The reverse is true: YECists and atheists both ignore the fact that the Bible is ancient literature, instead reading it as if it is their great-grandfather’s diary of objective reporting. In so doing they throw away almost all of the meaning of the opening of Genesis.
Ancient scholars, back before the telescope was even invented, concluded from Genesis 1 that the universe started out as small as a grain of mustard – a way of saying “the smallest thing possible” – and expanded rapidly to an immense size. While it expanded the fluid that filled it got thinner and thinner until it was thin enough for light to shine, and God commanded light to exist. They concluded that the earth is uncountably old and the universe many times older still. That sounds like the Big Bang, but they concluded that as far back as the eighth century.
An ancient earth, which they estimated to be at least a billion years old – a thousand times a thousand times a thousand – wasn’t invented by atheist but by believers.
They also noted that living things emerged from the earth itself because that’s what Genesis says: God commanded the earth to bring forth living things, and it did.
I refused the t-shirt because it contradicts what Genesis actually says.
Amen! Genesis is not the foundation, the Incarnation is. Genesis could only happen because the Son became flash.
YECs might. Atheists aren’t of a monolithic opinion, and many consider the bible to be ancient literature, a combination of creation myth and legends in the same vein as the Eddas or the Kalevala etc.
Atheism is not a single viewpoint. It’s a disbelief, and says nothing about anyone’s actual views.
Any time anyone writes 'all atheists think …’ about anything other than not believing in any gods, they will be wrong.
That seems to me to be retro-fitting. Which ancient scholars wrote that?
Let there be light?
Or merely Superstar?
There’s a strong inverse correlation between ‘truth’ in usernames and truth in post content.
I suspect they all tend to believe their “truth” is the only true truth.
Physics is science
Chemistry is science
Astronomy is science
Geology is science
Biology is science
None of these conflict, and working as a whole they all play important roles in our understanding of the deep past including the history of life. That is called the consilience of science.
The universe is wondrously dynamic. Evolution is biology over time, and all nature you see about you, is a snapshot of evolution.
If it’s true, you don’t have to continuously repeat that assertion; just the proof. Good point.
And none of them conflict with Genesis, just with some warped understandings of Genesis.
People criticize everything no matter how sensible so what does that prove?
Accepting limits of verifiability (measurability) is the very essence of science. So these lines you are imagining are irrelevant to science because there is no reference to any measurement whatsoever.
LOL
People have “come back from the dead” even when a medical doctor has pronounce the person dead.
But I don’t think anything like that is what happened anyway. Where is Jesus in the years after the crucifixion? He did not come back in any usual sense let alone in any scientifically measurable way. After all, what is the word “scientific” even mean in your sentence? As scientist, I would expect a direct link to a measurement of some kind. There is no measurement of any kind and thus science has absolutely NOTHING to do with this.
Okay. I wasn’t trying to “poke holes” in any of these narratives (because I truly find them important for my life). I kinda was just thinking of how we interpret these events as evidence. However, I remember hearing a good saying that history doesn’t play the by the same rules as science; Julius Caesar couldn’t have been stabbed twenty times to prove it, and if something happened, then it happened (regardless of how it fits science).
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.