A question for Young Earth Creationists

[shernren]

It's really eerie to hear so many agreements from you.

I'm glad you recognize the symbolism of water. Water has, for the Jews, always been associated with Hades. They had a definite fear of it. For us, the simple fact that He was walking over a form of death provides a realistic understanding also, yet not nearly as complete as it was to them at the time. An example where we can glean the truth but just a weaker rendition of it. Isn't God awesome!

Quibble. Water is associated with the abyss but is the abyss Hades? The first mention of water in Genesis 1 has to do with the primeval chaos, not so much the afterlife or punishment for sins (which wasn't that closely connected with afterlife in Jewish thought, yet). Creation begins with the Spirit brooding over waters, the Flood is quite literally an un-creation with the waters being allowed to overstep their bounds for a limited time, and of course there is the Beast from the Sea in Revelation. Water is primarily a symbol of chaos. I'm not sure if I've seen water associated with death before. Maybe baptism and specific references to the Red Sea crossing but not as an overarching image in Scripture.

Good points, at least when addressed to the secular world. However for me as a Christian I have extreme difficultly understanding how other Christians can so easily dismiss Scripture with scientific explanations.
I'm glad you recognize that, it helps me to know you understand. Your question "Is the Bible sufficient reason for us to doubt this scientific description of the world's creation?" is the crux of the problem. I believe it is and it would appear that you don't. My question to you would be, what is your plumb line on which all truth is measured? To me the Bible is the source of truth in all matters of which it speaks, what this approach does is make all of life so much easier. I never have to ever wonder whether there is some other 'truth' out there that will also supercede the Bible. It just doesn't exist.

I would ask in return, why do you assume that all truth can be measured by a single plumb line? Where does the Bible lay claim to being that single plumb line?

Firstly, as I have mentioned before, science never claims to be the absolute truth. It is an approximation to what really happens, given that nothing supernatural intervenes. It imposes blinkers on itself. So I would hardly call science a plumb line. Science, rather, is the collection of all the descriptions man has made about the universe. It looks like everytimg I drop something it falls down, not up. It looks like looking at the sun is a bad idea. And, to the people who have spent their time and energy getting familiar with the science, it really looks like life evolved.

My issue is that nowhere at all does the Bible take over this job. It relies on our descriptions of the natural world to work, but doesn't ever make any descriptions of its own. The Bible assumes that we know what sheep are before calling us sheep, or that we know what a vine is before telling us that Jesus called Himself the true vine. The Bible never imposes any of these descriptions on us but trusts that we know what the Bible means in relation to these descriptions.

In fact, this is exactly how we avoid the charge of geocentrism, isn't it? (Couldn't stay away, especially since it's already been raised in this thread. ) It looks like the Bible took a description of the world which was familiar to the Jews and the people of their time (pillars, sun racing across the sky, etc.) and built upon that description to say something about God. Well, in our modern time, we have updated our descriptions of the universe, but that doesn't invalidate what the Bible said about God based on the descriptions of a flat earth and sun racing across the sky.

To me, this is the exact same principle which applies to Genesis 1. The Bible takes the world as the Jews knew it (a world without bacteria, or America, or dark matter) and builds on that description to say "God did all this, and it is Him we worship, not the sun or the moon or the stars!" But I do not need to take that description and use it for my time.

I've thought of a new image to represent this. Science is like a foundation, and the Bible is like the blueprints of a house. Blueprints don't normally specify what kind of foundation is needed (does it? I'm no architect), but when it comes to what the house is made of, what it is going to look like, etc. and even though it may not specify, say, how often the curtains need to be cleaned or where the sofas go, it is good enough to build a house with.

Now let's say that the first time I saw this house built, it was built on stilts in clay by the seaside. I really like the look of the house and so I get the blueprints and go back to my usual contractor. "See, I like this house, and I want it built."

"Fine, you have a piece of land right here and we can start work - "

"No! It has to be built by the seaside on stilts in clay! Otherwise it won't be the same house!"

Do you see the logic? The house is still the same house and will still serve the same purposes if it is built to the same blueprints, no matter whether I build it on solid rock or on stilts in clay by the sea. In the same way, the Bible provides us a manual to understand God, and no matter what understanding of science we base our knowledge of the Bible on, the Bible is still an authoritative revelation of God - but not a description of the universe.

