Natural Theology?

[River Jordan]

That you think my support of the Bible, which Holy/wholly truth, and interpret that to be persecution towards you is very telling.
You have no idea what true persecution really is.

Sheesh Stan....pay attention to the posts you're supposed to be responding to. I specifically said that you lack the authority to persecute anyone, yet somehow you take that as me saying you're persecuting me. :blink:

It's not a matter of what you learn in the world, it's a matter of what you learn from the word of God. In my opinion you have rejected the word of God and have accepted the word of erroneous science. The Bible tells us that knowledge will one day cease, but the word of God will endure forever.

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[justaname]

Actually if you look at the history of geology, it stated with Christian geologists in Europe assuming a global, Biblical flood. But around the mid-late 1700's and on into the early 1800's, as more evidence was collected these Bible-believing Christian scientists eventually dropped the Biblical flood for no other reason than it was directly contradicted by all the evidence they were seeing.


No, not at all. I know it's difficult for some Christians to accept, but there's a good reason no scientific organization, university, or private industry utilizes the Biblical flood model, and it's not due to some grand anti-Christian conspiracy, mandated orthodoxy, or anything like that. It really is nothing more than the simple fact that there is no evidence for a recent global flood, and there is actually a huge amount of evidence that directly contradicts it.


Before I spend too much time on this, I have to ask if you're truly interested in going over the contents of that video. I watched it and I have a lot to say about it, but I'm reluctant to take the time to go over it if no one is really interested.

Just to comment a bit not to argue. From your quote elsewhere "only natural, testable explanations are allowed within this framework" (which makes sense, because the supernatural is not scientifically testable).

This statement is self refuting. Can you test your thesis here for methodology using your said restraints? IOW the criteria you use is not derived from natural, testable means. Without question one must adapt a philosophy in order to operate in any methodology. Mainstream science has adopted metaphysical naturalism.

This quote: But around the mid-late 1700's and on into the early 1800's, as more evidence was collected these Bible-believing Christian scientists eventually dropped the Biblical flood for no other reason than it was directly contradicted by all the evidence they were seeing.

Can you cite Christian scientists from this era validating your claim?

Here is scientific work concerning the idea of a world wide flood. It is obvious to me there are scientists on both sides of the fence. Even though you do not agree does not disqualify the validity of their claim.

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/geologic-evidences-for-the-genesis-flood/

http://www.icr.org/article/117/270

 

[River Jordan]

Just to comment a bit not to argue. From your quote elsewhere "only natural, testable explanations are allowed within this framework" (which makes sense, because the supernatural is not scientifically testable).

Right, that's methodological naturalism. It doesn't say the supernatural doesn't exist...that would be metaphysical naturalism.

This statement is self refuting. Can you test your thesis here for methodology using your said restraints? IOW the criteria you use is not derived from natural, testable means. Without question one must adapt a philosophy in order to operate in any methodology.

The supernatural isn't testable according to how "supernatural" is defined, not from some philosophical operation.

Mainstream science has adopted metaphysical naturalism.

Well, I guess you can keep saying that all you like, but it just isn't true. If it were, only atheists would be able to conduct science.

This quote: But around the mid-late 1700's and on into the early 1800's, as more evidence was collected these Bible-believing Christian scientists eventually dropped the Biblical flood for no other reason than it was directly contradicted by all the evidence they were seeing.
Can you cite Christian scientists from this era validating your claim?

Sure. This webpage gives a pretty comprehensive overview of the history: History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth

Here is scientific work concerning the idea of a world wide flood.

No, it's not at all scientific. Every person who works for those organizations has to agree to work under THIS FRAMEWORK, which mandates: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. "

That is the direct opposite of science.

It is obvious to me there are scientists on both sides of the fence. Even though you do not agree does not disqualify the validity of their claim.

No, what disqualifies them is the above anti-scientific framework they operate under, as well as the fact that much of what they claim is just plain wrong. As I keep saying, there's a reason the earth and life sciences haven't used the young-earth, flood geology framework for over 200 years.....it's just wrong.

