Are There Errors in the Bible?

One thing I want to know -- if the AIG and ICR guys are so terrible, why do they do so well in scientific debates on campus?

Andy

 

Andy,

"Doing well" on campus debates in not exactly the measure of merit for an argument.

To their credit, apologists are often quite skilled debaters and have their arguments well thought out. They often end up in debates with professors who think they're debating some fundamentalist idiot and therefore don't prepare equally.

In addition they have some very valid points. Evolution is not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt; and many of the precepts thereof rest on theoretical and not verified assumptions.

That being said, what the apologists manage to do is cast SOME doubt as to the validity of the OEC case. In doing so they do not offer an alternative which is more credible, or even equally credible.

 

"One thing I want to know -- if the AIG and ICR guys are so terrible, why do they do so well in scientific debates on campus?"

Because of the format.

These guys are slick. They know how to use the soundbyte and the fallacious argument to their most profitable end. It takes less than a minute to say that 2LOT says that everything tends towards disorder and that prevents evolution. It takes 15 minutes or more to explain comprehensively why that is not the case. The audience normally does not have the background to understand the 1 minute explanation of why it is wrong.

These guys also go all over the map on subject matter. Try doing a campus debate limited to geological evidence in front of some geology grad students. Or biological evolution with the biology majors. You will see a much diferent result. The more you study a given subject, the more likely you are to accept the evidence for an old earth from that field and the harder it is for the soundbytes and twisted arguments to have sway with you.

That is the very reason the 2LOT argument raised my flags.

 

The alternative is a straightforward reading of Genesis and the rest of Scripture which results in YEC. The scientific alternatives are not so important to me. Scientific Creationism will progress just like secular science progresses. What is standard scientific theory in one generation if often found to be very wrong in the next. Just like most creationists now realize that the canopy theory is bogus.

What OEC fails to do is come up with a reasonable alternative to the straightforward reading of Scripture and Christian orthodoxy that says Adam and Eve were the first humans and no death before the fall. If YEC is lacking on the scientific side, OEC is lacking (even worse IMO) on the theological side.

Andy

 

Logical nonsense! :confused:

Logical sense!

 

What?

I guess it's possible that I mis-interpret these scriptures. Though, it seems to me that it is not certain that fully functional plants which are not seedlings sprout or need be planted.

Is it possible that as much trouble as I have with the scriptures, others also have trouble interpreting the scriptures and scientific theories? - Just wondering. :D

 

It's sad to see someone so indoctrinated. Your foundation is obviously secular, evolutionary science. Even your mention about dating things over 50,000 years old shows your bias.

I see little fruit in discussing this matter with you. You're simply regurgitating your opinions about YEC and OEC. I've seen them again and again and they're never any more convincing than they were the first time I saw them.

Sincerely,
Jason

 

What?

I guess it's possible that I mis-interpret these scriptures. Though, it seems to me that it is not certain that fully functional plants which are not seedlings sprout or need be planted.

Is it possible that as much trouble as I have with the scriptures, others also have trouble interpreting the scriptures and scientific theories? - Just wondering. :D </font>[/QUOTE]In Genesis 2, we read that trees exist and how Adam must tend the garden. This is Day 6 of creation. Therefore, we can conclude that God created the trees and plants in the garden as fully functional organisms and not seeds.

Genesis 2:15 and 16 "Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;"

Sincerely,
Jason

 

Andy,

Thanks for cutting to the chase. You have articulated OEC's achilles heel.

Sincerely,
Jason

 

Because evolutionism is untenable. It's the flat earth theory of the 21st century. Of course, I'm referring to unobserved evolution (e.g. "macroevolution").

The next time an evolutionist wants you to believe in the evolution nobody has ever seen, ask them why you should trade your faith for their faith. And remind them that their "science" is a religious belief that lies outside the scientific method.

Sincerely,
Jason

 

Although I have a Psychology degree, I am not a scientist and I do not have any advanced degrees in the sciences. Right now, my area of expertise is apologetics and theology. Therefore, I enjoy reading theories from Christians that I trust and providing links or information about their research is the limit of my ability. Is anyone in here actually doing scientific experiments?

This is one reason why I prefer the theory that the speed of light has changed.

All of the evolutionary dating methods are built on false assumptions; assumptions that the Earth and universe is billions of years old.

Do you really want to mention transitionals? The punctuated equillibrium theory was birthed from the lack of necessary, transitional fossils. Why do you have faith that these fossilized animals gave birth to animals that were unlike them? All we know from a fossil is that it died! We don't know if it had offspring and we don't know if its offspring were any different. You assume both though because your theory hinges on it.

Before Darwin died, he said that lots and lots of transitional fossils had to be found in order for his theory to be valid. Decades later, they haven't been found.

Has anyone ever read Darwin On Trial by Dr. Philip Johnson? Fantastic book.

