Why do YECs refuse to do real science?

[archaeologist2]

I think the very existence of 40-odd Christian denominations in the world attests to that.

the reason there are so many denominations is that people use the following

your interpretation

to avoid the truth and to continue intheir own sinful ways.

as the Bible says there is only one truth, not a myriad of them and the Bible is not subject to subjective interpretation which allows people to change scriptures to fit what they want to believe.

there is only one answer, and for creation it is Gen. 1, as stated. anyone using evolution is wrong for they are ignoring the truth and adding into what never happened. they are very selfish people for they do not care nor see how much they undermine scripture and hurt God.

 

[archaeologist2]

I get what you're saying and I've heard it before

if you have heard it before and ignored the warnings what doyou esxpect to happen but that you will be given over to your desires and you will miss the mark.

my stance is that it's entirely possible to serve God while practicing good science that in some cases might even contradict the literal context of the Scriptures.

well then since you choose science over God's word then that is what you will have, science not God. if you are defining 'good science' as the secular evolutionary way then you would be wrong and you can't serve God while contradicting His words.

it just doesn't work, you have your science but not God.

 

[Mallon]

you have your science but not God.

I didn't realize my salvation depended on my accepting Genesis 1 as an historical account. Thanks for the theology lesson.

you place your faith in the wrong things,

 

[archaeologist2]

I didn't realize my salvation depended on my accepting Genesis 1 as an historical account. Thanks for the theology lesson.

actually it does. how can a person accept salvation from God then turn around and tell the world science is right over God's words and that God lied?

kind of defeats the purpose. i can hear theistic evolutionists now:

TE: 'oh i believe in God and have eternal life" '
UB: 'really, do you believe creation?'
TE: 'No, it didn't happen that way'
UB: 'oh...why should i believe John 3:16 then?'

if you take secular science over God then you are not believing God but the devil. if you don't believe God how can you have salvation?

 

[Mallon]

actually it does. how can a person accept salvation from God then turn around and tell the world science is right over God's words and that God lied?

God is only made to be liar if you first assume that God intended all the stories of the Bible to be historically and scientifically accurate. I reject that assumption. I think this sort of scientific/historical concordism is wrong for two reasons: (1) history has shown this hermeneutic to be unwarranted, and (2) accommodationism (essentially the opposite of concordism) better aligns with God's character. The first point is illustrated best by the Galileo Affair. Before the work of Galileo and Copernicus, Christians believed -- on the basis of Scripture (just ask yeshuasavedme) -- that the sun revolved about the earth. Galileo showed that this is not the case, and Christians soon accepted that the geocentric passages of the Bible were accommodated by God to the perspectives of men in order to deliver a message of much greater importance. I hold the same to be true of the Genesis creation accounts.
The second point is best illustrated by the incarnation of Christ. The very act of taking on a fleshly form was an accommodation of God to His created people. God became one of us so that we could better relate to Him. He didn't speak down to us in scientific verbiage. He came to us as someone we could identify with, using the language and imagery of His immediate audience. This is the nature of God's character: He gets down on one knee and speaks to us as a father would his own child.
So again, I don't think God necessarily intended scientific or historical truths when He inspired Genesis. I think He accommodated a much greater message of love and the need for salvation to His original Hebrew audience. Please note that I am NOT rejecting God in saying this. I am specifically rejecting your concordist hermeneutic.

 

[Assyrian]

God is only made to be liar if you first assume that God intended all the stories of the Bible to be historically and scientifically accurate. I reject that assumption. I think this sort of scientific/historical concordism is wrong for two reasons: (1) history has shown this hermeneutic to be unwarranted, and (2) accommodationism (essentially the opposite of concordism) better aligns with God's character. The first point is illustrated best by the Galileo Affair. Before the work of Galileo and Copernicus, Christians believed -- on the basis of Scripture (just ask yeshuasavedme) -- that the sun revolved about the earth. Galileo showed that this is not the case, and Christians soon accepted that the geocentric passages of the Bible were accommodated by God to the perspectives of men in order to deliver a message of much greater importance. I hold the same to be true of the Genesis creation accounts.
The second point is best illustrated by the incarnation of Christ. The very act of taking on a fleshly form was an accommodation of God to His created people. God became one of us so that we could better relate to Him. He didn't speak down to us in scientific verbiage. He came to us as someone we could identify with, using the language and imagery of His immediate audience. This is the nature of God's character: He gets down on one knee and speaks to us as a father would his own child.
So again, I don't think God necessarily intended scientific or historical truths when He inspired Genesis. I think He accommodated a much greater message of love and the need for salvation to His original Hebrew audience. Please note that I am NOT rejecting God in saying this. I am specifically rejecting your concordist hermeneutic.

