Scientific proof?

[SH89]

Is this a correct statement:and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. ( from 2 peter 3)


Is this scientifically true?(I'm not asking in doubt, just for info on this statement)

 

[artybloke]

Is this a correct statement:and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. ( from 2 peter 3)


Is this scientifically true?(I'm not asking in doubt, just for info on this statement)

No. www.talkorigins.org

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Yes. www.answersingenesis.org

 

[shernren]

Well, tyreth, show me (from AiG, if you want) a physical, scientifically verifiable characteristic of the world that can be better explained by it being formed from water than by it being formed according to conventional theory.

Or you could explain, for example, how to take an Earth-sized ball of water and make it undergo the nucleosynthesis reactions needed to produce iron and all the other heavy elements. You could explain how we just so happened to fit Earth's minerals smack in the middle of an isochron of meteorite materials that nicely describes the age of the Solar System. Etcetera.

SH89 ... you don't have to take the scientists' words for it. You can just choose to believe that the earth was indeed literally formed from a ball of water and that it was completely deluged by another mysterious and convenient mass of water. You can go ahead and ignore everything the scientists say. It's possible. After all, faith is believing in what cannot be seen right? (And I'm not being sarcastic. I really mean it. If you want to believe a literal interpretation you can go ahead and tell us the entire scientific world is wrong. It's a respectable stand to take.)

 

[PaladinValer]

There is no physical evidence.

 

[vossler]

Here is where the dichotomy between evolutionists and creationists is most evident and bears a clear witness.

Evolutionists seek their answers from a very non-Christian source and man's sources knowledge.

Creationists seek their answers from the Word of God and Christian sources of knowledge.

I'll let those who aren't sure who to believe ponder on which is the way of God.

 

[notto]

Evolutionists seek their answers from a very non-Christian source and man's sources knowledge.

I don't see how studying the creation itself can be considered a non-Christian method of seeking answers.

After all, that is where Christian geologists went looking when the determined over 200 years ago that the flood did not happen and the earth is old.

Seeking answers about the creation itself by studying the creation would seem like a very reasonable approach. Seeking spiritual and theological answer in the Bible seems like a reasonable approach. I think you would find that many 'evolutionists' do both of these.

 

[Dracil]

Here is where the dichotomy between evolutionists and creationists is most evident and bears a clear witness.

Evolutionists seek their answers from a very non-Christian source and man's sources knowledge.

Creationists seek their answers from the Word of God and Christian sources of knowledge.

I'll let those who aren't sure who to believe ponder on which is the way of God.

Here is where the dichotomy between evolutionists and creationists is most evident and bears a clear witness.

Evolutionists seek their answers from God's Creation.

Creationists seek their answers from their own fallible human interpetation of a collection of books written and put together by fallible men.

I'll let those who aren't sure who to believe ponder on which is the way of God.

Fixed!

 

[PaladinValer]

Dracil, my Hero;

 

[vossler]

Oh how wonderful. Now we have someone changing quotes without acknowledgment and then yet another applauding their deception.

 

[notto]

I really don't think anyone will be deceived. It is fairly obvious what was done and why. Chill.

 

[shernren]

Here is where the dichotomy between evolutionists and creationists is most evident and bears a clear witness.

Evolutionists seek their answers from a very non-Christian source and man's sources knowledge.

Creationists seek their answers from the Word of God and Christian sources of knowledge.

I'll let those who aren't sure who to believe ponder on which is the way of God.

So all geologists are non-Christian sources? Hmm. That's a fairly weighty claim to make.

 

[gluadys]

Here is where the dichotomy between evolutionists and creationists is most evident and bears a clear witness.

Evolutionists seek their answers from a very non-Christian source and man's sources knowledge.

Creationists seek their answers from the Word of God and Christian sources of knowledge.

I'll let those who aren't sure who to believe ponder on which is the way of God.

And here is where the hypocrisy of YECists is most evident.

We have from God two revelations:

1. creation
2. scripture

Both of these revelations require human interpretation.

So we have four elements altogether:

1a. creation
1b. human interpretation of creation

2a. scripture
2b. human interpretation of scripture

What YECists do is assume that 2b (their human interpretation of scripture) is equivalent to 2a (scripture). At the same time they assume that 1b (human intepretation of creation) is not equivalent to 1a (creation). Hence they conclude that 1b (human description of creation) contradicts 2a (scripture).

