-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The impossibilities of YEC
- Thread starter Meatros
- Start date
No. I am going to say what even honest secular geologists would say. The measurements are fact. The compositions are fact. The existence of the craters is undeniable fact... but the origin, history, and dating of those craters are conjecture. AND, when that conjecture is followed all the way back up its course of reasoning, we will arrive at scientific theories that were derived denying a direct Creator and adopting some manner of uniformitarian view of geological history when we know for a fact that this view is very improbable.
So you are, in fact, going to handwave it away. Explain these craters then. What you are saying is "the geologists are wrong, because their theories are secular"....while sneakily ignoring two things: The craters themselves (explain them), and explaining how these geologists are wrong.
In essence it's an ad-hom attack. Attack the source, and it's credibility. Their theories, evidence? No you'll prefer to leave that alone.
No. I am going to deny the limits imposed by your presuppositions.
Options I can think of very quickly:
1) God created them in the same way He created the forbidden fruit- to give man a choice to believe God or to believe his own senses.
2) As God created the earth in the first day, natural forces beyond anything that have occurred since came into place to form the earth. One of these forces was a deluge of meteors. When God separated the firmament below from the firmament above, the dust you are so worried about was cleared from the air and became sediment.
3) The meteors occurred to trigger the flood and Noah's Ark was preserved in a miraculous way or was already afloat in a distant location from the impact areas when the meteors hit the earth and broke up the fountains of the deep. Again, the heavy rainfall prevented the dust from remaining airborne.
No. I am saying that their conclusions are subject to their philosophical presuppositions just as a creationists is. You and they may not be wrong. The ideas are plausible. I choose to limit their probability by what the Bible says... which makes them highly improbable forcing extraordinary stretches and contortions of the Bible to make them agree.
I gave some possibilities
I didn't say they were wrong. Although I believe that they are because their theory does not fit the biblical model. (Which by the way is just as valid and no more philosophical than saying you disbelieve the Bible because of the theory of evolution) I said you were wrong for using their biased and inconclusive explainations of these natural phenomenon as an ironclad proof that YEC is impossible.
Either you don't know what an ad-hom attack is or you are being intentionally evasive. I didn't say one thing about the geologists that contrive or believe these theories. They are plausible theories. I reject the philosophical world view that limits plausible explainations to the purely naturalistic ones or even further limits the naturalistic explainations to the ones that assume a very old earth.
So God is trying to deceive us? If we can't rely on our own senses then how can we rely on our reading/interpreting of the bible? How do we know what it says we think it says?
So why are the meteor craters on different levels? How can we positive that this indeed occured? What tests can we run?
Noah would have been killed by thousand foot waves, also volcano's would have erupted throughout the world, etc. Also, biblically this isn't supported.
You do realize that not all of the geologists who support an old earth and the impacts are atheists, their are quite a number who are Christian.
Which, although I disagree with, I do appreciate.
What you are saying through your philosophical viewpoint is that we can't trust our senses, which means that we can't trust the bible, as we need to use our sense in order to interpret the message.
I do not disbelieve Genesis because of the theory of evolution (I'm unclear as to whether you were accusing me of that or whether you were just talking about generalies) and I very much doubt that a lot of the geologists who intially deduced that the world was old (which was before darwin) accepted evolution.
I have answered this straw man with more consideration than it deserves already but here is one more analogy to demonstrate the fallacy of your contention: If I gave you directions to my home that gave just the essentials without detailing everything you might see or encounter on the way and you chose to interpret some of those details in a way that caused you to get off the route I gave thus causing you to arrive at a wrong house... would that mean that I was being deceptive? Not at all. But I do find it interesting that someone who suggest that Genesis is fictional without any scriptural proof while ignoring the affirmations within the Bible that it was considered literal by the inspired writers (who were not corrected by the Holy Spirit or Jesus Himself) would accuse those of us who accept a literal Genesis of making God a liar.
If the NT writers were deceived about creation, how can we trust their authority or inspiration on any other matter?
[/qb] We can't. We can adopt as a theory and interpret the data accordingly, modifying the theory as necessary... just as the scientists you linked to undoubtedly did while developing their explainations.
We aren't talking about measurements or testing. We are talking about explainations. If you want to run a test you can use the same ones employed by your preferred geologists and modify them until they point to the desired outcome... which is what scientist do when trying to support their naturalistic theories.
Not if the rain began first lifting his boat but leaving significant land masses to absorb some of the impacts and block the waves.
In what way? And what problem do presume the volcano's present. One of the links you gave showed the distribution of the larger meteors. These are positioned to easily allow Noah to be out of harms way.
