• 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.

Simple question for the ID proponents

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Each person has to find their own ultimate truth.
This doesn't exactly sound like the objective science researchers strive for. If every different person has "their own ultimate truth", then how can they agree on anything?
This is why we have methodological naturalism. We limit ourselves strictly to natural explanations of natural occurrences, because we can all see, feel, taste, hear, and smell -- and agree upon -- such phenomena. This is why we exclude appeal to ultimate causes, like gods, in science because we have no way to objectively decide who's "own ultimate truth" is best.
Thanks for helping me to clarify that point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: atomweaver
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So when the Bible tells me that there was a global flood...
Which it doesn't. It describes a flood stretching for horizon to horizon, but you need to look up the language you think is actually describing a global flood, and see how it is used, and what it means, elsewhere in the bible.

and I can find no reason to make that story mythical or symbolic ...
It is not an issue with the flood where the narrative only describes a local event, but it is worth noting that there are a lot of passages that creationists do not take literally, where the text does not give us a reason to take it metaphorically.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
44
Cambridge
Visit site
✟39,787.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Understood.

A biology department or journal can certainly establish guidelines about what is and what is not considered science for their purposes. If you open the door to supernatural concepts (inevitable in my view), you may compromise some of the rigor of your methodology. Your results may become suspect on that ground.

But, those folks must also be grown-ups and accept the reasonable criticism that some truth is being rejected on methodological grounds. That is a cost-benefit ratio analysis, meaning it is necessarily open to criticism.

Oh, certainly, there's lots of truth that isn't scientifically demonstrable. In fact, from where I'm standing, there's a lot of truth that can be known and well-defended that can't be done with science. To make an analogy - Science is a hammer, and there are an awful lot of nails out there. But there are many things that are not nails, and for which the hammer is not useful.

I actually don't think most scientists think that they've got a tool that can do everything and answer every question. But they think science is duly suited to answering certain questions.
 
Upvote 0

busterdog

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2006
3,359
183
Visit site
✟26,929.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Oh, certainly, there's lots of truth that isn't scientifically demonstrable. In fact, from where I'm standing, there's a lot of truth that can be known and well-defended that can't be done with science. To make an analogy - Science is a hammer, and there are an awful lot of nails out there. But there are many things that are not nails, and for which the hammer is not useful.

I actually don't think most scientists think that they've got a tool that can do everything and answer every question. But they think science is duly suited to answering certain questions.

Although you are being charitable, I will tease you nonetheless.

Apparently the notion of the nebular hypothesis for the origin of the solar system was confirmed in seances to Emmanual Swedenborg, who seems to have been one of the originators.

Does this prove a particular point in favor of YECs? Not really. Its just kind of a funny story.

SWEDENBORG'S NEBULAR HYPOTHESIS (1734)—*Emmanuel Swedenborg, the founder of a small church (the Church of the New Jerusalem), theorized in his book, Principia, that a rapidly rotating nebula formed itself into our solar system of sun and planets.
Swedenborg claimed that he obtained the information from heavenly visitants in seance, but many think he got his theory from devils. It is highly significant that the germinal idea for the nebular hypothesis—producing stars and planets out of gravitating gas—came from a seance! His theory, obtained through spiritualism, was to become the basis for a majority of the stellar and planetary origin theories which followed—and the basic theory promoted today.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/02-star8.htm#Swedenborg
 
Upvote 0

Jimlarmore

Senior Veteran
Oct 25, 2006
2,572
51
75
✟25,490.00
Faith
SDA
Which it doesn't. It describes a flood stretching for horizon to horizon, but you need to look up the language you think is actually describing a global flood, and see how it is used, and what it means, elsewhere in the bible.

I probably need to go and take a look at that more carefully. In the past I have looked at the original language and found no real problems or additional definitions of original language that would make me think it only applied to a local event. In addition Christ Himself talked specifically about the flood and the original language in greek He used specifically says the flood took "THEM ALL AWAY" . He used this narrative to compare the flood time with the end time condition of the earth and the fact that they were going about their business as usual lives until the flood came and destroyed their world and everyone in it except Noah and his family at that point. For reference read Matt 24:37-39.

It is not an issue with the flood where the narrative only describes a local event, but it is worth noting that there are a lot of passages that creationists do not take literally, where the text does not give us a reason to take it metaphorically.

