It takes the faith of Christ to reveal His truth. True or False?
Evidential Arguments
“It is good to show people evidence and how the Bible makes sense of it. But this by itself will not resolve a debate over worldviews. A person’s worldview tells him how to interpret the evidence.” Dr. Jason Lisle
Kootenai Church Conference with Dr. Jason Lisle Session 1: The Ultimate Proof of Creation Church Conference with Dr. Jason Lisle Session 1: The Ultimate Proof of Creation
My worldview is that all truth is God’s truth. Natural revelation tells us that the world is ancient, as befitting an eternal God.
A Biblical worldview says this:
“¹³Do not have two differing weights in your bag — one heavy, one light. ¹⁴Do not have two differing measures in your house — one large, one small. ¹⁵You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lᴏʀᴅ your God is giving you. ¹⁶For the Lᴏʀᴅ your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.” – Deuteronomy 25:13-16
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: any creation model, any interpretation of Genesis 1, any attempt to challenge the scientific consensus on the age of the earth or evolution, must obey these verses. It must report the evidence that we see in nature accurately and interpret it honestly and coherently. This means that there are rules that must be followed and standards that must be maintained in doing so. Any worldview that does not obey those rules and does not meet those standards is not Biblical, is not scientific, and is not honest.
All I am asking of young earth creationists such as Jason Lisle is that they justify their approach to measurement. If they are able to do so, and their justification stands up to scrutiny, I will be onboard with YEC in an instant. But as it stands, their approach to these verses is a complete omnishambles. In fact, it is so bad that they even go so far as to flat-out deny that they are relevant to the debate.
So what do you do with the Scriptures that claim the earth doesn’t move? Believe them? Or not believe them? Or maybe ignore me?
At least the flat earth Christians take the scriptures seriously.
How many here listened to Dr Jason Lisle?
It takes the faith of Christ to reveal His truth. True or False?
If the earth did not move we would not have day or night.
If the sun was any closer than where the Lord placed it we would burn, just as if it was further away from earth we would freeze.
That’s true. But the Bible says in multiple places that the earth doesn’t move. So you don’t believe what the Bible says?
It would help if you posted a summary of the video with timestamps, Kelli. Most of us here have listened to a million and one talks by various young earth speakers and they all say exactly the same things as each other. If you want to persuade any of us to spend an hour and a half listening to another one, you need to tell us what this one brings to the table that the others don’t.
You don’t understand.
Understand jammycakes, if you don’t have time. I would hope a jury would take the time to gather all the evidence.
Everyone has a response to the seed of God. The seed of God is the Word of God
The parable of the Sower are four types of RESPONSES to His Seed/Word and only one will produce fruit because only one is saved and has His Spirit. The other three RESPONSES are those who fell away from the faith. Those who fell away never had His Seed/Spirit in them.
@Kelli You seem to be contradicting scripture itself. Scripture says both. Both that the earth does not move (Ps.104:5: “He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved”) and that there is “evening and morning” (Gen.1, several occasions).
So, from within scripture, “[earth] can never be moved”. But yet also that there is still day and night.
Could you expand, please, on what interpretive methods you choose which allow you seemingly to bend scripture’s “…it can never be moved”? And expand on how your chosen interpretive methodology handles “…earth on its foundation”? Thanks.
Are you unable to summarise its key points here? Then please don’t expect us to waste our God-given time for well over an hour on a video whose overall content we already almost certainly know.
Instead, please do us the courtesy of typing into this thread the key points you wish to discuss. Thanks…
Exactly what don’t I understand?
I did.
I assume that “His truth” in the question above refers to Christ’s truth. If so, then I’d say “True”.
Uhhh, … I’m not sure that that’s a hook that you want to hang your hat on.
You see, “an earth that does not move” means different things to different people. For example, I’m one of the folks around here who says that there’s an “Absolute Space” and an “Absolute Time”, which I’m pretty sure is a minority opinion here in Biologos, and–for that matter–not the accepted view among “mainstream science” scientists.
