homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » Scientific Dating Methods and Counter Claims (Page 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Scientific Dating Methods and Counter Claims
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

Your 'faith' in radiometric dating depends on the amount of particular elements originally present in samples.

No, it doesn't, not quite.

quote:


It is nevertheless true that human records date only fom 6K years.

No its not. Even in Europe its more like 20,000. Africa, far more than that. Maybe over 100,000.

quote:



The solar system alone works so strangely that it defies naturalistic explanations.

No, its not.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jamat:
[qb]
Your 'faith' in radiometric dating depends on the amount of particular elements originally present in samples.

No, it doesn't, not quite.

quote:


It is nevertheless true that human records date only fom 6K years.

No its not. Even in Europe its more like 20,000. Africa, far more than that. Maybe over 100,000.

[QUOTE]
Really?

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, well Jamat. Records can take more forms than writing. Are you aware of the cave paintings at Lascaux; of the rock art of the ancient peoples of this land; and of the materials at Lake Mungo? These are all records, although not in lettered writing.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Really?

You know that website is shite, right? World Book Encyclopedia (1966) and an article in Reader's Digest (1984)? Those are your references? Really? [Killing me] Others have already pointed out that writing and language are not the only forms of human records, or evidence of human activity. Tools, culturally modified trees, remains of butchered animals, petroglyphs, middens ...

Examples of techologies based on the scientific understanding of radioactivity include not just dating methods, but cancer treatment, medical imaging, food sterilization, and luminous watch dials. All those technologies depend on knowing the rate of decay of specific isotopes, and they seem to work pretty reliably and reproducibly for us. One could try to argue against radioactive dating by claiming that isotopes decayed at significatly different rates a few thousand years ago than they do today. (And the nuclear reactions of the sun would also have to be different.) Any suggestions on how that might have happened and how it could be proved to have happened?

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
One could try to argue against radioactive dating by claiming that isotopes decayed at significatly different rates a few thousand years ago than they do today. (And the nuclear reactions of the sun would also have to be different.) Any suggestions on how that might have happened and how it could be proved to have happened?

Decreasing the half life of various isotopes by several orders of magnitude would leave some very clear signs. For instance, in order to achieve the current mix of lead and uranium in some of the older crystals dated in a few thousand years, radioactive decay would be releasing enough energy to either melt or explode the Earth. Since we inhabit a world that does not seem to have been molten or exploded in the recent past, the whole idea of "fast" radioactive decay seems untenable.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Novel interpretation? Novel because I do not think it has to be explained away I suppose?

No, novel as in "new". In the two millenia of Christian history, and the millenia of Jewish history before that, your interpretation has never been especially common. Even before we had evidence indicating that the earth is ancient Christian scholars dismissed the YEC interpretation based on internal evidence of the text. By the turn of the 20th century, with the exception of a very small strand of Lutherism and a few sects such as some 7th Day Adventists, all Christian scholars accepted that the earth is ancient

The YEC interpretation you appear to accept is an approach to Scripture that dates from the 1950s (with the publication of The Genesis Flood, in which Morris and Whitcombe popularised the obscure ideas of some 7th Day Adventists). It is 'novel' because it is an approach that is only 60 years old.

A quick look at Wiki says this is nonsense. A huge array of ancient authorities believed in a young earth.
Simply not true

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've been reading this thread with interest, though without commenting, as my "scientific" training (yes, I have an M.S., such as it is) is strictly on the soft-as-a-grape side.

Jamat: your Wiki article does seem to show lots of support from antiquity for a young earth.

Assuming (for the sake of argument -- I'm not qualified to judge the accuracy of the Wiki claims or whether all those ancient supporters amount to anything) the prevalence of such support, um, so what?

Do you believe in the four humors? There's considerable ancient support for that.

Do you agree that everything in the universe is fashioned out of four elements -- earth, air, fire, and water? There's considerable ancient support for that idea as well.

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997

 - Posted      Profile for pjkirk   Email pjkirk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Jamat: your Wiki article does seem to show lots of support from antiquity for a young earth.

Assuming (for the sake of argument -- I'm not qualified to judge the accuracy of the Wiki claims or whether all those ancient supporters amount to anything) the prevalence of such support, um, so what?[/QB]

Along with this, the character of their support is entirely different. If Paul, Peter, James, Timothy and Titus all believed in a Young Earth (not a given, since metaphorical readings of the Creation significantly predate them), they believed it out of naivete. Old YEC beliefs rested on the absence of a solid reason to believe otherwise. Sure, Augustine may have been wary of a literal Genesis, but undoubtedly the common stance viz Creation was YEC for essentially all of Christianity's history. The difference now is that it's held in opposition to millions of good reasons to believe in an old Earth.

