The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

JimiTime

Is there any other methods of dating other than the various radiation isotope measurings?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Is there any other methods of dating other than the various radiation isotope measurings?

Yes, loads, but some aren't very accurate. Before the discovery of radioactivity we had no radiometeric dating but it is still worth noting that the age of the Earth was still put at well over a million years old (at the turn of the century 90 million years was considered the best estimate) based on studies of the oceans, geology and the heat given off. The scientists did not know at the time that the surface of the Earth recycles itself or that the heat inside the Earth is maintained by radioactive material, so the estimates of 90 million years put the Earth at a long younger than it actually is, but the logic behind these estimates was pretty good.

Radiometeric dating is used today because it has been fine tuned over the last 100 years and been shown to be the most accurate method of dating an object. It isn't perfect, but then nothing is. It is also worth remembering that radiometeric dating is not one thing, or one small field of similar tests. There is a vast number of different radiometeric dating systems (over 40+) that all work largely independently of each other and they can therefore be used to verify each others dates. Something that skews on type of radiometeric date won't skew the others in the same way, so it is highly unlikely that you would get two wrong but similar dates, let alone 40.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

bonkey

JimiTime wrote:

Is there any other methods of dating other than the various radiation isotope measurings?

That I'm aware of, there are no other tests with the same degree of accuracy as isochron dating, which is what generally is used.

Bear in mind that isochron dating is a technique rather than a scientific theory. The underlying theories themselves include atomic decay, elemental creation, etc.

If the isochron dating is wrong, there are two significant questions to be asked :

1) Why does it produce an incorrect answer
2) Why does it consistently produce the same incorrect answer?

Both of these would need to be answered in order to seriously challenge the results found and could only be answered by saying that one or more theories which underpin isochron dating are wrong.

One possibility, for example, is that atomic decay occurred at different rates in the past.

Strangely, one side-effect this would have had would be a detectable different in coral growth during the period. So, if the decay was different, we now have another question to answer before we can discard isochron measurements:

3) Is the answer to 1 and 2 detectable where it otherwise should be.

I'm sure you can see where this is heading. Every answer has its own implications and should be detectable. This is the falsifiability I referred to earlier.

If one were to claim that "isochron measurement is wrong because radioactive decay was different in the past", then one falsifiable prediction out of that is "coral which grew at the time would be distinguishable from coral which grew with today's rate of decay".

It isn't.

This leads us to conclude that either the differing-rates hypothesis is false, or incomplete. If its incomplete, then we need to know what else happened, that made the coral grow normally despite the differing rate of decay.

As you can see, this quickly become a house-of-cards....

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

If I may first disassociate myself from 'creation science'. So there is no need to mention that they said whatever. If I may also disassociate myself from what you 'think' I believe as a Christian. Basically, if I may ask you not to answer my questions with the pre-conception that I think a certain way.

Firstly, I've previously stated that the age of the earth is not indicated in the bible, not to my knowledge anyway. The age of life is, but not of the universe. So the 10,000 years thing doesn't apply to me at present. I asked a question previously, and I'd like to ask it again.

The age of the earth dating techniques: If there were extreme conditions on the earth at some stage, i.e. widespread volcanic activity, different concentration of elements in the atmosphere etc. Would this have an impact on the dating methods used?

By and large, dating techniques are based on the ratio of a radioactive element and the "daughter product" of its decay.

Since the daughter product is usually a completely different element, it will have different chemical properties - for example, uranium-lead dating.

Minerals that can accept uranium in their crystal structure cannot usually accept lead. Uranium-lead dating is usually performed on the mineral "zircon" (ZrSiO4), though it can be used on other materials. Zircon incorporates uranium atoms into its crystalline structure as substitutes for zirconium (Zr), but strongly rejects lead.

Because a zircon forms without any lead, but usually with uranium, any lead found within the zircon crystal is the product of radioactive decay of the uranium. Usefully, zircon incorporates both forms of uranium, U-235 and U-238, which decay respectively to Pb-207 and Pb-206, the half-lives being 700MYr and 4.5GYr respectively.

We don't need to know how much uranium was originally present - we need only know how much of it has turned into lead. If, on examination, we find that exactly half the uranium-235 has decayed into lead, then the age of the zircon crystal is exactly the half-life of uranium-235 - 700 million years. We should find, as a crosscheck, that the appropriate amount of U-238 has also decayed.

What assumptions are necessary? The structure of zircon, and whether it will incorporate lead, can be established observationally. The half-life of uranium is also established obervationally. The assumption that is involved is that the half-life has remained the same thoughout time.

Is it possible to check this assumption? Well, if, for example, the half-life of U-235 has changed, and not that of U-238, or if they have both changed, but by different amounts, then the U-235 clock and the U-238 clock will give different ages. They don't, so if they have changed, they must have changed in unison. Again, since cross-checks against other radioactive clocks also correlate, all the radioactive elements would have had to decay at the same altered rates in the past.

