Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Death is not Good

Biblical Authority

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
19 replies to this topic

#1
the_patriot2014

the_patriot2014

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,701 posts

A vast number of conservative theologians accept animal death before Adam’s Fall. No significant doctrines are impacted, they say, if animals have been killing each other for millions of years.

Many pastors and theologians today believe that the earth is millions or billions of years old. But based on my reading and interactions, it is clear that most of them have never really considered the theological implications of allowing animal death, disease, predation, and extinction prior to Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden.

When challenged about this seeming inconsistency, they usually point to the “overwhelming scientific evidence” and say or imply that their perspective is easy to harmonize with the Bible and it doesn’t significantly affect any important doctrines. This attitude is being promoted in theology textbooks widely used in conservative evangelical seminaries, colleges, and churches.

An example is Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology (1994). This work is helpful in many ways and immensely influential, having been translated into at least eight major languages. Like many other evangelicals who reject the young-earth view, Grudem believes that the Fall had an impact on the whole creation. And he teaches that when Jesus returns and renews the creation, “there will be no more thorns or thistles, no more floods or droughts, no more deserts or uninhabitable jungles, no more earthquakes or tornadoes, no more poisonous snakes or bees that sting or mushrooms that kill” (p. 836).

But this outstanding, highly respected theologian apparently does not see how the concept of millions of years of deah before the Fall destroys the Bible’s teaching about the goodness of the original creation, the prospect of goodness in the new heaven and earth, and the goodness of God Himself.1 Are you prepared to answer Christians who say the age of creation isn’t important?

 

read more: https://answersingen...rgooglelinkedin

 



#2
Cletus

Cletus

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 709 posts
Yes. I would like to know how they would explain animals have been dying before they were created. The only part I would agree to would be the fall impacted all of creation based on genesis 3:14.

Thanks for posting this, I didnt know this false teaching was being pushed this wide spread.

#3
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,718 posts

This speaks to some of the specific issues.....

 

http://www.worthychr...y/#entry2071701

 

 

Also, the 'Scientific Evidence" of past events is Non-Sequitur, since....

 

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

 

The Scientific Method:

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results

 

The only way to Validate any Postulate involved in dating is to acquire a Time Machine.  Anything less, the "Scientific" Inquiry itself is Invalid and is nothing more than a Massive Dressed Up Begging The Question (Fallacy), Prepping for an Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy).  Enter..... "Just So" Stories.

 

Moreover, I thought science was in the business of Observing Phenomenon then attempting to explain Causation and validating the process thru Experimentation?

 

What world are they living in?  They are attempting to explain something that has NEVER been OBSERVED.

 
Is this Science in reverse..."ecneicS"?  Nobody (Except GOD) has ever OBSERVED it.  This inquiry that they've "conjured" is Tantamount to:

 

1. Attempting to explain mechanistically the exothermic pathway of Phlogiston.
2. Attempting to explain the Tectonic Plate movements on the Planet Vulcan.
3. Attempting to describe the chemistry of Lead morphing into Gold (Alchemy)
4. evolution
5. Big Bang
6. Black Holes

 

What do all these have in common?.... Phogiston, Vulcan, Alchemy, evolution, Big Bangs, Black Holes?  Neither has been OBSERVED and each has been "De-bunked" as "so-called" Theories.  More importantly, how can you invalidate something that has never been observed?  It can't be falsified!!  If it can't be falsified...it's meaningless!

 

All of it is a TEXTBOOK: "Argument from Ignorance"----the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not been proven false. And Begging The Question (Fallacy, circular reasoning)

 



#4
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,417 posts

So basically we can know nothing of a non repeatable event in the past that occurred?  We cannot theorize about it because this is not observational science?



#5
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,718 posts

So basically we can know nothing of a non repeatable event in the past that occurred?  We cannot theorize about it because this is not observational science?

 

 

Observational Science is Redundant; a Tautology.

 

Well you may know something but you can't Validate or TEST any Hypothesis/question concerning it.  All you can do is "Just So" story board it.

 

You can "Theorize" all you want but it's not Science.  Science is bound to it's Method, The Scientific Method.  It's what makes Science, "Science"; and differentiates itself from Economics, Badminton, Deep Sea Diving, Carpentry, Golfer, or Butcher.  What's The Difference:  The Methods

 

It's attached @ the Hip To Empirical Data: Observable, Measurable, Repeatable, Falsifiable.

 

So people can slap any name if front of "Science" they want and Equivocate (Fallacy) till the Cows come home, but if it doesn't conform to this....

