Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?

[KWCrazy]

Science does not say anything about that which does not exist.
Science cannot prove, nor disprove, God. That's why it's called faith and belief.
Science, by definition, comes to explain the observable. It is agnostic regarding unobservable things.

Not being able to prove or disprove the supernatural does not mean it doesn't exist, and it doesn't put in a good light those who demand physical evidence of supernatural occurrences. Science cannot prove that the earth is 13.5 billion years old. It can't disprove a global flood, either. It can make conclusions based on a specific interpretation of the evidence, but it can't prove beyond all doubt what happened thousands of years ago. It all comes down to faith, and where you place your faith.

To think that He was trying to encapsulate all of physics, biology, chemistry, and recent (5-10 KY) human evolution into 11 ish chapters of Scripture, is babyish at best and ludicrous at worst.

Physics, biology and chemistry had nothing to do with creation, which didn't conform to any natural laws.

It's what I teach my young kids, those in kindergarten.

You teach your children, I'll teach mine.

Unfortunately, most people remain with a first grade level understanding of scripture, until the day they die.

Unfortunately, there are no passages in the Scriptures which allow for evolution, that teach the Genesis story was not true, that deny the nature and reasoning of the great flood, or which explain how the earth can be billions of years old when Adam was created on day six and we know all the generations from Adam to Jesus.

By His writings and teachings, I would classify Jesus as a Young Earth Creationist. You can stand with your own interpretations of the Scriptures, but until you can show me the specific passages that validate your interpretation I cannot in good conscience consider it Biblical.

 

[EternalDragon]

They just appear there? What? Where are the eels, fish, starfish, seahorses, crabs, lobsters, shrimp, beavers, otters, whales, etc.? What didn't they all "just appear" there?

Because those layers are a result of a world wide flood and not millions of years of time. Those were the first organisms to die and get buried.

 

[lasthero]

Because those layers are a result of a world wide flood and not millions of years of time. Those were the first organisms to die and get buried.

If those were the first organism to die and get buried, why aren't they all on the bottom?

 

[Split Rock]

Because those layers are a result of a world wide flood and not millions of years of time. Those were the first organisms to die and get buried.

So, star fish, sea urchins and sea cucumbers were not the first to get buried? Why weren't crabs and lobsters buried with trilobites?

 

[Amora]

Not being able to prove or disprove the supernatural does not mean it doesn't exist, and it doesn't put in a good light those who demand physical evidence of supernatural occurrences.

I don't understand your point here. I never said that anything that science cannot prove or disprove- does not exist. I actually agree with you here.

Science cannot prove that the earth is 13.5 billion years old. It can't disprove a global flood, either. It can make conclusions based on a specific interpretation of the evidence, but it can't prove beyond all doubt what happened thousands of years ago. It all comes down to faith, and where you place your faith.

Here of course I DO disagree. Science, by definition is NOT faith. These are the kinds of statement, that, pardon me, make YEC's seem ludicrous.

Physics, biology and chemistry had nothing to do with creation, which didn't conform to any natural laws.

So you are saying that creation predates physics? So when DID nature start?

You teach your children, I'll teach mine.

Unfortunately, there are no passages in the Scriptures which allow for evolution, that teach the Genesis story was not true, that deny the nature and reasoning of the great flood, or which explain how the earth can be billions of years old when Adam was created on day six and we know all the generations from Adam to Jesus.

By His writings and teachings, I would classify Jesus as a Young Earth Creationist. You can stand with your own interpretations of the Scriptures, but until you can show me the specific passages that validate your interpretation I cannot in good conscience consider it Biblical.

First, I don't mean to be disparaging. Indeed we all teach our children to the best of our ability, and unless one teaches evil, anything that contributes to good, is good in my book.

Of course the the Bible does not teach evolution. There are no passages that teach about space flight, heart surgery or electricity either. Because the Bible is not trying to teach us science at all. Rather, it's concerned with Humanity and Mankind.

Regarding Jesuss' beliefs, of COURSE he was a YEC. Duh, all Jews were at that time. There was no other option. They also all thought the earth was flat. At the time, it WAS science.

My point is, that in depth reading of the Torah leads us to a higher, more sophisticated understanding. It's a higher level of learning, a level that was unheard of even a few hundred years ago. And that learning, teaches us that you simply cannot understand the stories as literal. They CAN'T be. And they can't be because of the many apparent contradictions. Sure you can try to reconcile contradictions. But it will always be forced, because it will never match what it actually says.

