Am I Therefore...

[Fed]

I think that if you follow this line of reasoning, then God is a prolific liar.

Lots of people have looked at the Earth as confirmation of geocentrism. So, trying to reason out what God thinks based upon how people react is a pretty faulty approach. What makes the mostly Western academics the last 400 years so special? Why is this very small crowd the test of what is or what is not a lie?

As a geocentrist, I prefer going by what He said.

Isn't this all a little ironic? God speaks plainly, but we reject it. Then we say, in order to make God not a liar, we say He must have intended that what is communicated through astronomy to a small group of people in a limited time period of history is what is to be taken seriously. And having a human definition of what God's "highest" form of communication should be, by that standard, He is not a liar. I find that extremely ironic.

Fixed that for you.

 

[busterdog]

Fixed that for you.

Changing my quotes may seem cute to you.

Just state your business. You will get farther in life.

 

[busterdog]

Maybe it's that they weren't burned at the stake or tortured by an inquisitor.

Come on. We both know better. The academics did plenty of their own burning.

You mean what fallible men wrote down, which was then copied, recopied, and translated by more fallible men.

God doesn't have to be a liar if men are

.

Interesting hypothetical. Good thing scripture validates itself.

Must be all the liars are scribes too, but not astronomers.

 

[Fed]

Changing my quotes may seem cute to you.

Just state your business. You will get farther in life.

Ok. You accept the authority of astronomy over Biblical literalism in one case but not another - hypocritical.

 

[busterdog]

Ok. You accept the authority of astronomy over Biblical literalism in one case but not another - hypocritical.

Well, lets assume I did (though I didn't).

Where astronomers disagree, can I disagree with any one camp, or would that also be hypocritical?

And are all scientific fields to be considered perfectly consistent with the Bible so that on every point, we know what the Bible should say, because we know what most academics say?

 

[Fed]

Where astronomers disagree, can I disagree with any one camp, or would that also be hypocritical?

Taking a side in a current debate is not hypocritical. Hypocrisy is dropping off one literalist view because it's been falsified but not another. The difference: some issues are being worked out, others have long been falsified. Teach the controversy only goes as far as an actual controversy existing in the scientific community, not a controversy between literalism and science.

And are all scientific fields to be considered perfectly consistent with the Bible so that on every point, we know what the Bible should say, because we know what most academics say?

This is somewhat convoluted, so I'll guess at your intent. We know what the Bible should say - nothing of relevance to modern science. If YECism is really true we would have discovered it without a Biblical account anyway. The point is once a scientific consensus has been reached on whether something has been falsified, holding on to a literalist approach is foolish - in that sense YECism is just as foolish as geocentrism. I've never heard of a falsified theory somehow getting adopted again.

 

[busterdog]

Taking a side in a current debate is not hypocritical. Hypocrisy is dropping off one literalist view because it's been falsified but not another. The difference: some issues are being worked out, others have long been falsified. Teach the controversy only goes as far as an actual controversy existing in the scientific community, not a controversy between literalism and science.


This is somewhat convoluted, so I'll guess at your intent. We know what the Bible should say - nothing of relevance to modern science. If YECism is really true we would have discovered it without a Biblical account anyway. The point is once a scientific consensus has been reached on whether something has been falsified, holding on to a literalist approach is foolish - in that sense YECism is just as foolish as geocentrism. I've never heard of a falsified theory somehow getting adopted again.

So, if the science of literary criticism says you are wrong, what then?

You seem to know who is a hypocrit based upon whether they like your science.

Can the dead be raised, by the way? That possibility was apparently falsified on the second day after the crucifixion and by all medicine since. SO can we drop the name calling now? I am thinking that is not how Gandhi did it.

 

[random_guy]

So, if the science of literary criticism says you are wrong, what then?

You seem to know who is a hypocrit based upon whether they like your science.

