Science and philosophy

[The Lady Kate]

But I don't think every YEC REJECTS evidence that condradict our religious views, I think (without getting into a debate on any one evidence) that we don't see the evidence in the same light.

Precisely. YECs come to the table having already decided that the evidence means...or more accurately, what the evidence must mean to fit into their idea of what Scripture must mean...

We view the evidence, and see how it fits into young earth.

Because it must fit into young Earth... and evidence which does not fit into young Earth must be made to fit into Young Earth...

But then again, we beleive in the supernatural as well.

It's one thing to believe in the supernatural, quite another to depend on it...another thing entirely to demand it.

 

[shernren]

But I don't think every YEC REJECTS evidence that condradict our religious views, I think (without getting into a debate on any one evidence) that we don't see the evidence in the same light. We view the evidence, and see how it fits into young earth. But then again, we beleive in the supernatural as well.

Well the mother of all YEC organizations, AiG, wouldn't agree with you:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Now tell me something. How do you find a piece of evidence if it doesn't appear to you, if you don't perceive it, or if nobody claims that it is true? Basically AiG is saying, "anything you say can be rejected if we don't think we like it."

Complete objectivity cannot be claimed on either side, however. Old earth theorists typically (not all) don't even beleive in supernatural, and because it isn't testable by anything that they can conceive by scientific method, then it doesn't exist.

Really? I'm a TE and I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the grave. So explain me. It's not that I don't believe in the supernatural. I just don't believe in the incredulous. I believe that God performs miracles. I don't believe that He went to the trouble of creating the world 6000 years ago, then methodically removing all the evidence that He did so and replacing it with evidence that tells me He took a leisurely few billion years to get the job done.

(I know you will tell me that "I said typically, not all!" But really - have you met more TEs who don't believe in the Virgin Birth and Resurrection, or more TEs who do?)

But again, you say scientific concensus... and that does show some bias towards the popular opinion.

Why is it that when Christians believe in evolution you say it's "going with the flow" ... but when Christians believe that 2+2=4 you say it's "being normal"?

and it is not true that people dont change their minds i was OEC 5 years ago when i started to restudy the issues, i took the TE stand as a result. lots of people here can relate their changing understanding as well. there are even a few YECists that learned about the evidence that changed their science without losing their faith. wow what a concept. sure proves AiG's slippery slope to unbelief is erronous.

That's true. I was a YEC before I joined CF and it's taken less than 5 months to make me a loyal TE. And I think that Left Behind has actually done more damage to my faith than Theistic Evolution, so there.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Well the mother of all YEC organizations, AiG, wouldn't agree with you:



Now tell me something. How do you find a piece of evidence if it doesn't appear to you, if you don't perceive it, or if nobody claims that it is true? Basically AiG is saying, "anything you say can be rejected if we don't think we like it."



Really? I'm a TE and I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the grave. So explain me. It's not that I don't believe in the supernatural. I just don't believe in the incredulous. I believe that God performs miracles. I don't believe that He went to the trouble of creating the world 6000 years ago, then methodically removing all the evidence that He did so and replacing it with evidence that tells me He took a leisurely few billion years to get the job done.

(I know you will tell me that "I said typically, not all!" But really - have you met more TEs who don't believe in the Virgin Birth and Resurrection, or more TEs who do?)



Why is it that when Christians believe in evolution you say it's "going with the flow" ... but when Christians believe that 2+2=4 you say it's "being normal"?



That's true. I was a YEC before I joined CF and it's taken less than 5 months to make me a loyal TE. And I think that Left Behind has actually done more damage to my faith than Theistic Evolution, so there.

Ok, let me ask a question then. You don't beleive the Genesis account is literal.. then why believe the virgin birth is literal? Where do you draw the line of what is story, and what is fact? It can't be logic, because logic doesn't dictate a virgin born perfect man who can walk on water, rise from the dead, ascend into heaven... etc... how do you pick and choose what is truth from the bible, and what is fable?