 

[Assyrian]

I somewhat see your point except for the Genesis account not making any difference whether it was literal or metaphoric. I believe that Jesus redeemed us from the very real sin of Adam and not some metaphoric one. If it were metaphoric please tell me why did Jesus have to die?

1John 2:2 And he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. Plenty of reason there for Jesus to redeem us

This would mean that sin always existed and God's creation never was very good. Plus it introduces a host of other interpretations.

How can you have sin in creatures with no moral awareness? Did TRexs sin? Do lions?

 

[RealityCheck]

Why do so many people today go to into caves to mine coal when there is such danger? There was a living to be made that's why. Besides, not everyone believed this, it was likened as to a superstition more than anything else.

Fine, I had to look it up myself since you were unable to provide anything.

Here is what I found:

In the Greek version of the Old Testament the word represents both the original chaos (Genesis i.2) and the Hebrew tehom ("a surging water-deep"), which is used also in apocalyptic and kabbalistic literature and in the New Testament for hell; the place of punishment; in the Revised (not the Authorized) version of the Bible "abyss" is generally used for this idea. Primarily in the Septuagint cosmography the word is applied both to the waters under the earth which originally covered it, and from which the springs and rivers are supplied and to the waters of the firmament which were regarded as closely connected with those below.
Derivatively, from the general idea of depth, it acquired the meaning of the place of the dead, though apparently never quite the same as Sheol. In the book of Revelation it is the prison of evil spirits whence they may occasionally be let loose, and where Satan is doomed to spend 1000 years.
Beneath the altar in the temple of Jerusalem there was believed to be a passage which led down to the abyss of the world, where the foundation-stone of the earth was laid. In rabbinical cosmography the abyss is a region of Gehenna situated below the ocean bed and divided into three or seven parts imposed one above the other. In the Kabbalah the abyss as the opening into the lower world is the abode of evil spirits, and corresponds to the opening of the abyss to the world above. In general the abyss is regarded vaguely as a place of indefinite extent, the abode of mystery and sorrow.


So there is a connection between water and the abyss, but not in the sense you're making here. The "abyss", in connection with water, refers to "waters under the firmament", not to the ordinary waters of a lake or a river. You must recall the ancient Hebrew view of the world: "In rabbinical cosmography the abyss is a region of Gehenna situated below the ocean bed and divided into three or seven parts imposed one above the other. " Here the abyss is a region beneath the ocean, not the ocean itself.

The waters of the abyss are not the calm waters of Lake Galilee, but the chaotic, uncontrolled deep beneath the ocean.

In any case... why is this even important?

 

[vossler]

It's really eerie to hear so many agreements from you.

As we've previously noted, we're in agreement far more than not, it's just this forum highlights the disagreements. Too bad we can't just hang out and focus on the many areas where we do agree.

I would ask in return, why do you assume that all truth can be measured by a single plumb line? Where does the Bible lay claim to being that single plumb line?

Given that you've asked this I believe we may have reached the single focal point to where our differences start. I believe if there isn't a single source of ultimate truth man will invariably make up his own. Now in areas where the Bible is silent, man is free to explore and develop his own truths, but where the Bible speaks, it speaks authoritatively. There are plenty of Scriptures that allude to the authority of Scripture and I don't believe you're asking me to produce those but are specifically trying to focus on it being the single plumb line. Yet before we get deeper into this, let me ask you this because I believe we may have a fundamental difference on how we see the Bible. It is critical I understand how you see it before I can glean or develop a better understanding of your position. I'm surmising that you don't believe the Bible to be the plumb line or manual for mankind, if true, how do you see it?

Firstly, as I have mentioned before, science never claims to be the absolute truth. It is an approximation to what really happens, given that nothing supernatural intervenes. It imposes blinkers on itself. So I would hardly call science a plumb line.

Maybe you don’t, but there are many, many who do.

Science, rather, is the collection of all the descriptions man has made about the universe. It looks like every time I drop something it falls down, not up. It looks like looking at the sun is a bad idea. And, to the people who have spent their time and energy getting familiar with the science, it really looks like life evolved.

I like how you make the transition from things dropping to life evolving pretty seamless. No really, I think I understand what it is you’re attempting to do, but I’ll just have to add that maybe on the surface it appears as you believe, but it is not nearly as concrete as gravity. I think it is more like very wet concrete; it has good form but lacks the right ingredients to provide a solid and lasting foundation. Like your analogy later showing science to be our foundation, if we’re not careful we will be suckered into believing that the foundation we built and poured is dry when in fact it is quite wet and the next thing you know we will find ourselves buried in something we can’t easily get out of.

We need to remember lots of things appear to be one way but after lengthy analysis are found to be something quite different. The TE use of geocentrism is but one example. Back in the day man, through his analysis, said that the sun revolves around the earth and for thousands of years he believed it. In that way I believe evolution is similar to geocentrism.

My issue is that nowhere at all does the Bible take over this job. It relies on our descriptions of the natural world to work, but doesn't ever make any descriptions of its own. The Bible assumes that we know what sheep are before calling us sheep, or that we know what a vine is before telling us that Jesus called Himself the true vine. The Bible never imposes any of these descriptions on us but trusts that we know what the Bible means in relation to these descriptions.

Without a doubt I agree. It’s one thing to describe something that is there, it’s an entirely different thing to do so for something that isn’t.

In fact, this is exactly how we avoid the charge of geocentrism, isn't it? (Couldn't stay away, especially since it's already been raised in this thread. ) It looks like the Bible took a description of the world which was familiar to the Jews and the people of their time (pillars, sun racing across the sky, etc.) and built upon that description to say something about God. Well, in our modern time, we have updated our descriptions of the universe, but that doesn't invalidate what the Bible said about God based on the descriptions of a flat earth and sun racing across the sky.

I couldn’t agree more, well said.

To me, this is the exact same principle which applies to Genesis 1. The Bible takes the world as the Jews knew it (a world without bacteria, or America, or dark matter) and builds on that description to say "God did all this, and it is Him we worship, not the sun or the moon or the stars!" But I do not need to take that description and use it for my time.

Again, nothing to quibble about here, that is as long as we don’t change Scripture to say what we wish for it to say.

I've thought of a new image to represent this. Science is like a foundation, and the Bible is like the blueprints of a house. Blueprints don't normally specify what kind of foundation is needed (does it? I'm no architect), but when it comes to what the house is made of, what it is going to look like, etc. and even though it may not specify, say, how often the curtains need to be cleaned or where the sofas go, it is good enough to build a house with.

Herein lies the big problem. I believe the Bible is the foundation and the blueprint of the house, everything else is built off of it. Science, through analysis, tells us what the different materials are made of, but not how it got there. It can analyze the different building plans, telling us how they interact, what their strengths and weaknesses are, how to better utilize materials, etc., but it shouldn’t be in the business of telling us how they came into being.

Now let's say that the first time I saw this house built, it was built on stilts in clay by the seaside. I really like the look of the house and so I get the blueprints and go back to my usual contractor. "See, I like this house, and I want it built."

"Fine, you have a piece of land right here and we can start work - "

"No! It has to be built by the seaside on stilts in clay! Otherwise it won't be the same house!"

That’s why I like the Bible being the foundation. It never changes so no matter where you build your house you can rest assured it is built on the solid rock foundation of God’s Word.

Do you see the logic? The house is still the same house and will still serve the same purposes if it is built to the same blueprints, no matter whether I build it on solid rock or on stilts in clay by the sea. In the same way, the Bible provides us a manual to understand God, and no matter what understanding of science we base our knowledge of the Bible on, the Bible is still an authoritative revelation of God - but not a description of the universe.

I see your logic, but I hope you also see mine.

If I believe science tells me that God took 14.5 billion years to create His Universe and that man evolved from some soupy mixture of life into what he is today, that foundation is entirely different that the one I believe in and therefore the house may be the same but the foundation certainly isn’t. So yes the house will still serve the same purpose if it is built to the same blueprints, but there is a tremendous difference, as your example eludes, to its durability and longevity based on where it is built.

As important as the house is, if it isn’t built on the rock solid foundation of God’s Word, unfortunately it will crumble and fall.

 

[vossler]

The waters of the abyss are not the calm waters of Lake Galilee, but the chaotic, uncontrolled deep beneath the ocean.

In any case... why is this even important?

It's not, it never was an issue for me but only for you.

 

[RealityCheck]

It's not, it never was an issue for me but only for you.

I took issue with it because you equated the Lake of Galilee with the Abyss for some reason...

Oh now I recall. It was because you equated the "walking on water" miracle with Jesus demonstrating his power over hell. That was a stretch worthy of Plastic-Man.

