A Concern for Applying the Bible to the Natural Sciences

[Sparks]

7 minutes ago, teddyv said:

If, at this point, over the last couple of years you even have to ask this question is remarkable but not surprising considering you usual M.O. If this was anyone else asking I might take the time to respond but I do not believe you are a capable of good-faith discussions around this issue.  Sorry, I do not trust you when you say "no offense" and "genuine interest".

I don't expect you have a genuine answer to my question, which is coincidental to your not wanting to provide one, but I do appreciate that you responded.

Overall, I acknowledge that you say you are a God believing Christian, but that normally comes along with the notion that you would believe what God said He did.  Science itself it just a tool of observation and testing, and so I am not even sure how the Bible could be a concern over the application of science.  I think many confuse technology and acquired knowledge, with science.  People who point at an iPhone and call it science, are confused.

A the risk of being snubbed again, I will still ask:  Is it impossible that the Creationists are correct?

[teddyv]

2 minutes ago, Mozart's Starling said:

Not sure who AiG is but if they're promoting the actual origins of man to be primordial goo or us descending from apes then yes, they are lying. And again why would an all powerful God not realize what the implications of the word "day" means? I don't care what other orginizations say, if it contradicts scripture it is a lie. We have the same text. I don't need to be a scientist or a popular Christian orginization to understand the clear and direct language found in Genesis. So answer my question please.

Sorry, I thought that was a well known acronym within these discussions.

AiG is Answers in Genesis (Ken Ham et al). They are probably the largest organization that is dedicated to Young Earth Creationism. They built the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter out in Kentucky.

Also:

ICR = Institute for Creation Research

CMI - Creation Ministries International

[Mozart's Starling]

3 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Sorry, I thought that was a well known acronym within these discussions.

AiG is Answers in Genesis (Ken Ham et al). They are probably the largest organization that is dedicated to Young Earth Creationism. They built the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter out in Kentucky.

Also:

ICR = Institute for Creation Research

CMI - Creation Ministries International

So answer to my 7 days question. Keep on dodging if you like dude  lol. 

Edited February 5, 2024 by Mozart's Starling

[Sparks]

20 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

As I showed you, evolutionary theory shows that there are no biological human races now.   YE Creationists based their doctrines on the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people, but they did that because they opposed evolution and science.

Contrary to the foundational beliefs of YE creationism, there is more variation within any "race" you might define than there is between "races." 

Where do you get this stuff? 

In the Bible it is said we are of one blood (Adam), so we are one of humans DNA.  It didn't take trillions of years for us to appear to be of one blood, or one 'race' and we where never made from primordial soup.  Your belief there is is where you are confused.

[teddyv]

5 minutes ago, Sparks said:

A the risk of being snubbed again, I will still ask:  Is it impossible that the Creationists are correct?

I know what you meant, but to better qualify, Young Earth Creationists are not correct - at present (from a point of scientific explanation, not theological).

Scientific inquiry is always open to new interpretations of the facts - nothing is ever proven.  That said, YEC scientists have a A LOT of work to do to overthrow the present scientific theories, mainly those of biology, geology and astronomy. If there is a some new evidence discovered then it may be possible to support YEC - i.e. 6 day creation, some 6000 years ago. I've yet to see anything compelling, personally.

[teddyv]

3 hours ago, Mozart's Starling said:

Not sure who AiG is but if they're promoting the actual origins of man to be primordial goo or us descending from apes then yes, they are lying. And again why would an all powerful God not realize what the implications of what the word "day" means? I don't care what other orginizations say, if it contradicts scripture it is a lie. We have the same text. I don't need to be a scientist or a popular Christian orginization to understand the clear and direct language found in Genesis. So answer my question please.

Slow down dude.

Quote

And again, what does 7 days tell us if it is not a literal 7 days? You're telling me God couldn't just had said 7 ages? Why pick a period of time that the world would understand to be 7 24 hour periods yet actually mean ANY number of years? It's ridiculous. 

The seven day week is derived as a fraction of the lunar month. Seems like a reasonable choice. The sun and moon were created to markthe times and seasons.

Genesis is firstly story-telling and history-building for the nation of Israel. The language and imagery is consistent with the contemporary nations living side by side in this region of the world. The story is written for the ancient Hebrews, not directly to us as a blow-by-blow account of the history 0f the universe and the earth.

Reading the Genesis (1-11)  narrative as a literal time-after-time history is reading this scripture as a modern 20th-21st century human who has been raised in a world underpinned by Modernity and rationality which was ascendent during the Enlightenment.