 

[notto]

Ok, let me ask a question then. You don't beleive the Genesis account is literal.. then why believe the virgin birth is literal? Where do you draw the line of what is story, and what is fact? It can't be logic, because logic doesn't dictate a virgin born perfect man who can walk on water, rise from the dead, ascend into heaven... etc... how do you pick and choose what is truth from the bible, and what is fable?

The creation itself does not provide a falsification of the virgin birth. It is accepted on faith. The Genesis account as literal is falsified by what we know about history and what years of study of the creation itself have told us.

 

[Uphill Battle]

The creation itself does not provide a falsification of the virgin birth. It is accepted on faith. The Genesis account as literal is falsified by what we know about history and what years of study of the creation itself have told us.

So then, the words of Christ himself are not falsified or falsifiable? Because he refered to the creation. So, did christ lie? Or was he just Ambiguous about the whole thing?

 

[Micaiah]

rmwilliamsll

Thanks for your posts.

probably not, and that is why the example is math not science.
but the problem with subjectivity in science stems from the fact that it is done by people not by unemotional or uninvolved computers.

first, look at things in science like prions or ulcers caused by bacteria. These are examples of where the scientific world ignored and even humiliated the proponents of the theory. Yet the single person was right and the community wrong.

second, look at how science is done. It is big expensive business and this deforms the science, not so much because of what it discovers as it deforms the direction that science takes. the fact that much of scientific work is funded by the military doesn't help one bit.

but that doesn't address the question that you really want to ask, is science objective? especially in the light of its assumption of provisional methodological naturalism/materialism.

If your question is:
is science discovering things that are really out there and supplying the proper theories to explain what it has found? The answer from a Christian viewpoint appears to be a qualified yes and no. *grin*
Fundamentally science is never going to answer the questions in terms of God, nor can it, and those are really the right answers, however those answers aren't scientific but religious. So they appear to be incomplete to the religious minded but are fully functional and useful within the domain of science so they are correct in that domain.
And that is the precise problem with the religious, they can never be content with something which claims ignore God.

I think you have raised some good points. Sponsors and bosses can have a big influence on the inferences drawn from scientific research.

There is always going to be a human element since science tends to focus on those questions that affect humanity. The conclusions we derive from evidence gained scientifically can range from compelling to speculative.

I climb to the top of a tall building and peer over the edge. There is compelling scientific evidence that if I jump off, I may not be able to fly over to the next building. I pick up a rock that has an indentation that appears to be more than just a hole. Could this be the missing link from 150 million years ago ...

 

[The Lady Kate]

So then, the words of Christ himself are not falsified or falsifiable? Because he refered to the creation. So, did christ lie? Or was he just Ambiguous about the whole thing?

Christ referrered to Prodigal Sons and Good Samaritans. So, Did Christ lie? Or was he just ambiguous about the whole thing?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Christ referrered to Prodigal Sons and Good Samaritans. So, Did Christ lie? Or was he just ambiguous about the whole thing?

No, that was a parable, and another parable... and it is identified as such.

 

[shernren]

Ok, let me ask a question then. You don't beleive the Genesis account is literal.. then why believe the virgin birth is literal? Where do you draw the line of what is story, and what is fact? It can't be logic, because logic doesn't dictate a virgin born perfect man who can walk on water, rise from the dead, ascend into heaven... etc... how do you pick and choose what is truth from the bible, and what is fable?

Try and read the Gospels as myth. You'll find them reduced to nonsense. Myth doesn't have the people of the Promise rejecting that very Promise. Myth doesn't have a Servant King riding a donkey into a city and being hung up in that same city a week later. Myth doesn't have disciples who swear against their former Master when servant girls ask about their affiliations. Myth doesn't have a Preacher who doesn't give a whit about offending anyone He thinks is wrong. And lastly we have the assurance of the authors themselves that they weren't just writing myth:

3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

If the Gospel writers had wanted to write myth they did an awful job of it. They should have learnt from Buddhism. So I conclude that they weren't writing myth, but history, complete with the Virgin Birth and Resurrection.