Please provide some examples of what you are talking about. In performing any kind of interpretation or exegesis of scripture one must use common sense. Clearly, scripture that has apocalyptic themes tends to have more symbology than scripture that doesn't.

God Bless
Jim Larmore
 
Upvote 0

Jimlarmore

Senior Veteran
Oct 25, 2006
2,572
51
75
✟25,490.00
Faith
SDA
This doesn't exactly sound like the objective science researchers strive for. If every different person has "their own ultimate truth", then how can they agree on anything?

Ultimately, whether it's scientifically delineated or not one comes to the place that they either accept a truth or they reject it. Decisions are made based on many things but the Bible tells us that God has made man with the ability to reason and the evidence to know the truth so that he is without excuse. Read Romans 1:18-25.

This is why we have methodological naturalism. We limit ourselves strictly to natural explanations of natural occurrences, because we can all see, feel, taste, hear, and smell -- and agree upon -- such phenomena. This is why we exclude appeal to ultimate causes, like gods, in science because we have no way to objectively decide who's "own ultimate truth" is best.
Thanks for helping me to clarify that point.

Just because something is illogical does not make it less true. Unimagineable things to us are not that way to God. Supernatural things to us are natural to God who knows it all and can do it all. The ultimate Scientist is the Creator Himself. So any attempt to exclude Him from our study of what He made is at it's foundation foolish. You either believe in God or you don't. If you do then there are some consequences for that belief. You can't ride a fense and have part of your heart with what man says is true and part of it with what God says is true. The Bible says that when we become wise in our own hearts we become foolish.

God Bless
Jim Larmore
 
Upvote 0

busterdog

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2006
3,359
183
Visit site
✟26,929.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To elaborate on Willtor's point:

For a hypothesis H to be falsifiable, there must be some test T with only two mutually exclusive outcomes T+ and T- such that:

The probability of obtaining T- is much, much less than the probability of obtaining T+, to the extent that if T- is obtained, hypothesis H must be considered extremely unlikely and any alternative hypothesis will be preferred.

In simple terms this will then be equivalent to:

If H is true, then T+ will be observed.

Thus, a theory that is falsifiable makes observable predictions. (Indeed, we normally contract this to "falsifiable predictions".)

Consider, for example, an apple for which the stem is about to break.

According to someone who holds to Newton's hypothesis of gravity, the probability of it consequently falling upwards (or any non-downwards direction) is so miniscule that if Newton's hypothesis is true, it must fall downwards. Thus, the fact that Newton's theory would be falsified by an upwards fall, leads to the fact that Newton's theory predicts a downwards fall.

On the other hand, suppose someone holds to a theory of gravity in which "the direction in which things fall is random". Any possible behavior of the apple would not be able to falsify this hypothesis. (Indeed, even all of humanity's observations up to now cannot strictly falsify this hypothesis: how do we know that we haven't simply had an extraordinarily long run of bad luck?) However, ask the holder of this theory what direction the apple will fall, and he can only tell you that it will fall in some random, indeterminate direction: in other words, the theory that does not rule out anything, also cannot predict anything.

I understand about inherently secular methods. I understand why you need a process to sift the religious kooks out of the process. It is a not a badly designed process. However, there is an inherent recognition that some truth is being excluded for methodological reasons. The method does not dictate that this is necessarily a minor compromise. It is a like a consitutional system recognizing and accepting the risk that you might release a serial killer on procedural grounds or execute the Lord Himself.

When you are in the realm of the cost-benefit analysis, you have an inherently grey area and there is plenty of room for critics.
 
Upvote 0

busterdog

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2006
3,359
183
Visit site
✟26,929.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I continue to be amazed at how willingly Creationists embrace post-modernism

I would also be amazed.

But, I am guessing he was more aiming at something like the following, not a strict moral relativism:

