Church and ministry leadership resources to better equip, train and provide ideas for today's church and ministry leaders, like you.
Get updates from Religion Prof: The Blog of James F. McGrath delivered straight to your inbox
Oh, perfect! I’m forwarding this to my geologist-husband. He’ll love the plate tectonics connection.
I agree with you.
But willful denial of reality is the core tenet of the creationist death cult! They consider learning the Original Sin.
Sir Isaac Newton took the solar system to be recently created.
Why do you think that’s significant?
Ummm… can we get an argument less than 100 years old here?
Heck I’ll take one less than 200 years old, not this 300 year old one.
We’ve come a long way, baby…
Ahhh. Is it a 6,000 yr. old argument or a 4,600,000 yr. old argument? And, why would anyone think that’s significant?
You forget three significant figures… That should be 4,600,000,000.
>And, why would anyone think that’s significant?
Oh, maybe because science has advanced quite a bit in the last 300 years? Has the 6,000 y.o. mythological framework advanced much since inception, other than being presented in the vernacular to allow public consumption of formerly closely held text.
Where did you get the idea of a 6,000 yr. framework? Does the Bible even hint at that possibility? Is it strange that a book with origins back in the times of Sumerian Culture and the pyramids, etc., is claimed by some to be an invention of the past 300 yrs? Whilst others claim it is bronze age?
Is this an instance of recent creation? Of myths?
“Of OLD hast thou laid the foundations of the earth” Ps. 102:25
“The ANCIENT mountains” Deut. 33:15
“The LASTING hills” Deut. 33:15
“The EVERLASTING hills” Gen. 49.36
“The PERPETUAL hills” Hab. 3:6
“Are thy days as the days of man … ?” Job 10:5a.
PRO TIP #1: Read your own posts before commenting.
You said “Ahhh. Is it a 6,000 yr. old argument or a 4,600,000 yr. old argument?”
Pace yourself, Kid. You are in way over your head.
Sir Isaac Newton also believed in alchemy and magical substances such as the Philosopher’s Stone and the Elixir of Life.
Indeed. Startlingly brilliant, but very much a man of his time.
How about the one about the magical species changing into each other because there is no God and no Creator?
Magical species? You mean unicorns, dragons, and fairies? No, they don’t evolve; they just live in your childlike imagination.
Real species change primarily through genetic mutation; a process that is naturalistic and observable in the laboratory, not magical.
You’re the only one proposing that species were made by magic (God just waved his magic wand at creation).
Just to be a devil’s advocate, isn’t the young earth creationist’s workaround to all this: “God created Adam + Eve with the appearance of age, so it makes sense that God created the earth with the appearance of age.”
I know it’s easy to push back against that claim, but if you assume Adam+Eve, it’s easy to dismiss a chart like this without giving it a second thought. Everything at the bottom of the chart “just is, because God made it that way.”
If God created not only Adam and Eve but the universe with the appearance of age, then God is a liar.
Yes, they have to believe God is a liar one way or the other. Either the Bible is a lie, or all those fossils are a lie.
I place my confidence in the centuries of research, billions of man-hours, millions of pages of documentation, and mountains (literally, mountains) of physical evidence that refute the validity of any of the myriad religious creation myths out there. Any day…
“Whence come I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer to it.” MAX PLANK
Why aren’t you plank – like in your thinking? Is this significant?
Inserting “god did it” into an unanswered question is both lazy & dishonest. God of the Gaps logical fallacy.
So, tell us what happens at speciation. DNA, RNA, autoimmune system, sex cells — the works. With a side note on how environmental living conditions were ‘wired into’ cellular information at a moment in geologic time. With another note on how, from that moment of transformation, the transformed species was a genetically distinct unit which did not interbreed and thus return to the conduit species from which it transformed.
Now don’t call on the god of the gaps. That modern god of the gaps whose name in some people’s imagination begins with “e”. Not E.T..
Knock yourself out…
More of the same. The same old same olds can be identified straight up. “Evolution” — without a definition of the meaning or intent of the word. “Hint, hint, nudge nudge, we all know how it happened, and what I say is obvious.” These ‘experts’ have been going backwards since Darwin and are currently retrogressing backwards from the ancient Greeks!
“This book describes the dynamics of evolutionary change at the molecular level, the driving forces behind the evolutionary process, the effects of the various molecular mechanisms on the structure of genes, proteins, and genomes, the methodology involved in dealing with molecular data from an evolutionary perspective,………………. as well as analytical tools that have been developed and perfected in the last decade, ….. .”
Perfected, eh? The infallibility of the Pope.
You and I can write a learned tome about anything from weight loss to climate. Aristotle has been called the father of science (which, indeed, he was) yet the basics of those who opposed Galileo and the Enlightenment originated to some extent in Aristotle.
“This book describes elemental physics, the heavens, natural history, the parts of animals ……. ” (Some of Aristotle’s science topics. Developed without a microscope, telescope, laboratory facilities, and without the underlaying reassurance of the Word of God.)
Notice the book you reference does not define the term, “Evolution”?
“Evolution” literally is an unrolling. “An unrolling” covers everything. Except, perhaps, “I am THE LORD: I change not!” Then again, his mercies are “new every morning”. So, take our pick. Anyone can write a scholarly tome about evolution, anywhere, any time, any one, any thing.
