>>> BlueSky: Granted, there is much both sides don’t know, and both tend to fill in the blanks with unknown unknowns.<<< This is a false equivalency if I have ever seen one. Ted, could you explain a little more on this, ( in relation to what I said )
This is a common YEC tactic that because mainstream science does not have all the answers (or pretends to) that YEC is afforded an equivalent amount of leeway in not having any answers at all. For instance, geology has an actual coherent theory of the development of the earth through it's history built upon thousands and thousands of hours of study, research, laboratory studies. YEC has a couple of geologists making up ad-hoc explanations and maybe hypotheses (if we are generous) for the same thing. You simply cannot make those two equivalent in value or practical use. YEC offers nothing to me as an exploration geologist. There is nothing available to explain why deposits are where they are, how they formed in a couple thousand years, etc, etc.
Sorry forgot the context....( My last post on the other thread. ) >>>> Hey brother, When I began my research in & around 97, I found myself reading many pro and con sources simultaneously . ( Talk-Origins was one ) I have read much more vehement sites since, and some, downright hostile towards what scripture plainly asserts. I suspended judgment ( as much as I could, although I was leaning YE ) until learned more. Clearly, there were polar opposites in play. Although now, I like polar opposites because it makes it easier to find true truth. ( i.e. Law of Non-Contradiction ) One thing I discovered about these sites ( and their opinions ) is that they are heavily burdened with assumptions and biases at their foundations. There were many mistakes. That’s a major tell, imo. Granted, there is much both sides don’t know, and both tend to fill in the blanks with unknown unknowns. There is much data beyond Answers in Genesis and CRI if one looks. I will give an example later. One other problem that I discovered while doing research is that, ones knowledge base directly affects ones understanding of the issues. Many of the arguments and perspectives are very complicated and knowledge dependant. If you don’t know what they are talking about, you won’t “see” the deeper issues ( and the possible bias’s and assumptions being proposed or assumed ) Basically, don’t get fooled just because you don’t really know the issue. I am not giving that power to anything. Here’s my bottom line brother We are here, floating on a chuck of dirt and water in the middle of seemingly nowhere. We got here somehow. There is a true truth to our existence at the core. And it’s beyound our ability to bend it. Mankind either started relatively instantly ( as Genesis assets ) or another way. TE or pure E? Walk mankinds existence backwards, from you and me. Back to our great great great great great great ansestors. We must have had a real start, no? The Bible assets it was Adam. And awesome enough, there is actual empirical evidence for this. I have not seen anything yet that has eviscerated YE ( the straightforward biblical view ) for me. Much of it is beyound my ability to comprehend tho, so I swim in the waters I know. This does not mean I am right, or that it will not happen ( I welcome it if not true truth) but I have not been convinced of anything beyond the Biblical explanation as of yet. I am always open ( as much as I can be ) I more I learn, the more I see that the evidence stacked up against us is actually made of straw, but that just me. Blessings brother <<<
I made a visualization. Not to demean or offend, but just to explain what people mean by false equivalence. I'm not trying to take your belief from you, or assault your faith. However, if you promote literal genesis creation, you're not doing so from a scientific method. You're doing it from faith. While the volumes on my visual might seem arbitrary, consider the amount of material published annually using evolution/old earth as a basis. They're published in all the hard sciences: chemistry, astronomy, biology, physics, geology. If anything, my visual under-represents the scale of the body of work supporting Old Earth / Evolution. Compare that to the body of work published by Young Earthers. There's perhaps a handful of publishers who's findings consistently run afoul of other scientific disciplines.
Hey Blue, I still have this old YEC document on my harddisk, uploaded it for your convenience and (I must admit) to tease Teddy a bit. http://www.top-5000.nl/b/index.html
Hi Ted and hisleast, I think you guys may have misunderstood the thrust of what I was saying, or maybe I worded it wrong. I agree, the amount of "data" to examine [ produced annually or in total ] is much heavier in the OE camp, [ as hisleast's picture showed ] but this is quite understandable, and fully expected as we are clearly outnumbered in the amount of people doing Biblically [expressed] based research. (Although this was different 100 years ago.) Fact: There are lots of qualified YE scientists around the world from every discipline. The Church [ the remnant ] has always been in the minority. Why should this aspec be any different? There is far more non-Christian literature in the world, does his negate the truths of Christian literature? Both sides regardsless of size have unknowns unknowns and in the void of such, come up with theories, models and possibilities to round out their ideas of what they think happened. We both do it; that's what I was saying. This has no bearing on who has the most perceived or actual truth in said model, just that both camps have unknowns that they "play with". Both sides think the other is unjustified in their conclusions as well. Each paradigm is based in part on bias and presuppositions when drilled into. Flood geology [ looking at geology with the goggles on that a global flood happened in our not too distant past ] has a very coherent model of what happened to the earth during and after the flood [ and subsequent post flood disasters ]. Just because others disagree, does not make it not so. I have read a great many geologists who disagree with your position Ted, which is the whole point. We disagree on some fundamental issues. You feel you are right, they feel they are right, and here we stand. Of course we both can't be right as we say diametrically opposing things, which is where research, understanding and yes, some faith comes into the picture. But both sides require faith, don’t be fooled. “Science” does not have all the answers. Each issue that a geologist would be interested in must be examined individually, with people who speak the same language for the best assessment ( ie geology ) imho , to find the best answer that describes what really took place, or the ‘true truth’. Lets not forget that without divine revelation ( scripture ) we are all flying around half-blind so to speak, bending to each new interpretation of events that would probably never stop. What do we say if science declares that it has prove that aliens seeded mankind? ( I know that a realize that’s a hypothetical ) Scripture gives us a baseline, or a lens to view the data correctly and therefor come up with the proper interpretation. Without this lens, I don’t how we correctly view the world, it’s condition or its future. Sure we can get some things correctly, [ working without Gods revelations ] but other things we can ( and do ) get wrong. Btw, I am not here at your forum to push YE. I like talking about it, and it’s my current paradigm. If anyone feels they have a better way to see things, I am listening.