People never used to really study the words; they memorized, they told the stories, but never in history were the words examined with such attention as in the modern age. And never did we understand Nature as we do now. Oh how great is God that he created such exquisite natural processes.

So our options are to either throw away the baby with the bathwater, or learn from the scholars, but interpret the word in such away that it does not hurt our Faith. Even better, it strengthens it.

 

[Delphiki]

Science cannot prove that the earth is 13.5 billion years old.

I'd like to hear how you think researchers came up with that estimate, if not based on the evidence found. Do you think it was just drawn from a hat one day while a group of evil mad scientists were devising their secret plot to destroy Christianity?

 

[JWGU]

I'd like to hear how you think researchers came up with that estimate, if not based on the evidence found. Do you think it was just drawn from a hat one day while a group of evil mad scientists were devising their secret plot to destroy Christianity?

I completely agree with KWCrazy, actually. Science cannot prove that the earth is 13.5 billion years old.

 

[KWCrazy]

I'd like to hear how you think researchers came up with that estimate, if not based on the evidence found. Do you think it was just drawn from a hat one day while a group of evil mad scientists were devising their secret plot to destroy Christianity?

By your signature alone, you views are unworthy of comment.

 

[KWCrazy]

Here of course I DO disagree. Science, by definition is NOT faith. These are the kinds of statement, that, pardon me, make YEC's seem ludicrous.

All knowledge is based in the faith of the validity of the source of that knowledge. If I tell you that I have a candy bar and you have faith that I am telling the truth, then you know I have a candy bar. Without that faith, you cannot be sure. Science is the study of the physical world around us. It bases all of its age calculations on how it perceives the universe was formed through some natural process. Maybe you put your faith in their claims. However, if a man can't tell me the origin of a rock which includes the origin of its elements, then he can't tell me the age of the rock. If he can't prove to me the entire universe created itself from nothingness over billions of years, then I can't have faith in the unproven theories of science. Science can tell very precisely how most things in this world function. How they originated is still left to conjecture.

Enter the other side of the argument. An omnipotent God can create a world in any form he wises. If He evolves a world it will take billions of years, but by all accounts what He wants is the creation and not the process of creating. So God then creates the universe in its mature form as easily as a painter creates a world with his paintbrush. In six days, this world is populated and flourishing.

These two arguments are 180 degrees out of phase with each other, meaning only one can be true. Lacking a time capsule, we can't go back and witness the creation ourselves. However we DO have a 6,000 year history of interaction with the Creator. We can speak with our parents and grandparents and learn from what they experienced. We can seek the Lord, and in seeking Him we can find Him. We can commune with the Holy Spirit, which the ignorant profess does not exist. We can feel the presence of our God whom the fool denies (Psalms 14:1). We can feel his presence in our lives, experience the miracles that defy logical scientific explanation and know that our God is Lord of the universe.

That's what I mean by faith. Do you have faith in God, or do you have faith in no God?

So you are saying that creation predates physics? So when DID nature start?

Physical laws apply to physical objects. When there was only the supernatural, there was no natural laws. When God first created the heavens and the earth, those physical creations had properties. Those properties reflect the laws of physics.

Of course the the Bible does not teach evolution. There are no passages that teach about space flight, heart surgery or electricity either.

The Bible doesn't disagree with space flight or heart surgery. It disagrees with evolution, which claims that God absolutely did NOT create man in His own image on the sixth day. This is why evolution is different from "real" science. Science is the study of things we can observe, test, examine and do controlled experiments with. Evolution is a theory of origins. Lacking a time machine, there is no way to validate evolution.

Regarding Jesus' beliefs, of COURSE he was a YEC. Duh, all Jews were at that time. There was no other option. They also all thought the earth was flat. At the time, it WAS science.

However, Jesus WAS God and knew all. He taught the Scriptures to the elders as a child speaking from authority. He absolutely knew the Scriptures and quoted from them often. He revered the words of Moses as the words of God Himself. There is absolutely no way that God through Moses could have been more clear than the description of the days in Genesis. The Fourth Commandment is based on the six day creation. It's the foundation of Jewish law as well as Christian law.

And that learning, teaches us that you simply cannot understand the stories as literal. They CAN'T be.

