Man's word - or God's Word?

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Man's word - or God's Word?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Aug 15, 2014 11:13 am

The science that even Ken Ham cannot deny - based on what can be directly reproduced, which clearly 'works', which provides today's technology and got 12 Americans to the surface of the moon and back, does NOT come from the Bible or directly from any God. Thus it is 'Man's word'.

In fact, all of the human race's non-infallible but otherwise pretty strong science - including all the science that young Earth creationists insist 'must' be wrong because it does not fit with Genesis 'history' - is based on the word of Man. Not any God.

YEC-ism is a reaction and backlash against the scientific understandings gained in the last couple of centuries. Part of this is their elevating of portions of 'God's infallible word' to 'providing' true scientific insight or being 'confirmed' by 'science'. They do not manage to give examples of real science and then find a Bible verse that already explained the science in question. Even when a Bible verse is pointing out something real in the natural world, it is normally a mere observation - and certainly not a scientific law or explanation.

Thus what people like Ham call 'God's Word' does not contain science. And when scripture verses are used by YECs to 'refute' what they consider to be 'wrong' ie mainstream science, that again is Man's word. Science is Man's word. YEC-ism is Man's word. What is God's word? If God exists it might be the Bible or maybe the Koran (not Bible interpretations but the original text). Text which provides on its own NO scientific understandings of the world or universe even when the verses in question are not scientifically incorrect as is sometimes the case.

I hope you follow.

By sheer coincidence, after developing this train of thought, I have just discovered that the person known as 'Atheism on the Slide' is displaying his idiocy and PROFOUND ignorance of what the Bible actually states, science and even YEC claims on his facebook page today:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Atheism- ... 1873982784
"Science in the Bible?
The Bible offers many specific examples of amazingly accurate science, and science has uncovered many amazing evidences that the universe and earth are young, as the Bible describes.
Astronomy
• Stars are innumerable (Genesis 22:17; Jeremiah 33:22)
• Stars differ in glory (1 Corinthians 15:41)
• Stars follow a predictable pattern (Jeremiah 31:35)
• Earth is round, not flat (Isaiah 40:22; Psalm 103:12)
• Earth hangs on nothing (not built on pillars) (Job 26:7)
Scientific evidence of a young universe:
1) Spiral galaxies
2) “Missing” supernova remnants
3) Short-lived comets
4) Moon moving away from Earth
Geology
• Water cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10)
• Sea currents (Psalm 8:8)
• “Fountains of the deep broken up” (Genesis 7:11)
Scientific evidence of a young earth:
1) Continents erode too fast
2) Too much mud on the sea floor
3) Too much sodium in the ocean
4) Too rapid decay of earth’s magnetic field
Biology
• Blood circulation (Leviticus 17:11)
Scientific evidence of a recent creation:
1) DNA programming for irreducibly complex protein sequences
2) Lack of missing links in the fossil record
3) Dinosaur blood vessels in fossils"

I will of course explain HOW he is wrong to anybody who does not already know and for whom it might not already be obvious.

This post is Man's word not God's Word. One man's word.

So is every other comment in the world about science and scientific understanding.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8919
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Man's word - or God's Word?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Aug 15, 2014 11:23 am

PS I HAVE looked up the scriptures cited. (I also see from a discussion of the latest post at 'God of Evolution' that somebody is saying of the blogger, who certainly implied that this was the case: "I love how you reference Isaiah 22:18 to show how Hebrew has a word for a sphere, but did not use it in Isaiah 40:22."
http://www.godofevolution.com/how-the-f ... qus_thread)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8919
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Man's word - or God's Word?

Postby Brian Jordan » Sat Aug 16, 2014 6:46 pm

I'll just look at the one bit that struck me, having been told long ago that Harvey described the circulation of the blood in 1628. Poor bloke, I thought, being accused of plagiarising something written thousands of years ago.
Leviticus 17:11King James Version (KJV)

11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
That describes blood circulation? How exactly?
Of course, the wally in question is a rank amateur compared to some Muslim "scholars" who find everything imaginable in the Koran, up to an including the exact speed of light! You were quite right of course Ashley, in demanding to see these wondrous findings in the original texts and not in interpretations. (The speed of light one is a particularly egregious example btw.)
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Man's word - or God's Word?

Postby Peter Henderson » Sun Aug 17, 2014 8:47 pm

I seem to remember Marc Surtees listing all these claims as proof of a young Earth in a talk he gave when we asked him for evidence the Earth was 6,000 years old.

I think this is the talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhpqsjmWq_A
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4351
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Man's word - or God's Word?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Nov 05, 2014 8:46 pm

Much of the pseudo-science and propaganda put out by Answers in Genesis (in their effort to be 'relevant' and seemingly 'refute' naturalistic science) is not actually found in the Bible. Thus, despite Ken Ham's protestations and apparent indignation it IS Man's word. After all the Bible does not refute evolution and deep time since evolution and deep time were both unknown when the Bible was written. We subsequently discovered them. Science is 'Man's word'. So is young Earth creationism.