Yes. Although I suspect that when you consider how many are Bible believing, born again Christians, the number would be reduced significantly.
Which, although I disagree with, I do appreciate.</font>[/QUOTE] Likewise. My main thrust was simply that possibilities do exist that can explain these events with YEC remaining intact... as long as philosophical presuppositions do not get in the way.
No. Please don't attempt to put words in my mouth. What I am saying is that neither human senses nor human discrenment nor human reasoning are infallible. No sensible person believes that they are. Therefore, if someone is thinking in a completely logical way but limited by their philosophical presuppositions, they might deny reasonable explainations or even the truth.
I disagree. The Bible says what it says precisely like the measured data from a crater does. Interpretations, on the other hand, are fallible and subject to man's carnal limitations. The best interpretations are those that are prayerfully guided by the Holy Spirit, consistent with the whole of scripture, and derived by those greatly submitted to God's authority.
That's fine because I do not reject evolution because of Genesis.
I find a long first day of creation to be a credible alternative. I really don't consider it all that much since God was the only one active and He can't be measured by our sense of time. When He says first "day", we have no means of determining what that might have meant. On the other hand, since God is not limited to our sense of time, space, and matter, He could have easily compressed all of the activities that created the evidence in question in what we would consider a moment of time.
To consider whether the first day or two were what we would sense as a 24 hour day is largely rhetorical... other than the fact that God inspired the word "day" and there is no reason to believe that He meant anything other than what we consider a day.
Excuse me? You certainly have not answered this question. You are the one arguing that our senses are not to be trusted, not I. You are arguing that philosophy gets in the way of science, yet you have not demonstrated this.
You haven't explained how the evidence can be interpreted otherwise, or how the current evidence is being interpreted incorrectly. You keep vaguely asserting that it is. Great to assert, hard to prove.
If you can't measure it, test it, then how do you know if it's the truth? I guess it's fine if you want to remain ignorant of earth's history.
No dice. The impact from the vrederfort alone would destroy his ship.
Did you read all of the links? They explain "in what way". What you aren't accounting for is that the largest meteors, which you are contending to all hit at the same time, would effect the entire earth-no matter where they hit. So easily? No, I don't think so. If one had hit, maybe he wouldn't instantly die (in time though he would), but you are stipulating that all the large (earth killers) hit, as well as smaller ones. You've completely disregarded the damage that just one of these meteors would do, not to mention the impact of all of them.
You can suspect that, but I bet you would be wrong.
Science does not rely on *one* person's opinion. They have checks and balance to ensure the information is correct. All you are doing is saying it can't be correct...because it can't. If you carry the line of thinking that man can not know with all certainty what is the correct explanation, then you have to carry it to biblical interpretation as well. It may be written by God, but it is still read by man.
You think the bible is precise? It doesn't mention the meteors I've mentioned here. You've had to speculate. It doesn't say how the plants lived without heat or light, you've had to speculate.
If the "best interpretations" are those that are prayerfully guided by the Holy Spirit then you have to either assume that the Holy Spirit doesn't *help* some people interpret scripture properly or some people are simply not smart enough to get the message. Either way, in my mind, how can you be sure what the correct interpretation is? Because of a feeling? How do you know the devil isn't giving you the proper feeling?
[ June 20, 2003, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Meatros ]
Why is it a credible alternative?? Now you are the one interpreting things. It's been argued by john6:63 that the meaning of Genesis is obvious (I see now that he apparently has flip-flopped his view).
If God said day and meant something else, how can you rightfully say that their can not be another interpretation of Genesis that allows for an old earth?
So John, you know accept that a day could be longer then 24 hours? How does this go along with your idea in this thread?Originally posted by john6:63:
Ditto Scott
Perhaps you should read the entire argument before you say give the thumbs up?
Why is it a credible alternative??</font>[/QUOTE] Thanks for once again illustrating my point. I left the two sentences Immediately following this acknowledgement that explain my reasons for accepting it as credible. You weren't looking for it. So you didn't see it.
I am not aware that I ever denied that I was interpretting things... we all do.
First, I think the two sentences above answer the question about God and "day." If you don't understand what I mean then please let me know.
I didn't say that there weren't possible interpretations that allow for an old earth.
There are and I have considered some of them... but rejected them.
No. I am arguing just what I said. Our senses, discernment, and reasoning are not infallible.
Are you saying that anyone approaches evidence with a completely objective, open mind? The fact that the links you gave accept the geologic column as a reliable source of dating proves this to be false. Likewise, your decision to relegate Genesis to the strata of an Aesop's fable is a demonstration that you do not approach these issues with a completely open mind. You have predetermined that some answers that do not violate the intergrity of the observed evidence are none the less unreasonable because they do not fit into your paradigm.
