Basis for belief

[Pete Harcoff]

In another thread a few pages back, a quote from Kurt Wise (a young-Earth creationist and geologist) was stated as follows:

"I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant."

Basically, Kurt Wise is admitting that based on our current understanding, the Earth and universe appear old (contradicting the young Earth view). However, he ignores that because his Biblical view is that the Earth is young. And his Biblical view supercedes any contradictory evidence within the Earth and universe.

So, to the Young-Earth creationists in this forum, how do you feel about Kurt Wise's statement? Do you agree or disagree? If so, why?

 

[JohnR7]

There is a difference between: "What we currently think we understand" and "Based on our current understanding"

We could question if what we think we understand about the world we live in, is accurate and does it really line up with the facts and the evidence. Science use to think that bleeding people would cure the common cold. Was that accurate or not?

In 1799 George Washington went riding in the rain and fell ill. Physicians were summoned and bled him, but his condition worsened. Did they conclude that bleeding was harmful and try another treatment? Did they at least conclude that bleeding was ineffective and stop it? No, the doctors concluded that they had not bled him enough and bled him repeatedly until he died. He was 67.

countless patients were weakened or killed by removal of blood, which commonsense tells us is essential for life. Perhaps there is a lesson here. Once we accept something as "good," we often persist in doing it even when the result is clearly bad, while telling ourselves that we just haven't done enough of it. (Kopel research director of the Independence Institute.)http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel012401.shtml

"Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument. The heated mind resents the chill touch and relentless scrutiny of logic." -- William E. Gladstone

 

[ElElohe]

. . .

So, to the Young-Earth creationists in this forum, how do you feel about Kurt Wise's statement? Do you agree or disagree? If so, why?

In all honesty, as I've said, I don't really have enough head knowledge to validate or invalidate such a statement as a geologist would make. Most of the arguments I have heard for an old earth have been refuted by young earthers and most arguments for young earth refuted by old earthers.

Wise's statement carries some weight personally, but not a view-changing weight. And this probably for the same reason he has not given up on YEC. As the definition of a miracle goes, it is not defined by anything physical. So it follows that some evidence may, and probably won't at times, line up.

Of course, there is that thread asking if the devil planted fossils . . . which I'm not going to comment on because I can't (obviously not provable), but in the realm of Christianity it is plausible that the devil would put certain demeaning thoughts into the minds of humans. A very good book on how the devil works in the minds of men is The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis.

 

[lucaspa]

We could question if what we think we understand about the world we live in, is accurate and does it really line up with the facts and the evidence. Science use to think that bleeding people would cure the common cold. Was that accurate or not?

This is the difference between supporting a theory and falsifying a theory. It is why I emphasize that creationism is a falsified theory.

As you pointed out, there is a theory that bleeding people would cure disease and injury (never used on a cold to my knowledge). There was some initial data to support that theory. However, later there was data, as you indicate, that conclusively falsified the theory and now we KNOW the theory is wrong.

YEC is a theory that the earth is less than 20,000 years old. What Kurt Wise is saying is that there is data that shows that to be conclusively wrong. YEC is a falsified theory.

However, Wise is going to ignore the data and insist that WISE'S INTERPRETATION of the Bible is of more authority than the data.

Both you and Wise use "science" as tho it is a rival religion. It isn't. Instead, by your and Wise's beliefs, science is looking at GOD'S DATA. After all, God created the universe, so all the data in that universe was placed there by God. Right?

So what Wise is doing is placing HIS intepretation of the Bible over God.

Do you think that what Wise is doing is acceptable theology?

 

[lucaspa]

Of course, there is that thread asking if the devil planted fossils . . . which I'm not going to comment on because I can't (obviously not provable), but in the realm of Christianity it is plausible that the devil would put certain demeaning thoughts into the minds of humans. A very good book on how the devil works in the minds of men is The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis.

This is more than placing demeaning thoughts in the mind of humans. Both creation stories are clear that the devil had NOTHING to do with Creation. It was all God. Therefore there is no way the devil can have planted fossils unless you deny the basic idea that God created.