Climbing Mount BIAS!

[XTE]

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.

 

[vossler]

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

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.

 

[Mallon]

Vossler, I admire your unwavering faith. But I guess if I could ask you just one question, it would be this:

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.

What is your biblical foundation for believing this?

 

[Willtor]

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.

 

[laptoppop]

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

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-

 

[vossler]

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?

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.

 

[Willtor]

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.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

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?

 

[chaoschristian]

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

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.

 

[Poke]

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

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

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.

 

[theFijian]

We do not have a single sentence that is authoritatively from the Lord, outside of what is in the written word.

The traditional protestant position has been that the Bible as we have it is a fallible collection of infallible works, it is is not the exhaustative truth. This is connected with RMWilliams point that scripture does not contain a list of what the canon should be. The canon was put together by fallible men, but the works they collated are in themselves infallible.

There isn't a scriptural case to be made that truth exists anywhere outside of Scripture itself.

Romans 1:20: "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."

So creation itself speaks of the truth of the existance of God and his invisible attributes. Scripture is not God's only revelation about himself, Creation itself also forms part of the way God has reveled himself. I'm afraid that until certain quarters of Christianity realise this duality of revelation they will always be suspicious of science.

 

[vossler]

But I wouldn't go so far as to say that there is no authority but Scripture.

I understand that is what you believe, but what is that belief based on?

But God has given us many tools with which to search the world around us.

What tools has He specifically given us? Please back up the authority for each.

...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.

Where else should one draw our views from? On basis can you make that claim?

 

[vossler]

The traditional protestant position has been that the Bible as we have it is a fallible collection of infallible works, it is is not the exhaustative truth.

I would agree that it isn't an exhaustive truth.

Romans 1:20: "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."

So creation itself speaks of the truth of the existance of God and his invisible attributes. Scripture is not God's only revelation about himself, Creation itself also forms part of the way God has reveled himself. I'm afraid that until certain quarters of Christianity realise this duality of revelation they will always be suspicious of science.

This Scripture is best understood when we can see it in its proper context.

Romans 1:18-25

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen

Paul is talking about God's wrath for those who suppress the truth because the truth is known within them. What truth is he speaking about but God's power and divinity. The remaining verses go on to tell of how that power and divinity is seen whereever one looks. Notice that this could be done without any evidence outside of man's direct and undoctored understanding. The very existence of His creation and its invisible attributes was sufficient. No explanation was required. Yet today, with evolution, an explanation is required.

It's interesting that verse 21 states that they knew God but did not honor Him as God and became futile in their speculations...professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of God for an image. (paraphrased)

So creation was a testimony of the glory of God, His power, divinity and His invisible attributes, it was not a license to speculation.

 

[Willtor]

I understand that is what you believe, but what is that belief based on?
What tools has He specifically given us? Please back up the authority for each.
Where else should one draw our views from? On basis can you make that claim?

Well as for authorities besides Scripture, even Scripture commands us to heed a variety of sources for various things. But even if it weren't so, as RMWilliamsII pointed out, the Bible doesn't even contain a table of contents. Thus, we have evidence of reasoning behind the canon. Even the word, "canon," does not imply a source, but a measure. Besides that, what of the teachings in the New Testament? Did they not take effect until the individual books were written? Hardly. Acts even talks about various ecumenical councils in which teachings were being evaluated (eating of "unclean" foods, eating with Gentiles, etc.). Did those authorities disappear as soon as the NT was written? Again, hardly. We have late first century and early second century fathers, some of them installed by the Apostles, who taught otherwise. Ignatius, in every single Epistle, emphasizes submission to the doctrine of the bishop. If Scripture has authority that comes from God, then it is necessary to think that there are other authorities as well.

Besides that, there is the obvious example I used of Arius and Athanasius. If Scripture is all we have, then it may very well be impossible to decide between them. What else is there?

As for the particulars, there are a great many. Indeed, if we are to believe the Bible, it is pretty clear that the Apostles and their teachings (whether codified in Scripture or not) had authority. We are told that our reason has authority in what we think about things ("'Come now let us reason together' says the Lord..." Isaiah 1:18). We are given a great many authorities, in fact, even just through Scriptures. Not many of them are infallible, but they are still authorities.

On what basis can I say that two people can use the same text and come to different conclusions? How about the sheer number of heresies that have emerged within the orthodoxy within the last 2000 years (many of which were drawn straight from the Scriptural texts)?

 

[Willtor]

Actually, I'd like to add to this the usual "dominion over the Earth" spiel and the tools that come with it.

 

[vossler]

Well as for authorities besides Scripture, even Scripture commands us to heed a variety of sources for various things.

Please show me.

If Scripture has authority that comes from God, then it is necessary to think that there are other authorities as well.

Why is that necessary? What other authorities are you referring to?

Besides that, there is the obvious example I used of Arius and Athanasius.

Obvious in what way?

If Scripture is all we have, then it may very well be impossible to decide between them. What else is there?

What are we having to decide between?

We are told that our reason has authority in what we think about things ("'Come now let us reason together' says the Lord..." Isaiah 1:18).

Just so we're clear here, our reason has no authority whatsoever, it is only when combined with God's perfect reason that any authority exists, hence the operative word 'together.' The idea behind this verse is that God is reasonable and His demands are reasonable, that He listens. Yet in the end He dictates and requires our obedience. Except for the invitation, which btw is an invitation for us to respond to His decrees, the following text is all about Him and His will.

Luke 5:21 gives a great example of reasoning without God where the Pharisees called Jesus a blasphemer.

The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, who is this man who speaks blasphemies?

We are given a great many authorities, in fact, even just through Scriptures. Not many of them are infallible, but they are still authorities.

Of course God gives us many authorities throughout Scripture. You said God has given us many tools with which to search the world around us; I just wanted to know what tools those were and where God gave them to us.

On what basis can I say that two people can use the same text and come to different conclusions? How about the sheer number of heresies that have emerged within the orthodoxy within the last 2000 years (many of which were drawn straight from the Scriptural texts)?

My question was; Where else should one draw our views from? In other words what source? And on basis can you make that claim?

Actually, I'd like to add to this the usual "dominion over the Earth" spiel and the tools that come with it.

If you don't mind I'd like you to be specific about what those tools are and how they relate to having dominion.

 

[Willtor]

Vossler, you're going to have to approach my posts as cogent arguments. It won't help to dissect them and ask a question that is answered later on in the same post. Go with me half way, here. I'm not going to argue with you if you're going to be unreasonable.

---

Let me work from the Arian heresy. Arius believed that the Son was lesser than the Father; even that he was a created being and that he was not God until the Father made him so (Psalm 2:7, Acts 13:33). From 1 Cor. 8:5-6, he drew the doctrine that the Father and the Son were distinct beings. The Son was a ray of light from the Father, but dim in comparison. According to this doctrine, Jesus could legitimately be called God (as professed by a number of Scriptural authors), but that he was distinct in being from the Father. In some sense, he was fighting modalism which was rearing its head, here and there in the Church. For a while, Arius's doctrines (Scripturally-gleaned) were dominant. Missionaries were sent to Germania and for a while after that, many German Churches were Arian rather than Trinitarian.

But Arius based his doctrines strictly on the Scriptural texts. Much as I don't like to associate him with the Bible, he was a Biblically-minded man (even though the Bible had not yet been made into a codex, per se).

In the interests of making a constructive case, then, would you agree that the Bible is not the only authority, even in matters of faith?

 

[steen]

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.

Which raises the question of what you mean whan you talk about scientific evidence. If you don't believe in it to begin with, then calling on it would be hypocritical, right?

 

[steen]

If Evolution were true, it would just be demonstrated and that would be the end of the debate..

And indeed it is, in most research studies in biology, and have been demonstrated so for more than a century. But the YEC seems very little affected by actual evidnece. Witness Vossler's post about how if there is any perceived conflict, he will ignore evidence for scripture.

So your argument about evidence being sufficient is clearly NOT true.

 

[vossler]

Vossler, you're going to have to approach my posts as cogent arguments. It won't help to dissect them and ask a question that is answered later on in the same post. Go with me half way, here. I'm not going to argue with you if you're going to be unreasonable.

Forgive me Willtor, I'm certainly not trying to be unreasonable but you made three statements or claims that I asked you to support. You didn't answer any of those questions, at least as far as I could tell. Instead you gave me more stuff to understand and disect. I really don't know how else I'm to approach this.

Help me out here.

---

Let me work from the Arian heresy. Arius believed that the Son was lesser than the Father; even that he was a created being and that he was not God until the Father made him so (Psalm 2:7, Acts 13:33). From 1 Cor. 8:5-6, he drew the doctrine that the Father and the Son were distinct beings. The Son was a ray of light from the Father, but dim in comparison. According to this doctrine, Jesus could legitimately be called God (as professed by a number of Scriptural authors), but that he was distinct in being from the Father. In some sense, he was fighting modalism which was rearing its head, here and there in the Church. For a while, Arius's doctrines (Scripturally-gleaned) were dominant. Missionaries were sent to Germania and for a while after that, many German Churches were Arian rather than Trinitarian.

But Arius based his doctrines strictly on the Scriptural texts. Much as I don't like to associate him with the Bible, he was a Biblically-minded man (even though the Bible had not yet been made into a codex, per se).

I've never heard that story before...quite interesting, but how is that applicable?

In the interests of making a constructive case, then, would you agree that the Bible is not the only authority, even in matters of faith?

No I would not, especially in matters of faith. Excuse my simplemindedness, but I just don't see where you're going with this.