On the other hand, Genesis 1 reads awfully like it could be a myth. There's a lot of poetic syllogism (tohu-bohu) and grandiose generality. Genesis 1 as a myth is a viable alternative, especially looking at it from an Asian mentality. I grew up with stories that couldn't decide whether they were history or myth.

And who taught you that myth = lie? I like the sig of someone on CF which goes "The Bible is true - some of it happened."

I climb to the top of a tall building and peer over the edge. There is compelling scientific evidence that if I jump off, I may not be able to fly over to the next building. I pick up a rock that has an indentation that appears to be more than just a hole. Could this be the missing link from 150 million years ago ...

*blink* was that supposed to be a poem? ...

 

[Uphill Battle]

Try and read the Gospels as myth. You'll find them reduced to nonsense. Myth doesn't have the people of the Promise rejecting that very Promise. Myth doesn't have a Servant King riding a donkey into a city and being hung up in that same city a week later. Myth doesn't have disciples who swear against their former Master when servant girls ask about their affiliations. Myth doesn't have a Preacher who doesn't give a whit about offending anyone He thinks is wrong. And lastly we have the assurance of the authors themselves that they weren't just writing myth:



If the Gospel writers had wanted to write myth they did an awful job of it. They should have learnt from Buddhism. So I conclude that they weren't writing myth, but history, complete with the Virgin Birth and Resurrection.

On the other hand, Genesis 1 reads awfully like it could be a myth. There's a lot of poetic syllogism (tohu-bohu) and grandiose generality. Genesis 1 as a myth is a viable alternative, especially looking at it from an Asian mentality. I grew up with stories that couldn't decide whether they were history or myth.

And who taught you that myth = lie? I like the sig of someone on CF which goes "The Bible is true - some of it happened."



*blink* was that supposed to be a poem? ...

that's unconvincing proof as to why you should treat one part of the bible as myth, and the other as literal truth.

But is it true that I could boil the argument down to "the parts that make sense are literal truth, the parts that don't are allegory and myth?"

 

[The Lady Kate]

No, that was a parable, and another parable... and it is identified as such.

Identified... how? Why?

Some parables, which people are unfamiliar with, need introduction...others are so well-known that no intorduction is needed.

When Christ used Genesis to prove a lesson, would he really have needed to identify it?

 

[Uphill Battle]

So let me get this straight... the literal account of Genesis is rejected, but the virgin birth is accepted? And the ressurection? (TE, anyways.)

but using the same scope of investigation, the virgin birth is falsified. Check every birth from then till now, there is a father and a mother. not a virgin birth among the lot. That's the way it is now, so that's the way it always had to be.

or the resurrection. Don't see many people raising themselves from the dead, do you? The dead stay dead. That's the way it is now, that;s the way it always had to be.

That's one of the main reasons that TE doesn't make sense to me... the picking and choosing from the bible as to what is allegorical, what is myth, and what is fact.

 

[Micaiah]

On the other hand, Genesis 1 reads awfully like it could be a myth. There's a lot of poetic syllogism (tohu-bohu) and grandiose generality. Genesis 1 as a myth is a viable alternative, especially looking at it from an Asian mentality. I grew up with stories that couldn't decide whether they were history or myth.

I don't think it reads like a myth. It sounds like a down to earth (excuse the pun) matter of fact desciption of what happend.

How would you have stated that the world was made in six days more clearly?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I don't think it reads like a myth. It sounds like a down to earth (excuse the pun) matter of fact desciption of what happend.

How would you have stated that the world was made in six days more clearly?

I would have made the Earth look a little more like it was created in six days six thousand years ago or so. I would not erase all the evidence for a global flood or make all the evidence left behind look like no global flood ever happened. I also would not have made all of those statements about the Earth standing still and not moving too. That was if I, as god, were trying to write a science book instead of a spiritual one.

 

[notto]

So let me get this straight... the literal account of Genesis is rejected, but the virgin birth is accepted? And the ressurection? (TE, anyways.)

but using the same scope of investigation, the virgin birth is falsified. Check every birth from then till now, there is a father and a mother. not a virgin birth among the lot. That's the way it is now, so that's the way it always had to be.

or the resurrection. Don't see many people raising themselves from the dead, do you? The dead stay dead. That's the way it is now, that;s the way it always had to be.

You don't understant falsification. Miraculous virgin birth and resurrection have not been falsified. There is no evidence that cannot be explained by the miraculouis virgin birth and resurection. A 6000 year old creation (even if created by miraculous means) and a global flood have been falsified because there is evidence that is not consistent with them, even if performed by a miracle. (Unless you hold to a deceptive God that used another set of miracles to cover up the whole thing and mislead through God's creation).

No inconsistencies. Your confusion seems to stem from a misunderstanding of how falsification works in science.

 

[Micaiah]

The idea that you cannot depend on the assertions of fact made in Scripture about creation and history, but you can trust what is stated about the supernatural sounds a pretty corny argument. There are many liberals (theologically) who reject the supernatural in Scripture, including the resurrection and virgin birth. I think they are logically more consistent than some of those arguing on this forum.

A 6000 year old creation (even if created by miraculous means) and a global flood have been falsified because there is evidence that is not consistent with them, even if performed by a miracle. (Unless you hold to a deceptive God that used another set of miracles to cover up the whole thing and mislead through God's creation).

YEC's don't accept your interpretation of the evidence. No confusion, they just see too many inconsistencies.

 

[notto]

The idea that you cannot depend on the assertions of fact made in Scripture about creation and history, but you can trust what is stated about the supernatural sounds a pretty corny argument. There are many liberals (theologically) who reject the supernatural in Scripture, including the resurrection and virgin birth. I think they are logically more consistent than some of those arguing on this forum.

Well, I don't find it corny, to each his own I guess. I don't think it is logically more consistent. After all, they certainly can't claim that there is evidence to falsify the resurrection and virgin birth any more than they can claim that there is not a God on scientific grounds. The virgin birth and resurrection are accepted on faith. Why would there position be any more logically consistent? Both positions are accepted on faith because they cannot be falsified? Doesn't really matter to me. My faith doesn't depend on what they accept or reject based on theirs.

I just accept the integrity of creation as a work of God and accept that through it, God would not deceive. It is the only direct work of God we have to examine so I tend to trust what we have found there after 300 years of serious investigation. I'm not the first Christian to come to this conclusion, after all, it was Christians looking for evidence to support the literal narrative of history and creation in the bible that first realized that their interpretation must be wrong because the creation didn't look anything like what they would expect if it was literal.

Do you think that Old Earth Creationists are just as logically inconsistent as TE's?

YEC's don't accept your interpretation of the evidence. No confusion, they just see too many inconsistencies.

Well, then they are at odds with all of the Christians, buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and the rest of scientists who accepts the evidence objectively instead of rejecting it based on religious grounds. Falsification through scientific observation has been around for awhile and the Christian scientists and theolgians have accepted that a young earth has been falsified for some time. It seems kind of corny to me to reject the independent lines of evidence that have been scrutinized over by people from all religious faiths and backgrounds and have come to the same conclusion. I don't know why I would reject it on religious grounds like creationists do. Ignoring the true aspects of creation that we can touch and feel and see doesn't seem like a good theology and it certainly isn't good science (or logical). Elevating ones interpretation of the Bible above what we can see of God's work doesn't work for me. Fortunately my faith doesn't depend on it and I have the benefit of having my faith and beliefs grounded in something that is not falsified nor inconsistent.

I often find creationists interpretation of the evidence to be lacking. They often are not even familiar with what we find in the fossil record or the rest of creation at all and simply rely on the misleading and simplified strawmen versions of what creationist ministries put out. Examples of this would be comparing the effects of Mount Saint Helens to the Grand Canyon or suggesting that the features we find in geology are consisten with being laid down by a flood. It simply isn't true by any stretch of interpretation. Trying to discredit science with claims of changing decay rates or speed of light also falls short when you look at the math and physics and what such suggestions actually boil down to. They are unrealistic (and often time absurd).

 

[Critias]

You don't understant falsification. Miraculous virgin birth and resurrection have not been falsified. There is no evidence that cannot be explained by the miraculouis virgin birth and resurection. A 6000 year old creation (even if created by miraculous means) and a global flood have been falsified because there is evidence that is not consistent with them, even if performed by a miracle. (Unless you hold to a deceptive God that used another set of miracles to cover up the whole thing and mislead through God's creation).

No inconsistencies. Your confusion seems to stem from a misunderstanding of how falsification works in science.

Isn't your belief that there is no evidence for God creating in six days? There is no evidence against this either, rather there are people who assert it is wrong. Just as people assert that resurrections don't happen or virgin births.

It is not yec's who hold to the "deceptive God" concept. That is a TE belief if yec is true.

Are you not aware that Creation by the Creator is a miraculous event?

 

[notto]

Isn't your belief that there is no evidence for God creating in six days? There is no evidence against this either, rather there are people who assert it is wrong. Just as people assert that resurrections don't happen or virgin births.

It is not yec's who hold to the "deceptive God" concept. That is a TE belief if yec is true.

Are you not aware that Creation by the Creator is a miraculous event?

Saying that there is no evidence against a young earth and a creation that matches the literal interpretation of the bible is untrue. The concept is falsified by several independent lines of evidence and has been for over 200 years. The resurrection and the virgin birth have not been falsified.

YEC is not true. It is falsified by the creation itself. If our interpretation of the bible conflicts with the creation of God, then the interpretation of the bible must be wrong. The creation contains the integrity of God - our interpretations of the bible do not.

If you read my post more closely, it clearly states that the evidence we find in the creation isn't even consistent with God creating based on a literal interpretation by miraculous events. There are things that exist that simply would not exist if the earth was young and created in 6 days a few thousand years ago. The only other explanation would be that God specifically and purposely created the earth to look old and put evidence there of a history that never happened. This goes beyond and appearance of age. There are physical records of events that simply did not happen if the YEC interpretation is correct. I don't accept that as part of the nature of God and I would much rather question my interpretation of scripture when measured agains the creation itself then come to the conclusion that God is purposely misleading or that the creation does not reflect the nature of God.

 

[Critias]

Saying that there is no evidence against a young earth and a creation that matches the literal interpretation of the bible is untrue. The concept is falsified by several independent lines of evidence and has been for over 200 years. The resurrection and the virgin birth have not been falsified.

YEC is not true. It is falsified by the creation itself. If our interpretation of the bible conflicts with the creation of God, then the interpretation of the bible must be wrong. The creation contains the integrity of God - our interpretations of the bible do not.

If you read my post more closely, it clearly states that the evidence we find in the creation isn't even consistent with God creating based on a literal interpretation by miraculous events. There are things that exist that simply would not exist if the earth was young and created in 6 days a few thousand years ago. The only other explanation would be that God specifically and purposely created the earth to look old and put evidence there of a history that never happened. This goes beyond and appearance of age. There are physical records of events that simply did not happen if the YEC interpretation is correct. I don't accept that as part of the nature of God and I would much rather question my interpretation of scripture when measured agains the creation itself then come to the conclusion that God is purposely misleading or that the creation does not reflect the nature of God.

Ok. Before we get all into this, let me first ask you to provide evidence where evidence tells us its story without human interpretation.