My point exactly
I, myself can only go where scripture leads me. The difference between OEC and YEC, is that YEC interpret the world by looking scripture. OEC interpret scripture by looking at the world.
Doesn’t matter – it’s not an evolutionary theory. You said that an evolutionary theory was a presupposition of those who determined that the Earth was old, prior to Darwin. What theory was it? There was no widely accepted theory of evolution, there was no thought that the Earth was billions of years old, and your claim seems to have no relationship with the actual history of science.
You said, billions of years was not an evolutionary theory. I responded, and said, it was, since evolution needs billions of years to process.
Wookin, I’ve already told you – repeatedly – that you can’t just cry “interpretation” and “presuppositions” as if they were some kind of magic shibboleth. I’ve already told you that there are rules that interpretations have to follow, that they are rules of honesty, factual accuracy, mathematical coherence, technical rigour and quality control, that they apply equally to every area of science, that in many contexts they are safety-critical, and that they have nothing whatsoever to do with “presuppositions.”
No, Wookin, YEC does not interpret the world by looking at Scripture. YEC interprets the world by plastering a thick layer of science fiction on top of Scripture, with fantasies such as accelerated nuclear decay, catastrophic plate tectonics, a post-Flood ice age, post-flood hyper-evolution, dinosaurs on the Ark, and twelve foot giants fighting T-Rexes in colosseums. There is no Biblical basis whatsoever for any of these things. Whatever genre you think Genesis 1-11 to be, it is not telling us that Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings and The Flintstones are documentaries.
And then it repeatedly disregards Scripture by playing fast and loose with the basic rules and principles of mathematics and measurement to try and make it sound plausible to Dunning-Kruger types who think they know more about science than “secular scientists” just because they haven’t been “brainwashed” by a science degree, but who will quite happily tell you that DNA is “just carbon,” or that Sir Arthur Keith wrote that “evolution is unproven and unprovable” four years after he died.
OEC, on the other hand, looks at Scripture and sees that it tells us that (a) what we see in creation is an accurate reflection of God’s character and nature (Romans 1:20; Psalm 19:1), and (b) that we must respect the basic rules and principles of mathematics and measurement (Deuteronomy 25:13-16), and then interprets the evidence accordingly.
And that is simply not getting your facts straight, Wookin. The age of the Earth is determined by measuring things. It is determined by measuring things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution.
I said billions of years was not an evolutionary theory because the age of the Earth is not an evolutionary theory – it’s a conclusion of geology. Now, can you please tell me who believed what theory as a presupposition when investigating the age of the Earth prior to Darwin?
Wookin, I’ve already told you – repeatedly – that you can’t just cry “interpretation” and “presuppositions” as if they were some kind of magic shibboleth…
How do you come up with ANYTHING in life without presuppositions?
No, Wookin, YEC does not interpret the world by looking at Scripture. YEC interprets the world by plastering a thick layer of science fiction on top of Scripture.
Bible confirms that the world is younger than billions of years. The bible confirms that Adam and Eve were created. The bible confirms the flood happened. I would say that YEC are interpreting the world by looking at scripture. To ignore that, one would have a presupposition that it is not true or none of that happened, because the bible does not give that idea.
Measurement, Wookin. Measurement.
Is it “just a presupposition” that it is 3,470 miles from London to New York? Is it “just a presupposition” that water freezes at zero degrees Centigrade? Is it “just a presupposition” that Mount Everest is 8,848 metres tall? Is it “just a presupposition” that I can fit my car into my allocated parking space?
Seriously, what will it take to make you realise that your magic shibboleth is nonsense?
No it doesn’t.
I don’t have a problem with that.
I don’t have a problem with that either.
I do have a problem with the idea that the Flood created the fossil record, separated the continents, carved out the Grand Canyon, was accompanied by accelerated nuclear decay, or affected the dinosaurs, but the Bible doesn’t confirm any of these things either.
I don’t think you’re fully aware of what exactly YEC teaches.
Your magic shibboleth again.
1 Like
Why is that such a big deal to you? I heard it a long time ago. I can easily google sources to confirm what I said, and you will dismiss them, because you believe your own source. In the end, the Christian who sought out to prove the flood, really didn’t believe what the bible said, and trusted his own intellect over God’s word; thereby forming his own presuppositions that the flood was not a historical event as God’s word said it was.
Maybe you can’t – I dunno. What I do know is that you haven’t told me who believed what theory about evolution as a presupposition when investigating the age of the Earth prior to Darwin, or who believed the Earth to be billions of years old at the time.
Do you care at all whether your statements are true?
Is it “just a presupposition” that it is 3,470 miles from London to New York?
Once again, you are conflating my acceptance of operational/observable science with science that relies on interpretation of the evidence and philosophy.
No it doesn’t.
(Exodus 20:11)
For in six days the LORD made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them
I do have a problem with the idea that the Flood created the fossil record, separated the continents, carved out the Grand Canyon, was accompanied by accelerated nuclear decay, or affected the dinosaurs, but the Bible doesn’t confirm any of these things either.
Well, a lot of OEC I come across do. Again, I am a presuppositionalist and not an evidentialist. That was never my argument
Your magic shibboleth again.
Truth is truth
Of course I care that my statements are true. I AM WRONG! Does that make you feel better. But even if I am wrong about presuppositions driving geologist to believe the earth is old changes nothing on that OEC/ theistic evolutionists do not have a biblical leg to stand on. You believe man, and so you take the word of man over the word of God. You find ways to dismiss what God plainly said in scripture, and that is due to your presuppositions, my friend
Once again, you’re using “interpretation” as a magic shibboleth. You’re also not getting your facts straight.
“Operational science” relies on interpretation of the evidence every bit as much as “historical science.” The amount of interpretation involved in radiometric dating is roughly the same as the amount of interpretation involved in the workings of a police speed camera. Do you seriously think that “interpretation” would be a valid defence against a speeding ticket?
2 Peter 3:8. Psalm 90:4. We’ve been over this before.
Really? I am observing gravity as we speak. Ok, now for evolution?
2 Peter 3:8. Psalm 90:4.
“bara” is in exodus. You are practicing eisegesis, which is why most OEC I come across do not know how to exegete scripture. You have a liberal view of interpreting scripture. You do to scripture what pro-gay Christians do to prove the bible does not call homosexuality a sin or oneness Pentecostals prove that Jesus is not God.
I’m not just talking about observation here, Wookin. I’m talking about measurement.
There’s something that you need to realise about operational science, Wookin. It establishes a set of ground rules. Rules of mathematics and measurement. Rules that CANNOT be based on “presupposition” for the simple reason that if you disregard them, you will kill people.
That is what I am talking about when I say that interpretations of the evidence have to play by the rules. Just because something is “historical science” doesn’t give anyone a free pass to disregard them. You may not kill people by misinterpreting radiometric data, but the fact remains that not respecting the basic rules and principles of mathematics and measurement is dishonesty.
On the contrary, Wookin, I am choosing the option that I feel is most faithful to Scripture.
The options are:
- That 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4 do indeed allow for an ancient Earth.
- That six thousand years ago, God created evidence for 4.5 billion years of history that never happened.
- That Genesis 1-11 are mere myth.
The “liberal view” is number 3, Wookin. Not number 1.
Note that there is no option 4. The evidence CANNOT be reinterpreted as being consistent with a 6,000 year old Earth; as I have made clear, attempts to do so consistently and repeatedly disregard the basic rules and principles of mathematics and measurement.
You mean that make you feel most comfortable, because when you exegete scripture, you follow the text.
“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them” Following the text I see that the Lord made the heaven and earth in 6 days
You are doing eisegesis. You are leading into the text. You are injecting your own ideas into the text
“But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”
It says nothing of God creating the world. That is your presupposition
Wookin, I’ve made this clear over and over again.
If I am to believe that the earth is only six thousand years old, and that the days of Genesis 1 were only 24 hours long, then I MUST also believe that God created evidence for 4.5 billion years of history that never happened. That is simply not consistent with what the Bible tells us elsewhere about the nature and character of God and creation.
And I’ve also repeatedly not only told you that it’s nothing to do with “presupposition” but I’ve also carefully explained why it’s nothing to do with “presupposition.” Yet you still insist on repeating your “presupposition” magic shibboleth without even attempting to address the points I’ve made.
No offense, but I do not care what you believe. I believe only in what God’s word says, and God’s word says that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days.
That is simply not consistent with what the Bible tells us elsewhere about the nature and character of God and creation.
It is not consistent with your presuppositions about the nature and character of God and creation. It is certainly consistent with my presuppositions. You are saying, that what the bible plainly says, is not consistent with your presuppositions. I have no problem with what the bible plainly says.
it appears this topic is reaching the end of its useful life as discussion seems to be repetitive, with no new ideas, and at times bordering on violation of our gracious discourse guidelines posted at the top of the page. I will move the discussion of false evidence to a new post.
Admittedly, the original topic was fertile ground for conflict.
With that in mind, I am closing this topic. Should you feel there are any side issues that you would like to discuss, feel free to open a new post dedicated to those specific ideas, or continue the discussion as a private conversation.
3 Likes