Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I guess I consider Science that puts men into Space to be Engineering. I should have been more clear because I agree with what you just said. I think that the categorization of current phenomena is useful but when they try to use data points to, as it were, draw a line backwards into where it all came from it gets all gooned up.Originally posted by JohnV
I agree with what you say, Rich, except science is science, and theory is theory. Though theory uses science, it is not just science. True science is observation. Science can't observe the past, but only theorize on it. I agree with how you put it, except for your use of the term "science". There is a vast difference between science that puts men in space safely, for example, and so-called "science" that speculates, theorizes, and dogmatizes about the distant past.
Originally posted by armourbearer
I am as suspicious of Intelligent Design as I am of scientific creationism. It appears to me to be a sui generis based on neither faith nor science. For what it's worth, I believe in 6000 years; but at the same time I am content to allow for conflicting data between the Bible and science -- acknowledging that the Bible teaches certainty while science at best arrives at probability.
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
I think I agree with you at least on the point to be cautious on how to look at YECists, but to be sure, I will ask a question. Are you a geoocentrist?
Originally posted by armourbearer
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
I think I agree with you at least on the point to be cautious on how to look at YECists, but to be sure, I will ask a question. Are you a geoocentrist?
Hermonta, yes, I do think the Bible teaches geocentrism. If that puts it in conflict with science, so be it. Of course, science is not my strong point, and I have heard geocentrism defended from a scientific point of view; though I am not equipped to know if the defence is legitimate or not.
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
You pass the test, for I am one too.
It was just a test to see how hardcore you were. I really think the YEC position in general is hurt because most reject geocentrism, but the same hermeneutics that get one YEC will get one geocentrism.
Personally I think science has no disproof of geocentrism (even if one was to accept science as the ultimate standard)
Originally posted by SemperFideles
Would you like to share where the Bible says that the sun revolves around the Earth in didactic teaching.
Originally posted by SemperFideles
Joshua need not be standing on the sun to meet your criteria that he think about something in a certain way. Even on that day, a person travelling East away from the sun in a plane would have perceived the sun setting or have you never flown over the globe in a plane to observe that phenomena?
Regarding Genesis 1, I am not willing to draw hard conclusions as to the actual physical phenomena that are occurring. I am willing to grant that God is creating things, as He describes them, in the span of 6 days and all very good. If the Earth was created before the sun and then set in orbit around it after the sun was created then there is nothing in Genesis that militates against it. There is also nothing that prohibits the creation of light before the Sun and the stars. They are not the only light sources in the universe.
You only conclude that something is clearly taught because you refuse to grant perspectival differences as I gave examples above. The Bible does not force the issue that the perspective has to be the observed phenomena from all vantage points. You force that on the text. You can understand the language all you want but your pre-commitment to disallowing differing perspectives is not a requirement of any of the texts.
It is one thing to dispute emperical evidence to interpolate origins as to the age of the Earth, etc. It is quite another to deny motion and observation altogether. You've produced no firm exegetical argument other than a bare assertion that because of a person's perspective of the event that all other perspectives are excluded.
Originally posted by SemperFideles
It is one thing to dispute emperical evidence to interpolate origins as to the age of the Earth, etc. It is quite another to deny motion and observation altogether. You've produced no firm exegetical argument other than a bare assertion that because of a person's perspective of the event that all other perspectives are excluded.
Originally posted by SemperFideles
Unfortunately for you, however, your conviction is extra-Confessional and the WCF does not require subscription to Geocentricism.
Most Presbyterians are not afraid to look through telescopes and allow their assumptions about what is and isn't phenomenological to be challenged.
I think that you bind men's consciences to your misunderstanding is very unfortunate. I do hope you don't refuse them to take advantage of modern medicine due to your personal convictions.
It would be an interesting exercise to see how you apply your standard to all other plain statements in Scripture that most recognize are not precisely as stated.
Are we literally knit in our mother's wombs?
Was it Christ's literal body at the Last Supper as the Lutherans and Roman Catholics argue?
Is Christ literally a door?
I don't think it is any less pious for me to insist how you answer those question than for you to insist that because you plainly read geocentrism that the entire body of observations to the contrary are incorrect.
Originally posted by SemperFideles
Unfortunately for you, however, your conviction is extra-Confessional and the WCF does not require subscription to Geocentricism. Most Presbyterians are not afraid to look through telescopes and allow their assumptions about what is and isn't phenomenological to be challenged.
I think that you bind men's consciences to your misunderstanding is very unfortunate. I do hope you don't refuse them to take advantage of modern medicine due to your personal convictions.
It would be an interesting exercise to see how you apply your standard to all other plain statements in Scripture that most recognize are not precisely as stated.
Are we literally knit in our mother's wombs?
Was it Christ's literal body at the Last Supper as the Lutherans and Roman Catholics argue?
Is Christ literally a door?
Originally posted by SemperFideles
Honestly I'm not going to lose any sleep over the fact that you believe in geocentrism. You have the luxury as you'd never have to actually solve any orbital equations insisting upon that viewpoint. Just don't tell the rocket scientist that's he's dishonoring God unless he goes through a ton of extra mathematical steps to get a probe to Mars.
Originally posted by SemperFideles
Who is guilty of hyperbole Hermonta? Perhaps I am but I know that those who claim that denying geocentrism is placing Scripture at second tier status surely are.
I also believe that Calvin and Turretin and others had good reason to reject geocentrism at the time it was presented.
We have no good reason given other evidences. I doubt Calvin knew anything about bacteria or DNA or a whole host of other phenomena not available to him.
The question of modern medicine is very appropriate because you create a false dilmemna by pitting data gleaned through observation to your misunderstanding of the Scriptures. If modern machines can see into the womb of a woman and demonstrate that there are no knitting needles at work then I suppose you could just the same call it impious to argue with Scripture over the way that the human body is formed in the womb.