Jump to content


Photo

An Observation About Creation Science


  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#1 hewy

hewy

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Lancaster

Posted 11 May 2014 - 12:24 PM

There are two people:

 

Person A: An opium farmer from Helmand province in Afganistan; person A is Illiterate, survives on less than a dollar a day and has no education in science. As a Muslim, person A believes Adam and Eve were real people, that there was a flood and that the prophet Muhammed ascended to heaven on a horse with wings.

 

Person B: A office worker from  Houston, Texas, United States of America. Person B has a high school education and an income of $30k per annum. Person B is a protestant Christian and Young Earth Creationist, familiar with the scientific evidence of Young Earth Creationism. Person B believes Adam and Eve were real people, that there was a flood and that Jesus was resurrected and ascended to heaven.    

 

Both people hold essentially the same view about the origin of the world and yet only one has had any exposure to science and the evidence of a literal genesis account. 

 

This can mean two things:

 

1) The evidence of YEC isn't important. One could have a complete understanding about the world from reading the Bible or Quran alone. 

2) Person A, though factually correct, has an invalid understanding as it is not based on any scientific evidence.



#2 FaithfulCenturion

FaithfulCenturion

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New York

Posted 11 May 2014 - 01:36 PM

There are two people:
 
Person A: An opium farmer from Helmand province in Afganistan; person A is Illiterate, survives on less than a dollar a day and has no education in science. As a Muslim, person A believes Adam and Eve were real people, that there was a flood and that the prophet Muhammed ascended to heaven on a horse with wings.
 
Person B: A office worker from  Houston, Texas, United States of America. Person B has a high school education and an income of $30k per annum. Person B is a protestant Christian and Young Earth Creationist, familiar with the scientific evidence of Young Earth Creationism. Person B believes Adam and Eve were real people, that there was a flood and that Jesus was resurrected and ascended to heaven.    
 
Both people hold essentially the same view about the origin of the world and yet only one has had any exposure to science and the evidence of a literal genesis account. 
 
This can mean two things:
 
1) The evidence of YEC isn't important. One could have a complete understanding about the world from reading the Bible or Quran alone. 
2) Person A, though factually correct, has an invalid understanding as it is not based on any scientific evidence.

3) You're completely ignorant of the history of Islam and the fact that it's an offshoot of Judaism and therefore borrows a great deal from the bible. (In error I may add.)

4) This could also be a false comparison.

#3 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 11 May 2014 - 01:41 PM

There are two people:

 

Person A: An opium farmer from Helmand province in Afganistan; person A is Illiterate, survives on less than a dollar a day and has no education in science. As a Muslim, person A believes Adam and Eve were real people, that there was a flood and that the prophet Muhammed ascended to heaven on a horse with wings.

 

Person B: A office worker from  Houston, Texas, United States of America. Person B has a high school education and an income of $30k per annum. Person B is a protestant Christian and Young Earth Creationist, familiar with the scientific evidence of Young Earth Creationism. Person B believes Adam and Eve were real people, that there was a flood and that Jesus was resurrected and ascended to heaven.    

 

Both people hold essentially the same view about the origin of the world and yet only one has had any exposure to science and the evidence of a literal genesis account. 

 

This can mean two things:

 

1) The evidence of YEC isn't important. One could have a complete understanding about the world from reading the Bible or Quran alone. 

2) Person A, though factually correct, has an invalid understanding as it is not based on any scientific evidence.

Hewy,

Both the Quran and the Bible can't be true, for they contradict each other.  Jesus and Mohammed can't both be telling the truth for they contradict each other.  So, what's the difference?  In the OT, there are many passages that proclaim that by the mouth of two or three witnesses a matter is established.  Mohammed and Joseph Smith were there own witnesses.  Both came on the scene with claims of special knowledge from God.  But they had no witnesses to corroborate their claims.  Jesus Christ, on the other hand, made a very brave and startling statement:  "If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true" (John 5:31).