Now, if this decay was slower than at present, rocks should give ages younger than their apparent age - if faster, then rocks should appear older. This has implications for a lot of geology, since to a fair extent the heat that drives plate tectonics is the heat generated by radioactive decay. If you were to speed up the half-lives of radioactive elements to the point where U-235 decayed in 700 years, rather than 700 million, you are upping the heat generated by the same factor.

Consider that current heat flow from radioactivity through the surface of the earth is 32-40 milliwatts/square metre. If we up the rate of radioactive decay a million-fold, we have to increase that to 32-40 kilowatts/square metre. A one-bar electric fire is 1kW. Each square metre of the earth's surface would be radiating the equivalent of 30-40 electric fires - water would boil off, any animals and plants would be grilled in seconds, and, realistically, the surface of the earth would be molten.

The other way round, there wouldn't be enough radioactive heat to have driven plate tectonics until recently - we would have no evidence of ancient oceans or mountains, no ancient faults, etc.

So, at most, we can change the half-lives of the radioactive elements by only a bit. There might be, maybe, a systematic error of 10%, or something like that. Except of course we have no mechanism by which radioactive decay rates might have changed, nor any evidence that they have done so. Certainly they are not changing now, as one would expect if they had changed in the past.

So, uranium-lead dating relies on three observations and one assumption. The assumption, in turn, is backed by observation, as well as by theoretical considerations and practical consequences.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

Scofflaw wrote:

What assumptions are necessary? The structure of zircon, and whether it will incorporate lead, can be established observationally. The half-life of uranium is also established obervationally. The assumption that is involved is that the half-life has remained the same thoughout time.

Is it possible to check this assumption? Well, if, for example, the half-life of U-235 has changed, and not that of U-238, or if they have both changed, but by different amounts, then the U-235 clock and the U-238 clock will give different ages. They don't, so if they have changed, they must have changed in unison. Again, since cross-checks against other radioactive clocks also correlate, all the radioactive elements would have had to decay at the same altered rates in the past.

Now, if this decay was slower than at present, rocks should give ages younger than their apparent age - if faster, then rocks should appear older. This has implications for a lot of geology, since to a fair extent the heat that drives plate tectonics is the heat generated by radioactive decay. If you were to speed up the half-lives of radioactive elements to the point where U-235 decayed in 700 years, rather than 700 million, you are upping the heat generated by the same factor.

Consider that current heat flow from radioactivity through the surface of the earth is 32-40 milliwatts/square metre. If we up the rate of radioactive decay a million-fold, we have to increase that to 32-40 kilowatts/square metre. A one-bar electric fire is 1kW. Each square metre of the earth's surface would be radiating the equivalent of 30-40 electric fires - water would boil off, any animals and plants would be grilled in seconds, and, realistically, the surface of the earth would be molten.

The other way round, there wouldn't be enough radioactive heat to have driven plate tectonics until recently - we would have no evidence of ancient oceans or mountains, no ancient faults, etc.

So, at most, we can change the half-lives of the radioactive elements by only a bit. There might be, maybe, a systematic error of 10%, or something like that. Except of course we have no mechanism by which radioactive decay rates might have changed, nor any evidence that they have done so. Certainly they are not changing now, as one would expect if they had changed in the past.

So, uranium-lead dating relies on three observations and one assumption. The assumption, in turn, is backed by observation, as well as by theoretical considerations and practical consequences.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So put simply, to current knowledge, the only way that the decay rate would have been increased is if we were a molten planet at some stage of the past. Would that be correct, or have I misunderstood?

Son Goku

To expand, if the rate of radioactive decay did change over time then obviously the assumptions would be at least partially flawed.

However the rate of radioactive decay can change, but the method by which this occurs (decay rates depend very subtly on temperture) would never have been a factor at any point in Earth's history.
You require tempertures in the 10,000,000,000 Centigrade range before radioactive decay rates begin to alter, not something likely to ever have happened on Earth.
(CERN in Switzerland confirmed this figure, lending more support to our radiometric dating methods)

However what if decay rates depend on time, instead of temperture?
(i.e. if the decay rate was higher in the past)

It was shown by Glashow et al, that this would lead to Stellar instability as well as instability in normal matter. It would also lead to a wide variety of other effects that are too exotic* to go into here.

(*Exotic is physics jargon for theoretical physics objects that sound sci-fi like and come from very subtle effects.)

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

So put simply, to current knowledge, the only way that the decay rate would have been increased is if we were a molten planet at some stage of the past. Would that be correct, or have I misunderstood?

Not quite - you have put it the wrong way round. The decay rate would not be increased if the planet were molten, but the planet would have been molten throughout its (much shorter) history if the decay rate were much larger.

The planet was originally molten, as far as we know. By itself, this would not change the decay rates. Nor, by itself, does it imply greater radioactive decay rates - most of the radioactive material on earth has already decayed, so there was a lot more of it earlier on. Added to this was the greater amount of residual heat from the gravitational contraction and formation of the Earth.

So, no, the fact that the earth was molten early in its history is not related to possible changes in the decay rates, if that's what you're picking up from this. As Son Goku says above, the kind of temperatures required to change the rates of radioactive decay are sufficient in themselves to vapourise Earth, not melt it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

So put simply, to current knowledge, the only way that the decay rate would have been increased is if we were a molten planet at some stage of the past. Would that be correct, or have I misunderstood?

