Secular scientists blast the big bang

[Socrates]

What now for naïve apologetics?

by Carl Wieland (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/c_wieland.asp)

It’s amazing to see how many Christian leaders have not merely tolerated the ‘big bang’ idea, but embraced it wholeheartedly. To hear their pronouncements, believers should welcome it as a major plank in our defense of the faith. ‘At last, we can use science to prove there’s a creator of the universe.’

However, the price of succumbing to the lure of secular acceptability, at least in physics and astronomy, has been heavy. We have long warned that adopting the big bang into Christian thought is like bringing the wooden horse within the walls of Troy. This is because:
The big bang forces acceptance of a sequence of events totally incompatible with the Bible (e.g. earth after sun instead of earth before sun—see Two worldviews in conflict (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/worldviews.asp) and How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal if the Sun wasn’t created until the fourth day? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.asp))
The big bang’s billions of years of astronomical evolution are not only based on naturalistic assumptions, they are contrary to the words of Jesus Himself, who said people were there from the beginning, not towards the end of an interminably long ‘creation’ process (Mark 10:6)—see Jesus and the age of the world (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i1/howold.asp#jesus_age).
The slow evolution of the stars, then solar system and planets (including earth) in big bang thinking means that ‘big bang Christians’ are invariably dragged into accepting ‘geological evolution’ (millions of years for the earth’s fossil-bearing rocks to be laid down). So they end up denying the global Flood, and accepting death, bloodshed and disease (as seen in the fossils) before Adam. This removes the Fall and the Curse on creation from any effect on the real world, as well as removing the biblical answer Christians have always had to the problem of suffering and evil (God made a perfect world, ruined by sin). See Terrorists and Death (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/20010911_wtc.asp) and The god of an old earth (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i4/oldearth.asp).
Marrying one’s theology to today’s science means that one is likely to be widowed tomorrow.In fact, the signs are strong that exactly that is happening, and that those who have ‘bought’ the big bang for its allegedly irrefutable science have been ‘sold a pup’. A bombshell ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ by 33 leading scientists has been published on the internet (www.cosmologystatement.org) and in New Scientist (Lerner, E., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May 2004). An article on www.rense.com titled ‘Big bang theory busted by 33 top scientists’ (27 May 2004) says, ‘Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.’

The open letter includes statements such as: ‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.’
‘But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. … Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements.’ [This refers to the horizon problem, and supports what we say in Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp).] [Yet far too many churchian have swallowed the inflation nonsense invented by the rabid atheist Alan "The universe is the ultimate free lunch" Guth. As we see here, it's nothing but a dodge with no empirical support, and this is from secular scientists. :soc:]
‘In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory [emphasis in original].’
‘What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.’The dissidents say that there are other explanations of cosmology that do make some successful predictions. These other models don’t have all the answers to objections, but, they say, ‘That is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined.’

Those who urge Christians to accept the big bang as a ‘science fact’ point to its near-universal acceptance by the scientific community. However, the 33 dissidents describe a situation familiar to many creationist scientists: ‘An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences … doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.’ Evolutionist and historian of science, Evelleen Richards, has noticed that it’s hard even for rival evolutionary theories to get a hearing when challenging the ruling paradigm—see Science … a reality check (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i4/science.asp). This should give some idea of the difficulties biblical creationists face.

But don’t we read, even in the daily newspapers, about many ‘observations’ that only ever seem to support the big bang? In fact, these prominent secular scientists say:

‘Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed.’

Science is a wonderful human tool, but it needs to be understood, not worshipped. It is fallible, changing, and is severely limited as to what it can and cannot determine. As AiG has often pointed out, instead of a scientific concept, the big-bang idea is more a dogmatic religious one—based on the religion of humanism (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-r002.html). As these big-bang opposers point out:

‘Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method—the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible.’

Furthermore, contrary to the naïve pronouncements of many who should know better, it is not in any sense a matter of ‘looking into a telescope and “seeing” the big bang billions of years ago.’ As always, observations are interpreted and filtered through worldview lenses. Those who developed the big bang were guided by secular worldview filters just as much as those who are now crying that the emperor has no clothes. They wanted a universe that created itself; their opponents want an eternal, uncreated universe. From a Christian perspective, both are in open defiance of their Creator’s account of what really happened.

With Darwinism on the run, the Enemy of souls is seeking to seduce believers into embracing a more subtle, yet far deadlier way of evading the authority of the Bible. With progressive creationism/big-bangery rampaging through the evangelical community, he must think he is on a winner.


For a powerful, profound exposition of all of the issues involved in this, today’s most important evangelical compromise position, my colleague Dr Jonathan Sarfati’s (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/j_sarfati.asp) just-released book Refuting Compromise (http://www.answersingenesis.org/onlinestore/gateway.asp?PageType=detail&UID=10-2-164) is not just a casual recommendation ‘for further reading’. Chapter 5 pokes holes into the big bang, showing how it has become a ruling paradigm, supported by fallacious logic and ignoring many scientific problems—some confirmed by the above letter from big-bang–dissenting evolutionary cosmologists. It also shows how one can use a ‘first cause’ argument (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/j_sarfati.asp) without needing the big bang. The book is in fact destined to become a Christian classic, a culture-changing colossus of ‘cut-through-the-smokescreen’ clarity and logic. I urge all who are reading this to get Refuting Compromise, read it, lend it and give it out far and wide.

