• 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.

Weather during the Global Flood

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:
I didn't get that from her response. Either she wasn't intending that or I missed it.

My contentions are that God also speaks to us in prayer, prophets, and of course the Holy Spirit.

night2day said:
gluadys said:
Who decreed that the scriptures are God's only communication to us?

God did -- as un-PC as that is for today's world.

post 347

Of course an ubeliever can speak truth. Augustine was talking about the natural world and not the spiritual world in his commentary on Genesis. He wasn't advocating that we should accept an unbelievers 'truth' when it contradicts the Holy Scriptures.

When we are talking about scientific discoveries we are always speaking of knowledge of the natural world. That is why questions about the relation of science to questions of salvation and other spiritual matters are irrelevant. Science has no answers to spiritual questions.

If he was, then he wouldn't have gone against the unbelievers of the day when he stated the earth was less than 6000 years old. Especially when many believed it was older.

But being the respecter of natural philosophy that he was, today he would probably support a very old earth.

The Greek thought on the age of the world was still circulating, as well as spontaneous generation. Both, Augustine disagreed with.

The Greeks thought the world was eternal and generally denied there was any history. Many believed in eternal recurrence of events.

As far as our intellectual capacity is concerned, many will view that scientists are absolutely correct on many matters. But that is within the scope of our intelligence and doesn't concern One who is vastly more intelligent than us.

If scientists are absolutely correct on a matter, it does concern the One, since absolute intelligence would have to agree with what is absolutely correct. Note, however, that science does not pretend to absolute correctness, but correctness given the evidence. Of course, the evidence in nature comes from the creator of nature.

I am not stating they are wrong, but stating that our knowledge is limited and it doesn't account for One who is vastly more knowledgable then us.

The One is not nature, so why should a study of nature account for it? Science does not study God directly, but the work of God.

The fact that knowledge is limited does not make it false. If we know only a fraction of what there is to be known, but that fraction is true, then the knowledge is identical with God's knowledge, for He is its source.

I don't agree here either with your statement that the important thing about science is that it is often right. I believe the important thing of science is that it is always trying to understand our surroundings.

And it often understands them correctly.


What you may not see that you have done here is assert that what scientists tell us is truth. Truth that is equal to God's truth.

Dont twist my words. I did not say that what scientists tell us is the truth. I said when scientists tell us the truth, it must be accepted as truth. All truth is equal to God's truth, since God is the source of all truth.

I think this is where we make a mistake. God's truth is different than man's truth.

No, its not. When human "truth" differs from God's truth, it is not truth at all.

We can know God's truth, but that means it was never our truth, in the sense of us coming up with it.

Exactly. That is why science is about discovering truth. Truths of nature are not invented, they are learned through the study of nature.

I personally see something wrong with a statement that says, 'when we refuse to accept what scientists say as truth then we refuse to surrender to God in faith.'

But that is not what was said. See correction above. It is not a matter of accepting something because scientists say it, but because it is true.

I also am repulsed by your statement that I think hints to the fact if I don't accept evolution (common descent) then I am not surrendering to God.

If evolution is true, as it appears to be, then to reject it is to reject God's truth. The only important question is whether or not it is true. If it is not true, it would be equally wrong to embrace it.

Since the Bible deals with surrendering to God, show me where I must believe in evolution or what scientist tell me even when it contradicts the Bible, in order to surrender to God.

Truth never contradicts truth. If evolution is true, it does not contradict scripture. It may contradict your fallible understanding of scripture, however.

Again, you equate creation with interpretation of evidence.

No, I don't. You are projecting your own failings onto me, for you continually equate your interpretation of scripture with God's intended meaning of scripture, so you think I am doing the same with creation. But as i once explained --several times--to Vossler, we have to deal with four realities:

1. scripture
2. created nature
3. human interpretations of scripture
4. human interpretations of created nature

Creationists are always assuming that we only have two of these realities (1 and 4). They forget that the two realities we actually have are 3 and 4. If your interpretation of scripture (3) coincides with the actual meaning of scripture (1), why do you consider it impossible for a scientific interpretation of nature (4) to coincide with creation (2)? If interpretations of nature are never valid descriptions of actual created nature, why does it not follow that intepretations of scripture are never valid representations of the actual meaning of scripture?

You simply cannot reduce these four realities to 2 and claim that we have God's knowledge of scripture but only human knowledge of nature.


Just because we don't accept common descent doesn't mean we believe God didn't make a real and knowable world. Neither is it a denial of the doctrine of creation. It is actually a defense for it.

Oh, read some of the threads in this forum. To defend this doctrine as you understand it, you and many other creationists consistently deny the integrity of creation and turn it into an illusion.

You may think you believe in a real world, but when you consistently deny the consequences of the reality of the world, your words tell us a different story.

Evolution, by common descent is the denial of the doctrine of creation.

"I believe in one God, the father almighty, who made heaven and earth and all things visible and invisible."

Evolution does not contradict that doctrine. By the way, evolution is not by common descent. It is by mutations, natural selection and other selective mechanisms, and speciation. Speciation logically implies common descent. Common descent, then, is a conclusion and a prediction of the theory. And it is borne out by many lines of evidence.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
night2day said:
And yet, the events within Genesis 1-10 would be denied despite their extrodinary circumstances? It would be reasonable to assume either God's very power is questioned or they it simply wish to be refused.

God's power is not in question. It is how he chose to use that power. The evidence says he did not use his power to create a global flood. A major flood, perhaps. There have been some massive floods, including in Mesopotamia. But no global flood.


Unless, he also chose to use his power to erase all the evidence that the flood was global -- including instantaneous recreation of the Egyptian people and civilization (not to mention the Chinese, the Mayan and so forth).


Even though among all the Biblical events this is the one area of the Bible which is rejected among Christians as a story while others are taken as is, as the literary context portrays.

There it is again "rejected...as a story". Does it never occur to you that God tells stories and that Christians can accept them as stories?

And it is not the only biblical story so treated. Have you never heard that Matthew's story of the birth of Christ bears many resemblances to midrash---the Jewish tales created for teaching purposes?

You said yourself: "It is perfectly reasonable to believe that extraordinary things can happen in extraordinary circumstances." Thus, what does make Genesis 1-10 any less than of the examples above.

The evidence which falsify their occurrence. There is no evidence which falsifies the resurrection of Jesus (or several other resurrections mentioned in scripture). There is no evidence which falsifies a virgin birth. We cannot show scientifically that these events occurred, but we cannot show that they did not either.

But when it comes to the flood, we have conclusive evidence that it was not a global flood. We also have conclusive evidence that species did not appear all at once within a 6 day period of time. Many species lived for thousands of years and became extinct before other species came on the scene.

If one chooses to believe that the scriptural accounts of these events are intended (by their "literary" context) to be actual historical accounts, one is left with only one option. God deliberately created the earth and its species to appear to contradict the scriptural account.

If you are comfortable with that belief, fine. I am not.

Science does not nor cannot explain the virgin birth or resurrection from the dead. To do so would be attempting to state how the supernatural power of God works.

Yes, that is what I said.

And the supernatural realm is something science can only perhaps see the effects from, not explain them.

But, in the case of the flood, no such effects are seen. In fact, effects which could not be possible, given a global flood, are seen instead.

And as stated previously, the studies within science and conclusions gleaned from various observations or theories is can always change.

But through history, they have always changed in one direction--toward a more complete and more accurate description of nature. There is not one instance of something being falsified by one generation of scientists and accepted as good science again by a later generation of scientists.

When science showed that there is no phlogisten in flammable objects, that theory of combustion was falsified forever. When it showed there is no interstellar ether to carry light waves, that theory was falsified for ever. When it showed that rats, flies and maggots are not produced by spontaneous generation, that theory was falsified forever.