--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)

Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
A huge array of ancient authorities believed in a young earth.

How on earth would they be authorities on something of which they had no understanding?
Dating methods are multi-disciplinary, repeatable and, as pointed out above, the same science powers many other technologies. Counter "theories" are none of that.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Hawk

Semi-social raptor
# 14289

 - Posted      Profile for Hawk   Author's homepage   Email Hawk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I do not deny my own agenda either. If I found I was wrong at the end of the day then I hope I would admit it. If that happened, I would be an atheist as if I were convinced the universe occurred by natural processes, I would see no benefit in having faith in a creator... if the root cannot support the branch, the tree falls

I understand this position and it was my own for some time. It is a doctrine that is preached in many churches, and presented in the strongest terms, repeatedly and powerfully. It is preached to make people fear for their soul if they shift their position on the supernatural special creation of a young earth one iota.

However it is a poor doctrine, and both damages our understanding of the Almighty, and damages our understanding of his creation – and our ability to fully engage with it as he intended.

I came to understand, through much soul searching, that my faith in God my Father should not and could not rest on the root of my understanding of special supernatural creation, but on God Himself.

You say “if the root cannot support the branch, the tree falls”. What does Jesus warn us about our foundation – the rock and the sand? Jesus claimed to be the Rock Himself – not anything else. If we build our faith on anything other than the person of Jesus then it will fall.

Many people fight against centuries of observable evidence, of what we see in front of our eyes every day. But after exhausting themselves fighting this bogeyman, eventually they may not be able to deny the massive weight of evidence any more, and their foundation crumbles. And, if they hold fast to this doctrine you promote, their faith in God will crumble along with it. That is why I don’t like Young Earth Creationism – it is a distraction from the real fight, and it diverts, exhausts and destroys the faith of many zealous Christians.

You claim that if the universe occurred by natural processes, you would see no benefit in having faith in a creator. I would argue that that is a fundamental misunderstanding of your God. He does not interact with us only through dramatic magical interventions in the usual order of things. To understand God’s sovereignty over natural processes, look at the man from Nazareth, who was born and grew naturally, slowly, according to the natural process, until, at God’s appointed time, he was old enough to take up his ministry. God could have easily incarnated fully formed, at 30 years old, falling from heaven already preaching the Good News. But that is not how God chooses to work.

It is important to understand that God is the God of the natural just as much as the supernatural. If not more so, since God created us to be natural creations, and we are in his image. Surely the Almighty is capable of being sovereign over millions of years of evolution just as much as over six days of things popping into existence.

--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer

See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts

Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I came to understand, through much soul searching, that my faith in God my Father should not and could not rest on the root of my understanding of special supernatural creation, but on God Himself.
But who is Your God? if he is divorced from the Bible he is probably the child of your mind..who you think he should be rather than who he is. But thanks for the thoughtful response.

Coming back to dating. There is the distant starlight issue creationsts have and the answer to that cannot be naturalistic unless the the speed of light is not or was not a constant.. But what of the horizon problem which I have never seen discussed here?

It states that the siz e of the universe precludes the sharing of light or energy between the most distant parts of the universe. Consequently the universe should not be the same tempreture in relative terms. Yet it is. This is a problem for the big bang.

[ 10. September 2012, 03:35: Message edited by: Jamat ]

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Inflation

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
But who is Your God? if he is divorced from the Bible he is probably the child of your mind..who you think he should be rather than who he is.

But the Bible doesn't directly say anything about the creationism/evolution controversy, for the simple and obvious reason that it pre-dates it. The scientific theory hadn't been conceived so the Bible need not be read as a commentary on it - whatever the human authors of the Bible wish to say, and whatever the Spirit of God wished to convey through their words, must have been intelligible to their audience without reference to the advances in biological understanding of the last two centuries. The primary sense of a Bible passage cannot possibly be to answer a question which had never been posed.

It's not absurd, of course, to believe that a divinely inspired text may have some hidden secondary meaning intended by God's knowledge but not the original author, but it is absurd, in my view, to think it obligatory to read-in one such secondary meaning which is (as far as our best understanding can discern) plainly false, and then say that the Biblical witness stands or falls on that particular reading-into the text being valid.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
I came to understand, through much soul searching, that my faith in God my Father should not and could not rest on the root of my understanding of special supernatural creation, but on God Himself.
But who is Your God? if he is divorced from the Bible he is probably the child of your mind..who you think he should be rather than who he is.
I think this is unfair, Jamat. Hawk's God is not divorced from the Bible, just from your particular interpretation of the Bible. Reading the Bible is not a simple thing - each part of it was written in a culture very different to where we are now, and we've also got to bear in mind the literary type of each book. Thinking we must simply interpret everything in the Bible absolutely literally ignores both these (IMO) important points.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To say nothing of the fact that, unless equipped with a highly-developed expertise in antique forms of Hebrew and Greek, we read the Bible in translation -- yet another process which involves interpretation.

