Another problem for evolution

So you cannot answer the questions.

So you are sure that your interpretation of scripture is correct even though you cannot provide a coherent interpretation of our observations of the creation that fits you interpretation.

Are you sure? Because your inability to account for the observations shows your view to be wanting.

 

It is a simple idea, but I think too simple to capture the true essence.

Look at the verse you quoted for us. Even as you are making an argument that no interpretation should be done on the Scriptures you admit that there may be disagrement among believers on whether this verse applies to just prophecy or to the general scriptures. That in itself is a matter of interpretation. Though the verse speaks specifically of prophecy, you add an additional layer of interpretation when you attempt to generalize the verse.

It would be simple to go through various things on which believers disagree about the meaning. What to do with these things? Are these not matters of interpretation? Does this not demonstrate that in many areas it is a matter of finding the correct interpretation?

I think there is enough variety in how various scriptures are interpreted to support my assertion that the scriptures must be accurately interpreted. In my opinion, it is a weak case to say that no interpretation is possible or allowed of any scripture. Otherwise we would almost all agree on almost everything.

You have not demonstrated it to be false, only asserted such.

Here is the problem. You may not care about the trivialties, but they are important. The larger problem is that you have to be able to put it all together. Details of whale development and genetic testing and fossils may not individually be very convincing to you. But you really have no choice but to dole these things out it small bites.

But when you add it all up, it becomes a very convincing picture. If you have the time to read a number of books on the subject, then you can start from the basics to get the general information and then get into the specifics of the wide ranging data. We do not have the luxury in these types of discussions. So we are forced to focus on a few examples.

And what it boils down to is a question of what best explains what we see. While angular unconformities in the Grand Canyon may not be very convincing to you, the OE explanations of how they came to be are simple and straightforward. I have yet to see a YE explanation for these and I expect that any to be proffered would be torturous and inconsistent with the observations. The point of the glacially rafted ice and banded iron formations of the Snowball Earth is not that they by themselves show an old earth but that the observations are easily accountable by an old earth and there is no reason to expect such in a young earth nor a way to explain their presence in a young earth.

With evolution specifically there is a wide variety of data including the twin nested heirarchy, anatomical homology, ontogeny, past biogeography, atavisms and pseudogenes. Any one of the facts from any one of these areas is not very convincing by itself due to the fragmentary nature. However when put together they point to only one conclusion. Only common descent is consistent with all of the observations in biology and paleontology. There is no consistent young earth theory that accounts at all for all the observations much less in such a coherent way as common descent.

And that is the thrust of the argument. Nothing in science is proven. It is always a case of which theory provides the most compelling explanation. And when taking the whole of the observations, the old earth theories explain our observations in a very consistent and coherent manner with widely disparate fields providing complementary results. Young earth offers no such set of theories. It fails to explain even basic observations. When forced to choose between the two, YE offers nothing at this point and must be discarded.