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results

 

It's not Science.  Ergo..., we have "science" Masqueraders among us:

 

Let's expose the Pretenders, eh? ...... Paleontology, Archeology, Anthropology, most Geology, evolutionary biology (which is a contradiction is terms; one is a pseudo- historical science slapped together incoherently with an Empirical Science), Theoretical Physics (There's echelons here, don't go all Maxwell on me :) ). Throw in Cosmology, because you can't do "repeatable" TESTS/Experiments:

 

You can't TEST Past Events
Observations are not TESTS
Predictions are not TESTS
Models are not TESTS
Similarities do not Show Causation

 

 

Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University...

 

"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain."

 

aka Begging the Question (Fallacy)----in the parlance of our time



#6
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,417 posts

Perhaps the term model is better for this application.  The lines are not so easily drawn.  It's still science.



#7
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,800 posts

Perhaps the term model is better for this application.  The lines are not so easily drawn.  It's still science.

It's like forensic science.    A forensic crime investigator walks into a crime scene containing a dead body.  The investigator didn't see how the person died.  He/she can tell you how long the person has been dead and can, from the injuries present a possible cause of death and can suggest the kind of instrument that would cause the injuries on the body.   The crime scene investigator cannot prove anything.  He/she can only present a conclusion based on the available evidence.   However, there may be more evidence the investigator is not privy too.  There may be a witness or two that has more information.

 

The  point is that that evolution can't be proven.   evidence can be presented, but no proof is possible since we are not witnesses to origin of life. 



#8
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,718 posts

Perhaps the term model is better for this application.  The lines are not so easily drawn.  It's still science.

 

======================================

 

......

 

"You can't TEST Past Events
Observations are not TESTS
Predictions are not TESTS
Models are not TESTS
Similarities do not Show Causation"

 

If a Model was a TEST then they would be called TESTS instead of Models.  Take Cladistics or Darwin's Tree of Life, That's a Model.  What's your Independent Variable? ...The Angle of the Pen, your Eyelids, or the Colors you use?  What's The Control....The Paper?

 

As with all past events, you are hamstrung because it's impossible to account for Unknown and Confounding Variables. You don't know what you don't know.

 

 

It's still science.

 

Why....Cause you said so?  I can do that too,  Badminton....is "science".

 

"Scientific Evidence" is....

 

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

 

The Scientific Method:

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results

 

You can't get to Step 1 unless you Observe a Phenomenon.  They put that 1st Step in there so you can TEST your question/Hypothesis.   And so fairytales/baseless conjectures had no place in science.  How Ironic, is that so-called "science" now butter's it's bread with what it was trying to eliminate.

 

From a big picture perspective, It's also Inherently Self-Limiting and Contradictory.....

 

Science -- the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

 

Is there more to the Universe "natural world" than Material?  How about: Knowledge, Truth, Information "CODE", Ideas??

 

"Naturalistic" explanations are Material....and Knowledge is Immaterial. You can't put: Information, Knowledge or TRUTH in a Jar and Paint it RED. So in essence.... you're attempting to acquire Knowledge (Immaterial) by Exclusively Material Explanations so as to confirm Material and dismiss Immaterial as plausible?

 

It's tantamount to trying to discover what we breathe...... but, "a priori" excluding AIR from the choices....and breathing it all while refusing to acknowledge its Existence.
Brilliant Logic! No Paradox here.

 

By Proxy of their beliefs, A Naturalist/Materialist MUST deny the existence of Truth and all Immaterial.  Speaking to just Truth, they say that it's the Result of Chemical Reactions.

 

First, they have to explain Immaterial coming from Material.....I'm all ears  :mgdetective:

 

Then: Shake up a can of Pepsi and Sprite then open them (Chemical Reaction).....which one is True? or are they both False?  :sherlock:  :bored-1:

 

 

The Tangled Webs We Weave



#9
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,417 posts

I agree with Shiloh on this one.  I was going to post a quote too, but it will probably make the situation worse. :D



#10
Bonky

Bonky

    Junior Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPip
  • 129 posts

This speaks to some of the specific issues.....
 
http://www.worthychr...y/#entry2071701
 
 
Also, the 'Scientific Evidence" of past events is Non-Sequitur, since....
 
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'
 
The Scientific Method:
 
Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results



I think you are in error when you suggest that the scientific method is the only way to understand the natural world. Scientific inquiry isn't necessarily that rigid. You may want to take a look at this site from Berkely:

http://undsci.berkel...conceptions.php

Specifically

http://undsci.berkel...ceptions.php#b3


http://undsci.berkel...scienceworks_02



According to your position, forensic analysis of a crime scene should not be used in court, after all we have no "time machine". I doubt you would feel this way if your loved one was murdered.

