That’s not even remotely accurate. Nearly all the founders of modern science were Bible-believing Christians and creationists.
This is from Gavin Ortlund, and it is an excerpt of this book:
I should emphasize that I’m not in love with the imagery of “triage”, but his excerpt is really interesting.
1 Like
No, I won’t. And if you have a problem with my sources, that’s fine, you aren’t required to comment.
I don’t believe it is unrelated.
Who knows what it means, and which organisms have it?
I believe it is the nephesh life creatures that have it, and the non-nephesh do not. Normally that’s not too difficult a distinction to make, but there are a few cases where it can be a little more tricky to figure out. It was never the purpose of the Bible to give an exhaustive answer to that question.
I disagree, and it’s not your call to make in any case. God works all things together for good for those who love him, who are called according to his purpose.
That’s true in a fallen world, but it would not have to be true in a pre-Fall ecosystem.
Rapid and even possibly supernatural changes would have had to happen at the Fall, yes.
Nothing ambiguous about the Bible’s teaching that death entered because of the Fall.
One problem I see with “No death before the Fall”, is the implication of “No birth” before the Fall either. Given exponential growth of populations, the Earth rapidly fills with all manner of beasts until there is no more room to move.
With regard to the failures of science, methodological naturalism is and will continue to be a highly successful means of evaluating the world around us, and for making useful predictions. It doesn’t matter what one believes, atheist or religious, science simply works, and there is no viable alternative that can do for us what science can do.
It’s OK to have faith too. Science does not exclude faith. (Which I repeat here for the benefit of those not already familiar with my opinion.)
Why? One possibility is that the planet would have been filled until the population had reached its utmost, and then God would have simply disallowed any further procreation, both in humans and animals. There’s no reason to assert that procreation would have had to go on unchecked forever in an unfallen world, directly shepherded by God himself.
Why would it be any other way? God created this place for humans to inhabit, and commanded us to take dominion over it. Science is how we do that. Saying “science works” is a confirmation of what we would expect, given the Bible.
Then you will continue to be wrong. Creationist web sites are not about science and have an agenda that forces them to garble the science they report.
Why do you believe that? What about octopuses? What about lampreys?
Of course you do, but do you have any rational justification for that disagreement? If so, trot it out.
Your “pre-Fall ecosystem” is becoming increasingly jury-rigged. Something prevents carnivory, something prevents mice from reproducing. How odd that all the random cursing of the Fall results in ecosystem stability without all those special rules.
A whole second creation, more or less, and one unremarked in Genesis. How odd.
Of course there is. Whose death? That’s the ambiguity.
I don’t believe anything God does is random.
That’s not ambiguous. The ambiguity comes in certain places where the distinction between what is ‘alive’ (and therefore capable of death) and what is not, may not be entirely clear to the modern observer. If you haven’t taken the time to read the article I linked on this, then why are you continuing to ask questions about specific examples?
None is needed. You called God a name because you didn’t like God’s decision to curse the earth. I disagreed with you.
I’m so glad I’m not a YEC and have to do this kind of mental gymnastics. Where is the evidence this is what God did?
When it comes to evil we are in no position to know that god doesn’t have morally sufficient reasons for allowing the evil to happen. But we know exactly what god would do when it comes to procreation…
1 Like
I don’t know why a person with this attitude would bother engaging somebody who writes for one such creationist website himself. Clearly, according to Harshman, I have an agenda that causes me to garble the science I report. What’s the point in discussing it? This is nothing more than namecalling. And very little of the dialogue I encounter here at “Peaceful Science” ever gets beyond this level. (Or anywhere else for that matter).
Ever stop and wonder if you’re the common denominator in all of that?
3 Likes
No, I don’t wonder whether it’s my fault that other people are closed-minded. But I am the common denominator in that I am usually alone in defending the biblical viewpoint. People don’t like to hear it, and this is how they usually react when confronted by biblical truth.
I’m friends with multiple YECs and ID folks. They don’t cause some of the problems you cause. It’s more you being disingenuous, having nothing but rhetoric and pulling things out of your rear end. I want Christianity to be true so no close-mindedness here.
1 Like
@PDPrice, I can agree you have not always been engaged well, but do you really take no responsibility at all for this?
2 Likes
I don’t beat around the bush or sugarcoat, that’s for sure. I’ll take responsibility for being blunt. But to be fair, that’s a trait that has probably been cultivated after many years of dealing with closed-minded and uncharitable scoffers.
Earlier you made the statement that there are many YEC journals that are peer-reviewed. I would be shocked if you could get any other scientist who contributes here to agree with you about that. What do you think?
I don’t believe we’re going to have any sort of discussion. You ignore most things I say and respond to others with one-liners.
Tell me: if Eve is the mother of all living, does that refer to nephesh or just to humans?
Certainly none is forthcoming.
Hope springs eternal.
I don’t think I ignore most things you say. Sometimes one-liners are all that is needed.
Humans.
It would be a blasphemy for me to even attempt to justify God’s actions to you. God’s actions need no justification. He’s God.
So, sometimes “all life” means just humans and sometimes it means nephesh, and you’re the one who can tell the difference.
This is your unjustified assumption. It’s another reason we can’t discuss anything.
Yeah, that’s not much of a head-scratcher. It’s very obvious from context that the Bible did not mean to suggest that Eve was a proto-cell that gave rise to all other life on earth, or that she somehow gave birth to all the nephesh animals. In fact the text explicitly states that God created the animals separately from people. In your mind, were you really making a profound statement there?
As I said, it’s hard to have a conversation with you.
1 Like