 

[justaname]

"If it were, only atheists would be able to conduct science."
This is a false statement. People easily set aside their worldview to conduct their work. As I contend people become practical atheists working in their various fields.

I will read the paper you quoted and get back with you.

The remainder of your post did nothing to deal with the evidence, rather attacked the presenters. That is a bad practice in discussion...

BTW your link does nothing to discredit the individuals who did the scientific research, it simply states the faith statement of Answers in Genesis.

 

[River Jordan]

"If it were, only atheists would be able to conduct science."
This is a false statement. People easily set aside their worldview to conduct their work.

Then you're not really making sense. On one hand you claim that science operates under the framework that God doesn't exist (metaphysical naturalism), but then you say scientists can set aside their beliefs about God to do science. Those are contradictory.

As I contend people become practical atheists working in their various fields.

No more than you do when you fix your car, work on your computer, or cook a meal.

The remainder of your post did nothing to deal with the evidence, rather attacked the presenters. That is a bad practice in discussion...

Why would I ignore the fact that the people you cited agreed to operate under a completely anti-scientific framework? Would you prefer we all pretend that didn't happen?

BTW your link does nothing to discredit the individuals who did the scientific research, it simply states the faith statement of Answers in Genesis.

Of course it does. Remember, you claimed the material at AiG and ICR was "scientific work", yet we know for a fact that it was actually conducted under a completely anti-scientific framework. Do you not see the problem there?

 

[justaname]

Then you're not really making sense. On one hand you claim that science operates under the framework that God doesn't exist (metaphysical naturalism), but then you say scientists can set aside their beliefs about God to do science. Those are contradictory.


No more than you do when you fix your car, work on your computer, or cook a meal.


Why would I ignore the fact that the people you cited agreed to operate under a completely anti-scientific framework? Would you prefer we all pretend that didn't happen?


Of course it does. Remember, you claimed the material at AiG and ICR was "scientific work", yet we know for a fact that it was actually conducted under a completely anti-scientific framework. Do you not see the problem there?

It is scientific work. You simply view life from a different philosophy.

 

[StanJ]

The inculcated will never be free because they will never go against what has bound them in their unbelief.

 

[River Jordan]

It is scientific work.

Conducted under methodological naturalism, yes.

You simply view life from a different philosophy.

I do? What different philosophy is that?

 

[River Jordan]

The inculcated will never be free because they will never go against what has bound them in their unbelief.

Who are you talking about? There are no unbelievers here.

 

[justaname]

Conducted under methodological naturalism, yes.


I do? What different philosophy is that?

Science does not need to conform to methodological naturalism, which is practical or applied metaphysical naturalism, to be scientific. Science existed for thousands of years without those confines.

Your philosophy begins with the presupposition that evolution is true. Once again starting points. I wonder if you even recognize you have illustrated my original position I stated by not even looking at the evidence presented by these other scientists simply dismissing them because they do not hold to your current philosophy.

This arrogance is very similar to what "established religion" is continually being criticized for.

 

[TravisT]

RJ

I think this small series of articles will clear things up for you. I encourage you to read theme

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/introduction-reformed-approach-science-and-scripture/

 

[Wormwood]

I think it is important to note, in reference to the OP, that for much of Christian history, there was no such thing as "natural theology." What I mean is, "secularism" is a recently developed phenomenon. Much of the world has bought into the assumptions of secularism, but it is a created ideology that I personally think we should reject.

Early Christians (and pretty much every other religion for that fact) for most of human history understood that there was no division between the religious and scientific. In fact, early scientists were Christian and they saw science as a subheading to the grander theme of theology. All fields were considered a study of God and science was just one way to do that study. Today, we have this Western concept that somehow the religious and scientific can be divorced from each other. It is like religion and science are two school kids we are afraid to let out on the same playground together because we are afraid the science kid will beat up the religious kid and make him look weak. Rather, early Christians saw science as a form or worship and understanding the mind of God. Science was possible because the world was intelligible as a result of it being created by intelligence. Rather than seeing if science would confirm God and the Bible, early scientists used science as a means of worshiping and glorifying the God of the Bible.