Edited by Bonky, 04 August 2014 - 07:49 AM.


#11
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,800 posts

 

This speaks to some of the specific issues.....
 
http://www.worthychr...y/#entry2071701
 
 
Also, the 'Scientific Evidence" of past events is Non-Sequitur, since....
 
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'
 
The Scientific Method:
 
Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results



I think you are in error when you suggest that the scientific method is the only way to understand the natural world. Scientific inquiry isn't necessarily that rigid. You may want to take a look at this site from Berkely:

http://undsci.berkel...conceptions.php

Specifically

http://undsci.berkel...ceptions.php#b3


http://undsci.berkel...scienceworks_02



According to your position, forensic analysis of a crime scene should not be used in court, after all we have no "time machine". I doubt you would feel this way if your loved one was murdered.

 

No, his position doesn't suggest that at all.  



#12
Bonky

Bonky

    Junior Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPip
  • 129 posts

No, his position doesn't suggest that at all.



I beg to differ.

The only way to Validate any Postulate involved in dating is to acquire a Time Machine. Anything less, the "Scientific" Inquiry itself is Invalid and is nothing more than a Massive Dressed Up Begging The Question (Fallacy), Prepping for an Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy). Enter..... "Just So" Stories.



#13
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,718 posts

 

This speaks to some of the specific issues.....
 
http://www.worthychr...y/#entry2071701
 
 
Also, the 'Scientific Evidence" of past events is Non-Sequitur, since....
 
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'
 
The Scientific Method:
 
Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results



I think you are in error when you suggest that the scientific method is the only way to understand the natural world. Scientific inquiry isn't necessarily that rigid. You may want to take a look at this site from Berkely:

http://undsci.berkel...conceptions.php

Specifically

http://undsci.berkel...ceptions.php#b3


http://undsci.berkel...scienceworks_02



According to your position, forensic analysis of a crime scene should not be used in court, after all we have no "time machine". I doubt you would feel this way if your loved one was murdered.

 

 

 

================================================================================================

 

 

I think you are in error when you suggest that the scientific method is the only way to understand the natural world.

 

Strawman (Fallacy)----I didn't say that.  I said for it to be classified as "Scientific Evidence" it had to follow The Method:  The Scientific Method.

 

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results

 

 

Scientific inquiry isn't necessarily that rigid.

 

Yes, it kinda is.  See Scientific Method above
 

 

You may want to take a look at this site from Berkely:

 

Why?  I have hundreds of times.... from evolutionists Citing their drivel. 

 

Go ahead and Pull out the "Specifics" that you wish to reference from your (Berkeley) links and we will discuss.

 

Is there anything here you don't understand......Empirical: Observable, Measurable, Repeatable, Falsifiable?

 

According to your position, forensic analysis of a crime scene should not be used in court, after all we have no "time machine". I doubt you would feel this way if your loved one was murdered.

 

First of all "Forensics" by it's very name tells you it's "Historical".  Anything that is not repeatable and is in the past cannot possibly be validated due to myriads of Unknown and Confounding Variables. You don't know what you don't know. Precision/Veracity/Accuracy are compromised.

 

You're also Equivocating (Fallacy) between "Crime Scenes" which are Hours/Days/@ most a few weeks old then trying to Pseudo-Justify by some lateral transfer, Inquiries that are "allegedly" Millions/Billions of years old.  Define Rubber Ruler?

 

Moreover, can you tell me how many falsifications does it take to Invalidate a Scientific Law or Hypothesis?   Answer: "1".  Has there been anyone ever convicted of a crime via "Forensics" that later was found to be Innocent?

 

Can you tell me what Trumps "Forensic" Evidence?   "Eye Witnesses".

 

 

I doubt you would feel this way if your loved one was murdered.

 

You don't have One Clue about how I would "feel".  Would "Forensics" have the ability to bring them back?  Obviously, the death of a Loved One regardless of circumstances would hurt me......temporarily.  If it was a Loved One that was a Christian, it wouldn't take long for a smile to find it's way to my face; because I know for 100% certainty that they're with The LORD and their Tribulations are OVER.

 

As for whoever is responsible, they will have to kneel (as we all will) before the Creator of the Universe and give account.  I'll leave the issue with HIM.



#14
Bonky

Bonky

    Junior Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPip
  • 129 posts

================================================================================================
 
 

I think you are in error when you suggest that the scientific method is the only way to understand the natural world.

 
Strawman (Fallacy)----I didn't say that.  I said for it to be classified as "Scientific Evidence" it had to follow The Method:  The Scientific Method.
 
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'
 
Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results



Ok, so that I can verify what you are saying, please cite your source.  


