Replies

Cvengr, I gotta apologize, my initial logic was wrong, so don't waste your time arguing against it - See here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/832645/posts?page=293#293

Neither of us caught it at the time, but the speed of light needs to be much faster, not much slower. Think about it some more, read what I've written, and you'll see what I mean.

With that said, of course small errors are magnified when you involve exponentials, and of course more variables complicate things. Einstein's hidden-variable hypothesis, making the universe deterministic, has been pretty effectively refuted, however, and with respcet to the speed of light, a change of at least six orders of magnitude cannot be so easily dismissed. At any rate, as I try to ahow i the above link, this idea of the speed of light being that much faster contradicts Genesis anyway, so the point is moot.

Likewise, and I'll say it again, we cannot so easily brush aside the matter of intrepretation. There are numerous clear examples in the Bible where the descriptions given, when taken literally, are physically inaccurate, and demonstrably so. This does not invalidate the Bible! But when we talk about the Flood, and how "all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and all the windows of the heavens were opened", we know that this is a metaphor for one heck of a lot of rain! That doesn't literally mean that Heaven above is full of water, and that God in Heaven dumped it on us, does it?

More examples here of why it is dangerous to take the Bible completely literally:

http://users.pipeline.com.au/groucho/Documents/The_biblical_flat_earth.PDF

This doesn't mean we shouldn't take some things literally - "Thou shalt not kill," for instance, I take pretty literally. But it is very clear that A.) metaphor is used often in the Bible and B.) that we must therefore address the matter of interpretation.

As for you not seeing incontrovertible arguments to override the Scripture, I agree! We're saying the same thing - The idea that the universe is 10-20 billion years old does not override the Scripture - The two are consistent, when one recognizes the use of metaphor. This is a simple matter of the best hypothesis fitting all of the observations.

I have observed many academics who have virtually no grasp of Scripture and worse have insisted upon ignorance of Scripture in order to satisfy arrogant beliefs of self importance.

I believe you! That's irrelevant to the argument, though; there are plenty of religious folks who have insisted on ignorance of science in order to satisfy those same sorts of beliefs. I do not believe that either of us could be described as such people, however - I'm certainly willing to gives folks the benefit of the doubt, until such time as things are proven otherwise. It's not fair of me to assume anything about you or anyone else here, since I don't know you.

Why should any student respect a 'professor' who lacks the academic discipline to even read the Bible.

LOL! As someone here once told me, "with all due respect, there's no way you could possibly know that." In addition, I will quote you this excerpt from Dr. Dini's autobiographical sketch (found here):

"My education has taken place almost entirely in Roman Catholic schools...Though accepted to UCLA, I instead chose to enter a Roman Catholic order of teaching brothers (the Brothers of the Christian Schools, known in the U.S. simply as the Christian Brothers). As a young brother, I majored in biology and minored in religious studies at St. Mary's College, Moraga, California. I graduated magna cum laude in 1977 and was assigned by my religious superiors to teach at La Salle High School in Pasadena, California, where I remained for 4 years, teaching various courses in biology and religion and earning a California Secondary Teaching Credential. In 1981, I was assigned to Justin-Siena High School in Napa, California, where I again taught various courses in biology and religion."

So unless he's a complete liar, there's basically no way that he went to Roman Catholic school and didn't study the bible. The man even taught religion. This is a good example of why it's dangerous to jump to conclusions, or rush to judge people.

Such a trait lays testimony to academia's lack of trustworthiness in a truthful quest of knowledge.

Wait a minute - You're condemning the whole of academic studies, and everyone in it, because of a few unpleasant people / bad scientists? Wow. I really hope you don't believe that.

I can only say that I am glad people aren't typically so prejudiced versus Christians (despite the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, the Inquisition, etc., etc.), or religious persecution would be a way of life, and no one would benefit from the teachings of Christ, and the world would be a lot worse off!!

Please tell me you don't really think this way.

Thanks for reading,

DFS

Several points of contention.

1) Epistemilogically, if one resorts to attaching meanings of metaphor to a possible literal statement, then one has placed faith in something other than Scripture. Granted, if the Scripture was metaphorical, indeed both might be true. Nevertheless, as one is seeking truth, care needs to be taken where that faith is placed.

2) The example of speed of light and discussion regarding 10000 light years or more as evidence of history extending beyond literal Scriptural accounts. A counterexample looming in my background is associated with arguments postulating wormholes. Additional variables might seem to complicate issues, but it might also be the case that those other variables might be the 'missing pieces' to the Creation/Evolution puzzle.

I have no problem associating evolution timelines with simply un-normalized sequential timelines, but I've found those who insist upon evolution to also fall into a trap of assuming such timelines are invariant.

3) When discussing exponentials, I've encountered numerous advanced mathematical arguments, wherein the mathematical reasoning has divorced itself from material associations/meanings midway in the proof, continued for several hours, 10s to hundreds of pages and hundreds of logical steps, easily allowing possible redundant errors in reasoning although not clearly identifiable as invalid reasoning, and concluding with 'deductions' observed in the lab.

Such reasoning or invalid logic doesn't prove the conclusions, but frequently science accepts the conclusions as fact, the argument as sound, until disproven otherwise.

Herein lies a fault in the scientific method. Whereas truth may be absolute, the 'science' may allow false beliefs to go unfettered as a substitute for truth.

This doesn't mean I don't engineer nor haven't rigorously studied and understood a number of scientific and engineering disciplines, but after having devoted myself successfully in them and remaining faithful to Him, I find a number of areas where science isn't nearly as truthful as Scripture.

WRT exponentials, frequently in these advanced mathematical treatises, an error in logic or a latter day experiment verifying a corollary principle might lead to more poignantly ascribing fixed values to certain variables. Once assigned, it's somewhat amazing how past arguments using very lengthy exponential equations, all of the sudden simplify in drastically different discernible quantities.

Where previous mathematical proofs might imply a large range of values,...very similar in nature to timelines used in astronomy and geology alluding to billions and billions of any metric,...such proofs surprising collapse back to ...well 2-6 digits. (i.e.,...those billions and billions of years, might just be 6000 yrs and those billions and billions of miles might be,...50,000 miles or less)

4) Counterexample of miracles,...such as the feeding of the masses with the loaves and fishes, walking on water, healing, raising of the dead,

I suspect even most Christians probably don't give much thought to those miracles. Many rigorous Christians are still quite scarred in carnal, fleshly, and natural worlds to simply attribute blind faith that these events occurred. Too many might resort to the metaphor world in order to retain conviction to other mammon, by placing other gods before Him,...in these cases perhaps scientific materialism.

My main point of contention to the arguments posed is that it is unneccessary to alter one's faith in Him in order to understand pertinent things in the natural or fleshly world,..including science.