In the Beginning....

[Luke2427]

So science is truth? Science is never wrong?

Apparently we need to back up and take a refresher course in epistemology.

Science is knowledge. For example- omniscience. Omni- science- all knowledge.

Theology is called the "queen of the sciences".

You can't KNOW a thing that isn't true.

Theories can be wrong. But science is simply the knowledge of things that are so.

Scientists can be wrong. But science is basically a synonym for truth.

If the fact that the earth is round is scientific fact, that simply means it is something we know to be true.

Does that mean the earth is old? Not necessarily. But if real science proves that it is- then the earth most certainly is old.

What is up for debate is not whether or not science is true- that's like debating if truth is true. What we are debating is which position is scientific fact.

 

[Darrenss1]

Science and its methods of observation are man made. They are never devoid of man's influence or agenda. And in recent history science has become nothing more than a political tool.

We need to understand creation in light of scripture rather than "science".

You are arguing for the sake of argument. The only reason mankind can create and invent and harness the resources of the universe is by natural law. Computer chips are based on natural law as well as cars, telephones, radio's..etc How close minded can you get.. I just said that natural law is what exists regardless of what mankind knows about it!! What part of that do you not understand??


Scripture is not written as a scientific book why would you assume that if the universe is a sum of its parts that natural law was changed over a period of time. As I said before there is nothing in scripture that warrants that Gen 1 has to be 24 hour days, therefore I still would be understanding creation in Gen 1 from a biblical perspective anway.

Darren

 

[Luke2427]

So you would insist that against scientific "knowledge" that the earth is old. I congratulate you on taking the Scripture above science.

But I would imagine that you know as well as I that the "facts" of science have changed over the years. What I was taught in HS biology (btw, my science teacher believed in what she called theistic evolution) in 1967 is laughed at now. In 100 years the facts of science will have changed again.

Again, I could not care less about what Augustine or Kaiser or even those theologians who believe in a young earth teach. I couldn't care less about what science teaches. I know it sounds wonderful to use the old line that all truth is God's truth. But current scientific knowledge is not truth in any eternal sense because of its' changeable nature. So it is really not God's truth.

I think you are on a slippery slope that leads to acceptance of science above Scripture. You say you're not even on that hill. I hope not.

But I have lived long enough to see preachers and pastors who one time used that line of all truth is God's truth now accepting homosexuality as a life style because science now says it's a hereditary predisposition and that too must be God's truth.

Please don't take me wrong, I am not saying you are there. I just fear you're on that journey. I just would rather accept what I see as the literal teaching of Genesis 1 and 2.

I honestly appreciate your sincerity and your concern.

This is a thought for another thread but I thought I would address one of these sub-remarks. Many homosexuals probably ARE predisposed to be homosexual. Many of us are predisposed to have a bad temper or to become compulsive or indulgent or lazy, etc... In fact, ALL of us are predisposed to sinfulness. This is called depravity. In sin did my mother conceive me. But this does not excuse the homosexual from the demand of repentance any more than it does the drunkard or the glutton. ALL of us must repent regardless of our predispositions.
If anything, scientist have discovered another biblical truth, just as I believe they have via the big bang, etc...

 

[Darrenss1]

Apparently we need to back up and take a refresher course in epistemology.

Science is knowledge. For example- omniscience. Omni- science- all knowledge.

Theology is called the "queen of the sciences".

You can't KNOW a thing that isn't true.

Theories can be wrong. But science is simply the knowledge of things that are so.

Yes very true thank you!!

Its like talking to a brick wall with some folks. You can't discover something that doesn't exist!! This is so utterly simple. Scientific study does not create anything, it simply hopes to know something that exists already in the universe. Mankind is advancing now in a technological age because mankind knows alot more about the natural laws in the universe and can invent technology dependant on constants that do not change like the flow of electricity on a circuitboard allows the invention of computers, combustion in cars, gravity, electromagnetism...etc

Darren

 

[Luke2427]

Ok in your view break it (this passage) down for me. How did you get to the point that you believe it teaches this?

I'll be glad to. but since you brought it up- you first.

 

[Luke2427]

Science and its methods of observation are man made. They are never devoid of man's influence or agenda. And in recent history science has become nothing more than a political tool.

We need to understand creation in light of scripture rather than "science".

Apparently we need to back up and take a refresher course in epistemology.

Science is knowledge. For example- omniscience. Omni- science- all knowledge.

Theology is called the "queen of the sciences".

You can't KNOW a thing that isn't true.

Theories can be wrong. But science is simply the knowledge of things that are so.

Scientists can be wrong. But science is basically a synonym for truth.

If the fact that the earth is round is scientific fact, that simply means it is something we know to be true.

Does that mean the earth is old? Not necessarily. But if real science proves that it is- then the earth most certainly is old.

