[_ Old Earth _] Philosophy of Science

[Doulos Iesou]

Often in these discussions, it results in statements like, "you put your faith in scientists, and I will put my faith in the Bible." These kinds of statements really only serve to confuse the issue for a couple of reasons.

1. Many evolutionists (people who accept evolution) do not do so because of scientific consensus.
2. Many people do not believe the Bible simply because they take a leap of faith on the matter.

This reveals the fact that we have reasons for why we believe certain things, and to ourselves believe that this knowledge is justified belief. The means by which we now justify our beliefs is very important and is at the core of the issue.

This field of philosophy is called Epistemology, and it is about the study of knowledge and how we know the things we know (if that's even possible). There are a variety of methods that can be utilized to gain scientific knowledge, your can observe, you can calculate using a formula, you use reason to create predictions and then test those predictions. The method I want to talk about, and is perhaps the most basic is observation, and falls in the camp of Empiricism, knowledge gained through our sensory input.

This line of knowledge is possible because we live in an objective universe. For instance, if you and I were to study the same rock, but came up with different shapes and weights in our observations, this would mean that one of us was wrong. The rock has a set weight and shape and age that is not relative to a human's subjective opinion. As this is so for all the natural universe, science is possible and as we observe more and more our knowledge is deepened and clarified.

How this relates to our discussion is that when people make statements about objective facts in the universe, such as the age of the earth, or the age of a fossil, they don't make statements based upon faith but rather statements that can be verified and falsified upon observation.

So let's talk in this thread about HOW we know what we know, and why these are justified beliefs.

 

[Andrew Mason]

Many scientists present the age of the earth or the age of a mountain as evidence that disproves the Bible creation account about 6,000 years ago.

The problem is that science can't measure God's supernatural ability.

How old was Adam when God created him? How old was Eve?

God is powerful enough to create something brand new with age.

Most scientists would scoff at that explanation even though it neutralizes their anti-God disposition.

 

[Edward]

I justify my beliefs in the truth of scripture on the belief and teachings that it is the inspired Word of God and the study of the same...all the while, while praying for revelation of the truth in scripture and of God Himself. He has unequivocally done this and revealed Himself to me as being real, truthful and faithful. As usual with God, He did this in such a way that I can not prove it per se, but it has been shown to me. I have also tested God with tithing as He said we are allowed to, and He has proven Himself to be true and faithful in this aspect also. There are other ways that He has proven Himself, like in answering my prayers, not that I was testing Him, but paying close attention to the who what when where how of the situation, and in some ways, it had to be God helping me for the way that the circumstances worked out.

I have a slew of testimonies that i would be happy to recount for you if you would like to hear them. Many of them.

Most of the time, when He answers my prayers, He has shown the pattern of...coming through at the last minute, but never late. I believe that He does this in this way because He wants us to demonstrate that we will hold our faith in Him until the last moment, and not give up our faith and become discouraged or scared that things will not go good for us. All of this adds up to...He is always faithful, has never forsaken me, and always keeps His promises. The pattern of always coming through has shown me over time, that He can be trusted and never lies. Because of this, my faith in His word (scripture) is enhanced, and I find it to be believable, and hold it so in my heart to be true and walk as if it is true as I should be doing if I believe it. I may not understand all of the bible or all of the ways of God, but we do not have to be able to understand Him to trust Him and put our faith (trust) into Him.

I have also found that I do understand the bible more, if I read it as if it were literal. The more literal I take it, the better I can understand it. Our Lord is not the author of confusion, and His gospel is one of simplicity so that even a child can understand it. Even though many people feel that much of the bible is allegorical or parables, it does not seem to be so. The parables in scripture are usually stated to be a parable, and have certain earmarks which identify it as a parable, like not using peoples names. He'll say stuff like, there was a certain king...or something like that when it is a parable.

If you want to hear some testimonies brother, just say so and I'll recount some for you.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Many scientists present the age of the earth or the age of a mountain as evidence that disproves the Bible creation account about 6,000 years ago.

Many scientists don't really care about this account, and they don't tout their findings as really disproving anything religious in nature. Only a few scientists go around doing things like this.

Also, there are many Old Earthers within the Christian family who interpret Genesis 1 and 2 quite differently than the strict Literal way that many of the more Conservative Camp do.

The problem is that science can't measure God's supernatural ability.

How old was Adam when God created him? How old was Eve?

God is powerful enough to create something brand new with age.

I presented my refutation of the Appearance of Age argument in another thread. It turns out that if he did this, he would be a deceiver, which God cannot lie.

Most scientists would scoff at that explanation even though it neutralizes their anti-God disposition.

Most Theologians would point out that it replaces the scientific problem with a theological problem, namely the character and nature of God.

