Why does YEC try to disprove scientific theory?

[versastyle]

This has got me extremely curious now...........

It has been said by many YECs, that whether a scientific theory be true or false, they will still not change their position on believing the literal truths of the bible. If the bible is all you need for the truth, why read creationist material, why visit creationist websites, and why consistently try to disprove every known scientific thought regarding origins. If by your own admission, these very scientific thoughts are making no difference whatsoever on how you believe, why make any effort at all?

The futile YEC attempts of disproving scientific theories are starting to humor me....

(maybe I don't want you to stop. LOL)

(hopefully you understand sarcasm)

 

[YahwehLove]

This has got me extremely curious now...........

It has been said by many YECs, that whether a scientific theory be true or false, they will still not change their position on believing the literal truths of the bible. If the bible is all you need for the truth, why read creationist material, why visit creationist websites, and why consistently try to disprove every known scientific thought regarding origins. If by your own admission, these very scientific thoughts are making no difference whatsoever on how you believe, why make any effort at all?

The futile YEC attempts of disproving scientific theories are starting to humor me....

(maybe I don't want you to stop. LOL)

we dont try to disprove as much as we try to make it fit within Gods word.

As much as you seem to hate (detest, loathe) the idea, there is not a THING wrong with trying to reconcile what Gods word clearly states with what science is seeing.

Evidence does NOT come with little tags saying ''interpret me this way'' btw.


And humoring you is in our job description.

 

[versastyle]

we dont try to disprove as much as we try to make it fit within Gods word.

Yeah. Thats what I used to do and guess what happened?

As much as you seem to hate (detest, loathe) the idea, there is not a THING wrong with trying to reconcile what Gods word clearly states with what science is seeing.

So I guess it is okay to "study the earth?"

 

[versastyle]

Evidence does NOT come with little tags saying ''interpret me this way'' btw.

Talk about ironic!!!

I guess we should conclude that Genesis is not evidence!

 

[California Tim]

This has got me extremely curious now...........

It has been said by many YECs, that whether a scientific theory be true or false, they will still not change their position on believing the literal truths of the bible. If the bible is all you need for the truth, why read creationist material, why visit creationist websites, and why consistently try to disprove every known scientific thought regarding origins. If by your own admission, these very scientific thoughts are making no difference whatsoever on how you believe, why make any effort at all?

The futile YEC attempts of disproving scientific theories are starting to humor me....

(maybe I don't want you to stop. LOL)

Unfortunately it seems you prefer to ridicule individuals rather than accept the arguments presented on their own merit. No longer for your benefit, but for those who might read this kind of back-handed slap of a thread, I will one last time clarify this issue: (But let it stand for the record, I am offended by this blatant attempt to ridicule rather than promote honest debate)

No YEC proponent believes in spite of available evidence, but because of the evidence. We do, however believe the accuracy of the Bible takes precedence over "secular scientific" or naturalistic explanations when those explanations appear to contradict what the Bible says about a supernatural event. In otherwords - in simple plain english: If the scientific community interprets some piece of evidence which suggests that the Bible needs to be reinterpeted in order to conform - then that conclusion is rejected. Instead, a YEC'ist suggests that the conclusions were based on faulty reasoning, erroneous time-tables or corrupted data (hypothesis).

In contrast, the average TE'ist (as vocally present here), appears willing to allow the ever-maleable scientific conclusions offered predominantly by secular humanists who oppose any notion of a creator to affect the interpretation or validity of otherwise plainly written Biblical accounts.

In a nutshell the difference between the two is this; A YEC'ist promotes Biblical standards as a basis to verify scientific conclusions as reliable and factual. A TE'ist promotes natural scientific standards to arrive at particular Biblical interpretation that must conform to the declarations of the science community. There is no dispute about the evidence, rather it is in the INTERPRETATION of that evidence.

This concludes my responses to the author of this thread henceforth.

 

[versastyle]

Thats not the question Tim. Why try to disprove something, knowing your position isn't based in the truth of scientific thought to begin with? Its based in written words, who cannot speak for themselves.

 

[versastyle]

This concludes my responses to the author of this thread henceforth.

Thats fine. Continuously reclarifying an unscientific and untestable position isn't exactly conversation anyways, IMO.

