Real Science Friday: Baraminologist Dr. Roger Sanders on RSF

[Sherman]

You realize that there are many species of zebra which have different chromosome numbers (anywhere from 32 - 46)? Horses and donkeys have 64 and 62 respectively. So you're accepting that chromosome number change is apparently easy and can occur in a mere 4000 years? That ain't dog breeding Inzl, that is ridiculous hyperevolution.

That is making assumptions about what I accept. I just started looking at this model and the jury is still out on whether I fully accept it or not. The Zebra might not even be from the Horse. I don't accept all models put forth by creation scientists. Another Creation model is the vapor canopy theory, which I have rejected. I find the hydro plate model more compelling.

Bob made a comment in another one of his threads about all the hostility in these threads that discuss evolution and origin of life models.

There is no need to bash another person because they don't accept the model that you do. I just do not find the concept of all life evolving from single celled organisms compelling. I have studied Darwin's model more than any other model. I won't bash you from here on out become you don't find the biblical account compelling. Let's just discuss this in a civil manner without all the name calling. These unfriendly spats are what make me unwilling to participate in these discussions.

I enjoy your posts when you are not cutting someone down. I confess I have been guilty of the same.

It is up to each individual to decide for themselves what models they accept. They are models. None can be proven conclusively.

 

[DavisBJ]

:thumb:

Fear of the righteous God is the key to understanding.

Our motivations for understanding science are clearly very different. I find the study of science an exhilarating thing in and of itself, with no shadow of being motivated to do so by any divine entity. But yours is predicated on fear, and specifically fear of some aspect of your understanding of God? Now that is just plain perverse.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes: "Nor does science require any presuppostions than the obvious one:
Nature is consistent and knowable..."

That's two.

Barbarian observes:
We think of it as one.

The very act of opposing a creationist worldview pushes people into confusion. Two is not one, and two should not be thought of as one.

But a corollary of an assumption is not an additional assumption. Because the universe is consistent, it is knowable.

Especially when considering such an important matter as the existence of presuppositions, we should try to be rigorous.

I should have been more explicit.

So Barbarian, even if you've thought of that as one presupposition, don't you now agree that it is two different pre-suppositions?

As you see, it's not. Moreover, it's observably true. The laws of nature have not changed. And because they haven't changed, life is as we know it is possible.

 

[The Barbarian]

I took a closer look at the Baraminology model from one of my husbands Creation Science books. In short, though, the branches on each tree in the orchard are the result of loss of genetic information, not the gaining of information.

That would be impossible. You see, no canid of any kind could have the genetic diversity of all canids in the world today. There are hundreds of alleles for almost all gene loci in canids, and even if there were seven pairs of them on the Ark, that would only allow for 14 alleles at most. All the rest would have to evolve over time, greatly increasing information.

Take the dog tree from example. The dogs started out as one kind of dog. Populations of dogs became isolated and through breeding certain characteristic were lost while others became dominant.

See above. It's a nice story, but it doesn't fit reality.

The trunk of the dog tree according to this model was a mutt with all the genetic information packaged to branch off and produce the canines we know today.

Not possible. Each individual can have at most 2 alleles for any given gene locus. The rest have to evolve.

No new information is created in this process.

Every new allele is an increase in information in a population. Would you like to see the numbers on a simple example?

The branching happens in a rather short period of time as population groups are isolated.

It would mean new species of vertebrates popping into existence monthly. And yet no one thought that was worth mentioning. I think I know why.

Most species in a baramin can interbreed. If a branch become too isolated then it loses its ability to interbreed--Donkeys and Horses for example--but they still produce a sterile offspring.

It's not a matter of distance, usually. It's normally a chromosome incompatibility. For example, humans experience a chromosome fusion that made us reproductively isolated from other apes. Want to learn about how that happened?

Most of the isolating probably happened post flood. Most of our familiar species of animals we know today developed post flood.

That would put the "Flood" back tens of thousands of years.

The term Baramin is just a another word for kind. There is the dog kind, the horse kind, the apple kind etc. This model is definitely six day creation, young earth based.

And as you see, it's completely incompatible with creation. It's a story people made up to justify their modern revision of Genesis.

 

[Sherman]

It's not a matter of distance, usually. It's normally a chromosome incompatibility. For example, humans experience a chromosome fusion that made us reproductively isolated from other apes. Want to learn about how that happened?

