Why is one religion so devided?

[NobleMouse]

My point: if science is not allowed to argue reasonably against a religious way of thinking because the science should not tread on the spritiual, religion the other way around should not try to debunk scientific findings just because they contradict scripture. How often you see religious people using scientific arguments to prove the age of the earth or rationalize contradictory information in the gospel or scripture, but when the argument gets out of their control they abandon the scientific rhetoric and claim some moral high ground that cannot be debunked by 'reasonable scientific thinking', as that is always trumped by the spiritual.

Your point here illustrates that some, in error, view scripture/science on level terms. Science and the scientific method is a man-made convention. Conclusions from scientific research is not revelation from God. Science is 'common' - it is not holy, it is not from God. Scripture alone is from God as He divinely revealed to man. There are scientific findings by highly qualified scientists that support scripture and there are scientific findings by highly qualified scientists that contradict scripture, so as a Christian it seems a paradox exists within the fervent pursuit of insisting the scientific conclusions that contradict scripture herald ultimate authority.

It seems an odd breed of Christian that goes to great lengths of debate to insist that scripture is wrong, is simply not true, needs to be reinterpreted and re-understood under the paradigm of science, going on to call the Christian scientists that adhere to scripture as being deceptive and dishonest. They believe what Jesus says about the gospel message and eternity, but Jesus asks us: "For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" (John 5:46-47). Perhaps, Jesus just simply doesn't know what He was talking about and the enlightened Christian can correct Him when they meet Him.

 

[Job 33:6]

Your point here illustrates that some, in error, view scripture/science on level terms. Science and the scientific method is a man-made convention. Conclusions from scientific research is not revelation from God.

Science is just a means of discovering and establishing what is real through observation and testing. You cant just disregard it as man-made, because it isn't man made. Its just observation of nature.

Its like the moon being made of igneous rock. This is a scientific discovery, made through science. But, man didnt make the moon igneous. It was Gods work, man just discovered that detail. The old earth is the same way. Man didnt make the earth old, God did. Man simply discovered this, about 300 years ago.

 

[NobleMouse]

...Its just observation of nature.

Who's observation in nature? It is man's observation of nature - in other words, "science as the study of creation is still man-made".

Its like the moon being made of igneous rock. This is a scientific discovery, made through science. But, man didnt make the moon igneous. It was Gods work, man just discovered that detail. The old earth is the same way. Man didnt make the earth old, God did. Man simply discovered this, about 300 years ago.

Agreed. God made the moon igneous. This is observable here in the present and is 100% provable. The 'old' earth is not the same, you don't observe 'age' unless you see it from the beginning. You can observe rocks, study their content, weight, composition, etc... but the other characteristics such as age, how they we formed, from where, etc... require interpretation/discernment and therefore is subjective. I can prove to you that 2 + 2 = 4 (to the extent that it is 100% true), but I cannot prove to you the order in which God formed the various planets of our solar system relative to Earth... that would require a degree of speculation, some educated guessing, testing to the limited extent that testing can be done, etc... But I cannot really prove the order any more than the age of the earth can be proven. Coupled with that, we know the initial conditions of creation were very different than they are in the present, so this compromises the absoluteness of conclusions drawn using assumptions from present conditions.

 

[Job 33:6]

Who's observation in nature? It is man's observation of nature - in other words, "science as the study of creation is still man-made".


Agreed. God made the moon igneous. This is observable here in the present and is 100% provable. The 'old' earth is not the same, you don't observe 'age' unless you see it from the beginning. You can observe rocks, study their content, weight, composition, etc... but the other characteristics such as age, how they we formed, from where, etc... require interpretation/discernment and therefore is subjective. I can prove to you that 2 + 2 = 4 (to the extent that it is 100% true), but I cannot prove to you the order in which God formed the various planets of our solar system relative to Earth... that would require a degree of speculation, some educated guessing, testing to the limited extent that testing can be done, etc... But I cannot really prove the order any more than the age of the earth can be proven. Coupled with that, we know the initial conditions of creation were very different than they are in the present, so this compromises the absoluteness of conclusions drawn using assumptions from present conditions.