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Coming back to dating. There is the distant starlight issue creationsts have and the answer to that cannot be naturalistic unless the the speed of light is not or was not a constant..

Heck, I'm still waiting for an explanation of how you reconcile heliocentrism with a strictly literal reading of the Bible. Complications arising from the finite speed of light seem secondary to the Bible's assertion that the Earth is immobile.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It states that the siz e of the universe precludes the sharing of light or energy between the most distant parts of the universe. Consequently the universe should not be the same tempreture in relative terms. Yet it is. This is a problem for the big bang.

Huh? I'm not sure how you're using the term "universe," here. Perhaps you're talking about space? Because the universe, at least as I understand that term, includes not only the nearly absolute 0 of so-called "empty" space, but also the interior of stars burning away at thousands of degrees Fahrenheit. The universe is not all the same temperature, any more than the surface of this planet is, or can be, at least in its present state.

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Coming back to dating. There is the distant starlight issue creationsts have and the answer to that cannot be naturalistic unless the the speed of light is not or was not a constant..

Heck, I'm still waiting for an explanation of how you reconcile heliocentrism with a strictly literal reading of the Bible. Complications arising from the finite speed of light seem secondary to the Bible's assertion that the Earth is immobile.
Ps 96:10? The Earth is established so that it cannot be moved?
Well I guess, since we know the Earh orbits the sun and rotates on its axis that this suggests that these things are established by God for it. Is this some kind of refutation of scripture?

I guess this points out the kinds of lengths people might go to when they want to denigrate and belittle something they deny. I previously did not consider your post worthy of comment.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Ps 96:10? The Earth is established so that it cannot be moved?
Well I guess, since we know the Earh orbits the sun and rotates on its axis that this suggests that these things are established by God for it. Is this some kind of refutation of scripture?

(emph. mine)

Yes! Scripture says "the earth is established so that it cannot be moved" -- yet we know it can! It does! It is moving constantly! This refutes the scripture!

Scripture: it doesn't move
Reality: it moves

Contradiction! Reality refutes Scripture.

What this of course refutes is a wooden, literal interpretation of that verse. People used to think the earth was unmovable, and indeed because of this verse persecuted the first brave souls who dared to suggest otherwise.

In other words, the accepted interpretation of this verse changed from a literal one to a figurative one.

Therefore what other verses that you take literally might need to be taken figuratively because of what we know from science? Since we know the universe is billions of years old, we cannot interpret the scriptures in such a way that demands the earth be only a few thousand years old.

Right?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
... Well I guess, since we know the Earh orbits the sun and rotates on its axis that this suggests that these things are established by God for it. Is this some kind of refutation of scripture? ...

[Roll Eyes] And how do you know that the Earth orbits the sun? Humans were able to figure out that the earth orbited around the sun long before spaceflight. Heliocentrism replaced other concepts (such as the Ptolemaic spheres, flat earth, hollow earth, etc.) because it explained and predicted the movements of the planets and other bodies in our sky BETTER THAN OTHER MODELS. In the same way, evolution is generally accepted as a better model to explain the diversity of life rather than God extracting ribs, hiding dinosaur carcasses, and mucking about with the laws of physics to mislead us. (Remember also that the theory of evolution says nothing about the origins of the universe or how the earliest life forms came into existence.)

I'll say it again: using the Bible as a scientific textbook makes about as much sense as looking for moral guidance in the instructions for my bread machine.

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
makes about as much sense as looking for moral guidance in the instructions for my bread machine.

Truly? Oh, bugger it! And I was making such progress.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
"Since we know the earth is billions of years old"
"If millions of years of death and extinction and disease really occurred, then God is like the wicked man of Proverbs 12:10 and He was doing exactly the opposite of what He told the Jews to do. The acceptance of millions of years is an assault on the character of Almighty God.