 

Scientific inquiry isn't necessarily that rigid.

 
Yes, it kinda is.  See Scientific Method above
 

Why?  I have hundreds of times.... from evolutionists Citing their drivel. 
 
Go ahead and Pull out the "Specifics" that you wish to reference from your (Berkeley) links and we will discuss.



You can start with the part where they disagree with you that an absolute strict use of the scientific method is the only way to study and evaluate evidence.



 

First of all "Forensics" by it's very name tells you it's "Historical".  Anything that is not repeatable and is in the past cannot possibly be validated due to myriads of Unknown and Confounding Variables. You don't know what you don't know. Precision/Veracity/Accuracy are compromised.


Validated with a measure of confidence, if you're talking about absolute knowledge than you understand science less than what I thought.



  

You're also Equivocating (Fallacy) between "Crime Scenes" which are Hours/Days/@ most a few weeks old then trying to Pseudo-Justify by some lateral transfer, Inquiries that are "allegedly" Millions/Billions of years old.  Define Rubber Ruler?
 
Moreover, can you tell me how many falsifications does it take to Invalidate a Scientific Law or Hypothesis?   Answer: "1".  Has there been anyone ever convicted of a crime via "Forensics" that later was found to be Innocent?


Baloney, there are plenty of times when they find a body that had been buried etc for years. The fact remains, by your assessment, forensics isn't a science at all. All they would have are "just so" stories.
 

  

Can you tell me what Trumps "Forensic" Evidence?   "Eye Witnesses".


Not necessarily. Eye witness accounts can be quite off. I recall watching a show where a woman got held at gunpoint at the store she worked at. They actually caught the guy [they didn't realize it was him] and had him present on a lineup. She picked the wrong guy.
 
 

  

You don't have One Clue about how I would "feel".  Would "Forensics" have the ability to bring them back?  Obviously, the death of a Loved One regardless of circumstances would hurt me......temporarily.  If it was a Loved One that was a Christian, it wouldn't take long for a smile to find it's way to my face; because I know for 100% certainty that they're with The LORD and their Tribulations are OVER.
 
As for whoever is responsible, they will have to kneel (as we all will) before the Creator of the Universe and give account.  I'll leave the issue with HIM.


It would have the ability for you to rest knowing what happened potentially.

#15
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,718 posts

 

 

 

=========================================================================================
 

 

Ok, so that I can verify what you are saying, please cite your source.

 

Source for what.....The Scientific Method? I think it was 7th grade General Science: the first 30 minutes as a matter of fact.

 

 

You can start with the part where they disagree with you that an absolute strict use of the scientific method is the only way to study and evaluate evidence.

 

Bonky, you posted the source.  I'm not searching through their drivel to find "YOUR" Refutation.

 

Again, what don't you Understand......Empirical Evidence: Observable, Measurable, Repeatable, Falsifiable.  ??

 

Do you want me to source the definition for Empirical?

 

if you're talking about absolute knowledge than you understand science less than what I thought.

 

Strawman (Fallacy)---- I never said "absolute" knowledge.  I said "Validation"....it's called Hypothesis Testing.

 

Do you prepare the Flame Thrower just before or immediately following posting a Strawman?....then add a backhanded slight connector.  

 

TIP: Fallacies are Fallacious

 

Is there Absolute TRUTH?

 

 

Not necessarily. Eye witness accounts can be quite off.

 

Are you a Lawyer?  Please list Evidence quality for court proceedings.  And I said "Eye Witness-ES".  In Scripture, it's 2 or 3 to Validate a claim.

People are fallible...that's why we use the Scientific Method.

 

 

Baloney, there are plenty of times when they find a body that had been buried etc for years. The fact remains, by your assessment, forensics isn't a science at all. All they would have are "just so" stories.

 

"Baloney", that's my line :)  Yes, and what did they say about that body?  The "Just So" classification would depend on what they said.

 

 

It would have the ability for you to rest knowing what happened potentially.

 

Nope, Zero.



#16
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,417 posts

 

A vast number of conservative theologians accept animal death before Adam’s Fall. No significant doctrines are impacted, they say, if animals have been killing each other for millions of years.

Many pastors and theologians today believe that the earth is millions or billions of years old. But based on my reading and interactions, it is clear that most of them have never really considered the theological implications of allowing animal death, disease, predation, and extinction prior to Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden.

 

 

I read one clever post on here saying What, Adam never stepped on an ant? :D



#17
Bonky

Bonky

    Junior Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPip
  • 129 posts

Source for what.....The Scientific Method? I think it was 7th grade General Science: the first 30 minutes as a matter of fact.


