an official renunciation.

[Calminian]

Perhaps you would have received a better response had you asked in a friendlier place. Then again, would it really have made a difference?

I have the same skepticism. Shernren, it seems you were set up for this choice form the beginning. You've basically admitted that you're depending on scientific theory rather than the Bible. And since the YECs couldn't give you naturalistic explanations for the miracle of creation, you decided to reject their view. Something else was very interesting about you OP.

If science seems to contradict the Bible, there can only be these choices:
1. Science is of the devil, and the Bible is of God.
2. Science is of God and/or right, and the Bible is inaccurate and/or wrong.
3. Science and the Bible are both of God; I need to understand how they fit.
4. Science and the Bible are both of God - I don't know how and I don't care to know!

If those were the only options, the game was rigged from the get go. Science is a form of investigation that assumes, prior to observing any evidence, that there have been no additions to natural processes. Therefore any miracles the Bible speaks of are outside of its realm. So here's my suggestion for a 5th choice:

5. The Bible is of God and modern scientific theories may or may not be of God depending on the naturalistic assumptions they are based on.

I'm curious, Shernren if you had a chance to look at my thread "a evolutionist, TE, OEC and YEC all walk up to a bar"? I tried to show through it the problems that can arise when certain methods are used to investigate God's creative miracles. If you haven't had a chance I'd appreciate you taking a look.

 

[gluadys]

You've basically admitted that you're depending on scientific theory rather than the Bible. And since the YECs couldn't give you naturalistic explanations for the miracle of creation, you decided to reject their view.

Perhaps Shernren has grasped better than you have that evolution is not antithetic to creation. It is not even about creation. Before evolution can begin, creation is already in place. The universe, the stars and galaxies, the solar system, the planets, this planet and even the first life on this planet have all been created already. It is only when life exists that evolution can begin. So how does evolution say anything against the miracle of creation?

As for a young earth, the evidence is so heavily against it that it was disproven even before a workable theory of evolution was proposed.

Is it unreasonable to ask YECs for a naturalistic explanation of the origin of the universe and of the earth? Depends. If you are going to take a young earth solely on faith and simply deny, on the basis of faith, the contrary evidence, then YEC is tenable since it has removed itself from scientific consideration. However, it has also removed itself from mainstream Christian theology. But if YEC claims to have any scientific basis, it must be examined on a scientific basis and not call upon the supernatural to deal with any difficult evidence. So then it is reasonable to ask for a naturalistic explanation.

Science is a form of investigation that assumes, prior to observing any evidence, that there have been no additions to natural processes.

No, what science says is "IF there has been no supernatural intervention, then this is what the evidence tells us." All bets are off if there have been miraculous interruptions to the normal processes of nature.

The difficulty is in showing that there have been miraculous interruptions to the normal processes of nature. How does one know when all possible natural explanations have been exhausted? Since we know so little of nature, our best option at this time is to assume ignorance rather than miracle, unless we have some very strong evidence of miracle.

For YECs there is an additional obstacle, especially when it comes to a global flood. Not only is there no evidence of a global flood, there is evidence which plainly contradicts a global flood. So if one calls in miraculous intervention to explain the flood, one must also call in more miraculous intervention to a) wipe away all evidence of the flood, and b) set in place evidence which contradicts a global flood. I think it is quite fair to ask, if God speaks of a global flood in scripture, why does God also not only deliberately erase all evidence of this flood from nature, but even set in place evidence which says no such flood ever happened.

Therefore any miracles the Bible speaks of are outside of its realm. So here's my suggestion for a 5th choice:

5. The Bible is of God and modern scientific theories may or may not be of God depending on the naturalistic assumptions they are based on.

Naturalistic assumptions are never anti-God per se. What is anti-God is a naturalistic or materialistic philososphy which says that scientific truth is the sum total of all truth.