In the OT, when God sent out a prophet, he put His stamp of approval on him by giving him miracles or visions to prophesy.  In the NT, Jesus told His detractors that if they did not believe Him, at least look at His miracles.  Jesus said that "the whole of Scripture attests of Me."  Jesus did not arrive on the scene unannounced.  His coming was prophesied in so many ways--in the Jewish laws, customs, history, stories, etc.  For example, God gave the Jews the seven feasts of Israel.  For centuries, the Jews had no idea why they observed these feasts.  But then Jesus was born.  And the first feast He fulfilled with his own substance was the Feast of Tabernacles.  Jesus was born on this Feast.  John wrote that "He tented among us."  To celebrate the Feast of Passover, the Jews had to buy their lamb on a certain day.  When every Jews in Israel was buying their lamb to celebrate Passover, the high priest of Israel was buying the True Passover Lamb Jesus from Judas.  When every Jew in Israel was celebrating their Feast of Passover, Jesus was dying on the Cross.  Then Jesus' body lay in the tomb for three days.  For these three days, the Jews were observing the Feast of Unleavened Bread.  Just as unleavened bread does not decay (no yeast), Jesus' body, the true manna from heaven, did not see decay.  Then after three days, the Jews were observing the Feast of First Fruits.  On that day, Jesus rose from the dead.  Then the Jews went into Feast of Weeks which culminated on the 50th day or Pentecost.  On the this Feast, God poured out His Spirit on Jewish believers.  Two feasts remain unfulfilled:  the Feasts of Trumpets and Atonement.  Had Israel accepted their risen Messiah, these two feasts would have been fulfilled also.  Now when I present this to most atheists, the come-back they give me is that the Bible was rewritten to match the prophesy--which is simply not true.

Concerning scientific evidence, I submit that Christians, myself included, celebrate advancements in science.  Thus far, what I read in my Bible comports quite nicely with what I encounter in reality.  In fact, if Creationism were not true, no science would be possible.

 

TeeJay

 



#4 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 May 2014 - 02:03 AM

Honestly what is the point of this thread... Not sure how one can claim evidence is not important.... I thought evidence was THE thing in science, but hey if atheists are trying to change that, good luck to them ;)



#5 Dig4gold

Dig4gold

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 53
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Raleigh, NC

Posted 12 May 2014 - 06:49 AM

5) What is believed by Person B is true and the YEC's evidence is valid.

Why was this not an option?

#6 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 12 May 2014 - 07:49 AM

3) You're completely ignorant of the history of Islam and the fact that it's an offshoot of Judaism and therefore borrows a great deal from the bible. (In error I may add.)
 

Perhaps I am missing something, but I thought he was pointing out that Muslims believe in the same basic creation and flood stories as Jews and Christians.

 

Both the Quran and the Bible can't be true, for they contradict each other.  Jesus and Mohammed can't both be telling the truth for they contradict each other.  So, what's the difference?  In the OT, there are many passages that proclaim that by the mouth of two or three witnesses a matter is established.  Mohammed and Joseph Smith were there own witnesses.  Both came on the scene with claims of special knowledge from God.  But they had no witnesses to corroborate their claims.  Jesus Christ, on the other hand, made a very brave and startling statement:  "If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true" (John 5:31).
 

Can you expand a bit about the witnesses to OT revelations?

I'm trying to figure out how  Moses receiving his revelation different from Mohammad?

Were there were others at the burning bush?

Were there more people on the road to Damascus besides Paul?

Were not all these people transferring their information that they received from God?

What makes one genuine, and the other not.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding.



#7 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 12 May 2014 - 04:13 PM

Perhaps I am missing something, but I thought he was pointing out that Muslims believe in the same basic creation and flood stories as Jews and Christians.

 

Can you expand a bit about the witnesses to OT revelations?

I'm trying to figure out how  Moses receiving his revelation different from Mohammad?

Were there were others at the burning bush?

Were there more people on the road to Damascus besides Paul?

Were not all these people transferring their information that they received from God?

What makes one genuine, and the other not.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding.