What is up for debate is not whether or not science is true- that's like debating if truth is true. What we are debating is which position is scientific fact.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Apparently we need to back up and take a refresher course in epistemology.

Science is knowledge. For example- omniscience. Omni- science- all knowledge.

Theology is called the "queen of the sciences".

You can't KNOW a thing that isn't true.

Theories can be wrong. But science is simply the knowledge of things that are so.

Scientists can be wrong. But science is basically a synonym for truth.

If the fact that the earth is round is scientific fact, that simply means it is something we know to be true.

Does that mean the earth is old? Not necessarily. But if real science proves that it is- then the earth most certainly is old.

What is up for debate is not whether or not science is true- that's like debating if truth is true. What we are debating is which position is scientific fact.

That is just not true. What science presented 1000 years ago as true is known to be untrue now. It is the height of arrogance to think that what science now says is true is going to be scientifically "true" in 100 years.

That is exactly the problem with allowing science to "confirm" what we think the Scripture is saying.

If you believe the Bible teaches an old earth, then the earth is certainly old. Why? Because that is what the Bible teaches and the Bible is truth. The big problem with your position is that you have elevated science to the place of the Bible.

Since we are operating from vastly different assumptions, it is an impossible discussion.

 

[Tom Bryant]

I honestly appreciate your sincerity and your concern.

This is a thought for another thread but I thought I would address one of these sub-remarks. Many homosexuals probably ARE predisposed to be homosexual. Many of us are predisposed to have a bad temper or to become compulsive or indulgent or lazy, etc... In fact, ALL of us are predisposed to sinfulness. This is called depravity. In sin did my mother conceive me. But this does not excuse the homosexual from the demand of repentance any more than it does the drunkard or the glutton. ALL of us must repent regardless of our predispositions.
If anything, scientist have discovered another biblical truth, just as I believe they have via the big bang, etc...

With this I am out of here for the night and out of this discussion. I keep hearing the Paul Simon song when i read your posts, "Slip Sliding Away."

 

[Luke2427]

That is just not true. What science presented 1000 years ago as true is known to be untrue now. It is the height of arrogance to think that what science now says is true is going to be scientifically "true" in 100 years.

That is exactly the problem with allowing science to "confirm" what we think the Scripture is saying.

If you believe the Bible teaches an old earth, then the earth is certainly old. Why? Because that is what the Bible teaches and the Bible is truth. The big problem with your position is that you have elevated science to the place of the Bible.

Since we are operating from vastly different assumptions, it is an impossible discussion.

Read it again. Science is knowledge. That is not even up for debate. Any philosopher on earth will tell you that.

ScienTISTS can be wrong and scientific theories can and have been wrong. But science cannot be wrong any more than truth can be wrong.

It is a true fact that gravity holds us on this earth. Another way of saying that the law of gravity is a "scientific fact".

Science is the knowledge of truth. Any theologian will tell you the same.

 

[Luke2427]

With this I am out of here for the night and out of this discussion. I keep hearing the Paul Simon song when i read your posts, "Slip Sliding Away."

Dear Brother, it is because you are emotional rather than reasonable right now. Perhaps it would be best to calm down and return when your mind is more clear. I believe everything you believe, i imagine, about the abomination that is homosexuality. But you are retreating from the discussion because you are overloaded at the thought of something you already believe in- depravity.

That scientists have discovered depravity in homosexuals should not shake you so much.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Scientists can be wrong. But science is basically a synonym for truth.

But Supernatural cannot always be explained by science. Adam was created with age already......so is science right if it said he was 20,30 years old on the day he was created? That was a rhetorical question BTW.

 

[Luke2427]

But Supernatural cannot always be explained by science. Adam was created with age already......so is science right if it said he was 20,30 years old on the day he was created?

Remember- science is knowledge. Therefore your statement really reads this way.

The supernatural cannot always be explained by knowledge... so if knowledge is right...

That is illogical.

You keep wanting to make science something prone to error. It cannot be. Knowledge, by definition is true. If you know something then it must be true. You can think something and be wrong, believe something and be wrong, but you cannot KNOW something and be wrong.

Scientific theories have often been wrong, but science cannot be wrong.

Remember God has OMNI-SCIENCE which means he knows all things that are so.

 

[Darrenss1]

That is just not true. What science presented 1000 years ago as true is known to be untrue now. It is the height of arrogance to think that what science now says is true is going to be scientifically "true" in 100 years.

That is exactly the problem with allowing science to "confirm" what we think the Scripture is saying.

If you believe the Bible teaches an old earth, then the earth is certainly old. Why? Because that is what the Bible teaches and the Bible is truth. The big problem with your position is that you have elevated science to the place of the Bible.

Since we are operating from vastly different assumptions, it is an impossible discussion.

