You forgot to add ‘… except when copying quotes from creationist websites, when you can assume without checking that they are both correct and in-context’
3 Likes
First off, Dr. Sarfati’s expertise is in physical chemistry, which is more than just spectroscopy.
Second, I didn’t “cite” him, I merely mentioned his name and that he thought something. I cited the source that he himself cited (which was not himself).
It may well be, but that’s the appeal to authority fallacy. Whether or not they’re speaking in their field of expertise is irrelevant to the question of whether they are correct. There is also the false implication that one must have formal training/certification in something in order to have expertise in an area.
Take for example my own expertise in theology and apologetics. I would say I have quite a bit of knowledge and expertise in these areas, although I never got any degree in them. It comes from personal study.
Weight is not what I’m after. It’s the quality of the information and the arguments.
When Jesus said he is the gate, do you believe that he is a literal gate? When Jesus said that he is a road, do you believe that he is a literal road?
Those who affirm God’s omnipotence do believe that God is able to communicate clearly.
Sometimes we understand and sometimes we don’t. Jesus even said that some things are intentionally hidden. And some things may be understood easily within an ancient linguistic, cultural, and historical context while being unclear to us today. (Is it possible that Genesis 1 was far more “clear” to its ancient audience?)
If what you are claiming about clarity were always the case, it would surely eliminate a lot of exegetical debates and translation difficulties which I have directly observed even within the fundamentalist academy. For that matter, if it were true there would be less disagreement among the Young Earth Creationist scholars I worked with in times past. For example, I well remember a strong disagreement between John Whitcomb Jr. and a younger member of the OT department about the meaning of the Hebrew word behind firmament. Whitcomb made claims about “clarity” similar to yours but lots of today’s YEC scholars don’t agree with him.
Clearly (!) not all scholars who affirm Biblical inerrancy agree with your favorite interpretations.
Believing God meant to say that he created in six days is not the same thing as saying your particular interpretation tradition is the correct one—nor that the meaning is clear. I affirm that God created in six days but I don’t affirm your interpretation.
One can believe that God meant to describe the ERETZ as TOHU VAVOHU but that doesn’t resolve the clarity problems and disagreements among even fundamentalist scholars.
1 Like
The Bible itself affirms that Jesus often spoke in parables, non-literally. God created us, and instilled in us some common sense to know that Jesus, the man, was not also literally a barrier made out of wood attached to a fence. Or a path for people to walk on. This is such an obvious red herring it’s frankly annoying to see it here. The fact that Jesus used figurative language has nothing at all to do with whether God meant days in Genesis 1 literally.
Yes, apparently able, but not willing? God is not the author of confusion. He spoke clearly. Some of us refuse to listen.
The meaning of Genesis 1 is not hidden. It’s plain, and God referenced back to it in Exodus 20:11, making it even more obvious and plain.
Fallacy of disagreement (again).
Fallacy of disagreement, again.
If that is true then why do you completely ignore so many of the scientific research papers you’ve been shown? The dino-bird lung thread is a classic example. You aren’t looking for information, just cherry-picked snippets you can use for confirmation of your existing YEC beliefs.
2 Likes
So you admit that Jesus used figurative language but then refuse to consider that God may have meant YOM/days in a sense different from your favorite literal interpretation. (Yes, there is more than one “literal” interpretation of YOM in Genesis 1.) You are simply declaring that all other interpretations but yours are invalid.
1 Like
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.
Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith
It is pretty clear that creationists, rather than mainstream science, are the ones theologically driven.
I agree that you cannot outsource your thinking, but consideration of other’s expertise is much different from just expertise shopping in order to track down some outliers who might indulge confirmation bias.
When scientists (including the evangelical scientists and geologists I happen to know) are at the lab bench, field, whiteboard, or analyzing data on the monitor, they are not wondering how to interpret the results so they can sin with impunity. They are curious to follow the evidence to where it leads rather that attempt to excuse it away, and the consensus is overwhelming.
1 Like
His PhD was in spectroscopy, as it would appear is the bulk of his published work. But whatever. Even if we extend this to all fields in Physical Chemsitry which Sarfati has performed published research in, I rather doubt if it extends to anything of interest to YEC apologetics.
You gave him as your authority for questioning the identification of nephilim with “giants”.
You later stated "Dr Sarfati has stated that … " which sounds very much like ‘citing’ him.
Only when it became obvious that nobody was accepting Sarfati as a legitimate expert on the subject.
It isn’t.
It is however directly relevant to whether we have any reason to trust them to be correct.
I would say either “formal training/certification”, a track history of peer-reviewed academic research in the field, or similar. Publishing on a Creationist Apologetics site? Not so much.
