YEC is physically impossible

[Hans Blaster]

I assume you're talking about the Discovery Institute.

They've actually made it clear that religion has no place in a public classroom, and evolution should not be removed from the public classroom, but rather use ID as a means of comparison, or possible alternative to TOE.

The problem with ID is that it is crypto-religious pseudoscience. It provides no explanatory power beyond what was assumed in the first place. It is not a viable alternative to biological evolution. Asserting claims of "designer did it" is no more useful scientifically than invoking the deity they pretend to omit as an explanation.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

I believe the age of man is roughly 6000 years. And perhaps the surface of the earth "as we know it" is 6000 years old, but the planet itself is much, much older. And the evidence to support that is as compelling as the evidence that we orbit the sun. But I see it in the same way that a painting is done on a canvas that already has a painting on it. You whitewash it and apply a new painting. And you can carefully peel it back to see previous paintings. In the case of the earth, it's the surface we're talking about. And if you peel back the painting you will find evidence of earlier paintings. Things like OOP artifacts, Fossilized Neanderthal, dinosaurs, etc.

And when the book of The Revelation of Jesus Christ talks of a new heaven and a new earth, it's talking about a NEW reconfiguration of the surface of the earth for a new age.

I'm not married to this position, but I think it's as plausible as any other. We'll find out when it happens.

 

[BCP1928]

The science in evolution was "aimed at" nothing
but understanding the world we live in.

That some people choose to believe things
at variance with reality* is their deal.

In genrral, such behaviour is mentioned in the
dictionary under the definition of delusion.

The notion that science is opposed to, aimed
at christianity in some way presupposes some
very unrealistic things.

Like that-
-Scirntists are united in conspiracy.
-They are to their core intellectually and
scieintifically dishonest.
-A chosen interpretation of a book about
a chosen religion has such status in the world
that the above dishonesty and conspiracy is
marshalled against it.

* thevreality here is that every relevant
datum point is considtent with ToE and deep time.
For yec the total is zero.

There are scientists who have become "political" or at least outspoken when creationism tries to use politics against science. I think more may do so now that we learn such things as that the same literal and inerrant Bible which gives us creationism also proves infallibly that global warming is a hoax and that Anthony Faucci secretly collaborated with Chinese scientists in Wuhan to create the Corona virus on the orders of a globalist cabal headed by George Soros. Oh, and it was godless scientists who created the mind control nanobots secretly placed in the Covid vaccine. Let's see..now scientists are trying to cover up the fact that drag queens can turn kids gay by reading to them. Who knows what evil science may get up to next unless we can defend the absolute truth of the literal and inerrant Bible from the lie of evolution.

 

[Astrid]

I believe the age of man is roughly 6000 years. And perhaps the surface of the earth "as we know it" is 6000 years old, but the planet itself is much, much older. And the evidence to support that is as compelling as the evidence that we orbit the sun. But I see it in the same way that a painting is done on a canvas that already has a painting on it. You whitewash it and apply a new painting. And you can carefully peel it back to see previous paintings. In the case of the earth, it's the surface we're talking about. And if you peel back the painting you will find evidence of earlier paintings. Things like OOP artifacts, Fossilized Neanderthal, dinosaurs, etc.

And when the book of The Revelation of Jesus Christ talks of a new heaven and a new earth, it's talking about a NEW reconfiguration of the surface of the earth for a new age.

I'm not married to this position, but I think it's as plausible as any other. We'll find out when it happens.

Heres what i like in your post.

You recognize that " old earth" is real, and well
evidenced in many lines of research.

I most like the "not married to".

If I may, I'd like to suggest you spend some time
on historical geology. I could reccomend a most
readable book, written for lay people.
( my geology profv aid if the author, a John
McPhee, wrote the texts thered be a lot more
geologists)

Theres a couple places where your
Interpretations are a bit off, which i can
point out if you wish

 

[Roderick Spode]

Do you have some point to make?
I respondrd to your nonsense about a
scientific theory having a political side,
and debunking the bible with it.
If you think it isnt nonsense my doubt about
interest is appropriate.

The first part I wouldn't worry about. I was just agreeing that no one is attempting to debunk every jot and tittle in the bible. My point is that science does not debunk, or disprove anything in the bible. Including the flood.