If God created over those millions of years, then He clearly was not intelligent enough and powerful enough to create a world right in the first place. Either He lacked the sovereign power to control His creation so that it did not destroy most of His previous work or He intentionally created obstacles to hinder Himself from accomplishing His intention of making a very good world. And then all along the way He kept making creatures very similar to the creatures that He had just destroyed by intention or by incompetence and impotence. What a monstrous God this would be! He would be less competent than the most incompetent engineer or construction worker. And He would be grossly unjust and unrighteous compared to the God of Isaiah who said that when the knowledge of Him fills the earth, animals will not hurt or kill each other or people (Isaiah 11:6–9 and 65:25).35 Such a cruel, bumbling, and weak God could not be trusted and would not be worthy of our worship." Terry Mortensen.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
The Great Gumby

Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989

 - Posted      Profile for The Great Gumby   Author's homepage   Email The Great Gumby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Are you saying, then, that it's not that you deny the overwhelming evidence to support an old Earth and evolution, but you feel it can't be true because it seems incompatible with your understanding of God's nature?

That's an interesting approach to scientific investigation.

How do you feel about worshipping a God who lies?

--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

A letter to my son about death

Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I would argue that it's Terry Mortensen (Who he?) who's not intelligent enough to grasp the glory of God's creation.

But what do I know? I'm only a filthy scientist who goes to church.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Okay, so I now know who Terry Mortenson is.

He's a theologian who's written about 19th geologists who didn't believe in an old Earth. Why am I supposed to care what he says about dating methods?

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm trying to get to grips with the Terry Mortenson argument, as briefly described in the quote. Let's see if I got this right:

  • God creates things that are good
  • Physical evolution of the universe and biological evolution on earth over billions of years requires the destruction of previous forms
  • That would require the destruction of something good, since creation is good
  • To destroy, or allow to be destroyed, something that is good is monsterous
  • God is not a monster, therefore something good cannot be destroyed by God, nor can God let it be destroyed (unless he is impotent to prevent it)
My biggest problem with that argument is that it contradicts Scripture. God, as described in Scripture, routinely destroys something good, or lets something good be destroyed. The Flood would be an early example - even if all the people destroyed were evil, the Flood would have wiped out countless billions of innocent creatures and radically reworked the geology of earth - destroying the good creation of God. Job was, by all accounts, a very good man yet God allowed all that he had be destroyed, practically destroying the man himself. Jesus was a man who was perfect and without sin, the very embodiment of the ultimate good, and God forsook him and let him be killed, destroying a very good life.

OK, so I'll grant that the destruction of the good wasn't the end. After the Flood the world was repopulated by plants nd animals. Job was restored to new wealth. Jesus was raised to new life. But, that's precisely the point; the old was destroyed making way for something new. Exactly like evolution.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
OK, so I'll grant that the destruction of the good wasn't the end. After the Flood the world was repopulated by plants nd animals. Job was restored to new wealth. Jesus was raised to new life. But, that's precisely the point; the old was destroyed making way for something new. Exactly like evolution.

I like how you've put this, thanks Alan. There's also the idea that evolution by natural selection wasn't part of God's intention for the world but only came about because of humanity's and / or the devil's rebellion against God.

Those are just two of the ways that theologians are wrestling with these issues, trying to reconcile Jamat's points about the apparent waste / evil in evolution with what all our scientific enquiry tells us (i.e. that evolution by natural selection is a reality). These theologians have come to various conclusions, and we could have a really interesting discussion about them, but I think what we can't do is simply dismiss the scientific evidence because it doesn't harmonise with our interpretation of the Bible.

As per mousethief's post above, that would be like reading the Bible passages that seem to speak of the earth being immobile and then denying the earth spins on its axis, rotates around the sun and moves through the galaxy along with the rest of our solar system. We've got to read the Bible more intelligently than this, I think.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jamat, have none of your relatives ever died? Do you have children of your own, or do other members of your family have children? Have you ever kept a garden, or worked on a farm? Surely if you had you would have seen that
quote:

He kept making creatures very similar to the creatures that He had just destroyed..."

is exactly what we see all around us in our normal lives.

And as Alan already said, according to the Bible God has already remade the world at least once, and intends to remake it again in the future.

Also the EVEN IF THE ARGUMENT YOU QUOTE WAS TRUE it would still be true if the world was only 6,000 years old. It would disprove Young Earth Creationism as well aqs Old Earth Creationism. "Change and decay all around I see". People and other living things die all the time. We get sick. We are often in pain. The exact argument you use here would be, has been, used by atheists to claim that God could not exist at all - or that if God did exist God would have to be cruel or incompetent.

The one doctrine of creation that argument *is* good against is so-called "Intelligent Design". Because those people explicitly claim that God created the world and made mistakes so we can spot how he did it by finding things that don't fit. I say "so-called" because one particular party line has claimed that name for itself, though in its plain meaning any theist ought to believe in intelligent design, whether or not they believe in evolution.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

But what of the horizon problem which I have never seen discussed here?

