What evidence would convince you?

[Assyrian]

4. Show me that God, who cannot lie, is saying that He created the earth, sky, and sea in six eons rather than six days,

Was Jesus lying when he said "Go and tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course." Luke 13:32? Was God lying in the other illustration of the Sabbath law Deut 5:15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day. Or does only the illustration of creating the world in six days have to be literal? How long is the Day of the Lord? Does it come before or after the millennium? 2Pet 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. Or could the day of the Lord be a bit longer than 24 hours, at least a thousand years long?

and in a different order than what He says.

Which order are you referring to, the order in Genesis 1
Plants, animals, then man and woman?
Or the order in Genesis 2
Man, plants, animals, and then woman?

You see, when it comes down to it, God gives me righteousness for just believing what he says, thus walking by faith instead of sight. Since I value righteousness, why should I disbelieve Him just because walking by sight produces an alternate understanding that all sightwalkers agree with? (or rather, they "try deperately hard to agree with".)

Peter and John certainly valued evidence when they were told Jesus had risen. They went to see the grave for themselves.

 

[kenneth558]

Was Jesus lying when he said "Go and tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course." Luke 13:32? Was God lying in the other illustration of the Sabbath law Deut 5:15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day. Or does only the illustration of creating the world in six days have to be literal? How long is the Day of the Lord? Does it come before or after the millennium? 2Pet 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. Or could the day of the Lord be a bit longer than 24 hours, at least a thousand years long?

Are you saying that nothing in the Bible is to be taken literally?

Which order are you referring to, the order in Genesis 1
Plants, animals, then man and woman?
Or the order in Genesis 2
Man, plants, animals, and then woman?

A valid question. I mean that the third and fourth days of creation would have to be switched for the plant life to have remained viable for much longer than a day before the moon, sun and stars existed. Either that or there could have been no daylight on day one when God called the light Day until He made the sun on day four.

Peter and John certainly valued evidence when they were told Jesus had risen. They went to see the grave for themselves.

True, but Jesus said "Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed." Be blessed.

 

[Mallon]

True, but Jesus said "Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed." Be blessed.

For what it's worth, TEs aren't the ones trying to verify their faiths through appeal to 'sciences' like flood geology, catastrophic plate tectonics, or canopy 'theory'. TEs accept the teachings of the Bible as true, regardless of whether they are historically accurate or not. For a TE, truth need not necessarily be scientifically verifiable or historically factual. THAT takes faith, I would think. Certainly, such a stance flies in the face of creationist institutions like CMI who believe that we must apply scientific rigour "to our faith if we are to be faithful to our Lord and Saviour’s instruction."

 

[kenneth558]

For what it's worth, TEs aren't the ones trying to verify their faiths through appeal to 'sciences' like flood geology, catastrophic plate tectonics, or canopy 'theory'. TEs accept the teachings of the Bible as true, regardless of whether they are historically accurate or not. For a TE, truth need not necessarily be scientifically verifiable or historically factual. THAT takes faith, I would think. Certainly, such a stance flies in the face of creationist institutions like CMI who believe that we must apply scientific rigour "to our faith if we are to be faithful to our Lord and Saviour’s instruction."

Sorry, but I'm not understanding your post, whether you're making one, two, or three points and what they are. And I'm sure after I understand it, I'll feel embarassed I missed it....

 

[Assyrian]

Are you saying that nothing in the Bible is to be taken literally?

Of course not. I am just say that God, who cannot lie, often uses time descriptions figuratively. l also showed that the context of the 'six day' reference, an illustration of the Sabbath command, was one where God does use figurative illustrations the 'mighty hand and an outstretched arm' of Deut 5:15.

A valid question. I mean that the third and fourth days of creation would have to be switched for the plant life to have remained viable for much longer than a day before the moon, sun and stars existed. Either that or there could have been no daylight on day one when God called the light Day until He made the sun on day four.

