| Do you agree with the statement that "The authority of the Bible should never be compromised by mankind’s ‘scientific’ proposals." (Full quote below) |
| I am a YEC and believe there is only one interpretation of the Bible, and it has precedence over any evidence or scientific theory. |
|
1% |
[ 1 ] |
| I am a YEC and believe there can be different interpretations on the Bible, but because there can be only one truth, scientific theories may sometimes help identify that truth. |
|
1% |
[ 1 ] |
| I am a YEC and believe that science and religion deal with different questions and are not in conflict |
|
1% |
[ 1 ] |
| I am a YEC and believe something not listed in the poll. |
|
2% |
[ 2 ] |
| I am a Christian but not YEC and believe there is only one interpretation of the Bible, and it has precedence over any evidence or scientific theory. |
|
2% |
[ 2 ] |
| I am a Christian but not YEC and believe there can be different interpretations on the Bible, but because there can be only one truth, scientific theories may sometimes help identify that truth. |
|
8% |
[ 6 ] |
| I am a Christian but not YEC and believe that science and religion deal with different questions and are not in conflict |
|
10% |
[ 7 ] |
| I am a Christian but not YEC and believe something not listed in the poll. |
|
1% |
[ 1 ] |
| I am neither Christian nor YEC but feel the urge to click on something |
|
69% |
[ 47 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 68 |
|
Gromit
Phoenix
![]()
Joined: May 20, 2006
Posts: 1052
Location: In Cognito
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 9:24 am Post subject: Do you think the Bible takes precedence over evidence? |
 |
|
The last page of a book chapter on the Creation Ministries International site (http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf) ends with this statement:
| Quote: | The authority of the Bible should never be compromised by mankind’s ‘scientific’ proposals. One little previously unknown fact, or one change in a starting assumption, can drastically alter the whole picture so that what was ‘fact’ is no longer so.
This is worth remembering when dealing with other areas of difficulty which, despite the substantial evidence for Genesis creation, still remain. Only God possesses infinite knowledge. By basing our scientific research on the assumption that His Word is true (instead of the assumption that it is wrong or irrelevant) our scientific theories are much more likely, in the long run, to come to accurately represent reality. |
In other words, no evidence or interpretation of evidence could persuade the authors of this book to change their minds about their interpretation of the Bible. If you are a Christian, YEC or not, do share that position? |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29311
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nothing takes precedence over the facts. The facts are that which is. The Bible is a book of tales and not the best one of its kind. Some of Tolkien's work is better than the Bible from a literary point of views.
Young Earth Creationism is flat out false. It is as false as Flat Earth Theory or Hollow Earth Theory. It just is not so.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
zer0netgain
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 03, 2009
Posts: 4051
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
I was going to point out that YEC needs to be better explained so people can reply without digging for the definition, but I see that's been done.
I don't know if I should call myself a YEC or not. I'm never quick to trust what science says because too often it makes a proclamation then has to do a 180 when it later learns it's not correct.
I believe YEC is possible. I know there have been scientifically proven matters that really disrupt the claim of science that the earth must be billions of years old or that historical events took millions of years to unfold. That there is evidence of "scientists" repressing these scientifically-proven (by secular researchers no less) issues because it doesn't agree with their views just shows that scientists aren't always objective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29311
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| zer0netgain wrote: | I was going to point out that YEC needs to be better explained so people can reply without digging for the definition, but I see that's been done.
|
Our planet is over 4 billion (with a "b") years old. The Bible implies that it is about 6 thousand years old. The two views cannot be reconciled. All the physical evidence points to an old earth. There is not an iota of physical evidence supporting the young earth theory.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
pandabear
Fleeting Body
Joined: Aug 17, 2007
Age: 54
Posts: 9629
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: |
The Bible is a book of tales and not the best one of its kind. Some of Tolkien's work is better than the Bible from a literary point of views.
ruveyn |
I much prefer the Bible to Tolkein.
Several great minds over several centuries went into creating the Bible. No other book has had a greater influence on Western civilization.
Plus, if you read it, then you can easily quote it and make fun of other people's points of view.
Or, you can make up some dogmatic stuff based on the Bible, and, if you're charismatic enough, you can make a lot of money preaching your garbage.
