Favorite Sermon Add to Playlist
Photo of Clifford Goldstein

2. What Science Cannot Do

Clifford Goldstein


Clifford Goldstein

Editor of the Adult Sabbath School Ministries Quarterly



  • December 28, 2017
    10:30 AM
Logo of Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 (US)

Copyright ©2017 AudioVerse.

Free sharing permitted under the Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 (US) license.

The ideas in this recording are those of its contributors and may not necessarily reflect the views of AudioVerse.


Audio Downloads

This transcript may be automatically generated

This message was presented at the G.U.Y.Z. twenty seventeen conference arise in Phoenix Arizona for other resources like this visit us online at W W W dot. Org. Heavenly father again I just pray that we come away with just a. Deeper understanding of that the truth that you have given us as a people in Jesus' name amen. Now. As I said I we left off last time and I did and again I threw out. It's a pretty heavy thought. I'm just saying that if the world's experts the vast majority of the experts the scientists. Those that have studied these things in depth. The chemists the physicists the biologists who ologists if they're right and what they're adamant about that I'm sorry our religion is a joke my religion Islam is a joke if evolution is true Christianity cannot possibly be true Adventism especially is a joke Ellen White you know everything Ellen White said that's pretty heavy and as I said I spent a lot of time reading the philosophy of science I can say that it doesn't bother me OK because it's just you know fact it's very funny I have a chapter in the book. On the Galileo trial. And I was going to touch on this very quickly people often view the Galileo trial as a prime example. Of ignorant religionists fighting against the rational progress of science and to a certain degree there's a mode of come of truth to that. But I would argue that the real message is the opposite message Galileo the try the chapter was called Galileo's heresy and they were going to torture poor old Galileo for four positions that the earth sits a movable in the center of the universe. And all the planets circle it. In perfect sphere. That's what they were teaching OK. And Galileo said no. And they were gonna. They were you know we know the story. But let me ask you a question when are does the Bible teach. That the earth sits immobile at the center of the universe and all the planets and Strongs and stars and all that orbit the earth in perfect spheres. That's not a bible that was science that was the era of the science of Ara startle that for fifth T.V. in a hundred years or longer the smartest people the scientists the quote peach these the most educated people taught and believed and what happened was the Christian church just like the Christian church does today you know some of Darwin's earliest defenders were the Christians were the church in the early scientists at this is a bunch of the Hickey but it was the Christians who fell all over themselves to try to accommodate it as it is today and it was the Christian church had taken our startles science Aristotle taught that the earth sat immobile in the center of the universe and all the planets orbit it a perfect circles a constant speeds that was the latest and greatest sides and the church Christian church compromising in the Protestants were no better than the Romans compromising. Linked scripture to the latest and greatest science and you got the farce of the Galileo trial and my argument is that the stick evolutionists today. They are this spiritual and intellectual errors of the room in Inquisition. And that's a total different spin that you normally hear on it and anyway that's a chapter in the book now I can again I brought that up because I guess the idea is coming back to what I'm saying are you saying all these scientists all these people the experts. Are wrong well they've been wrong before if you fast an eighteen years study the history of science it's amazing how many things that were once believed that were never challenge that were just accepted as understood have been thrown out and what we think our age is any different and he better and again and I'll come back to this later remind me the fact that the theory works well here. Disk given a example of that let's go back to the Aristotelian cosmos. OK taught that the earth sits immobile in the center of the universe. Of serve to force it since it teaches that the earth's it's a mobile wrong in the center of the universe wrong and the planets circle the Earth wrong and they circle it and they orbit in perfect circles were wrong and they orbited constant speeds Roula OK a scientific theory wrong on every particular and guess what phone. For thirteen hundred years if you want to predict Where's Venus going to be in the sky in six months. You can do it the theory worked if you wanted to sail your ship. From Venice. To Genoa. Using stars using a science built on a ferry that was wrong in every particular guess would it weren't you could do it so can you see my point just because the theory works just because you can make accurate predictions is a total separate issue from whether it's true of give you one more example suppose you have a theory. And according to my theory. Every time you do X. or Y. is going to happen OK doesn't matter what it is my theory is every time they gave me these wonderful blackboards here. We could do this. Or here's X. from. I used to say technology you can't fail with a blackboard only a cat or is it just me. You need to