Age Correlations and an Old Earth

Do you believe that it is possible to come to an interpretation about the evidence that has nothing to do with Genesis? Say, for instance, the scientist was from a culture that was not Christian and had little or no knowledge of the book of Genesis?

My argument is how does the alleged scientific evidence disprove the Bible ?Your argument, derived from the blue box, is that the scientific methodologies is the only way and best way to determine truth.Loudmouth:Why don't we have the debate that was discussed in our emails ?Just create the topic and lets go at it. Radz is eager to participate too. You cannot eviscerate the meaning of Genesis by employing the emotive term of "literalness". Genesis is not a science book/source of error - it is the eternal word of God - massive difference.This is only done to accomodate your methodologies and brand them with Biblical support.If science says nothing about Genesis then what are 90 % of the debates in this Forum talking about ?

evidence is not predictions.you are truly clutching at straws to discredit the data given, resorting to logically invalid arguments does not improve your position. I have no interest in "disproving" something I don't consider a source of valid information on the subject to begin with. Myths have some elements of truth to them - hence Troy was found based on information in the Greek Myths, but that does not render the whole of the myth absolutely true.My interest is saying: this is the evidence that the age of the earth vastly exceeds that of any YEC model, hence the YEC models are invalid. This does not invalidate other views based on other interpretations of the bible.This is also no different from the evidence of astronomy showing that the universe does not revolve around the earth or that the earth is not flat. Some people may still choose to believe these uncredible positions, but that does not make them rational or their beliefs true.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

My argument is how does the alleged scientific evidence disprove the Bible ?

​

Your argument, derived from the blue box, is that the scientific methodologies is the only way and best way to determine truth.

---

I think that scientific methodology is the best way to determine the truth as it applies to physical reality. I leave the greater Truth of a possible supernatural realms to the religious and philosophical. I think we have common ground in this regard.

quote:

---

Why don't we have the debate that was discussed in our emails ?

​

Just create the topic and lets go at it. Radz is eager to participate too.

---

An open debate perhaps? Would the topic be "God Sense" and how it affects scientific investigation?

quote:

---

You cannot eviscerate the meaning of Genesis by employing the emotive term of "literalness". Genesis is not a science book/source of error - it is the eternal word of God - massive difference.

---

Agreed. I would never suggest that science falsifies the theological truth of the Bible.

Yes.

Ok. Do you feel that it would be possible for a scientist who did live in a Christian culture to come to an interpretation about the evidence that was not, to the best of their ability, related to Genesis in any way? Could they kind of "forget" or disregard Genesis to come up with interpretations that were neither for or against Genesis, but were simply the best interpretation of nothing but the evidence?If so, what would it take to substantiate to you that they had done just that?

Then those Greek myths were obviously not myths contrary to the entire fallacious beliefs of 19th century scholarship.Troy is a proven fact which makes it historical reality.Layard digs at Nineveh proves that Biblical Nimrud was a historical person contrary to popular mythical beliefs of the status quo.Richard Milton and Jonathan Wells have exposed the myths of Darwinism, but like you say, comfort yourself with your definition of myth.Paleoanthropology is generously given the status of a science. In reality, it is prejudicial storytelling framed around preexisting narrative structures that humans must of evolved from apes. This starting assumption is empowered by the rejection of God as the Creator of which Romans explains to be a penalty from God for rejecting Him. Thus this also explains your position that Genesis is not a valid source. Fine.I am not a YEC anyway. No matter how you slice it your position also depends on a subjective defintion of rationality - only difference is that science claims to stand on scientifically determined evidence when in fact it resides on the same philosophic foundation of religion.WT

You have never substantiated that claim. I have suggested that you do so or stop making it. I will start up a thread for you to make such a substantiation. If you bring it up anywhere else after that is done I will remove your privileges to whatever forum you bring it up in.see:
Message 1I welcome any suggestions you have as to changes to that topic. You can make them here and I will incorporate them.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-12-2004 09:06 PM

Crashfrog:I believe "they had done just that".You need to supply your example.But the issue is HOW does it disprove a well known claim of Genesis ?And the underlying issue is of course the interpretation of the evidence and what silences the criticism that the interpretation is based upon the worldview of the scientist ?If you counter and say the worldview is based upon the evidence then we are right back to understanding how the evidence disproves the other worldview(s).