I think if you listen to any number of atheist talk show/podcasts it's pretty easy to recognize it's politics. Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial is a politically motivated documentary. It's focus was on biblical creationism. The trial itself was politically motivated, which was not really initially meant to address whether or not ID is science.

Am I saying all scientists/evolutionists or atheists are are politically motivated, are not objective? No. But there's definitely a political side to TOE. It's not uncommon for any major publication when addressing a new discovery of say, a new alleged common ancestor to man, to mention creationists somewhere in the article.

ID will be welcomed with huge interest and
excitement if it ever manages to be backed by
a fact o two.

ID is not welcome because it's assumed to mean biblical creationism, which in turn means a violation of religious freedom.

 

[Roderick Spode]

Neither aimed at the existence of God per se, or even at a particular God but at the theology associated with a particular set of God. believers.

Yes. The Bible.

 

[BCP1928]

ID is not welcome because it's assumed to mean biblical creationism, which in turn means a violation of religious freedom.

ID is not welcome because it is not science. That it is really nothing more than a clumsily constructed Trojan horse for right-wing religious extremism is really a separate issue which people who are are not necessarily scientists can also object to.

 

[BCP1928]

Yes. The Bible.

No, not the Bible. An interpretation of the Bible which most of those who regard it as the inspired Word of God think of as shallow and theologically inadequate. Science debunks it, not because scientists set out to do so, it's just a side effect of finding out facts about our origins.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I believe the age of man is roughly 6000 years. And perhaps the surface of the earth "as we know it" is 6000 years old, but the planet itself is much, much older. And the evidence to support that is as compelling as the evidence that we orbit the sun. But I see it in the same way that a painting is done on a canvas that already has a painting on it. You whitewash it and apply a new painting. And you can carefully peel it back to see previous paintings. In the case of the earth, it's the surface we're talking about. And if you peel back the painting you will find evidence of earlier paintings. Things like OOP artifacts, Fossilized Neanderthal, dinosaurs, etc.

And when the book of The Revelation of Jesus Christ talks of a new heaven and a new earth, it's talking about a NEW reconfiguration of the surface of the earth for a new age.

I'm not married to this position, but I think it's as plausible as any other. We'll find out when it happens.

While newer things do tend to be above older things in the earth surface record (geology, sediments, etc.) there are plenty of things that can mix layers (rock folding, faulting, burrowing and digging, erosion and refilling, etc.). There is also no "discontinuity" between the current "6000-year-old" surface and any older bits below. There are continuous geological, paleontological, and archeological records at any potentially relevant age. There is a continuous record of humans going back tens of thousands of years.

 

[Roderick Spode]

They've had it made clear to them that their religion has no place in the classroom even when disguised as "Intelligent Design"

They base this idea on

1. Most of the members of the DI are Christian. Even though the religious beliefs of any scientist are never a disqualification in principle, it's assumed they have an agenda to push/force Christianity in the classroom.

2. Some of the members have an interest in influencing society as a whole away from TOE's monopoly.

3. A word they noticed that was changed in a publication to be used in a public classroom. The word creationism was changed to intelligent design. It was assumed that creationism meant biblical creationism.

So their assumptions overruled any explanation given by the DI as to their intent. And it became circular, or a Catch-22. When the judge of the trial said ID might be true, but not science; to counter the problem of possibly avoiding truth since that's what science is about, they referred to violation of religious freedom and the Constitution.

 

[Roderick Spode]

No, not the Bible. An interpretation of the Bible which most of those who regard it as the inspired Word of God think of as shallow and theologically inadequate. Science debunks it, not because scientists set out to do so, it's just a side effect of finding out facts about our origins.

We might be talking 2 different things here. Are you talking about theistic evolutionists?

 

[BCP1928]

They base this idea on

1. Most of the members of the DI are Christian. Even though the religious beliefs of any scientist are never a disqualification in principle, it's assumed they have an agenda to push/force Christianity in the classroom.

2. Some of the members have an interest in influencing society as a whole away from TOE's monopoly.

3. A word they noticed that was changed in a publication to be used in a public classroom. The word creationism was changed to intelligent design. It was assumed that creationism meant biblical creationism.