Phl 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Rom 14:3
Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Just because something is illogical does not make it less true. Unimagineable things to us are not that way to God. Supernatural things to us are natural to God who knows it all and can do it all. The ultimate Scientist is the Creator Himself. So any attempt to exclude Him from our study of what He made is at it's foundation foolish. You either believe in God or you don't. If you do then there are some consequences for that belief. You can't ride a fense and have part of your heart with what man says is true and part of it with what God says is true. The Bible says that when we become wise in our own hearts we become foolish.
Everything you just said above about knowing God's truth completely flies in the face of what you said earlier concerning "Each person [having] to find their own ultimate truth."
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟42,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I probably need to go and take a look at that more carefully. In the past I have looked at the original language and found no real problems or additional definitions of original language that would make me think it only applied to a local event.
If you look at the word used to describe God sending a flood on the earth, the Hebrew is erets which can mean the earth, but more often it mean a land or region. Look at what God said to Cain in Gen 4:12 When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth. But instead of being a fugitive and wanderer everywhere on earth, Gen 4:16 Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. The word for earth in verse 12, and land of Nod are the same word erets. I think earth is a mistranslation in verse 12. God was not saying he would be a fugutive all over the earth, but in his own land. When he went to another land, he was able to settle down. What we also see here, just two chapters before the flood account is erets being used to refer to regions instead of the whole planet.

Another important phrase for the global flood interpretation is 'under the whole heaven' Gen 7:19 and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. We read that from our 21st century perspective and think it everywhere inside the spherical atmosphere that covers our planet. But for people in the bible, the phrase referred to the sky they saw above their heads, everything under that sky meant from horizon to horizon.

Deut 2:25 This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you on the peoples who are under the whole heaven, who shall hear the report of you and shall tremble and be in anguish because of you.'

Who were these people God made tremble with fear? We read about them in Exodus 15:14-16 The peoples have heard; they tremble; pangs have seized the inhabitants of Philistia. 15 Now are the chiefs of Edom dismayed; trembling seizes the leaders of Moab; all the inhabitants of Canaan have melted away. 16 Terror and dread fall upon them; because of the greatness of your arm, they are still as a stone, till your people, O LORD, pass by, till the people pass by whom you have purchased. Under the whole heaven did not refer to Aztecs, San Bushmen or Maori, it simply meant from horizon to horizon across the whole of the promised land.

We find the same thing in Isaiah where the Medes, a people from what is now Iran, are described as coming from the end of the heavens. Isaiah 13:5 They come from a distant land, from the end of the heavens, the LORD and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land... 17 Behold, I am stirring up the Medes against them, who have no regard for silver and do not delight in gold. If you want to have fun with a translation, try translating 'the whole land' as 'the whole earth' or 'the whole world'.

Isaiah 13:5 They come from a world far away, from the end of the universe, the LORD and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole world ;)

In addition Christ Himself talked specifically about the flood and the original language in greek He used specifically says the flood took "THEM ALL AWAY" . He used this narrative to compare the flood time with the end time condition of the earth and the fact that they were going about their business as usual lives until the flood came and destroyed their world and everyone in it except Noah and his family at that point. For reference read Matt 24:37-39.
Have a look at Luke's version. Luke 17:26 Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man.
27 They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
28 Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot--they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building,
29 but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all
.
In Luke's account Jesus uses both the flood and the destruction of Sodom to describe the coming judgement. Saying they were all killed does not mean it had to be a global flood, just total within the area flooded, just as the destruction of Sodom killed everybody - in the region.

Please provide some examples of what you are talking about. In performing any kind of interpretation or exegesis of scripture one must use common sense. Clearly, scripture that has apocalyptic themes tends to have more symbology than scripture that doesn't.

God Bless
Jim Larmore
I like Ezekiel 16, it never suggests it is anything other than a straight forward literal account. It could be described as apocalyptic but so could Gen 2&3. Which brings us to the question of how you know when a passage is apocalyptic if it doesn't say, and how you know Gen 2&3 isn't. It certainly contains many of the themes we find in Revelation, tree of life, serpent, symbolic marriage, paradise. Don't forget Adam is also the Hebrew word for the human race so there is as much scope for symbolic people in Genesis as there is in Ezek 16 and Revelation.

The heliocentric and flat earth verses are never taken at face value by creationists, though there often is no hint given that they are speaking metaphorically. The classic example I suppose is Jesus' 'this is my body', most Creationists I have come across are Protestants who take its meaning symbolically. But Jesus never says that. They certainly don't take him literally when he tells us he is a door or that he is a shepherd and his disciples sheep.

I agree we need to use common sense, but that applies just as well to knowing from science that the world is 4.5 billion years old and life evolved, as it does to science having told us the earth is spherical and orbits the sun. The church had to change its interpretation of the geocentric passages when Copernicus show them their traditional interpretations were wrong. We need the courage to do the same thing with Genesis.
 
