of them."

Howard H. Aiken (1900-1973), computer pioneer:

"Modern physics teaches me that nature is not capable of ordering itself. The universe presupposes a huge mass of order. It therefore requires a great "First Cause" that is not subject to the second law of transformation of energy and that is therefore Supernatural."

Wernher von Braun (1912 – 1977), German-American, foremost rocket engineer and space architect:

"Above everything is the glory of God, who created the great universe, which man and science discover and research day after day in profound adoration."

Charles Townes (1915), physicist who shared the 1964 Nobel Prize for discovering the principles of the laser:

"As a religious man, I feel the presence and intervention of a Creator beyond myself, but who is always nearby... intelligence had something to do with the creation of the laws of the universe."

Allan Sandage (1926-2010) American astronomer, calculated the rate at which the universe expands and its age by observing distant stars:

"I was practically an atheist in my childhood. Science was what led me to the conclusion that the world is much more complex than we can explain. I can only explain the mystery of existence to myself by the Supernatural."

[4WD]

I disagree. Yes I have been convinced of the truth of God's word, but definitely not logically.

So then you have been convinced of the truth of God's word illogically?  Surely not!!

[4WD]

I agree Rella.

The young man in 4WD's story was deterred by the potential scorn of his peers, in my opinion over his foolishness or folly in embracing Christianity.

No, he was convinced of the truth of what he was learning about the history of the universe.  Moreover he was convinced of the truth of the gospel message and his need to believe in God.  He only needed to be convinced that they were not in conflict.

[4WD]

The following quotes are from scientists who obviously disagreed with your opinion. Are they all ignorant, clueless, and sad because they determined that science was not completely separate from God, but rather extolled and glorified Him?

Johannes Kepler (1571 – 1630), one of the greatest astronomers:

"God is great. Great is his power, infinite his wisdom. Praise him, heaven and earth, sun, moon, and stars in your own language. My Lord and my Creator! I would like to proclaim the magnificence of your works to men to the extent that my limited intelligence can understand."

Nicolaus Copernicus (1473 – 1543), astronomer and the first in-depth proponent of heliocentrism:

"Who could live in close contact with the most consummate order and divine wisdom and not feel drawn to the loftiest aspirations? Who could not adore the architect of all these things?"

Isaac Newton (1643 – 1727), founder of classical theoretical physics:

"What we know is a drop, what we do not know is a vast ocean. The admirable arrangement and harmony of the
universe could only have come from the plan of an omniscient and omnipotent Being."

Andre-Marie Ampere (1775 – 1836), discovered the fundamental laws of electricity:

"How great is God, and our science is just a trifle!"

Augustin Louis Cauchy (1789 – 1857), a distinguished mathematician, founder of complex analysis:

"I am a Christian, that is, I believe in the divinity of Christ, like all the great astronomers and all the great mathematicians of the past."

Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855), dubbed the "Prince of Mathematicians," because his insights contributed to many fields of mathematics and science:

"When our last hour sounds, we will have the great and ineffable joy of seeing the one whom we could only glimpse in all our work."

Justus von Liebig (1803 – 1873), a celebrated chemist:

"The greatness and infinite wisdom of the Creator will be recognized only by those who really endeavor to draw their ideas from the great book we call nature."

Robert Mayer (1814 – 1878), natural scientist (Law of the Conservation of Energy):

"I am ending my life with a conviction that comes from the depths of my heart: true science and true philosophy can not be anything but a[n introductory study] of the Christian religion."

Angelo Secchi (1803 – 1895), famous astronomer:

"From contemplating the heavens to God, there is only a short distance."

Thomas A. Edison (1847 – 1931), the prolific inventor who held 1200 patents:

"My utmost respect and admiration to all the engineers, especially the greatest of them all: God."

Carl Ludwig Schleich (1859 – 1922), famous surgeon, pioneer of  local anesthesia:

"I became a believer in my own way through the microscope and observation of nature, and I want to contribute, insofar as I can, to the full harmony between science and religion."

Guglielmo Marconi (1874 – 1937), inventor of wireless telegraphy, Nobel Prize 1909:

"I declare it proudly: I am a believer. I believe in the power of prayer, and I believe not only as a Catholic, but also as a scientist."

