Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[Jose Fly]

WW 2 Planes found in centuries old layers? :think:

Question: Who is ACTUALLY doing science? The 'scientists' or those comparing supposed results with counterfactuals?

Better question: Do you want to just be a dupe or do you want to have actual, well-thought-out answers? Sometimes being an atheist makes you a dupe (all the time?). :e4e: -Lon

Did cavemen fly planes?

Oh my goodness Lon....did you really just cite that old WWII planes argument? Seriously?

And you wonder why Christianity is increasingly being associated with anti-science and anti-education attitudes. And btw, did you notice the higher education bashing in this thread from your fellow believers? Looks like I was right, eh?

 

[6days]

I think the Catholics on ToL found it particularly disheartening that Catholic schools produce atheists at higher rates than state schools.

Apology if that is not your quote from earlier Jose... it may have been [MENTION=9611]Stuu[/MENTION]

No idea if that is true but it would certainly not be surprising. Research shows that kids who are taught to compromise on what Genesis clearly states... and yet believe the Red sea parted... a man dead for 4 days comes back to life etc; becomes skeptical of the whole lo


That is the reason why it is so important for Christian parents and grandparents and church leaders to provide good answers and sound Doctrine to our children..

 

[Derf]

Here's the main point I don't think you're appreciating....that populations evolve is a fact. We see it happen all the time, right before our eyes. We both exploit it (domestication) and fight against it (antibiotic resistance). Every single new trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species that we've ever seen arise has done so via evolutionary mechanisms. We've never seen any of those things come about via different means.

So when scientists investigate how various traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species came about in the past, it's entirely reasonable for them to conclude that they did so via the same evolutionary mechanisms that generate them today.

It's no different than when a geologist comes across a certain type of ash layer in between strata, and concludes that the layer was produced via a volcanic eruption. Why? Because that's what we see produce those ash layers today.


There's your error....that populations evolve is not the premise. The premise is more along the lines of "adaptive radiation events produce this specific phylogenetic pattern". This research, based on more complete genetic data, has shown that the above premise isn't completely accurate, and that some radiation events produce different phylogenetic patterns.


No one has said that at all. It very well could have been that more complete genetic data showed that these bird species were completely unrelated to anything, or even each other. That would have been a serious problem for evolutionary theory. But that's not what the data showed. In fact, considering the nature of retrotransposons and how they make their way into a genome, this data actually helps confirm the common ancestry of these bird species. As the authors note in the section that I quoted from the original paper, the only reason these species would share the same retrotransposon sequences in the same locations is if they inherited them from a common ancestor.

And that's the ultimate irony here....you're trying to cite a paper that actually further confirms common ancestry as somehow negating common ancestry.


It seems you're trying to argue that if the shape of the tree is different than we first thought, then we should conclude that there's actually no tree at all.

That's bizarre.


And that's what further confirms common ancestry of these species. Why else would two species share the same non-functional, randomly inserted, parasitic sequences in the exact same locations?


So you believe God put those shared REs in the bird species? Why?


See above. That new species arise via evolution is a repeatedly observed and documented fact. Exactly how that process plays out in various circumstances is the focus of this research.


What exactly do you think excludes evolutionary biology from science? And what do you think of the people behind this research and evolutionary biologists in general? Are they just really, really bad at their jobs? Are they part of some vast global conspiracy that's been operating for 150+ years?


Me, and every other life scientist over the last century and a half.


It's quite telling that you see "please explain" as "tedious".

And besides evolution evolving, the vocabulary changes mid-sentence.

When you say we see things evolving, you don't specify that we see things evolving into other things. We only see traits being added or subtracted. Thus, to shift back and forth between "things are evolving" and "everything has a common ancestor" is a bait and switch. I don't think we've ever seen a bacterium evolve into something that wasn't a bacterium. And I don't think we've ever seen a reptile evolve into something that wasn't a reptile. That's merely an extrapolation of seeing a bird with a big beak "evolve" into a bird with a little beak, or some such.

So when we think we see a bird with a big beak evolves into a bird with a little beak, and then the bird with a little beak evolves into a bird with blue feet and another with red feet, that's very interesting, and there may be some common ancestry conclusions we can reach based on those observations. But saying that "it then follows" that everything had a common ancestor, is poor science, but great evolution theory. How could something be poor science and great evolution theory, if evolution IS science????