Upvote 0

Jimlarmore

Senior Veteran
Oct 25, 2006
2,572
51
75
✟25,490.00
Faith
SDA
In Genesis 6:6-7 the original language is specific in that the word " amche" means to totally wipe away man and animals. In Gen 6:17 the word/s "eadme" says that God would wipe off all things that have breath from the face of the ground. Rationalizations do not make this say only a local flood was intended or expected. The Bible tells us that Noah , a preacher of righteousness, told of the end of all known life for 120 years.

God Bless
Jim Larmore
 
Upvote 0

Jimlarmore

Senior Veteran
Oct 25, 2006
2,572
51
75
✟25,490.00
Faith
SDA
I agree we need to use common sense, but that applies just as well to knowing from science that the world is 4.5 billion years old and life evolved, as it does to science having told us the earth is spherical and orbits the sun. The church had to change its interpretation of the geocentric passages when Copernicus show them their traditional interpretations were wrong. We need the courage to do the same thing with Genesis.

No, there is not conclusive evidence that life evolved from a single cell to the diversity we see in the biota today. Reproductive barriers alone prohibit this from happing. Also, there is no evidence that the Bible taught that the earth was central to all of the universe. You can take it that way by reading into it some things but it does not specifically teach that.

When you compromise God's word with man's so called wisdom of how this all went down you are buying into a lie and tredding into dangerous ground indeed.

God Bless
Jim Larmore
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
297
✟30,402.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
In what way?
In the way you argue that supernatural creation is the only "truth", right after saying, "Each person has to find their own ultimate truth."
If my "ultimate truth" is different from your "ultimate truth", on what grounds can you say yours is any more valid than mine?
 
Upvote 0

Markus6

Veteran
Jul 19, 2006
4,039
347
40
Houston
✟29,534.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, there is not conclusive evidence that life evolved from a single cell to the diversity we see in the biota today. Reproductive barriers alone prohibit this from happing.
Can you elaborate on "reproductive barriers"? I'm not sure what you mean.
Also, there is no evidence that the Bible taught that the earth was central to all of the universe. You can take it that way by reading into it some things but it does not specifically teach that.
The issue was more whether the earth moved or not than whether is it was the centre of the universe.
 
Upvote 0

Jimlarmore

Senior Veteran
Oct 25, 2006
2,572
51
75
✟25,490.00
Faith
SDA
In the way you argue that supernatural creation is the only "truth", right after saying, "Each person has to find their own ultimate truth."
If my "ultimate truth" is different from your "ultimate truth", on what grounds can you say yours is any more valid than mine?

I can't because I can't judge you. I can only tell you what I believe and why I believe it. Each of us must choose what is our ultimate truth. Because each of us has the gift of free will and choice. My contention is that many of us don't drink from the same well of knowledge. Some of us drink from tainted wells that are extremely biased.

The Bible tells me that God put in each of us the knowledge of Him and His existence in Romans 1. This is intuitive and we are to be held responsible for this knowledge. If you reject that intuition and I don't that does not change the ultimate truth of His existence one iota. The truth remains the truth no matter what. Our search for the Holy Grail of truth must be done carefully and honestly. We must never be afraid to consider alternatives of established paradigms.

God Bless
Jim Larmore
 
Upvote 0

Jimlarmore

Senior Veteran
Oct 25, 2006
2,572
51
75
✟25,490.00
Faith
SDA
Can you elaborate on "reproductive barriers"? I'm not sure what you mean.

In the animal kingdom you will not find reproduction occurring naturally outside of the genus level taxonomically. In most cases not even beyond the species level.

The issue was more whether the earth moved or not than whether is it was the centre of the universe.

The perception of movement for the earth in the Bible cannot be taken as geocentricity. Geocentricity encompasses centrality as well as motion. The Bible does not teach geocentricity.

God Bless
Jim Larmore
 
Upvote 0

Markus6

Veteran
Jul 19, 2006
4,039
347
40
Houston
✟29,534.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In the animal kingdom you will not find reproduction occurring naturally outside of the genus level taxonomically. In most cases not even beyond the species level.
Sure. How does this prevent evolution from a single cell to now?
The perception of movement for the earth in the Bible cannot be taken as geocentricity. Geocentricity encompasses centrality as well as motion. The Bible does not teach geocentricity.
OK, but the bible was perceived to teach that the earth doesn't move and thus could not actively orbit the sun. The model of the solar system with the sun stationary and the earth being just another planet orbiting it was therefore seen as against the bible.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.