Why Christians and evolutionists can NEVER agree

Apr 3, 2011
93
12
✟15,297.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Hi folks,
I've read a bit about the creation/evolution debate, and it seems to my mind there are three questions which mean the two camps will NEVER be reconciled, however hard you try.

Question 1 - Which came first, the earth or the sun?


The Bible clearly states that the earth was around before the sun. Science clearly states that the sun was around before the earth. Such a contradiction cannot possibly be reconciled.

Question 2 - How old is the earth?

The Bible implicitly teaches that the earth is around 6000 years old through its genealogical records. Science teaches that the earth is billions of years old. There's no way to "meet in the middle" over this.

Question 3 - How long did it take for life to appear on earth?

The Bible says in Genesis that it took a matter of days. Science says it took a billion years or longer. Again, the timescales involved are too large for any middle ground.

It seems from these 3 issues that being a Bible believing Christian and an evolutionist simply isn't an option. You HAVE to choose one side or the other.
 

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hi folks,
I've read a bit about the creation/evolution debate, and it seems to my mind there are three questions which mean the two camps will NEVER be reconciled, however hard you try.

Question 1 - Which came first, the earth or the sun?


The Bible clearly states that the earth was around before the sun. Science clearly states that the sun was around before the earth. Such a contradiction cannot possibly be reconciled.

Question 2 - How old is the earth?

The Bible implicitly teaches that the earth is around 6000 years old through its genealogical records. Science teaches that the earth is billions of years old. There's no way to "meet in the middle" over this.

Question 3 - How long did it take for life to appear on earth?

The Bible says in Genesis that it took a matter of days. Science says it took a billion years or longer. Again, the timescales involved are too large for any middle ground.

It seems from these 3 issues that being a Bible believing Christian and an evolutionist simply isn't an option. You HAVE to choose one side or the other.




Science has no place discussing history. Science can only make predictions about future events. Mainly, experiments that can be conducted by a skeptical investigator. If a skeptical investigator is unable to recreate an event under controlled conditions, then the truth seeker is unable to use the scientific method to illuminate the facts.

The ideas you have described illustrates the problem well. :thumbsup:
There is no such thing as scientific history.
 
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,277
5,237
45
Oregon
✟952,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Hi folks,
I've read a bit about the creation/evolution debate, and it seems to my mind there are three questions which mean the two camps will NEVER be reconciled, however hard you try.

Question 1 - Which came first, the earth or the sun?


The Bible clearly states that the earth was around before the sun. Science clearly states that the sun was around before the earth. Such a contradiction cannot possibly be reconciled.

Question 2 - How old is the earth?

The Bible implicitly teaches that the earth is around 6000 years old through its genealogical records. Science teaches that the earth is billions of years old. There's no way to "meet in the middle" over this.

Question 3 - How long did it take for life to appear on earth?

The Bible says in Genesis that it took a matter of days. Science says it took a billion years or longer. Again, the timescales involved are too large for any middle ground.

It seems from these 3 issues that being a Bible believing Christian and an evolutionist simply isn't an option. You HAVE to choose one side or the other.

"Which came first, the sun or the earth?"

The Bible clearly states that the Heavens, (the sun and moon and stars and space) and the earth were "created" around or at, the same time, It says that "in the beginning, God "created" the heavens and the earth", it just doesn't specify which was first... and "this" doesn't make it (the Bible) un-true (just because God didn't feel the need to specify)...

"How "old" is the earth, and how long did it take life to "appear" on earth?"

Both of these questions can be answered where God says "One of my days, as is a thousand years (or a lifetime) to a man" This was not meant to taken "literally" but is meant to say that man cannot "measure" the "length" of even "one" of God's days, it (one of God's "days" could have been a millennia for all we know, we just can't be sure)
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Science has no place discussing history. Science can only make predictions about future events. Mainly, experiments that can be conducted by a skeptical investigator. If a skeptical investigator is unable to recreate an event under controlled conditions, then the truth seeker is unable to use the scientific method to illuminate the facts.

The ideas you have described illustrates the problem well. :thumbsup:
There is no such thing as scientific history.


