Yes Adam, we get your big hairy point. Consider it done.
You do not like anthropomorphic language applied to science.
The scientific consensus is contrary to YEC, so you object when scientists say science âtellsâ us something.
You do not like the results of observation and experimentation, so you object that science âinformsâ us.
Well, anthropomorphic language is common, legitimate, and is applied other than to humans. Fire âragesâ. Current is âguidedâ. Magnets are âattractedâ. A shift in wind âforetellsâ a change in temperature. Harder rock âresistsâ erosion. No brains involved.
Most people have the wit to handle common figures of speech. So when they hear that science tells us something, they do not get all wound up that science does not literally speak like some Disney animation, but understand that refers to the process of observation, experimentation, and analysis. The knowledge accumulated over the past centuries instructs us that the earth is much older than six thousand years. Nobody is at all confused.
So I, for one, will continue to use such terms appropriately and unapologetically, because other than yourself, everyone seems to get what is meant, and therefore the objective of clear communication is achieved.
Logical fallacies do not make for good science or good theology. Your positions are deficient in both.
As I noted:
Youâre committing a linguistic fallacy: restricting the use of a given word to the definition that best serves you.
Is clear and rational. His picture showing a session of that conference is an illustration of the use of the term âscienceâ to refer to the community that engages in science. That use can be illustrated by the phrase âIn science we . . . .â that refers not to just the methods but those who employ them. This is a common use of language, sufficiently common that it has its own name: metonymy, where a non-personal noun is used to refer to a person or group of people.
With good reason â the scripture does not say that.
Would not consider cross-referencing as doing theology.
Sorry, but the view of earth as a flat disk is almost universal; it is found on every continent and on most of those there was no other view.
He doesnât like the common, ordinary use of language when he finds something to object to.
no you are attempting to place your own meaning on a word without considering context or other scripture which is also referenced.
Given that problem, you will always make errors as has been highlighted so many times to you in the past Iâve lost count.
You willingly choose to make up your own doctrines which are not biblical. The errors you make are demonstrated with references illustrating/explaining why they are wrongâŚyou ignore them and continue blindly on anyway.
What alarms me most about this thread titleâŚyou lot are worried about âpoor me scienceâ and yet i donât recall seeing a thread title of this nature about Gods word. Why is that? I would argue because your first loyalty is to protecting your interpretation of science. Which God are you really serving there?
of course not despite the definition below being quite self explanatory and in direct contrast to your personal view (which is not scholarly obviously)
Now the difference between self consistent biblical theology and self consistent science explanationsâŚone has eyewitnesses (writers from the bible) and revelation from Mighty God (who created everything we experience), and the otherâŚpurely human interpretation without direct revelation from our Creator.
Correct me if Iâm wrong, however, I cant think of anyone in the canonical writings who records heavenly visions regarding the existence of life on earth more than about 6,000 years ago (so thereâs that!)
âScriptureâ? You quoted scripture that gave a meaning for the term âscienceâ?
This turn-around accusation is childish â literally. According to a childhood (i.e. 2-16) development university course I took most people grow out of that somewhere in their teens.
I pointed out a legitimate meaning for a term that you were trying to keep to one definition for no other reason than that it allowed you to mount attacks on others. I even told you the term for such a use, a term that anyone concerned with the ordinary use of language should know.
BTW, this is another attribute of YEC: it tends to attack â attacking other people especially, hiding behind pious language. It attacks even when thereâs nothing of substance in the attack and nothing objectionable except in YECistsâ own imaginations.
Hmm. Tell me what here is not biblical:
We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the uniquely-begotten Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages:
God from God,
light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten not made,
of one substance with the Father,
through Whom all things were made;
Who on account of us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens,
and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit, of the Virgin Mary,
and was made man;
and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered and was buried,
and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and will come again with glory to judge living and dead,
Whose kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver,
Who proceeds from the Father,
Who with the Father and the Son is together worshipped and glorified,
Who spoke through the prophets;
in one holy Catholic and apostolic Church.
We confess one baptism for the remission of sins;
we look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.
Youâve been asked this before. You have never responded.