The above harmless observation has evoked the Admin threat below: The Admin comment above ASSUMES that my blue box quote has been proven wrong somehow.Where has this alleged fact been proven ?IOW, Admin is asserting that science has no philosophic foundation and if I argue otherwise I will be suspended.Seems like Admin should be making this argument as a private debater.My observation is a philosophical argument based upon what Radz argued - that science - his brand is rational and anyone not accepting it as such is irrational.IOW, my argument cannot be proven just like Radz's rational claim cannot be proven. They are whats called invulnerable arguments - arguments which cannot be falsified.I'm glad that I now know what I can and cannot argue.I interpret this Admin intrusion to be a vindication of the validity of my arguments. I appreciate the courtesy notice.I will go there now.WT

That's not the issue that I was referring to. I was referring to your stated goal of determining why scientists seem so determined to disprove Genesis.The point, however, is that they are not trying to do that; they're trying to find out what is true about the past. It just so happens that that truth contradicts the account of Genesis. What silences that criticism? The vast success of the scientific worldview in making accurate, testable predictions about the natural world.You once mentioned "used-car salesmen", a comparison that is hardly charitable to scientists, but lets run with it. Used-car salesmen are notorious liars, but that doesn't mean they all must be. If you buy a car from such a salesman, who promised that the transmission was new, you might be suspicious, especially if you got a good deal. Maybe his claims of a great new transmission are just "interpretations of his worldview?"But you drive the car for 100,000 miles with no transmission issues of any kind. No interpretation of any worldview can fix a transmission; therefore there must really be truth to his interpretation - it must really be a good transmission. If he had lied, it would have been obvious that he had done so by now.Likewise, with science. It's fair to wonder what leads evolutionary scientists to come to the conclusions they do; perhaps some of them may even be motivated by a need to disprove what they see as primitive myths about our origins. But nonetheless, scientists have to talk about things in the real world, and the real world is what it is - no interpretation can change that. If evolution was simply a tissue of lies, distortions, and interpretation, it wouldn't be so successfully predictive and explanitory. The theory would disintigrate under a wieght of observations it couldn't explain and predictions that were ludicrously errant.But it hasn't. The fact that evolution is so successful at explaining disparate biological phenomenon, making accurate predictions about population genetics, and other things is all the proof we need that there's something to it.The proof is in the pudding. Surely you've heard that expression? You can pretend to be a world-class cook, you can talk the talk and dress the part, but your subterfge will be apparent the second they try the pudding. That's where the proof is. The proof that a used-car salesman didn't sell you a lemon is in the car itself; the proof that evolution is an accurate, scientifically valid framework is in the fact that evolution succeeds as a framework. No amount of "interpretation" can give you results like that unless you're on the right track.I don't know if I've made any of this any clearer to you; you seem to be hung up on interpretations and worldviews. None of that matters - it's the results that matter, and evolution gets the results. The Book of Genesis gets us nowhere, except maybe to an understanding of the mindset of ancient goatherds.

It doesn't assume that it is wrong. It says that it has not been supported.Unfortunately, you can't yet post anything there.You can post some suggestion here or wait till it is promoted.I did NOT say that it has not philosophy underlying it. You have suggested that the interpretation of evidence is tainted by that philosophy. That is what you have to support by showing how the interpretation is tainted and how a different interpretation can be shown.It is unfortunate that it is difficult to separate the admin mode (expecting support) and the non admin mode. You may point out where you think a line has been crossed.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-12-2004 09:30 PM

I need until Thursday October 14th to answer if the OP should have any changes.But if this is too long, then off the top of my head, I reject the assumption that scientific worldview has no underlying philosophy.Anyone could argue the reverse: Substantiate that worldview has no effect on the interpretations of the evidence ?The problem with the OP is the very issue why Ned created it - my observation that science affords itself a objectivity that doesn't exist.Now, I owe two debaters two replies in the Exodus topic that I will give my full attention to. This will take me until Thursday to finish.WT

Loudmouth:Your replies contrasted with your known pro-evolution stances equate to a very difficult position to refute.Please scroll upwards and weigh in with your thoughts concerning the proposed "God Sense" topic being discussed.Admin:I suggest we loosen the title and subject matter of the topic according to what Loudmouth recommends due to the fact that we have been discussing this subject as a possible topic for months now.WT

Crashfrog:You bring up a lot of good points.I will reply ASAP.I don't have the time today.Honestly, it would take me about two hours to create a response which I would be happy with.WT