Cosmogony [Archive] - TheologyWeb Campus

A Beautiful Truth

June 17th 2004, 11:34 AM

Actually all you've shown is that you're willing to follow the dogma of the majority.

And you the dogma of the minority of scientists, though the dogma of the majority of Christians.

I've never had disrespect for OEers in general (both christian and non).

That is obvious.

I have much respect for Norm Geisler, though I think he's wrong on this issue. What I absolutely disrespect are those who blindly trust the majority of the "experts" beit theologians, scientists or what have you, and hide behind their lack of education.

And you would probably accuse Norm Geisler as well as "following the majority"? He is not a scientist himself, so he does follow others who are scientists in Big Bang commology. He does not follow the minority views put out by YEC scientists. Why do you have "much respect" for somebody like that?

This is exactly what keeps people in false religions and keeps non believers from ever looking into the Bible. In many cases (probably most) I find the majority to be correct. But the majority is also notorious for being dead wrong, especially in the area of science.

And since you are a scientist yourself and are able to study each topic extensively, as any good Berean, you have come to assess this situation from pretty much your own knowledge on the matter? In other words, you don't need to hear the majority, or the minority for that matter, because you don't need the "experts". You spend your life on the field, forumulating hypothesis, testing your knowledge, going through the steps of the scientific method so that you don't have to rely on the "experts"--you can do it yourself. They may be giving you false information and how could you know unless you did all the work yourself? They are all conspiritists set out against true knowledge, you can't trust them, anyway. All good Bereans have such incredible intellect (and lots of time--don't forget time) to study all matters of science out for themselves. That way they won't get accused of relying on the majority when they can't figure stuff out themselves, no, you will not even find them reading books written by others, they have to find out for themselves. Where are the Bereans? You will not find them keeping a home or raising children--no--they are in the field and in the laboratory, doing science themselves because they cannot rely on the expertise of others to find truth :end sarcasm:

There's no doubt in my mind you would have been a flat-earther and a geocentrist had you live in that era.

Why, because "the Bible says so!" You are right, if I did not have any science background and all I had was the Bible, I would *probably* interpreted the "sun rises and sets" as meaning "the Bible says!" that the sun did the action. Fault me if you want for admitting that, but it is the truth. Fortunately, science helped me see that the inspired word of God was not attesting to geocentrism, but rather an observation from a particular frame of reference. Galileo helped me realize that. God bless science.

But I know what you are thinking, you are thinking that any *good* Berean would have not fallen for that misinterpretation of Scripture that the sun rises and sets, but would have done all the science themselves to discover that the Scirpture was not *really* talking about geocentrism at all. Go Bereans! If only I could be like that. :end additional sarcasm:

Solly

June 17th 2004, 11:51 AM

I think that's a valuable point also. But I don't see why the majority's error in the area of geocentrism isn't just as effective, let alone a cheap shot. The point is, the majority, even in the scientific community, needs to be scrutinized, especially in the speculative area of origins. I really don't think most christians understand the level of influence philosophy (and even theological presuppositions) has on the development of these models.

This is where I think Charlene is making a grave error in judgement. She seems to be content going with the majority (of scientists in certain areas), using her education (lack of) as an excuse. It's even preventing her from looking into some of the minority theories such as the one Humphreys put forth. This is why I think it's a fair charge to say she wouldn't have looked into minority theories back in Galileos day.

But the point is that the old cosmological model was not based on observational science at all, but Aristotelian philosophy. The Church took that cosmology on board, not for observational reasons, but because it's own theology was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy.

This is not that. It was the observational science of people like Kepler, Copernicus, and Galileo which undermined the scholastic cosmology and "turned the world upside down". Science kicked off during the renaissance and Reformation, and the undermining of the RCC's authority in such matters where the Reformation did not touch, ie Italy. The "majority of scientists" today are inheritors of that tradition, not the dogma of the RCC. So I don't think it is a fair charge to say she would not have looked into them, and it seems to me to something of an ad hom attack again.
When ever I hear scientists discussing cosmology on the Radio [BBC] and the question of God comes up, for every anti-theist rant, there are many more who are content to say, We cannot investigate God, it's not our field, we are just looking at what is there. You can either show where their science is wrong, or just write it off from an anti-realist point of view, and say they will never discover the truth about creation. But that undermines the very order and structure that God has built into the universe, and which he has given us the ability to investigate. It means that the science most of us rely on is inherently unreliable, because it wasn't done by Christians, or at best Deists and Sandemanians.

It's interesting that Galileo was hung out to dry for challenging the existing paradigm and interpretation of scripture, by asserting too much that his observations revealed reality, whereas Copernicus was content to advocate a theory. Now we have people who want to fit everything to their particular procrustean bed, without being able to convince many that that is the right bed.

Socratism

June 17th 2004, 01:43 PM

But the point is that the old cosmological model was not based on observational science at all, but Aristotelian philosophy. The Church took that cosmology on board, not for observational reasons, but because it's own theology was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy.

This is not that. It was the observational science of people like Kepler, Copernicus, and Galileo which undermined the scholastic cosmology and "turned the world upside down". Science kicked off during the renaissance and Reformation, and the undermining of the RCC's authority in such matters where the Reformation did not touch, ie Italy. The "majority of scientists" today are inheritors of that tradition, not the dogma of the RCC. So I don't think it is a fair charge to say she would not have looked into them, and it seems to me to something of an ad hom attack again.
When ever I hear scientists discussing cosmology on the Radio [BBC] and the question of God comes up, for every anti-theist rant, there are many more who are content to say, We cannot investigate God, it's not our field, we are just looking at what is there. You can either show where their science is wrong, or just write it off from an anti-realist point of view, and say they will never discover the truth about creation. But that undermines the very order and structure that God has built into the universe, and which he has given us the ability to investigate. It means that the science most of us rely on is inherently unreliable, because it wasn't done by Christians, or at best Deists and Sandemanians.

It's interesting that Galileo was hung out to dry for challenging the existing paradigm and interpretation of scripture, by asserting too much that his observations revealed reality, whereas Copernicus was content to advocate a theory. Now we have people who want to fit everything to their particular procrustean bed, without being able to convince many that that is the right bed.

Solly, your arguments on other subjects might be more convincing if your understanding of the Galileo affair was not a caricature of the truth of the matter.

Galileo was "hung out to dry" for not only challenging the authority of his former friend the Pope by publishing something, "the Dialogue", he had previously promised not to do, but for actually seeming to mock the Pope in the "Dialogue", where many felt the Pope was being openly mocked by being the simpleton character portrayed there.

Incidentially, if you would take the time to read Aristotle's treatises on science you would find that he had plenty of observational evidence to support his scientific views. The problem was not in his observations, it was in his 'interpretations" of what such evidence implied.

brett

June 17th 2004, 02:39 PM

There's no doubt in my mind you would have been a flat-earther and a geocentrist had you live in that era.
Why, because "the Bible says so!" You are right, if I did not have any science background and all I had was the Bible, I would *probably* interpreted the "sun rises and sets" as meaning "the Bible says!"

Just the opposite. Had the theologians come to you with this idea and tried to convince you from the Bible that heliocentrism was a grievous error, I would venture to guess you wouldn't be convinced (nor would I nor most of the careful thinkers on this site). You truly are a Berean when it comes to theological speculations. You would have seen there is no biblical basis for dogmatism in this area. However, this was not the case at the time. It was the scientists who were ridiculing Galileo at that time which caused him to hide much of his research for a period of time. Scientists! ...not theologians! ....guys with math backgrounds! You know, the guys you just have to trust.

But I know what you are thinking, you are thinking that any *good* Berean would have not fallen for that misinterpretation of Scripture that the sun rises and sets, but would have done all the science themselves to discover that the Scirpture was not *really* talking about geocentrism at all. Go Bereans! If only I could be like that. :end additional sarcasm:

I love good sarcasm. What would these discussions be without it? The problem with what you're saying here is that both models at the time had support from large numbers of theologians. This was not a bible vs. science issue. Once you get that, you're going to understand my initial point.

LeiLani

June 17th 2004, 10:30 PM

We have had enough threads over the Galileo affair on TWeb already. It's really time that people stop using this as an example of "science" over "religion." It's even worse when Christians use this as a reason to make science the authority over the grammatical and historical interpretation of Genesis. AiG pointed out in The
Galileo ‘twist’ (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/galileo.asp):
The real lesson
No, creationists are not making the same mistake as the the Church did
in the 17th century, i.e. claiming that the Bible says something which
is contrary to fact. But the Church, by and large, still is! The Church
has not learnt the lesson of history and still insists on taking a
popular worldview as its authority, instead of upholding the Bible and
allowing it to be its own interpreter.
Although the Church leaders of Galileo's day mistakenly thought that the
Bible supported a geocentric system, there was nothing intrinsically
atheistic in the notion that the earth moved. Furthermore there are no
other doctrines that depend on the relative motions of the earth and the
sun.
By contrast, the theory of evolution is an atheistic explanation of
origins and is the justification for the anti-God system of
secular
humanism (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-r002.html) which pervades society today. It also makes God the
author of death and suffering.
Furthermore Christians who do not accept the Genesis account as literal
history and the days of Genesis as literal earth days need to explain
away a host of other Bible passages and doctrines, e.g. the green plants
being the food of the animals before the Fall (Genesis 1:30), the
Sabbath Commandment (Exodus 20:9-11), Jesus' teaching that God made man
and woman 'at the beginning' (Matthew 19:4), Jesus' teaching about
marriage based on a literal first man and woman (Matthew 19:3-9), Paul's
exposition of the gospel based on the fact that Adam was literally the
first man (Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15), etc.
Thus the lesson from Galileo is not that the Church should not oppose
the theory of evolution, but rather that it should, because science has
not proven evolution; rather evolution is contrary to proven science and
opposes the plain Word of God.
The abstract for the link Abigail posted,
The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v14n1_g
alileo.asp),
reads:
The 17th century controversy between Galileo and the Vatican is
examined. Fifteen theses are advanced, with supporting evidence, to show
that the Galileo affair cannot serve as an argument for any position on
the relation of religion and science. Contrary to legend, both Galileo
and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials.
Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues
and the politics of Pope Urban VIII. He was not accused of criticising
the Bible, but disobeying a papal decree.

A Beautiful Truth

June 18th 2004, 02:00 AM

Indeed, AiG has a lot riding on their push for their political spin on the affair. It has always amazed me. But the point remains--"The Bible says!" that the sun "rises and sets". Galileo set that straight--the Bible is not making a scientific statement here. My simple point remains, in spite of the official spin of AiG and the objections of Brett.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/galileo.asp

The real lesson
Although the Church leaders of Galileo's day mistakenly thought that the
Bible supported a geocentric system, there was nothing intrinsically
atheistic in the notion that the earth moved.

Nor is their anything atheistic in the notion of an old earth.

It was the scientists who were ridiculing Galileo at that time which caused him to hide much of his research for a period of time. Scientists! ...not theologians! ....

Well, Brett, AiG says "Although the Church leaders of Galileo's day mistakenly thought that the
Bible supported a geocentric system..." So at least they admit that before they spin it. I know the spin part is more prominent in their article, but at least they admit my point before they spin it.

Furthermore there are no
other doctrines that depend on the relative motions of the earth and the
sun.

This is so. So also the age of the universe and earth. Well, unless you are a YEC, that is. Some of them add more than the essentials.

By contrast, the theory of evolution is an atheistic explanation of
origins and is the justification for the anti-God system of
secular
humanism (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-r002.html) which pervades society today.

Wow, what a jump. This makes it sound like either the AiG way or an atheistic way. False choice.

It also makes God the
author of death and suffering.

I believe I have adequately addressed this "problem" in my thread article "An Apologetic for Pre-Fall Animal Death" http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26518

Furthermore Christians who do not accept the Genesis account as literal
history and the days of Genesis as literal earth days need to explain
away a host of other Bible passages and doctrines, e.g. the green plants
being the food of the animals before the Fall (Genesis 1:30),

Was not a command for all creatures of the world, e.g. sea life is not mentioned. Therefore, since not all animal life is mentioned in the passage, it is reasonable to believe this was a dietary command for the Garden paradise. The whole earth was never an entire paradise as the Garden did have geographical boundaries. Adam was told to "subdue" the earth, what about the Garden needed "subdueing", do you think?

the
Sabbath Commandment (Exodus 20:9-11),

I addressed this in the past thread:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20688

Jesus' teaching that God made man
and woman 'at the beginning' (Matthew 19:4),

"At the Beginning" as opposed to the "last days", right?
"Beginning" is not referring to mere numbers. "Beginning" is all that time up and including when God created Adam and Eve. By demanding "how much time" you miss the concept. It does not really matter how long it took--once man was created the creation week ended. That whole week is included in the beginning--it does not matter how long it took. BTW--the "beginning" lasted longer than the "last days" will, IMO.

Jesus' teaching about
marriage based on a literal first man and woman (Matthew 19:3-9), Paul's
exposition of the gospel based on the fact that Adam was literally the
first man (Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15), etc.

I believe God specially created man, and I am an OEC. Man was the first of all creatures who possessed a spirit. Only man has a spirit among the creation. Man's spirit was God-endowed, nothing natural about it.

Thus the lesson from Galileo is not that the Church should not oppose
the theory of evolution, but rather that it should, because science has
not proven evolution; rather evolution is contrary to proven science and
opposes the plain Word of God.

Now fill all the places with "old earth" instead of "evolution". AiG often does this: they substitute "evolution" for "old earth". I believe I have shown that the premises of this AiG argument fail, consequently the conclusion does too. It is not EITHER AiG's interpretation OR atheism. Old earth creationism is not atheism.

The 17th century controversy between Galileo and the Vatican is
examined. Fifteen theses are advanced, with supporting evidence, to show
that the Galileo affair cannot serve as an argument for any position on
the relation of religion and science. Contrary to legend, both Galileo
and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials.
Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues
and the politics of Pope Urban VIII. He was not accused of criticising
the Bible, but disobeying a papal decree.

Yes, AiG has a stake in spinning the affair around because it does make them look bad when the argument is stripped to its simplest form. "The Bible says!" geocentrism and Galileo said heliocentrism. Yes, AiG would have a stake in writing many articles to keep one from seeing the simple good, analogy that it provides for those who still to this day refuse to "look through the telescope" because "the Bible says!" what they see through the telescope is already wrong.

But maybe if they keep writing enough articles, people won't see the story's simplicity and the correct analogy it provides for anti-OEC's.

Abigail

June 18th 2004, 03:29 AM

Was not a command for all creatures of the world, e.g. sea life is not mentioned. Therefore, since not all animal life is mentioned in the passage, it is reasonable to believe this was a dietary command for the Garden paradise. No it is not reasonable to limit vegetarianism to the Garden - Genesis 1:30 "and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every living thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food; and it was so"

The whole earth was never an entire paradise as the Garden did have geographical boundaries. Adam was told to "subdue" the earth, what about the Garden needed "subdueing", do you think?
No. you should think about the implications of your own view. If you have this viscious crazy world outside the garden where everything dies then what exactly is your view. Is Adam meant to tame the animals and when they are tame then what, they still die or is he just meant to hunt them and kill them off to make the place safe. When God gave Adam the command to subdue the earth there were probably only the very first animals that He had made so surely the subdue meant to go forth and multiply on the earth and live and be happy instead of just letting the vegetation grow wild and woellig which it would do if there were no living things to keep it in check by eating or tending it.

I believe God specially created man, and I am an OEC. Man was the first of all creatures who possessed a spirit. Only man has a spirit among the creation. Man's spirit was God-endowed, nothing natural about it. When exactly in your interpretation did God decide to create man. How did He know when it was 'day 6'?

But maybe if they keep writing enough articles, people won't see the story's simplicity and the correct analogy it provides for anti-OEC's.The old Dumbo-Zombie line again...yawn. OEC's are so desparately trying to impress everyone with how they have got it all figured that content to latch on to the popular interpretation. The question you should be asking yourself Charleen is 'is it the right interpretation?'

Solly

June 18th 2004, 03:41 AM

Solly, your arguments on other subjects might be more convincing if your understanding of the Galileo affair was not a caricature of the truth of the matter.

Socratism, this whole subject is often the clash of one caricature against another, so I am no different there, and of course it is easy to claim you have superior knowledge of a subject so as to quash the other sides' statements. And I guess my reading is probably just from misotheists and unequal yokers, so that also invalidates anything I have to say.

It's interesting, for instance that Brett criticises Charleen for following the majority, yet the YEC/AiG argument is that the majority of the church believed YEC. Yet the majority of the church also believes in RCC and EO, does that means we Protestants should convert. Why didn't you pick up on that specious argument also? Athanasius contra mundum used to be the ewatchword; Here I stand, I can do no other, was another one. YECers might like to portray themselves in an Athanasian/Lutheran aspect, but they should at least demonstrate a little more humility - we know in part - and have the decency to allow others to do the same in response to the light they have.

dizzle

June 18th 2004, 06:44 AM

The issue is not foremost whether it was a "scientific" statement - it was whether it was a hyperliteral statement - ie what kind of literature it was primarily. If it WAS a literal statement, of course it is making a statement that would impact science, for it would be making a truth claim about reality. And conversely if it were not hyperliteral, still it is making a truth claim about what is observed. But that evidence can be deduced from the Bible itself. Charleen makes it seem like without "science" that would not have been known and that "science" made the literary determination in order to keep the Bible from conflicting. That is not in fact correct, and that is what is needed for this comparison to fly.

In that sense, we must examine the text of Genesis and how it is intended to be taken. The kernel of Charleen's argument seems that because one statement complely elsewhere in the Bible makes a figurative statement, Genesis must be making one. Now Genesis could be making one, but that is exactly the point under dispute. I am not a hyperliteralistic and am more then willing to examne the text and be persuaded. My reasons for my position are textual. Strongly so.

But maybe if they keep writing enough articles, people won't see the story's simplicity and the correct analogy it provides for anti-OEC's.

See above. And your implied statement there that AiG is simply writing to fool people is not necessary. Your argument is an exercise in question begging IMHO. And I don't see it as helpful to the dispute, but rather inflammatory by insinuating that YEC are as ignorant as heliocentrists or flat-earthers. I know that is not what you are intending, but it is an unsavory implication that comes along with the comparison, which is why it probably is not very helpful to make. Just my two cents.

I think I have earned some right to say that as I am quick to criticize the unhelpful comments made by YEC at times. We are bound to clash, let's keep it to what is truly the issue. (now where can I store this blasted soapbox?)

reyvin

June 18th 2004, 08:55 AM

It's interesting, for instance that Brett criticises Charleen for following the majority, yet the YEC/AiG argument is that the majority of the church believed YEC. Yet the majority of the church also believes in RCC and EO, does that means we Protestants should convert. Why didn't you pick up on that specious argument also?

Interesting response Solly. I've often had the same thoughts on the issue.

It's sort of like thinking on Revelations. No Christian would deny that Revelations is historical (regardless of the stance you see as correct; preterist, dispensational, etc...), yet we all realize that it's most certainly a unique sort of work yet still historical. People bring so many preconceptions of Genesis to the text that they can't see beyond them. This of course goes for everyone. But insisting that it is 'My way or the highway', simply isn't correct. Hurling the label 'compromiser' gets us nowhere. Insisting you've got the only correct interpretation and anything less renders it less than history simply is not true if you consider my point about Revelations.

Quoted below from Paul Copan (very gracious Christian whom I've had the pleasure of speaking with):

Historian Mark Noll has pointed out, 'Many though not all, who insist on "biblical literalism" when reading creation texts of Genesis tend to approach the Book of Revelation in the same straightforward way." To make his point, Noll characterizes YEC as having an all or nothing attitude about interpreting certain texts. If there is any ambiguity about interpreting certain words or phrases ("day," "evening," "morning," in Genesis; "two witnesses," "1,000 years," "144,000," or "120 days" in Revelation), then we cannot properly understand the authors intention, so the claim goes.

A Beautiful Truth

June 18th 2004, 10:41 AM

But that evidence can be deduced from the Bible itself. Charleen makes it seem like without "science" that would not have been known and that "science" made the literary determination in order to keep the Bible from conflicting. That is not in fact correct, and that is what is needed for this comparison to fly.

Well, I know it is not a big doctrine or anything, but I think the point remains that without science, the scripture interpretation that the Bible made a statement about geocentrism would probably still be followed. Now, granted, there may have been some slick Bible interpreters who said, no, exegesis needs to be considered, is geocentrism *really* what the author intended? But they would probably be labeled "compromisers" for altering the plain meaning of the text or something, who knows. :that was sarcasm, but probably truer than not:

The kernel of Charleen's argument seems that because one statement complely elsewhere in the Bible makes a figurative statement, Genesis must be making one.

Well, actually, that was not my point. The point I was trying to make is that science can actually help us in our Bible interpretation. I used the Galileo story as a a case in point. The analogy is also boosted by the YEC rhetorical accusation that using science to help interpret scripture is actually, well, we have all heard the rhetoric before so no sense in repeating it. I think my point stands that some Christians fall into the same thinking as some theologians in Galileo's day did. Remember, the theologians AiG says, "mistakenly thought that the
Bible supported a geocentric system"

Does not the Galileo story tell us of church leaders holding to their interpretation of a scripture to the exclusion of scientific considerations? Will not a typical YEC admit that science contributes nothing to our Bible interpretation of Genesis? Can this not rightly be seen as a good analogy to make my point (minus the vested spin)?

And your implied statement there that AiG is simply writing to fool people is not necessary.

No, I do not believe that they are simply writing to fool people, I am saying they have interests to protect and the Galileo story can be a threat to them when understood in its simplest form. Just as theologians in the past did not want to consider a scientific correction to their interpretation of scripture, so also YE theologians do not want to consider a scientific correction to their interpretation of scripture.

but rather inflammatory by insinuating that YEC are as ignorant as heliocentrists or flat-earthers.

What makes the geocentrists and flat-earthers "ignorant" exactly? Lack of scientific advancement, perhaps?

I admitted that I would have *probably* been among the geocentrists had it not been for science.

I'll even admit that I would have probably been a YEC had it not been for science.

See how that changes things??? Admitting that, I now fit the category of all the AiG names in their insult dictionary, whereas admitting the former brings no such charge. Why? Because fighting against heliocentrism is a lost cause, at least they see that. Perhaps they would see they would indeed be rejecting the reality of the natural world if they denied heliocentrism. They MAY even admit that science actually helped them understand what the scripture did and did not mean regarding "the sun rises and sets". But I think they would rather keep the spin going, it keeps the pressure off accepting science as a correcter of Biblical interpretation.

I think I have earned some right to say that as I am quick to criticize the unhelpful comments made by YEC at times.

True.

We are bound to clash, let's keep it to what is truly the issue. (now where can I store this blasted soapbox?)

I hope I explained it better this time.

Sinai

June 18th 2004, 02:13 PM

The question you should be asking yourself Charleen is 'is it the right interpretation?'
That is very likely the question that all of us--whether we be YEC, OEC, or other--should be asking ourselves.

brett

June 18th 2004, 03:05 PM

The bottom line is, Charlene has stated that she is able to scrutinize highly educated theologians because she has the Holy Spirit who will assist her. But when it comes to highly educated scientists, she feels she cannot do the same. For she does not feel the Holy Spirit assists in that area. Therefore she feels inclined to go with the majority and not look into the actual works of people like Humphreys, who has impeccable scientific credentials, but unfortunately is in the minority.

So tell me Solly, Sinai, is this a wise approach?

LeiLani

June 18th 2004, 05:34 PM

Hi Solly :hi:
Long time no see :smile:

Socratism, this whole subject is often the clash of one caricature against another, so I am no different there, and of course it is easy to claim you have superior knowledge of a subject so as to quash the other sides' statements. And I guess my reading is probably just from misotheists and unequal yokers, so that also invalidates anything I have to say.
I have to say I'm disappointed in these sorts of comments. I have always liked your posts, and thought you were very effective in the Global v Local Flood thread. Having seen Charleen's posts, it doesn't surprise me that she would dismiss AiG's analysis of the Galileo affair off-hand without the slightest refutation of the arguments. But not you, Solly. I may have an axe to grind because AiG played a large part in my conversion, but it's not fair to dismiss Socratism's correct comments that the Galileo affair was not the "science v religion" affair that it's so often argued by these "misotheists and unequal yokers" as you so correctly put it :grin:

It's interesting, for instance that Brett criticises Charleen for following the majority, yet the YEC/AiG argument is that the majority of the church believed YEC.
That's very unfair Solly. It's ironic, because I saw Hugh Ross's website go on and on about how so many church fathers believed in long creation days. But now AiG has completely demolished that by showing that the majority believed in a young earth, e.g. in Refuting Compromise (http://www.answersingenesis.org/onlinestore/select.asp?PageType=detail&UID=10-2-164) that I've just finished (you would find it helpful too, Solly). And then their opponents have the gall to accuse YECs of believing in YEC JUST because the church did that, hoping that people would forget that the old-earthers until recently were only too happy to use that argument!

That's not it at all. YEC/AiG believe in YEC because that's what the text says!! I am so grateful that there were some organizations that wouldn't compromise the Bible and actually provided answers, otherwise I probably would not have become a Christian (humanly speaking). The point about the Church Fathers is that IF long age views were really in the text, then how come no one saw them before these ideas became the "in thing" in "science"? I remember Gray Pilgrim saying that in theology, nothing good is new and nothing new is good -- and that theological novelty was usually called heresy.

BTW, Refuting Compromisealso addresses geocentrism and the Galileo affair,showing that they provide no comfort whatever to long-age revisionists.

Yet the majority of the church also believes in RCC and EO, does that means we Protestants should convert. Why didn't you pick up on that specious argument also?
Again, not fair. Quite simply because the RCC and EO erred by making the traditions of men equal to Scripture. The Reformers merely reasserted the earliest teaching of Sola Scriptura. But the long-agers are doing the same, but their "magisterium" standing in judgment over biblical interpretation is now the "scientific community". It is the YECs who are the true heirs to the Reformation. OTOH old-earthers in effect believe in Scriptura sub scientia.

Athanasius contra mundum used to be the ewatchword; Here I stand, I can do no other, was another one. YECers might like to portray themselves in an Athanasian/Lutheran aspect,
Of course --- Luther stood for the authority of Scripture, and Athanasius refuted the heretics with Scripture. YECs likewise use Scripture to refute modern materialistic ideas of origins that pretend to be science. It's so important to start with God's infallible Word rather than man's fallible opinions, as Ken Ham (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/ham.asp) always says.

dizzle

June 18th 2004, 07:17 PM

First, good to see you Lei

I remember Gray Pilgrim saying that in theology, nothing good is new and nothing new is good -- and that theological novelty was usually called heresy.

Hmm, what are you suggesting here? I don't want to put words in your mouth but it appears you are doing what a TE did over in Science and that is take a statement and import it into a differnet context to say someone else's view may be heresy. If I am wrong, correct me. I doubt that Gray Pilgrim would want his name invoked in this manner. He certainly would not think OEC (even if "new") to be heresy.

LeiLani

June 18th 2004, 07:45 PM

Hmm, what are you suggesting here? I don't want to put words in your mouth but it appears you are doing what a TE did over in Science and that is take a statement and import it into a differnet context to say someone else's view may be heresy. If I am wrong, correct me. I doubt that Gray Pilgrim would want his name invoked in this manner. He certainly would not think OEC (even if "new") to be heresy.

Oh, definitely not! I wouldn't go that far. I believe that OEC is a weak theological stand, and a compromising one with no real evidence in scripture or science, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it outright heresy.

dizzle

June 18th 2004, 08:08 PM

Okay well good thing that is clear up then. I knew you felt that way it just seemed like there was a huge opportunity for misunderstanding here.

LeiLani

June 18th 2004, 09:59 PM

no problem :smile: I can kind of see how someone who didn't know my position on it could misinterpret that.

Just for the context and everything, the post was http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=224380&#post224380. GP was thoroughly demolishing the ludicrous "days of proclamation" eisegesis on the basis of the Hebrew, his field of expertise. He also noted that this view was not in any of the many commentaries he had studied. At the end of this, GP gave this warning that novelty is often heresy. At the time, you and TheFiveSolas were also replying to this thread, and provided no objections. I didn't think anyone would take it to mean OEC was heretical, no one then took it to mean that , and though GP was refuting one old-earth compromise in that post. I don't think what I said was any different from GP's caution. Here is the post:

How do you know what Science I support? All I have said is that your idiosyncratic theory. You can hold to your theory does not come from the text and it does violence to the text. Moreover, What I object to is your attempt to distort the text, to fit your view. Your nice little anecdote about Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity would work, if I would have been using the older commentaries, to the exclusion of newer ones. Moreover, I am used to being challenged, but what you have yet to figure out is that there is a thing called decorum in debates. When you tell someone to read more, then they list the stuff they have read to tell them that reading isn't everything, it is a little disingenuous. Second, Your theory requires you to import an alien structure to the text and do violence to the grammar of the text. Third, when you site unnamed authorities in support of your theory it shows that you either don't have them, or they are some guy who is an expert at pulling Strong's numbers. Thus, I think you misjudge your accuracy, your ability to have a coherent discussion about the text, when you cannot interact with the Hebrew at the level necessary to make the sweeping pronouncement that you have made, makes me think that your theory is not worth the bytes it take to type it.

Moreover, in theology, unlike science innovations generally are frowned upon, and fall in a neat little category called heresy [emphasis in original]

dizzle

June 19th 2004, 12:47 AM

no problem :smile: I can kind of see how someone who didn't know my position on it could misinterpret that.

Here is the problem and it is a growing problem that I see. YEC are becoming known for taking away with one hand what they gave with the other. Yes it is well known that the major Christian groups such as AiG state that such is not a salvational issue. Yes they state it flat out. But when YEC go around calling people who confess the essentials of the faith "churchians" such assurances then appear to ring hollow and is disgusting me enough to want to distance myself. In this context, the rhetoric that flies back and forth between the camps, this type of interpretation is very easy to make.

wienerdog

June 19th 2004, 01:41 AM

Ah, you're all full of it.

brett

June 19th 2004, 03:44 AM

Ah, you're all full of it.

Uh oh! Intruder alert, intruder alert!!

brett

June 19th 2004, 04:08 AM

LeiLani

June 19th 2004, 08:14 AM

Hi Charleen :hi:
I don't think we've met -- I was an alumna and mod here last year. I wish to point out that the Galileo affair has been argued a lot here, in the general forums. People like Soc, Bede, Captain Ochre and Jezz demolished the usual atheistic caricature of a "victory of science over Christianity" -- search for Galileo threads. It would be in the interest of ALL Christians to learn the true story so they can counterattack against enemies of the Gospel. And it's not just on AiG -- books like Christianity on Trial (seereview on Tektonics (http://www.tektonics.org/chrtrial.html), a sister ministry to TWeb). The main points of the Galileo affair that were pointed out are:
Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton were ALL YECs. Kepler calculated that creation was in 3992 BC, and Newton wrote The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended refuting the inflated Manethoan chronology of Egypt because Newton would not countenance a view contrary to Scripture.
The Bible is neither geocentric nor heliocentric in an absolutist sense.
The Bible uses the earth as a reference frame, just as we do today when we talk about "sunset" or "driving at 60 mph".
In physics, you can choose any reference frame you like. It's just a matter of transformation of coordinates. For everyday life, Earth is the most convenient reference frame; for solar system astronomy, the most convenient is the center of mass of the system, which to a good approximation is the position of the sun itself.
It was Galileo who realised that motion must always be described relative to something else. So he could have ended the controversy by replying to "does the earth move?" with "relative to what?"
Galileo's first opponents were the Aristotelian scientists at the universities, wedded to Ptolemaic astronomy.
The Church allowed Galileo to present the Copernican model as a hypothesis, but not as proven (and indeed Galileo's only "proof" was a faulty theory of tides).
The scientists persuaded the church that the Bible taught the Ptolemaic system, so Galileo was contradicting the Bible. In reality, he was contradicting the establishment's "science". So the lesson for today is NOT that Christians should not oppose "majority science", but that we SHOULD -- this is exactly what Galileo did!
There were also a number of political factors involved --- but Galileo's heresy was always inquisitorial rather than theological.
The church itself supported research into astronomy, turning their cathedrals into giant sundials called meridiane. The Jesuits taught Copernican astronomy in China not long after Galileo. They realised that Galileo's heresy, being non-theological, had no general or theological significance.

dizzle

June 19th 2004, 09:01 AM

Hey Brett, first of all from all that I have read my criticisms do not apply to you. And in case you did not know I am YEC.

I dont' know Dee Dee. From my experience the OECs on this board have always seemed to be a lot more agressively rude.

I think there is fault on both sides that I have addressed with both sides. However, I am a YEC and prefer to clean my own house as I have more standing in that community as it is my own.

One of them made the charge that YEC is heresy. I think it was Jason, but I'm not sure. One of those guys, anyway (Sorry if that wasn't you Jason, but will the real culprit please come forward?).

It was Jason and he did not say YEC is heresy. He said that some YEC insinuate or add to the basic doctrine in a way that makes it seem salvational. In my experiences over the past year I cannot say that I disagree with him. When Charleen is called a churchian things have gone too far. I disagree HIGHLY with Charleen, and I think she has done her share of instigation as she knows as she and I have talked, but she is not on my side of hte fence. There has been no retraction or condemnation of her being called a churchian by any YEC other then me, and I think that is really sad.

I mean I really don't care, but sheesh, you really see the rudeness as one sided? BTW, what's a churchian?

It is a polemical term that means that someone cares about "church" and the false traditions of men rather then Christ. Christ-ian is someone who follows Christ. A church-ian is someone who plays church. Any attempt to say that this simply means someone who goes to church is not being forthright and can feel free to take me up on that in the Locker Room. The over-use of that term is embarassing to the YEC community of which I am a part.

Anyway, granted things have gotten a little out of hand and humility needs to prevail, but maybe some balanced rebuking would be helpul.

I have rebuked both sides. I recently got in Jason's face. Jason and Charleen can attest that I have.

I for one would love to see the level of respect rise in this forum, but I think it's gonna take effort from both camps. And let's face it, sarcasm and nettling will never cease in an environment like this.

Sincerely

Actually this thread we have been strongly putting forth our positions and I have not seen it degenerate. And you have never been an issue that I have ever noticed.

dizzle

June 19th 2004, 10:48 AM

Ah, you're all full of it.

:joy:

:joy:

I am going to be giddy for a while now that WD is back.

brett

June 19th 2004, 12:47 PM

It was Jason and he did not say YEC is heresy. He said that some YEC insinuate or add to the basic doctrine in a way that makes it seem salvational.

No, then that's not the one I was referring to. I see Jason started a thread with heresy in the title (which I haven't actually read yet). This was a direct explicit statement. It probably wasn't Jason at all. Maybe it was another J name. I'll do some searching, maybe I'll find it.

But this is my point. If he really feels it's heresy, let him say it. In theology 201 people call the OVers heretics all the time. I've looked into the issue a little and have NOT come the same conclusion, but some have. I think they're wrong (those who think OV rises to the level of heresy), and most of the time idiots, but it's really what they believe. As far as the churchian thing, I also dissagree with the implications of the term. I don't think OECs are false believers (if that's indeed the implication). I DO think many of them compromise, though, especially with this thing about not questioning majority scientific theories. I think that's about as wrong headed as you can get (I'm hoping there are some OECs that will agree with me on that).

I mean look, it's your call how you want to handle all this. There are certainly times when the mods need to intervene and shake people up. I wouldn't want your job dealing with all these adult babies (myself included, hopefully only on rare occation)! But someone's gotta do it and I'm glad you are.

Sincerely

dizzle

June 19th 2004, 12:52 PM

Hey Brett

No, then that's not the one I was referring to. I see Jason started a thread with heresy in the title (which I haven't actually read yet). This was a direct explicit statement. It probably wasn't Jason at all. Maybe it was another J name. I'll do some searching, maybe I'll find it.

Please let me know when you do. I am interested.

But this is my point. If he really feels it's heresy, let him say it.

He doesn't. He feels that the doctrine is fine. Some YEC take it too far. I read a disgusting paragraph (I can find the quote if you need it) from some YEC who called OEC belief the "whore of babylon."

In theology 201 people call the OVers heretics all the time. I've looked into the issue a little and have NOT come the same conclusion, but some have. I think they're wrong (those who think OV rises to the level of heresy), and most of the time idiots, but it's really what they believe. As far as the churchian thing, I also dissagree with the implications of the term. I don't think OECs are false believers (if that's indeed the implication). I DO think many of them compromise, though, especially with this thing about not question majority scientific theories. I think that's about as wrong headed as you can get (I'm hoping there are some OECs that will agree with me on that).

That is indeed the implication. If not it would not also be used of hte likes of Spong et al. It is an unneeded insult. Our brethren are CHRISTIANS and it is highly insulting to give them another label like that. Now if a denail of an essential happens, fire away. But Charleen does not deserve that label at all. And I don't deny there is some comprimisek, I have never disagreed with that. I disagree that the lobbing of comprimiser is helpful.

I mean look, it's your call how you want to handle all this. There are certainly times when the mods need to intervene and shake people up. I wouldn't want your job dealing with all these adult babies (myself included, hopefully only on rare occation)! But someone's gotta do it and I'm glad you are.

Sincerely

We have never had an issue with you that I can recall. And my comments in this thread are not as moderator, but as member thoguh of course my personal opinions will inform my official ones. But I am speaking without my owner's hat so to speak, but as one YEC to my YEC brethren.

dizzle

June 19th 2004, 01:34 PM

Guys I am going to start a thread on this in Christianity201 later. I would appreciate yoru particiation. I am doing it there because there are Christians who cannot participate here and I want all Christian input. I am not doing it in the Locker Room because then it will simply invite nonChristian participation and turn into a bash Soc fest (the person who has made the comment that has me on a tear). So please look for the thread and hopefully we can have a good conversation.

here is the link

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=595308#post595308

I once again am not ndenying vile behaviour on the other side. There are particular nonCosmogony posters I have in mind.

LeiLani

June 19th 2004, 03:39 PM

Here is the problem and it is a growing problem that I see. YEC are becoming known for taking away with one hand what they gave with the other. Yes it is well known that the major Christian groups such as AiG state that such is not a salvational issue. Yes they state it flat out. But when YEC go around calling people who confess the essentials of the faith "churchians" such assurances then appear to ring hollow and is disgusting me enough to want to distance myself. In this context, the rhetoric that flies back and forth between the camps, this type of interpretation is very easy to make.

Since this was a direct reply to one of my posts, I will have to ask if this is referring to me, I hope you don't mean that it is. I'm sorry if my quote of GP was an easily misinterpreted statement, Dee Dee, but I think it is clear in the context of what you already know I believe that I never meant it to mean that old-earth belief is heresy. What I said was essentially the same as what GP said, and in almost the same context (replying to an aberrant view of Genesis). So if you had no problem with him (and you were right not to, because he certainly didn't mean that old-earthers were heretics), why with me? I have never made a claim even close to saying that in any of my posts. Also, I'm a bit confused about your saying that we've been taking away with one hand what we give with the other. I don't see what you are talking about, as NO credible YEC would say that non-YEC's are heretics! It's important to look at their explicit statements rather than TWeb rhetoric that can be taken either way. Both the major YEC organizations and the major YEC defenders on TWeb have explicitly stated that YEC is not an essential for salvation. This is so consistent that it's shameful that some old-earthers still paint them as denying salvation to non-YECs.

As brett has already pointed out, many times the old-earthers launch attacks that are more 'disgusting,' as you put it, than any of the worst YEC posts! Just a few weeks ago, there were some posts (now edited) calling YEC's liars and Christ-haters! And a leading OEC organisation called YECs "gnostics". I don't know of any YEC who would stoop that low.

I have always made it a point to be polite, if not a WFJ, in my replies on this board. Unless my memory is seriously flawed, I was not ONCE editted for any inappropriate comments toward non-YEC's, so why are you lumping all the YEC's together? I personally have never used the term 'churchian' in any of my posts, even though I don't think there is any harm in it. So I don't see how someone else using that term could reflect badly on my views, just because I happen to be YEC too. So I hope that that wasn't referring to me.

dizzle

June 19th 2004, 05:14 PM

Since this was a direct reply to one of my posts, I will have to ask if this is referring to me...

You have not referred to an orthodox Christian as a churchian so no. I do think that the potential misunderstanding with the quote on heresy was not necessary on several levels.

I'm sorry if my quote of GP was an easily misinterpreted statement, Dee Dee, but I think it is clear in the context of what you already know I believe that I never meant it to mean that old-earth belief is heresy.

I understand that, but then bringing it up here is a red herring easily misinterpreted. In this context we were talking about whether or not YEC or OEC was the "new kid on the block." You were making the case that it is OEC that is the "new kid on the block" and from what I know of church history I agree with you. However, after making that point you pull in a quote of a noninvolved person on this thread, someone who is not an authority on new theological movements, just another poster stating their position, that new theological ideas are often heresy. That is a highly charged context to inset such a statement into. What exactly then was the purpose? Please, if there is some other reason I am missing, let me know, or if it was just unfortunate placement.

What I said was essentially the same as what GP said, and in almost the same context (replying to an aberrant view of Genesis).

No the context was much different in that it was heated exchange in which Glenn is accusing GP of not doing his homework and things got much more aggressive then here. Furthermore, I believe GP was using heresy in its very broad sense of the word. I do not need the purpose that was served here. Just because it was done before, does not mean it serves a purpose here.

So if you had no problem with him (and you were right not to, because he certainly didn't mean that old-earthers were heretics), why with me?

Because I do not see the purpose. In that thread, there was an entire different dynamic going on where Glenn felt it proper to just dismiss weighty commentators. This context like it or not was different. This was not a heated debate, the only point being made was not whether or not to dismiss commentators, or any of the rest of the points there (and Glenn is not OEC by TE), but the only point was that OEC is "new" and then to quote a noninvolved party to say new theological ideas are often heresy was a bit reckless IMHO.

I have never made a claim even close to saying that in any of my posts. Also, I'm a bit confused about your saying that we've been taking away with one hand what we give with the other. I don't see what you are talking about, as NO credible YEC would say that non-YEC's are heretics!

I have explained what I meant. The use of the word "churchian" does take away what was givne with one. I have started a different thread on that in another section.

It's important to look at their explicit statements rather than TWeb rhetoric that can be taken either way. Both the major YEC organizations and the major YEC defenders on TWeb have explicitly stated that YEC is not an essential for salvation. This is so consistent that it's shameful that some old-earthers still paint them as denying salvation to non-YECs.

Yes just as shameful as SOME YEC calling the OEC view the whore of babylon. No one here (with one possible loose canon exception) has stated that the official position is one of denying salvation. However, if I were an OEC and djismissively called a churchian I would think differently for sure.

As brett has already pointed out, many times the old-earthers launch attacks that are more 'disgusting,' as you put it, than any of the worst YEC posts! Just a few weeks ago, there were some posts (now edited) calling YEC's liars and Christ-haters!

I said both sides were highly at fault. I am more concerned with my own camp. I could quote some now edited YEC comments and that would serve no purpose. Furthermore the quotes you are referring to were not from an OEC but at best at TE and someone that I have no knowledge if they are even a professed orthodox Christian, thus irrelevant to this conversation.

And a leading OEC organisation called YECs "gnostics". I don't know of any YEC who would stoop that low.

I do. One who called OEC the whore of babylon. And calling an orthodox Christian a churchian is low in my book. And IIRC they didn't call YECs gnostics. There was a principled distinction made. Now I thought the article was horrible,but we should represent it fairly.

I have always made it a point to be polite, if not a WFJ, in my replies on this board. Unless my memory is seriously flawed, I was not ONCE editted for any inappropriate comments toward non-YEC's, so why are you lumping all the YEC's together?

And I was not. I keep referring to specific examples. I am a YEC as well.

I personally have never used the term 'churchian' in any of my posts, even though I don't think there is any harm in it.

And therein lies the problem. It is hypocritical to see no issue wtih that and get all riled up over the gnosticism article or the Ussher cartoon (and I have now read the letters of the cartoonist to AiG and I think any complaining about the cartoon without linking to this man's responses is not exactly fair - I was not even aware that the issue had been addressed - I just found it today - he says he did not do it maliciously)

So I don't see how someone else using that term could reflect badly on my views, just because I happen to be YEC too. So I hope that that wasn't referring to me.

If you do not see that it reflects poorly on YEC as a whole, that is your deficit.

Sinai

June 19th 2004, 05:50 PM

There's no doubt in my mind you would have been a flat-earther and a geocentrist had you live in that era. After all, you wouldn't have had the math background to argue with the experts.
Although you are certainly entitled to your opinion, this cheap shot gibe appears rather out of place in an otherwise rather good post.
I would like to publicly apologize to brett for referring to his gibe at Charleen as being a "cheap shot." Although I may have honestly felt that his comments were out of place in an otherwise good post, I had no business in stooping to the level of making such a remark myself. Calling another person's words a "cheap shot" was itself the type of inflamatory rhetoric which I was attempting to call into question.

Please forgive me.

brett

June 20th 2004, 03:04 AM

I would like to publicly apologize to brett for referring to his gibe at Charleen as being a "cheap shot." Although I may have honestly felt that his comments were out of place in an otherwise good post, I had no business in stooping to the level of making such a remark myself. Calling another person's words a "cheap shot" was itself the type of inflamatory rhetoric which I was attempting to call into question.

Please forgive me.

It's cool Sinai. The comment was certainly meant to be thought provoking. After all, most OECs feel the Galileo controversy works in their favor. Having it suggested that your thought process might be very similar to those of Galileo's opponents is, I'm sure, a little irritating (as thought provoking challenges almost always are). But I never thought it rose to the level of cheap shot or ad hom. Glad you don't see it that way either, anymore.

A Beautiful Truth

June 21st 2004, 03:36 PM

The bottom line is, Charlene has stated that she is able to scrutinize highly educated theologians because she has the Holy Spirit who will assist her.

And don't forget the precious Word of God. All things need to be tested with the Word. Please don't confuse my point. Science is not as simple to understand as the Word of God. Indeed, that is one such beauty of the Bible--simple and educated, young and old, rich and poor alike can all comprehend what they need to. God is good.

But when it comes to highly educated scientists, she feels she cannot do the same.

Well, you are right. What can I say? I need to read books to study topics--just as you do. You are not expert in GR--you read Humphreys because you agree with him already. There is no testing on your part--you just take it because he gave it to you. You cannot test it because you do not understand GR enough to even critique his work. I repeat: you do not understand GR enough to even critique his work. It is very odd of you to get up on that horse of yours while you yourself suffer from what you accuse me. At least I want things put up to the test--I demand it. Humphreys has not published his Starlight and Time work in any science peer reviewed journals--period. I am not falling for the conspiracy theory, either. He doesn't submit it to his science peers--experts in the field--because, IMO, he will be publically humiliated and it would give all the OEC's something to reference.

Therefore she feels inclined to go with the majority and not look into the actual works of people like Humphreys, who has impeccable scientific credentials, but unfortunately is in the minority.

One, let me say that I have heard that Humphreys is not always in the minority in the science realm, only when his science tries to fit in his theological stand, as is the case of GR. Humphreys is indeed published in peer reviewed journals, as any trained YEC can show, but these articles do not seek to push YEC. So I am not doubting his "impeccable scientific credentials", I would not want you to think that. It is just in this area, his math and workings of GR is compromised by his prior theological beliefs of a YE.

And I want you to consider something ironic, Brett. What has been a sell of YEC?: that it is simple to understand, that even little old ladies can understand it. Why do you condemn me because I am "uneducated" in math and the sciences? I have the Word which tells me everything I really need to know. Brett, continue with the condemnation all you want because I have not applied myself enough to the study of math, etc., but know this--I am raising a family. Sure, I'd *love* to go back to school and continue with my education--BUT I CAN'T. I can't, Brett, my place is here at home with my husband, raising and homeschooling my children. Any money that I would spend in my education needs to go to my children's education. I hope to see my kids acheive a higher education and go through math and science enough to be able to critique Humphrey's work themselves. But if they are content on being ministers of God without a formal science/math education, then God bless them. We are not all blessed with the giftedness/time/ inclination to pursue what you think is nessessary to pursue to be called a true Berean. Last I checked, being an unashamed "workman" was fulfilled by studing the Word of God. You heap way too much on me to meet up to your double standards. But I am not here to please you, but God--by submitting to Him, studying His word, being in prayer, fellowship with the saints, and walking in a manner worthy of my calling as wife and mother.

dizzle

June 21st 2004, 03:39 PM

Funny how all the rebuttals of his peers never got published.

Really? How did I read some? Through osmosis? IIRC RTB commissioned a rebutal, and I read each one in the TJ.

dizzle

June 21st 2004, 03:50 PM

So you don't buy the "conspiracy theory" with regards to mainstream journals, but you are envisioning some YEC conspiracry

:no:

ChristianTrader

June 21st 2004, 04:37 PM

ALL the rebuttals were not published.

Even if not published in mainstream or creationist friendly ones, the rebuttals could easily be published on a website somewhere. Has this been done? AIG, ICR, and Humphreys himself have not shown an aversion to rebutting things regardless of where they published (For example, see AIG's rebuttal to the first chapter of Ross' book. which exists only on a the RTB webpage).

Also to be fair it seems that Humphreys model has been critiqued and extended by another YEC named John Harnett, and can be found here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/tj_151_cmb.PDF

CT

ChristianTrader

June 21st 2004, 04:43 PM

Mrs. Lohman,
I sincerely disagree with the OEC viewpoint and hermanutic, but I whole heartedly salute you for homeschooling your children. I wish more would make the sacrifices necessary to do that or send their children to explicitly Christian schools.

CT

dizzle

June 21st 2004, 05:44 PM

Yes, and it is also suspicious that the magazine employee in charge of running the OEC responses was "let go" shortly afterwards. An investigative reporter really should check into it.

:no: Spreading gossip are we Charleen? Don't you think you should have some FACTS before insinuating such moves to brethren? HOw would you react if a YEC here said this against an OEC. Let me tell you a little something that I have over you - I don't know what magazine you are referring to but your dismisalls of Humphreys are beneath you and blatantly unfair. I personally spoke to the man, he is not unaccessible, and he spoke candidly and openly with me about all the rebuttals at that time and told me exactly where I might find them, including non YEC friendly sites. I think you should think twice before impugning the man.

See Brett? My sword cuts both ways. I think both sides behave like [insert descriptive] in this issue at times, and these insinuations against Humphreys and the conspiracy innuendo is totally inappropriate.

A Beautiful Truth

June 21st 2004, 06:10 PM

Even if not published in mainstream or creationist friendly ones, the rebuttals could easily be published on a website somewhere. Has this been done?

Reasons to Believe put out a video called, "Unraveling Starlight and Time" which addresses all the major flaws in Humphrey's "Starlight and Time."

Also to be fair it seems that Humphreys model has been critiqued and extended by another YEC named John Harnett, and can be found here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/tj_151_cmb.PDF

CT

While it is nice to have our friends agree with us, it is important to submit scientific work to scientists who may not already be predisposed to agree with our bias, this way flaws are more easily seen. When it passes peer review, it adds credence to the hypothesis. But it is not in keeping with the YEC scientist's worldview to submit to the scientific method. It seems that having a particular Bible interpretation keeps YEC's immune. It is because of this that I have often wondered about the YEC's interest in science in the first place.

I hope YEC's will not take offense at this. And if they do, I have to wonder why. I have heard on numerous occasions that many YEC's believe that science done without the YEC "glasses" yields fallacious records for it is not done with the correct Bible interpretation in mind. But this is circular and, again, I am at a loss to understand the YEC facination with "science". If the rules of engagement are that YEC science is not able to be proved false from the outset, then there is no need for the scientific method. To them, the core of their science (young earth) is not up for future modification for they believe that they have it right already. But this comes with forcing science into a Bible interpretation.

dizzle

June 21st 2004, 06:48 PM

And if you investigated it yourself and found it to be true, would it still be "gossip"? I am sincerely asking.

Before I impugned another ministry of "coverup" with innuendo I would have proof that it was in fact. You have allegations (which are born false by my conversation with Humphreys who was more then willing to assist me in finding all rebutalls at that time and gave me the names of the authors of them and where I could locate them if I so wished - some coverup) from which you have jumped to conclusions.

dizzle

June 21st 2004, 07:50 PM

TJ never published the additional rebuttals so that is why you are not going to find them.

And of course there is a conspiracy. Nice going. :no: Persecution complexes by OEC are no prettier then "churchian" slinging by YEC.

A Beautiful Truth

June 21st 2004, 08:59 PM

Since I do not feel at liberty to reveal my source and you are not willing/able to investigate the matter yourself, I deleted my posts on the matter.

dizzle

June 21st 2004, 09:05 PM

The onus is not on me, and it is inappropriate for you to try to shift the burden in that manner. You should never have made a public insinuation if you were not prepared to pony up the proof.

LeiLani

June 21st 2004, 10:44 PM

Humphreys has not published his Starlight and Time work in any science peer reviewed journals--period. I am not falling for the conspiracy theory, either. He doesn't submit it to his science peers--experts in the field--because, IMO, he will be publically humiliated and it would give all the OEC's something to reference.
Charleen, that's what I don't get about you. Ross doesn't submit his anti-evolutionary criticisms to science journals either. So by this reasoning, we shouldn't trust them either. Rather, we should trust the "majority" who believe in evolution from goo to you via the zoo (to use AiG's term :wink:). AiG has pointed out this in their critique of the first chapter of his new book (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0601critique.asp).

Ungoliant

June 21st 2004, 10:53 PM

ChristianTrader

June 21st 2004, 11:19 PM

'the goo to you via the zoo' phrase tells all you need to know about AIG.

I am not a huge fan of Ross' either but Humphrey's is another kettle of fish altogether. The reason Humphrey's will never submit his cosmological 'theory' to a science journal is that he may risk a lawsuit for the deaths of the referees due to laughter.

It's a non starter from the get go.

But come on, in the mainstream science journals, one cannot say, "In the beginning God". Which is the Christian Presupposition. Therefore we are going to be at war with them at basically every turn. This is completely natural. If you have different presuppositions you have to expect to have different views of history, origins etc. I personally would be suprised if the Journal referees would not laugh at such. But I am not sure the importance of such?

CT

Ungoliant

June 22nd 2004, 12:10 AM

Ungoliant

June 22nd 2004, 12:12 AM

But come on, in the mainstream science journals, one cannot say, "In the beginning God". Which is the Christian Presupposition. Therefore we are going to be at war with them at basically every turn. This is completely natural. If you have different presuppositions you have to expect to have different views of history, origins etc. I personally would be suprised if the Journal referees would not laugh at such. But I am not sure the importance of such?

CT
You are also using that old chestnut of implied atheism for scientists. Not only is it stupid to do so - it's just plain wrong. I know several cosmologists and quite a few astronomers who are Christians.

ChristianTrader

June 22nd 2004, 12:56 AM

You are also using that old chestnut of implied atheism for scientists. Not only is it stupid to do so - it's just plain wrong. I know several cosmologists and quite a few astronomers who are Christians.

I imply no such thing. There are definitely Christians scientist who do not hold to YEC and are still Christians. However if one truly accepted in the Beginning God (meaning the God of the Bible), on what basis would they laugh at Humphreys' White Hole Cosmological model? Now you can believe that it is incorrect but laugh?

The only basis for laughing is if you put certain non-biblical constraints on Him.

CT

ChristianTrader

June 22nd 2004, 01:06 AM

I agree Humphrey's cannot put that in but he could submit the 'science' content of the theory. It requires no direct plea for Divine cause. He could write it as a paper based upon his version of how GR works (which is wrong by the way) and how it explains the observations and what it predicts in the way of observations (this is the part he wont do because his theory is immediatley and irrevocably falsified at this step.)

Instead he hides it in Creationist publications no one has heard of let alone reads and so can pretend it hasn't been falsified or rejected.

Yet another AIG/ICR time honoured technique so that they can con their supporters for more 'research' money.

Here I disagree with the assertion of "bare science". Such a thing does not exist. What you believe is possible/ plausible etc. cannot be seperated from your philosophical viewpoint. If you believe that God was active in creation or if you believe that some random quantum fluctuation happened, really influences what theories you put forward and what you accept as 'reasonable'.

Now you can point to various shortcomings of Humphreys' theory and how it is inconsistent with various observations (given in the beginning God) (you can look into the Harnett paper that I linked above for new form of Humphreys' white hole model); but then again you could just as easily (if not more so) point out the problems of the big bang and various inflation model (dark matter anyone?).

CT

dizzle

June 22nd 2004, 06:12 AM

Ungoliant are you a creationist under the guidelines of this forum?

Ungoliant

June 22nd 2004, 09:53 AM

Yes - OEC.

Isn't it rather strange but as someone seems to know anything about science then that question is asked. I have seen that in the past on here.

It seems you know the obvious fact that most Creationists are scientifically inept to the nth degree.

Ungoliant

June 22nd 2004, 09:55 AM

The reason for laughing would be the obvious fact he knows little General Relativity yet writes as though he does.

Ungoliant

June 22nd 2004, 10:01 AM

Here I disagree with the assertion of "bare science". Such a thing does not exist. What you believe is possible/ plausible etc. cannot be seperated from your philosophical viewpoint. If you believe that God was active in creation or if you believe that some random quantum fluctuation happened, really influences what theories you put forward and what you accept as 'reasonable'.

Now you can point to various shortcomings of Humphreys' theory and how it is inconsistent with various observations (given in the beginning God) (you can look into the Harnett paper that I linked above for new form of Humphreys' white hole model); but then again you could just as easily (if not more so) point out the problems of the big bang and various inflation model (dark matter anyone?).

CT
Well you have misunderstood Humphrey's assertions. Because his cosmological model actually needs no reference to God directly. In fact that is a problem som YEC's have with it. They consider it too close to OEC beliefs.

By the way - did you read the Hartnett link. Perhaps you posted the wrong one but it did not extend Humphrey's model, in fact it hardly mentioned it - it was instead a (misguided I might add) critique of current CDM cosmology.

Psst.

Dark matter has nothing to do with inflation.

Why don't people go away and at least learn the subject they are railing against. When you dismiss something out of hand without even understanding what that said something really says - it just reinforces the opinion that all Creationists are too ignorant to understand or research a topic.

ChristianTrader

June 22nd 2004, 11:27 AM

Well you have misunderstood Humphrey's assertions. Because his cosmological model actually needs no reference to God directly. In fact that is a problem som YEC's have with it. They consider it too close to OEC beliefs.

By the way - did you read the Hartnett link. Perhaps you posted the wrong one but it did not extend Humphrey's model, in fact it hardly mentioned it - it was instead a (misguided I might add) critique of current CDM cosmology.

Psst.

Dark matter has nothing to do with inflation.

Why don't people go away and at least learn the subject they are railing against. When you dismiss something out of hand without even understanding what that said something really says - it just reinforces the opinion that all Creationists are too ignorant to understand or research a topic.

Concerning the Harnett Paper, I apologize I pasted the link for an earlier one. The one I was referring to is here: www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v17n2_cosmology.pdf .

My assertions concerning "bare science" hold regardless of the individual situation. For example why would anyone be interested in a timeless zone unless they (at least) had a passing interesting in joining the biblical account with scientific observations. For most it would be a uninteresting question and complication. And what good is having people accept a part here and a part there but reject other parts? Would people then begin to accept his model?

Next, concerning dark matter, from my reading over the last month or so, I understand that supersymmetry is the first on the hit list if no dark matter is found. However are you really saying that if large percentages of matter that were believed to exist, in order to make sense of various observations, turn up missing, all origins theory will get keep rolling on?

CT

Ungoliant

June 22nd 2004, 12:23 PM

I shall read the Hartnett paper tonight. I do see how he immediately points out Humphrey's model predicts blue shifts since we are at the bottom of a large potential well. Humphrey's has to know this himself (I would think) and this is another reason why it would never be submitted to ApJ or Phys. Rev. B.

No supersymmetry is not on a 'hit list' if no dark matter is found.

Your second paragraph is so off base with regards to science. Your problem is you see the science community as having some axe to grind when it has been historically (and present day too) the case that religious zealots of all persuasions that have axes to grind and the scientific community has pretty much been even handed this way. Yes there have been exceptions, there are to every rule - but I'll take the science communities ethics and standards before faith based zealotry and dogma.

This is why I have no respect for groups like AIG and ICR - who I see as little more than money grubbers making a (good) living of people they hoodwink because they tell them what they want to hear not what real science is.

ChristianTrader

June 22nd 2004, 01:13 PM

No supersymmetry is not on a 'hit list' if no dark matter is found.

Well I guess anything can just morph to fit any data, but if a great candidate for "superpartnerhood" is found to be missing. It will be interesting to see what happens next. Starting to run out of options for neutralinos.

Your second paragraph is so off base with regards to science. Your problem is you see the science community as having some axe to grind when it has been historically (and present day too) the case that religious zealots of all persuasions that have axes to grind and the scientific community has pretty much been even handed this way. Yes there have been exceptions, there are to every rule - but I'll take the science communities ethics and standards before faith based zealotry and dogma.

Well I think you stated nicely our dispute with you last sentence. We have different standards and starting points. My standard is scripture and yours at least begins elsewhere.

Next, I reject the neutrality of "science", there is no neutrality anywhere. One can only be "neutral" within worldviews. For example, to call someone a zealot etc requires you to stand on some standard that you believe is objective and your opponent refuses to acknowledge it. You can call AIG and myself zealots, and I can hurl the same thing back at you. It all goes back to metaphysics and starting presuppositions.

This is why I have no respect for groups like AIG and ICR - who I see as little more than money grubbers making a (good) living of people they hoodwink because they tell them what they want to hear not what real science is.

Real science hehe. The issue here is what presuppositions unpin "real" science. I accept the Bible as the only sure foundation to begin anything. You do not. It ends up being a pretty simple issue.

CT

Warcraft3

June 22nd 2004, 01:28 PM

Hey there ChristianTrader.........

I usually avoid these discussions but Im going to jump in this one....

Next, I reject the neutrality of "science", there is no neutrality anywhere.

I would agree with that.

One can only be "neutral" within worldviews.

How do we really nail down a "worldview" though within science itself? The men and women who are involved in science and engineering are very diverse with respect to personal beliefs or "worldviews"....I dont think we can chacterize the group as a whole as having a certain "worldview"....

For example, to call someone a zealot etc requires you to stand on some standard that you believe is objective and your opponent refuses to acknowledge it. You can call AIG and myself zealots, and I can hurl the same thing back at you. It all goes back to metaphysics and starting presuppositions.

But when an organization makes an explicit statement as to what their starting point is or "worldview" we can make a valid conclusion as to what their standard is...........how do we do that for science itself?

Science is made up of scientists, engineers, and technicians who make new discoveries, invent things, and try to explain the physical world in a way that is experimentally verifiable and has both explanatory and predictive power. But the individual scientists, engineers, or technicians involved in the actual work of science do not all share the same personal beliefs.....so how can we really nail down a "worldview" that affects the work they do?

Real science hehe. The issue here is what presuppositions unpin "real" science. I accept the Bible as the only sure foundation to begin anything. You do not. It ends up being a pretty simple issue.

I also accept the Bible as a foundation, yet when I analyse an antenna or a radar, for example, I do not consider the scripture because it is silent on the laws and mathematics that govern electromagnetic waves.

So my "worldview" doesnt really come into play here.........I just look at the thing and try to figure out what the heck is going on. Most engineers, scientists, and technicians that I know (or have ever known) do the same thing....so Im not seeing how we can say science even has a "worldview".

Russ

wienerdog

June 22nd 2004, 02:23 PM

But come on, in the mainstream science journals, one cannot say, "In the beginning God". Which is the Christian Presupposition. Therefore we are going to be at war with them at basically every turn. This is completely natural. If you have different presuppositions you have to expect to have different views of history, origins etc. I personally would be suprised if the Journal referees would not laugh at such. But I am not sure the importance of such?

CT
William Lane Craig published an essay entitled "The Ultimate Question of Origins: God and the Beginning of the Universe" in the journal Astrophysics and Space Science. Craig is an evangelical Christian, and his argument is that Big Bang cosmology proves the existence of a Creator that matches the Bible's description of God. You can read the essay here (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/ultimatequestion.html).

A Beautiful Truth

June 22nd 2004, 03:36 PM

Charleen, that's what I don't get about you. Ross doesn't submit his anti-evolutionary criticisms to science journals either. So by this reasoning, we shouldn't trust them either.

LeiLani,

I think you misunderstand. If Hugh Ross came out with a radical new scientific theory that modified an otherwise non-contested theory as General Relativity, then, most definitely, I would expect peer review for his work. There is no double standard here, as you imply. If Ross were to come out with a radical idea and call it science, then I WOULD EXPECT the same of him--peer review in respected science journals. And I know that if he were to come out with a new theory it would be published in journals where his peers in physics and astronomy could review it. That's the difference between OE and YE, I guess. One respects the science community, the other does not.

Rather, we should trust the "majority" who believe in evolution from goo to you via the zoo (to use AiG's term :wink:). AiG has pointed out this in their critique of the first chapter of his new book (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0601critique.asp).

ID may yet be in the minority, I admit. However, the ID proponents have established themselves as contributing members of the scientific community and who do submit their work to peer review. I think they have shown that they are able to hold their own against opponents who disagree with them
philosophically.

To this end I disagree with the false choice you make about either believing in a young earth with a special minority (ONLY YE scientists) or believing in "goo to you." I believe in an old earth (majority) and special creation (respected minority), an option I have not seen recognized too much in the YE community.

OEC scientists have not proposed anything the likes as Humphrey's has done. OEC's do not invent special new ideas that make their philosophy work. OEC's take what is known in science and see how it fits within their philosophy. Atheists do the same, they take what is known in science and see how it fits within their philosophy. YEC's, on the other hand, reject what is known in science, make up their own science so that it fits into their philosophy. Just my opinion.

reyvin

June 22nd 2004, 04:09 PM

While we're on this track (sort of) I've a question that bothered me even when I took a YEC stance:

What do the YEC think happened? The source of that question is my understanding of their feelings toward both an eternal steady state universe and also a big bang sudden creation universe. They dislike both. Why? It's got to be one or the other. Either its eternal or its not. If found not to be, so much the better for the Christian (or Jew or Muslim for that matter). All YEC material I've read in the past want to make it so that God's hand is unrecognizable in history and that just doesn't make sense to me in what Scripture teaches. Scripture tells us to look at nature and find Him.
So why do YEC fight against it? Is it because they've taken such a hard stance against an old earth view?
Is their ultimate aim to have a big bang theory in a young universe? Is that a fair statement/question?

brett

June 22nd 2004, 05:12 PM

[QUOTE=Dee Dee Warren]
See Brett? My sword cuts both ways.[\QUOTE]

:highfive:

brett

June 22nd 2004, 05:20 PM

While it is nice to have our friends agree with us, it is important to submit scientific work to scientists who may not already be predisposed to agree with our bias, this way flaws are more easily seen. When it passes peer review, it adds credence to the hypothesis.

Then darn it, why don't more of those evolutionists submit their findings to YECers for public review? You know ultimately, they're just making themselves look bad. :hmph:

brett

June 22nd 2004, 06:05 PM

Since I do not feel at liberty to reveal my source and you are not willing/able to investigate the matter yourself, I deleted my posts on the matter.

Yeah, it's never a good idea to expose fellow gossips.

Abigail

June 22nd 2004, 06:21 PM

Then darn it, why don't more of those evolutionists submit their findings to YECers for public review? You know ultimately, they're just making themselves look bad. :hmph: Absolutely - very observant of you sir :thumb:

A Beautiful Truth

June 22nd 2004, 06:37 PM

Yeah, it's never a good idea to expose fellow gossips.

Since my friends have remained publically silent on the issue out of Christian charity, I had no right to bring it up myself. I admit it was wrong for me to do so.

As far as calling others "gossips" as well, you have no knowledge of the context of the situation to do so. Don't let one bad mistake (mine) lead to another bad mistake (yours--by calling somebody who you don't even know a gossip since you know nothing of the situation).

brett

June 22nd 2004, 07:37 PM

Since my friends have remained publically silent on the issue out of Christian charity, I had no right to bring it up myself. I admit it was wrong for me to do so.

As far as calling others "gossips" as well, you have no knowledge of the context of the situation to do so. Don't let one bad mistake (mine) lead to another bad mistake (yours--by calling somebody who you don't even know a gossip since you know nothing of the situation).

If it was a mistake for you to whisper it to us, then it was a mistake for them to whisper it to you. You call yours a mistake but theirs christian charity?

A Beautiful Truth

June 22nd 2004, 08:31 PM

If it was a mistake for you to whisper it to us, then it was a mistake for them to whisper it to you. You call yours a mistake but theirs christian charity?

One, it was not whispered to me, you have no idea of the circumstances in my finding out, that is why it is unwise for you to speak in your ignorance of the situation. It is really unwise for you to continue on about something you know nothing.

I fully take my lumps for speaking where I had no authority to do so. I will not continue to discuss this with you if you in your lack of knowledge add more speculation to this already unfortunate topic.

I have repented of my mistake, do you find it the Christian thing to do to add insult to injury? Will you yourself not be a charitable Christian?

brett

June 22nd 2004, 09:12 PM

One, it was not whispered to me, you have no idea of the circumstances in my finding out, that is why it is unwise for you to speak in your ignorance of the situation. It is really unwise for you to continue on about something you know nothing.

I fully take my lumps for speaking where I had no authority to do so. I will not continue to discuss this with you if you in your lack of knowledge add more speculation to this already unfortunate topic.

I have repented of my mistake, do you find it the Christian thing to do to add insult to injury? Will you yourself not be a charitable Christian? Lead by example and do not repay evil for evil. Be the Christian you want to be and only speak about that which you know.

I am glad you've repented. You shared that you learned this juicy stuff from people that decided not to share it publically. I assumed the implication was they shared it privately. Now your saying they didn't share it with you, but rather you received it through means you'd rather not talk about. Sounds like a long story. You need not say anymore.

It's seems, though, your gathering information about Humphreys' from every source except him directly. If you haven't read his book yet, I challenge you again to pick it up. Right now I'm reading several books on viewpoints I dissagree with. It rarely drastically changes my views, but it does eliminate a lot of the strawman arguments that I otherwise would have been tempted to use. And apparantly the guy's even accessible! You could question him directly (though I don't think it would be fair to do so without at least reading his book and watching his video).

I still think you're naive about the amount of philosophy that goes into developing these origins models. It's never just about mathematical equations.

LeiLani

June 22nd 2004, 09:58 PM

quote=Charleen Lohman]I think you misunderstand. If Hugh Ross came out with a radical new scientific theory that modified an otherwise non-contested theory as General Relativity, then, most definitely, I would expect peer review for his work. [/quote]
Dr Humphreys does no such thing. Rather, he fully accepts GR; what he rejects is the philosophical assumptions behind the big bang -- i.e. that the universe has neither center nor edge.

There is no double standard here, as you imply. If Ross were to come out with a radical idea and call it science, then I WOULD EXPECT the same of him--peer review in respected science journals. And I know that if he were to come out with a new theory it would be published in journals where his peers in physics and astronomy could review it. That's the difference between OE and YE, I guess. One respects the science community, the other does not.
OK charleen, name an ID-supporting paper that has been published in a mainstream secular journal?? Hey, I agree that ID is real science (and it was YECs like triple-doctorate Arthur Wilder-Smith who first pointed out the importance of information).

ID may yet be in the minority, I admit. However, the ID proponents have established themselves as contributing members of the scientific community and who do submit their work to peer review.
YEC scientists have also had heaps of peer-reviewed papers in their own fields. One (Dr. Raymond Damadian) was recently unfairly denied the Nobel Prize despite being the pioneer of MRI. But ID also have heaps of trouble getting pro-ID papers published in mainstream journals. Have you read Phillip Johnson lately?

I think they have shown that they are able to hold their own against opponents who disagree with them
philosophically.
I know that and you know that, and so can YECs. The only answer is to censor the best ones. But you're deluded if you think they will ever get published in the mainstream journals now. And have you seen the concerted attacks against ID -- the materialists (both within and without the church) hate them as much as they hate creationists! Scientific American censored Philip Johnson from responding to a nasty review of his first book.

To this end I disagree with the false choice you make about either believing in a young earth with a special minority (ONLY YE scientists) or believing in "goo to you." I believe in an old earth (majority) and special creation (respected minority), an option I have not seen recognized too much in the YE community.
Charleen has no consistent position about when to follow the majority and when to oppose it. And I must ask, "Respected by whom?" One day I hope you will learn that the scientific establishment does not tolerate ANY departure from materialism.

ChristianTrader

June 23rd 2004, 12:07 AM

William Lane Craig published an essay entitled "The Ultimate Question of Origins: God and the Beginning of the Universe" in the journal Astrophysics and Space Science. Craig is an evangelical Christian, and his argument is that Big Bang cosmology proves the existence of a Creator that matches the Bible's description of God. You can read the essay here (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/ultimatequestion.html).

Very nice essay. I guess a question of exactly what type of journal was that is in order? That paper was just a history of different cosmological models and really did not get into anything "new".

It also did not truly challenge any regular cosmological assumptions (Age of universe/Earth etc.)

So I could perhaps change my statement, to you can start with the presupposition that the God of the Bible began it all as long as you dont challenge any of the "science".

CT

ChristianTrader

June 23rd 2004, 12:19 AM

Hey there ChristianTrader.........

How do we really nail down a "worldview" though within science itself? The men and women who are involved in science and engineering are very diverse with respect to personal beliefs or "worldviews"....I dont think we can chacterize the group as a whole as having a certain "worldview"....

One could not say that each has one particular worldview, but you could say that each worldview has certain things in common or overlap. A worldview determines what one needs to 'see' in order to accept various things as true or even if one can be refuted on a certain issue. It seems that most who publish in most journals on issues related to origins especially, have different view points than creationists (mainly YECs)

But when an organization makes an explicit statement as to what their starting point is or "worldview" we can make a valid conclusion as to what their standard is...........how do we do that for science itself?

Science is a tool used by people within their worldviews. Now you can say that many scientists have a certain worldview.

Science is made up of scientists, engineers, and technicians who make new discoveries, invent things, and try to explain the physical world in a way that is experimentally verifiable and has both explanatory and predictive power. But the individual scientists, engineers, or technicians involved in the actual work of science do not all share the same personal beliefs.....so how can we really nail down a "worldview" that affects the work they do?

You can nail down certain things that must be accepted in order to do scientific inquiry. Some essential shall we say. For example, Believing in the uniformity of nature is a worldview position that is essential to science. However various people can have various other beliefs in addition to those essentials. Also the closer you go to non operational science the more the worldviews of people diverge.

I also accept the Bible as a foundation, yet when I analyse an antenna or a radar, for example, I do not consider the scripture because it is silent on the laws and mathematics that govern electromagnetic waves.

So my "worldview" doesnt really come into play here.........I just look at the thing and try to figure out what the heck is going on. Most engineers, scientists, and technicians that I know (or have ever known) do the same thing....so Im not seeing how we can say science even has a "worldview".

Actually your worldview does come into play, it is just that basically there is convergence between your worldview is the same as others at most points in this area.

If I somehow said that science has a particular worldview, I apologize.

CT

Russ[/QUOTE]

Warcraft3

June 23rd 2004, 02:18 AM

Hey there Leilani.........

Dr Humphreys does no such thing. Rather, he fully accepts GR; what he rejects is the philosophical assumptions behind the big bang -- i.e. that the universe has neither center nor edge.

I dont know..........I havent heard much support for Dr. Humphreys ideas.

OK charleen, name an ID-supporting paper that has been published in a mainstream secular journal?? Hey, I agree that ID is real science (and it was YECs like triple-doctorate Arthur Wilder-Smith who first pointed out the importance of information).

Is there one? If there is I havent heard of it.

YEC scientists have also had heaps of peer-reviewed papers in their own fields. One (Dr. Raymond Damadian) was recently unfairly denied the Nobel Prize despite being the pioneer of MRI. But ID also have heaps of trouble getting pro-ID papers published in mainstream journals. Have you read Phillip Johnson lately?

If Dr Rayomnd Damadian was unfairly denied the Nobel Prize, then that would definately show an unacceptable level of prejudice.

Phillip Johnson is a lawyer if I remember correctly.

Ive followed the ID movement for a few years and have read several of their publications and websites....

Some of the stuff I find interesting, but when I read debates between ID advocates and their opponents, its usually the opponents that win the debate.

That causes me to question the validity of ID as a whole.

Russ

A Beautiful Truth

June 23rd 2004, 04:22 PM

Now your saying they didn't share it with you, but rather you received it through means you'd rather not talk about. Sounds like a long story. You need not say anymore.

