Scientific theories do not become false just because someone tries to weaponise them against your faith, or against anything else for that matter. If they could, then we could also argue that quantum mechanics was false because Kim Jong-Un was using it to build nuclear weapons.
i never made the claim ID are YEC…my opening statement said the complete opposite. Despite my opening statement you have read into it that i claim Myer is YEC…i do not.I know that he isnt YEC. Its like you are so biased you read between the lines things that are simply not there irrespective of what anyone actually says
"Soft tissue as evidence for YEC"is unrelated to Stephen Myer. Myer is all about ID. He pushes God not literal creationism in 7 days or the global flood. Mostly i think he avoids the creation and noahs flood accounts. Rarely do i ever hear him bring them up.
one thing that i find a little intellectually insulting on these forums is the habit by individuals of starting up trivial side track debates so that the actual philosohical dilemmas they face do not even get addressed. Terrible doctrine usually is the result…doctrine that is almost always unbiblical.
This is most unfortunate as it means that theologically speaking, those individuals really havent had their faith tested and do not actually have a solid foundation for their belief. Every time something difficult comes up, they side track the issue by doing exactly what you have above. That does not help the OP…it teaches one to sweep important issues under the carpet.
When it comes to the 7 day creation and global flood accounts, the likes of Myer, Behee, Lennox…they are relatively quiet on the matter.
Ironically, this proves the YEC position. If one can have six annual conferences in just seven days, the literal view of Genesis must be the correct one.
A psychiatrist I knew said that a big contributor to certain kinds of mental illness is that people are unwilling to accept that they rely on other people for 98% of what they know.
Neither of these are found in 2 Peter! We’ve been over this thoroughly yet you go back to falsehood.
This is fiction – days of the week aren’t even mentioned.
And the “new covenant” claims you reference come from the scriptures, they’re not made up like the stuff I’ve quoted from you.
There are no theological argument that favor a “literal reading of Creation”, so theological arguments against it aren’t needed.
I’m still waiting for even some light theology.
Seriously, someday you should consider actually studying the scriptures so you stop making all these false claims about them.
If only that were true! You’ve demonstrated that it is false right in this very thread.
And when He did, He said so!
You don’t get to call things visions when that’s convenient for you.
Very little in the Bible is “historical record”. For most of the period covering the Old Testament, there was no such literary genre. They had mythologized history, but they didn’t have “historical record”. They used bits of history to argue theology, but they didn’t have “historical record”.
Good point. You don’t start theology with some scientific claim, you start theology by asking, “Who is Jesus?”
instead of picking a phrase out of context…please quote the entire post as i did not say what you claim above…that was not the context. My response perhaps Myer will address this was in relation to something the O.P stated in their post.
Im a bit pissed off that you have straw plucked. I know what i bloodywell said and why. What you have done is false, and its pretty lame to be honest!
I do not even know what the heck you are going on about here…there is zero context for what you are responding too.
The last paragraph of what you have written above tells me and others reading it, that you are an atheist. Is that your aim here St Roymond? If you are going to deny the historical record of the bible, then you are denying its inspiration. Denying it inspiration means you do not believe what is written…and therefore, your belief is clearly a delusion by your own standard!
Im miffed at what you have done above.
Look St Roymond, stop this nonesense…and it really is complete nonesense. If you are going to make theological claims, damwell use some biblical references. I am frankly sick and tired of having to ask you to do this. Its obvious that the reason why you do not use bible quotes with cross referencing, is you full well know that you will not find adequite biblical support for any of your claims so you avoid it like the plague.
I would argue that comes from Biologos claim that it does not have any theology or doctrines…its an agnostic claim attempting to align a religious movement with the supposed neutrality of science. If science is already neutral, why mimic it with a new name? Clearly its because religion is the driving force behind the existence of Biologos. I think it is irrevelant that religion is non denominational.
Now why should any of the above matter?
The dilemma remains, a Christian who does not believe in a literal reading of Genesis chapters 1 through 11 has no choice but to subscribe to the dismantling of any other element of scripture which references those chapters of Genesis.
And given the O.P has trouble with his YEC friends, below is a significant reason why he has trouble with them on these matters…
The apostle Peter states…
2 Peter 1 12Therefore I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are established in the truth you now have. 13I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of my body,b14because I know that this tent will soon be laid aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 16For we did not follow cleverly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation.
2 Peter 2 4For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them deep into hell,a placing them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; 5if He did not spare the ancient world when He brought the flood on its ungodly people, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, among the eight; 6if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction,b reducing them to ashes as an example of what is coming on the ungodly;c7and if He rescued Lot, a righteous man distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8(for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9if all this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.
Peter is very specifically telling all his readers above that He was an eyewitness to the revelations of Christ and that the words Peter is writing concerning the flood, desctruction of Sodom and Gomorah are not his personal interpretation but that of the God of Heaven who has revealed it to Peter through the prophets and also the leading of the Holy Spirit.