You still aren't getting it though, why is this too difficult, when you read the word "science" you like many get episodic. What exists in the universe could be said to be science, the laws, maths, everything that currently is part of this present reality is what exists now. Scientists attempt to explain it and get it wrong, thus the reason for theories and the reasons for changes..etc What exists however remains present, the laws, the processes..etc They are there whether scientists can work them out or not. What is dark energy and dark matter? Who knows? It exists, they gave it a name, they still don't know exactly what it is BUT it doesn't change the fact that it is part of the universe even though scientists are yet to work out what it is.

Darren

 

[Jedi Knight]

That is illogical.

You keep wanting to make science something prone to error. so.

Come to the Dark Side, Luke. LOL I couldn't resist!
You cannot always rely on the five senses to be correct. Would you agree?

 

[Winman]

Apparently we need to back up and take a refresher course in epistemology.

Science is knowledge. For example- omniscience. Omni- science- all knowledge.

Theology is called the "queen of the sciences".

You can't KNOW a thing that isn't true.

Theories can be wrong. But science is simply the knowledge of things that are so.

Scientists can be wrong. But science is basically a synonym for truth.

If the fact that the earth is round is scientific fact, that simply means it is something we know to be true.

Does that mean the earth is old? Not necessarily. But if real science proves that it is- then the earth most certainly is old.

What is up for debate is not whether or not science is true- that's like debating if truth is true. What we are debating is which position is scientific fact.

The word "science" is from Middle English and means knowledge.

But saying that the earth is young or old is not science, because there was no one there to observe it. There are some methods that argue for an old age, there are many that argue for a young age. But it is not established fact and therefore fails being "science".

You do not know for a fact that the world is old, and anybody who says they do is lying. And those who believe it young do not know for a fact that it is young either. It is not science.

However, I believe by faith that it is young, because I believe the scriptures show it to be young. We have the genealogy from Adam to Christ, Adam was created at the beginning. If the genealogy of Adam to Christ is true (and it is), then the Earth is only around 6000 years old.

You on the other hand have nothing from scripture to argue that the earth is billions of years old. If you do, present it.

 

[annsni]

Remember- science is knowledge. Therefore your statement really reads this way.

The supernatural cannot always be explained by knowledge... so if knowledge is right...

That is illogical.

You keep wanting to make science something prone to error. It cannot be. Knowledge, by definition is true. If you know something then it must be true. You can think something and be wrong, believe something and be wrong, but you cannot KNOW something and be wrong.

Scientific theories have often been wrong, but science cannot be wrong.

Remember God has OMNI-SCIENCE which means he knows all things that are so.

So you are stating that science is God?

 

[Revmitchell]

You are arguing for the sake of argument. The only reason mankind can create and invent and harness the resources of the universe is by natural law. Computer chips are based on natural law as well as cars, telephones, radio's..etc How close minded can you get.. I just said that natural law is what exists regardless of what mankind knows about it!! What part of that do you not understand??

Again your assumption is that these laws are now what they were before the fall. Your assertion that I'm arguing for argument sake is a poor debate tactic and not honest.

Scripture is not written as a scientific book

Darren

And those who want to ignore the clear and literal teaching of scripture like to make that statement. As irrelevant as it is.

 

[Darrenss1]

However, I believe by faith that it is young, because I believe the scriptures show it to be young. We have the genealogy from Adam to Christ, Adam was created at the beginning. If the genealogy of Adam to Christ is true (and it is), then the Earth is only around 6000 years old.

You on the other hand have nothing from scripture to argue that the earth is billions of years old. If you do, present it.

Wait a sec. You are confusing 2 issues. The age of the UNIVERSE and the age of the EARTH are 2 separate issues.

BTW, these issues are covered extensively by old earth creationists and these your objections are raised repeatedly all the time.

Darren

 

[Darrenss1]

And those who want to ignore the clear and literal teaching of scripture like to make that statement. As irrelevant as it is.

I believe Gen 1 is literal, literally 6 time periods and God is still resting today.

As I said before anyway, I don't take an old or young view, which way it goes is fine by me as Winman said none of us were there and the literal interpretation is not restricted to one or the other. I happen to like the old earth model though and the christians I enjoy listening to such as Greg Koukl and Hugh Ross are old earthers.

Darren

 

[Winman]

Wait a sec. You are confusing 2 issues. The age of the UNIVERSE and the age of the EARTH are 2 separate issues.

BTW, these issues are covered extensively by old earth creationists and these your objections are raised repeatedly all the time.

Darren

Yes, they are two different issues, and the scriptures disagree with modern so-called science. The Bible says the Earth was created before the Sun and stars, modern theory says the stars were created first.

No one was there to observe the creation of the universe, so there is no way to prove which is correct. Anybody who claims that science "proves" the universe is old is lying or ignorant of what true science is. It is impossible to know that. True science is based on observation.

Hey, if you think you have evidence for an old age from the scriptures, present it, I would be very interested in seeing that.