If this were true, we should empty our prisons of every person convicted on the basis of forensic evidence. No coroner could ever establish a cause of death if science could only deal with the future and not explain how a cause in the past produced an effect in the past (such as poisoning or loss of blood from a stab wound). No accident investigator could show a collision was caused by brake failure on one of the vehicles. He could only predict that if you damage brake lines there will be an accident in the future. And then create that situation under controlled conditions.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Science has no place discussing history. Science can only make predictions about future events. Mainly, experiments that can be conducted by a skeptical investigator. If a skeptical investigator is unable to recreate an event under controlled conditions, then the truth seeker is unable to use the scientific method to illuminate the facts.

The ideas you have described illustrates the problem well. :thumbsup:
There is no such thing as scientific history.

Hi SW,

Yes, but science does give us much information that people then use to determine that there is some historical time. I think that is the problem that we who view the creation account of the Scriptures as being true in giving a correct timeline for the creation of all things in this realm, against those who choose to use the timeline that is created by science.

The real problem lies in the fact that science is being used to try and prove miracles of God.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If this were true, we should empty our prisons of every person convicted on the basis of forensic evidence. No coroner could ever establish a cause of death if science could only deal with the future and not explain how a cause in the past produced an effect in the past (such as poisoning or loss of blood from a stab wound). No accident investigator could show a collision was caused by brake failure on one of the vehicles. He could only predict that if you damage brake lines there will be an accident in the future. And then create that situation under controlled conditions.

Hi gluadys,

That's such a... well, for lack of a better word, ignorant proposition. Just because science can identify one's blood or fingerprints from another doesn't mean that it can explain the creation. Yes, science works very well in the recent observable history of explaining the day to day things that go on on the earth that are not miracles of God. I would never argue that!

But science has it's limitations in what it can categorically claim as 'fact'. It cannot, for instance give me any explanation for how a young Jewish woman found herself bearing a child and yet no human sperm was ever introduced into her womb. In fact, if we believe the account of the Scriptures, all scientific data would have to agree that it just didn't happen. Science cannot give me any explanation as to how the shadow of the sun could have backed up one day the span of several steps. Yet, the Scriptures tell me that that happened. However, science does believe that they can tell me how the miracle of the creation happened.

They believe that by their ways of measuring things that they can tell us how old things are. Yet they have no witness who observed the time of the event that can give testimony that, yes, that scientific 'fact' is the truth. We are asked to believe on faith that their method of measuring is valid and therefore the results of their measuring are also valid.

I'm sorry, but I don't think man can explain the miracles of God and I'm not willing to trust, without eyewitness testimony, that measurements they make of the age of things is true. If one cannot be produced, that when science says this rock is this old, that can confirm that, yes, they were there the day this rock came into being and it was 'x' number of years ago, then as far as I'm concerned that rock was created on the same day that all the other rocks were created.

So, no, just because one understands and accepts the limitations of science doesn't, therefore, mean that one must throw out all scientific evidence.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Hi gluadys,

That's such a... well, for lack of a better word, ignorant proposition. Just because science can identify one's blood or fingerprints from another doesn't mean that it can explain the creation. Yes, science works very well in the recent observable history of explaining the day to day things that go on on the earth that are not miracles of God. I would never argue that!

Well then, instead of speaking to me, you should be responding to Sky Writing, because that is exactly what he was arguing.

But science has it's limitations in what it can categorically claim as 'fact'. It cannot, for instance give me any explanation for how a young Jewish woman found herself bearing a child and yet no human sperm was ever introduced into her womb. In fact, if we believe the account of the Scriptures, all scientific data would have to agree that it just didn't happen. Science cannot give me any explanation as to how the shadow of the sun could have backed up one day the span of several steps. Yet, the Scriptures tell me that that happened. However, science does believe that they can tell me how the miracle of the creation happened.

Right. Miracles are beyond the explanatory power of science. I would never argue with that.

They believe that by their ways of measuring things that they can tell us how old things are.


As long as no miracle interfered with the evidence, they can. And as far as I know, scripture speaks of no miracle interfering with the type of evidence that tells us how old most things are. Caliminian often notes that the good wine served at the wedding at Cana would lead those who tasted it to think it was old when it was not. But scripture also tells us in this case that the wine was produced miraculously. But if we had a wineskin from that wedding, I expect carbon dating would tell us how old it was.