Robert Millikan (1868 – 1953), great American physicist, Nobel Prize 1923:

"I can assert most definitely that the denial of faith lacks any scientific basis. In my view, there will never be a true contradiction between faith and science."

Arthur Eddingtong (1882 – 1946), English Astronomer Royal, mathematician and astrophysicist:

"None of the inventors of atheism was a naturalist. All of them were very mediocre philosophers."

Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955), founder of modern physics (Theory of Relativity inter alia) and 1921 Nobel prize:

"Everyone who is seriously committed to the cultivation of science becomes convinced that in all the laws of the universe is manifest a spirit vastly superior to man, and to which we with our powers must feel humble."

Max Planck (1858 – 1947), founder of quantum physics, Nobel Prize 1918:

"Nothing prevents us, and the momentum of our knowledge requires it... to interrelate the order of the universe and the God of religion. For the believer, God stands at the beginning of their speeches; for the physicist, at the end of them."

Howard H. Aiken (1900-1973), computer pioneer:

"Modern physics teaches me that nature is not capable of ordering itself. The universe presupposes a huge mass of order. It therefore requires a great "First Cause" that is not subject to the second law of transformation of energy and that is therefore Supernatural."

Wernher von Braun (1912 – 1977), German-American, foremost rocket engineer and space architect:

"Above everything is the glory of God, who created the great universe, which man and science discover and research day after day in profound adoration."

Charles Townes (1915), physicist who shared the 1964 Nobel Prize for discovering the principles of the laser:

"As a religious man, I feel the presence and intervention of a Creator beyond myself, but who is always nearby... intelligence had something to do with the creation of the laws of the universe."

Allan Sandage (1926-2010) American astronomer, calculated the rate at which the universe expands and its age by observing distant stars:

"I was practically an atheist in my childhood. Science was what led me to the conclusion that the world is much more complex than we can explain. I can only explain the mystery of existence to myself by the Supernatural."

I read and reread those quotations.  I didn't find a single one that would disagree with anything that I have ever said.

[4WD]

In fact... you have to have an element of faith to believe that what you are reading is true.

I am not sure what that even means.  What is "an element of faith" except belief?  You are saying that you have to believe in order to believe?  I think the confusion arises because of the two different English words belief and faith.  In the Greek there is only one word not two.  The noun is πίστις
[pistis] meaning belief; the verb is πιστεύω [pisteuō] meaning to believe.  In Greek as in English there is believing something or someone and believing IN something or someone.  We usually associate faith with believing IN something or someone. Biblically the first is simply mental assent while the second is mental assent plus trust. I could go into a lot more detail in that subject, but I won't bother with that now.

[Jaime]

Yes 4WD, I was convinced by the Holy Spirit in my opinion, entirely illogically! Had to be, I was too hard headed and proud on my own, maybe like the young man you spoke of. If it made logical sense, God would have probably done it differently. Though I was definitely seeking something at the time.

[4WD]

Yes 4WD, I was convinced by the Holy Spirit in my opinion, entirely illogically! Had to be, I was too hard headed and proud on my own, maybe like the young man you spoke of. If it made logical sense, God would have probably done it differently. Though I was definitely seeking something at the time.

You are actually suggesting that God is illogical. God forbid!!!!!

[Jaime]

His message I believe is received by humans as foolishness until the spirit pricks our hearts like the 3000 unto Godly Sorrow that leads to repentance then to salvation. Certainly NOT what I would call human logic. It happened one Sunday night service with a message like I had heard dozens of times. This time was different and quite illogical! God doesn't have to be logical in the human sense.

Please hear me 4WD, the issue is OUR perception of logic, not God's. THAT interface is why WE need the Holy Spirit. If pure logic was all that was needed for the gospel message to get through first time everytime, it would have sunk in the first time with me instead of the 20th time or so.

[Amo]

I read and reread those quotations.  I didn't find a single one that would disagree with anything that I have ever said.

So you think that all those scientists agree with you, that science cannot in any way support creation or the Creator?

[4WD]

So you think that all those scientists agree with you, that science cannot in any way support creation or the Creator?