It states that the siz e of the universe precludes the sharing of light or energy between the most distant parts of the universe. Consequently the universe should not be the same tempreture in relative terms. Yet it is. This is a problem for the big bang.

I don't see why its a problem. Even if regions of the universe are now beyond each other's event horizons, the Big Bang idea is that they started off at (roughly) the same temperature when they were closer to each other in the past. So they would only "now" be at different temperatures if some process that acted differently in the differnet regions of the universe had made them lose or gain different amounts of heat. They are not passing heat between them over impossible distances, they carried the heat with them when they went there.

The word "now" in scare quotes because if some objects are beyond each others event horizons and also beyond ours there is no obvious and unambiguous way of specifying "now".


Pedantica aside: I'm not sure what "same temperature in relative terms" means, so I assume you mean "same temperature". I vaguely thought that temperatures are not relative, they are absolute - measurements of local temperature would not be affected by the frame of reference of the measurer - if there is a physicist in the house they might put me right on that - of course our estimates of the temerature of distant objects are through the radiation they give off which is affected by frame of reference, though presumably in predicatable ways...

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
...He lacked the sovereign power to control His creation so that it did not destroy most of His previous work...

The Biblical account of the Fall is an account of precisely that lack of power, isn't it?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hawk

Semi-social raptor
# 14289

 - Posted      Profile for Hawk   Author's homepage   Email Hawk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
"Since we know the earth is billions of years old"
"If millions of years of death and extinction and disease really occurred, then God is like the wicked man of Proverbs 12:10 and He was doing exactly the opposite of what He told the Jews to do. The acceptance of millions of years is an assault on the character of Almighty God.
...Such a cruel, bumbling, and weak God could not be trusted and would not be worthy of our worship." Terry Mortensen.

I think the key to understanding Terry’s argument is based on a literalist understanding of the Fall. The Fall neatly explains away all of Alan’s counter-arguments in that the Fall justifies all of God’s actions post-Eden since He is not destroying innocent, Holy stuff, but corrupted, evil stuff. All of creation has been tainted by Adam and Eve’s disobedience. Therefore while God does exactly the same things now in his management of creation, as he logically did during the posited billions of years of evolutionary history, he is allowed to do so now due to its corruption, while according to Terry, without the justification of the Fall this makes him a monster. Terry’s view of evolution places the whole period of evolution pre-Fall, to correspond with the Genesis account of Creation. Therefore, in this view - if this period was indeed ‘red in tooth and claw’ that means God creates things imperfectly. He doesn’t have the excuse of Adam’s petty scrumping to justify His otherwise monstrousness.

Terry’s argument is that if nature is filled with death and disease from the beginning then God didn’t make it perfect in the first place. And God didn’t do this because God is cruel and wicked. However, this argument can be applied to a post-Fall world as well.

Why didn’t God so create things that death and disease would never enter creation? Why did God allow Adam’s sin to corrupt everything, not only Adam himself, but all the animals and plants, seas and lands as well? If God is all-powerful then surely he could have made things so that Adam’s sin would be contained, or redeemed on the spot, rather than allowing it to spread and corrupt the entirety of creation for thousands of years before Jesus came to redeem it, and even then, not fully until the second coming in the unknown future. How could an omniscient God not have known that Adam would sin? And if he did know why didn’t He stop him?

Adam is not sovereign over creation, God is. Therefore ultimately, the current state of this imperfect creation must be God’s responsibility, as it occurs under God’s sovereignty, and all-powerful will.

Therefore all of our current ‘imperfect’ creation by God must fall under Terry Mortensen’s judgment as being the creation of a monster.

The answer to such questions is important and can be debated. The answer though cannot be to judge God a monster outside of the excuse provided by the actions of one of his creations. Such an excuse would be akin to a father beating his toddler son half to death and excusing himself by saying his son made him do it by backtalking him. I believe God is not such a monster, He is perfect, loving and Holy.

The acceptance of Terry Mortensen’s argument is an assault on the character of Almighty God. Jamat – if you, like Terry, consider your God to be a monster if He created a world filled with death, extinction and disease, then why do you worship Him – since this is the world you live in?

--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer

See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts

Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Indeed, I wonder about a God whose actions and possibilities must by definition be limited to the descriptions, ascriptions, and prescriptions set forth in a series of writings which, even if one believes them to have been divinely inspired, were actually encoded by highly fallible individuals who lacked any detailed practical knowledge of biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, etc.

To cling to the so-called (and clearly flawed) authority of scripture over and above the God one may believe in is to equate scripture to God, or even to supplant God with scripture.