I am aware of the chromosome bonding theory. Where the two ends 'glued together is differnet from the two separate ends. What happened to the missing stripes on the chromosome when the two 2p and 2q in the chimp glued together to make become Chromosome 2 in the human? What the tells me, is both were built from the same materials, not the same ancestor.

How you interpret or understand data depends on your worldview and it doesn't necessarily mean your are stupid either.

Source

Fascinating link though.

 

[The Barbarian]

I am aware of the chromosome bonding theory. Where the two ends 'glued together is differnet from the two separate ends. What happened to the missing stripes on the chromosome when the two 2p and 2q in the chimp glued together to make become Chromosome 2 in the human?

Fragments of the damaged telomeres are still there. Telomeres are the ends of chromosomes. Some of the telomeres are damaged and some are now gone. This is another way we know it was a fusion. Why would God deliberately fake a chromosome fusion, right down to remains of the ends of the two faked chromosomes?

Either you're wrong, or God is appallingly devious.

What the tells me, is both were built from the same materials, not the same ancestor.

See above. If we can trust God to be truthful, you can't be right.

How you interpret or understand data depends on your worldview and it doesn't necessarily mean your are stupid either.

In this case, it has to do with what you understand about genetics and how much faith you have in God.

Trust him, learn about the evidence, and you'll have no problem with this.

 

[Sherman]

In this case, it has to do with what you understand about genetics and how much faith you have in God.

Trust him, learn about the evidence, and you'll have no problem with this.

My faith in God doesn't require evolution from single celled organisms for creation to take place. My God is more powerful than that. He can speak animals and people into existence.

I see that information on that site and I see two creatures made by the same Creator. I don't see one evolving from the other. It is an interesting theory, but I don't find the theory compelling. I have more faith in God and what He has written in His word.

In college I read On Walden Pond by Henry David Thoreau--beautifully written with excellent command of the English language. It was a fun read, but like the chromosome bonding theory, I didn't find the philosophy compelling.

It all goes down to world view. God doesn't need millions of years or evolution.

 

[Alate_One]

My faith in God doesn't require evolution from single celled organisms for creation to take place. My God is more powerful than that. He can speak animals and people into existence.

And I think most Evolutionary creationists would agree with you. Problem is He apparently didn't. And He doesn't *need* millions of years but for whatever reason that's what He did.

 

[Sherman]

And I think most Evolutionary creationists would agree with you. Problem is He apparently didn't. And He doesn't *need* millions of years but for whatever reason that's what He did.

And at this juncture we can agree to disagree and not call each other morons and other nasty names. You an intelligent person and I am not stupid either.

These threads would be a lot more enjoyable if the debates didn't turn into heated arguments full of put downs.

Where I am coming from, my faith in the Word of God trumps my faith in how scientists collate data. I still read and understand the data. But I've had things happen in my life that have shaken my confidence in sources that contradict scripture.

That doesn't mean I still enjoy reading science. I will still pick up a scientific American and read it. I still have shelves of science books--not creation science books, though I have those too.

I am sure you are aware that the idea of evolution didn't start with Charles Darwin. The concept of things evolving was introduced by Lucretius.

Thus the sum of things is ever being renewed, and mortals live dependent one upon another. Some nations increase, others diminish, and in a short space the generations of living creatures are changed and like runners pass on the torch of life--Lucretius

 

[The Barbarian]

My faith in God doesn't require evolution from single celled organisms for creation to take place.

It shouldn't require a non-scriptural belief in YE creationism, either. Christianity isn't about evolution or literal six-day creation weeks. Neither is part of our Christian faith, although you can believe either and still be a Christian.

My God is more powerful than that. He can speak animals and people into existence.

Could, but He says He didn't. He says the earth brought forth living things, as He intended.

I see that information on that site and I see two creatures made by the same Creator. I don't see one evolving from the other. It is an interesting theory, but I don't find the theory compelling. I have more faith in God and what He has written in His word.

If so, you will certainly not be a YE creationist; "life ex nihilo" is opposed to God's word in Genesis.

It all goes down to world view.

No. It goes down to evidence. Truth cannot contradict truth.

God doesn't need millions of years or evolution.

In fact, God needs nothing at all. But He chose to do it that way. Let Him be God.

 

[Stripe]

Our motivations for understanding science are clearly very different.

What do motivations have to do with anything?

I find the study of science an exhilarating thing in and of itself, with no shadow of being motivated to do so by any divine entity.