Good science can change to be better science, but bad science is not resurrected. The notion that the flood was global has been falsified---forever.

What we know of the supernatural iand of God Himself is only what God has told us within His word. One either takes it as written within the literary context, or they take it some other way.

Please don't confuse God's Word with the scriptures. In particular do not limit God's Word to the scriptures. Contrary to what you have said, God's Word is revealed in many ways. In particular, the scriptures tell us that God's Word is revealed in creation, for nothing that was made was made apart from the Word (Logos).

I agree we need to take the scriptures within their literary context. But don't be so sure you know what the literary context is. We also have to take creation in its context --and that is what science tries to help us with. And we need to take scripture and creation in the context of each other, for both are revelations of God and neither can stand aloof from the other.
 
Upvote 0
C

Critias

Guest
gluadys said:

I know it is the 'un-PC' way of doing things here, but you could always ask her what she meant by what she said... As you, interpretations are not always correct.

gluadys said:
When we are talking about scientific discoveries we are always speaking of knowledge of the natural world. That is why questions about the relation of science to questions of salvation and other spiritual matters are irrelevant. Science has no answers to spiritual questions.

The relations between the two are irrelevant? Interesting. I recall Jesus saying, 'If you cannot trust Me with earthly matters how can you trust Me with heavenly ones.'

gluadys said:
But being the respecter of natural philosophy that he was, today he would probably support a very old earth.

I highly doubt that. He would have accepted it then if your statement is true. Instead, he stood by the Scriptures Authority.

gluadys said:
The Greeks thought the world was eternal and generally denied there was any history. Many believed in eternal recurrence of events.

Greeks often expressed the world to very very old. If Augustine was this great respector of following what other people tell him about nature, then he would have accepted the Greeks philosophical beliefs about the earth.

gluadys said:
If scientists are absolutely correct on a matter, it does concern the One, since absolute intelligence would have to agree with what is absolutely correct. Note, however, that science does not pretend to absolute correctness, but correctness given the evidence. Of course, the evidence in nature comes from the creator of nature.

And again, you assume evidence speaks on this matter alone, thus removing human interaction with the evidence - interpretation.

That is one of the things I do like about science is that it doesn't concern itself with proofs. But, TEs often here present the interpretation of evidence given by scientists as proof of common descent.


gluadys said:
The One is not nature, so why should a study of nature account for it? Science does not study God directly, but the work of God.

The fact that knowledge is limited does not make it false. If we know only a fraction of what there is to be known, but that fraction is true, then the knowledge is identical with God's knowledge, for He is its source.

Maybe you have missed that science will not, cannot speak anything about a Creator, thus looks for other rationales for creation. By default, this is walking away from God's truth.

Again, even if man is correct about its scientific findings, it is not identical to God's knowledge. God's knowledge surpasses mans, even when man knows parts of God's knowledge. Unless somehow you think man is equally intelligent as God on certain matters...

gluadys said:
And it often understands them correctly.

By your assertion. History shows us that science has to rework its theories quite often. Not exactly understanding them correctly, but rather partly.


gluadys said:
Dont twist my words. I did not say that what scientists tell us is the truth. I said when scientists tell us the truth, it must be accepted as truth. All truth is equal to God's truth, since God is the source of all truth.

You said: "We can also add that when we refuse to accept the truth he has shown us in science, we are also not surrendering to Him in faith."

1. You assumed that it is God showing scientists how to interpret the evidence that they find.
2. You state that if we don't accept the scientists interpretation then we are not surrendering to God.

I state what I do in #1 because you have stated evolution and common descent are truth as told by scientists.


gluadys said:
No, its not. When human "truth" differs from God's truth, it is not truth at all.

Our truth never equals God's truth because God's truth surpasses our understanding. Again, unless you think you are capable of understanding God's complete knowledge on certain aspects of life or science then why not just equate your knowledge of science with God's. I don't think you would - hopefully - so therefore it isn't equal to but might be part of.

You must keep in mind that God far surpasses us in understanding, even on the most simplest of things. So you can never equate our understanding of truth with God's.

gluadys said:
Exactly. That is why science is about discovering truth. Truths of nature are not invented, they are learned through the study of nature.

Science doesn't deal with truths. It deals probability. God's truths will never be fully realized by man in his fallen state. Please don't start having a god-complex.

gluadys said:
But that is not what was said. See correction above. It is not a matter of accepting something because scientists say it, but because it is true.

And what you have said is that common descent, what scientists say, is true. And if I don't accept that truth, in your view, I am not surrendering to God.

gluadys said:
If evolution is true, as it appears to be, then to reject it is to reject God's truth. The only important question is whether or not it is true. If it is not true, it would be equally wrong to embrace it.

If evolution is true and I am wrong in my understanding, I don't think God is going to hold that against me. But, if I lead people away from Him purposely knowing that I am doing so, then I will answer for that.

I am sure there are many more things I am wrong about because I am after fallible and sinful.

gluadys said:
Truth never contradicts truth. If evolution is true, it does not contradict scripture. It may contradict your fallible understanding of scripture, however.

Man's truth can be subjective. In this case of common descent, I believe it is. Yet, TEs call it truth, equal to God's truth.

I disagree with the TE assertion. Shall you continue to imply I am not surrendering to God? If so, so be it.

gluadys said:
No, I don't. You are projecting your own failings onto me, for you continually equate your interpretation of scripture with God's intended meaning of scripture, so you think I am doing the same with creation. But as i once explained --several times--to Vossler, we have to deal with four realities:

1. scripture
2. created nature
3. human interpretations of scripture
4. human interpretations of created nature

Now you are projecting my statement to you back at me even though I have said several times it is my interpretation. You always refer to creation saying evolution happened. Creation says nothing of it, man says this. It appears to me to be a veil to convince people that scientists don't give the interpretation of theory of evolution by are just restating what creation already says. We both know this is not true.

It is man and solely man who postulates the theory of evolution, not this planet.

What of those four realities teaches of Jesus Christ, Salvation, Repentence, the reason for a Savior, and how to live a righteous life? And tell me as well, what is more important than these to know?

gluadys said:
Creationists are always assuming that we only have two of these realities (1 and 4). They forget that the two realities we actually have are 3 and 4. If your interpretation of scripture (3) coincides with the actual meaning of scripture (1), why do you consider it impossible for a scientific interpretation of nature (4) to coincide with creation (2)? If interpretations of nature are never valid descriptions of actual created nature, why does it not follow that intepretations of scripture are never valid representations of the actual meaning of scripture?

You simply cannot reduce these four realities to 2 and claim that we have God's knowledge of scripture but only human knowledge of nature.

I have not claimed I have God's knowledge. To state such a thing would be blasphemous and putting myself equal to God. The same with saying my(man's) truth is equal to God's truth.

I have been and continue to be lead by God. Should I be ashamed of this? Should I hide it? I won't, because I do not want Jesus to be ashamed of me when He speaks in my behalf with the Father.

Call my faith a lie, call my faith deception, call my faith untrue, call it not surrendering to God, call it whatever you want. This whole discussion is about faith. That is the underlining factor of both sides.

I don't care if you believe in evolution, but to state things about Scripture that are untrue, I do care about. If you want to continue the attack on YECs faith and feel you can do so in good conscious, then so be it. That is what you are doing each time you attack what we believe about Genesis. We believe it by faith that we have in God.

The problem is this debate - creation vs evolution - has gone past talking about Genesis' literary context, the NT authors support of Genesis' statements and instead has become an attack on peoples faith. Yours, mine, everyones. It has become a large scale personal attack on each other instead of dealing with actual issues within Genesis.

gluadys said:
Oh, read some of the threads in this forum. To defend this doctrine as you understand it, you and many other creationists consistently deny the integrity of creation and turn it into an illusion.

You may think you believe in a real world, but when you consistently deny the consequences of the reality of the world, your words tell us a different story.

