Why YEC leaders should not be believed without checking sources

[Calminian]

No, but at heart, science is observation. If the disciples couldn't OBSERVE that the body was gone and then DRAW THE LOGICAL conclusion that either the body was stolen or it resurrected, then Christianity isn't real. Remember, at the heart of Christianity is observation--the same thing we use in science.

This is a confusion of terms. You say the heart of science is observation and then talk about an event in history neither you nor any other scientist has observed. Arguments for the Resurrection are all based on historical testimonial evidence. You’re equating observation with testimonies of observation. You’re confusing the argument by confusing terms.

Then in that case, you should have no problem in wondering why God made it appear as if naturalistic assumptions work when we observe the natural world.

Naturalistic assumptions do work well. Miracles are rare events. Naturalism is the norm.

But we also have testimonial evidence from what God created. Why isn't that a source we can trust as well?

Confusion of terms. Testimonial evidence has to do with spoken or written human testimony.

You are a naturalist. You believe the snake would kill you. So do I. And we both agree that miracles occur, but that miracle didn't occur by God merely making bite marks magically appear on Pauls hand, while the snake really didn't bite it.

Creationists don’t believe God creates false bite marks, nor scars, etc. Strawman. I don’t even believe Adam had a navel. (Eve may have though as she was probably very attractive and I can’t imagine an attractive naveless woman. If she did have one it was definitely an innie. This is tongue and cheek for the humor impaired.)

One could look at Pauls hand and determine past events--the snake bit Paul. THere was evidence on his hand of past events---naturalistically interpreted, as fang marks.

Ah but one could not merely observe Paul after the fact and determine he was bitten by a deadly poisonous viper. Where was the effect of the poison? Where was the swelling? Read the passage.

Acts 28:3 But when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and laid them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat, and fastened on his hand. 4 So when the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said to one another, “No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he has escaped the sea, yet justice does not allow to live.” 5 But he shook off the creature into the fire and suffered no harm. 6 However, they were expecting that he would swell up or suddenly fall down dead. But after they had looked for a long time and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god.

The natives knew the natural effects of this snake bite. None occurred in this case.

And we don’t know the details of this miracle, we just know Paul wasn’t affected in the slightest. Did God simply remove the poison from his bloodstream? God may have even healed up the puncture marks or perhaps He didn’t even allow the fangs to puncture Paul’s arm. Mere observation of Paul after the fact without testimony would be very confusing for those refusing to believe in miracles. Is this deception on God’s part?

The problem with the YEC approach is that you all want all fang marks to be miraculously placed rather than as evidence of a real historical event.

More strawmen.

But, the bible doesn't say that Paul didn't have bruises, ....

No it doesn’t say. But we know the effects of stoning go way beyond bruises. It involves the crushing of one’s skull usually by a large stone being dropped directly on the injured victim’s head. Yet scripture says Paul, after they left, immediately got up brushed himself off and reentered the city. Do you really believe Paul entered the city with a deformed crushed head? Do you really think he entered the city bloody and mangled with broken bones and internally bleeding organs? Or did God miraculously protect Paul’s body giving him the appearance he didn’t really suffering a stoning? If so, then those observing him after the fact would not have known what happened (apart from testimonies). Even if they observed bruises, that would not lead one to believe he underwent an actual stoning.

No, I don't reject the miracles of Genesis. I beleive it is a huge miracle that the universe was created. I believe that it took a huge intelligence to plan a world which would be capable of giving rise to man. But you reject what the Bible clearly says.

"And God said, Earth, bring forth vegetation..."

"And God said, Water bring forth swarms of living creatures"

"And God said, Earth bring forth living creatures."

Neither I nor any YEC I know rejects this. Of course the earth obeyed God and assembled the plants and living creatures. It’s right there in scripture.

The 'Let" is really not there in the Hebrew. The tense of the verb is a command, a command for the earth and water to do something. You don't beleive that God commanded the earth to do something which the Bible clearly says He did.

We are in agreement again. God commanded the elements to do something and they obeyed. What gave you the impression I would disagree?

I had writte: "No, the debate is about truth, and truth involves both what the Bible says and what nature says."

You replied:

Obviously this is not the case for you. In the case of origins, natural theories override the text. And obviously in the case of the Resurrection, the text overrides what we observe today in medical science. You compromise the text in the former, and compromise naturalism in the latter.

