quote:

You're missing the third leg of the triangle: Abraham had only eight sons. There's not that many specimens to perform the experiment on to determine the optimal timing and there is still the time to wait between determining whether a certain day was efficacious trying a new day.

You may be missing an important point as well. It is possible that the story is not true. That it is just a fable invented by some Middle Eastern nomads to tell a story. In that case the number of boys to experiment on goes up dramatically. Trying to prove that the Bible is true by quoting the Bible is a logical fallacy.

quote:

Originally posted by bogeyman:

quote:

You're missing the third leg of the triangle: Abraham had only eight sons. There's not that many specimens to perform the experiment on to determine the optimal timing and there is still the time to wait between determining whether a certain day was efficacious trying a new day.

You may be missing an important point as well. It is possible that the story is not true. That it is just a fable invented by some Middle Eastern nomads to tell a story. In that case the number of boys to experiment on goes up dramatically. Trying to prove that the Bible is true by quoting the Bible is a logical fallacy.

And saying “Trying to prove that the Bible is true by quoting the Bible is a logical fallacy” to me is an attempt by you to commit a straw man fallacy because no where have I attempted to prove the Bible is true by quoting it. I challenge you to cite where I quoted the Bible and then claimed that is proof the Bible is true.

Assuming the story is not true and was a fable invented by some Middle Eastern nomads to tell a story does not explain why you have a bunch of people snipping off the tips of their male babies for so many thousands of years on the eight day which so happens to be the most optimal day but can only be verified by scientific developments thousands of years later.

My aim isn’t to convert anyone to believe the Bible is true. My aim as I believe I clearly stated at the start and end of my post is to counter the reflexive dismissal of religious dogma and favoring scientific dogma given the history I laid out of scientific dogma believed to be true but later found to be false.

On the other hand, I have an example of a religious ritual that turns out to have solid verifiable scientific backing. The take away, especially for people like me who are very much interested in both science and the Bible, is that I am confident that any apparent conflicts between present day science and the Bible will eventually be resolved with a favorable view of the Bible. But you don’t have to believe the Bible is true. All that I am pointing out is considering the information available on both science and the Bible is to not be reflexively dismissive of religious belief.

The brit milah (Hebrew circumcision) is performed on the eight day, because the world and all it contains, were created in six days, and on the seventh, God rested from all His work, seeing that is was prefect.

So, the first day after (the eight) is "symbolic" in the "Brit" (covenant/contract) with God, with the "separation" of the child (by the separation of the foreskin) on the eight day. And then the rearing/raising/teaching of the child to the time when he will become a man, on his bar mitsvah (son of the law/deeds).

In Judaism, (and the following on of Christianity) there is much that is to be understood in the very many nuances of the faith, the daily life that is woven into, the laws, the precepts, the teachings, and all of the history, both oral, written, to include the law and the prophets.

It is not enough to simply "believe" or not. Or to operate by "faith", alone, or not. One must understand the fullness, of both faith by believing, believing by observing/knowing, and observing/knowing and having faith that the things one sees, observes, knows and believes, are also only existent with faith, and vice versa.

In many places/things, Jewish people do a thing, follow a "law" (performing mitzvot/acts/deeds/works) without full understanding, but in "faith", that the "doing" will help impart the understanding, and if not, is good and well to follow the "law" in the doing, for the sake of the law.

Not unlike a military person following a regulation or order, even when he/she does not understand the order, the need for the order or even if they believe in the order. It is to be carried out because it is the regulation/order, and that is the core of the military member's duty. (with the given that the regulation/order is proper and lawful, as would be God's commandments.)

Any one of us can and does understand the "proper bearing and behavior expected" of one, whether one is military, LEO, First Responder or myriad of other such professions one may belong to.

And likewise, the complexity (not complication) of such "belonging" may not be understood in its fullness by an "outsider" (one not an initiate). That is not a denigration to the "non-initiate", merely a fact of circumstance.

Likewise, one who is not immersed/dyed in the wool (as it were) in Christianity, Judaism, et al, one cannot know the intricacies and the many layers of the onion, that so creates the construct.

But, is is easy for a person to look and then state, emphatically; "I do not like onions", because the peeling of them creates distress. (but a chef, knows how to cut the onion and never shed a tear.)

Yeah, its sort of like time cube. You understand, because you trust, believe, know and all that said at the beginning, or you do not. And you may choose to try and understand, or hate the onion.

quote:

Originally posted by bogeyman:

quote:

I just can't make sense of placing faith in science, when it is "abandoned" so often.

Are you speaking just in terms of evolution, or not placing faith in science in general?