 

[Calminian]

You seem to be admitting here that man's faulty understanding has peppered the Scriptures.

I actually went into a lot of detail explaining that the biblical writers were absolutely correct in their descriptions of earthly and heavenly movements. And yet you interpreted me as saying their understandings were faulty.

If the passage you are alluding to was written from man's perspective and not God's, then why not extend the same principle to the Genesis Creation account? Why can it not be inspired by God, but written from man's retrospective?

You actually inferred the exact opposite of what I was saying. I said nothing about God's perspective vs. man's perspective. Please read my comments again. I was speaking of point of reference in regard to movement. Modern day scientists communicate the exact same way.

 

[Calminian]

If I believe science tells me that God took 14.5 billion years to create His Universe and that man evolved from some soupy mixture of life into what he is today, that foundation is entirely different that the one I believe in and therefore the house may be the same but the foundation certainly isn’t. So yes the house will still serve the same purpose if it is built to the same blueprints, but there is a tremendous difference, as your example eludes, to its durability and longevity based on where it is built.

As important as the house is, if it isn’t built on the rock solid foundation of God’s Word, unfortunately it will crumble and fall.

This is my concern as well. God's word has proven to be reliable and if we doubt it over scientific issues, we are in danger of slipping further down the slop. Bishop Spong takes this much further and rejects the Resurrection due to scientific concerns. In fact he rejects all biblical miracles. This is my fear with those trying to harmonize the Bible with science. I think their eisegetical methods of interpreting scripture are dangerous. We need to derive meanings from the text itself—not from naturalistic materialistic epistemologies. Creation was a miracle and science may not be able to help us with it, at least not alone apart from biblical presuppositions.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

We need to derive meanings from the text itself—not from naturalistic materialistic epistemologies.


ok.
your first task from the text of Scripture itself is to define the limits of Scripture, itself.

what books are to be including in the canon and what books are to be included. Please show me where the list itself is part of Scripture. As an auxillary exercise choose one canon currently in use(you may use your own) in the Christian community and show from those books that the other 2,3,10+ (depending on your personal limits of the Christian community) canons are wrong. You may define those limits to make your task easier.

no need even to talk about science. Just show me where the Table of Contents for your Bible is defined in the text of that Bible itself.

 

[shernren]

I hope you don't mind if I zoom in on one thing for now.

Given that you've asked this I believe we may have reached the single focal point to where our differences start. I believe if there isn't a single source of ultimate truth man will invariably make up his own. Now in areas where the Bible is silent, man is free to explore and develop his own truths, but where the Bible speaks, it speaks authoritatively. There are plenty of Scriptures that allude to the authority of Scripture and I don't believe you're asking me to produce those but are specifically trying to focus on it being the single plumb line. Yet before we get deeper into this, let me ask you this because I believe we may have a fundamental difference on how we see the Bible. It is critical I understand how you see it before I can glean or develop a better understanding of your position. I'm surmising that you don't believe the Bible to be the plumb line or manual for mankind, if true, how do you see it?

Reality is the source of ultimate truth.

God would exist, even if the Bible had not been written in which He describes Himself.
And the physical universe would exist, even if science had not been made by man to describe the universe.

I think what's happening is that you tend to see science as being something separate and man-made. I disagree, science would still exist even if man had not codified it for the simple reason that God made the universe scientific. Science is simply a word we use to label each and every consistent observation man has accumulated of the universe over the time he has existed. So I wouldn't even call science a "plumb line" (too bad for anyone else who does), science is a portrait and the physical world is the subject. Science hasn't come up with anything on its own, it just observes.

You're right that without a single source of ultimate truth man is lost. And yet God (who is Truth) allows creation to exist "on its own", in a way, to have its own consistent rules and quirks and identity and existence. Creation's existence depends on God, and yet every time I let go of something in mid-air Creation doesn't have to rush over to God and ask "Is it supposed to drop to the ground? Or should it hover in the air just this once?" God frees Creation to do its thing even though Creation couldn't even be conceived without God - namely, a paradox of having independent existence while being dependent on God for existence.