Let's talk about what "evolution" means, now. You are quick to point out that evolution is just change. But we don't rest all of biology on the idea that species change. Evolution, as a theory, is about changes that are much more pronounced that a big beak bird changing into a little beak bird. Yet our evidence is limited to 2 things--birds becoming birds (different beak size, for instance) and stories made up about the fossil record.

The article is trying to combine the two things, wanting to say that birds becoming other birds is tantamount to bacteria becoming birds. But at the same time, the best they can offer is that in the genomes, the birds look like some birds sometimes and some other birds other times.

But what would you do if you were designing birds that needed to fill different ecological niches? You would want them to remain birds, but be able to adapt, right? And that is what we see! You might instead design bacteria that would become birds, but we don't see that. Darwin was postulating the second, not the first. Yet studying about different kinds of bird is unlikely to lead to the conclusion that bacteria became birds.

Thus, the study really has very little to do with evolution, the theory, but might have much to do with evolution, change, within bird species.

The tree of life was envisioned by Darwin to show that all living things developed from a single thing. His conception of it was that each time there was a branch, it either continued on until another branch occurred, or the branch terminated.

I suppose you could say that a bush is really just a small tree, but I don't think that's what the authors were getting at. What I think they were getting at was that the branches don't either terminate or branch again, but sometimes they come back together and branch again. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I don't think so. That may be just another idea added to Darwin's within the larger scope of evolutionary theory. But it wasn't what Darwin envisioned. Darwin made a prediction with his tree--species diverge. The authors found that that prediction was not always true--sometimes bird species converge, too.

What does that mean for our conclusion?

1. Well, if the species are converging because they are mating with other species (the authors didn't address this directly), and having fertile offspring, then they aren't really different species, are they? Thus, they must have just wandered a little further up a single bird bough to get to the first branch, I suppose. This wasn't the authors' conclusion, since they saw many branches--bushlike.

2. Another option is that different bird species developed similarities in their jumping genes, sometimes with one other species and sometimes with another. If so, then they aren't really related. I suppose you might call that convergent evolution. But that wasn't the authors' conclusion, was it?

3. The last option is that species were developing inherited traits. Did you get that? "developing" "inherited" traits? That's an oxymoron, or a contradiction. Contradictions are indicative of false conclusions. (Let's not go back over the false conclusion narrative, ok?) I don't think this was the authors' conclusion, either.

I'll let you pick an option you want to discuss further. You can offer another option, if you like.

 

[Stuu]

Those with higher level of education tend to reject God because the education system they are placed into from when they are young is Godless. It's also part of the reason we're seeing more and more violence every day, because people reject that there is a God.

I'll answer your fact-free opinion piece with a fact-free opinion piece of my own: higher levels of education lead to greater incomes, but those who are less affluent look to christianity and it's (false) promises of justice at a time of great reckoning, when they will be justified. Also, the bible is historical fiction, and educated people of today have much easier access to information that confirms this.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Moses, the main author (even if there was more than one) of the first five books of the Bible, was highly educated in Egypt. As it was said in Acts:

And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and deeds. - Acts 7:22 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts7:22&version=NKJV

And yet Moses still wrote about the one true God.

A high level education system, when it constantly rejects that there is a God, wears down someone who goes through it, wears down their beliefs.

Yet a high level education system, when it affirms the existence of God (and yes, they do exist, though few in number), strengthens beliefs in God.

So no, that most who accept God are not highly educated does not mean that if they were to receive a high level of education they would reject God.

I think capable people usually get what they need from education and ignore the rest. If you are talking about religious indoctrination programmes, as in the madrassas, then I wouldn't call that education.

But I will have to take you on regarding the well-educated Moses. The well educated of today have concluded he never existed.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

And yet again, it's all blah blah blah.

Fact: At depth, ice is squashed beyond where presumed annual layers can be reliably identified.

Oh, but you believe a scientist. Ignore the facts then.

Well no, I think you are right. There comes a point near the bottom where it is just too difficult to separate the layers, and I have read somewhere that they stop counting before they get there. But surely, unless this is a huge conspiracy to lie to the public, their inability to read layers at depth would be dealt with in the papers or the peer-review process. You still seem to be calling these scientists liars without justification. The earth counts to at least 800,000 years old on this data until you can demonstrate a problem with the science and its reporting.