Your implication of "whispered" is what I took issue with, it was not "whispered" to me. There is no "long story."

If there was an issue to be raised, it should not be raised by me, I admit it is not my place. My bad, I own up to it.

brett

June 23rd 2004, 05:53 PM

Your implication of "whispered" is what I took issue with, it was not "whispered" to me. There is no "long story."

Whisper is simply a biblical figure of speech for gossip. At any rate, let's just drop it. You've expressed regret and it's really no big deal.

A Beautiful Truth

June 23rd 2004, 06:04 PM

Whisper is simply a biblical figure of speech for gossip. At any rate, let's just drop it. You've expressed regret and it's really no big deal.

It was no gossip, it was no secret, it was just not my place to bring it up here, again, I admit that.

LeiLani

June 24th 2004, 07:46 AM

Hey there Leilani.........
Hey there Russ ....

I dont know..........I havent heard much support for Dr. Humphreys ideas.

There is indirectly. That is, Dr H has no problem with general relativity. But he does have problems with the assumptions of a universe without a center or edge. Leading big bang cosmologists have affirmed that this is a philosophical choice, and they could equally well construct a model with a centered universe.

Is there one [ID paper in mainstream journal]? If there is I havent heard of it.
Hang on please Russ. I was not writing this to attack ID, but to show that Charleen is inconsistent. That is, she attacks YEC because their articles against geological and astronomical evolution are not published in mainstream literature. But she proves too much (from her perspective)! Exactly the same arguments can and are raised against attacks against biological and chemical evolution that Charleen and I both oppose.

If Dr Rayomnd Damadian was unfairly denied the Nobel Prize, then that would definately show an unacceptable level of prejudice.

Michael Ruse and many others, who despise creation, still strongly suspected that Damadian was denied the Nobel for his religious beliefs, and opposed this discrimination http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/Ruse031804.htm AiG's perspective is The Not-so-Nobel Decision (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0528damadian_decision.asp), and this also summarizes Dr D's immense contribution as recognised by the experts.

Phillip Johnson is a lawyer if I remember correctly.
You do. And ....?

Ive followed the ID movement for a few years and have read several of their publications and websites....

Some of the stuff I find interesting, but when I read debates between ID advocates and their opponents, its usually the opponents that win the debate.
I beg to differ. I think Behe won hands down against his critics www.trueorigin.org/behe08.asp . Also, about the bacterial flagellum, one of the world's leading researchers, Scott Minnich, is an ID supporter, has a\shown that contrary to the critics, there are a number of features not found in any other organ www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_verdictonflagellum.htm

The only way the critics can win are to declare that science must consider only naturalistic explanations. But it's hardly a real win, because that's the whole disputed point! Or else the anti-ID knock down straw men -- see Dembski's account, Pennock's Convenient Distortion (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-pennock.html)
I agree that the ID opponents have the better case when they point to the problem of bad design, extinctions and features designed to kill or cause disease. But this is only because the ID crowd "leave the Bible out of it" and thus can't use the Fall to explain these things.

That causes me to question the validity of ID as a whole.
If ID is false, the Paul was wrong in Romans 1:20. That is, why should atheists be condemned if there is no evidence for design in the creation? Sorry Russ, I won't even go there!

A Beautiful Truth

June 24th 2004, 11:05 AM

OK charleen, name an ID-supporting paper that has been published in a mainstream secular journal??

Behe was published in "Biology and Philosophy", Vol. 16, Issue 5, Nov. 2001 pp. 683-707

see:

http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0169-3867

Dembinski's book, The Design Inference was published by Cambridge University Press and underwent peer review before beign published. See:

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1013824/posts

Dembinski from:
http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000783.html

Of course, the real question is whether design theorists publish work that supports intelligent design in the peer-reviewed literature. Here again there is no problem. Readers may refer to the ISCID bibliography at www.iscid.org/bibliography/bibliography.php for works in the peer-reviewed literature by design theorists that support intelligent design (note that this is a bibliography of design-relevant literature and thus also includes references to work by scientists who are not design theorists).

YEC scientists have also had heaps of peer-reviewed papers in their own fields.

As I told Brett, I understand this to be true. I am sure they are very qualified scientists, but please show how any of their papers support a 6,000 year old earth in peer reviewed journals.

Sinai

June 24th 2004, 03:27 PM

Michael Ruse and many others, who despise creation, still strongly suspected that Damadian was denied the Nobel for his religious beliefs, and opposed this discrimination http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/Ruse031804.htm AiG's perspective is The Not-so-Nobel Decision (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0528damadian_decision.asp), and this also summarizes Dr D's immense contribution as recognised by the experts.Thanks for the links, LeiLani. Those were quite interesting. The first one is especially noteworthy, since Dr. Ruse and Dr. Damadian are typically on opposite sides of a debate.

Ive followed the ID movement for a few years and have read several of their publications and websites....

Some of the stuff I find interesting, but when I read debates between ID advocates and their opponents, its usually the opponents that win the debate.
I beg to differ. I think Behe won hands down against his critics www.trueorigin.org/behe08.asp . Also, about the bacterial flagellum, one of the world's leading researchers, Scott Minnich, is an ID supporter, has a\shown that contrary to the critics, there are a number of features not found in any other organ www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_verdictonflagellum.htm

The only way the critics can win are to declare that science must consider only naturalistic explanations. But it's hardly a real win, because that's the whole disputed point! Or else the anti-ID knock down straw men -- see Dembski's account, Pennock's Convenient Distortion (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-pennock.html)
You make some very good points. Again, thanks for the links.

Warcraft3

June 24th 2004, 04:00 PM

Hey there ChristianTrader...........

One could not say that each has one particular worldview, but you could say that each worldview has certain things in common or overlap. A worldview determines what one needs to 'see' in order to accept various things as true or even if one can be refuted on a certain issue. It seems that most who publish in most journals on issues related to origins especially, have different view points than creationists (mainly YECs)

I think they have a different view point because they belive the evidence does not support YEC. If the evidence was in strong support of YEC, then many people would accept it because the strength of the evidence would overcome whatever bias or worldview they held.

I dont think we can blame the minority acceptance of YEC on ones worldview.

Science is a tool used by people within their worldviews. Now you can say that many scientists have a certain worldview.

I just dont see how my worldview comes into play when I do science or engineering.

You can nail down certain things that must be accepted in order to do scientific inquiry. Some essential shall we say. For example, Believing in the uniformity of nature is a worldview position that is essential to science. However various people can have various other beliefs in addition to those essentials. Also the closer you go to non operational science the more the worldviews of people diverge.

What do you mean by non operational?

Actually your worldview does come into play, it is just that basically there is convergence between your worldview is the same as others at most points in this area.

Well.........if I assume that there is no natural explanation for something then scientific inquiry pretty much stops at that point.

If I somehow said that science has a particular worldview, I apologize.

Hey man its cool........no need to apologize...I may hve misread you. I wasnt trying to say you did.........I was just fishing around for exactly what you were saying.

Russ

Warcraft3

June 24th 2004, 04:31 PM

Whats up Leilani.........

There is indirectly. That is, Dr H has no problem with general relativity. But he does have problems with the assumptions of a universe without a center or edge. Leading big bang cosmologists have affirmed that this is a philosophical choice, and they could equally well construct a model with a centered universe.

Ill have to look at his claims again. I started to a while back and I remember I wasnt too impressed with his stuff. When I get back home Ill look into it agiain and start a thread on it.

Hang on please Russ. I was not writing this to attack ID, but to show that Charleen is inconsistent. That is, she attacks YEC because their articles against geological and astronomical evolution are not published in mainstream literature. But she proves too much (from her perspective)! Exactly the same arguments can and are raised against attacks against biological and chemical evolution that Charleen and I both oppose.

Actually I wasnt trying to jump to any conclusions...I was just curious if you knew of any such papers :smile:

Michael Ruse and many others, who despise creation, still strongly suspected that Damadian was denied the Nobel for his religious beliefs, and opposed this discrimination http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/Ruse031804.htm AiG's perspective is The Not-so-Nobel Decision (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0528damadian_decision.asp), and this also summarizes Dr D's immense contribution as recognised by the experts.

I havent read the links yet. After I do Ill comment on the issue, but for now Ill say that if Ruse agrees with you then that makes me think there may be something to what you are saying.

You do. And ....?

Im not a big fan of Johnson.....or Wells for that matter.

Johnson seems to have a chip on his shoulder for disproving evolution. Most of his stuff (that I have seen anyway) is geared towards that goal instead of putting forth a positive case for ID.

Wells has made a statement concerning his education that bothers me concerning his motivation for getting a biology degree.

I beg to differ. I think Behe won hands down against his critics www.trueorigin.org/behe08.asp . Also, about the bacterial flagellum, one of the world's leading researchers, Scott Minnich, is an ID supporter, has a\shown that contrary to the critics, there are a number of features not found in any other organ www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_verdictonflagellum.htm

I havent read too much of Minnichs stuff (I will get to the link you posted though), but I have read alot of Behes stuff and Dembskis stuff as well.

Behe and Dembski make some good points, but alot of the rebuttals I have read against them have convinced me that their case is not as strong as their supporters let on.

I used to frequent the forum at www.iscid.org and read the debates there. The best pro-ID stuff Ive seen so far has come from someone who goes by the name of "Mike Gene". His articles can be found at www.idthink.net. Some of those articles are pretty good.

But as a whole ID is plagued by problems. The usefullness of ID has yet to be shown, and the case for it is still rather weak. Now that may change and I would tell people to hold off judging ID too harshly because I believe it is still in its infancy as a theory

The only way the critics can win are to declare that science must consider only naturalistic explanations. But it's hardly a real win, because that's the whole disputed point! Or else the anti-ID knock down straw men -- see Dembski's account, Pennock's Convenient Distortion (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-pennock.html)
I agree that the ID opponents have the better case when they point to the problem of bad design, extinctions and features designed to kill or cause disease. But this is only because the ID crowd "leave the Bible out of it" and thus can't use the Fall to explain these things.

Science has to deal with natural explanations, because thats all it can work with. Once a supernatural agent is brought in we are beyond what science can deal with. So the "only naturalistic explanations" attitude is one of pragmatism, not atheism.

As to the "bad design" arguments...I think that is a weak one to raise against ID advocates.

Of course my view of the fall is also very different from a YEC one, so we probably have different ideas as to what exactly happened or changed as a result of it.

If ID is false, the Paul was wrong in Romans 1:20. That is, why should atheists be condemned if there is no evidence for design in the creation? Sorry Russ, I won't even go there!

I didnt say ID was false.......I think the jury is still out on that one.

I think the current version has alot of problems (as does many of the details of evolution)....I believe in evolution and ID.

I think God designed and guided evolution along to produce what we see today. So I still agree with Romans 1:20 (although I think Paul may have meant something besides just direct scientific evidence).

Russ

A Beautiful Truth

June 24th 2004, 06:32 PM

Concerning our previous topic of interest, the comparison of YEers with the church in Galileo's day, I thought Rwade made an excellent comment:

This is the failing Noll sees on the part of young earthers; namely, that they can allow a hermeneutic which isn't exactly on target to keep them from learning from nature. Remember that it was scientists who informed us that the earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa (the position championed by church leaders who supposedly knew Scripture). *Biblicism* is sometimes to blame here, the idea that one can *only* find truth in the Bible. YECers sometimes speak as though old earthers necessarily are deliberately denying the Word of God in favor of science, as though they read Genesis 1, then look through their telescopes, and then say, "Nope, the Bible is wrong." One clearly gets the impression from YECers that Genesis 1 can only mean six, twenty-four hour days, so forget what we learn through the telescope if it differs.

find his excellent post here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28236

Sinai

June 24th 2004, 08:45 PM

Concerning our previous topic of interest, the comparison of YEers with the church in Galileo's day, I thought Rwade made an excellent comment:

[indent]

find his excellent post here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28236

Charleen, thank you for that link. I had missed seeing it earlier. As Dee Dee said in her response to the article, "This is an awesome article. I am glad I am at a place in my faith walk where I can "hear" it."

ChristianTrader

June 24th 2004, 08:52 PM

Concerning our previous topic of interest, the comparison of YEers with the church in Galileo's day, I thought Rwade made an excellent comment:

[indent]

find his excellent post here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28236

YECers do not think you take you telescope and look at things then say the Bible is wrong. They see OECs as taking their telescope and looking out then saying, "oh that is what the Bible meant". How can one put scientific interpretation on the level with scripture?

Also YECers are not for throwing out any observation. The issue is always one of interpretation.

CT

Ungoliant

June 24th 2004, 09:00 PM

How can one put scientific interpretation on the level with scripture?
I think you have this sentence the wrong way around.

ChristianTrader

June 24th 2004, 09:09 PM

I think you have this sentence the wrong way around.

It is correct as written. Other ways of stating the issue similarly: "Why on would you put something that changes constantly on the level of something that does not and needs not change at all".

Ungoliant

June 24th 2004, 09:37 PM

It is correct as written. Other ways of stating the issue similarly: "Why on would you put something that changes constantly on the level of something that does not and needs not change at all".

Actually science is more constant than most lay people believe. I haven't seen EM change since Maxwell.

Also - when things are wrong, change is good. On science issues Scripture is either silent or very often wrong.

ChristianTrader

June 24th 2004, 10:01 PM

Actually science is more constant than most lay people believe. I haven't seen EM change since Maxwell.

Also - when things are wrong, change is good. On science issues Scripture is either silent or very often wrong.

Depending on how you wish to look at the issue, 'science' never changes. Uniformity of nature and all. The issue is interpretations change. Also because some interpretations change a great deal, does not mean all of change as often.

When things are wrong, change is very good. The question is always over when something is wrong and needs change. If people agree that something is wrong, then change is really no problem.

Fortunately we have an infallible scripture so we know when there is a problem where the change has to happen and where it does not.

CT

A Beautiful Truth

June 24th 2004, 10:09 PM

On science issues Scripture is either silent or very often wrong.

Please explain, Ungoliant.

Ungoliant

June 24th 2004, 10:38 PM

Then Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the rods. He set the rods that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the rods, and so the flocks produced young that were striped, speckled, and spotted

A well known ancient belief that is scientific nonsense. Scripture is not infallible.

LeiLani

June 25th 2004, 09:15 AM

Whats up Leilani.........
Pretty good thanks Russ. Hope things are well in Kuwait and that you
come home safely.

[Dr Russell Humphreys]
Ill have to look at his claims again. I started to a while back and I
remember I wasnt too impressed with his stuff. When I get back home Ill
look into it agiain and start a thread on it.
Well Russ, all your post is an interesting account of your personal
opinions of things, but we would really like to hear more of WHY you
hold these opinions :wink:. The fact remains, it was a
philosophical decision to assume that the universe has no center
or edge. Thus there is nothing unscientific about rejecting this
assumption and substituting another one, then applying general
relativity.

Im not a big fan of Johnson.....or Wells for that
matter.

Johnson seems to have a chip on his shoulder for disproving evolution.

So? Good on him for pointing out the naturalistic philosophy behind it.

Most of his stuff (that I have seen anyway) is geared
towards that goal instead of putting forth a positive case for
ID.
Have you read Darwin? So much of his case was based on alleged
disproofs of creation, "Why would God have done it that way?" Dawko
does the same sort of thing.

Wells has made a statement concerning his education that
bothers me concerning his motivation for getting a biology
degree.
Once again, Dawko makes his atheistic motivation crystal clear, so why
is it wrong for Wells and not for Dawko as Jason so rightly pointed out?

Nor does it affect Wells' strong arguments that much of the textbook
"evidence" for evolution is highly flawed. Most of his critics accuse
Wells of ignoring the allegedly strong evidence for evolution. But that
wasn't the point --- none of this can hide the fact that much textbook
"evidence" is complete nonsense.

I havent read too much of Minnichs stuff (I will get to
the link you posted though), but I have read alot of Behes stuff and
Dembskis stuff as well.

Behe and Dembski make some good points, but alot of the rebuttals I have
read against them have convinced me that their case is not as strong as
their supporters let on.
A lot of the rebuttals I have read against them have convinced me that
the anti-ID case is full of bluff and bluster so not as good as the
naturalists let on. The Behe and Dembski links I gave were proof of
that. Kenneth Miller is a charlatan.

I used to frequent the forum at www.iscid.org and read
the debates there. The best pro-ID stuff Ive seen so far has come from
someone who goes by the name of "Mike Gene". His articles can be found
at www.idthink.net. Some of those articles are pretty good.
Interesting, thanx :cheers:

But as a whole ID is plagued by problems. The
usefullness of ID has yet to be shown, and the case for it is still
rather weak.
The opposite is true. Even Dawko says that living things look as though
they have been designed, but of course he rejects any intelligent
designer. But ID proponents say, what could be more scientific
than saying, they look as if they have been designed because they HAVE
been designed. Indeed, the best work in biology is when a new feature
is discovered and biologists realise it has a purpose, so they find out
what it is. Frequently they teach human designers a lot! There are
YECs working in biomimetics like Drs Stuart Burgess and Andy
McIntosh of the UK.

OTOH, evolution adds nothing to practical biology (and I don't
mean the creationist-invented natural selection, because that's not
evolution). Rather it has hindered research, e.g. about "junk"
DNA and "vestigial" organs.

Now that may change and I would tell people to hold off
judging ID too harshly because I believe it is still in its infancy as a
theory
Good thoughts.

Science has to deal with natural explanations, because
thats all it can work with.
Again, only for operational or inferential science. For
origins or forensic science, it is folly to reject eye-witness accounts.

Once a supernatural agent is brought in we are beyond
what science can deal with. So the "only naturalistic explanations"
attitude is one of pragmatism, not atheism.
The problem is far worse than that. Evolutionists claim their view is
FACT, because they have played bait-and-switch with the word "science".
I.e. "science" is used to mean "truth" as well as to mean
"naturalistic". ID supporters will claim that the naturalistic
explanation is not TRUE, so why accept it just because it's allegedly
pragmatic. Christians can't believe naturalism is TRUE, so why should
they accept it as a working principle? This is conceding ground to the
atheist.

As to the "bad design" arguments...I think that is a
weak one to raise against ID advocates.
They seem to have trouble responding though. It's hard to explain why
an omnipotent God would create by false starts and design flaws.
It's perfectly reasonable to believe that these are the result of sin
and the curse on the once "very good" creation.

Of course my view of the fall is also very different
from a YEC one, so we probably have different ideas as to what exactly
happened or changed as a result of it.
I'm not sure what you think the Fall actually changed. The Bible said
that one punishment was Adam returning to the dust from which he was
created. But in your view, ancestors of any "Adam" (if you even believe
he was real like Paul and Luke did) were returning to dust for millions
of years before.

I think the current version has alot of problems (as
does many of the details of evolution)....I believe in evolution and ID.

I think God designed and guided evolution along to produce what we see
today. So I still agree with Romans 1:20 (although I think Paul may have
meant something besides just direct scientific evidence).
So Russ, in what practical way is your view different from purely
naturalistic evolution?

LeiLani

June 25th 2004, 09:16 AM

Behe was published in "Biology and Philosophy",
Vol. 16, Issue 5, Nov. 2001 pp. 683-707
It's good that these people get published occasionally. But even
Behe, Dembski and Johnson, the leaders in the IDM, often complain about
censorship against challenges to just biological evolution. So the
charge of censorship is not some YEC invention. Philip Johnson has
pointed out that naturalism is the rule, and outright challenges
are ruled as inadmissible. So it is still unfair to throw this in the
face of YECs when IDM people themselves find it hard to get published
MOST of the time. Johnson's blind spot though is the naturalism in
geology and astronomy that's behind long-age views.

Dembinski's book, The Design Inference was
published by Cambridge University Press and underwent peer review before
beign published. See:

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1013824/posts
Yes, Sher and Socrates documented that some time ago when defending
Dembski (not Dembinski, OK? Have you read it?)against atheists.

Of course, the real question is whether design
theorists publish work that supports intelligent design in the
peer-reviewed literature. Here again there is no problem. Readers may
refer to the ISCID bibliography at
www.iscid.org/bibliography/bibliography.php for works in the
peer-reviewed literature by design theorists that support intelligent
design (note that this is a bibliography of design-relevant literature
and thus also includes references to work by scientists who are not
design theorists).
Likewise, Robert Gentry's work on radiohalos was published in the
leading science journals, but only because he veiled the implications
they had for rapid formation of rocks.
But by Charleen's criterion, one could cite works by catastrophists who
were anti-creationist but whose research was consistent with YEC.
E.g. the late Derek Ager, Professor of Geology, University College of
Swansea, U.K., 1993 in his book The New Catastrophism, Cambridge
Uni Press. He recognised that the rock strata must have formed rapidly,
while the 'evidence" for millions of years was between the
strata, where there is NO evidence!!
In talking about polystrate tree trunks, Ager wrote:
'If one estimates the total thickness of the British Coal Measures
as about 1000 m, laid down in about 10 million years, then, assuming a
constant rate of sedimentation, it would have taken 100 000 years to
bury a tree 10 m high, which is ridiculous.
Alternatively, if a 10 m tree were buried in 10 years, that would mean
1000 km in a million years or 10 000 km in 10 million years (i.e. the
duration of the coal measures). This is equally ridiculous and we
cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times were
very rapid indeed and at other times there were long breaks in
sedimentation, though it looks both uniform and continuous.'

As I told Brett, I understand this to be true. I
am sure they are very qualified scientists, but please show how any of
their papers support a 6,000 year old earth in peer reviewed journals.

As you've been told, TJ IS a peer reviewed journal. And as Brett
said, evolutionists and old-earthers don't submit their work to their
equally well qualified YECs!! :bonk:

Ungoliant

June 25th 2004, 10:23 AM

To call TJ a peer reviewed journal is an isult to the term.

The reason OEC's and evolutionists do not submit their work to YEC's is because there is not a YEC publication that has any credibility whatsoever.

And NO they are not equally qualified. Finding 10 or 20 'scientists' on the fringe (or over the edge) in no way constitutes qualified.

Not one YEC 'scientist' in any sense shape or form is a world leader in anything relating to the fundamental sciences of physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy or geology.

In fact a curiously high percentage of them are engineers, MD's, horticulturists or people who got a PhD in a field and then left academic science for industry.

Notice how almost all of them are never published or had a couple of papers 30 ears ago never to be heard of again.

Peruse AIG's list of 'scientists'.

Look at their so called star performers like Safarti. A total of what 3 or so papers (co authored I might add) as part of his graduate studies (in a somewhat obscure area) and then never anything else. In other words he is not a working scientist probably because like most PhD's in science he couldn't get an academic position.

Warcraft3

June 25th 2004, 12:14 PM

Hey there Leilani........

Pretty good thanks Russ. Hope things are well in Kuwait and that you
come home safely.

Thanks. Im doing well and cant wait to get back home :smile:

Well Russ, all your post is an interesting account of your personal
opinions of things, but we would really like to hear more of WHY you
hold these opinions :wink:.
The fact remains, it was a
philosophical decision to assume that the universe has no center
or edge. Thus there is nothing unscientific about rejecting this
assumption and substituting another one, then applying general
relativity.
:lol: Yes that is true and I realise that. I read alot of stuff and forget alot of it after I read it...so some of my answers are from memory. Thats why some of it seems so opinionated without any backing. Ill get to looking at the theory when I get back home and Ill post a thread on it specifically.

Dont let me forget. :wink:

So? Good on him for pointing out the naturalistic philosophy behind it.
But its not enough to just rip a theory apart.....you have to provide an alternative that explains the evidence better. And Johnson really doesnt do that.

Have you read Darwin? So much of his case was based on alleged
disproofs of creation, "Why would God have done it that way?" Dawko
does the same sort of thing.

Once again, Dawko makes his atheistic motivation crystal clear, so why
is it wrong for Wells and not for Dawko as Jason so rightly pointed out?

In a way it is good that Wells was honest about it instead of hiding it....but thats a really bad reason to pursue a degree in my opinion.

Nor does it affect Wells' strong arguments that much of the textbook
"evidence" for evolution is highly flawed. Most of his critics accuse
Wells of ignoring the allegedly strong evidence for evolution. But that
wasn't the point --- none of this can hide the fact that much textbook
"evidence" is complete nonsense.

Wells "icons" book had some really good stuff in it. I do agree with alot of what he said in that book.

A lot of the rebuttals I have read against them have convinced me that
the anti-ID case is full of bluff and bluster so not as good as the
naturalists let on. The Behe and Dembski links I gave were proof of
that. Kenneth Miller is a charlatan.

Ive read Behe and Dembski (and Miller) go back and forth with each other and with various other opponents as well. Both sides do the bluff and bluster thing to a point, but ID hasnt really made alot of predictions and alot of its explanations are very weak.

Interesting, thanx :cheers:

You're welcome. Thats the best pro-ID stuff Ive found thus far.

The opposite is true. Even Dawko says that living things look as though
they have been designed, but of course he rejects any intelligent
designer. But ID proponents say, what could be more scientific
than saying, they look as if they have been designed because they HAVE
been designed. Indeed, the best work in biology is when a new feature
is discovered and biologists realise it has a purpose, so they find out
what it is. Frequently they teach human designers a lot! There are
YECs working in biomimetics like Drs Stuart Burgess and Andy
McIntosh of the UK.

I agree that living things do look designed. But the also look like they evolved. So I combine the two and get designed evolution.

OTOH, evolution adds nothing to practical biology (and I don't
mean the creationist-invented natural selection, because that's not
evolution). Rather it has hindered research, e.g. about "junk"
DNA and "vestigial" organs.

The idea of producing something complex through random mutations with some kind of boundary conditions or controlling mechanism has produced algorithims that have produced some very interesting stuff.

In the field of electrical engineering such algorathims have been shown to have usefullness in designing antennas and circuits.

