Why does YEC try to disprove scientific theory?

[YahwehLove]

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

The verse is saying they required ''evidence'' before they would believe.

 

[YahwehLove]

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.
....

You know what I find odd?
You say we must do this and that and yet we have.
And through and through the bible TEACHES a 6 day creation.
At no point have I ever seen one single passage to imply long ages. Never.
It seems to me that you just dont like our POV as it defies common decent and long ages, going against our present understanding of starlight.
Ill give you this much, the only thing they old earthers have that I feel is an issue for YEC is starlight.
And since God created time, I fully expect that He can explain how He did it in 6 literal days later on.
We were never meant to completely understand everything.

Even David knew there were some things beyond his comprehension.

Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot go up to it.
(Psa 139:6)

I believe in 6 day creation be ''God said so"
Its not for me to toy with things like common decent to appease my intellect.

 

[herev]

evidnce is entirely neutral.

Yes it is

The bible on the other hand was written to relay information to the reader.
It has purpose and method.

Yes, it was, but like all written communication, especially those that are thousands of years old, having been passed on orally, written down, many generations later, copied over and over again, translated and copied some more. Thus the comment about a tag saying translate me this way is quite appropriate.

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.

hmmm, well, ok?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

And through and through the bible TEACHES a 6 day creation.
At no point have I ever seen one single passage to imply long ages. Never.

it teaches Creation Week as a dominant motif.
what day of creation week are we in now? did the 7 day motif flip over and repeat itself at 7 day intervals? or are we in the 7th day?

look at the framework interpretation of Gen 1. it is fully orthodox, even a conservative church like the PCA(to which i belong) allow teaching elders to adhere to FI as an alternative to YEC or OEC ages.

The problem is that YEC is a result of the total victory of scientific and historical thinking in western culture. Simply put, unless something is historical and scientific to us--it can not be true. This argument is one of the common threads here, why YECist will not allow an allegorical interpretation of Gen 1. FI is not allegorical even, it is as literal as YECism but looks at the literary and not historical POV as of primary importance.

YECism is a modern fundamentalist phenomena that has important sociological and historical roots, to understand the interpretation you must look at how it developed etc. ...

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

The problem is that YEC is a result of the total victory of scientific and historical thinking in western culture. Simply put, unless something is historical and scientific to us--it can not be true. This argument is one of the common threads here, why YECist will not allow an allegorical interpretation of Gen 1. FI is not allegorical even, it is as literal as YECism but looks at the literary and not historical POV as of primary importance.

YECism is a modern fundamentalist phenomena that has important sociological and historical roots, to understand the interpretation you must look at how it developed etc. ...

 

[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)

(hopefully you understand sarcasm)

it doesnt work that way for me.

Take the idea that many YECs have and I have had since 99 when i became YEC that Adam was created eternal as were animals.
Then at the fall some magical transformation had to take place in the animal kingdom.

I bought it as I didnt quiestoin it.
I couldnt argue any points on it as I didnt know what the Bible did and did not say on the matter.
At this point my views are changing.
I am begining to think that animals were never intended to live forever as YEC seems to generally teach.
And Im beginning to think, based on Genesis 3, that neither was Adams body eternal but that he would have been perpetuated only by the Tree of Life. The Tree being a foreshadow of Christ, in my opinion, this would make perfect sense, again, in my opinion.

So I make effort NOT to see what the world tries to tell me, but to see how it can fit into a bible that is literal in all the places that *I* understand it to be literal in, including Genesis one.

There are a lot of very intelligent people here and abroad and when one of them tosses something my way that makes a literal Genesis even more possible and acceptable, why on earth would I reject that?

 

[YahwehLove]

YECism is a modern fundamentalist phenomena that has important sociological and historical roots, to understand the interpretation you must look at how it developed etc. ...

and I guess theres NO possiblity that it developed just because the bible SAYS 6 days, correct

 

[Gold Dragon]

There are a lot of very intelligent people here and abroad and when one of them tosses something my way that makes a literal Genesis even more possible and acceptable, why on earth would I reject that?

Of course. We always like it when intelligent people agree with us and tell us we are right. And we don't like it when people disagree with us and tell us we could be wrong.

 

[versastyle]

and I guess theres NO possiblity that it developed just because the bible SAYS 6 days, correct

Oh thats definitely why. God had to make it simple for some people. I don't even have a problem with the position of YEC. However, I do have a problem with the dogmatic approach that just because it says 6 days, that everyone else on the planet is naive or otherwise ignorant to not historically understand it that way. I find that type of assumption repulsive to the nth degree.

 

[YahwehLove]

Of course. We always like it when intelligent people agree with us and tell us we are right. And we don't like it when people disagree with us and tell us we could be wrong.

