My YEC Evidence Challenge

[tas8831]

and cud is a word of Germanic origin that was not even in existence at the time the Torah was written. For that matter, I wonder what era ruminants even became a classification? Do you somehow suppose that the writers of the Bible understood the nomenclature of taxon's? Or maybe what a light bulb was? Because that's kind of what's going on here. You are somehow trying to prove the Bible errant by using a word that was not in existence and a concept of classification that was not even yet known.

A most interesting post, and an unwitting admission.

I do not, in fact, think that the writers of the Bible understood taxonomic nomenclature. I do not think that the writers of the bible understood the light bulb. I do not think the writers of the bible understood ANYTHING that we routinely teach or explain to school children today.

Electricity. Mass communication. Printing. Any modern technology - to include the underlying scientific research and support - was well beyond their understanding.

And yet, there are literally millions of people alive today that insist that these ancient peoples - superstitious and technologically backwards compared to today - are to be believed, without question, when it comes to nearly any aspect of reality.

We are told by many that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old premised on the counting of generations in one part of the bible despite accumulated knowledge of the world that shows how absurd this is.
We are told by many that a literal world-wide flood happened only a few thousand years ago, wiping out all but a pair (or 7 or 14 of each) of all things with the 'breath of life in them', and 4 breeding pairs of related humans, and that the entire extant flora and fauna of the world was regenerated in the succeeding few thousand years, all this despite the fact that the several well-established civilizations around at that time did not notice.
We are told when science and the bible are in conflict, the 'wise' accept the bible's tales.
And so on.

Yet here you are defending that same source of "wisdom" and "knowledge" and "truth" based on niggling over the definition of a single word???


You made my day.

 

[tas8831]

Every law, and they only apply to the physical realm; NOT to the spiritual realm.

What is the evidence for a spiritual realm?

You are listed as a non-denom Christian. As such, you realize the importance of belief.

I am more of a deist, I suppose. Perhaps I should change my profile.

The Christian world view puts the spiritual ahead of the physical at ever point.

Then please let me know when the spiritual realm accomplishes something noteworthy in the world today.

 

[tas8831]

Research about the difference between the lobes in teeth! Hoo ha.

It is not just the teeth that are indicative of primary dietary mode. If this were so, then pandas would be carnivorous.

Hoo ha.

Indeed.

 

[Dave-W]

Then please let me know when the spiritual realm accomplishes something noteworthy in the world today.

I would refer you to a book which lists many instances: Shaping History Through Prayer and Fasting by Derek Prince. It is available online:

http://www.livingwaterschurch.ws/Bo...Shaping Histor Through Prayer and Fasting.pdf

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

So, I've decided to ask this question of Young (or Young at Heart) Earth Creationists in a challenge response to AV's numerous 'Challenges'.... though, I'd like to think this would actually be constructive over AV's hypothetical scenarios with no fixed facts... (not meaning to offend of course AV! )

If this universe is a direct fiat creation by God, and the bible is God's word filtered through fallible men, why is it that the second option is believed above the directly observed evidence of the creator of the universe?

Points to consider in a reply:

• We don't have the original books making the Bible
• We can directly examine the world around us, life, the universe & everything in between
• There is tangible and demonstrable advantage to knowing facts about the world around us, life, the universe & everything in between
• The Scientific Method is the most effective method in narrowing in on these facts about the world around us, life, the universe & everything in between

#1. Not having the original manuscripts is only marginally relevant, as the manuscript copies we have are in over 99% agreement with each other, and variations are limited to such things as spelling differences, differing synonyms, word endings, minor grammatical differences, and sometimes an accidentally repeated line. While we do not have the original manuscripts, we can have extreme confidence that what we do have is very near to the contents of the originals - moreso than in any other ancient manuscript. We also have the ability to study the manuscripts in Greek and compare them - so anyone worried that an English translation is inferior can go check.

