I probably can’t prove it to you. That’s fine. Go in grace and serve the Lord. 
7 Likes
Really? Why did the Holy Spirit remain silent about quantum mechanics for thousands of years if it’s so true?
Moses wrote 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.
Any creation model, any interpretation of Genesis 1, any challenge to the scientific consensus on the age of the earth or evolution, must obey those verses. Do your challenges to the scientific consensus on the age of the earth or evolution obey those verses?
I refer the Right Honourable Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier.
I’m sorry to hear that. My condolences. I fully agree that communism is evil, whether Darwin inspired it or not.
1 Like
The Bible is not why I believe in evolution. The Bible plays essentially no role in my scientific understanding and is only used a a guide for my morality and ethics when it comes to science.
The literary clues of genesis 1-2 lets me see that it’s probably not meant to be understood literally.
So thst allows me to see genesis 1-2 as not opposing to science anymore than their concept on weather.
3 Likes
Glad you brought up demon meteorology. We know from the Bible that God controls the weather. To try to find the origin of weather change in barometric changes, heat and cold differentials and satellite imagery is to diminish the role and power of God. The desire of man to predict the weather was spoke of with condemnation by Jesus:
Matthew 16
Red sky in the morning,
cloudy and storming.’
You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, yet you can’t interpret the signs of the times?[a] 4 An evil and adulterous generation craves a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.”
7 Likes
I’m starting to wonder lol. The current meteorologist we have sometimes I think he’s outside and when it’s raining he says it’s raining and when it’s not he just says 10% chance lol. I know they must have it hard honestly On the gulf coast of Mexico. Storms develop and disappear in moments. Must be much harder I think for them on islands with the influence of the ocean vs somewhere mid america where it’s probably stable.
I just wish the Bible talked about bodily functions like peeing so we could at least have some kind of idea what’s happening xd.
1 Like
Just make sure you go outside the camp to do it. That’s all you need to know.
You won’t find any mention of toilets anywhere in scriptures. They are 100% secular, and so as the atheistic thrones they must be, just play it safe and stay away from them.
8 Likes
The closest I know of offhand are I Kings 14:10 and Mark 7:19.
2 Likes
Or electromagnetic radiation, chemistry, cellular biology, paleontology, etc.
It seems somewhat as if enlightening us about the physical world is not God’s top priority.
3 Likes
There are at least three main reasons to oppose YEC. One is that the current version is dangerously bad theology. As Paul points out in Galatians, any adding to the gospel becomes a legalistic false gospel. Claims like “the doctrine of creation is essential to evangelism” or claiming that the age of the earth is a salvation issue substitute believing young-earth claims about science for trust in Jesus. Likewise, “testimonies” that say “I was an evolutionist but now I’m a creationist” conspicuously lack Jesus or repentance. The willingness of young-earthers to cooperate with non-Christians who will support their science claims shows that promoting Christianity is not their top priority. Of course, it is perfectly fine for Christians to work together with others who share a common interest; what is wrong is claiming that one is doing Christian apologetics while doing so. Sadly, the evangelical church has often replied to criticism of the theology of young-earth and ID sources by saying “they’re just scientists” while responding to criticism of their science by saying “but it’s such good theology”. The Raelians, in the ID movement, unquestionably have both bad theology and bad science.
Another serious theological error that pervades young-earth and ID arguments is the god of the gaps. Scientific explanations are presented by atheists and by young-earthers as taking God out of the picture. But this is wrong. God is at work in things that happen by natural laws and in things that happen miraculously.
Another reason to oppose YEC is that is scientifically ridiculous and incoherent. By 1775, it was unambiguously clear that science supported a very old earth, with most of that time pre-human; over the next few decades it became increasingly clear that we could understand what the earth was like at various times in the past and that most deposits formed quite slowly. [This meant that “Enlightenment” ideas of earth and humans continuing through endless cycles were wrong; as most geologists of the first half of the 1800’s recognized, this fits rather well with the biblical concept of history as having a beginning and an end.] Modern creation science attempts to attack the consistent results of the past 300+ years of geology, along with plenty of biology, astronomy, and anything else that happens to seem inconvenient. Rather than seriously attempting to develop a reasonable scientific model, the approach of creation science overwhelmingly is to throw whatever attacks and claims seem like they might support a young earth. There is no concern for whether one claim is compatible with another, or whether the claim is true, in most young-earth sources. As a result, people who have been taught that the Bible teaches a young earth frequently run into trouble when they find out that young earth teachings are completely untrue. It’s not the case that the evidence could reasonably interpreted as fitting either an old or a young earth, nor is it true that objective observers have ever found scientific arguments against an old earth to be good. The evidence clearly and unambiguously points to a vast age for the earth. Anyone trying to find natural resources such as oil or ore uses old earth models. Young earth models don’t even tell you to look in the wrong place; they do not tell you where to look. Every time you use gasoline, plastic, polyester, metals, or other geological resources, you are seeing that old-earth models work. Teaching people that they have to reject well-supported science is a recipe for apostasy.
Another reason to oppose YEC is that it is typically arrogantly combative. There is very little listening or thinking and much accusation in the approach typically taken. This drives seekers away from the church.
If we are not merely fooling ourselves, we must always be asking “is this a good argument” before we ask “does it support what I think?”