Good thoughts.
:cheers:

Again, only for operational or inferential science. For
origins or forensic science, it is folly to reject eye-witness accounts.

The problem I see with making a connection to forensics is that in forensics we know alot about the intelligent agent we are dealing with and so we can make certain predictions on what someone might or might not do.

It a tad bit difficult to do that with God Himself.

The problem is far worse than that. Evolutionists claim their view is
FACT, because they have played bait-and-switch with the word "science".
I.e. "science" is used to mean "truth" as well as to mean
"naturalistic". ID supporters will claim that the naturalistic
explanation is not TRUE, so why accept it just because it's allegedly
pragmatic. Christians can't believe naturalism is TRUE, so why should
they accept it as a working principle? This is conceding ground to the
atheist.

I accept naturalism as a tool, not as a philosophy.

They seem to have trouble responding though. It's hard to explain why
an omnipotent God would create by false starts and design flaws.
It's perfectly reasonable to believe that these are the result of sin
and the curse on the once "very good" creation.

"I dont know" is always a valid answer.

I'm not sure what you think the Fall actually changed. The Bible said
that one punishment was Adam returning to the dust from which he was
created. But in your view, ancestors of any "Adam" (if you even believe
he was real like Paul and Luke did) were returning to dust for millions
of years before.

I do believe in a hisorical Adam and Eve, but I do not think the YEC view is supported by scripture. That is why I originally, and still do, reject it.

So Russ, in what practical way is your view different from purely
naturalistic evolution?

For one I do not believe we will ever construct complete evolutionary pathways because I think evolution was "tweaked" and "destined" to produce what we see today.

If we rewind the tape and play it back again, we end up with exactly the same outcome. We end up with man.

Russ

Socratism

June 25th 2004, 02:46 PM

Not one YEC 'scientist' in any sense shape or form is a world leader in anything relating to the fundamental sciences of physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy or geology.

Depending on how one defines "world leader" it is remarkable that the "world leaders" in the field of origins are pretty much atheists.

And BTW, if one has ambitions to be a "world leader" it would be best not to tell anyone that you believe that God might have created the world in 6 days, even though this might not have anything at all to do with your area of research.

A Beautiful Truth

June 25th 2004, 08:09 PM

It's good that these people get published occasionally.
Occasionally was not your question. The point is, they have and do get published in peer reviewed literature which supports design, while YEC's do not. Yes, it is difficult for the ID guys to break in because of the philisophical differences, but they do get in.

But even
Behe, Dembski and Johnson, the leaders in the IDM, often complain about
censorship against challenges to just biological evolution.

Understood.

So the charge of censorship is not some YEC invention.

YEC has so much against it. If YEC just stayed focused on the design inference material and stopped trying to prove a young earth......

To most, it is easier to believe in a flat earth than a young earth. I don't think we can say the same of design. I am trying to show there is a distinction between YEC and ID in the literature, and you want to put them on the same playing field. It simply is not fair to ID.

Philip Johnson has
pointed out that naturalism is the rule, and outright challenges
are ruled as inadmissible. So it is still unfair to throw this in the
face of YECs when IDM people themselves find it hard to get published
MOST of the time.

Personally I think YEC have made it that much harder for IDers to get through. Unfortunately, most of the time one thinks "creation" one thinks YEC. It is a false alternative, of course, but the ID break from YEC is not defined enough. It is my opinion that ID needs to make a clean break from YEC, perhaps the naturalists would not feel so much alarm when seeing an ID proponent trying to publish in the literature. Just my opinion.

Yes, Sher and Socrates documented that some time ago when defending
Dembski (not Dembinski, OK? Have you read it?)against atheists.

O'yes, you called me on my spelling, and perhaps a little someting else with the "have you read it" part.

Likewise, Robert Gentry's work on radiohalos was published in the
leading science journals, but only because he veiled the implications
they had for rapid formation of rocks.

Something mysterious indeed, but hardly a strong support for YEC with so much other evidence against YEC.

But by Charleen's criterion, one could cite works by catastrophists who
were anti-creationist but whose research was consistent with YEC.
E.g. the late Derek Ager, Professor of Geology, University College of
Swansea, U.K., 1993 in his book The New Catastrophism, Cambridge
Uni Press. He recognised that the rock strata must have formed rapidly,
while the 'evidence" for millions of years was between the
strata, where there is NO evidence!!
In talking about polystrate tree trunks, Ager wrote:
'If one estimates the total thickness of the British Coal Measures
as about 1000 m, laid down in about 10 million years, then, assuming a
constant rate of sedimentation, it would have taken 100 000 years to
bury a tree 10 m high, which is ridiculous.
Alternatively, if a 10 m tree were buried in 10 years, that would mean
1000 km in a million years or 10 000 km in 10 million years (i.e. the
duration of the coal measures). This is equally ridiculous and we
cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times were
very rapid indeed and at other times there were long breaks in
sedimentation, though it looks both uniform and continuous.'

So, did this man believe catastrophism to the exclusion of uniformitarianism? I ask because I know YEC like to make it an either/or choice when scientists today recognize BOTH at work.

As you've been told, TJ IS a peer reviewed journal.

Is not :tongue:

And as Brett
said, evolutionists and old-earthers don't submit their work to their
equally well qualified YECs!! :bonk:

This is very interesting. I think YEC's are more dogmatic about their interpretation of Genesis than the naturalists are against looking at the evidence for design. This is unfortunate for Christianity, I believe.

A Beautiful Truth

June 25th 2004, 09:32 PM

ChristianTrader

June 25th 2004, 11:18 PM

YEC has so much against it. If YEC just stayed focused on the design inference material and stopped trying to prove a young earth......

YEC's do not set out to prove that the earth is (less old, for 6000 or so years is a long time), we set out to show the inerrancy of scripture. That is one of the things that the Bible says so we defend it.

Also as AIG has stated, the issue is not getting someone to believe in an intelligent designer it is to show that the God of the Bible is that designer and that Jesus is the Savior of the world.

To most, it is easier to believe in a flat earth than a young earth. I don't think we can say the same of design. I am trying to show there is a distinction between YEC and ID in the literature, and you want to put them on the same playing field. It simply is not fair to ID.

What some people have an easier time accepting is on them, what does that truly have to do with the debate. Man also has a sin nature and wishes to supress the knowledge of the truth of Christian Theism. It is harder to supresses that truth when you have a younger earth than the usual ages given in science texts.

Putting ID and YEC on the same field is nonsense. ID is a half measure. YEC as well as the rest of the Bible provides a complete world and life view. ID cannot do that because they have to be generic enough to provide room for ever conception of God that there is.

Personally I think YEC have made it that much harder for IDers to get through. Unfortunately, most of the time one thinks "creation" one thinks YEC. It is a false alternative, of course, but the ID break from YEC is not defined enough. It is my opinion that ID needs to make a clean break from YEC, perhaps the naturalists would not feel so much alarm when seeing an ID proponent trying to publish in the literature. Just my opinion.

I want the naturalists to be alarmed, that means we are getting somewhere. Naturalism is nonsense so I definitely do not care if get a bit bothered.

This is very interesting. I think YEC's are more dogmatic about their interpretation of Genesis than the naturalists are about looking at the evidence for design. This is unfortunate for Christianity, I believe.

YEC are very dogmatic, because it is easy to see why alternative views did not come into play until "science" started saying contrary views in the past few centuries.

Again we do not want naturalists to see design, we want them to see Christian Theism.

CT

ChristianTrader

June 25th 2004, 11:20 PM

How do you think Christians who hold to the scripture's infallibility would answer your objection?

I have always been taught that is was just a simple garden variety miracle.

CT

Sinai

June 26th 2004, 12:05 AM

Peruse AIG's list of 'scientists'. Look at their so called star performers like Safarti. A total of what 3 or so papers (co authored I might add) as part of his graduate studies (in a somewhat obscure area) and then never anything else. In other words he is not a working scientist probably because like most PhD's in science he couldn't get an academic position.
If I recall correctly, I think Dr. Safarti has co-authored at least 6 articles that have appeared in science journals (not including his numerous contributions to YEC literature and his YEC books).

Ungoliant

June 26th 2004, 02:37 AM

How do you think Christians who hold to the scripture's infallibility would answer your objection?
I have never heard the miracle explanation someone else posted on this thread - LOL.

This has been a belief of several ancient peoples and of course is scientific mumbo jumbo.

To resort to miracle to retain infallibility is a path of foolishness. You need probably hundreds of separate little miracles which I might add are not declared as such in Scripture.

Ungoliant

June 26th 2004, 02:42 AM

If I recall correctly, I think Dr. Safarti has co-authored at least 6 articles that have appeared in science journals (not including his numerous contributions to YEC literature and his YEC books).
I seem to remember it's more like 3. YEC books don't count LOL.

But seriously you are not a scientist in an academic sense when you have say 3-6 co-authored papers dating back to when you were a grad student.

Someone of Safarti's age should probably have 30 to 150 papers, with some 20 to 40% solo authored or at least primary authored.

I bounced his name off some guys in our Chemistry department and what a shock - they had never heard of him. I think you could do the same with every 'scientist' on AIG's list.

ChristianTrader

June 26th 2004, 02:45 AM

Ungoliant

June 26th 2004, 03:07 AM

LeiLani

June 26th 2004, 09:26 AM

Then Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the rods. He set the rods that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the rods, and so the flocks produced young that were striped, speckled, and spotted

The Bible doesn't condone everything it reports. Jacob obviously believed that putting the rods there would help, which shows the superstition of that time. That doesn't mean the Bible is teaching that putting rods in front of watering troughs will make any difference at all.

LeiLani

June 26th 2004, 09:45 AM

To call TJ a peer reviewed journal is an isult to the term.
Peer reviewed: Reviewed by people of the same profession or group
Journal: If I have to define that for you, you have fewer brain cells than I'm generously assuming you do.

The reason OEC's and evolutionists do not submit their work to YEC's is because there is not a YEC publication that has any credibility whatsoever.
Pure assertion. Why don't you try backing up your assertions for a change? YEC publications contain lots of real cutting-edge operational science, and don't present weak hypotheses like goo-to-you evolution as fact or present fraudulant embryo pictures for example.

And NO they are not equally qualified. Finding 10 or 20 'scientists' on the fringe (or over the edge) in no way constitutes qualified.

I admit that young-earth creationists make up a minority of scientists today. But you forget that the majority of the founders of modern science were believers in the Bible, and young-earth creationism! Creationist Scientists and other biographies of interest (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp) has a list of famous scientists who were creationists including Frances Bacon, Isaac Newton, Carolus Linnaeus, and Louis Pasteur, among many others.

And as for today's scientists, many of them have excellent qualifications. If you have a problem with something they say, why don't you make an actual argument against YEC instead of just hate-filled trash talking.
These scientists have earned Ph.D.s from secular universities, and have published work in secular journals. So they are most definitely qualified in every sense (except by Ungoliant's circular definition that claims that a YEC can't be a scientist!).

Not one YEC 'scientist' in any sense shape or form is a world leader in anything relating to the fundamental sciences of physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy or geology.

As Socratism said, it's hardly possible for one to profess to believe in a young earth and become a world leader in any area in science.

Besides, we have already pointed out that Dr Raymond Damadian is a pioneer of MRI but was unfairly denied a Nobel prize, likely because of his YEC beliefs. On TWeb there is plenty of documentation of other creationists denied employment or entry into university courses on that ground alone.

Also, here are some other modern YEC scientists who were leaders in their fields. John Mann, Director of the Alan Fletcher Research Station. He led the most successful biological control program of all time in wiping out the Prickly Pear cactus that wreaked havoc with Australian agriculture http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3516.asp.
Dr Ian Macreadie, one of Australia's top molecular biologists whose research uncovers the most intricate biological design and makes no sense under evolution (Creation in the research lab (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3985.asp)).
Dr Raymond Jones discovered a microbe that has saved Australia's beef industry and is now worth millions of dollars a year (Standing Firm: A leading scientist’s life shows how ‘radical’ ideas can lead to the greatest breakthroughs (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3944.asp)).
Dr John Baumgardner is acknowledge by secular scientists as having the world's leading supercomputer modelling for plate tectonics (New Scientist, January 16, 1993, p. 19. See Probing the earth's deep places (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/places.asp).
Also, evolution/long ages have nothing to do with REAL scientific research.
In fact a curiously high percentage of them are engineers, MD's, horticulturists or people who got a PhD in a field and then left academic science for industry.

So?? Just because a PhD leaves academic science doesn't make that PhD any less authoritative when they are talking about scientific matters. Especially when many evolution-pushers are scientists whose fields have no connection with it. E.g. so what if Murray Gell-Mann attacks YEC -- he is an expert in quark theory, how does that make him qualified in origins? Dawkin's field is animal behavior, why should he be any sort of authority on things like eye design?

Notice how almost all of them are never published or had a couple of papers 30 ears ago never to be heard of again.

Total nonsense. By that token, Dawko is not an authority either

Peruse AIG's list of 'scientists'.

Haven't got time to peruse them all -- there are too many to take in all at once :teeth:

Look at their so called star performers like Safarti. A total of what 3 or so papers (co authored I might add) as part of his graduate studies (in a somewhat obscure area) and then never anything else.

Actually the AiG biography page lists six, and one was on high-temperature superconductors, hardly obscure (which in Ungoliant-speak means "I'm totally ignorant of the area :bonk:"). Note also, this was published in Nature when Dr Sarfati would have been only about 21. It's so amusing that a thread was started about an evolutionist former TWebber being such a great scientist for getting a co-authored paper in Nature in his middle age. Don't expect any consistency from anti-YECs.:bonk:

In other words he is not a working scientist probably because like most PhD's in science he couldn't get an academic position.
You mean, not working in a lab or university. But even a cursory glance at his current papers in the peer-reviewed TJ shows that he writes on cutting edge research, showing how it makes more sense in a biblical framework. This is legitimate scientific research. Getting a paper published in the top journal at such a young age shows that he was a most able researcher, who has just made a career choice Ungoliant doesn't like.

Dr Don Batten (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_batten.asp) came to work for AiG later, after a proven successful career in plant physiology. He also published papers on hybridization, so what he says on this topic in AiG publications (e.g. Ligers and wholphins? What next? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/ligers_wolphins.asp)) is a sound argument from authority he really does possess in this area.

Abigail

June 26th 2004, 10:59 AM

LeiLani

June 26th 2004, 11:06 AM

Thanks. Im doing well and cant wait to get back home :smile:
We can't wait to have you back more at TWeb :highfive:

:lol: Yes that is true and I realise that. I read alot of stuff and forget alot of it after I read it...so some of my answers are from memory. Thats why some of it seems so opinionated without any backing. Ill get to looking at the theory when I get back home and Ill post a thread on it specifically.

Dont let me forget. :wink:

I'll be looking for it :smile:

But its not enough to just rip a theory apart.....you have to provide an alternative that explains the evidence better. And Johnson really doesnt do that.

Actually, it's a very valuable thing to rip a theory apart if it is wrong. It is not enough to say that a theory is the best (meaning best materialist) theory if it is still false in many ways. No one complains that people found problems with modern physics like the blackbody catastrophe before they developed quantum mechanics to solve it.

In a way it is good that Wells was honest about it instead of hiding it....but thats a really bad reason to pursue a degree in my opinion.

This doesn't mean that we should disregard what he says. And again, why is Dawko so widely promoted in "science" journals and books although his only motivation is pushing his atheistic faith?

Wells "icons" book had some really good stuff in it. I do agree with alot of what he said in that book.

Cool! :cheers:

Ive read Behe and Dembski (and Miller) go back and forth with each other and with various other opponents as well. Both sides do the bluff and bluster thing to a point, but ID hasnt really made alot of predictions and alot of its explanations are very weak

I don't see that. There seem to be double standards here too. The "predictions" of evolution are many times after the fact. And features that don't fit common ancestry are explained away as convergence or lateral transfer. In a more general sense, evolution hasn't predicted intricate machinery that is giving lessons to human designers in a big way, but that should not be a surprise. And ID predicted, in a sense, that there would be functions found for "junk" DNA, while evolutionists for a long time dismissed it as junk, hence the misnomer.

I agree that living things do look designed. But the also look like they evolved. So I combine the two and get designed evolution.

Oh really? How do things look evolved, and couldn't any morphological similarities be attributed to a common designer instead of common descent? I still don't see how designed evolution is different from naturalistic evolution, sorry.
I think they look intelligently designed by a Designer infinitely more brilliant than any scientist could hope to be. I also see that many features, e.g. miniature motors, are designed in a way that could not have evolved via natural selection from simpler components. Same with the ingenious algorithms creatures use for navigation.

The idea of producing something complex through random mutations with some kind of boundary conditions or controlling mechanism has produced algorithims that have produced some very interesting stuff.

Even that's hardly "evolution". Algorithms that iterate and get closer and closer to a goal date back at least as far as Isaac Newton. They have merely been rebaptized with the new name "evolutionary algorithms", but they have huge differences with real evolution. These iterative algorithms would never generate brain programming or molecular motors, for example. See also Genetic algorithms—do they show that evolution works?
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/genetic_algorithm.asp).

In the field of electrical engineering such algorathims have been shown to have usefullness in designing antennas and circuits.

Once again, finetuning things (by methods long predating Darwin in principle) is hugely different from goo-to-you evolution. It does explain some variations within a kind though.

The problem I see with making a connection to forensics is that in forensics we know alot about the intelligent agent we are dealing with and so we can make certain predictions on what someone might or might not do.

It a tad bit difficult to do that with God Himself.

But we know what God said about Himself in the Bible, so we do know a lot, or at least enough, about Him, and in this case, we don't have to guess what God might have done, because He told us in Genesis exactly what He did.

I accept naturalism as a tool, not as a philosophy.
And it is a good tool -- for operational science. No YEC would have a problem with that -- it was YECs who founded modern operational science! But the Bible itself reveals that God is mainly upholding His creation, not using miracles. But when it comes to the origin of the universe, Earth and life, God has told us that He used creation methods outside naturalism. Christians should believe Him (and I am in no way questioning your Christian commitment, Russ). 2 Peter 3:3-7 condemns "scoffers" who claim there has been no special creation or global cataclysm, and instead, in modern terms, claim that "naturalism" has ruled ever since the beginning.
"I dont know" is always a valid answer.
Umm, but above you criticised Johnson for attacking evolution and, in effect, saying "I don't know" as his alternative. :huh:

I do believe in a hisorical Adam and Eve, but I do not think the YEC view is supported by scripture. That is why I originally, and still do, reject it.
Um, but evolution teaches that there was not a single pair ancestral to all humanity, but that a population of ape-like creatures evolved into a population of humans.

I came to the issue with the same evidence as you, and found YEC supported quite well by the evidence when I threw out the evolutionary indoctrination that the earth MUST be millions of years old and evolution MUST have happened. There is an excellent new book called Refuting Compromise (http://shop2.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/en/product/10-2-164) (the introduction can be read online here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/rc/intro.asp)) that defends the YEC view on both scientific and biblical grounds. I reccomend it highly.

For one I do not believe we will ever construct complete evolutionary pathways because I think evolution was "tweaked" and "destined" to produce what we see today.
This is most unevolutionary. So why not go the whole way and believe the Bible?

If we rewind the tape and play it back again, we end up with exactly the same outcome. We end up with man.

But you do not believe that man was always man? Why would God not create the way He said He did, and if he wanted us to believe that He created the way you say He did, how could he have misled us any more than the way the history of creation was told in Genesis?

God created Adam from dust, which became alive only after God breathed life into him. Because of sin, Adam would return to dust. This is incompatible with any idea of evolving from an already-living ape-like creature. Logically, if the "dust" was a metaphor for the ape, then after death, man would have to revert to being an ape :lol:

Perhaps it would be a better to start a thread in another area, since it is evolution versus creationism, and I'm not sure you're really eligible to post in Comogony as you've described your beliefs on creation to me.

A Beautiful Truth

June 26th 2004, 04:37 PM

YEC's do not set out to prove that the earth is (less old, for 6000 or so years is a long time), we set out to show the inerrancy of scripture. That is one of the things that the Bible says so we defend it.

Okay, I can understand defending your interpretation of scripture, so why bother trying to prove it scientifically? This is a sincere question. I REALLY don't see the point of including science in YEC--I have been hard pressed to understand the facination YEC have in science apologetics. What, do YEC really need a *reason* to believe in a YEC outside of scripture? I am serious.

Also as AIG has stated, the issue is not getting someone to believe in an intelligent designer it is to show that the God of the Bible is that designer and that Jesus is the Savior of the world.

I am very much in agreement with this. This is of course a downfall of ID.

What some people have an easier time accepting is on them, what does that truly have to do with the debate.

Well, it is kinda like the doctrine of circumcision in the early church, in a way. It was hard for a grown man who converted to accept it and it was unnessesary for Christianity. I think it is like YEC in some way. YEC proactively enforce YEC because they say "The Bible says so" but it is an unnessesary stumbling block to new converts. That's all. I think if YEC's just presented YEC as an interpretation instead of "the Bible says...and if you don't agree then you are playing fast and loose with scripture..." then we would all be better off. I am not sure if I have ever heard a YEC present YEC as, "this is my interpretation", no, it is more times than not presented in a "this is what the Bible says, if you mess with it you are a ________!" sort of way.

Man also has a sin nature and wishes to supress the knowledge of the truth of Christian Theism. It is harder to supresses that truth when you have a younger earth than the usual ages given in science texts.

Okay, yes, sin nature wants to supress the truth...what are you saying? What does this have to do with YEC? Back to the circumcision analogy--yep, it was harder to be a Christian when circumcision was enforced on grown men. On which side would we have stood? The side that said "sin nature wishes to suppress the knowledge of the truth of God, it is harder to suppress that truth when you undergo circumcision, so be circumcised so the truth will not be so suppressed in you", or to say, "Because of Christ, all that is required is that your circumcision be of the heart"? "Compromisers!" may have been a commonly thrown-out name at that time, perhaps.

Putting ID and YEC on the same field is nonsense. ID is a half measure. YEC as well as the rest of the Bible provides a complete world and life view. ID cannot do that because they have to be generic enough to provide room for ever conception of God that there is.

Okay, as I said, I agree with you about ID. ID is only half measure.

Y'know, I thought about this a couple years back and a thought came to me then. When Jesus preached, he did not spend the entire time bearing witness of Himself. What did He say? John bore Him witness, the works He did bore Him witness, the scriptures bore Him witness. All these things pointed to Him being the One.

ID is one witness and it does not come out and say, "This is about God." But we do. We are the ones who can pull out of our treasure both old and new, we are the ones who fill in the blank. We are the ones who can give it meaning. ID can only do so much--indeed, it is only a tool. We cannot expect too much of it, it is only meant to be a wedge.

I want the naturalists to be alarmed, that means we are getting somewhere. Naturalism is nonsense so I definitely do not care if get a bit bothered.

You misunderstood. Alarmed in the way that you would be alarmed if someone came into your group and tried to prove that the earth was flat or that we live in a geocentric system because their Bible interpretation said so. If you cared about the respectablitity of your group, you would not entertain such nonsense. Because you know that the earth is a sphere and that we live in a heliocentric system, you would know in advance that ALL the science that those followers could possibly bring forth is skewed. Even if they offered one slightest piece of a mysterious truth about the nature of the systems and tried very hard to bank on that mystery, you would still not be convinced because the evidence pointed you another way. The mystery may remain, but you KNOW what it *doesn't* mean.

YEC are very dogmatic, because it is easy to see why alternative views did not come into play until "science" started saying contrary views in the past few centuries.

O, Christian Trader, please refer back in this thread to our discussion of Galileo. I think it is relevant. Alernative views of geocentrism did not come into play until...? Science does help us see certain things about the author's intent of scripture. Science can help us with our interpretation of scripture, do you deny it?

Warcraft3

June 26th 2004, 04:48 PM

Before I make anymore posts Im gonna PM Dee Dee and make sure I am allowed to post here.

A Beautiful Truth

June 26th 2004, 05:08 PM

I have never heard the miracle explanation someone else posted on this thread - LOL.

This has been a belief of several ancient peoples and of course is scientific mumbo jumbo.

To resort to miracle to retain infallibility is a path of foolishness. You need probably hundreds of separate little miracles which I might add are not declared as such in Scripture.

Ungoliant,

There are many such instances that would qualify as scientific mumbo jumbo. Let's see...the floating ax head, the parting of the sea, resurrection of dead persons, virgin birth...

But do you accept these miracles ( I suppose you do, correct me please if wrong) because they do not require "hundreds of little miracles"? Or maybe because they were not ancient beliefs that happened their way into the Holy writ? But I think some would argue with you there because I have heard it said that other religions have virgin births and resurrections of the dead. Why would you believe Christianity's version?

Just please tell me why you would/could accept some miracles and not others? What is the criterion for your accetance of the miracles or putting them in the "scientific mumbo jumbo" category. I see it is not "all or nothing" with you because you accept at least some miracles--you call yourself Christian, afterall. I wonder were you draw the line as to what you will accept and what you will not.

As for me, I think natural history is in that realm that is testable. But these other miracles like the animals you referenced in Jacob cannot be verified so I take them by faith. (Granted the method Jacob used was not scientific, but do we therefore deny that there could have been supernatural intervention? You said "hundreds of miracles" would need to happen, but how many is too many before you start to doubt?) Certain things can be verified, others are simply not in that realm. For people like me, if what can be verified is verified and reasonable answers are provided as evidence for the scriptures, then I can take those other things that by their nature cannot be tested by faith. But that is just me. How do you do it?

ChristianTrader

June 26th 2004, 10:42 PM

Okay, I can understand defending your interpretation of scripture, so why bother trying to prove it scientifically? This is a sincere question. I REALLY don't see the point of including science in YEC--I have been hard pressed to understand the facination YEC have in science apologetics. What, do YEC really need a *reason* to believe in a YEC outside of scripture? I am serious.