I was only commenting on that one snippet of your post. Fact: There are far more Christian geologists that accept the current geological theories than there are Christian geologists who accept YEC. Who are all these geologists you speak of? I can think of Austin, Snelling, and Gentry off the top of my head. I'm sure there are a few others. (Snelling has demonstrated ethical issues which I find problematic from a professional geologist's POV as well as a from a Christian's). I'll be generous and say that YEC barely does this. There is a token amount of research and publication which is completely enclosed within the YEC publication world. Who are these great many geologists? I've never said that science has all the answers. We do this already. There is a vanishingly small group of outliers who are pushing a doctrine, not pushing the limits of geology. Science rarely proves anything. There would have to be some really good evidence to support that hypothesis. We remember what the intent of the Biblical story is all about. The created world around us is in fact God's revelation to us - often termed the 'general revelation'. As far as I know, you are totally free to promote YEC here. I'm pretty sure the owner leans that way. And the folks here are about as gracious as you'll find which is why they tolerate even me.
I'm not going to allow myself to be drawn into the YE/OE debate, partly because my husband is a scientist who subscribes to OE, but mainly because I don't personally care. The only comment I have to what you stated, is this: I'd be very careful to stretch the meaning of the word "remnant" to areas where it doesn't belong. It's completely possible to be faithful to God and His commandments (which is the kind of people the word "remnant" describes) while having different worldviews about ancillary things like the interpretation of scientific or historical data and so on. Your statement has the flavor of "if you don't believe what the minority believes, then you are not faithful to God". Which you may not have intended, but it does come across that way. I've seen discussions where people have assumed the "false victim" stance in the end, to the effect of "you guys are hitting us so hard with your counter-arguments, we're now feeling ganged up on, so obviously you're of the enemy and we are going to just pull the 'God card" as our 'win button' " -- at which point the debate is over because how can you counter that?? Majority or minority opinion/beliefs doesn't make anything true. Only truth is true. Something either exists, or it doesn't. It either happened, or it didn't. As you've already stated, and I totally agree with that. Carry on ...
I guess is depends on what value one places on the evidence. The problem is that both science and faith are seeking the answer to the question "where did all this stuff and/or energy originate," and science can't get there and faith has no definitive answer, otherwise, it would not be faith but science. Trying to answer an essentially metaphysical question with a physical answer is never going to work.
You make a good point, I concur. It was not my intention at all to assert that belief in YE=the remnant. Far from it. Ones stance on this issue does not affect ones salvation. I want to be clear on this. All I was trying to say is that just because the majority sees things one certain way, does not make it truth. Thanks for addressing this. You summed it up nicely.
No offence taken at all friend. I understand what you are saying. I would agree faith is required, for sure, however, all I have done, or feel that I have, is read the literal view of Genesis, ( what God left us ) and then looked for evidence that would confirm what He said. To my surprise, I found lots! YE'rs have scientists in all disciplines as well, who happen to see things differently. Yes we are in the minority. I don't think that it should negate the position tho, based on this aspect. When I read the worlds view of events, they are in stark contrast to the Biblical version. I personally feel ( just my opinion here ) that in many cases, OE'rs have capitulated to the worlds view, as its so strong and to stray from the party line in certain circles is akin to a professional suicide of sorts. But we all have our reasons for believe what we do, and I would support everyone's right to believe what they want. OE'rs and TE's have their reasons for believing this, and that OK with me!
OFF TOPIC. Ed, thanks for posting the message in the alternative universe. Now if Jason would only listen to it. WE NOW RETURN YOU TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED RANT
There have been quite some good posts by Ken and Mark about love <> fear. And maybe that's the whole crux of the Jason matter. The inability to grasp the love of God. As such your sermon together with their posts may become an eye (heart) opener for him. Sure, back to Genesis. [Q] - Why did God create man before woman? [A] - He didn't want any advice!
[Q] - How do we know that there will be no women in Heaven? [A] - Because there was silence in Heaven for half an hour (Revelation 8:1).
Respectfully disagree. Some times its just about the facts. Biblical literalists will say "Earth is 5000ish years old". Scads and scads and scads of evidence from unrelated disciplines supports an earth that's much MUCH older. You don't get to negate that conflict by saying "yeah but science doesn't answer the WHY of existence like Christianity can". Further, If a belief system says "X is categorically true" but all evidence points elsewhere, *maybe* the belief system isn't true (or maybe a ton of people are misinterpreting it).
Biblical literalists can't saybearth is 5000 years old because a literal interpretation doesn't address the issue