I assume that you do not mean to say that for all other dealings, dishonesty is A-OK, so what do you intend?
@Jammycakes application of these verses is appropriate in that the soul of science is measurement. These measurements speak for themselves. YEC does not interpret them differently; YEC fabricates fantastical flights of fancy with no credibility. Like“yeah, nuclear decay just sped up like a bomb, only there was no explosion, but there was a little bit of heat because we want to grease up the tectonic plates. Oh, and while that is going on the magnetic field of the planet flipped like every other day, because…well…forget about all that electrodynamics stuff, it just suits us.” That is no interpretation of the data, but a dismissal of the data, often by reprehensible misrepresentation of the science involved.
There is no distant starlight problem. Light takes billions of years to reach us from sources billions of lightyears away. No problem.
Radiometric dating indicates rock crystallized billions of years ago? No problem.
All the measurement problems YEC seeks to redress are not problems to begin with. The measurements are what they are, and it is dishonest to fudge the scale.
Why did God take a whole 144 hours to create the universe? Why not do it instantaneously? And did he take a whole 24 hours for the recorded creations on a given day or was it instantaneous and then he waited for the next day to come around?
(I was a YEC in my youth because it was the only thing I knew. But I never did like the explanations of where light came from before the sun was created – they seemed fabricated and a forced fit, unsupported biblically and nothing to do with reality.)
Because God opposes YEC in all the information He sends us from the earth and sky. We prefer not to call God a liar. You may like a liar as your God but I do not.
What about the Bible? It is not a science textbook. It is full of dreams and parables. We have little reason therefore to use the Bible to support contradicting what God tells us and to call God a liar.
That last sentence resembles parts of this conversation.
4 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
60
@jammycakes, @rsewell, @GhostlyFigure02, guys, rationally proving that YEC pseudoscience is dishonest, that their God is a liar, cannot possibly help them. Nothing can. They have to double down. How can we help ourselves in the light of that? And not add to their burdens in the process?
Yes, measurement really is the elephant in the room for YECs. They try to insist that it’s just “secular science” that they are opposing, but it isn’t “secular science” that tells us that the earth is 4.5 billion years old; it’s the most basic, fundamental principles of measurement and mathematics that sit right at the foundation of every branch of science, secular or not. It’s particularly telling that I’ve never had a YEC try to defend their approach to measurement other than by playing the “out of context” card. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that they know full well that they haven’t a leg to stand on in that respect. Especially if they have science degrees.
What they’re doing with Genesis 1 is simply weaponising it to try to bully and intimidate Christians into going along with them and we need to recognise that for what it is. It’s the only way they can get any traction.
3 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
63
Aye, and my response to To what extent should we assume good faith? was always. Unless it’s obvious we’re dealing with knowing Machiavels. Which isn’t the case here. We have to be far smarter, more tolerant, inclusive in dealing with those with other epistemologies. And do it without superiority and patronization. As in politics.
In #7 you seem to favour the idea that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. But that idea is, in your words of #49, a “tradition of men”: the sort of thing you strongly disfavour.
To defend “Moses wrote the Pentateuch” is to defend “the tradition of men”.
One of the biggest reasons I detest young earth creationism , and I absolutely do. “ Love the young earth creationist , hate the young earth creationism “ type of thing. Ultimately young earth creationism is bad theology that misses basic things like genre type and often they ignore common sense practices such as editing of a story, but they also ignore and misrepresent science. Ultimately it just encourages a very backwards unintelligent way of seeing the world. It does not mean the YEacist is stupid, but it does mean they often wear these dummy glasses. It often also seems like it’s teamed up with other things exponentially. I feel like you find far less bigotry within EC than you do within YECism.
Westboro Baptist church has been been holding “ evolution is satanic lies”.