Non,

1.  In the OT, under the law for example, a man could not be found guilty on the testimony of one witness.  Two or three were required and one of the witnesses could be forensic evidence.  (As an aside, a false witness in a capital crime was put to death.)  A prophet who claimed to speak for God could not be his own witness (as Smith and Mohammed did).  God gave his prophets signs and miracles to tell the people that this was indeed His prophet.  Jesus also proclaimed that “if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not credible.”  The Twelve would never have believe Paul legit had God not given him tongues, miracles and visions.  A man who claimed to speak for God and was not found credible was put to death.

2.  Did Mohammed or Smith split the Red Sea, leave the most powerful nation (Egypt) on earth in shambles, etc.?  No.  They were their own witnesses:  “I am a prophet of God.”

3.  Moses was the only one at the Burning Bush.  But God corroborated Moses’ testimony by miracles, signs, and wonders.

4.  Yes.  He had traveling companions.  But later, when Paul was given miracles and tongues, this was God’s stamp of approval.

5.  Yes, but their claims were backed up by two or three witnesses.  What I am revealing to you is backed up by the word of God which had already been corroborated.

 

6.  Please see my thread on the movie “Heaven is for real.”  I show that we are not to believe anyone who is his own witness.  If I were to claim to have a special revelation, and I say could not perform a miracle, then I am my own witness and not to be believed.

7.  What you are missing is that Mohammed and Smith are false prophets.  They are their own witness and not to be believed.  When Paul raised a boy from the dead, this is God witnessing that Paul is My prophet and he speaks for Me.

 

Question:  If you found Christianity to be true, would you become a Christian?

 

TeeJay

 



#8 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 13 May 2014 - 06:40 AM


Question:  If you found Christianity to be true, would you become a Christian?

 

Thanks TJ,

Good question,

I would think such a revelation as discussed above would be pretty convincing.

I guess the threat of hell would be quite a motivation if I was to have such an experience, but I would have some moral dilemmas that I would be at odds with.

But since there seem to be false revelations, how would I know if it were a real revelation or not?

So here's an interesting question...

Do you think Muhammad and Smith et al actually received some sort of revelation that was false, or would you think they just made everything up?

Or perhaps these false revelations were just some sort of hallucination?



#9 hewy

hewy

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Lancaster

Posted 13 May 2014 - 01:48 PM

I think the original point i was trying to make has been side-stepped a little bit. Its not a theological issue. I know about the differences between Christianity and Islam.  I also know that Islam is basically another spin on the same stories. That's another issue...

 

Let me start by regaling the tale of Augustus John:

 

There was once a famous drinker called Augustus John. One day he decided to start a new experiment to study the effects of drinking. 

On Monday he drank Whisky and water all night. He got very drunk.

On Tuesday he drank brandy and water all night. He got very drunk.

On Wednesday he drank vodka and water all night. He got very drunk.

On Thursday he drank absinthe and water all night. He got very drunk.

On Friday he drank gin and water all night. He got very drunk.

 

On saturday, after nursing his head, he studied the results. Because water was the only constant variable in his experiment, the conclusion he made was that water gets you drunk

 

The original point is this:

The evidence of YEC is not important to know its true.

Education is not important to know its true.

The only thing you need to know its true is exposure to abrahamic religion - the constant variable.

 

It is a scary premise that one could go through life being completely ignorant about fundamental aspects of the world and yet be entirely accurate about it at the same time. It doesn't say much for the value of education....



#10 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 13 May 2014 - 02:03 PM

I think the original point i was trying to make has been side-stepped a little bit. Its not a theological issue. I know about the differences between Christianity and Islam.  I also know that Islam is basically another spin on the same stories. That's another issue...

 

Let me start by regaling the tale of Augustus John:

 

There was once a famous drinker called Augustus John. One day he decided to start a new experiment to study the effects of drinking. 

On Monday he drank Whisky and water all night. He got very drunk.

On Tuesday he drank brandy and water all night. He got very drunk.

