Why do YECs refuse to do real science?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Back to Alexandria v Antioch. I am closer to Antioch and you to Alexandria. Where you see allegory I may often prefer to talk about typology. But I do not go all the way to the Antiochian position because of the way Jesus and the apostles used OT scriptures. A historical-grammatical method is not enough to explain this.

Philos method was speculative in my view although he did accept the literal historical meaning as a starting point in most cases. The conclusions he draws become using the Bible to decorate his prior Platonism.
I would have thought typology was a form of allegory, a bit more formalised, with lists worked out of what different things symbolise, but allegory all the same. It is very easy to read you own world view into scripture whatever your approach to scripture. Ironically, today we see this more with literalists who often try to read modern science into scripture just as readily as Philo read his Platonism. It is the TEs here who try to understand how scripture was written in a very different cultural context. It still speak to us today, but the cultural context is not the message God was communicating.

I started off quite Antiochian myself, but this was challenged by the rich use of metaphor and alegory in scripture, and as you say, by Jesus and the apostles treating OT scriptures in a very disturbing way for someone who preferred a more historical-grammatical approach.

One distinction should be made. There are two types of allegory we find in scripture, historical passages that are given an allegorical interpetation, like Paul with Hagar and Sarah. There are also plenty of passages written as allegories, metaphors or parables. (And you have whole passages where the allegory is acted out in history, the OT ceremonial law for example.) I don't think the creation account were ever meant to be read as literal history. We certainly don't see them interpreted as literal history in the rest of the bible.

Happy Christmas folks, have a joyful and blessed day.
 
Upvote 0

archaeologist2

Active Member
Dec 14, 2008
278
18
✟517.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
there is nothing wrong with this post as it states my reasons for not continuing participating in this thread. if the TE's and other alternative believing people cannot handle the truth or someone's reasons then they cannot expect their opponents to handle nor accept their reasoning for holding to their heresy.

i have chosen not to continue in this thread forthe following reasons:

1. i have said just about all that is needed to be said on the topic and i do not need to keep repeating myself nor waste time answering false accusations and badly applied scriptures.

2. the premise of this thread is biased. it assumes that the secular world has the right definition to what is 'real science' and everything else is wrong or junk. not true.

3. the people engaging me are not being honest with themselves but look for excuses and justifications to continue disobeying God and there is a time to stop talking to them and let God deal with their rebellion, disobedience and sinful pursuits.

4. the arguments presented by those engaging me are desgined to waste time and as they have no inclinationto re-exmine their direction in light of all of God's word and continue to allow themselves to try to have their cake and eat it too.

5. they resort to personal attacks, insults, false labeling, false accusations to make their point and justify their pursuit of sin. we all know that evolution and its offshoots are wrong, a lie and meant to lure people away from God and the truth and it is a shame that christians blindly follow along behind it lapping up the lies, the conjecture, while making a mockery of God and His word.

6. even God stops giving warnings and stops talking to people when they refuse to listen. like noah entering the ark, God has to shut the door and no more entrants will be allowed in and people die in their sins. in noah's time thepeople had 120 years so time is running out for those who continue to call God a liar and pursue secular ways.

7. their interpretation and use of the Bible comes from their own understanding or the secualr world's. in either case neither are of God and they are wrong.

8. the hiding behind the word 'interpretation' means they are followng Bultman and the existential crowd who said that what scriptures means to you may not mean the same way to me. that makes God word subjective and subject to the whims of man and that is wrong as well. it is all an excuse to continue to avoid the truth.

9. God's word is not subjective or it would not be God's word nor the truth. if it was subjective then there would be no standard for the world to follow and nothing better to call the world to. plus God would not be able to judge sinners and send peopleto hell for His word changed depending upon the person reading the Bible and He would ave no constant with which to measure people and their lives.