Why can't they be? Was Moses ever proven a liar? Was Jesus? Was David? Of course the miracles of the Bible are impossible. Were they not, they wouldn't be miracles. If the stories of the Bible are not literal, then it's all a lie, there is no God, and you are free to live your life in any way you see fit. That's the goal of the father of lies. As we become more "sophisticated" we tend to reject things we know to be impossible. However, the number of people on this forum alone who have experienced miracles should give some indication that God IS real. If God is real, then His word is real.

 

[lasthero]

However, if a man can't tell me the origin of a rock which includes the origin of its elements, then he can't tell me the age of the rock.

How does that follow? And you do realize there are other methods besides dating rocks that also return ages older than a literal interpretation of the Bible allows, right?

If he can't prove to me the entire universe created itself from nothingness over billions of years, then I can't have faith in the unproven theories of science.

Science doesn't deal in proof. Nothing is 'proven' - that's an area for mathematics.

It disagrees with evolution, which claims that God absolutely did NOT create man in His own image on the sixth day.

Evolution makes no such claim.

Evolution is a theory of origins. Lacking a time machine, there is no way to validate evolution.

Evolution is as testable, observable, repeatable as any other theory, such a gravity theory, atomic theory, and cell theory. The idea that it only counts as observation if you're seeing it with your own two eyes is just idiotic creationist claptrap. You can observe evidence. Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean you can't make a comment on it. If that were the case, geology wouldn't be a science because you can't .'observe' mountains forming or repeat them in a lab, plate tectonics wouldn't be science because you can't see plates shift or reproduce earthquakes, physics wouldn't be science because you can't see atoms, et cetera.

It's a ridiculous distinction that I wish people would stop making. And yeah, evolution is a theory on origins. A theory is the highest form of knowledge you can get in science, despite your idiotic claims to the contrary. That's not an insult.

However, the number of people on this forum alone who have experienced miracles should give some indication that God IS real.

People saying they've experienced miracles gives no indication of anything, let alone that God is real.

 

[KWCrazy]

How does that follow? And you do realize there are other methods besides dating rocks that also return ages older than a literal interpretation of the Bible allows, right?

All means of testing the age of rocks assume a natural formation. Science cannot account for the supernatural, so if there was a supernatural creation science could not possibly agree on the date. For example, on day 4 there were trees bearing fruit. If it takes 15 years for a fruit tree to mature, how old were the trees on day 4? What if they had rings, like any mature tree would have? Science can't account for any of this.

Science doesn't deal in proof. Nothing is 'proven' - that's an area for mathematics.

Neither, then, is evolution proven. Unfortunately, its devotee's can't grasp this.

Evolution makes no such claim.

Rubbish! Evolution claims that man evolved from simpler life forms over billions of years. You don't see that in contrast with the special creation of man on day six?

Either you don't understand what you're saying, or you're deliberately speaking falsely.

Evolution is as testable,

Sorry, but the only serious tests have failed. Irradiated fruit flies are still fruit flies.

observable,

Evolution has never been observed. In fact, what HAS BEEN observed is that if you breed mutations with mutations at some point you get sterility and death; NOT a new life form.

repeatable as any other theory, such a gravity

BUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! That's hilarious! As repeatable as gravity? Did you cook that lie before you swallowed it?

The idea that it only counts as observation if you're seeing it with your own two eyes is just idiotic creationist claptrap.

The idea that evolution has ever been observed, tested and replicated is quite frankly a lie.

Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean you can't make a comment on it.

That doesn't make your commentary any more valid than any other commentary, or your belief any more valid than the unprovable beliefs of anyone else.

If that were the case, geology wouldn't be a science because you can't .'observe' mountains forming or repeat them in a lab, plate tectonics wouldn't be science because you can't see plates shift or reproduce earthquakes, physics wouldn't be science because you can't see atoms, et cetera.

Ah, the foolish argument once again. Why not say that if evolution isn't true then computers won't work?

A theory is the highest form of knowledge you can get in science.

No, a LAW is, because a law is constant, repeatable, and it applies in every possible scenario. A theory is a working assumption that gets constantly modified as new information arrives. Knowledge is an awareness of truth. Truth requires proof, and evolution cannot be proven. Therefore evolution is not knowledge, but rather an acceptance of the theory according to its most recent modification. You are soooooooooooooo wrong it isn't funny.

 

[lasthero]

Dp

 

[lasthero]

What if they had rings, like any mature tree would have? Science can't account for any of this.

Why would they have rings? Rings accumulate from seasonal growth. It's not necessary for a tree to have them. If God made the trees with rings already in them, he would be giving the impression they had seasonal growth which they didn't have. What would be the point of that?