Kinda but you have it the wrong way around.

If the decay rate had been increased the surface of the planet would have been molten rock for most of the history of the Earth, because the energy being released from the center of the Earth would have been much much greater than it was. We certainly wouldn't be here, and the Earth would look very different to how it looks now.

But the surface of the planet being molten rock would not by itself alter the decay rate. It would be a result, rather than a cause.

Scofflaw might have to help me out here, but as far as I know there is no known process that would alter decay rates to such a degree needed to greatly alter their dating, bar popping the rock inside a super-nova.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Not quite - you have put it the wrong way round.

Wicknight wrote:

Kinda but you have it the wrong way around.

SNAP!

bmoferrall

@JimiTime

For what it's worth, this is my take on the creation issue. My views have changed quite a bit over the past year, thanks mainly to contributions on this thread.

The following link gives a non-YEC Christian view on this whole issue (Ch 7 in particular):
http://www.ivycottage.org/group/group.aspx?id=6826
It's argued here that the previously discredited YEC model was resurrected some time in the 1960s by Henry Morris, and since presented by YEC proponents as the prevailing one in Christian and Jewish tradition through the ages. There's much evidence to show this isn't true. The following, taken from the above link, summarises the young-earth model, based on a literal interpretation of Genesis:

· The earth is only a few thousand years old, and was completed in 144 hours.
· Physical death of both man and animals started only after the sin of the first man and woman, which occurred at least 24 hours after the creation of birds and sea creatures.
· There were, therefore, no animal predators in the original creation, and all of them were vegetarian throughout the first day or so of their existence.
· At the first human sin (or the ‘fall’), substantial changes occurred both in biology and in physics. Though some young-earthers deny it, Morris also emphasises that the second law of thermodynamics began only at that time.
· Just after the fall of man, God somehow withdrew his hand, allowing an undirected process of evolution by natural selection to occur, leading to animals developing structures specialised for predatory habits.
· During the period between Adam and Noah (c 1000 years?), all the structures for predatory habits found in fossils developed. This universal flood laid down all the strata and engulfed the now fossilised animals.

Many young-earth creationists simply do not realise the total package they are ‘buying into’. Because Henry Morris is a sincere Christian man, he has tried to think through in detail the implications of his system. Not only has this led him (as we have seen) in practice to admit that major parts of Genesis 1-3
are figurative/allegorical, but it has also led to the anomaly that he actually has a greater belief in the efficacy of evolution by natural selection to change animal structures than anyone else we know. Though he may call it ‘degeneration’, it actually means that highly complex new structures evolved over a period of just a few thousand years! He states his views thus:

"It seems unlikely that God actually either created or ‘made’ thorns or thistles at this time. He did not ‘create’ death in the direct sense, but rather withdrew that extension of his power which maintained a ‘steady state’ of life and order, thus allowing all things gradually to disintegrate toward disorder and death... God merely “allowed” certain plant structures which previously were beneficent to deteriorate into malevolent characteristics... In terms of modern genetic knowledge, such changes probably were in the form of mutations, or random changes in the molecular structure of the genetic systems of the different kinds of organisms... If deteriorative mutational changes occurred in plants, it seems reasonable and even probable that they would also occur in animals. As smoothly rounded structures deteriorated to thorns in plants, so perhaps teeth and nails designed for a herbivorous diet mutated to fangs and claws which, in combination with a progressively increasing dietary deficiency of proteins and other essentials, gradually created carnivorous appetites in certain animals... Parasites and viral systems may also have developed in some such way.45"

He later calls mutations ‘random disruptions in their highly ordered genetic structures.’ 46 Let us be clear here how novel is this suggestion. He is saying that as originally created all animals were vegetarian, and there was no animal death. Then at the moment of that first sin of Adam, God ‘withdrew’ his power
in some way, leaving the physical world to a new system of physics which operated in some sense independently of God. Animal life evolved very rapidly (within a few thousand years between Adam and Noah) to transform the originally vegetarian structures of the Genesis ‘kinds’ into carnivores with claws and teeth for tearing, into parasites etc. The mode by which these changes occurred was random mutations - not God-directed in any way, but (Morris seems to imply) by natural selection. When, therefore, we look today e.g. at a member of the feline ‘kind’ (i.e. a cat), we see a structure which is unrecognisable as the original vegetarian creature God made, but has ‘degenerated’ into the lissom, efficient hunter with claws and teeth we know
so well.

Make of that what you will. Check out this rather telling exchange between Richard Dawkins and Ted Haggard (admittedly a soft target for Dawkins):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiDXiJmUnVE
Would Haggard so confidently argue the toss on cosmology with Stephen Hawking? Why does he feel he can dictate to Dawkins on the subject of biology/geology (you could argue, I suppose, that Dawkins does a similar thing with Christianity)? The average Joe Soap Christian, especially in America, is being conditioned to believe he/she can offer useful opinions on scientific matters like evolution (I've been there).