Naturalistic assumptions in a believer are actually an expression of faith in God, for they assume that God does not miraculously disrupt the normal processes of nature on a whim. Miracles can occur when the circumstances warrant it. But not simply and solely to confuse honest seekers after truth. Nor, for that matter, simply and solely to draw attention to God's power. Think of how often Jesus refused a sign to the Pharisees, yet readily healed those who needed it. After all, it is creation in its normality which is the great testimony to God's wisdom and power. Miracles testify to God's sovereignty over nature, but they are not a necessary addition to testify to God's power. Ordinary, non-miraculous nature already does that.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I have the same skepticism. Shernren, it seems you were set up for this choice form the beginning. You've basically admitted that you're depending on scientific theory rather than the Bible. And since the YECs couldn't give you naturalistic explanations for the miracle of creation, you decided to reject their view. Something else was very interesting about you OP.

I've read the posts Shernren made. The YECs couldn't give any explanation. Most didn't bother to try.

If those were the only options, the game was rigged from the get go. Science is a form of investigation that assumes, prior to observing any evidence, that there have been no additions to natural processes. Therefore any miracles the Bible speaks of are outside of its realm. So here's my suggestion for a 5th choice:

5. The Bible is of God and modern scientific theories may or may not be of God depending on the naturalistic assumptions they are based on.

How can modern scientific theories "may or may not be of God?"

I'm curious, Shernren if you had a chance to look at my thread "a evolutionist, TE, OEC and YEC all walk up to a bar"? I tried to show through it the problems that can arise when certain methods are used to investigate God's creative miracles. If you haven't had a chance I'd appreciate you taking a look.

The argument in that thread was soundly refuted many times over.

 

[duordi]

Interesting.

I have been through a similar search.

I would say I am a number 3.

“3. Science and the Bible are both of God; I need to understand how they fit.”

I have been very successful in matching science and the Bible, here is an example.

The Bible predicts variation of the species.

Geneses 3

[17] And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it:

(Here is where variation of the species is defined as a curse )

cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

( Here is where the normal plant life is allowed to change in an injurious way.)

[18] Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

( Now we have the end result of a changing species.)

[19] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

For we know from science that indeed all life forms have changed.

From bacteria to our own makeup.

But the Bible predicts a quick change which literally must happen in Adams lifetime.

What does science make evident.

Did the dog develop into a poodle and a St. Bernard in a million years or a few hundred years.
But they are still dogs.

So current science knowledge agrees with the Bible description of “variation of the species” and disagrees with common evolutionary ideas.

And what is the outcome of survival of the fittest?

Survival of the most adaptable.

Single celled life reproduces much faster then we do and there are many more of them.

So they will eventually win the survival of the fittest game because they will adapt quicker.

Is the extinction of intelligent life improvement or a curse ?

There is a specific reason why the surface of the Earth was recreated in six days.
But to accept it you must believe that the Bible contains Gods thoughts and not just mans thoughts.
You must also believe God is capable and willing to preform miracles, knows the past and the future and is willing to share the information.

I think you have all of the requirements.

If so let me know and I will proceed.

Duane

 

[Vance]

Who said miracles are contrary to science? Scientists themselves say science cannot verify nor falsify a miracle. Miracles are outside the realm of scientific investigation. That miracles are contrary to science is a nonsensical statement. One a form if investigation, the other is an event. It's like saying clowns are contrary to volleyball.

Who said miracles are contrary to science? Lots of YEC's say this all the time. In fact, I would be someone earlier in this thread said it, but I would have to go back and look. But what you are saying is exactly right, and it is what I have said a thousand times.

Edit: I went back and looked, and it was Smidlee who was saying that the miracle of the loaves and fishes was contrary to basic science.

 

[gluadys]

Interesting.

I have been through a similar search.

I would say I am a number 3.

“3. Science and the Bible are both of God; I need to understand how they fit.”

I have been very successful in matching science and the Bible, here is an example.

The Bible predicts variation of the species.

Duane, we have been over this on the Creo-Evo board. It seems you are still incapable of separating your thoughts from the biblical text.

The bible does NOT predict variation of the species.

You, Duane, INTERPRET these verses to refer to variation of species.

The verses can be interpreted in other ways than this. So stop saying "the bible says..." when what you mean is "I, Duane, interpret this to refer to ...."

Geneses 3

[17] And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it:

(Here is where variation of the species is defined as a curse )

No, the bible does not define variation as a curse. It is you, Duane, who is INTERPRETING the passage this way. Why do you think you are God's chosen spokesperson?

cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

( Here is where the normal plant life is allowed to change in an injurious way.)


[18] Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

The text says nothing about plants changing in any way. You are putting your own ideas into the text and then proclaiming that your own fallible human ideas are part of scripture.

(Now we have the end result of a changing species.)

[19] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

For we know from science that indeed all life forms have changed.

Yes, we do know this from science. But not from the bible. The bible can be interpreted in many ways. It's not wrong to intepret the bible as referring to change---but it is wrong to confuse your interpretation with the actual text. It is equally possible to interpret the bible as referring to fixed species that don't change. That wouldn't agree with science, but it would not be a wrong interpretation of scripture.

But the Bible predicts a quick change which literally must happen in Adams lifetime.

No it doesn't. It makes no prediction of any sort of change. Don't you think that people who read Genesis for over 2000 years would have noticed that prediction before scientists noted evolutionary change only 150 years ago? On the contrary, theologians and scientists at the time believed that species did not change at all. They even believed different breeds of dogs and roses and pigeons and apples and sheep were separately created. And they believed that is what the bible taught.

I think they were wrong about what the bible taught. While I don't think the bible teaches evolution, I don't think it teaches anything contrary to evolution either.

But you cannot get this from the text alone. The text requires interpretation whether it is interpreted in favour of change or against change in species. So be honest with yourself and others and admit that your interpretations are your interpretations. They are not what the bible itself says. They are what you interpret the text to mean.

It is a lie to introduce your interpretations with "The bible says..."

Did the dog develop into a poodle and a St. Bernard in a million years or a few hundred years.
But they are still dogs.

Just as the theory of evolution predicts.

And what is the outcome of survival of the fittest?

Survival of the most adaptable.

Not necessarily. Many species thrive by being so well adapted to their own niche that they cannot live outside it.

Single celled life reproduces much faster then we do and there are many more of them.

So they will eventually win the survival of the fittest game because they will adapt quicker.

We adapt quickly too, but we adapt with intelligence and medicines, with knowledge and protective measures. We don't need to wait for our bodies to adapt.

 

[duordi]

The Bible clearly indicates that the plants will leave there normal condition and reform into something that will cause harm and a miserable life for Adam.

You are quite correct, in clamming I have my own opnion on what this indicates.

As you must know from our discussions, in the past, my opinions have well though out reasons for why I accept them wether we agree or not.

I am more then willing to display the verses and my interpretations for any who would wish to consider them for themselves, as I assume they are capable of forming there own opinions.

I don't force my interpretations on anyone or hide the reasoning I used.

We disagree not because either of our reasoning is flawed but because we start with different assumption regarding interpretation of Bible text.

This was intended for Shernren as there was an indication of interest in all available options.

Is there some reason you would wish Shernren not to hear a variety of ideas?

Duane

 

[gluadys]

The Bible clearly indicates that the plants will leave there normal condition and reform into something that will cause harm and a miserable life for Adam.

No, the bible does not. This is YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of the text. It is not a clear biblical indication.

You are quite correct, in clamming I have my own opnion on what this indicates.

As you must know from our discussions, in the past, my opinions have well though out reasons for why I accept them wether we agree or not.

I am more then willing to display the verses and my interpretations for any who would wish to consider them for themselves, as I assume they are capable of forming there own opinions.

I don't force my interpretations on anyone or hide the reasoning I used.

We disagree not because either of our reasoning is flawed but because we start with different assumption regarding interpretation of Bible text.

I have no problem with anything you say here. But why do you not label your interpretations as interpretations? Why do you put up an interpretation of your own as something "the bible says..." or "the bible clearly indicates..." when the bible does nothing of the kind.

It would be a simple thing to say instead something along the line of this:

"To me it seems clear the bible indicates...." or
"I believe that in this verse the bible is speaking of...."

