Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
For those in the Dallas area, you may be interested in this Young Earth Conference. Looks good.
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 thought it was supposed to be a young earth conference. Why'd I leave their site feeling so old?Cost:
$30.00 - Individual Ticket
$20.00 - Student (15 or older) or Senior Citizens (55 & above)
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
?
Originally posted by Scott
"sorry, on a tantrum i was referring to most in the young earth crowd..."
I think you could say the same thing about Darwinists and Old Earthers, as is evidenced by the history of their ideas.
Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist
Originally posted by Scott
"sorry, on a tantrum i was referring to most in the young earth crowd..."
I think you could say the same thing about Darwinists and Old Earthers, as is evidenced by the history of their ideas.
when do old-earthers deny the validity of science when it disagrees with their theology, yet embrace it when it concurs?
Originally posted by blhowes
I thought it was supposed to be a young earth conference. Why'd I leave their site feeling so old?
...well, back to my rocking chair...
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist
Originally posted by Scott
"sorry, on a tantrum i was referring to most in the young earth crowd..."
I think you could say the same thing about Darwinists and Old Earthers, as is evidenced by the history of their ideas.
when do old-earthers deny the validity of science when it disagrees with their theology, yet embrace it when it concurs?
No one on the YEC questions the validity of science, they question the validity of using it to interpret or override the clearer/higher authority.
I really do not see much difference between what we do here and when we agree with a competent Theologian on some issues then reject other views due to the person's deviation from scripture.
CT
Just as context should be a given when interpreting Scripture so should the non-contradition of reality. Scripture never implies a literal 6 days, so when science sheds light on Scripture, i think we should listen.
Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist
Scripture never implies a literal 6 days, so when science sheds light on Scripture, i think we should listen.
And it makes this declaration on the mere assumption of evolution
The prima facie understanding is that, as man's working week is literal, so also was God's. There is no evidence within Scripture itself to question this prima facie understanding.
Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist
i think you have this backwards. Evolution is implied by long epochs by those that presuppose evolution, not the other way around. I do not presuppose evolution yet i believe in an old earth because science has demonstrated the probability of its accuracy to be higher than those interpretations that hold to a literal 6 days.
again, Scripture is not a science book and there is no need to assume because it says six days, that it should be taken literally. I'm not sure if it is totally cogent to argue from silence in this matter. let me put it this way; do i believe God could have made the earth in 6 literal days? yes. Do i believe He did? no.
Originally posted by armourbearer
Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist
i think you have this backwards. Evolution is implied by long epochs by those that presuppose evolution, not the other way around. I do not presuppose evolution yet i believe in an old earth because science has demonstrated the probability of its accuracy to be higher than those interpretations that hold to a literal 6 days.
No, I think you are looking at it backwards. First came the idea of "development," then the geological periods of time necessary for the development to take place. "Development" was posited in Grecian times before there was any idea of geological ages.
again, Scripture is not a science book and there is no need to assume because it says six days, that it should be taken literally. I'm not sure if it is totally cogent to argue from silence in this matter. let me put it this way; do i believe God could have made the earth in 6 literal days? yes. Do i believe He did? no.
This is simply a shrugging off of what the Scriptures do in fact say. They might not be a scientific text book; but when they speak a fact, whatever field of science that fact might encroach upon, it is still to be regarded as infallible.
Now the Scriptures do not leave open the mere possibility that God might have created in six days. It says, "in six days" the Lord created all things, and that this provides a pattern for man's working week.
The Almighty spoke these words, not man. I should also add, He spoke these words in the midst of the most horrific scenes which ever confronted humanity. It is only because "scientists" are not confronted with the same horror of God's presence that they feel free to shrug off His most solemn declarations. But a day awaits them even more horrific than that which the Israelites witnessed.
John Owen once said that the doctrine of justification is only conceived aright when understood in the light of judgment day. I would suggest that all bibilical interpretation should be carried out with a trembling before the Great White Throne.
[Edited on 10-11-2006 by armourbearer]
On one hand I don't get where you are going. On ther other hand is radio carbon dating really that accurate? I have heard stories on how this living crab was several million years old, etc. I am not against the scientific method but at the same time, I don't believe science gets a "King's X" in biblical evaluation.so you assume that for radio carbon dating to be accurate one must first presuppose development?
Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist
so you assume that for radio carbon dating to be accurate one must first presuppose development?
Originally posted by armourbearer
Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist
so you assume that for radio carbon dating to be accurate one must first presuppose development?
Carbon dating is like looking into a crystal ball and prognosticating what will take place in the past. It presupposes a uniformitarianism that cannot be proved on materialistic grounds. Theologically speaking, modern science is nothing more than materialistic hocus pocus. It is one of the grossest forms of idolatry to have entered the stage of human history.
I can only say, historically, that the horse of "development" came first, and the buggy of "ages" followed after.
I can also say, philosophically, that modern scientists only seek to provide a materialistic explanation of this world and its origins. Yet they can't prove that matter exists. For all they know, we might be a dream in a dinosaur's head. They would of course appeal to consciousness, but then they would have to presuppose something immaterial to explain the existence of matter, and thereby undermine their whole theory of materialistic development.
Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist
with all due respect, we should leave science to the scientists and theology to theologians.
radio carbon dating doesnt have to necessarily be 100% down to the last second correct for it to offer a plausible explanation of the age of a certain thing.
also how is it that you come to the conclusion that scientists cant prove matter exists? dark matter, yes; atoms, yes; but tangeble matter is self evident, it doesnt need to be proved to exist.
also you assume that all scientists are atheists. youre confusing science and atheism...
with all due respect, we should leave science to the scientists and theology to theologians
The battle of "evidence" will never be "won" by either side. OE dismisses just as much "inconvenient data" as YE. So, in the end the real battle is exegetical.
Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist
with all due respect, we should leave science to the scientists and theology to theologians.
Originally posted by cih1355
Radioactive dating makes the following assumptions: 1) There was no daughter product before the parent started to decay, 2) Radioactive decay rates have always been the same, and 3) Rocks are a closed system.
If at least one of these assumptions is false, radioactive dating is inaccurate and should not be trusted.