I believe we have to hold faith in many things...

I have to have faith, trust, that Dr's and scientists have performed trials appropriately and that the meds, or treatment will work.

But, time and again, with" Science" there are things continually disproven. It seems often, that whoever can sell what they are saying, gets the money.

This is not new, it has been going on since the beginning of time.

I'm not suggesting that all science is bad, terrible... or even that it hasn't dramatically improved our lively hood.

I'm simply stating that folks Love science, trust science blindly, and worship it.

And yet, their "science is continually disproven, adjusted, excuses made over and over without any real wonder why they believed something, and now can switch on a dime.

The Bible.... it continues to be proven. Archeological findings continue to support the "stories". Dead sea scrolls dated "scientifically", have validated its originality.

Historical writers, that were not "Christians" support the stories.

For me, the 11 folks with Jesus, died horrible deaths, and did not at any time renounce their beliefs.

The early Christians under Nero were stabbed through with sticks and lit on fire to light his gardens, and did not renounce what they saw and believed...

But, "Science".... That is what I don't understand.

If you are going to place "ALL" your trust, love, worship in one area, science seems to be a loser.

This thread has actually been very interesting and thank you all that have returned it to civility even while disagreeing.

quote:

And saying “Trying to prove that the Bible is true by quoting the Bible is a logical fallacy” to me is an attempt by you to commit a straw man fallacy because no where have I attempted to prove the Bible is true by quoting it. I challenge you to cite where I quoted the Bible and then claimed that is proof the Bible is true.

“You're missing the third leg of the triangle: Abraham had only eight sons. There's not that many specimens to perform the experiment on to determine the optimal timing and there is still the time to wait between determining whether a certain day was efficacious trying a new day.”

You say that you didn’t quote the Bible, yet you cite, as evidence for your argument, the fact that Abraham had only eight sons on which to perform circumcisions. Obviously that is a story from the Bible.

What have I missed?

quote:

Originally posted by bogeyman:
There does not need to be an “intelligence” to make the change. The change that is more beneficial is the one that survives and as the organism reproduces that change becomes a part of the new/better/evolved organism. It doesn’t have to “recognize” that the change is good, or even that the change occurred at all. Because that change allows better adaptation to the environment, it survives at a higher rate than those organisms that do not have that adaptation.

Can I get an amen?

That science can be wrong doesn't make the Bible right.

The "science" of heliocentrism was wrong. Casual observation, however, makes it seem like a logical explanation for what people saw. But once someone noticed that the planets moved in retrograde at times, its days were numbered. And it persisted so long because it was thought to be demanded by the Bible.

Again, the beauty of the scientific method is that it can recognize new evidence and change. That doesn't mean an unchanging biblical cosmology is right. It just means that believers have to shoehorn new facts into the old explanation. That is doing it backwards.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by bogeyman:
There does not need to be an “intelligence” to make the change. The change that is more beneficial is the one that survives and as the organism reproduces that change becomes a part of the new/better/evolved organism. It doesn’t have to “recognize” that the change is good, or even that the change occurred at all. Because that change allows better adaptation to the environment, it survives at a higher rate than those organisms that do not have that adaptation.

Can I get an amen?

No, but you can get an awomen.

quote:

That science can be wrong doesn't make the Bible right.

Not what I am trying to communicate.

Clumsily saying that "science" believers are just that. Believers. Their "faith" is in science.

Science is mentioned as beautiful because it can recognize new evidence and change... and change, and change. Each time, just blindly accepting we didn't have enough evidence, but can believe it now.....

Doesn't that seem silly? Each time along the way we adamantly say science has proven! and then, oops, science has now proven! oops, no, really we are certain this time!

In the course of the last year, the "science" community has wavered back and forth on Covid... in 10 years, I imagine we will be shocked at how very wrong we were.

But, folks will still hold science dear... Because it is right, until it's not right, then it will be right again.

Maybe I'm too simple, but I want good evidence before I put my full faith into something.

Science... does not have my full faith.

For some, they worship it. My question is, Why?

Trust the science....

I am not saying we should dismiss it, just, be cautious about putting all your faith into it.

quote:

Originally posted by Dreamerx4:

quote:

That science can be wrong doesn't make the Bible right.

Not what I am trying to communicate.

Clumsily saying that "science" believers are just that. Believers. Their "faith" is in science.

Science is mentioned as beautiful because it can recognize new evidence and change... and change, and change. Each time, just blindly accepting we didn't have enough evidence, but can believe it now.....