10. dealing with TE's is as bad as dealing with hardcore atheists, no matter what you say they will find a reason or excuse to dismiss it and continue in their sin. as an example, hard core atheists keep demanding proof, well even if we found the ark they would find some reason to dismiss that discovery as a fake or not the real thing. TE's are the same way, nomatter which scripture you show that proves them wrong, they will find some reason or excuse to ignore God's word.

whether they call it your 'man made rules', or 'your interpretation' or what ever the reason, they do not want the truth, they want to pursue their selfish desires. and continue to delude themselves or be deceived.

so i am out of this thread now, they have had another warning and i am not going to waste time nor energy repeating what they have already heard and ignored. this act of departure does not signal that i lost, have no more evidence or am chicken. i am just not going to waste time on those who will not change. those that have encountered me have not proven their point , have not provided one shred of evidence to back their position up, have provided not one scripture which shows they are right nor shown Gen 1 or creation to be wrong.

they should not pat themselves on the back because they didn't win anything here, they are just being left to their sin because of their hardhearts and stiff necked attitude.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Nilloc
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
37
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟26,381.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
there is nothing wrong with this post as it states my reasons for not continuing participating in this thread. if the TE's and other alternative believing people cannot handle the truth or someone's reasons then they cannot expect their opponents to handle nor accept their reasoning for holding to their heresy.

Was anyone saying there was anything wrong? Methinks thou dost protesteth too much.

But I'm more than happy to oblige. ;)
7. their interpretation and use of the Bible comes from their own understanding or the secualr world's. in either case neither are of God and they are wrong.

8. the hiding behind the word 'interpretation' means they are followng Bultman and the existential crowd who said that what scriptures means to you may not mean the same way to me. that makes God word subjective and subject to the whims of man and that is wrong as well. it is all an excuse to continue to avoid the truth.

Oh sure. Tell that to Jesus.

And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How do you read it?"
[Luk 10:25-26 ESV; emphasis added]

Was Jesus a Bultmannian truth-denying existentialist?
 
Upvote 0

HuntingMan

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2006
8,341
143
57
✟9,310.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Crawling around the web I notice a lot of YECs who are convinced that evolution is crap and they can prove beyond any shadow of doubt that they are right.
We ALL are looking at EVIDENCE and since none of us was actually THERE we cannot 'prove' anything as far as how it was done.....and to demand as much is an absurd request since we all know we CANT prove much of anything.

Evolutionists have theory to try to explain how things came about....YECs start with Gods word and try to explain how Gods account fits with the evidence. Both sides try to fit the evidence into their viewpoint....that much is fact.

Old earth contradicts the Scriptures
by WmTipton

Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
This article is just to briefly cover a point or two from Gods word to show that old earth theory is contradictory to the bibles account 'as written'.
This article is making no claims about interpretation of 'scientific' evidence, but solely about the wording of Genesis in Gods account

Supporting Evidence
The bible does not show that the earth is millions of years old
The Hebrew word for 'day' can mean long ages unless it is further defined by the surrounding context....'an evening and a morning' is that context.
Especially when a 'day' is very clearly defined in Genesis itself.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.
And the evening and the morning were the first day.
(Gen 1:3-5 KJV)
We have a planet called earth and we have a source of light.
We have a dark side of this planet earth and a light side, separated by God into 'day' and Night'
All that is needed now for an evening and a morning is rotation.
An evening and a morning show fairly conclusively that we are talking about a single earth rotation day.

There was a man named Adam made on the 6th day of creation.
This mans genealogy can be show all the way up to Christ in the scriptures, even with many of the lifespans given in exact years.

Scripture does not support that the earth has been here for even millions of years, let alone billions.

2.0
The 'light'.

Scripture shows that the sun was created on day 4 of the creation week.
And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night, and the stars also. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night; and to divide between the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
(Gen 1:16-19 MKJV)
Plantlife, however, was created on day 3.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth tender sprouts (the herb seeding seed and the fruit tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself) upon the earth; and it was so. And the earth brought forth tender sprouts, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed was in itself. And God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.
(Gen 1:11-13 MKJV)
Since we know factually that plant life, all life on this planet for the most part, REQUIRES the energy and light given from our sun to exist, the logical assumption is that this light set into place with the words 'let their be light' MUST have been equivalent TO the sun to keep this plant life alive until the sun was put into place on day 4.