On Wednesday he drank vodka and water all night. He got very drunk.

On Thursday he drank absinthe and water all night. He got very drunk.

On Friday he drank gin and water all night. He got very drunk.

 

On saturday, after nursing his head, he studied the results. Because water was the only constant variable in his experiment, the conclusion he made was that water gets you drunk

 

The original point is this:

The evidence of YEC is not important to know its true.

Education is not important to know its true.

The only thing you need to know its true is exposure to abrahamic religion - the constant variable.

 

It is a scary premise that one could go through life being completely ignorant about fundamental aspects of the world and yet be entirely accurate about it at the same time. It doesn't say much for the value of education....

Hewy,

It is not possible to "be completely ignorant about fundamental aspects of the world and be entirely accurate about it at the same time.  This violates the logic law of non-contradiction.

 

TeeJay


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#11 FaithfulCenturion

FaithfulCenturion

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New York

Posted 13 May 2014 - 02:23 PM

I think the original point i was trying to make has been side-stepped a little bit. Its not a theological issue. I know about the differences between Christianity and Islam.  I also know that Islam is basically another spin on the same stories. That's another issue...
 
Let me start by regaling the tale of Augustus John:
 
There was once a famous drinker called Augustus John. One day he decided to start a new experiment to study the effects of drinking. 
On Monday he drank Whisky and water all night. He got very drunk.
On Tuesday he drank brandy and water all night. He got very drunk.
On Wednesday he drank vodka and water all night. He got very drunk.
On Thursday he drank absinthe and water all night. He got very drunk.
On Friday he drank gin and water all night. He got very drunk.
 
On saturday, after nursing his head, he studied the results. Because water was the only constant variable in his experiment, the conclusion he made was that water gets you drunk
 
The original point is this:
The evidence of YEC is not important to know its true.
Education is not important to know its true.
The only thing you need to know its true is exposure to abrahamic religion - the constant variable.
 
It is a scary premise that one could go through life being completely ignorant about fundamental aspects of the world and yet be entirely accurate about it at the same time. It doesn't say much for the value of education....


Basically this is a long winded way to say that Christians are ignorant of science. Bad form ol' chap.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#12 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 13 May 2014 - 02:33 PM

Thanks TJ,

Good question,

I would think such a revelation as discussed above would be pretty convincing.

I guess the threat of hell would be quite a motivation if I was to have such an experience, but I would have some moral dilemmas that I would be at odds with.

But since there seem to be false revelations, how would I know if it were a real revelation or not?

So here's an interesting question...

Do you think Muhammad and Smith et al actually received some sort of revelation that was false, or would you think they just made everything up?

Or perhaps these false revelations were just some sort of hallucination?

Non,

There are two types of revelation given by God.  The first is general revelation.  General revelation is the universe God created which is right before our eyes.  Paul wrote:  "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Professing to be wise, they became fools...." (Rom. 1:18-22).

The second is special revelation.  Special revelation was given to Israel--revelation through the prophets and recorded in the Bible.  The Bible is God's word.  But you have a huge problem.  you do not believe in a Creator God.  So if there is no God, then for you there can be no word of God.  I don't mean to be rude or impolite, but to not believe in a Creator God is willful self-deception.  Let's just contrast the Bible with the Book of Mormon for example.  
 

Let’s compare the historicity of the Bible, which was written by about 40 men over a 1500-year period in several languages on a few continents, with the Book of Mormon written by Joseph Smith in 1830.  Though the Bible tells of ancient events, historians and archeologists have independently verified the existence of over 100 people in the Bible such as Kings David, Jeroboam, Jehoiachin, Ahab, Omri, Jehu, and Jotham to the Assyrian Kings Shalmaneser, Pul, and Tigathpileser etc.  Although most people have never heard of these people, historians and archeologists have found evidence of their existence apart from the Bible.  Most archeologists are atheists whose Holy Grail is to disprove the Bible.  Yet, it is ironic that archeologist in the Middle East carry a Bible to guide their search for lost ancient cities.  Many cities mentioned in the Bible have been unearthed by these people using the Bible.  Additionally, the written history in the Bible has been proved by parallel writings of ancient Roman and Greek historians.