Oh, and never mind that we've found trees that date older than the global flood, but younger than the literal interpretation's age of the Earth. So how does that work, exactly? Did the Methusala and Prometheus trees just so happen to be able to go grow while being covered with water for the better part of a year, then go on to live for thousands of more years after that? All without showing any sign of such flooding in their rings?

Neither, then, is evolution proven. Unfortunately, its devotee's can't grasp this.

It's 'devotees' grasp it just fine. Anyone with a elementary school level understanding of science grasps it.

Evolution has never been observed.

Yes, it has.

In fact, what HAS BEEN observed is that if you breed mutations with mutations at some point you get sterility and death; NOT a new life form.

My mother had mutations, my father had mutations, they produced me, so...yeah. Do you understand what a mutation actually is?

BUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! That's hilarious! As repeatable as gravity? Did you cook that lie before you swallowed it?

Appeal to ridicule, nice. Any actual argument?

The idea that evolution has ever been observed, tested and replicated is quite frankly a lie.

No, it's the truth. The pathetic strawman idea of evolution you have hasn't been tested, observed or replicated..

That doesn't make your commentary any more valid than any other commentary, or your belief any more valid than the unprovable beliefs of anyone else.

I never said it didn't However, I have evidence.

Ah, the foolish argument once again. Why not say that if evolution isn't true then computers won't work

I said nothing of the kind. My only point is that, by your strict and nearsighted definition of what it means to 'observe' something, many other things don't count as science. You can't see an atom splitting anymore than you can travel to the past. But atomic theory is science, and so is evolution.

A theory is a working assumption that gets constantly modified as new information arrives.

No, it is not an assumption. One more time.

The final step of the scientific method is to construct, support, or cast doubt on a scientific theory. A theory in science is not a guess, speculation, or suggestion, which is the popular definition of the word "theory." A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses. A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts--and its purpose is to explain major natural processes or phenomena. Scientific theories explain nature by unifying many once-unrelated facts or corroborated hypotheses; they are the strongest and most truthful explanations of how the universe, nature, and life came to be, how they work, what they are made of, and what will become of them. Since humans are living organisms and are part of the universe, science explains all of these things about ourselves.

http://www.geo.sunysb.edu/esp/files/scientific-method.html

Sinking in yet? How about another?

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2

Notice how I'm producing sources to support my stance, whereas you're blithely stating that you're correct and expecting it to be left at that. Also notice that the actual definition of a law is on that second link, and it's not at all like the one you're producing. Who's wrong, here?

 

[Split Rock]

Neither, then, is evolution proven. Unfortunately, its devotee's can't grasp this.

Evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the best we do in science.

Evolution has never been observed. In fact, what HAS BEEN observed is that if you breed mutations with mutations at some point you get sterility and death; NOT a new life form.

Wrong (or as you would say, "You are soooooooooooooo wrong it isn't funny"). Evolution is observed all the time. Speciation has been observed both in the lab and in nature. How do you "breed mutations with mutations?" What is that supposed to mean???

No, a LAW is, because a law is constant, repeatable, and it applies in every possible scenario. A theory is a working assumption that gets constantly modified as new information arrives. Knowledge is an awareness of truth. Truth requires proof, and evolution cannot be proven. Therefore evolution is not knowledge, but rather an acceptance of the theory according to its most recent modification. You are soooooooooooooo wrong it isn't funny.

1. No, laws do not necessarily apply in every possible scenario. Newton's laws, for example, do not apply at speeds close to c.
2. A theory is more broad than a law, and is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Theories must also meet further requirements, such as the ability to make falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry, and production of strong evidence in favor of the theory from multiple independent sources. Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3. There is no proof for a law anymore than for a theory, therefore acording to you laws are also not knowledge. According to you, there is no knowledge, since nothing can be "proven."

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why would they have rings? Rings accumulate from seasonal growth. It's not necessary for a tree to have them. If God made the trees with rings already in them, he would be giving the impression they had seasonal growth which they didn't have. What would be the point of that?

The point would be that God is deceptive and cannot be trusted. While there's nothing scientifically impossible about that, it raises some theological questions that believers might not want to address...

 

[frogman2x]

The matter in our universe created itself from energy that preceded it, not from nothing. We can observe matter condensing from energy in particle accelerators. No deity is required for matter to condense from energy.

Where did this energy come from? Let me guess from the matter it created. That is the illogic of evo thinking.

k

 

[frogman2x]

Evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the best we do in science.

How about one example and dont forgeet to provide the biological evidence, not just some statement from som evo saying it happened.

]Wrong (or as you would say, "You are soooooooooooooo wrong it isn't funny"). Evolution is observed all the time. Speciation has been observed both in the lab and in nature. How do you "breed mutations with mutations?" What is that supposed to mean???<<

Speciation, like natural section is not a mechanism for a biological change.

2. A theory is more broad than a law, and is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

If it is based on facts, it is no longer a theory, it is a law.

3. There is no proof for a law anymore than for a theory, therefore acording to you laws are also not knowledge. According to you, there is no knowledge, since nothing can be "proven."

Certainly things can be proven and when they are they are no longer a theory. That is why evolution is still called a theory---it has neve b een proven.

kermit

 

[lasthero]

Speciation, like natural section is not a mechanism for a biological change.

How is it not a mechanism for biological change? That doesn't even make sense. It's change, by definition.

If it is based on facts, it is no longer a theory, it is a law.

That is not the way it works. Theories do not graduate in laws. Plain and simple. What is with you people? Are you so afraid of actually learning something that might go against your preconceived notions that you won't even read the first chapter of an elementary school textbook? This is basic science. These are basic terms. I nearly flunked out of biology in high school, I can admit that, but even I understood enough back then to know how wrong the above statement is. You guys aren't just ignorant, you wallow in ignorance. It's almost physically nauseating. My only hope is that you're as young as your poor grasp of spelling would lead me to believe, because being an eight year old is the only reasonable excuse for being this amazingly dense.

Good grief.

Certainly things can be proven and when they are they are no longer a theory. That is why evolution is still called a theory---it has neve b een proven.

 

[OllieFranz]

If it is based on facts, it is no longer a theory, it is a law

Popular use of the words and scientific definitions of them are quite different.

"Fact" is not a scientifically defined term, but "observation" and "data point" are terms that a scientist will often colloquially call facts.

You make an observation that applying force to an object causes it to move. After making several similar observations, you begin measuring how the objects move. These measured observations become "data points."

A "law" is an equation. You plot your data points on a graph and notice that if you double the force, the acceleration of the object doubles. If you double the weight (actually, the mass) of the object, the acceleration is halved. The plot yeilds the equation F = ma (Newton's second law of motion)

Next, you realize that there are several laws that use the same units (mass, acceleration, force, time, distance velocity, etc.) and you consider how they affect one another. What you develop is what many popularly call a "theory," but this is not how scientists use the word. Scientist call this stage an "hypothesis."

The next step is to test the hypothesis. There are two kinds of tests falsification and prediction. In falsification tests, you look for things that the hypothesis claims are true and show that they are false. (Spontaneous Generation was falsified by showing that maggots could not "generate" from rotting meat, if flies were not allowed to land on the meat and deposit their eggs.) Alternatively, you can look for things the hypothesis are false, and show they are true. (The hypothesis that all swans are white was falsified when, after the discovery of Australia, the firs black swans were found.)

Prediction tests are almost the opposite of falsification tests. In these you want your results to agree with the hypothesis. Usually these tests are conducted in areas in which scientific measured observations have not before been made, and the result predicted by the hypothesis is different from that predicted by current accepted thought on the issue. (There is also a sort of "after the fact" form of the prediction test in which the new hypothesis "predicts" a different result than the current thought, and explains a previously observered "anomaly" (a data point that does not fit with current thought). Relativity predicted, and later observations confirmed that (among other things) stars and other massive bodies would act like "gravity lenses," bending and focussing light, time slows down for those traveling in a reference frame different from ours (for example, on a spaceship approaching the speed of light, or even a significant fraction of that speed), matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa. It also explained the anomalous results of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the anomaly of the wobble in Mercury's orbit.

Once it passes enough falsification and prediction tests, the hypothesis becomes "well-established. It has been "proven." Only then is it called a "theory."

However, it has been "proven" inductively, and not deductively. That means that there is always a chance that it can be shown to be inadequate. New anomalies can turn up, requiring a better hypothesis. Any new hypothesis, however, will have to incorporate all of the laws (equations) that have been explained by the current theory, including not only the original laws, but also the new laws found as a part of testing the current theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

Where did this energy come from? Let me guess from the matter it created.

We don't know.

That is the illogic of evo thinking.

k

No "evo" claims to be omniscient.