[A Beautiful Truth]

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.’
‘But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. … Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements.’ [This refers to the horizon problem, and supports what we say in Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang.] [Yet far too many churchian have swallowed the inflation nonsense invented by the rabid atheist Alan "The universe is the ultimate free lunch" Guth. As we see here, it's nothing but a dodge with no empirical support, and this is from secular scientists. :soc:]
‘In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory [emphasis in original].’
‘What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.’

Are you goint to post this in Natural Sciences as well so scientists can respond? You do not answer Glenn on geology, why would you answer the others on physics?

Eric Lerner has wanted to push his own plasma theory for a while. Big Bang cosmology pushed him back but I see that he has capitalized on some issues that still need working out and is trying to rally again.



Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements.’

Which Big Bang model? There are lots of models. Since some models have more problems than others doesn't mean all Big Bang models are wrong.


Yet far too many churchian have swallowed the inflation nonsense invented by the rabid atheist Alan "The universe is the ultimate free lunch" Guth.

Are you poisoning the well? That is a lot of negative words surrounding the inflation models. Are we to abandon inflation because churchians (like me, obviously) accept it and because Alan Guth said that the universe is the unlitmate free lunch? Perhaps a course in argumentation would be in order.

You have provided AiG tactics. You know your audience is scientifically untrained, for the most part, and spoon feed portions of truth coated with the same YEC monologues that have been pounded in their heads for years. Then they feel they have the science community beat because they listen to you. That is wrong. There seems to be no containing the arrogance that comes from AiG.

BTW--you may call me churchian if I can call you cultish.

[A Beautiful Truth]

I leave today for the weekend. If you are interested in having the scientific points in your article discussed, as any real scientist would, then I suggest you take it over to Natural Sciences.

~Charleen

[Abigail]

Are you goint to post this in Natural Sciences as well so scientists can respond? You do not answer Glenn on geology, why would you answer the others on physics?Is this an admission there are no scientists among OEC's or was it just a bit of petrol for the flames




You have provided AiG tactics. You know your audience is scientifically untrained, for the most part, and spoon feed portions of truth coated with the same YEC monologues that have been pounded in their heads for years. Then they feel they have the science community beat because they listen to you. That is wrong. There seems to be no containing the arrogance that comes from AiG.

You know Charleen, it is comments like these that really burn my bum. You cannot even see the arrogance and ignorance of your own comment here. I have a brain and am well capable of critical thinking so please stop spreading the lie that every YEC is somehow incapable of independent or contsructive thought.

I do feel we have the science community beat but not because of YEC science but because of what the Bible says...get it!!

[A Beautiful Truth]

Is this an admission there are no scientists among OEC's or was it just a bit of petrol for the flames

Most post in Natural Sciences. I do not know if my fellow OEC posters here in Cosmogony are scientists or not.


You know Charleen, it is comments like these that really burn my bum. You cannot even see the arrogance and ignorance of your own comment here. I have a brain and am well capable of critical thinking so please stop spreading the lie that every YEC is somehow incapable of independent or contsructive thought.

I do feel we have the science community beat but not because of YEC science but because of what the Bible says...get it!!

Sure thing, Abigail.

[Socrates]

Are you goint to post this in Natural Sciences as well so scientists can respond? I am a scientist. You are a housewife AFAIK (from what you told Burgy) so don't patronize me.


You do not answer Glenn on geology, why would you answer the others on physics?Most of my points are unanswered too. And I have answered Morton, your evolutionist anti-Ross buddy, but as always refuse to bow to his presuppositions when interpreting the data. I will answer only on my own terms of Sola Scriptura -- which entails that the Bible provides the right presuppositions by which to interpret the data of nature. Both Ross and the inerrancy-denying Morton believe in Scriptura sub scientia.


Eric Lerner has wanted to push his own plasma theory for a while. Big Bang cosmology pushed him back but I see that he has capitalized on some issues that still need working out and is trying to rally again.It wasn't just Lerner -- there were dozens of other specialists.


Which Big Bang model? There are lots of models. Since some models have more problems than others doesn't mean all Big Bang models are wrong.They all have problems -- that's the whole point.


Are you poisoning the well? That is a lot of negative words surrounding the inflation models. Are we to abandon inflation because churchians (like me, obviously) accept it and because Alan Guth said that the universe is the unlitmate free lunch? Perhaps a course in argumentation would be in order.I showed that even these secular scientists agree that inflation is a dodge. And it is certainly disturbing that churchians like Charleen are so willing to accept an unbiblical theory promoted by an atheist to salvage an atheistic theory.