8 Likes
“Really? Why did the Holy Spirit remain silent about quantum mechanics for thousands of years if it’s so true?”
The Holy Spirit was not silent about origins, that’s the problem here. You have no right whatsoever to contradict the thousand year old teaching of the Holy Spirit.
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.
This has nothing to do with origins. What you are quoting is a part of Moses’ law about not dealing dishonestly in your business dealings, meaning that do not falsify your measurements for illicit gain. Furthermore, data points are data points. Measurements are measurements. A DNA sequence is the same both for an evolutionist as for a YEC. We merely interpret the same measurement differently.
Do your challenges to the scientific consensus on the age of the earth or evolution obey those verses?
The scientific consensus on the age of the earth means nothing when I interpret the Bible. You also have no basis for reading in evolution into your interpretation of Genesis. Evolutionary theory is only 150 years old. Thus, theistic evolution is an eisegetic novelty. Your Bible interpretation has no warrant whatsoever.
Funny that the word evolution occurs nowhere in the Bible. Just search for it using any Bible software. Again, science did not begin with Darwin. Science thrives on plurality of theories. Evolution is a purely materialistic philosophy of origins (too bad many in the church just swallow it wholesale uncritically). If theistic evolutionists want to “theify” evolution, to put a ‘god’ behind evolution would men that evolution is now supernatural, thus outside the purview of science. Theistic evolution is not science. You can’t have it both ways.
YECs also ignore Jeremiah 33:25 with their penchant to have a variable speed of light and capricious radionuclide decay rates. We could talk about their games with dendrochronology and varves, too, not to mention ice core stratigraphy.
1 Like
How about your wisdom about ‘flood geology’ concerning girdled rocks in the following (by a Christian, and actully kind of fun):
or this:
New evidence always supports the antiquity of the earth and the universe, and it continues to build. (It’s too bad that YECism is so frequently so closely identified with Christianity as to be integral to it. It’s not evolution that deflects unbelieving enquirers and alienates young people raised in YEC homes and churches!)
Quite right. Truth or fiction, you cannot have it both ways.
4 Likes
This is a really funny argument. The words “gasoline” and “microwave” and “iPhone” don’t appear in the Bible either, but I’m pretty sure those all exist. One could play that game forever. It’s not even remotely interesting, much less a meaningful statement.
I’m actually curious, do you consider that a serious argument against evolution or were you just trying to be…I don’t know, provocative I guess?
9 Likes
You are now the tenth YEC and counting to take this ridiculous line with me.
Deuteronomy 25:13-16 applies to every context in which measurement is used. No exceptions, no excuses. You cannot fob it off as applying only to business dealings for the simple reason that claiming that it does not apply to other contexts is demanding the right to tell lies about those contexts.
And no, you can’t just fob off measurements by saying that they have to be interpreted. There are honest interpretations and dishonest interpretations. It is not honest to interpret measurements, for example, by taking one measurement from one place and dividing it by another measurement from a completely different place.
If YECism had a shred of integrity, you would have responded to me by trying to justify the YEC approach to measurement. By playing the “out of context” card, you have (a) admitted that you don’t have a leg to stand on in that respect, and (b) demanded the right to flat-out lie about it. I’m sorry if you think I’m being ungracious there, but if you don’t want to be called a liar, don’t demand the right to tell lies.
7 Likes
Okay, instead of blasting off about Evolution let’s consider the purpose of Genesis 1-2 (we can worry about the Garden another time). The Jews are stuck in exhile. They are surrounded by people who not only do not believe in their God, they have very strong and insidious beliefs, one of which is about creation. God inspires some one, (or ones) to write the version we read in Genesis, In fact, it is very similar to the Babylonian one except it places God at the centre of creation and changes the number of “days” from 8 to 6, You will notice that on two occasions God does 2 things, allowing six days to create and one to rest.
So Genesis 1 has 2 distinct purposes: To claim that God created everything, in order, and to establish the Sabbath.
The time scale is not important. “A thousand years are but a day in God’s sight”, is misusing another part of scipture but it serves a point. What is important is that the passage is easy to read (poetic).
Genesis 2: 4 onwards is actually written by a different hand. If you look the style is different, and the sequence of creation is also different. The purpose of this is the creation of man as a distinct and different creation from the rest of what God had made. And the establishment of the Marriage of male and female. It also serves to keep the Jewish female subservient.
Science was not an issue because science did not exist. Most people could not read so the 1st creation story is designed to be chanted and learned.
Scripture is about faith and God, not science.
Richard
7 Likes
Why does YEC oppose poetry and science?
3 Likes
Welcome, @Matthew_Cserhati. I appreciate your interaction. Maybe you can tell us more about yourself. I currently live in West Michigan, where my parents are originally from, but I was born in West Africa, where they were missionaries. I really enjoyed growing up near the predominantly Muslim country farmers, where they asked you how you and your family were doing, and seemed to have time to get to know you. It reminds me of many parts of West Michigan, including the Amish where I currently live.
You also might want to look at the "What We Like About AiG, to discuss areas of agreement, as well. Thanks.
I look forward to learning from each other.
1 Like
Good to see you again, Richard! I hope you have been safe and well. Good insight.
Randy
1 Like