Hi Mallon, I really like the patience and grace you are showing here.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

God is only made to be liar if you first assume that God intended all the stories of the Bible to be historically and scientifically accurate. I reject that assumption. I think this sort of scientific/historical concordism is wrong for two reasons: (1) history has shown this hermeneutic to be unwarranted, and (2) accommodationism (essentially the opposite of concordism) better aligns with God's character. The first point is illustrated best by the Galileo Affair. Before the work of Galileo and Copernicus, Christians believed -- on the basis of Scripture (just ask yeshuasavedme) -- that the sun revolved about the earth. Galileo showed that this is not the case, and Christians soon accepted that the geocentric passages of the Bible were accommodated by God to the perspectives of men in order to deliver a message of much greater importance. I hold the same to be true of the Genesis creation accounts.
The second point is best illustrated by the incarnation of Christ. The very act of taking on a fleshly form was an accommodation of God to His created people. God became one of us so that we could better relate to Him. He didn't speak down to us in scientific verbiage. He came to us as someone we could identify with, using the language and imagery of His immediate audience. This is the nature of God's character: He gets down on one knee and speaks to us as a father would his own child.
So again, I don't think God necessarily intended scientific or historical truths when He inspired Genesis. I think He accommodated a much greater message of love and the need for salvation to His original Hebrew audience. Please note that I am NOT rejecting God in saying this. I am specifically rejecting your concordist hermeneutic.

Mallon,
You are so "accommodating" to the devil's lies!

Also: Jesus did not "become one of us" -an Adam person. If He had "become one of us" -an Adam person, then we are still unclean souls in Adam and will forever remain undying worms in the lake of fire, castaways there, as rejects with no hope, at the judgment. No Adam soul can bring any acceptable offering before the Glory who dwells on high to ransom himself of a brother..

YHWH did not come in the dead nature of the old man, Adam, but in the second creation human being nature of Israel. Israel is the only created human being brother to Adam, and the only legal Kinsman with the power and the will to legally ransom the kingdom and the seed of Adam by "marrying the barren widow".
He gave His name to Jacob, as a sign of the adoption to come, in His New Man name.
That is what the Scriptures teach and is why we must be born again to escape the state of an undying worm, in the lake of fire. If you want to know where those Scriptures are, I'll list them for you -or you could prove it for yourself.

 

[Mallon]

At the risk of inspiring more seething hatred from archaeologist and yeshuasavedme, I think I'll cut the discussion short here. I don't know that I've ever felt more belittled and hurt by my fellow Christians, after having been told countless times that I make God out to be a liar, that I don't know God, that I don't know Christ, that I don't know Scripture, and that I am without salvation. I've got lots more to say, but I don't think I'll say it now. Except this: "You will know them by their fruit" (Matthew 7:16).
May Christ show you more grace than you have shown me and those who disagree with you.

 

[AV1611VET]

At the risk of inspiring more seething hatred from archaeologist and yeshuasavedme, I think I'll cut the discussion short here. I don't know that I've ever felt more belittled and hurt by my fellow Christians, after having been told countless times that I make God out to be a liar, that I don't know God, and that I don't know Christ, that I don't know Scripture, and that I am without salvation. I've got lots more to say, but I don't think I'll say it now. Except this: "You will know them by their fruit" (Matthew 7:16).
May Christ show you more grace than you have shown me and those who disagree with you.

We need to stop going at each other's throats and get back to the real battle; against Satan, the god of forces.

But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces:

 

[Matthewj1985]

Matthew,

Your posts reveal several misconceptions.

1) "Real science" consists of posting in particular journals.

How is that a misconception. What was the last scientific discovery that went straight from the lab to the text books?

2) Journals "must" do this and that. Journals are controlled by private organizations, and have freedom of the press over what they accept and publish. You would not win a lawsuit against a journal for perceived bias -- you can't force them to publish anything. Your legal recourse is not a lawsuit, but the fact that you have every legal right to go start a journal of your own. Although virtually all journals would deny discrimination based on religion, there is no law against them having such a rule.

Discrimination based on religion is grounds for suit in a civil court. My company doesn't have to offer it's services to black people or muslims, but the second I let them know I am discriminating based on those things I open myself up to a law suit. I think the real reason has more to do with the utter defeat suffered at Dover when all of Behe's wiggle room was take away.

3) Journals must tell you why your article is rejected. On the contrary -- an article can be rejected at lots of levels, including first glance by an editor. It can be rejected for any reason at all. What you will receive is a form letter thanking you for your submission and telling you that the journal cannot use it at this time, but wishes you well in the future. If you progress further into the peer-review process, then you may be fortunate enough to have a journal tell you more, but they are under no obligation to do so.