With such statements, you lead me to believe that the theory of evolution is equal to the integrity of creation. I don't share your faith in this.

Unfortunately, you don't think when someone believes differently than you on these matters that they can also believe in a real world. You are simply wrong, but refuse to accept that you are. Instead you pursue this line of attack constantly and repeatedly, which happens to be an attack on ones intelligence.

gluadys said:
"I believe in one God, the father almighty, who made heaven and earth and all things visible and invisible."

Evolution does not contradict that doctrine. By the way, evolution is not by common descent. It is by mutations, natural selection and other selective mechanisms, and speciation. Speciation logically implies common descent. Common descent, then, is a conclusion and a prediction of the theory. And it is borne out by many lines of evidence.

Sigh... Evolution by common descent wasn't meant as its mechanism. I thought by now you would understand that I know this. Obvisouly not.

Thanks for lecture and I think I am done with this conversation with you because it is nothing more then attacking each others faith. You may be fine it, but it is starting to make me sick.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
night2day said:
So, your placing Science on par and above the Scriptures?

No, I am placing creation on a par with the scriptures. Science interprets creation, just as theologians interpret scriptures. Creation is the work of God, not of scientists.

We do not have divine knowledge of either creation or scripture, but we know God intended both to be revelation. Some of our interpretations of creation are partial and fallible. Some of our interpretatios of scripture are partial and fallible.

But just as we can sometimes come to at least an adequate understanding of God's teaching in scripture, so we can sometimes come to at least an adequate understanding of God's work in creation.

When we read scripture, we know we do not fathom all its mysteries, but we are confident we understand its essential teachings. Just so, science does not claim to fathom all the mysteries of creation---far from it---but scientists do have confidence that they understand some essential matters about nature.

But is not God's word.

God's Word is the second person of the Trinity who became flesh among us. This is the first and most important meaning of the Word (Logos). All other ways in which the Word is revealed to us are secondary and derivitive from this Word which is God himself and the Creator of all that is.

Scriptures are the Word of God insofar as they reveal to us the original Word, Christ. You are Lutheran. I don't have the source of this quote from Luther, but since you know his writings well, perhaps you can locate it.

"Christ is the Lord and King of the scriptures....All sound books agree in this,that they witness to Christ. That is the proper test by which to judge all books, whether they preach Christ....That which does not preach Christ is not apostolic though it came from St.Peter or St. Paul. Contrariwise, that which preaches Christ is apostolic, even though it came from Judas or Annas or Pilate or Herod."

It is interesting to note that the scriptures never refer to scripture as the Word of God. That is not an argument that they are not--in the sense given. But that the scriptures do what Luther said: preach Christ. And when the scriptures speak of the Word, they do not point to themselves, but to Christ.

Scriptures are the word because Christ is the Word. Never the other way around.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
night2day said:


If that's how you read the statement "reading Scripture by it's literary context"---.


No, that is how I read you turning my statement:

the bible itself contradicts the proposition that it is the only means by which God communicates with us.

into this statement

The Bible doesn't contrict itself and never did.

How you got that from my saying the bible contradicted your proposition, I don't know.

Unless they come across something else which causes them to rethink their previous views. And that has happanened many times, in various fields of the sciences.

Well, which of those various consensus statements I listed has changed? I think you will find that changes occur not in areas of consensus, but in areas of ambiguity. That is to be expected.

Ok, so, you don't like Scripture interprets Scripture. And...?

No, I don't. Scripture does not interpret scripture. People interpret scripture. Sometimes they find one part of scripture sheds light on another. That may be what you mean. But it is still a human activity.

Just as Critias is always reminding me that creation does not literally speak to us. We interpret what we observe and use various observations to explain each other. All God's revelations are conveyed to us via the human activity of interpretation.

And again I say no, particularly given the context in which you asked the question.

And Critias has said much the same---that there are different truths and they can contradict each other. I don't agree. I hold there is only one truth: God's truth. And no part of it contradicts another.

As well as giving the idea that somehow there must be more than one way God's word can be read.

It is obvious that there is more than one way to read the scriptures. How else do you explain denominational differences? Is apostolic succession important or no? Must baptism be by complete immersion or no? Is it permissible to baptize infants or no? Is the sacrament a re-enactment of Christ's sacrifice or only a symbol of it? May Christians participate in war or not?

Of course there are many ways to read scripture.

What you may be trying to say is that there is only one right way to read scripture: God's way. I have no disagreement with that. But until you can show me which way is God's way, of what use is it to affirm that? Is it the Orthodox way? The RC way? The Presbyterian or Baptist or Quaker way? The conservative or liberal way? Which of them can be identified with God's way of reading scripture and what is the basis of your answer?

If you disagree that he's not the author and has nothing to do with it,

Twisting my words again. God most certainly has something to do with scripture. He is the one who inspired them.

Creation is appealed to as a wittness to God's soveriegn power and majasty. But not what mere human beings think and have gleened from observing and studying His creation.

Why not? How is creation to be a witness to God's power and majesty if it is not observed? And most students of nature will tell you that study enhances the testimony of creation, for the study of nature reveals how marvellous it is.

When Jesus speaks of truth in the Gospels, He is speaking His very self.

Good! I am glad you know that. He himself is the true Word of God.

Either the Scriptures are accepted as is for what they say...or they're not.

Oh, I agree entirely. The question is how to determine what they say.
 
Upvote 0

night2day

Sola Scriptura~Sola Gratia~Sola Fide
Aug 18, 2004
1,873
113
55
Home
Visit site
✟2,758.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
gluadys said:
Critias wrote: I didn't get that from her response. Either she wasn't intending that or I missed it.

My contentions are that God also speaks to us in prayer, prophets, and of course the Holy Spirit.

347

Exact context of said post:

n2d responded with:
Gluadys wrote:I mean, when you speak of reading Genesis "as it is, the way it is written"--

Look up the word literary within the dictionary sometime...

--do you mean reading it as you do? Do you mean that anyone who does not agree with your reading of Genesis is not accepting Genesis?

..instead of becoming offended there are those of us take the Scriptures as God's innerant, infallibe word which explains itself fully, each Testament fully supporting the other, with Jesus Christ in the middle.

And to whom has he given that interpretation? To you?

Look up the phrase "Scripture interprets Scripture" sometime.

Who decreed that the scriptures are God's only communication to us?

God did -- as un-PC as that is for today's world.


Who declared that information from outside scripture cannot shed light on scripture and aid in a correct understanding of scripture?

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
(Galations 1:8-9)
I think God values faith and reason above unbelief and irrationality. I do not believe God means for faith and reason to be opposed to each other, but to work together.

You forget one tiny improtant thing:

"...the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."
1 Corinthians 1:25
Bolded and highlighted the actual portion in question within the orginal context of the conversation Within the context of Hebrews 1:1-2 which again will be referenced here:
"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son..."

Since "time past unto the fathers by the prophets" refers to those within the Old Testament, and Jesus Christ is referred to as having spoken to us during "these last days" (which encompasses his earthly ministry, death, ressurection, and after His assenscion to the present) please explain from where else we can refer to God-breathed written accounts regarding the Lord's working throughout human history to set the stage for our salvation...when the Savior had come...and that He will return.

For one who mentioned something of teaching literature...you do realize the words spake and spoken are both verbs within the past tense?

God's word does not contradict itself...even if we cannot fully understand it or see clearly how it "logically" ties one passage with another. It yet still stands.

Three posts later you made comment on the Hebrews verse:

...God spoke in many and various ways and has now spoken by his Son...And Paul tells the Romans that even those who have not the law have not excuse for their sins, since creation itself testifies of God's power and nature....Jesus also told the disciples that they would be guided to truth by the Holy Spirit. So just when and where did God decree that scripture and only scripture would be the single channel of divine communication?