Doesn't that seem silly? Each time along the way we adamantly say science has proven! and then, oops, science has now proven! oops, no, really we are certain this time!

In the course of the last year, the "science" community has wavered back and forth on Covid... in 10 years, I imagine we will be shocked at how very wrong we were.

But, folks will still hold science dear... Because it is right, until it's not right, then it will be right again.

Maybe I'm too simple, but I want good evidence before I put my full faith into something.

Science... does not have my full faith.

For some, they worship it. My question is, Why?

Trust the science....

I am not saying we should dismiss it, just, be cautious about putting all your faith into it.

I don't think science "believers" are like that. They don't have faith in the facts science teaches. They act on what science teaches because it is the best information that they have. (And sometimes, that works just great, such as when you can make a cell phone that lets you call Tokyo from your car, because . . . science).

But they don't "BELIEVE" science with a religious fervor. They believe in the process. They act on the best information they have. If what they formerly thought was true turns out not to be true, they change their actions.

That is not possible for religionists because most religion demand obedience and insists that it is absolute truth. So new facts and observations have to be jammed into existing structures of the religion, even if the fit isn't very good.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
The brit milah (Hebrew circumcision) is performed on the eight day, because the world and all it contains, were created in six days, and on the seventh, God rested from all His work, seeing that is was prefect.

So, the first day after (the eight) is "symbolic"

That could be, but it's still medically significant to do it on the 8th day:

quote:

It is of significant medical importance that male circumcision be carried out on the eighth day after birth since the level of vitamin K is highest on this day and vitamin K plays a pivotal role in regulation and control of the important clotting factors in the coagulation pathway that helps in stopping bleeding.

https://www.researchgate.net/p...0stopping%20bleeding.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18677590/

My position is almost the opposite of the teacher described in the OP. I teach geology and engineering at a private Christian college and am professionally licensed in both disciplines with advanced degrees. So, it's fair to say that I understand the science behind the arguments better than most people. I am also a committed follower of Jesus who was raised with the inerrancy of Scripture as a fundamental tenet of my faith. I have seen nothing over the years to change that tenet.

So what is a man of science and faith to do with this issue? My own life experiences have confirmed to me in numerous, irrefutable ways that my faith is founded on reality - that God exists, that a relationship with him is possible, and that he is active in the world. Anyone who has been in my shoes and experienced the things I've experienced would have to acknowledge that there is something at work beyond the explaining capacity of science. My faith that God exists and that Jesus Christ really lived and died so that we can have eternal life is, and will always be, unshakeable.

And yet, there are many things that have perplexed me over the years regarding the intersection of fundamentalist belief (i.e. young earth creation) and what is observable and measurable in the world. Why does the world seem so old if God created it relatively recently? Why is there so much data that confirms an old age? One or two points could be an error, but there are dozens upon dozens of observations that point to an old earth. So much data, in fact, that we are left with only two options if we are to maintain that the earth is young: 1) All of the data is wrong, or 2) God created the world to look older than it is. This second option is often posited by those trying to find answers, but I find it incompatible with God's nature. Why would God tell us that all of the creation points to him, inviting us to study it, and then create a deception in the creation? I dismiss a deceptive God as a valid hypothesis, so we are left to deal with option 1.

Is all of the data wrong? I spent hours upon hours as a college student reading Answers in Genesis, ICR, and other sources trying to find a key to the puzzle that would allow me to synchronize the young earth tradition I'd been raised with and the observations I could see with my own eyes. I was even convinced for a while and espoused the same theories that are being brought up in this thread - primarily that the worldwide flood and changing rates of radioactive decay explain most of the discrepancies between the world viewpoints. The deeper I got, though, the more disenchanted I became. Most of the articles on those sites sound great at first, but they do not pass deeper scrutiny. They are generally peer reviewed only by other young earth scientists, and they completely ignore any refuting data. They find flaws in published mainstream articles and point to them saying, "Aha! See!". Then they ignore the revision by the original author correcting the error. They are driven, admittedly and openly, by their belief that the Bible teaches a young earth and thus the data HAS to fit that model.

My "Aha" moment came when I started asking myself if my understanding of the Bible was correct. Am I, reading the text in a different culture with a completely different worldview thousands of years later, reading it correctly? What am I missing in the nuances of a foreign language and culture? That deeper study of the Bible, which required a lot of effort and learning about Hebrew and Greek, led me to realize that the Bible is so much deeper and richer than I had given it credit for. It has deepened my faith, deepened my understanding of God, and created a joy and peace inside me that is hard to describe. It has also led me to believe that nothing in the Scriptural teaching requires a literal 6 day creation. In fact, I don't think that was even a consideration for the author of Genesis, and I think he would be stunned to hear that we pulled that, of all things, out of what he wrote.

When it comes time to teach geology, I try not to be dogmatic. My quest for understanding is never ending, and I fully realize that, just as I was once convinced of a young earth, so further learning might modify my views yet again. I teach my students what the mainstream theories are, but I also point out to them the weaknesses and how other viewpoints might fit into the narrative. If we are doing a calculation on Potassium-Argon dating, for example, I am sure to point out that the calculation is only valid if the rates of decay have been constant. They are free to decide for themselves, though I'm sure they would tell you they have no illusions about the position of their professor on the subject.

quote:

They are driven, admittedly and openly, by their belief that the Bible teaches a young earth and thus the data HAS to fit that model.

That is one of the principal problems with that belief system. For them, it HAS to come out that way, no matter what. The evidence has to fit the theory, not the other way around.

quote:

Originally posted by bogeyman:

quote:

And saying “Trying to prove that the Bible is true by quoting the Bible is a logical fallacy” to me is an attempt by you to commit a straw man fallacy because no where have I attempted to prove the Bible is true by quoting it. I challenge you to cite where I quoted the Bible and then claimed that is proof the Bible is true.

“You're missing the third leg of the triangle: Abraham had only eight sons. There's not that many specimens to perform the experiment on to determine the optimal timing and there is still the time to wait between determining whether a certain day was efficacious trying a new day.”

You say that you didn’t quote the Bible, yet you cite, as evidence for your argument, the fact that Abraham had only eight sons on which to perform circumcisions. Obviously that is a story from the Bible.

What have I missed?

What you're missing is that my argument has never been to prove the Bible is true. My argument was to highlight the uniqueness of the 8th day being specified and the probabilities against of it having been picked by trial and error given that any day after the 7th day would probably have been fine but only on the 8th day are the blood clotting factors at their highest level and that it took thousands of years of scientific development to catch up and verify this was the optimal choice. That's what you're missing.

The following is an example of "trying to prove the Bible is true by quoting the Bible:"

If I were to say, "The Bible is true because 2 Timothy 3:16 says, 'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God' and whatever is inspired by God is true therefore the Bible is true" that is trying to prove the Bible is true by quoting the Bible.

When I said Abraham has only 8 sons, you're free to dispute with an argument and perhaps cite some supporting evidence or make an inference from a premise that perhaps Abraham had way more than 8 sons like 30 on which he figured out which day was the optimal. You would have to posit an outline of the methodology he used to arrive at the 8 day timing if you're saying the 8 day timing wasn't PM'ed to him by the God account on Facebook.

If you're going to say it wasn't the God account that gave him the 8 day but just another human being, then that just kicks the can down the road as to how that other person came up with the 8 day mark that took thousands of years to be confirmed by science to be the optimal choice.

quote:

......That deeper study of the Bible, which required a lot of effort and learning about Hebrew and Greek, led me to realize that the Bible is so much deeper and richer than I had given it credit for. It has deepened my faith, deepened my understanding of God, and created a joy and peace inside me that is hard to describe. It has also led me to believe that nothing in the Scriptural teaching requires a literal 6 day creation. In fact, I don't think that was even a consideration for the author of Genesis, and I think he would be stunned to hear that we pulled that, of all things, out of what he wrote.

AMEN

quote:

Originally posted by jaaron11:

And yet, there are many things that have perplexed me over the years regarding the intersection of fundamentalist belief (i.e. young earth creation) and what is observable and measurable in the world. Why does the world seem so old if God created it relatively recently? Why is there so much data that confirms an old age? One or two points could be an error, but there are dozens upon dozens of observations that point to an old earth. So much data, in fact, that we are left with only two options if we are to maintain that the earth is young: 1) All of the data is wrong, or 2) God created the world to look older than it is. This second option is often posited by those trying to find answers, but I find it incompatible with God's nature. Why would God tell us that all of the creation points to him, inviting us to study it, and then create a deception in the creation? I dismiss a deceptive God as a valid hypothesis, so we are left to deal with option 1.

I'll caveat by saying that I don't necessarily disagree with you. But with respect to #2 above, I don't think people's beliefs are inconsistent with God's character.