Furthermore, the scientific observations are filtered through 'fallible man' and experiments are conducted by 'fallible man' - over a far shorter time frame and with less corroboration than the writing of scripture! There is actually a huge problem in the sciences of 'science' taking a back-seat to big personalities or socially pushed theories. As a theory reaches the limits of scientists to test (equipment, finances, time, etc.) the scientific method begins to deteriorate as the theories move from slow, verifiable experiments to math-based models instead. Big personalities (Bill Nye, anyone?) become more important than objectivity, and research compromised as the scientists play to what is politically correct to get grant money rather than sticking to the purity of science, which should play no favorites.
The limits of science and the scientific method - ScienceDirect

#2 We can't directly examine all of the world around us and the universe. Scientists have discovered that this is actually an *impossibility* - as there are clear limits on what man can observe. Furthermore, we cannot measure 'everything in between' - we are even limited in what we can choose to observe. We can find out the location or velocity of a particle, for example - but not both. We also cannot go back in time to directly observe history, we can only make inferences about it based on current observation - those inferences clouded by any assumptions thrown into the mix, and limited by our lack of knowledge on every specific process potentially involved.

Something observed can also have several potential explanations - simply observing doesn't 'prove' any one potential history over another without further data. [I remember a test question from middle school, where two photographs of a mountain were shown, and we were to choose the correct 'time' between the images. Since they were photos, I chose '100 yrs' since it was the only timeframe within the invention of the camera, inferring that it was likely an eruption that caused the difference. Yet the teacher marked my question 'wrong', claiming it was 10 million years of erosion, and that I was supposed to be looking at the change in the mountain and not the fact they were photos. She saw 'erosion' as the only possible explanation for an observed change. I noted several possible explanations, and used further data (availability of camera) to narrow them down.

Or, for a more general example, Darwin observed finch beaks 'changing over time' and interpreted it as natural selection guiding evolution. Creationists observe that there is no net change over the generations but the growth is cyclic. So, creationists interpret that as natural selection guiding normal genetic variation within a kind. The same observation - different interpretations. The observation itself doesn't 'prove' one without further data. In this case, we do now have further data Darwin did not - that variation in beak size is already present in their genes and not driven by mutations.]

Young Earth creationists and Old Earth creationists and evolutionists all use the same observations. What differs is their assumptions and interpretations that they filter the observations through.

#3 There certainly are tangible benefits and advantages to having knowledge of the world around us. However, are they 'superior' benefits to knowledge of morality and God? Few would claim that a scientist who can explain every natural process known to man, but is a greedy serial killer, truly has the advantage over a grade-school educated farmer who abides by the law and shares his crop with the needy. As scripture says, 'what advantage is it for a man to gain the whole world, but lose his soul?' (Mk 8:36) Specifically to the topic of creationism/evolution, it is also important to note that there is no real 'advantage' to evolutionary theory over not. All useful medical and industrial advances have come from other scientific fields, such as chemistry and biology.

#4 The scientific method is extremely useful, but it is not the 'best method in all cases,' nor the only method we can use in understanding the world. The scientific method cannot test or explain morality, sentience, love, God or a lack thereof, etc. It rarely comes into play in determining the guilt of an accused criminal. Also, more relevant to the topic, evolutionary theory does not use the scientific method as repeatable experiments are not feasible for all aspects, current observations do not directly support or disprove it, and it is not a falsifiable theory. Parts of it can be tested under the scientific method, such as tracking generations of bacteria to see if mutations arise, but the theory overall cannot. (In this way it is quite similar to creationism. Parts of the theory can be tested, such as flood sediment layering, but overall the theory is not falsifiable, repeatable experiments cannot be done on all aspects, and current observations do not directly prove or disprove it.)

 

[dad]

It is not just the teeth that are indicative of primary dietary mode. If this were so, then pandas would be carnivorous.

Hoo ha.

Indeed.

Not just the teeth? So? Could those things have chewed cud or not?

 

[Jennifer Rothnie]

Imagine how much more ignorant [the writers of the bible] were about "how the heavens go." If they can't even know rabbits don't eat their own cud why should we think they would know about the origins of the universe and earth? The Bible is (allegedly) the Word of God, I've heard his concerned about people's souls and not about the Bible being accurate science. Most Christians have no problem believing in Yawah and accepting evolution.

I used to be a creationist and I understand how hard it is to be taught if evolution is true than the Bible is false. But that is a false dichotomy. It's okay to accept science and indeed religious people should because that is how they find out about their (alleged) gods.

The word in Hebrew is not 'chews cud.' We should not interpret Hebrew through English translations or modern classifications. The Hebrew 'alah' means “to restore, take up, collect, recover, or regurgitate" and the Hebrew garah is something like 'to scrape the throat,' hence the common translation cud.

