been here before. You ignored it last time, I wont repeat it.
You are not YEC. Perhaps they do not see it as ou do?
Basically yes. You try and change them to yours. That is not tollerance.
Tollerance is to live by agreeing to disagree (Usually with the caveat that you are right)
Accpetance opens the door to the possibility that their view may be valid. I do not see you ever going thee.
Richard
YECs directly state that the scientific evidence supports a recent global flood and a young Earth.
So what is the difference between tolerance and acceptance then? What am I changing?
How do you determine if a view is not valid? Or are you firmly in the Postmodernist camp where everyone is equally right, including the flat earthers? Do facts even exist in your world?
When a claim is contradicted by facts I conclude the claim is wrong. What is wrong with that?
See my response to the other thread.
I cannot teach or explain anything to you.
Richard
Then please teach me why it is wrong for me to conclude that a claim is false when it is contradicted by thousands of observable facts.
Just consider this.
What is your definition of a “fact”
Why do you place such emphasis on “observable” facts"
What if someone des not accept the validity of these facts that you rely on.
What isif someone *eg YEC) claims that Scripture supersede your observable facts.
Why must your view supersede theirs.
It is not about truth, or fact, or right. it is about prioritising one type of data (fact) over another.
Science dictates what “facts” *(data) is valid and what is included in its considerations (and what is not). If you are not a scinetist, and if you are not in a scientific environment where Sceintific rues dictate, you may (Will) see thiings differently.
What you are doing is dictating to all what facts are valid and what are not. And you emphisise “Observable”
Perhaps you have never seen an optical illusion? (I would claim that the link between a fish gill and a jaw bone is one)
Some people "doubt " their senses, and even more other people’s senses.
It is an attitude. One which you clearly cannot percieve or undrstand, despite my ,et al; attempts to “show” you (not teach)
It is a fundamental difference of approach, and you seem unable to even conceive it possible . let alone undrstand or accept such views.
(I am desperatly trying to be polite and non aggressive, or even not be condescending. )
Richard
I would ask them why they aren’t facts and why they aren’t valid.
Then they can’t claim they are following the same evidence as consensus science.
That’s exactly what you do. Don’t you reject claims if they are contradicted by observable facts?
False. YECs claim they are using the same facts I am using.
Then you need evidence that we are seeing the facts wrong.
And they could not give you an answer that you would accept or understand
And?
it is not about what I do.
I am sympathetic to science (but not dictated by)
Actually not. YEC are trying and failing to speal your language in your playing field. IMU they are wasting their time.
And who cictate what evidenc is valid?
(YOu are going roun and round and not undersanding . You just take a single statemnt out of context and ignore what goes before or after.
If I read the Bible as you read my posts I would be YEC or agree totally with Saint Roymond)
But I do not expect you to understand that either.
Give up. please.
Richard
Such as?
Actually yes. I have had many YECs claim they are using the same facts, just coming to a different conclusion.
What evidence convinced you that scientists are falling for an optical illusion?
Measurments in a laboratory?
Uniformatarianism can never account for the biblocal history anymore than it can account for Gods miracles.
Try using science to accept/prove the following:
Christ raising a rotting corpse from the grave
Christ sending demons into pigs who ran down imto the sea and drowned themselves
The prophet Elijah calling fire down from heaven completely obliterrating two altars and the offerings on them
Elisha striking the water of a river causing it to part allowing him to walk across on dry land
The apostle Peter scolding two indviduals who lied to him, both individuals immediately dropping dead in front of him
The temple curtain being torn from top to bottom whwn Christ died on the cross
A huge earthquake strikes and dead corpses come back to life when Christ dies on the cross…those individuals then walk back into the city to their families and friends.
The apostle Peter walks on water
Christ, a mere man, says that he will return in the sky with power and great glory and every eye shall see him!
Now what is your world view again? Scientific naivity…err i mean Christianity?
The “scientific truth” of the matter is, Christians are naive idiots who follow an historical account that science not only does not validate, it flat out denies! So id suggest you stop with the “YEC deny science” bull…the argument is devastating to all of Christianity…not YEC.
The harder TEists here attack YEC with the “it aint science”, the more they lead people away from God. Heck, there are a number of individuals here on these forums who are TEist that im certain deep down realise the scientific futility of Christianity given the above examples of scientific foolishness ive illustrated…that they are scientific nonsense. These individuals are hanging onto a faith that has no scientific support for a large part of its narrative…particularly its ending in Revelation 21
These individuals are so rooted in naturalism science and their science cant support the narrative, clearly their “hope” is one of childish Santa Clause dreams.
Then why do you use uniformitarianism to argue for a global flood, such as your insistence on using the Mt. St. Helens eruption as evidence for what happened in the past? I can show you hundreds of examples of YECs trying to use uniformitarianism to support their arguments.
Why can’t science be used to determine if species share a common ancestor or if there was a global flood in the last 2 or 3 billion years of Earth’s history? We use science to determine the relatedness between humans all of the time. Do you think this science shouldn’t be used because the Bible contains miracles?
The main problem is that YEC is contradicted by observable facts, facts that YECs refuse to address.
eh???
uniformatarianism is the notion that timelines, experiences and events we observe in our current lives can account for ancient history…such as the origins of life on earth and the evoutionary tree. It has nothing to do with the defence you have mentioned there…these defenses provide a model that says that uniformatarianism is wrong because they prove that we have evidences supporting the biblical narrative in our current time that are not reliant on uniformatarianism and long ages.