God cannot lie, and he does not deceive us by planting false evidence.

 

[Edward]

God cannot lie, and he does not deceive us by planting false evidence.

Right. The enemy could have though.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Right. The enemy could have though.

So Satan is planting ancient Meteorites and fossils? How did he do that? Or blowing up distant stars which Super Nova? Does he have the ability to create ancient material from nothing?

Don't buy it.

 

[Edward]

So Satan is planting ancient Meteorites and fossils? How did he do that? Or blowing up distant stars which Super Nova? Does he have the ability to create ancient material from nothing?

Don't buy it.

I don't know. There's so many presumptions in what you say that it, in the long run, is far fetched. How do you know that Satan doesn't know how to to do this? Orrr, to at least know how to fake something like this. Deception is his biggest tool, and he does know how stupid man is in general. You also presume that man's dating methods are infallible. I can't stop laughing brother!

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I don't know. There's so many presumptions in what you say that it, in the long run, is far fetched. How do you know that Satan doesn't know how to to do this?

You believe Satan has the ability to create from nothing? Thought that was a safe presumption. lol

Deception is his biggest tool, and he does know how stupid man is in general.

OH YES, it would be stupid to look at a fossil and actually believe it was once a living organism.

You also presume that man's dating methods are infallible.

Where did I state that they were infallible. Would have asked me, rather than presume my belief... then I would have told you that they are not. 1. Samples can be contaminated and thus create an error. 2. Dating techniques generally give us a range and not a 100% specific date.

I do have no reason to deny the dating methods used to date the age of the earth, as we have loads of evidence to support this.

I can't stop laughing brother!

I don't care to know that you are laughing. You can keep this information to yourself as I lose more and more respect for you, whenever you do stuff like that. It's rude.

 

[Rick W]

Both of you, please.
If civil discussion is not possible then it may be better to say nothing at all.

 

[Edward]

You believe Satan has the ability to create from nothing? Thought that was a safe presumption. lol


OH YES, it would be stupid to look at a fossil and actually believe it was once a living organism.


Where did I state that they were infallible. Would have asked me, rather than presume my belief... then I would have told you that they are not. 1. Samples can be contaminated and thus create an error. 2. Dating techniques generally give us a range and not a 100% specific date.

I do have no reason to deny the dating methods used to date the age of the earth, as we have loads of evidence to support this.


I don't care to know that you are laughing. You can keep this information to yourself as I lose more and more respect for you, whenever you do stuff like that. It's rude.

Ohh, I'm not trying to make you made brother. We're adults and just talking, please don't be so thin skinned about it.
Perhaps I did presume too much. I dunno, your tone is such that you seem to take the evolution stuff...very seriously.

The thing is, that, I take the bible a lot more seriously than I do any of our scientists. I have a looot of faith in Gods Word, and I do tend to take it as gospel so to speak, which in turn kinda throws a shadow of a doubt upon the scientists right off the bat. Not that we don't know anything, we do...but, we have scientists which believe this evolution and knowledge of the world and since it is what they were taught, they tend to take science as seriously as I do scripture, even being good hearted and with no intent to deceive, their heart and faith is in it, so they'll bend into stating theory as facts with no malicious intent...then we have other scientists which may know the truth but will outright lie, just to keep their job or for the money, or for a personal whatever against YEC and so forth...and then we also will have others who make honest effort and integrity within their heart, but make actual mistakes...so there's so many ways that mankind can or does be wrong, that it takes quite a bit of evidence and non-emotionally based talk to convince one such as I, who takes the bible sooo literal and with sooo much faith, because God has shown me that He is truthful, will not lie, and faithful...even if I don't understand it fully. Blind faith or whatever you want to call it, and if I am wrong about any of it, it's my fault and not His. This is the one thing that I do know, is that the bible can be trusted. 100%.

So it's going to take some good hard serious evidence to convince me that mans knowledge is trustworthy, and it also has to agree with scripture, because the truth will always agree with scripture. So please don't take offense to my posts brother. I'm not trying to irritate you, nor am I laughing at you. It is the world and their so called wisdom and knowledge. It can't usually be trusted for reasons already stated. My apologies if I offended you, such was not my intent. I just have have so much faith in scripture that I find some of mans "knowledge" laughable, but it's not you. We're just guys talking. brothers in the Lord. Sorry. I didn't think that you would take that personally. Ok?

I didn't take offense at you saying I may be ignorant, because I know the definition of the word. I am ignorant about a lot of things. But I'm no dummy either. So can we talk without looking for some reason to take offense with each other (as the world would like for us to do) and stick to the epistemology and topic? Please? We're adults brother, let's rise above that stuff.