Stuart

 

[6days]

Because you desperately want the history of Earth to read like a Hollywood script instead of a scientific reality

Greg... the question was only for people who claim to trust in Jesus. Your 'answer' ignored the question.. (if the question applies to you)... 'If physical death existed before first Adam sinned, (and was part of a very good creation) then why did Last Adam have to defeat physical death?'

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Unless you are going to see God as a cosmic practical joker, the "mature universe" apologetics are not very plausible.

Mature creation isn't like antiquing an object to make it look older than it really is by artificial means. Rather, the theory of mature creation is that to create anything ex nihilo is to go from absolutely nothing to something concrete, thereby skipping over what would normally be the intervening stages in a cyclical process to arrive at that instantaneous result. Once a cycle is in place, there's a continuum to how things come into being, persist, and cease to exist. But creating the initial conditions is discontinuous with the status quo.

God did not "manufacture evidence" for that purpose. Man observes what is done and arrives at conclusions. It would be presumptuous of man to suppose that his specific conclusions, being based on premises which exclude God in the first place, must have been something God intended. Once it is recognized that God did not intend for man to form these specific conclusions from the data there is no basis for alleging that it is "misleading."

The question quickly arises, But then aren't Christians forced to leave God out of their science?

It is not that we leave "God" out of science, but that we leave the consideration of the "supernatural" works of God out of our experimentation as we come to understand the world God has created which we call "natural." By so doing we set fairly strict limits to "science," and understand that we are dealing with a specific area of human knowledge. When "science" then attempts to make statements about God (theology), it is clearly over-stepping its self-imposed limitations.

Questions pertaining to "time" and "space" are a unique category. Some of the old philosophical problems relating to measurement demonstrate that human observation can only "describe" time and space in relation to other things in time and space. It cannot give any "explanation" of it. Hence all scientific claims to age are by default relative terms that are meaningless without an absolute. We should be more than happy to allow a scientist to hypothesize all the dates that are necessary for him to make his observations, but those dates are only relative to his science, and in no way explanatory of absolute reality. The wine drunk at the wedding at Cana would, relatively speaking, have taken some time to make, but the Maker, as the absolute determiner of all reality, was able to make it in a moment of time.

Objection: That God certainly knew what people could and would draw from the data, and so it still is misleading for God to have created things that way? After all, God knew the good and necessary consequences people could and would draw from Scripture, and we usually say that God provided for that; why not for the universe?

Quite simply, these conclusions are neither "good" nor "necessary." They are not "good" because they suppose man is free to draw conclusions and hold God to account for them; and they are not "necessary" because we have already imposed strict limitations on science, which should in turn limit the field of conclusions it draws.

What has been created now only comes before our observation as a "product." The act of creation as a "process" is beyond human investigation. We only come to understand the process by divine testimony. On the other hand, the sciences are observing processes. In either case, whether young earth or old earth is the hypothesis, the attempt is to convert the "process" into a "product" which cannot itself be investigated. Hence the "ism." The young earther is beginning with the "process" as he understands it from special revelation, and trying to reduce it down to smaller pieces of evidence. The old earther is beginning with the smaller piece of evidence and building up to a larger process without any evidence that the larger process could take place naturally.

You imply the evidence "suggests" a certain hypothesis and then ask if I "deny" or "believe" the hypothesis. A rational man does not form beliefs based on suggestions. At most he could entertain it as something requiring further investigation.

This reveals a problem with the way people tend to respond to the scientific process. Science changes, and even has its own forms of revolution, but people treat it as if it intends to speak finally and infallibly.

My answer is, I "deny" the conclusion has sufficient evidence to support it.

Another educational point: the fallacy of reification is ascribing human like intent to inanimate or abstract entities. Evidence does not "suggest" anything. Evidence is interpreted within a framework.

It's not wholly inappropriate to use the term 'the evidence suggest'—so long as you implicitly recognize that what you are really saying is that the evidence is incorporated into and inferred to suggest some thing according to one interpretive mechanism. It does not mean something on its own, and other mechanisms can interpret it to mean something else, possibly more conclusively.

There are epistemic limitations of scientific discovery.

First, it is limited to natural phenomena.
Secondly, it is bound to observable fact.
Thirdly, is only ever descriptive, never explanatory.
Fourthly, deals with probability.
Fifthly, is always open to re-evaluation.