I was locked into a mindset whereby it was unthinkable that the world could be as old as conventional science says it is, and unthinkable that life in all its diversity could have emerged through some incremental process of evolution. I was convinced that a literal interpretation of genesis was the only honest and consistent one for a Christian. I believed that opponents to the YEC model were suffering from a form of blindness, driven by their agnosticism/atheism. I followed this thread closely for a long time and, gradually, my confidence in the YEC model was chipped away. It has been clearly shown that YEC scientists represent a tiny minority in the world of science. More to the point, most specialise in fields not directly relevant to the issues being discussed; they lean on the opinions of long-deceased scientists, cling to outdated evidence, and ignore new evidence or bend it to their fixed worldview. IMO, this is particularly true on the issue of the universe's age. The evidence against a young earth is overwhelming. It has been demonstrated clearly in this thread, even for the non-scientist. Unfortunately, the low light/heat ratio of the thread makes it hard to track down the useful stuff.

So, if one can't trust YEC proponents on the age issue, then, can one trust them to objectively evaluate the issue of evolution? I've sadly concluded that I probably can't. Creationists accept that evolution happens on a micro (intra-species) level, but say it doesn't and can't happen on a macro (inter-species) level. A woolly concept - increase in genetic information - has been coined to draw a line between micro- and macro-evolution. IMO, a satisfactory distinction between the two hasn't been offered. Indeed, conventional science says that there are examples of such 'increases in genetic information' in nature. I'll probably never have the time (or ability) to fully understand evolution, so I'm happy to defer to the current view held by the vast majority of relevantly-qualified scientists, trusting that they will honestly modify current theories to fit new evidence. As a Christian I, obviously, believe that God somehow created what we see/experience today. If 'muck-to-man' evolution is mathematically possible given enough time (disputed, of course), then an omniscient God could choose to work out our physical creation (souls/spirits being another matter) using it, rather than an instantaneous miracle. If the evidence points to the former then we just have to deal with it.

Where does all this leave the bible, and genesis in particular? The aforementioned link argues in detail that much of genesis is highly-condensed metaphorical history, rather than literal history. In light of this, you may find yourself reading parts of the old testament with different eyes. Did it really happen exactly as described, etc.? Hopefully, your faith will be strong enough to survive intact, and even enriched.

At the end of the day, it's an overhyped issue and not something to get unduly worked up about, though it is interesting. Best of luck in your quest for knowledge and truth.

I'll happily wash JC's feet for an eternity if the YEC model is right!

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

SNAP!

Oh, science! It's so boringly consistent!

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

bmoferrall said:

It has been clearly shown that YEC scientists represent a tiny minority in the world of science.

Agreed. As do Bible-believers in the world.

More to the point, most specialise in fields not directly relevant to the issues being discussed

OK, but many do.

they lean on the opinions of long-deceased scientists, cling to outdated evidence, and ignore new evidence or bend it to their fixed worldview.

They would deny that, claiming it is the evolutionists who bend it.

IMO, this is particularly true on the issue of the universe's age. The evidence against a young earth is overwhelming. It has been demonstrated clearly in this thread, even for the non-scientist.

I have not seen it.

So, if one can't trust YEC proponents on the age issue, then, can one trust them to objectively evaluate the issue of evolution? I've sadly concluded that I probably can't. Creationists accept that evolution happens on a micro (intra-species) level, but say it doesn't and can't happen on a macro (inter-species) level. A woolly concept - increase in genetic information - has been coined to draw a line between micro- and macro-evolution. IMO, a satisfactory distinction between the two hasn't been offered.

Seems a clear enough distinction to me.

Indeed, conventional science says that there are examples of such 'increases in genetic information' in nature. I'll probably never have the time (or ability) to fully understand evolution, so I'm happy to defer to the current view held by the vast majority of relevantly-qualified scientists, trusting that they will honestly modify current theories to fit new evidence.

I defer to the revelantly-qualified scientists who are not captive to their peers but to the facts and to believing the Bible to be true in all it asserts.

As a Christian I, obviously, believe that God somehow created what we see/experience today. If 'muck-to-man' evolution is mathematically possible given enough time (disputed, of course), then an omniscient God could choose to work out our physical creation (souls/spirits being another matter) using it, rather than an instantaneous miracle. If the evidence points to the former then we just have to deal with it.

OK, if it did. But we would then be left with your next point:

Where does all this leave the bible, and genesis in particular? The aforementioned link argues in detail that much of genesis is highly-condensed metaphorical history, rather than literal history. In light of this, you may find yourself reading parts of the old testament with different eyes. Did it really happen exactly as described, etc.? Hopefully, your faith will be strong enough to survive intact, and even enriched.

This is the crunch. If evolution is true, then the Bible is either mistaken or opague. If the latter, we cannot take any message from it, but only use it to hang our own ideas on. A simple test should show where this takes us: make a list of all the characters and events of the Old and New Testaments and say which actually happened and which are metaphorical. From Creation through the Flood; the call of Abraham to the Exodus from Egypt; the Conquest to the Return from Exile; Christ's announcement to the Resurrection; Pentecost to John's revelation.

