Wow, Came across this blog and thought I was on talk-origins! Reading the forum rules, I thought that others' beliefs were not to be flamed but maybe YEC are open targets with their ‘total isolation from external reality’ and ‘whacky path where reason doesn't matter’ and given their ‘destructive work’.
It seems from reading other pages some are quite familiar with talk-origins, given the arguments they have repeated. I would suggest they spend as much time on the creationist literature to find information on why U-Th decay cannot explain C14 in supposedly ancient coal, and that the C14 values are consistent, when modelled using young-earth assumptions (in contrast to the standard old-earth assumptions). Furthermore the arguments of contamination are unsustainable when we see the ubiquity of C14 in geology.
Where does RMWilliamsII get his facts about scientists "… if they have a high commitment for truth, seem to eventually desert YECism"? Who is he talking about? Or is he just poisoning the well?
As a geologist and engineer trained in evolution and millions of years and graduating at the top of my class, it was wonderful to later find in YEC a rational explanation for the history of our world which fits with the plain reading of the Bible and explains, to my mind, the evidences of geology, biology, archaeology, cosmology etc., better than the evolutionary paradigm does. My experience, and others that I know of, is exactly the opposite of what RMWilliamsII states.
Regarding the previous discussion of Sola Scriptura and Luther, please back up your statements.
Martin Luther said ‘We must understand that these days were actual days (veros dies), contrary to the opinion of the holy fathers. Whenever we observe that the opinions of the fathers disagree with Scripture, we reverently bear with them and acknowledge them to be our elders. Nevertheless, we do not depart from the authority of Scripture for their sake.’ What Martin Luther Says: A Practical in-Home Anthology for the Active, # 4936, p. 1523, 1959.
We know from Moses that the world was not in existence before 6,000 years ago. We assert that Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively, i.e., that the world, with all its creatures, was created within six days, as the words read. If we do not comprehend the reason for this, let us remain pupils and leave the job of teacher to the Holy Spirit. Martin Luther in Jaroslav Pelikan, editor, “Luther's Works”, Lectures on Genesis Chapters 1—5, 1:3,6, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1958.
Or more recently Lloyd-Jones: ‘Our Christian faith is based entirely upon history. … our Christian faith is entirely different [to Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.]. It call attention to facts. … the garden of Eden … Do you remember the history of the flood? That is fact. That is history. … Then God gave a new start … Tower of Babel … Abram … the facts about our Lord.’ Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones, What mean these stones? Sermon preached 12 November 1977, Evangelical Action 2002(6):17-24, 2002.
When it comes to history, and that is the genre of Genesis, science can only make assumptions. Clearly Jesus and the apostles accepted Genesis as true history about their direct ancestors. (i.e. Mark 10:6, “But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'”. Luke 11:50 ‘…the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah…’.) I find the explanation of Shenren to be incomplete, we also use Scripture to interpret Scripture. The Bible is consistent and the testimony of the NT supports a plain reading interpretation of Genesis. It is a historical document and claims to stand as a reliable witness of that history which can be tested. For example in comparison to the Babylonian story of the Flood, or the hundreds of other Flood legends from around the world, the Bible’s account is the most logical and stands up to engineering considerations.
Science is not the perfect external adjudicator that is often presented, all sciences that studies things in the past have to make assumptions. I have compared the two sets of assumptions discussed here from the science that I have studied and believe the plain reading of Genesis is a better fit. (That is not what I base my faith on, and my salvation is not dependent on it, but it does help when berated by evolutionists, more commonly Christian ones). Sure you can tack a god onto the millions of years of death and struggle, 99% extinction rate, parasites and venom (ignoring the fall, curse and Flood), but what kind of god is that and why is he/she/it necessary and how could it be the God described in the Bible?
