Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT so wrong?
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT so wr... - 9/23/2008 10:11:41 AM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
If the OT is literally true, fields of science such a paleontology, geology, astronomy, astrophysics and the like not only have to be wrong, they have to be spectacularly wrong. Sun revolves around the earth wrong. Flat earth wrong.
The only way science could be this wrong is if the scientific method is completely broken. If the scientific method was this broken it would impact all fields of science, not just those that conflict with the OT.
What fields of science that don't conflict with the OT that are as spectacularly wrong as those that do? If there are none, why is that?
Or is there some other explanation as to why the fields of science that conflict with the OT are so broken and other fields are not?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/23/2008 10:41:05 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
If the OT is literally true, fields of science such a paleontology, geology, astronomy, astrophysics and the like not only have to be wrong, they have to be spectacularly wrong. Sun revolves around the earth wrong. Flat earth wrong. Before further mudslinging occurs, do you want to define your premise "if the OT is literally true" or would you like me to share the correct definition of "literal interpretation"?
quote:
What fields of science that don't conflict with the OT that are as spectacularly wrong as those that do? If there are none, why is that? There are no "fields of science" that contradict the authoritative, inerrant, historically and scientifically accurate Word of God! There are plenty of erroneous human theories based on faulty assumptions and worldviews which contradict certain facts found in Scripture, but these human-derived concepts are not the sole basis of "science".
quote:
Or is there some other explanation as to why the fields of science that conflict with the OT are so broken and other fields are not? Once again, there are no "broken fields of science", only faith-based presuppositions and worldviews used in scientific fields that are broken according to Biblical Truth. Would you like to discuss these faulty assumptions? You're at a distinct disadvantage on a Chrstian Forum!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/23/2008 11:15:40 AM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
If the OT is literally true, fields of science such a paleontology, geology, astronomy, astrophysics and the like not only have to be wrong, they have to be spectacularly wrong. Sun revolves around the earth wrong. Flat earth wrong. Before further mudslinging occurs, do you want to define your premise "if the OT is literally true" or would you like me to share the correct definition of "literal interpretation"?
quote:
What fields of science that don't conflict with the OT that are as spectacularly wrong as those that do? If there are none, why is that? There are no "fields of science" that contradict the authoritative, inerrant, historically and scientifically accurate Word of God! There are plenty of erroneous human theories based on faulty assumptions and worldviews which contradict certain facts found in Scripture, but these human-derived concepts are not the sole basis of "science".
quote:
Or is there some other explanation as to why the fields of science that conflict with the OT are so broken and other fields are not? Once again, there are no "broken fields of science", only faith-based presuppositions and worldviews used in scientific fields that are broken according to Biblical Truth. Would you like to discuss these faulty assumptions? You're at a distinct disadvantage on a Chrstian Forum!
To be fair, it is not that there aren't any apparent contradictions between science and the Bible, there just aren't any real contradictions.
But to address KT's question, there are lots of fields of science that end up being wrong whether they agree with the OT or not. "Science" has been wrong about lots of things. Nobody's arguing that science should be inerrant. Creationists revise their models too, even though our first authority is the Word of God. Scientists have been wrong about the structure of the atom, yet the OT says nothing about it. So what, models get better with time.
And I don't know where you get this idea that Creationists hold the smoking gun for geocentrism. If I didn't take an astronomy class, I'd think the sun revolved around the earth even today, and I wouldn't need the Bible to "prove" it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/23/2008 11:33:33 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
To be fair, it is not that there aren't any apparent contradictions between science and the Bible, there just aren't any real contradictions. I can certainly agree to that. I doubt KT will, however.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/23/2008 11:34:45 AM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
To be fair, it is not that there aren't any apparent contradictions between science and the Bible, there just aren't any real contradictions. I can certainly agree to that. I doubt KT will, however.
High five!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/23/2008 12:25:49 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaseyTom
If the OT is literally true, fields of science such a paleontology, geology, astronomy, astrophysics and the like not only have to be wrong, they have to be spectacularly wrong.
To take a gentle tangent from this starting point, let's consider the combination of archaeology/radiocarbon dating. The method provides confirmation of certain dates derived from standard biblical chronology.
And yet the same method also produces dates that are incompatible with a YEC chronology.
If the method is valid, YEC is false.
If the method is invalid, why does it give, when used properly, the correct answer for many samples of known age?