But this is to confuse the issue. The correct conclusion is that 1b (human description of creation) contradicts 2b (their human interpretation of scripture.)

By substituting 2a (scripture) for 2b (their interpretation of scripture) they totally avoid the crucial question. Does 1b (human interpretation of creation) agree with 1a (creation)?

Of course, no interpretation will accord 100% with what it is interpreting. No one, least of all a scientist, will claim that science has fully and correctly described all of creation. But what scientists do contend is that science is a reliable way of knowing nature/creation. YECism effectively says that it is not.

IMO this has very serious implications for a theology of creation, especially the creation of humanity in the image of God, and our understanding of the character of God as revealed in scripture.

As rmwilliamsll has pointed out several times, we get confusion when we don't keep the proper levels of comparison in mind. The correct parallels are:

creation<->scripture
interpretation of creation<->interpretation of scripture.

We hold that there can be no conflict at the upper level of creation<->scripture.

But there can be and are conflicts at the lower level of interpretation of creation<->interpretation of scripture. Such conflicts are inevitable given our partial and incomplete understanding of both creation and scripture.

In this case we need to look at what flaws there may be in both interpretations, not just in the interpretation of creation. It also follows that if the flaw is not to be found in the interpretation of creation, it must be found in the interpretation of scripture.

But this is not a disagreement with scripture (which exists on the higher level) but with an interpretation of scripture which is just as human and fallible as an interpretation of creation.

YECists, for their own purposes, refuse to recognize this distinction and equate a disagreement with their interpretation of scripture as a disagreement with scripture itself. And they similarly refuse to recognize the harmony of scientific interpretations of creation with the God-given properties of creation itself.

 

[PaladinValer]

There was only one deception...

Gluadys, once again, your logic is unquestionable. Cudos!

 

[Critias]

In this case we need to look at what flaws there may be in both interpretations, not just in the interpretation of creation. It also follows that if the flaw is not to be found in the interpretation of creation, it must be found in the interpretation of scripture.

YECs don't disagree with the basics of what you have said. As you think our interpretation of Scripture is wrong, we think scientists interpretation of creation is wrong.

So, if you are going to accuse us of taking our interpretation of Scripture and making it equal to Scripture itself, then you do the same with creation. This would explain why you and so many TEs here state "creation says" instead of "scientists say".

Thus, after you have concluded that scientists are the correct ones and those who are being led by the Holy Spirit in interpretation of Scripture are wrong, you put scientists above inspired men of God.

Then your assumptions move to calling Peter and Paul ignorant on the subject of creation, of which the Holy Spirit inspired to Moses to record.

Your last sentence in the above quote shows that you believe there is no flaws in the interpretation of scientists. That they have the truth and those inspired by God do not. Thus God's inspiration does not inspire truth but lies, effectively calling God a liar whether He did or did not create in six days.

 

[gluadys]

YECs don't disagree with the basics of what you have said. As you think our interpretation of Scripture is wrong, we think scientists interpretation of creation is wrong.

The problem is the basis of your disagreement with scientists' interpretation of creation. You do not demonstrate that their interpretation of creation misrepresents creation. You do not demonstrate that their interpretation of creation misrepresents scripture. What you demonstrate is that their interpretation of creation conflicts with your interpretation of scripture.

But then you assert that this is equivalent to being in conflict with scripture.

If you could honestly show that the scientific intepretation of creation is not a correct interpretation of creation, that would be grounds for rejecting the scientists' conclusions.

Simply asserting that it must not be correct because it does not accord with your interpretation of scripture is to give far too much authority to your interpretation.

So, if you are going to accuse us of taking our interpretation of Scripture and making it equal to Scripture itself, then you do the same with creation.

Incorrect.

In the first place we do not assert that science is infallible in its interpretation of creation, nor do we assert that its knowledge of creation is complete. We know the current interpretations are not complete and will change as new information comes to light.

But we do know that on some matters the probability that science is right about creation is extremely high--well above 99%. We know this because of the evidence which exists and which points decisively in one direction, a direction away from a young earth, a global flood and the separate direct creation of species or kinds, including humans.