One would be foolish to attempt to prove scripture scientifically. It is more to show that it is reasonable to accept what the Bible says in all spheres it addresses. I kinda do not understand your question though. This people have been defending scripture scientifically, archeologically etc for as far back as one want to look. Secular critics have been attacks for as long as well. Would you be asking this question to people who looked to show that the Bible was correct when it spoke of some King that secular critics said did not exist?

There is also the issue of truth and error as well as the consequences. Since the earth is so young, models that attempt to understand what how things came about which do not account for this will give false info about how to fix a problem that comes up etc.

Well, it is kinda like the doctrine of circumcision in the early church, in a way. It was hard for a grown man who converted to accept it and it was unnessesary for Christianity. I think it is like YEC in some way. YEC proactively enforce YEC because they say "The Bible says so" but it is an unnessesary stumbling block to new converts. That's all. I think if YEC's just presented YEC as an interpretation instead of "the Bible says...and if you don't agree then you are playing fast and loose with scripture..." then we would all be better off. I am not sure if I have ever heard a YEC present YEC as, "this is my interpretation", no, it is more times than not presented in a "this is what the Bible says, if you mess with it you are a ________!" sort of way.

I do not understand this line of reasoning. Circumcision was a something that Jews needed to do up until the coming of Christ to separate themselves from other groups. When Jesus came and died he removed the necessity to do this by breaking down the barrier between Jews and Gentiles.

Unless you are trying to say that YEC was a OT thing that is unnecessary for NT Christians, I am really am not following. This is a historical debate that either is true or not.

If I thought that OEC was a reasonable biblical interpretation, then I would express that I was a bit unsure of my stance. I do not so I don't. How many good Hebrew scholars actually believe that Gen. 1 is not saying that the world was created in 6 regular days (their agreement with this view is secondary).

Okay, yes, sin nature wants to supress the truth...what are you saying? What does this have to do with YEC? Back to the circumcision analogy--yep, it was harder to be a Christian when circumcision was enforced on grown men. On which side would we have stood? The side that said "sin nature wishes to suppress the knowledge of the truth of God, it is harder to suppress that truth when you undergo circumcision, so be circumcised so the truth will not be so suppressed in you", or to say, "Because of Christ, all that is required is that your circumcision be of the heart"? "Compromisers!" may have been a commonly thrown-out name at that time, perhaps.

Circumcision again was never for the Christian, for the reasons I outlined above, I do not see how this is somehow in the same class of isues.

I stand by what the Bible says and it says six days.

Okay, as I said, I agree with you about ID. ID is only half measure.

Y'know, I thought about this a couple years back and a thought came to me then. When Jesus preached, he did not spend the entire time bearing witness of Himself. What did He say? John bore Him witness, the works He did bore Him witness, the scriptures bore Him witness. All these things pointed to Him being the One.

ID is one witness and it does not come out and say, "This is about God." But we do. We are the ones who can pull out of our treasure both old and new, we are the ones who fill in the blank. We are the ones who can give it meaning. ID can only do so much--indeed, it is only a tool. We cannot expect too much of it, it is only meant to be a wedge.

The problem with ID is that it does not witness to Jesus exclusively, it witnesses to any theist or deist conception out there. All the witnesses of Jesus witnessed of him exclusively. John was not "Jesus, Budda, and Muhhamed are coming".

If ID is without meaning without Jesus then why have it in the first place, go all out with the worldview that is complete. People can dodge half measures, they cannot dodge the undodgable complete word of God.

For example, without the view of the fall of man/creation in Christianity, there is a huge gap in ID that is really indefensible.

You misunderstood. Alarmed in the way that you would be alarmed if someone came into your group and tried to prove that the earth was flat or that we live in a geocentric system because their Bible interpretation said so. If you cared about the respectablitity of your group, you would not entertain such nonsense. Because you know that the earth is a sphere and that we live in a heliocentric system, you would know in advance that ALL the science that those followers could possibly bring forth is skewed. Even if they offered one slightest piece of a mysterious truth about the nature of the systems and tried very hard to bank on that mystery, you would still not be convinced because the evidence pointed you another way. The mystery may remain, but you KNOW what it *doesn't* mean.

Um, first it depends on how you define respectability. Our main conflict with secular critics is that they believe that one the God of the Bible made all that exist and gives everything that exists meaning. From that point forward, there will be many things that we say that will not be respected because our presuppositions are different.

Next, I know others have pointed you to materials about how history has been revised to paint Christians in the past as being enemies of scientific knowledge. That just is not true.

For example: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/critics.asp#flatearth and then here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geocentrism.asp#geocentrism

Lastly, we must always keep in mind: Romans 3:4
By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar...

O, Christian Trader, please refer back in this thread to our discussion of Galileo. I think it is relevant. Alernative views of geocentrism did not come into play until...? Science does help us see certain things about the author's intent of scripture. Science can help us with our interpretation of scripture, do you deny it?

Yes, I do deny that, for our interpretation of science changes. So how can the changeable truly interpret the unchangeable?

CT

A Beautiful Truth

June 27th 2004, 10:23 AM

Thank you, Christian Trader, for the friendly dialog. I appreciate your tone in this discussion. Tweb is that much more enjoyable when discussing topics can continue like this.

One would be foolish to attempt to prove scripture scientifically. It is more to show that it is reasonable to accept what the Bible says in all spheres it addresses.

But YEC's don't really need it to be scientifically reasonable, because all they need is their interpretation of scripture to tell them what they believe is reasonable, right? Again, why bother with science if science is only going to tell you what you believe is reasonable--who needs that when all you need is your interpretation of things?

...people have been defending scripture scientifically, archeologically etc for as far back as one want to look. Secular critics have been attacks for as long as well. Would you be asking this question to people who looked to show that the Bible was correct when it spoke of some King that secular critics said did not exist?

The Bible has shown itself worthy of archeological investigation, it is reasonable to assume the Bible correct historically. It is not the same with YECism--it cannot be defended scientifically and it seems very strange that only YEC scientists accept a young earth while there have been more than a couple archeologists who accept the Bible as a reliable document.

It is a matter of objective vs. subjective. YEC effectively defends the Bible objectively through prophecy, archeology, history but then there is creation when the tables are turned upside down--it no longer makes use of objective facts but rather subjective interpretations. YEC is not consistent in this regard. Hats off to the YEC apologetics in all areas but creation.

There is also the issue of truth and error as well as the consequences. Since the earth is so young, models that attempt to understand what how things came about which do not account for this will give false info about how to fix a problem that comes up etc.

Christian Trader, perhaps you have read a lot of YEC material and not enough of the other to be properly informed. What you said is the YEC mantra, I hope you will consider other options.

I do not understand this line of reasoning. Circumcision was a something that Jews needed to do up until the coming of Christ to separate themselves from other groups. When Jesus came and died he removed the necessity to do this by breaking down the barrier between Jews and Gentiles.

Unless you are trying to say that YEC was a OT thing that is unnecessary for NT Christians, I am really am not following. This is a historical debate that either is true or not.

Sorry about that, Christian Trader, I failed to explain exactly what I meant. What I meant was the issues that came up in the early church over circumcision. If you remember right, this was a big issue Paul had to deal with--ref. Acts 15, Philipians 3, Romans 2, Galatians 5, Eph.2:11. It was a big controversy within the church for a while.

If I thought that OEC was a reasonable biblical interpretation, then I would express that I was a bit unsure of my stance.

Well, don't fall out of your chair or anything, but I actually consider YEC a reasonable biblical interpretation of Genesis. Yep, but I, unlike you, think that the natural world can and does give us insight into what the author did not mean. Again, I like to reference Galileo. I admit I would most likely have been a geocentrist at that time (would you, too?) because I would have considered the Psalmist's words about the sun "rising and setting" to mean the sun did the action. But hopefully I would have had the humility and the confidence to look through the telescope and be able to allow what the natural world revealed to help me understand what the scripture was not saying.

How many good Hebrew scholars actually believe that Gen. 1 is not saying that the world was created in 6 regular days (their agreement with this view is secondary).

I assume you have heard of Gleason Archer and Walt Kaiser? Perhaps you should consider the "other side".

It is in people's nature to believe the first view they hear. I think most Christians believe YEC because it is the first view they heard.

Circumcision again was never for the Christian, for the reasons I outlined above, I do not see how this is somehow in the same class of isues.

I hope I explained well enough above. It is easy for us to look back on the issue and say "how simple is that", but back then it was a BIG issue and it was causing trouble in the early church (note how many times Paul brings it up in his letters)

I stand by what the Bible says and it says six days.

I stand by what I believe is the best interpretation of Genesis. I do not claim to know this issue as I do the essentials doctrines of the faith, those doctrines that the Bible does indeed "say".

The problem with ID is that it does not witness to Jesus exclusively, it witnesses to any theist or deist conception out there. All the witnesses of Jesus witnessed of him exclusively. John was not "Jesus, Budda, and Muhhamed are coming".

ID is a tool that creationists can use to their benefit. It is up to the apologist to take on the addtional task of showing Christianity true among the world's other religions. ID cannot do it all, but neither can archeology or history, or prophecy--but that is why there is you and me and the rest of the Body who can witness to this darkened age.

If ID is without meaning without Jesus then why have it in the first place

ID can stand on its own, that is a good thing. The reason is that we have something objective. An objective witness is a good witness.

It is up to the apologist to "show the way more perfectly". ID is only a tool.

go all out with the worldview that is complete. People can dodge half measures, they cannot dodge the undodgable complete word of God.

Depending on our audience, we cannot always start with the Bible--but we, over time and contending earnestly for the faith, can end up there--at the cross.

If origins is a stumbling block, ID only does that small part to show objectively that it is reasonable to assume an Designer. ID can do nothing more.

Our goal is the cross, period. ID is one small step in the process.

Personally, I think our time is better spent defending the resurrection. But alas, (it is my opinion) that YEC hinders so much in defending Christianity that I am here. It is my hope that YEC's will see that they don't need to push the young earth view as they do. Say humbly "This is my interpretation", not "This is what the BIBLE SAYS!"

Don't get me wrong--there are indeed doctrines in the Bible that we do say, "the Bible says", but quabbles over the word "day" is not one of them. If you do accept the witness of "good Hebrew scholars" then don't dismiss out of hand the conservative Hebrew scholars who do not affirm what you do concerning the word in Hebrew.

Indeed, the PCA as a denomination even recognizes the validity of the Hebrew meaning as being something other than 24 hours. Sometimes OEC's are painted as some cultists or something or that we play "fast and loose with scripture", but our numbers of respected conservative theologians/teachers grow stronger. Look who is open to "day" not being 24 hours.

John Ankerberg
Walter Bradley
Charles Colson
William Lane Craig
Dr. Dobson
Norman Geisler
Billy Graham
Greg Koukl
J.P. Moreland
Mark Noll
J.I. Packer
Francis Shaeffer
Lee Strobel
Frank Turek
Ravi Zacharias

For example, without the view of the fall of man/creation in Christianity, there is a huge gap in ID that is really indefensible.

Again, ID is only a part in our witness. Because it is not complete does not mean we cannot use it. It requires more work for us as apologists to fill in the blanks, but that is our "job."

Next, I know others have pointed you to materials about how history has been revised to paint Christians in the past as being enemies of scientific knowledge.

Well, here is what I see. Every time I mention that science helped Bible interpreters to see what the Bible doesn't say about the relationship about the sun and earth, I get links to articles that don't deal exactly with the point I raise. It is somewhat of a somescreen, IMO. THE POINT REMAINS that science DID help Bible interpreters to get a better understanding concerning the meaning of the scripture, period.

Lastly, we must always keep in mind: Romans 3:4
By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar...

Well, we are on the same page there.

Yes, I do deny that, for our interpretation of science changes. So how can the changeable truly interpret the unchangeable?

CT

I get that answer alot. Do you think there will come a time when science will change and say, "Look! we were wrong all these years...the sun REALLY DOES revolve around the earth!" I dare say some Christians will say, "I knew it all along, I stayed true to what "the Bible says" and didn't ever let ever changing science help direct my interpretation!"

ChristianTrader

June 27th 2004, 03:20 PM

Thank you, Christian Trader, for the friendly dialog. I appreciate your tone in this discussion. Tweb is that much more enjoyable when discussing topics can continue like this.

Right back at you. :wink:

But YEC's don't really need it to be scientifically reasonable, because all they need is their interpretation of scripture to tell them what they believe is reasonable, right? Again, why bother with science if science is only going to tell you what you believe is reasonable--who needs that when all you need is your interpretation of things?

Well first off, one thing we need to determine what is scientifically reasonable. If you mean that to mean that which conforms to uniformitarian assumptions, then yes we do not need to be scientifically reasonable.

Also YEC as well as everyone else, learn things all the time. As knowledge increases our models and viewpoints of how what we see is consistent with YEC becomes more and more clear.

The Bible has shown itself worthy of archeological investigation, it is reasonable to assume the Bible correct historically. It is not the same with YECism--it cannot be defended scientifically and it seems very strange that only YEC scientists accept a young earth while there have been more than a couple archeologists who accept the Bible as a reliable document.

So what the Bible says is up to some vote including Christians and non Christians? Also I hope you do understand that many believe that there are more than a few archeological errors in the Bible. You also probably know that more skeptics can accept the reliability of history as the Bible tells it, today than 100 years ago, and the same 100 years before that. What exactly does is prove if more archeologists accept the Bible today than scientists accept YEC?

It is a matter of objective vs. subjective. YEC effectively defends the Bible objectively through prophecy, archeology, history but then there is creation when the tables are turned upside down--it no longer makes use of objective facts but rather subjective interpretations. YEC is not consistent in this regard. Hats off to the YEC apologetics in all areas but creation.

Does something become subjective because others disagree? Because others respect what we say in other areas more than in the area of creation, YEC has become subjective?

Christian Trader, perhaps you have read a lot of YEC material and not enough of the other to be properly informed. What you said is the YEC mantra, I hope you will consider other options.

If YEC is correct then the mantra is true, I am not sure why you object?

Sorry about that, Christian Trader, I failed to explain exactly what I meant. What I meant was the issues that came up in the early church over circumcision. If you remember right, this was a big issue Paul had to deal with--ref. Acts 15, Philipians 3, Romans 2, Galatians 5, Eph.2:11. It was a big controversy within the church for a while.

Oh I understand there was a controversy but I do not understand its usefulness as an analogy. It would only be useful if you would want to say that YEC was somehow valid for OT and not valid in the new covenant brought in by the death of Jesus (as circumcision was). Circumcision was not always an irrelevant thing to do but was a command.

Well, don't fall out of your chair or anything, but I actually consider YEC a reasonable biblical interpretation of Genesis. Yep, but I, unlike you, think that the natural world can and does give us insight into what the author did not mean. Again, I like to reference Galileo. I admit I would most likely have been a geocentrist at that time (would you, too?) because I would have considered the Psalmist's words about the sun "rising and setting" to mean the sun did the action. But hopefully I would have had the humility and the confidence to look through the telescope and be able to allow what the natural world revealed to help me understand what the scripture was not saying.

Because we disagree on a certain issue does not mean scripture does not support you or me. One of us is just wrong. Also because we agree in some other place, does not mean that scripture is clear where we agree and not clear when we disagree.

I assume you have heard of Gleason Archer and Walt Kaiser? Perhaps you should consider the "other side".

I have but I distinctly remember asking you how many Hebrew scholars support your position? Would that be 2 out of how many hebrew scholars? Also I really wanted to know what non Christian scholars made out of the text. Those that would be willing to say the Genesis say X, but I just disagree with what the Bible says.

It is in people's nature to believe the first view they hear. I think most Christians believe YEC because it is the first view they heard.

Perhaps or some may have read Refuting Compromise :wink:

I hope I explained well enough above. It is easy for us to look back on the issue and say "how simple is that", but back then it was a BIG issue and it was causing trouble in the early church (note how many times Paul brings it up in his letters)

Again I am trying to follow your analogy but am finding it hard to do. You are talking about an issue about how Jesus coming changed what we had to do to fulfill God's requirements and then trying to compare that to an issue about how God did something at the beginning. Also to be frank, science had no bearing on how they decided what God wanted them to do.

I stand by what I believe is the best interpretation of Genesis. I do not claim to know this issue as I do the essentials doctrines of the faith, those doctrines that the Bible does indeed "say".

Many people disagree that the Bible teaches certain central doctines, does that mean the Bible does not say and teach them? Concensus is not the ultimate arbiter of truth.

ID is a tool that creationists can use to their benefit. It is up to the apologist to take on the addtional task of showing Christianity true among the world's other religions. ID cannot do it all, but neither can archeology or history, or prophecy--but that is why there is you and me and the rest of the Body who can witness to this darkened age.

ID is the darndest tool I have ever seen. When those who support it attempt to distance themselves from the users of this tool, it sounds more and more fishy. But then again all of science is our tool, the thing is just to change the interpretation that secularists place upon their measurements.

ID can stand on its own, that is a good thing. The reason is that we have something objective. An objective witness is a good witness.

It is up to the apologist to "show the way more perfectly". ID is only a tool.

ID cannot stand on its own, for things only make sense within worldviews and trying to cram ID into the regular naturalistic worldview will not work. It only makes sense within the Christian Worldview.

Depending on our audience, we cannot always start with the Bible--but we, over time and contending earnestly for the faith, can end up there--at the cross.

I just disagree there. One cannot make it to the word of God over long periods of time (at least not with a large number of people). The reason again is that when you only attempt to challenge part of a person's worldview, they will always be able to excape to another area and then say, my worldview can explain X, Y, and Z and will explain your point of attack later when I gain more knowledge. We must remember as Paul says, there is no excuse for the Rejection of God of the Bible. If we truly believe this, I am not sure how ID will fit.

If origins is a stumbling block, ID only does that small part to show objectively that it is reasonable to assume an Designer. ID can do nothing more.

But the problem here is that it is only reasonable to assume the God of the Bible, not some generic designer. Generics can be refuted, God cannot be.

Our goal is the cross, period. ID is one small step in the process.

I think we just disagree how effective generic ID can be.

Personally, I think our time is better spent defending the resurrection. But alas, (it is my opinion) that YEC hinders so much in defending Christianity that I am here. It is my hope that YEC's will see that they don't need to push the young earth view as they do. Say humbly "This is my interpretation", not "This is what the BIBLE SAYS!"

Um first off, the resurrection does not sit in a vacuum. If it did, then all those scientifically reasonable folks would be justified in rejecting it. The creation by God, the fall, the incarnation etc. are doctrines that basically hang out in the same arena as the bodily resurrection. They basically come as a set and cannot truly be defended individually.

Um why do not we go farther and say, "It is my interpretation" that Jesus bodily arose from the dead and not "this is what the Bible says!" On what do you pick and choose those things which the Bible is clear on?

Don't get me wrong--there are indeed doctrines in the Bible that we do say, "the Bible says", but quabbles over the word "day" is not one of them. If you do accept the witness of "good Hebrew scholars" then don't dismiss out of hand the conservative Hebrew scholars who do not affirm what you do concerning the word in Hebrew.

I do not dismiss out of hand anything. I think however it takes more than two hebrew scholars to overturn all of church history and the majority of hebrew scholars today. Either they are correct and can defend their position or they cannot.

Indeed, the PCA as a denomination even recognizes the validity of the Hebrew meaning as being something other than 24 hours. Sometimes OEC's are painted as some cultists or something or that we play "fast and loose with scripture", but our numbers of respected conservative theologians/teachers grow stronger. Look who is open to "day" not being 24 hours.

John Ankerberg
Walter Bradley
Charles Colson
William Lane Craig
Dr. Dobson
Norman Geisler
Billy Graham
Greg Koukl
J.P. Moreland
Mark Noll
J.I. Packer
Francis Shaeffer
Lee Strobel
Frank Turek
Ravi Zacharias

Again when did consensus become the judge of truth. Either these people are right or they are wrong.

[/quote]
Again, ID is only a part in our witness. Because it is not complete does not mean we cannot use it. It requires more work for us as apologists to fill in the blanks, but that is our "job."
[/quote]

Our job is not to try to sneak a foot in the door, our job is to proclaim the whole truth of the Bible. If that means we are opposed more heavily then so be it.

Well, here is what I see. Every time I mention that science helped Bible interpreters to see what the Bible doesn't say about the relationship about the sun and earth, I get links to articles that don't deal exactly with the point I raise. It is somewhat of a somescreen, IMO. THE POINT REMAINS that science DID help Bible interpreters to get a better understanding concerning the meaning of the scripture, period.

The problem is that you try to paint the church as dogmatically teaching X, Y and Z, until science came along and changed them. That is just not in fact the case. Such is the case of Galileo etc.

Well, we are on the same page there.

If we are on the same page, why do you continue to bring up the fact that many secular scientists disagree with YEC as proof that YEC is incorrect?

I get that answer alot. Do you think there will come a time when science will change and say, "Look! we were wrong all these years...the sun REALLY DOES revolve around the earth!" I dare say some Christians will say, "I knew it all along, I stayed true to what "the Bible says" and didn't ever let ever changing science help direct my interpretation!"

Um that was a semi impressive dodge. It is a bit hard to predict which fact will be found that will change the entire interpretation of some scientific field. However I would look in the area of cosmology. The Big Bang has so many holes even if you are a uniformitarian. Also because it is hard to see something as being overthown, does not make it impossible to happen.

CT

A Beautiful Truth

June 27th 2004, 04:47 PM

Well first off, one thing we need to determine what is scientifically reasonable. If you mean that to mean that which conforms to uniformitarian assumptions, then yes we do not need to be scientifically reasonable.

You and many other YEC like to paint this either uniformitarian or catastrophism picture--it is not. Scientists believe in both, and I believe in both.

Also I hope you do understand that many believe that there are more than a few archeological errors in the Bible.

It has been tested and proved true as a reliable document, if there are a few "problems" I am confident that they have reasonable answers. YEC just fails and fails and fails as a reliable witness.

You also probably know that more skeptics can accept the reliability of history as the Bible tells it, today than 100 years ago, and the same 100 years before that. What exactly does is prove if more archeologists accept the Bible today than scientists accept YEC?

Well, I see we are to go around and around. I don't think I can explain it more clearly than I have, let me know if you really want me to try again.

Does something become subjective because others disagree?

No, indeed. I am speaking of the manner in which we present views that have reasonable alternative interpretations. Do you hold your views of escatology the same you do YEC? I think one should--loosely, for we could be wrong. This in contrast to the resurrection. If we are wrong, then we are above all to be pitied, without the resurrection THERE IS NO CHRISTIANITY and thusly, no hope.

Because others respect what we say in other areas more than in the area of creation, YEC has become subjective?

I believe it shows the terrible witness of YEC, if the only ones who can see it are those who already agree with it, or have some other non-scientific motive to believe in it.

Oh I understand there was a controversy but I do not understand its usefulness as an analogy.

The analogy I was pulling, sorry you missed it, was that some (maybe not you) YEC's demand a YEC interpretation in order to hold the Bible as true and be counted among those who have submitted their lives/hearts to God without compromise. Likewise, some of the circumcised Christians demanded that the new converts be circumcised. In both cases, the demands are unnessesary to beign a true Christian who obeys the Holy Scriptures, but rather serve as stumbling blocks when presented as a must for being a Christian who submits themselves wholly to God without compromise. Please try to see the analogy like that.

Because we disagree on a certain issue does not mean scripture does not support you or me. One of us is just wrong.

Sure thing, Christian Trader, never said otherwise. What I am saying is that there are *reasonable* interpretations concerning creation. YEC is not the only reasonable interpretation, but I recognize not all reasonable interpretations are right. My point is to have grace in such non-essential areas because we truly won't know "till we get there".

Also because we agree in some other place, does not mean that scripture is clear where we agree and not clear when we disagree.

Agree there, too, Christian Trader, but I am speaking of how we present non-essential issues like how long a "day" is in Genesis. What if you are wrong, do you not think some YEC's have behaved themselves in a manner that was totally unfruitful for Christianity? Once we know in full, I think some of us will look back and cringe because we were arrogant against our brothers on some issues that we should have extended grace instead.

I have but I distinctly remember asking you how many Hebrew scholars support your position? Would that be 2 out of how many hebrew scholars?

Gee, Christian Trader, I did not know you wanted me to count them and list them all. If that is what you think will help convince you to accept OEC, then by all means I will search this out and come up with a list, if you think it would be of some benefit to you in changing your position. Tell me honestly a range of how many you think you need in order to consider OEC more seriously and I'll do my best to accomodate you with a list. (Saying it like this helps me get out of some research :whistle:)

Many people disagree that the Bible teaches certain central doctines, does that mean the Bible does not say and teach them? Concensus is not the ultimate arbiter of truth.

Wow, you have really placed me in the spot of the compromiser, haven't you? Perhaps you have been reading too much "Refuting Compromise". It's like a witch hunt or something. I can't believe my ears. What a total insult for you to extrapolate that from what I have written. I have tried to be careful so that you would not fall into that "compromiser!" trap, but there you are.

Back to basics. Central doctrines are not the issue. For one to not accept central doctrines then, BY DEFINITION, they are not Christians.

I just disagree there. One cannot make it to the word of God over long periods of time (at least not with a large number of people). The reason again is that when you only attempt to challenge part of a person's worldview, they will always be able to excape to another area and then say, my worldview can explain X, Y, and Z and will explain your point of attack later when I gain more knowledge. We must remember as Paul says, there is no excuse for the Rejection of God of the Bible. If we truly believe this, I am not sure how ID will fit.

All I know, Christian Trader, is that I am suppose to "contend earnestly for the faith". I think that means learning different arguments so that opponents get reasonable answers to their objections.