Using such language shows that you are suggesting an interpretation. But when you start off with "The bible says..." you are claiming that your interpretation is identical with the intended meaning. That is overreaching yourself. It is putting yourself in the shoes of the author and claiming some special insight into his mind.

This was intended for Shernren as there was an indication of interest in all available options.

Is there some reason you would wish Shernren not to hear a variety of ideas?

Duane

Of course not. But that variety of ideas should be presented as a variety of personal opinions about the scriptural text. Your personal interpretations should not be presented as something the bible says, but as a way you interpret what the bible says.

Is this really so hard to understand?

 

[duordi]

No, the bible does not. This is YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of the text. It is not a clear biblical indication.



I have no problem with anything you say here. But why do you not label your interpretations as interpretations? Why do you put up an interpretation of your own as something "the bible says..." or "the bible clearly indicates..." when the bible does nothing of the kind.

It would be a simple thing to say instead something along the line of this:

"To me it seems clear the bible indicates...." or
"I believe that in this verse the bible is speaking of...."

Using such language shows that you are suggesting an interpretation. But when you start off with "The bible says..." you are claiming that your interpretation is identical with the intended meaning. That is overreaching yourself. It is putting yourself in the shoes of the author and claiming some special insight into his mind.



Of course not. But that variety of ideas should be presented as a variety of personal opinions about the scriptural text. Your personal interpretations should not be presented as something the bible says, but as a way you interpret what the bible says.

Is this really so hard to understand?

You said
"Of course not. But that variety of ideas should be presented as a variety of personal opinions about the scriptural text. Your personal interpretations should not be presented as something the bible says, but as a way you interpret what the bible says."

As long as I paste the referance in for everyone to read for themselves I do not see why you have a problem with it.

Is it the version I use, that could be easily changed.

Duane

 

[gluadys]

You said
"Of course not. But that variety of ideas should be presented as a variety of personal opinions about the scriptural text. Your personal interpretations should not be presented as something the bible says, but as a way you interpret what the bible says."

As long as I paste the referance in for everyone to read for themselves I do not see why you have a problem with it.

Is it the version I use, that could be easily changed.

Duane

No, it's not the version you use. Use any version you like. The problem lies in how you present your opinion as something the bible says.

Look at this example:

The Bible predicts variation of the species.

Geneses 3

[17] And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it:

(Here is where variation of the species is defined as a curse )

cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

( Here is where the normal plant life is allowed to change in an injurious way.)

[18] Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

( Now we have the end result of a changing species.)

[19] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

See how you start right off with "The bible predicts..."? But lots of people will not agree that this is what the bible predicts at all. So you should start off with something like "In my opinion, the bible predicts...." Then you can justify that opinion by explaining how you interpret the verses, e.g.

"cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;"

I interpret this to mean that variation of the species is a curse.

"Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;"

I see this as the normal plant life being allowed to change in an injurious way.

Do you see how this clearly separates the biblical text from your interpretation?

This is a proper way to show respect for the biblical text.

 

[shernren]

Whoa. Go set up your own thread and thrash it out there. I've got my own fights to fight here. XD

I have the same skepticism. Shernren, it seems you were set up for this choice form the beginning. You've basically admitted that you're depending on scientific theory rather than the Bible.

No, I'm going to depend on scientific theory (not naturalistic interpretations of those theories) to tell me how God started the world, and the Bible to tell me why God started the world. Clear?

Let's say there's a sudden fixation with triangles in anthropology. An anthropological professor starts becoming an expert on triangles in ancient art and culture: what the triangle represents, how they drew, why the triangle and not other shapes, special meanings of isoceles and equilateral triangles. Now let's say I walk up to him, give him a triangle with three side lengths given, and ask him to find the three angles.

He can't. Does that mean he's a quack? Does that mean that all his research is bogus? Does that mean we chase him out of the anthropology division? No, it just means someone needs to teach him a bit of trigonometry.

See what I mean? Science and the Bible are contradictory only if you want a contradiction. If you try hard enough (especially since they come from the same source) I believe that science and the Bible should be complementary.