I’ll leave the theologians on this forum to evaluate your competence in that area.
In the field of Apologetics, I cannot see you as having much in the way of practical effectiveness. I cannot see you as convincing anybody with your arguments who isn’t already a YEC, or at least a conservative Christian. Preaching to the converted?
But then, I don’t have a particularly high opinion of the effectiveness or rigor of Apologetics. more generally.
Then this probably does isn’t the thread to be discussing them. Weight-to-experts would appear to subject of discussion.
“Quality” which appears to be only visible to those within the YEC echo chamber. The Emperor’s New Clothes?
1 Like
No, I didn’t give him as an authority. Again, I merely mentioned his name.
It may “sound like” it to you, but I assure you I was not citing him as an authority on the matter (even though I don’t think that would be inappropriate, as he has done a great deal of research and writing on this).
Hand waving?
Don’t trust them. Listen to their arguments and evaluate the arguments.
Then you’re admitting your bias openly.
Giving a defense is my job. Converting is yours.
This actually is the topic of discussion.
Again, giving a defense is my job. Becoming convinced is not my job, as I’m already convinced.
We’ve seen this movie before.
All of the experts in the modern day agree that the Earth moves about the Sun at great speed. So do we trust the experts, or do we trust God’s Word?
One aspect of discussion is how science itself works: You don’t have to trust the experts. The evidence and knowledge experts use to reach their conclusions is potentially available to everyone. For obvious reasons, some evidence is difficult to acquire, but the empirical world is available to anyone. Scientific experts are not a priestly sect that withhold evidence from the laity. If you think the experts are wrong, then it is incumbent on the challengers to prove them wrong.
Did Bellarmine prove Galileo wrong by proclaiming the Bible said the Sun moved about the Earth? Are all the experts supporting Heliocentrism wrong because they go against the Bible? Or are the experts right because the evidence points to Heliocentrism?
3 Likes
I am not going to go along with your false premise that the Bible teaches absolute geocentrism, sorry!
Nope. I have believed before, but I’m just not into the blind, unthinking loyalty stuff. Even as I assumed God existed, I could never join you in blindly taking it as axiomatic that some particular collection of ancient texts are the infallible word of God.
You are confusing mere belief with servility.
Sure they are, they’re just not like you. There’s nothing inconsistent about believing that God exists yet not putting whatever God is purported to have said “above everything”.
Tell you what, if God told me to stab you to death, even if I had become convinced it really was God speaking to me, I wouldn’t do it.
There are kinds of sycophancy I find rather unsettling.
1 Like
@PDPrice I created this thread for the “disallowed” comments in my failed Curated Discussion. As such, you really should not feel obligated to respond to anything here - unless you want to. I feel badly for getting you into a fight you did not ask for.
And because this is now an orphan topic with little direction, it might be better to simply close it. I will monitor for constructive discussion, and if that isn’t happening I will close comments. Flags appreciated.
1 Like
Come on, this isn’t your first rodeo. You know exactly the point being made.
Absent the clear scientific evidence for heliocentrism, many devoted Christians interpreted the bible in such a way that they believed the sun orbited the Earth. Now, hundreds of years later, with access to clear scientific evidence for heliocentrism, you scoff at the idea that the Bible teaches geocentrism.
There is an obvious parallel with YECism more recently. Already most Christians reject the idea that the bible teaches YECism, you are one of the minority clinging on in the face of clear scientific evidence. In a few generations, your position will be in even more of a minority than today, and Christians will scoff at the idea that the bible could ever have been interpreted in favour of YECism.
Religious interpretations either update to match reality, or they will be discarded altogether - see the numerous stories of Christians losing their faith because they’re being told that the bible (the YEC interpretation) conflicts with science (objective reality). You’re sticking to your YEC guns, but if the catholic church had stuck to their geocentric interpretation of the bible all along, despite mounting scientific evidence to the contrary, how do you think they would have fared? Not too well.
4 Likes
Then you’re not as faithful as Abraham was, clearly. And I’m not even your son.
I scoff at the idea that the Bible teaches any kind of scientific cosmology. This is a non sequitur. Whether Christians in the past have misinterpreted the bible is irrelevant to whether the bible is true.
I agree. Nobody ought to be that faithful under any circumstance. Prove your faith by stabbing your own children? People who would really do that belong in mental hospitals, not on pedestals.
Would you do it? Kill your own children if God told you to?
2 Likes
It is always right to obey the Creator, and always wrong to disobey. It’s literally Satanic to say otherwise.
So the answer to the question…
…is “yes”. Are your children, assuming you have any, aware of that?
2 Likes