We, primarily as Westerners, have bought into the (false) assumption that there is some divide between science and God. However, our ability to think is all a gift from God and our every breath is bestowed by God. God is not some entity out there somewhere that we confirm or deny by our own self-autonomy and scientific exploration. God is everywhere and all things have their existence by his existence. Our intellect is not our own, it is a gift from the divine mind. Rationality is of God and not from us. The secularist wants to pretend that reason and rationality is some self-derived thing that comes from an accidental cosmic explosion. Their reason and rationality has no cause or foundation, and yet they claim they can use it to prove or disprove God. How absurd! To suggest we can somehow think and rationalize apart from God and his presence is both (in my estimation) arrogant and a philosophical assumption early Christians (or theologians/philosophers of every background) would have flatly rejected.

 

[River Jordan]

Science does not need to conform to methodological naturalism

Then how do we test the supernatural?

which is practical or applied metaphysical naturalism, to be scientific

Can you provide a credible scientific source that agrees with you on this?

Your philosophy begins with the presupposition that evolution is true.

I had to think about how to respond to this. Honestly, my first instinct was to yell "WHAT THE HECK IS WRONG WITH YOU", because I couldn't not think of all the time and effort I have put into posting and explaining the scientific basis for evolutionary theory, and be baffled at how you missed the basic, fundamental fact that evolution is a repeatedly observed and documented fact. How many times can I say this....we see evolution happen all....the....time. We see populations evolve new traits and into new species. It's why I posted this thread: Let's get some facts on the table.

So do you understand? Evolution is not a presupposition....it's a fact.

Once again starting points.

Let me ask you....what would you have biologists do? Ignore the fact that populations evolve? Pretend it doesn't happen even though they see it with their own eyes?

I wonder if you even recognize you have illustrated my original position I stated by not even looking at the evidence presented by these other scientists simply dismissing them because they do not hold to your current philosophy.

All right then, let's take a look at the first link you posted from AiG regarding 6 evidences for the global flood.

The first is "Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents".

The title links to another AiG page, where they claim that the marine fossils in the Grand Canyon sediments and other areas around the world are evidence of a global flood. They claim that this is a result of the flood waters overtopping the mountains and the ocean floor rising. Now, the question that always arises when it comes to flooding the earth is, "where did the water come from". AiG answers this by saying "The Bible suggests a source of the extra water. In Genesis 7:11 we read that at the initiation of the Flood all the fountains of the great deep were broken up. In other words, the earth’s crust was split open all around the globe and water apparently burst forth as fountains from inside the earth."

Now remember we're evaluating this from a scientific standpoint. We know that water, unless otherwise constrained, always finds the lowest point. That's why if you're sitting in the tub, take a cup of water, and dump it over your head it doesn't stay and cover your head. It runs right back down to its lowest point (the tub). So that leads to an obvious question for AiG....if the water was underground, it was already at its lowest point....how then did it manage to go above that point and stay above it? Why didn't the water just run right back down to the spaces it evacuated?

Then there's the moving continental plates. AiG states...

The catastrophic breakup of the earth’s crust, referred to in Genesis 7:11, would not only have released huge volumes of water from inside the earth, but much molten rock.5 The ocean floors would have been effectively replaced by hot lavas. Being less dense than the original ocean floors, these hot lavas would have had an expanded thickness, so the new ocean floors would have effectively risen, raising the sea level by more than 3,500 feet (1,067 m). Because today’s mountains had not yet formed, and it is likely the pre-Flood hills and mountains were nowhere near as high as today’s mountains, a sea level rise of over 3,500 feet would have been sufficient to inundate the pre-Flood continental land surfaces.

The issue here should be obvious. All this had to have happened over the course of about a year or so (or maybe even less). Moving that much mass (entire continents) and bringing up that much molten lava all across the globe in such a short period of time would generate a ridiculous amount of heat. If you'd like, we could do some calculations to estimate just how much heat we're talking about. Previously, young-earth creationist John Baumgartner estimated that such an event would release somewhere around 1028 joules, which is waaaaaaay more than enough to boil off all the oceans and render the entire earth uninhabitable.

