Asking for discussion in a discussion forum . . . how strange of me.
If you don’t understand the material or are unable to defend it then I don’t see why you would want to post the material in the first place.
Then refute it. Address the scientific facts and show how evolution is false. Just posting videos won’t do it. It’s the equivalent of scholastic diarrhea.
It’s because the facts say so. Until you address the facts you won’t make headway.
There is only science. People of all faiths and no faiths are scientists and they work just fine with one another.
What you appear to be afraid to address is the actual facts that have led scientists of all faiths and no faiths to the same conclusion. Instead, you just insult people by calling them heretics.
Do facts matter to you? Do you think Christians should abandon facts, reason, and logic in order to be Christians?
Sorry Adam, but theistic evolution is not a sham, and it is not “easily and irrefutably proven to be such.” It is a rock solid fact, and you know that as well as I do.
No, I support honest science. I support science that obeys these verses of Scripture, and I trash “science” that does not. “Secular science” has nothing to do with it:
¹³Do not have two differing weights in your bag — one heavy, one light. ¹⁴Do not have two differing measures in your house — one large, one small. ¹⁵You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lᴏʀᴅ your God is giving you. ¹⁶For the Lᴏʀᴅ your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.
Maybe I haven’t made myself clear enough. If you want to see why young earth “creation science” does not obey those verses of Scripture, let me give some examples for you. Specifically, take a look at the “evidences for a young earth” that Answers in Genesis considers to be its best examples:
Very little sediment on the sea floor
The calculations are invalid: riverine sediment ends up on the continental shelf, while the existing deposits being measured were those on the deep ocean floor.
Bent rock layers that are not fractured
This claim is blatantly untrue, as can be seen by comparing the example given to higher-quality photographs of the same rock formation both by USGS and by Answers in Genesis themselves. Bent rock layers are fractured.
Soft tissue in dinosaur fossils
While these findings are surprising, they do not contradict anything that we know about how long soft tissue can last, and in any case they are too rare and too badly degraded to be consistent with a young earth. Furthermore, many YEC accounts exaggerate the state of preservation of what was found.
The faint young sun paradox
Although it does suggest fine tuning, this says nothing about the age of the earth.
Earth’s magnetic field is rapidly decaying
This is based on an invalid extrapolation that is contradicted not only by the data, but also by both young-earth and old-earth models of how the Earth’s magnetic field works.
Too much helium in radioactive rocks
This is a very complex (and therefore error-prone) claim that is compromised by numerous serious errors including sloppy experimental technique, invalid assumptions, fudged data, misidentified rock samples, and a refusal to submit to meaningful peer review.
Short-lived comets
This denies that the Oort Cloud exists, based on an unrealistic assumption that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It also disregards calculations of the historic orbits of known comets showing them to have been slingshotted closer to the sun by planets such as Jupiter.
Very little salt in the sea
This is based on outdated and cherry-picked data, poorly known quantities with huge error bars, and a naive extrapolation of rates that can not realistically be expected to have been the same in the past as they are today. The most up to date research indicates that the amount of salt in the sea is approximately in a state of equilibrium, and that it therefore tells us nothing about the age of the earth.
DNA in ancient bacteria
This is based on a single disputed study. It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the salt deposits and the bacteria themselves were the same age, nor that the salt crystals were undisturbed since their original formation.
There’s something that you need to realise here, Adam. Honesty has rules. Refutation of scientific theories has rules. If you want to call a scientific theory a sham, and you don’t want to be called a sham yourself, you need to stick to them.
So are we now trying to play a game of intelligence cat and mouse? Is that how one determines these things?
The problem here is actually a very simple one…probably too simple actually…
TE’s follow secular science
This view very directly conflicts with the Bible.
The Bible even prophesied that this kind of thing will happen.
YEC’s, using the exact same observations as secular science, have taken the Bible account as authoritative, and genuinely searched for logical consistent and repeatable alternative theories remaining in harmony with the Bible account.
Strangely enough, when they do this, all of a sudden huge very obvious holes appear in the secular science…these are homes secular science has always been aware of but have conveniently ignored…indeed intentionally even swept under the carpet).
I would propose that the first issue with TEism is the big bang. You cannot possibly claim that the big bang is not intimately woven with evolution…both fundamentally relate to the same question…where did we come from. Both started with our current reality and worked backwards…I believe both explain the same reality from a position of “there is no God”.
I struggle to reconcile it’s [TEism] contrasting beliefs with the self evident doctrines of the Bible and those are particularly evident in the historical account Moses wrote. I’m sorry to be so blunt, but I have really dived headlong into apologetics and Bible history over the last two years of COVID…in that time I have come to the conclusion that any theories that are inconsistent with Bible doctrine and the historical account are very clearly wrong. Even individuals who claim to promote great theology can turn out to be black sheep (Ravi Zechariah comes to mind here) I am not blind to those people and their spots eventually begin to show.
I see that the old thread is locked, so I would be happy to discuss this evidence in a new thread. What we see in the real, physical world is that the differences between species exactly match the natural processes we observe creating mutations in living populations. We see that transitions outnumber transversions in living populations, and CpG mutations are by far the most common by rate. We see that exact pattern echoed when we compare the chimp and human genomes. The facts demonstrate that the differences between the chimp and human genome were produced by observable and natural processes. Is this something you would be willing to discuss?