open it off. And then what will turn it around you turn it around. Oh OK. Mr Handyman here. Human error OK here's your theory X.. And then why is going to happen that's. Read my hand I used to study Egyptian hieroglyphics and my teacher used to tell me he could read my English and he could read my hieroglyphs he couldn't read my English. OK let me just put this up there says he's going to blame the technology and it was human error. OK Look my theory X. I say I got my theory and any time you do X. Y. is going to happen. And so far what's test the theory. So they tested in a lab in France and they keep all the conditions the same and every time X. happens just like the theory Sidhwani happens and you know one of the important things in science is repeatability somebody claims they do something in the lab the OK that's great let's repeat it so they do it in Paris they do the experiment they do it in Washington State they do the experiment and every single time they do X. Y. happens every time without exception because according to my theory. Every time you do X. Y. is going to happen and every experiment every time without fail proved you did X. Y. happened so is my theory correct. But would you say Yeah yeah well it has apps it could be but predict could produce correct predictions can be completely irrelevant to whether a theory is true or not you've got the history is science littered with correct theory I mean with with with fear of accurate predictions by ferry set up and completely debunked and I'm going to give you a silly example. But it's silly but it still makes the point and it makes the point that goes back somewhat to what I said about the bones in the ground. When are you not going to deny it the bones in the ground. But what your explanation from them could be is another issue I have a theory here that you get a little room appear. I have a theory they use Sure Now some said yes OK OK My theory. Is that there are invisible Spiders from Mars. And there push everything to the ground. So I'm going to my theory is that there are invisible Spiders from Mars and they push everything to the ground so my prediction of my invisible spiders from our. Theory is correct with apologies to David bumi those of you should know about David Goyer meeting too young for that. My theory I'm going to test my theory. Won't. Wow I said there are invisible Spiders from Mars pushing things to the ground I'm going to try it over here OK. If I say if my theory is correct there are invisible Spiders from Mars pushing things to the ground. They tested in France that silly to can you see my point here. Now you can have a lot of science scientific theories make all sorts of predictions you can get all sorts of technology from them but it's totally separate from whether the theory happens to be correct or not and the reason that is important. Is because. When you challenge science. But you often hear the argument. Not just put it science what's the other. Argument that you sometimes hear. It's in this context what's the argument of the science has got to be correct because the science what. The science words that's the thing the idea that well the science works and if the same science they use to let off an atom bomb is the same part of the same science they use to date the age of rocks. Therefore we have to trust that the age of rocks is correct because the science works and that's fine the science might actually be correct fact that but there was a what actually inspired me this whole thing is I have been for decades I have been getting the great courses by the Teaching Company anybody know the great courses I must have. I've got probably a thousand lectures just on my i Phone alone not from that I started with cassettes and there was a series of thirty six lectures by a guy named Steven Goldman called science. Wars and that's what inspired my book I listen to those lectures over and over what the transcript studied him I wanted to dedicate the book to him but I known he would have been horrified but the first person I saw I sent him the book and I wrote him a letter and I just said I'm a Jewish believer in Jesus your book and your lectures inspired me you read you know and obviously we're working with different pre-suppositions he's an evolutionist but I said I'm working from different assumptions that you and remember your whole Lex thing was on the assumptions of science but I'd like to think I was as good of a student as you were a teacher and I said I was tempted to dedicate the book to you but I know you would have been horrified but I'm to sending you a copy of the book I never heard anything back from him but Goldman he was the one the first idea he showed how by the end of the nineteenth century. Almost every foundational theory in science was being completely overturned. You know General Relativity special relativity quantum theory I mean these were revolutions totally changed everything and how they view the world and what Again they were telling these industrialists and these people again by the way the theory that we now be use the theory that you used to create your gives MO has been overturned we no longer believe in the theory. And the in touch they didn't care they wanted to make the widget as long as the widget worked what do they care if you build a scientific if you build a device based on things fall. Into the ground what do you care if you believe it's invisible Spiders from Mars pushing it to the ground if it works it works and for some people that's all that science is the moment you get into he talked about this guy named for