3.0
Things we infer from the text;

-the 'light' mimicked the sun...which the evidence supports conclusively since there was plant life being supported before the suns creation on day 4.

-the earth rotated ....which the evidence supports conclusively since this 'evening and morning' are spoken of in the same exact manner both BEFORE the sun was created on day 4 and AFTER the sun was created on day 4.

We see that the situation was the same both BEFORE the sun was created and AFTER it was created. There was 'day and night' and 'evening and morning' and plant life existed, leaving no other logical conclusion that can be inferred from the texts OTHER than this light created before the sun MUST have been similar to our sun.

4.0
The man Adam

Man was created on the 6th day of creation.
God rested on the 7th day.

Here in Genesis 1 we see the creation of this man and woman.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: ............. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
(Gen 1:27-31 KJV)

And here in Genesis 2 we see more detail added to about this man and woman who were created from the dust of the earth and then put into the garden.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
(Gen 2:7-8 KJV)

We know that Adam was the first 'man' because that is exactly what scripture confirms.
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
(1Co 15:45 KJV)

The man Adam and his wife Eve were created on the 6th day of creation.
This man Adam lived to be 930 years old.
Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years. And he died.
If the creation days were not single earth rotation days, then Adam would have had to have been older than scripture accounts for.
If the creation days were even a decade long, then Adam would be ten years older than he was, thus scriptures account of his lifespan is false.
 
Upvote 0

Breckmin

Junior Member
Sep 23, 2008
1,305
53
Gresham, OR USA
✟17,883.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
interpretation of evidence

Evolutionists have theory to try to explain how things came about....YECs start with Gods word and try to explain how Gods account fits with the evidence. Both sides try to fit the evidence into their viewpoint....that much is fact.

While it IS true that the YEC puts on the "biblical glasses" (as Dr. John
Morris always used to refer to back in the late 70's and early 80's), I
would take issue with the title of the OP of this thread that questions:

"Why do YECs refuse to do real science?"

Although I am not currently a YEC (because of stellar kinematics and
apparent magnitudes), I would say that the question is guilty of petitio
principii and begs "What is real science?"

IOW, the question is a pseudo question because it has a false assumption,
that young earth creationists are not engaged in real scientific observations and explanations. In every field of science, YEC's have
explanations, theories and alleged evidence for their assertions, or
interpretations of such evidence. Although, I may not agree with all of
them, they do make valid points regarding the circular assumptions in
radiometric dating and plate techtonics. For instance, the assumption
of uniformity is really a circular assumption, with a total disregard for
enviromental conditions which could have been different. Likewise,
the decay routes of uranium 238 to lead 206 and U 238 to lead 207 are
also calculated based on a variety of assumptions which they reasonably
exposed (assumptions regarding thorium. zircon crystals, parent/
daughter isotopes and radio active decay which makes assumptions
regarding the assumed parent, and all the rest). It has been awhile,
so I must admit I am rusty on all of the objections that YEC's expose
in radiometric dating for each of the methods (14c, rubidium 87-strontium 87,potassium-argon, argon-argon, etc) Often the objections in assumptions are based on the same principle. Perhaps I can research
and find an article for you, but in my observations I have not observed
YECers ever refusing to address scientific observation. Perhaps you are
unfamiliar with their scientific objections, interpretation of evidence, and
alleged evidence which conflicts with conventional infrastructures of so
called "peer review."

The fact is, guys like John Baumgardner and Marc Ross and many other
YECers do NOT hide their head in the sand. They have no problem
providing scientific objections regardless of whether or not we agree with
them.

This thread asks a pseudo question.
~Michael
 
Upvote 0

Breckmin

Junior Member
Sep 23, 2008
1,305
53
Gresham, OR USA
✟17,883.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

The problem with the whole concept of the video is it is nothing more
than an appeal to consensus gentium. If the whole world used ten's of
thousands of inductions and invalid assumptions based on circular reasoning and only one person was a creationist who saw through the
maze of inductions, it would not make the creationist wrong in his
submission to creation and interpretation of observed scientific evidence.