You should have looked to the scriptures. The Bible is the best answer and the Bible clearly tells us that the Earth is young.

Sincerely,
Jason

 

*** I feel that this conversation is beginning to go into circles. Discussing YEC vs. OEC was never my intention when I started this thread. Therefore, I'm going to avoid going on and on about it. Feel free to get in the last word if you wish.

If anyone wishes to post an alleged Bible error, I'd be happy to read it and respond. May God richly bless you.

Sincerely,
Jason

 

Jason G. wrote of our beloved physician, Charles Meadows:

Jason,

No, his foundation is his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Yes he does have the education****(comment edited for flaming remark), ****and much of that education is in the natural sciences, but at least he REALLY does have an education and has EARNED his degrees. People who claim to be Christians but who “acquire” graduate degrees without bothering to go to school are not only ignoramuses; they are an embarrassment to every honest Christian who DOES HAVE an education.

For you to argue with a man who DOES HAVE an education, and a very fine education at that, is like my two-year-old grandson arguing with a professor of physics at Princeton University about string theory. My grandson may be certain that he is right, but he is CERTAINLY wrong! He doesn’t even have a clue! (But trying to convince him of that could not be more futile. Two-year-olds will be two-year-olds!)

[ July 17, 2004, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: blackbird ]

 

Jason’s arguments against evolution are so blatantly ridiculous that if I keep reading his posts, Jason will make an evolutionist out of me. :eek:

Jason,

If you want to argue against the principles of science, go to school, get an education in evolutionary biology or a related field, and come back to this message board in 8 - 10 years ******(comments edited for crudeness)*** :D :D

[ July 17, 2004, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: blackbird ]

 

"This is one reason why I prefer the theory that the speed of light has changed."

Big problems with that. Like I said, every possible explanation has consequences. Here is one for a changing speed of light. I'll be quoting myself.

The rotational rate of galxies is measured by the different Doppler shift for the two sides. Now, if you assume that the galaxy is not rotating at relativistic speeds and you only consider the velocity vectors directly towards and away from you, the formula for doppler shift reduces to

(velocity of object)/(speed light) = (change in wavelength) / (wavelength)

Now if you solve for the change in wavelength, you will see that it is inversely proportional to the speed of light. So if you take a given situation, plug though the change in wavelength with a higher speed of light to get the change in wavelength, then go back through with today's speed of light, you will see that your speed measured will be off by exactly how much the speed of light has changed. The exact same thing will happen if you use frequency instead of wavelength.

Take M31. It is about 2 million light years away so light would have been necessary to have been traveling at least a few thousand time faster when it left than now to get here in 6000 years. This means that the measured speeds of rotation are off by at least three orders of magnitude. And M31 is the nearest large galaxy. The problems get much worse at greater distances. We will need a lot of dark matter to hold these systems together!

"All of the evolutionary dating methods are built on false assumptions; assumptions that the Earth and universe is billions of years old."

Circular logic. The earth cannot be billions of years old because it is not billions of years old. You reject dating without cause. First you say it is because you do not know the rates have been constant. When I show you that we have ways to know the rates have been constant, you ignore that and just declare the dates to be wrong without any possible cause, even an improbable one, of why they are wrong.

"Do you really want to mention transitionals? The punctuated equillibrium theory was birthed from the lack of necessary, transitional fossils. "

Oh yes, I am not one to back down from transitionals. They are there and in spades. If you investigate, I think you will find that PE explains why we see few transitionals at the species level but many transitionals at higher taxa. Now this is just the opposite of what the YEC folks tell us. They (you have in recent posts yourself) say that there are only changes within "kinds" through "microevolution." Not that "kind" is ever properly defined, of course. It would put you in a box that could be ripped apart. But that there cannot be changes between "kinds." But PE attempt to explain the opposite. Why most of the change we see is limited to families and orders and classes. And if you think about it, the answer should come straight out of a decent understanding of how evolution works. Most change will happen over short perods of time (only tens to hundreds of thousands of years) in small, isolated populations. Therefore the chance of the species level changes being recorded is small. But at higher taxa, we are more likely to have a few stages of the changes preserved, even though the spotty record and the bushy tree of evolution means that often what we get are side branches.

"Why do you have faith that these fossilized animals gave birth to animals that were unlike them? "

Strawman. Saltation is not really a valid form of evolution. Animals give birth to other animals like themselves, but with small changes. You have mutations that make your genome slightly different than just any mix of your parents genomes. Yet I bet you share family resemblances. Individual animals do not evolve, populations do and with time.

"Before Darwin died, he said that lots and lots of transitional fossils had to be found in order for his theory to be valid. Decades later, they haven't been found."

They have. We can persue the course if you wish. Here, examine an old post of mine on the reptile to mammal transition. http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/36/261.html?

"You should have looked to the scriptures."

I have. When those guys shocked me into looking at both sides several things happened. I spent a lot of time reading all sides of many issues. I also spent much time reading the appropriate paarts of the Bible and praying for guidance. I ended up old earth and am confident in it.