(Hmm, I don't know if that little philosophical distraction served any purpose! XD)

Anyways. It is precisely because there is a truth in reality that science exists. Imagine if in our world everybody who observed the same things came to different conclusions! Instead, scientific observations are repeatable. Everybody who cares can verify for themselves that apples fall downwards, or that opposite poles of a magnet attract, or that there is no theoretical difficulty with abiogenesis and evolution ... some verifications are practically more difficult than others but if I had enough time, money, and brains I could by myself verify every single thing scientists have told me, and anyone else in the world could as well. Science may not be a source of absolute truth but it sure is describing something that is very absolute.

Why, then, the Bible? Because God exists on a fundamentally different order-of-existence (words fail) from us. We are created just like anything else in this created universe, and so this universe is in a sense our natural habitat and our natural senses are sufficient to apprehend it. But God is the Creator, and He needs to be revealed for us to know Him, what more in our fallen, sinful state. We can know creation on our own (and to me, evolution is just one facet of that knowing) but we can never know the Creator on our own. So God was/is incarnated as Jesus and pointed to Jesus in the Bible. The Bible is not absolute in and of itself; it is absolute because God has chosen to write/use it to describe Himself, an absolute God.

So that's how it is to me.

Science is absolute as a way for me to know the created world.
And the Bible is absolute as a way for me to know the Creator.

But the immediate corollary is that I don't expect science to tell me anything absolute about God, or the Bible anything absolute about the universe.

 

[shernren]

We need to derive meanings from the text itself—not from naturalistic materialistic epistemologies.


ok.
your first task from the text of Scripture itself is to define the limits of Scripture, itself.

what books are to be including in the canon and what books are to be included. Please show me where the list itself is part of Scripture. As an auxillary exercise choose one canon currently in use(you may use your own) in the Christian community and show from those books that the other 2,3,10+ (depending on your personal limits of the Christian community) canons are wrong. You may define those limits to make your task easier.

no need even to talk about science. Just show me where the Table of Contents for your Bible is defined in the text of that Bible itself.

Maybe not even the Table of Contents, I would be sufficiently impressed if one could derive the criteria of canonization themselves from the Bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

The stunning thing to note about this article is that of all the various canons listed and criteria used, there is exactly one proposal that actually cites Scripture: that Paul, Peter and John were the ones who set the canon.

And as far as I can see, this most Scriptural proposition is not held here at all.

 

[vossler]

Reality is the source of ultimate truth.

I would quibble with that and state that God is the ultimate source of truth.

I think what's happening is that you tend to see science as being something separate and man-made.

Not at all, it’s the theories that man develops that are separate and man-made.

Science is simply a word we use to label each and every consistent observation man has accumulated of the universe over the time he has existed.

I agree completely, it’s when we go beyond human history(which is itself only a few thousand years old) that we run into problems and turn to pure speculation. That, btw, describes evolution, at least the molecules to man portion of it, quite effectively to me.

Science hasn't come up with anything on its own, it just observes.

Again, I agree 100%, it’s the scientists who come up with things on their own.

You're right that without a single source of ultimate truth man is lost.

Yet, other than ‘reality,’ you don’t have an answer as to what absolute truth is or where it can be found. Isn’t that the same thing atheists and agnostics believe?

Anyways. It is precisely because there is a truth in reality that science exists. Imagine if in our world everybody who observed the same things came to different conclusions! Instead, scientific observations are repeatable. Everybody who cares can verify for themselves that apples fall downwards, or that opposite poles of a magnet attract, or that there is no theoretical difficulty with abiogenesis and evolution ... some verifications are practically more difficult than others but if I had enough time, money, and brains I could by myself verify every single thing scientists have told me, and anyone else in the world could as well. Science may not be a source of absolute truth but it sure is describing something that is very absolute.

I’m glad you’ve got confidence in man’s abilities, I most certainly don’t. I’m actually quite amazed as to how smart it is we really think we are. Your statement that if you had ‘enough time, money and brains’ you could by yourself verify every single thing scientists have told you is quite a bold, and I might add arrogant assertion. I’m not even remotely smart enough to think on such a grand scale, much less make such claims.

Why, then, the Bible? Because God exists on a fundamentally different order-of-existence (words fail) from us. We are created just like anything else in this created universe, and so this universe is in a sense our natural habitat and our natural senses are sufficient to apprehend it.

Again, I agree completely. So then why introduce elements outside of our natural senses?

Science is absolute as a way for me to know the created world.

And the Bible is absolute as a way for me to know the Creator.