The problem is not "so called" evolution (speciation or micro evolution).
The real problem is the absurdity of universal common descent that I
was once seduced into by scientific inductions.

There is a way out of the maze....

Question everything. It just might lead you in the right direction.

~Michael
 
Upvote 0

Breckmin

Junior Member
Sep 23, 2008
1,305
53
Gresham, OR USA
✟17,883.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I think Jesus did know that Genesis was true and this is why he did not contradict the scriptures the Holy Spirit had inspired about this.

Yet, He could read minds? He doesn't know that the scripture He came
to fulfill is true or untrue?



Indeed he affirms the authority of the whole Pentateuch on innumerable occasions and conventional interpretations about it e.g. Mosaic authorship. If Jesus had questioned the veracity of the original Genesis inspiration it would have cast doubts on who he was,
So He must remain in ignorance so that He is not deceptive??? He must
falsely validate the law and the prophets for appearances sake???

as he would have been directly contradicting the obvious intent of scripture.

An intent of the Holy Spirit is to give a false historical record for the sake
of moral truth or moral value???


That he reinterpreted aspects of the law in the light of his arrival on earth is clear e.g. food laws and ceremonial laws. He also reaffirmed truthes from before the law that had been lost e.g. the equality of women and the worth of even lowborn slaves and gentiles in the way he dealt with and spoke to people. BUt he left the basic background structure in tact e.g. creation.

What about the historical record of original sin? Why make claims about
the "days" of Noah, if Noah was nothing more than a myth to teach a
moral truth?? How can you have a reference for original sin and not
have it be historical???? Until you explain how humankind fell from
God's grace through disobedience I believe the above argument needs
to untangle some knots before you hang yourself based on logical
progression.

Michael
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
26,208
11,442
76
✟368,072.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The problem is not "so called" evolution (speciation or micro evolution).
The real problem is the absurdity of universal common descent that I
was once seduced into by scientific inductions.

The evidence clearly shows the fact of common descent. Would you like to learn about some of it?

There is a way out of the maze....

Question everything. It just might lead you in the right direction.

It did. But not the direction you'd like it to be.

Here's a way out for you:

1. What are the three most-cited scientific reasons in the scientific literature for accepting common descent?


2. Why are the discoveries of predicted organisms in the fossil record, evidence for common descent?

3. Why is the sorting of fossils in the geologic column evidence for common descent?

Get those right, and you're well on your way.

Good luck.
 
Upvote 0

Breckmin

Junior Member
Sep 23, 2008
1,305
53
Gresham, OR USA
✟17,883.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I don't believe in luck, I believe in praying for protection from that which is untrue.

What global event is missing from your interpretation of the fossil record? If you
start with the wrong assumptions which deny the possibility of such a global event
then you will indeed end up with a faulty conclusion.

It still would be evasive to the premise that commonalities do not equal relatedness.
Michael
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
26,208
11,442
76
✟368,072.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I don't believe in luck,..

God has a different opinion:

Ecclesiastes 9:11 I turned me to another thing, and I saw that under the sun, the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the learned, nor favour to the skillful: but time and chance in all.

I believe in praying for protection from that which is untrue.

Some things, He expects you do to for yourself. You could do some investigation and learn why most Christians don't think Genesis is literal in many places.

What global event is missing from your interpretation of the fossil record?
Not any I know about. Being an orthodox Trinitarian Christian, I know that the flood of Genesis is not a worldwide flood.

If you start with the wrong assumptions which deny the possibility of such a global event then you will indeed end up with a faulty conclusion.
Rather, if you start with the asssumption that "eretz" means "worldwide", you will be led to the false doctrine of a worldwide flood.

God is truth. A Christian should never be afraid of the truth. "Truth cannot contradict truth." - Pope John Paul II
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,728
7,756
64
Massachusetts
✟342,516.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What global event is missing from your interpretation of the fossil record? If you
start with the wrong assumptions which deny the possibility of such a global event
then you will indeed end up with a faulty conclusion.
The founders of modern geology all started with the assumption of a global flood, and attempted to explain what they saw in the rocks in terms of a flood. They failed badly. Then they tried a series of flood and other catastrophes, and they still failed. Eventually they were forced to the conclusion that the world was very old, that life had been around for many millions of years, and that it had changed over time.