E.A. who wrote these books on the theory of heat and furry I gave these formulas for heat and he called it furries move and he just said look don't don't bother me with what he'd is I don't care what heat is it's irrelevant to me wood heat is I just want to know what the formulas are what you could expect what predictions you could make using heat what it is all that stuff that's a bunch of metaphysical philosophical mumbo jumbo that some would say science has nothing whatsoever to do with OK now I don't say necessarily agree with that so even though that that review in a day attacked me as a scientific nihilist. I take a fairly moderate to conservative view of science I do believe science does teach us some things about the real world but they're very contingent very narrow very special cases but when it comes to origins again side science has got it up again think about it if what we believe is true. And think how wrong the P.H.D.. Chemistry Physics but again the smartest people most educated the experts they got it completely wrong and so I ask the question why was science. Which certainly seems to get so much right. Again look at our cell phones look at all our devices though as I said though quantum theory in general relativity they both work but they both can't be right and yet our cell phones work and I get some people that's all that matters but why on origins. Have they they so completely. Missed the mark Well I think I own I know why and that's what I'd like to talk about for a little while here I think I'm going to use my. Only trial on my computer as I said I've been jumping around I have so much material and I just don't wanna. You know as I said before and I want to repeat this again every age in history lives with meths. And we look back and we laugh at the myths of the shits but I believe it's time with the last which I hope it doesn't. If time would last some people won the future could look back and laugh at some of the mists of our age. But people say oh no no we don't believe in myths we believe in science. But I believe this idea that science is the final arbiter of truth. I believe that's the madame if that's the great myth of our age that just because it's science we have to bow down and kowtow to it OK but why does science which gets so much right. Get so much wrong again we believe God created the world. I'm not going to get into this when you read Genesis one I believe if you were to ask me right now what I believe. I don't billions of years ago God creates the universe OK create something out there there's some primeval form something that the Hebrew says the earth was tohu va bohu the whole pen name the home L O he my red head rather than a. It's the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep and the Spirit of God moved upon the waters there was something here there was an earth was without form and void God moved on the waters there was waters God created something then insists literal twenty four hour days. God created our world just as it's depicted in Genesis and then rested on the seventh day now that is radically radically different from what science tells you vast majority of scientists will save the scientists. Data does not support that OK and that's fine but bother me because. They needa what the data just automatically jumps out of the ground the data is automatic so the question this is the whole thing I deal with in the book data has to be interpreted you know you find a bone in the ground does the bone say of volved eight hundred million years ago again no you have to work on assumptions and then you build your assumptions you know you build your science on that but what happens if your assumptions are wrong anyway why does science get it wrong well I think science gets it wrong because science works upon two principles. Two principles that it absolutely has to work. It can't be science if it doesn't work on these principles and yet it's because of these principles which makes sense in and of themselves but which in the end I believe are fundamentally flawed. And that's why science is completely wrong when it comes to our orange What are these principles OK And when I tell him to you you will for the most part agree with them and I agree with them in many ways you would want science to function without them. But let's take a look at the first principle and this goes back there was a guy named I believe it was ABBA LART a bath back in the twelve hundreds the thirteen hundreds and the first principle and I think most of us would agree on is that science looks to the natural world were. World it must look only for natural answers for natural phenomena OK this is a search that we should not resort to supernatural claims to explain natural phenomena OK biologists for existence should not explain the exceedingly complicated process of blood clot formation I study that one time years ago it's enzymes resistant to think enzymes breaking things down. And yet there's like a sixteen step enzyme cascade or something by doing it you should not explain that through divine intervention science would not could not work if everything or anything not understood was explained away as supernatural meddling OK you want natural explanations for natural occurrences What's the second one the second principle I mean you agree on that I think that makes a lot of sense I don't want them all well with this you know your your it's da jewels or imps or in your heart causing your heart to pound or whatever you know you want natural explanations The second principle is that the laws of nature must remain constant