What the book referenced does not address is biologic evolution, the real McCoy. Evolution the science. Quantifiable, step by step, logic, mathematical. “Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe” (Galileo).
I.e., what happens at speciation. DNA, RNA, autoimmune system, sex cells — the works. How environmental living conditions were ‘wired into’ cellular information at a moment in geologic time.
Here is an extract from my publications to illustrate where real science is currently “at”, in relation to speciation. It can only catch a glimpse and without a quantum computer is little advanced on Aristotle. My comment included.
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (2011, October 14). From blue whales to earthworms, a common mechanism gives shape to living beings. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 15, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111013153943.htm QUOTE (emphasis added), “……The process is astonishingly simple. In the embryo’s first moments, the Hox genes are dormant, packaged like a spool of wound yarn on the DNA. When the time is right, the strand begins to unwind. When the embryo begins to form the upper levels, the genes encoding the formation of cervical vertebrae come off the spool and become activated. Then it is the thoracic vertebrae’s turn, and so on down to the tailbone. The DNA strand acts a bit like an old-fashioned computer punchcard, delivering specific instructions as it progressively goes through the machine. “A new gene comes out of the spool every ninety minutes, which corresponds to the time needed for a new layer of the embryo to be built,” explains Duboule. “It takes two days for the strand to completely unwind; this is the same time that’s needed for all the layers of the embryo to be completed.” This system is the first “mechanical” clock ever discovered in genetics. And it explains why the system is so remarkably precise. This discovery is the result of many years of work. Under the direction of Duboule and Daniël Noordermeer, the team analyzed thousands of Hox gene spools. With assistance from the Swiss Institute for Bioinformatics, the scientists were able to compile huge quantities of data and model the structure of the spool and how it unwinds over time.……The Hox clock is a demonstration of the extraordinary complexity of evolution. One notable property of the mechanism is its extreme stability, explains Duboule. “Circadian or menstrual clocks involve complex chemistry. They can thus adapt to changing contexts, but in a general sense are fairly imprecise. The mechanism that we have discovered must be infinitely more stable and precise. Even the smallest change would end up leading to the emergence of a new species.””
Chial, H. & Akst, J. “Epigenetics” [Online] Scitable. Accessed 26 May 2012. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/scitable/spotlight/epigenetics-26097411. Epigenetic changes to DNA have intrigued and puzzled researchers. They are physical changes to DNA that don’t involve the base sequence, but rather act on top of the sequence, and ultimately shape gene expression. What are these epigenetic molecules? How do they affect organisms? Learn about epigenetics. COMMENT: This developing field of Epigenetics suggests the possibility that DNA is designed to pick up environmental information as time passes. Presumably, it is also designed so that, once a critical amount of additional information (elsewhere, I class these as ‘transformation agents’) is appended, the scene is set so that species transformation can occur. The transformation agents are acted upon so that their characteristics became a permanent aspect of the DNA. The events involved in transformation remain obscure, but presumably environmental pressure for change plays a triggering role, whilst some sort of quantum signalling must happen at the critical instant. ………….. .
I will put it up against 1,400 words of Bronze Age oral tradition whipped up by itinerant sheep herders who did not know where the sun went at night… any day.
The questions you ask (the ones that make sense) all can be answered by bio-chemists who specialize in evolutionary biology.
Neither of the statements below are part of evolutionary theory.
“environmental living conditions were ‘wired into’ … ”
“from that moment of transformation, the transformed species …”.
Reduced to it’s simplest, life is nothing but chemistry.
Ahh huh. People don’t tend to question their deity. Because he is their deity. Everyone looks to something beyond themselves, high up up there — somewhere, somehow.
In Faraday’s day, certain elements of European society believed it was electricity. There’s a big “e” for you. People such as Faraday reduced electricity to an empirical, mathematical, natural phenomenon. No more big “e” for electricity. Yet, for a minority, it was once the VIS NERVOSA,, the “stuff of life”, the great Explanation.
Now the great Explanation is E……. guess what.
“Reduced to it’s simplest, life is nothing but chemistry.”
E… lectricity plus E…. the great mystery.
No maths, no step by step logic, no investigation.
Everything should be questioned, and evidence, or the lack of it, analyzed. There is no evidence for the existence of god(s) and every scientific advance lessens the need of a god for the explanation of nature. Our ancestors may have needed gods to explain the sunrise, volcanoes, earthquakes, tides, thunder and lightning, plagues and a myriad of other things; we don’t.
“Reduced to it’s simplest, life is nothing but chemistry.” (and time)
Read a text on biochemistry and you will get all the mathematics and logic you need. There is nothing magical about life and every reason to think that given the right conditions life will result.
You have just now implied that you do not exist. There is no creator/God. There is no creation. Nothing exists.
As for intelligent design — it never happens. The above comment being evidence.
The whole of Science, MON AMI, stands or falls, lock, stock, and barrel, upon a created universe. No creation? No laws of physics, no existence, no measurement, no knowledge. Only idols, fairies, and spooks.
A THEOS “without God … strangers to the covenants of promise…….. without hope ….. .”
Naw. Only the Devil is without hope. Man is a creature born to believe (D’Israeli).
Now you want to discuss Big Bang cosmology? You have already proven that you know nothing about abiogenisis, and now you want to prove you know nothing about the theories that describe the origin of the universe? Religion is easy, ‘the god(s) did it’, science is harder; you require facts to validate your assertions.