Just as Cardinal Bellarmine had difficulty reconciling Heliocentrism with what he read in the Bible.
“First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false.”–Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615
Whose Bible doctrine though? Yours? Mine? Ken Ham’s? Hugh Ross’s? Some biblical books and passages can have several possible interpretations, which is fine – that’s always going to be the case with literature, but it’s a terrible way to do science. It’s basically starting with your conclusion and then working back from there. If someone says “The universe has to be 6,000 years old” before they look at any scientific evidence, they will never really be doing science – all they’ll be doing is picking evidence that says what they want it to and automatically dismissing anything that doesn’t. And if they’re wrong, they won’t know it because they’ve trained their mind to dismiss that too. You can call it biblical interpretation if you want – just don’t call it science.
Good question and absolutely one to ask any world view.
Believe it or not, the vast majority of Bible doctrine is universal and agreed by all denominations.
It is only a very small number of beliefs that are interpretive and that is obvious from a study of the reformation.
The question is however, did the reformation discover new doctrine, of did it actually uncover heresy that had thrown carpet over the truth?
Clearly from the historical account of the dark ages, the reformation rediscovered truth and exposed a cumulative set of unbiblical doctrines that are now very obviously nothing more than a power grabbing heresy. The aim I think …suppress religious freedom in order to ensure the church that enforced the lies stayed in control.
It’s just regular science, Adam. There is no special “Christian” version of science because science is not investigating God or spiritual truth claims.
Scientific facts conflict with some people’s interpretations of the Bible.
The Bible makes general prophesies about false teaching (which relate to faith claims, not scientific claims), it doesn’t prophesy that science will contradict the Bible.
No, they pick and choose what “evidence” fits their narrative and existing conclusions. It’s not accurate to say that they are examining the same facts and just drawing different conclusions. They ignore all the facts that don’t fit the parameters of what they have already decided is true. That’s not doing real science.
There is no great conspiracy in scientific disciplines to undermine the Bible or disprove God. This is just creationist propaganda nonsense.
Big Bang cosmology is physics and the theory of evolution is biology. They are not “intimately woven together” if that is what you have erroneously been taught.
They aren’t mere thought experiments. They are rigorously tested models that make sense of mountains of evidence from diverse fields of inquiry and follow the rules of math, physics, chemistry, genetics, and other sciences we know a lot about. To claim otherwise is a demonstration that you don’t know the first thing about the fields you are critiquing. It’s fine not to be a scientist, but it’s presumptuous to think you can tell scientists about their own areas of expertise when you really don’t have any concept of what they know.
Oh, dear, it’s Jammycakes again! Oh well…
So given the context of this whole discussion about salvation issues, Jammy, you are saying that believing and telling others that the earth is young ( as per reading the biblical text ) is lying and therefore those who do so are going to hell…as per your quoted bible verse…does that sound about right?
Do I understand you correctly - anyone who believes in a young earth and tells others that that is the case are going to hell because they are lying. I wonder what Christy has to say about that? Christy please tell us what you think of this conundrum for YECs. All YECs are going to hell. How interesting!!!
There are certainly major doctrines that are fairly consistent across denominations. I wouldn’t say that that means they are not “interpretive,” but rather that there’s a clear majority that interprets them the same way (i.e., Jesus rose from the dead, God is the creator of all, humans have sinned, etc.). But the further you get from the major doctrines, the more differences you’ll find. For example, John Walton is a Bible scholar who has written some books (such as “The Lost World of Genesis One”) about how Genesis compares to other Ancient Near East creation narratives. Based on his studies, he puts forth the idea that God’s act of “making” in Genesis was largely about assigning functions and purposes to the various aspects of creation, rather than an account of material creation, since that’s more in line with what creation narratives of that time covered. It’s an interesting view, and it’s based on a lot of interpretation, but still accepts the major Christian doctrine that God is the creator of all.
No one is saying YECs are going to hell. @jammycakes is making the point that lying is serious and all of the lies that YEC leaders spread even when they should know better are a serious thing that they should be held accountable for. I personally believe you can get a lot wrong and still be redeemed because God’s grace is inexhaustible and his love covers over a multitude of things.
Your riposte does raise an interesting issue for the claim that evolutionism is science. Is the big bang repeatable? The 4.5B years of the earth - observable? And so on. Just pointing out that there’s a two edged sword in there…
The idea that something must be observable and repeatable to be understood is more creationist propaganda and not a representation of how science works.
OK, I understand you have to cover up for his aggressive stance. It’s just that he has made it clear that he thinks YECs are lying and the bible makes no bones about the fact that ALL liars will have definitely their place in the lake of eternal fire - no ifs or buts about it - it’s just about the last warning in the bible!!! Therefore jammycakes is really saying he is fed up with these lying YECs and for all he cares, they can all go to hell. I get that.
I think you are willfully misunderstanding what he was trying to communicate. Please ask questions if you don’t get someone’s point. Don’t tell other people what is in their minds and hearts and what they really meant to say. That’s not having a conversation.
Yes, and I have watched videos where death stars blow up planets. There are many specific lines of evidence which demonstrate the earth is ancient. YEC timelines are not even compatible with archeology and history, let alone geology and cosmology. If you want to challenge accepted science, be prepared to wade into the technical weeds yourself with specific evidence. YEC proponents are great at pumping out popular level videos, not so distinguished at research.