I motivate myself to study as well. :idunno:

But yours is predicated on fear, and specifically fear of some aspect of your understanding of God? Now that is just plain perverse.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

The argument is not about why we practice science, the argument is about why we can practice science.

 

[DavisBJ]

What do motivations have to do with anything?

I motivate myself to study as well. :idunno:

You have no idea what you're talking about.

The argument is not about why we practice science, the argument is about why we can practice science.

Oh, so that’s what that scripture means? I’m not to take it literally? Can I assign it whatever meaning I want too, like you do?

 

[Stripe]

Oh, so that’s what that scripture means? I’m not to take it literally? Can I assign it whatever meaning I want too, like you do?

:squint:

You're weird.

 

[TeeJay]

=The Barbarian;2702625]It shouldn't require a non-scriptural belief in YE creationism, either. Christianity isn't about evolution or literal six-day creation weeks. Neither is part of our Christian faith, although you can believe either and still be a Christian.

Barbarian,

You post here confirms what I'm trying to get across. You may argue that science is "neutral," but people are not neutral. Each of us will interpret evidence through our worldviews. A worldview is a set of presuppositons that all of us have. A fossil presented to you will be dated millions of years old. I will see the same fossil as several thousand years old.

It coms down to which worldview is rational and has a foundation. Unless your worldview is founded on God and His word, any beliefs you have on this subject will be aribtrary and irrational. God is the foundation of all truth. Jesus said that heaven and earth would pass away, but my word will endure forever. His word will not endure forever if it is not true.

If your worldview does not agree with God's word, then, as a Christian, you should not reinterpret Genesis to prove your worldview. Any worldview not based on God's word is false and can't produce truth.

As God and His word is the Foundation of all that exists, so too, Genesis is foundational to the Bible. Once you rewrite Genesis, then you are faced with more dilemmas than Greek philosophers can imagine. For one, you are forced to call Jesus a liar when He claimed that "In the beginning God made them male and female." Jesus verification of the Flood must be reinterpreted. So too Peter, Paul, prophets, proverbs, etc. Either all died in Adam or all did not die in Adam. Either there was a worldwide flood or there was not a worldwide flood. (How a local flood could cover the top of a mountain has not been explained to me?) Either there was death and corruption before the Fall or after. Either there was a Fall or not.

No evidence I could present to you would convince you of a young earth. Your worldview (set of presuppositions) will not allow you to consider the possibility. Again, it comes down to whose worldview (set of presuppositions) is rational and and has a foundation. God's word never changes. Scientific knowledge (and worldviews) do.

Could, but He says He didn't. He says the earth brought forth living things, as He intended.

True! But God also said, "So the evening and morning were the third day" (Gen. 1:13). Did the "earth bring forth" in one 24-hour day as His word says?

If so, you will certainly not be a YE creationist; "life ex nihilo" is opposed to God's word in Genesis.

I've heard you make this argument before. Who's arguing that man was made ex nihilo? God made Adam from the dust of the earth. We all know that. But for Adam to live, God had to breathe into his nostrils the breath of life. For atheists: Life can only come from life. Life did not come from the dust of the earth.

No. It goes down to evidence. Truth cannot contradict truth.

Since Jesus said that He was Truth, then Jesus can't contradict Himself. Right? So when Jesus said that in the beginning, He made them male and female, then He can't contradict Himself in Genesis or vice versa. When He said that the Flood came and took them all, then Genesis must be taken as written or Jesus contradicts himself and He can't be the truth.

He is correct. It all comes down to worldviews. Truch can only be ascertained IF the evidence is interpreted correctly.

In fact, God needs nothing at all. But He chose to do it that way. Let Him be God.

He chose to do it that way in your worldview. But for your worldview to be correct, you must rewrite Genesis. Should Genesis be based on your worldview or should your worldview be based on Geneis?

Tom

 

[The Barbarian]

You post here confirms what I'm trying to get across.

You seem to have it precisely backwards.

You may argue that science is "neutral,"

Neutral with respect to the supernatural. It can neither confirm nor deny God.

but people are not neutral.

That's the point. Because science is neutral, people of all faiths, and even no faith at all, can do science.

Each of us will interpret evidence through our worldviews.

Sorry. I don't buy the postmodern mantra. There is a reality and we can learn about it, regardless of our expectations. Peddle it to someone who's willing to believe truth is whatever we make of it.

A worldview is a set of presuppositons that all of us have.

