If we threw out the Darwinian model we would just reconstruct it from the evidence because that is where the evidence leads. Sorry, but honest scientists can’t just ignore the facts. You are telling people that they can’t make certain conclusions even if that is exactly what the evidence supports.
“By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.”–Galileo Galilei
“I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments, and demonstrations.”–Galileo Galilei
“It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment.”–Galileo Galilei
That is only true if you can “throw out the Darwinian model and take on the Biblical narrative” without fudging measurements, quote mining, misrepresenting or cherry-picking evidence, exaggerating or downplaying errors, subverting peer review, or cutting corners.
Remember, “taking on the Biblical narrative” means first and foremost obeying Deuteronomy 25:13-16 and the Ninth Commandment. Biblical interpretation must be honest and must get its facts straight.
Yep. Truth comes from reality, but I have difficulty getting that across to YECs. The classic example that I’ve mentioned before is when a YEC asked me for the chapter and verse where the Bible said that. XD
beaglelady, as long as you make comments like this, i will not respond to them. if you wish to exercise your talents in insulting ones intelligence, please go to your local pub during happy hour and talk with the drunks!
almost certainly that YEC must have been influenced adversely by Jehovahs Witnesses. That denomination is corrupting even sensible people here on these forums…help us!
Stop mentioning JWs in a derogatory way that is completely irrelevant to the conversation.
From our guidelines:
Be willing to learn from the perspectives and expertise of others and respect the diversity of your conversation partners. This includes being sensitive to differences in educational backgrounds, faith traditions, cultural contexts, and levels of English language fluency.
We don’t appreciate it when entire groups are used as an example of what is wrong with the world. That’s just prejudice.
Ironically, it is the young-earthers and ID advocates who are actually putting science ahead of the Bible. They accept the modernist claim that science is the ultimate authority and try to find science to support their theological claims, rather than rightly seeing science as merely the application of certain theological or philosophical principles to the physical world. Likewise, the valuing of “this supports my position” over “is it true?” puts their scientific claims over the plain ethical teaching of the Bible. Jesus did not approve of letting human traditions trump God’s commandments.
Note that there is a certain validity to Adam’s comment that some of the whale transitional forms suggest a crocodile, or other young-earth claims that they’re otters. The implied slander that paleontologists who are experts on whales are incompetent and dishonest enough to claim that a crocodile or otter is a whale is, of course, not true. I work on mollusks, not vertebrates, but I know enough about teeth and bones to easily see that there is only a rough general resemblance of shape between the whale ancestors and a crocodile or otter. But what is the life habit of crocodiles [ignoring all sorts of fossil types not found today] and otters? They are semiaquatic predators, living a life transitional between land-dwelling and fully aquatic. Both have more fully aquatic relatives. In other words, “it looks kind of like a crocodile or otter” is exactly what a transitional form on the way to being a whale should look like.
You hit the nail square on the head. To the YEC, ironically, everything outside the casual mundane experience is a farce. This is why evolution cannot be true because “After all the generations of dogs we’ve bred, we never got a cat”, where humans couldn’t have shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees because “We don’t see monkey people around today”, where solid rock can’t warp no matter the heat and pressure because “when I try to bend a rock it just breaks”, and where foxes are in the dog kind (whatever that means) because “Even a child could see how dog-like they are”.
The Earth is blue but there is no God, am I right folks?
It’s a bit like going to a classic muscle car show and telling the car show judges that a Chevy Camaro looks just like a Ford Mustang. Perhaps to the non-expert there are not a lot of differences between the two, but if you wade into the midst of experts you might want to be aware of the difference in experience and knowledge.
I really struggle to follow your thinking processes when statements like this get made…is that an understanding of SDA doctrine or are you just making a claim out of a vacume?
No that is complete nonsense…statements made based on the secular scientific model that disagree with bible theology are a farce! That is what YEC’s believe!
Look here is the bottom line…
One is a Christian yes?
if so,
IF one is a Christian than one must first follow the philosophy of Christianity…period. There is no allowance in the bible for deviation from the fact. Noah’s flood and indeed even the church of Laodicea in the book of Revelation is absolute proof of this doctrine…you cannot sit on the fence. So you either take God first, or you are on the devil’s side! That is it…there is nothing more to the Christian reality. Secular science that follows the Darwinian model does not include God. That is a construct that TE’s have attempted to add themselves without appreciating the simple fact that the bible simply does not support this model or vice versa. Consequently, both sides of the debate hammer TE’s who place themselves into an impossible fence-sitting position that is “Laodicean” (luke warm) to both camps!