With these limitations we can accept everything natural science teaches. The fact that it conflicts with the plain teaching of God's word does not require us to adopt a pseudo-science or to re-evaluate God's word in the light of it. Sarah's womb was dead and Sarah had a child in her old age. The two facts conflict with each other. Both are legitimately maintained in the belief that God calleth those things which be not as though they were (Romans 4:17)

Quite simply evolution negates divine revelation. Apparently, whatever man happened to think would be a product of the same mechanism, force of necessity, and process of development which has evolved everything else. This renders belief as assent to truth an illusion, and it turns revelation as the basis of assent into a delusion.

In terms of the hypothesis of evolution as it is usually stated, it is a purposeless mechanism, which means the content of divine revelation would have no basis in the reality of things. There would be no reason to think that anything revealed bears any correspondence or connection to existence.

Then, as far as evolution is concerned, nothing is finished. Everything simply keeps on developing. To what, then, could divine revelation address itself?

Divine revelation requires intelligent and responsible creation, purposeful creation, a finished creation—just the kind of reality that divine revelation itself makes known.

Summarizing, for all the disparagement given it by moderns, the "appearance of age" still strikes me as one of the simplest and least problematic explanations available.

The objection: that such an explanation is "deceptive" on God's part, overthrows not just the miracle of creation of the universe, but almost any miracle one can think of. Was Adam formed a fully grown man? If so, wouldn't this be "deceptive" if the implication was that he should have been a zygote at an earlier time? If he had a "belly button," would that be further "deception?"

The apparently finely-aged wine at Cana, created by Jesus in an instant: was that deceptive of him? Was he obliged to send word to the master of the feast (John 2:9-10) that his impression was false? Similar questions could be formulated for any miracle of the Bible. Why did the iron ax-head float? Did its molecular nature shift? Did something happen to the water's density? If there's no "scientific" explanation, must we doubt the event? Must we develop an explanation in each case that is consistent with our present understanding of physics, chemistry, math, and time (to name a few), or relegate the story to the realm of mythos?

The violation of natural laws or limits is the very nature of miracle. Forming a world and the universe containing it, where the existence of distance supplies the helpful conditions for various activities such as navigation—this is perfectly compatible with the goodness and wisdom of God. A distant supernova, that would have presumably exploded so many millions of years ago if the universe of time was as old as that is no more incredible (or deceptive) than a woman formed from Adam's rib. All appearances are subject to an authoritative explanation, or revelatory limits.

Furthermore, we simply do not have all the information we might like to have, regarding the manner and mechanisms God used in forming the observable universe; or his reasons for including this or that phenomenon. How many intricacies have men discovered, for which the one explanation seems to be: because it's cool, that's why? The secret things belong to God; the things revealed, to us and to our children.

The lights in the sky actually have a given telos, they were set up for "signs, seasons, days, and years," Gen.1:14. From this I know one certainty: the supernova previously referred to was ordained to exist as a sign from God, I know not what for other than to bear witness to the Creator; but perhaps for some other specific reason also but unnamed. I know this by corollary: that this supernova was not the product of purposeless chance, plus matter and motion, no matter when it began to be according to man's reckoning of time; it did not come to have another meaning imposed on it by men due to its discovery by them. And it most certainly does not mean that Gen.1 is an explanation for our reality imposed on brute facts.

AMR

 

[Lon]

Oh my goodness Lon....did you really just cite that old WWII planes argument? Seriously?

And you wonder why Christianity is increasingly being associated with anti-science and anti-education attitudes. And btw, did you notice the higher education bashing in this thread from your fellow believers? Looks like I was right, eh?

If you have an intelligent counter, post it.

 

[Stuu]

Congratulations!

You have just proved that the evidence supports the Bible.

1 Cor 1:26 - 30KJV

Thank you very much!

I love the way scripture celebrates ignorance.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

WW 2 Planes found in centuries old layers? :think:

Question: Who is ACTUALLY doing science? The 'scientists' or those comparing supposed results with counterfactuals?

Better question: Do you want to just be a dupe or do you want to have actual, well-thought-out answers? Sometimes being an atheist makes you a dupe (all the time?). :e4e: -Lon

Did cavemen fly planes?

I guess you are expecting me to fish out the following from the Gish Gallop you cited:

World War II Airplanes Under the Ice

The Greenland Society of Atlanta has recently attempted to excavate a 10-foot diameter shaft in the Greenland ice pack to remove two B-17 Flying Fortresses and six P-38 Lightning fighters trapped under an estimated 250 feet of ice for almost 50 years (Bloomberg, 1989). Aside from the fascination with salvaging several vintage aircraft for parts and movie rights, the fact that these aircraft were buried so deeply in such a short time focuses attention on the time scales used to estimate the chronologies of ice.