You have provided AiG tactics. You know your audience is scientifically untrained, Don't project your own lack of scientific training onto my audience, of whom you know nothing.


for the most part, and spoon feed portions of truth coated with the same YEC monologues that have been pounded in their heads for years. Then they feel they have the science community beat because they listen to you. That is wrong. There seems to be no containing the arrogance that comes from AiG. Now who is well-poisoning?! Did Ross teach you that?


BTW--you may call me churchian if I can call you cultish. You need to learn what a cult is then. YECs accept the historic doctrines of Christianity, including the view of Genesis the church held through most of its history.


The Cosmogony guidelines explicitly state that this forum is not to be used to attack posters who cannot post in this forum. You have been warned about this repeatedly. You should know better. Don't let it happen again!!!!

[Dee Dee Warren]

Are you saying Charleen isn't a Christian Soc? If not, why would you use "churchian"? That is really misleading and uncalled for. I am not approving, notice, of anything or everything that Charleen has said, that is irrelevant to why you feel the need to use "churchian". I am not speaking here as a moderator, but as one YEC to another. It is uncalled for and rude. And because it implies that one is not saved, and worships "church" rather than Christ, I would highly suggest you withdraw it without some very strong proof.

On a related point to prove a point, I suggest you as a futurist are a "comprimiser." You are comprimising what you think the "coming" in Matthew 24 MUST mean by looking at newspapers and other fallible human understanding and not letting the Bible tell you what it means.

That doesn't sit too well? It shouldn't.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Is this an admission there are no scientists among OEC's or was it just a bit of petrol for the flames

You know Charleen, it is comments like these that really burn my bum. You cannot even see the arrogance and ignorance of your own comment here. I have a brain and am well capable of critical thinking so please stop spreading the lie that every YEC is somehow incapable of independent or contsructive thought.

I do feel we have the science community beat but not because of YEC science but because of what the Bible says...get it!!

I agree with you Abigail. Charleen stuff like that IS uncalled for. You may not like Soc's tactics or AiG's, but there are other YEC here who don't behave like that, and this petty slandering on all sides of ministries is old and frankly stupid.

[Augustine2004]

I agree with you Abigail. Charleen stuff like that IS uncalled for. You may not like Soc's tactics or AiG's, but there are other YEC here who don't behave like that, and this petty slandering on all sides of ministries is old and frankly stupid.
I reread Charleen's post, and afaics, she meant only AiG's readers/audience. It IS possible she meant YECs in general, but I don't see why you and Abigail are so sure of that.

[Augustine2004]

Both Ross and the inerrancy-denying Morton believe in Scriptura sub scientia. I don't know if grmorton will come here to defend himself, but anyway, you have tried to refute his interpretation of the Bible without success. I resent the phrase scriptura sub scientia being applied to grmorton. I demand that you apologize forthwith. FWIW I feel he is more Christian than you are, and I am not going to apologize for saying that, so there Dee Dee.




They all have problems -- that's the whole point. Name a scientific theory that does not have problems. Newton himself found a problem with Newtonian gravitational theory that has not been solved. He calculated that the cosmos would eventually collapse to a splendid conflagration, and there seemed to be no evidence that this was going to happen. We didn't let that stop us from using the theory, did we? Socrates, you and AiG please stop using such a cheap shot.

What you or AiG or ICR or some other YEC organization should do is to develop models superior to the Big Bang models in explaining the evidence and 'predicting' things that can be confirmed or disconfirmed by observations.


Now who is well-poisoning?! Did Ross teach you that? Readers ought to search Socrates' posts with the keyword 'morton' They would get the impression that Soc feels that grmorton is some kind of potentially edited by a moderator.

[Abigail]

I reread Charleen's post, and afaics, she meant only AiG's readers/audience. It IS possible she meant YECs in general, but I don't see why you and Abigail are so sure of that.
may I suggest you get your eyes tested ... I think it's called myopia

[kofh2u]

Strange, it seems to me, that science is held to such criticism in the hypothesis it set forth, as regards the creation of this Reality we experience...
.... while religious hypothesis concerning Genesis interpretation is a closed issue.

Faith in Love, our God, Jesus some how has been perverted to mean Faith in interpretation.

The problem is not that a 4 million year old sun was created after the earth on the fourth day.

No. That is not the fly in the ointment at all. It is that the DAY (yom) was created on the forth yom.

This suggests the ancient Hebrw/Christian doctrine (Theory) has similar holes, and that the speck in the eye of Big Bangers has analogy with the growing timber in Creationism.

Rev. 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold, (the golden spiritual insights) tried in the fire (of human understanding), that thou mayest be rich (in continued religious leadership); and (buy) white (blank pages for new doctrine as) raiment (to revise the books of your misinterpretations), that thou mayest be clothed (in human rationality), and that the shame of thy nakedness, (as visited in Geocentricism), do not appear; and anoint thine eyes wit eyesalve (of modern insights to apprise thine thinking), that thou mayest see (the unsupportability of thy intuitive irrationalities).

