- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/7/26 at 10:02 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:I believe science should be guided by God's infallible testimony. Seeking the truth apart from God will lead you astray, no matter if you seek it by science, religion, philosophy, or any other method.
Your position is that science should allow non-testable sources of evidence, like supernatural testimony, to inform its conclusions.
quote:Yes, and scientists are guided by presuppositions, as I have said several times already. They assume uniformity in nature and the existence of immaterial laws and constants without providing a basis for how those things even exist, and they deny the limiting factor of the infallible word of God, who has given us a cheat code of sorts to understanding what has happened in time.
My point has only been about what science is. The scientific method limits explanations to claims that produce observable consequences that can be compared against evidence.
quote:Again, I'm not saying the "rules" should be changed. I'm saying that the assumptions should also include assumptions guided by God's own testimony. Presuppositions should be changed.
So at that point we’re not really debating evolution or the data anymore. We’re debating whether the rules of the scientific method should be changed to include non-testable claims.
quote:As I've mentioned a few times now, there is a difference between observation or operational science and historical science, and all science is performed with certain presuppositions being held. I'm not saying that the scientific method needs to be changed. I'm saying that if you start with false assumptions, that will lead to false conclusions.
I do appreciate the good faith effort you’ve brought to the exchange. But your objection ultimately comes down to a philosophical view that science should include non-falsifiable evidence, while I’m describing the method as it actually operates.
quote:In a sense, you are right here. We have differing beliefs about what presuppositions one should hold to. I believe that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and that in Christ lie all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. That's an assumption that God created the universe and upholds it by His power, and He has intervened in this creation in history, which has an impact on how we study it.
Since I’m not debating philosophy or theology here, that leaves us at a natural impasse.
Thank you for your sincere and cordial engagement on this. I'll end my part of the discussion here
Posted on 3/7/26 at 10:04 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:It sure does. The pattern is literal, 24-hour days. Each day of creation has a morning and an evening, and a number (the 1st day). This pattern makes up the pattern for the week for the Israelites and is the basis for the 4th commandment to honor the Sabbath day.
How long was the first "Day" of Genesis? How long was the second? How long is a day for God? \
The Bible speaks to that.
Posted on 3/7/26 at 10:05 pm to Flats
Now that you've taken off your interested student mask to reveal the opinionated dunce underneath, I'll lay out my argument in full to help you comprehend exactly what I’ve been arguing so we can see where the disagreement actually is.
Science is a method for evaluating explanations using evidence that can be observed, measured, and compared against competing hypotheses.
Because of that, scientific explanations must produce observable consequences that allow them to be tested.
Evolutionary theory does not claim certainty or mathematical proof. Like all empirical science, it deals in probabilistic inference based on the evidence available.
The core claim of the theory relevant to this discussion is universal common ancestry: that modern life traces back to a single ancestral lineage.
That claim makes specific predictions about the structure of biological evidence, such as nested genetic hierarchies, shared biochemical machinery across organisms, and evolutionary trees that converge across independent data sources.
Those predictions are what make the theory testable. If we consistently found incompatible genetic systems, conflicting evolutionary trees, or radically different biochemistry across organisms, the theory would be in serious trouble.
The existence of gaps in our knowledge does not invalidate a theory. What matters is whether the predictions of the theory match the patterns we observe better than competing explanations.
That’s the argument I’ve been making throughout the thread.
So the simple question is: which part of that do you actually disagree with?
Science is a method for evaluating explanations using evidence that can be observed, measured, and compared against competing hypotheses.
Because of that, scientific explanations must produce observable consequences that allow them to be tested.
Evolutionary theory does not claim certainty or mathematical proof. Like all empirical science, it deals in probabilistic inference based on the evidence available.
The core claim of the theory relevant to this discussion is universal common ancestry: that modern life traces back to a single ancestral lineage.
That claim makes specific predictions about the structure of biological evidence, such as nested genetic hierarchies, shared biochemical machinery across organisms, and evolutionary trees that converge across independent data sources.
Those predictions are what make the theory testable. If we consistently found incompatible genetic systems, conflicting evolutionary trees, or radically different biochemistry across organisms, the theory would be in serious trouble.
The existence of gaps in our knowledge does not invalidate a theory. What matters is whether the predictions of the theory match the patterns we observe better than competing explanations.
That’s the argument I’ve been making throughout the thread.
So the simple question is: which part of that do you actually disagree with?
Posted on 3/7/26 at 10:06 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 3/7/26 at 10:13 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
the opinionated dunce
Oh, ok.
Posted on 3/7/26 at 10:16 pm to Flats
What else am I to think when you trot out abiogenesis this far into our exchange?
Posted on 3/7/26 at 10:22 pm to Flats
quote:
All life on earth came from the first single-celled organism that was lucky enough to self-arrange. The only mechanism they used was Darwinian Evolution.