Yet, what did you speak of throughout stating when scienctists are within a consenses they must have determined a scientific truth and that truth must equal to God's Truth? And not accepting scientific studies and theories....as are at odds with God's Truth?

I believe he context made it clear what I meant from the start. There's little else how I can phrase it.

The fact that knowledge is limited does not make it false. If we know only a fraction of what there is to be known, but that fraction is true, then the knowledge is identical with God's knowledge, for He is its source.

However, there is no way to know what is true and what is false unless there is a standard to go by, Should God's standards be rejected that He has set forth in the Scriptures, only Mankind's fallible standards, which seemingly are always in flux, can be seen to.

I did not say that what scientists tell us is the truth. I said when scientists tell us the truth, it must be accepted as truth. All truth is equal to God's truth, since God is the source of all truth.

Either it God's Truth or Man's truth. One or the the other. They are not the same and one runs a dangerous course when stating that they are.

...It is not a matter of accepting something because scientists say it, but because it is true
.

And by what standard does one know it is true? It's not because of Men. And one cannot rely on nature or always what they find in nature. As you stated, they have to look to the Source: the Creator who set the standard in the first place.

However, if that standard He has set is discarded for one reason or another, then it's a fallible and questionable standard one must find to replace it.

If evolution is true, as it appears to be, then to reject it is to reject God's truth. The only important question is whether or not it is true. If it is not true, it would be equally wrong to embrace it.

As previously stated, it falls to what one believes: the Scriptueral account in Genesis being accurate concerning Mankind's origins and why all creation is the way it is, why we needed a Savior, ect. Or theories and hypothisies formed by men and women who deny the validity and historical record of Genesis.

Truth never contradicts truth. If evolution is true, it does not contradict scripture. It may contradict your fallible understanding of scripture, however.

However, I'm not the one who needs to prove the 6 day creation is often referrenced and fully supported within the Scriptures. The Bible does that on it's own when it's read as is.

Evolution is canceled out by default.

...you continually equate your interpretation of scripture with God's intended meaning of scripture, so you think I am doing the same with creation.

Scripture interprets Scriptire. The Bible itself lays forth it's own meaning.

When Matthew 2:1 relays Jesus was born in Bethleham in Judea....how can anyone mistake that for thinking the Scriptures relay Jesus was actually born in the areas we know as India or China?

In Genesis 2 when God forms man from the dust, breathed the breath of life into him, and gives him a soul...how does that say that the man had been evolvoling from lower life forms first? The text states God formed Adam as a man. Adam wasn't another life form before that point.

The context does not indicate the flood as some fanciful account of exaggerated proportions. There's no wording that indicates it's a mere story, dream, or anything else other than actual events that took place. Unlike Revelation which, from the beginning, states John was in the spirit when he was seening all the visions that were being relayed to him.

But as i once explained --several times--to Vossler, we have to deal with four realities:

1. scripture
2. created nature
3. human interpretations of scripture
4. human interpretations of created nature

Creationists are always assuming that we only have two of these realities (1 and 4). They forget that the two realities we actually have are 3 and 4.

Scriptural interpretaion can take 3 of four forms, all of which relies on something outside the Scriptures. Below is the the list with examples of each:

1. Proclaimed revelation (ex.Papal decree, councils)
2. Additional resources (ex. Mormons)
3. Personal interpretation (ex. Calvanism)
5. Scripture alone, Scripture interprets Scripture (ex. Lutheran)

...why do you consider it impossible for a scientific interpretation of nature to coincide with creation...

You've already taken the stance that Genesis 1 & 2 is not an accurant account but a myth. That says it all.

If interpretations of nature are never valid descriptions of actual created nature, why does it not follow that intepretations of scripture are never valid representations of the actual meaning of scripture?

Asked and answered earlier in the post.

You simply cannot reduce these four realities to 2 and claim that we have God's knowledge of scripture but only human knowledge of nature.

Did I say we had God's knowledge? Or that merely God has revealed what He wanted us to know in His word? And how we know is simply reading and taking it for what is says?

Oh, read some of the threads in this forum. To defend this doctrine as you understand it, you and many other creationists consistently deny the integrity of creation and turn it into an illusion.

Well, since you didn't even get the actual phrasing of the doctrine correct, your ability on being able to call it an illusion is questionable.

You may think you believe in a real world, but when you consistently deny the consequences of the reality of the world, your words tell us a different story...."I believe in one God, the father almighty, who made heaven and earth and all things visible and invisible."...

An irony you attempt to use the Nicene Creed while rejecting the source from which it was gleened how God made Heaven and Earth.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
PART ONE

Critias said:
The relations between the two are irrelevant? Interesting. I recall Jesus saying, 'If you cannot trust Me with earthly matters how can you trust Me with heavenly ones.'

The point was that you cannot look to science in regard to matters of sin and salvation and reconciliation to God. After all, science cannot even tell whether there is a God or not.

I highly doubt that. He would have accepted it then if your statement is true. Instead, he stood by the Scriptures Authority.

But he did not stand by a literal or plain reading of scripture when he knew it was contradicted by knowledge of nature. Obviously, he would need the current information on the age of the earth before determining whether this knowledge of nature disconfirmed the apparent age of the earth inferred from scripture.

Greeks often expressed the world to very very old. If Augustine was this great respector of following what other people tell him about nature, then he would have accepted the Greeks philosophical beliefs about the earth.

As I said, he would need information, not philosophy. For the most part, Greek philosophy did not subscribe to a doctrine of creation, so it is understandable that Augustine would reject it.

And again, you assume evidence speaks on this matter alone, thus removing human interaction with the evidence - interpretation.

That is one of the things I do like about science is that it doesn't concern itself with proofs. But, TEs often here present the interpretation of evidence given by scientists as proof of common descent.

Yes, I once suggested myself that we should understand evidence as "intepreted observation" and refrain from using the term when we are speaking of raw observation prior to interpretation. And I have not kept to that myself. However, all understanding of observations depends on interpretation, and so when we speak of certain observations leading to certain conclusions, we are dealing with evidence, not just observations.

Just as all reading of scripture is also interpretation of scripture. Nothing we understand in scripture is understood apart from interpretation.

In both cases, in order to show that something is true, we need to show that a particular interpretation is the only one that makes sense of the observations in nature or the text of scripture.

That is the sense in which evidence supports scientific theory---when it is the only interpretation that makes sense of our observations of nature. And on that basis I stand by my original statement.

Maybe you have missed that science will not, cannot speak anything about a Creator, thus looks for other rationales for creation. By default, this is walking away from God's truth.

Your statement is correct up to the word "Creator". The rest is a non-sequitor. You are adding,--- what shall I call it, an attitude?--- to the scientific method that is simply not there. It certainly does not apply to believing scientists, who fully accept that there is a Creator.

I will fully grant that some scientists, with atheistic leanings, do display this attitude. But we should not make the error of assuming their philosophical leanings are part of science or the scientific method.

From a Christian perspective, the role of science is not to seek "other rationales for creation", but to seek the secondary (natural) processes involved in creation. There is no desire or intent or quest to replace the primary cause (God) by the secondary causes which God used. It is understood as a given that secondary causes are all dependant on the primary cause.

Another way of understanding this is to distinguish the who (God) and the why (God's will and purpose) from the how (the secondary means used to implement God's will and purpose.) Science does not and cannot speak to the first two questions. It's field is the third. But that does not automatically turn any exploration of the third question into a denial of the first two.

Only a prior philosophical commitment to unbelief would attempt to distort science in this way. And it is not the place of a Christian to encourage that. Yet, this is precisely what YECism does when it continually marries this philosophy to science as if the two were not separable. And should be separated.

Again, even if man is correct about its scientific findings, it is not identical to God's knowledge. God's knowledge surpasses mans, even when man knows parts of God's knowledge. Unless somehow you think man is equally intelligent as God on certain matters...