Can the dead be raised, by the way? That possibility was apparently falsified on the second day after the crucifixion and by all medicine since. SO can we drop the name calling now?

I don't think you understand how science works. We can't falsify the Resurrection because we have no evidence, other than eye witness accounts. There was no measurements of vital signs on the scene and no evidence left behind to analyze. It's impossible to falsify.

YECism, on the other hand, can be falsified. We can examine rocks to determine age, we can search for evidence of a global flood, we can look for genetic bottle necks existing in all animals, etc... All of this is scientific. That's why YECism can be falsified, but the Resurrection can't.

 

[Fed]

So, if the science of literary criticism says you are wrong, what then?

Science studies the universe, not a text.

You seem to know who is a hypocrit based upon whether they like your science.

Holding a hypocritical belief doesn't make someone a hypocrite any more so than taking a pen from work makes someone a kleptomaniac. There's only one science - I don't get to define it though, and neither do you.

Can the dead be raised, by the way?

Not naturally.

That possibility was apparently falsified on the second day after the crucifixion and by all medicine since. SO can we drop the name calling now?

I never called you a hypocrite.

 

[elcapitan]

Interesting hypothetical. Good thing scripture validates itself.

I'd bet Muslims say that the Koran validates itself. Why should I believe you but not them?

Must be all the liars are scribes too, but not astronomers.

When scientists lie and/or make mistakes, they get caught by the evidence. The lie or mistake is abandoned and science moves on.

 

[theIdi0t]

\

That's a good thing

With all that power, could he also have made your rocks and stars merely look old, yet be young?

DO you deny God the power to create the world last Thursday, "but with the appearance of age: people's memories, history books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and so forth."?

Well, perhaps it's all just a practical joke.

 

[busterdog]

I'd bet Muslims say that the Koran validates itself. Why should I believe you but not them?



When scientists lie and/or make mistakes, they get caught by the evidence. The lie or mistake is abandoned and science moves on.

You can believe who you wish. Why do you bother to argue with people who believe their scripture self-validates anyway?

If science is that kind of process, then the jury must be out on creationism. Works for me.

 

[busterdog]

I don't think you understand how science works. We can't falsify the Resurrection because we have no evidence, other than eye witness accounts. There was no measurements of vital signs on the scene and no evidence left behind to analyze. It's impossible to falsify.

YECism, on the other hand, can be falsified. We can examine rocks to determine age, we can search for evidence of a global flood, we can look for genetic bottle necks existing in all animals, etc... All of this is scientific. That's why YECism can be falsified, but the Resurrection can't.

If you want a scientific process, that's fine.

Just ask the evolutionist scientists not to get bent when I say I don't embrace science, which is a limited process, I embrace the truth. Since you are not presuming to be exhaustive with the truth, then fine. Lets' recognize a distinct arena in which the young earth view is taken seriously.

 

[random_guy]

If you want a scientific process, that's fine.

Just ask the evolutionist scientists not to get bent when I say I don't embrace science, which is a limited process, I embrace the truth. Since you are not presuming to be exhaustive with the truth, then fine. Lets' recognize a distinct arena in which the young earth view is taken seriously.

I really don't see a problem with what you said. I know that science is limited, in that it only explains how, not why. I also know that science is just a tool for studying the natural world, and says nothing about God. I have no problem with your viewpoints.

Can you agree that science needs to remain in the classroom, and that your idea of truth has no right to be in science classrooms? If you can agree to that, I have no problem. The second you start stuffing classes with Creationist ideas, that's when I start caring.

 

[gluadys]

Lets' recognize a distinct arena in which the young earth view is taken seriously.

Sure, and let's recognize that it is not the scientific arena.

Then we can discuss whether it has a legitimate place in the Christian arena.

 

[elcapitan]

If you want a scientific process, that's fine.

Just ask the evolutionist scientists not to get bent when I say I don't embrace science, which is a limited process, I embrace the truth. Since you are not presuming to be exhaustive with the truth, then fine. Lets' recognize a distinct arena in which the young earth view is taken seriously.

