The Word of God affirms Science

[JohnR7]

On 4/15/2020 at 9:12 PM, Tristen said:

 

The “scientific” is real, but not “more real” than the Bible. Science (The Scientific Method) is only designed to address a logical subset of reality – i.e. current, natural phenomena.

 

The Scientific Method is uses to study the natural evidence that God has given us in Creation. Today in addition to the natural evidence we have DNA we can study also. We have ice core samples so we an study the bacteria from hundreds of millions of years ago. We can also study the atmosphere at the time of the dinosaurs from the air bubbles in the ice. Turtles and Crocodiles are still alive today from that era. Like dinosaurs they continue to grow their entire life and get very big. They also require very wet or humid conditions. 

[Tristen]

22 hours ago, JohnR7 said:

The Scientific Method is uses to study the natural evidence that God has given us in Creation. Today in addition to the natural evidence we have DNA we can study also. We have ice core samples so we an study the bacteria from hundreds of millions of years ago. We can also study the atmosphere at the time of the dinosaurs from the air bubbles in the ice. Turtles and Crocodiles are still alive today from that era. Like dinosaurs they continue to grow their entire life and get very big. They also require very wet or humid conditions. 

Hi John,

You said, “The Scientific Method is uses to study the natural evidence that God has given us in Creation”

Agreed. Nevertheless, the “Scientific Method” can only be used to generate legitimate, mathematically-quantifiable confidence in claims pertaining to current, natural phenomena. That is, the “Scientific Method” is a logically robust method used to quantify confidence in how the “Creation” works (<<NOTE: current tense).

To investigate the story of history requires a logical departure from the “Scientific Method” (since we can not set up experimental controls, nor perform experiments, in the past); i.e. to a method that can only deliver anecdotal confidence in each story about the past. Most still choose to call this method 'science' – however this can confuse people into thinking the stories of history generated by this method provide the same type of robust confidence as the “Scientific Method”.

 

“Today in addition to the natural evidence we have DNA we can study also”

I would consider DNA to be “natural evidence” (i.e. observed 'facts').

However these facts can not tell us what happened in the past. We can only use them make inferences about what might have happened in the past - based on our preferred starting faith presuppositions. That is, we can only interpret these facts to fit what we already believe about the past.

For example, the secular story based on the DNA evidence starts by making several faith-based assumptions; namely, a) Philosophical Naturalism – that no supernatural entity has interfered with the progress of DNA history, and b) that genetic similarity speaks to shared inheritance. Neither of these assumptions is necessarily true – and therefore any conclusion based on these assumptions is highly contestable (including Common Ancestry and its required time frames).

As a Young Earth Creationist, my faith-based starting assumptions are a) that God created different kinds of animals as claimed in the most obvious reading of Genesis 1, and b) that similar genetics can speak to either common inheritance or a common Designer (i.e. the Designer using similar code for similar functions in different creatures).

 

“We have ice core samples so we an study the bacteria from hundreds of millions of years ago”

This kind of claim is referred to as a 'just-so' story – i.e. a type of Unsupported Assertion designed to convince those who have not investigated the logic used to generate the story.

There are no “years” to be measured in “ice core samples” - only certain types of 'markers'. In order to infer “years”, one must first presuppose an approximate age of the ice sheet. Since ice has a 'plastic' quality, ice layers compress under the weight of the above ice.

- If one starts the process by assuming the ice sheet is “hundreds of millions of years” (or even tens-of-thousands of years) old, then the lower layers, that started out metres thick, will now be compressed to less-than-a-millimetre thick. Therefore any 'marker' found at this scale is likely to be counted as an annual layer.

But in reality, these 'markers' only represent distinct weather events.

- By contrast, if one assumes that the ice sheet is only several thousand years old, then the annual deposits will still be centimetres-to-meters thick. And the distinct 'markers' at smaller scales merely represent separate weather events occurring during the same year.