No one is claiming that human knowledge is anything other than partial. But if it is true, it is as true for God as for us and vice versa. That is the very standard of truth. Partial knowledge is not equivalent to false knowledge.

By your assertion. History shows us that science has to rework its theories quite often. Not exactly understanding them correctly, but rather partly.

Because all human knowledge is partial, it needs to incorporate new knowledge as it is discovered, and that may require reworking of current knowledge to make it able to embrace the new knowledge. But tell me this: can you provide any example of going back to the former understanding after this reworking has taken place?

That is what YECism requires. Scientifically, our former understanding-- that the age of the earth is about 6,000 years--has been changed given new information from geology, astronomy and physics. To get back to a 6,000 year format would mean having to go back to what our understanding was before that new knowledge was accessible. That is not what science does. Changing to incorporate new knowledge is quite a different thing than changing back to unincorporate it again. The latter can't really be done in science.

You said: "We can also add that when we refuse to accept the truth he has shown us in science, we are also not surrendering to Him in faith."

Correct. To refuse truth is to turn one's back on the One who is Truth and whose word is truth.

1. You assumed that it is God showing scientists how to interpret the evidence that they find.

No, I did not. I assumed that scientists do discover truth. I did not assume they always discover truth. But they do discover truth.

Nor did I assume that God is showing them how to interpret their observations (beyond giving them, as humans, a capacity to reason about them.) However, I would not rule out that possibility either--at least for some scientists who are open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I would say it is possible that in some cases scientists have been led to the truth by God. But I would not assume it.

2. You state that if we don't accept the scientists interpretation then we are not surrendering to God.

No, no, no, no, no and again no! That is not what I am saying at all. That is a very significant change from what I actually said.

This applies only when the scientific interpretation is true! I have certainly not taken the position that every scientific interpretation of nature is true. Only true interpretations demand acceptance. Only true interpretations accord with God's own understanding. Only true interpretations accord with the reality which God created.

Again, the case here is the same as for scripture. Would you agree that rejecting a false interpretation of scripture is equivalent to rejecting God? Of course, not. In fact, to be true to God, we must reject false interpretations of scripture. By the same token, when scripture is interpreted correctly, in line with God's intentions, we ought to accept that interpretation in obedient surrender to God.

Why can you not see that the application is the same in both theology and science? The key is to determine the truth and to accept the truth. Because truth is of God.

I state what I do in #1 because you have stated evolution and common descent are truth as told by scientists.

No, I have stated they are truth as shown by the evidence, which is a different matter. Yes, scientists made the observations and interpreted them in order to make sense of them. And then, they tested their interpretations against the observations again, including new observations. (This is a point you often omit.) They began, as all theories do begin, with several possible interpretive frameworks. And over time they eliminated those that were ruled out by actual observations. Until there was only one left---only one interpretation of the observations that was fully consistent with the observations.

So, provisionally, this is accounted as true. Provisionally. For all our knowledge is still partial and new knowledge may still revise this.

The same is not the case with the interpretive frameworks which were eliminated. They were eliminated because they were contradicted by actual observation---not by theory--but by concrete, actual observations. And the observations which led to their rejection still apply, and will continue to apply, even as new knowledge accumulates. New knowledge can revise and expand what we already know. But it cannot change falsehood to truth, and so cannot revive a rejected theory. That the earth is only a few thousand years old is such a rejected theory. It is not consistent with the observations made in nature. It cannot interpret the observations consistently or reliably, or in many cases, offer any kind of scientific interpretation at all.

Hence, scientifically, we must go with evolution and common descent, because these theories do interpret all the observations and interpret them consistently and reliably, so that they can be used empirically and pragmatically.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
PART TWO

Our truth never equals God's truth because God's truth surpasses our understanding.

Our understanding of the truth can never equal God's understanding. Our finite minds cannot penetrate the depths of knowledge as God's can. Our capacity to know truth is indeed limited.

But truth is one and indivisible. God's truth may be as the sun while ours is like a small candle, but the light is still light. And our light, our insight into the truth, is just as true as God's truth, as as single ray from the sun is the same as the sun's light. For it is a ray of God's truth.

You must keep in mind that God far surpasses us in understanding, even on the most simplest of things. So you can never equate our understanding of truth with God's.

And I am not. All I am saying is that when we have any understanding at all of the truth, we have a glimmer of God's truth.

Science doesn't deal with truths. It deals probability.

Probability is truth too.

God's truths will never be fully realized by man in his fallen state.

Agreed. I never claimed otherwise.


And what you have said is that common descent, what scientists say, is true. And if I don't accept that truth, in your view, I am not surrendering to God.

All the evidence points to common descent being true. On that basis, it is reasonable to assume it is true until disconfirming evidence shows that it is not.

If it is true, and only if it is true, refusal to accept it would be a refusal of God's truth. But please notice the word "if" repeated twice.

If evolution is true and I am wrong in my understanding, I don't think God is going to hold that against me. But, if I lead people away from Him purposely knowing that I am doing so, then I will answer for that.

I am sure there are many more things I am wrong about because I am after fallible and sinful.

No disagreement here. We are accepted by God's grace, unconditionally.

Man's truth can be subjective.

That certainly applies to human knowledge about God. All the truths of faith are truths known only subjectively. None can be verified by sense i.e. by objectively observed evidence.

It is interesting that God has arranged for the most important truths to be known only on a subjective basis, while the less important truths about nature cannot be known subjectively, but must be known by sense and reason accessible to all alike i.e. objectively. It says something about the relative importance of faith and reason.

In this case of common descent, I believe it is. Yet, TEs call it truth, equal to God's truth.

All truth is God's truth. There is no more or less with truth. All truths are equal in their veracity. They may be unequal in interest or importance, but every truth is equally true. If common descent is true (note again the "if") it is not equal to God's truth. It IS God's truth---as all truth is.

You always refer to creation saying evolution happened. Creation says nothing of it, man says this. It appears to me to be a veil to convince people that scientists don't give the interpretation of theory of evolution by are just restating what creation already says.

Just as you always refer to scripture as what God said. Scripture says nothing of this, humans say this. It appears to me to be a veil to convince people that interpreters of scripture are not interpreters of the text, but are just restating what God has said.

If you sincerely believe it is possible to find an interpretation of scripture that is indeed in accord with what God actually says, the same possibility applies to scientists figuring out what creation actually "says".

What of those four realities teaches of Jesus Christ, Salvation, Repentence, the reason for a Savior, and how to live a righteous life?

Scripture, when it is rightly interpreted.

And tell me as well, what is more important than these to know?

Lack of importance does not make a truth untrue, nor does importance turn a falsehood into truth.

I don't care if you believe in evolution, but to state things about Scripture that are untrue, I do care about. If you want to continue the attack on YECs faith and feel you can do so in good conscious, then so be it. That is what you are doing each time you attack what we believe about Genesis. We believe it by faith that we have in God.

I can do so in good conscience, for I don't just believe that YECism is a failure to recognize scientific truth. I believe it is a distortion of the truth of scripture. I believe YECism states things about scripture that are untrue, and like you, that is something I care about, and care about deeply.

However, let me re-iterate that I am not attacking your faith in God. Nor am I suggesting that God would reject anyone for adhering to YECism. If you are at peace with God in your faith, I can only say God bless, and hope you can return the blessing.

In fact, if all YECists could do likewise and simply accept TE as another way of walking with God and scripture, this debate among Christians would not even exist. Just as we have learned to agree to disagree on things like infant baptism and episopal vs congregational orders of church government, so we should agree to disagree on evolution and literal vs. mythological interpretations of scripture.