And since the YECs couldn't give you naturalistic explanations for the miracle of creation, you decided to reject their view. Something else was very interesting about you OP.

Their explanations aren't just supernaturalistic. From what I've seen so far, they're simply absurd. And this is not flaming, because I believe that I have given ample opportunity for people to propose non-absurd, scientifically remotely viable ideas. If being truthful is a crime let me be a criminal.

Let me show you the difference. Let's say I walk out of a football stadium and walk back in half an hour later. I see the whole stadium wet. I ask a passer-by: "What happened?"
He says "The gardener watered the field." (There are no sprinklers; this is *my* field after all. =D)
Immediately I can tell he's lying. Because firstly, the roof (which only covers half the seats) is wet, and what business does a gardener have with the roof? The uncovered seats are wet also, while the covered seats are dry, which is consistent with the hypothesis of a rainstorm; whereas a gardener mad enough to water the seats that aren't covered should also be mad enough to water the seats that are covered. Furthermore, the whole field, the uncovered seats and the roof are all dripping (soaking, in the case of the field) wet, and how would a gardener have had the time to do that?

The passer-by isn't just a supernaturalist. He's a liar. Simple as that.

Anything that is deterministically naturalistic is anti-Christian by definition. A prime example is, of course, naturalistic evolution. But that doesn't mean that anything supernaturalistic is Christian! If Christianity is truth then lies (or mistakes, if you please) are not Christian. Fill in the blanks yourself: I refuse to out of decency.

Hypothetical speaking, let’s assume that we can elevate science to “the Word of God as revealed in nature.” Does it not bother you that those that have been entrusted with it are not solely men of God that are dedicated in maintaining His Word? To add insult to injury, science has been defined as a naturalistic process, right? If we are to accept this definition, then by this very definition science is shown to be biased. It can never consider all of the possibilities if it disregards a supernatural creation.

See, that's what happens when everyone somehow "feels called" to "go full-time", and becoming a clergyman or a theologian is the highest "promotion" in the church, so that we hear little of (wherever they are) high-caliber Christian scientists. Doesn't it offend you that Muslims study the Bible (in Greek!) and the ancient theologians to refute them? I know that for a fact. But that's not the point - I'm just trying to prove a point: Just because "dirty atheists"(as you, not I, would call them)touch God's science doesn't make it dirty.

5. The Bible is of God and modern scientific theories may or may not be of God depending on the naturalistic assumptions they are based on.

Oh goodness. Of course science is based on the assumption of non-interferism. We don't have a capricious God who changes the universal gravitation constant or the speed of light every nanosecond. A God of order creates a world of order: could anything be less surprising?

You have to understand the nature of scientific theory. Scientific theory is basically a set of principles and laws that predict certain outcomes for natural systems based on certain initial conditions. Of course science has to preclude some assumption of non-interference (high quantum physics notwithstanding where the event of observation is itself an interference - what a monster construct) to have general applicability.

I won't go into scientific metaphysics here - I'll cut straight to the point.

Science can do the reverse: it can assume initial conditions, run things forward through the application of scientific theory, and arrive at today's universe. Of course this is considerably harder; one has to make many assumptions about initial conditions. Inherently one can assume the existence and interference of God. However we are guided to the right initial conditions by seeing which give a final condition that matches the target. By the way, this is not something arcane. Students do it every day with questions like "A car accelerates from rest to 10kmph in 3s. How far does it travel?" which implicitly asks for the initial condition i.e. displacement of initial from final position.
So then, at the intersection of science and origin theology:

If we assume the initial creation of matter and life by God, run the initial conditions through about 13 billion years of standard scientific theory, and come up (within reasonable margins) with today's world. Not bad. TE, 1 point.

But if assume a literal 6-day 6000-years ago creation of everything in every way by God, and run the initial conditions through 6000 years of geology (in particular) and the other sciences, we come up with expected observations which wildly differ (outside margins of error) from those of today's world. YEC, 0 points. The intellectually honest conclusion is that the initial conditions are wrong.