For you, maybe.

A fossil presented to you will be dated millions of years old. I will see the same fossil as several thousand years old.

Comes down to evidence. You don't have it. Science does.

It coms down to which worldview is rational and has a foundation.

Your worldview, which makes the truth just a matter of suposition, is not rational.

Unless your worldview is founded on God and His word, any beliefs you have on this subject will be aribtrary and irrational.

This is a foolish argument, one that is sure to turn people away from God. If you advance something so obviously wrong, they will think Christians are fools or liars. Don't do this, if you want more people to become Christians.

If your worldview does not agree with God's word, then, as a Christian, you should not reinterpret Genesis to prove your worldview.

This is why YE does such damage to Christianity. You reject His word in Genesis.

As God and His word is the Foundation of all that exists, so too, Genesis is foundational to the Bible. Once you rewrite Genesis, then you are faced with more dilemmas than Greek philosophers can imagine.

Precisely why the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is so harmful to Christianity.

For one, you are forced to call Jesus a liar when He claimed that "In the beginning God made them male and female."

In Genesis, God is very clear what was there at the beginning. And male and female were not. Jesus is talking of the beginning of the human race. Because you want support for your new doctrine, you discard God's word at the very foundation of scripture.

Jesus verification of the Flood must be reinterpreted.

I would be open to whatever evidence you have that Jesus citing an allegory, thereby changes it to a literal history. Show us.

So too Peter, Paul, prophets, proverbs, etc. Either all died in Adam or all did not die in Adam. Either there was a worldwide flood or there was not a worldwide flood.

Since the Bible does not say there was a worldwide flood, I can only suggest that you be content with the Bible and not add your new doctrines to it.

(How a local flood could cover the top of a mountain has not been explained to me?)

The Black Sea flood, for example, would have done this.

Either there was death and corruption before the Fall or after.

God says that Adam will die the day he eats from the tree. But Adam does so, and lives on physically for many years thereafter. So we know God was not talking about a physical death.

Either there was a Fall or not.

Genesis and science are compatible with a Fall.

No evidence I could present to you would convince you of a young earth.

You have no way of knowing that, since you haven't presented any. But it is very clear that no amount of evidence would dissuade you from your new, man-made doctrines.

Your worldview (set of presuppositions) will not allow you to consider the possibility.

Sorry, no postmodernism here.

My God is more powerful than that. He can speak animals and people into existence.

Barbarian observes:
Could, but He says He didn't. He says the earth brought forth living things, as He intended.

True! But God also said, "So the evening and morning were the third day" (Gen. 1:13). Did the "earth bring forth" in one 24-hour day as His word says?

As you know, even the early Christians like St. Augustine showed that reinterpreting Genesis as a literal history would bring up logical contradictions like mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

Barbarian observes:
If so, you will certainly not be a YE creationist; "life ex nihilo" is opposed to God's word in Genesis.

I've heard you make this argument before. Who's arguing that man was made ex nihilo?

Young Earth creationists. Even the journal of the ICR is called "Ex Nihilo."
http://www.versebyverse.org/classnotes/Genesis/Gen1.htm

http://www.2cor13verse5.com/?tag=ex-nihilo

It's the standard YE doctrine, indeed, it is essential to YE creationism. If you reject YE creationism, good for you. But if you're willing to believe God that far, why not just accept all of it?

Barbarian oberves:

No. It goes down to evidence. Truth cannot contradict truth.
Since Jesus said that He was Truth, then Jesus can't contradict Himself. Right? So when Jesus said that in the beginning, He made them male and female, then He can't contradict Himself in Genesis or vice versa.

Yes. To a YE creationist, either Jesus must be wrong, or the Father must be wrong, since Genesis clearly shows that male and female were not there at the beginning of creation. Jesus meant from the beginning of the human race.

When He said that the Flood came and took them all

Of course, that isn't literally true, either, because even the story in Genesis says it didn't take them all.

Barbarian observes:
In fact, God needs nothing at all. But He chose to do it that way. Let Him be God.

He chose to do it that way in your worldview.

In His word in Genesis. Because much of it contradicts your new doctrines, you accept only the parts you like.

But for your worldview to be correct, you must rewrite Genesis.

It's not your worldview, Tom. It's your pride in your own reasoning, which you have set above God's word.

 

[DavisBJ]

Comments directed to a Christian who is engaged in science:

- I am sick and tired of letting science determine how the Bible ought to be interpreted.

