No, I just don’t think you fully understand what accurate and honest weights and measures look like. Are you familiar with the concept of error bars? Do you understand how they are determined and what they signify?
3 Likes
I’m glad you do, and I’m not trying to talk you out of your particular theological beliefs. I believe too. I appreciate the concern, but no, you personally are not a stumbling block to me. But I do tend to avoid Christian spaces where a young-earth viewpoint is put forth as some sort of litmus test for orthodoxy, as if the entire faith must be built on that rather than Jesus. That sort of viewpoint can definitely be a stumbling block, though I realize that not all young-earth believers teach that way.
My views on scripture are not scripture. I am capable of being wrong about them, just as many Christians in history were wrong about using scripture as some sort of “proof” that our solar system is geocentric.
Right… because the Bible isn’t a “test” about scientific things. That’s why I try to avoid projecting my 21st century expectations onto an ancient text, though I know I’m not always successful. I’ve said my piece so I’ll probably bow out here, but thanks for the discussion and blessings to you.
7 Likes
And yet instead of answering, you blew it off as neither important nor related to your point. I disagree. I think it is important and DIRECTLY related to the point you tried to make. I also know that making two prosthetic legs so a man can walk upright again would be a VERY different matter than going back in time to discover when and why men began walking upright in the first place.
Let’s suffice it to say that your attempt to claim that since, through science, we can make computers, we can therefore, through science, also determine that a particular rock or fossil is 2.7 billion years old and the universe is 13.8 billion years old has been exposed as flawed and rather nonsensical - no matter how much you protest.
I don’t see why not based on the evidence. You tell me.
Really? They could comprehend God making human sons for Abraham out of stones - but making them out of monkeys would have been too hard for them?
God didn’t need to go deeply into scientific explanations - or to explain in detail how He created our world - in order for Him to tell the truth.
Do you believe that God said, “Let there be light”, and there was light? If not, why not? If so, does God’s account of the creation of light need a scientific explanation in order to be the truth?
Both of your questions assume that the people in the Bible were ignorant buffoons. Why do you assume that WE are somehow more knowledgeable or enlightened than those to whom God spoke?
None whatsoever.
I have personally observed coastal marine deposits several meters thick, with at least one unconformity, with index fossils in each layer, and different lithology in each. How is that possible to deposit in a year? Or even a few thousand? And I have a few tens of thousands of fossil mollusks sitting within 5 meters of me that would get smashed if there were a violent flood depositing them.
Yes, because if the radiometric decay rates were much higher it would either vaporize the planet or preclude atoms from existing.
7 Likes
No… it means two literal days, and then a third literal day. Your attempt to find an exception has failed. And don’t forget that Hosea doesn’t say a thing about a morning or an evening, like Gen 1 does. Hey I know…
After two days he will revive us, and on THE MORNING OF the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.
How about now? Literal days?
No, I don’t believe that. I know what metaphorical language is, and that it is used often in the scriptures. Is there any valid reason to take anything in Gen 1 as metaphorical? If so, point it out to me.
No. Can I read about them in the Bible? And since you say I haven’t broken the rules and haven’t used dishonest measures, are they really pertinent to continuation of the discussion?
And to you, Laura.
1 Like
Ahhh, Metaphor! What a concept, eh? If you are really interested, read John Walton’s “Genesis 1 as ancient cosmology”. He provides an excellent case.
2 Likes
Yes error bars very much are pertinent to continuation of the discussion because they are fundamental to the basic rules and principles of how measurement works. If you do not understand error bars then you will not be able to tell what constitutes honest and accurate measurement and what doesn’t. And if you try to challenge scientific findings without that understanding then you very much will be breaking the rules because one of the most important rules is that you need to know what you are talking about. You can’t claim that you aren’t breaking any of the rules if you don’t even know what the rules are.
This is the number one thing that you need to understand here, Mike. You say you are here to try and convince people – or at least someone – that young earthism is correct and the rest of us are wrong. In order to do that, you need to address what our specific concerns with young earthism actually are and not what you imagine them to be. This means that you need to understand those objections and address them in ways that are coherent, honest and accurate. You will not persuade anyone of anything by shouting, or by weaponising the Bible to try and bully and intimidate us into accepting anything and everything you say without any regard to whether it makes sense or not. You will only do so by demonstrating a commitment to honest reporting and honest interpretation of accurate information.
So do you want me to explain error bars to you? Because if not, then all I can say, like others who are commenting on this thread, is that there is no point in continuing any further with this discussion.
2 Likes
Okay, if it is so easy to explain, then assuming God used evolution, how would you have written that into the Genesis account so that people with no knowledge of biology or genetics could understand it? My guess is, even you couldn’t write up such an account. I don’t think you really want to discuss this evenhandedly, since you seem to be accusing me of assuming the people of Biblical times of being buffoons. I am implying no such thing. I can’t explain evolutionary theory to lots of perfectly intelligent modern people unless they at least first learn some basic biology and genetics. The problem is not one of intelligence, it is one of lack of relevant information. You can’t give an intelligible explanation for something when the language for describing things of that nature simply does not exist.
I feel no need to convince you otherwise, and am done with this “debate,” since you give every indication you have no intention of actually considering evidence, which has been amply provided. You have even admitted you feel no need to read any of the things people suggest you read because you already know for sure that God created life on earth about 6,000 years ago with all the species (or at least more less so) we see today. Fine, believe that if you like. If you are that sure, why bother debating or interacting here?
3 Likes
It is you who initiated the discussion about aligning scientific evidence with the Bible. I was responding to
That there is data supporting dinosaurs alive in the recent past is a scientific claim. If you put it forward be prepared to have it challenged on scientific grounds. Consistency is a hallmark of reliable science, and your claim is inconsistent with the fact that the tens of thousands of dinosaur fossils have never been found with any remains of modern mammals. The KT boundary is a line of demarcation. The asteroid impact is a well substantiated reason for extinction, whereas if dinosaurs were on the ark there is no good reason they should not still be with us today - alive and not as some microscopic tissue derived remains.
4 Likes
Mike, just so we are clear, do you accept that the earth is a sphere orbiting in a heliocentric solar system?
3 Likes
When you take it out of context and change the meaning to prophecy, but not the way it was originally written.
Ron,
Another simple point that many YECs who accept the worldwide flood as the cause of all the fossils is that there are fossil beds with so many remains that if all those organisms had been alive at the same time (which would have had to have been the case if they were all buried in the flood) their density would have been many times greater than could possibly have been supported by the ecology. It gets mind-boggling sometimes how such clear evidence can be so cavalierly swept aside.
5 Likes
The mountains of evidence demonstrating the history of the universe would seem to be a very valid reason.
3 Likes
No, I do not believe that God spoke in a human language long before that language existed. No, I do not believe God used tongue and vocal cords long before such things were used for communication. No, I do not believe that God accomplishes things by giving orders like a human despot. No, I do not believe God created the universe by adding things like a painter adding features to a empty canvas. No, I do not believe God created human beings like a child making mud pies or by blowing life into inanimate matter like a boy blowing up a pool toy with air. There is no such thing which can be added to inanimate matter to make it alive.
What I believe is that Genesis 1-2 was teaching us something about God using means human beings would understand at the time. What I believe is that Quantum physics and General Relativity did not have to be explained by God to people over 2 millennia ago in order to be true. What I believe is that God is not limited to the Bible for communication with us. What I believe is that God is speaking to us in all the data He sends us from the earth and sky. What I believe is that God is not a liar trying to trick us into believing the wrong things with all the evidence He sends us. So yes, light and life will have scientific explanations because God is faithful and true, and not a lying devil or trickster demon.
3 Likes