That’s pretty funny, given all the factual evidence for Christians to rejoice in, remember and recount and for true seekers to ponder.
That’s funny too, but more wryly. You have shown nothing except, yet again, that you do not understand the difference between science and faith. Yes, of course chance and randomness exist – scientifically. But not scripturally.
Nearly as good as a YEC website!
Yu cannot have your cake and eat it. Either chance exists or it doesn’t . And either science is right or it isn’t. You claim science for evolution. I claim science for chance.
I also showed you Scripture where chance exsted, but perhaps you “forgot” that.
We are not Jews. We do not follow Judaism. tennets. Claimiing Scrioture is no better than the YEC claims (but yu cannot, or will not see that) Paul endorses slavery, do you? (the Jews did, tempered by the Jubilee)
At what point do we change Biblical theology to bring it in line with modern culture? Is that right? Slavery is one, divorce is another, Gnederism and gay rights. Women not only speaking but in ordained office. Scripture has a great deal to say on all these. Perhaps you agree with it there as well?
You cannot hide behind Scripture. The understanding of Scripture is not defined enough or rigid enough. You are abusing it for your own benefit and self-righteousness.
Richard
Given that the YEC view rests on a total failure to treat the Creation accounts with respect by acknowledging that they are ancient literature using literary types quite alien to us and instead demanding that GOd have conformed to modern worldviews addressing science rather than recognizing that they are religious literature, this is humorous
Richard is indulging in his total ignoring what people have written here and making an assertion that is contrary to fact . . . again.
So he keeps coming up with “thorny questions” that aren’t to anyone but him.
Bravo!
If it weren’t for his regular denial that he holds to YEC, all the evidence would suggest he is.
Good description.
That was the point of my question.
I included YEC because TEism seems to claim that secular science and God can coexist in theology…as Einstein and many other well know scientists all agree, it cannot and that is because theology falls apart the minute one attempts to turn significant parts of the Bible into what are essentially, fairytales (allegories of the Mosaic writings)
On the topic of SDA, not all SDAs are YEC. However, my understanding is that fundamentally, the SDA church is YEC. It would be very difficult theologically for a Sabbath keeping denomination not to be YEC.
YECism seems to suggest that a truthful God and reality cannot coexist.
YECism denies that God’s creation contains truth that ‘secular’ science can understand. Truth comes from reality – the reality of the data in the Bible AND the reality of the data revealed in nature. The two cannot conflict – if they appear to, then your interpretation of one or the other or both is error.
And you are still incapable of dealing with girdled rocks. There’s a reason.
@RichardG and @Dale please stop replying to each other with one/two line quips and play nice. If you can’t place nice, play with someone else. Thanks.
What does misinterpreting the scriptures have to do with science? I know YEC misinterprets the scriptures because they treat them like they’re supposed to be like an old-time almanac filled with accurate information about all sorts of things, but why would being a scientists require anyone to regard the scriptures as fairy tales?
I took many, many hours of science courses in university, and I never encountered any such thing as “secular science”, I just encountered science and it was taught the same by Agnostic, Atheist, Buddhist, Christian, Jew, or Muslim – as a human endeavor to learn and understand what the human intellect and senses (augmented in various ways) can discern about how the universe works.
Now if you have an instrument for detecting and perhaps measuring divine activity, then the term “secular science” would have validity as a label for those who reject the point of such an instrument, but apart from having one the term says more about the ones who use it than aboiut science.
LOL
The rabbis I knew at St. Louis University were most definitely “Sabbath-keeping”, and not a one of them would qualify as remotely YEC.
That is a very valid point St Roymond.
YEC does not misinterprete scripture…that is a scholarly proven fallacy. You will find almost no credible biblical scholars who agree with that claim…the reason why next:
When one interpretes the bible, one must start with the overall theme of the bible (why do we have the narrative in the first place)
What is the point of the crucifixion? Jesus died physically on the cross for a very specific reason…to save us from our sins.
Why is salvation from sin so important in the bible? The answer is really simple and its perfectly summed up in one text “For the wages of Sin is death” Romans 6:23. One cannot support the claim that this is only a spiritual death biblically. The reason why is absolutely obvious…Christ was incarnate, lived and died physically for the wages of our sins!
If we turn Mosaic writings into an allegory, we absolutely give credibility to the atheist view that the bible is full of fairytales. Might i also highlight at this point that the sanctuary service given to the Israelites was a reminder of the promise God made to Eve in Genesis ch 3:
15And I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your seed and her seed.
He will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.c”
There is not a credible scholar on the planet who would attempt to claim Genesis 3:15 is not directly prophesying the Messiah!
Genesis 3: 21And the LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and He clothed them.
This is a very important event as it illustrates very specifically that a separation from God causes nakedness and that in order to cover that nakedness, physical death occurs…in this case, the death of an animal. Hence the wages of sin is death also affects the rest of creation, not just mankind!
I could go on with lots more resources citing the reason why YEC is paramount to the theology of the bible, however, unless you truly understand the overall world view of the bible, stay consistent to that theme, and then work inwards, you will simply never understand the issues TEism faces theologically. It is 100% untennable.
I guess you don’t understand the difference between a fairytale and a parable. (And I don’t think anyone said all the Mosaic writings.)
And you are still incapable of dealing with girdled rocks. There’s a reason.
It’s actually difficult to find biblical scholars who agree with YEC, so I don’t know where you’re getting your information from. Or are you just operating from confirmation bias and only counting scholars who agree with you?
YEC is totally contrary to the ancient literature that the first Genesis Creation account is, either the “royal chronicle” or the “temple inauguration” – and when interpreting a piece of ancient literature you have to begin with what kind of literature it is; in the case of the opening Creation account in Genesis the first thing that is evident is that neither in the royal chronicle literary type nor in the temple inauguration literary type or for that matter in the powerful polemic that the account is, are the details meant literally.
And the polemical purpose raises a serious question: were the ancient Egyptians really that close to having it right?
I’m not interested in TEism, I’m interested in the text – and the text is not compatible with YEC!
Do you even know where YEC comes from? It certainly doesn’t come from scripture! Historically, YEC arose due to the rise of scientific materialism with its claim that in order to be true, a thing has to be 100% scientifically correct. It was that concept about truth that resulted in the claims that everything in the scriptures has to be 100% scientifically correct; this was just another instance of human philosophy being set above the scriptures, a habit that Christians have had down the centuries that has given rise to false teaching just about every time it has been done. All the great heresies came from trying to make the scriptures conform to some human philosophy, and many false teachings that don’t rise to the level of heresy. So YEC is in very bad company.
Yeah, both excrementum tauri and hevel havelim: this statement proceeds from total ignorance of how people in the ancient world thought.
Genesis 1 opens with a setting in the divine realm, turning Egyptian mythology/theology on its head by using the same elements the Egyptian story used and changing the meaning. There is nothing in the text that moves things away from the divine realm until possibly day four when the sun and moon – purposely not named! – are set in place, so the first three days would have been understood by every ancient listener as divine days. And given the literary type of temple inauguration, they would have continued being seen as divine days right up until humans were created.
No ancient listener would have had a problem with the idea that earthly days experienced by humans should take on the same rhythm as the divine days from the beginning of everything – that problem is an invention of modern humans who have failed to actually study the text and so have imposed a worldview from after the beginning of the industrial revolution.
So your false accusation fails: adhering to the Creation account as ancient literature is being faithful to the scriptures.
Talk about being provincial. And credible to whom?
That answers it nicely. 
Sure, depending on what scholars (noting again that ‘credible’ is pretty subjective). But, speaking of sure, it sure doesn’t look like you noticed it was using metaphorical (as in allegorical ; - ) language. Oh no! Allegorical language! It must be a fairytale! 
And you are still incapable of dealing with girdled rocks. There’s a reason.
I wonder how he deals with manganese nodules on the ocean floor – Their growth rate is on the order of a millimeter every hundred thousand years, so if “flood geology” is correct there shouldn’t be any larger than a tenth of a millimeter, yet nodules ten centimeters in diameter are common.
Even within generally evangelical approaches to hermeneutics, YEC willfully misinterprets some key scriptural passages.
There is no support for the idea of “kinds” as some sort of progenitors of species. The identification of Behemoth and Leviathan with dinosaurs does not stand up when taken in context. And the OT speaks much more of the Earth being flat than it does being young.
There are so many legitimate elapsed time clocks built in to the reality of the cosmos that God created it’s amazing the contortions YECs have to go to in their attempts to deny them. And then there are the ones they simply (double entendre intended ; - ) ignore. Have you ever heard of girdled rocks?
Or bent rocks. Yes, rocks can bend without breaking the component crystals; bent s l o w l y enough they deform rather than break.
And that makes many of the world’s mountain ranges at least hundreds of thousands of years old.
Or, for that matter, broken rocks! Yes, in many places in the world bent rock layers exhibit broken, shattered, and even ground-up spots – which mean they were quite solid when they got bent.
That is utter nonesense…America has a huge number of fundamental scholars from the Baptist and SDA movement (as just two examples) who are very much leaders in biblical scholarship and are YEC. So you are completely wrong on this.
The reality is that TEism has few scholars who are able to support its model because the biblical text when read by those scholars simplly doesnt support it. It is impossible when reading the text in its traditional languages to read TEism into it. The Catholic church has attempted to do this, however, most evangelical christian movements see Catholicism as being corrupted since the middle ages.
The only way to do what you claim is to ignore significant theological issues…the first of which is the most fundamental of them all…why did Christ die physically on the cross?
what passages would these be because your statement about behemoth for example, obviously referencing the claim its a hippo. A hippos tail looks nothing like the massive trunks of cedar trees. The massive size portrayed in Job is not indicative of a hippo. The only common theme between behemoth and a hippo is that they spend time in the water. A major problem with the hippo theory…elephants and we know the elephant is not what Job is talking about.
As for the Leviathan, what animal do you consider fits the description in Job?
How about the age of girdled rocks?
Because nobody took him off the cross before he died.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.