That collection of ancient writings did not and could not create the universe.

Who is Jamat's God?

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
The acceptance of Terry Mortensen’s argument is an assault on the character of Almighty God.
Thank you for the thoughtful and concerned tone in your response.

Romans 9 in the passage where Paul says "who are you O man to answer back to God" Ro 9;20 would suggest that the argument put forward here was not unfamiliar to him.

To Paul though, the answer was not to 'justify' God or to impugn his character but to recognise the limitation of the created one's insight into the creator's motives.

What Paul did not do is what most here do do, that is, assume that their insights, their truth and their spin on emprical evidence trumps God's revelation of himself in scripture.

There is much trumpeting of statements like "The evidence shows.."

I do not believe evidence is any thing but a practical observation in any context. To be meaningful it needs to be linked to a theory and a theory is always linked to a world view.

'Dustbowl empiricism' was the term for the unfruitful experiment that tried to posit that evidence in itself tells a story.

Fossils tell a creationist a different story than they do an evolutionist. The issue is the world view that dictates the premises you start with, not the evidence.

I have a world view, I am not blinded to the fact that I have it and I hope it is Biblical, in the sense that it is based on two premises. The creator knows what he was about and second, he provided a library of revealed truth to guide the created ones..us.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:

Fossils tell a creationist a different story than they do an evolutionist. The issue is the world view that dictates the premises you start with, not the evidence.

No it isn't. The first people to look at the story of the fossils did not have a world view that demanded evolution, as the only world history they would have been familiar with was the Biblical one. Despite this world view, they realised that the story of the fossils did not fit it, and that the story of the Earth needed to be rethought. In one way you are right. The only way that the fossils tell a creationist story is if the readers adhere without question to the Bible, and ignore everything that disagrees with it.

What particular evidence would you cite to prove the fossils support creationism?

[ 15. September 2012, 21:07: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
The first people to look at the story of the fossils did not have a world view that demanded evolution, as the only world history they would have been familiar with was the Biblical one.
This is irrelevant to the point..viz they had a world view.

By the way is it Neptune that spins horizontally?

I wouldn't use the fossils to support a creationist view specifically. Creation cannot be proved in that manner. But.. no fossils are being created today right? They required an aqueous ctastrophe such as the Biblical deluge.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
But.. no fossils are being created today right?

What makes you think that?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
But.. no fossils are being created today right? They required an aqueous ctastrophe such as the Biblical deluge.

Actually, most seem to have been created in rather mundane circumstance. Water is not a requisite, much less a flood.
Once more, a "Biblical" deluge would result in a heterogeneous mix instead of the stratification which exists.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643

 - Posted      Profile for Carex   Email Carex   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I presume fossils continue to be created the same way they always have: plant or animal remains get buried in silt (at the bottom of a lake, river, ocean, etc.) and mineralize over tens of thousands of years as the sediments around them turn to rock under the pressure of later layers of deposits.

Then, at some point, it usually requires some sort of geologic shift to expose them to where we can find them, unless we are drilling under the ocean floor and bump into them.

But there is no reason to assume that the process isn't continuing just as it has in the past.


[Others probably have a better idea of the actual time required than I do.]

Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Fossilization

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is a whole branch of study about it, called taphonomy.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
The first people to look at the story of the fossils did not have a world view that demanded evolution, as the only world history they would have been familiar with was the Biblical one.
This is irrelevant to the point..viz they had a world view.

By the way is it Neptune that spins horizontally?

I wouldn't use the fossils to support a creationist view specifically. Creation cannot be proved in that manner. But.. no fossils are being created today right? They required an aqueous ctastrophe such as the Biblical deluge.

Not really. We have a lovely collection of fossils in downtown Los Angeles of animals that got stuck in some quite shallow ponds of water that covered quite deep ponds of asphalt. And nary a dinosaur among them. Just mammoths, saber tooth cats, giant sloths, dire wolves, etc.

[ 16. September 2012, 10:30: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
... By the way is it Neptune that spins horizontally? ...

"Horizontally" relative to what? Are you talking about the rotation of the planet itself or its orbit around the sun or the orbit's angle to the ecliptic? And if so, so what? You keep bringing up various details of planetary motion, but you haven't explained how it supports your point of view.

To get off the porch and play with the big dogs, you have to do the following:
a) define what you mean by "spin"
b) explain why you or your Bible would predict that its spin *shouldn't* be "horizontal"
c) make observations and measurements of the "spin", and finally,
d) how do those measurements compare with your prediction?

So, care to unpack your Neptune comment?