all things being equal which they really are rarely are what a law does today it did yesterday and it will do tomorrow and any variations in that law will occur from another law like pattern that itself was influenced by another law like pattern and on and on. Now of course there are aspects of the laws that we don't understand we don't understand why the laws do these things but we work with the idea that there's a constant C. in nature a constancy in the laws I mean you can get on a jet plane you want to assume that the laws of aerodynamics that they use when they put the the winds in the in the tunnels and all that and when they test flight it test flight it you're going to assume that the laws that they used to build the plane are going to be the same laws that are in existence when you get on an air blast and fly somewhere OK that's the way science couldn't work that way when you drive across a bridge. You want to assume that the the forces of torque can and all the stuff the principles the law like principles. That are going to stay there when you drive across the bridge in the same way you fly in an airplane I mean that makes sense doesn't it could you see some I mean if there wasn't a certain consistency you could possibly do science some even argue that science began and I don't necessarily buy it it's a nice theory it's one of these there are some truth to it they say that science they believe began only in a Christian where it began in a Christian culture. Because of our belief in the logos God a rational god who created things rationally through the rational laws of nature and you could follow these rational principles and so wanted to a certain degree that makes some sense but I'm not sure that it helps explain why science began here of course the ancient Greeks were in many ways the first scientists and they certainly weren't Christians but anyway you don't want to resort the moment you don't know something you resort to a supernatural explanation and you want to was soon that the laws of physics remain and the laws of nature remain constant That's how science works that's how it has to work and that's precisely why it fails. It fails with. Origins. Because these assumptions how logical they are and rational they are and practical they are in the end are ultimately I'd say falls first of all let's go back. But it's go take the first one which reply requires natural causes for natural events. Kate that's fine for hurricane tracking or for the analysis of whooping crane endocrinology OK that's fine. But it's worth it then worthless it's worse than worthless I sometimes lists it's worse when there are mine it's worse than worthless for origins. That start out have a good or a shibari little heem it from my heart it's in the beginning God created the heavens. And the earth it starts out with a supernatural act and from there displays one supernatural thing after another one thing after another you see what I'm saying you read the Genesis account what does Genesis say you know and God said Let there be. Let there be light and there was light let there be a real you just read in God said the entire Creation account is supernatural then God said Let the earth bring forth grass and herb that yield seed and that's exactly what happened and God said it was so and they are Forth brought forth grass then God said Let Us make man in our image and our likeness and give him dominion and the Lord God for man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul OK and then God took that other side in other words when you read Genesis. Every aspect of the Genesis creation story. From beginning to end was supernatural I mean God speaks it. How do we even wrap our minds around that God speaks it and it and it had godsends and it was so Adam allows life everything I mean there's nothing in science that even comes close to that. OK But now if you're going to. I want to read you a famous quote. This is a famous quote by a biologist it's a little long but listen to this this is mazing our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just stows just so stories because we have a prior commitment to materialism it's not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept the material explanation of the phenomena world but on the contrary that we are forced forced by our a priori at hearings to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of context concepts that produced material explanations no matter how counterintuitive. No matter how mystifying to the initial an initiator and then he says this more rever that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine food in the door to see what he's saying saying look our material our materialism the belief that the world is purely material it really is kind of absurd and it's really counterintuitive and we have to accept just so story but we absolutely refuse to allow a divine foot in the door. Now think about this for a minute. If you do say again this is the principle that you have to look just for natural explanations for natural causes OK which for the most part I agree with if you accept that and therefore you absolutely rule out. You rule out before you start any kind of supernatural cause is Iowa that's not science that's not science but again that is an assumption that is a philosophical assumption it's not science which teaches that OK but if you going to say OK you absolutely rule out the supernatural. Then how can you possibly. Get how possibly could your science. Get creation right a creation that is supernatural from beginning to end can you see the point here