[Augustine2004]

Abigail, I apologize to you and Dee Dee if there is any place in Charleen's posts where she explicitly or clearly included non-AiG YECs.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Abigail, I apologize to you and Dee Dee if there is any place in Charleen's posts where she explicitly or clearly included non-AiG YECs.

Please do not bother apologizing to me if you are going to say things like "so there Dee Dee" knowinglly disrespeting the intent of this area. That is just as bad as Soc and makes you in that specific instance a hypocrite. (and it is well known here I am a reader and supporter of AiG) as is Abigail who are included in these mindless slobbering minions. Of course sarcasm is added there for effect.

Charleen does not help in stopping the escalating the "ministry" war that I am vocal about saying is completely retarded on both sides and inappropriate for this sectoin of the forum. That being said, the issue I had with Charleen is minor in comparison to her being called a churchian by Soc. I am expecting a withdrawal of that by Soc. It is expressly disrespectful of what this section of the forum is for, and I have not reported it because I am wishing to see if he will have the sense to withdraw it.

[nomad7674]

‘Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.’

I have studied a lot of physics, but did not wind up in the field (computer science pays better :smile:). However, I must say that I find the attitude of this article surprising. While "Big Bang" is a dominant theory in Physics, I have never found the kind of dogmatic requirements that you find among evolutionary biologists in physics discussions. Whether online or in person, most (admittedly not all) of the physicists I have met would respond to a challenge or alternative to Big Bang theory with "Wow, that is interesting. Let me think about that and look at the math." While in biological evolutionary discussions, the reaction tends to be "You are simply ignorant. Stop wasting my time." This kind of broad condemnation of the physics establishment for dismissing alternatives out of hand seems strange. Then again, maybe I am just biased toward Physics, because of my education and experience.

Not to say the article is wrong, just that it clashes with my own personal (informal) experience. Big Bang is a certainly a theory heavily invested in physics both because it came from Einstein's work (some of the best-attested-by-observation theory in the history of science) and because of its explanatory power. But physicists tend to be a class of people who enjoy thinking outside the box, and who would be eager to be the next person to shatter the existing paradigm.

[Warcraft3]

Dee Dee is right............all this bickering and insulting (whether direct or indirect) is silly and useless for proving ones position.

I try to use scripture first and then science to prove my position on the Genesis debate.

Insulting people usually doesnt win converts anyway.



Russ

[Faramir]

Let's try to tone it down some guys. We have to spend eternity together, we might as well try to start getting along now. OK?

[Socratism]

most (admittedly not all) of the physicists I have met would respond to a challenge or alternative to Big Bang theory with "Wow, that is interesting.

Scientists would certainly entertain "naturalistic" alternatives to the Big Bang. What most seem unwilling to do is consider that God was not kidding when He said that He "stretched out the heavens", which I take to mean an "unnatural" act.

BTW, there were probably additional "unnatural" acts during creation week, such as the creation of different "kinds" of lifeforms as well as creation of the stars in the heavens. Scientists as a general rule are loathe to believe this, for it implies that the actual processes involved, being beyond this material universe, are forever hidden from scientific investigation.

[Augustine2004]

Please do not bother apologizing to me if you are going to say things like "so there Dee Dee" knowinglly disrespeting the intent of this area. That is just as bad as Soc and makes you in that specific instance a hypocrite. (and it is well known here I am a reader and supporter of AiG) as is Abigail who are included in these mindless slobbering minions. Of course sarcasm is added there for effect.

Charleen does not help in stopping the escalating the "ministry" war that I am vocal about saying is completely retarded on both sides and inappropriate for this sectoin of the forum. That being said, the issue I had with Charleen is minor in comparison to her being called a churchian by Soc. I am expecting a withdrawal of that by Soc. It is expressly disrespectful of what this section of the forum is for, and I have not reported it because I am wishing to see if he will have the sense to withdraw it.

I wish to discuss this post with you. Should I do this publicly or by PM? I would prefer public, but perhaps Faramir would prefer PM.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I wish to discuss this post with you. Should I do this publicly or by PM? I would prefer public, but perhaps Faramir would prefer PM.

In order to keep things peaceful here, you may PM me. Heck PM me your number and I'll call you.

If I misunderstood you, or said something incorrect, we can hash it out, and I will post such here.

[Augustine2004]

Scientists would certainly entertain "naturalistic" alternatives to the Big Bang. What most seem unwilling to do is consider that God was not kidding when He said that He "stretched out the heavens", which I take to mean an "unnatural" act.

BTW, there were probably additional "unnatural" acts during creation week, such as the creation of different "kinds" of lifeforms as well as creation of the stars in the heavens. Scientists as a general rule are loathe to believe this, for it implies that the actual processes involved, being beyond this material universe, are forever hidden from scientific investigation.
Socratism, nothing prevents YEC organizations like ICR from developing models that explain the universe and predict its evolution better. If this can be done, YEC would have far better success than constantly and repetitively criticizing 'godless naturalistic' scientific work, without offering alternatives better than 'we do not know how exactly but God did it somehow.'

Lest you mistake my position, I DO believe God spread out the heavens, and hence I think the Big Bang models are not even close to the truth.

[Abigail]

Socratism, nothing prevents YEC organizations like ICR from developing models that explain the universe and predict its evolution better. If this can be done, YEC would have far better success than constantly and repetitively criticizing 'godless naturalistic' scientific work, without offering alternatives better than 'we do not know how exactly but God did it somehow.'


Agreed

[kofh2u]

Scientists would certainly entertain "naturalistic" alternatives to the Big Bang. What most seem unwilling to do is consider that God was not kidding when He said that He "stretched out the heavens", which I take to mean an "unnatural" act.

BTW, there were probably additional "unnatural" acts during creation week, such as the creation of different "kinds" of lifeforms as well as creation of the stars in the heavens. Scientists as a general rule are loathe to believe this, for it implies that the actual processes involved, being beyond this material universe, are forever hidden from scientific investigation.


Faith in interpretation of scripture is secondary to thevrequiredvFaith in the lord Christ. The latter a requisite for salvation, the former, just opinion.

The secular community is confused by this and come to understand both doctrinal opinion and the faith in our Lord are both prerequisites to salvation.

They are inhibited in futher investigation of the actual Christian message of sakvation by the intolerable hurtle of insistence on unnatural law as a complement to what they have come to understand, appreciate, and respect a Natural Law.

Fundamentalist Creationism can and ought remain the personal prerogative of the Fundamentalist. And, as with military gays, it ought be a don't ask/don't tell faith in doctrine accompanied by the actual order to teach the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost over all the world.

The division among the faithful Christians themselves is enough to support the axiom proposed. It is not that majority opinion rules, but t
e opinions just don't count, e
pecially if they are devisive within the Christian community and prohibiting of secular inclusion without, don't you think?

[Socratism]

Faith in interpretation of scripture is secondary to thevrequiredvFaith in the lord Christ. The latter a requisite for salvation, the former, just opinion.

The secular community is confused by this and come to understand both doctrinal opinion and the faith in our Lord are both prerequisites to salvation.

They are inhibited in futher investigation of the actual Christian message of sakvation by the intolerable hurtle of insistence on unnatural law as a complement to what they have come to understand, appreciate, and respect a Natural Law.

Fundamentalist Creationism can and ought remain the personal prerogative of the Fundamentalist. And, as with military gays, it ought be a don't ask/don't tell faith in doctrine accompanied by the actual order to teach the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost over all the world.

The division among the faithful Christians themselves is enough to support the axiom proposed. It is not that majority opinion rules, but t
e opinions just don't count, e
pecially if they are devisive within the Christian community and prohibiting of secular inclusion without, don't you think?

I don't agree with your position in any way shape or form.

Atheists attack Genesis because they recognize that if they can convince people that scripture is not true then they may also be able to convince people that the scriptural accounts of Jesus Christ being God and rising from the dead can also be attacked as not being true using the same secular logic.

(Have you ever seen a dead person come back to life after 3 days? Other humans have claimed to be God, and they weren't, etc.)

[Tickle Me Goody]

I am a scientist. You are a housewife
:rock:

You should be slow to criticize housewives, Soc. At least they do not all cave in to off-the-wall-science.

GG

[Dee Dee Warren]

edited because I idiotically thought a post was speaking to me when it was not

now knowing who it was speaking to, I am in full agreement

[Dee Dee Warren]

Egadm I AM A BLOOMING IDIOT!!!!

My eyes surely crossed or I hit scroll down too fast, cause I swear when I saw the post it had my quote in it.

That explains a whole lot cause I was puzzled what I said that was disagreeable. I am going to edit my prior post.... thanks Abigail

[Abigail]

:lmbo: :rofl:

[Dee Dee Warren]

I even had the wrong thread where I posted something to Socratism. :doh:

[Starkman]

The problem I, personally, have trying to make heads or tails of YEC and OEC arguments is that I am unable to keep all the data for both sides in my head in order to analyize the arguments. Are there a few "standards" you folks can refer me to for excellent discussions on both sides, something that sums up the main issues, shows the main arguments and rebuttals and lets the reader decide? I'm not into science, so I have no way of knowing if this or that argument is strong or not. A good reference book (or books) would sure be appreciated.

Thanks,

Starkman

[Tickle Me Goody]

The problem I, personally, have trying to make heads or tails of YEC and OEC arguments is that I am unable to keep all the data for both sides in my head in order to analyize the arguments. Are there a few "standards" you folks can refer me to for excellent discussions on both sides, something that sums up the main issues, shows the main arguments and rebuttals and lets the reader decide? I'm not into science, so I have no way of knowing if this or that argument is strong or not. A good reference book (or books) would sure be appreciated.

Thanks,

Starkman
A good place to start is http://www.asa3.org

GG

[Starkman]

Wow, I've never come across that site before...thanks.