I'd be glad to hear who and what were histrorical and what were not - and how you tell the difference.

At the end of the day, it's an overhyped issue and not something to get unduly worked up about, though it is interesting.

I agree, it's not an essential of the Faith. But wobbling on Genesis undermines one's defense of the rest of Scripture. Better to be consistent throughout.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

So, in no particular order - given that the text does require interpretation:

1. it is presumably possible to err in interpretation

Yes.

2. the claim that one adheres to the literal truth of the Bible is never strictly valid

Depends what one means by adhering to the literal truth . The correct use is speaking of keeping to the literal understanding where it was meant literally, even if that clashes with current ideas of history, science, etc. The incorrect use is taking it to mean holding to a literal meaning even where figurative is meant.

3. narrative does not always adhere to strictly literal truths, particularly where the object is to give moral lessons - certain things will be highlighted, others diminished or left out

Yes.

4. if the narrative was not written with the object of providing moral lessons, interpretation may miss the mark entirely in drawing a moral lesson from a historical narrative - events may not provide a clear guide to moral behaviour

Yes.

5. virtually every narrative written/told by pre-modern cultures starts with some sort of general setting. Often these initial histories are completely fabulous - they are there because the author could not simply start, as modern novels often do, with a dramatic moment. In fact, it is very rare for the initial scene-setting to be anything other than metaphor, where it is not entirely fictitious

One expects that from false religions - they are peddling fiction, so naturally will have no problem using fiction to enhance the tale.

6. it is possible for interpretation to change through time, and to reflect the mores and expectations of the interpreters

Yes.

7. the test of consistency in interpretation is problematic, because one's interpretations may all be consistent, but all together may be wrong

Yes.

To take an example of narrative being used in a fashion that requires heavy interpretation, and one that is relevant to earlier discussions on this thread - the vignette of Onan. It is clearly, as you say, a piece of narrative. Onan disobeyed the requirement of tradition that he take his brother's wife and impregnate her, by "spilling his seed upon the ground". For this disobedience, God killed him.

Yes.

Now, if it contains any moral instruction it is extremely difficult to be certain what that instruction might be. That has not stopped people using this narrative to condemn masturbation, contraception, defiance of tradition, shirking your obligations, sexual intercourse for pleasure - and also to establish the sanctity of the male seed. That's a long list for a short piece of narrative, would you not say?

Indeed. It seems clear to me that the moral to be drawn from the narrative is not to rebel at the duties and responsibilities God has given one, and especially not to hurt others in the process. All the masturbation, contraception ,etc. has to be read into the story, not derived from it.

CiDeRmAn

Now there's an idea, which of the bibles tales are historical and which are merely allegorical or moral fables, while you're at it why not do the koran and the torah as well, seeing as we are dealing with people of "the book" and all that, perhaps the various other established faiths around the globe would care for a look in, I mean, from a rationalist, and in my case atheistic, point of view one "good book" is as esteemable as the other, perhaps folk of other non-christian faiths have opinions on evolution etc. I mean do they have a clash between their faith and inherent view of creation and the rationalist, scientific, evidence led point of view? Perhaps a tad off thread.

wolfsbane

JimiTime said:

Next if we could maybe tackle a question that JC has raised. He says that the dating methods used for proving an old earth etc, are spurious. Maybe this could be backed up with some of your findings?

After this if we could stick to the facts without getting frustrated (I know thats a big ask), in an effort to bring this thread to a level where someone joining it can see an, evidence for, evidence against, type scenario. Hopefully then, this thread will be a good education.

So to conclude, If we could start with a heading. Have a creationists , evidence for, evidence against. Then, not answering the creationist, evolutionists, give evidence for, evidence against. Imagine it like a debate in school. You don't get to discredit your opponent, you just have to give your evidence and trust that people will see the wood from the trees.

I can't see us getting any further, Jimi. It's become a bit of a pantomine: Oh, Yes you are; Oh, No I'm not. I've given up going round in circles (or am trying to!) and respond more to the theological fall-out.

If you want to learn what Evolutionist/Creationist scientists say, best to follow their arguments on sites like http://www.talkorigins.org/ (Evolutionist) and http://trueorigin.org/ (Creationist). They will link to the respective Evolutionist/Creationist websites.

JustHalf

wolfsbane wrote:

Does this apply to all the other threads? Surely the time spent there could be used on clothing the poor and feeding the hungry?

Yes, I was going a bit over-the-top there, trying to appeal to your Christian sense of responsibility/guilt. But at least there is a point in clothing the poor and feeding the hungry.

wolfsbane wrote:

It is God's business to convince, ours to bear witness to the truth.

But I agree that enough has been said/explained to give all the facts one needs to decide if evolution or creation is true. A lot of the argument is going over old ground, with just the occasional new aspect emerging.

It is not your beliefs I have a major problem with sir; it is that in defending your beliefs yourself and JC have, between you, mocked and ridiculed the those who oppose this belief (including your fellow, "weak faith" Christians) and have been dismissive of the arguments against it.