Yes I have. You once again demonstrate that the answers you are willing to consider as possibilities are determined not by their viability but by whether they agree with your philosophical predisposition.
Each time I begin to point it out, you repeat that we aren't talking about evolution but about craters. The one obvious reason these interpretations might be incorrect is that they assume a great deal about the earth's history- in particular, a uniformitarian model, the geologic column, and an old earth. For instance, the assumption is that these craters must have a purely naturalistic explaination and since they assume an old earth, their theories are colored by what they assume to be true but can never prove.
I have been about as specific as this dialogue has demanded or allowed. I am in no great hurry to quibble over details since I reject what appears to be your major premises and their ancillary presuppositions. Namely that there must be a purely naturalistic explaination for everything and that the earth must be very old to accommodate any reasonable theory.
Is God true? How do you know? Is the resurrection true? How do you know?
I accept the evidence while rejecting your artificial, unreasonable limitations to how it might be explained.
No dice. The impact from the vrederfort alone would destroy his ship. </font>[/QUOTE] That's funny. One of the links you gave suggested that a notable group of secular scientists disagree that a meteor caused this crater. If there is no certainty among the sources you cite as more authoritative than Genesis then why should I accept a less than universal opinion as definitive proof?
No. Again, I do not care to quibble over details while you maintain that your biases must be respected as truth. However, if you want to point out some specifics on this issue I will ponder an alternative.
Assuming that meteors are in fact the source of the craters and assuming that there were no other unknown factors that limited the effects and assuming we know the composition and condition of the atmosphere at the time and assuming that we know the nature and condition of the impact areas and assuming we know the composition and nature of these particular meteors... and assuming I have contended that (which I have not)... you might have a ... nah, too many assumptions.
No. I have just questioned your fallible reasoning in interpretting the evidence.
You can suspect that, but I bet you would be wrong. </font>[/QUOTE]Show me your polling data.
Perhaps not. But a very small group gets to decide the operational philosophy for those in academia who are dependent on grants, tenure, being published, etc. To say that evolution has not impacted what is considered "acceptable" in academic circles is more than a little unrealistic.
Thanks for making my point yet again. You ignore what I tell you and keep making accusations like this because I refuse to operate under your assumptions since I do not recognize adequate proof for them.
BTW, I say it is not true because it does not agree with the Bible as adequately as what I do believe. I have read interpretations of similar data that appear just as reasonable but agree with the biblical record. Also, what is proposed while possible was not observed. Test can be designed to show that the theory is viable but not to demonstrate with absolute certainty what truly occurred.
No I don't. A good many interpretations of the Bible are up for dispute. This is in perfect agreement with what I said before. Our senses, discernment, and reasoning are not infallible. In addition, no one is so completely submitted to the guidance of the Holy Spirit that they have a lock on Bible interpretation.
If you believe this, where does God tell us that Genesis is not literal?
Fallible man operating under the burden of his severely limiting sin nature... which applies to secular scientists as well.
So? You accept the opinions of scientists that are at best educated speculation and at worst imagined scenarios looking for tangible proof. Science speculates all of its explainations of prehistoric events and does so based on some very weak, tenuous assumptions.
Why is it that you seem compelled to limit what others can assume? It isn't a matter of who the Holy Spirit will help interpret but rather who is submitted to accept His help. Notably, you ignored the rest of the response. Not all theories equally agree with the whole of scripture nor are all people equally submitted to God on specific issues.
BTW, I am not praying that God will change your mind. I am praying that God will show me the truth.
I believe you are wrong, not stupid. All smart people are wrong about something.
No. I oppose experential, feeling based religion. I told you above how I believe someone arrives at the correct interpretation. I am convinced of my beliefs and will continue to be until someone proves that some other interpretation agrees more with scripture or that what I believe can be catagorically, empirically disproven.
Since I am not driven by feelings, your point is moot except to say that I agree with your premise that much of man's errors in thinking/discerning are caused by Satan, the flesh, or the world through "feelings." I would add that those deceptive feelings take many forms and are frequently very subtle and well below the concious level.
Why I would say that scientists operating under a modernistic philosophical paradigm might even be subject to allowing feelings like fear of rejection or embarassment or castigation to cloud their reasoning at a very basic level.
The Galatian
Active Member
Jesus had an opinion on that:
Mark 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
God cannot be proven or disproven. That is the way he wants it. And all your cleverness will not be worth a drop of faith.
