Which is exactly why his definition of scientism is a straw man. Many practicing scientists are Christians, and they emphatically do not assume that anything sciences says that contradicts their Biblical interpretations means the Bible is wrong. The question rather becomes, how is their current interpretation of the Bible perhaps wrong, or does the science seem to be saying what I think it is saying. Many scientists who are Christians allow a dialogue between what they learn from science and how they interpret scripture.
Frankly, the way @MikeBoll seems to be describing the relationship between scripture and science we would still accept the Biblical “teaching” that the earth is flat, there is a dome above us that holds back the waters above the firmament, and the sun rises and sets as it travels across the flat earth.
24 hour periods in which the sun moves back to the same position in the sky has no application to Genesis 1, since the sun was not even created yet.
It doesn’t say anywhere in the Bible that this was dictated by God to Moses. Quite the contrary, the text indicates that God wasn’t speaking to people at all in Genesis 1:1-27.
God tells us the universe is 13.8 billion years old in all the earth and sky around us.
Irrelevant… Just because we have a story which says everyone celebrated the New Year at midnight all around the world doesn’t mean that everyone celebrated at the same time. Just an example of how we can tell a story where different people in the story measure time differently and we do NOT force the same measure of time on them just because they are part of the same story.
2 Peter comes into play when it is about things which God is doing things according to His timing and not about events experienced by human beings. We know it comes into play in Genesis 1, because God tells us that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, the sun is 4.6 billion years old and the earth is 4.54 billion years old.
Congratulations! Welcome, again. We find common ground in seeing God as our Father and rescuer.
I have been listening to Henri Nouwen’s “Return of the Prodigal Son” on Audible for the fourth time, and realize that we all have our addictions.
“I am the prodigal son every time I search for unconditional love where it cannot be found.”
This includes pride, drugs, food, lust, and worldly affirmation, among many others. I love how we can all identify not only with the prodigal, but learn from Jesus’ parable to find our sins as older sons, and try to emulate the Father as one who continually forgives.
You mentioned above, I think, that disagreement on science is not the same as disagreement on the fundamentals. We will disagree about some things, but can continue to bear with and care for each other as humans, saved by grace. As in Psalm 103, “As a father has compassion on his children, so the Lord has compassion on those who fear Him; for He knows our frame. He remembers that we are dust.” He knows our limitations. He welcomes, I am sure, our using our minds to ask honest questions. Even more, he loves it when we bear with each other in our fumbling questions, as He does to us.
Semantics. My question again: Since NOBODY in the scientific community thought any such thing would have been possible BEFORE they were discovered and everyone and his Mom started looking for them, is it fair to interpret their existence as saying the fossils are not as old as were claimed?
Quite a good question, and one we have discussed before on the forum, but it helps to discuss again to gain understanding. As I recall, @Christy discussed how indeed the days were literal, in that that text is using ordinary days to make its point in the original culture and readers/hearers. However, the point was not to teach the audience about astrophysics and biology, the point was to serve as an example for mankind to emulate in observation of the Sabboth. Within the creation story are of course other layers of meaning, regarding God as creator of everything, the refuting of the Sun and Moon being gods, the place of man in creation, and so forth. No doubt early man took the days of creation literally in many cases, but even Augustine in around 300 AD did not.
One problem I see with using literal days as a rigid time period of creation, is that if they are totally literal, you have to take everything physical in the chapter literally as well, which no one does without a lot of mental gymnastics.
I might add that it is sort of like the poem by Robert Frost about The Road Not Taken. He is writing about a literal path, but the poem is about living your life.
It is a straightforward historical account from God Himself about how He created our world. Why would you not believe the one who did the creating? Why would you assume that He would lie to the ones He created it for?
Even if you believed for personal reasons that the timing is off (“day” equals billions of years or whatever), why would God lie about the ORDER in which He created (heaven on day 2, earth on day 3, sun, moon and stars on day 4, etc)?
I see. So if I understand Genesis as the straightforward historical account that it is, I automatically reject any kind of metaphorical language in the entirety of the OT? Is that the claim?
You still keep making that claim without offering any valid indication that my understanding of Gen 1 is flawed in some way.
That is only one example of a zillion. You would have to refute each one individually since there are manifold dating methods and they mutually support each other. How about the girdled rocks? You haven’t addressed them.
[We go through this every time a YEC shows up here with the same routine claims. @moderators, might there be a way to streamline the process so we don’t have to reinvent the wheel every time?]
This is a good example of how the different dating methods reaffirm each other:
Love it – bat breath testifies to an old earth:
Extinct radioactive atoms… this is not about radiometric dating of artifacts on or in the earth:
You’re just throwing out the word “assumption” as a magic shibboleth again. I’ve told you several times already that you can’t do that. Not if you want to communicate anything of substance.
What on earth are you talking about? The difference between soft tissue and soft tissue remnants is a very real, measurable, physical and chemical one. Semantics has nothing to do with it.
No it is not, for the simple reason that nobody had any measurements to indicate that the fossils could not be that old. On the other hand, the age that you claim was merely “claimed” was measured.
You do not challenge measurements by hand-waving that “nobody expected that.”
The clear and easily understandable words of Scripture are that you must have accurate and honest weights and measurements. Deuteronomy 25:13-16.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: any creation model, any interpretation of Genesis 1-11, any challenge to the scientific consensus on the age of the earth or evolution, must obey those verses. Anything that does not is not scientific, is not honest, and is not Biblical.
We have shown that actualistic taphonomy provides mechanisms for preserving endogenous soft tissues previously considered impossible, that these mechanisms provide a means for preserving constituent molecules to the degree that they may shed light on evolutionary relationships, and that certain aspects of the immediate microenvironments of degradation can be deduced by examining the chemistry of preservation. These results confirm earlier findings, and those reported in other studies, and shed light on the possible suite of processes involved in fossilisation at the molecular level. The ability to localize structural proteins within vascular tissues and correlate these observations to chemical and structural alterations in fossil soft tissues will contribute to the development of a comprehensive model of mechanisms that contribute to vascular tissue survival from deep time.
With the multitudinous old earth arguments and rebuttals to young earth claims, plus evidences and resources listed and the requirement they pass a multiple choice test before they can post?
One thing in particular that I think would be useful would be a guide to what does or does not constitute a legitimate challenge to a scientific theory.
I wrote one myself a while ago. Any suggestions for improvement would be welcome.