Your statement that the only scientific evidence we have for something is what is derived from the scientific method. You seem to have this belief that we can't make any scientific statements about the past. It's flat out false.
 
 

Bonky, you posted the source.  I'm not searching through their drivel to find "YOUR" Refutation.



I gave you the link to the exact paragraph!

MISCONCEPTION: There is a single Scientific Method that all scientists follow.

CORRECTION: "The Scientific Method" is often taught in science courses as a simple way to understand the basics of scientific testing. In fact, the Scientific Method represents how scientists usually write up the results of their studies (and how a few investigations are actually done), but it is a grossly oversimplified representation of how scientists generally build knowledge. The process of science is exciting, complex, and unpredictable. It involves many different people, engaged in many different activities, in many different orders. To review a more accurate representation of the process of science, explore our flowchart.

#18
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,718 posts

 

 

======================================================================================

 

 

Your statement that the only scientific evidence we have for something is what is derived from the scientific method. You seem to have this belief that we can't make any scientific statements about the past. It's flat out false.

 

Why cause you said so?  If it doesn't conform to The Method that makes Science, "Science"....then it's not Science, Period.
 

 

MISCONCEPTION: There is a single Scientific Method that all scientists follow.

CORRECTION: "The Scientific Method" is often taught in science courses as a simple way to understand the basics of scientific testing. In fact, the Scientific Method represents how scientists usually write up the results of their studies (and how a few investigations are actually done), but it is a grossly oversimplified representation of how scientists generally build knowledge.

 

 

Baloney.  The Scientific Method is the Foundation, The Rate Limiting Step.  There are many Research Designs and Methods that can add to it....but you can't take anything away. 

 

I can remember back in the day, where I had to take a Full Semester University Course on Evaluating Research.  We spent most of our time :24: at the designs and methods...."Most" had more design flaws than a 1975 VEB Trabant

 

Post "Your" or "They're" Scientific Method and lets get to cases

 

 

The process of science is exciting, complex, and unpredictable. It involves many different people, engaged in many different activities, in many different orders. To review a more accurate representation of the process of science, explore our flowchart.

 

 Are you serious?  This sounds like a description a 3rd grade teacher would give of Cake Decorating.

 

Go ahead and post that flow chart...I got my Flame Thrower ready.

 

Check This: http://www.worthychr...t/#entry2064229



#19
the_patriot2014

the_patriot2014

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,701 posts

 

 

A vast number of conservative theologians accept animal death before Adam’s Fall. No significant doctrines are impacted, they say, if animals have been killing each other for millions of years.

Many pastors and theologians today believe that the earth is millions or billions of years old. But based on my reading and interactions, it is clear that most of them have never really considered the theological implications of allowing animal death, disease, predation, and extinction prior to Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden.

 

 

I read one clever post on here saying What, Adam never stepped on an ant? :D

 

 

no. actually. :D



#20
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 42,981 posts

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalms 119:11

 

~

 

 

A vast number of conservative theologians accept animal death before Adam’s Fall. No significant doctrines are impacted, they say, if animals have been killing each other for millions of years.

 

Many pastors and theologians today believe that the earth is millions or billions of years old. But based on my reading and interactions, it is clear that most of them have never really considered the theological implications of allowing animal death, disease, predation, and extinction prior to Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden.

 

When challenged about this seeming inconsistency, they usually point to the “overwhelming scientific evidence” and say or imply that their perspective is easy to harmonize with the Bible and it doesn’t significantly affect any important doctrines. This attitude is being promoted in theology textbooks widely used in conservative evangelical seminaries, colleges, and churches.

 

An example is Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology (1994). This work is helpful in many ways and immensely influential, having been translated into at least eight major languages. Like many other evangelicals who reject the young-earth view, Grudem believes that the Fall had an impact on the whole creation. And he teaches that when Jesus returns and renews the creation, “there will be no more thorns or thistles, no more floods or droughts, no more deserts or uninhabitable jungles, no more earthquakes or tornadoes, no more poisonous snakes or bees that sting or mushrooms that kill” (p. 836).

 

But this outstanding, highly respected theologian apparently does not see how the concept of millions of years of death before the Fall destroys the Bible’s teaching about the goodness of the original creation, the prospect of goodness in the new heaven and earth, and the goodness of God Himself. Are you prepared to answer Christians who say the age of creation isn’t important? https://answersingen...rgooglelinkedin

 

:thumbsup:

 

Does

 

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1 Corinthians 15:21-22

 

God Lie?

 

For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Romans 3:3-4

 

Does Man?

 

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Genesis 3:1(a-c)






Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network