So humans evolved from apes who somehow evolved from amphibians who evolved from fish who evolved from plankton?
Why have the apes not evolved?
Posted on 3/7/26 at 10:25 pm to Speckhunter2012
quote:no
So humans evolved from apes who somehow evolved from amphibians who evolved from fish who evolved from plankton?
quote:I'm sorry, but I have to ask on this board, is this a serious question?
Why have the apes not evolved?
This post was edited on 3/8/26 at 12:57 am
Posted on 3/8/26 at 12:15 am to RebelExpress38
Best argument I've ever heard is that things as complex as the universe can't just appear out of nothing. Physics and biology tell us this. Is the science wrong?
If the science on that is wrong, how could I possibly believe science that says God isn't possible.
If the science on that is wrong, how could I possibly believe science that says God isn't possible.
Posted on 3/8/26 at 12:40 am to FooManChoo
quote:Foo, it’s always a pleasure debating someone who genuinely makes an effort to engage. That’s rare these days, and even rarer on this board.
Thank you for your sincere and cordial engagement on this.
Our discussion actually reminded me of conversations I used to have with my uncle when I was young. Thinking about that made me realize that sharing a few details about him explains a lot about how I approach debates like this, and why I’ve never had much interest in trying to “disprove” the spiritual. There’s also a bit of a twist to the story that might be worth thinking about.
I’m not trying to dox myself here, but if you were curious afterward, the description will make him easy enough to find. My uncle is widely considered the most influential apologist of a major religious group. He spoke around a dozen languages and could read a dozen more, including German, Latin, Greek, Spanish, Akkadian, Russian, Italian, and Coptic. He published more than two dozen scholarly books on religion along with several volumes of collected works. He graduated summa cum laude from UCLA and earned a PhD from Berkeley.
The reason I mention all that is to show that I grew up having religious discussions with a deeply devout man who was orders of magnitude smarter than I am, and whose writings directly influenced the doctrine of his religion. Because of that, I grew up understanding that religious belief, or the lack of it, isn’t a reliable indicator of intelligence or reasoning ability. I know many believers feel that non-believers are often smug and condescending toward them, and to be fair that perception is sometimes justified, though it certainly isn’t universal.
Here’s the twist: many of the believers in this thread would probably think my uncle was a fool, because his religion was Mormonism.
They’d be wrong. He was exceptionally brilliant.
Faith is a hell of a thing.
In any case, thanks again for the conversation. Be well.
This post was edited on 3/8/26 at 12:49 am
Posted on 3/8/26 at 12:44 am to BrianKellysbuyout
quote:No offense, but if that's the best argument you've heard, all the rest must have been unimaginably shitty. Biology doesn't even address this. How can biology tell us how the universe began?
Best argument I've ever heard is that things as complex as the universe can't just appear out of nothing. Physics and biology tell us this.
quote:You shouldn't. That's not testable by science so anyone that tells you that has no idea what they're talking about.
how could I possibly believe science that says God isn't possible.
This post was edited on 3/8/26 at 2:03 am
Posted on 3/8/26 at 12:46 am to RebelExpress38
quote:
I guess we are just supposed to
…believe that it was just magic.
Posted on 3/8/26 at 6:45 am to FooManChoo
quote:I am stunned at that post.
The pattern is literal, 24-hour days. Each day of creation has a morning and an evening, and a number (the 1st day). This pattern makes up the pattern for the week for the Israelites and is the basis for the 4th commandment to honor the Sabbath day.
I really am.
"With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."
Aside from that, your interpretive problem, of course, is the earliest Genesis time basis as a measure wouldn't have preceded Day 1, else we'd have been told:
"In the beginning God created time and the 24-hr day. Then he created the heavens and the earth."
The only basis for calling a day a "day" is subsequent to Day1. Then the basis is retrospectivly applied.
E.g., "The earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." But for how long was he earth was formless and empty. How long did darkness last over the surface of the deep? There was no day-night time measure. That came later. The only measure for that first day was "God-time" for which a "day" has no real time measure in our terms.
Again, you are stuck in your "literal, 24-hour days" interpretation. You hold to it rigidly for no reason except that's what you've been told the words mean by others who were told the same thing by there predecessors, and so forth. Each succession accepts what they are told the words actually say. But THEY DON'T actually say what you've been told they do. There is no reference to a 24hr day in Genesis 1. None. Zip.
Compared with a 24 hr clock in Genesis 1, which the Bible itself directly refutes, there actually is stronger basis for geocentrism in the Bible .... E.g., "The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies..." etc. Again, those lines were misinterpreted for 1 1/2 millennia.
Posted on 3/8/26 at 6:46 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
How is this support for intelligent design?
A retard like you wouldn't understand. And anyone who tries to explain it to you is wasting their time.