it's a supernatural creation God speaks in six literal days forms man every aspect of it is supernatural but you say it's almost like in a murder case. If somebody comes in and there's a murder case and the detective and that say you committed the murder. And the tech that comes in and he you know the word a priori it's a word it's before experience it's just something that's just assumed you don't question it it's just obvious there's no question you hear a priori says Absolutely you did not do it. Then what ever expert that who ever he eventually does or Rashed for the crime of the SEST city will have to be wrong OK So if some creation were a supernatural event and I'm sorry I read Genesis one every year he doesn't want to divine foot in the door that's what this fall that's what this biologist said Richard Lui to him he doesn't want to find food in the door what do you do when every inch every nook and cranny every single aspect of it from beginning to end was supernatural You know I don't look at it this way. Suppose somebody decides they want to study the origins of chess but they decide right off the bat right off the bat they said we are going to look only if the chess set itself at the board at the pieces at the rules of the chess game that's the only we're going to look only at the material and the function of the chest said we absolutely a priori rule out anything above it we'll absolutely rule out human origin of the chess we by our our scientific presuppositions which is not on one level on reasonable we will out it's got to come from within the chest set itself. Well they might come up with incredible insights they might come up with incredible technology they might come up with all sorts of theories they might be able to build all sorts of fascinating things and create all sorts of wonderful useful helpful stuff based on all their science and things that work and all the rest but inevitably inevitably. Whatever theory they come up with is going to have to be wrong because they've ruled out right from the start the one thing that explains it now I'll take this analogy a little further. And then I'll come back to where I was. This is what I believe theistic evolution is somebody comes along. And says you know. I look at this chess board. I look at the pieces I look at the moves. And I can't accept. I can't accept that this arose from within itself I believe there was a human creator. Of the chess game OK so far so good the problem though and this is the a problem with intelligent design. This is the problem with theistic evolution. What they what I believe and my humble opinion. I believe what happened is for so many years. There's been so much data so much science all based on the assumption. That chess arose from within itself OK So in other words they they're taking the then the the ideas the assumptions they're taking the theory based on this false assumption. But that's become the predominant parot dime if we have some time we'll look at the power of Dime Tom's Koon and the power of dime it's so important but that paradigm has become so entrenched it's become so excepted that said OK well we know that the process by which the chessboard created it was created and so on that's true but we're going to stick humans in there and somehow humans were involved in this process can you see the problem there and that's exactly what I believe the is stick evolution is they look around that come on there's got to be something greater than just this by chance but they've accepted the theory. Ignorant of the completely anti biblical anti-human if you're going to use the chess thing principles behind the theory and so they kept that and that's why I mean to me the only thing more asinine than atheistic evolution is theistic evolution I mean really what the. Theistic Evolutionists do I've got some great quotes in my book. By atheists evolutionists they just laugh. At the way the Theistic Evolutionists let me give you one quick example of how pathetic it is and this comes from one of our own. He may some of your county and some of you all the nuff to remember the name Desmond Ford. And Ford gave the church fits I joined that say I got my start in the church fighting Desmond for the it was on a separate issue but poor Desmond Ford is now he's not a theist stick evolutionist he's a little too sophisticated for that he's a progressive creationist mind you. OK now I'm not going to get into all that but the difference but Dr Ford understand something I'm just going to chew a piece of gum if that's not too crude. For to understand. That. You need Adam. If you don't have a sinless Adam you don't have Christianity OK you need a sinless Adam there's a direct line from Adam to Jesus. But you know how do you get a sin loose add on. In an evolutionary paradigm. And see Ford understands the problem. But Ford It's fascinating Ford said something he said we now live in an era dominated by modern science that he wrote this book called Genesis versus Darwin and I thought wow Ford's going to come out and for some reason he sent it to me and I want to send it to me for what is the going to be sympathetic but I read it. And he he has this line where we now live in an era dominated by modern science and I thought that was that's the great myth that's the myth well that science we've got to accept it so forth excepts the science. But you run into a problem of a sin list Adam. Now I got one woman in there a writer and here she just dismisses the whole idea completely which that's a whole other thing before knows better than that. So what does four do I'm not