 

[YahwehLove]

Unfortunately it seems you prefer to ridicule individuals rather than accept the arguments presented on their own merit. No longer for your benefit, but for those who might read this kind of back-handed slap of a thread, I will one last time clarify this issue: (But let it stand for the record, I am offended by this blatant attempt to ridicule rather than promote honest debate)

No YEC proponent believes in spite of available evidence, but because of the evidence. We do, however believe the accuracy of the Bible takes precedence over "secular scientific" or naturalistic explanations when those explanations appear to contradict what the Bible says about a supernatural event. In otherwords - in simple plain english: If the scientific community interprets some piece of evidence which suggests that the Bible needs to be reinterpeted in order to conform - then that conclusion is rejected. Instead, a YEC'ist suggests that the conclusions were based on faulty reasoning, erroneous time-tables or corrupted data (hypothesis).

In contrast, the average TE'ist (as vocally present here), appears willing to allow the ever-maleable scientific conclusions offered predominantly by secular humanists who oppose any notion of a creator to affect the interpretation or validity of otherwise plainly written Biblical accounts.

In a nutshell the difference between the two is this; A YEC'ist promotes Biblical standards as a basis to verify scientific conclusions as reliable and factual. A TE'ist promotes natural scientific standards to arrive at particular Biblical interpretation that must conform to the declarations of the science community. There is no dispute about the evidence, rather it is in the INTERPRETATION of that evidence.

This concludes my responses to the author of this thread henceforth.

great post.
If I drank, Id buy you a beer

mind if I copy this post for my notes?

 

[Stinker]

This has got me extremely curious now...........

It has been said by many YECs, that whether a scientific theory be true or false, they will still not change their position on believing the literal truths of the bible. If the bible is all you need for the truth, why read creationist material, why visit creationist websites, and why consistently try to disprove every known scientific thought regarding origins. If by your own admission, these very scientific thoughts are making no difference whatsoever on how you believe, why make any effort at all?

The futile YEC attempts of disproving scientific theories are starting to humor me....

(maybe I don't want you to stop. LOL)

(hopefully you understand sarcasm)

Well, too many pro-evolutionists still pretend to not know the difference between what a general theory is and what a scientific theory is.

A general theory is one that is not verifiable.
A scientific theory is one that is verifiable.


So, like the theory of Intelligent Design, the theory of Evolution must join it in the rank of general theory since neither are verifiable.

The two theories are to be judged as to which is the most logical in the field of Philosophy.

 

[YahwehLove]

Thats fine. Continuously reclarifying an unscientific and untestable position isn't exactly conversation anyways, IMO.

but arent you doing the same thing?
I havent seen anything new presented.

and let me ask you something.
How do you test or repeat a miraculous event?

I cant figure you out.
You believe only in those things that science hasnt told you that you cant.
ARE you 100% sure they are right ?
Of course not.

Youre basing your faith on someone elses interpretatoin of the evidence.

Common decent isnt proven. But TE christians will cater and reinterpret Adams creation to the whims of men who dont know positively if CD is how it went down or not.
Thats just a bit scary for me as Ive grown older

 

[versastyle]

Youre basing your faith on someone elses interpretatoin of the evidence.

What are you talking about? No I don't. I look at a star, calculate the distance, then see it is too far away for us to see it if the Earth was created less then 10,000 years ago. No one is telling me anything.

I see a moon, with literally thousands of meteor craters, none which have happened recently, and highly doubt that all those craters were formed within 10,000 years, considering no one has even seen ONE occur. (i think)

Common decent isnt proven. But TE christians will cater and reinterpret Adams creation to the whims of men who dont know positively if CD is how it went down or not.
Thats just a bit scary for me as Ive grown older

Why do you keep mentioning common descent? I've already told you many times I don't see it to be a credible belief.

 

[versastyle]

but arent you doing the same thing?
I havent seen anything new presented.

I don't think I've conveyed any clear position to anyone. I'm just pointing different things out.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

In a nutshell the difference between the two is this; A YEC'ist promotes Biblical standards as a basis to verify scientific conclusions as reliable and factual. A TE'ist promotes natural scientific standards to arrive at particular Biblical interpretation that must conform to the declarations of the science community. There is no dispute about the evidence, rather it is in the INTERPRETATION of that evidence.

this is in fact, not true.
1. YEC do not accept even the data regarding a young earth or evolution. but that is not the big issue here.