Though the KKK is mostly gone it still exists somewhat and one of those places is in the south, though they are also in Washington state and ect… but in the south at food festivals like the strawberry festivals or German sausage festivals you still end up seeing these people set up a tent, wearing their uniform with the hood down selling little trinkets like pocket knives with the rebel flag and so on. I often poke at them when I’m there and none of them have ever agreed with evolution and when they do it’s a weird mixture of Adam was white and certain animals evolved into subhuman like species. But in general they just reject evolution in any form. Either way they ignore the actual scientific data.
Now i don’t think anywhere near all YECist are to those extremes. But I do often see YECism breeding in the same vein movements. Such as the political movement to enforce theocracy where all kinds of things are banned or criminalized. It seems to breed bigotry in many forms. It seems to breed this desire to suffocate personal freedoms. There are always exceptions and outliers but most of the time when there is some
Christian Parents that refuse medical treatment for their kids it’s some kind of YECist. The bulk of anti maskers and anti vaxxers I met were also some kind of yecist. When I’m doing volunteer work at nature preserves and meet other Christian’s they tend to almost always either already accepts evolutions or are in the process of being critical of YECism and want to accept EC but are not sure how to harmonize it and after talking are relieved to know that many do and here are some sources.
So in a nutshell I oppose YECism because I think it breeds toxicity, anti love and anti stewardship through misrepresenting and ignoring science and promoting the worse kinds of biblical hermeneutics.
When you ignore evidence because it conflicts with the conclusion you want, you are no longer doing science.
Science is an activity. Science is a method. Science requires you to test falsifiable hypotheses. When you decide that no evidence can ever falsify your hypothesis you are no longer doing science.
I am sorry to hear that the Communists killed your grandfather. I am sure he was a good man. On the other hand, you should know that communism is based on Marxist economic theory, not evolution. It is about politics and social movement, not about science.
During WW2 Hitler claimed tone Christian, but Nazi racism was the main enemy. Stalin was an atheist and a brutal dictator, but Hitler was worse.
YEC’s do claim inerrancy. They are telling us that their interpretation of the Bible is infallible which allows them to ignore any and all evidence that contradicts their interpretation. That is not science.
The gospels in the New Testament have Jesus talking about a widow with a mite, a father with a prodigal son, a virtuous Samaritan, and a sower of seeds. I don’t think any of us understand these events to be literal.
“The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go.”–Galileo Galilei
Why did God take a whole 144 hours to create the universe? Why not do it instantaneously?
Dale, you know that God could have created it all in an instant, but if you have read Genesis 1 you shall find that God spread out His work over the course of six days. God worked six days, so shall we, read Exodus 20 on the fourth commandment. [content removed by moderator]
No, then you do not know how Stalin pointed to evolutionary theory to support Communism. I have personally read dozens of Hungarian language articles from the Communist era of Hungary all supporting without a shadow of a doubt that Communism is based on evolutionary theory. Communists believed that biological evolution continues in societal evolution with the working class overthrowing the capitalists resulting in Utopia. Communist authors all placed historical development into an evolutionary perspective. [content removed by moderator]
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.
What you say makes absolutely no sense at all. All you are saying is that you must be honest in your business dealings and make accurate measurements. It doesn’t matter whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist or conservative or liberal or Democrat or Republican or whatnot. It has no direct bearing on the creation/evolution debate. What about the fact that evolutionists ignore the 50+ articles in peer-reviewed journals that describe soft tissue in dinosaur bones? Red blood cells, osteocytes, stretchy collagen. Why don’t they teach about these things in public schools? Because it would greatly weaken their theory. So, they falsify the measurements. Lies. They have no right to do this. Shame on them.
Could you share some of these articles, please? This evolutionary creationist would genuinely love to read some. After all, if there is 50+ it shouldn’t be too hard to share a link or two with me, right?
In return you may wish to read this article with Dr. Mary Schweitzer, the palaeontologist who discovered the fossilised soft tissue.
Self contradictory statement. The act of publishing in peer-review journals means by definition that evolutionists have not ignored results involving soft tissue in dinosaur fossils. Who did you think the peers were?