 

Edited February 5, 2024 by teddyv
typos

[Sparks]

33 minutes ago, teddyv said:

I know what you meant, but to better qualify, Young Earth Creationists are not correct - at present (from a point of scientific explanation, not theological).

Scientific inquiry is always open to new interpretations of the facts - nothing is ever proven.  That said, YEC scientists have a A LOT of work to do to overthrow the present scientific theories, mainly those of biology, geology and astronomy. If there is a some new evidence discovered then it may be possible to support YEC - i.e. 6 day creation, some 6000 years ago. I've yet to see anything compelling, personally.

I appreciate the reply. 

YEC scientists observe the exact same things any scientist might, but the YEC tend to accurately point out the flaws in the observations of biology, geology, and astronomy if they are based on assumptions rather than observations.  There is a huge amount of assumptions with evolution theory.  You might say, all but one type are.

As I said, science is just a tool of observation and testing, and so with electronics someone figured out electrical resistance and soon built the resistor, and over time and several hundred other observations it became possible to build an iPhone.  That is the reward of the scientific method, but science can be incorrectly applied to things like geological time, and astronomical distance, and biology.  We see it all the time with evolution theory because they conflate real observations with the unobserved.  

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

Where do you get this stuff? 

Human genome project.    Contrary to views of YE creationists like Henry Morris, the project demonstrated that there are no biological human races.

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

In the Bible it is said we are of one blood (Adam), so we are one of humans DNA. 

Apparently, early YE creationists didn't get the memo...

Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.

Henry Morris The Beginning Of the World

As I pointed out, science says that Morris is completely wrong.

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

Your belief there is is where you are confused.

Nope.   Even many, if not most, YE creationists now reject the racist beginnings of YE creationism.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

YEC scientists observe the exact same things any scientist might, but the YEC tend to accurately point out the flaws in the observations of biology, geology, and astronomy if they are based on assumptions rather than observations.  There is a huge amount of assumptions with evolution theory.

Sounds like a testable assumption.    Darwin's theory has four basic points.   Which of them is not confirmed to be true?

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

We see it all the time with evolution theory because they conflate real observations with the unobserved.  

If you're claiming that scientists can't learn about things they never actually witnessed, that's obviously false.   Would you like to hear about some examples that refute your claim?

 

[The_Patriot21]

7 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

In fact, the text itself says the "days" are not literal days.   No morning and evening without a sun to have them.   Even ancient Christians knew this, as St. Augustine mentions.

Which is entirely consistent with Genesis.   Just not with some modern revisions of the story.

It's just a method for learning about the physical universe.   There's no reason to be jealous of it.   It has nothing to say about the supernatural.   Can't say anything about that.  

It's been very successful in explaining natural phenomena.   But that's it.   Creationists try to force it into the Bible, but that never works, because the Bible is not a science textbook.  Those who try to make it so, miss God's revelation to us.

 

 

Yeah, no you've obviously never read the Hebrew.

In fact, I very much doubt you've read the English. I went through it in detail, in my initial answer to the op, the accuracy of the text in English and Hebrew, and the significance of the wording and contex if you are curious you may scroll back up and read it. Though I very sincerely doubt you will. But regardless I won't be repeating it.

But the reality is, God gave us His book. God invented the day. God would not give us the Bible, for our understanding, and then lie to us about the amount of time He took to make the earth.

If He did, then He is not God, because God cannot lie.

So in the text, both English and Hebrew, in the context it is absolutely literal. 100% literal. There is absolutely no room for a figurative translation. At all. Period. It's not there. Anyone who says it is, has never actually read the text, or is purposely ignored the text, to try to subvert it.

So if you believe the earth is millions of years old, and the text supports it, then either God is lying to youor man is lying to you and you chose to believe it. I can tell you which I believe.

I can also tell you, at this point this is a pointless argument. As stated scripture is black and white clear on the matter, and if you choose not to believe it, nothing I say will change your mind, so I won't try further. Have a good evening.

 

[Sparks]

58 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Human genome project.    Contrary to views of YE creationists like Henry Morris, the project demonstrated that there are no biological human races.

Apparently, early YE creationists didn't get the memo...

Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.

Henry Morris The Beginning Of the World

As I pointed out, science says that Morris is completely wrong.

Nope.   Even many, if not most, YE creationists now reject the racist beginnings of YE creationism.

Sounds like a testable assumption.    Darwin's theory has four basic points.   Which of them is not confirmed to be true?

If you're claiming that scientists can't learn about things they never actually witnessed, that's obviously false.   Would you like to hear about some examples that refute your claim?

I don't think you have ever refuted my claims.  You are an expert at cut-and-pasting other people's claims, though.