You are right. We should not be attacking each other's faith. But TEs have a long experience of being attacked in this way. Perhaps now that we are learning to speak up and defend our perspective and YECs are coming to know what it feels like, we can lay down the gauntlets and say--I disagree with you, but you are still a brother/sister in Christ.

And then, carry on the debate, if we wish, as a quarrel between siblings, not as an attack on an unbeliever. For there is still reason to explain ourselves and defend ourselves on this matter as much as there is on infant baptism.

I think if YECists can understand that TEs are not unbelievers, and are not rejecting scripture, we can debate much more civilly on the real issues. But when I am told (as you will see in night2day's posts to me) that I am discarding and denying scripture, that is not debating the issues, that is a personal attack on my faith. And I don't like that any more than you do.


With such statements, you lead me to believe that the theory of evolution is equal to the integrity of creation.

Not quite. Rather it is that some of the defences used by YECists in affirming the young age of the earth amount to declaring that the world as we know it is an illusion. So, in effect, in order to say that the evidence for the age of the earth or for evolution is meaningless, they have to deny the reality of the world as a whole. If that is the only way to rule out scientific conclusions, it is IMHO too high a price to pay in terms of Christian theology.

Unfortunately, you don't think when someone believes differently than you on these matters that they can also believe in a real world.

They may suppose they believe in a real world. But if they do, they cannot rule out real world evidence. And if they try to do so by using the language of apparent age, or of unobserved past states, which somehow they know without observation, were remarkably different from present reality, then they are being inconsistent with their professed belief in a real world. In effect, they are implying that they are ready to chuck the reality of the world in favour of their preferred intepretation of scripture.

I prefer accepting the world as given (so far as we can figure that out) and accepting that my interpretation of scripture must conform to the reality we did not create and cannot change.
 
Upvote 0

night2day

Sola Scriptura~Sola Gratia~Sola Fide
Aug 18, 2004
1,873
113
55
Home
Visit site
✟2,758.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
gluadys said:
From a Christian perspective, the role of science is not to seek "other rationales for creation", but to seek the secondary (natural) processes involved in creation. There is no desire or intent or quest to replace the primary cause (God) by the secondary causes which God used. It is understood as a given that secondary causes are all dependant on the primary cause.

Why even seek the secandary process used in how God created with the Scriptures already inform us how He created...something that is referenced back to throughout the whole of the Scriptures? Simply stating 'Genesis is a myth' and brushing it's historical validity aside only shows a mannerism which calls into doubt the very text of the Scriptures. One that is upheld and reheld as historically valid by Moses, the prophets, and the Aopstels. Especially Jesus Christ's since He claimed to be God himself who was there at the creation of the world, as referenced within Genesis countless times during His earthly ministry.

Only a prior philosophical commitment to unbelief would attempt to distort science in this way. And it is not the place of a Christian to encourage that. Yet, this is precisely what YECism does when it continually marries this philosophy to science as if the two were not separable. And should be separated.

Did God create the world or not?

Whether you call it philosophy or not it's a simple act of belief or disbelief over taking the Genesis 6 day creation it is written as is. Nothing more than.
 
Upvote 0
T

The Lady Kate

Guest
night2day said:
Why even seek the secandary process used in how God created with the Scriptures already inform us how He created...something that is referenced back to throughout the whole of the Scriptures?

I don't recall which chapter and verse detailed the nuts-and-bolts description of how God created... a little help here?

Simply stating 'Genesis is a myth' and brushing it's historical validity aside only shows a mannerism which calls into doubt the very text of the Scriptures.

What historical validity are you referring to?

One that is upheld and reheld as historically valid by Moses, the prophets, and the Aopstels. Especially Jesus Christ's since He claimed to be God himself who was there at the creation of the world, as referenced within Genesis countless times during His earthly ministry.

Christ referenced Genesis many times during his work on Earth. My brother the teacher references Romeo and Juliet in his work in the classroom... a means to an end; what of it?



Did God create the world or not?

Of course he did. What of it?

Whether you call it philosophy or not it's a simple act of belief or disbelief over taking the Genesis 6 day creation it is written as is. Nothing more than.

Then call it disbelief if it makes you feel better. If you choose to speak in ultimatums, you had better be prepared for answers you will not like.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
night2day said:
Even scientists agree they cannot properly depend on information gleaned from areas that have suffered from trauma in quite a few cases. One such an example is erosion which causes the surface to appear older than it appears.

Erosion does not make the surface appear to be older. It exposes layers of rock that actually are older than the sediments which have been eroded away.

I would like you to substantiate that scientists "agree they cannot properly depend on information gleaned from areas that have suffered trauma."

Scientists can tell a lot about an area that has suffered trauma, whether that be flood, erosion, volcanic eruption, earthquake, or meteor strikes.

And I would think almost anyone would agree the date and age of something God created would be too hard to dicipher when it's unknown just at what stage it was in within the first place.

That would depend on whether or not God left true evidence of the process. If he did, it is no big problem for geologists to sort it out. Of course, you contend that God removed all the true evidence and planted false evidence, isn't that right?

Maybe take into consideration scientists may not have the proper tools as of yet to know just what type of evidence needs to be looked for.

Wishful thinking. This is an admission that with the tools we have and the evidence we have the scientific conclusions are correct. And that is all that science claims.

Note also, that although science changes as new evidence is discovered (often revealed through new tools), there is no example in history of new evidence reversing a previous conclusion. New evidence showed that the earth was not the centre of the universe, but a middling-size planet circling a middling size star in a typical galaxy that is one out of trillions. And although we have learned a great deal more astronomy than Copernicus or Galileo ever dreamed of--none of it has reversed the original scientific finding and placed the earth back at the centre of things with the sun and all the stars going around the earth.

So dream all you like about possible new findings in geology. Or new scientific tools. Unless they are going to dissolve layers of salt in every stratum of the geological column, change the distribution of fossils, evaporate thousands of written documents and inscriptions and redo the genetic information in every species on earth, they are not going to validate a global flood.

Scientific fields of all kinds are fields which has new theories replacing old all the time. Observations and conclusions drawn from studies may prove useful...but they may also change as new information is discovered.

Two things you fail to recognize.

First,observations don't change. Observations are the raw data on which science is based. No matter how many new things are observed, the old observations don't go away.

Second, and this is drawn from the first, new theories generally incorporate old theories. Newton's theories are out of date, but the observations he made are still there. And the newer theories of relativity don't do away with those observations, or Newton's laws of gravity and motion. They make them part of the newer theory.

This has already happened with evolution. Darwin had a totally incorrect concept of inheritance. Mendel had a better one, and it has been improved on. Now the work of geneticists, like Mendel and his successors has become part of the theory of evolution. To distinguish this modern synthesis of genetics and natural selection from Darwin's original propostion, this is sometimes referred to as the neo-Darwinian theory. It doesn't discard the work of Darwin, but incorporates it into the newer theory.

It falls down to who or what does one believe.

But the truth of one's belief is settled by the evidence.

All 12 apostles were eyewittnesses.

Circular reasoning. Whose word do we have that they were eye-witnesses other than their own?

Not only that, but they were disciples of the very One who was there at Creation Himself

And whose word do we have for that other than that of the apostles?

...as well as One who was there when the global flood occured.

Again, whose word do we have for that?


It all comes down to whether or not you believe the apostles' testimony based on nothing but their own say-so. Because they offer nothing other than their testimony.

That is why it is fruitless to try and buttress belief with evidence. The only evidence we are offered is that of Hebrews 11:1


Is it any wonder that Pascal calls belief a wager?


True. Although I said nothing differnt. Yet, I would have probably phrased it: "I believe Biblical events of the upper room, the resurrection, and Jesus as He appeared to His disciples." Guessing gives me the mental picture of "Heads you win, tails I lose" sort of thing.

I was imitating your language relative to scientific conclusions. Scientific conclusions are no more a matter of guessing than your beliefs. Less so, in fact, since they have physical evidence and means of testing that are not available to those whose conclusions are based on faith.