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
[Romans 9 in the passage where Paul says "who are you O man to answer back to God" Ro 9;20 would suggest that the argument put forward here was not unfamiliar to him.

To Paul though, the answer was not to 'justify' God or to impugn his character but to recognise the limitation of the created one's insight into the creator's motives.

So why do you call God a 'wicked man', say that God is 'not intelligent' or 'not powerful enough' to make the world in a way that suits you?

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
[Romans 9 in the passage where Paul says "who are you O man to answer back to God" Ro 9;20 would suggest that the argument put forward here was not unfamiliar to him.

To Paul though, the answer was not to 'justify' God or to impugn his character but to recognise the limitation of the created one's insight into the creator's motives.

So why do you call God a 'wicked man', say that God is 'not intelligent' or 'not powerful enough' to make the world in a way that suits you?
I am not sure what you are saying.

Well, are there any naturally occuring fossils happening these days that I don't know about? Even if there were, it is surely not on any scale of what we find happened in the past.

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I am not sure what you are saying.

Well, are there any naturally occuring fossils happening these days that I don't know about? Even if there were, it is surely not on any scale of what we find happened in the past.

That is a very odd argument. To the first part, yes there are undoubtedly fossils happening these days that you don't know about.

As to the second, clearly in the present there are less of anything than there were in the past, because the past is a lot longer than the present.

I note that you have failed to come up with any explanation of geological strata, not to mention types of rock, which vary considerably and would not be produced in a flood scenario.

A very large percentage of all fossils are found in rocks which are formed today only in very shallow seas (and not in any way associated with floods). That alone should tell you either a) the world is old or b) this God you believe in is a liar and is messing with your mind.

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:

A very large percentage of all fossils are found in rocks which are formed today only in very shallow seas (and not in any way associated with floods). That alone should tell you either a) the world is old or b) this God you believe in is a liar and is messing with your mind.
More here
Genesis Flood Insights More Relevant Today than Ever
by Frank Sherwin, M.A., & Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Scientific observations made in the seminal book The Genesis Flood are even more scientifically valid today than when they were first written. Although subsequent research has shown a few to be inaccurate, most of the perspectives that were laid out by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris in their 1961 publication have been verified beyond reasonable doubt by ongoing observations.

This is amazing, considering how geologic interpretation has changed since the 1950s. For example, plate tectonics has become a core model and catastrophic floods are now invoked to explain most sedimentary rock. Below are some Genesis Flood insights that science has clearly validated.

Catastrophic Sedimentary Deposits

Drs. Whitcomb and Morris noted agreement between some basic implications of a world-destroying Flood and large-scale observations from the earth’s surface. For example, since “almost all of the sedimentary rocks of the earth…have been laid down by moving waters,” it is legitimate to consider flooding as the primary cause.1

The bulk of mountains and continents are comprised of sedimentary mudstones of some type. When The Genesis Flood was written, mainstream geologists believed that certain mudstones could only form by slow accumulation of sediments in the bottom of calm, shallow water bodies. But in 1980, layered mudstones resulted from the Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption. Then in 2009, a paper in Science caught up with Whitcomb and Morris, saying, “Mudstones can be deposited under more energetic conditions than widely assumed, requiring a reappraisal of many geologic records.”2

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
[Romans 9 in the passage where Paul says "who are you O man to answer back to God" Ro 9;20 would suggest that the argument put forward here was not unfamiliar to him.

To Paul though, the answer was not to 'justify' God or to impugn his character but to recognise the limitation of the created one's insight into the creator's motives.

So why do you call God a 'wicked man', say that God is 'not intelligent' or 'not powerful enough' to make the world in a way that suits you?
I am not sure what you are saying.
Here you wrote:
quote:
If millions of years of death and extinction and disease really occurred, then God is like the wicked man of Proverbs 12:10 and He was doing exactly the opposite of what He told the Jews to do. The acceptance of millions of years is an assault on the character of Almighty God.

If God created over those millions of years, then He clearly was not intelligent enough and powerful enough to create a world right in the first place.

If Hawk's argument was answering back to God or impugning God's character or justifying God, then you and Terry Mortensen are also answering back to God and impugning God's character. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

quote:
Well, are there any naturally occuring fossils happening these days that I don't know about? Even if there were, it is surely not on any scale of what we find happened in the past.
There's no reason to suppose that fossils aren't developing. A fossil starts to develop any time a woody plant or an animal with a skeleton or exoskeleton dies and lands in an area of mud or silt and the corpse isn't disturbed by scavengers. (I assume that by fossil we mean something that has undergone a process of mineralisation.)
The scale of things we find happening in the past is of the order of hundreds of millions of years. That's a lot of time to produce a lot of fossils.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

Genesis Flood Insights More Relevant Today than Ever
by Frank Sherwin, M.A., & Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Scientific observations made in the seminal book The Genesis Flood are even more scientifically valid today than when they were first written. Although subsequent research has shown a few to be inaccurate, most of the perspectives that were laid out by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris in their 1961 publication have been verified beyond reasonable doubt by ongoing observations.