Therefore - when it comes to any claimed story of history, one must factor the role of starting assumptions into the particular interpretation - and any subsequent confidence in the story.

 

“We can also study the atmosphere at the time of the dinosaurs from the air bubbles in the ice”

Only if we decide that the unverifiable faith assumptions of the so-called 'dating' process of the ice are valid. Therefore, this is another 'just-so” story.

 

“Turtles and Crocodiles are still alive today from that era”

Lol. I assume you mean the species “are still alive”.  

Can you see that, once you've uncritically accepted the secular starting assumptions regarding “that era”, you make yourself prone to uncritically accepting any story stemming from the secular interpretation of ice cores? Yet there is a very real possibility that these starting assumptions are wrong.

 

[JohnR7]

27 minutes ago, Tristen said:

As a Young Earth Creationist, my faith-based starting assumptions are a) that God created different kinds of animals as claimed in the most obvious reading of Genesis 1, and b) that similar genetics can speak to either common inheritance or a common Designer (i.e. the Designer using similar code for similar functions in different creatures).

No matter how you slice it or dice it YEC ONLY covers the last 6,000 years. Everything in the Bible except for Genesis chapter one covers the last 6,000 years. So by YEC I am going to assume you believer God created the Universe 6,000 years ago which means that you have to ignore an amazing amount of evidence that clearly shows us the universe is older than 6,000 years. 

OEC has a big problem though. If we try to get the days in Genesis chapter one to line up with science then each day HAS to be half the length of the day before it.

Dispensationalism tells us that a day is 1,000 years. So it has been 13,000 years from the beginning. Science tells us it has been 13 billion years. We are told our solar system, our part of the universe is 6 billion years old. This lines up with the 6,000 years from Adam and Eve. 

My son has a degree in computer engineering with a minor in math. So he is pretty good in math and He can give me a formula for just about anything. He can give us an exact mathematical formula for everything I am talking about here. 

Lets start off with 14 billion, half of that is 7, 3.5, 1.75, 0.875, 0.4375. So if we look to see what happened 438 million years ago we see this was the beginning of the Ordovician period and the end of the Cambrian. 

Your concept of 24 hour days in Genesis chapter one does not fit the evidence. There has never even been a 24 hour day. Although we are told that in the future there will be a perfect day that I believe will be an exact 24 hour day. Hopefully that will line up with an exact 360 day year. 

[Tristen]

29 minutes ago, JohnR7 said:

No matter how you slice it or dice it YEC ONLY covers the last 6,000 years. Everything in the Bible except for Genesis chapter one covers the last 6,000 years. So by YEC I am going to assume you believer God created the Universe 6,000 years ago which means that you have to ignore an amazing amount of evidence that clearly shows us the universe is older than 6,000 years. 

OEC has a big problem though. If we try to get the days in Genesis chapter one to line up with science then each day HAS to be half the length of the day before it.

Dispensationalism tells us that a day is 1,000 years. So it has been 13,000 years from the beginning. Science tells us it has been 13 billion years. We are told our solar system, our part of the universe is 6 billion years old. This lines up with the 6,000 years from Adam and Eve. 

My son has a degree in computer engineering with a minor in math. So he is pretty good in math and He can give me a formula for just about anything. He can give us an exact mathematical formula for everything I am talking about here. 

Lets start off with 14 billion, half of that is 7, 3.5, 1.75, 0.875, 0.4375. So if we look to see what happened 438 million years ago we see this was the beginning of the Ordovician period and the end of the Cambrian. 

Your concept of 24 hour days in Genesis chapter one does not fit the evidence. There has never even been a 24 hour day. Although we are told that in the future there will be a perfect day that I believe will be an exact 24 hour day. Hopefully that will line up with an exact 360 day year. 

 

“So by YEC I am going to assume you believer God created the Universe 6,000 years ago which means that you have to ignore an amazing amount of evidence that clearly shows us the universe is older than 6,000 years”

This is an Unsupported Assertion (logic fallacy) based on a Generalisation (another logic fallacy). That renders the statement to be technically irrational.

