Climbing Mount BIAS!

I know we all have our disagreements. We disagree with everyone on something or another. There are stronger issues though, and answers that are "closer to the truth".....potentially.....

We all feel that "potential" urge that makes us think we are just all the more right therefore able to express our opinion with unabashed confidence.

TO CRACK THAT, to get the ball rolling in your court, doing your own homework and breaking the bias that keeps ANYONE from actually listening let's play a little Role-Reversal REVERSAL!

I'm gonna ask two sides a question each and please only answer the ? given to you. Hopefully this'll be fun.

TE: Does all the evidence point towards Evolution as a "fact?"

YEC: Does all the evidence point towards a Young Earth as a "fact?"

Hopefully you'll start to look at your own arguments and find flaws in your own court.

Let's see how many we can come up with.

I understand the intent of this thread and I admire the effort. However, I don't believe facts or evidence weigh as heavily to a YEC as they do to a TE, that is unless it's biblical in nature. YECs have always given far more credence to the Bible than to science. I have but one primary source of 'evidence' and from that one primary source all the evidence points to a young earth. For me, all other 'evidence' must be held up to the ultimate source of truth, if it can't be held accountable to that then it is dismissed.

So I guess you could say I'm biased.

__________________
David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise."

Vossler, I admire your unwavering faith. But I guess if I could ask you just one question, it would be this:
What is your biblical foundation for believing this?

__________________
We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.

-- Charles Darwin

I wouldn't have taken on the term, "evolutionist," to describe myself if I didn't think the evidence weighed heavily in favor of it. The fact is, as a YEC, I read all the YEC material I could. I had "The Answers Book," "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds," "Darwin's Black Box," and a number of others. I had read the websites and had attended a Sunday School dedicated to Biblical proofs, including YECism. As I read more orthodox interpretations of Genesis, I found that I wasn't so tied to YECism (though, the interpretations certainly didn't preclude it). At that point, I tried to evaluate evolution from its own merits and found that I had thought that evolution was very different from what it actually was. And what evolution actually was, was pretty well supported (most of the disputes were largely within evolution). Furthermore, I discovered that a lot of what I had been taught, apart from the misunderstanding of evolution, was totally fabricated.

Now, there may come a day when evolution is refuted or made a special case in a broader understanding, but as far as I am able to tell, that day is not today. I'm not particularly tied to evolution. But I do look at it and see reason.

__________________

No. For either position, there are some aspects which need to be explained to fit the observable data. I believe there is less adjustment on the YEC side - that it is a model more consistent with the physical evidence. (The key word in the question for me is "all")
-lee-

Mallon, thanks for asking a very important question. I really don’t know why but I’ve never put something together on this before, so I’m excited about this.

In order to best answer that question I think we need to take a biblical journey. My main scripture I’m going to center on is a familiar one to most of you.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

What this tells me upfront is that all Scripture is inspired by God, the word all is pretty inclusive. Nowhere is man and his role in this process acknowledged. Scripture purpose is there so that a man of God can be competent and equipped for every good work. I would think that the teaching of the creation account would qualify as a good work, wouldn’t you?

To further solidify the claim of inspiration let’s look at 2 Peter.

2 Peter 1:19-21

And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Clearly this shows that Scripture is from God and God alone. It also tells us that no prophecy of Scripture ever comes from the will of man or someone’s own interpretation.

Logically then, Peter makes it very clear that in order to maintain the purity of Holy God's written Word, the source of interpretation must be from the same pure source as the origin of the Scripture itself.

Scripture can only be understood correctly in the light of Scripture, since it alone is uncorrupted. It is only with the Holy Spirit's guidance that Scripture can be comprehended correctly. The Holy Spirit causes those who are the Lord's to understand Scripture

With that as my foundation I’d like to build even a stronger biblical case for the absolute truth of Scripture and how everything else is insufficient.

First of all let’s look at Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith. Jesus himself weighs in on the sufficiency of Scripture when he was being tested in the wilderness by Satan. He uses the word of God as final authority. Three times He quoted Scripture with these three words, “It is written”, each time reaffirming its sufficiency.

Then we have Jesus praying for the disciples and us in John:

John 17: 14-19

I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.

We are to be sanctified in the truth of God’s Word, pretty compelling to me.

Then John 8: 31-32 says:

If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

So Jesus wants us to abide in the truth of His Word and we will be free. Free what what, free from doubt. Isn’t that an awesome promise!

Proverbs 30: 5-6

Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

Clearly God commands that we are not to add to His Word: this command shows us without question that it is God's Word alone that is pure and uncontaminated. In Isaiah it goes on to say that if we don’t speak according to the Word it is because we have no light.

Isaiah 8:20

To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.