Rabbits do eat their own digested food - from their own feces. This fits well with them 'recovering' the food, so scientifically fits the Hebrew term. They also have the appearance of chewing cud in the normal manner, as they commonly make a 'chewing' motion - so if the passage was merely meant to give physical descriptors that Hebrews would recognize so as to know what animals to avoid, as is likely, then it also fits.

Let's not forget all the scientific principles that scripture speaks of which science was far later to corroborate: Visible being made of invisible energy states (Heb 11:3), different types of stars (I Cor 15:21), the suspension of Earth in space (Job 26:7), the wind having weight (Job 28:25), circulation of the atmosphere (Ecc 1:6), biogenesis (Gen 1:11-12), the chemical nature of flesh (Gen 2:7, Gen 3:19), some elements of psychology (Prov 17:22, Prov 14:30, etc.), the hydrolic cycle (Job 36:27-29, Jer 10:13, Job 37:11), recirculation of water (Ecc 1:7, Isa 55:10), hydrothermal vents (Job 38:16), the spherical Earth (Isa 40:22), etc. Some of these concepts were presented by scripture hundreds of years, even millenia, before their first proposition by other scientists.

While scripture doesn't use modern scientific jargon, and generally presents things according to their descriptive nature (that is, how an observer would perceive it), it does not contradict any observation or test man has conducted. Some modern interpretations of data and modern assumptions of history 'contradict' - but that is hardly the same thing.

The reason 'creation vs. evolution' is such a sticking point for many Christians is that if Gen 1 and Gen 2 are not literal, then there is no basis for the fall of man and the need for Christ to come (I Cor 15:22.) Without the testimony of the heavens God made, there is no basis for His authority regarding the covenant (Jer 33:20-21). Unless God made the heavens and the Earth, He would be by His own admission a galse god (Jer 10:10-11). If His word on the creation of the world and of the flood were mere allegories, then there would be no reason to see the coming judgement as any less allegorical (II Pet 3:3-7) And so forth.
Did the author of Genesis ever intend the 7-day creation story to be taken literally?

 

[Motherofkittens]

Evolution has had a huge impact for the good of society. For example : agriculture, forensics, medicine, bioengineering. It's very useful. It literally saves lives every day. What does ID and creationism do?

 

[Abraxos]

Evolution has had a huge impact for the good of society. For example : agriculture, forensics, medicine, bioengineering. It's very useful. It literally saves lives every day. What does ID and creationism do?

When we speak about evolution, it's always a good idea to clarify what we mean by evolution.

1. "Evolution" in the sense that things change is evident because we can observe change. (microevolution, adaptation, variation, even natural selection). This is what we all agree on. This is the kind of observable science that makes well with forensics, medicine, bioengineering, etc.

2. "Evolution" in the sense that all life originated from a single molecular cell and gradually changed into more complex organisms is not evident (macroevolution). It cannot be observed, tested, or repeated. This is what Darwinism claims and is what I and many others have a problem with. What makes you think we need this nonsense?

Broadly defining the term 'evolution' is what confuses those that don't know any better.

 

[Motherofkittens]

Any "Holy book" has their religious followers saying my book has scientific facts before they were known by science. I've heard it all. Scientific facts in the Holy Quran | islam.ru It turns out being really vague and/or already known and/or wrong and/or trying really hard to fit science to the verse or just a good guess. Non religious books and writings do it too. Jules Verne anyone? Now he was impressive.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution has had a huge impact for the good of society.

Yes, it has; but there's a dark side to evolution as well.

While microevolution (adaptation) may save lives, macroevolution is a lie of the Devil that causes strife.

For example : agriculture, forensics, medicine, bioengineering.

Very good examples, indeed. I even use Ray Comfort's banana video to show that God gave us scientists to make a hybrid banana out of a non-palatable one for our eating pleasure.

It's very useful.

Yup ... to a point.

What does ID and creationism do?

ID is a joke.

Creationism exposes cosmic evolution as the lie that it is, and requires God's people to walk by faith, not by sight. Creationism also shows God performing miracles on a universal basis, forcing non-believers to hate that word so much, they use their own term ("magic"), thus exposing them.

The Bible puts it very well here:

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

 

[AV1611VET]

Any "Holy book" has their religious followers saying my book has scientific facts before they were known by science.

As I'm fond of saying here:

Trying to use the Bible as a science book is like trying to use Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.

 

[Speedwell]

When we speak about evolution, it's always a good idea to clarify what we mean by evolution.