Evolution is a belief system about the past, based on the assumption of naturalism (a god isn’t required). As it is a belief, it can’t be proven from science, and from the redefinitions of various parts of the theory, it does not appear to be able to be falsifiable. But evidences for this paradigm can be compared to other paradigms, with the scientific method. Evolution is a very flexible theorem and when you read the scientific literature, it can be moulded to explain exactly the opposite occurrences, for example in selection pressure. (And anyways, natural selection was first espoused by a creationist and cannot create new complex specified information, which is what evolution requires.) From punctuated equilibrium to gradualism, all ideas, except miracles can be accepted by evolution.
Richard Dawkins, the English champion of evolutionism, states that ‘Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.’
The evolutionary philosopher of science Michael Ruse, states, ‘Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. … Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’ Julian Huxley said ‘Darwin’s real achievement was to ‘remove the whole idea of God as the Creator …’
We are quite capable of holding conflicting ideas in the same head and that has no bearing on salvation by grace. But please don't believe that science is an unbiased arbiter. All scientists are biased and we all have a set of starting assumptions. There is no neutral ground in the classroom. People talk about separation of Church and State (which was really to prevent big (or state recognized) churches from picking on little churches), but in reality one belief system about historical origins (Christianity) has been replaced by another belief system about historical origins (naturalism) in our classrooms. Remember that science also says virgins don't give birth and people don't rise from the dead.
If you don’t trust the plain reading of the start of the Bible, when are we supposed to start taking it as it is clearly written (in accordance with the genre—historical narrative, metaphor, allegory, poetry, etc.)? Most modern liberalism starts with ‘but the Bible doesn’t really mean that …’.
The comments about common sense highlight an underlying source of faulty thinking (for a Christian), but totally logical and consistent thinking for an Atheist. Who decides what is common sense? The majority? Is not the Bible useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. Is it not the foundation of our legal system? So shouldn’t Christians turn to it (instead of some accepted ‘group think – common sense’ or even our legal system, which is a limited reflection of God’s plan) to deal with issues in the Church? Isn’t this exactly the group think that has resulted in laws to allow murder of the unborn, because it is ‘common sense’?
This is exactly central to why creationists believe creation is an important issue. The question is not what God could have done, but what He said He did. The issue is the authority of the Bible. If we do not accept the Bible as a true authority, we are left to the whims of public opinion. Who makes the rules? The strongest or smartest or the common denominator? And the Bible is put below man’s authority.
It seems from reading other pages some are quite familiar with talk-origins, given the arguments they have repeated. I would suggest they spend as much time on the creationist literature to find information on why U-Th decay cannot explain C14 in supposedly ancient coal, and that the C14 values are consistent, when modelled using young-earth assumptions (in contrast to the standard old-earth assumptions). Furthermore the arguments of contamination are unsustainable when we see the ubiquity of C14 in geology.
Where does RMWilliamsII get his facts about scientists "… if they have a high commitment for truth, seem to eventually desert YECism"? Who is he talking about? Or is he just poisoning the well?
As a geologist and engineer trained in evolution and millions of years and graduating at the top of my class, it was wonderful to later find in YEC a rational explanation for the history of our world which fits with the plain reading of the Bible and explains, to my mind, the evidences of geology, biology, archaeology, cosmology etc., better than the evolutionary paradigm does. My experience, and others that I know of, is exactly the opposite of what RMWilliamsII states.
Regarding the previous discussion of Sola Scriptura and Luther, please back up your statements.
Martin Luther said ‘We must understand that these days were actual days (veros dies), contrary to the opinion of the holy fathers. Whenever we observe that the opinions of the fathers disagree with Scripture, we reverently bear with them and acknowledge them to be our elders. Nevertheless, we do not depart from the authority of Scripture for their sake.’ What Martin Luther Says: A Practical in-Home Anthology for the Active, # 4936, p. 1523, 1959.
We know from Moses that the world was not in existence before 6,000 years ago. We assert that Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively, i.e., that the world, with all its creatures, was created within six days, as the words read. If we do not comprehend the reason for this, let us remain pupils and leave the job of teacher to the Holy Spirit. Martin Luther in Jaroslav Pelikan, editor, “Luther's Works”, Lectures on Genesis Chapters 1—5, 1:3,6, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1958.