Back in John Jesus said:

John 14: 16-17

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

Since the Spirit does this by Scripture, obviously, it is in accord with the principle that Scripture itself is the infallible rule of interpretation of its own truth "it is the Spirit that bears witness, because the Spirit is truth" (1 John 5:6).

So simply, if you want to be true to God, follow His instruction, "Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you" (Proverbs 1:23). If we yearn for truth with the attitude of what Psalm 51:17 states: "with a broken and a contrite heart", then the Lord will honor us and reveal the basic foundations of his precepts.

John 14:23-24

If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me.

The Lord's command to believe what is written has always been something that the believers could and did obey. It is in this matter we must have the humility commanded in the Scripture not to think above or beyond what is written.

Paul emphasizes this in his letter to the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 4:6

I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.

What does Paul claim happens when we go beyond what is written, we get puffed up in favor of one against another. Remember this warning was for our benefit and is something we should obviously heed.

We do not have a single sentence that is authoritatively from the Lord, outside of what is in the written word. To appeal to science or anything else for authority when our Holy God did not give it is an exercise in futility. There isn't a scriptural case to be made that truth exists anywhere outside of Scripture itself. So if Scripture is our source of truth and something comes along that isn't found in Scripture then it can hardly be considered God's truth.

Psalm 119:160

The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.

__________________
David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise."

I agree with almost everything there, Vossler. But I would take issue with suggesting that Scripture is the only authority. To be sure, Scripture is the canon for sound doctrine, and if someone disagrees with Scripture, that person is mistaken. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that there is no authority but Scripture. Actually, I think that puts Scripture in a place for which it was never intended. It is on the authority of God that we have Scripture at all. But God has given us many tools with which to search the world around us.

Beyond that, Scripture is in the understanding. It is still possible to misunderstand a text. Arius accepted the orthodox canon and relied upon it. But he managed to diverge from sound doctrine, anyway. I am not, of course, comparing YECism to Arianism, but the point is that not all views that are drawn from the texts, even if one believes he is unaffected by other notions, are necessarily Scriptural.

__________________

We do not have a single sentence that is authoritatively from the Lord, outside of what is in the written word. To appeal to science or anything else for authority when our Holy God did not give it is an exercise in futility. There isn't a scriptural case to be made that truth exists anywhere outside of Scripture itself. So if Scripture is our source of truth and something comes along that isn't found in Scripture then it can hardly be considered God's truth.

this minimizes the fact that creation, the universe is a revelation of God. In fact we refer to special and general revelation as the two major divisions in God's works.

the metaphor of the two books of God, the book of works and the Book of Words goes a long ways towards fighting this modern notion that Scripture alone is all truth. solo Scriptura is not the Reformation call of sola Scriptura but is a counterfeit passed off as the real thing because the historical and theological knowledge of most modern Christians is so poor that they can not see a difference.

edit:

Scripture does not itself even contain it's own Table of Contents. That is, the canon is to be found in general revelation, in particular, in history. Nowhere in the Bible is there a list of the books of the Bible, nor is there a set of rules on how to determine which books are canonical. So how can Scripture contain all truth if the limits of Scripture itself are not to be found in Scripture?

__________________
i got a warning for flaming.
i find myself unable to participate here as a result.
this being the first of it's kind since i signed into FidoNet 20 years ago.
and am no longer posting to CF.

thanks to everyone who i have encountered over the years i spent here.

Does not compute.

There is enough evidence to confidently say that the fact of evolution is a fact, ie that the change in alleles in populations over time does in fact happen (pun most certainly intended.)

However, regarding the theory of evolution, it is nonsensical within the scientific framework to state that any amount of evidence indicates it is a fact. A theory does not turn into a fact. Ever.

I do accept that there is sufficient (meaning overwhelming) evidence to support evolutionary theory as the present best means in explaining the origins and nature of the diversity of life as we have known it to exist and as it does exist.

__________________

If a Creationist made a similar post, the kneejerk Evolutoinists would line up to claim "Evolution says nothing about the age of the Earth."

Of course, Evolution says a lot about the age of the Earth, abiogeneses etc., no matter what the Evolutionists claim. But, TEBeliever, other than avoiding hypocrisy, you could at least try to keep the scope the same.

I would say the correct dichotomy is for the TE to give evidence that points to Evolution as fact and for the Creationist to give evidence of the fixity of the species. But, even asking such a question of an Evolutionist reveals the scientific bankruptcy of Evolution.

It's absurd to need to resort to finding evidence to support a claim about what's going on all through the natural world. If Evolution were true, it would just be demonstrated and that would be the end of the debate. Its like evolutionist claim there are millions of unicorns running around, but all they can do to prove it is point to hoof marks and claim unicorns made them. Show me the unicorns already, forget what you imagine is evidence.