 

How many unique characters mentioned in the Book of Mormon have been subsequently identified by archeologists and historians in North and South America?  Zero!  None!  Not one!  The Mormon Church claims that native peoples in the Americas are descendants of native Jews who crossed over the Atlantic Ocean in 600 B.C.  Of all the cities that the Book of Mormon says that these Jews built, not one has been found by archeologists.

 

Every coin mentioned in the Bible has been unearthed, and, for the right sum of money, you can have your own Biblical coin collection.  Guess how many coins mentioned in the Book of Mormon have been found?  Zero!  None!  Not one!

 

Why did God give His inspired word, the Bible, as a history book?  Why not give it as a theological discourse?  He gave it as history book so that men would have a foundation on which to judge the spiritual message of the Bible.  A pure spiritual message is more difficult to evaluate if it exists in a vacuum?
 

Since the Jewish Bible has a tremendous amount of historical material, there is much corroboration for it written into the history of the world—sediments from the Flood, rise and fall of empires, wars, executions.  God has given us a foundation to evaluate His spiritual message.  If the history is true, then perhaps the story is true.  If there is no historical or physical evidence, then the story should be questioned.  Now one can argue that perhaps we have not yet discovered physical or historical evidence.  For example, for years, atheists said that Nineveh never existed.  But in the 1800’s they found it.  With this in mind, if we had found something—a coin, a sword, a piece of pottery—then we could reasonably believe that there is more to be discovered.

Smith was a con-man.  Mohammed forced a pagan moon god named Allah on people.  He is now in hell awaiting judgment.  Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No man comes to the Father except through me."  This excludes all other gods and religions. 

TeeJay



#13 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 13 May 2014 - 02:38 PM

Basically this is a long winded way to say that Christians are ignorant of science. Bad form ol' chap.

FC,

You're correct.  What I have found, though, is while they claim to believe only in science, they are quick to argue against any science presented to them that discounts evolution.

 

TeeJay


  • FaithfulCenturion likes this

#14 hewy

hewy

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Lancaster

Posted 14 May 2014 - 12:58 PM

Basically this is a long winded way to say that Christians are ignorant of science. Bad form ol' chap.

 

Again, you've very nicely and deliberately side-stepped what i'm saying. I'm asking for some intellectual honesty.

 

I'm not saying christians are ignorant of science. That's a completely dishonest position. I'm saying that knowledge of the scientific evidence of YEC is not essential for an understanding that the narrative of YEC is true. The same thing cannot be said for evolutionary theory. 

 

... Why cant you admit this patently obvious thing.  



#15 FaithfulCenturion

FaithfulCenturion

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New York

Posted 14 May 2014 - 01:39 PM

 
Again, you've very nicely and deliberately side-stepped what i'm saying. I'm asking for some intellectual honesty.
 
I'm not saying christians are ignorant of science. That's a completely dishonest position. I'm saying that knowledge of the scientific evidence of YEC is not essential for an understanding that the narrative of YEC is true. The same thing cannot be said for evolutionary theory. 
 
... Why cant you admit this patently obvious thing.  

Being an author and studier of people has taught me a few things in my life.
1) Words matter. If your goal is not to make a claim of YEC being ignorant of science, then I suggest rereading what you've posted and selecting better words in a clearer format.
2) That people's first words tend to display their true feelings for a subject or discussion. Your first words readily convey your belief that YEC Christians are ignorant of science. You make it plainly obvious in your word choice and what you say. You can couch it any way you like, but your meaning still bleeds through.
Now, if you'd like to make your statement over, minus the a priori assumption of our ignorance, I'm sure there'd be plenty of folks happy to hold the discussion with you.