What “moment of transformation”? What “moment in geologic time”?
Evolutionary biologists have never posited that speciation takes place in a moment.
In fact, the case is rather the opposite. Speciation takes place when populations of the “parent” species become separated (usually by geographical barriers) over vast periods of time.
Speciation never happened in real time?
“To measure is to know.” (KELVIN).
If species can exist ‘IN LIMBO’, in a state of transition, then a non-existing entity exists.
When an evolutionary biologist measures something instead of dreaming something, he will enter the realm of rational investigation.
Of course, speciation happens over time; noone said otherwise.
I have no idea what a religious term like “limbo” has to do with biology, but states of transition exist in every field of science. Humans don’t transition from being children to adults in one magical blink of an eye. There is a transition that takes place over years. They don’t become “nonexistent” in the meantime. That’s nonsense.
Evolutionary biologists measure genetic and anatomical adaptations constantly, though you choose willful ignorance of it.
“Most modern textbooks use Ernst Mayr’s definition, known as the Biological Species Concept. It is also called a reproductive or isolation concept. This defines a species as. groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups”.
Species – Wikipedia
Are there definable species and speciation? Does Biology exist? Take your pick.
Easy answer. Yes. I’m glad you’re able to look up textbook definitions, since your first comment about species was completely incoherent and incombatible with this one.
Incoherence is the one thing Mr. Heywood seems to be expert in.
“Whence come I and whither go I?”
From stardust to worm food. Next question, Einstein.
And it’s “Planck”, not Plank. You should really read the source materials, and not just cut and paste from “Creationist Arguments for Dummies”. Yer Homework: do it.
And going to theoretical physicists for philosophical questions is like going to your Chevy mechanic for gynecology.
Planck it is. Ta. Just between you and me, I’d believe a motor mechanic any day. Like, say, Galileo and Newton, who both built telescopes, and Lord Kelvin, who laid a N. Atlantic cable.
I think your mother/wife/sister/girlfriend/all women would disagree with you on that point.
Actually, God is a Liar:
“And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him … I will go forth and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him and prevail also; go forth and do so. 1 Kings 22:21-22”
Don’t you have any instinct of self preservation?
I’ve always been fascinated by instances of “noble lies” or “pious frauds”
My favorite “noble lie” is the one Euripides puts on the lips of Cadmus in “The Bacchae,” when Cadmus says: “Even though he (Dionysus) is no God, as you think, still say that he is a God. Be guilty of a splendid fraud, declaring Dionysus the son of Semele, because this will make it seem she is the mother of a God, and will confer honor on all our race.”
Why do you ask?
No – see my comment above.
If we had stuck to this “God of the Gaps” approach throughout time, we would all still be living in trees, flinging our poo at each other.
we all know young earth creationists are stupid
“We” don’t all “know” that. When I was a young-earth creationist, I do not think it was because of stupidity…
what was it because of?
A combination of things, including immaturity, enthusiasm in a newfound faith, insufficient fact checking, misinformation, and probably other things. But I suspect that my IQ was not lower then than it is now.
And that perhaps you were ingrained with that from childhood? It’s not based on stupidity, but what you were indoctrinated with. Brandon, ease up please. It’s hard enough to break out and realize you were duped, let alone have someone tell you that you’re stupid for believing it in the first place.
IQ is not the same as intelligence. Nor is it fixed – it’s defined by scores in IQ tests, and it’s quite possible to improve these by practice.
No, they aren’t. When someone abandons young-Earth Creationism in favor of reason they haven’t suddenly become more intelligent, they have simply learned to see it for the empty suit that it is.
Well it’s arguable that that does make them more intelligent – or less stupid. Your point, and James McGrath’s, only hold if you define stupidity and intelligence as fixed characteristics. It’s just as valid to regard them as aspects of cognitive functioning which can change, or be changed.
I would say that former Creationists are using their intelligence more intelligently. ;^)
ok their still being unintelligent in one area
we all know young earth creationism is stupid
Now that’s a stupid (and childish) comment!
I knew there was something cosmic at work when my Ibuprofin actually cured my headache this morning.
Could be the placebo effect…Mind over matter.
The common way that YEC defend this is that the universe must have then been made to appear older than it actually is. But then we’re arguing whether the universe has actually existed for ~13.8 billion years or if it was created a few thousand years ago already ~13.8 billion years old. And then the question is “Why the semantics?” If for all intents and purposes the universe is ~13.8 billion years old, why argue that it’s “actually 6,000 years old” when the fact that it’s “actually” 6000 years old wouldn’t matter in the slightest?
Take Adam there for example. He was created already an adult. For the sake of simplicity, let’s say that god made him 30 years old when he created him. If 5 years later Adam went to a doctor, it would be useless to tell the doctor that he’s actually 5 years old, because his body has aged for 35 years. Telling the doctor that he was only 5 would actually only ruin the doctor’s ability to help him, because Adam’s body is that of a 35 year old man, not of a 5 year old boy.
So even IF the universe is only ‘actually’ a few thousand years old, the universe’s age is clearly that of a ~13.8 billion year old universe, so there’s literally no reason to fight the idea that the universe is ~13.8 billion years old. Even if you’re technically correct, it’s completely and utterly irrelevant to our experience of the universe as it is.
