YEC, ID and other sidebars

Faith & Science Conversation
122

Why do you keep bringing up what is your personal fantasy? I can think of only a very few times on Biologos that the opening of Genesis was mentioned as an allegory (except by you), and none of that was by regulars.

Why do you refuse to face the common use of language there? You’re seeing what you want to see, not what the text actually supports!

Given that the first book on the little shelf in my kitchen is about the right to keep and bear arms, does that mean that the next three aren’t cookbooks?

You claim to follow the Bible but you don’t even treat it with enough respect to recognize that it is made up of multiple books, many of which have multiple ‘books’ within them.

123

No he did not look up the references…he saw the URLS (ie Answers in Genesis being one of them) and immediately applied a personal claim without supporting evidence…claiming they are pseudo references.

My response to that claim was to use an illustration that the SDA church is claimed to be a pseudo religion…ie a cult. Facts are, it is clearly not a pseudo denomination/ cult. that is a flat out lie and yet it is facilitated on a regular basis by other denominations without any honest supporting evidence.

what Ron should have done there, is go to the variety of references, drag out the apparently errant information and address it directly. He did not do that, neither did you.

You people are so good at throwing those kinds of defenses into the mix here…3rd party hearsay claims of “pseudo” science or “pseudo” belief.

how interesting…

image
image1778×805 65.4 KB

image
image1835×1047 304 KB

Have you actually ever read their statement of belief on this topic?

Matthew 24
(NIV)
For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;

(ESV)
For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark,

(New King James)
For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,

(Amplified Bible)
For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the [very] day when Noah entered the ark,

(Majority Standard bible)
For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark.

(Douay Rheims Bible)
For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, even till that day in which Noe entered into the ark,

(Amramaic Bible in English)
For just as they were eating and drinking before the flood, and they were taking wives, and they were taking husbands, until the day that Noah entered the ark,

(Haweis New testament)
For as they were in the days preceding the deluge, eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark,

(Worsley New Testament)
for as in the days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, till the day that Noah entered into the ark,

124

I’m only trying to help distinguish between subjective and objective claims. I’m not arguing that subjective claims have no legitimate part of human life. Only that to be considered scientific, they need to meet some criteria. That I love my children is a subjective claim. That doesn’t make it less important in my eyes. It just means I feel no need to put it out there as some sort of scientific fact in need of measurement and verification.

Why do you think that faith (religious faith even) must be always considered inferior to science? Isn’t that what some of the more militant neoatheists used to push a generation or two ago? But you’re a believer, so why are you pushing the same thing?

2 Likes
125

I agree with you on the basic principle here Mervin…my point is, how do you KNOW that subjective claims are reliable?

Is it not true (even scientifically) that subjective claims are reliable, that they indeed are even true because they have a means of testing and that one of those tests is internal reliability and consistency within the belief itself (for example in the statement that “you love your children”). We can apply literal real world scientific tests to your claim…without those tests, your subjective claim is not valid or true.

The same goes for Christianity…subjective claims in the bible are always validated via real literal historical events also found in the bible (and on different occasions in different places with different individuals where they are illustrated and internally tested).

So when you say, you arent talking about consistency in the bible belief there, that is actually irrelevant to the dilemma. The parameters of human thinking are not bound to specific subjects…the principles of logical thinking and testing the claims of others generally apply across the entire spectrum of human thought processes whether it be Christian belief or, fixing a flat car tyre!

BTW…i really appreciated that criticism Mervin…i sincerely think you have raised an important defense there and for good reason. too often in society, people walk around with blinkers on…they do not universally apply sound thinking principles across the variety of life’s experiences. I get a bit frustrated when drivers on the road for example, dont do that so you have stumbled across a pet topic of mine (please excuse the apparent racial inference because im not intending to be racist here)…“bloody Indian taxi drivers in Toyota Camry’s”!