If you read through the thread, you will notice that I am not the one arguing that everything must have a naturalistic explaination. Meatros asked how we could know something was true without testing or measuring it.
I agree with you. We can know God is true without a scientific experiment. Working from this point, I reject Meatros premise that everything in nature must be explained by purely naturalistic means. Admittedly, I presuppose an active, direct Creator. For whatever reason, he appears to reject that same presupposition.
If only one person had interpreted the data and then pronounced it as accurate, you would be right. These data are checked and rechecked, leaving little room for error. Even so, sometimes they do change, I'm not denying that. What I'm saying is just hoping against hope that the data is wrong is a little dishonest in my opinion.
I'm glad I don't think of Genesis in that way.
I have predetermined answers??? That's the pot calling the kettle black. I'll have you know that I was a firm YEC believer a few years ago.
The answers you've given don't fit the evidence at all. You didn't even bother to pull up any sources for your speculation.
That's because I'm *not* talking about evolution. For the sake of this conversation, evolution is false, lamarkism happened. That being said, would you care to deal with the question at hand? Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with meteors.
I'm not speculating about the ages of the meteors though, with the exception that they didn't all hit at the same time (due to the different layers). I'm asking for an explanation to the meteors in the 6-10k age range. We know the power of the impact of meteors this size, one hit jupiter (IIRC). You want to make this all appear as though it's guess work, it isn't. Physics explains the impacts, we've witnessed meteor impacts, and we've witnessed *big* meteor impacts.
I'm willing to accept a supernatural alternative as long as it fits the data and is biblically supported. Why should I just assume something supernatural happened when there is *no* evidence of such??
God isn't testible, I have *faith* that God exists. Same goes with the resurrection. There is evidence outside the bible that Jesus at least existed. Also, neither really conflict with evidence in the world. Jesus rising from the dead is a matter of faith, in fact it's what the Christian faith depends on. An old earth is not. Explaining away meteors through the supernatural (with no sort of evidence) is also not what the Christian faith depends on (at least not mine). I would have to be an incredibly credulous person to accept a YEC, even though the evidence doesn't support it. The meteors are just one example. In order to accept YEC, I have to explain the meteors. The problem with that is their isn't any biblical scripture that can account for the meteors. Jesus also certainly didn't say "to get into heaven you must accept me, and deny all the evidence for an old earth". If he had, perhaps I would be a YEC.
You reject it because you *have* to reject it in order to satisfy you limited paradigm.
Really, well that's interesting. It was only declared a meteor a little while ago. Do you know why they disagree?
Oh please, get over yourself. Look, you don't want to accept the evidence. That's fine, that's your right, but seeing as you haven't refuted the science (only tried to refute 'naturalism'), I have to ask you why you are participating in this thread?
Who is this small group (and what do you consider a 'small group') and what are you talking about? Practically every college has people studying geology, evolution, etc. I'm not saying that evolution has not impacted scientific circles, but it hasn't effected how science is participated in. If you can think of some tests for the supernatural, by all means, publish your results. It sounds like to me that you are hinting at a conspiracy.
Sounds like to me you are close minded to anything that doesn't fall within your biblical paradigm.
You weren't there when the bible was written, nor when Jesus rose, yet you accept those. For your YEC paradigm Genesis has to be literal. For mine it does not. Since neither of us can have a complete lock on bible interpretation, then whose to say that I'm not right? Furthermore, whose to say that *both* of us are interpreting it wrong? Why do you have such strict demands of science (it must be observed) but not such demands of religion (IMO salvation is vastly more important)?
Same place where God says that Genesis is literal.
Oh please, just because you don't agree, doesn't make it "educated speculation". Do you trust doctors or the computer you are working on? You seem to pick and choose what you find 'appealing'.
No need to continue then, he has shown me the truth.
Do you have evidence of any of this?
I'm not saying everything has to, only those things that *can* have natural explanations.
From Meatros:
This comment just clarifies my suspicions!!
Meatros, I've wondered a lot about your attitude, scientific knowledge, and "professed" openess to logic since you've been posting.
This comment just clarifies my suspicions!! Nice "drive-by" Just-want-peace, unfortunately I did seem to miss the point of that sentence.
I thought Scott was saying that God would show me the truth (or something close to that), but upon closer inspection, he didn't, which makes my post rather...odd.
In any event, my apologies for misreading the sentence.
However I am sad to see that you have completely judged me without the benefit from having at least one discussion with me.
I thought Scott was saying that God would show me the truth (or something close to that), but upon closer inspection, he didn't, which makes my post rather...odd.
In any event, my apologies for misreading the sentence.
However I am sad to see that you have completely judged me without the benefit from having at least one discussion with me.