The Holy Spirit is Who draws men to Himself, you and I as Christians are fulfilling the Great Commission as we ought. God chooses to work through His people--cool. I want to be ready to give a defense to the hope that is within me in this present age. All areas of apologetics serve as a ready defense, therefore all areas should be explored. One area is not the end all, never said that, I hope you recognize I never said that. All work in our dialog with unbelievers, but it is the Holy Spirit who reaches the heart. The Holy Spirit will often use a vessel to bring good news to another.

One cannot make it to the word of God over long periods of time

I disagree with you, I think it can be a culmative affect on a person. You may witness to somebody, dialoging with them over years, showing them the love of God and then one day, it happens, it "clicks", the Lord moved on their heart. And there you were, you were the preacher who patiently dialoged with them through the years.

Um first off, the resurrection does not sit in a vacuum. If it did, then all those scientifically reasonable folks would be justified in rejecting it. The creation by God, the fall, the incarnation etc. are doctrines that basically hang out in the same arena as the bodily resurrection. They basically come as a set and cannot truly be defended individually.

The resurrection can be defended individually as an historical reality. It is the backbone of Christianity and He left us with evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt". I am puzzled at your denial of its ability to be so defended.

Um why do not we go farther and say, "It is my interpretation" that Jesus bodily arose from the dead and not "this is what the Bible says!" On what do you pick and choose those things which the Bible is clear on?

You have some nerve, Christian Trader. I do think you have read too much "Refuting Compromise". I am amazed at your conclusions here, it as if you have not really been trying to understand my point of view or something because you have it all figured out. If this is the attitude that that AiG book helps cultivate, we are headed for more trouble in our Christian churches.

You comparing my saying "that's just your interpretation" to a defining essential of Christianity will only instigate more war and divisiveness in the Body.

I do not dismiss out of hand anything. I think however it takes more than two hebrew scholars to overturn all of church history and the majority of hebrew scholars today. Either they are correct and can defend their position or they cannot.

The majority of consevative Bible scholars are leaning towards the old earth position, I guess they figuered they could defend their position, afterall.

Again when did consensus become the judge of truth. Either these people are right or they are wrong.

So which is it? You want consensus or not?

Our job is not to try to sneak a foot in the door, our job is to proclaim the whole truth of the Bible. If that means we are opposed more heavily then so be it.

Have you read the featured article this month? I found it good, you may want to take a look, if you don't mind reading something AiG may disagree with.

Hindrances of the Mind: The Scandal of Evangelical Thinking
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28236

If we are on the same page, why do you continue to bring up the fact that many secular scientists disagree with YEC as proof that YEC is incorrect?

We were on the same page that the scripture is true, I do not see your capitalization of it as a YEC scripture, however.

Um that was a semi impressive dodge. It is a bit hard to predict which fact will be found that will change the entire interpretation of some scientific field. However I would look in the area of cosmology. The Big Bang has so many holes even if you are a uniformitarian. Also because it is hard to see something as being overthown, does not make it impossible to happen.

CT

And your objection to Big Bang Cosmology is not because it has mysteries that need working out, but that it says the universe came into being from something outside our natural universe longer than your interpretation fror "day" allows. If you could only see how the Big Bang attests to a supernatural miracle! This does indeed get our foot in the door, and that is a good thing.

ChristianTrader

June 27th 2004, 06:24 PM

You and many other YEC like to paint this either uniformitarian or catastrophism picture--it is not. Scientists believe in both, and I believe in both.

So is the debate over what has been uniform and what has not been over the history of the world?

It has been tested and proved true as a reliable document, if there are a few "problems" I am confident that they have reasonable answers. YEC just fails and fails and fails as a reliable witness.

The Bible is accurate in all that is talks about. However there are certain issues that are yet to be resolved, why not allow science to interpret them as being general and stories and not straightforward fact?

The reason you believe that YEC fails is you fail to accept the assumptions underpinning it. If you did then you would.

Well, I see we are to go around and around. I don't think I can explain it more clearly than I have, let me know if you really want me to try again.

No I think this issue is going to go nowhere fast, so we should just leave it.

No, indeed. I am speaking of the manner in which we present views that have reasonable alternative interpretations. Do you hold your views of escatology the same you do YEC? I think one should--loosely, for we could be wrong. This in contrast to the resurrection. If we are wrong, then we are above all to be pitied, without the resurrection THERE IS NO CHRISTIANITY and thusly, no hope.

You seem to be confusing importance with clarity. Because something is important does not mean it is more clear than things which are less important. For example, the doctrine of the trinity is more complicated then this issue of days.

Also something is not subjective because someone takes another interpretive view of the issue than others do. At least one person is still wrong.

As you say the resurrection is central.

I believe it shows the terrible witness of YEC, if the only ones who can see it are those who already agree with it, or have some other non-scientific motive to believe in it.

Why is it a terrible witness. Would you have said the same thing when things in Christian History had not been veririfed yet? Also again why do Christian need verification by the secular scientists on a certain belief? Remember unbelievers misinterpret a lot of things or they would no longer be unbelievers. (Not to say that they have an excuse for their wrongdoing)

The analogy I was pulling, sorry you missed it, was that some (maybe not you) YEC's demand a YEC interpretation in order to hold the Bible as true and be counted among those who have submitted their lives/hearts to God without compromise. Likewise, some of the circumcised Christians demanded that the new converts be circumcised. In both cases, the demands are unnessesary to beign a true Christian who obeys the Holy Scriptures, but rather serve as stumbling blocks when presented as a must for being a Christian who submits themselves wholly to God without compromise. Please try to see the analogy like that.

One does not need a YEC interpretation in order to be solid in many other issue of Christianity and be a genuine Christian. However I do believe that errors are hard to isolate, and this error will bleed into some other areas.

Sure thing, Christian Trader, never said otherwise. What I am saying is that there are *reasonable* interpretations concerning creation. YEC is not the only reasonable interpretation, but I recognize not all reasonable interpretations are right. My point is to have grace in such non-essential areas because we truly won't know "till we get there".

I think the YEC is the only reasonable viewpoint, if you take just the Bible. If you elevate others things onto the level of the Bible, other things also become reasonable. That is the core fight between OEC and YEC can anything else be elevated to the level of the Bible.

Agree there, too, Christian Trader, but I am speaking of how we present non-essential issues like how long a "day" is in Genesis. What if you are wrong, do you not think some YEC's have behaved themselves in a manner that was totally unfruitful for Christianity? Once we know in full, I think some of us will look back and cringe because we were arrogant against our brothers on some issues that we should have extended grace instead.

Grace should always be extended on all issues. However it is not arrogant to call what one believes to be error, error. People on either side have behaved inappropriately and that is unfortunate.

Gee, Christian Trader, I did not know you wanted me to count them and list them all. If that is what you think will help convince you to accept OEC, then by all means I will search this out and come up with a list, if you think it would be of some benefit to you in changing your position. Tell me honestly a range of how many you think you need in order to consider OEC more seriously and I'll do my best to accomodate you with a list. (Saying it like this helps me get out of some research :whistle:)

The core point is that I believe that you would be in the overwhelming minority when all hebrew scholars are brought into view. That does not make you wrong, however it just seems that you want to play a numbers game when you have the numbers but not when you do not.

Wow, you have really placed me in the spot of the compromiser, haven't you? Perhaps you have been reading too much "Refuting Compromise". It's like a witch hunt or something. I can't believe my ears. What a total insult for you to extrapolate that from what I have written. I have tried to be careful so that you would not fall into that "compromiser!" trap, but there you are.

Never called you a compromiser, however I think you inappropriately wish to blast YEC when the secular folks disagree with us and then disregard the secular folks on other issues. Why do you do that?

Back to basics. Central doctrines are not the issue. For one to not accept central doctrines then, BY DEFINITION, they are not Christians.

True, my point however is that central issues are not inherently more clear than non central issues.

All I know, Christian Trader, is that I am suppose to "contend earnestly for the faith". I think that means learning different arguments so that opponents get reasonable answers to their objections.

We need to contend earnestly and to learn different arguments for different folks. However I disagree that ID is a reasonable argument by itself, and if it is not, why deal with ID when you can confront with Creationism itself?

The Holy Spirit is Who draws men to Himself, you and I as Christians are fulfilling the Great Commission as we ought. God chooses to work through His people--cool. I want to be ready to give a defense to the hope that is within me in this present age. All areas of apologetics serve as a ready defense, therefore all areas should be explored. One area is not the end all, never said that, I hope you recognize I never said that. All work in our dialog with unbelievers, but it is the Holy Spirit who reaches the heart. The Holy Spirit will often use a vessel to bring good news to another.

No problem with that paragraph.

[/quote]
I disagree with you, I think it can be a culmative affect on a person. You may witness to somebody, dialoging with them over years, showing them the love of God and then one day, it happens, it "clicks", the Lord moved on their heart. And there you were, you were the preacher who patiently dialoged with them through the years.
[/quote]

I believe proper arguments can have a cumulative effect on a person, but disagree that ID is one of those arguments.

The resurrection can be defended individually as an historical reality. It is the backbone of Christianity and He left us with evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt". I am puzzled at your denial of its ability to be so defended.

It is historically true, however without accepting the Christian worldview it can be rejected. For example, one could just say it was some interesting event that happens every so often that cannot be explained currently by modern science. What then?

No miracles etc, sits in a historical vacuum. If you allow a person to continue to accept naturalism as reasonable, then they can reasonable reject or reinterpret all fact to fit that viewpoint.

You have some nerve, Christian Trader. I do think you have read too much "Refuting Compromise". I am amazed at your conclusions here, it as if you have not really been trying to understand my point of view or something because you have it all figured out. If this is the attitude that that AiG book helps cultivate, we are headed for more trouble in our Christian churches.

Because something is more important does that mean the Bible is more clear on the issue? I never said you doubted the resurrection, just why does you line of questioning not lead to doubting other things as well? Especially thing that science has a very hard time explaining.

You comparing my saying "that's just your interpretation" to a defining essential of Christianity will only instigate more war and divisiveness in the Body.

Again I never said you were not an orthodox Christian, just that you are a bit quick with trying to paint something as "that is your interpretation". You know unbelievers use the same line of questioning but go farther than you would ever go.

The majority of consevative Bible scholars are leaning towards the old earth position, I guess they figuered they could defend their position, afterall.

The issue is can they do it from scripture or must they elevate others thing to the level of scripture to make the case?

So which is it? You want consensus or not?

It was not an either or, It was a consensus is a false standard, they are either right or wrong type of statement.

Have you read the featured article this month? I found it good, you may want to take a look, if you don't mind reading something AiG may disagree with.

Hindrances of the Mind: The Scandal of Evangelical Thinking
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28236

I will take a look a bit later. Thanks for the link.

We were on the same page that the scripture is true, I do not see your capitalization of it as a YEC scripture, however.

It is not a YEC scripture per say. It is a why are you attempting to critique our position on the authority of secular man, when God said, he was having no part of it. Now if you just say that you believe YEC is false okay, but it is faulty support to point to secular scientists.

And your objection to Big Bang Cosmology is not because it has mysteries that need working out, but that it says the universe came into being from something outside our natural universe longer than your interpretation fror "day" allows. If you could only see how the Big Bang attests to a supernatural miracle! This does indeed get our foot in the door, and that is a good thing.

I do not care about supernatural miracles, I only care about consistency with the Bible. I also do not want foot in the door, I want to break the door down.

CT

A Beautiful Truth

June 28th 2004, 10:45 AM

ChristianTrader

June 28th 2004, 01:50 PM

Christian Trader,

I realize that I never explained to you WHY I thought that having the facts we use in science apologetics up for peer review is important. Silly me, I've explained myself so many times, but to other people, and I assumed you already understood my assumption. Perhaps I could have saved us some unnessesary exchanges if I had explained this earlier.

Perhaps but I really think there would be many questions, just perhaps different questions.

The reason I personally believe that it is important to work with facts in nature that are "peer reviewed", meaning generally accepted, is because it serves as a universal language, so to speak. General Revelation, that which is revealed in the natural world, is a witness of God's glory and righteousness.

General revelation is a witness of God's glory and righteousness. However that does not mean that there are bare facts. Everything is interpreted within a knowledge framework. If one says that what the Bible says is not a part of our current knowledge then the models and understanding of various things will be different then if one does acknowledge the Bible as being part of our current knowledge framework. You also know that peer reviewed facts exclude the God of the Bible existing and attempt to explain everything naturalistically.
There is also the issue of 'science' ignoring this key Bible passage.

Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

Stated another way, the scientific presupposition is that the present is the key to the past, while the Biblical presupposition, the past is the key to the present.

Please notice the difference as YEC approach creation vs. other apologetics. In other areas of apologetics, our case is so strong, there is no "well you got to start with our framework before you can see it."

Actually all areas of apologetics have to work the same way as YEC in order to be effective. If you do not push for a different framework, all you are going to end up with is "there are a bunch of things that the Bible says about the past are accurate (a certain king lived etc.) and there are a bunch of things that science really cannot say much about but have to be wrong because they assume a supernatural.

We pass secular criticism on the textual reliablity of the N.T.

Which leaves the question, where the people just crazy to begin with, and then people did not believe them to be crazy so they were diligent to copy correctly?

We pass secular criticism that the gospel accounts are written by eye witnesses or those close to eye witnesses and that later developed legends did not make it into those writings.

Here many have objected saying that the first authors were just nutty or by dating the writing to a later date so eyewitnesses did not write the stories or we could go on for a while. A key point is that within a naturalists framework, they do not have to accept key parts of the message.

We pass secular criticism about the resurrection.

If we have secular success here then what is failure? You have secular folks saying that Jesus did not even exist. There is also the issue of within a secular framework, people can just say we do not currently know how to explain it but will at some future date because we know that a God Man is impossible.

We pass secular criticism concerning archeology and history (there are reasonable answers to questions, I believe)

Here people can claim stories were changed after the fact to make people believe that the future was predicted. Also being accurate in a large number of historical facts does not imply divinity.

We pass secular criticism regarding fulfilled prophecy.

Again since naturalistically predicting the future is impossible (or one can be lucky every once in a while) various other theories rise up in order to debunk the prophecy fulfillment claims.

Remember if secular people accepted all these claims (in the way that we do) it gets kinda difficult to not acknowledge Jesus as supreme.

All these areas are on the table, investigatable to all. There is no, "you need to believe our way, FIRST, and then you can see the evidence." I think this lends strong support for accepting the Bible over other religions that do not pass such criticisms.

In all the examples you pointed to, one has to accept our framework to end up where we do. Otherwise, you end up with at best a neat history book, but usually ends up a book where redactors played with the text while in captivity etc.

Remember: Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge;fools despise wisdom and instruction.

It does not say that one uses knowledge in order to begin fearing the Lord.

But then, there is creation. No longer does the YE apologist rely on the same standard of use to show his case as he did with the other areas--creation is different. Now it is not on the table, the same arguments do not hold true. When YEC fails it is always, "its just because you start with the wrong framework." What about evolution? It is not the same. Even with the philisophical paradigm in which the naturalist works, there are objections to aspects of the theory of evolution that are recognizable, even in peer reviewed journals. Of course it would be helpful if that philisophical framework would allow the evidence sink in, but it makes it that much more notable when it does--against all odds, so to speak.

Remember evolution is never under discussion in secular circles, the actual mechanisms are. The only way evolution will be thrown out is if there is a new naturalistic theory that "better explains the evidence" and it is so different that people do not fell right to keep using the same name.

As I have stated above, YEC is not different in any respect from those other areas.

(Again, I am not saying that science apologetics is the end-all in our witness--no, it is just an unnessesary stumbling block I'd like to see removed so we can move on to more important areas of apologetics)

I am not sure if there truly is a little part of apologetics, all things are interelated. Errors in one place will lead to errors elsewhere. If the Bible is inaccurate X, Y and Z place, why should it be accurate elsewhere.

If God's glory is revealed in His creation, then it is awfully strange that only a YEC can see it. The Bible and God's truth is relevant for today's man. If YEC is true, then it is no longer true today that God's glory is revealed in the heavens.

Now this is the most outrageous comment I have read in a long while. God glory is revealed to all people, but most just tune it out while they are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. Also are you saying because people interpret the earth to be a certain billion years old, and it is truly very young, that God's glory is not revealed. That is just nutty. Also as you of course know, basically all the serious scientists etc. accepted a young age for the world up until very recently. Was God's glory not revealed (as it is today) until people got it right and started to say that the earth was old?

Also there is the issue of why do you believe that people can understand nature better than they can understand the Bible. God put His specific work together with all the relationships necessary to understand how to live. But people still mess it up. Now people on their own with their fallen nature, can understand nature perfectly with no where near as much help from God???

Come on Now.

CT

ChristianTrader

June 28th 2004, 07:44 PM

So the only 2 ways for you to keep Scripture infallible to the nth degree is to posit either a miracle or an unsubstantiated appeal for a new reproductive mechanism.

Way to go!

Or perhaps it's just a nice little example of several thousand year old superstition that has no basis in fact but entered the Bible because it was written by men who knew no better.

Now isn't that a little more likely than your 2 hypotheses?

The core question is always: does the God of the Bible exist. Based on the answer to that question, you willing put differing likelihoods to your hypothesis.

Probabilities etc. cannot be neutral beyond a person's worldview and what they believe to be true metaphysically etc.

CT

A Beautiful Truth

June 29th 2004, 03:26 PM

General revelation is a witness of God's glory and righteousness. However that does not mean that there are bare facts. Everything is interpreted within a knowledge framework.

It is not that hard, God has given eyes, ears, hands, a mind. Unlike you, I believe the natural world can be and is a witness of God's handiwork, and you don't even need to already be a Christians to see this witness. Big difference here between our views, I see.

You believe spiritual darkness equals physical darkness in that one who cannot understand the Spirit can likewise not understand creation to any degree that makes it an actual witness of God. You think one must first have a God fearing worldview and then one can see evidence for His work in the Heavens. But this runs contrarary to scripture.

If one says that what the Bible says is not a part of our current knowledge then the models and understanding of various things will be different then if one does acknowledge the Bible as being part of our current knowledge framework.

I am saying that one does not have to start at the Bible to arrive at the Bible, but you are saying one must start at the Bible in order to see truth in the Bible. You and I have a different view of this. I believe the Bible has subjective things in it well enough, but I also believe the Bible has objective facts that can be discerned even by a non-Christian. In other words, not everything in the scriptures are spiritual, therefore, I believe those unspiritual things can be realized as true apart from a Christian worldview. If I have understood you correctly thus far, I think you disagree with this because you think one must start with a Christian worldview in order to see that the Bible has truth.

If you do not push for a different framework, all you are going to end up with is "there are a bunch of things that the Bible says about the past are accurate (a certain king lived etc.) and there are a bunch of things that science really cannot say much about but have to be wrong because they assume a supernatural.

Hey, Christian Trader, I don't doubt your call as an apologist or anything, maybe we just have different expectations, but I think that it is asking way too much to take some college student who has tons of questions about the Bible and disregard his questions and push right away to accept the Christian worldview. I think "contending earnestly for the faith" means something more than "take it or leave it, pal", I think it means actually taking the time to answer the questions. It may not be their "time" right then, but once the intellectual barriers are reasonably answered then matters of the heart--the true objections, can surface.

We pass secular criticism on the textual reliablity of the N.T.

Which leaves the question, where the people just crazy to begin with, and then people did not believe them to be crazy so they were diligent to copy correctly?

What?! Come on, we Christians can do much better. (There is more to apologetics then AiG!!)

We pass secular criticism that the gospel accounts are written by eye witnesses or those close to eye witnesses and that later developed legends did not make it into those writings.

Here many have objected saying that the first authors were just nutty or by dating the writing to a later date so eyewitnesses did not write the stories or we could go on for a while. A key point is that within a naturalists framework, they do not have to accept key parts of the message.

You need to get "out" more. There are many fine works that effectively defend the point I make, and you don't even need to start with a Christian worldview to recognize it :ahem: This, again, is unlike your presup.

We pass secular criticism about the resurrection.

If we have secular success here then what is failure? You have secular folks saying that Jesus did not even exist.

They are wrong, of course, and we as Christians have plenty of resources that reasonably defend this. Don't give up so quickly and think that this is only a "faith" issue. The Apostle Paul saw fit to provide evidence, we should also work to that end.

There is also the issue of within a secular framework, people can just say we do not currently know how to explain it but will at some future date because we know that a God Man is impossible.

Then they would deny objective evidence. Not everything is subjective to a prior worldview concerning the Bible, as you seem to think. We can stand strong on this issue.

There will ALWAYS be doubters, I am not saying that. But I am saying that if one is open to explore truth, no matter where that truth takes them then we do well to do our homework as apologists. Look, all we can give is a reasonable answer. NOTHING can be proved 100%, but we can put enough confidence in something to bank our lives on it. Christianity is one of them.

We pass secular criticism concerning archeology and history (there are reasonable answers to questions, I believe)

Here people can claim stories were changed after the fact to make people believe that the future was predicted.

But we can reasonably defend to the contrary. This is unlike YE science which cannot be reasonably defended.

Also being accurate in a large number of historical facts does not imply divinity.

True, but we do leave room for the Holy Spirit. :smile: Or, rather, the Holy Spirit leaves room for us to give an account of the hope that is within us. It is not our "job" to bring them all the way to a Christian worldview, it is not our job to make them believe, our job is to reasonably defend the faith.

We pass secular criticism regarding fulfilled prophecy.

Again since naturalistically predicting the future is impossible (or one can be lucky every once in a while) various other theories rise up in order to debunk the prophecy fulfillment claims.

Yes, and they in turn are reasonably refuted, and one does not even have to start with a Christian presup to see the evidence for it. Sure, they may chose a way around it, but don't put this on par with YEC. One is a refusal in spite of the evidence, the other are refusal because of the evidence.

Remember if secular people accepted all these claims (in the way that we do) it gets kinda difficult to not acknowledge Jesus as supreme.

There is always wiggle room to deny the reasonable answers. But "wiggle" does not and can not describe the room one has to deny YEC!

I personally believe God leaves man with enough wiggle room in every area to preserve their own will.

In all the examples you pointed to, one has to accept our framework to end up where we do.

But there is a difference between "head knowledge" and the heart. While one can be unspiritual and accept the "head knowledge" defense of the Bible, it is a different realm altogether if that same one will become a Christian. Head knowledge only goes so far, but it is, nonetheless, a tool we use to reach the lost, in addition to being a scriptural mandate to uphold.

Remember: Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge;fools despise wisdom and instruction.

It does not say that one uses knowledge in order to begin fearing the Lord.

So, if you are properly exegetting this scripture correctly, what is the outcome? Why even witness, right? Why contend earnestly for the faith with those who do not fear the Lord--sounds like a headache that is, frankly, JUST NOT WORTH IT! I have enough headaches contending with my YE brothers, who needs another futile labor? No, I don't think you properly applied this scripture to make it relevant for our discussion here.

I am not sure if there truly is a little part of apologetics, all things are interelated. Errors in one place will lead to errors elsewhere. If the Bible is inaccurate X, Y and Z place, why should it be accurate elsewhere.

We can defend each on their own is my point--they are strong enough.

Is a conclusion ever stronger than its premises? In the case of Christianity, each premise can stand on its own. Altogether, the premises make a strong conclusion that Christianity is true, give your life to Christ.

You are saying one must believe the conclusion before one can believe the premises.

Also are you saying because people interpret the earth to be a certain billion years old, and it is truly very young, that God's glory is not revealed.

I am saying that if YEC is true, then God's glory is not revealed to those who see with their God-given faculties that the universe and earth are old. Truth of nature is not a spiritual thing, CT, one CAN have an understanding of the natural world and be totally clueless about the spiritual world, that seems to go without saying. God wants to reach these people, and it is against His character, as revealed in scripture, to deceive them.

Also there is the issue of why do you believe that people can understand nature better than they can understand the Bible.

Because nature is natural and can be investigated by our natural senses, but in order to understand spiritual things, one must be born of the spirit. They are seperate realms, CT, please understand that. If it were not so, then we would not be as advanced in the sciences today. Not all inventions were made by those who had spiritual understanding. And not all they who have spiritual understanding naturally understand the natural world. They are plainly in seperate realms. This idea that man's fallen state somehow made it impossible to properly discern the natural realm is so YECish. Did a Christian invent your computer, your engine, your refridgerator? (I don't know the inventors of these things, my point was to show how it is not nessesary to believe one must be spiritually apprised before one can be naturally apprised)

I think we just have a difference in our understanding of how much a non-spiritual man can understand about the non-spiritual world. I think a natural man can understand the natural world and I think a spiritual man can misunderstand the natural world. We are talking two seperate realms, though it is convient for your YECism to bring you to the place theologically where you believe that a natural man cannot even understand his natural world to any trustworthy degree whatsoever. This is, of course, inconsistent, with reality.

(What does that say of me? I have the Holy Spirit and yet I do not accept a young earth.....O'yeah, "compromiser!", that's right.)

ChristianTrader

June 29th 2004, 08:29 PM

It is not that hard, God has given eyes, ears, hands, a mind. Unlike you, I believe the natural world can be and is a witness of God's handiwork, and you don't even need to already be a Christians to see this witness. Big difference here between our views, I see.

As I said, the all of general revelation testifies to the Lord's handiwork. That in no way shape or form means that our understanding of nature is infallible. Our fallibility is not negated when you have consensus on a certain issue.

I also agree that one does not have to be a Christian to see God's handiwork. But again to say that God is awesome does not necessarily imply that one knows that the world is 15 billions years old infallibly.

You believe spiritual darkness equals physical darkness in that one who cannot understand the Spirit can likewise not understand creation to any degree that makes it an actual witness of God. You think one must first have a God fearing worldview and then one can see evidence for His work in the Heavens. But this runs contrarary to scripture.

One is going to see God's handiwork no matter what lamebrain atheistic presuppositions that one wants to use. However all those lamebrain presuppositions also require one to suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

I agree with Romans 1, that no one has any excuse for rejecting the God of the Bible. The issue again is not seeing God and his evidence, it is making excuses for not acknowleging it.

I am saying that one does not have to start at the Bible to arrive at the Bible, but you are saying one must start at the Bible in order to see truth in the Bible. You and I have a different view of this. I believe the Bible has subjective things in it well enough, but I also believe the Bible has objective facts that can be discerned even by a non-Christian. In other words, not everything in the scriptures are spiritual, therefore, I believe those unspiritual things can be realized as true apart from a Christian worldview. If I have understood you correctly thus far, I think you disagree with this because you think one must start with a Christian worldview in order to see that the Bible has truth.

One cannot logically start with the supposition that the Bible is untrue and then reach the Bible. No matter how many things the Bible is true about in history, it does not imply that the Bible is true in things that cannot or at least have not been verified scientifically etc.

Also I am not saying the Bible is not objectively correct in all the things that it talks about. However something being objectively right does not mean that others will accept it regardless of their presuppositions.

Fortunately for us, non believers are notoriously inconsistent and one cannot consistently hold to unbelief in all phases without being reduced to a skeptic shaking in the corner. We must challenge anyone to give an accounting of what they understand to be true and to attempt to explain life without reference to the God of the Bible. When they fail, then we can show why they must accept.

Hey, Christian Trader, I don't doubt your call as an apologist or anything, maybe we just have different expectations, but I think that it is asking way too much to take some college student who has tons of questions about the Bible and disregard his questions and push right away to accept the Christian worldview. I think "contending earnestly for the faith" means something more than "take it or leave it, pal", I think it means actually taking the time to answer the questions. It may not be their "time" right then, but once the intellectual barriers are reasonably answered then matters of the heart--the true objections, can surface.

I do not remember saying anything about not taking time to answer anyone's questions. What I do question is trying to not challenge unbelievers properly. We must accept that the claims of the Bible do not make sense in a naturalistic worldview. We must challenge that worldview and its irrationality not attempt to integrate a few supernatural elements into it.

Also there is no such thing as neutrally reasonable. What is reasonable is based on how one believes the world to operate. If one has a worldview in which God is not supreme and can do as he wills, then no matter of discussion is going to make them accept Jesus' resurrection etc.

What?! Come on, we Christians can do much better. (There is more to apologetics then AiG!!)

The point is that reliably transfering the information through time does not make the information itself true. Unbelievers have many outs when you fail to challenge their presuppositions.

Also lets not get it twisted; I am a graduate student now and I have been a Christian for close to two decades now. I grew up in a Christian home and went to a Christian school my entire life. Ive watched my share of video, and read my share of books, been to my share of lectures. The issue is that I do not believe them to be truly effective until you challenge the basic assumptions of the unbelievers. (This is not to say that God does not do a great work even when we are not the most logically rigourous in our approach)

You need to get "out" more. There are many fine works that effectively defend the point I make, and you don't even need to start with a Christian worldview to recognize it :ahem: This, again, is unlike your presup.

My point one really has no obligation to accept that our points leads to some supernatural true fact if their worldview does not allow for such.

They are wrong, of course, and we as Christians have plenty of resources that reasonably defend this. Don't give up so quickly and think that this is only a "faith" issue. The Apostle Paul saw fit to provide evidence, we should also work to that end.

Never said that there are not many very good resources. The point is, that if you allow the regular unbeliever call the shots on what they will accept and what they wont, then are not perfectly justified to reject various things said in the Bible that can not be verified in a lab etc.?

I am not against evidence, I am against attempting to force an unbeliever to believe without challenging him to his core. In ways such as his/her justification of things such as logic etc. in terms of unbelieving presuppositions.

Then they would deny objective evidence. Not everything is subjective to a prior worldview concerning the Bible, as you seem to think. We can stand strong on this issue.

Because someone needs the Bible in order to get the answer right does not make it subjective. For example, if one did not know that gravity was 9.81 m/s^2 (on the earth's surface) they could get a large number of physics problems incorrect. Does that make much of physics subjective?

Also because something is clear to you/us in our Christian worldview, does not make it crystal clear in others worldview.

I am also advocating that we must stand firm.

There will ALWAYS be doubters, I am not saying that. But I am saying that if one is open to explore truth, no matter where that truth takes them then we do well to do our homework as apologists. Look, all we can give is a reasonable answer. NOTHING can be proved 100%, but we can put enough confidence in something to bank our lives on it. Christianity is one of them.

The issue is not about being open to the "evidence". It is about the framework of interpretation. If you need such and such evidence before you accept something and that evidence is not coming forward in respect to some biblical fact, can you truly call a person closed minded without first challenging their assumptions as to the nature of reality?

But we can reasonably defend to the contrary. This is unlike YE science which cannot be reasonably defended.

At the end of the day, we do not accept the Bible because of archeology etc. (for example would you not accept it if you did not have the wealth of info that you have today?) It is because the Bible says so. It is reasonable to defend the God of the Bible in all that He has and will do in the future.

Also YEC science can be defended in the proper worldview, as everything can be.

True, but we do leave room for the Holy Spirit. :smile: Or, rather, the Holy Spirit leaves room for us to give an account of the hope that is within us. It is not our "job" to bring them all the way to a Christian worldview, it is not our job to make them believe, our job is to reasonably defend the faith.

You are correct, the point is according to the Bible, one cannot truly make sense of the world without first seeing that God is the author of all that exists and makes all things run according to his will and plan. If you remove that from your foundation, your worldview falls flat. We need to point this out.

Yes, and they in turn are reasonably refuted, and one does not even have to start with a Christian presup to see the evidence for it. Sure, they may chose a way around it, but don't put this on par with YEC. One is a refusal in spite of the evidence, the other are refusal because of the evidence.
[out]

You do not need Christian worldview, to refute the unbelieving worldviews, however you will need one in order not to be refuted yourself.

Again evidence can only be interpreted based on some standard within a worldview. We are fighting over what the standard is. Not much more than that.

[quote]
There is always wiggle room to deny the reasonable answers. But "wiggle" does not and can not describe the room one has to deny YEC!

That is a great answer based on your standard. Now if your standard - The majority of scientists is wrong, then you objections are wrong.

I personally believe God leaves man with enough wiggle room in every area to preserve their own will.

We could go round and round the circle on that - (I am a calvinist)

But there is a difference between "head knowledge" and the heart. While one can be unspiritual and accept the "head knowledge" defense of the Bible, it is a different realm altogether if that same one will become a Christian. Head knowledge only goes so far, but it is, nonetheless, a tool we use to reach the lost, in addition to being a scriptural mandate to uphold.

The problem is doing just as you say here. We must challenge that head knowledge of the unbeliever. We must show that one must start with the belief in God in order to make sense out of human experience. As C.S. Lewis stated, God is not on trial.

So, if you are properly exegetting this scripture correctly, what is the outcome? Why even witness, right? Why contend earnestly for the faith with those who do not fear the Lord--sounds like a headache that is, frankly, JUST NOT WORTH IT! I have enough headaches contending with my YE brothers, who needs another futile labor? No, I don't think you properly applied this scripture to make it relevant for our discussion here.

First off, do you have another exegesis viewpoint of this passage. If not then on what basis do you object? It makes you work too much?

We contend for the faith by pointing out how when one does not start with God one truly makes nonsense of human experience. Then we show how when you do start with God, you can make sense of things.

We can defend each on their own is my point--they are strong enough.

Is a conclusion ever stronger than its premises? In the case of Christianity, each premise can stand on its own. Altogether, the premises make a strong conclusion that Christianity is true, give your life to Christ.

You are saying one must believe the conclusion before one can believe the premises.

The facts of the Bible do not sit by themselves. For example, you cannot defend the resurrection without accepting the rest of the Christian story, from creation on. It truly makes no sense.

The truth of Christianity as a whole is truly based in human experiences do not make sense if you attempt to look at life without accepting Christianity.

I am saying that if YEC is true, then God's glory is not revealed to those who see with their God-given faculties that the universe and earth are old. Truth of nature is not a spiritual thing, CT, one CAN have an understanding of the natural world and be totally clueless about the spiritual world, that seems to go without saying. God wants to reach these people, and it is against His character, as revealed in scripture, to deceive them.

God does not need to deceive in order for people to get things wrong. Their fallen nature is enough to do that. Also to be fair, if OEC is true, does that mean God's was not truly revealing himself to be true for the first X billions of years until about a century or so ago?

You also must remember that the number you get for the age of the earth "scientifically" is based on a number of assumptions. If those assumptions are false then you number will be wrong.

Because nature is natural and can be investigated by our natural senses, but in order to understand spiritual things, one must be born of the spirit. They are seperate realms, CT, please understand that. If it were not so, then we would not be as advanced in the sciences today. Not all inventions were made by those who had spiritual understanding. And not all they who have spiritual understanding naturally understand the natural world. They are plainly in seperate realms. This idea that man's fallen state somehow made it impossible to properly discern the natural realm is so YECish. Did a Christian invent your computer, your engine, your refridgerator? (I don't know the inventors of these things, my point was to show how it is not nessesary to believe one must be spiritually apprised before one can be naturally apprised)

To say that one can make sense of life at all just points to the inconsistency of unbelieving thought. It also points to the fact that no man has any excuse to believe that the God of the Bible does not exist. Certain things are unavoidable in learning anything about the world. One of them is the universaillity of the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature. Neither of these things make sense in unbelieving worldviews. However they make use of them while failing to acknowledge the worldview from which they swiped them.

The point is that because someone is not a Christian does not mean that they truly do not have to "act" like a Christian in order to make sense of the world. We must point this out.

The biggest point is that people make mistakes concerning nature all the time. We should not attempt to treat our understanding as infallible.

I think we just have a difference in our understanding of how much a non-spiritual man can understand about the non-spiritual world. I think a natural man can understand the natural world and I think a spiritual man can misunderstand the natural world. We are talking two seperate realms, though it is convient for your YECism to bring you to the place theologically where you believe that a natural man cannot even understand his natural world to any trustworthy degree whatsoever. This is, of course, inconsistent, with reality.

(What does that say of me? I have the Holy Spirit and yet I do not accept a young earth.....O'yeah, "compromiser!", that's right.)

Please, why do you not stop attempting to be the martyr?

Also the natural man could not understand reality if he attempting to actual be consistent with his worldview. He usually does not.

One question: When the modern world was saying that X,Y and Z king did not exist, would you have stated that the Bible story in which it was included was somehow an allegory etc.?

CT

reyvin

June 30th 2004, 03:35 PM

As I said, the all of general revelation testifies to the Lord's handiwork. That in no way shape or form means that our understanding of nature is infallible. Our fallibility is not negated when you have consensus on a certain issue.

But this goes for interpretation also. Not just YE/OE claims either. On every aspect of life including scriptural interpretation, science and the three 'Rs'. :)

I also agree that one does not have to be a Christian to see God's handiwork. But again to say that God is awesome does not necessarily imply that one knows that the world is 15 billions years old infallibly.

Hm, no but the evidence sure looks a lot stronger than the YE interpretation in that direction. I don't see many good answers from the YE camp to the challenges Morton has put forward in the Natural Science section, for example.
I don't find an old universe threatening whatsoever. In fact, I find it awesome and inspiring; quite the opposite.

I do not remember saying anything about not taking time to answer anyone's questions. What I do question is trying to not challenge unbelievers properly. We must accept that the claims of the Bible do not make sense in a naturalistic worldview. We must challenge that worldview and its irrationality not attempt to integrate a few supernatural elements into it.

Indeed. Although you've got to be careful (everyone, not 'you' in a personal sense) what you're saying the Bible claims. A lot of folks go a mite too far in what they say it claims in some spots.

Also there is no such thing as neutrally reasonable. What is reasonable is based on how one believes the world to operate. If one has a worldview in which God is not supreme and can do as he wills, then no matter of discussion is going to make them accept Jesus' resurrection etc.

True.

I am also advocating that we must stand firm.

Absolutely. Also, you can only go so far with reasonable interpretation. The Gospel of Luke isn't about how to make a good turkey sandwich. (This might not have been what you were referring to, but I thought it fit well with my thought here).

At the end of the day, we do not accept the Bible because of archeology etc. (for example would you not accept it if you did not have the wealth of info that you have today?) It is because the Bible says so. It is reasonable to defend the God of the Bible in all that He has and will do in the future.

This is also true. But it builds a foundation ('it' being discoveries) and can sometimes change our beliefs and understanding to what He allowed to be written in His book. Worldviews and presuppositions are brought to the text as well.

Also YEC science can be defended in the proper worldview, as everything can be.

I'm not very confident in that it can, but am open to hear any model they may have. And then there is always the possibility of a paradigm shift, I'm not against that (wouldn't be the first time in science history).

God does not need to deceive in order for people to get things wrong. Their fallen nature is enough to do that. Also to be fair, if OEC is true, does that mean God's was not truly revealing himself to be true for the first X billions of years until about a century or so ago?

But what of Revelations? When its all 'said and done' how many folks are going to shake their head in amazement of how different it ends up compared to what they'd thought all along?
What about Isaiah 53 or Psalm 22? We see these as foreshadowing Christs' suffering although it certainly doesn't name Him in it.
What if its nothing more than the interpretation you're forcing onto it ('it' being Genesis). It's certainly a unique writing style (in other words, its obviously not written like Kings or Deuteronomy) so perhaps there is more to it than meets the eye. As I'd pointed out to Socrates in the past, yes, I accept it as history, but not written like my old high school textbook.

You also must remember that the number you get for the age of the earth "scientifically" is based on a number of assumptions. If those assumptions are false then you number will be wrong.

I'm willing to grant this. But there seems to be a lot of indicators of great age that corrob with such findings.

One question: When the modern world was saying that X,Y and Z king did not exist, would you have stated that the Bible story in which it was included was somehow an allegory etc.?

If I'm reading through Luke (lets pick on him again) and a King/ruler is mentioned, I'd have no doubt he meant it as a legit historical figure. But if the chapter or entire book was written in a certain style and perhaps had hints of something other than straightup courtstyle eyewitness testimony, I'd grant it a possibility.

A Beautiful Truth

June 30th 2004, 05:39 PM

One cannot logically start with the supposition that the Bible is untrue and then reach the Bible.

To the contrary, I believe one can as evidenced by certain individuals (I am thinking of Lee Strobel, for example)

Also I am not saying the Bible is not objectively correct in all the things that it talks about. However something being objectively right does not mean that others will accept it regardless of their presuppositions.

But we contend anyway. The point can be made that if we can trust the Bible on what can be tested, then we can trust on what cannot. It's a good defense of the supernatural aspects of the Bible, I believe, but I guess we just differ here. You expect one to take the Bible as true because they believe the Bible is true. If I understand right, that is circular.

Fortunately for us, non believers are notoriously inconsistent and one cannot consistently hold to unbelief in all phases without being reduced to a skeptic shaking in the corner. We must challenge anyone to give an accounting of what they understand to be true and to attempt to explain life without reference to the God of the Bible. When they fail, then we can show why they must accept.

I think that you are probably very well versed, and very good, at witnessing to philosophers. I appreciate that witness very much. But with science apologetics, you have crossed over into a different realm in which you need to add another strategy to your stockpile of apologetic tools. I think you are probably well trained and have worked within the philisophical witness for so long that to acccept another strategy may be hard for you.

May I ask what has attracted you here to Cosmogony? You probably have a real giftedness in the philosophy forum. Personally, I think if you are to be as successful with evidentialists, you may need to be open to other ways of witnessing. Just my opinion.

We must accept that the claims of the Bible do not make sense in a naturalistic worldview.

Agreed that spiritual claims will make no sense, but this says nothing of natural things. Creation is natural, it is to be a witness. YEC's are dropping the ball.

We must challenge that worldview and its irrationality not attempt to integrate a few supernatural elements into it.

As I said, one thing at a time. I see a strategy in compartmentalizing the natural and the supernatural. Start with the dependablility of the natural and then make a case that we can depend upon the supernatural.

Also there is no such thing as neutrally reasonable. What is reasonable is based on how one believes the world to operate. If one has a worldview in which God is not supreme and can do as he wills, then no matter of discussion is going to make them accept Jesus' resurrection etc.

I disagree. I think one can look at the evidence, see it is reasonable, and still deny it--but it makes it no less reasonable. So, yes, there is "neutrally reasonable". The impact, or how such evidence is allowed to affect a person, is another matter.

My point one really has no obligation to accept that our points leads to some supernatural true fact if their worldview does not allow for such.

Accepting our points is one thing, allowing the consequences those points makes is quite another--and a point I agree is not something anyone of us do for them.

Never said that there are not many very good resources. The point is, that if you allow the regular unbeliever call the shots on what they will accept and what they wont,

I take the approach that I want to anticipate those shots and divide them into two categories, one where the natural man can see the evidence, and the other is the supernatural which acceptance of that category is dependent upon the first (--as far as arguments go. The Holy Spirit may take a different route altogether, that is His call. All I know is this is one way to content earnestly for the faith.)

I am not against evidence, I am against attempting to force an unbeliever to believe without challenging him to his core. In ways such as his/her justification of things such as logic etc. in terms of unbelieving presuppositions.

Again, we have a philisophy forum here and that approach is really, really great. But it does not work on everyone--it is wise to learn to speak these others' "language" and think as they so that our Christian witness is ready for each individual one. Again, I think it is great that you have that way of witnessing, it is much needed, perhaps more than evidentialism. However, we need to witness according to the need of the moment. Paul was great at this, recognizing His audience and speaking their "language."

The issue is not about being open to the "evidence". It is about the framework of interpretation. If you need such and such evidence before you accept something and that evidence is not coming forward in respect to some biblical fact, can you truly call a person closed minded without first challenging their assumptions as to the nature of reality?

Again, if we show that our document is reliable as a natural source then when some things are not yet discovered or understood, it is reasonable to not think the whole book wrong until proven true. It has to do with track record, so to speak.

At the end of the day, we do not accept the Bible because of archeology etc. (for example would you not accept it if you did not have the wealth of info that you have today?)...

No, but I may have denied it.

...It is because the Bible says so. It is reasonable to defend the God of the Bible in all that He has and will do in the future.

If one does not accept the Bible to begin with, then "because the Bible says so" is not going to give them any witness.

What is your witness to Mormons? They would agree with you that you just believe that your worldview is right because a book says so. But we can show the Mormons book is indeed wrong.

See, it is a matter of are you willing to subject your beliefs to falsifiability. If not, then you can't really defend what you believe. If my answer was "because the Bible says so" then how is that different than any other religion that believes their religion because their book "says so". And what if they defended their book by saying that you just have to have their presuppositions, their framework so that you can believe their book to be true? It's fixed, you can't reason with them.

No, we must put the Bible up for falsifiability in order to reasonably defend it. This is a fundemental difference between our positions, I believe.

Also YEC science can be defended in the proper worldview, as everything can be.

And any other religon's apologist may share your thinking concerning their worldview as well. They could say, "The reason you don't believe is not because our religion is wrong, but because you don't share our worldview..."

...the point is according to the Bible, one cannot truly make sense of the world without first seeing that God is the author of all that exists and makes all things run according to his will and plan. If you remove that from your foundation, your worldview falls flat. We need to point this out.

Amen and Amen. I agree there is a time and place for this. Science apologetics deals with a different sort, however, and you need to be sensitive to that. Sure, intertwine the approaches in order to truly be succesful in your outreach to them, but your approach needs to be more sensitive to this particular audience--you need to combine it with solid evidence (I want to dissuade you from YEC for you will be a powerful witness indeed, without it, IMO)

You do not need Christian worldview, to refute the unbelieving worldviews, however you will need one in order not to be refuted yourself.

I like that one.

Again evidence can only be interpreted based on some standard within a worldview.

May I please encourage you to take another look at science apologetics outside of the YEC/AiG paradigm?

Evidenece can be assertained by the natural man. You would do well to see this difference between the natural and the spiritual. Because a man is natural does not mean he cannot understand natural things. Some evidence is indeed objective, but the YEC apologists want to make everything sound as if it was all subjective to a worldview. Please see how this is inconsistent with what we actually observe in the real world.

That is a great answer based on your standard. Now if your standard - The majority of scientists is wrong, then you objections are wrong.

First, it is not nessesarily the majority of scientists, but the facts as accepted by the majority.

Second, the facts are not philosophies. We can both see the same set of facts and both interpret them by our worldview.

When I say I go with the majority, I mean those facts that are agreed upon by those trained in their fields. This is far different than accepting the philosophies in which those trained people fit those facts. I do not accept the majority's worldview, the difference here I cannot emphasize enough.

I personally believe God leaves man with enough wiggle room in every area to preserve their own will.

We could go round and round the circle on that - (I am a calvinist)

LOL, how about we say "moral will" and keep things simple?:smile:

The problem is doing just as you say here. We must challenge that head knowledge of the unbeliever. We must show that one must start with the belief in God in order to make sense out of human experience. As C.S. Lewis stated, God is not on trial.

Sure, it needs to be worked in, but as I said before, we need to be sensitive to this particular audience who needs evidence. Please see the need there. YEC does not cut it and we should not retreat to "they don't accept it becasue they are not Christians".

Remember: Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge;fools despise wisdom and instruction.

First off, do you have another exegesis viewpoint of this passage. If not then on what basis do you object? It makes you work too much?

No, I say it does not mean non-philisophical knowledge. One can have knowledge of natural things without first fearing the Lord.

The facts of the Bible do not sit by themselves. For example, you cannot defend the resurrection without accepting the rest of the Christian story, from creation on. It truly makes no sense.

Oh, I hope you don't really believe this. And it is not about having it all "make sense" to the skeptic right then and there when all you are contending is the resurrection. The Lord does have work to do, too. No, please think more about this. The Apostle Paul thought it stood on its own as an evidence for Christianity, actually the very backbone of Christianity. We have so much evidence that I don't have enough faith to not believe that the resurrection took place. And since the evidence is natural evidence about which I speak, then this can be understood by the natural man. Now, the consequences of that natural knowledge is quite another matter, and one we are not currently addressing.

The truth of Christianity as a whole is truly based in human experiences do not make sense if you attempt to look at life without accepting Christianity.

True, but the oppurtunity does not always present itself to get right into Christiantiy as a whole. Today's skeptic has been fed much wrong information about Christianity and often such a mess needs to be cleared before we can even start at square one. Do you not see this? You, Christian Trader, are ready to start at square one with the unbeliever. But often the unbeliever is not even there, they are in the negative, so to speak. The task of today's apologist is not the same as it was even thirty years ago. You and I have a lot of mess to clear before we can even start at square one. The popular media has done much harm and we have our work cut out for us.

God does not need to deceive in order for people to get things wrong. Their fallen nature is enough to do that.

Again, let's not confuse natural knowledge from spiritual knowledge. Most fallen men have far more knowledge about natural sciences than I do. I'll never build space shuttles, invent television and radio or figure out general relativity. This is natural knowledge and it is not the same as spiritual knowledge which lowly housewives can attain with the Holy Spirit, the Word and a regenerated heart.

Also to be fair, if OEC is true, does that mean God's was not truly revealing himself to be true for the first X billions of years until about a century or so ago?

:scratch: I don't understand.

You also must remember that the number you get for the age of the earth "scientifically" is based on a number of assumptions. If those assumptions are false then you number will be wrong.

Please give yourself to the study of this issue by examining the other side, at the source. The assumptions of which you speak are only called assumptions by those who don't want to accept the reality of the actual dependability of tests. Please see the other side's view before you continue speaking the way one particular group speaks.

To say that one can make sense of life at all just points to the inconsistency of unbelieving thought.

You are a very deep man. I am not saying evidential apologetics can help one "make sense of life", that is where your presup apologetics is effective. But see the need for both evidentialism and presup denpending "on the need of the moment"--you must consider your audience. It is unfeasible to think we can, in every one of our oppurtunities of witness, bring one to the Christian worldview in order to "make sense of life." It is great if we can get there, but often that is earned through trust. Apologetics should go hand in hand with relationship building, IMO.

Certain things are unavoidable in learning anything about the world. One of them is the universaillity of the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature. Neither of these things make sense in unbelieving worldviews.

Do you believe a natural man can be accountable for knowing these laws in his natural state?

The point is that because someone is not a Christian does not mean that they truly do not have to "act" like a Christian in order to make sense of the world. We must point this out.

Sure, a time and a place for everything, I recognize this. Please also recognize not everyone is ready to talk worldview. We can can often get there, after we untangle some wrong preconceptions about Christianity.

The biggest point is that people make mistakes concerning nature all the time. We should not attempt to treat our understanding as infallible.

Do you believe YEC scientists can be wrong about what they see in nature as well?

(What does that say of me? I have the Holy Spirit and yet I do not accept a young earth.....O'yeah, "compromiser!", that's right.)

Please, why do you not stop attempting to be the martyr?

Sorry, you don't express the same tone as the other YEC's perhaps you do not think of me as a "compromiser" afterall? Tell me how you categorize me, being a Christian who rejects the 24 hour day interpretation of Genesis?

Also the natural man could not understand reality

Spiritual reality he cannot understand, granted. But natural reality he can understand and this is why he is accountable. If man does not understand reality, he cannot be accountable for his actions.

One question: When the modern world was saying that X,Y and Z king did not exist, would you have stated that the Bible story in which it was included was somehow an allegory etc.?

No, indeed. The Bible has a good track record and should be considered true until proved false. This is far from the way we look at YEC, please do not put them on the same playing field, it's not a fair comparison at all.

CT[/QUOTE]