If my understanding of the statements of the founder of this movement here are correct, then the reason for the existence of biologos was to find a compromise between the two so that people who were supposedly struggling with their theology and allowing secular science to overwhelm a poor philosophical position, could still remain Christian. That is exactly the place where this theology makes a grave mistake. Jesus said quite directly “it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to give up his wealth”…that statement applies to our spirituality directly. Earthly possessions, such as the concept of the inerrancy of science, cannot explain or replace God and they certainly are not first and foremost over and above God! To take this position is to take the identical position to those who laughed at Noah’s preaching for many many years prior to the flood. It is generally accepted that they simply discounted his warnings citing that no evidence existed concerning the idea of rain and flood prior to this time. That was proven a foolish position in the end, as the fossil record now shows quite clearly, and the same will happen again!
Here is a list of some the published scriptures that i use:
Vulgate (translated into English because i cannot read latin) Codex Sinaiticus (found here Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | Genesis |) King James New King James NIV ESV NASB NLT (although i dont see this as authoritative so where it disagrees with above texts i use them)
*Greek interlinear ( Nestle 1904〈NE **〉*Eberhard Nestle, Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ. Text with Critical Apparatus . (British and Foreign Bible Society, 1904)) Strongs concordance
I will even use NWT published by JW’s at times, although not authoritatively as this production has a lot of conflicts with practically every other translation that i regularly use…it is very clear that is writers have changed the original text to suit doctrines as it disagrees in many many places with their own published interlinear…and they just so happen to always be in the very places where there are very significant doctrinal issues.
So, let me get this straight, a person says to you, they read from a wide range of bibles, point out that even one that is grossly inadequate (ie NWT) is also used, you then take that it to mean that i read only the NWT?
I would have thought that my going to great lengths to add the following beside the NWT translation…
I will even use NWT published by JW’s at times, although not authoritatively as this production has a lot of conflicts with practically every other translation that i regularly use…it is very clear that is writers have changed the original text to suit doctrines as it disagrees in many many places with their own published interlinear…and they just so happen to always be in the very places where there are very significant doctrinal issues.
…should at least have you consider there may be a reason why i might read that translation?
You probably are not aware of JW theology, however, Watchtower do not tend to look favourably upon members who read other publications other than those produced by them…they will even run re-education sessions to members who are caught doing this who then go on to question JW fundamentals as a result!
Yes i do knock JW theology…it is truly a cult and the practices of that movement, such as the one outlined above, are extremely worrying. It gets far worse than that, however, as the Australian Government Royal Commission into the willful and intentional covering up of child sexual abuse by that church, exposed! It was the strict requirement for the adherence of leaders in that denomination to a ridiculous interpretation of scripture even though obviously contrary to criminal law and significant other bible passages proving the theological error, that lead to the covering up of as many as 1000 cases of sexual abuse and assault just within Australia alone and the destruction of court evidence in a further attempt to hide this evil practise from scrutiny. If it was found that my own denomination did this, i would leave, period!
Anyway, so the reason for also reading the NWT is so that one may converse with them in a manner that they are allowed to interact and see as authoritative when considering passages of scripture. (rant about JW’s over)
You’re gonna bring up The Nicene Creed and agree to disagree, right?
Nope, too good to be true.
Right. I am trying to live as Christus did. No disagreements there.
I know. He that does not believe God to be merciful and just and pays Him lip-service are people He does not know. I think we’re both off the fence.
The Bible doesn’t support any scientific theories because it is not a book of science. Though I am certainly not Calvinist, I think he said it best that God lisps in our language; after all, He did become a man of 1st century Palestine. And by “not including God”, remember that Christus Himself says that God clothes the lilies of the field and that He provides for the birds of the air, and yet they are still going about their business? And recall how, in contradiction of Sola Scriptura, God has spoken through The Prophets and The Church who made The Bible as it is now, human beings? And recall how a great wind had blown apart the Sea of Reeds in accordance with computer tests on now dried bodies of water in Egypt; it is true that The Lord works in mysterious ways, often with people where they were/are.
Perhaps they need to understand that an ancient collection of Holy Texts with an ancient context cannot simply be read at “face value”.
Supposedly? Mind-reading is an unfortunate hobby to take up. Well you’re right about one thing: science was overwhelming a poor philosophical position that required God to fashion countless species with the biological equivalent of loaded firearms in kindergarten and with the will (but not the resources) to reproduce endlessly, while only having death apply to plants and cells because reasons.
If you’re upset by the fact that animals died before The Fall of Man and that The Flood wasn’t necessarily Global, it’s in The Text.
He did, and I absolutely agree, which is why I worship Him and not evolution. I’m simply trying to understand His Word in the world He made and wrote it in.
Yikes man, I never said you were going to Hell. At first I too regrettably condemned everyone who disagreed with me. Then there was a brief and embarrassing episode where I tried to fool myself into thinking everyone was going to be saved, which also became untenable. Now I hope all will see God, yet keep myself in check by remembering that there will be some who say “Lord, Lord,” yet He will not know them. My father reminded me that this could very well be us. Keep that in mind.
I don’t hold ill will against you, nor do I think you are damned for not being correct about matters of science. I’m just worried that your faith might be built on a weak foundation.
