Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Miraculous occurrences are by definition outside of the domain of science. The issue comes when rather than accepting that YEC is entirely based on faith, advocates push muddled "science" that isn't science at all.
Right, so since the earth was miraculously created we shouldn’t expect it to coincide with science. I agree that YEC is based on faith.
I wouldn’t say that science can’t tell us anything about the earth’s past, just that it can’t tell us when the earth’s was created. I would also say that we can’t look to science to explain the other miracles mentioned in the Bible either, like Jesus walking on water or being resurrected to life after being dead for 3 days. These beliefs also require us to disregard science.
If the scientific picture of history is so far off that it projects billions of extra years, why would you then trust science for other areas of history? We're not talking individual or momentary departures, but multiple undetected departures that renders science entirely untrustworthy.
Thanks.
I have found that certain beliefs in science are not correct, and when it is discovered that "the "science" is wrong", people adjust, so I would not rely on so-called science that posit hypotheses as fact.
Science doesn't really contain "beliefs" it contains models that conform to the available evidence. As for whether the Bible has been "proven wrong", that's not really an area that I think would lead to much fruitful conversation in the current context.
Yes, science builds models based on the best available evidence. As new evidence is found that either challenges current theories or supports alternative theories the model is adjusted. That's kind of the whole point of the scientific process.
Nope, but given that whether or not there even was a "first couple" is dubious scientifically, whether or not it can be fit with the Biblical text isn't really all that relevant. What generally ends up happening with people trying to make the two fit together is YECs perpetuating dubious "science" and selectively examining the evidence discarding any contrary evidence and focusing on evidence they believe fits with a model built on late 19th century early 20th century interpretations of Genesis that are themselves out of sync with prior interpretations of the Genesis narratives.
I know you told someone to google why you changed your mind, but I’d like to know, too. I’ve struggled with this from time to time, too and really would like to know what made you change your mind. Feel free to send me a PM.
Well, I’d still really like know what it was that turned your belief around. I mean, there must’ve been a thing or two that you read that made you change your mind.