If the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 give completely different orders of events, then one, or both, are not giving us a chronological sequence. Anyway Gen 1 does not say the sun and moon were created on day four, just lights in the sky, while Job 38 tells us 'morning stars' were already in existence when the foundations of the earth were laid.

True, but Jesus said "Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed." Be blessed.

He said that to Thomas who refused to believe without an autopsy, not to Peter and John who thought the evidence should match any claims of a miracle and ran to the tomb to find out.

The bible never asks people to believe in miracles the evidence says didn't happen. Peter would have fallen about laughing if someone claimed they had been healed of a cold while they were still sneezing.

 

[Mallon]

Sorry, but I'm not understanding your post, whether you're making one, two, or three points and what they are. And I'm sure after I understand it, I'll feel embarassed I missed it....

You made the point earlier that you're a YEC because you take it on faith that the cosmology of Genesis is literally true. My point is simply that, as is often the case, YECs don't take the Genesis cosmology on faith, but rather they try to validate such a belief using Christian pseudoscience. This is not faith; it is scientism.
TEs understand the early chapters of Genesis as a sort of introduction to God, rather than as a brief scientific history of the earth. We believe that the stories depicted in those early chapters convey to us God's purpose for us, His graciousness, His jealousness, His requirement for a Sabbath, His creative power, etc. We believe these 'morals of the story' -- the lessons we were meant to take from the Genesis accounts -- are true, regardless of whether the historicity of Genesis is accurate or not. These lessons are the ones that impact our salvation (if only in some small way); not the details as to how the earth was created.

 

[laptoppop]

My point is simply that, as is often the case, YECs don't take the Genesis cosmology on faith, but rather they try to validate such a belief using Christian pseudoscience.

Just to be clear - afaik, most YECs do not try to validate scripture with science, but rather prefer a particular model of interpreting the physical evidence because it is more consistent with our understanding of scripture. Scripture is supreme, not a particular scientific model, and we are not looking for additional validation of scripture. Rather we are integrating the scriptures with the physical evidence.

(by the way - relating to your signature - if you are trying to use that as an example of why one should not interpret the Bible literally whenever possible - Paul refers to a single day. The Numbers passage refers to overall deaths, with no time line. The two are completely compatible - ~1,000 folks died either before or after that particular day.)

 

[Smidlee]

That's a lot of hand-waving, but it just so happens that the classification of the platypus (and all other monotremes) as a basal mammals fits the reptile-mammal transition to a 't'. Especially when considering the plesiomorphies (primitive traits) of egg-laying, an interclavicle, a reptilian gait, and the type of lactation pointed out to you above. You're going to have to do more than just plead 'human error' in this case.

Sounds like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. first you want to claim no modern reptile evolved into mammals yet on the other side want to claim these ancestor has been observed. (Obviously you believe these evolution's miracles did happen in the past but not today.) Also If platypus is evidence of reptiles evolving into mammals than bats is clearly evidence that that bird evolve from mammals. (Or maybe ptaypus is an example of mammals evolved back to a reptiles) Of course this doesn't fix evolutionist's bias view. (so maybe in the future platypus will grow wings . LOL) Let not forget that platypus has a bill like a duck. Appearances can be very deceiving.

Classifaction are evidence of evolution as well as those animals like platypus which is hard to classify is evidence of evolution. Everything is evidence of evolution including all contradictions.

 

[Mallon]

Just to be clear - afaik, most YECs do not try to validate scripture with science, but rather prefer a particular model of interpreting the physical evidence because it is more consistent with our understanding of scripture. Scripture is supreme, not a particular scientific model, and we are not looking for additional validation of scripture. Rather we are integrating the scriptures with the physical evidence.

This is a weighty admission, then. It seems that, contra to what many creationists believe, science does not objectively support the Genesis account. Science will only support Genesis when, as you elucidate, we use Genesis as a starting point for science. Forgive me for sounding skeptical, but this seems a bit circular.

(by the way - relating to your signature - if you are trying to use that as an example of why one should not interpret the Bible literally whenever possible - Paul refers to a single day. The Numbers passage refers to overall deaths, with no time line. The two are completely compatible - ~1,000 folks died either before or after that particular day.)