What YECists absolutely refuse to do is deal directly with this evidence. You make a prior choice that it must be false, because it has to be false in light of your interpretation of scripture.

But what if it is not false? That is the question you need to deal with.

Your last sentence in the above quote shows that you believe there is no flaws in the interpretation of scientists.

Not quite. First, we are looking only at some scientific topics. I am making no statement about there never being flaws in any scientific reasoning at all. I am not supporting any notion that scientists are infallible. What I am saying is that in regard to these particular topics no one has convincingly demonstrated what the flaws are. If I were convinced that the scientific reasoning was wrong, I would reject it, as indeed most scientists would.

In the absence of any demonstration that the scientific interpretation of creation is incorrect, we need to take this testimony seriously. Truth, whatever its source, cannot contradict truth--including the truth of scripture.

So the key question is still the compatibility of the interpretation with what is being intepreted. Are scientists right or wrong in their intepretation of creation? This is not a question which can be decided on the basis of presupposition, but only on the basis of comparing scientific descriptions of creation with creation itself. Is there any other logical and legitimate way to explain what we observe? If not, then we must consider it truth and treat it as such.

If one consequence of this is that some human interpretations of scripture are rendered false, then we have to seek a human interpretation of scripture that accords with the truth--both the truth of scripture and the truth of creation.

That they have the truth and those inspired by God do not.

Again you are assuming that scientists are never inspired by God. How do you know that the Holy Spirit has not led them to the conclusions they have come to? You cannot divide humanity into mutually exclusive groups of scientists and "those inspired by God". A person can be both a scientist and also inspired by God.

 

[Dracil]

Oh how wonderful. Now we have someone changing quotes without acknowledgment and then yet another applauding their deception.

Looks like the point flew over somebody's head.

 

[Critias]

Looks like the point flew over somebody's head.

I understand the point you were trying to make, but I think you should have adding to the post that you bolded piece you added. For those who don't read everything in these threads, it very much looks as if what you added is what Vossler said.

So, a better way may be to say, "emphasis added by me, fixed it!" That would make it appear honest.

Otherwise, this could lead to your posts being altered to make it look as if you were saying something you were not. You just don't want to start something that another may use against you, especially since this is such a trivial piece.

I would hope that you can at least see Vosslers point about what he said.

 

[Dracil]

I understand the point you were trying to make, but I think you should have adding to the post that you bolded piece you added. For those who don't read everything in these threads, it very much looks as if what you added is what Vossler said.

So, a better way may be to say, "emphasis added by me, fixed it!" That would make it appear honest.

Otherwise, this could lead to your posts being altered to make it look as if you were saying something you were not. You just don't want to start something that another may use against you, especially since this is such a trivial piece.

I would hope that you can at least see Vosslers point about what he said.

Actually, I didn't just bold his post. I completely reversed his argument by changing two sentences.

These two lines

Evolutionists seek their answers from a very non-Christian source and man's sources knowledge.

Creationists seek their answers from the Word of God and Christian sources of knowledge.

was "fixed" to become

Evolutionists seek their answers from God's Creation.

Creationists seek their answers from their own fallible human interpetation of a collection of books written and put together by fallible men.

The whole point behind reversing his arguments followed immediately by a "Fixed! " is basically just a flashy way to say "You're wrong, and here's why." It also carries a hint of "Surely you couldn't have meant what you said earlier! (you must have meant to say this instead!)" popularized from "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!" when he said "both" to adding cream or lemon to his tea. In other words, it's a graceful way to let the person back out of their original statements by agreeing that it was just a mistake/joke and they didn't mean it.

Of course, when I have to actually explain it in such excruciating detail, it kinda defeats the purpose.

 

[oncelost]

Since, in this thread, we're playing fast and loose with the rules of quotation:

But we [YECists] do know that on some matters the probability that YEC is right about creation is extremely high--well above 99%. We know this because of the evidence which exists and which points decisively in one direction, a direction toward an intelligent source of life, a young earth, a global flood and the separate direct creation of kinds, including humans.

What conventional scientists absolutely refuse to do is deal directly with this evidence. Rather, they make a prior choice that it must be false, because it has to be false in light of convention.

But what if it is not false? That is the question you need to deal with.

Reversed.