The Truth of Genesis

[reformed1689]

People who work under the rule "anything that disagrees with our interpretation of the Bible is automatically wrong" are not doing science and therefore aren't scientists. I don't even understand how you can dispute that obvious fact. Please explain your thinking here.

Yet you don't hold to the same standards the "scientists" who work the opposite way that outright dismiss the Bible. Double standard.

Do you think anyone who calls themselves "scientists" are automatically scientists? Is that all it takes, just to call oneself a "scientist"? Or are there requirements and standards one must follow before the label "scientist" can be accurately applied? Please explain.

Of course, there are standards. What standards do the creation scientists NOT follow? Be specific.

 

[Justadude]

Yet you don't hold to the same standards the "scientists" who work the opposite way that outright dismiss the Bible. Double standard.

Who does that? What scientific organization requires its employees to outright dismiss the Bible?

Of course, there are standards. What standards do the creation scientists NOT follow? Be specific.

They don't follow the scientific method, which is not: start with your conclusion and reject everything that goes against it.

Also, I thought you told me earlier that science can't study creation or origins. Since ICR claims to be doing just that, doesn't that mean by your own standards ICR isn't doing science?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Carbon dating is but 1 form of radiometric dating and it is very accurate for more recent (<50,000 years if memory serves). There are many other radiometric dating methods.

This is not true if things 50,000 years ago are exactly as they are today

 

[Paul Christensen]

Yes, but without certain observations they cannot come up with definitive answers. That being said, this is a red herring to the topic. We are not talking about whether or not scientists can study aspects of origins. We are asking whether they can study the origin itself. They cannot. They can study the impact and after effects, but not the event itself.

Are you starting to get the feeling that you are going around in circles?

Ah! I see that he has identified himself as an agnostic. A straight out case and there it is! An agnostic is someone who understands what we are talking about, but chooses not to believe it. I think you will get sucked further and further into the vortex until you give up in frustration.

I think we make a mistake sometimes in thinking that atheists and agnostics don't understand and we make great efforts to try and make the understand the logic of what we are trying to present, but the reality is that they actually do understand the logic, but they decide not to believe it no matter how we try to convince them. I've given up trying with these people after several years of non-success with them arguing against every point I have ever made with them.

 

[reformed1689]

They don't follow the scientific method, which is not: start with your conclusion and reject everything that goes against it.

Well that is funny because that is what Evolutionists do....

 

[Dcopymope]

Well that is funny because that is what Evolutionists do....

Exactly, they go by inductive reasoning. Micro evolution can be tested, therefore it must also occur at a macro level. Therefore as far as they are concerned, anything that doesn't fit into this conclusion, this paradigm, gets rejected outright. They claim their studies are "peer reviewed", yet this is far from the truth as we have seen them attack people who were once considered colleagues the moment they come out with evidence contradicting the paradigm.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

They don't follow the scientific method, which is not: start with your conclusion and reject everything that goes against it.

sounds like most scientists

 

[Truth OT]

Micro evolution can be tested

Micro Evolution is not a thing outside of creationist sects. Evolution via natural selection is just, evolution.

 

[Justadude]

Well that is funny because that is what Evolutionists do....

I've asked you before to show where any scientific organization requires its employees to do anything like what ICR does, and you've not posted a single thing. So unless you post something specific in your reply, I'm going to conclude that you can't do so and the above statement is nothing more than baseless rhetoric.

I also asked you another question and you didn't even bother putting it into your reply. That's rude.

 

[Justadude]

sounds like most scientists

Show me any scientific organization that requires its employees to reject everything that goes against the organization's religious beliefs.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Exactly, they go by inductive reasoning. Macro evolution must be true, therefore as far as they are concerned, anything that doesn't fit into this conclusion, this paradigm, gets rejected outright. They claim their studies are "peer reviewed", yet this is far from the truth as we have seen them attack people who were once considered colleagues the moment they come out with evidence contradicting the paradigm.

The problem is that evolutionists are very aware of the holes and inconsistencies in the theory, otherwise they would be accepting it as a hard and fast scientific law; so they choose to believe it because they choose not to believe that the universe was created by a divine being, namely God. They deliberately leave God out of the picture, and hold fast to the "religion" of evolutionism.

In essence, they have adopted a version of "faith", in that despite the inconsistencies, they believe that evolution is true. Because there is no other explanation that they are prepared to accept, evolution is the only possibility for them.

At one stage in human history, truth was objective, and because the scientists of the time did believe that God created the universe, their investigations and discoveries were on that basis. But at some stage during the Enlightenment, philosophy concerning "truth" changed. It changed from truth being truth because it is truth in the objective sense, to "truth being what we believe to be true". Therefore truth ceased being and object in itself, and became dependent on whether the individual believed it or not.

So, for the individual who does not believe in evolution, it is not truth for him, and the individual who does believe in evolution, it is certainly truth for him and he will defend it until the cows come home.

It is the same for some interpreting the Bible. Those who believe that the Bible is objective, literal truth, it is truth for them. For me, the literal Bible is objective truth whether people believe it or not, therefore it is not dependent on personal belief. It is true because it is true.