Apart from a priori assumptions from biblical interpretation, what differentiates acceptable radiocarbon dates from unacceptable ones? The method is the same.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/23/2008 12:41:47 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaseyTom
If the OT is literally true, fields of science such a paleontology, geology, astronomy, astrophysics and the like not only have to be wrong, they have to be spectacularly wrong.
To take a gentle tangent from this starting point, let's consider the combination of archaeology/radiocarbon dating. The method provides confirmation of certain dates derived from standard biblical chronology.
And yet the same method also produces dates that are incompatible with a YEC chronology.
If the method is valid, YEC is false.
If the method is invalid, why does it give, when used properly, the correct answer for many samples of known age?
Apart from a priori assumptions from biblical interpretation, what differentiates acceptable radiocarbon dates from unacceptable ones? The method is the same.
Oh my. I cannot believe that this topic would be brought up so soon after I read an article that so confirms the exact OPPOSITE of what you just suggested. Carbon Dating and archeology are shockingly fraught with disagreements. Dendrochronology has done nothing to actually improve the reliability of radio-carbon dating. It's only made the potential for human error to give frightfully incorrect information more of a forefront issue, especially with radiometric dating.
EDIT: The article to which I am referring is actually an article in an entire conference proceeding, and had to be accessed by Interlibrary Loan. If you can get ahold of it, it may be worth it. It is:
Bietak, M./E. Czerny, eds.: The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. III. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 - 2nd Euroconference, Vienna, 28th of May - 1st of June 2003 2006 - 629 pp., fig., fot., lam. 150,00
Article: M. Bietak/ F. Hoflmayer: Introduction: High and low chronology -- Science and Chronology
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/23/2008 1:21:38 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Oh my. I cannot believe that this topic would be brought up so soon after I read an article that so confirms the exact OPPOSITE of what you just suggested. Carbon Dating and archeology are shockingly fraught with disagreements.
Certainly chronology is one of the contentious issues in archeology, and radiocarbon dates have not settled issues like the dating of the destruction of Jericho. Putting radiocarbon dating together with pre-radiocarbon chronologies is certainly leading to conflict. But radiocarbon dating is a tool of archeology, not an interloping enemy.
Do you recall anything specific the article had to say about the matter, or dendrochronology?
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/23/2008 1:40:42 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7785
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
I have had this conversation numerous times around here before, so some of the stuff I will say here is a repeat - but hopefully it won't bore too many people.
Part of the problem with these discussions is the confusion over the terms 'scientific' and 'literal'. Something can be literally true, and not scientific. Something can be true and not literal. Something can be scientific, and not true. So if some believes (as I do) that the Bible is true, and that it is literally true, it does not then mean I am making a scientific statement, or that science contradicts either of these statements.
For example, when a meteorologist states, "The sun will set at 6:30pm today" he is making a literal statement, though not a scientifically accurate one. From our perspective the sun literally appears to sink below the horizon; and a literal description of that isn't 'untrue', though it is unscientific.
And if we think about ways of communicating things, sometimes the truest way to communicate them is less than literal. The example I always give is the song, The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald, which is based on actual events that occurred in 1975. One line now famously states -
The lake, it is said, never gives up her dead
When the skies of November turn gloomy.
Now we all know lakes don't have minds and wills of there own which are affected by autumn weather patterns; but that line accurately portrays the foreboding one feels when in a boat out on those deep, very cold waters in fall, much better than a scientific statement describing weather patterns and lake temperatures. And thus it conveys a truth to someone who hears it that science never could.
I think it is also important to note that often when someone (particularly materialists) say, "Science says this..." what they really mean is, “My narrative of the origin of the universe says this, and I think science supports that narrative.”
This is an important distinction because there really is no scientific way to study the history of the universe; the scientific method can be employed to study very specific aspects of nature and from that make inferences about what might have occurred to produce those phenomena that make sense in light of what we already know, but there cannot be, nor will there of be, a scientifically established story of how the universe came to be, because that is not really what science does.
Some scientists may attempt to explain it that way, and some people may glom onto those explanations as a means of justifying their beliefs, but there really isn't a scientifically demonstrable narrative per se. All narratives are almost by necessity metaphysical in some way, and thus neither 'scientific' nor 'literal'.