I'm sorry, but I don't think man can explain the miracles of God and I'm not willing to trust, without eyewitness testimony, that measurements they make of the age of things is true.


I agree, no one can explain the miracles of God, but let us not invent miracles to be explanations when natural explanations suffice. I am not willing to believe the measured ages are not true unless I have testimony (as with the wine at the wedding at Cana) that a miracle is the actual explanation.


If one cannot be produced, that when science says this rock is this old, that can confirm that, yes, they were there the day this rock came into being and it was 'x' number of years ago, then as far as I'm concerned that rock was created on the same day that all the other rocks were created.

You misunderstand the meaning of ages measured by science. In a sense, all rocks were created on the same day. But since that day, various rocks have had various histories. When the rocks of earth were first created, they were all in a molten state and gradually cooled. This gives us the dates of the earliest rocks--if we could find any. But those rocks no longer exist on earth, as far as we know. First, most of them eroded, creating sedimentary layers. Later sedimentary layers were subjected to heat, pressure, vulcanism, etc. which generated metamorphosed rocks and igneous rocks of a younger date than the creation date. Then these were also worn down to sediment--and some of this new sediment repressurized or vulcanized into still younger metamorphic and igneous rock.

So we still get various ages of various rocks, because dating only goes back to the last time the rock went through a cycle of being molten--not back to the rock as originally created. So all of these dates would be after the original creation date.

So, no, just because one understands and accepts the limitations of science doesn't, therefore, mean that one must throw out all scientific evidence.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Fine, but as you stated at the outset, history is not one of those limitations. There is such a thing as scientific history.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If this were true, we should empty our prisons of every person convicted on the basis of forensic evidence.

No one is. Such evidence is used as only part of the information given to a jury. Also, expert testimony is presented in opposition to all forensic evidence, in every case. Not so clear on TV, I know.

No coroner could ever establish a cause of death if science could only deal with the future and not explain how a cause in the past produced an effect in the past (such as poisoning or loss of blood from a stab wound).

The track record shows your statement to be fairly correct:
Of the 494 death certificates, 204 (41%) contained improperly completed CODs. Of these, 49 (24%) contained major discrepancies between clinicians' and pathologists' CODs. Of the 494 death certificates, 290 (59%) had properly completed CODs. Of the 290 properly completed CODs, 141 (49%) contained disagreements: 73 (52%) on underlying CODs; 44 (31%) on immediate CODs; and 47 (33%) on other significant conditions (part II).

No accident investigator could show a collision was caused by brake failure on one of the vehicles. He could only predict that if you damage brake lines there will be an accident in the future. And then create that situation under controlled conditions.

They can't. As a result many cars now have black-box type recorders to capture information as an accident happens. That is how Toyota was able to prove there have been no cases of sudden acceleration, because each case showed that the brake had not been used. Recorded data was used, not reconstructed scenarios ala Sherlock Holmes the fictitious investigator.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hi SW,

Yes, but science does give us much information that people then use to determine that there is some historical time. I think that is the problem that we who view the creation account of the Scriptures as being true in giving a correct timeline for the creation of all things in this realm, against those who choose to use the timeline that is created by science.


There is no reason to concern yourself with the timeline created by science, according to the scriptures.
The "Wine Scientist" who attended the party and drank the wine Jesus created informed us that formal investigation will give results such as "Perfectly aged Wine" when we know that wasn't the case.

The man who was made whole and saw with new eyes, did not have eyes like this:
841319_200x200_0.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Sayre

Veteran
Sep 21, 2013
2,519
65
✟18,216.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Hi folks,
I've read a bit about the creation/evolution debate, and it seems to my mind there are three questions which mean the two camps will NEVER be reconciled, however hard you try.

Question 1 - Which came first, the earth or the sun?


The Bible clearly states that the earth was around before the sun. Science clearly states that the sun was around before the earth. Such a contradiction cannot possibly be reconciled.

Question 2 - How old is the earth?

The Bible implicitly teaches that the earth is around 6000 years old through its genealogical records. Science teaches that the earth is billions of years old. There's no way to "meet in the middle" over this.

Question 3 - How long did it take for life to appear on earth?

The Bible says in Genesis that it took a matter of days. Science says it took a billion years or longer. Again, the timescales involved are too large for any middle ground.