Also, the Bible has much better and more graphic sex and violence scenes than Tolkein. Tolkein is rather dry in comparison. |
|
| Back to top |
|
DentArthurDent
Evolve Ye Christians & Dozers
Joined: Jul 27, 2008
Age: 48
Posts: 2612
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| zer0netgain wrote: |
I believe YEC is possible. I know there have been scientifically proven matters that really disrupt the claim of science that the earth must be billions of years old or that historical events took millions of years to unfold. That there is evidence of "scientists" repressing these scientifically-proven (by secular researchers no less) issues because it doesn't agree with their views just shows that scientists aren't always objective. |
You are of course, In response, going to tell me to do my own research, but what the heck, EVIDENCE PLEASE.
With regard to the OP to believe the nonsense that they do YECS must totally deny all scientific knowledge or try to manipulate science to fit into their preconceived ideas. To quote Kurt Wise who at the time was studying with Stephen Jay Gould "try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two, I had to make a decision between evolution and scripture. Either the scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the bible.... It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science" Wise now Directs the Centre fro origins research at Bryan college. 'Bryan 'college is named after the prosecutor of John Scopes.
To deny evolution, and the approximate age of the earth in billions of years, is to be wilfully ignorant or worse as it requires yec 'scientists' to manipulate and distort scientific research,
_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams
"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx
Last edited by DentArthurDent on Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Avarice
Holocron
Joined: Oct 06, 2009
Posts: 1067
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
The other posters made all the points I can see quite clear, I think that Christians in general are wrong and their belifs are ridiculous but I laugh at YEC, the thought that anybody could believe that is an amusing one.
| pandabear wrote: | | ruveyn wrote: |
The Bible is a book of tales and not the best one of its kind. Some of Tolkien's work is better than the Bible from a literary point of views.
ruveyn |
I much prefer the Bible to Tolkein.
Several great minds over several centuries went into creating the Bible. No other book has had a greater influence on Western civilization.
Plus, if you read it, then you can easily quote it and make fun of other people's points of view.
Or, you can make up some dogmatic stuff based on the Bible, and, if you're charismatic enough, you can make a lot of money preaching your garbage.
Also, the Bible has much better and more graphic sex and violence scenes than Tolkein. Tolkein is rather dry in comparison. |
I almost missed your point there, probably the AS at work, quite funny though. But Tolkien, dry?
Well, I suppose he can be, but they are magnificent books. |
|
| Back to top |
|
zer0netgain
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 03, 2009
Posts: 4051
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DentArthurDent wrote: |
You are of course, In response, going to tell me to do my own research, but what the heck, EVIDENCE PLEASE. |
Of course.  
I spent HOURS listening to lectures I downloaded. Some incidents were fascinating. One involved radio halos in rocks caused by isotopes that exist for only a fraction of a second. Rocks don't turn from liquid magma to solid mass fast enough to make this possible. The most likely explanation is that the rocks formed near-instantly, but that defies any known scientific or geological process.
Another involved geological proof of the earth's magnetic pole radically shifting twice within a matter of weeks or months...this was based on hardened magma attuned to the magnetic pole shifting flow twice before it fully hardened. All about the time of Noah's Flood. The popular YE theory about Noah's Flood is that a meteor struck the earth and vastly disrupted the ecosystem.
There is also a rock in the Grand Canyon that is not indigenous to the region...but it is indigenous from UPSTREAM. It's about the size of a Volkswagen and so heavy that even the most vigorous river flow existing today can not move it. It's also insanely hard, but worn smooth. If the Grand Canyon was the result of millions of years of erosion, it is impossible for this rock to be there. However, if the Grand Canyon was the result of an ice dam bursting upstream and a torrential flood carving down to the ocean, it would explain how something this big was carried so far and worn smooth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ambivalence
The Obvious Factor
Joined: Nov 09, 2008
Posts: 3638
Location: Peterlee (for Industry)
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
I find the Ainulindalë a much better read than Genesis. Though as a devout Catholic the Prof would be upset to hear it. 
| zeronetgain wrote: | | I spent HOURS listening to lectures I downloaded. Some incidents were fascinating. One involved radio halos in rocks caused by isotopes that exist for only a fraction of a second. Rocks don't turn from liquid magma to solid mass fast enough to make this possible. The most likely explanation is that the rocks formed near-instantly, but that defies any known scientific or geological process. |
Nearly instantly? ^^
As the man said, "what does God need with a starship?"