#16 hewy

hewy

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Lancaster

Posted 14 May 2014 - 02:00 PM

Being an author and studier of people has taught me a few things in my life.
1) Words matter. If your goal is not to make a claim of YEC being ignorant of science, then I suggest rereading what you've posted and selecting better words in a clearer format.
2) That people's first words tend to display their true feelings for a subject or discussion. Your first words readily convey your belief that YEC Christians are ignorant of science. You make it plainly obvious in your word choice and what you say. You can couch it any way you like, but your meaning still bleeds through.
Now, if you'd like to make your statement over, minus the a priori assumption of our ignorance, I'm sure there'd be plenty of folks happy to hold the discussion with you.

 

 

 

...That's a steadfast refusal to think about what i've said, or even consider it. 

 

....Pleading offence or insults is like your default position. Just to reiterate, though its obviously falling on deaf ears, i've not called YECs ignorant of science, i've said knowledge of the evidence of science, and education in science isn't necessary to hold a YEC worldview, which isn't the same thing. So please stop saying i'm calling you ignorant when i'm not.

 

This is what i want to discuss:

 

Person A -> no evidence ------------------> literal understanding of scripture 

Person B -> scientific evidence of YEC -> literal understanding of scripture  

 

How does this happen?



#17 FaithfulCenturion

FaithfulCenturion

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New York

Posted 14 May 2014 - 03:27 PM

 
 
 
...That's a steadfast refusal to think about what i've said, or even consider it. 
 
....Pleading offence or insults is like your default position. Just to reiterate, though its obviously falling on deaf ears, i've not called YECs ignorant of science, i've said knowledge of the evidence of science, and education in science isn't necessary to hold a YEC worldview, which isn't the same thing. So please stop saying i'm calling you ignorant when i'm not.
 
This is what i want to discuss:
 
Person A -> no evidence ------------------> literal understanding of scripture 
Person B -> scientific evidence of YEC -> literal understanding of scripture  
 
How does this happen?

I find it comical that though I accurately pointed out the flaws in your post, you claim I deny thinking about it. You also assume I've always been Christian yet as I've told you before, when I began, I could've at best been called an agnostic. Perhaps you've refused to think about what has been told to you?

2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

John 17:17 ESV

Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

Etc, etc, etc...

You need only look at the source to find your answer, yet you've chosen to believe the words of man over the words of God. Here's one I'm sure you will understand: 1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

#18 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 14 May 2014 - 05:16 PM

 

 

 

...That's a steadfast refusal to think about what i've said, or even consider it. 

 

....Pleading offence or insults is like your default position. Just to reiterate, though its obviously falling on deaf ears, i've not called YECs ignorant of science, i've said knowledge of the evidence of science, and education in science isn't necessary to hold a YEC worldview, which isn't the same thing. So please stop saying i'm calling you ignorant when i'm not.

 

This is what i want to discuss:

 

Person A -> no evidence ------------------> literal understanding of scripture 

Person B -> scientific evidence of YEC -> literal understanding of scripture  

 

How does this happen?

Hewy,

I don't mean to be rude, but "knowledge of the evidence of science, and education in science" isn't necessary to hold an atheist worldview.  Atheists claim that what's true must be scientific, but when I present the second law of thermodynamics or the first even, they refuse to accept two of the most proven and tested scientific laws in existence.  If scientific evidence disproves evolution, then it is not accepted by evolutionist.

Some questions to prove my point:

.1  Do you believe the universe has been in existence for ever?

2.  Do you believe it created itself from nothing?

 

TeeJay



#19 DaveB

DaveB

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Lexington, KY

Posted 14 May 2014 - 06:56 PM

Regarding TeeJay's response to hewy:

 

Hewy,

 

I don't mean to be rude, but "knowledge of the evidence of science, and education in science" isn't necessary to hold an atheist worldview.  Atheists claim that what's true must be scientific,

I suppose there are likely atheists that claim this.  But I don't see it as a necessary feature of atheism.  It seems to me that all that is necessary to be an atheist is to simply not believe in the existence of any gods, regardless of how scientific or nonscientific various true things may happen to be.  Since I'm not personally an atheist I stand to be corrected by someone who is.