Doing so again and again, with no new evidence or ground won, is pointless at best.

wolfsbane wrote:

Hmm. Could you tell us what a non-literal six-day creation is? If not, then pleae consider that your position maybe is more a lack of faith in the Bible's veracity than a reconciliation of the Bible and Science.

It was an awkward phrasing. I was trying to say "all Christians who do not share the belief in a literal six-day creation", i.e. pretty much all of them.

wolfsbane wrote:

I think this thread has boldly declared God's love for man in sending His son to redeem many of those dead in trespasses and sins, the sons and daughters of Adam ,who fell with him. Many posts point to the God who created all things and to whom we as His creatures must give account. The arguements against supernatural Creation some 6000 years ago, apply just as well to those against a supernatural Resurrection some 2000 years ago. So the gospel of God's saving work in Christ is as vunerable as His work in Creation.

Man, if the Gospel can be destroyed by a thread on the internet, it's not really worth much, is it?

wolfsbane wrote:

It is the denial of literal six-day Creation that undermines the love of God. It is the truth that sets one free, not the avoidance of it.

What truth is more important... that Jesus died for our sins, or that the world was created in six days?

JustHalf

Coming up to 200 pages now. If JC or wolfsbane would care to describe what they've actually managed to achieve (as opposed to TRY to achieve), I'd love to hear it.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Seems a clear enough distinction to me.

You don't question the mechanism. What stops "micro"evolution from piling up into "macro"evolution?

wolfsbane wrote:

I defer to the revelantly-qualified scientists who are not captive to their peers but to the facts and to believing the Bible to be true in all it asserts.

Surely you can see how biased this is. You are admitting that you don't care about the evidence and only trust those of the same opinion as yourself.
And being "captive to their peers" is a ridiculous statement, the greatest scientists are those who revolutionize our understanding. Most physicists for example would love to overturn relativity.

You have:
(a)No idea how science works, making up fictional ridiculous scenarios where science is some giant conspiracy where people bow to the "recieved wisdom". Completely ignoring what motivates scientists, to improve our understanding of the world.
(b)No ability to even listen to the evidence. You are only willing to listen to the opinions of those who don't disagree with you. This is confirmed by you ranking JC as a competent scientist, when he is obviously speaking about things he has no working understanding of.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Seems a clear enough distinction to me.

Not really because you are discussing the same process. As Son asks, what stops micro-evolution before it become macro-evolution? Nature? God?

The Creationists claim, often made by JC, is that micro-evolution can never increase genetic code and therefore it can never become macro-evolution, ie it can not ever result in a mutation producing more genetic material that was present before the mutation. All mutation can do is re-arrange the genetic material, or subtract it (which btw can also produce macro-evolution).

Despite that fact that argument never made much sense (a mutation can pretty much do anything, rearrange, add and subtract), it has also been observed to be a false argument.

Mutation that can and do produce an increase in genetic material have been observed. A few times actually. Of course this was no surprise to anyone, and hardly shocking, since science expect this.

Like most things, it is only Creationists who stated it could never happen because they have to claim it never happens since their holy books says so.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

This is the crunch. If evolution is true, then the Bible is either mistaken or opague.

Forget evolution for a minute Wolfsbane. If the the scientific model behind your TV working, or your oven, or how your car functions, are correct then the Genesis model is mistaken. You don't have to go as far as evolution, if the Genesis model of the universe is correct most of known science is wrong, and as such most of the things that known science has produced, from your TV screen to the Voyager space probe, are based on very wrong science and as such should never have worked in the first place.

That fact that all these things do work would suggest the science behind them is also correct, which suggests the Genesis model of the universe is not correct. Or God is faking the whole thing, but then the question would be why?

wolfsbane wrote:

I'd be glad to hear who and what were histrorical and what were not - and how you tell the difference.

Who said faith was supposed to be easy? If it was easy it wouldn't be faith

How do you know the Bible isn't a test, to see if you would still believe in God once it was shown to be not literal or flawed?

robindch

> [bricncalgary] I look at the DNA + RNA and am completely impressed with how God made it

What about the idea that god created a process which created DNA + RNA? Isn't that even more impressive than just making something? I presume that you don't believe that god carves out rivers and mountains and instead, that god created the processes that allow them to happen. If so, how come arriving at DNA + RNA through some process is different from arriving at rivers and mountains through some process?

wolfsbane

Just Half said:

Yes, I was going a bit over-the-top there, trying to appeal to your Christian sense of responsibility/guilt. But at least there is a point in clothing the poor and feeding the hungry.

We agree on that, then. Now about whether discussion groups are a sinful waste of time, and why you are participating in one, I'm not too clear as to your position.

It is not your beliefs I have a major problem with sir; it is that in defending your beliefs yourself and JC have, between you, mocked and ridiculed the those who oppose this belief (including your fellow, "weak faith" Christians) and have been dismissive of the arguments against it.

I challenge that. It is we who have been treated with contempt, not least by you. It is you who have failed to answer the Scriptural case for a recent creation, putting your trust in men's theories. JC and myself have no problem with our atheist friends here. We expect them to ridicule our beliefs and we return the compliment about their lack of logic, etc. We do not bear them any ill-will, or we would not be debating with them. We once stood where they now stand.