People can tell me Im wrong all they want.
Im open to new information and ready to admit when Im wrong.
The bible teaches 6 literal days of creation, however, and Im sorry, but that is my final answer

Now its just a matter of doing EXACTLY what science does with evidence and trying to see how it all fits into a 6 day creation.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

So I make effort NOT to see what the world tries to tell me, but to see how it can fit into a bible that is literal in all the places that *I* understand it to be literal in, including Genesis one.

There are a lot of very intelligent people here and abroad and when one of them tosses something my way that makes a literal Genesis even more possible and acceptable, why on earth would I reject that?

Morton's Demon

 

[YahwehLove]

Morton's Demon

So you do as I do and assume YOURS is the correct pov, I assume.

 

[Gold Dragon]

People can tell me Im wrong all they want.
Im open to new information and ready to admit when Im wrong.
The bible teaches 6 literal days of creation, however, and Im sorry, but that is my final answer

But you could be wrong about that being what the bible teaches, right?

What is your response to this hypothetical scenario posted in this thread?

Suppose a Time Machine...


Hypothetically and ridiculously speaking... suppose one day we created a one use time machine. And since we all know all atheistic scientists are in cahoots (sp?) w/ each other , they immediately decide they're gonna use the machine's one use policy to determine whether the theory of common descent is really true or not. Whammo bammo, they travel through time a while and find out that it was.

Now knowing, beyond a doubt, that evolution and the theory of common descent are true, would you guys alter your all's interpretations of Christianity and the Bible or abandon it all together?

This is a question for creationists by the way.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

So you do as I do and assume YOURS is the correct pov, I assume.

Nope.

Give me a piece of information you believe supports creationism and I will let it in.

It will be examined and tested.

Morton's Demon prevents creationists from doing that with information that goes against their theory, exactly as you describe in your post.

 

[YahwehLove]

But you could be wrong about that being what the bible teaches, right?

not about it teaching 6 day creation.
Not a chance.

What is your response to this hypothetical scenario posted in this thread?

You sure you want an answer?

I see someone using the ''can God make a rock so big He cant lift it'' type of arguement that it the end is nothing but wasted time and effort to prove a point that has none.
It is fruitless entirely.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Im open to new information and ready to admit when Im wrong.

The time machine hypothetical would be a perfect example of new information that would allow you to admit when you are wrong. Your response to it would show how serious you are about the above quote.

 

[YahwehLove]

Nope.

Give me a piece of information you believe supports creationism and I will let it in.

It will be examined and tested.

Morton's Demon prevents creationists from doing that with information that goes against their theory, exactly as you describe in your post.

First off God said it and since you cant PROVE that He did not use supernatural events to bring it about, thereby allowing some confusion in our understanding of the evidence, then I will stand by His precise words on this particular issue.

Adam was created on the 6th day.
There would have been a 7th.
If the days are long ages, then Adam would have been well over 930 years old.
There is plenty enough evidence that ''man'' and ''adam'' are one and the same in Genesis one and two.
That is, of course, unless one tries to assert that man was here for eons without a female counterpart.
It seems they BOTH, Adam AND Eve were created on the 6th day. Leaving little reason to believe that the days were anything more the single days.

And we cannot say one day is longer than any other day without tossing proper bible study method right out the window.

Id toss in Polystrate trees, but if youre like some others Ive crossed then Im sure the excuses will start flying.

The fact is I dont beleive the evidence ''supports'' either side.
It is entirely neutral and just needs to see if it will ''fit'' into the framework of a 6 day creation.
In my opinion, it does, barring only the starlight issue.
And I can live with that one until God shows me how He did it.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Now its just a matter of doing EXACTLY what science does with evidence and trying to see how it all fits into a 6 day creation.

Fortunately science does not do this since most significant scientific advances suggested ideas that completely didn't fit with how the scientific community of that time viewed things. Many scientists risked ridicule and losing their reputation for presenting evidence that was contrary to popular scientific belief. But their perseverance paid off as continued investigation into the evidence justified them. The same was true of Darwin.

Other examples include ...

Pasteur and the Germ Theory of Disease
Copernicus and Heliocentricity
Einstein and the Theory of Relativity

 

[YahwehLove]

The time machine hypothetical would be a perfect example of new information that would allow you to admit when you are wrong. Your response to it would show how serious you are about the above quote.

Nice try.
But as I said this is nothing more that a God/rock scenario that has no purpose but to defeat ones faith in what God said.

Im not buying it.
If yoiu want my attention with this type of sillyness, then by all means make a time machine, go back and bring me some proof.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Polystrate trees are what one expects when trees are engulfed in mud during local flood events, or where petrified forests are exposed and then silt layers build up around them.

Now, if you can show me a polystrate tree where the strata through which it cuts are actually many millions of years different in age, perhaps you have an argument.

Now. Let's see if retro-viral insertions can get past your Morton's Demon.