velvetpage: (Default)
[personal profile] velvetpage
I've received permission to copy the posts/comments and continue the debate here. Welcom, [livejournal.com profile] vickimfox!


My original comment:
I must confess I've never understood creationists. To be more specific, I've never understood the point of trying to prove the Bible is one-hundred-percent accurate. Anyone who tries to do so has confused the notions of "accuracy" and "truth". They are not at all the same thing.

I'd be really interested to know what that guy thinks about accuracy vs. truth. :)

Their reply was:

That's okay. Those of us with a God-centric worldview do not understand evolutionists. We don't understand how anyone can look at the structure, organization, information, interconnection, and balance of the universe from the largest to the smallest and think that it came about by random events and by violating various law of Physics and Chemistry from mechanics to thermodynamics to chemical bonding.

Even in academic circles many scientists are questioning the traditional evolution theories and embracing a hybrid called Intelligent Design. These scientists still do not acknowledge God, but they see that the current state of the evolution framework has more holes than swiss cheese.

Also, evolution is not a theory or a fact. It is a worldview - a mindset used to interpret observations. In academic circles, there is debate among scientists about which evolution framework is "correct". Do you believe in the punctuated equilabrium framework, neo-Darwinism framework, or catastrophy framework? Oh, let's not forget that there are about six or seven different proposed frameworks in academia just hypothesizing about how the original amino acids were formed.


Now, to the matter of "accuracy". The dictionary defines "accuracy" as "absolutely correct, making no mistakes" and "agreeing exactly with the truth".

The reason Bible-believing Christians take this matter of the inerrant nature of the Bible is simple - Jesus told us that is the measure of His Word! [John 3:12] "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" What this means is that if God cannot record history and other earthly aspects correctly, then how in the world can we believe what God tells us in the Bible about spiritual, moral, and heavenly things?

Even in the Old Testament, God established that any statement claimed to "be from God" but discovered to be false was clear evidence that the statement was not from God and that the person preaching such was not sent by God.

Therefore, if there are errors in the original texts, then the Bible in essence tells us that we should reject it (the whole Bible). If the Bible is not accurate, then it does not tell the truth. Conversely, if the Bible is accurate, then it implies that it is telling the truth.

Creationists and Evolutionists look at the same "evidence" but interpret it differently. You may look at a fossil and think million of years. I look at the same fossil, the result of rapid burial, and think of Noah's Flood. You may look at radioactive material and think long dates. I look at the same radioactive measurements and think "Yeah, so what? The dating mathematics is invalid and nobody knows the initial conditions."

PS. I have advanced degrees in Physics and Computer Science. When I was in college I believed in evolution. But, the more I studied, especially the mathematics of radioactive dating and information theory, the more I became convienced about the deception of evolution. This change did not occur until many years after I was saved and became a Christian.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-01-12 04:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] velvetpage.livejournal.com
I am, in fact, a Christian who believes in intelligent design and has defended it in the past in my own journal. You're preaching to the choir in the God-centred worldview part, quite literally - I love to sing. :)

I have a pretty good grasp of the scientific arguments for each side, though less so than you do since I'm not a scientist but just an intelligent, well-educated, interested person. I've heard and looked into everything you've just said. Frankly, I think you're wrong about the necessity of showing the Bible to be scientifically accurate.

See this post for a more long-winded explanation of my beliefs on this.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-01-12 04:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pyat.livejournal.com
violating various law of Physics and Chemistry from mechanics to thermodynamics...

Please expand on that. Are you going to point to the old thermodynamics chesnut about systems becoming less orderly over time?

Also, evolution is not a theory or a fact.

How do you define theory?

Even in the Old Testament, God established that any statement claimed to "be from God" but discovered to be false was clear evidence that the statement was not from God and that the person preaching such was not sent by God.

Yet, if you'll pardon the expression, certain aspects of Christian faith have "evolved" over time. Or, do you believe women should be silent in the church and never cut their hair? If you don't believe that, do you believe Paul (and therefore the Bible) was mistaken? How about the Old Testmament commandment against wearing clothing with mixed fibers? God never rescinded that, so far as I know. Do you wear acrylic/cotton blends?

I have advanced degrees in Physics and Computer Science.

This is what is known as an "arugument from authority." It's considered a bad way to present your ideas. In your case, it's an especially bad idea. What you are basically saying is "Trust me, I have a BA Hon (or whatever) degree in Physics and therefore I know what I'm talking about. But don't listen to all those other people with Physics degrees, because they don't know anything."

That said, I would be interested to know what a trained Physicist and Creation Science believer thinks about the age of the universe, in light of its apparent size and the speed of light. So far as I know, Creation Scientists do not question the speed of light.

So, let's say that an astronomer sees a supernova occur 10,000 light years away. If we accept the idea of the Young Universe, the astronomer is apparently observing an event that took place before the universe was created.





(no subject)

Date: 2005-01-12 04:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pyat.livejournal.com
Is it acutally [livejournal.com profile] vicimfox? I can't open that link.

May 2020

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags