Well, governed by your interpretation of Genesis 28. Many feel the to subdue and rule over means to be good stewards and continue God’s good work as his representative. I suspect that you do also in some respect. I also suspect that you do not define subdue as “destroy, use for our own selfish motives, use up and consume without regard for future generations.”
2 Likes
You may be doing science wrong, but scientists do allow their worldview to influence them. You cannot get away from that. Scientists like to talk a big game that they do not have presuppositions, but that is certainly not true. In fact, I would venture to say that anyone who claims that they do not have presuppositions are slaves to them.
1 Like
I did not interpret it. I quoted it.
That will only get you so far Wookin. Presuppositions only come into play when the measurements are imprecise, ambiguous, conflicting, thin on the ground, or otherwise inconclusive. The age of the earth does not fall into that category. Not by a very long shot.
I didn’t see the Hebrew. You quoted an interpretation, then interpreted your quote based on your presuppositions, as did I, consistent with your statement regarding presuppositions!
V
1 Like
No Wookin, science is, basically, measurement.
science means knowledge
Worldview does not affect the results of measurement in the slightest. Mount Everest is 8,848 metres tall whether you look down at it from an aeroplane or up at it from base camp.
That is observational science. I am speaking about “philosophical” science. The kind of science that one has to interpret the evidence. Presuppositions can and will greatly affect those findings
The rules of measurement, and how it is interpreted, are the same no matter what your worldview. Error bars are calculated exactly the same way whether you’re a Christian, a Muslim, an atheist or an Oompa Loompa. Trigonometry, partial differential equations and linear regression work exactly the same way for Brian Cox and Neil deGrasse Tyson as they do for the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope.
Again, not speaking about observational science.
Try replacing the word “scientist” with “measurer” or “science” with “measurement.”
Does “secular measurement” even sound like it means anything?
One could measure “climate change”? A scientist can predict the future by looking, not at the whole past, but a sliver of a data recorded past? Sounds like one would have to do a great deal of interpreting
One cannot measure the age of the earth. You have a presupposition that the earth is old, therefore you will see evidence in such a way, and if the findings say different, you ignore them and pass them off as tainted or your calculations were off. Presuppositions are a very powerful thing. I see it everyday in all walks of life
Go back far enough, and no one had any idea the world was so old. They had no such presupposition that required it. But now the only ones who say the earth is 6,000 years old are the ones who believe their faith will collapse if it’s not true (or who simply believe it by default). These two sets of “presuppositions” are not equal.
2 Likes
Actually, they did have a presupposition. It was the theory of evolution that drove the science of the earth being billions of years old.
Their faith will collapse if we cannot trust the scripture, because scripture is the foundation of our faith, and yes, I know, you will say, Jesus is, but one cannot know who Jesus is; especially being the son of God, without scripture
Wookin, can I please remind you that the young-earth RATE project scientists themselves admitted that squeezing the evidence into just six thousand years would have released enough heat to raise the Earth’s temperature to 22,000°C.
That being the case, the idea that billions of years was driven by presuppositions or evolution is, quite frankly, patent nonsense in the extreme.
1 Like
I never said that I knew what the age of the earth was. I said that no one can measure the age of the earth. Sorry, but I do not look at OEC nor YEC “scientific findings” I do not live and die on scientific findings, only scripture. I take Genesis as literal history, as I do the rest of scripture.
Believe what you want, but the theory of evolution came before geology stated that the earth was billions of years old.
p.s. scientific findings states that a man cannot rise from the dead.
That may be so Wookin, but you still need to get your facts straight. Rejecting science may be faith, but making false claims about science is lying. (And, for what it’s worth, complaining about “evolutionist lies” when your own facts are not straight is hypocrisy.)
Claiming that scientific findings are influenced by presuppositions in ways that they are not is not getting your facts straight.
Claiming that “no one can measure the age of the earth” is not getting your facts straight. Radiometric dating does precisely that.
Claiming that “the theory of evolution came before geology stated that the earth was billions of years old” is not getting your facts straight because it didn’t. Geologic time was already on the scene before Darwin was even born.
No they don’t. Scientific findings only address what happens under normal circumstances. The Resurrection was not a normal circumstance.
2 Likes
Powerful, yes. But not unlimited power by a long shot. If I live by the presupposition (like Looney Tunes characters) that I can walk off cliffs and defy gravity by failing to look down, then - assuming I manage to survive the experiment, my presuppositions likely will not. There is such a thing as reality.
No. I’m afraid you missed Laura’s point - and it was a good one. All those generations prior to any conception of deep time had presuppositions that the earth was young. And yet it was in that very presuppositional sanctuary that reality began to intrude itself (contrary to nearly everyone’s existing presuppositions!) and the notion of a young earth began to fall apart.