Yes!  Scientists can; science cannot.  Amo, if you read carefully the quotes of those scientists that you posted you will notice that in those instances that science is even mentioned it is in reference to the inherent limitations of science to answer certain questions about the universe and the source of its operation.  In many cases, it is stated that those very limitations of science is what supports, and in some cases, caused the scientist to believe in creation and the Creator.

I found it more than a little ironic that every scientist you noted there from Robert Millikan through Allan Sandage would have been proponents of the big bang. Some, in addition to Einstein himself, were even directly involved with the promotion and testing of Einstein's theory of relativity which of course was the motivation for the formulation of the big bang.

[4WD]

Please hear me 4WD, the issue is OUR perception of logic, not God's. THAT interface is why WE need the Holy Spirit. If pure logic was all that was needed for the gospel message to get through first time everytime, it would have sunk in the first time with me instead of the 20th time or so.

Einstein's theory of relativity is based upon pure logic. But it takes a lot of background knowledge and understanding for it to "sink in". Without that it is little more that total confusion.  Logic is not knowledge of a topic itself; rather it is the process for presenting the argument for the truth of that topic. Paul alluded to that when he said in Galatians, "But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor" (3:23-25).

God has presented the truth of the Gospel logically, beginning with Genesis 1:1 all the way through Revelation 22:21. He is the author of logic.

I agree that the work of Holy Spirit is huge in our coming to understand the gospel even at its most basic message.

[Jaime]

Still back to Human logic vs God's logic. His ways are not our ways and I am saying his logic is not our logic. His logic is perfect and ours is not. And yes the Holy Spirit is the Helper that meshes the two. The gospel message is is not logical to the human mind, but it is to a Holy Spirit assisted mind, as God draws us to accepting him and his "illogically free gift" (to the human mind) that we can't earn. I think any remaining difference we have are basically semantics, as most human differences in this realm are in my opinion. In God's omnicience, his logic can absolutely seem illogical to us. Seeing the end from the beginning gives him a perspective that transends our human logic.

Repentance can be a result of logic in seeing the need for repentance. Sometimes we are too hard headed and logic doesn't penetrate and we need help, so our hearts are pricked.

Again God's message is logically oerfect from HIS perspective. The rub is our not always from our perspective. God new this, and made provisions logically fornour redemption since our logic doesn't jibe with His.

[Alan]

19

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God

For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

[4WD]

Jaime, go buy a book on formal logic.

[Jaime]

No, You need to consider God's logic vs man's logic. The difference is perceived illogic on man's part that I am speaking of.

[4WD]

19

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God

For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

That doesn't mean that God's presentation of the message of the cross is foolishness or illogical.  The foolishness is in the receiver of the message not in the presenter of the message.

[Jaime]

'Zactly what I am saying 4WD. Which is why we need our hearts pricked sometimes. I sense some semantic differences here. I know you know what I'm talking about. Our receiver HAS to be tweeked sometimes, not because God or his message is illogical, but because of OUR perception of it..

[4WD]

No, You need to consider God's logic vs man's logic. The difference is perceived illogic on man's part that I am speaking of.

No, you are speaking of man's unbelief.  That has nothing to do with logic or logical. 

[Alan]

That doesn't mean that God's presentation of the message of the cross is foolishness or illogical.  The foolishness is in the receiver of the message not in the presenter of the message.

Exactly! I should have added a comment there, but that was precisely the point of injecting that verse.

[Jaime]

Man's unbelief can and does have something to do with it. It makes him unable or hardheaded to receive God's logic, which is not illogical (< See this!) but IS in the mind of  the hearer. Man's perception of God's logic makes it SEEM illogical to the person hearing the message sometimes.

God's Logic = Good, Perfect

Man's Logic = imperfect, insufficient

[4WD]

Man's unbelief can and does have something to do with it. It makes him unable or hardheaded to receive God's logic, which is not illogical (< See this!) but IS in the mind of  the hearer. Man's perception of God's logic makes it SEEM illogical to the person hearing the message sometimes.

God's Logic = Good, Perfect

Man's Logic = imperfect, insufficient

LOGIC

1  the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.

2  a particular method of reasoning or argumentation:
   We were unable to follow his logic.

3  the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.

4  reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions:
    There wasn't much logic in her move.