One YEC conclusion is that the earth is "created young to look old" i.e. that there is interference. This is a theologically troubling proposition (you can ask me why privately). Another YEC conclusion is that "The predictions do agree with actual data!" i.e. data that is old, wrong, or misinterpreted.

I hope this explanation makes sense. It caused a lot of trouble to me when people said that "since nobody has observed the origin isn't it outside the realm of observation and therefore of science"? However, initial conditions match final conditions within certain tolerances, and therefore while we cannot get exact initial conditions (those are metaphysics) we can get good approximations.

Understand?

 

[duordi]

No, it's not the version you use. Use any version you like. The problem lies in how you present your opinion as something the bible says.

Look at this example:



See how you start right off with "The bible predicts..."? But lots of people will not agree that this is what the bible predicts at all. So you should start off with something like "In my opinion, the bible predicts...." Then you can justify that opinion by explaining how you interpret the verses, e.g.



Do you see how this clearly separates the biblical text from your interpretation?

This is a proper way to show respect for the biblical text.

You have a point.

I have somewhat of a problem in that I have habits, and as you can tell I sometimes am very passionet about what I believe.

Having to retype everything constantly is not my first choice of a solution.

I could put a disclaimer at the bottom of the page.

I notice you have a quote from Einstein.

As soon as I am able to, I will work on how to add the disclaimer.


As always I respect your opnions.

Duane

 

[Vance]

Duordi:

The important thing about adding such qualifiers actually in the text as we type it (and we all fail to do this on occassion) is that it reminds US that what we are saying is our own reading of Scripture, or that of our church or some other source, and it keeps us humble about our own absolute ability to interpret a given Scripture.

 

[Calminian]

See what I mean? Science and the Bible are contradictory only if you want a contradiction. If you try hard enough (especially since they come from the same source) I believe that science and the Bible should be complementary.

I'm curious if you would say the same of the Koran. After all, all we have to do is reinterpret it to make it divine. This is actually true for any religious book. Why do you hold the Bible over other books? Or do you?

Their explanations aren't just supernaturalistic. From what I've seen so far, they're simply absurd. And this is not flaming, because I believe that I have given ample opportunity for people to propose non-absurd, scientifically remotely viable ideas. If being truthful is a crime let me be a criminal.

Have you only searched for answers here? I'm not sure there are very many YEC scientists here? I know AIG will allow you to submit challenges in their technical journal. Have you contacted them? You see, not being a scientist, I'm not qualified to answer scientific questions. I'm forced to just focus on the text and more philosophical concepts about the effects of miracles. You have to be careful who you allow to represent to you the scientific side of the YEC view. I'm not sure there's anyone here even qualified. However in looking over your post I don't think science is the problem at all. I'll explain.

Let me show you the difference. Let's say I walk out of a football stadium and walk back in half an hour later. I see the whole stadium wet. I ask a passer-by: "What happened?"
He says "The gardener watered the field." (There are no sprinklers; this is *my* field after all. =D)
Immediately I can tell he's lying. Because firstly, the roof (which only covers half the seats) is wet, and what business does a gardener have with the roof? The uncovered seats are wet also, while the covered seats are dry, which is consistent with the hypothesis of a rainstorm; whereas a gardener mad enough to water the seats that aren't covered should also be mad enough to water the seats that are covered. Furthermore, the whole field, the uncovered seats and the roof are all dripping (soaking, in the case of the field) wet, and how would a gardener have had the time to do that?

The passer-by isn't just a supernaturalist. He's a liar. Simple as that.

I see a problem with this right away. You're already handling the Bible in a different way. Instead of calling its authors liars, you are making excuses for them. To make your analogy fit, you would have to reinterpret what the passer-by told you. For instance you could say, he didn't really mean the gardener watered. He was just using that as metaphor to convey to you that the gardener has a flowing refreshing spirit. By watered he meant to tell you how much he loves the stadium. Or some contrived explanation to that effect. This is exactly how TEs and OECs come off to me.