Well of course they can. Put the shoe on the other foot, would a Christian magazine not do the same to an article submitted entitled "Jesus, like Hitler but meaner!". Creationist like Hovind can't even get the definition of evolution right, that right there is enough proof that you are going to see articles as bad as the one titled above.

4) YEC scientists do not publish in secular peer-reviewed journals. This is just plain not true. Lots of articles are published every year in secular journals written by YEC scientists. The rub is that the papers are either on topics which do not touch the YEC/evolution topic, or that do so in the most tangential manner. Sadly, YEC is seen as junk science, and just bringing up the topic is enough to get a paper dismissed, much like a reputable physics journal is extremely likely to dismiss claims of perpetual motion.

What does that have to do with anything? I don't care if my butcher is a democrat or republican, it simply has no bearing on how he cuts meat. Same goes for scientist who participate in real science that has nothing to do with YEC but also believe it. YEC IS JUNK SCIENCE, there is a reason that only a handful of people (excluding the Islamic brand of YEC) who lack degrees in biology even making this an issue. If YEC ever wants to get out of the "Junk Science" bin then they have to start doing real science instead of giving lectures to uneducated folks at churches.

5) YEC scientists do not publish YEC material in peer-reviewed journals. Since the legal recourse is to start your own journal, there are a couple of journals specifically dedicated to publishing peer-reviewed YEC content.

Which is laughable and only reinforces the "junk science" label. They can't compete in the realm of science so they create their own peer review process which is a horribly bastardized version of the REAL peer review process. Of course a lot of this has to do with the fact that a second year college biology student could shoot down the vast majority of their arguments.

Here are some basic references on the topic:
Do creation scientists publish in secular journals? http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/question.asp

/facepalm, the guy is a Nuclear Physicist, not a biologist....Do you ask your butcher about the odd lump on your back or do you go to a doctor?

Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp

More of the same, they refuse to publish papers having anything to do with evolution because they know the weakness of their argument.

Creation scientists and other biographies of interest http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp

I googled a couple of the people who had degrees in any "bio" field. The first retired, and I couldn't find anything but creationist propaganda on the rest of them. No link to their school, no like to their email address, nothing.

Here is some food for thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM&feature=channel_page

 

[laptoppop]

How is that a misconception. What was the last scientific discovery that went straight from the lab to the text books?

Publishing in specific peer-reviewed journals is not the only "real" science.

Discrimination based on religion is grounds for suit in a civil court. My company doesn't have to offer it's services to black people or muslims, but the second I let them know I am discriminating based on those things I open myself up to a law suit. I think the real reason has more to do with the utter defeat suffered at Dover when all of Behe's wiggle room was take away.

Well of course they can. Put the shoe on the other foot, would a Christian magazine not do the same to an article submitted entitled "Jesus, like Hitler but meaner!". Creationist like Hovind can't even get the definition of evolution right, that right there is enough proof that you are going to see articles as bad as the one titled above.

Do you see how these two statements contradict each other? You make my point -- journals can discriminate any way they choose.

What does that have to do with anything? I don't care if my butcher is a democrat or republican, it simply has no bearing on how he cuts meat. Same goes for scientist who participate in real science that has nothing to do with YEC but also believe it. YEC IS JUNK SCIENCE, there is a reason that only a handful of people (excluding the Islamic brand of YEC) who lack degrees in biology even making this an issue. If YEC ever wants to get out of the "Junk Science" bin then they have to start doing real science instead of giving lectures to uneducated folks at churches.

Attitudes like this "YEC IS JUNK SCIENCE" are exactly why YEC is not given a fair hearing. Thanks for making my point so well.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

I didn't realize my salvation depended on my accepting Genesis 1 as an historical account. Thanks for the theology lesson.

Salvation is not a formula that one takes up as a mantra to chant. Salvation is to be had only in the name of the second Man -the only begotten Son of the Living God of the human being kind.
In Adam all die. In Christ all are made alive -whosoever will.

Adam is hopelessly and irrevocably dead since the fall of "Adam son of God".
The New Man is come to atone for all in Adam and to adopt them into His own Name and share with them His ransomed inheritance and the Glory of the onlybegotten Son of God of the human being kind.
The adoption into His Living Spirit is called being born again. Unless one is born again in Christ then one has no part with His name and inheritance, and will remain only an undying worm, cast away into the lake of fire forever in the resurrection of the dead in Adam souls -for whom Jesus atoned but which they denied.

The gospel of TE'S is not the Gospel of Christ, for it denies the fall of Adam, son of God, from the Glory of the sons of God; and therefore they have no need for the Atonement and adoption into the New Man name, since their evolved human being is ever evolving upward -and surely will achieve godhood by it's evolution 'in a few billion years' or so

 

[archaeologist2]

a clarification on one statement i made:

my personal beliefs hold that TE's and PC's are not christian but follow what their ears want to hear

obviously there is more to this comment than just what a surface reading and sweeping generalization would make of it. there are too many factors involved to list as space will not accommodate the full explanation.

suffice it to say that, those who continue to follow theistic evolution and progressive creationism after hearing the truth are unlikely to be christian. 1 John explains it far better.