If the aircraft were buried under about 250 feet of ice and snow in about 50 years, this means the ice sheet has been accumulating at an average rate of five feet per year. The Greenland ice sheet averages almost 4000 feet thick. If we were to assume the ice sheet has been accumulating at this rate since its beginning, it would take less than 1000 years for it to form and the recent-creation model might seem to be vindicated.

So, to answer your QUESTION: I read the work of real scientists, not the morons who would try to tell me that the annual layers at the bottom of a 3km column of ice would be the same thickness as the annual layers at the top.

This is where a lack of the 'knowledge of men' makes you look like an idiot.

Even though I know you are not an idiot, Lon.

Can't you find something more challenging than this dross? That's the problem posting on creationist topics, it's all so obviously wrong it is rare to learn anything new from it.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Apology if that is not your quote from earlier Jose... it may have been [MENTION=9611]Stuu[/MENTION]

No idea if that is true but it would certainly not be surprising. Research shows that kids who are taught to compromise on what Genesis clearly states... and yet believe the Red sea parted... a man dead for 4 days comes back to life etc; becomes skeptical of the whole lo


That is the reason why it is so important for Christian parents and grandparents and church leaders to provide good answers and sound Doctrine to our children..

I think the wall-to-wall bells and smells puts them off.

Sound doctrine, like they deliver in the madrasas in Pakistan?

Stuart

 

[Lon]

I guess you are expecting me to fish out the following from the Gish Gallop you cited:

World War II Airplanes Under the Ice

The Greenland Society of Atlanta has recently attempted to excavate a 10-foot diameter shaft in the Greenland ice pack to remove two B-17 Flying Fortresses and six P-38 Lightning fighters trapped under an estimated 250 feet of ice for almost 50 years (Bloomberg, 1989). Aside from the fascination with salvaging several vintage aircraft for parts and movie rights, the fact that these aircraft were buried so deeply in such a short time focuses attention on the time scales used to estimate the chronologies of ice.

If the aircraft were buried under about 250 feet of ice and snow in about 50 years, this means the ice sheet has been accumulating at an average rate of five feet per year. The Greenland ice sheet averages almost 4000 feet thick. If we were to assume the ice sheet has been accumulating at this rate since its beginning, it would take less than 1000 years for it to form and the recent-creation model might seem to be vindicated.

So, to answer your QUESTION: I read the work of real scientists, not the morons who would try to tell me that the annual layers at the bottom of a 3km column of ice would be the same thickness as the annual layers at the top.

This is where a lack of the 'knowledge of men' makes you look like an idiot.

Even though I know you are not an idiot, Lon.

Can't you find something more challenging than this dross? That's the problem posting on creationist topics, it's all so obviously wrong it is rare to learn anything new from it.

Stuart

Or you, perhaps? What is YOUR PhD in? :think:

If you read rebuttals from such as oldworld.org, their very argument against the planes objection CAN be applied to their other assumptions themselves. IOW, it is the hypothesis that drives the data, rather than the data driving the hypothesis. Said another way: If you assume an old earth, you WILL find and old earth (same with YEC). The question is, if all we are doing is boistering assumptions, which assumption then is right? Simply the one the majority thinks? :nono: Never was. Never will be. If YOU don't want to look like an 'idiot' as you call these, then you too should avoid joining up sides until all the data, unmolested, is in. To be honest, the unmolested data is all I care about. I've seen FAR too many faulty interpretations and don't really appreciate them. Scientists, pontificating, have gotten it wrong far too often not to take any interpretation of data, without a grain of salt.

You can call counter-arguments whatever you like. Without the where-with-all to prove them false, it is simply assertion. I 'tend' to find assertions very much lack academic prowess of any sorts, so I'm not really swayed by 'idiocy.' Cry it as you like. Such is of no value or consequence and to be honest, looks like academic lack from this side. Jose tried the same ill-attempt. It does make one HAVE to ask why (if he/she is anywise intelligent and seeking REAL answers). "Idiocy"

Oh my goodness Lon....did you really just cite that old WWII planes argument? Seriously?