Starkman

[kofh2u]

I don't agree with your position in any way shape or form.

Atheists attack Genesis because they recognize that if they can convince people that scripture is not true then they may also be able to convince people that the scriptural accounts of Jesus Christ being God and rising from the dead can also be attacked as not being true using the same secular logic.

(Have you ever seen a dead person come back to life after 3 days? Other humans have claimed to be God, and they weren't, etc.)


Hello mr socrates,

You didn't seem to oppose me in every way, shape, and form, but your singular argument that we must contend for the Faith in the attack against the Word by secular scientific arguments (used by Anti-christians) is true.

We do not contend with these people in hope of winning them over, but in a forum where the audience of the young minds of the next generation are to the victor.

If you can, for argument sake here, agree with that, then what I am saying is that:
"How" God created this material universe MUST be no stumbling block,...

.... whether unnaturally, or by the Natural Laws of an evolution matters not.

We hope to reach page two of the Good Book. If these secular Anti-christ-ians divert us by such tactics from reaching the Good News of Jesus, we have fought a worthless battle, win or lose.

I know that your sincere and powerful belief in this interpretation is difficult to muzzle.

It seems essential to establish an authority for scripture before we reach Chapter Two, but I suggest, whether they come to accept your literalism or an analogous interpretation, matters less than the ready target presented for direct opposition to religion, church, and the scriptures for college professors and others in position to influence the young people not yet convicted in Christ.

Nevertheless, keep the faith, (small caps).

[Socratism]

Hello mr socrates,

You didn't seem to oppose me in every way, shape, and form, but your singular argument that we must contend for the Faith in the attack against the Word by secular scientific arguments (used by Anti-christians) is true.

We do not contend with these people in hope of winning them over, but in a forum where the audience of the young minds of the next generation are to the victor.

If you can, for argument sake here, agree with that,

I wholeheartedly agree so far.


then what I am saying is that:
"How" God created this material universe MUST be no stumbling block,...

God told us all we will ever be able to know about "how" He did it. If a person rejects that account, because of some two-bit hypothesis by fallible humans, then there is no logical reason for the person to doubt their professors when they say that the account of Jesus Christ is equally open to secular "interpretation" a la Bishop Spong and others.


.... whether unnaturally, or by the Natural Laws of an evolution matters not.

It matters greatly, because evolution is a direct attack on the authority and veracity of scripture.


We hope to reach page two of the Good Book. If these secular Anti-christ-ians divert us by such tactics from reaching the Good News of Jesus, we have fought a worthless battle, win or lose.

There are plenty of people preaching the Good News, but if scripture can not be believed why should anyone accept it?


I know that your sincere and powerful belief in this interpretation is difficult to muzzle.

I came to my belief in scripture only when I realized that workers in the field of Origins were engaged in a huge con job to fool the public, one that is so clever and powerful that even those who engage in it are taken in as well. It has now taken root in our educational institutions where it will be difficult to dislodge, leading to the eventual destruction of countless numbers of easily swayed students who expect that truth is being taught in their courses.

Anyone who cannot see this happening before our very eyes is certainly "blind".


It seems essential to establish an authority for scripture before we reach Chapter Two, but I suggest, whether they come to accept your literalism or an analogous interpretation, matters less than the ready target presented for direct opposition to religion, church, and the scriptures for college professors and others in position to influence the young people not yet convicted in Christ.

You do not seem to realize that the strategy is to first get people in a frame of mind to generate novel interpretations of the early verses of Genesis so that they later are primed to engage in the same approach for other verses, including those which deal with the words of Christ, the Apostles and Paul. This is certainly what happened in the tragic case of Bishop Spong, who is now, unwittingly, an active disciple of the god of this world.


Nevertheless, keep the faith,

Now that I know the Truth it has set me free and I will keep the faith until the end of time.


BTW, my "moniker" is Socratism, not Socrates. The latter name was already in use when I joined this forum.

[kofh2u]

I wholeheartedly agree so far.



God told us all we will ever be able to know about "how" He did it. If a person rejects that account, because of some two-bit hypothesis by fallible humans, then there is no logical reason for the person to doubt their professors when they say that the account of Jesus Christ is equally open to secular "interpretation" a la Bishop Spong and others.



It matters greatly, because evolution is a direct attack on the authority and veracity of scripture.



There are plenty of people preaching the Good News, but if scripture can not be believed why should anyone accept it?



I came to my belief in scripture only when I realized that workers in the field of Origins were engaged in a huge con job to fool the public, one that is so clever and powerful that even those who engage in it are taken in as well. It has now taken root in our educational institutions where it will be difficult to dislodge, leading to the eventual destruction of countless numbers of easily swayed students who expect that truth is being taught in their courses.

Anyone who cannot see this happening before our very eyes is certainly "blind".



You do not seem to realize that the strategy is to first get people in a frame of mind to generate novel interpretations of the early verses of Genesis so that they later are primed to engage in the same approach for other verses, including those which deal with the words of Christ, the Apostles and Paul. This is certainly what happened in the tragic case of Bishop Spong, who is now, unwittingly, an active disciple of the god of this world.



Now that I know the Truth it has set me free and I will keep the faith until the end of time.


BTW, my "moniker" is Socratism, not Socrates. The latter name was already in use when I joined this forum.


sorry about the moniker.

i read you, you will stick to your guns!

well, you give them a pretty good run for whatever it will be worth!

I still encourage to avoid this battle because even the interpretation of thr Fundamentalists has holes in it big enough to debate between Christians where the stakes are not to ridicule the whole of religion nor the ible in particular.

I believe this is too close to insisting upon faith in the interpretation of the Faithful, rather than in faith in the Spirit.

[A Beautiful Truth]

I agree with you Abigail. Charleen stuff like that IS uncalled for. You may not like Soc's tactics or AiG's, but there are other YEC here who don't behave like that, and this petty slandering on all sides of ministries is old and frankly stupid.

When Abigail asked me to stop, I said,



You know Charleen, it is comments like these that really burn my bum. You cannot even see the arrogance and ignorance of your own comment here. I have a brain and am well capable of critical thinking so please stop spreading the lie that every YEC is somehow incapable of independent or contsructive thought.

I do feel we have the science community beat but not because of YEC science but because of what the Bible says...get it!!


Sure thing, Abigail

I did not want to offend Abigail and I am sorry. It is not worth offending a sister over and I regret I said it.

You, Dee Dee, have called me on saying things you are quick to point out are offensive. I also appreciate you calling Soc on his offensive remarks to me.

Abigail, you were quick to call me on what I said, why were you not as quick to call Soc on what he said?

I know I have convictions well enough, but in these circumstances those convictions are not worth divisiveness. I recognize my "dig" and I repent. I want to be able to complete my thoughts without insults. If I did continue to insult, my arugument would be no different than the abusive insults I receive from (some) AiG supporters. As much as it hurts, I appreciate being kept in check. I hope those who abuse me with their words will recognize the importance of being kept in check as well.

[Abigail]

Abigail, you were quick to call me on what I said, why were you not as quick to call Soc on what he said?

I guess for the same reasons you are not quick to call kuboes and rogero for the things they have said.

[Tickle Me Goody]

Are you goint to post this in Natural Sciences as well so scientists can respond? You do not answer Glenn on geology, why would you answer the others on physics?.
Fear?

[A Beautiful Truth]

I guess for the same reasons you are not quick to call kuboes and rogero for the things they have said.

First, are you repaying evil for evil to me?

Second, have they, like Socrates, called you a "churchian" which basically means you are not saved? Has Kuboes or rogero ever questioned your salvation because of your young earth beliefs?

I tend to think "no" If they have said that, I affirm to you right now that I do not agree. I do not know the actual state of your life, but I have never believed that belief in a young earth makes you in threat of hell fire.

But I am pretty confident that those two have not threatend you with hell as Socrates has me by calling me essentially unsaved by calling me "churchian".

I have been abused by YEC's and it goes deeper than insinuating that I am stupid, it goes to question my salvation. I understand that people don't often mind their manners in debate, and I seem to be held to a strict standard to mind mine as well, but I just want you to be fair, Abigail. And I want to be fair to you too. I apologized for offending you. I do want to be a better debater and I want you to hold me to a high standard because I want to do it right. But don't let bias keep you from seeing that I am an actual person, too, with feelings and a heart, just like you. I hope you would hold your YEC friends to the same high standard that you seem to hold me to.

[Socrates]

Socratism, nothing prevents YEC organizations like ICR from developing models that explain the universe and predict its evolution better.
Evolution? What do you mean?


If this can be done, YEC would have far better success than constantly and repetitively criticizing 'godless naturalistic' scientific work, without offering alternatives better than 'we do not know how exactly but God did it somehow.'
It's both/and not either/or. If a model isn't broken, then why fix it? That's why it's important to show the flaws in godless ideas like the big bang and biological evolution (Paul told us to demolish arguments in 2 Cor. 10:5). I showed that even secular scientists have severe problems with it. And YECs do produce models, e.g. Humphreys' white hole cosmogony.

[Socrates]

* edited by a moderator * I resent the phrase scriptura sub scientia being applied to * edited by a moderator * . I demand that you apologize forthwith.
Go take a flying. I backed up what I said, and evidently it applies to you just as well.


FWIW I feel he is more Christian than you are, and I am not going to apologize for saying that, so there Dee Dee.
Who gives a monkey's what a compromiser like you thinks?


Name a scientific theory that does not have problems.
Exactly my point!! So how crass can you get when you make "science" the arbiter of world history and use it to override earth history.


Newton himself found a problem with Newtonian gravitational theory that has not been solved.
And his theory does not contradict the Bible. So what's your point?


He calculated that the cosmos would eventually collapse to a splendid conflagration, and there seemed to be no evidence that this was going to happen. We didn't let that stop us from using the theory, did we? Socrates, you and AiG please stop using such a cheap shot.
What nonsense.