To say that God did not provide the truth in Gen. or other conterversial passages is saying that God lied and that God sinned, which He cannot do. Accusing God of sinful acts or with-holding the truth is not conducive to having salvation, such things are of the devil.

evil does exist and does deceive and if one is not ready to realize this then they will always think they are christian when in GOd's eyes they are not. It is what GOD THINKS and one should not justify their beliefs but be honest with themselves and with scriptures to find out where they stand with God.

 

[shernren]

So YECism is junk science and TEism isn't real faith.

Ever wondered why people don't like Christians?

 

[archaeologist2]

the definition of 'real science' depends upon whom holds the majority or prevailing thought in the field. in newton's time and others up to about the late 19th or early 20th century, it was more christians and their thought which defined 'real science'. since then, atheists and unbelievers have risen to the top and have changed the definition to fit their desires and unbeliefs.

the only true definition is found in God which would reject the atheistic and secular ways.

 

[Assyrian]

At the risk of inspiring more seething hatred from archaeologist and yeshuasavedme, I think I'll cut the discussion short here. I don't know that I've ever felt more belittled and hurt by my fellow Christians, after having been told countless times that I make God out to be a liar, that I don't know God, that I don't know Christ, that I don't know Scripture, and that I am without salvation. I've got lots more to say, but I don't think I'll say it now. Except this: "You will know them by their fruit" (Matthew 7:16).
May Christ show you more grace than you have shown me and those who disagree with you.

seems someone ran home to mommie and cried

I think it is pretty clear where the grace of God is to be seen in these two posts.

because they did not like being told that they can't get grace till the give up their sin. i cannot change the truth and i do not change anything i dsaid in that post.

if you want grace, thenyou have to repent and give up pursuing sin, grace is not their to support or legitimize evil behavior or disobedience to God.

too many people want the blessing/benefits but do not want the cross. well to get the blessings/benefits, you must do what Christ said 'pick up your cross and follow me'

which means you have to dump evolutionary and secular teachings and follow God's words, you have to give up listening to secular science and listen to the Bible.

there is no middle ground with God.

Sorry archie, it is not up to you to set conditions on God's grace.

 

[laptoppop]

So YECism is junk science and TEism isn't real faith.

Ever wondered why people don't like Christians?

I hear you, bro. Obviously, I am on record saying that TEs can be good solid strong Christians. Yes, I believe they are wrong about a few things -- but I make a big distinction between the doctrines and the people.

I admit that I can follow satanic doctrines at times. When I get up early to answer email from work, but don't get up early to pray with my wife, I am pursuing the wrong priority. This is not a distraction from God -- so where is it from?

Actually, sometimes what matters more than our having the perfect doctrine is to have a yielded heart, following God and subjecting the practical areas of our life to His rule. As He reveals sin in our lives - turning from that dark sin into His glorious light through His power.

I'm not saying doctrine is unimportant - because it can color our thinking and understanding in ways both good and bad. But we worship the living God, not His scriptures.

I'll go on record and say that someone can be wrong about origins and be a better Christian than me.

Will any TEs go on record and say that someone can be YEC, and yet be intelligent, reasonable, and educated?

 

[Mallon]

Will any TEs go on record and say that someone can be YEC, and yet be intelligent, reasonable, and educated?

I will. I think that, for the most part, their grasp of natural theology and science philosophy is tenuous, but that doesn't mean they're not in any way intelligent, reasonable, or educated. Being intelligent doesn't mean knowing everything.

 

[shernren]

Will any TEs go on record and say that someone can be YEC, and yet be intelligent, reasonable, and educated?

I'll go one better and, to the point of the thread, say that their not publishing in referred journals may not be the best indicator of how good they are at science. This is something I have said before in the thread.

Matthewj rightly asks when the last time a scientific discovery went straight from the lab to the textbook. Well, my question in return was: when was the last time you thought a scientific discovery could save someone's soul? Not to legitimize what they do, but if you believed that a particular scientific approach you had was capable of making a difference to someone's eternal destiny you might not be as concerned with the rigmarole of a (clearly biased against you, by your own estimate) peer review system.

YECism may claim to be science but at its heart it's more than. And hey, they have every right to be what they are.

(Which doesn't change the fact that they're wrong. But hey, it's Christmas. Santa's watching. )

 

[Assyrian]

Will any TEs go on record and say that someone can be YEC, and yet be intelligent, reasonable, and educated?

Of course. You're a YEC aren't you pop?