Science is only absolute when it remains true to its calling, whenever it goes beyond the empirical and observational form and into a speculative and conjecture based form where our own desires are incorporated it becomes something entirely different and foreign to what it claims to be and can no longer be called science. In this way science can be compared to the Bible. The Bible is absolute but when we deviate and pervert it’s teachings in order to fulfill our own desires it no longer represents the absolute Truth of God but the perverted truth of man.

But the immediate corollary is that I don't expect science to tell me anything absolute about God, or the Bible anything absolute about the universe.

I can go with this, sounds perfectly reasonable, at least for the moment.

 

[Mallon]

I believe that Jesus redeemed us from the very real sin of Adam and not some metaphoric one. If it were metaphoric please tell me why did Jesus have to die?

My point isn't that sin is metaphorical. It is obviously real and we are all subject to it every day.
Rather, I see the way which Genesis describes we fell into sin as mythical/metaphorical.

This would mean that sin always existed and God's creation never was very good.

I disagree. I don't think that to die (physically) is a result of sin. Spiritual death -- that is, an eternity apart from the Lord -- is the kind of death Genesis refers to, methinks. More on that with biblical support here:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2004/PSCF6-04Snoke.pdf
(I keep referring to this paper. I think it's great.)

As a non-scientist most everything I've seen AiG, ICR and similar organizations put out has been, to this layman at least, very convincing.

That's the problem. You're a layman, and so you don't know when you're being lied to. I've studied evolution in university for the last 5 years. I know what it says, and what it doesn't say. Therefore, I know that much of what AiG has to say about evolution is blatantly false. That doesn't stop them, though.

It's interesting that you see a poetic nature to Genesis.

I'm not the first to bring it up here. And I'm certainly not the first to have noticed the poetic nature of Genesis. Rev. Christopher Smith goes into this a bit in his book Paradigms on Pilgrimage.

I don't know but someone telling me that the earth is on pillars, well maybe it's my 21st Century mind

Bingo! Context is everything.

 

[Mallon]

I actually went into a lot of detail explaining that the biblical writers were absolutely correct in their descriptions of earthly and heavenly movements. And yet you interpreted me as saying their understandings were faulty.

Maybe not faulty so much as completely lacking. You admit yourself that the Hebrew writers had no concept of planetary orbits. And so God inspired them to describe the sun's seeming rotation about the Earth from their limited POV.
Why could God not also have inspired them to write about the creation based on their limited understanding of Earth's history?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Rev. Christopher Smith goes into this a bit in his book Paradigms on Pilgrimage.


an excellent book, i forgot who original recommended it here. it is a must read on the topic of YECist-->OEC changing your mind.

science is only absolute when it remains true to its calling, whenever it goes beyond the empirical and observational form and into a speculative and conjecture based form where our own desires are incorporated it becomes something entirely different and foreign to what it claims to be and can no longer be called science.

the problem is how to define and demarcate this boundary. YECists say that the boundary is time itself. That is anything back more than a handful of millenniums is illegitimate, that radioactive dating is completely erronous. The problem is that there is no real difference between yesterday, 1 hundred years ago, a millennium or 10 millennium ago. There is certainly no clear demarcation like the YECists propose either at the universal/global Noahic flood nor at a creation event of 6kya that was a omphalos creation with apparent age.

I agree completely, it’s when we go beyond human history(which is itself only a few thousand years old) that we run into problems and turn to pure speculation.


what is it about written history that makes it more valuable than artifacts or radioactive dating? why can't it be part of your creation with apparent age? in fact we have chinese inscriptions and egyptian possible mesopotamian older than 6kya. what makes writing more reliable than other items?

 

[Mallon]

an excellent book, i forgot who original recommended it here. it is a must read on the topic of YECist-->OEC changing your mind.

T'was me! Glad to hear you liked it, rmwilliamsll. Easy yet compelling read.

 

[vossler]

That's the problem. You're a layman, and so you don't know when you're being lied to. I've studied evolution in university for the last 5 years. I know what it says, and what it doesn't say. Therefore, I know that much of what AiG has to say about evolution is blatantly false. That doesn't stop them, though.

I guess this means that only those who've studied at the university are in a position to know or at least speak intelligently about how God created, the rest of us just haven't a clue.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I guess this means that only those who've studied at the university are in a position to know or at least speak intelligently about how God created, the rest of us just haven't a clue.