Doing so again and again, with no new evidence or ground won, is pointless at best.

We are content that new evidence has been presented, and ground won. That it is denied, makes no difference. Conscience will out.

It was an awkward phrasing. I was trying to say "all Christians who do not share the belief in a literal six-day creation", i.e. pretty much all of them.

That's clearer - but just as wrong. Of course, your definition of Christian is a lot different than mine, or of our Evangelical forebears.

Man, if the Gospel can be destroyed by a thread on the internet, it's not really worth much, is it?

The gospel cannot be destroyed, but it can be destroyed in the minds of men. Where the Bible is downgraded, there the gospel is also brought into question. Where the Bible can be made to mean anything, it can be made to mean nothing.

What truth is more important... that Jesus died for our sins, or that the world was created in six days?

The former. Does that mean no other truth is to be taught? What's your point?

Coming up to 200 pages now. If JC or wolfsbane would care to describe what they've actually managed to achieve (as opposed to TRY to achieve), I'd love to hear it.

We have clearly stated the truth about Creation. We have shown that it is not only the Scripture that maintains that account, but revelantly-qualified scientists also. That the science is still debated, even though the modern equivalents to Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, are gathered together to deny it.

And we have told the people of the good news, that all who repent and believe in Jesus Christ will be saved from the wrath to come and know His love forever.

That is a big achievement. We have sown and watered by the grace of God. We look to Him to give the increase.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

You don't question the mechanism. What stops "micro"evolution from piling up into "macro"evolution?

The fact that it is going round the hill or down the hill, not up it. The change is only within the design limitations, the information already available.

Surely you can see how biased this is. You are admitting that you don't care about the evidence

I do care about the evidence. It is the only thing science can work on.

and only trust those of the same opinion as yourself.

Only if it comes to a choice between the two.

And being "captive to their peers" is a ridiculous statement, the greatest scientists are those who revolutionize our understanding. Most physicists for example would love to overturn relativity.

Not if it pointed to a recent Creation and the God of the Bible.

You have:
(a)No idea how science works, making up fictional ridiculous scenarios where science is some giant conspiracy where people bow to the "recieved wisdom". Completely ignoring what motivates scientists, to improve our understanding of the world.

I have given examples of the force of 'established truth' and peer pressure in shutting the mouths of scientists. They are not the impartial nor fearless band of heros you paint them to be.

(b)No ability to even listen to the evidence. You are only willing to listen to the opinions of those who don't disagree with you. This is confirmed by you ranking JC as a competent scientist, when he is obviously speaking about things he has no working understanding of.

I wouldn't be engaged in debate with all here if that were the case. I want to understand their thinking, and show them the other side too.

As to JC, your opinion of his abilities matches well the criticisms I have read of other Creationists with PhDs in relevant subjects, so I don't give your's any weight.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Not really because you are discussing the same process. As Son asks, what stops micro-evolution before it become macro-evolution? Nature? God?

Nature: http://trueorigin.org/schneider.asp

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Forget evolution for a minute Wolfsbane. If the the scientific model behind your TV working, or your oven, or how your car functions, are correct then the Genesis model is mistaken. You don't have to go as far as evolution, if the Genesis model of the universe is correct most of known science is wrong, and as such most of the things that known science has produced, from your TV screen to the Voyager space probe, are based on very wrong science and as such should never have worked in the first place.

Your logic is acting up again, Wickie. True Known science is the scientific laws, not the extrapolations or hypotheses based on them.

The physics behind my TV and the Genesis/Big Bang models is the same. My TV is a verification of the physics; the other two are hypotheses. A recently created mature universe has the same physics as an old one. It is a matter of seeing which model best fits the physics. Your assertion is therefore as silly as mine would be if I said if the scientific model behind your TV working, or your oven, or how your car functions, are correct then the Big Bang model is mistaken.

Who said faith was supposed to be easy? If it was easy it wouldn't be faith

But not self-contradictory.

How do you know the Bible isn't a test, to see if you would still believe in God once it was shown to be not literal or flawed?

Then it wouldn't matter. Nothing could be known, so the Bible would be no more relevant than a beaten docket. Hmm, that sounds like a good description of evolutionist theology - 'beaten docket Theology'.

madser

The bible is no more than a book, thats out of date and wildly contradicts itself. The exsistance of the dinasours disproves the theory of chriatian life, we are not only here less than 2000 yrs, If you want to have blind faith thats fine but stop looking down on the rest of us for not being as deluded as you are

wolfsbane

madser said:

The bible is no more than a book, thats out of date and wildly contradicts itself. The exsistance of the dinasours disproves the theory of chriatian life, we are not only here less than 2000 yrs,

It would help to get your facts right. Creationists hold to a recent creation, about 6000 years ago. What's that got to do with the dinosaurs? Creationists accept they were here too.

If you want to have blind faith thats fine but stop looking down on the rest of us for not being as deluded as you are

I don't have blind faith, and I don't look down on unbelievers. I was one too and I want to see them delivered from their delusions.

Hope that's clarified things.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Wicknight said:

Nature: http://trueorigin.org/schneider.asp

And...?