2. the big issue is that YECist mistake their Biblical interpretation for the only possible authentic interpretation. We all must incorporate outside data and theories into our hermeneutics and into our exegesis. It is impossible to do otherwise. The Bible itself does not contain a table of contents-the canon, this is EXTERNAL from the Scriptures. You can not justify even the canon without bringing in history and theology that is NOT contained in the Bible itself. Then the Bible is not a dictionary, to even translate or to read the original languages requires an immense amount of extra-biblical information. and these are just the start.

The YECist claim to be the only real-true-literal etc etc interpretation is just a smoke screen to cover the fact that most of them are simply unaware of the antecedents of their theology. In Scottish common sense realism of the 1800's for one particular instance.

And there is another major issue.
Why should i voluntarily attempt to understand the Scriptures without bringing everything i can possible know to the table? this is in fact the fundamental argument made for theist science, that we ought to understand the universe, to do science with everything we know. Why should i try to understand the OT without bringing language studies, history, archeology to the table?

no, this statement is just---my theology is better than yours because i am more faithful to the Scriptures argument--- without any particulars or details about why your hermeneutic is better. Assertation without substance. Nice convincing words but without justification.

the argument must revolve around the details of the hermeneutic, not blind generalizations like this. and it boils down to --- the preference for the historical, literal, man in the pew interpretation. The problem is that this is extraordinarily contaminated with the modern bias towards logos and against mythos.
Which makes it a modern interpretation which denies the assumption that we must first read Scripture in the cultural/historical/social context of it's first readers.
the gramatico-historical hermeneutic.
and not ours.
....

 

[California Tim]

Why should i voluntarily attempt to understand the Scriptures without bringing everything i can possible know to the table?

Seems I read something along these lines before:

Therefore they said to Him, "What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? (John 6:30)​

 

[versastyle]

Seems I read something along these lines before:Therefore they said to Him, "What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? (John 6:30)

I personally have no idea why this verse was posted. Explain?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Simple enough, Versastyle. It's spiritual blackmail - trying to find someone bad in the Scriptures to compare the TE to. Been there, bought the T-shirt.

Evolutionary theory is verified. It is verified by:

Molecular genetics
Molecular physiology
Twin-nested hierarchy
Shared retro-viral insertions
Fossil record

On the other hand, there is not one line of evidence that is contrary to it. Not one single piece. Creationists come up with their PRATT lists, but that's just what they are - Points Refusted A Thousand Times, although it's more like PRAMT by now.

The creationist machine obfuscates. It raises facile points that anyone with a Bachelors' degree in the appropriate science can see straight through - this is OK, because the target audience doesn't generally even have High School science really mastered. It presents a series of ad-hoc explanations, point by point, thereby preventing the target audience from stepping back and seeing the converging lines of evidence from multiple fields and sources, all pointing exactly the same way.

 

[herev]

Evidence does NOT come with little tags saying ''interpret me this way'' btw.

lol, lol, lol,
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
somewhere along the way the tag seems to fallen off the Genesis scroll, too

 

[Gold Dragon]

In a nutshell the difference between the two is this; A YEC'ist promotes Biblical standards as a basis to verify scientific conclusions as reliable and factual.

It is fine to make theories on that basis. As long as you understand that this is a completely unscientific approach to making theories. (unscientific does not mean wrong)

A TE'ist promotes natural scientific standards to arrive at particular Biblical interpretation that must conform to the declarations of the science community.

TEs actually arrive at their particular biblical interpretation of Genesis in ways similar to many of the early church leaders and Christians who existed before the scientific method became popular. Figurative/non-historical interpretations of Genesis have existed for thousands of years in Christian/Jewish circles. (some also interpreted it literal/historically).

 

[YahwehLove]

lol, lol, lol,
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
lol, lol, lol
somewhere along the way the tag seems to fallen off the Genesis scroll, too

evidnce is entirely neutral.
The bible on the other hand was written to relay information to the reader.
It has purpose and method.
Posts like this one here is exactly what makes me make comments that you will later accuse me of calling you less christian even though I havent.

 

[YahwehLove]

Why do you keep mentioning common descent? I've already told you many times I don't see it to be a credible belief.

So you accept old ages because of starlight but reject common decent?
I can deal with that.
Im sorry, I just assume OE = TE with common decent.