How on earth do you get from what I say to what you said I said?????

I said, BOTH what the Bible says and what Nature says. You then interpret that as me saying "Nature over the Bible." Please tell me, is English your second language? What part of 'BOTH' Do you not understand?????

Well let me explain that to you. First I was not interpreting something you said, I was explaining the logical conclusion of your beliefs. You believe miracles like the resurrection that you did not observe, yet you reject (or reinterpret) the miracles in Genesis (particularly the six day creation) which you did not observe. Inconsistent.

As I’ve explained above, all miracles will confuse those with naturalistic assumptions. The risen Christ did not walk around bloodied and mangled. One observing Him, not knowing the story, would not have concluded he was just crucified 3 days earlier. Only human testimony could have revealed this.

I don't compromise the text, I believe the text. YOu don't believe what the text says. God said, "Earth bring forth living creatures". It is a COMMAND for the EARTH to do something.

There you go again. Who told you I didn’t believe this? Sounds like you got some disinformation. And seriously I don’t know any YEC that would reject this. The only thing I can think of is you’re trying to somehow make those verses into an evolution proof text. I hope not.

Also, you read into the Bible something that isn't there in the text. No where can you find a verse which says:

ANIMALS give rise to ANIMALS according to their kind.

By this I mean a sentence where ANIMALS is both subject and object of the sentence. If the Bible said that sentence, then it would rule out change and speciation in animals and thus rule out evolution.

Actually (and very interestingly) that statement would probably help your case of common descent more than hurt it. Is it not evolution that teaches that animals evolved from other animals? Don’t you believe that some animal kinds gave rise to other kinds who gave rise to other kinds who gave rise to other kinds? Yet the bible teaches that all of the various kinds were assembled by the earth (the land) at the Lord’s command. This passage explicitly teaches special creation.

But you can't find that statement anywhere in Scripture.

Thank goodness!

What the scripture says is that the EARTH (subject--active party) is to bring forth living animals (object--thing acted upon) according to their kind (of various types). That is what Scripture says.

Yes it is.

When you YECs actually believe Scripture you will come to your senses.

You mean passages like Ex. 20:11?

By the way, do you like cheeseburgers?

I’ve been known to put away a few in my day. Are you offering to buy lunch?

 

[Calminian]

BTW, let me know if you want to start a new thread. This stuff has nothing to do with varves. But I would love to get into the text with you, especially since you say it is equally as important as science.

 

[Jet Black]

And we don’t know the details of this miracle, we just know Paul wasn’t affected in the slightest. Did God simply remove the poison from his bloodstream? God may have even healed up the puncture marks or perhaps He didn’t even allow the fangs to puncture Paul’s arm. Mere observation of Paul after the fact without testimony would be very confusing for those refusing to believe in miracles. Is this deception on God’s part?

natives see him get bitten, natives see him not die. whether you trust the testimony is up to you, but the issue at hand here is that something was observed, and the normal after effects weren't.

No it doesn’t say. But we know the effects of stoning go way beyond bruises. It involves the crushing of one’s skull usually by a large stone being dropped directly on the injured victim’s head. Yet scripture says Paul, after they left, immediately got up brushed himself off and reentered the city. Do you really believe Paul entered the city with a deformed crushed head? Do you really think he entered the city bloody and mangled with broken bones and internally bleeding organs? Or did God miraculously protect Paul’s body giving him the appearance he didn’t really suffering a stoning? If so, then those observing him after the fact would not have known what happened (apart from testimonies). Even if they observed bruises, that would not lead one to believe he underwent an actual stoning.

In Monty Python and the Holy grail, a man claims that he was turned into a newt by a woman whom they are trying as a witch. He then claims that he got better. now the crowd around him seems somewhat cynical of this, probably because none of them saw him get turned into a newt. Are you suggesting that Paul ambled into a city and told everyone "hey all, I was just stoned to death outside the city, but I got better, here I am" and everybody believed him, or do you think that some people actually saw him getting stoned and then saw him afterwards? The same for the Crucifiction.

In all three cases here we have a before and after testimony. If these stories are real and God did intervene, the intervention was observed. your analogies here are miles away from analysis of geology, in which features are in place, which make something look like something it is not. In all three cases there is a practical application to (1) not being poisoned (2) not having your skull caved in (3) not being a corpse in a tomb. Purposes which God could not accomplish were any of these ordinary scenarios to have occured.

 

[grmorton]

This is a confusion of terms. You say the heart of science is observation and then talk about an event in history neither you nor any other scientist has observed. Arguments for the Resurrection are all based on historical testimonial evidence. You’re equating observation with testimonies of observation. You’re confusing the argument by confusing terms.

So, are you saying that the Disciples didn't observe an empty tomb? That, my friend, is observation--that my friend is at heart science.

Naturalistic assumptions do work well. Miracles are rare events. Naturalism is the norm.

So, do you believe in naturalism except when beleiving in naturalism would contradict your interpretation of the Bible?

Confusion of terms. Testimonial evidence has to do with spoken or written human testimony.

WRONG! testimonial evidence is the guy telling what he has OBSERVED! If he didn't OBSERVE it, then he can't give testimony about it. IN a court of law, testimony about things you didn't personally observe is called hear-say.

Creationists don’t believe God creates false bite marks, nor scars, etc. Strawman. I don’t even believe Adam had a navel. (Eve may have though as she was probably very attractive and I can’t imagine an attractive naveless woman. If she did have one it was definitely an innie. This is tongue and cheek for the humor impaired.)

Yes, creationists do beleive in the equivalent of false bite marks. The numerous evidences for an old earth must be false. That means that God created the light in between the stars which are several thousand light-years away from us, showing collisions and explosions which never actually happened. (false bite mark). God also created the light between us and the galaxies, showing us galaxies colliding which never were there to collide (another false bite mark).

See the picture below. This is a fossil termite nest (T) into which an aardvark dug (A). The sequence of events was 1. sediment laid down, 2. Termites dug nest (takes some time) , 3. aardvark came along and heard termites (they have good ears for this sort of thing), 4. Aardvark dug into nest for a tasty meal

This is something which could not have taken place in the global flood and there are thousands of such events throughout the entire geologic column meaning the geologic column could not be due to a global flood. But, since the YECs know that there was a global flood (rather than a local one), all of this evidence is merely a false bite mark.

Thus, I conclude with this: Don't give me that milarky about you not believing in false bite marks. You do. You just don't call them false bite marks.

The natives knew the natural effects of this snake bite. None occurred in this case.

And we don’t know the details of this miracle, we just know Paul wasn’t affected in the slightest. Did God simply remove the poison from his bloodstream? God may have even healed up the puncture marks or perhaps He didn’t even allow the fangs to puncture Paul’s arm. Mere observation of Paul after the fact without testimony would be very confusing for those refusing to believe in miracles. Is this deception on God’s part?

Could be deception. Maybe the real miracle was that the snake didn't exist at all but only appeared to a bunch of drunken sailors, who THOUGHT that Paul was bitten? Miracles work in all directions, you know. How do we tell if my possibility for a miracle or your possibility is the correct one? The bible doesn't clear this up for us. So, the problem with your approach is that one can play the game so many ways that one is left wondering what truth is. So, without physical evidence you can't be sure that the whole thing wasn't an illusion brought about by some really bad wine--like the Bai Jiu they have here in China.

More strawmen.

Not a strawman. Tell me you believe that the evidence for galactic collisions is real and that they happened several hundreds of millions of years ago, consistent with the travel velocity of light? If you tell me that the light has been traveling for several million years, you are not a YEC, if you tell me that the galaxies really didn't collide, then you believe in false bite marks and it isn't strawmen.

No it doesn’t say. But we know the effects of stoning go way beyond bruises. It involves the crushing of one’s skull usually by a large stone being dropped directly on the injured victim’s head. Yet scripture says Paul, after they left, immediately got up brushed himself off and reentered the city. Do you really believe Paul entered the city with a deformed crushed head?

Can you point me to a verse that says that stoning ALWAYS consisted of dropping a big stone on the guy's head? I don't recall that. I think you are adding to the Bible. Remember Gal. 1:8,9

Do you really think he entered the city bloody and mangled with broken bones and internally bleeding organs? Or did God miraculously protect Paul’s body giving him the appearance he didn’t really suffering a stoning? If so, then those observing him after the fact would not have known what happened (apart from testimonies). Even if they observed bruises, that would not lead one to believe he underwent an actual stoning.

Why would you think Paul is better than Jesus. Maybe Jesus really didn't get killed by the Romans. Maybe God protected his body and he didn't die? See how silly such a game is? If you play this game with Paul, why can't one play it with Jesus?