But some will come up with interpretations of passages of the Bible which they read into a spiritual "sub-text", and it become true for them. These are the ones who will say, "You have your interpretation and I have mine". For example, the minister of the liberal side of my church preached on the woman at the well in John 4. His take on the living water was that it was the living water of tolerance between different religions and cultures. That was what he believed the text was speaking about. But what he was doing was adapting the passage to fit in with his liberal belief, rather than expounding the Scripture to show what it actually says. But he believed his own version, so it was truth for him that this is what Jesus actually meant through His example of a Jew talking with a Samaritan woman, saying that Jesus wasn't selfish in drawing the water himself, but allowed someone of a different culture draw the "living water" of cultural tolerance for Him.

So this is the sort of thing we are up against when debating with atheists and agnostics. They will defend to the last what they believe is truth for them, making them a very hard nut to crack.

By the way, there are Christians who believe in evolution, because they have difficulty getting their heads around that God can create a whole, aged universe in six 24 hour days. So evolution is truth for them. However, whether a person believes in evolution or not, is unessential for true conversion to Christ, because the heart can be right with God, although the head might be nor not be aligned.

 

[Truth OT]

This is not true if things 50,000 years ago are exactly as they are today

Just an FYI
"When the animal or plant dies, it stops exchanging carbon with its environment, and thereafter the amount of 14C it contains begins to decrease as the 14C undergoes radioactive decay. Measuring the amount of 14C in a sample from a dead plant or animal, such as a piece of wood or a fragment of bone, provides information that can be used to calculate when the animal or plant died. The older a sample is, the less 14C there is to be detected, and because the half-life of 14C (the period of time after which half of a given sample will have decayed) is about 5,730 years, the oldest dates that can be reliably measured by this process date to around 50,000 years ago."

 

[Justadude]

Just an FYI
"When the animal or plant dies, it stops exchanging carbon with its environment, and thereafter the amount of 14C it contains begins to decrease as the 14C undergoes radioactive decay. Measuring the amount of 14C in a sample from a dead plant or animal, such as a piece of wood or a fragment of bone, provides information that can be used to calculate when the animal or plant died. The older a sample is, the less 14C there is to be detected, and because the half-life of 14C (the period of time after which half of a given sample will have decayed) is about 5,730 years, the oldest dates that can be reliably measured by this process date to around 50,000 years ago."

The creationists don't really care about the actual science, since this is a religious issue for them. It's nothing more than how they believe Genesis 1&2 are literal, historic accounts from God and therefore they are absolutely true. Therefore anything that isn't consistent with that account from God has to be wrong, period. So trying to engage them on the science is pointless.

If they cared about the science, then something like this would at least generate some thoughtful replies: Radiometric Dating

But since he's trying to persuade them toward something that's inconsistent with God's historic account, it'll just go to waste.

 

[Paul Christensen]

The creationists don't really care about the actual science, since this is a religious issue for them. It's nothing more than how they believe Genesis 1&2 are literal, historic accounts from God and therefore they are absolutely true. Therefore anything that isn't consistent with that account from God has to be wrong, period. So trying to engage them on the science is pointless.

If they cared about the science, then something like this would at least generate some thoughtful replies: Radiometric Dating

But since he's trying to persuade them toward something that's inconsistent with God's historic account, it'll just go to waste.

My view is that evolution is a 'faith' issue, and therefore could be described as much as a religious issue as creationism is. It could be the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Truth OT]

My view is that evolution is a 'faith' issue, and therefore could be described as much as a religious issue as creationism is

Why do you view it that way?

 

[Justadude]

My view is that evolution is a 'faith' issue and therefore could be described as much as a religious issue as creationism is.

Based on what? Evolution is acknowledged as real by people across the world from every faith and non-faith.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Show me any scientific organization that requires its employees to reject everything that goes against the organization's religious beliefs.

There are many Christian scientists who do not belong to that organization

and if an organization goes against what you believe to be true you walk way from that organization

people are there because they believe what they say

 

[Justadude]

There are many Christian scientists who do not belong to that organization

True and I have said as much in this thread.

and if an organization goes against what you believe to be true you walk way from that organization

Wrong. ICR requires its employees to agree to follow the rule that anything that goes against their interpretation of the Bible is automatically wrong. That is anti-scientific, which means ICR is not a scientific organization. Because of that I do not rely on them for scientific information.

Understand? I do not rely on ICR for scientific information because they are not a scientific organization.

people are there because they believe what they say

I don't doubt that at all.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Why do you view it that way?

Because in both, trying to verify according to human wisdom and science, one comes up with a non-conclusion. Trying to understand God through human wisdom and science comes short because the Scripture says that God's ways are above our ways and God's thoughts above our thoughts. And trying to come to a conclusion about evolution through human science has to fall short because of the many holes in the theory. Therefore one has to go with what one believes, rather than what can be proved on the human level.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Based on what? Evolution is acknowledged as real by people across the world from every faith and non-faith.

Nonsense. Every scientist worth his salt knows it's just a theory that can't be proved. It remains the best guess outside of the Bible. So, if the most qualified scientists accept evolution as a theory, how come you know more than them to say it is real? And what else could it be but on the basis of faith in probabilities and educated guesses?