That is a (very flawed) criticism of the computer simulation Ev. Aside from the fact that the paper is deeply flawed its conclusions are largely invalidated by the fact that increase in genetic material has been observed since it was published in 2001.

wolfsbane wrote:

True Known science is the scientific laws, not the extrapolations or hypotheses based on them.

I'm surprised you didn't claim that true known science is the Bible ...

wolfsbane wrote:

The physics behind my TV and the Genesis/Big Bang models is the same.

The physics behind your TV are the same physics that explain how far stars are away from us, how light travels (and at what speed) and the same physics that date the Earth.

Creationists always focus on Evolution as if that is the important bit. They ignore the fact that aside from evolutionary theory, most of science invalidates the Genesis model.

wolfsbane wrote:

My TV is a verification of the physics; the other two are hypotheses.

The same scientific models that allows people to build your TV also tells us that the stars are millions of light years away, and it also tells us that the light from these stars has been travelling for millions of years.

The same scientific models that allows people to build your microwave also allows us to date the radioactive decay of substances found on Earth and found in the solar system, which tell us that these substances have existed for millions of years.

The same scientific models that allow us to extract the energy in the petrol in your car also tell us that the petrol is made up of organic matter that existed hundreds of thousands of years ago.

I could go on (and on and on and on....)

wolfsbane wrote:

A recently created mature universe has the same physics as an old one.

No, it doesn't

In a recently created universe we would only see approx 0.1% of the stars in the milky way. The night sky would be black apart from a few twinkles here and there. The milky way is one of a trillion galaxies, none of which would be visible to use because the light produced by these stars would still be travelling across the cosmos, and would not reach us for thousands of years.

In a recently created universe we would have observed things that have never actually happened. Stars that appear to have exploded hundreds of thousands of years ago and who's light has only just reached us in the last 150 years, would have actually never existed in the first place. If you want to explain that I'm all ears.

wolfsbane wrote:

It is a matter of seeing which model best fits the physics.

If you can explain to me the "model" that explains how a light from a star that never existed in the first place some how manages to make its way to Earth and hit our telescopes with a picture of a the star exploding, I'm all ears.

wolfsbane wrote:

But not self-contradictory.

It is only self-contradictory because you make it so. It is only self-contradictory because you are looking for the easy answer. As I said, who said faith was supposed to be easy?

wolfsbane wrote:

Nothing could be known, so the Bible would be no more relevant than a beaten docket.

So are you saying that you would not believe in God unless the Bible existed to tell you to believe in God?

How is that faith?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

The fact that it is going round the hill or down the hill, not up it. The change is only within the design limitations, the information already available.

How did you explain the nylon-digesting frame shift mutation?

wolfsbane wrote:

I do care about the evidence. It is the only thing science can work on.

True - it cannot work from a supposition that such and such a religion is correct, or even that atheism is correct.

wolfsbane wrote:

Son Goku wrote:

And being "captive to their peers" is a ridiculous statement, the greatest scientists are those who revolutionize our understanding. Most physicists for example would love to overturn relativity.

Not if it pointed to a recent Creation and the God of the Bible.

I've said this before - wolfsbane, that's a lie. There are hundreds of thousands of Christian scientists who would be entirely comfortable with such a conclusion. Strangely, it is only the little band of those who already accept the literal historical interpretation of Genesis who see such evidence.

wolfsbane wrote:

I have given examples of the force of 'established truth' and peer pressure in shutting the mouths of scientists. They are not the impartial nor fearless band of heros you paint them to be.

Sigh. No-one has claimed that science is magically free of human imperfections. However, there are so many scientists, with so many faiths and cultures, in so many countries, working for so many organisations, that the only way you can explain 99.99% of them not finding evidence for Genesis is a deliberate conspiracy of global extent and immense power. While we're at it, why not aliens?

wolfsbane wrote:

As to JC, your opinion of his abilities matches well the criticisms I have read of other Creationists with PhDs in relevant subjects, so I don't give your's any weight.

I can't remember ever being offered one to criticise. We've certainly rejected claims about people who didn't have relevant qualifications, or whose qualifications were Bible college or degree-mill rubber stamps. We have also, in a couple of cases, criticised those (Snelling) whose material is riddled with false claims, pseudo-science, holes and polemic.

JC, however, has never stated his qualifications for us to criticise. Perhaps he PM'd you them?

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Your logic is acting up again, Wickie. True Known science is the scientific laws, not the extrapolations or hypotheses based on them.

The physics behind my TV and the Genesis/Big Bang models is the same. My TV is a verification of the physics; the other two are hypotheses. A recently created mature universe has the same physics as an old one. It is a matter of seeing which model best fits the physics. Your assertion is therefore as silly as mine would be if I said if the scientific model behind your TV working, or your oven, or how your car functions, are correct then the Big Bang model is mistaken.

You would argue, then, that only working technology is a verification of science? A bad misunderstanding.

Do you perhaps understand the idea that for a hypothesis, the case might be: "Stands up pretty strongly. And taken with the other proofs, the case is conclusive."?

cordially,
Scofflaw