See, that's what happens when everyone somehow "feels called" to "go full-time", and becoming a clergyman or a theologian is the highest "promotion" in the church, so that we hear little of (wherever they are) high-caliber Christian scientists. Doesn't it offend you that Muslims study the Bible (in Greek!) and the ancient theologians to refute them? I know that for a fact. But that's not the point - I'm just trying to prove a point: Just because "dirty atheists"(as you, not I, would call them)touch God's science doesn't make it dirty.

Hmm, sounds like you're dealing with a lot of baggage. I've never used the term "dirty atheists". I can think someone wrong without hating them.

Oh goodness. Of course science is based on the assumption of non-interferism. We don't have a capricious God who changes the universal gravitation constant or the speed of light every nanosecond. A God of order creates a world of order: could anything be less surprising?

......

If we assume the initial creation of matter and life by God, run the initial conditions through about 13 billion years of standard scientific theory, and come up (within reasonable margins) with today's world. Not bad. TE, 1 point.

But if assume a literal 6-day 6000-years ago creation of everything in every way by God, and run the initial conditions through 6000 years of geology (in particular) and the other sciences, we come up with expected observations which wildly differ (outside margins of error) from those of today's world. YEC, 0 points. The intellectually honest conclusion is that the initial conditions are wrong.

This approach is very problematic. The same exact conclusion would have been reached in the wine illustration by the OECs and atheist. Again I'd really like you to take a look at it. In short, when the atheist and OECs picked an initial start date of 5 years ago they would have also had reasonable margins in the area of predictions. But if they chose a start date of just the prior day their calculations would have been off. Does that prove that Jesus didn't create the wine the day prior? Of course not.

One YEC conclusion is that the earth is "created young to look old" i.e. that there is interference.

Not at all. The earth was no more made to "look old" than the wine Jesus made to look aged. The only ones fooled into thinking it looked aged were those not taking it's miraculous creation into account or not realizing what affect a past miracle can have on present data. This is not God's fault.

I hope this explanation makes sense. It caused a lot of trouble to me when people said that "since nobody has observed the origin isn't it outside the realm of observation and therefore of science"? However, initial conditions match final conditions within certain tolerances, and therefore while we cannot get exact initial conditions (those are metaphysics) we can get good approximations.

It makes sense alright. And I think I've exposed the error in your approach. Looking forward to your thoughts.

 

[Remus]

See, that's what happens when everyone somehow "feels called" to "go full-time", and becoming a clergyman or a theologian is the highest "promotion" in the church, so that we hear little of (wherever they are) high-caliber Christian scientists. Doesn't it offend you that Muslims study the Bible (in Greek!) and the ancient theologians to refute them? I know that for a fact. But that's not the point - I'm just trying to prove a point: Just because "dirty atheists"(as you, not I, would call them)touch God's science doesn't make it dirty.

Dirty atheists? I neither said nor implied such a thing. You seem like an intelligent guy. I wouldn't expect you to have to resort to putting words in my mouth.

Also, you didn't answer my question. I didn't say that atheists "touched" anything; I'm saying that they had a large part in the "translation" of this so called other word of God. Would you accept a Bible that was translated by someone that says things like this:

We cannot prove that there is no God, but we can safely conclude the He is very, very improbable indeed.

 

[shernren]

I'm curious if you would say the same of the Koran. After all, all we have to do is reinterpret it to make it divine. This is actually true for any religious book. Why do you hold the Bible over other books? Or do you?

Simple. Because the God I believe in wrote the Bible, and I also believe He is the same God who created the world which we deal with in science.

Have you only searched for answers here? I'm not sure there are very many YEC scientists here? I know AIG will allow you to submit challenges in their technical journal. Have you contacted them? You see, not being a scientist, I'm not qualified to answer scientific questions. I'm forced to just focus on the text and more philosophical concepts about the effects of miracles. You have to be careful who you allow to represent to you the scientific side of the YEC view. I'm not sure there's anyone here even qualified.

