The Cellar - View Single Post

joydriven · 07-08-2003, 01:52 PM

I am not ignoring the verifiable scientific discoveries of facts. There is no such thing as faith in a vacuum, and there is no such thing as facts in a vacuum. I cannot validly claim to have stripped myself of all presuppositions when I encounter a fact. Facts are interpreted through the lenses of the presuppositions we bring to the table. I acknowledge those verifiable scientific discoveries, but I do not interpret them the same way you do.

Carbon dating can be valid, but if you posit the Bible, then you also posit a flood--which (due to sudden immense pressure and vast global consequences) would have significantly altered the effectiveness of various dating methods, since it would provide the necessary conditions for fossilization.

I learned the scientific method in school like the rest of you did, and I don't deny its legitimacy. Nor do I doubt that true science, i.e., that science which is conducted faithfully according to the scientific method, serves usually to verify and never to deny, the claims of the Bible. For instance, the roundness of the Earth in spite of former scientific opinions to the contrary. Or "the morning stars sang," a phrase that was originally written off as biblical poesy but was actually discovered to be true by radio experts during WWII times. This is the case with countless historical and linguistics records as well. The only instances where the Bible's accounts of history and geology have <b>not</b> been verified by science properly conducted have been instances where the Bible itself declares that a supernatural miracle occurred (such as when the "sun stood still" or when the invisible man created the world in six days).

I can't get into the INs and OUTs of the historical, scientific, linguistic verifications that Bible-supporters would consider valid supports. Christians are not only in the minority numerically, but they are sadly in the minority when it comes to scholarly expressions of their faith. If you are interested, here is one creationist site that proposes quite a few valid arguments and interpretations of what even you would call facts, and they are among the very few who do so in a manner worth reading.
<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp" target="new">Answers in Genesis</a>

I keep coming back to this, but I'll say it again. We are wearing different-colored lenses. I am acknowledging that I have presuppositions and am positing an absolute truth by which I measure all of my interpretations. I submit to you again that you have presuppositions as well that influence your interpretation of the facts.

Ultimately, we all believe what we all want to believe. That we are all free to do so does not mean we are right or wrong in doing so.

07-08-2003, 01:52 PM	#76
joydriven joywriting in the rock river valley Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chicagoland area Posts: 41	I am not ignoring the verifiable scientific discoveries of facts. There is no such thing as faith in a vacuum, and there is no such thing as facts in a vacuum. I cannot validly claim to have stripped myself of all presuppositions when I encounter a fact. Facts are interpreted through the lenses of the presuppositions we bring to the table. I acknowledge those verifiable scientific discoveries, but I do not interpret them the same way you do. Carbon dating can be valid, but if you posit the Bible, then you also posit a flood--which (due to sudden immense pressure and vast global consequences) would have significantly altered the effectiveness of various dating methods, since it would provide the necessary conditions for fossilization. I learned the scientific method in school like the rest of you did, and I don't deny its legitimacy. Nor do I doubt that true science, i.e., that science which is conducted faithfully according to the scientific method, serves usually to verify and never to deny, the claims of the Bible. For instance, the roundness of the Earth in spite of former scientific opinions to the contrary. Or "the morning stars sang," a phrase that was originally written off as biblical poesy but was actually discovered to be true by radio experts during WWII times. This is the case with countless historical and linguistics records as well. The only instances where the Bible's accounts of history and geology have <b>not</b> been verified by science properly conducted have been instances where the Bible itself declares that a supernatural miracle occurred (such as when the "sun stood still" or when the invisible man created the world in six days). I can't get into the INs and OUTs of the historical, scientific, linguistic verifications that Bible-supporters would consider valid supports. Christians are not only in the minority numerically, but they are sadly in the minority when it comes to scholarly expressions of their faith. If you are interested, here is one creationist site that proposes quite a few valid arguments and interpretations of what even you would call facts, and they are among the very few who do so in a manner worth reading. <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp" target="new">Answers in Genesis</a> I keep coming back to this, but I'll say it again. We are wearing different-colored lenses. I am acknowledging that I have presuppositions and am positing an absolute truth by which I measure all of my interpretations. I submit to you again that you have presuppositions as well that influence your interpretation of the facts. Ultimately, we all believe what we all want to believe. That we are all free to do so does not mean we are right or wrong in doing so.