"If YEC is lacking on the scientific side, OEC is lacking (even worse IMO) on the theological side."

SO what do we do? If all the evidence points to an old earth, yet some say that sripture is only compatible with a young earth... Quite a dilema there.

 

Jason,

"It's sad to see someone so indoctrinated. Your foundation is obviously secular, evolutionary science. Even your mention about dating things over 50,000 years old shows your bias."

You mean it's sad to see someone who actually does have a solid foundation in the sciences? You call it bias - well maybe somewhat. Perhaps however I just can see through some of these feeble arguments put forth by YEC apologists. Maybe you don't see this but when I get 2 sentences into an explanation by Ankergerg or someone about why OEC is so wrong - it IMMEDIATELY becomes clear that this person does NOT have a good grasp of the science! Jason if you can make a scientifically cogent case for YEC we'll be all ears. What I've seen so far is familiar YEC material broadly attacking science and explaining (incorrectly) why carbon 14 dating, light speed calculations, and the like are fallacious.

I can see a little more anger in each of your posts - do you expect me to simply bow to your arguments? You'll find that there are a good number of intelligent and well-educated people on this board who are not intimidated by you! If you want to discuss and debate we'll oblige you!

 

Charles,

I have noticed several comments of this nature in this thread. Granted, I do not have a formal background in the sciences and hopefully some of the others on the board will not now call me an ignoramus by joinging in this topic. I think the reason YEC feels compelled to reconcile their faith with science is because science has taken over the rightful place of faith in the lives of men.

I believe in YEC by faith. No science necessary. My theology drives my view of YEC. (And yes, I am sure we would disagree on some of the finer theological distinctions.) If science supports my position that is even better. I think that at some level we all look for validation of our faith. Gideon's fleece and all that.

I think we both agree that Creation was a miraculous act of God. The universe is supernatural in origin. We seem to disagree as to the means involved. The Bible is obviously not a textbook on biology, astrophysics, or any of the other sciences. It is a book describing God's dealings with mankind. As someone else on the board has said, it is a theology book, not a science book. I agree.

I suppose my concern is that those of us who are YEC who believe it by "faith" without scientific support will be viewed as the "ignoramuses" that others on the board have claimed. We will be disparaged for our faith. It is that arrogance that drives us to defend our "faith" in your arena rather than requiring your defend your "faith" in our arena.

Just my two bits. Hope no one is offended and that we all can say "brother" at the end of the day.

 

Very good post, KeithS.

I am certainly not offended by your stance and applaud your faith. You hit the nail on the head by showing the things that we agree upon. And those are the most important. And I think that is the key thing to keep in mind whenever we discuss such things. We are all on the same side in this.

There is no point in any one feeling bad about a lack of knowledge on a given subject nor any need for calling someone an "ignoramuse." There are many, many subjects in which I am lacking in knowledge. I think the opposition that those of us who are old earth have are to those who proclaim not just that their faith tells them that the earth is young, but those who proclaim that the science, Creation itself, indicates a young earth. It has been my experience, and I think you will find others who share this opinion, that those who try and use science to support a young earth do so only with a great deal of twisting and ignoring of the available data. And I find the tactics very un-Christianlike. Now, to be fair, I am talking of those in a leadership position in the YEC movement, not those who repeat what they say. Though I do try and encourage those who are repeating to look at all sides. If they do not change their mind, fine. Their sword will be sharpened by removing the most egregious arguments from their repertoire.

But in the end, let us not lose sight of the things we share. We both agree "that Creation was a miraculous act of God." Let us use the discuss to enlighten ourselves and not to divide ourselves. I mean, as an example, some Baptists use musical instruments in their services and some do not. Yet we all still call each other "brother." We disgree on the specifics here, but we should keep in mind what we share.

 

Keith,

No I would never call you an ignoramus!

Christians have always believed that creation was a miraculous act of God. I personally think that when we began to use "scientific methods" we found however that creation 6000 years ago seemed a little questionable.

I absolutely applaud your complete reliance on faith. If you have no problems with YEC then count yourself blessed by God!

My concern, and the reason why I argue with people like Jason is that for those who ARE analytically minded and experienced in the sciences the YEC arguments WILL seem a little transparent. I worry that young Christians taught that Jason's style of arguments is the best approach to the problem may end up with a crisis of faith when they see some of the inconsistencies.

I was saved in my first year of medical school. I gave my heart to the Lord not because of the "great wealth of evidence" behind Genesis 1 but because I realized I needed a savior and that Jesus could give me what no amount of knowledge or money could!

 

I believe that the Earth is young because of what the Bible says. I believe it is scientifically impossible for it to have happened this way. It would have taken a miracle for it to suddenly appear...oh...wait a minute...it did. It boils down to this, either you believe what God said or you believe what it looks like probably happened.