What you or AiG or ICR or some other YEC organization should do is to develop models superior to the Big Bang models in explaining the evidence and 'predicting' things that can be confirmed or disconfirmed by observations.
Sheesh, what would you know? The IP showed that the alleged "predictions" of the big bang were nothing of the kind.


Readers ought to search Socrates' posts with the keyword 'morton' They would get the impression that Soc feels that grmorton is some kind of potentially edited by a moderator.
And there is something wrong with praising someone who can't post here, because he is immune from criticism in return -- this is most unfair. And I stand by what I said.

[Socrates]

Are you saying Charleen isn't a Christian Soc? If not, why would you use "churchian"? That is really misleading and uncalled for.
Why? It means someone who goes to church. It makes no judgment on her salvation. I've made it abundantly clear on this site that I have fairly narrow criteria for salvation, e.g. OECs seem mostly to be genuinely saved; Spong and others who deny the deity of Christ or His physical resurrection are not.


I am not approving, notice, of anything or everything that Charleen has said,
That's good, because she implied I wasn't a scientist.


that is irrelevant to why you feel the need to use "churchian".
Why not? It doesn't violate any rule.


On a related point to prove a point, I suggest you as a futurist are a "comprimiser." You are comprimising what you think the "coming" in Matthew 24 MUST mean by looking at newspapers and other fallible human understanding and not letting the Bible tell you what it means.
Of course, I don't compromise on English by repeatedly misspelling compromise. And the whole point is, all debates about eschatology, baptism, predestination, church government etc. presuppose the authority of the Bible. The debate over origins is about whether the Bible or "science" is the final authority of what happened in earth's past.

[Socrates]

Second, have they, like Socrates, called you a "churchian" which basically means you are not saved? Has Kuboes or rogero ever questioned your salvation because of your young earth beliefs?
One vocal TE has questioned the salvation of YECs in his sig line (coming from someone who thinks I'm too hard on Spong, that's rich). Ross has claimed that YECs are Gnostic heretics.


I tend to think "no" If they have said that, I affirm to you right now that I do not agree. I do not know the actual state of your life, but I have never believed that belief in a young earth makes you in threat of hell fire.
And I've never believed the denial of same makes you in that threat either.


But I am pretty confident that those two have not threatend you with hell as Socrates has me by calling me essentially unsaved by calling me "churchian".
Nope, I was saying that you attend a church.


I have been abused by YEC's and it goes deeper than insinuating that I am stupid, it goes to question my salvation.
We have only your word for that. Prov. 18:17 says there's another side to the story. Perhaps you also called them Gnostics or portrayed them in dunce caps counting their toes as you approve of Ross doing.


I hope you would hold your YEC friends to the same high standard that you seem to hold me to.
Don't expect Charleen to hold OEC leaders to any standard at all -- she condones inflammatory cartoons and comments against YECs.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Why? It means someone who goes to church. It makes no judgment on her salvation. I've made it abundantly clear on this site that I have fairly narrow criteria for salvation, e.g. OECs seem mostly to be genuinely saved; Spong and others who deny the deity of Christ or His physical resurrection are not.

Let's see what Soc-word can I pull out. Crap. Rubbish. Piffle. It does not simply mean someone who goes to church - it has negative connotations beyond that. You may deny that it questions salvation, but since all it means is someone who goes to church, I encourage everyone on this site to call YOU a churchian. You go to church right? Have some backbone to at least admit it means more than that. Shall I write AiG and see if they tell me that it is a "neutral" word that simply means sommeone who goes to church?


Why not? It doesn't violate any rule.

Socrates the Ultimate Legalist. It sure violated the intent of this section, is disruptive and unnecessary. You have been told to cut it out before.


If you wish to take me up on this issue of "churchian", start a Locker Room thread. I am not going to comment any further in this thread on it. I may start a Locker Room thread of my own.

[Tickle Me Goody]

Why? It means someone who goes to church. It makes no judgment on her salvation. I've made it abundantly clear on this site that I have fairly narrow criteria for salvation, e.g. OECs seem mostly to be genuinely saved; Spong and others who deny the deity of Christ or His physical resurrection are not.?
Posted here, for all to see, is that Socrates believes that OECs are "mostly saved". This must be remembered!
:joy:


That's good, because she implied I wasn't a scientist. Since you openly reject all conventional science and its methods, is that hard to understand?


Of course, I don't compromise on English by repeatedly misspelling compromise. And the whole point is, all debates about eschatology, baptism, predestination, church government etc. presuppose the authority of the Bible. The debate over origins is about whether the Bible or "science" is the final authority of what happened in earth's past.
Since OEC is acceptable, a YEC interpretation is not required. The earth may really be as old as it looks. :smug:


GG

[Faramir]

This thread has gotten out of hand. The science discussion to ad hom ratio is well beyond the stated purpose of this forum. This thread will be closed for review by the Admin team until further notice.