It seems from these 3 issues that being a Bible believing Christian and an evolutionist simply isn't an option. You HAVE to choose one side or the other.

Definitely... a hyper literal interpretation of the bible and modern science conflict each other.

But your last statement is a false dichotomy. There are not two options (hyper literal interpretation OR modern science). There is another option - to read Genesis as a pre-science pre-enlightenment text that never intended to be used to form a historical timeline of origins.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
No one is. Such evidence is used as only part of the information given to a jury. Also, expert testimony is presented in opposition to all forensic evidence, in every case. Not so clear on TV, I know.

Sure, they are, when the jury decides to believe the scientist presenting the evidence in preference to the defence attorney's expert witness. And when the forensic evidence is the most important or deciding factor among all the information provided.




Since your numbers add up to more than 100%, obviously some of the difficulties overlap i.e. appear on the same COD. What you have omitted is the number of CODs which a) were properly completed and b) established a cause of death.

I do recognize that sometimes it is not possible to establish a cause of death. That was the case with my son's death two years ago: no foul play, no indication of heart attack, stroke or any other natural cause of death.

I do recognize that human error may result in improperly completed forms.

I do recognize that evidence is sometimes ambiguous.

Nevertheless, doctors and coroners do attempt to establish a cause of death and in many cases are able to do so.



They can't. As a result many cars now have black-box type recorders to capture information as an accident happens. That is how Toyota was able to prove there have been no cases of sudden acceleration, because each case showed that the brake had not been used. Recorded data was used, not reconstructed scenarios ala Sherlock Holmes the fictitious investigator.

As with establishing a cause of death, sometimes one can and sometimes one cannot. It is not the case that without a black box one can never establish the cause of an accident. The addition of a black box increases the percentage of properly established causes, but the percentage was never 0 in the first place.
 
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟82,877.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Definitely... a hyper literal interpretation of the bible and modern science conflict each other.
Hyper literal? Genesis could not have possibly been more clear about the six day creation.
There are not two options (hyper literal interpretation OR modern science). There is another option - to read Genesis as a pre-science pre-enlightenment text that never intended to be used to form a historical timeline of origins.
Translation: you can reject any part of the Bible that contradicts what you've chosen to believe. While you're at it, scratch off that Fourth Commandment where God himself tells Moses that in six days He created the heavens and the earth.

Of course, that one about committing adultery gets in the way, too. Maybe we should just consider that a pre-science pre-enlightenment text as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Luke17:37
Upvote 0

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
11,074
7,404
✟343,105.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Hyper literal? Genesis could not have possibly been more clear about the six day creation.

Translation: you can reject any part of the Bible that contradicts what you've chosen to believe. While you're at it, scratch off that Fourth Commandment where God himself tells Moses that in six days He created the heavens and the earth.

Of course, that one about committing adultery gets in the way, too. Maybe we should just consider that a pre-science pre-enlightenment text as well.
The word yom is used all throughout the first testament, and is not always translated as day. So, actually Genesis could have been more clear.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well then, instead of speaking to me, you should be responding to Sky Writing, because that is exactly what he was arguing.

Well, this is what SW wrote:

Science has no place discussing history. Science can only make predictions about future events. Mainly, experiments that can be conducted by a skeptical investigator. If a skeptical investigator is unable to recreate an event under controlled conditions, then the truth seeker is unable to use the scientific method to illuminate the facts.

He was in error to make the statement that 'Science can only make predictions about future events'. However, his explanation doesn't seem to relegate what he is really trying to say applies only to future events.




Right. Miracles are beyond the explanatory power of science. I would never argue with that.

Yes, but you believe that science has given an answer to the miracle of creation. As I see it, if one really believes that science can't give answers to miracles, then science can't tell me the when and how of the creation as it was probably the greatest miraculous event in this realm. They are simply making guesses based on what they believe are valid methods of measurement that they then believe are providing them valid answers to these things.

Let me ask you a couple of questions: Do you believe the earth existed before the sun? Do you believe that plant life was created before the sun?