If you see, and im going to go back to our skeleton analogy, the bones of a human being, that are say, 6 feet tall and robust, you can justifiably say, yes this skeleton is older than 1 year old.

That's whats going on here. This is like a 1 to 1 comparison.

If you cant accept such fundamental derivation of thought, then I'm surprised that you can live in this world without being confused about anything and everything.

Without being able to make such simple conclusions, nobody would be able to make sense of things like biogeography, or paleontology, or geology, or biology, or comparative anatomy, or genetics or any science at all. Everyone would just be in the dark. Literally, these fields of study would not even exist, if the earth were 6000 years old, as nobody would be able to make sense of them.

Predictions, such as those used to find tiktaalik, or predictions, such as those of genetics studies that predicted the superpositional location of sahelanthropus, biogeographical predictions based around plate tectonics and mutation rates. None of this would exist if the world were 6000 years old. Plate tectonics and geology would be meaningless. Radioactive studies, meaningless. The phylogeny behind comparative anatomy, meaningless.

We would be scientifically, in the dark ages if we did not know any better.

 

[Job 33:6]

Speaking of predictions, @NobleMouse, what is your response to predictions, such as those involved in the discovery of tiktaalik?

You know, their discoverers, took a map, purely built upon the shoulders of old earth research, they used the map to predict where fossils would be on earth. Got in a helicopter, flew hundreds of miles away to a remote place in nowheresville canada, dug down some 10 feet or so below the surface to reach shallow marine derived rock (also only understood to exist through an old earth understanding), to find their fossils in the mid to late devonian.

Now these fossils could have been anywhere, based on young earth creation/flood ideas. They could have been in precambrian, cambrian, silurian, ordovician, carboniferous, permian, triassic, jurassic, cretaceous, anywhere in the mesozoic or cenozoic at all, in the tertiary, or quaternary rock. But it wasnt in any other rock, and it wasnt in any other location on earth. It wasnt anywhere else in the entire planet, but right where they looked. And to this date, nothing like it has been found anywhere else at any other period or in any other section of the geologic record.

How does a young earther respond to this?

At best, the only response ive heard is of another similar life form that may have existed at about the same time, possibly 10 million years prior (at most) in the mid devonian. Which is further a testament of the predictive power within the succession.

For young earthers who often reject the succession, and reject that any strata formed via deposition in terrestrial environments, and reject things like common descent, how can they respond at all?

 

[Tayla]

science cannot debunk religious claims as they are in the 'spiritual' realm

Science only operates in the physical realm, not in the spiritual realm. It can only judge scripture when scripture discusses topics in the physical realm. Unfortunately, the Bible tries to explain the origin and structure of our physical earth, and in doing so collides with science. In these cases, science should always win the argument.

 

[lismore]

It is difficult for me as a Christian to understand why there are so many different theories about how we came to be.

Some people believe the bible, others don't.

 

[lismore]

In these cases, science should always win the argument.

Hello 316. I would draw your attention to this passage:

8 “Remember to keep the Sabbath holy. 9 Work and get everything done during six days each week, 10 but the seventh day is a day of rest to honor the Lord your God. On that day no one may do any work: not you, your son or daughter, your male or female slaves, your animals, or the foreigners living in your cities. 11 The reason is that in six days the Lord made everything—the sky, the earth, the sea, and everything in them. On the seventh day he rested. So the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (Exodus 20)

The reason we have a literal seven day week in our society is because the Lord created everything in seven literal days. Can you find me a scientist who can disprove that we have a seven day week?

 

[Tayla]

Can you find me a scientist who can disprove that we have a seven day week?

This is not a question of science.

 

[NobleMouse]

Speaking of predictions, @NobleMouse, what is your response to predictions, such as those involved in the discovery of tiktaalik?

You know, their discoverers, took a map, purely built upon the shoulders of old earth research, they used the map to predict where fossils would be on earth. Got in a helicopter, flew hundreds of miles away to a remote place in nowheresville canada, dug down some 10 feet or so below the surface to reach shallow marine derived rock (also only understood to exist through an old earth understanding), to find their fossils in the mid to late devonian.