I look around outside and I see YEC theories getting rebutted left right and center. So I ask around here... I'm not expecting anybody here to directly quote science at me. I'm asking if anybody even knows of any credible YEC science and where it is. Now, I don't normally subscribe to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" but...

I see a problem with this right away. You're already handling the Bible in a different way. Instead of calling its authors liars, you are making excuses for them. To make your analogy fit, you would have to reinterpret what the passer-by told you.

The passer-by is not the biblical writer: he is the YECist. (Oops. I just had to let it out.) The Biblical writer doesn't prescribe a scientific theory. The YECist does. Guess who I'm hitting at here?

In the analogy, the Biblical writer would have to be someone who answers: "Well, the gardener does take good care of the stadium..." which is a rather irrelevant answer whether or not it is true.

Hmm, sounds like you're dealing with a lot of baggage. I've never used the term "dirty atheists". I can think someone wrong without hating them.

Oh that's good. Because a lot of YECists can't. That's one of the things that scared me.

This approach is very problematic. The same exact conclusion would have been reached in the wine illustration by the OECs and atheist. Again I'd really like you to take a look at it. In short, when the atheist and OECs picked an initial start date of 5 years ago they would have also had reasonable margins in the area of predictions. But if they chose a start date of just the prior day their calculations would have been off. Does that prove that Jesus didn't create the wine the day prior? Of course not.

Alright then. Jesus had reason to create the wine that looked 5 years ago in a few minutes. The reason is simple: He only had a few minutes to do it. But what reason does God have to create a 6000-year-old universe that looks a few billion years old? Of course He may have His own reasons... but this would cast severe doubt, in my opinion, on the character of God. Your very own bigshot Humphrey has said about as much in his treatment of the "created young to look old" philosophy in Starlight and Time.

More later. Gotta run.

 

[Vance]

The wine example also doesn't work because there is need for wine to be aged for flavor. And, if it was merely for usefulness, or even mere "maturity", that the earth was created in a way to look older, that would be a bit more acceptable. But that is NOT what we have. We have an earth that has extraneous and non-useful evidences of age. There are the equivalent of scars and embedded features which would have had to be planted and included far beyond the need for usefulness or just maturity.

 

[seebs]

I don't see how an older-looking earth is "better". With the wine, we can at least argue that maybe an "aged" wine is useful. With a planet, why bother? Why have varying tree rings going back before the creation of the world?

 

[vossler]

Using your wine analogy, wouldn't we all agree that God created Adam fully formed? If we agree on that then would it be so far fetched to say he created the earth the same way?

 

[SBG]

Romans 8:22
"We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."

That is the answer to why the earth looks as it does.

I am not sure what the point of this public proclamation was for. As the thread deepens, it becomes apparent that the purpose is to not make a proclamation but to put down another belief that stems from the Bible. Science here is exalted to be more correct than what the Bible states, concluding that one must read the Bible differently in light of man's wisdom of understanding.

Once again man's wisdom is thought to be of the highest regard, for it is because of man's wisdom that man does declare the Bible to be in error if read how the Apostles read it and how Jesus taught it. In another thread the purpose of many here is even more clear. It is stated in this other thread that Jesus Christ didn't know about complex biology. But who created this world and this complex biology? Jesus Christ.

Your ears itch and you gather what your flesh wants to hear, even to the point of putting Christ back on trial and declaring Him wrong. Then here in this thread, as well as many others in this 'Christian only' area, expressions of animosity are shared as if it is the right thing to do. Those who live in the sinful nature have there minds set on what the nature desires. When one states Jesus is wrong, or God and His word are in error, it is the flesh that rises up to war with God, for the sinful mind is hostile towards God. It is only natural that one who deams God's Word in error would then turn the attack around and claim Bible worshipping if one keeps to God's Word or upholds its truths.

What a wicked place this is, a place where vipers gather to draw strength and claim their logic, their wisdom, their science is above God and His Word by declaring the Bible must be read differently if these three human thoughts don't agree with what is written in the Bible.

It was not the people who didn't know God who sentenced Jesus Christ to be crucified. It was the people God entrusted with His Word that wanted Him crucified. It shall be no different today.