And you wonder why Christianity is increasingly being associated with anti-science and anti-education attitudes. And btw, did you notice the higher education bashing in this thread from your fellow believers? Looks like I was right, eh?

I'm fairly certain, neither of you has a PhD. Perhaps a Masters? The article sited IS from a PhD. If you can't meet a PhD with intelligent rebuttal, 'idiot' nor 'anti-science/anti-education' is sufficient, even for short discussions like TOL. It just doesn't have any traction, neither of them.

 

[Stripe]

Well no, I think you are right. There comes a point near the bottom where it is just too difficult to separate the layers, and I have read somewhere that they stop counting before they get there. But surely, unless this is a huge conspiracy to lie to the public, their inability to read layers at depth would be dealt with in the papers or the peer-review process. You still seem to be calling these scientists liars without justification. The earth counts to at least 800,000 years old on this data until you can demonstrate a problem with the science and its reporting.

Stuart

Once again, you go with nonsense and bald assertions instead of evidence.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Lon]

Nope. There is no written analysis by age group.

I do note it says this: Those with less education are most likely to espouse the creationist view.

That ties in well with the fact that the writers of Genesis, whoever they were, all had dismally low levels of education by comparison with today. Of course they had a better excuse for believing myths than a creationist does today.

Stuart

Your disdain and arrogance are understood, noted, but this is just one atheist's broad brush stroke, Stuart. It is the same with any and every prejudice and your white hood is showing. It is interesting that those without religion desperately seek to think they are smarter than the rest of us. I suppose it is the only thing you have that you 'could' brag about against a theist, having ditched all else? :idunno: You'll have to take that one up with your Creator. I know what my own intelligence level actually is. :e4e:

Thank you very much!

I love the way scripture celebrates ignorance.

Stuart

Again, the white hood comes out. I'm fairly certain several Christians on this website have higher IQ than you possess. You might want to get off that horse. I don't need to contend as, these same individuals have performed better than both you AND I, so there is no contention between you and I. You are just over your head with assumption and 'ignorant' slams that simply fall back from the insurmountable 'brilliant' wall you are trying to façade.

I'll answer your fact-free opinion piece with a fact-free opinion piece of my own: higher levels of education lead to greater incomes, but those who are less affluent look to christianity and it's (false) promises of justice at a time of great reckoning, when they will be justified. Also, the bible is historical fiction, and educated people of today have much easier access to information that confirms this.

Stuart

:sigh: There it is again, that ol' false arrogance. Per fact, you are not the most intelligent poster on TOL and in point of fact, you are surrounded by Christian with IQ's much higher than your own. You can put the hood away. We know who you are when you burn stuff on our lawns, Stuart. Your pride and arrogance in false data is astounding. It is like you hunt for it and collect it all, whether it is true or not. I just read another article about 'atheists are smarter.' Funny thing? It was an atheist rally, as they all are. Or is that a sad thing? Raw data is always better than trash talk.

{just don't want you to be a dupe, drinking his own white-hooded Kool-Aid}

 

[KingdomRose]

You are correct. However God's Word does tell us...

* That Adam and Eve were from the beginning of creation.

* God's Word does tell us that death, pain, thorns, suffering entered our world when first Adam sinned.

* God's Word provides the geneaologies from first Adam to Last Adam which is 4,000 years.

* Jesus referred to humanity existing from a time near the foundation of the world.

You have to read further than verse 1.

Science helps support the truth of Scripture. It is a secular belief that the earth is about 4.54BY (that is not science).

Of course not. Science helps confirm God's Word, and provides additional means of worship.

That is silly. Do you apply that same 'logic' throughout Scripture? Was Jonah in the fish for only an hour?.... for 7 days?


Rose.... The context of the word 'Yom' / 'day' in Hebrew (like in English) always determines the meaning. The context in Genesis 1 does not allow for anything other than a normal day/ night period. If you are interested, we can do an exegetical study of the word throughout the OT. (YOM has a variety of meanings, but always with context so the meaning is clear) EX... Gen. 2:3,4 in those two verses the word 'day'is used twice with two different meanings. It is easy to understand isn't it?

We should always trust God's word as our ultimate source of Truth... not fundamentalists or not people who are compromising.


But your claim is simply wrong. There is no Hebrews scholar at any world class University that would suggest the days in Genesis 1 mean anything other than what we call a 24-hour day.