Now these fossils could have been anywhere, based on young earth creation/flood ideas. They could have been in precambrian, cambrian, silurian, ordovician, carboniferous, permian, triassic, jurassic, cretaceous, anywhere in the mesozoic or cenozoic at all, in the tertiary, or quaternary rock. But it wasnt in any other rock, and it wasnt in any other location on earth. It wasnt anywhere else in the entire planet, but right where they looked. And to this date, nothing like it has been found anywhere else at any other period or in any other section of the geologic record.

How does a young earther respond to this?

At best, the only response ive heard is of another similar life form that may have existed at about the same time, possibly 10 million years prior (at most) in the mid devonian. Which is further a testament of the predictive power within the succession.

For young earthers who often reject the succession, and reject that any strata formed via deposition in terrestrial environments, and reject things like common descent, how can they respond at all?

Thank you for the replies! I've read both even though my reply is directly to just this one. The conclusion of a 6-ft skeleton being older than 1 year is reasonable, but we've seen skeletons (countless times in the entire process of development from an embryo to 100+ years old). How many times have we seen planets and universes and planets being created? Seems an apples to rocks comparison. One thing scientists will never be able to move past is the fact that they are accepting a version of truth (over the word of God of all things!) that has never even once been seen. To the skeleton example, if you had never seen a human being born or growing up and told me that a 6-ft skeleton was clearly over a year old, I'd naturally respond: "How do you know??" Especially if the creator of all skeletons told me to the contrary in a special book he gave to us.

Tiktaalik looks like a fish, and is a fish. There's also a stone fish, looks like it may have directly evolved from... a stone, but that's not true. God created a wide array of marine life and there are a great variety of fish, including 'flying' fish though I'm not expecting them to take to the skies with the sparrows anytime soon. The proposed idea of evolution falls flat IMO because there is suggested a continual process of progression, yet are the alleged 'transitional' fossils you brought up the standard of what is typically found or are these loose attempts to connect to a common ancestor more the exception? According to scientific findings and what is being reported, it is the very rare exception... almost always we hear about more fossils of what has already been identified. Look everybody, another T-rex, another trilobite, another human, another fish, ape, etc... My goodness, with all the transitions that would be needed from the first molecule to every form of life ever found today, we should have mountains and mountains of transitional forms... in fact, they should be the norm with it being rare to find groupings of fossils that happen to closely resemble one another. What is physically observed in the fossil record does not support this though, does it?

I think your views on physical laws are completely reasonable - we can see a landslide happen and observe all kinds of physical laws in action. I'd even say we can see a road covered with uprooted trees, boulders and dirt - look up a steep hillside that runs adjacent to the road and see freshly exposed earth and reasonably conclude yes, a landslide occurred here. I think you had made a comment a number of posts back regarding natural/supernatural that you believe in the miracles as mentioned surrounding Jesus, etc... but otherwise natural physical laws were in action. I think along the same lines where physical laws are accurate and dependable, unless scripture tells us that supernatural events are taking place. We already both agree that physical law does not reign supreme throughout 100% of history (ex. Jesus being born of a virgin). So, in keeping consistent with this understanding, I also read the creation and flood accounts found in Genesis and it is very apparent that this is not describing natural, physical laws (ex. God spoke and...). When God, who is spirit, speaks and physical matter appears, and God speaks - then life appears, and He tells us this happened in 6 days, one would logically conclude these were supernatural events.

 

[Archie Dupont]

Unfortunately, the Bible tries to explain the origin and structure of our physical earth, and in doing so collides with science. In these cases, science should always win the argument.

Wise wise words. If only every Christian would agree with them...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Sad. When the wisdom and knowledge of men (foolishness to God) wins, men lose their lives (and souls).

 

[Archie Dupont]

Some people believe the bible, others don't.

Your point here illustrates that some, in error, view scripture/science on level terms. Science and the scientific method is a man-made convention. Conclusions from scientific research is not revelation from God. Science is 'common' - it is not holy, it is not from God. Scripture alone is from God as He divinely revealed to man. There are scientific findings by highly qualified scientists that support scripture and there are scientific findings by highly qualified scientists that contradict scripture, so as a Christian it seems a paradox exists within the fervent pursuit of insisting the scientific conclusions that contradict scripture herald ultimate authority.

