The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Hot Dog

wolfsbane wrote: »

Science can only show that the Biblical account is consistent with the physical evidence.

Well, so far in this thread it has spectacularly failed to do that.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

Science can only show that the Biblical account is consistent with the physical evidence.

Note also that when it comes to evidence "consistent with" the Biblical account, evidence that supports a theistic account of creation is not interchangeable with evidence that does not directly contradict same. Creationists have mostly provided the latter.

wolfsbane

Eschatologist wrote: »

Have any creationists on this thread heard of the Jack Hills zircons?

I hadn't, until you raised it. Interesting stuff.

Have you heard about the argument on helium retention in zircons? Here's a link you can work from:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1030meert.asp

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

Note also that when it comes to evidence "consistent with" the Biblical account, evidence that supports a theistic account of creation is not interchangeable with evidence that does not directly contradict same. Creationists have mostly provided the latter.

Both are there. For example, Irreducible Complexity, Levels of Sea Sodium are supportive evidence for a young world.

wolfsbane

Hot Dog wrote: »

Well, so far in this thread it has spectacularly failed to do that.

That is the debate on this thread.

wolfsbane

bonkey wrote: »

No....science can also show that the biblical account is inconsistent with the physical evidence. You just don't accept it when it does so.

It is always good to examine the arguments. Scientific argument can be made pro and con, depending on the scientist's interpretation of the evidence. Both Creationists and Evolutionists have to deal with that.

wolfsbane

MooseJam wrote: »

what do the creationists have to say about neanderthals ?

Check the main Creationist sites for yourself:
http://creationresearch.org/

http://www.icr.org/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

http://www.creationontheweb.com/

http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/

http://trueorigin.org/

wolfsbane

Hot Dog wrote: »

strangely quiet from the creos these last few days.

There are only two of us here, and JC is the scientist, so you need to be patient if we have other pressing engagements. I think you can expect a word or two from JC in due course.:D

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Irreducible Complexity

Im sorry, but Kenneth Miller absolutely flattened that argument.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

wolfsbane

Eschatologist said:

I would love to hear the young-Earth version of the Himalaya story,

Just a quickie:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/catastrophic-plate-tectonics

Hot Dog

wolfsbane wrote: »

Both Creationists and Evolutionists have to deal with that.

Again, the word "evolutionist" has no meaning. I presume it is meant to imply one who accepts the theory evolution. I n that case am I also a "Gravitationist" as I accept the theory of Gravity ( or is that Newtonist, Gallilaeo-ist etc etc...) or a thermodynamicist?

I am a geologist by training. my objection to Young Earth creationism has nothing to do with the biological theory of evolution. In any case, geology is always far more problematic for creationists than evolution. Evolution makes no claims about the age of the earth., presence or absence of biblical floods (unprecedented and multifaceted or otherwise) , or the aspects of tectonic drift and crustal evolution so widely touted by creationists.

Hot Dog

wolfsbane wrote: »

Eschatologist said:

Just a quickie:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/catastrophic-plate-tectonics

since we are posting links and not engaging in actual debate

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD750.html

Killbot2000

How does creation geology explain the Iridium spike which occurs at the K-Pg boundary? Surely a meteor impact occurring a few thousand years ago would have caused some serious and lasting damage!

Killbot2000

Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve are often cited as evidence supporting the Genesis story yet they are separated from one another by tens of thousand of years.

sdep

Hot Dog wrote: »

Evolution makes no claims about the age of the earth., presence or absence of biblical floods (unprecedented and multifaceted or otherwise) , or the aspects of tectonic drift and crustal evolution so widely touted by creationists.

Up to a point. The levels of genetic diversity noted within and between species couldn't have arisen under the observed mutation rates unless the earth was ancient. The distribution of extinct and extant species isn't reconcilable with the Biblical flood.

Hot Dog wrote: »

geology is always far more problematic for creationists than evolution.

On the question of why evolution is seen as more of a problem than geology, this recent comment makes sense:

Scofflaw wrote: »

My own view is that the essential point is mankind's unique status. The whole idea is to be able to deny that we are descended from apes - indeed, to deny and repudiate any diminution of mankind's "most special" standing. It becomes a personal matter when the "special standing" accorded to humans by religion becomes part of the individual's sense of self-worth - by debying his "origin story" as God's favourite child, you directly challenge his sense of self-worth.

It perhaps explains why the creationist / intelligent design movement doesn't cleave along young-earth / old-earth lines but prefers not to dwell on these differences within its ranks.

Eschatologist

In the link posted above:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...late-tectonic

And I quote "...extremely rapid subduction during the Flood, followed by extremely slow plate velocities as the floodwaters retreated". This is supposed to explain why the Nazca trench sediments are undeformed as opposed to if slow subduction was at play. Okay, this model gives an 'explanation' of the sediment problem (leaving aside that the Nazca ridge has high erosion rates so the older deformed sediments are already subducted, Hampel et al., 2004) but leaves out how the mechanism actually works - how does a large volume of water actually affect plate tectonics?

So, water a few km deep (6-8?) if it's to erode mountains, versus the mantle at 2900 km thickness to drive plate motions. Which is the more satisfactory answer?

I also checked out the New Scientist reference (no. 11) at the end of the above article, cited by the young-Earth people in their favour when in fact the model presented in the New Scientist article is perfectly compatible with accepted old-Earth ideas - it even states in the NS article: "Pangaea began to split apart roughly 180 million years ago. 'Neither the existence of Pangaea nor the fact that our continental plates are moving has been in dispute for more than 20 years,' says John Baumgardner" - the very guy the YE people quote in their favour! Misrepresentation and misquotation of science to further these young-Earth ideas just discredits the article and their explanations for me. Are they trying to further scientific knowledge to benefit us all or further their own religious agendas?

Please, no more links, I'm sick of finding spurious claims in these YE 'scientific' articles. Actual accredited scientific journals are fine.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

JC is the scientist

Yep, and im Elvis. :rolleyes:

Zombrex

daithifleming wrote: »

Yep, and im Elvis. :rolleyes:

LOL

JC is a scientist and my girlfriend is Nadine Coyle .... fantasy land is fun

Hot Dog

im thinking of doing some post grad work study here.

http://icr.edu/geology/info.html

So you think i will be able to exploit the growing economic boom in the global minerals industry with the mighty eduction of "GE 502 GEOLOGY OF THE GLOBAL FLOOD" on my CV? Senior field geo position no bother!

Eschatologist

GE 502 GEOLOGY OF THE GLOBAL FLOOD (3) - "Global flood theme is developed from ancient cultures and literature, especially explored by analysis of ancient Hebrew and Greek texts."

That's called arts and classics, not geology!

Ekancone

Wicknight wrote: »

LOL

JC is a scientist and my girlfriend is Nadine Coyle .... fantasy land is fun

Although he did say 'THE Scientist'. Perhaps that's just a nickname, he just goes around dressed in a lab coat pretending to be one.

2Scoops

I'm still waiting for creation scientists to publish their feedback and rejection letters from journals to prove that Big Science has pursuing an agenda against them...

Surely this would be the gold standard of evidence. Any proof of censorship at all, then? Hmm, dare I call 'shenanigans' on censorship of creation science??

Let's see the evidence! Why the fear?

wolfsbane

Hot Dog wrote: »

since we are posting links and not engaging in actual debate

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD750.html

No problem with that, especially as I am not an expert. No need to reinvent the wheel. Good to see both sides of the argument presented.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

I'm still waiting for creation scientists to publish their feedback and rejection letters from journals to prove that Big Science has pursuing an agenda against them...

Surely this would be the gold standard of evidence. Any proof of censorship at all, then? Hmm, dare I call 'shenanigans' on censorship of creation science??

Let's see the evidence! Why the fear?

Here's something to start with:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

Here's something to start with:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp

This shows that creations scientists are publishing non-creation science in normal journals. Surely evidence that there is NO DISCRIMINATION OR CENSORSHIP of creation scientists whatsoever!! What are you arguing, exactly??

wolfsbane

Eschatologist wrote: »

GE 502 GEOLOGY OF THE GLOBAL FLOOD (3) - "Global flood theme is developed from ancient cultures and literature, especially explored by analysis of ancient Hebrew and Greek texts."

That's called arts and classics, not geology!

The whole section reads:
GE 502 GEOLOGY OF THE GLOBAL FLOOD (3)
The student will gain experience with principles and interpretations in historical geology and geophysics including the primary geological and geophysical evidences for a global flood. Students explore how computer simulations using TERRA can illustrate theory of the mechanics of the global flood. Attention is paid to the composition and structure of the earth's crust and mantle. Course includes principles of sedimentology and stratigraphy for the purpose of interpreting strata and fossils, principles and observations for understanding catastrophic plate tectonics, principles and examples of the three styles of catastrophic volcanism as applied to the stratigraphic record, and, finally, principles and illustrations of exponential decline in process rates in recent history. Global flood theme is developed from ancient cultures and literature, especially explored by analysis of ancient Hebrew and Greek texts.
The culture and literature bit seems to me like the background perspective material I had to cover in courses, material not a part of the subject directly, but giving one an appreciation of its context.

Maybe science courses never discuss the history, sociology, etc. surrounding the subject?

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

This shows that creations scientists are publishing non-creation science in normal journals. Surely evidence that there is NO DISCRIMINATION OR CENSORSHIP of creation scientists whatsoever!! What are you arguing, exactly??

That their articles that are perceived to threaten evolutionary understanding are not published.

A bit from the link:

In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had ‘a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.’ Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, ‘It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.’ This admission is particularly significant since Science’s official letters policy is that they represent ‘the range of opinions received.’ e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions. Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones.

Humphreys’ letter and Ms Gilbert’s reply are reprinted in the book, Creation’s Tiny Mystery, by physicist Robert V. Gentry (Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee, 2nd edition, 1988.)

On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article * ‘Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps’ to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn’t want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn’t even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a ‘slight bias’ exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.

But I will seek out more examples shortly. (You are aware of the Smithsonian incident? See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0822sternberg.asp ).