5  convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness:
    the irresistible logic of the facts.

[Jaime]

Again you show nothing I don't know. Apparently YOU don't know that God's logic is sometimes not congruant with man's logic. That is obviously  not logical to you, but it is TRUE hence the need for the Holy Spirit, or logical men would ALWAYS understand and respond to the gospel message.

Let's consider why God's logic might not be congruant with man's logic. Obviously it is perspective. Obviously logic is logic all things being equal. All things especially including perspective affect logic and are not equal between man and God.. If we could have God's perspective and all the knowledge and foreknowledge he has our logics would likely line up.

That is why the gospel SEEMS LIKE FOOLISHNESS TO SOME!) foolishness APPEARING to be something illogical. Appearance of illogical is ALL I have asserted in this thread, whether read by you as such or not. I am not debating the Queen's definition of logic . I am debating our misunderstanding of God's logic from our very imperfect and limited perspective. Would we have his same perfect logic if we removed our limitations? I don't see why not. Is that going to happen? Not in this life. Did God send us the Holy Spirit as a helper in things such as this? Yes, as I have stated. To draw us into relationship and as a gift for power to live a life we need to.

[4WD]

You are using the words logic and logical in the sense of understanding.  The fact that one does not understand the virgin birth does not make it illogical.  I don't really "understand" the virgin birth.  I have nothing experientially on which to base any such understanding. I believe it because God says so.  I do not understand one being raised from the dead; again, I have not a single thing in my life to base any such understanding.  I believe that Jesus was raised from the dead because God says so.  And God has established and recorded His truthfulness by His written record, the Bible. There are those who do not believe it.  That does not make it illogical.  You are free to disbelieve even a logical argument; that does not make it illogical.

Einstein's theory results from a perfectly logical argument.  That you might not believe it does not mean it is illogical.

But this is all going nowhere, so I will leave it at that.

[Rella]

Quote from: Amo on Yesterday at 20:47:48

So you think that all those scientists agree with you, that science cannot in any way support creation or the Creator?

Yes!  Scientists can; science cannot.  Amo, if you read carefully the quotes of those scientists that you posted you will notice that in those instances that science is even mentioned it is in reference to the inherent limitations of science to answer certain questions about the universe and the source of its operation.  In many cases, it is stated that those very limitations of science is what supports, and in some cases, caused the scientist to believe in creation and the Creator.

I found it more than a little ironic that every scientist you noted there from Robert Millikan through Allan Sandage would have been proponents of the big bang. Some, in addition to Einstein himself, were even directly involved with the promotion and testing of Einstein's theory of relativity which of course was the motivation for the formulation of the big bang.

Oh, where to begin?

Science is a systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. The earliest written records of identifiable predecessors to modern science come from Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia from around 3000 to 1200 BCE

Defined as (from: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition)
science
sī′əns
noun
1.The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

2.Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.

3. A systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area.
What is it that is keeping you from seeing that

Amo said:
that science cannot in any way support creation or the Creator?

You said:
Yes! Scientists can; science cannot.

Is it that  you are using the simplicity of #2 above....Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. as a definitive
statement, for the others certainly can and do define science with no limitations that is keeping them out of anything God!

Natural science as applied to the earths natural phenomena covers a wide range of things in the broad range from

Biology
Astronomy
Chemistry
Earth sciences
Physics

And while each of these requires a Scientist (person) to examine and look into them these are sciences (disciplines)  that are abounding on earth.... about all things earthly as well as other things.

Can you honestly say that when Newton discovered gravity that was not in the science realm of things?

OR are you trying to say there is no science into the spiritual end of things on earth?

Think again....
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisonescalante/2021/08/24/scientists-think-they-just-found-the-brains-spirituality-network/?sh=175c832819b4

Scientists Think They Just Found The Brain's Spirituality Network

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes

Does the Soul Exist? Evidence Says 'Yes'
New scientific theory recognizes life's spiritual dimension.

But I like what this has to say. A great but long read.... Only posting a few paragraphs from this. I encourage the reading of the entire thing .