- Why isn’t science ever asked to rethink it’s conclusions in light of the Bible? Why is the Bible always the loser?

- If I am now asked to yield on the on the interpretation of Genesis 1 or the flood story, they won’t science soon be asking me to give up the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Won’t the gospel of God’s grace in Christ and my own salvation ultimately have to be abandoned in the face of science?

- I must not allow science to dictate my understanding of the Bible

- The Bible is the infallible Word of God, and Christians ought to take God at his word by accepting the clear and plain teaching of the Bible.

- Genesis should control my scientific theorizing, not the other way around.

- I am encouraged not to trust the unreliable efforts of fallible, sinful, human scientists.

- Science has made mistakes and is always changing its mind.

-The world of scientific theorizing is dominated by unbelievers.

- Science (is) secular by definition, controlled by those who are opposed to Christ and his Word.

- My attachment to “secular science” and my desire to reinterpret Genesis are sinful.

- Not a few people have urged me to repent of my sinful intellectual endeavors.

 

[TeeJay]

=The Barbarian;2703213]You seem to have it precisely backwards.

I disagree.

Neutral with respect to the supernatural. It can neither confirm nor deny God.

Actually, science does not tell us anything. Scientists do. A Christian scientist will interpret evidence the exact opposite of the Atheist scientist. Why? Because they both have a different set of presuppositions by which they see the world. If this were not true, Knight would have to pull the plug on TOL.

And God does not exactly agree with you that His existence can’t be confirmed. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, , who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE” (Rom. 1:18-20). No atheist on judgment day will be able to plead, “I’m sorry, God. But you did not give me enough proof to show that you existed.”

That's the point. Because science is neutral, people of all faiths, and even no faith at all, can do science.

A “no faith at all” can do science, but he is being irrational in doing so. The atheist materialist, who believes that nothing but the physical world exists, uses laws of logic (immaterial) to argue that there is nothing but the physical. He assumes that the physical world obeys physical laws but has no rational reason to believe so IN HIS RANDOM CHANCE EVOLUTION OF CHEMICALS AND MOLECULES. He has no rational reason on which to base his faith that his senses and thinking are reliable. In his worldview, the brain is simply a physical organ composed of chemicals which evolved from the dust of the earth. If true, then why should one brain think the same as another brain. But, actually, we don’t think with our brain, for thought is not physical. Yes, the atheist can do science, but he is borrowing from the theist’s worldview. In doing so, he proves theism true and atheism false.

Sorry. I don't buy the postmodern mantra. There is a reality and we can learn about it, regardless of our expectations. Peddle it to someone who's willing to believe truth is whatever we make of it.

If I led you to believe that I’m arguing for post-modernism, then “what we have here, is a failure to communicate” as in Cool Hand Luke. A postmodernism would posit: “There is no ultimate principle, no scientific, philosophical or religious truth that will explain everything for everybody.” But if this posit were true, it would be false. For it is itself an espoused principle. Any relativistic statement always destroys itself. And I certainly believe there is truth. If I did not, I could not believe Jesus when He said, “I am the truth.” The argument that there is no truth can easily be rebutted: “Is that true.” This is why postmodernism fails.

What I’m arguing is that unless your worldview is true (that God exists), then the atheist is being irrational and inconsistent when he uses laws of logic or trusts the laws of physics to be law like. Without God, the atheist must be inconsistent with his worldview. For example, he believes that morality must be relative. For if he admitted to absolute morality, he would be getting dangerously close to admitting that God must exist. His worldview will not allow him to do this. Your worldview will allow you to reason that God must exist.

For you, maybe.

Barbarian, you’re a smart guy—probably one of the smarter on TOL. Bob enjoys debating you. Are you sure that you do not want to rethink this? Your worldview that you do not have a set of presuppositions is itself a worldview. It's not a valid worldview, but one nevertheless.

Comes down to evidence. You don't have it. Science does.

I must point this out: You are committing the logical fallacy of reification by attributing concrete and personal characteristics to a conceptual abstraction, i.e. science. This is permitted in poetry but not in logical argumentation. Science has no mind and can’t tell us anything. Scientists using science can tell us things. But two scientists with two contradicting worldviews will not tell us the same thing. Which scientist will give us truth? The one with the correct worldview.

Your worldview, which makes the truth just a matter of suposition, is not rational.