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... -atheists/
Responding to this:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringo ... heism.html

Some people leave either young Earth creationism, or creationism in general, or even Christianity itself because they come to doubt the word of ... Ken Ham and like-minded fundamentalists. As various bloggers point out, Ham implies that if you cannot believe Genesis as written you should not be able to believe any of the Bible.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8919
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Man's word - or God's Word?

Postby magnocrat » Wed Feb 04, 2015 3:21 pm

One of the great problems with 'mans word' as you describe it is people look at the world and see all sorts of unrest and difficulties and say to themselves what a mess man is making of the world.
I know in the past Gods world was just as chaotic but they expect to see improvements.
Now you and I know we are the problem between us we have messed up the world although of corse scientists see themselves as saints rather than sinners. Did the invention of the internal combustion engine prove the act of a saint or a sinner? Was splitting the atom a benifit or a curse? People associate God with moral guidance science with advancing technology. Until science proves a moral force in our society many will cling to Gods way.
magnocrat
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 5:59 pm

Re: Man's word - or God's Word?

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:42 am

magnocrat wrote:One of the great problems with 'mans word' as you describe it is people look at the world and see all sorts of unrest and difficulties and say to themselves what a mess man is making of the world.


You might; other's don't. Your comment is just a silly piece of horse sense.

Nevertheless I suspect that what you really believe is that everything bad is caused by the fall.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Man's word - or God's Word?

Postby magnocrat » Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:49 pm

You misjudge me I am an agnostic and I believe in evolution as well as climate change.
Where we differ is I have not a worshipful attitude to science. Science has done its share of damage not in itself but in the way we have blundered ahead with no thought of consequences. There have been warning voices from the scientific community but science is largely in the hands of politicians
and big buisness. In the rich countries complex heart surgery is almost routine while large parts of the globe have no basic hygiene. We plan to spend billions on a new particle collider while 30,000 starve to death each day. Technology has been pushed to produce weaponry in the dangerous game of top- dog. Religion which should have given us a moral yardstick battles for power over mens hearts and minds. Martin Rees thinks we have a 50:50 chance of surviving this century without serious breakdown.
magnocrat
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 5:59 pm

Re: Man's word - or God's Word?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Feb 05, 2015 7:22 pm

I had formed an impression that magnocrat was a theistic evolutionist but I note his (or her) clarification.

People like Ken Ham exploit the phrase 'man's word' ie if something is not written in the Bible or it contradicts something in the Bible (as is the case with many science theories - and also eg political ideas such as democracy) then it is 'fallible', probably 'wrong', liable to change or modification over time, and should be treated with suspicion - or indeed actively opposed - by 'all' Christians.

By the way the 'BBC Inside Science' programme looking at science, religion, Darwin, creationism and the like is due NEXT Thursday, 12 Feb (contrary to what Adam Rutherford initially implied on 22 Jan).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8919
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Man's word - or God's Word?

Postby Peter Henderson » Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:12 pm

I believe in evolution


I don't "believe" in evolution any more than I "believe" in the periodic table.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4351
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Man's word - or God's Word?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:22 am

I think I'd say that I exercise an element of 'informed' or 'reasonable' faith, based on the evidence, that microbes to man evolution (and other established scientific theories) explain how we 'got here'. As for deep time though, absolutely no faith is required (unless you have the misfortune to be blind and cannot see - in the 'flesh' or online - eg huge icecaps or undersea cave systems and so forth).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8919
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Man's word - or God's Word?

Postby magnocrat » Fri Feb 06, 2015 2:28 pm

Not sure what your point is Peter you have to spell it out simply for me. I'm sure you got my meaning remember my English is not so good. I have no axe to grind with any sincere belief proven or unproven, but we must not teach as science those unproven beliefs. There is a place for those hypothetical ideas but its not the laboratory. Incidentally Mr Dawkins says the scientific meaning of theory is one accepted and upheld by evidence, anything not in this catagory is a hypothesis.
magnocrat
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 5:59 pm

Re: Man's word - or God's Word?

Postby cathy » Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:49 pm

Peters point is that nobody 'believes' in evolution or the periodic table they understand that the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence points to them therefore they know it. Just as nobody 'believes' David Cameron is prime minister. They know it. Nobody 'believes' apples grow on trees they know it.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Man's word - or God's Word?

Postby cathy » Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:54 pm

I don't think you can blame science for anything magnocrat. What you are blaming is the ways in which science has been used and applied by various people. For that I'd say you need to look more closely at big business and politics rather than scientists and raw science.

Overall science has given far more positives than negatives. The fact we can feed far more people, we can save lives, can communicate ideas. Science is morally neutral, it tells us what we could possibly do not that we have to do it. It's how people choose to use it that's the issue.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Man's word - or God's Word?

Postby magnocrat » Sat Feb 07, 2015 9:00 am

Thankyou for pointing out my loose use of language Cathy but I'm sure most would get my meaning. All knowledge is amoral we are the moral gainers and users of our endeavours. Science is a particular area of vunerability since it confers power and power corrupts. Brilliant men are often concerned only with scientific inquirey but others far less scupulous can use their discoveries for selfish ends. We need to adopt Sam Harris's yardstick of well- being when judging the value of scientific research and progress.
magnocrat
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 5:59 pm

Next

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron