Do we Creationists reject scientific principles we still use in everyday technologies? No.

Q

What are some everyday technologies that depend on scientific principles that Creationists reject?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-everyday-technologies-that-depend-on-scientific-principles-that-Creationists-reject#

Answers

giving those not by me on which I gave comments, and the one of Jean Dieudonné and one which he commented on. He upvoted some of my comments, btw. And so did Roger Pearlman.

Last giving my own summing up of their position as very lame debaters.

I

Prithvi Shiv

works at Social Media Marketing

Answered Dec 4, 2012

The field of medicine is most directly affected by evolution. The growing resistance to antibiotics is testimony to the fact microrganisms are evolving. Current pharmacuetical research is centered around trying to address this growing immunity to drug based treatments.

These are not technologies, strictly speaking, but phenomenon which we need to address because they have a direct impact on us:

• Drug resistant pests
• Cultivars
• Animal breeds

Amongst many others.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nov 21

“The growing resistance to antibiotics is testimony to the fact microrganisms are evolving.”

A Creationist considers that an E. coli evolving to an E. coli somewhat closer to Salmonella bacterium (gaining ability to feed on citric acid) is no where near an E. coli or an Amoeba or sth evolving to Man.

I don’t know any Creationist who says E. coli did not mutate to profit from citric acid in the Lenski experiment.

In other words, you are extremely inaccurate about what Creationists reject.

II

Mathijs Booden,

PhD in earth science.

Answered Dec 4, 2012

Anything that tracks time by radioactive decay.

Anything that uses fossil fuels.

Anything that contains metals.

To name a few glaring examples.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nov 21

“Anything that tracks time by radioactive decay.”

Anything other than C14, yes, I do reject Ka-Ar dating or U-Pb or Th-Pb.

It is not an every day technology either.

You can test C14 as such and also a recently equal carbon level by dating historically datable objects once over again by C14.

You cannot date Hekla’s lava (latest eruption) … (The most recent eruption was relatively short; it started at 18:18 on 26 February 2000 and lasted until 8 March., thanks, wiki!) to 17 years ago by Ka-Ar so as to test it.

Even worse, you have even countertested it by Mount St Helen’s “recent” not even being within the given margin of error of tests giving very other values.

So, why exactly would Ka-Ar count as an “everyday technology”?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nov 21

“Anything that uses fossil fuels.”

No, simply a disagreement on when it was formed.

Some might of course boycott petrol if suspecting it came from human débris, but it seems it comes mainly from aquatic biota.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nov 21

“Anything that contains metals.”

I find the connection to the subject glaringly lacking.

Tor Bruce

Dec 5, 2012

Could you elaborate on the "contains metals" one?

Mathijs Booden

Dec 5, 2012

Metals are mined from ore deposits. There are many different types of ore deposits, formed over a wide range of ages and tectonic settings. Exploration for deposits is inextricably linked to an understanding of when, where and how different deposits formed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nov 21

“Exploration for deposits is inextricably linked to an understanding of when, where and how different deposits formed.”

Meaning, I suppose, an evolutionist understanding of it.

Conventionally, yes. Inextricably, no.

III

Dima Korolev

Head of Machine Learning at FriendlyData (2017-present)

Answered Jan 14, 2014

None, given how adaptive creationists are nowadays.

Jean Dieudonné

Nov 11

Ah that is an interesting new excuse you came up with. Did it ever occur to you that you might be wrong?

IV

RA Gillmann

in the center

Answered Nov 10

There are none because creationists accept what can be demonstrated in laboratory science. For example, creationists accept adaptation and support modern medicine.

What they object to are statements about the distant past that cannot be demonstrated. Universal common descent, for example, cannot be demonstrated and does not produce any technology.

V

Jean Dieudonné

Future scientist and young earth creationist

Answered Nov 11

Simple answer: None.

Creationists believe in certain aspects of evolution, namely those which are factual, testable, repeatable and observable. Since natural selection and genetic variation is one of those aspects, we dont have any problem with Antibiotika evolving because of those two facts. That is why we dont have a problem with modern medicine.

Now show me where in science we need the common descent of man, abiogenesis or other things that simply dont have that kind of scientific backup and which technology that relies on them we reject. Please.

Cheers from Germany

VI

Vinnie Veramente

Psych student

Answered Dec 4, 2012

The banana.

Peter Denyer

Mar 26, 2016

Nice example (particularly as ironically it was famously, and inanely, used as an argument for design) but you might like to expand on that answer for those who don't know why.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nov 21

I second Peter Denyer.

“you might like to expand on that answer for those who don't know why.”

VII

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

Answered just now

I commented on more than one answer, refuting the points.

And for some reason, the ones who answered and on which I commented seemed to feel no need to refute my comments.

Perhaps they especially felt no need to expose their lack of refutations.

There are no everyday technologies that depend on scientific principles we reject.

... on Extra-Biblical Evidence for Young Earth Creationism, Negative and Positive

Q

What evidence do creationists have for their belief system that does not come from the Bible?
https://www.quora.com/What-evidence-do-creationists-have-for-their-belief-system-that-does-not-come-from-the-Bible/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Answer requested

by Jean Dieudonné

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

Answered 1h ago

“What evidence do creationists have for their belief system that does not come from the Bible?”

Well, the Christian beliefsystem of a Catholic Creationist comes from many sources, but the chief ones are Bible and Church Tradition.

The question is about the other ones - and these do not constitute sources for a complete belief system, but for details - one of which would obviously be a Young Earth and that one is much involved in Creationism. I’ll answer for that one.

Positively, we don’t have 4.5 billion, nor even 2 million years of written human history. Also, extra-Biblical and extra-Christian, that is Pagan, versions of early human history seem to agree with ours, and their timelines are around ours. Add salt level of seas if you like. In other words we have evidence pointing to a shorter existence of Earth.

Negatively, contrary to “popular” and “scientific” belief, we do not have a clear cut case for any dating method which would contradict the Biblical chronology.

• potassium argon is debunked by Mt St Helens and by some NZ volcano
• dendro has too little material to go back very far
• C14 can be recalibrated in a creationist sense
• geostratigraphy can be explained by diverse biotopes
• distant starlight (actually more for old universe than directly old earth) is moot unless heliocentrism can be proven, which it cannot.

This mass of purported and failed evidence for an old earth and universe is by itself evidence there is sth wrong with the idea and some providence over men has used their waste of talents to tell us that. I am certain it is God.

Genesis and Creationism Related on Quora

Q I

Creationism: Can we compromise so that young earth creationists and scientists can agree, by saying that god created the earth 6,000 years ago out of some very old parts?
https://www.quora.com/Creationism-Can-we-compromise-so-that-young-earth-creationists-and-scientists-can-agree-by-saying-that-god-created-the-earth-6-000-years-ago-out-of-some-very-old-parts/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

Answered Oct 16

If God created Heaven and Earth 6000 or 7200 or 7500 years ago, it does not make much sense to compromise by saying some parts were very old.

I saw this has been answered so long by so many, it has an answer wiki. I’ll answer the answer wiki.

Part 1: No, because even human civilization existed far before 6000 years ago. Anything denying this fact is not science.

This relies on human civilisation being correctly dated.

Part 2: Science is factual. Individuals can interpret their faiths to match the facts, but facts cannot be altered to match any one faith.

This relies on science usually so called always being science.

I contest both : a Sumerian civilisation “6000 years ago” was really much younger.

Q II

Based on the dependency of Adam and Eve and Gilgamesh and Noah to Sumerian text, is it possible that the first five books were cobbled together by the captured and enslaved Jews in Sumer?
https://www.quora.com/Based-on-the-dependency-of-Adam-and-Eve-and-Gilgamesh-and-Noah-to-Sumerian-text-is-it-possible-that-the-first-five-books-were-cobbled-together-by-the-captured-and-enslaved-Jews-in-Sumer/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

Answered Oct 16

The “dependency” you name is in fact neglecting that both stories, or all three (Gilgamesh is not Genesis!) could simply depend on facts which came down both ways.

Q III

How long before the Caucasian man disappears like the Neanderthal man?
https://www.quora.com/How-long-before-the-Caucasian-man-disappears-like-the-Neanderthal-man/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

See http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com

Answered Oct 19

If Neanderthal man disappeared in the Flood of Noah, except some ancestress of some Caucasians (like a daughter in law of Noah being half Neanderthal), Caucasian man will not disappear like that, because there will not be a global Flood again.

Jeremy Schoenhaar

Oct 19

This wasn’t a religious question, it’s scientific. Since Noah has never been scientifically proven to have existed, nor has the global flood you mention, your answer is obviously religiously biased.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

My dear, proof for past events are mainly historic, not scientific.

Q IV

How likely is it that some ancient people discovered "carbon dating" along with a related forgery method and they are somewhere (metaphysically) making fun on us?
https://www.quora.com/How-likely-is-it-that-some-ancient-people-discovered-carbon-dating-along-with-a-related-forgery-method-and-they-are-somewhere-metaphysically-making-fun-on-us/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

ARq

Answer requested by Chrysovalantis Anastasiades

Hans-Georg Lundahl

History buff since childhood. CSL & Eco added to Medieval lore. + Classics.

Answered Oct 16

The “forgery” is there in the carbon build up.

While carbon was building up that fast, or even if it had been a very slow and gradual build up, like previously imagined by Creationists, one could not have got a consistent half life to fit to calibratable objects, known from history.

This means that the carbon dating method could not have been invented previously, precisely because only as recently as perhaps 500 BC, perhaps rather a little earlier, did we reach present carbon level.

What is the carbon build up I am talking about? Well, if in Flood of Noah you had only 1/69 of present carbon level, the slow carbon build up, with new carbon made only as slowly as now, would have landed us by now on c. 45 % of the real present level - and rising.

But this would, with the known half life have given us Ghettysburgh dates for El Alamein. So, the calibration would need to be made according to objects, no calculating of half life purely from labs - and when I tried that, I went back to maybe 2200 years or so - being careful to use known dates for when objects would be from. Now, I got different halflives depending on what time I calibrated for - never ever the same one.

So, the carbon build up must have been faster. I e, at times real faster.

And if someone back then had been inventing carbon 14, he would have stumbled on a faster rising carbon rise even more than I on a normal one.

This means, no, carbon dating cannot have been recently invented by men.

However, angels and demons were aware in advance, or could ask God if He had not told it, where the level would land on and things, so Satan could very well have known when end of Young Dryas and beginning of Göbekli Tepe would be carbon dated to, and his influence on liars in Egypt would have meant that the fake date for Atlantis was adapted to predictable false carbon date.

Q V

Why do many religious people (creationist) believe that the simulation theory supports creationism? does it support creationism? If not, why isn’t it supporting creationism?
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-many-religious-people-creationist-believe-that-the-simulation-theory-supports-creationism-does-it-support-creationism-If-not-why-isn%E2%80%99t-it-supporting-creationism/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

Answered Mon

Answering: "Why do many religious people (creationist) believe that the simulation theory supports creationism? does it support creationism? If not, why isn’t it supporting creationism?"

I would say it is partly supporting and partly not supporting at all Creationism.

It is supporting insofar as it involves belief in intelligent design.

It is unsupporting insofar as it involves the belief the intelligent designer must in his turn at least be a product of evolution in an unknown, more unguided-evolution friendly, universe than the one we observe.

In other words, we have to reject it, but while doing so, see the acceptance others give it as a half hearted rejection of their older purely evolutionist belief, at least as applied to our observable reality.

Q VI

If, according to the Bible, Earth was created before the Sun and the Moon, what kept it in its orbit and what was it orbiting around?
https://www.quora.com/If-according-to-the-Bible-Earth-was-created-before-the-Sun-and-the-Moon-what-kept-it-in-its-orbit-and-what-was-it-orbiting-around/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

Answered Tue

Earth was not orbitting then and is not orbitting now.

Geocentrism is an excellent answer to this problem.

Before I was a geocentric, I used to think, however, Earth began to orbit around the Sun after it was created, and was therefore not moving, or only moving by daily rotation, until day 4. Does such a transition make very much sense? No. This is one more reason for a Young Earth Creationist to be a Geocentric.

Q VII

Can the evolutionists sue the creationists for spreading false information and propaganda?
https://www.quora.com/Can-the-evolutionists-sue-the-creationists-for-spreading-false-information-and-propaganda

[one answer:]

Jean Dieudonné

Bible believing young earth creationist

Answered Oct 20

So you want back the inquisition of the catholic church? Well I am not surprised. Truth hurts, doesnt it.

Cheers

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oct 20

Just to be somewhat clear on historic matters, Inquisitors were generally Young Earth Creationist and also Geocentric.

The latter up to 1820, when an Inquisitor Anfossi was overruled for wanting to censor a Heliocentric book by Settele, and the former even up to 1905, 1909.

So, the kind of future inquisition of evolutionists you describe would not be an inquisition of the Catholic Church, not the true one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

Case in point for YEC : they sued Isaac Pereyre for promoting pre-Adamites.

He retracted, fortunately.

Alternatives to my own Creationist C14 Model (quora)

Q

Relating Carbon 14 to Biblical Chronology, what detailed attempts are there out there (details in comment)?
https://www.quora.com/Relating-Carbon-14-to-Biblical-Chronology-what-detailed-attempts-are-there-out-there-details-in-comment

Comment

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Aug 28

I know of my own attempt, trying to identify archaeology moments with Biblical moments, carbon dates with Biblical dates, and where the number of extra years are used to determine a level of C14 at the time, while the extrapolated rise in C14 is used to determine Biblical = real = date for any given carbon date between the “Biblical” carbon dates.

I am doing parallel tables for different versions of Biblical chronology. For Syncellus and for St Jerome, both LXX based, but also sometimes for Ussher, even though I think his version less likely.

I am fairly consistently ignoring Libby and concentrating on Cambridge half life. Trying to find out how fast Carbon 14 is forming and what this implies for how much stronger presumably cosmic radiation was is a priority, that is indeed the question which sparked my interest into full flame.

I know of Tas Walker’s attempt, he is more interested in identifying moments of geology (like glacial maximum) with Biblical moments, and in making a kind of curve for calibration factors - very parallel to the calibration factors given in the standard curve as to format, just take Libby date and multiply with factor.

I know Setterfield, unlike me and Tas Walker, thinks speed of light and hence of radioactive decay may have slowed down. This taking care of a lot of other radioactive dates besides carbon dates.

I think Anne Habermehl - also not distinguishing carbon from other radio dates - is doing a Setterfield type of thing, but am not sure.

Answer

Jean Dieudonné

Future scientist and young earth creationist

Answered Aug 28

Everything that comes after the flood in ca. 2400 B. C. is, with a grain of salt, datable by 14C (it has to fit the requirements for the dating method of course). And that is the reason of why biblical archaeology uses this dating method. It is though not possible to verify the complete Biblical chronology by using any of the radiometric dating methods.

Cheers

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Aug 28

I was not speaking of using the radiometric dating to verify the Biblical chronology, but of giving a correspondence between the uniformitarian dates and the Biblical / real ones.

I think you might want to read the details given in my comment to the question.

Precisely in Biblical archaeology, it may be of some interest to know how the carbon 14 content was rising, at least approximatively.

For instance, Genesis 14 is tied to either neolithic pre-pottery or chalcolithic of En-Geddi.

Assuming it was chalcolithic, the year when Abraham was c. 80 would match a carbon year of 3400 BC - i e before the Flood.

Assuming it was neolithic, you would even be dating a carbon date of 9600 - 8600, Göbekli Tepe, to Abraham’s lifetime. I prefer chalcolithic for Genesis 14 and GT for Genesis 11.

On the other hand, at the sacking of Jerusalem in 583 BC, the carbon date matches the historical date.

My work is about following the matches through Biblical history, with some kind of accuracy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

As I have exceeded my request limit, would you mind requesting some answers?

Why Creationist and Catholic?

Q

Why are you a Young Earth creationist?
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-you-a-Young-Earth-creationist/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

ARq

Answer requested by Jean Dieudonné

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

Answered Mon

Because Christ was and because the Catholic Church is.

In case you wonder, no, the Catholics who are not Young Earth Creationist may be using a licence or may be heretics or apostates, but are not representative of the history of the Church.

Jean Dieudonné

Mon

The Pope accepted the theory of evolution, you know that, right?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

Whom are you referring to?

Not Pope Michael, I hope?

Pope Michael
https://www.youtube.com/user/PopeMichaelI

Jean Dieudonné

Mon

Nope I am talking about the official pope Francis. Is there more than one pope at a time?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tue

You know, there was more than one claimant for a certain amount of time between Rome and Avignon.

Since 1958 or sth at least, there have again been at least two claimants at a time.

The ones you term “official” are, to the rest (all or most of whom are YEC) out on the same principle that Obama was never elected President if he was not born a US American citizen.

One criterium, not the only, but a necessary one, for a Pope, is to be Catholic.

The Church has a right to have a Pope, hence, if perhaps Pacelli, even more certainly Roncalli, Montini, his immediate successor, Wojtyla, Ratzinger and now Bergoglio, especially, are not giving the Church the benefit of having a papacy, it can and should be provided by someone else.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

It can be added that some places you can be persecuted for not believing “Francis” is the Pope or for not believing “Benedict XVI” was pope.

Take a look at these two, I saw the first:

Imprisonment for Sedevacantism
Pater Rolf Lingen, added 21:st of May 2011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNYjUpMv2iU

Imprisonment for Sedevacantism (2)
Pater Rolf Lingen, added 4:th of Sept. 2011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0-l1KqkU1o

Sola Scriptura non in Scriptura

Q

As a Catholic, how do you argue with Protestants against the Sola Scriptura principle?
https://www.quora.com/As-a-Catholic-how-do-you-argue-with-Protestants-against-the-Sola-Scriptura-principle/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

I mean, how do you actually carry out the dialogue with them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

Answered Sep 6

• 1) I start pointing out that Sola Scriptura is anti-Biblical;
• 2) I see how they react and carry on (or not) according to their way of taking it, often a protracted debate - or a non-response cutting off carrying on (as it is often over internet, a non-response is easy for them).

Jean Dieudonné

Sep 6

“I start pointing out that Sola Scriptura is anti-Biblical”

Okay, how is that anti-Biblical?

Cheers

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sep 6

It excludes oral tradition, contrary to this Bible word:

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."
[2 Thessalonians 2:14]

It excludes infallible magisterium, contrary to this one:

"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
[1 Timothy 3:15]

Against two proof texts = anti-Biblical.

Jean Dieudonné

Sep 7

“by word, or by our epistle”

Yes, by the word of the apostles who Jesus chose himself. Not by all the successors or followers of the apostles. Otherwise I ask you, why are there no further additional books to the New Testament from, say, the first pope? Or all of the popes? Why is this so strongly distinguished from all the successors of the apostles?

About 1. Thimothy 3:15:

Where do I get the rules for “how I ought to behave in the house of God”? I say I get them from the Bible. And so do all the other people. And if someone comes to me and tells me “God told me this and that” I would immediately look into the Bible and search for the passages that fit the description of this person.

So far I would say that your argumentation is flawed here. But I am looking forward reading a reply from you :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sep 7

"Yes, by the word of the apostles who Jesus chose himself. Not by all the successors or followers of the apostles."

This is in contradiction against:

[16] And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [17] And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
Matthew 28.

Here, what Christ tells the apostles applies to all of their successors. All the original ones are dead, unless St John was taken alive up to Heaven. The promise in verse 20 was not directed to all the faithful in common, see verse 16. Therefore the Apostles do have successors. Again, they were eleven at the occasion, because Judas the traitor was missing. He got a successor, though, see Acts 1.

Again, St Paul was not of the original 12, nor this chosen replacement of Judas. He was an added apostle, and for purposes of apostolic activity he received cheirotonia along with Barnabas:

[1] Now there were in the church which was at Antioch, prophets and doctors, among whom was Barnabas, and Simon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manahen, who was the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. [2] And as they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them. [3] Then they, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away.
Acts 13

Therefore, by cheirotonia, laying on of hands, a man can become an apostle, like the original twelve.

This along with the promise of being with apostles to the end of all time means that, yes, promises to the apostles in common apply to their successors up to our time.

"Otherwise I ask you, why are there no further additional books to the New Testament from, say, the first pope?"

Only the apostles and Luke and Mark are hagiographers in NT. The first Pope wrote two books, I and II Peter.

He is behind the Gospel of St Mark, and he sent St Mark to be first bishop or patriarch of Alexandria.

He is called Saint Peter. He was the chief of the apostles.

Their successors are however not receiving NEW revelation, they are however, like Timothy and Titus succeeding St Paul's work, habilitated to not just read aloud from epistles of St Paul but recall ALL that St Paul told them orally.

"Why is this so strongly distinguished from all the successors of the apostles?"

Why are YOU distinguishing it so strongly, is the question.

Where do YOU find this extreme distinction in the Bible?

"Where do I get the rules for 'how I ought to behave in the house of God'? I say I get them from the Bible."

But St Paul certainly did not say "from Bible alone" to either St Timothy or anyone else.

NOT getting rules from the Bible would be foolish, but since the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, not getting rules from the Church would be foolish too.

"And if someone comes to me and tells me “God told me this and that” I would immediately look into the Bible and search for the passages that fit the description of this person."

The rules of the Church are NOT Bible + later private revelation.

They are the Bible, all of the 73 (at least) books + apostolic tradition not written down in Bible.

This latter breaks down into a small and a big category.

The small category is a few things not directly mentioned in the Bible, like replacing Saturday with Sunday, like how exactly to celebrate Holy Mass, like fasting on wednesdays and fridays, like making the sign of the cross.

The big category is being heirs to the 40 days crash course of OT exegetics given by Christ to His Apostles.

Private revelations do exist. We do not judge them just by the Bible, but by ALL of above.