We're taught that God made the world complete. And I understand some people's belief that the earth was created in 6 days "complete." Complete with age, fossils, etc. I don't pretend to know what the truth really is in that regard, but if it's true, then observation would yield the same results whether the planet was billions of years old, or aged billions of years in 5 days. I also don't know what a day is to God. Maybe a day is a billion years. Genesis describes the creation in terms of days. But in some steps of that creative process, earth days did not yet exist. So what's a day if there is no earth day. I don't know what that means. The bible isn't a geology book, a science book, or anything like that, and it drops these tidbits without further explanation because what's been said is all that needs to be said in the context of what the bible is. It's a story about God, and his plan for the redemption of his people through Christ. But I understand people's beliefs. And I will admit that while science says the earth is billions of years old, I don't know how that comports with the actual meaning of the bible in the book of Genesis. And I'm not prepared to say they are inconsistent. If there is a God that created everything, and I believe there is, then I would be silly to say I understand his process completely. It's just beyond me. God is spirit, eternal, without beginning or end. I doubt he's much concerned with years.

With respect to being deceptive, I don't think that's the issue at all. The bible tells us time and time again that faith and trust in God is very important to to him. So if he did create it complete in 6 days, complete with age, then I think it's plausible that there may be an element of a test of faith. Do you believe God, even if you don't understand it all yet? Or will you reject his word and say this is the way is has to be? I don't think that type of test of faith is deceptive at all. You either believe it or don't. We don't have to understand how the bible comports with science. We just have to believe God's word, perhaps without a good understanding of exactly what's behind, at least with respect to these lines in Genesis.

And frankly, that sort of test seems rather innocuous compared to some of the other tests of faith documented in the bible. God allowed Satan to test Job, allowed his whole family to be killed, destroyed his livelihood, reduced him to sitting in ashes while he scraped sores on his body with shards of pottery while being tempted by his friends and wife to curse God. He tested Abraham by calling him to kill his son, knowing all along that wasn't going to happen.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
That science can be wrong doesn't make the Bible right.

The "science" of heliocentrism was wrong. Casual observation, however, makes it seem like a logical explanation for what people saw. But once someone noticed that the planets moved in retrograde at times, its days were numbered. And it persisted so long because it was thought to be demanded by the Bible.

Again, the beauty of the scientific method is that it can recognize new evidence and change. That doesn't mean an unchanging biblical cosmology is right. It just means that believers have to shoehorn new facts into the old explanation. That is doing it backwards.

Literally no one has been saying "that science can be wrong makes the Bible right." If I am wrong in thinking no one has said that, please cite the statement and who said that.

What I did say was:

quote:

What is scientifically true today may be found scientifically false tomorrow. Don't be too quick to judge current scientific dogma as being automatically superior and accurate to religious dogma without further consideration or evaluation.

What I said is markedly different from what you appear to be arguing against.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:. . . That was a mistaken observation in 2011. In 2012, it was corrected. Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly . . .

But knowing how science works, next year they will correct their "correction".

But I don't think the sterile neutrino was connected to the deep space astrophysics observation.

Micropterus,

You highlight an important part of the issue very well. God is God, and we are not. We cannot hope to understand everything about him, or anything about him except what he reveals to us, for that matter. If he is capable of speaking the universe into existence, it doesn't matter if he did it in six 24 hour days or in billions of years. The difference is inconsequential, and a long creation period no more diminishes his glory than does using six days instead of an instantaneous creation.

Regarding the role of faith, I understand it very well in this context. It is what drove me to seek out a young earth solution many years ago. I was convinced, as are many, that Genesis taught a literal 6 day creation, and I was prepared to accept that on faith and try and interpret science through that lens. If I was still convinced today that Genesis taught a 6 day creation, I would still be doing that. I am willing to set aside what little knowledge I have if God clearly says something contrary. I am a doulos, a bondservant, and I can't do anything other than follow my master. It was through very prayerful and diligent studying, not lack of faith, that I began to view Genesis differently. Faith often begins blind, but it doesn't have to remain so if God reveals a truth to us.

We will probably disagree on whether it would be deceptive of God to create apparent age into the world, but I still think it is contrary to his word. It is not at all like the test of Job or Abraham where God allowed or commanded something seemingly irrational to make a point that needed to be made. Instead he created an enormous amount of rationality into the creation. The very design of it bears his signature. He has revealed himself through the creation just as he has through his word (Romans 1:20). There is SO much data to support an old earth that it looks more like intentional clues than a byproduct of unknown processes.

Still, I must allow that God's ways are higher than ours and that my understanding is undoubtedly lacking in many, many ways. If my continued studying brought me back around to a 6 day creation, I would have to re-evaluate my position. However, I am convinced that when the book of nature and the book of Scripture (general revelation and special revelation, if you will) are read together properly, there is no conflict. For me, both read clearer when viewed through an old earth perspective, but it is not an essential doctrine of faith for me.