1. "Evolution" in the sense that things change is evident because we can observe change. (microevolution, adaptation, variation, even natural selection). This is what we all agree on. This is the kind of observable science that makes well with forensics, medicine, bioengineering, etc.

2. "Evolution" in the sense that all life originated from a single molecular cell and gradually changed into more complex organisms is not evident (macroevolution). It cannot be observed, tested, or repeated. This is what Darwinism claims and is what I and many others have a problem with. What makes you think we need this nonsense?

It is the best and most comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life on this planet that science has been able to come up with. There are no credible alternative explanations at this point, so it looks like we're stuck with it.

Broadly defining the term 'evolution' is what confuses those that don't know any better.

Serves them right for not knowing any better. The information is freely available.

 

[Abraxos]

It is the best and most comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life on this planet that science has been able to come up with. We're pretty much at a loss for other options.

Broadly defining the term 'evolution' is what confuses those that don't know any better.
Serves them right for not knowing any better. The information is freely available.

If I recall correctly you acknowledged there was no scientific observations for the theory of evolution.

Or did you flip-flop again?

 

[Abraxos]

And did the Motherofcats just shift the goal post?

Lame.

 

[Speedwell]

If I recall correctly you acknowledged there was no scientific observations for the theory of evolution.

Or did you flip-flop again?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Of course there are observations for evolution.

 

[Motherofkittens]

When we speak about evolution, it's always a good idea to clarify what we mean by evolution.

1. "Evolution" in the sense that things change is evident because we can observe change. (microevolution, adaptation, variation, even natural selection). This is what we all agree on. This is the kind of observable science that makes well with forensics, medicine, bioengineering, etc.

2. "Evolution" in the sense that all life originated from a single molecular cell and gradually changed into more complex organisms is not evident (macroevolution). It cannot be observed, tested, or repeated. This is what Darwinism claims and is what I and many others have a problem with. What makes you think we need this nonsense?

Broadly defining the term 'evolution' is what confuses those that don't know any better.

Macroevolution has been observed. Multiple times. Just be honest. Your problem with it is religious. When I was a creationist that's why I didn't believe it, because that would make God a liar and if there is no original sin than there's no reason for Jesus and my whole life is about Jesus! I can't live without believing in Jesus! I feel like he's true! I must deny reality to protect my feelings! (my thoughts weren't that clear cut I thought I was standing up for the truth and totally in the right but looking back that's what my reasoning was.) That and I was taught an evolution story that if true was indeed ridiculous and wrong. (Thankfully I finally looked at the evidence head on instead of being fed a version of it. I was blown away at the evidence because my whole life I was just told opinions, thoughts and feelings about god, jesus, etc. and this was millions of pieces of hard evidence not just thoughts, opinions and emotions. So strange and amazing. Truly amazing.) And that's fine if you want to deny science but when you try to take out science and/or put in non-science in public schools, that's a big problem. You be you otherwise.

 

[Abraxos]

Macroevolution has been observed. Multiple times. Just be honest. Your problem with it is religious. When I was a creationist that's why I didn't believe it, because that would make God a liar and if there is no original sin than there's no reason for Jesus and my whole life is about Jesus! I can't live without believing in Jesus! I feel like he's true! I must deny reality to protect my feelings! (my thoughts weren't that clear cut I thought I was standing up for the truth and totally in the right but looking back that's what my reasoning was.) That and I was taught an evolution story that if true was indeed ridiculous and wrong. (Thankfully I finally looked at the evidence head on instead of being fed a version of it. I was blown away at the evidence because my whole life I was just told opinions, thoughts and feelings about god, jesus, etc. and this was millions of pieces of hard evidence not just thoughts, opinions and emotions. So strange and amazing. Truly amazing.) And that's fine if you want to deny science but when you try to take out science and/or put in non-science in public schools, that's a big problem. You be you otherwise.

Show me this "Macroevolution has been observed." I bet you a trillion cents that you'll use variations as proof a fish can turn into an astronaut.

 

[Abraxos]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Of course there are observations for evolution.

Short term memory loss? Must be because you're old and fickle.

Seriously though, you believed that the theory of evolution was a hypothesis which I agreed with. Are you now saying due to peer pressure and the need for man's praise that it's not a hypothesis now? Again lets be careful with the terms 'evolution' which you tend to use lazily.

I could copy and paste to refresh your memory?

 

[LostMarbels]

A most interesting post, and an unwitting admission.