So their assumptions overruled any explanation given by the DI as to their intent. And it became circular, or a Catch-22. When the judge of the trial said ID might be true, but not science; to counter the problem of possibly avoiding truth since that's what science is about, they referred to violation of religious freedom and the Constitution.

The Discovery Institute have made their intentions very clear, in "The Wedge Document" and in the writings of Rushdooney and Schaeffer.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is a continuous record of humans going back tens of thousands of years.

That's a lot of birth certificates someone is in possession of.

 

[BCP1928]

We might be talking 2 different things here. Are you talking about theistic evolutionists?

No, I am talking about biblical literalists who think the theory of evolution is an attack on the Bible and about others who revere the Bible but don't think it is under attack. It is possible, for instance, to regard the Bible as the inspired Word of God without requiring it to be literal and inerrant. It is even possible to reject literal inerrancy without accepting the theory of evolution.

 

[Astrid]

The first part I wouldn't worry about. I was just agreeing that no one is attempting to debunk every jot and tittle in the bible. My point is that science does not debunk, or disprove anything in the bible. Including the flood.

I think if you listen to any number of atheist talk show/podcasts it's pretty easy to recognize it's politics. Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial is a politically motivated documentary. It's focus was on biblical creationism. The trial itself was politically motivated, which was not really initially meant to address whether or not ID is science.

Am I saying all scientists/evolutionists or atheists are are politically motivated, are not objective? No. But there's definitely a political side to TOE. It's not uncommon for any major publication when addressing a new discovery of say, a new alleged common ancestor to man, to mention creationists somewhere in the article.

ID is not welcome because it's assumed to mean biblical creationism, which in turn means a violation of religious freedom.

To the main points.
Research has uncovered data that is directly
contrary to the flood story. A very great deal of data.
There is zero supporting data.

Thats exactly what " disproof" is, in science or
the courtroom.

Your statement is not consistent with fact.

That tends to put your following claims and assumptions in a poor light.

 

[Roderick Spode]

The Discovery Institute have made their intentions very clear, in "The Wedge Document" and in the writings of Rushdooney and Schaeffer.

First off, I'm not necessarily a proponent of the DI. Just defending them in this particular case. Secondly, there's a possibility we may have to cut this conversation short at some point. It happened in another thread. Wouldn't be your fault, but just to let you know. But until then I think it's a worthwhile topic.

The Wedge Document, which I referred to in #2, refers to influencing society. There's nothing illegal about influencing society. The humanists do the same thing. We know that there are humanist members in education, and their interest is in influencing society to remove traditional religion.

 

[Roderick Spode]

No, I am talking about biblical literalists who think the theory of evolution is an attack on the Bible and about others who revere the Bible but don't think it is under attack. It is possible, for instance, to regard the Bible as the inspired Word of God without requiring it to be literal and inerrant. It is even possible to reject literal inerrancy without accepting the theory of evolution.

Is it possible to regard the Bible as the inspired Word of, and including Adam and Eve being the first humans without requiring the entire bible to be literal and inerrant?

 

[Astrid]

Yes. The Bible.

A chosen interpretation of the bible that is
as in conflict with reality as Pi=3.0!

Unless others are not true christians


Please note this Is a SCIRNCE thread, not fir
apolgetics and rule violations.

 

[BCP1928]

First off, I'm not necessarily a proponent of the DI. Just defending them in this particular case. Secondly, there's a possibility we may have to cut this conversation short at some point. It happened in another thread. Wouldn't be your fault, but just to let you know. But until then I think it's a worthwhile topic.

The Wedge Document, which I referred to in #2, refers to influencing society. There's nothing illegal about influencing society. The humanists do the same thing. We know that there are humanist members in education, and their interest is in influencing society to remove traditional religion.

There are members of all religions and philosophical persuasions in education. Most of them know better than to try and indoctrinate school children with what even Christians can recognize as extreme religious views which border on sedition.

 

[BCP1928]

Is it possible to regard the Bible as the inspired Word of, and including Adam and Eve being the first humans without requiring the entire bible to be literal and inerrant?

Yes, of course. Most Christians have no problem with it.