That's how real science works. It doesn't start with an assumption and stick with it regardless of the data.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,154
51,515
Guam
✟4,910,183.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That's how real science works. It doesn't start with an assumption and stick with it regardless of the data.
What would "real science" say about the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead?
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
26,208
11,442
76
✟368,072.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
What would "real science" say about the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead?

Nothing at all. Science is too weak a method to handle the supernatural. For that you need other ways of understanding. Fortunately, He gave us those means. Use them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,154
51,515
Guam
✟4,910,183.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Nothing at all. Science is too weak a method to handle the supernatural. For that you need other ways of understanding. Fortunately, He gave us those means. Use them.
Will-do --- thanks for the advice --- ;)
 
Upvote 0

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
51
Bloomington, Illinois
✟11,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
What would "real science" say about the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead?

Interesting, what do you think science should be able to say about an event that left no physical evidence and was not even witnessed at the time it happened?

As I have said before, creationists seem to put far more faith in science then anyone who works in the field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

Buho

Regular Member
Jun 16, 2005
512
27
45
Maryland, USA
Visit site
✟8,307.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Barbarian said:
1. What are the three most-cited scientific reasons in the scientific literature for accepting common descent?

2. Why are the discoveries of predicted organisms in the fossil record, evidence for common descent?

3. Why is the sorting of fossils in the geologic column evidence for common descent?
1. What are the three most-cited scientific reasons in the scientific literature for rejecting common descent?

2: Why is homology always dogmatically treated as evidence for common descent and not for common design, except when it's not (convergent evolution)? Why isn't common design considered, particularly in the light of the unarguable existence of a Creator?

3: Why is the sorting of fossils in the geologic column always dogmatically evidence for common descent and not evidence for recent creation and catastrophisism?

Answer those questions and you're well on your way.

Grace and peace.

sts said:
The founders of modern geology all started with the assumption of a global flood, and attempted to explain what they saw in the rocks in terms of a flood. They failed badly.
No, the creationists of the time faded out. They were not ousted by solid scientific deliberation. The scientific criticisms of uniformitarianism raised then are still with us today. You are revising history.

artybloke said:
Which is why I'm praying for protection form the lies of creationism.
There lies the path of prejudice and bigotry. I would not say the reverse, that I pray for protection from the lies of evolutionists. Evolutionists say many truthful things. What is important is that we discern truth no matter where it may come from. Mark 9:38ff.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Breckmin

Junior Member
Sep 23, 2008
1,305
53
Gresham, OR USA
✟17,883.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
1. What are the three most-cited scientific reasons in the scientific literature for rejecting common descent?

2: Why is homology always dogmatically treated as evidence for common descent and not for common design, except when it's not (convergent evolution)? Why isn't common design considered, particularly in the light of the unarguable existence of a Creator?

3: Why is the sorting of fossils in the geologic column always dogmatically evidence for common descent and not evidence for recent creation and catastrophisism?

Answer those questions and you're well on your way.

Grace and peace.


No, the creationists of the time faded out. They were not ousted by solid scientific deliberation. The scientific criticisms of uniformitarianism raised then are still with us today. You are revising history.


There lies the path of prejudice and bigotry. I would not say the reverse, that I pray for protection from the lies of evolutionists. Evolutionists say many truthful things. What is important is that we discern truth no matter where it may come from. Mark 9:38ff.

Good job Buho. You saved me some time.

For the record, I personally do not believe that the flood had to be
higher than all mountain tops, especially those that may have been
forming or may have just formed and cooled. The more I study I am
coming back to the idea that the flood was probably world wide.

How about the Theistic evolutionists here give several of the reasons
why Baumgardner and others believe in a worldwide flood??? Scientific
reasons, and NOT just biblical reasons....

Alleged reasons still exist, even if you "ignore" them they are still there.
Michael
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.