kidding you. Desmond Ford and I use it in here is an example just to show you the lengths they go to. Desmond Ford argues I'm not kidding. That the Adam of Genesis one through three twenty four. The Adam that's created and then the last verse Genesis three twenty four and the man the angel with the flaming sword block the way of the man through the tree of life the man Adam he argues that that Adam. Is a completely separate Adam separated by a hundred thousand years from the Adam in the very next verse genesis for one even though that Adam in the next verse coincidence of cool city. Has a wife named to be and yet he argues that they're separated you know I wrote a column about this I wrote it in the review to get a laugh or do you cry. That's what people are being put it so it's the science says we got millions of years of evolution we're in an era dominated by science so typical of Christians how do you think we got Sunday keeping we're at Sunday keeping come from Christians compromising How do you get the Roman church Christians compromising and I use a substantial two. Are these Southerners. Today in Alabama and Mississippi. Are they so much better christians are they so much better people even the secular ones even the ones that don't go to church are they so much better people than there are great. Great Grandparents church going God fearing slave owning grandparents that these that the rednecks there today would never consider treating African Americans the way their church going God fearing great great grandparents did they wouldn't get or what was the difference in culture look at what culture does and in our culture dominant dominated by modern science you got Desmond for teaching. To Adam's into ease in the first few chapters of the Bible now again the point is though science teaches for something completely different because it rules out the supernatural element so it rules out the one the thing that's correct and we get this nonsense or you read some of the stuff they argue in there saying that eight hundred million years ago dinosaurs evolved feathers and then the whales ancestor left the water went to land was a mammal on land for a little while then the well then it went back to the water and became the way all and on and on and on all this stuff so that's one reason why science gets origins wrongs it absolutely rules out a supernatural element and fortunately creation is supernatural so by default it's going to have to get it wrong the second you got QUESTION OK OK Now the second element this is fascinating to the second element here is. Their show. They're so paranoid about secure. Already it every two minutes my computer. Because somebody got ahold of somebody G.C. computer and. Got in and well you know I'm supposed to tell you that. But they're. OK now here's the other here's the other problem we said two factors OK the first the supernatural they completely rule out the supernatural element for supernatural creation you're going to get it wrong OK Now the next one we talked about the constancy of nature that the rule the laws of nature that work one day the next day the next day which is true we see that awful lot and again you couldn't do science if one day the law of gravity was gone or the law of gravity changed now the gravity it might change depending on the mass of an object around you but it still follows this law like pattern OK. That's fine except. It's not the way reality really is particularly when you go back to the creation and we read your Bible text. And it's read a text. Therefore Romans five twelve therefore just as through one man sin entered the world and death through sin and thus death spread to all men because all sinned. Now this presupposes try to imagine try to imagine our world. Without death. OK you can it's inconceivable to our without Let me read you this Ellen White quote This is just this just I am finding Ellen White as I said before we don't begin to begin to appreciate what we've got especially when she steps on your toes but that's another. Ellen White talking about the preform world again I'm reading you Scripture deaf and third through Adam OK it's clear that death was not the means God used to create Adam death came through Adam listen to this quo. As they witnessed in drooping flower and falling leaf the first sign of decay Adam and his companion nor no more deeply than men now mourn over their dead. The death of the frail delicate flowers was indeed a cause of sorrow but when the goodly trees cast off their leaves the seed brillant would vividly brought to mind the stirred fact that death is the portion going to be in when you guys in the front row I spit when I talk such as Be warned. And stand over here spinning all over my computer so your right blush are good but when the goodly trees cast off their leaves. The scene brought vividly to mind the stern fact that death is the portion of every living thing. Now Fink for a minute. This to me is blows my mind what can signs which can study only be in an environment where everything that lives die is. Have teach us about an environment where nothing lived die can you see what I'm saying here there's a massive disconnect between the reality that science has to study now and it and what we are taught the world originally was you know to try to learn about the well here's a there's a line to try and learn about the origins of life by studying what is here now thousands of years after the physical changes brought by atoms you know Ellen White. Ellen White talked about the three fold curse. God curse the ground because of Adam's