I guess this means that only those who've studied at the university are in a position to know or at least speak intelligently about how God created, the rest of us just haven't a clue.


there is certainly some truth in this.
education and knowledge are important. science is not an entry level democracy where your mere existence is evidence that you ought to have a vote.
there are several very well self-educated people on the creation-evolution forum, it is not essential to have attended university and studied the issues, but it is the usual route.


i'd recommend google: Stephen Jones progressive creation
to see someone who got very involved in this debate and at 50 went back to university to get a biology degree. his example is a worthwhile one, self education and reading does have limitations, see his reading list for what he has read on the issues. and he is PC not TE.

 

[Mallon]

I guess this means that only those who've studied at the university are in a position to know or at least speak intelligently about how God created, the rest of us just haven't a clue.

Why do you think pastors go to seminary?
Higher education means you are more learned and better qualified to speak on the matter you've dedicated the last 4+ years of your life to studying.

 

[shernren]

I would quibble with that and state that God is the ultimate source of truth.

God is real, isn't He?
And He made a real universe, didn't He?

That's what I meant when I said "reality". Now I realize that using the word the way I did would have had quite New-Age/Gnostic overtones; but I'm not sure if there's a better way to describe it.

Not at all, it’s the theories that man develops that are separate and man-made.

The whole fact that man can develop theories at all goes to show how "real" the universe is. Theories are simply descriptions. Every time I try a certain something with the universe, it does this or it does that. When I let go of a ball above clear space it falls down. Every time I breed bacteria they are able to adapt to changing environments through random generation of new genetic material. Science tells us that the universe behaves consistently at a materialistic level, and that's all.

I agree completely, it’s when we go beyond human history(which is itself only a few thousand years old) that we run into problems and turn to pure speculation. That, btw, describes evolution, at least the molecules to man portion of it, quite effectively to me.

The whole problem is that by your perspective, anything in the past is going to be pure speculation. I put an orange on the table. "Prove to me that this orange grew on an orange tree," I ask you. By your standards of proof it would be impossible. No matter how many orange trees you grow and how many oranges you harvest you may never be able to convince me that this particular orange did not, say, arrive on Earth in a ship embedded in a great meteor from the planet Kripton.

There are scientific standards of observing the past which substitute well enough for actual repeatability. And by those standards evolution works.

Yet, other than ‘reality,’ you don’t have an answer as to what absolute truth is or where it can be found. Isn’t that the same thing atheists and agnostics believe?

I hope I cleared that up above.

I’m glad you’ve got confidence in man’s abilities, I most certainly don’t. I’m actually quite amazed as to how smart it is we really think we are. Your statement that if you had ‘enough time, money and brains’ you could by yourself verify every single thing scientists have told you is quite a bold, and I might add arrogant assertion. I’m not even remotely smart enough to think on such a grand scale, much less make such claims.

Note I said if I had enough brains. I'm quite sure I don't. But really, what would stop me? Assuming I had all the money in the world, all the time I could ever need, and teachers so good that they could make me understand anything science had ever made, nothing would stop me from repeating any experiment science has performed. Just a few months ago we performed an experiment in the lab on the photoelectric effect that confirmed Einstein and Planck's basic assumptions of quantum theory. And it wasn't just me: I have friends in my class who can barely tell a protein from a carbohydrate, and here they were repeating great experiments and testing ideas which a hundred years ago stumped even the elite of the scientific community. And just 19 years old.

On a more fundamental level, man is a created being, on equal footing with every other created being in the universe (at least from a scientific point of view, not a theological one). Atoms don't behave differently inside a human body and out. When I drop a corpse from 200 meters it bursts open on the ground, and when I drop a live person from 200 meters (if I ever wanted to) s/he becomes a corpse and then bursts open on the ground. Humanity is subject to physical laws just like the rest of the universe, so why should there be any physical laws we experience which we should expect never to understand?

Science is only absolute when it remains true to its calling, whenever it goes beyond the empirical and observational form and into a speculative and conjecture based form where our own desires are incorporated it becomes something entirely different and foreign to what it claims to be and can no longer be called science. In this way science can be compared to the Bible. The Bible is absolute but when we deviate and pervert it’s teachings in order to fulfill our own desires it no longer represents the absolute Truth of God but the perverted truth of man.

My basic position is that science is empirical and observational in nature even when it examines what you call "the past", since it never observes anything but the past. But this takes a bit of thinking to fully unravel and so we'll only go down this rabbit hole if you want to.