Is your interpretation supported by scripture or is it a meta-text reading 'between the lines'? As we all know, we are to neither add to nor subtract from the Bible. As such, a bare-bones reading the passages in my signature would suggest that, short of making up retroactive excuses, the Bible isn't always in agreement with itself. This does not make it any less valuable as a book for teaching us about our relationship with the Lord, but it does suggest that perhaps the Bible isn't the infallible tome some make it out to be. Limited human understanding and error tinge both the writing and interpretation of the Scriptures. Even Paul seems to suggest this in 1 Cor 7: 10-12.

 

[Mallon]

Sounds like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. first you want to claim no modern reptile evolved into mammals

Correct. Whatever therapsid (read: "mammal-like reptile") gave rise to the first mammal, it is now extinct.

yet on the other side want to claim these ancestor has been observed. (Obviously you believe these evolution's miracles did happen in the past but not today.)

If I'm sorry if I'm not understading you properly through your grammar, but I am not claiming that THE ancestral mammalian species has been found. What I am claiming is that we have a good idea as to what the most primitive mammal species were like, based on fossil evidence. Given the vast incompleteness of the fossil record, it is somewhat unlikely that we will ever find THE ancestral species. Even so, the evidence supporting the rise of mammals from a clade of "mammal-like reptiles" is staggering. Check out the jaw joint of Probainognathus, for example.

Also If platypus is evidence of reptiles evolving into mammals than bats is clearly evidence that that bird evolve from mammals. (Or maybe ptaypus is an example of mammals evolved back to a reptiles) Of course this doesn't fix evolutionist's bias view. (so maybe in the future platypus will grow wings . LOL) Let not forget that platypus has a bill like a duck. Appearances can be very deceiving.

Indeed. This is why evolutionists study the bones in great detail. The similarities between reptiles and platypus are known as homologies -- that is, they are similar in detail because they are derived from a common ancestor. The similarities between a bat wing and a bird's wing are analogous -- they are only superficially similar and do not resemble one another at all in detail. This is because they are derived from different ancestors. Bat and bird wings are just two answers to the same problem (same goes for the bills of ducks and platypus). This is basic comparative anatomy, and I hope that you would please learn more about the application of these terms so as to avoid further confusion.

 

[laptoppop]

This is a weighty admission, then. It seems that, contra to what many creationists believe, science does not objectively support the Genesis account. Science will only support Genesis when, as you elucidate, we use Genesis as a starting point for science. Forgive me for sounding skeptical, but this seems a bit circular.

This in no way says that an examination of the physical evidence does not support the Genesis account. There is a basic issue with "science" in that the scientific method, by design, excludes any supernatural involvement because such involvement is not repeatable and is not testable. This to me says that "science" is predisposed *against* God actively creating -- even if it is what really happened. Any other plausible explanation is preferred. To me, the best way to discuss these things is to use two models and see what fits the observed evidence more completely -- but this is not an application of the scientific method.

Is your interpretation supported by scripture or is it a meta-text reading 'between the lines'? As we all know, we are to neither add to nor subtract from the Bible. As such, a bare-bones reading the passages in my signature would suggest that, short of making up retroactive excuses, the Bible isn't always in agreement with itself. This does not make it any less valuable as a book for teaching us about our relationship with the Lord, but it does suggest that perhaps the Bible isn't the infallible tome some make it out to be. Limited human understanding and error tinge both the writing and interpretation of the Scriptures. Even Paul seems to suggest this in 1 Cor 7: 10-12.

In one case a timeframe is given, in the other case it is not. No reading between the lines -- just a plain reading.

I agree that our interpretation can be flawed -- and that we will only know fully when we are home with our Lord. I have no idea what 1 Cor 7:10-12 has to do with that -- I think your citation is marred by a typo. I would not agree that that applies to the *writing* of the Scriptures.