sin. The ground got cursed because a cane and it's fascinating when you read your Bible what you pick up. She also talked about the curse of the flood and just the other morning I was reading my devotion. And I'm just reading the think the reading the first eleven chapters over and over in the Hebrew just reading them over and over and the Lord says I will know in the context of the flood I will no longer again curse the earth as I had done so there was the word curse and I thought of fastening Ellen White used to the three fold curse but the point is the lesson I deal with a lot of I deal with this in detail in the book build the world changed the world changed from you know that a change brought by Adam's fault. Cain sin and Noah's flood I mean study in the world the origins of life now I said here would be like. Studying street walkers in Paris to learn the origins of human sexuality OK whatever you think of that image I mean think about it too. You read Genesis it never rains for you like that it means you. Go out of the way it was. It never rain. How do we comprehend a world that never raising OK the rain being come in till the flood. Gate it's a totally different environment and then even after the fall I read this the other day to as I said I'm reading those first eleven chapters over and over even after the Fall think how different the world would be. With and with the end of delusions live six seven eight hundred years and Enoch was one hundred sixty years although whatever and bore Methuselah and so on so as a hundred eighty years old and bored I mean we're talking about a radically different environment we're talking about only radically different world OK And so my point is and then the ever sing to you I thought it was and then the world and they say. Oh this was the other thing I got into. I got in a tussle Here's an avid as minister. And he just you know he's bought the whole evolution package and he was leading a tour of the Grand Canyon and he was doing something about mocking Noah's flood or something and I wrote him an e-mail you know to me I don't even get me started to be an avid it's minister and believe that I mean don't even get me on that but he said to me he said we have no flood model he said even our own scientists admit there's no flood model and I thought Big deal big deal read the story of Noah it was a super natural a vent. OK it was a super I mean you go back and you read it the dove the great deep broke up things you know what are came from the earth you know came out and then the whole I mean the whole thing to cover the whole world. And he said they have no flood model what was fascinating I decided I was going to write a column on this in response that's what's great I've got a column I can vent it all out and publish it and I call it on the review it's called no flood model if you want to read what I wrote about Ford's call to Adams to we just go to the review website if you google cliff's edge I got tons of columns and stuff on some of this stuff but I went back to read what is Ellen White say about the flood. And she said before the flood came the quote scientists and the philosophers. Said there was no flood could come because it doesn't fit natural law. OK In other words before the flood they said there was there was no flood model. Therefore they said no flood could come and now millennia after the flood there is no flood. And they so therefore they say no flood had come but how are you going to get from the Things of Science something supernatural and again if it rules out the supernatural anyway my point here. Is. Those So I guess the question here is this is the conundrum. The two principles upon which science works. And science has to work what time does a spouse to what time the week what time. It was just about now it's been take a break or let me finish this. The science the question is why the science get origins so wrong. Well I think I tried to show why the two foundational principles upon which it works and which basically it has to work are you know I don't want some some doctor saying to me all right well you know we're going to do this and then we're going to evoke a supernatural charm your prayer is one thing we believe in that element but you know if I got a ruptured appendix cut me open and take the appendix out OK I'm not going to do it because I'm not going to. Rely on faith healing doesn't say it doesn't happen but that's not how it works that's not how we want to well we don't worry about the aerodynamics of the plane God will send angels and angels will keep the plane go on we don't want that and science cannot work if it doesn't work with the consistency of nature and that's all fine for things now but in the end in the in. The Those principles when it comes to. When it comes to creation. Break down and are false and that I think is alternately why science doesn't just get it wrong. Look how wrong it's God it on every day I can't think of anything more contrary. To the scriptural account of origins than evolution. Everything Scripture teaches evolution teaches the opposite and I guess I'm not surprised because it by its own rules it ruled out. Aspects of the creation which is why it's gone hopefully gives. This message was recorded at the. Q Y.C. twenty seventeen conference arrives in Phoenix Arizona. G Y C A supporting Ministry of the Seventh Day Adventist Church seeks to inspire young people to be bible based Christ centered and so when Christians to download or purchase other resources like this visit us online at W.W.W. dot she Y.C. Web dot org.


Embed Code

Short URL