 

but when I present the second law of thermodynamics or the first even, they refuse to accept two of the most proven and tested scientific laws in existence.
Interesting. I have met more than a few atheists in my life and I don't recall any of them ever refusing to accept either the first or the second laws of thermodynamics.

 

If scientific evidence disproves evolution, then it is not accepted by evolutionist.
For some reason the category of people being discussed has now suddenly shifted from atheists to evolutionists.  Why?  Although nearly all atheists accept evolution, nevertheless, most people who do accept evolution tend to not be atheists.

 

What sort of scientific evidence that "disproves evolution" did you have in mind?

 

Some questions to prove my point:
  How do questions disprove anything?  Proofs (and disproofs, i.e. proof of the negation of a proposition) involve logical reasoning from assertions granted as true, not questions.   But maybe I missed your point that these questions somehow prove.

 

.1  Do you believe the universe has been in existence for ever?
  The evidence is against it.

 

2.  Do you believe it created itself from nothing?
  Not personally.  But a lot hinges on just what one considers to be a legitimate description of 'nothing'.  If 'nothing' is taken as a quantum vacuum multiverse state with no particles, no fields, no space, and no time, but nevertheless having the laws of quantum physics exist, then a self-creating universe coming from quantum vacuum fluctuations is actually a respectable position (but one I don't happen to personally share).  It is a position forcefully argued by Lawerence Krauss.  (See his book _A_Universe_From_Nothing_.)

 

Most of the atheists I've come across tend to fall into two broad categories.  One category tends to answer TeeJay's first question in the affirmative.  Such people often seem to also be determinists.  The second category tends to answer the first question in the negative but answer the second one in the affirmative.  Such people seem to be more likely indeterminists, and they consider our universe to be just one of very many that happened to bud from some sort of an eternal background quantum vacuum multiverse state.  But I don't feel comfortable attempting to speak for atheists, so I'll stop doing it now.

 

TeeJay

 

DaveB



#20 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 15 May 2014 - 08:37 AM

 

 

Regarding TeeJay's response to hewy:

 

 

 

I suppose there are likely atheists that claim this.  But I don't see it as a necessary feature of atheism.  It seems to me that all that is necessary to be an atheist is to simply not believe in the existence of any gods, regardless of how scientific or nonscientific various true things may happen to be.  Since I'm not personally an atheist I stand to be corrected by someone who is.


DaveB,

I have debated many atheists.  Any explanation of origins, whether astronomical and biological, has to be have a material explanation.  Explanations that include a Creator God are dismissed a priori.  The atheist worldview will not allow a Divine Foot in the door.  Often I ask a atheist:  "Do you believe that only matter and energy exists?"  Inevitably, I get a Yes.  But then I point out that they are using laws of logic and rational (or irrational if atheist) which are not physical to argue that there is nothing but the physical.  I then get arguments that logic and thought (and information) are physical.  Why do they do this?  Because if they admit that there is anything beyond or outside of the physical world, they are getting dangerously close to having to admit a Creator God.

 

 

 

 

Interesting. I have met more than a few atheists in my life and I don't recall any of them ever refusing to accept either the first or the second laws of thermodynamics.


Surely you jest!  If an atheist accepts the first law (that a rock can't create itself from nothing) and the second law (that a fire will not burn forever), then what possible explanation can they give for the origin of this universe?  None except God.  What they usually give a multi-verse argument, which is pretty lame.

 

 

 

 

For some reason the category of people being discussed has now suddenly shifted from atheists to evolutionists.  Why?  Although nearly all atheists accept evolution, nevertheless, most people who do accept evolution tend to not be atheists.


Me thinks now that you might be arguing just to be arguing.  If so, please don't waste time and energy on someone who is saved and will soon bee with his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  I notice that you are a theistic evolutionist.  Do you believe that Genesis should be read as literal history or as a metaphor?

 

 

 

What sort of scientific evidence that "disproves evolution" did you have in mind?


