YEC is physically impossible

[AV1611VET]

So now you're saying that the bible isn't literal?

Is this literal?

 

[Astrid]

When people claim that a global flood was impossible, they also claim that it can't ever happen. If anything, that actually supports the global flood narrative in Genesis. The problem is that, for instance, if there was enough water on the planet to create a worldwide flood, and it happened, that would contradict God's promise of never using a flood to wipe out life on Earth again.

Genesis 8:21

21 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though[a] every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

This may imply a condition of the ground that contributed to a global flood that God removed.

22 “As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease.”

This may imply adverse weather that contributed to a global flood that had been removed.

So when scientists say there's no evidence of a global flood, or could never be one (not enough water, etc.), it actually, if anything, supports scripture.

Science doesn't eliminate the supernatural. The flood was created by God for a specific purpose. It was not some random event. And it's been stated here in this thread before (can't remember the specific references), scientists are not going to try and disprove the miracle of the loaves and bread. There's no scientific evidence of bread and fish being able to multiply. It would have to have been the supernatural. So God removing any danger of another worldwide flood supernaturally is perfectly plausible via scripture. No contradiction.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Why yes, as you say, science dors not deal with the
supernatural. So it cannot ( as you claim) say the
flood is / was imposdible.

Just that it did not hapoen.

All (100%) of relevant evidence is contrary to
the flood story.
None that supports it.

If there had been a flood, all the evidence would
show it did happen. Not that it didnt.

Do you have a plausible explanation for this?
I do.

Theres a super easy explabation for the
contradiction between your literal flood- belief
and the reality that study of the earth reveals:

You are not infallible.

 

[Hans Blaster]

They base this idea on

1. Most of the members of the DI are Christian. Even though the religious beliefs of any scientist are never a disqualification in principle, it's assumed they have an agenda to push/force Christianity in the classroom.

DI doesn't do science, so the indifference of scientific results to the religion of the scientists is irrelevant. The DI is a lying organization that *pretends* it is motivated by scientific truths when their own actions and history prove otherwise. It *is* an attempt to wrap a religious position in scientific clothing and smuggle it into the classroom.

2. Some of the members have an interest in influencing society as a whole away from TOE's monopoly.

The theory of evolution is science, not an attempt to influence society. Countering it for social/political reasons is not scientific or appropriate.

3. A word they noticed that was changed in a publication to be used in a public classroom. The word creationism was changed to intelligent design. It was assumed that creationism meant biblical creationism.

It was different drafts of HS biology textbook and the DI was caught red-handed converting a "creation science" into the new camouflage of "ID". "Creation science" was a scientific veneer of "science" slathered on Genesis. That part was never in dispute.

So their assumptions overruled any explanation given by the DI as to their intent. And it became circular, or a Catch-22. When the judge of the trial said ID might be true, but not science; to counter the problem of possibly avoiding truth since that's what science is about, they referred to violation of religious freedom and the Constitution.

They are not circular. DI was never about "science" it is propaganda and religion. It is clearly illegal to allow them into public schools.

 

[partinobodycular]

Is this literal?

View attachment 343015

I'm sorry, but when you claim that the bible is both literal and inerrant, the example of PI proves that you're simply, and demonstrably wrong. But no harm done, I never believed you anyway. It's just curious, the lengths that people will go to, to maintain their delusions.

So, please continue to entertain me. I find it very enlightening. Sad... but enlightening none-the-less.

 

[Roderick Spode]

There are members of all religions and philosophical persuasions in education. Most of them know better than to try and indoctrinate school children with what even Christians can recognize as extreme religious views which border on sedition.

Have you ever heard of The MindUp program?

 

[Roderick Spode]

The problem with ID is that it is crypto-religious pseudoscience. It provides no explanatory power beyond what was assumed in the first place. It is not a viable alternative to biological evolution. Asserting claims of "designer did it" is no more useful scientifically than invoking the deity they pretend to omit as an explanation.

What do you mean by pretending to omit?

 

[Roderick Spode]

Yes, of course. Most Christians have no problem with it.

However many evolutionists do have a problem with it. You don't think a Darwinian evolutionist will believe evolution disproves Adam and Eve?

 

[Roderick Spode]

ID is not welcome because it is not science. That it is really nothing more than a clumsily constructed Trojan horse for right-wing religious extremism is really a separate issue which people who are are not necessarily scientists can also object to.

And if it was somehow considered science, it still couldn't be welcome because it's considered a violation of the Constitution. Do you see the Catch-22?

 

[Hans Blaster]

What do you mean by pretending to omit?

The unnamed "designer". It is a mere proxy for the god they think did the designing/creating but are prohibited from teaching as such. It's all deception. As you noted most are Christians, so the god they are pretending to omit from their "non-theistic" "science" of ID is the Christian god.

 

[Roderick Spode]

Nobody thinks Jesus is a sheep.

I would sure hope not.

 

[Roderick Spode]

Why defend pseudoscience?

The judge at the end of the Dover Trial stated that ID may be true, but not science. Isn't science about finding truth?

 

[Roderick Spode]

What exactly could an Intelligent
Designer be, besides a god ?

What would an intelligent designer be if scientists were able to one day create a universe with life in a lab?