Electricity. Mass communication. Printing. Any modern technology - to include the underlying scientific research and support - was well beyond their understanding.


We are told by many that a literal world-wide flood happened only a few thousand years ago, wiping out all but a pair (or 7 or 14 of each) of all things with the 'breath of life in them', and 4 breeding pairs of related humans, and that the entire extant flora and fauna of the world was regenerated in the succeeding few thousand years, all this despite the fact that the several well-established civilizations around at that time did not notice.
We are told when science and the bible are in conflict, the 'wise' accept the bible's tales.
And so on.



You made my day.

You're making an argument that I do not even know if the answer can be explained to you at this current point in time. First of all, in your response, we have both the physical and the metaphysical being discussed as the same entity. The bible is not just a book someone reads, and God does not only exist on its pages.

I do not, in fact, think that the writers of the Bible understood taxonomic nomenclature. I do not think that the writers of the bible understood the light bulb. I do not think the writers of the bible understood ANYTHING that we routinely teach or explain to school children today..... Yet here you are defending that same source of "wisdom" and "knowledge" and "truth" based on niggling over the definition of a single word???

The first part of this error is the belief that the wisdom, knowledge, and truth of the bible comes from the bible itself. That's not how it works, however, the explanation or reasoning for this is going to be misunderstood. Since we are talking about creationists, we are also talking about a creator and God.

That one detail is constantly either misrepresented or unconsidered altogether. For one there is the Holy Spirit, an attribute of God, and part of the Trinity. This is where it gets tricky... if you already cannot accept God, it is incredibly difficult to explain a relationship with him. But those of us who have a relationship with God are able to ask him about his word. You see.... our interpretations are to be confirmed by the spirit to be held as true. The bible is not a textbook. It is more of an instruction manual of how to obtain insight by asking God, and a constant other variables can be applied against.

Another part of this is Jesus is the Word of God made flesh. This does not mean the bible is Jesus, but rather Jesus is living scripture. Since Jesus is perfect without sin or blemish, so is the word that Jesus was made of flesh from. This is where people trip up. People try to read the bible like it is a novel or something. You will never get a full understanding of the word of God from that practice. You need to go to God and ask him about his word to fully understand it.

Now to the second part of your response. I am not the one finding fault with (someone) in a petty way, or niggling as you say. I understand that the word cud was transliterated as the closest discernable translation for eating partially digested food. That's not an issue for me, nor did I bring it up. It is brought up out of a misunderstanding of that part of scripture as some supposed mind blowing revelation. And even tho it does not convey that point it will be continued to be used because it can trip up some people. It is a moot point used to cause an individual to defend a stance presented instead of what they themselves are presenting.

We are told by many that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old premised on the counting of generations in one part of the bible despite accumulated knowledge of the world that shows how absurd this is.

That's a great point. But to those who read the bible, we learn that the world and God are at enmity. There is a spiritual fight going on here that cannot be perceived, nor understood by those who dismiss it without consideration.

And yet, there are literally millions of people alive today that insist that these ancient peoples - superstitious and technologically backwards compared to today - are to be believed, without question, when it comes to nearly any aspect of reality.

I would encourage you to read my conversation with Bugeyedcreepy. It is not my stance, nor do I believe Christians are to be ignorant, nor uneducated.

In fact, we find examples of those considered as saints or prophets who were exceedingly wise in science, politics, finance and such things. Daniel, for example, was said to be so skillful in all wisdom, cunning in knowledge, and understanding of science that he had the ability to give wisdom to, or to teach, the King. That being said, he was smarter and had more understanding than even the King.

But we also find this:

1Ti 6:20-21 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

We are too are to avoid babblings if we are to keep the faith because they (the babblings) are vain and profane. We are told that science that opposes the truth of the gospel is falsely called science; it is not true science because if it was science it would approve of the gospel, and consent to it. And those who are so fond of such science are in great danger of erring concerning the faith; those who are for advancing reason above faith, are in danger of leaving the faith or never even obtaining it in the first place.

Some of the Bible was not meant to be understood until the technology was advanced enough to explain the prophetic interpretation.

Behold! A great beast gilded in armor like horses prepared for battle. It has the appearance of a locus with the upturned tail of a scorpion. It has the heads of 2 men, the teeth of a lion, and the appearance of wearing a crown. Its movement is thunderous, like the movement of a thousand horses in battle, and like the rushing of mighty winds! It was given the power to kill and torment men, like the sting of a scorpion.