The Scientific Evidence for Creation

https://www.summit.org/resources/articles/the-scientific-evidence-for-creation/

In order for a theory to qualify as a scientific theory it must be supported by observations that are repeatably observable and the theory must, in principle, be falsifiable. That is, there must be some way to demonstrate that the theory is false if indeed it is false. Neither creation nor evolution fulfills the criteria of a scientific theory. There were no human observers to the origin of the universe, the origin of life, or to the origin of a single living thing. These events occurred in the unobservable past and are not repeatable in the present. Creation and evolution are inferences based on circumstantial evidence. They are theories about history. Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard professor and a leading spokesman for evolutionary theory today, states that "Evolutionary biology is a quintessential historical discipline" and he pays great honor to evolutionist Ernst Mayr as a "great historical scientist." 1

The fossil record constitutes some of the most important evidence concerning origins. It is the history of life written in the rocks. If evolution theory is true, the fossil record must be what this theory requires, and on the other hand, if creation is true, the fossil record must be in accord with that theory. Evolutionists Glenister and Witzke state that "The fossil record affords an opportunity to choose between evolutionary and creationist models for the origin of the earth and its life forms." 14 Futuyma expresses a similar belief when he said,

Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in fully formed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence. .

The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. 18

Yes, indeed! The sudden appearance of these creatures fully formed does delight creationists. It is precisely what is predicted based on creation. Douglas Futuyma, ardent anti-creationist, in his book on evolutionary biology, states:

It is considered likely that all the animal phyla became distinct before or during the Cambrian, for they all appear fully formed, without intermediates connecting one form to another. 19

Nolo contendere is, of course, a guilty plea by a defendant who must admit that he has no defense.

The fossil record has thus not produced ancestors or transitional forms for the major fish classes. Such hypothetical ancestors and the required transitional forms must, based on the known record, be merely the products of speculation. How then can it be argued that the explanation offered by the evolution model to explain such evidence is more scientific than that of the creation model? In fact, the evidence required by evolution theory cannot be found. The evidence, on the other hand, is precisely what would be expected if creation is true.

As far as the evidence is concerned, the matter is settled. Evolution of living organisms did not take place on this planet. Endless arguments are generated by the question, Is Archaeopteryx a transitional form between reptiles and birds or not? or by the question, Is one of the australopithecines transitional between apes and humans or is it not? Even evolutionists argue among themselves on questions such as these. In the case of the origin of the Cambrian complex invertebrates and the origin of fishes, the evidence is crystal clear. There is not a shred of evidence to support the notion that these creatures evolved. On the other hand, the abrupt appearance, fully formed, of all of these creatures is exactly the evidence demanded by creation.

The remainder of the fossil record provides powerful support for creation. Each basic type of plant and animal is set apart with no series of transitional forms linking it to another basic type. Even though the following quotes from the publications of George Gaylord Simpson are now more than 50 years old, they still describe eloquently the present situation. In a section entitled "Major Systematic Discontinuities of Record" in one of his books he states that nowhere in the world is there any trace of a fossil that would close the considerable gap between Hyrocotherium, supposedly the first "horse," and its suggested ancestral order Condylarthra. He then goes on to say:

This is true of all thirty-two orders of mammals. . . . The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed. 27

Later on (p. 107), Simpson states:

This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.

And I am out of time... aren't you glad

Read or at least scan the article please before posting comments about it. [/size]

[Jaime]

4WD it is going nowhere because you don't admit that the gospel SEEMS illogical to some. I don't mean at all that it IS illogical. SEEMS is the key word, and yes we are going nowhere and it doesn't have to  BE that way. It only SEEMS that way. 

When someone thinks the virgin birth is illogical and some certainly do, it doesn't mean it IS illogical, but it DOES SEEM illogical to them. See what I mean?

When the scripture says the gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing, it means it SEEMS like  foolishness to those who are perishing, not that it IS foolishness. Huge difference, I think we can agree on that hopefully.

[Texas Conservative]

The logic of man, even the logic of science is not God's logic.

The virgin birth is not logical according to the logic of man.  Neither is the resurrection.

[4WD]

Rella, 
The big bang is evidence of creation.  That is why some major scientists initially rejected Einstein's theory of relativity and the Hubble data of an expanding universe.  It implied a beginning for the universe which in turn supported the biblical idea of creation.