No, that’s not common at all – if you can find any example of a modern YEC proposing it I’ll be surprised. Modern YECs, following the example of the Seventh Day Adventist George McCready Price (who, incidentally, most of them would regard as a heretic), argue that the evidence supports an earth that is only a few thousand years old – or at the very least, is as compatible with that as with the view taken by science. In doing so, they have to lie their heads off.
What you wrongly say is the common way, was the idea propounded by Philip Gosse in his 1857 book Omphalos – he started his argument with Adam’s navel. Its reception – intensely disappointing to Gosse – is described by his son Edmund in his touching 1907 memoir Father and Son:
Never was a book cast upon the waters with greater anticipation of
success than was this curious, this obstinate, this fanatical volume …
He offered it with a glowing gesture to atheists and Christians alike.
This was to be a universal panacea; this the system of intellectual
therapeutics which could not but heal all the maladies of the age. But
alas, atheists and Christians alike looked at it and laughed, and threw
I’ve had considerable experience with young earth creationists over the years (since the late 1970s), and the ‘apparent age’ argument is indeed one of arguments commonly used by young earth creationists. Throughout the years I’ve had young earth creationists proffer the apparent age argument relatively often.
Now, you are absolutely correct that it’s not consistent with the ‘creation science’ façade that “the evidence supports an earth that is only a few thousand years old” – but expecting logical consistency in the young earth creationism position is expecting way too much. (Take “baraminology” for example – in which some young earth creationists not only embrace massive evolution, but evolution that occurs at rates of evolution far exceeding anything ever contemplated in the scientific theory of evolution. So while most creationists are spouting all manner of rhetoric trying to pretend that no species have ever evolved from other species, we have these “baraminologists” directly contradicting this. “Catastrophic plate tectonics” is another great example of the self-contradictions of young earth creationism pseudoscience rhetoric.)
Even one of the arch-young earth creationist ‘creation science’ snake oil salesmen – Henry Morris – employed elements of the apparent age argument when he saw fit (in the book “Scientific Creationism” he posited the apparent age argument as a solution to the ‘distant starlight problem’). Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, uses the apparent age argument.
Your point about the inconsistency of YECs is well taken, and thanks for the information about Mohler. However, the “apparent age” argument is certainly not the main one put forward by prominent YECs such as Ham, Hovind, the ICR, etc., and I don’t know of any modern creationist who develops it consistently, as Gosse did.
James, this implication chart should be extended to the whole Bible.
After denying geology for 200 years and trying to pretend it didn’t exist, creationists then embraced plate tectonics – and just said, hey, it did happen, it just happens a zillion times faster so that the Atlantic Ocean was created in few months. Physics? It would take so much energy to do that it would melt the earth’s crust? No, no, who cares about the scientific details? God can do anything, you know.
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics
After denying history and re-constituting English word meanings, commenters with religious hang ups, deny history by denying history and the lingo. .
A few minor extracts: ‘Darwin on the Origin of Species’, Edinburgh Review, 3, 1860, pp. 487-532. Published on-line by John Van Wyhe.
Daily observation, comparison, and reflection, on recent and extinct organisms, pursued from the date of these remarks (1798) to the close of his career (1832) failed to bring the requisite proof, or to impress the mind of Cuvier with any amount of belief worth mentioning, as to the nature of the cause operative in the production of the species of which he was the first to demonstrate the succession.
In his last published work (9) Professor Owen does not hesitate to state ‘that perhaps the most important and significant result of palæontological research has been the establishment of the axiom of the continuous operation of the ordained becoming of living things.’ The italics are the author’s. As to his own opinions regarding the nature or mode of that ‘continuous creative operation,’ the Professor is silent. [Owen being the world leading anatomist/palaeontologist who evaluated Darwin’s fossil specimens – and could make no sense out of Darwin’s ramblings, to his dying day! —my note.]
All who have brought the transmutative speculations to the test of observed facts and ascertained powers in organic life, and have published the results, usually adverse to such speculations, are set down by Mr. Darwin as ‘curiously illustrating the blindness of preconceived opinion;’ and whosoever may withhold assent to his own or other transmutationists’ views, is described as ‘really believing that at innumerable periods of the earth’s history certain elemental atoms suddenly flashed into living tissues.’ (P. 483) Which, by the way, is but another notion of the mode of becoming of a species as little in harmony with observation as the hypothesis of natural selection by external influence, or of exceptional birth or development. Nay, Mr. Darwin goes so far as to affirm —
‘All the most eminent palæontologists, namely, Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, Falconer, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, &c., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species.’ (P. 310)
The origin of species is the question of questions in Zoology; the supreme problem which the most striking of our original labourers, the clearest zoological thinkers, and the most successful generalisers, have never lost sight of, whilst they have approached it with due reverence.
The scientific world has looked forward with great interest to the facts which Mr. Darwin might finally deem adequate to the support of his theory on this supreme question in biology, and to the course of inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on ‘that mystery of mysteries.’ But having now cited the chief, if not the whole, of the original observations adduced by its author in the volume now before us, our disappointment may be conceived.
END EDINBURGH REVIEW RANDOM EXTRACTS.
Every scientist mentioned here, including in some measure, Darwin himself (although he was technically way off the mark) every scientist involved in foundational geology and biology, was creationist in the simple dictionary meaning.
Sure. But so what?
Hey, Philip, thank you for demonstrating how creationists such as yourself love to employ silly word games to promote ridiculous misrepresentations in trying to prop up your bogus “worldview,” not to mention your penchant for using brainless copy-and-paste. Not only was Darwin no creationist, but deliberately articulated certain discussions about evolution in the *Origin of Species* to counter the creationist beliefs and arguments used in his time.
And, oh, by the way, why do you make your post as a “reply” to my post when in fact you did not address anything I wrote in my post in any way, shape, or form?
Ignore the hippo. that’s taking down the walls of the house and try to catch the mouse under the sofa?
Darwinism/Common Descent is scientific. The implications?
Jesus Christ and all the apostles were frauds. They said things like, Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? By their fruits you shall know them.
They upheld the immutability of species. Common Descent, which most people equate with Evolution, demands that new species arose by a process of near – infinite species to species births in the common meaning of birth. Not only this, but species are in constant transition over time, therefore do not have stability and do not remain constant. Therefore they are not empirical, reliable units.
Therefore Linnaeus, Darwin and co. were complete nitwits.
All scientists are deluded crazy men.
Now if Adam and Eve are not our parents but we descend from non-humans, then we are not blood relatives and Hitler was spot on. So PATHEOS is Nazi racist.
Someone trying to be funny?
Are you under the impression that was a biology lesson? Why or why not?
How would we not be related if we descended from non-Humans?
Ask Linnaeus, Cuvier, Sir Richard Owen, Lyell, Mendel, etc..Oh, and Lamarck. “May heaven forfend me from Lamarck’s nonsense” –C.Darwin. Lamarcks’s nonsense was mostly as Darwin described it except for two standout items. 1). The immutability of species. 2) Adaptation, of species lesser than Man, to environment. Oh, and Lamarck was deist, and didn’t get into religious speculation. Only biologic alchemy-like waffle.
Better not ask Darwin. He couldn’t figure it out. Or is it, no-one has been able to figure out what he was claiming to figure out? He thought he figured it out by delivering himself from Lamarck’s nonsense by postulating that members of a species are anything but blood relations whilst being blood relations.
You could ask his wife. She was his anchor and salvation from going galloping Galapagroggy.
Then, you could ask your mother, whether she co-habited with hairy baboons before you were born. And. There’s always the dictionary.
Always good to have someone intelligent and classy take part in these conversations – pity all we got was you.
Ask Linnaeus, Cuvier, Sir Richard Owen, Lyell, Mendel, etc..Oh, and Lamarck.
Not much chance of that, since they are all long dead. But GalapagosPete was asking you. Evidently, you don’t have any coherent response.
>”Ask Linnaeus, Cuvier, Sir Richard Owen,… ”
We can’t: They’ve all been dead for a very long time.
You realize this is the 21st Century, right?
I’d have to say this borders on the scientifically illiterate, especially the route that leads to ‘modern medicene doesn’t work’.
The view in the background seems to be something like we build medicine ground-up from quantum theory, perhaps mistaking ontology for epistemology: how things are constituted is not how we come to know them necessarily.
In fact most of medicine is established on purely empirical grounds. Drugs are often discovered by screening large numbers of compounds for biological activity, or even just by accident (think pennicillin). Often we discover the mechanism of activity much later, if at all. It’s only been comparatively recently (last 20-30 years) that drug design has started to make much use of basic chemistry.
And likewise, a huge amount of chemistry, inculding detailed structures, was established in the period when ‘the periodic table was an unexplained mystery’ prior to the 1920s.
There are always unexplained mysteries at the most foundational level, and somtimes at levels above that. Why are the laws of physics how they are? We’ve no idea, and if we did know, presumably that knowledge itself would lead to more questions about that answer which would be lacking answers.
This doesn’t mean we can’t have succesful science when we don’t entirely understand the entities that make up that science.
It’s a pity that an infographic trying to defend a scientific principle should be exhibiting such semi-literate armchair postulations.
No, the view in the background is that if Creationists are correct science is wrong about virtually everything. The point is being made somewhat sarcastically, but literal-minded people – like, say Creationists – tend not to see that.
It is simply not true that if the periodic table was an unexplained mystery, then chemistry is as good as alchemy, and even if that were true it would not follow that modern medicine could not be working, for reasons I have already stated.
I am trying to work out why they’d claim such a thing.
Are you telling me that they don’t actually care about the truth, and just want to make a rhetorical point against a view they don’t like?
Don’t we have enough problems with scientific illiteracy and lack of interest in the truth without supposed allies of science also saying whatever they ike to prove a point?
Philip Bruce Heywood won the Nobel Prize for Creation Science in 1999 for his paper ‘ Wobbygongs of the Galappagaggy Islands’ but he then had to share it with his co-author, Miss Piggy
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune awoke one morning after uneasy dreams he found himself transformed into a giant insect, and the clocks were striking thirteen.
I suspect the view in the background is that this controversy generates lots of responses, so keep it going.
You will note a strange absence of anything much factual/science minded.
You hail from the Galapagaggy Islands — good stuff. A tortoise, a finch, a wobbygong — no, that’s more Australian?
I would answer your good questions and if you are serious about the Bible and Science you will get most of the answers plus a bit by looking me up, on-line.
Hence, my full name.
My publications end this controversy in its tracks. Being both modern and technically verifiable.
What’s the good in ending controversies?
The controversy over why the world leading science based sceptic, recognized as such by scientists worldwide, including atheist scientists of a certain category, said: “Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us.””I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.” “The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.””The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I do not see how I can put it in words.” “Do not be afraid of being free thinkers. If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion.” LORD KELVIN.
It’s typical of creationists that they think matters can be settled by quoting a prominent (and usually, as in this case, long dead) scientist saying something they agree with. They are, however, completely mistaken in this view.
Kelvin’s been dead for a very long time.
You realize this is the 21st Century, right?
Darwin’s been dead for a very long time.
You realize this is the 21st Century, right?
Ken Ham and John Mackay aren’t dead (last I heard) so YEC wins! Yay, Yay!
You know I only come here for laughs. There’s not much else to be gained from people who make it up as they go along.
Dude… you are the one quoting dead people, not me.
And didya ever notice, Ken Ham looks like The Missing Link? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/97af8cd33b4020635e3ed61825de1a439625896f5f4f7e6c6b42a1d89a3fe969.jpg
So after all your rhetoric that bounces back and forth, goes in circles, then begins to really not make any sense, you have yet to put up a viable reason as to why YEC is correct, or ID or anything else. You must be some sort of preacher, because I’ve never seen someone use so many words and not actually say a darned thing.
Well you’ve certainly discovered the key to limitless self-importance.
Jesus birth was a creation of a sperm with Mary’s egg to make the virgin birth which many believe. Jesus word wrought miracles and so on. The Bible states in many places that God created the world with his word. Thus Adam and eve were created by God as well. The earth was created and looks older than it is, the same as Adam would be or any of the creatures, plants, fish and birds in Genesis. They would be adults and would be of age one second after they came into being and started to breed.
Too many people have not read any or very few of the work and research of the creationists, thus many comments and this chart do not tell the story but tend to try and destroy what the creationists have uncovered which are not put into the main Christian or secular press, but only to be ridiculed.
I have read both sides and found a lot of the information that the evolutionists have uncovered but refused to continue with because it destroys their viewpoint.
There is for instance a museum in Peru with pottery of over 1500 to 2000 pieces or more showing dinosaurs in perfect pictures such as we have today, with men riding them, killing them walking with them and so on. But the pottery is only 600 or 700 years to a400 years ago. There is more about the dragon in Britain that were around from early times to around 1400. Soft tissue that should not be in dinosaur bones. Ocean depths that show sediment that shouldn’t be there if they were more than 6000 years old.
Much more, but you get the point. To those who will say that evolution is proven, I will say, you are ignorant of the knowledge proving a young earth. You may ridicule those of us who believe what the Bible states as history, that is for you to believe, But to those of us who believe the Bible as written as history and science when it touches on such we take heart in the joy of discovery that you will never know.
The last thing is linguistics and the language of many little and big cultural items in the language of the Bible as well as other items show that the Bible was written at the time that evangelical conservatives have written about.
You seem to have written the above with no sense of irony, e.g. about the fact that some of what you claim are merely repetitions of falsehoods that you have not bothered to fact check; statements which are on one level true but do not have the implications that you assume they do and provide no support for young-earth creationism; and things which provide strong counter-evidence to the YEC stance. Linguistics is a wonderful illustration of evolution, as we can trace the “speciation” of Latin into new and separate languages with a shared common ancestor, such as Italian, French, Spanish, and Romanian.
It is unfortunate when someone feels the need not only to reject science, but to embrace outright lies, in conjunction with their religious beliefs, as this sets you up for an eventual loss of faith should you ever discover that you have been lied to. What would it take to persuade you to at least consider not simply trusting charlatans like Ken Ham, and listening to Evangelical Christians with genuine expertise relevant to this topic, such as Francis Collins?
Am I mistaken in thinking this is a Christian site? Because if you can’t trust one part of the Bible, how do you trust any of it? Why can’t you use the same arguments against Jesus and the resurrection? Skepticism destroys faith, and if you can’t trust God’s word your faith is as good as dead.
Wow, it is amazing how many things are wrong in your comment. First and foremost, if your parents could be wrong about one thing, does that mean they cannot be trusted at all and must be wrong about everything? Such all-or-nothing ultimatums do not reflect life as we know and live it in any other area of human existence. Second, your trust should be in God, not in the work of human hands, including the Bible. Third, even though the Bible itself says that faith (i.e. trust or belief in God) without works is dead, you have chosen to rewrite it and substitute your own unbiblical creed, saying that the Bible (in which the human authors sometimes sign their names!) is “God’s word” and that it should be the object of our faith. That is in short idolatry and pretty much the most sinful course you could follow. Ironically you decide to embrace it, pretending to defend the Bible while flouting its most central teaching.
Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong.
Wow, amazing rebuttal!
I think your mistake is in assuming that the YEC interpretation of Genesis as some kind of modern history is correct. Genesis is an ancient theological work, defending YHWH as the one True God, not a blow-by-blow account of the creation of the world.
If you take Genesis as false, the entire Bible falls apart. Jesus supported Genesis as history multiple times: Matthew 19:4, Luke 11:51, Matthew 24:37-39, Luke 17:26 for a few. Jesus believes every word of scripture and defends it throughout His gospel, thus believing Genesis is false means you disagree with Jesus, the foundation of our faith. I encourage you to look at Genesis in a light of truth. Look at it like Jesus does, even if that goes against the wordly interpretation of our origins. Besides, we are also told not to “conform to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Romans 12:2). Thanks for taking the time to read this and I hope you do take to heart what I’ve said.
It is only your doctrine about the Bible that falls apart, and perhaps your doctrine about Jesus as well. But if the Bible causes you to change your doctrine, how strenuously should you resist that effect?
If the Bible falls apart for you, keep in mind that the collection of those texts between two covers, so that they could subsequently fall apart, was itself the work of human hands…
The work of human hands that were inspired by God.
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
I really don’t see how anything you said removes the validity of my argument. I gave those verses as evidence to back my claim, while you did not. The burden of proof is on you if you argue a claim from the Bible. If you think that any of the Bible is invalid or false, then that is on you to back it up. Good luck on that my friend.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”
All scripture is the word of God and should be taken as fully true. If you disagree, the burden of truth is on you man.
I did some quick searching and came up with 2 interesting thoughts on the 2 Timothy passage, and one on inerrancy:
– C. H. Dodd argues the same sentence can also be translated “Every inspired scripture is also useful”, nor does the verse define the Biblical canon to which “scripture” refers
– In addition, Michael T. Griffith, the Mormon apologist, writes:
Nowhere within its pages does the Bible teach or logically imply the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy. [Concerning] 2 Timothy 3:16 … this passage merely says that “all scripture” is profitable for doctrine, reproof, etc. It says nothing about scripture being “perfect”, or “inerrant”, or “infallible”, or “all-sufficient”. If anything, Paul’s words constitute a refutation of the idea of scriptural inerrancy … What it does say is that scripture is useful, profitable, for the needs of the pastoral ministry. The only “holy scriptures” Timothy could have known from childhood were the Hebrew scriptures, the Old Testament. And yet, would any Christian assert that in Paul’s view the Old Testament was the final and complete word of God to man? Of course not. In any event, verse 15 makes it clear that in speaking of “all scripture” Paul was referring to the Jewish scriptures and perhaps to some of his own epistles. The New Testament as we know it simply did not exist yet. Furthermore, it is fairly certain that Paul’s canon included some Jewish scriptures which are no longer found in the Old Testament, such as the book of Enoch
I would note also that 2 Tmiothy was not written by Paul.
-And, What about how Matthew’s Jesus infancy narrative recapitulating the story of Moses, or how Matthew apparently mis-translates “young woman” as virgin, an idea Paul and Mark know nothing about?
On this point, Browning’s A Dictionary of the Bible states that in the Septuagint (dated as early as the late 2nd century BCE), “the Greek parthenos was used to translate the Hebrew almah, which means a ‘young woman'”. The dictionary also notes that “the earliest writers of the [New Testament] (Mark and Paul) show no knowledge of such a virginal conception”. Furthermore, the Encyclopedia Judaica calls this “a two-millennium misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14”, which “indicates nothing concerning the chastity of the woman in question”
Gotta question the Mormon apologist of course, mainly because of the fact of him being a Mormon apologist, but nevertheless I’d disagree there. I’ll disagree because that is not the only time scripture is taught as God-breathed. When it is taught that scripture is inspired by God, the Hebrew word translates to just that: God-breathed. You see in Matthew 17:5 that God speaks from the heavens to affirm that Jesus is His Son and should be listened to.
I’ll provide a link to a further discussion on this topic, but really I must ask what the point of disagreeing with scripture is. If it is not the infallible, unshakable, true word of God, then how do you trust it? What makes it more valid than, say, the Quran? It takes faith to believe that the world was made in six literal days. It takes faith to believe in a worldwide flood. And that’s exactly the point of Christianity. The faith to take that and put it to heart. Now yes, not every word of the Bible is literal, but in terms of Genesis 1-3, there is no denying it is literal. Jesus affirms it is literal. I’d like to see an argument that disproves Jesus here really.
Since you are not infallible, presumably we should not listen to you, then? And presumably you didn’t get this view of the Bible from fallible human beings? And then what do you do when Paul himself emphasizes at one moment that he speaks as a fool and not according to the Lord?
Your desire to be certain has led you into idolatry. You are taking attributes that the Bible says belong to God alone, and attributing it to human writings. You are breaking the most emphasized commandment in the Bible, while thinking that doing so is in fact a defense of the Bible and its authority!
In what way? You’ve not even attempted to back yourself up with scripture. For a site based around the Bible, I’d say that’s poor to not back up an argument scripturally.
I’d also like to see the verse where Paul says he is a fool, because I am 99% sure which one you are referring to 2 Cor. 11:16-33, but I don’t want to debate something you aren’t referring to. Because who knows in this thread where your doctrine comes from.
I’d also like to know how believing in the word being infallible and God-breathed is idolatrous. That’s a bold claim and not one I can see being backed by scripture. But please, do enlighten me. Post some verses at the very least, I feel like I’m talking to a brick wall on that point.
I made allusions to multiple scriptures, and am disappointed that you struggle to recognize them, that you claim the Bible as your authority and yet have trouble with a conversation that refers to it in a manner that weaves it in and assumes familiarity in the same way the letters of Paul and the Gospels do. That you seem ill-acquainted with the Bible’s warnings against idolatry, worshipping the work of human hands. Humans are filled with divine breath in Genesis, the source of the imagery Paul uses about scripture. And yet you on the one hand reject human testimony even though humans can be insightful even though we are not infallible, and we are told to obey and learn from our parents and other sources of wise teaching; and then on the other hand you turn around and make a collection of ancient human writings which emphasizes these very things into the Word of God and perhaps even the words of God. It is sad to see someone so adamant about the importance of scripture and at the same time so at odds with what it emphatically teaches.
It takes faith to believe that the world was made in six literal days. It takes faith to believe in a worldwide flood. And that’s exactly the point of Christianity.
I’m curious as to what you think the difference is between this interpretation of “faith” and insanity?
From a worldly perspective, there is no difference. Our faith should look so strong that we are insane, because when it turns out to be true God shines out even brighter. Our faith should make us look like we don’t belong in this world, because we shouldn’t conform to this world (Romans 12:2). We should always walk by faith and not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7) and if that makes me look bad to the world, then that’s fine because it’s better to be judged by the world and stand with God than vice versa. So yea, I guess I’m insane by a worldly definition. I’d even say a Jesus freak *wink wink*
Interesting. Do you also have in mind such scriptures as John 20:29
Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.”
I’d say that proves my point. I don’t see your point in bringing that up.
Would you say you otherwise trust the consensus of mainstream science, except on issues where you feel that science contradicts scripture?
I’d say yes. It’s not like all science is false. Science and scripture go hand in hand, just as long as science isn’t contradicting it. That just goes with the idea of objective truth. If God exists, and He does, then there is a single truth. Either evolution is true, or YEC is, or some theory out there, but to tell which is truthful, you go to scripture. Scripture being our most trusted source due to it being God’s word. And as God is the ultimate source of truth, then we can trust His word to be the ultimate source of truth as well. Otherwise, where do we go to know God?
Either evolution is true, or YEC is, or some theory out there, but to tell which is truthful, you go to scripture.
What do you make of this:
Man, I’m not going further down this rabbit hole. If this were an in person debate, I’d continue, but we will never get anywhere online because the medium is horrible for debate (impersonal, no visual communication, etc), so I’m going to bow out. I’m not going to try to change anyone’s theology, and honestly none of it matters as long as you have Jesus as your Lord and Savior. So with that, I bid you adieu.
Of course. Whatever you’re comfortable with. I certainly don’t expect you to be able to provide a sensible, reasonable ἀπολογία. Take it easy!
For example, do you disagree with the consensus of modern science and believe the ideas of ancient biblical cosmology, such as the idea that
The ancient Israelites envisaged a universe made up of a flat disc-shaped Earth floating on water, heaven above, underworld below.Humans inhabited Earth during life and the underworld after death, and the underworld was morally neutral; only in Hellenistic times (after c.330 BCE) did Jews begin to adopt the Greek idea that it would be a place of punishment for misdeeds, and that the righteous would enjoy an afterlife in heaven. In this period too the older three-level cosmology in large measure gave way to the Greek concept of a spherical earth suspended in space at the center of a number of concentric heavens.
Well those ideas aren’t biblical. Those beliefs don’t line up with scripture.
Seeing as I can guess where you’re going: https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat/
So you would say Answers in Genesis is a reliable source for religious studies hermeneutics? Is there an accredited secular university teaching religious studies that uses them as a major curriculum component? I know it’s not their area, but what do you think they would say about Hebrews’s idea that there are copies of everything on earth in heaven?
John, just a note for any future arguments on the subject. Not so sure that I’d use Griffith’s quote to support your opinion. I think he would be arguing “translation error” is key to lack of inerrancy in the Bible. He would probably argue that Joseph Smith corrected such errors. Which would be arguing the opposite of your original point.
“by Michael T. Griffith
The purpose of this chapter is to show that the anti-Mormon standard for judging Joseph Smith’s prophecies is just as damaging to a number of Bible prophecies, if not more so.
I will not be discussing any of the Prophet Joseph Smith’s alleged “false prophecies;’ for two reasons: (1) He never uttered any false prophecies; and (2) before I will even enter…”
8th article of faith,
“We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.”
Joseph Smith supposedly provided his own translation of the Bible.
Rather amusing subject. The articles of faith use to be printed on a small card, and given to all the children in their primary classes.
Wonder what Griffith’s opinion of Book of Mormon inerrancy would be?
I don’t take Genesis as false, I simply take it as what it is, an ancient theological document. Review those quotes carefully – “Haven’t you heard it said?” Jesus can use stories to teach truth (like all of those parables), who told you He was limited?
That’s not the light of truth, it’s a modern bias that limits God and places an intolerable and unsupportable burden on the bible.
Genesis 1 – 3 is truly figurative, not falsely historical. What is false is the idea that you don’t believe the Bible if you believe God used evolution through a very, very long time to produce the wonderful forms of life we know today.
Wow, Aaron deleted all his comments showing his ignorance of the Bible and idolatrous treatment of it. How rude!!!
Wow, Aaron deleted all his comments
Maybe Aaron is a genius at rhetoric =
Interlocutor: Aaron, your argument is groundless.
Aaron: What argument?
I personally would leave Aaron alone. Since he created his comments, I think he has the right to delete them as well. This blog isn’t exactly the Library of Congress.