Substitute the word “science” for “Scripture” and “Scripture” for “science” in this sentence and it will describe the way you talk about YEC’s.
No, it’s the way I talk about some YECs; specifically, YECs who are on record as telling people that science can’t be trusted, that science is unreliable, that science is just opinion, that science is the “wisdom of men”, who characterize science as mere “shifting sands”. Those are people who not only devalue science, they do so explicitly and with pride.
2 Likes
Italics added.
Yes. YEC groups (such as AIG, CMI, etc), typically do everything they can to undermine confidence in science and characterize it as unreliable. Individual YECs are a different matter. Thank you for reinforcing my point.
2 Likes
At best, I clarified your point. At worst, I gave you an opportunity to equivocate.
So kindly answer my question: can you point me to a YEC geologist who is testing his hypotheses, or at a minimum has a hypothesis that makes empirical predictions?
AFAIK, no such people exist. Do you see my point, assuming none do?
2 Likes
Mike, I don’t see any equivocation. A clear distinction was made between individual YECs and YEC groups.
I agree, in that I can see individual YECs as sincere, but I don’t see any YEC groups behaving scientifically or ethically.
2 Likes
AFAIK, all geologists test their hypotheses irrespective of whether or not they are YEC.
Evidence, please.
1 Like
Jonathan:
So there’s no problem embracing both science and the Bible.
[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:130, topic:36307”]
On this, practically everyone would agree: BL, AiG, RTB.[/quote]
No. I explain why below.
Incorrect. Those groups push pseudoscience and falsely portray it as science. It has nothing to do with weights.
[quote]It’s unfair of you, therefore, to claim a monopoly on having embraced the Bible and science.
[/quote]It’s unfair of you to make such claims while simultaneously claiming scientific illiteracy and an unwillingness to learn about science!
1 Like
What does my ignorance about science have to do with my willingness to accept at face value the claims of YEC’s to be embracing the Bible and science just as I accept the claims of EC’s to be embracing the Bible and science?
It means you are unable to evaluate their claims to be embracing the Bible and science. You can repeat their claims, and you can accept them, but you are not in a position to dispute others who don’t accept their claims.
3 Likes
Yes, that’s right. I am unable to scientifically evaluate anyone’s scientific claims - yours or theirs.
Sure. But I didn’t. Evaluated in the paragraph in which you wrote your sentence, your sentence was false. I think it’s entirely fair to point that out.[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:96, topic:36307”]
Please elaborate on your view of what Jesus was doing in Matthew 5:38 so that we can see if it is more faithful to Him and to the text than I am being.
[/quote]
I’m not advancing any view of what Jesus was doing, other than the (pretty obvious) view that he was quoting the scripture in question.
2 Likes
In that case, would it not make sense to agree with what 99% of scientists agree with?
1 Like
As I’ve been saying from the beginning, I almost always do! The problem here is the biblical obstacles, two of which I described in the OP of this thread.
How is it that you - - so suddenly - - consider yourself sufficiently tutored in scientific principles that you think AiG or RTB have any kind of reliable science at all?
You have already impugned any of the efforts of these groups - - when you say forthrightly that Geological Evidence is large and convincing - - if it weren’t contrary to your interpretation of the Bible. Your repeated comments have made a tantamount acknowledgment that Geology is the proxy king of the “science hill”
1 Like
It is precisely because I am untutored in science that I am unable to see, as you would have me see, the unreliability of their science. Similarly, I cannot tell the difference between a good mortician and a bad mortician - and the more they want to show me their work for purposes of comparison the more uncomfortable I become.
I wouldn’t say “impugned,” but I do say that they are a distinct minority among those speaking science on the subject, and that if the Bible were not involved I cannot see any other reason not to side with the majority.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.