Before we can do science at all, we take for granted that the universe is understandable--that it can be quantified in a way the mind can comprehend.  We must assume that the universe is logical and orderly and that it obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space.  Without uniformity in nature, predictions would be impossible, and science could not exist.  The problem for evolutionists is that such regularity only makes sense in a biblical creation worldview.  The biblical creationist is justified in expecting that there will be order in the universe because God created all things (Gen. 1:1; John 1:3) and has imposed order on the universe.  Since the Bible teaches that God upholds all things by His power (Heb. 1:3), the creationist is justified in expecting that the universe will function in a logical, orderly, law-like fashion.  Further, God is consistent (1 Sam. 15:29; Num. 23:19).  The Christian creationists is justified in trusting that the physical laws will not arbitrarily change.  Gravity will work tomorrow as it has today.  The atheist evolutionist trusts in uniformity of nature (that the laws will not change arbitrarily), but his trust is not justified within his evolutionary worldview, i.e. the reality he encounters is the result of a random chance, unguided, mindless process.  He can do science and expect that the physical laws will not change, but he is really borrowing from the Christian creationist worldview.   And when he borrows from the Christian worldview, he affirms his worldview false and my worldview true.

And I know this will upset you, but theistic evolution will not save the day.  Theistic evolutionists argue that they can account for uniformity in nature because they can appeal to God and His word.  But they can't reject Genesis as literal and then appeal to Genesis (say Gen. 8:22 w/ Jer. 33:20-21).  This verse is either literal or metaphoric, but not both at he same time (violation of logic laws).  If the theistic evolutionist opts to portions of Genesis to suit his worldview, then he is being arbitrary.  Unless one has a good reason to believe that a matter is true, then he can't really know it is true and his believe is an arbitrary one.    

 

 

 

How do questions disprove anything?  Proofs (and disproofs, i.e. proof of the negation of a proposition) involve logical reasoning from assertions granted as true, not questions.   But maybe I missed your point that these questions somehow prove.


Why don't you role play and answer my questions.  Then you will get your answer.

 

 

 

 

 

The evidence is against it.


What evidence?  Could it possible be the second law of thermodynamics?

 

 

 

 

 

Not personally.  But a lot hinges on just what one considers to be a legitimate description of 'nothing'.  If 'nothing' is taken as a quantum vacuum multiverse state with no particles, no fields, no space, and no time, but nevertheless having the laws of quantum physics exist, then a self-creating universe coming from quantum vacuum fluctuations is actually a respectable position (but one I don't happen to personally share).  It is a position forcefully argued by Lawerence Krauss.  (See his book _A_Universe_From_Nothing_.)


Einstein said that "nothing" is what rocks dream about.  A quantum vacuum is not nothing.  If matter and energy were coming into existence, this would not only violate the first law, it would call God a liar.  God said that He created all and rested on the seventh day from all His creation.

 

 

 

Most of the atheists I've come across tend to fall into two broad categories.  One category tends to answer TeeJay's first question in the affirmative.  Such people often seem to also be determinists.  The second category tends to answer the first question in the negative but answer the second one in the affirmative.  Such people seem to be more likely indeterminists, and they consider our universe to be just one of very many that happened to bud from some sort of an eternal background quantum vacuum multiverse state.  But I don't feel comfortable attempting to speak for atheists, so I'll stop doing it now.


The first law says that matter and energy can't be created (or destroyed).  But of one thing we can be sure:  No new matter is coming into existence because God rested from all His creation on the seventh day.  What's here is here.  Another way of explaining the first law is that a rock can't create itself from nothing.  The second law says that the usable amount of energy in the universe is ever decreasing and all that is ordered is becoming disordered.  A simple explanation of the second law is that a fire will not burn forever.

A.  The universe could not have created itself from nothing (first law).

B.  The universe could not have always been here (second law).

3.  if the universe could not have created itself (first law) and it could not have always been here (second law), then we are left with a Creator God who is outside and prior to the universe existing.  Right?

 

TeeJay






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users