Bullshit. I'm sorry, stop reading books by the Institute of Creation Research and get out there and look at it for yourself. There are thousands of metres of limestone. Today this is laid down in hot shallow seas at a rate of mm per year. Ask yourself what scenario would have taken place for a flood to have created this kind of material. You're into the realms of total make-believe.

quote:
This is amazing, considering how geologic interpretation has changed since the 1950s. For example, plate tectonics has become a core model and catastrophic floods are now invoked to explain most sedimentary rock. Below are some Genesis Flood insights that science has clearly validated.
Rubbish. I don't think you know anything about sedimentary rocks. Limestone are certainly not made by catastrophic floods.

quote:
Catastrophic Sedimentary Deposits

Drs. Whitcomb and Morris noted agreement between some basic implications of a world-destroying Flood and large-scale observations from the earth’s surface. For example, since “almost all of the sedimentary rocks of the earth…have been laid down by moving waters,” it is legitimate to consider flooding as the primary cause.1

Totally lacking in logical argument. There are different kinds of waters, there are different kinds of seas, there are different kinds of movements. You can't get shallow sea rocks laid down in a catastrophic flood. The fact that the two ideas involve water is of no consequence - one is measurable and provable, one is a simple unproven assertion.

quote:
The bulk of mountains and continents are comprised of sedimentary mudstones of some type. When The Genesis Flood was written, mainstream geologists believed that certain mudstones could only form by slow accumulation of sediments in the bottom of calm, shallow water bodies. But in 1980, layered mudstones resulted from the Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption. Then in 2009, a paper in Science caught up with Whitcomb and Morris, saying, “Mudstones can be deposited under more energetic conditions than widely assumed, requiring a reappraisal of many geologic records.”2
Utter unadulterated rubbish. I think you need to get out more and have a look at more mountains and then tell me they're made of 'mudstone'.

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jamat, do you ever check the authors you cite? To see what their expertise is and how much they've published?

Your argument there is straight from this - an article from the Institute for Creation Research, and of the 15 references they cite, only 2 are not creation research "journals" or conference papers, and those two only reference minor parts of the argument - that's really not peer reviewing as the scientific community would understand it. This is self-reinforcing ideology.

The only entry I can find for Frank Sherwin is from, you've guessed it, the Institute for Creation Research. The fact that there is no wikipedia entry Frank Sherwin rings alarm bells with me immediately - and no, creationwiki does not count, which is where I found an article on Brian Morris. John Whitcomb has a wikipedia entry but as a theologian, as does Henry M Morris but again as a creationist.

Quoting from the Wikipedia article on Henry M Morris:
quote:
Morris' work with John C. Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood, has been criticized for taking quotes out of context and misquoting sources. For example, in one instance, a source which read "the sea which vanished so many million years ago" was quoted as "the sea which vanished so many years ago." Geologist John G. Solum has criticized the work for being inaccurate. Solum noted "Whitcomb and Morris are mistaken about the nature of the rocks associated with thrust faults. Their claim about fossils is based on a YEC misunderstanding of how rocks are dated relative to each other, and how the geologic column was constructed." In fact Solum noted, "Morris' explanation of relative dating is not 'somewhat oversimplified' it is entirely incorrect."


--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well, are there any naturally occuring fossils happening these days that I don't know about? Even if there were, it is surely not on any scale of what we find happened in the past.

I recall a similar point being argued here a few years ago and the point being made (I think by ken) that there are far too many fossils and animal/plant remains generally on Earth for the Earth to have sustained at any one time. One global catastrophe would not suffice to explain the records of life in Earth's geology. The Genesis flood, even if it happened exactly as described, and even if every single one of its victims had been preserved in meticulously sorted strata, could not have killed as many creatures as we have remains.

Or so it was confidently asserted by people who know more about this than I do, and not refuted by their opponents.

[X-posted with long ranger, who makes a similar point with the limestone example]

[ 17. September 2012, 09:27: Message edited by: Eliab ]

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I recall a similar point being argued here a few years ago and the point being made (I think by ken)...

I overestimated - it wasn't as long ago as that, it was in December 2010 near the bottom of page 1 of this very thread. But I was right about it being by ken and there having been no creationist rebuttal.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools