• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Science and philosophy

Status
Not open for further replies.

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Critias said:
Isn't your belief that there is no evidence for God creating in six days?

No, this is a conclusion (not a belief) from the evidence which contradicts that creation occurred within six solar days.


There is no evidence against this either, rather there are people who assert it is wrong.

On the contrary, there is abundant evidence against it.

Just as people assert that resurrections don't happen or virgin births.

Where as there is no evidence contradicting a virgin birth or a resurrection. Just no evidence for it either.

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

No. I am not aware of any evidence or logic or scriptural testimony that God confined himself to miraculous means of creation other than the initial drawing of matter/energy out of nothing.

Do you hold to the theological position that God is necessarily absent from natural processes of his design?
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
55
Visit site
✟29,869.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Critias said:
Ok. Before we get all into this, let me first ask you to provide evidence where evidence tells us its story without human interpretation.

Not all interpretations are valid or equal. Science works through falsification, review, consensus, and objective observation. Suggesting that the interpretation of multiple independent lines of evidence across several disciplines, by thousands of independent scientists is all misinterpreted the same way doesn't really sound realistic.

The only people who won't accept this approach are ones that openly claim to dismiss evidence based on their religious beliefs. It was Christians who went out and looked at the creation objectively who first realized that their ideas and interpretation of Genesis were falsified by the evidence. That evidence hasn't changed and new evidence has not come forth to change the consensus of scientists who work objectively with the evidence everyday.
 
Upvote 0
C

Critias

Guest
gluadys said:
No, this is a conclusion (not a belief) from the evidence which contradicts that creation occurred within six solar days.

Ah, here we are again. I hope all is going well with you Gluadys!

I believe you are incorrect to state that there isn't a "belief" against a six day creation. There is.

You, and many others with you, claim there is evidence that says contrary, yet evidence itself says nothing; it is the interpretation of evidence that says something. This is not about what evidence says unless you believe that fossils, geological columns, etc actually speak to scientists and tell them their history. Since this is an absurd idea, I can conclude that we can agree that we are talking about interpretations here.

It is a TE assertion that yec's are wrong about their interpretation of the Bible and that scientists cannot be wrong about their interpretation of evidence. Let us get to the heart of the matter, is the Holy Spirit with believers or not? If so, what does the Holy Spirit care about, what the earth says or what God says? If the Holy Spirit is to teach what God has to say, then is it your claim that when it comes to Creation, yec's are void of the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of it?

And would you assert that scientists have the Holy Spirit teaching them when it comes to their interpretations of evidence?


gluadys said:
On the contrary, there is abundant evidence against it.

No, there is abundant interpretations against it. There is evidence yet understood by creationists in a Biblical world view.

gluadys said:
Where as there is no evidence contradicting a virgin birth or a resurrection. Just no evidence for it either.

There are interpretations that are against the virgin birth and resurrection. Just as there are interpretations against a world created in six days.

Yet evidence, says nothing. It is human interpretation that asserts all of these Biblical perspectives are wrong.


Like your quiet slip of words into sentences that almost creates a strawman. I did not state God is confined to anything. I did not state God is absent from a natural process. Is it your assertion that if God created in six days that He is absent from natural processes and is confied to the miraculous?

For I never made such a statement, so can I conclude that these are your beliefs if God did indeed create in six days?

Just as Jesus created the food for the 5000 and the 4000 to eat, just as Jesus walked on the water, just as Jesus turned water to wine, so can Jesus create a world miraculously. For there is nothing too hard for my Lord.

You create an excellent example as to why these debates are meaningless. Your last statement suggest I believe or hold to something that I have never stated in order to make my words/statement look preposterous.
 
Upvote 0
C

Critias

Guest

Can you provide me with evidence where it shows that evidence speaks for itself without human interpretation?

That is what I originally asked since you claim it is creation itself that say yec's are wrong.

One thing you seem to forget is that young earth has been a view point for more than 2000 years, which has been scrutinized by the best philosophers and held by those who had been appointed to speak for God.
 
Upvote 0

Uphill Battle

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2005
18,279
1,221
48
✟23,416.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I don't think my question was ever really answered though... how do TE pick and choose what parts of the bible they want to believe? If Christ said "I am the way, the truth and the life" Why is that accepted, but when he references the creation, it's just a story? Or all of John 1... that's just poetry, right? how do you make the distinction? Only what fits for you logically? I think thats already been proved that isn't the case... many things about Christ are completely illogical. What is your criteria?
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green

just because i don't believe that Gen 1 is teaching modern science doesn't mean i don't believe the Scriptures are true.

in fact it is precisely because i want to listen carefully to what God is saying that drives me to deny that we have the right to read modern 21stC science into Gen 1. Likewise i think that Adam and Eve are as historical as you as a YEC do. i even date them to the same time as do most YECists, only i think they are the forefathers of the Hebrews not all mankind.

so your question of which parts of the Bible to believe is wrongheaded, i believe the Scriptures are true in probably the same way as do you. i just interpret pieces of it differently than do YECists, not any less inspired.

....
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship

Let me rephrase that. The parts that make sense as history are history. The parts that don't make sense as history are myth. Which is a perfectly fair assertion to make of any document written before the emergence of modernist bias towards historicity as truth, even a document guided by God. I do not see how the truths God wants to communicate are obscured by His use of myth instead of history in Genesis.

The line between history and myth isn't that clear in Jesus' sayings either. How do you think He started a parable? He almost never said, "Okay guys listen up: I'm going to tell you all a fictional story. This story has no historical merit whatsoever, so don't bother looking for a real Good Samaritan or a real Prodigal Son." Instead He simply said "There was ..." on quite a number of occasions. How do we determine that the Prodigal Son was a parable? Because it doesn't make sense as history. This is a consistent way of looking at Scripture whether Gospel or Genesis.

Well Critias: is there a scientifically consistent interpretation of the physical evidence that would convince you that the world is 6000 years old?

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 account complete. I would have mentioned seaweed, carnivorous activity, galaxy formation, dark matter, cosmological flatness, and how to retroactively define a day without the sun and the moon and the rotation of the earth. I would also have said something about systematically over-aging the universe so that it doesn't look 6000 years old scientifically.
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
55
Visit site
✟29,869.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Critias said:
Can you provide me with evidence where it shows that evidence speaks for itself without human interpretation?

All conclusions of science are the result of human interpretation of the evidence. What is questioned is how objective that interpretation is. What is more objective? Evidence being reviewed by people of all faiths, backgrounds, nationalities, genders, races, and political beliefs coming to the same consensus about what the evidence indicates or the conclusions of a group of people who openly state they will ignore all evidence that is contradictory to their religious beliefs because they classify it as wrong by definition.
From AIG
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.


 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
55
Visit site
✟29,869.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ

It's not about logic. Christ is accepted on faith. The resurrection and the virgin birth long with Christs divinity cannot be falsified. Certain parts of the bible related to history or creation can (and have) been falsified. It certainly would be illogical to continue to accept those. This doesn't impact the theological meaning of the bible nor does it affect the faithful belief in Christ as a savior. It is perfectly logical to accept these things because there is no logical reason not to (meaning that they cannot be falsified so either way, accepting them or rejecting them is not based on logic, but on faith).
 
Upvote 0

Micaiah

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2002
2,444
37
62
Western Australia
Visit site
✟2,837.00
Faith
Christian

Sounding very dogmatic. Christians who believe the earth is young don't reject evidence as far as I know. They just come to a different conclusion.
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
55
Visit site
✟29,869.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Micaiah said:
Sounding very dogmatic. Christians who believe the earth is young don't reject evidence as far as I know. They just come to a different conclusion.

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.
 
Upvote 0

Micaiah

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2002
2,444
37
62
Western Australia
Visit site
✟2,837.00
Faith
Christian
God is the source of absolute truth. Whatever He asserts as fact about creation is totally dependable. I know you agree with this statement. Where we disagree is on whether Genesis 1 is an assertion of fact by God or a human myth.

As you know, YEC's believe the first chapter of Genesis is a record of plain and clear statements made by God about how He created the universe. If you accept this, you will expect there to be complete congruence between true science and the record of Scripture.

Doing science then becomes a bit like doing a maths problem after looking up the answer in the back of the book.
 
Upvote 0

artybloke

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
5,222
456
66
North of England
✟8,017.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Politics
UK-Labour
Critias said:
So are you saying it is lying to state people within science don't have a belief that six day creation is wrong?

Yes. Science is not a philosophy; saying that 6 day creation has been falsified according to all the evidence that we have, is not a belief. It's a statement of fact.
 
Upvote 0
T

The Lady Kate

Guest
Micaiah said:
God is the source of absolute truth. Whatever He asserts as fact about creation is totally dependable. I know you agree with this statement. Where we disagree is on whether Genesis 1 is an assertion of fact by God or a human myth.

True enough... if God comes flat-out and tells you it's so, it's so...not really much wiggle room there...


And that's just it...there is not complete congruence between true science and the record of Scripture. They're not even close.

Doing science then becomes a bit like doing a maths problem after looking up the answer in the back of the book.

And YEC science seems quite a bit like doing a math problem after scribbling in your own answer in the back of the book.
 
Upvote 0
C

Critias

Guest
rmwilliamsll said:
just because i don't believe that Gen 1 is teaching modern science doesn't mean i don't believe the Scriptures are true.

I doubt you will find many yec's who will say the Bible teaches modern science. This is another TE strawman.


If you I can take you for your word here, show me how the Biblical author of Genesis meant for us to understand that God did not take six days to create, that God did in fact take billions of years to create.

Do you have Biblical evidence that says there were men or pre-Adamic men before Adam and Eve?

Can you show how the Authors of the Bible meant for the reader to understand your belief of evolution, instead of a six day creation?

rmwilliamsll said:
so your question of which parts of the Bible to believe is wrongheaded, i believe the Scriptures are true in probably the same way as do you. i just interpret pieces of it differently than do YECists, not any less inspired.

....

I agree, stating that you don't believe this and that is overstated. Instead, provide us Biblical support that shows the Biblical authors wanted the reader to understand a billion year creation rather than a six day creation.
 
Upvote 0
C

Critias

Guest
notto said:
All conclusions of science are the result of human interpretation of the evidence. What is questioned is how objective that interpretation is. What is more objective?

I am glad you asked. The Holy Spirit is more objective and truthful than mankind.


Well there is also a consensus among people of different races and genders that believe God did create in six days.



Well they are entitled to their opinion, are they not? Shall you tear them down for having one, or turn the other cheek?

I present the same challenge to you as I stated to Mr Williams: show that the Biblical Author of Genesis intended to mean billion year creation and not a six day creation.

If you want to understand the Bible by looking to what the author intended to mean, you will not be able to support your billion years of creation. If you do search for the author's intended meaning, you have no choice but to accept a six day creation.

I know a typical answer - the easy way out - is to say it is a myth, but can you explain it better than just declaring it so without proof?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.