No, my claim is not wrong, as I succinctly demonstrated by pointing your attention to GENESIS 2:4. If creation happened the way you say, and we are to take "day" to mean a span of 24 hours, then we have to believe that God created the earth and heaven in one 24-hour day, according to Genesis 2:4.

 

[Stripe]

Mature creation isn't like antiquing an object to make it look older than it really is by artificial means...

Great post. :thumb:

It is not that we leave "God" out of science, but that we leave the consideration of the "supernatural" works of God out of our experimentation as we come to understand the world God has created which we call "natural." By so doing we set fairly strict limits to "science," and understand that we are dealing with a specific area of human knowledge. When "science" then attempts to make statements about God (theology), it is clearly over-stepping its self-imposed limitations.

Yip. This is a crucial point in discussions with atheists. They present science as if it is the be all and end all, but there is more to life than just science. A theist is justified in appealing to the supernatural — which an atheist who ignores all the other aspects of reality that science is not the right tool for might be justified in doubting — but the atheist's insistence that science eliminates the possibility of the miraculous is simply an assertion of the primacy of his belief and no more credible than an unfettered counterclaim.

And this is not to assert that science has no place when it comes to discussions of God's involvement in the universe, which I would emphasize among the following.

The apparently finely-aged wine at Cana, created by Jesus in an instant: was that deceptive of him? Was he obliged to send word to the master of the feast (John 2:9-10) that his impression was false? Similar questions could be formulated for any miracle of the Bible. Why did the iron ax-head float? Did its molecular nature shift? Did something happen to the water's density? If there's no "scientific" explanation, must we doubt the event? Must we develop an explanation in each case that is consistent with our present understanding of physics, chemistry, math, and time (to name a few), or relegate the story to the realm of mythos?

The violation of natural laws or limits is the very nature of miracle. Forming a world and the universe containing it, where the existence of distance supplies the helpful conditions for various activities such as navigation—this is perfectly compatible with the goodness and wisdom of God. A distant supernova, that would have presumably exploded so many millions of years ago if the universe of time was as old as that is no more incredible (or deceptive) than a woman formed from Adam's rib. All appearances are subject to an authoritative explanation, or revelatory limits.

Furthermore, we simply do not have all the information we might like to have, regarding the manner and mechanisms God used in forming the observable universe; or his reasons for including this or that phenomenon. How many intricacies have men discovered, for which the one explanation seems to be: because it's cool, that's why? The secret things belong to God; the things revealed, to us and to our children.

I would emphasize that just because God is said to have acted, there is no immediate need to dispense with scientific inquiry. To elucidate: There is the moment of creation or action, and the miracle — be it in the beginning, with a star, with Sarah, or at the wedding — and then there is the resumption of physics as can be used in scientific inquiry.

The miraculous is not denied by science, and its impact on reality can be assessed through normal investigation, be that physics, chemistry, biology, history, archaeology or any other field.

This reveals a problem with the way people tend to respond to the scientific process. Science changes, and even has its own forms of revolution, but people treat it as if it intends to speak finally and infallibly.

Exactly. And those who treat science as if it is the only tool in the bag tend to want others silenced.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[KingdomRose]

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
Exodus 20:8-‬11 NKJV​

This is why discussions with Darwinists are a waste of time. They have no regard for what is written.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Why do you think I'm a Darwinist? Nothing could be further from the truth. Just because I draw your attention to the fact that the Bible does NOT say that the earth was created in six 24-hour days? Why not stop wasting your time by calling me names and address my points? I don't see any meaningful explanations of anything rebutting what I have said.

Explain Genesis 2:4.

 

[Stripe]

Why do you think I'm a Darwinist? Nothing could be further from the truth. Just because I draw your attention to the fact that the Bible does NOT say that the earth was created in six 24-hour days? Why not stop wasting your time by calling me names and address my points? I don't see any meaningful explanations of anything rebutting what I have said.

Explain Genesis 2:4.

Chuck a rock at a pack of dogs. The one that yelps is the one you hit.

The point stands: The Bible says "six days" (and "the whole world").

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[KingdomRose]

Chuck a rock at a pack of dogs. The one that yelps is the one you hit.

The point stands: The Bible says "six days" (and "the whole world").

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Explain what you glean from Genesis 2:4. Can you see that "day" does not necessarily mean a 24-hour period? Obviously it can have the meaning of a stretch of time not necessarily defined. Can you discuss without insults?