As long as no miracle interfered with the evidence, they can. And as far as I know, scripture speaks of no miracle interfering with the type of evidence that tells us how old most things are. Caliminian often notes that the good wine served at the wedding at Cana would lead those who tasted it to think it was old when it was not. But scripture also tells us in this case that the wine was produced miraculously. But if we had a wineskin from that wedding, I expect carbon dating would tell us how old it was.

Yes, but the Scriptures seem fairly clear that they do interfere with these things of which you claim they don't. Why would you expect that carbon dating would tell you how old the wine was. God may well, just as I believe He did with the earth, created the wine as it needed to be to be good wine. If, out of that necessity God infused that wine with molecules that would, under testing make it have the same qualities as old wine, then why wouldn't we expect carbon dating to date it older than it was. After all, carbon dating only measures the residual manner of an item. What if, in order that the wine taste as good wine it would need to have the properties of old wine, yet be brand new? In other words the yeast would have had to have fermented and so, despite the fact that the wine were brand new, under testing it would show the residuals of fermented yeast.





I agree, no one can explain the miracles of God, but let us not invent miracles to be explanations when natural explanations suffice. I am not willing to believe the measured ages are not true unless I have testimony (as with the wine at the wedding at Cana) that a miracle is the actual explanation.

I don't see that as what I am doing. I don't think I have invented any miracles. I just believe that when God miraculously creates things that those things will have properties that under man's methods of testing will look old. The story I use for this is Adam. I believe that there was a singular man by the name of Adam, after all God cried out, "Adam, where art thou?" and this singular man answered Him. I believe that on the day Adam was created from the dust of the ground that his body was fully formed and had all the attributes that we today see in fully formed human beings.

Yet, if Adam had died 1 week after he was created and there was a forensic pathologist with all the measuring tools and knowledge that we have today there to perform an autopsy on his body. That pathologist would list Adam as at least a couple of decades old. Certainly enough years to have him be a fully grown man. Even though the pathologist uses the best techniques of measurement that we have available to us today, he would have come up wrong in his judgment of Adam's age.

I see this same principle in the creation.



You misunderstand the meaning of ages measured by science. In a sense, all rocks were created on the same day. But since that day, various rocks have had various histories. When the rocks of earth were first created, they were all in a molten state and gradually cooled. This gives us the dates of the earliest rocks--if we could find any. But those rocks no longer exist on earth, as far as we know. First, most of them eroded, creating sedimentary layers. Later sedimentary layers were subjected to heat, pressure, vulcanism, etc. which generated metamorphosed rocks and igneous rocks of a younger date than the creation date. Then these were also worn down to sediment--and some of this new sediment repressurized or vulcanized into still younger metamorphic and igneous rock.

I don't think that I do, but you are free to understand me as you see fit.

So we still get various ages of various rocks, because dating only goes back to the last time the rock went through a cycle of being molten--not back to the rock as originally created. So all of these dates would be after the original creation date.



Fine, but as you stated at the outset, history is not one of those limitations. There is such a thing as scientific history.

Yes, there is. But the question is: Is it correct and how do we know that it is? The answer seems to be that we know it is correct because we are using a measurement tool that we believe gives us correct answers, but the reality is that no one can give any witness testimony that it is and so we are forced to believe that it is because our faith is in the scientific tools of measurement. I don't subscribe to that knowledge.

Anyway, I'm hoping you'll send me an answer to my two questions.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The word yom is used all throughout the first testament, and is not always translated as day. So, actually Genesis could have been more clear.

Hi arcangl,

Well, if we were to understand that the word 'yom' is the only evidence, then yes I would agree with you, but the Scriptures don't stop with just using the word 'yom' and I believe God had good reason to further define it's understanding as being a period of time consisting of a morning and an evening. Never in all of Scripture or all written works of man since, has 'yom' ever been defined as the completion of a morning and evening where one might think it is referring to an age.

We might say the 'dawn' of an age, but we have never had a written work to say the 'evening' of an age. So, I would agree that 'yom' standing alone could be misunderstood and I find that to be a compelling reason for why God didn't stop there, but continued to define His use of 'yom' as consisting of an evening and a morning.