1 Like
126

Generally, knowledge is a good thing. Scriptures tell us that too. But it isn’t the end-all be-all. In a recent book I’m reading about Dallas Willard and some of the people he admired, the author shares this antidote. At a retreat where he was challenged to experience the presence of God, and to try various activities to facilitate that, he was given a passage of scripture to dwell on.

He spent his time reading, studying and meditating on it… probing for new insights into it that might impress his mentor. And as he began to report back with all this, his mentor interrupted him with … “You do realize that insight and understanding is just a consolation prize, right? The grand prize is the encounter.”

1 Like
127

Given that out of scores of articles I’ve read from AiG they either lie about the evidence or lie about science, of course he assumed they were pseudoscience – anyone who has a background in science would.

Again? I’m tired of wasting time digging out the errors in AiG articles – thoough “digging” may be too harsh, the lies are usually obvious.

Yes. They say nothing about allegory.

2 Likes
128

Unless what you want is a citable source or useful data.

1 Like
129

So let me get this straight. You take a couple of minutes to spam some AI dump. In response, you expect us to go to a variety of references from familiar pseudoscience organizations, drill down and debunk what has already been debunked a thousand times before, and spend hours packaging this, only for you to take off in another direction about cults or drivers or something.

OK then. Where is your detailed response to @T_aquaticus 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution? One per day for the next month should do it.

6 Likes
130

Well said!

Good challenge. And meanwhile, how about an brief essay on why we should expect the Bible to talk science?

2 Likes
131

No. Science does not dictate what is a fact.

If someone speaks that is a fact.

I think youare claiming that faith is subjective and so is God.

No.

God either exists fact or does not exist, fact. There is nothing subjective involved

I will not have my faith diminished or ridiculed in the name of science.

If there is a voice, that is a fact. Whether that voice is human or not, if it is heard that is a fact. If not, that is a delusion or imagination, it is not some sort of subjective occurance,

Science cannot reduce God to subjectivity. My faith is real. God is real.

Richard

132

:bird: :chess_pawn:

1 Like
133

It won’t be the slightest bit of use. RichardG is refusing to say what his ‘facts’ are, so there’s no way to compare them to your examples.

Personally, I can’t think of any incidents he could have experienced during his lifetime that contradict the evolution of humans from single-celled ancestors and aren’t verifiable by others. Even God appearing in front of him and saying that humans were specially created, as convincing as that would be, doesn’t rise to the standard of objective data that he claims to have.

1 Like
134

SDA is not a cult. SDA is a religion. Ellen White died more than a century ago.

That’s not even wrong. Atheism doesn’t believe anything about anything.

1 Like
135

What is being ridiculed? What is wrong with faith being subjective?

You seem to be running into your own criticisms of science. Just because something is subjective does not mean it is unimportant. In fact, probably the most important things in our human lives are subjective.

Your thoughts are not objective facts. They are subjective by definition. That doesn’t make them unimportant, just not objective.

The reason science relies on objective facts is because we can all agree on them. Science is a pragmatic method that starts with what everyone can demonstrate to exist, and it uses testable hypotheses to figure out if our ideas about nature are right or wrong. It isn’t meant to give us some ultimate truth. It’s a limited method based on what anyone can observe.

3 Likes
136

It was not the faith that was being ridiculed but the perception.

I do not invnent or imagine facts. Facts cannot be subjective.

The understanding or interppretation of the fact can be subjective but not the fact itself. That would mean that the fact was not real.

I am not criticising science i am criticising the need for confirmation of a fact to make it a fact. Or, the definition of a fact so that it must conform to scientific rigour… FCOL you do not even conform to that rigor yoursef!.. ToE is full of un confirmable “facts” or assertions. You claim connections that cannot be confirmed physically or by observaqtion. Just because you see a microscopic connection and decide iit must mean something it becomes a fact. That is not conforming to what you were demanding of me.

Religion may be subjective, but you do not want God to become a scientific fact, I can assure you.