Yes - presuppositions do influence us. But they simply cannot defy reality to the extent that you so want them to here. There is no presuppositional appeal whatsoever that can enable you to cast doubt on things like “the earth moves” or “the earth isn’t flat”. They simply cannot carry that load, except in the minds of the deluded who choose to ignore vast swaths of reality.
1 Like
No one said that scientists don’t have presuppositions. A strength of the scientific process is scientists with wildly different presuppositions ultimately come to the same conclusions. If you have examples of scientists’ presuppositions leading to substantively different conclusions, by all means present them. The age of the Earth certainly isn’t in that category, since (as has been pointed out), the great age of the Earth was concluded long before Darwin, by researchers who started with a presupposition of a young Earth.
2 Likes
That may be so Wookin, but you still need to get your facts straight. Rejecting science may be faith, but making false claims about science is lying. (And, for what it’s worth, complaining about “evolutionist lies” when your own facts are not straight is hypocrisy.)
I never rejected science. I reject the presuppositions of secular scientists when it comes to the interpretation of the evidence.
Claiming that scientific findings are influenced by presuppositions in ways that they are not is not getting your facts straight
.When it pertains to the interpretation of the evidence, they are.
Claiming that “no one can measure the age of the earth” is not getting your facts straight. Radiometric dating does precisely that.
I thought you were going to use the ice core. Radio metric dating cannot measure anything near a billion years.
Claiming that “the theory of evolution came before geology stated that the earth was billions of years old” is not getting your facts straight because it didn’t. Geologic time was already on the scene before Darwin was even born.
Billions of years old was not
p.s. scientific findings states that a man cannot rise from the dead.
No they don’t. Scientific findings only address what happens under normal circumstances. The Resurrection was not a normal circumstance.
All I know secularist scientist say, it is scientifically impossible, and I notice how readily you are willing to accept a “not a normal circumstance” for the resurrection, but not the age of the earth. You lack consistency
Doesn’t make any difference to the point I made. Making false claims about science is still lying, no matter what you are rejecting.
No they are not. If you are claiming that presuppositions are involved when they are not, you are not getting your facts straight. Period.
That is simply factually untrue. Uranium-lead, rubidium-strontium, potassium-argon, lutetium-hafnium can all measure billions of years. It isn’t all carbon-14.
Billions of years is not based on evolution. It is based on measuring things.
No there’s nothing inconsistent whatsoever about it. Believing in a young earth requires me to believe that God created evidence for a history of events that never happened. Believing in the Resurrection does not.
I believe that God works miracles. But I do not believe that He abuses miracles to create deceptive evidence.
2 Likes
Powerful, yes. But not unlimited power by a long shot. If I live by the presupposition (like Looney Tunes characters) that I can walk off cliffs and defy gravity by failing to look down, then - assuming I manage to survive the experiment, my presuppositions likely will not. There is such a thing as reality.
Really…have you been paying attention to the MSM vs Trump etc… Whose reality is real reality?
No. I’m afraid you missed Laura’s point - and it was a good one. All those generations prior to any conception of deep time had presuppositions that the earth was young. And yet it was in that very presuppositional sanctuary that reality began to intrude itself (contrary to nearly everyone’s existing presuppositions!) and the notion of a young earth began to fall apart.
It began to fall apart when the scientific field started to become inundated with secular scientists with secular worldviews. ergo…presuppositions
Yes - presuppositions do influence us. But they simply cannot defy reality to the extent that you so want them to here. There is no presuppositional appeal whatsoever that can enable you to cast doubt on things like “the earth moves” or “the earth isn’t flat”. They simply cannot carry that load, except in the minds of the deluded who choose to ignore vast swaths of reality.
Whose reality? If you were an atheists. I would tell you that you couldn’t prove that this world is real, in fact you would have to accept that it is possible that you exist in a matrix. You could only trust your senses, and that your senses are just a product of your mind.
The last ten posts of this thread are a wonderful example of how a distrust of science is very ingrained in to the YEC worldview. Thanks for demonstrating that @Wookin_Panub.
2 Likes
Come now, even today we see scientific journals deliberately leaving out scientific findings or the scientific community ostracizing scientists i.e. Judith Curry, who do not walk lock step, if it does not fit their presuppositions.
The age of the earth certainly is, and I said nothing of Darwin. I said, evolution.
I am sorry, but this is naive.
The last ten posts of this thread are a wonderful example of how a distrust of science is very ingrained in to the YEC worldview. Thanks for demonstrating that @Wookin_Panub.
It’s funny. As a Calvinists I find it fascinating how Arminians do not hear what we say. I do not know if they willfully ignore it or they just don’t hear it.
I said, that I do not distrust science. I am skeptic of the presuppositions of scientists when it pertains to the interpretation of the evidence; whether those presuppositions are based on their worldview, money for grants, politics etc… Please do not be disingenuous.