You see God knows the beginning from the end. God knew on the day of creation that a time would come when men would argue over His work of creation and the time it took Him to create. Therefore, God in His infinite wisdom caused the Holy Spirit to press the writer to not just write, and there was the first day, but had him write, '...and there was evening and morning, the first day.' Yom has always been one of those words that needs contextual evidence to know how it should be translated and so God gave us that contextual evidence.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
11,074
7,404
✟343,105.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Hi arcangl,

Well, if we were to understand that the word 'yom' is the only evidence, then yes I would agree with you, but the Scriptures don't stop with just using the word 'yom' and I believe God had good reason to further define it's understanding as being a period of time consisting of a morning and an evening. Never in all of Scripture or all written works of man since, has 'yom' ever been defined as the completion of a morning and evening where one might think it is referring to an age.

We might say the 'dawn' of an age, but we have never had a written work to say the 'evening' of an age. So, I would agree that 'yom' standing alone could be misunderstood and I find that to be a compelling reason for why God didn't stop there, but continued to define His use of 'yom' as consisting of an evening and a morning.

You see God knows the beginning from the end. God knew on the day of creation that a time would come when men would argue over His work of creation and the time it took Him to create. Therefore, God in His infinite wisdom caused the Holy Spirit to press the writer to not just write, and there was the first day, but had him write, '...and there was evening and morning, the first day.' Yom has always been one of those words that needs contextual evidence to know how it should be translated and so God gave us that contextual evidence.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Very good argument. However, how can we have literal evenings if there is no sun or moon? Also, isn't it possible that "evening and morning" could just be a poetic way of saying the beginning and the end of some unspecified period of time?
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Sure, they are, when the jury decides to believe the scientist presenting the evidence in preference to the defence attorney's expert witness. And when the forensic evidence is the most important or deciding factor among all the information provided.

We call that circumstantial evidence, and it is rarely beyond a reasonable doubt.


Since your numbers add up to more than 100%, obviously some of the difficulties overlap i.e. appear on the same COD. What you have omitted is the number of CODs which a) were properly completed and b) established a cause of death. I do recognize that sometimes it is not possible to establish a cause of death. That was the case with my son's death two years ago: no foul play, no indication of heart attack, stroke or any other natural cause of death. I do recognize that human error may result in improperly completed forms. I do recognize that evidence is sometimes ambiguous. Nevertheless, doctors and coroners do attempt to establish a cause of death and in many cases are able to do so.

Scientists always attempt to create good fiction. But it always remains fiction.





As with establishing a cause of death, sometimes one can and sometimes one cannot. It is not the case that without a black box one can never establish the cause of an accident. The addition of a black box increases the percentage of properly established causes, but the percentage was never 0 in the first place.

I await your research.
 
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟82,877.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Very good argument. However, how can we have literal evenings if there is no sun or moon?
God said "Let there be light," and there was light. The earth was in rotation, creating the evenings and the mornings. As it has been been pointed out, in every case when Yom is used With Boker; as in evening and morning, it ALWAYS means one solar day. Also, when the Scriptures use a day qualifier such as "the first day," or "the third day," Yom again ALWAYS means one solar day. Like the word "day," it can mean longer passages of time; such as "in the days of..." or it can be used less specifically to talk about the day the Son of God returns. However, when used in conjunction with the evening AND with a day qualifier, there is no possible way to insinuate long periods of time without deliberately misrepresenting the text.
Also, isn't it possible that "evening and morning" could just be a poetic way of saying the beginning and the end of some unspecified period of time?
Absolutely, positively not. In fact, the six day creation is so important that God wrote the Fourth Commandment in reference to it. Why did God leave no room for doubt that He intended us to know He created the universe in six days? I believe it's because, knowing the future, He knew one day people would come up with every creative excuse not to believe His word. I'm confident that he knew man would come up with some theory to explain how the universe came about without Him, and that such a theory would continue to grow in popularity until it deceived many who were otherwise truly devout and wise. It's that way intentionally. Faith is hard. It's easy to reject the Scriptures, but difficult to accept them knowing that nearly everything written defies natural law.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
God said "Let there be light," and there was light. The earth was in rotation, creating the evenings and the mornings. As it has been been pointed out, in every case when Yom is used With Boker; as in evening and morning, it ALWAYS means one solar day. Also, when the Scriptures use a day qualifier such as "the first day," or "the third day," Yom again ALWAYS means one solar day. Like the word "day," it can mean longer passages of time; such as "in the days of..." or it can be used less specifically to talk about the day the Son of God returns. However, when used in conjunction with the evening AND with a day qualifier, there is no possible way to insinuate long periods of time without deliberately misrepresenting the text.