Posted on 3/8/26 at 6:59 am to northshorebamaman
quote:Well you certainly doxxed your Uncle.
I’m not trying to dox myself here, but if you were curious afterward, the description will make him easy enough to find. My uncle is widely considered the most influential apologist of a major religious group. He spoke around a dozen languages and could read a dozen more, including German, Latin, Greek, Spanish, Akkadian, Russian, Italian, and Coptic. He published more than two dozen scholarly books on religion along with several volumes of collected works. He graduated summa cum laude from UCLA and earned a PhD from Berkeley.
Good post by the way
Posted on 3/8/26 at 8:17 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Seeking the truth apart from God will lead you astray, no matter if you seek it by science, religion, philosophy, or any other method.
It’s 2026, and there are still people who think like this. That’s crazy. You’d have us all living in squalor and taking shelter during thunderstorms because they’re the wrath of the gods.
Posted on 3/8/26 at 8:21 am to John somers
quote:
John somers
Why do you think that I’m retarded? Because I won’t fall down on my knees and engage in a religious circle jerk when we discuss science?
You’re so full of Christian love that you lash out in anger over anyone who doesn’t agree with you.
Posted on 3/8/26 at 8:31 am to Speckhunter2012
quote:
So humans evolved from apes
Our education system has utterly failed us.
Posted on 3/8/26 at 9:11 am to NC_Tigah
quote:With the Lord, that is true, but He communicated with us so we can understand truth. God is outside of time, but we are not.
"With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."
That statement speaks to God’s eternality, and is not intended to be used selectively in one passage of the Bible. No where else do people interpret a day as a year or a long period of time when the context appears to be a single, 24-hour day. Only in the first chapters of Genesis. Why is that?
If we took that phrase literally and only applied it to creation, we just added 6,000 years to our history. That doesn’t help you.
quote:Whatever time God used on the first day, that same time period was used for the rest of the days. Again, it says that there was morning and evening, the first day. Are you also implying that mornings and evenings are thousands, millions, or billions of years old? The time doesn’t change between days.
Aside from that, your interpretive problem, of course, is the earliest Genesis time basis as a measure wouldn't have preceded Day 1, else we'd have been told:
"In the beginning God created time and the 24-hr day. Then he created the heavens and the earth."
The only basis for calling a day a "day" is subsequent to Day1. Then the basis is retrospectivly applied.
E.g., "The earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." But for how long was he earth was formless and empty. How long did darkness last over the surface of the deep? There was no day-night time measure. That came later. The only measure for that first day was "God-time" for which a "day" has no real time measure in our terms.
Even if there were millions of years implied between the formation of the earth and God’s creation of light, that still doesn’t help you, as the rest of creation follows that same morning/evening format. So all animals and the humans are created within a few days after the earth is made habitable, which goes against current scientific consensus. It certainly doesn’t allow for evolutionary theory.
quote:I know what the Hebrew word yom means. It has a semantic range that can mean several things, from a 24-hour day to a season or period of time. The usage is understood based on its context. How is the word used in the first chapters of Genesis? It is combined with the words morning, evening, and a number for the day. No where else in the Bible is such a formula intended to convey a long period of time. You need to prove otherwise.
Again, you are stuck in your "literal, 24-hour days" interpretation. You hold to it rigidly for no reason except that's what you've been told the words mean by others who were told the same thing by there predecessors, and so forth. Each succession accepts what they are told the words actually say. But THEY DON'T actually say what you've been told they do. There is no reference to a 24hr day in Genesis 1. None. Zip.
ETA:
If Moses wrote both Genesis and Exodus, as Christians believe, then the same author who wrote down the creation narrative also used it as a basis for the 4th commandment of honoring the Sabbath. That command uses the creation days as the pattern for our week, and our need to rest and worship one day. There is no hint that the days are interpreted differently between those passages.
The literal day interpretation has also been the historic consensus of the church. With a few exceptions, the understanding has been the same as mine. What has changed over the past 200 years? Darwin, and the pressure to interpret the Bible according to scientific consensus.
quote:I’d be happy to discuss the notion of geocentrism, but that is tangential to creation and an old earth vs a young earth. Let’s stick with that for now.
Compared with a 24 hr clock in Genesis 1, which the Bible itself directly refutes, there actually is stronger basis for geocentrism in the Bible .... E.g., "The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies..." etc. Again, those lines were misinterpreted for 1 1/2 millennia.
Other than you seemingly interpreting the Bible according to your prior commitment to old ages of the universe, what is your evidence that the Bible is teaching something other than 24-hour days in Genesis chapters 1 and 2? Do you have anything beyond the one verse which you seem to think changes all literal days to a thousand years? If not, where else does that verse apply in the Bible, on your understanding? Just Genesis 1 and 2?
This post was edited on 3/8/26 at 9:34 am
Page 23 of 37
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News