Because I believe in Absolute Space, anybody who says “the earth does not move” is saying something very silly or worse. Now I don’t expect you to know or understand what “Absolute Space” (or “Absolute Time”) is, but I would be really surprised if Dr. Jason Lisle doesn’t know or understand what those terms mean. So, I’d be pleased if you checked with your sources and ask whether Dr. Lisle believes that “Absolute Space” and “Absolute Time” are possible.
Right off the top of my head, I’m going to guess that Dr. Lisle doesn’t believe that either term is possible, but let’s see.
I don’t know what ‘the faith of Christ’ means. Like we have Christ’s faith? Because of Christ’s faith? Because of Judaism? What did Christ have faith in?
I am familiar with Jason Lisle from his articles.
Evidence, by the very essence of the word, is information and data which supports or is contrary to a belief. Jason Lisle does not ask his followers to interpret evidence, but to dismiss evidence in favor of fabricated alternatives. That is false witness which has nothing to do with worldview or faith, and everything to do with self delusion.
YEC stresses interpretation in order to distract from the actual scientific method which has at its heart observation and, as @jammycakes is trying hard to get you to understand, measurement. YEC is incompatible with what we observe and measure in reality. Make no mistake, even allowing a distinction, YEC is as hostile to observational science and it is to historical science.
Actually, there is the cosmic microwave background, and you can use that as your reference point by which to define “absolute space.” It is possible to measure how fast the earth, the Solar System and the Milky Way are moving relative to the cosmic microwave background. It turns out that the sun is moving relative to the CMB at 368 ± 2 km/s, and the Local Group of galaxies is moving relative to the CMB at 627 ± 22 km/s.
How you define “Absolute Space” is one thing. My request to Kelli is a request to find out for me how Dr. Lisle defines it, unless you already know for a fact how he defines it, in which case I would welcome your reference to Lisle’s definition which would save Kelli the trouble of looking for one.
For what it’s worth, Jason Lisle is probably best known for his work on what he calls the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention.
This cites the fact (which is actually true) that we can’t measure the speed of light in a single direction, and so, thanks to special relativity, we could come up with a convention in which the speed of light travelling towards us was infinite, and the speed of light travelling away from us was c/2. Hence, in that convention, light from distant stars could indeed be only six thousand years old rather than 4.5 billion.
Unfortunately, there are several problems with this.
First: it isn’t young earth creationism; it’s day-age creationism pretending to be young earth creationism. You still end up with the simplest, most obvious reference frame showing that light from distant stars has taken billions of years to travel towards us. Since YEC insists that the days of creation have to be 24 hour solar days of Earth time in Earth’s reference frame, Lisle’s ASC simply is not consistent with that insistence.
Second: It doesn’t account for the fact that light from distant stars arrives showing us things such as this:
This is a photograph from the Hubble Space Telescope showing two galaxies in collision with each other. Besides being about 300 million light years away, these two galaxies are about 100,000 light years from one side of the left hand one to the end of the “tail” of the right hand one, and are colliding with each other at a rate of a couple of hundred kilometres a second or so. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation here tells you that they must have been colliding with each other for several hundred million years to get into that configuration. Are we expected to believe that God created these galaxies with the appearance of being in collision with each other when in fact they weren’t?
Third: it makes the maths insanely complicated.
Fourth: it disregards the physical reality of how light actually works. The speed of light is intimately related to the relative strengths of electric and magnetic fields as a result of Maxwell’s Equations, and for light to be travelling infinitely fast towards us in one direction and at c/2 in the other direction would require the electric permittivity of a vacuum and the magnetic permeability of a vacuum to have different values at the same position in space and the same time depending on which way you’re travelling. Given that both these quantities are (a) scalar quantities with no inherent direction to them, and (b) fundamental constants of nature, such a proposition is quite simply patent nonsense.
“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.