I have a presupposition that God exists. If this presupposition is true, then my thinking in other areas should prove to be logical. I can trust the seasons will continue because God promised they will. I can assume there are laws of logic and use them because logical thinking can come from the logical mind of God but not from the dust of the earth. I know truth can exist because Jesus said that “I am the truth.” I have a foundation for absolute morality. If my initial presupposition were not true, then it would be easily proved irrational and arbitrary.

This is a foolish argument, one that is sure to turn people away from God. If you advance something so obviously wrong, they will think Christians are fools or liars. Don't do this, if you want more people to become Christians.

Jesus was not afraid of telling people the truth. He purposely offended and all left Him but His twelve apostles. Truth is offensive to those who hate the truth. Jesus’ miracles offended most of Israel. In the cities where He did most of His miracles they totally rejected Him. Why is this? For those who have a hard hearts toward God, miracles shove truth of Jesus in their faces and prove them wrong. People will not love you if you prove them wrong. As to my argument being wrong: Can an atheist ever conclude that God exists if his worldview excludes the possibility of His existence before he starts his quest?

This is why YE does such damage to Christianity. You reject His word in Genesis.

This why OE does such damage to Christianity. You reject His word in Genesis.

Precisely why the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is so harmful to Christianity.

What material did God use to create the heavens and the earth?

In Genesis, God is very clear what was there at the beginning. And male and female were not. Jesus is talking of the beginning of the human race. Because you want support for your new doctrine, you discard God's word at the very foundation of scripture.

If you want to be woodenly literal, one can argue this. But Jesus said, “From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6). I don’t think Jesus had the slightest clue that someday men would argue that by the word “creation” people would not understand that He was speaking of the creation week. It’s true that Adam and Eve were not there Day l. But they were there five days later. This argument reminds me of Bill’s asking what the word “is” is. I notice that OE's have no problem arguing that Genesis is an alegory to prove long periods of time but then want to get woodenly literally and argue that Jesus was not referring to a creation week.

I would be open to whatever evidence you have that Jesus citing an allegory, thereby changes it to a literal history. Show us.

Barbarian, I think burden of proof is on you to prove it is an “allegory.” Genesis reads like any history book. And its history is verified by Jesus. This debate is not about evidence. You and I have different worldviews. Both of us will interpret evidence differently. You will not accept a straight forward reading of Genesis. I will. But for the sake of argument, I will present some:

Why is “yom” in Genesis not an ordinary day? Anywhere else in the Bible it is an ordinary day. For example, no OE theologian disputes whether the Israelites marched around Jericho for seven days or several thousand or million years? Because the strict context of Joshua 6:14-15 will not allow it.

Every time “yom” is paired with the words “evening” or “morning” it refers to an ordinary day. For that matter the phrase “evening and morning” by itself would mean an ordinary day. Whenever “yom” is used in the OT with either a cardinal or an ordinal number, it ALWAYS means a literal day. In Genesis 1, “yom” appears with a cardinal number on the first day and with ordinal numbers on the second through six days. It also appears with the words “evening” and “morning” on all six days and the word “night” on the first day. Any one of these contextual clues would be sufficient to indicate that the days of creation are ordinary days. Yet Genesis 1 uses ALL of them. It seems that God really stressed this fact to make sure we understood the days to be literal, ordinary days.

This is how I interpret Genesis through my worldview. You will not interpret Genesis as I do. Your worldview (set of presuppositions) will not allow you to do so. So, it is our worldviews that must be scrutinized.

Since the Bible does not say there was a worldwide flood, I can only suggest that you be content with the Bible and not add your new doctrines to it.

Barbarian, we must be reading different Bibles. If I look at Genesis 17, these words jump out at me: “The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth” (v. 17). “… all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered” (v. 19). “The waters prevailed… and the mountains were covered” (v. 20). “And all flesh died that moved on the earth; birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth and every man” (v. 21). “All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on dry land died. So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground; both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the EARTH. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive” (v. 22-23). Sure sounds like a worldwide flood to me! Is the concept of a worldwide flood a “new doctrine”? Or is theistic evolution a new doctrine?

(How a local flood could cover the top of a mountain has not been explained to me?)

The Black Sea flood, for example, would have done this.

Sea fossils have been found in the Himalayas. What contained the water so that it could rise above the Himalayas and remain a local flood? Think about it.

God says that Adam will die the day he eats from the tree. But Adam does so, and lives on physically for many years thereafter. So we know God was not talking about a physical death.