Richard

137

If you are trying to claim your thoughts are facts, then you are still wrong. What goes on in your own head is the very definition of subjective.

subjective: of, relating to, or arising within one’s self or mind

objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
dictionary

Why? Facts are verifiable, by definition.

Here are 29 sets of observable facts that confirm shared ancestry and evolution:

They are facts whether they confirm anything or not. The mixture of physical characteristics in a fossil are facts. The sequence of bases in a genome are facts. The mixture of characteristics in living species are a fact. The theory of evolution predicts what facts we should observe, and when those observations are made they are factual support for the theory.

Australopithecines have features that are more like humans and features that are more like other apes. This is a fact, and it is a fact predicted by the theory. Humans and other apes have the same viral insertions at the same position in each of their genomes. This is an observable, repeatable fact, and it is a fact predicted by the theory. The mixture of characteristics in living species fall into a nested hierarchy. This is an observable fact, and it is a fact predicted by the theory.

3 Likes
138

I am not, and I have no idea why you should think that i am.

By whose definition?

The way a person dies is a fact, but it is not always verifiable, even with a post mortem.

A fact is something that either is, or happens. There is no necesity for verification.#I told you about my neck when I was born. I think you would find it lalmost impossible to verify now but it is still a fact.

They cannot be confirmed by observing the births. You cannot witness things that happened last year, let alone when evolution stated. You can verify the connection, you cannot verify the conclusion. They are still subjective.

But not the conclusions drawn from thsoe facts. They still cannot be observed.

So what? It proves nothing!.it is still a subjective connection. You cannot prove the ancestry by observation.

You can’t even see the limits of your own science!

So don’t you dare claim limits on my faith, my observation, or even my conclusions!

Richard

139

What you can observe on and in the body are facts. The interpretation of those facts is the cause of death.

Why would I need to watch an Australopithecine be born in order to determine that they have a mixture of human-like and ape-like features? Why would I need to watch something being born millions of years ago in order to determine that humans and other apes have the same viral insertions in our genomes?

These are the facts we observe just like the facts you observe in and on a dead body. Just like with a coroner’s investigation, we can use these facts to infer what happened in the past. Or do you think a coroner has to watch someone die in order to determine the cause of death?

Then you reject the scientific method. This is exactly how the scientific method is used. You form a hypothesis that predicts which facts you should and should not observe, and then you see if those predictions hold true.

2 Likes
140

Wrongt.

The cause of death is fixed. The interpretation can be wrong.

That is nt the fact in dispute. The fact in question is that they are in direct lineage. And that fact cannot be observed.

Ditto.

Yoou just do not get it.

If the death was observed that would make the fact easy to verify. If not then the verification is by conclusion, and can still be wrong, but the facts about the death do not change whether verified or not

No, I calim that the scientific ethod is not as concrete or certain as you claim, but you fail to see any shortcomings

Ne ver mind

Its not as if it changes anything. What science sees and understand or asserts is only human perception. Science does not make a thunder storm it only observes its formation and tthe composition.

Scientific laws are obervable conclusion. They do not dictate how graqvity works or the distance between us and the Sun.(which can, and does change from moment to moment)

You need to understand what Science is.

Richard

141

Yes, the interpretation can be wrong, but it is still an interpretation based on facts.

That’s the theory in question, not the fact. Also, it really doesn’t matter if a specific Australopithecine is in our direct lineage. Sister taxa can still carry the features found in the direct lineage. The theory of evolution predicts that there were species in the past that had a mixture of modern human and ape features. That’s exactly what we observe in the fossil record. This is a fulfilled prediction.

Again, in science we TEST a theory, we don’t observe a theory. Theories and observations are separate things.

You are saying the scientific method shouldn’t be used at all. You reject the very concept of hypothesis testing. As we have been telling you all along, your rejection of the theory of evolution requires you to reject science itself, and your posts are full of statements that outright reject the use of the scientific method. If facts can’t be used to confirm a theory, then you reject science.

2 Likes