Impacted rock would logically be more prone to wear over the ages I tend to think.

And you have how much background in geology as a basis for this opinion? Now that is a guess. Mayhap you have guessed right. I couldn't tell you. But a geologist could. And the geologist would not have to guess about it.

That's only of the recorded data can be relied on.

That's all the recorded data. There is no recorded data, reliable or not, which disagrees with a 60-million year gap between the last dinosaurs and the first humans.

While holy men wrote the Bible, the Holy Spirit inspired them to do so. Meaning God was there at every single event that was recorded. I certainly wouldn't say His wittness is immaterial. And recal John 1. God the Son was certainly present at the Creation of the world and everything else. Meaning that testifies of His own wittness. Not only wittness, but His participation.


Shifting the goalposts aren't you? By the criterion of time which you set out,

The data that is recorded now is immaterial since time has certainly passed between then and now.

most of the bible in immaterial because of the time which passed between the events and the recording of the events.

But although it is irrelevant, let's look at what you say here as well:

While holy men wrote the Bible, the Holy Spirit inspired them to do so.

How do you know this? Is this not another testimony of the apostles for which they provide nothing but their own say-so?

Meaning God was there at every single event that was recorded.

And so?

And recal John 1. God the Son was certainly present at the Creation of the world and everything else. Meaning that testifies of His own wittness. Not only wittness, but His participation

As you correctly point out, this is John's testimony. Now how do you know John's testimony is to be believed? Because he was inspired by the Holy Spirit? How do you know that? Because John said so? Because another apostle said so? Because the church fathers said so?

Faith is a matter of accepting testimony upon testimony upon testimony with nary a shred of supporting evidence.

But let's accept the testimony of the apostles. (Of course we do, or we wouldn't be here.)

What difference does it make when it comes to the flood? Or to the age of the earth. They did not testify to scientific reality. They testified to Christ, crucified and risen for our salvation and hope of eternity.


Detectives are not always correct.

Does that mean we should never ask detectives to investigate a crime or never ask them to testify about evidence of a crime? Does that mean that every person convicted on the basis of a detective's testimony ought to be proclaimed innocent forthwith?

Surely we can work with a happy medium between always right and always wrong? We don't stop relying on detective work because mistakes sometimes happen. We correct mistakes as discovered on a case-by-case basis.

Similarly we don't deny all of science because errors occur. We correct errors as they are found on a case-by-case basis. Is this unreasonable?


Nowhere have I denied science has some pretty impressive tools. Or that history can be reconstructed to a point.

But you don't know where the point is. You underestimate how much can be known because you don't look at how scientists do their work or what evidence they have to work with. You remain credulous because you haven't seen (and refuse to see) the basis for scientific conclusions on the flood.

Not that it is difficult to find. In the second post in this are thirty different threads showing various pieces of evidence that falsifies a global flood.

I do not? Or I simply take into account even with all the technology and human reasoning...there's no replacement for being able to do an actual compare/contrast of the event when it happened. As well as knowing of all the factors which may have affected it afterwards. And nobody is able to do that.

You do not. Scientists already take into account that they don't know--and never will know--everything. It is not what is not known that is the problem. It is everything that is known that you choose to close your eyes to.

You had stated earlier you didn't want to hear of some of the evidence since it's been noted before by other creationists. Besides, before we can even cross that threshold it would be nice if there was agreement that the Yays and nays can at least agree both sides can take the same evidence and interpret it in differnt ways.

Sure they can interpret it in different ways. But then we check which way best explains all the observations. OK?

However, everytime that's brought up...well, previous posts on the thread can show what happend. Mostly it was denied creationists would even be able to use the same evidence as the other side does.

Creationists would be able to, but they don't. They cannot support their own case if they do not suppress a lot of the evidence. But we can check that out if you choose to present any you think is worthwhile.

I'm not speaking of one side needing to accept the evidence as the other presents it or visa-versa. Or even treating both as being equal and valid. Just a simple acknowledgment the evidence the earth has is seen in seperate ways. Instead of others in the thread immediately stating "that's a lie" and "you're being unknowingly decieved".

Seeing it in different ways is easy. Seeing it in a consistent way that takes account of all observations is what is difficult. As far as I know, creationists have not managed that yet.

If's it's side-stepping, it's doing so in order to avoid what occured here on the thread not long after I entered.

That was a different matter.

If you wish to contend that a global flood occurred (irrespective of the accuracy of Ussher's dates--you can propose what ever time period you wish) and that evidence of that flood exists to be examined today, you need to present the evidence. You also need to present an explanation for the observations mentioned which falsify a global flood.

The other alternative is to agree that the evidence does falsify a global flood, because God miraculously removed every smidgeon of evidence that it happened and planted false evidence that it did not. That way you can keep believing your story and no one can prove you wrong.
 
Upvote 0

night2day

Sola Scriptura~Sola Gratia~Sola Fide
Aug 18, 2004
1,873
113
55
Home
Visit site
✟2,758.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
gluadys said:
Erosion does not make the surface appear to be older. It exposes layers of rock that actually are older than the sediments which have been eroded away.

Websters'
n 1: (geology) the mechanical process of wearing or grinding
something down (as by particles washing over it) [syn: eroding,
eating away, wearing, wearing away]
2: condition in which the earth's surface is worn away by the
action of water and wind

Wearing away is wearing away and causes damage. Whether it be against the Earth's surface or an individual who's facial features are exposed to the elements.

That would depend on whether or not God left true evidence of the process. If he did, it is no big problem for geologists to sort it out. Of course, you contend that God removed all the true evidence and planted false evidence, isn't that right?

Well, since we went through <insert # here> posts and you have yet to correctly say what I contend...there's not much point in commenting.

Wishful thinking. This is an admission that with the tools we have and the evidence we have the scientific conclusions are correct. And that is all that science claims.

If you wish to place certain methods of studying the world around us, as well as those certain pre-bias foundations which automatically rule out all else...that's your desire.

The 6 day creation within the Genesis account doesn't seek to prove itself. Just says the first chapter of Genesis doesn't seek to prove God exists. However, those who hold it to be historically accurate and actually happened in the way it said it did...aren't afraid or ashamed to state their belief.

Evolutionists, I have noticed, would rather deny their own belief in a theory. Which is probably why they try to convince others, as well as themselves, it is fact when it ihas always remained a mere theory.

...the truth of one's belief is settled by the evidence.

And as long as you push for the evolutionary theory's and all the like, you'll continue to interpret the evidence according to the Evolutionary theory. Not apart from it.

Tis why evolutionists won't accept any other interpretation but their own. While Biblical creationists are all too willing to state science is a study of God's world...Evolutionists would generally push God out the door and claim their is no interpretation, or even evidence, except what they can find and use.

Circular reasoning. Whose word do we have that they were eye-witnesses other than their own? And whose word do we have for that other than that of the apostles? Again, whose word do we have for that?

On who's word do we have that Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty of sins so thay by grace, through faith in Him we would have complete forgiveness of sins and eternal life? For that matter, who's word do we have it that Jesus rose from the grave as He said He would, victorious over sin, death, and Hell?

Those who believe within the 6 day Creation and global flood in Genesis, also hold to the virgin birth of Jesus our Savior, His death, and ressurection on the same princible. God's word: infallible and innerrant. Inspired/"God-Breathed" by the Holy Spirit leaving God the Author and holy men the wroters. Both Testments can only be seen through Jesus Christ and read it is written within their literary context.

How do you know this? Is this not another testimony of the apostles for which they provide nothing but their own say-so?

I stated above how I read and regard the Bible. I don't see it as full of myths. But, unlss indicated otherwise, historical and actual events which took place. It's a simple case of simple taking the Scriptures at their word.