 

[sfs]

This in no way says that an examination of the physical evidence does not support the Genesis account. There is a basic issue with "science" in that the scientific method, by design, excludes any supernatural involvement because such involvement is not repeatable and is not testable. This to me says that "science" is predisposed *against* God actively creating -- even if it is what really happened. Any other plausible explanation is preferred. To me, the best way to discuss these things is to use two models and see what fits the observed evidence more completely -- but this is not an application of the scientific method.

If your model can be tested with objective evidence, science can be applied to it. "God created" cannot be tested, but "all species appeared suddenly less than 10,000 years ago" can be tested. I'm not sure what model you're treating as the alternative to evolution (YEC? OEC?), but all of the creationist models I've seen suffer from two problems. In many areas they make no prediction while evolution makes specific (and accurate) predictions; this would include, for example, comparative genomics of different species. Where they do make predictions, the predictions turn out to be wrong.

 

[Mallon]

There is a basic issue with "science" in that the scientific method, by design, excludes any supernatural involvement because such involvement is not repeatable and is not testable. This to me says that "science" is predisposed *against* God actively creating -- even if it is what really happened.

If that is the case, then you are guilty of misapplying the scientific method. The scientific method excludes God from explanation because there is no objective way of ruling out any one particular supernatural account. Tell me: can you create an objective test that can tell me whether the Christian God, the Jewish God, Allah, Ra, or Zeus makes it rain? I'm willing to bet that you can't.
The exclusion of God from the scientific method is a limitation of science, not a judgment call on the existence of deities. Science, by definition, can say nothing to the existence (or inexistence) of God. It is neutral on the subject, contrary to what you believe.

I have no idea what 1 Cor 7:10-12 has to do with that -- I think your citation is marred by a typo. I would not agree that that applies to the *writing* of the Scriptures.

No typos. I think what is most significant about the passage is Paul's admission that it is he, not the infallible Lord, who is speaking. The command he gives re: divorce is not from God; it comes from a sinful, error-prone man. I think the admission is significant, and it fits the criterion of embarrassment used by biblical scholars.

 

[laptoppop]

If that is the case, then you are guilty of misapplying the scientific method. The scientific method excludes God from explanation because there is no objective way of ruling out any one particular supernatural account. Tell me: can you create an objective test that can tell me whether the Christian God, the Jewish God, Allah, Ra, or Zeus makes it rain? I'm willing to bet that you can't.

Isn't that what I said? Not repeatable and not testable.

The exclusion of God from the scientific method is a limitation of science, not a judgment call on the existence of deities. Science, by definition, can say nothing to the existence (or inexistence) of God. It is neutral on the subject, contrary to what you believe.

OK, we'll have to agree to disagree on this. To me, deliberately excluding God from the solution set is like saying He either does not exist, or that He is silent -- hardly neutral. I'm talking more about the scientific method in particular, as opposed to "science" which often (but not always) has a broader definition.
[quote}
No typos. I think what is most significant about the passage is Paul's admission that it is he, not the infallible Lord, who is speaking. The command he gives re: divorce is not from God; it comes from a sinful, error-prone man. I think the admission is significant, and it fits the criterion of embarrassment used by biblical scholars.[/quote]
Good point. Of course, the very fact Paul talks about it shows its uniqueness. For me direct scriptures such as 2 Peter 1:17-21, 2 Peter 3:15-16 and 2 Tim 3:16-17 are more compelling.

 

[kenneth558]

Of course not. I am just say that God, who cannot lie, often uses time descriptions figuratively. l also showed that the context of the 'six day' reference, an illustration of the Sabbath command, was one where God does use figurative illustrations the 'mighty hand and an outstretched arm' of Deut 5:15.

These examples certainly don't demand that we take any another Bible passage figuratively. And note that I'm not necessarily agreeing that these passages are literal - I'm just saying that "day" in Genesis 1 isn't necessarily figurative just because some other verses might be. Several of the days in Gen. 1 were explicitely "evening and morning".