The AiG pages make no mention of either of these obvious fundamental issues. Why not?

 

[Wormwood]

The AiG pages make no mention of either of these obvious fundamental issues. Why not?

Maybe for the same reason Darwinists do not explain the mathematical impossibilities of amino acids randomly combining to form proteins and other cellular structures possible for the supposed spontaneous generation of the single cell that mutated over billions of years to form all the diverse life forms we see today. Of course, when the Darwin disciple omits such things, they are just open to further discovery and exploration. When the creationist omits such things, they are hiding something or rejecting the basic principles of science in order to promote their "religion." Funny how that works.

 

[River Jordan]

Maybe for the same reason Darwinists do not explain the mathematical impossibilities

"Mathematical impossibilities" that, no matter how many times they're asked for, never seem to actually surface. Let's see if we can figure out why yet again......

of amino acids randomly combining

And there it is....the reason those "mathematical impossibilities" never surface is because as soon as anyone does any calculations based on the assumption that chemistry is a series of independent random events between elements and molecules, all they'll have done is show that they know pretty much nothing about how chemistry actually works (or they do, and are being deliberately dishonest).

For an illustration, think of a container of hydrogen and oxygen that we spark. What do we get? We get pretty much all water (H2O). Now according to the creationist version of chemistry presented above, we'd have to be startled and amazed at how such a thing could have occurred due merely to things "randomly combining". How can that be!!!!???? But then we remember, chemistry is anything but a series of independent random events.

So this whole thing is nothing more than a creationist mantra, that no matter how many times it's exposed as a silly, rather ignorant straw man, it somehow continues to get repeated.

the single cell that mutated over billions of years to form all the diverse life forms we see today.

If you're looking for a formal, mathematical test of universal common ancestry, then here ya' go: A Formal Test of the Theory of Universal Common Ancestry

Of course, when the Darwin disciple omits such things, they are just open to further discovery and exploration. When the creationist omits such things, they are hiding something or rejecting the basic principles of science in order to promote their "religion." Funny how that works.

Oops.

 

[Wormwood]

River, you and I both know you are being dishonest in this reply.

Comparing the combination of hydrogen and water to form water...and the hundreds to thousands of amino acids that must form EXACT chains to be capable of even producing one functional protein (let alone the other systems of the cell capable of processing those proteins) which is required to form the most primitive cell is about as absurd of a comparison as one could find. But according to you, "chemistry" just does it....even though we still cannot replicate the event with all our tools, technology and controlled settings. You might as well just say, "We know Santa just delivers all the gifts. We know he has a bag and reindeer..and that just does it. Uh huh. The fact of the matter is that natural law does not contribute to the formation of cells. We have to create environments void of oxygen and so forth to even start the process of cell creation....which obviously is a bit of a problem. It is like you are arguing that a Rembrandt painting could be created by spilling paint on a canvas and "chemistry" will just make the picture on its own...no big deal. Im laughing on the outside, but crying on the inside.

Darwinism is a religion. shhhhh It can be our little secret.

 

[River Jordan]

Wait, wait, wait......

Before we go any further on this WW, are you actually saying you believe chemistry is best described (statistically) as a series of independent random events?

 

[TravisT]

RJ,

what is your whole point here? Did you read the posts that I added here to the posts http://www.ligonier....-and-scripture/

 

[StanJ]

Did you read the posts that I added here to the posts http://www.ligonier....-and-scripture/ [/size]

Well I did and I totally agree with RC Sproul. Anything that disagree with the facts stated in the Bible is wrong.

 

[Wormwood]

Before we go any further on this WW, are you actually saying you believe chemistry is best described (statistically) as a series of independent random events?

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying the laws of chemistry prohibit the self-formation of vital cell structures. You are being intellectually dishonest here and you know it. You are implying that chemical attractions and reactions promote and advance such formations when you know full well that this is not the case.