Neither I nor any YEC I know rejects this. Of course the earth obeyed God and assembled the plants and living creatures. It’s right there in scripture.

Then why on earth are you against evolution, which basicaly teaches EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID: "the earth obeyed God and assembled the plants and living creatures." THE EARTH assembled the creatures. The EARTH is the subject, not God! Take note of who is the active participant in the sentence.

We are in agreement again. God commanded the elements to do something and they obeyed. What gave you the impression I would disagree?

So I presume you believe in evolution???? Somehow I don't think so.

There you go again. Who told you I didn’t believe this? Sounds like you got some disinformation. And seriously I don’t know any YEC that would reject this. The only thing I can think of is you’re trying to somehow make those verses into an evolution proof text. I hope not.

They ARE a prooftext of evolution. See, you didn't tell me the truth in what you wrote above. You really don't believe that the earth assembled the plants and animals. If you did you would beleive in evolution. Since you don't, you don't really believe what the Bible says. You prefer your manmade theory rather than the plain reading of the text.

Actually (and very interestingly) that statement would probably help your case of common descent more than hurt it. Is it not evolution that teaches that animals evolved from other animals? Don’t you believe that some animal kinds gave rise to other kinds who gave rise to other kinds who gave rise to other kinds? Yet the bible teaches that all of the various kinds were assembled by the earth (the land) at the Lord’s command. This passage explicitly teaches special creation.

No where does the Bible say "Animals give rise to animals according to their kind. So, the Bible does NOT rule out speciation and one animal group giving rise to another. I know you have been told this from your mother's knee up, but it is simply wrong. The Bible teaches evolution and you YECs prefer a more convoluted reading of the text to the plain reading that the EARTH brings forth living creatures. Why don't you believe what the Bible says?

You mean passages like Ex. 20:11?

I believe that as well, they are days of proclamation. see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/daysofproclamation.htm


I had asked if he likes cheeseburgers. He replied:

I’ve been known to put away a few in my day. Are you offering to buy lunch?

Sure, if we ever meet I will buy you a cheeseburger, we will celebrate you not taking the Bible literally. But I am curious why you want to take Genesis 1 literally (in you opinion of literally) when you don't seem to take Deut. 14:21 literally? Or Ex. 23:19

"You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk."

Do you pick and chose what parts to take literally and which parts not to?

 

[Jet Black]

I think the principal difference between glenn and I is that glenn believes the testimony that they observed an empty tomb, and I don't. Because he believes that is what they saw, and he believes the testimony that they saw it, then he follows this to the conclusion that Christ rose from the Dead. The thing with this though, is that there is no evidence other than that testimony (and peoples' experiences and so on) but then at the same time, while I do not believe the testimony, I cannot honestly say that it never happened, because I do not have evidence to the contrary.

an interesting question for you Glenn, if someone found the Body of Christ, and somehow demonstrated that it really was him, what would you do? I have no idea how they would demonstrate it, so I suppose you would always be open to saying there was something wrong with the evidence, or perhaps it was someone else....

(this is I suppose an analogue of finding that geology contradicts YECism but not quite as good)

 

[Calminian]

Way too many subjects going on. I'm going to start three new threads. I'd like to keep the discussion going. I'll post the new threads shortly.

 

[grmorton]

I think the principal difference between glenn and I is that glenn believes the testimony that they observed an empty tomb, and I don't. Because he believes that is what they saw, and he believes the testimony that they saw it, then he follows this to the conclusion that Christ rose from the Dead. The thing with this though, is that there is no evidence other than that testimony (and peoples' experiences and so on) but then at the same time, while I do not believe the testimony, I cannot honestly say that it never happened, because I do not have evidence to the contrary.

an interesting question for you Glenn, if someone found the Body of Christ, and somehow demonstrated that it really was him, what would you do? I have no idea how they would demonstrate it, so I suppose you would always be open to saying there was something wrong with the evidence, or perhaps it was someone else....

IF someone actually could demonstrate with a high degree of probability that the body was that of Jesus, then I would leave Christianity. Of course we can't prove things, but that is why I used the term, high probability.

(this is I suppose an analogue of finding that geology contradicts YECism but not quite as good)

Clearly it would be difficult at this time to prove it was really THE Jesus. Jesus is not an uncommon name, even today.