I do not think its theologically tennable to claim Peter got his interpretation of Gods revelation wrong or is being misinterpreted!
Get off your high horse and jumping to conclusions already. Such a conclusion only serves to show that you are not thinking rationally.
Again an irrational response – I did no such thing. I only noted that there is very little in the scriptures that are “historical record”. That’s just a fact.
False. In order to maintain that you have to ignore the fact that the scriptures were written in ancient languages using ancient literary forms within ancient worldviews that do no match our own. The inspiration of, for example, the first Genesis Creation story has nothing to do with it being “historical record”; that’s a modern conception that insultingly maintains that the Holy Spirit talked to ancient people in ways they wouldn’t have understood but instead used forms that would make people in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries comfortable.
I’m sorry that you think that actually studying the scriptures is nonsense. You don’t study the scriptures by cross-referencing in an English translation, you study the scriptures first of all by asking what language, literary type, and worldview the author of a particular section used – and you do that because the Holy Spirit chose writers who wrote in that language using that literary type within that worldview. Indeed approaching it any other way is saying that the Holy Spirit doesn’t care about people because He doesn’t bother to speak to them in ways they will understand.
Your notion that quoting scripture is the sum of theology is ridiculous. Do you really think that you will be able to find in an English translation what worldview an ancient writer had?
I’ve quoted scripture in abundance, but I do so where it is appropriate – I do not think to magically find all possible knowledge in a translation I like without having the basic respect for God of studying the language, the literature, the culture, and the worldview of the original writers and audiences.
If so, that religion consists of trying to get the truth out that YEC is based on lies from beginning to end, and thus remove a stumbling block that keeps people from CHrist.
Excrementum tauri. Genesis 1 through 11 were not written in a form meant to be taken literally, and claiming it does is operating from ignorance.
No, he isn’t. You are very good at reading philosophical content into passages that cannot be used to justify it. I’ll remind you again that a basic rule for understanding literature – one critical for understanding ancoent literature – is to not add anything to the text.
In your case he is being misinterpreted because you are reading into the text things that are not there. As a beginning step for addressing that, can you tell me what were the grounds for believing something that Peter was likely to have held?
Where did you get that? There is a statement of faith. What we keep telling you is that it’s not a denomination or a church. BioLogos doesn’t regulate anyone’s theology or doctrine, that’s their local church’s job.
Yes. We know. In particular, the Christian religion.
This deserves highlighting because it demonstrates a basic principle for how to respond to such claims.
IF the claim is true, THEN what are the expected consequences?
I think some YEC are more open to this sort of question than others. The folks at AiG, however, are not. I once attended a talk by Ken Ham (The Seven C’s) and nothing he said can withstand even a curory level of skeptical questioning. Given the enthusiasm of other audience members, it seems they never engage in this sort of skeptical thinking.
The problem with this sort of response is that it presumes a valid clain in the first place. It’s important to follow on with …
Lack of supporting evidence for obvious consequences, is evidence against the original claim.
Taking all this down to the Pre-K (Pre-Kindergarten) level:
Do I have this right?
The stuff today that appears to be soft tissue from dinosaur fossils (It’s even flexible!) is not made up anymore of the exact same stuff that died, whenever that dinosaur died.
If I got it right, that seems potentially significant.
I would say some molecules of the stuff are the same molecules they had when they died, but often is chemically altered and fragmented. Collagen being a stable molecule to begin with remains more chemically intact that so other biomolecules, Other proteins and DNA are fragmented and while enough may be around to say it is there, not enough remains to fully characterize as intact tissue.
The problem lies when “soft tissue in dinosaur fossils” is implied to mean blood vessels etc. that are functionally intact. And the problem is not the soft tissues, but rather the misrepresentation.
If there is still soft tissue, it cannot be old as soft tissue rots away and is quickly destroyed.
There is soft tissue.
Therefore, it cannot be old and thus confirms a young earth.
The problem is, they do not recognize that soft tissue in dino fossils are microscopic remnants that may have been preserved in an altered and chemically stabilized state over long periods of time. Something they had in common with mainline science until Mary Schweitzer proved them wrong. IF you have not read it, here is a good article from Biologos on the subject: https://biologos.org/articles/soft-tissue-in-dinosaur-bones-what-does-the-evidence-really-say
And an interview with Dr. Schweitzer. Note that these articles are nearly 10 years back, so things have progressed a bit since then,
I think I did read it quickly quite some time ago. Too quickly to really get the point. Which is part of why I am play Kindergarten-Level Devil’s Advocate. Other people are going to miss it, too.
Getting this very simple idea stripped down to a few clear sentences seems valuable. Whole articles, even brief ones, can be intimidating and confused. I’ve glanced over too many threads where Mary What’s-'er-Name is invoked by both sides.