So in part the OP is really on the wrong track here; Scripture can be literally true and not break the scientific method, though it may be the case (and I certainly think it is) that the narrative of Genesis contradicts the narrative of materialists that they claim is the product of science.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/23/2008 1:47:50 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Oh my. I cannot believe that this topic would be brought up so soon after I read an article that so confirms the exact OPPOSITE of what you just suggested. Carbon Dating and archeology are shockingly fraught with disagreements.
Certainly chronology is one of the contentious issues in archeology, and radiocarbon dates have not settled issues like the dating of the destruction of Jericho. Putting radiocarbon dating together with pre-radiocarbon chronologies is certainly leading to conflict. But radiocarbon dating is a tool of archeology, not an interloping enemy.
Do you recall anything specific the article had to say about the matter, or dendrochronology?
No, ES. Radiocarbon dating is not a tool of archeology; it is, at best, a hindrance to it. I've only read the highlights of the article, but I've had a long and enlightening conversation with someone that keeps up with the debate (yes, debate) between the radiocarbon dating camp and the history camp. He gave me a copy of this article, showing me one of the diagrams in the article which shows the archaeological chronology of ancient Egypt and the carbon dating that corresponded to it. There was not a single event lined up with the radiocarbon dating 95% certainty window. In other words, we can be 95% certain that archeology and radiocarbon dating has no stick to shake at YEC.
Or rather, we can just conclude as the author of the article does: "Above all, it seems to be most important that scientists should take the difference between Radiocarbon and historical chronology as seriously as we do." And I hope you will.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/23/2008 2:07:16 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
In other words, we can be 95% certain that archeology and radiocarbon dating has no stick to shake at YEC.
Even before the advent of radiocarbon dating, archeologists provided chronologies in conflict with YEC.
Both archeology and radiocarbon dating shake 20,000+ year long sticks at YEC. The fact that they shake 100 year sticks at each other is small potatoes in comparison.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/23/2008 2:46:18 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
Is the entire field of Paleontology complete nonsense?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/23/2008 2:51:43 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
The interpretation of the entire field of paleontology without factual acceptance of the Noahic Flood is complete nonsense!
Are you going to define "if the OT is literally true" or just begin mudslinging?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/23/2008 3:36:01 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Are you going to define "if the OT is literally true" or just begin mudslinging?
That events happened exactly as the OT describes them.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/23/2008 3:49:57 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
That events happened exactly as the OT describes them. Well, that's not my definition. How do you think that God exactly "walked in the garden during the cool of the day"?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/23/2008 4:19:50 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
In other words, we can be 95% certain that archeology and radiocarbon dating has no stick to shake at YEC.
Even before the advent of radiocarbon dating, archeologists provided chronologies in conflict with YEC.
Both archeology and radiocarbon dating shake 20,000+ year long sticks at YEC. The fact that they shake 100 year sticks at each other is small potatoes in comparison.
I wish I could present you with an article rather than hearsay, but this is an example of one mild incoherence. You could never arrange the bronze and iron age based on radiocarbon dates, and it's even more crazy when you start comparing dates given from different laboratories. And those are dates we think we know. Whatever it is that's throwing our radiometric dating out of whack could just as easily be giving us dates of 20,000 plus years, when it's really only 3500 years. So, as I see it, the stick isn't as big as you think.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/23/2008 4:30:02 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaseyTom
Is the entire field of Paleontology complete nonsense?
I think you have terrible and unfounded beliefs about Christians who subscribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis. We don't deny science, we simply start with a different belief system than those who subscribe to the Grand Uniformitarian Scheme (GUS). Paleontology is the most susceptible to vastly different interpretations depending on your world-view. The fork in the road is deep within the belief system of the observer. I see a bird skeleton in the dirt (paleontology) and I think, "FLOOD". You see a skeleton in the dirt, and you think "OLD".
One may consider the other unscientific, but, in complete spite of people who scoff at Creationists for being unscientific, we continue to study the earth and improve our models to fit what we observe. The ability to discern fact from fiction is not lost to the Christian scientist, and magnetic lines flux, plate tectonics, stratification, all continue to find a place in refining Flood geology.
No, paleontology is not complete nonsense. But it is extremely divisive.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/23/2008 4:56:17 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
Putting aside the flood and timescales for a bit...
What about paleoanthropolgy, the study of human origins? What are fossilized skulls and bones of these protohumans in actually?
< Message edited by KaseyTom -- 9/23/2008 5:08:36 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/23/2008 5:15:08 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
What are fossilized skulls and bones of these protohumans in actually? There is no such critter as "protohuman"! There are apes and there are humans. Always have been separate created kinds, always will be separate created kinds. (Does it bother you, KT, that a successful, intelligent, well-trained and educated physician could be so hopelessly dependent on God's Word?)
BTW, you can find the answers to most of your questions on most any YEC website. But maybe you think you're taking time away from my personal Bible study. What actually do you want to accomplish here?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/23/2008 5:19:19 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaseyTom
Is the entire field of Paleontology complete nonsense?
I think you have terrible and unfounded beliefs about Christians who subscribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis. We don't deny science, we simply start with a different belief system than those who subscribe to the Grand Uniformitarian Scheme (GUS). Paleontology is the most susceptible to vastly different interpretations depending on your world-view. The fork in the road is deep within the belief system of the observer. I see a bird skeleton in the dirt (paleontology) and I think, "FLOOD". You see a skeleton in the dirt, and you think "OLD".
One may consider the other unscientific, but, in complete spite of people who scoff at Creationists for being unscientific, we continue to study the earth and improve our models to fit what we observe. The ability to discern fact from fiction is not lost to the Christian scientist, and magnetic lines flux, plate tectonics, stratification, all continue to find a place in refining Flood geology.
No, paleontology is not complete nonsense. But it is extremely divisive.
Is there significant geological evidence of the flood? If so, why does the scientific community refuse to acknowledge it's existence?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/23/2008 5:21:14 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
What are fossilized skulls and bones of these protohumans in actually? There is no such critter as "protohuman"! There are apes and there are humans. Always have been separate created kinds, always will be separate created kinds. (Does it bother you, KT, that a successful, intelligent, well-trained and educated physician could be so hopelessly dependent on God's Word?)
BTW, you can find the answers to most of your questions on most any YEC website. But maybe you think you're taking time away from my personal Bible study. What actually do you want to accomplish here?
Did these "apes" walk upright and use stone tools? What about Neanderthal man whose DNA is currently being sequenced?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/23/2008 5:29:59 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
BTW, you can find the answers to most of your questions on most any YEC website. But maybe you think you're taking time away from my personal Bible study. What actually do you want to accomplish here?
I'm compiling a list of what you believe are massive scientific blunders. As per my original post, I asking you to provide one example of a modern scientific blunder of the same proportion in a field or area that does not directly conflict with your religious beliefs.
If you can't provide such an example, please explain why.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/23/2008 5:37:11 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Did these "apes" walk upright and use stone tools? Humans walk upright and use stone tools. You will win a Nobel Prize if you can demonstrate such spontaneous natural behaviors in apes. Good luck, KT!
quote:
What about Neanderthal man whose DNA is currently being sequenced? Here is my last pearl of the day for you, KT, since I need to get back to Bible study:
The Neandertals: Our Worthy Ancestors
Next time, search AnswersinGenesis yourself.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/23/2008 5:41:52 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Did these "apes" walk upright and use stone tools? Humans walk upright and use stone tools. You will win a Nobel Prize if you can demonstrate such spontaneous natural behaviors in apes. Good luck, KT!
quote:
What about Neanderthal man whose DNA is currently being sequenced? Here is my last pearl of the day for you, KT, since I need to get back to Bible study:
The Neandertals: Our Worthy Ancestors
Next time, search AnswersinGenesis yourself.
So are we stipulating the only massive field wide errors in modern science are the ones that directly conflict with your religious beliefs?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why is only the science the conflicts with the OT s... - 9/23/2008 7:04:58 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaseyTom
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Did these "apes" walk upright and use stone tools? Humans walk upright and use stone tools. You will win a Nobel Prize if you can demonstrate such spontaneous natural behaviors in apes. Good luck, KT!
quote:
What about Neanderthal man whose DNA is currently being sequenced? Here is my last pearl of the day for you, KT, since I need to get back to Bible study:
The Neandertals: Our Worthy Ancestors
Next time, search AnswersinGenesis yourself.
So are we stipulating the only massive field wide errors in modern science are the ones that directly conflict with your religious beliefs?
Is there such a thing as a field-wide error? Do you work for CNN?
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