The problem here is that if you're going to assume that the Bible's assertions on the way the physical world are true by faith, you're going to have to disregard a lot of evidence that exists in what might be called the "real world". You don't seem to have this problem when it comes to the flat earth hypothesis or geocentricism, so why do you make an exception to evolution?

Creationism is in the same arena as modern geocentricism and flat-earth hypothesis. The basis for all three is the same: arbitrarily decide that a literal interpretation of the Bible is "truth" and ignore the scientfic process.

 

[MrSnow]

Just to keep the ball rolling in the right direction, this thread has a specific purpose.

If we call evolution a natural process, is it intrinically "liberal" or "atheistic" to say that God could have used "natural processes" to make life as it is today? If so, on what basis would you say that?

 

[busterdog]

The problem here is that if you're going to assume that the Bible's assertions on the way the physical world are true by faith, you're going to have to disregard a lot of evidence that exists in what might be called the "real world". You don't seem to have this problem when it comes to the flat earth hypothesis or geocentricism, so why do you make an exception to evolution?

Creationism is in the same arena as modern geocentricism and flat-earth hypothesis. The basis for all three is the same: arbitrarily decide that a literal interpretation of the Bible is "truth" and ignore the scientfic process.

The world is so bloody full of evidence. We all ignore evidence every day on all kinds of things.

My answers on geocentrism are solid answers. Am I supposed to cry uncle here or what?

 

[theFijian]

I was reading a post in the Creationism forum (called "Atheistic Science and Theology", about TE and whether it's "liberal theology" in disguise) and it caused me to think of something.

Needless to say that Mark's asertions are complete flimflam, it has been explained to him that there are TEs among as who hold to doctrinal positions as conservative as he would but that doesn't stop him propogating such falsehoods.

I hold a rock (or a ball, or marble, or whatever) in my hand and drop it. It falls to the ground. If I say that it fell to the ground due to gravitational forces between the rock and the earth, am I therefore espousing an atheist or liberal view point because I didn't say that God's hand grabbed the rock and pulled it to the earth?

This is where I was hoping the discussion on Esther would go (instead we got a bit sidetracked). Is Esther a liberal/atheist book because it doesn't mention God?

 

[peteos]

I haven't read all four pages, so this might have been said already.

The "problem" with TE is not the scientific method, naturalism, or what God can and cannot do. The problem is instead Biblical innerracy. I don't meet a lot of YEC who say God couldn't have created through evolution, but they claim that is not what He told us.

There are many portions of the Bible that we do not take literaly, and I'm sure some TEs here could list some. However, not taking the first few chapters or first 11 chapters or worse literaly is a much bigger step for most Christians. Indeed, in many contexts the very definition of liberal is attacking Biblical innerracy, and while you all may have come to peace with the Bible being innerant and yet having this huge metaphorical history which blends cotinously into real history, most (conservative) Christians have not been able to do this. Not only is there a smooth contiuum between Adam and Abraham to David to Jesus, but Jesus himself speaks of these men (such as Adam) as real.

Apart from Biblical inneracy, I think the only real philosphical hang up people have is death before the fall. They don't want to believe God created a world where death and "suffering" (namely, disease, virus, predators, etc) were created before "Adam" sinned.

I write this as someone who has been thouraglly convined that common descent is a reality, at least as far back as the first mammals, and who has yet to come to terms with this reality and the Biblical narrative. But a reality it is, and one the church will have to deal with as it moves forward. I think 200 years from now, evolution will be so common place, and everyone will finally have understood WHY scientists know common descent is a reality, that it will be accepted in the Church, just as heliocentrism is now, and those Christians will find it silly that we were so hung up over it. But what they will have that we don't is the realization that evolution is a fact and can not be denied, just as we know the earth does revolve around the sun.