The only “evidence” we have discussed is “ice core samples”. Even in my short response, I think I demonstrated that I have thoughtfully considered this “evidence” in intricate detail (i.e. the opposite of ignoring the “evidence”).

Ironically, you demonstrated your ignorance of the “evidence” by exaggerating the age claims of “ice cores” magnitudes beyond what is claimed in the scientific literature. Then you proceeded to completely “ignore” my informed argument.

 

“Your concept of 24 hour days in Genesis chapter one does not fit the evidence”

What “concept”? When did we discuss this?

What “evidence”?

Who are you talking to? Are you from the future – where we've already had this conversation?

 

[SwordMaster]

The Word of God only affirms TRUE science...not lies made up and called science!

Blessings!

 

[The Barbarian]

Science is merely a process invented by men to understand the physical universe.  While nothing else we can do works better for that purpose, it's still a man-made process, subject to error like all other things men do.

The Bible does not affirm science at all.   It affirms God and His relationship with us.  You might as well claim that the Bible affirms plumbing.

 

[RV_Wizard]

Science is the study of the natural world around us.  It's a pretty good interpretation of what is.  What was and what will be can only be predicted by that which we know today.  Science can neither affirm nor deny the existence or function of the supernatural.  It is outside of that which science can study.  We can make assumptions about how rapidly ice layers form, but then scratch our heads when WWII aircraft are found under 340 feet of ice.  We can make assumptions about the acquisition of moon dust, but then scratch our heads when we arrive on a solid moon.  We make claims about the age of dinosaur fossils  but then have to explain why some bones still have soft tissue.  We can make claims about the age of the earth, but if we are honest we have to admit that there is no scientific explanation for the origination of anything.  Some point to the Bible's statement that to God a day is like a thousand years but conveniently leave out that a thousand years is like a day.  They took about the long ages of the days but leave out that every long day would be followed by a long night in which all living things would die.

In the end, there are two world views.  One holds that we live in a purely natural world in which everything can be explained if we find the right evidence and trust in science,  The other is that there IS a supernatural existence; that God is real; that there is a Creator and that there are things that happen in our world  whose explanation defies the laws of science.  Depending on which world view you have, you will accept or reject arguments from the other side.

The Bible supports a young earth, but nothing I've read supports an old earth.  There are things which pre-date our existence.  Satan rebelled against God and was cast out of Heaven prior to the creation of the universe.  In what realm did he dwell?  When the earth was created he was allowed to come here and tempt Eve.  

Forever is a long, long time.  I believe there are things which came before us and things which came after.  I have no reason to doubt the six day creation and many reasons to believe it.  Do these reasons fit with science?  No.  They do, however, fit with what was revealed to us in the word of God.  By this, you know which world view I hold.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Science is the study of the natural world around us.  It's a pretty good interpretation of what is.  What was and what will be can only be predicted by that which we know today.  Science can neither affirm nor deny the existence or function of the supernatural. 

Today's winner.

 

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Forever is a long, long time.  I believe there are things which came before us and things which came after.  I have no reason to doubt the six day creation and many reasons to believe it.  Do these reasons fit with science?  No.  They do, however, fit with what was revealed to us in the word of God.  By this, you know which world view I hold.

That's a consistent and honest approach.    I don't read Genesis the same way you do, but it's not a salvation issue, nor is there anything to criticize in taking your understanding of scripture over that of others.  

[missmuffet]

A Christian can have faith in God and have respect for science, as long as we remember which is perfect and which is not. A Christian can embrace science that seeks the truth, but rejects the "priests of science" who put human knowledge above God. 

[Alive]

5 minutes ago, missmuffet said:

A Christian can have faith in God and have respect for science, as long as we remember which is perfect and which is not. A Christian can embrace science that seeks the truth, but rejects the "priests of science" who put human knowledge above God. 

Now that is well stated. Are these your words, MM?