Absolutely, positively not. In fact, the six day creation is so important that God wrote the Fourth Commandment in reference to it. Why did God leave no room for doubt that He intended us to know He created the universe in six days? I believe it's because, knowing the future, He knew one day people would come up with every creative excuse not to believe His word. I'm confident that he knew man would come up with some theory to explain how the universe came about without Him, and that such a theory would continue to grow in popularity until it deceived many who were otherwise truly devout and wise. It's that way intentionally. Faith is hard. It's easy to reject the Scriptures, but difficult to accept them knowing that nearly everything written defies natural law.

These are all good points and I would just add, that of the nearly 1500 or so occurrences of yome, only none of them are ever in dispute as to their meaning. No one thinks Jonah was in the whale 3000 years. No one thinks Joshua circled Jericho 7000 years. In all the instances it occurs the context is sufficient to tell us exactly what it means. Some occurrences have differing meanings, but context always makes those meanings clear.

But for some reason, in the creation account, we just can't figure it out. Why do you suppose this is? Very simply, it's because it conflicts with modern ideas about origins. That's it. That's why we just can't look at context and make a very obvious inference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Luke17:37
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Well, this is what SW wrote:
He was in error to make the statement that 'Science can only make predictions about future events'.

Yes, I agree.

Let me ask you a couple of questions: Do you believe the earth existed before the sun? Do you believe that plant life was created before the sun?

No. Can you give me a reason why I should? Remember I do not accept that scripture is necessarily to be interpreted literally or to be giving a historical account of events in the way we expect of a historian or reporter or researcher. So, if assuming these are necessary attributes of scripture is your reason, it is not, in my view, a compelling reason.

Also, I don't know that creation was a miracle. I know it was an act of God, but not every act of God is a miracle. One might call it a "miracle" in a loose sense as when a person refers to a newborn baby as "a miracle". Every birth is a wondrous thing and the word "miracle" actual comes from a root that means "wonderful, marvellous". But God is capable of doing many such wondrous things in a perfectly natural way. However wonderful your new grandchild is, most likely his or her arrival was not supernatural.

The biblical meaning of the word we translate as "miracle" means "sign" referring especially to a sign of God's power. But it does not imply that the sign be contrary to nature, though sometimes it is. Paul calls creation as witness to the divinity and power of God, so by the biblical sense it is a miracle whether science can recount how it was done or not.


If, out of that necessity God infused that wine with molecules that would, under testing make it have the same qualities as old wine, then why wouldn't we expect carbon dating to date it older than it was.

I said I would not expect scientists to be able to date the wine correctly. I said I would expect them to be able to date the wineskin correctly.

I don't see that as what I am doing. I don't think I have invented any miracles. I just believe that when God miraculously creates things that those things will have properties that under man's methods of testing will look old. The story I use for this is Adam. I believe that there was a singular man by the name of Adam, . . .

And I don't see Adam that way. So, from my perspective, your argument falls apart. If you are right and Adam was a singular historical person who was brought into instantaneous existence as an adult, then all you say follows, but to me they are "miracles" made necessary by the way you approach scripture. Read scripture differently and those miracles are unnecessary inventions.


Yes, there is. But the question is: Is it correct and how do we know that it is? The answer seems to be that we know it is correct because we are using a measurement tool that we believe gives us correct answers,but the reality is that no one can give any witness testimony



Actually, there is witness testimony. After all, the reason scientists believe their tools give correct answers is that many of the tools were tested against dates for which there is/was a witness. Carbon dating has been used on many objects such as wood, leather, cloth, papyrus, vellum, etc. for which there is documentary evidence of the date of origin. And it is only because it has such a good record on items whose date we know that it is trusted to provide the same level of accuracy for objects of unknown date.

Ice core dating against known historical dates has been similarly tested and shown to be reliable. For example, one can correlate volcanic ash in an ice core with a volcano of known date.

Being overly-skeptical of well-tested measuring tools suggests not a problem with the tools, but with findings you consider problematical for reasons outside of science.
 
Upvote 0