Would Adam have lived forever (eating from the Tree of Life) if he had not eaten of the Tree of the Knowledge?

Genesis and science are compatible with a Fall.

Wow. We agreed. But I still have a question. If Genesis can’t be taken literally, how does it verify the Fall?

You have no way of knowing that, since you haven't presented any. But it is very clear that no amount of evidence would dissuade you from your new, man-made doctrines.

You are now agreeing with me that no evidence will dissuade me from my worldview. Nor can I dissuade you. The real argument then is which worldview is man-made?

Sorry, no postmodernism here.[/QUOE]

I addressed this above.



Barbarian observes:
Could, but He says He didn't. He says the earth brought forth living things, as He intended.

As you know, even the early Christians like St. Augustine showed that reinterpreting Genesis as a literal history would bring up logical contradictions like mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

I’m not a big fan of Augustine. He interpreted the Bible through the lens of Greek philosophy. His closed theism is still with us.

Barbarian observes:
If so, you will certainly not be a YE creationist; "life ex nihilo" is opposed to God's word in Genesis.

Young Earth creationists. Even the journal of the ICR is called "Ex Nihilo."
http://www.versebyverse.org/classnotes/Genesis/Gen1.htm

http://www.2cor13verse5.com/?tag=ex-nihilo

It's the standard YE doctrine, indeed, it is essential to YE creationism. If you reject YE creationism, good for you. But if you're willing to believe God that far, why not just accept all of it?

Fair enough. But I have always believed that God created Adam “from the dust of the earth.” Do you believe that the dust was created ex-nihilo?



Barbarian oberves:

Yes. To a YE creationist, either Jesus must be wrong, or the Father must be wrong, since Genesis clearly shows that male and female were not there at the beginning of creation. Jesus meant from the beginning of the human race.

If you want to be woodenly literal. Question: When God creates the new heaven and the new earth, will he take billions of years to do it?

Of course, that isn't literally true, either, because even the story in Genesis says it didn't take them all.

Do I have to specifically state that Noah and his family were spared? If you were sitting at Jesus’ feet when He said that would you have corrected Him as you did with me here?

Barbarian observes:
In fact, God needs nothing at all. But He chose to do it that way. Let Him be God.

In His word in Genesis. Because much of it contradicts your new doctrines, you accept only the parts you like.

You read Genesis as alegory. I read it as straight, forward history.

It's not your worldview, Tom. It's your pride in your own reasoning, which you have set above God's word.

With this last sentence can I not accuse you of Special Pleading? You have applied a standard to me that you fail to apply to yourself. If can quote it back to you and change only the words “Tom to Barbarian” then it’s Special Pleading. If you replace “pride in your own reasoning” with “worldview,” I will agree with you.

Barbarian, it's been fun. I don't see any pont in us going further. I hope I have shown you that scientists are not neutral. All evidence is interpreted through our worldviews. You have one. I have one. Only plants do not have a worldview.

Tom

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian, you’re a smart guy—probably one of the smarter on TOL.

Not so sure about that.

Bob enjoys debating you.

It's nice arguing with someone who is as civil as Bob has been with me.

Are you sure that you do not want to rethink this? Your worldview that you do not have a set of presuppositions is itself a worldview.

Technically, it's a strawman. I'm just saying that I don't buy your postmodern idea that presuppositions rule our understanding.

There is an objective reality, and we can learn about it by careful examination of the evidence.

 

[TeeJay]

Comments directed to a Christian who is engaged in science:

- I am sick and tired of letting science determine how the Bible ought to be interpreted.

Brian,

I will answer your post. I don't want to get into an extended dialogue. I have some health issues I must deal with.

Actually, unless the Bible and God exist, no science is possible.

- Why isn’t science ever asked to rethink it’s conclusions in light of the Bible? Why is the Bible always the loser?

I wondered that mself. When a T-Rex bone is cut in two and red tissue is found, shouldn't scientists be asked to reconsider their argument that dinosaurs died out 65 millions years ago. After all, dinosaurs are mentioned in Job.

When Crick and Watson cracked the DNA code, a reporter asked: Now that we know that DNA is information, and information can't come from chemicals, can we assume there must be a God (paraphrased). Crick, instead of agreeing with Genesis, answered that outer space visitors did it.

This is why I argue that evidence does not matter. It will be interpreted through one's worldview.