Also, i note that you ignored the bible scientific impossibilities i presented above…so here they are again:
Christ raising a rotting corpse from the grave
Christ sending demons into pigs who ran down imto the sea and drowned themselves
The prophet Elijah calling fire down from heaven completely obliterrating two altars and the offerings on them
Elisha striking the water of a river causing it to part allowing him to walk across on dry land
The apostle Peter scolding two indviduals who lied to him, both individuals immediately dropping dead in front of him
The temple curtain being torn from top to bottom whwn Christ died on the cross
A huge earthquake strikes and dead corpses come back to life when Christ dies on the cross…those individuals then walk back into the city to their families and friends (Matthew 27)
The apostle Peter walks on water
Christ, a mere man, says that he will return in the sky with power and great glory and every eye shall see him!
btw…ill expand on the nonsense of Matthew 27…note the verse says “the dead saints bodies were raised” on the day of the crucifixion, however, they didnt come out of the tombs until 3 days later “on the day of His ressurection”. So what did they do in the tombs for 3 days…knock and shout for someone to come let them out?
Umm, no. Uniformitarianism states that the same physical laws functioning today were the same in the past.
That’s not uniformitarianism. When you point to modern processes and project them into the past you are using uniformitarianism.
So we can’t do science because miracles happened?
YEC is still contradicted by observable facts YECs refuse to address, such as the correlation between the observed rate of movement of the Pacific plate, the ratio of isotopes in the rocks found in the islands and seamounts, and the distance of those islands and seamounts from the active hotspot under Hawaii.
omg…am i really supposed to answer that?
again…answer the following dilemmas…actually quote and address them directly ( i will continue posting them until someone does)
Christ raising a rotting corpse from the grave
Christ sending demons into pigs who ran down imto the sea and drowned themselves
The prophet Elijah calling fire down from heaven completely obliterrating two altars and the offerings on them
Elisha striking the water of a river causing it to part allowing him to walk across on dry land
The apostle Peter scolding two indviduals who lied to him, both individuals immediately dropping dead in front of him
The temple curtain being torn from top to bottom whwn Christ died on the cross
A huge earthquake strikes and dead corpses come back to life when Christ dies on the cross…those individuals then walk back into the city to their families and friends.
The apostle Peter walks on water
Christ, a mere man, says that he will return in the sky with power and great glory and every eye shall see him!
You poeople have no idea how stupid you make your world view seem when you ignore the scientific reality that miracles are inexplainable, and yet you propose that the flood never happened despite the very essense of all Christianity (and Judaism for that matter) being scientifically false. Teists are activily facilitating a pipe dream of impossibilities.
Meteorology and medicine are lame arguments that ignore the problem theologically that TEism faces. It denies its own world views history…it plays a game of “pretend i didnt see that part in my philosophical ramblings”
Yes. Uniformitarianism is not what you claim it is.
Are you saying we can’t do science because miracles happen?
Are you going to throw out all science based modern medicine because miracles happen?
Are we going to throw out meteorology because God created a storm through a miracle?
A global flood would leave evidence, evidence that science could investigate. That’s the difference.
That makes no sense. Geology, meteorology, and medicine all use uniformitarianism.
Bold is mine.
The study of experiences and events we observe in pursuit of understanding nature, is observational science. Are you saying that YEC is against observational science? If observations are rejected for the study of ancient history, that would imply that creation science is instead just made up, which is pretty much the case.
None of these miracles leave any evidence that can be observed today and so physical science can say nothing about them. Historians or other soft sciences might have something to say.
And you left off Noah’s flood which would leave abundant evidence which has never been found.
That is a meaningful question. It may be that different definitions of words like this are a key source of misunderstandings in these comment threads.
I skimmed through different definitions of ‘fact’ and noted that the general definitions might be understood in a wider sense than what has been my understanding of the word. Therefore, the expression ‘observable facts’ is a positive attempt to clarify what the writer means.
When thinking what is true or not, it is good to separate assumptions, facts and the interpretations based on the assumptions and facts. In this approach, ‘fact’ refers to something that may be observed or otherwise shown to be a part of reality - something that does not change when the interpretations change.
The light that comes from distant galaxies is an example:
For a person with a scientific approach:
For an AiG-type strict YEC:
It’s a crime because they claim to be honest.
That they also claim to follow the historical-grammatical method but do not also shows that they are not honest.
Why should we show tolerance to those who lie in the name of faith?
Not as far as I can tell.
That’s the lie they’re peddling – and it is in violation of basic morality.
Actually yes – and you have said so here.
Yes, uniformitarianism – otherwise called “the faithfulness of God”. The only alternative to uniformitarianism is making God out to be a liar.
I attack YEC because it drives people from God, especially young Christians.
And because prominent YECists are self-demonstrated liars.
Why do you insist on using science to measure scripture???
Do you you realize how stupid and foolish you make Christianity look when you ask for scientific answer to things that scientists know science can’t measure?
Your questions would only be relevant if:
I propose a global flood never happened because scripture does not claim it – only tradition does, and that is the result of a shift of meaning across languages.
no its not the difference…you are ignoring the dilemma you face there. You need to answer the dilemma instead of deflecting.
oh i see…would that also be the same as none of the evidence for the biblical flood can be tested by science today 
So we have:
no evidence proving Christ was raised from the dead…there are precisely zero external writings from any other individuals outside of the bible who witnessed Christ walking around for 6 weeks… 6 weeks and not a soul saw him except the bible writers (the only claim being 500 people saw him, but none of those 500 other individuals recorded anything in writing )
What about Sampson…slew thousands of philllistines in a single go even brought an entire temple down on top of a huge number of them…not a single record of that anywhere in ancient history…other than in the Bible
However… what about the Hittites? A Frenchman found the first evidence of the Hittites in 1834 (he didnt know what he had found at the time)…so here we have scientific evidence supporting the ancient biblical narrative
i note that you do not make any mention of Archeology. Why is that? It seems to me that “historians” might be a term used as a get out of jail free card.
“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.