Really, you're going about it the wrong way. Don't look for physical evidence, because reality will contradict you at every point. If you want an undeniable YEC stance, posit that the Earth simply appeared, geographic record and all (which, contrary to your presumably loon-funded sources, is as solid as a... stone), as is, six thousand years ago. Or yesterday. Or three seconds ago. That's a completely unfalsifiable hypothesis.
The most obvious logical loophole I can see is, "If God is going to create a populated planet from whole cloth, why bother with the rest of the universe (which is quite big)?" I suspect most Creationists don't appreciate the size of the universe. Even the visible universe, without getting into stuff-we-can't-see or any of that branching multiverse crêpe.
_________________
No one has gone missing or died.
The year is still young. |
|
| Back to top |
|
bully_on_speed
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 20, 2010
Age: 28
Posts: 890
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
two things happen alot in the bible. drinking wine, and crap thats kinda hard to believe. and the wine always comes first.
i could perhaps get into it if the church wasnt so secretive. and full of pedophiles. im 25 and it still bugs me when a priest is talking to me |
|
| Back to top |
|
DeaconBlues
They call Alabama the Crimson Tide - call me...
Joined: Apr 22, 2007
Posts: 3911
Location: Earth, mostly
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
You spent HOURS listening to lectures you downloaded. So of course that makes you a more trustworthy expert than people who have spent YEARS studying geology, geophysics, and hydrodynamics...
Okay, for those who believe the Christian Bible is inerrant and correct in all respects: How do you reconcile the two differing timelines for Creation given in Genesis ch 1 and Genesis ch 2?
The four Gospels give three different "last lines" for Jesus on the cross, at least one of which (in John) is totally incompatible with any interpretation of the other three (all of which involved shouting). How can they all be "correct" and "inerrant", while still factual?
If faith (unlike that unreliable old science) always gives the same answers and never changes, how can the loving, forgiving God described in Job and the Gospels be reconciled with the punitive, angry SOB who sent two bears to tear forty children to bloody gobbets for the mortal sin of making fun of a prophet's baldness in 2 Kings?
_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29311
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pandabear wrote: |
Also, the Bible has much better and more graphic sex and violence scenes than Tolkein. Tolkein is rather dry in comparison. |
That is very true.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
Gromit
Phoenix
![]()
Joined: May 20, 2006
Posts: 1052
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
All the discussion so far has been about the quality of the evidence (and the literary merits of the Bible as compared to Tolkien's work). The most recent thread about the quality of evidence is this one by iamnotaparakeet. Could that part of the discussion move over there?
My question is about the attitude to evidence. We have several people on WP who vigorously defend young Earth creationism. Is none of them willing to say what their attitude to evidence is?
zer0netgain, I am surprised that you don't see yourself as a young Earth creationist. Even in this thread when you argue about the evidence you argue not as if you think the Earth might be young, you argue as if you are convinced that the Earth is young. If I misunderstood, you are still the closest to a YEC to have contributed to this thread. Would you say more about how you have developed your opinion and whether anything could change it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
DentArthurDent
Evolve Ye Christians & Dozers
Joined: Jul 27, 2008
Age: 48
Posts: 2612
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gromit wrote: | | '.....My question is about the attitude to evidence.....' |
I would have thought my quote from Kurt Wise goes some way to explaining this attitude
_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams
"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 13715
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gromit wrote: | | My question is about the attitude to evidence. We have several people on WP who vigorously defend young Earth creationism. Is none of them willing to say what their attitude to evidence is? |
No one is willing to admit that they believe things that are directly contradicted by observable reality, no. What answer can you expect?
I have heard YECs say that if any evidence is contrary to Scripture (in reality meaning their projections onto Scripture), that evidence is wrong. As for myself, I cannot deny facts that are before me. If there were a conflict between the Bible and repeatable, observable scientific experimentation, I'd have to say that science would probably win. But to me, they don't conflict as they are asking different questions and looking for different answers- the two fields do not overlap.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
