YEC is physically impossible

[Astrid]

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?

Nobody thinks Jesus is a sheep.

 

[Astrid]

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.

Why defend pseudoscience?

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

Let me get this straight.

Biblical literalists who think the theory of evolution is an attack on the Bible should simply change their thinking and regard the Bible as the inspired Word of God, without requiring It to be literal and inerrant?

In other words, drop the literal and inerrant aspects of the Bible in order to embrace evolution?

That's like telling the guy next to you on the bus to get up and let the new boarder have your seat.

There's a new sheriff in town.

Sheriff Darwin.

He will be replacing Sheriff Litteral and Deputy Inerrant.

 

[BCP1928]

Why defend pseudoscience?

To defend a God who lives in a magical book and can't do anything that isn't written there. If you discredit the magic of the book then God has nowhere to live and nothing to do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Research has uncovered data that is directly contrary to the flood story.

"Uncovered"?

Or "made up"?

 

[Astrid]

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.

What exactly could an Intelligent
Designer be, besides a god ?

 

[BCP1928]

Let me get this straight.

Biblical literalists who think the theory of evolution is an attack on the Bible should simply change their thinking and regard the Bible as the inspired Word of God, without requiring It to be literal and inerrant?

No, biblical literalists who think the theory of evolution is an attack on the Bible and who then try to misrepresent it as an attack on God or the Christian faith should be called out about it.

 

[Astrid]

To defend a God who lives in a magical book and can't do anything that isn't written there. If you discredit the magic of the book then God has nowhere to live and nothing to do.

Id hope to hear from the horses mouth.

 

[Roderick Spode]

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.

When people claim that a global flood was impossible, they also claim that it can't ever happen. If anything, that actually supports the global flood narrative in Genesis. The problem is that, for instance, if there was enough water on the planet to create a worldwide flood, and it happened, that would contradict God's promise of never using a flood to wipe out life on Earth again.

Genesis 8:21

21 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though[a] every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

This may imply a condition of the ground that contributed to a global flood that God removed.

22 “As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease.”

This may imply adverse weather that contributed to a global flood that had been removed.

So when scientists say there's no evidence of a global flood, or could never be one (not enough water, etc.), it actually, if anything, supports scripture.

Science doesn't eliminate the supernatural. The flood was created by God for a specific purpose. It was not some random event. And it's been stated here in this thread before (can't remember the specific references), scientists are not going to try and disprove the miracle of the loaves and bread. There's no scientific evidence of bread and fish being able to multiply. It would have to have been the supernatural. So God removing any danger of another worldwide flood supernaturally is perfectly plausible via scripture. No contradiction.

​

 

[AV1611VET]

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

Here we go with that Pi=3.0 junk again.

Do you know what NTS stamped on a document stands for?

It stands for Not To Scale.

1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Just write NOT TO SCALE in the margin of your Bible and move on.

Of course, if you're dead set against the inerrancy of the Bible, then it's a different story.

 

[BCP1928]

Here we go with that Pi=3.0 junk again.

Do you know what NTS stamped on a document stands for?

It stands for Not To Scale.

1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Just write NOT TO SCALE in the margin of your Bible and move on.

Of course, if you're dead set against the inerrancy of the Bible, then it's a different story.

OK, so I'll mark "not to scale" against the age of the Earth and move on.

 

[Roderick Spode]

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

I addressed that in #2.

Do you think there's something wrong or illegal about influencing society?

 

[partinobodycular]

Just write NOT TO SCALE in the margin of your Bible and move on.

So now you're saying that the bible isn't literal?

 

[BCP1928]

I addressed that in #2.

Do you think there's something wrong or illegal about influencing society?

No. But I think it is reprehensible to try to use pseudoscience as a cover for "influencing" schoolchildren towards Dominionism. It is reprehensible to try to introduce pseudoscience into the public schools for any reason.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nobody thinks Jesus is a sheep.

Who are you trying to convince?

Us, or your classmates?

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

John 1:36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

Only an academian would feel they have to clarify that He is not an Ovis aries.

The kids in our nursery already know the difference.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, biblical literalists who think the theory of evolution is an attack on the Bible and who then try to misrepresent it as an attack on God or the Christian faith should be called out about it.

God is the God of creation, not evolution.

God brought forth finished products in Genesis 1.

 

[AV1611VET]

Id hope to hear from the horses mouth.

Mr Ed came into existence the same day Adam & Eve did.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

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

Your point is valid. However, I'm 70 and at this point in my life I'm more interested in digging into the history of our bibles and, frankly, prayer and doing His will. I'm about done with this "phase" of my life (the physical phase) and there are just too many things to study. I'm more about warning young people where they are headed. I also see 2024 as measuring up to be one for the history books, like 1939, and 2025 to be like 1940-1945, only worse. So I enjoy talking about this subject and trying to get others (as well as myself) to question their beliefs and biases, but it's more centered around discussing with believers. especially YEC believers. The other more important topic is the fate of the lost. I'm a strong CI proponent (vs ECT). And also the dependence so many Christians have on works.

But seriously, I appreciate the information.

 

[AV1611VET]

OK, so I'll mark "not to scale" against the age of the Earth and move on.

X-ing a paragrab, are we?

 

[Halbhh]

In the past it appeared you might often mistake things I say possibly from not reading more fully/carefully (perhaps you'd have thought you already know what is being said, and just skim some of a post, not bother to see quotes, etc., and then fill in the blanks (parts you didn't read carefully) with imagined other things you expect, instead of what is there.

Your conflated usage of the term 'flood' in the biblical context, with a pre-biotic water world, in order to highlight a supposedly overly broad statement, I also find, as being about as clear as mud. This is not the first time you've used flawed and confused analogies, which only end up appearing as an attempt to conceal an undistinguished tenet.

Scientific thinking seeks displays of the principles of an argument in the argument itself. Dismissals predicated by your use of 'of course ..' are insufficient, because the speaker's personal interpretations are irrelevant in the first place.

You always seem to do badly when you jump in to respond to me in a thread where I was talking with someone else -- you more often seem to mistake what I'm saying, etc.

But here maybe you simply are unaware that nature could flood the Earth. (just physics in action)

Flooding a majority of all the dry land of Earth (say 60%+) in just weeks. (water that would mostly recede then in months or a year) Quite possible. When I pointed that out and how (giving a mechanism), it was to correct one of the errors in an overly broad statement that neither god nor nature could do that. Nature could do so, so the statement is false, but that wasn't the main reason I responded. I don't try to correct all mistaken ideas I see. I have what I think is more useful goal: to suggest that someone become more careful in their thinking, and not assume overly broad conclusions. In short, attempt to be more scientific, and therefore not assume unexpected or amazing events could never happen.

If anyone can manage to be more cautious in their thinking and avoid overly broad conclusions, they will do better in all sorts of ways. I wish more would choose that more cautious approach to making conclusions. Many people end up living in a mental world full of egregious falsehoods from jumping to overly broad conclusions and never doubting their assumptions.