It seems an odd breed of Christian that goes to great lengths of debate to insist that scripture is wrong, is simply not true, needs to be reinterpreted and re-understood under the paradigm of science, going on to call the Christian scientists that adhere to scripture as being deceptive and dishonest. They believe what Jesus says about the gospel message and eternity, but Jesus asks us: "For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" (John 5:46-47). Perhaps, Jesus just simply doesn't know what He was talking about and the enlightened Christian can correct Him when they meet Him.

If science proves a point (with evidence) that would render a portion of scripture void, would that not shatter your view of your own religion? Or would in the case where the base of your religion is swiped from under its feet, that scientific finding we considered in error?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If science proves a point (with evidence) that would render a portion of scripture void

.... Can a dead fish conquer a living lion ?
Can a blind infant catch a blue whale in the ocean ?

Even if that were possible,
no portion of Yahweh's Word can ever return to Him void - HE HIMSELF GUARDS HIS WORD TO ACCOMPLISH IT.

 

[Archie Dupont]

.... Can a dead fish conquer a living lion ?
Can a blind infant catch a blue whale in the ocean ?

Even if that were possible,
no portion of Yahweh's Word can ever return to Him void - HE HIMSELF GUARDS HIS WORD TO ACCOMPLISH IT.

Always the metaphors...

But back to the issue at hand, you would in the case that science contradicts scripture, consider the science in error? If that is the case please discuss this further with @jesus316

Unfortunately, the Bible tries to explain the origin and structure of our physical earth, and in doing so collides with science. In these cases, science should always win the argument.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Always the metaphors...

But back to the issue at hand, you would in the case that science contradicts scripture, consider the science in error? If that is the case please discuss this further

Metaphors straight from Yahweh. (always true).

There's really no reason for discussion, when someone, anyone, denies God's Word.

If they don't accept the standard of God's Word, there is nothing in common, and no basis for communication except to warn others of the danger.

 

[Archie Dupont]

Metaphors straight from Yahweh. (always true).

There's really no reason for discussion, when someone, anyone, denies God's Word.

If they don't accept the standard of God's Word, there is nothing in common, and no basis for communication except to warn others of the danger.

If people want to accept the word of God they need to believe in it. To believe in something is to understand why you believe in it. They can only understand if it is explained with reason. There has to be a reason, otherwise they are blind men walking.

As a God fearing Christian it is your life's duty to convince and explain people of God's miracles and Words. Turning your back on the doubting is privileged and directly contradictory to your duty as a Christian.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If people want to accept the word of God they need to believe in it.

There have been people who said they want to accept God's Word, but don't believe it yet.

To believe in something is to understand why you believe in it.

Why do you think this ? ^^^^^^^^^^^

They can only understand if it is explained with reason.

Ooops, no.

There has to be a reason, otherwise they are blind men walking.

Ooops again. Not a worldly reason anyway...
The world's people do not accept the truth of Scripture, and they oppose Scripture and God.

As a God fearing Christian it is your life's duty to convince and explain people of God's miracles and Words.

Ooops, telling another servant what their duty is , is forbidden by Scripture.

Turning your back on the doubting is privileged and directly contradictory to your duty as a Christian.

What ? (seems like or looks like a lot of supposition there, and see above )

 

[Archie Dupont]

There have been people who said they want to accept God's Word, but don't believe it yet.


Why do you think this ? ^^^^^^^^^^^


Ooops, no.


Ooops again. Not a worldly reason anyway...
The world's people do not accept the truth of Scripture, and they oppose Scripture and God.


Ooops, telling another servant what their duty is , is forbidden by Scripture.


What ? (seems like or looks like a lot of supposition there, and see above )

Seeing your response I agree with you that there is indeed really no basis for communication. Something to do with talking and a brick wall.

Thanks for the effort though!

Blessings

 

[Ancient of Days]

"Unfortunately, the Bible tries to explain the origin and structure of our physical earth, and in doing so collides with science. In these cases, science should always win the argument."

Archie- "Wise wise words. If only every Christian would agree with them"

Then you really don't need the bible do you? Since science is now your God.
Jesus said " you are either for me or against me"