Eschatologist

Touche, Wolfsbane! We do indeed learn about the history of science in some subjects. But for the most part, no, lectures consists of teaching the facts of the topic. If I wanted to know the history and philosophy of science I would have taken that as an elective or read popular science books, which I do.

"Global flood theme is developed from ancient cultures and literature, especially explored by analysis of ancient Hebrew and Greek texts."

I was merely reacting to my first impression of reading that flood paragraph. I just thought it was kind of ironic. I don't try to prove that Zeus created lightning from his master thunderbolt just because I read it in a piece of classic literature, which is what the Bible is.

wolfsbane

Eschatologist wrote: »

In the link posted above:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...late-tectonic

And I quote "...extremely rapid subduction during the Flood, followed by extremely slow plate velocities as the floodwaters retreated". This is supposed to explain why the Nazca trench sediments are undeformed as opposed to if slow subduction was at play. Okay, this model gives an 'explanation' of the sediment problem (leaving aside that the Nazca ridge has high erosion rates so the older deformed sediments are already subducted, Hampel et al., 2004) but leaves out how the mechanism actually works - how does a large volume of water actually affect plate tectonics?

So, water a few km deep (6-8?) if it's to erode mountains, versus the mantle at 2900 km thickness to drive plate motions. Which is the more satisfactory answer?

I also checked out the New Scientist reference (no. 11) at the end of the above article, cited by the young-Earth people in their favour when in fact the model presented in the New Scientist article is perfectly compatible with accepted old-Earth ideas - it even states in the NS article: "Pangaea began to split apart roughly 180 million years ago. 'Neither the existence of Pangaea nor the fact that our continental plates are moving has been in dispute for more than 20 years,' says John Baumgardner" - the very guy the YE people quote in their favour! Misrepresentation and misquotation of science to further these young-Earth ideas just discredits the article and their explanations for me. Are they trying to further scientific knowledge to benefit us all or further their own religious agendas?

Please, no more links, I'm sick of finding spurious claims in these YE 'scientific' articles. Actual accredited scientific journals are fine.

Just checked your understanding/explanation of the New Scientist reference (no. 11). It does not say the the model cannot support the old-Earth ideas; rather, that it can support the young Earth one.

You are reading bias into their statement. If you are genuine, then stick with the links; otherwise, bias is a good excuse not to hear anything uncomfortable.

If uniformitarian assumptions are discarded, however, and Snider’s original biblical proposal for continental “sprint” during the Genesis Flood is adopted, then a catastrophic plate tectonics model explains everything that slow-and-gradual plate tectonics does, plus most everything it can’t explain.9 Also, a 3-D supercomputer model of processes in the earth’s mantle has demonstrated that tectonic plate movements can indeed be rapid and catastrophic when a realistic deformation model for mantle rocks is included.10 And, even though it was developed by a creation scientist, this supercomputer 3-D plate tectonics modeling is acknowledged as the world’s best.11 [Emphasis mine].

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

The whole section reads:
GE 502 GEOLOGY OF THE GLOBAL FLOOD (3)
The student will gain experience with principles and interpretations in historical geology and geophysics including the primary geological and geophysical evidences for a global flood. Students explore how computer simulations using TERRA can illustrate theory of the mechanics of the global flood. Attention is paid to the composition and structure of the earth's crust and mantle. Course includes principles of sedimentology and stratigraphy for the purpose of interpreting strata and fossils, principles and observations for understanding catastrophic plate tectonics, principles and examples of the three styles of catastrophic volcanism as applied to the stratigraphic record, and, finally, principles and illustrations of exponential decline in process rates in recent history. Global flood theme is developed from ancient cultures and literature, especially explored by analysis of ancient Hebrew and Greek texts.
The culture and literature bit seems to me like the background perspective material I had to cover in courses, material not a part of the subject directly, but giving one an appreciation of its context.

Maybe science courses never discuss the history, sociology, etc. surrounding the subject?

Virtually never - one of science's failings. Depending on the institution, there may be a "History and/or Philosophy of Science" course.

wolfsbane wrote:

If uniformitarian assumptions are discarded, however, and Snider’s original biblical proposal for continental “sprint” during the Genesis Flood is adopted, then a catastrophic plate tectonics model explains everything that slow-and-gradual plate tectonics does, plus most everything it can’t explain.

Alas, that is not the case. Rapid movement - as has been pointed out before - requires a level of energy output that would melt the surface of the earth. It would produce completely different patterns in the rocks. It would have left us with a Himalayan sized mountain range through Donegal, unless you're proposing completely insane erosional rates. In short, it explains nothing, unless we not only abandon uniformitarian assumptions, but also most known physical constraints. It would take a miracle - to coin a phrase.

By the way, when you say "uniformitarian assumptions", a lot of people might think you are referring to uniformitarianism as in Unformitarianism-versus-Catastrophism. You're not, of course - you're referring to the assumption that "similar effects had similar causes" in the past - an assumption on which, let's face it, the study of history, archaeology, geology, etc etc are all based.

cordially,
Scofflaw