 

[AV1611VET]

If there had been a flood, all the evidence would
show it did happen. Not that it didnt.

Do you have a plausible explanation for this?

Yes.

God cleaned up the mess for sanitary and safety reasons, so Noah could replenish the earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm sorry, but when you claim that the bible is both literal and inerrant, the example of PI proves that you're simply, and demonstrably wrong.

Which example? Estrid's or mine?

But no harm done, I never believed you anyway.

About NTS?

Don't then.

I have a feeling draftsmanship isn't one of your stronger points.

(But then, it's not mine, either.)

It's just curious, the lengths that people will go to, to maintain their delusions.

So, please continue to entertain me. I find it very enlightening. Sad... but enlightening none-the-less.

Will do.

 

[Roderick Spode]

No. But I think it is reprehensible to try to use pseudoscience as a cover for "influencing" schoolchildren towards Dominionism. It is reprehensible to try to introduce pseudoscience into the public schools for any reason.

Where do you get Dominionism?

The only document I know of to glean from would be the text book Pandas And People.

Is there something in that book that proves religious agenda, or are there other documents you can refer to?

The Wedge Document wasn't designed for the public classroom.

 

[Roderick Spode]

Why yes, as you say, science dors not deal with the
supernatural. So it cannot ( as you claim) say the
flood is / was imposdible.

Just that it did not hapoen.

All (100%) of relevant evidence is contrary to
the flood story.
None that supports it.

If there had been a flood, all the evidence would
show it did happen. Not that it didnt.

Do you have a plausible explanation for this?
I do.

Theres a super easy explabation for the
contradiction between your literal flood- belief
and the reality that study of the earth reveals:

You are not infallible.

The explanation is I'm not infallible?

 

[Roderick Spode]

DI doesn't do science, so the indifference of scientific results to the religion of the scientists is irrelevant. The DI is a lying organization that *pretends* it is motivated by scientific truths when their own actions and history prove otherwise. It *is* an attempt to wrap a religious position in scientific clothing and smuggle it into the classroom.

The smoking gun evidence is supposed to be the removal of the word creationism being replaced by the term intelligent design. If this is smoking gun evidence that's a big problem because the word creationism includes biblical creationism, but not it's sole definition. It's actually simply the original word for Intelligent Design. It's true that the word creationism is often used for biblical creationism. Probably for convenience. But other than that the accusers are merely attempting to dictate what the author meant when using the word creationism.

The theory of evolution is science, not an attempt to influence society. Countering it for social/political reasons is not scientific or appropriate.

Whether or not it's okay to try and influence society is another issue. Intelligent Design is not synonymous with Discovery Institute.

It was different drafts of HS biology textbook and the DI was caught red-handed converting a "creation science" into the new camouflage of "ID". "Creation science" was a scientific veneer of "science" slathered on Genesis. That part was never in dispute.

I assume you're talking about The Pandas And People book?

They are not circular. DI was never about "science" it is propaganda and religion. It is clearly illegal to allow them into public schools.

If it's illegal based on the Constitution, then whether or not it's science wouldn't matter at all. Right?

 

[Roderick Spode]

The unnamed "designer". It is a mere proxy for the god they think did the designing/creating but are prohibited from teaching as such. It's all deception. As you noted most are Christians, so the god they are pretending to omit from their "non-theistic" "science" of ID is the Christian god.

Would it make any difference if they weren't mostly Christians?

What if they were mostly deists? To my understanding they do have at least one deist on staff.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The smoking gun evidence is supposed to be the removal of the word creationism being replaced by the term intelligent design. If this is smoking gun evidence that's a big problem because the word creationism includes biblical creationism, but not it's sole definition. It's actually simply the original word for Intelligent Design. It's true that the word creationism is often used for biblical creationism. Probably for convenience. But other than that the accusers are merely attempting to dictate what the author meant when using the word creationism.

"Of people and pandas" started as a "creation science" textbook. CS was an earlier attempt to dust up Christian creation theology as science and everyone knew it. Pulling in a few creationists from other religions doesn't end the religious purpose.

Whether or not it's okay to try and influence society is another issue.

Then why did you bring it up?

Intelligent Design is not synonymous with Discovery Institute.

There are other ID hucksters out there, but the DI is known only for pushing the pseudoscience of ID.

I assume you're talking about The Pandas And People book?

Of course, you mentioned it.

If it's illegal based on the Constitution, then whether or not it's science wouldn't matter at all. Right?

Taking religion and trying to make it look like science doesn't make it science or make it not religion.
If you take a science (like quantum mechanics) and try to turn it into a religion or drape religious dress over it doesn't make the actual science part not science, but any religious thing you put on top is still just religion and not science.

ID was never not going to be religion since it was born with religious intent.

 

[BCP1928]

However many evolutionists do have a problem with it. You don't think a Darwinian evolutionist will believe evolution disproves Adam and Eve?

That at some point in history there lived what could be regarded as a first human man and woman? Of course not that is nothing but a commonplace. That the story in the Bible is a literally accurate account of their life and times? I don't think any evolutionary biologist, Christian or otherwise, cares whether it is disproved or not unless creationists harass them over it.