You, however, stated that you do take it as myth and many events noted did not actually take place. This is a simple case of seeking proof or "signs".

It all starts with how one regards the Scriptures.

And with that I've said my peice.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
night2day said:
Websters'
n 1: (geology) the mechanical process of wearing or grinding
something down (as by particles washing over it) [syn: eroding,
eating away, wearing, wearing away]
2: condition in which the earth's surface is worn away by the
action of water and wind

Wearing away is wearing away and causes damage. Whether it be against the Earth's surface or an individual who's facial features are exposed to the elements.

Right, and the form of the damage is to take away the younger superficial sediments, depositing them elsewhere, and leave the underlying, older rock on which the sediments used to rest. Hence this rock really is older; it does not just appear older.

Geologists identify such eroded surfaces in the geological column by looking at the conglomerate rock that accumulates on a newly-exposed surface before it is covered over again with new sediment. Such boundaries are called "unconformities". Of particular interest are angular unconformities. These not only show that the older rock was once eroded, but that it was uplifted and reset at a different angle than horizontal before new sediment began to accumulate on top of it.

All of this erosion and re-accumulation of new sediment takes time. It cannot be accounted for by a year-long flood. There is not enough time for

a) the original sediment to be laid down
b) the original sediment to harden into rock
c) more sediment to accumulate on top of the rock
d) erosion of the newer sediment down to the underlying rock together with some erosion of the rock
e) new accumulated sediment on top of the eroded rock
f) hardening of this sediment into rock.

It was the study of such sequences that convinced Christian geologists like Hugh Miller of the antiquity of the earth back in the 1840s.

If you wish to place certain methods of studying the world around us, as well as those certain pre-bias foundations which automatically rule out all else...that's your desire.

Let us note that science does not rule out miracles. Science does not say that miracles cannot occur. It does not comment on whether or not a particular miracle (e.g. the flood) occurred.

Rather it is miracles that rule out science, since wherever the common routine of nature is overridden, scientific rules no longer apply. And because they no longer apply, miracles rule out any scientific investigation, because scientific rules and methods are no longer reliable.

So there is no anti-miracle bias on the part of science, but there is an "anti-science bias" on the part of miraculous occurrences.

But it follows that if you appeal to miracles to get around science, you cannot then go back and claim scientific or historical support for the miracle.

I have said many times that if you wish to contend that all evidence for a flood was miraculously removed, that is your privilege. No one can claim you are wrong in saying a flood occurred miraculously and by other miracles (at least a few dozen) all the evidence that it happened is gone.

But equally, you have no way to place the flood in history, because there is no evidence that it happened.

This is a serious problem for those who believe in a God who rules history and the affairs of nations. If the work of God in history is never seen, what reason do we have to believe in such a God?

The 6 day creation within the Genesis account doesn't seek to prove itself. Just says the first chapter of Genesis doesn't seek to prove God exists. However, those who hold it to be historically accurate and actually happened in the way it said it did...aren't afraid or ashamed to state their belief.

It's not about fear or shame. It is about determining what sort of account Genesis is. Does it describe history or is it a theological treatise only? You don't need to be ashamed of believing it is history when it is not, but you are still wrong in your belief.

Evolutionists, I have noticed, would rather deny their own belief in a theory. Which is probably why they try to convince others, as well as themselves, it is fact when it ihas always remained a mere theory.

I don't know what you are talking about here, so no comment.

And as long as you push for the evolutionary theory's and all the like, you'll continue to interpret the evidence according to the Evolutionary theory.

What other way is there to interpret the evidence consistently with our observations? Note: observations, not beliefs.

Tis why evolutionists won't accept any other interpretation but their own.

Scientists are always willing to entertain a new interpretation which is supported by observations in nature. That is part of the culture of science. What they are not willing to entertain are old interpretations which have been shown to be false. And that is what creationism is. An old, falsified interpretation.

While Biblical creationists are all too willing to state science is a study of God's world...Evolutionists would generally push God out the door and claim their is no interpretation, or even evidence, except what they can find and use.

Now you are playing the evolution=atheism card. Given the many Christians who fully accept evolution, it is a falsehood to say that evolution = atheism.

And what evidence do creationists use that is not used in science? Observed evidence that is, not beliefs.


On who's word do we have that Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty of sins so thay by grace, through faith in Him we would have complete forgiveness of sins and eternal life?

The apostles. Can you name anyone else who made this claim without first hearing it from the apostles or those who passed on the message of the apostles?

For that matter, who's word do we have it that Jesus rose from the grave as He said He would, victorious over sin, death, and Hell?

The apostles. They are the only eyewitnesses to the resurrection, save the women who went to the tomb on Easter and the 500 who are said to have seen the risen Christ. However, we know of these others only through the apostles. In fact, as Peter says to Cornelius, the risen Christ did not appear openly to everyone, but only to those who were chosen to be witnesses. (Acts 10:41). Everyone else depends on the word of those witnesses.

That is why the gospel is preached, not proven. It is why the gospel is received solely on the basis of faith, not on the basis of evidence.

Those who believe within the 6 day Creation and global flood in Genesis, also hold to the virgin birth of Jesus our Savior, His death, and ressurection on the same princible.

And those Christians who do not consider a 6-day Creation and global flood to be historical also hold to the virgin birth of Jesus our Saviour, His death and resurrection. So what is your point?

Inspired/"God-Breathed" by the Holy Spirit leaving God the Author and holy men the wroters. Both Testments can only be seen through Jesus Christ and read it is written within their literary context.

Agreed, entirely. But again, what is your point? All of this is consistent with a non-historical reading of the creation and flood accounts. And since actual history conflicts with a historical reading, it would seem that a historical reading is incorrect.

Note, I am not saying that these scriptural accounts are incorrect. But a historical reading of them is incorrect given that:

a) it is contradicted by historical evidence, and
b) it is unnecessary to the inspiration and truth of scripture.

I stated above how I read and regard the Bible. I don't see it as full of myths. But, unlss indicated otherwise, historical and actual events which took place.

Did you make up this rule? Or did you learn it from someone else? Why do you use this rule to interpret scripture? Why do you assume that scripture is historical unless otherwise indicated? What case is there for assuming that scripture will always indicate that a text is not historical?

It's a simple case of simple taking the Scriptures at their word.

But you are biasing what it means to take the scriptures at their word. You are assuming something the scriptures never promise--namely that they will always indicate when a text is not historical.

Since scripture nowhere promises that this is the case, those who reject a historical reading are also be taking the scriptures at their word. They are just not making any unwarranted assumptions about the historicity of a text.

You, however, stated that you do take it as myth and many events noted did not actually take place.

That is not quite true. I affirm that creation occurred. I do not deny that a flood may have occurred--in fact that is quite likely. But when we look at historical evidence, we see that it contradicts the temporal framework and order of the scriptural narratives. And it contradicts a global flood.

I don't believe God wants us to have "faith" in what is not so. As a consequence I seek to learn what is so---and the conclusion is not that history is untrue, nor that scripture is untrue, but that what the scriptural accounts give us is not a historical portrait of creation. It is a true account, but on a different basis than history.

Because you are committed to a historical reading of scripture, you have to deny actual history and have "faith" that actual history is not real. You have to separate your belief from history and assume a history for which there is no evidence.

And, as I said earlier, this denial of the connection between scripture and history is very problematical for those who believe that God acts in history.
 
Upvote 0

Floodnut

Veteran
Jun 23, 2005
1,183
72
71
Winona Lake, INDIANA
Visit site
✟1,724.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Rusticus said:
Where does it say that in the Bible?

The word "planet" does not appear in the Bible.
The word "tropical" dies not appear in the Bible.

I do believe you are making this up.....
duh, of course the word "planet" and the word "tropical" do not appear in the Bible. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Chaldaean, and the New Testament was written in Greek.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.