Sorry, but your âreferencesâ donât illustrate anything but a penchant for ignoring historical fact and the ordinary use of language. And nothing of what you keep attacking is even doctrine. You have a penchant for treating your personal views as doctrine when theyâre just stubbornly uninformed opinion.
Um, I didnât start the thread, and Iâm not worried about science at all â and neither is the one who did start the thread. The concern is Christians behaving badly in ways that drive people away from the Gospel by making Christianity look stupid and bigoted, yet rather than address that problem you instead attack others.
Youâve been called on this lie so many times If I had $5 for each one I could buy a new laptop! I know, you canât face the truth that you ignore the context and grammar of the scriptures so you have to fire away at something else, but as I have told you repeatedly I refuse to let science have anything to do with doctrine â thatâs what YEC is all about and I reject it for that very reason.
That definition has nothing to do with cross-referencing. Systematic theology deals with the actual text of scripture; it does not rest on translations and does not assume any interpretation that does not arise from the scriptures. To do systematic theology you have to study the language, the culture, the historical circumstances, the literary type, and the worldview relevant to a given text in order to find its meaning, so that you can then organize the various meanings of all the texts by category and examine the relationships between them.
Nothing in the canon indicated any age to the earth, as you should know by now. Ancient Hebrew scholars, studying the actual text, found the age of the earth to be as high as a trillion years (I forget the reasoning behind that at the moment, only remembering that it was a little bit giggle-worthy) or, more commonly, vastly ancient beyond human counting. I shouldnât have to repeat this, but the fact that Hebrew scholars who grew up speaking Hebrew concluded from Genesis 1 that the universe started out the smallest size possible and grew immensely rapidly and that the Earth is ancient beyond comprehension and the universe more ancient still should wake anyone up to the reality that serious scholarship does not conclude a 6k-year-old universe or Earth.
Continue holding to your uninformed view of scripture, continue your habit of lying about and attacking others, continue ignoring the grammar and history of the text; you wonât stop me from keeping the scriptures front and center and for that reason correcting your incorrect assertions.
Oh â and this time, please tell me what in my statement of doctrine is wrong, and if you canât then please stop claiming I have doctrinal errors . . . and while youâre at it, start giving others the same courtesy.
Wow. Thatâs not just bad attitudes to science. Thatâs the gloves coming off.
Adam, itâs nothing to do with âpoor me science.â Itâs nothing to do with making âyour first loyaltyâ âprotecting your interpretation of science.â Itâs about honest reporting and honest interpretation of accurate information. Itâs about not telling lies.
This is the one thing that many of us on this forum have been hammering home again and again and again and again and again to you. You must make sure that you are getting your facts straight.
This is an issue that has to be addressed before we even start to discuss philosophical or theological issues, for the simple reason that willfully disregarding it is lying. Dismissing it in derisive terms such as âpoor me scienceâ is mocking the very concept of honesty itself. Implying it to be some sort of idolatry, with accusations such as âyour first loyalty is to protecting your interpretation of scienceâ or questions such as âWhich God are you really serving there?â is to declare your own god to be one who himself demands that we be prepared to tell lies. And equating such a god to the God of the Bibleâwell, thereâs a word for that. The word in question is âblasphemy.â
Oh get off that high horse of yours.
Do ou understand what faith and Religion is? Do ou care if your words hurtor try and destroy someoneâ faith? Do you think that faith is some sort of lie or deceit?
As fa as i can see no one is claiming that scientists are lying. But they are suggestng that they might not hold the ultimate truth or even a part of it.
If someone is speaking from faith they are not lying. they believe what they say.
You tried to get out of things by citing flat earthers . Does it really matter to you what they think? Why? Some sort of possessiveness? or just plain afforgance.
Admit it, you will never argue anyone into scientific views any more than I can argue someone into faith or even belief in God.
Richard
Edit.
Just to be clear. You are placing your view and your data as superior over any other. If anyone dares to contest either the data, or the view (interpretation) they are accused of lying.
I will go on record that in many instances YEC are lying.
It does not appear to me that James is addressing ultimate truth, but rather the protocols to discern empirical truth. What is wrong with insisting on measurement anyways?
If it is speaking from wilful ignorance, that is not faith. If YEC leaders have the training to know they are publicly misrepresenting the science, that is wilful lying.
Iâm sorry Richard, but honest reporting and honest interpretation of accurate information is the one thing that all of us should hold completely non-negotiable in these discussions, in principle at least, no matter what our philosophy, theology, religious beliefs or whatever.
We can discuss what that looks in practice if you like. We can discuss who is or isnât doing it, and who is or isnât accusing others of not doing it. We can discuss philosophy or theology or what faith and religion are. We can discuss how to approach these subjects graciously without hurting people or destroying their faith. We can discuss how the data can and can not be legitimately interpreted, and whose interpretation is or is not correct. We can discuss what rules do or do not apply.
But when someone objects to me pointing out in principle that honest reporting and honest interpretation of accurate information is non-negotiable, telling me to âget off my high horse,â or accusing me of âplacing my view and my data as superior over any other,â Iâm sorry, but thatâs the point at which I stop assuming that they are approaching these discussions in good faith. Such a line is to all intents and purposes demanding the right to tell lies.
While also claiming that scientists are lying, and have been lying, on an industrial scale, for more than two centuries.
Nothing at all. But why must that be the way to look at the world?
Again, what rith hae you to dictate what is used for belief? Why must I or anyone else accept the viewpoint of science?
It would appear that you are not understanding my complaint.
I am not justifying the misuse of science within the realm of science. I am just pointing out that there are more points of view than the empiracle scientific one.
Scientist do not hare the right to dictate what i must believe.
No, as I said above. You are dictating what i must believe. You provide the data and insist on the way it is to be interpretted. You are claiming to hold an unegotiable truth.
It would appear not.if we are talking about anything that science has an opinion on.
You provide the data. You provide what I must believe about that data.and will not accept data that is not empiracle or scientific./ To some people scripture is more important than empiracle data. You may not agree, but that does not make you right and them wrong.
Because I have dared to challenge the scientific method?
Because I have offended your ehic? or honesty?
Do you think that a person who believes Scripture is being dishonest?
I am defending a principle and a right. I ma not claiming you are being dishonest or unscientific or unable to do the job you do. Stop taking all this as a personal affront.
You cannot dictate to anyone what they must accept., no matter how convinced you are. I am convinced God exists and communicates with me. Am I now lying?
Richard
Why do you think science is a single person?
I never said science is a single person. Can you show me where I said that?
You have continually bad mouthed science, and yet you depend on it every day. If you get sick you seek out medicine based on science. The cognitive dissonance is rather overwhelming.
You can certainly choose to ignore science, but just be clear when you are doing so.
Refusing to accept science is not really a challenge to the scientific method.
Really? How else it obtained?
The fact is that you are dogmatic to the nth degree over the results
And claim unchallengable results. (truth)
RIchard
Iâm not sure what you are trying to ask here. There is tons of scientific evidence and the scientific reasoning behind the conclusions. You can either accept these conclusions, or reject them. Your choice.
If you want to claim that the conclusions arenât scientifically sound, then we can certainly discuss the scientific evidence and reasoning. However, if you refuse to accept the conclusions based on the scientific method then that is your choice. Most of the rest of us think those conclusions have merit, but apparently you donât.
How am I dogmatic?
Never said I was talking about me or what I believe or accept., but you know which scientific dogma (oops sorry theory) I contest.
Dogma , in its broadest sense, is any belief held definitively and without the possibility of reform.
Of course calling any of your theories a belief is not scientific.
Richard
Name them, and show why they are dogmas.
I will ask again. How am I dogmatic? Give examples.
You arenât. Itâs simply easier to claim that you are dogmatic than to examine the data, evidence and reasoning that led to your conclusions.
Nested Hierarchy?
You beleve the conclusions?
You wonât accept an alternative view?
That is dogma.
Richard
What about it? If I am wrong to expect a nested hierarchy when there is common ancestry and vertical inheritance then explain why I am wrong. I am more than happy to be proven wrong.
Accepting well evidenced conclusions is not dogma.
Because it lacks evidence, reasoning, and logic. Thatâs not dogma.