If the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 give completely different orders of events, then one, or both, are not giving us a chronological sequence. Anyway Gen 1 does not say the sun and moon were created on day four, just lights in the sky, while Job 38 tells us 'morning stars' were already in existence when the foundations of the earth were laid.

I just read Genesis 2 and didn't even see a different account of Creation, much less a different order. What I see in Gen. 2 is some filling in of details of Gen. 1. Nor do I see in Job 38 what you say is in there.

He said that to Thomas who refused to believe without an autopsy, not to Peter and John who thought the evidence should match any claims of a miracle and ran to the tomb to find out.

You're saying Jesus was not telling of a principle about ever-important belief and faith? I beg to differ.

The bible never asks people to believe in miracles the evidence says didn't happen. Peter would have fallen about laughing if someone claimed they had been healed of a cold while they were still sneezing.

The key word is "evidence". Evidence is not proof. If it were, then only the prevailing side in our courts of law would ever have any evidence to show, and they would only need a single exhibit. IOW, evidence can always be improperly interpreted.

 

[artybloke]

To me, deliberately excluding God from the solution set is like saying He either does not exist, or that He is silent -- hardly neutral.

Can you name one other scientific law or equation in which God is included? E=MGod Squared perhaps?

The problem is actually theological as well as scientific - as soon as you put God into the equation you make God into a part of the created order. In other words, God becomes a material part of the creation that can be studied by scientists.

The theological problem with that is that you've made God a creature not the Creator. In other words, you've turned God into an idol.

Science is not the study of God, and has no mechanism by which it can study God or the spiritual realm. Therefore, God is excluded from scientific study, just as you wouldn't expect a theologian to start spouting scientific formulae.

 

[laptoppop]

Can you name one other scientific law or equation in which God is included? E=MGod Squared perhaps?

The problem is actually theological as well as scientific - as soon as you put God into the equation you make God into a part of the created order. In other words, God becomes a material part of the creation that can be studied by scientists.

The theological problem with that is that you've made God a creature not the Creator. In other words, you've turned God into an idol.

Science is not the study of God, and has no mechanism by which it can study God or the spiritual realm. Therefore, God is excluded from scientific study, just as you wouldn't expect a theologian to start spouting scientific formulae.

I agree with all of this for the most part. The difficulty comes when one uses scientific theory to try to determine history. If you use a process which excludes God, don't be surprised if the answer comes back as not including God.

 

[Mallon]

Isn't that what I said? Not repeatable and not testable...

OK, we'll have to agree to disagree on this. To me, deliberately excluding God from the solution set is like saying He either does not exist, or that He is silent -- hardly neutral.

So... judging by your "not repeatable and not testable" comment, I take it you admit that an objective, scientific test for God does not exist. And yet, in the second half of your reply, you can't seem to get over the fact that God cannot therefore be included in science. It seems to me you want to push God into science, even though you know it can't work. Can you please clarify?
Artybloke's point that God isn't included in any scientific theory is an important one to consider. Creationists like to rag on evolution because it excludes God from the picture, but there isn't a single scientific theory out there that doesn't. That's the nature of science. If creationists want to invent their own method of discovery, then feel free to do so. But don't call it science.

 

[theFijian]

There was a thread on Methodological Naturalism a wee while ago. It didn't get as much attention as I thought it might.

There is a basic issue with "science" in that the scientific method, by design, excludes any supernatural involvement because such involvement is not repeatable and is not testable. This to me says that "science" is predisposed *against* God actively creating

No, science is predisposed against empirically unverifiable explanations, I would suggest that God is not empirically verifiable and therefore. The problem seems to be that Creationists have bought into the metaphysical naturalistic fallacy that science can explain everything, it can't and never will, which is why they don't like the fact that science doesn't deal with the supernatural. Remember that science is just a subset of knowledge available to us.

 

[PETE_]

There is a beginning to the universe that implies a cause that transcends the universe. The laws of physics are fine-tuned for life. This fine-tuning implies design. There is information in the cell. This implies a designer. To start life would require biological information that point to a prior intelligence.