Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
The_Patriot2016

Death is not Good

20 posts in this topic

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://answersingenesis.org/death-before-sin/death-not-good/?utm_source=aigsocial07312014deathnot&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=facebooktwittergooglelinkedin

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

 

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)

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

 

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.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php

Specifically

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b3

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_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
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0