- If I am now asked to yield on the on the interpretation of Genesis 1 or the flood story, they won’t science soon be asking me to give up the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Won’t the gospel of God’s grace in Christ and my own salvation ultimately have to be abandoned in the face of science?

I know you're being facetious, but in your facetiousness you are showing more insight than most theists. Darwin's bulldog, Sir (I forget his name), used this argument against Christians, i.e. if Genesis is not true, then what else is not true?

- I must not allow science to dictate my understanding of the Bible

If I give up my Ultimate Standard, then what will I stand on and defend? My Ultimate Standard gives me a rational reason to believe in laws of logic, morality, uniformity of nature, reliability of my senses, and that my thinking is rational. My beliefs are not arbitrary or irrational.

An atheist uses laws of logic but has no rational basis within his worldview to do so. He must borrow from my worldview.

- The Bible is the infallible Word of God, and Christians ought to take God at his word by accepting the clear and plain teaching of the Bible.

You're not Brian. What have you done with Brian?

- Genesis should control my scientific theorizing, not the other way around.

If Genesis were not true, then atheist scientist could not do science or know anything. Before an atheist or theist scientist can do science, he must assume that the laws of logic are absolute, invariant, and universal. He must assume that his senses are reliable and can be trusted. He must assume that he has the ability to reason and reach truth. He must assume that the physical laws will operate in the future as they have in the present and the past. He must assume that the abstract (honesty) will govern his endeavors and those assisting him. He can assume none of these things within his worldview, for none of these comes from the dust of the earth. Adam was made from the dust of the earth, but life was breathed into his nostrils by God. Laws of logic, thought, morality are not physical, and not part of the physical world.

- I am encouraged not to trust the unreliable efforts of fallible, sinful, human scientists.

On the contrary, I trust atheist scientists. I'm glad that Crick cracked the DNA code. In doing so, he strengthened the theistic argument and weakened atheism. Atheist scientist can make great discoveries. But to do so, they must be inconsistent within their worldview when they use laws of logic, rely on their reasoning, trust that the physical laws are law like. Even though they deny the One who makes all this possible, still they can make great discoveries.

- Science has made mistakes and is always changing its mind.

Actually, it's the scientist who makes mistakes--the atheist and the theist. Aristotle argued that the earth was the center of universe. But later, Galileo proved Aristotle wrong. It was not those with a strong belief in the Bible and God that opposed Galileo. It was the Catholic intellectuals who worshipped Greek philosopers (influenced by Augustine) who persecuted Galileo.

If scientists are always changing their minds, then why do they still argue that the last dinosaur died out 65 million years ago?

-The world of scientific theorizing is dominated by unbelievers.

This is not true. I've been watching the debates on Fixed Point between Professor John Lennox and the two Richards. The host of the show, Dr. Taunton related the following: In 1916, a psychologist named James Luba poled 1,000 scientists about their religious status. Forty percent believed in God. Luba theorized that with the advance of education there would be a corresponding decline in scientists who believed in God. To test his theory, researchers did a similar test in 1997. The results were the same as the test in 1916--40 percent believed in God.

- Science (is) secular by definition, controlled by those who are opposed to Christ and his Word.

This is not true. The cradle of modern science is Christianized Europe in the 16th and 17th century. And all of the fathers of sciences were Christian. From Galileo to Newton--all were Christian. C.S. Lewis wrote that the reason for this is that Christians believed that the universe was govrned by physical laws that we could understand because there was a Law Giver Who gave us a mind with which to understand it.

- My attachment to “secular science” and my desire to reinterpret Genesis are sinful.

In the atheist worldview, nothing can be sinful.

- Not a few people have urged me to repent of my sinful intellectual endeavors.

To be sinful or intellectual, you must borrow from the Christian worldview. You are inconsistent, irrational, and arbitrary when you make any attempt to be intellectual or sinful. Now atheists can be intellectual and can feel guilt because God gave them a mind and a conscience. They just deny God as the source of these things.

I'm presently reading a paper by the late Christian apologist Dr. Bahnsen on Van Till's theory that man can deceive himself (self-deception). Paul wrote of this in Romans: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools" (Rom. 20-22). And Jesus said that "the human heart is deceitful above all things."

If you want to read an interesting debate on the existence of God, google The Great Debate between atheist Dr. Stein and Dr. Bahnsen.

Tom

 

[Jukia]

This conversation took place in 1953? Got a citation to that?