Or more recently Lloyd-Jones: ‘Our Christian faith is based entirely upon history. … our Christian faith is entirely different [to Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.]. It call attention to facts. … the garden of Eden … Do you remember the history of the flood? That is fact. That is history. … Then God gave a new start … Tower of Babel … Abram … the facts about our Lord.’ Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones, What mean these stones? Sermon preached 12 November 1977, Evangelical Action 2002(6):17-24, 2002.
When it comes to history, and that is the genre of Genesis, science can only make assumptions. Clearly Jesus and the apostles accepted Genesis as true history about their direct ancestors. (i.e. Mark 10:6, “But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'”. Luke 11:50 ‘…the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah…’.) I find the explanation of Shenren to be incomplete, we also use Scripture to interpret Scripture. The Bible is consistent and the testimony of the NT supports a plain reading interpretation of Genesis. It is a historical document and claims to stand as a reliable witness of that history which can be tested. For example in comparison to the Babylonian story of the Flood, or the hundreds of other Flood legends from around the world, the Bible’s account is the most logical and stands up to engineering considerations.
Science is not the perfect external adjudicator that is often presented, all sciences that studies things in the past have to make assumptions. I have compared the two sets of assumptions discussed here from the science that I have studied and believe the plain reading of Genesis is a better fit. (That is not what I base my faith on, and my salvation is not dependent on it, but it does help when berated by evolutionists, more commonly Christian ones). Sure you can tack a god onto the millions of years of death and struggle, 99% extinction rate, parasites and venom (ignoring the fall, curse and Flood), but what kind of god is that and why is he/she/it necessary and how could it be the God described in the Bible?
Evolution is a belief system about the past, based on the assumption of naturalism (a god isn’t required). As it is a belief, it can’t be proven from science, and from the redefinitions of various parts of the theory, it does not appear to be able to be falsifiable. But evidences for this paradigm can be compared to other paradigms, with the scientific method. Evolution is a very flexible theorem and when you read the scientific literature, it can be moulded to explain exactly the opposite occurrences, for example in selection pressure. (And anyways, natural selection was first espoused by a creationist and cannot create new complex specified information, which is what evolution requires.) From punctuated equilibrium to gradualism, all ideas, except miracles can be accepted by evolution.
Richard Dawkins, the English champion of evolutionism, states that ‘Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.’
The evolutionary philosopher of science Michael Ruse, states, ‘Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. … Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’ Julian Huxley said ‘Darwin’s real achievement was to ‘remove the whole idea of God as the Creator …’
We are quite capable of holding conflicting ideas in the same head and that has no bearing on salvation by grace. But please don't believe that science is an unbiased arbiter. All scientists are biased and we all have a set of starting assumptions. There is no neutral ground in the classroom. People talk about separation of Church and State (which was really to prevent big (or state recognized) churches from picking on little churches), but in reality one belief system about historical origins (Christianity) has been replaced by another belief system about historical origins (naturalism) in our classrooms. Remember that science also says virgins don't give birth and people don't rise from the dead.
If you don’t trust the plain reading of the start of the Bible, when are we supposed to start taking it as it is clearly written (in accordance with the genre—historical narrative, metaphor, allegory, poetry, etc.)? Most modern liberalism starts with ‘but the Bible doesn’t really mean that …’.
The comments about common sense highlight an underlying source of faulty thinking (for a Christian), but totally logical and consistent thinking for an Atheist. Who decides what is common sense? The majority? Is not the Bible useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. Is it not the foundation of our legal system? So shouldn’t Christians turn to it (instead of some accepted ‘group think – common sense’ or even our legal system, which is a limited reflection of God’s plan) to deal with issues in the Church? Isn’t this exactly the group think that has resulted in laws to allow murder of the unborn, because it is ‘common sense’?
This is exactly central to why creationists believe creation is an important issue. The question is not what God could have done, but what He said He did. The issue is the authority of the Bible. If we do not accept the Bible as a true authority, we are left to the whims of public opinion. Who makes the rules? The strongest or smartest or the common denominator? And the Bible is put below man’s authority.
Upvote
0
