|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Scientific Dating Methods and Counter Claims
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Jamat , how do you explain the common ancestry of humans and apes. In your answer, bear in mind that only humans and apes are a vulnerable to the toxin in the bite of funnel web spiders.
Could you extend that a bit, please to settle my now rampaging curiousity?
I assume these are Australian funnel web spiders.
So why have a toxin which only affects creatures not indigenous to Australia?
I assume that the toxin does affect the normal prey of the funnel web spiders, rather smaller than primates, and you mean that only apes and humans among mammals are vulnerable to them.
How is it known that apes are vulnerable? Has it been scientifically tested in laboratory conditions, with antidote available, or have there been some nasty zoo accidents?
Are you sure the vulnerability does not extend to monkeys, either Old or New World, and does it apply to all apes, including gibbons?
I like to be sure of my facts before citing them in argument in support of my usual beliefs.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I assume these are Australian funnel web spiders.
I don't know for sure but I'd guess that that anecdote refers to male Atrax robustus spiders. T
quote:
How is it known that apes are vulnerable? Has it been scientifically tested in laboratory conditions, with antidote available, or have there been some nasty zoo accidents?
Are you sure the vulnerability does not extend to monkeys, either Old or New World, and does it apply to all apes, including gibbons?.
Their venom certainly has been tested on at least some non-human primates because they have been used to test anti-venom. Usually macaques of some kind I think. And rabbits can survive them because rabbits were reduced to produce the anti-venom, at least to start with. In other words you inject rabbits with the venom, then extract stuff from thei blood and inject it into the monkeys and so on... Its hard to imagine anyone injecting gibboins or gorillas with random tooxins though.
I don't know where the idea that the venom is much more dangerous to primates than other animals comes from, biut it certainly seems to be widespread. For example, it is mentioned, with references (which I haven;t followed up) in this paper here
quote:
So why have a toxin which only affects creatures not indigenous to Australia?
That actually makes evolutionary sense. If our ancestors were never exposed to the toxin, there is no downside to us losing the bits of our immune system that might have helped us resist them if we had been exposed.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
So why have a toxin which only affects creatures not indigenous to Australia?
That actually makes evolutionary sense. If our ancestors were never exposed to the toxin, there is no downside to us losing the bits of our immune system that might have helped us resist them if we had been exposed. [/QB]
Ah ha, I hadn't thought of it that way round - but I still assume there are some things in Oz which get killed by the stuff.
I liked your chalk piece - never thought of expressing it like that.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Yes, I was referring to our friend Atrax Robusta, common in this area. As they live in the ground, building work disturbs them, and we had quite a plague when a house and pool were being built on a block of land diagonally behind us. They also wander around in mating season and in prolonged periods of rain, esp in late summer.
Nothing has been found which is vulnerable to the toxin apart from primates, and certainly no other indigenous creatures; that seems to many learned in the field to confirm a common ancestry of humans and apes, and to run counter to the argument of special creation. To those of us less learned, it seems a pretty compelling argument also, smacking of common sense.
Your evolution argument is interesting Ken, but does not explain why rabbits, which arrived her 200 years ago, are not vulnerable.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Found this in Wikipedia.
quote:
Delta atracotoxin produces potentially fatal neurotoxic symptoms in primates by slowing the inactivation of sodium ion channels in autonomic and motor neurons. In the spiders' intended insect prey, the toxin exerts this same activity upon potassium and calcium ion channels.[1]
So it does affect indigenous animals.
I agree about the support for common ancestors.
Pity about the rabbits - they wouldn't have been such a plague, would they, if vulnerable.
[ 28. September 2012, 18:33: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
There were only around 10 confirmed human deaths in the 100 years preceding the discovery of the anti-venene. None since. When we had the plague of them, we would catch them and take them to the casualty section of a nearby hospital, from where they would go to laboratory for milking. With the blue-tongue now living in the garden, the spiders have become very rare, maybe one every couple of years. I suspect that the effect on insects and frogs is not to kill but to paralyse, so the spider can feed on the fluids of a living creature.
There is well-documented evidence of human habitation here for around 60,000 years. AFAIK, there is no evidence of any other primate living here. The limited fatal vulnerability to the bite of a funnelweb is a curiosity.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Point taken, Dafyd - I was trying to deal in broad strokes, not a rigorous thesis, but in the context it's as well to be precise.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Gumby - there's no answer to that question, because the objection to mainstream science is not scientific but theological. Always has been. It must be wrong, whatever the evidence, because theology has primacy and his theology says it's wrong.
Not disagreeing, but I'm hoping that Jamat will either come up with an answer or explicitly confirm that nothing would shake his worldview, rather than carefully avoiding the question.
The point is that Creationists often talk a good game about examining the evidence and finding it lacking, but unless they're prepared to say what it is they're looking for and haven't found, that's a meaningless statement. If we know what the perceived gap in the evidence is, then it can be addressed. Otherwise, if nothing could possibly change their minds, you can draw your own conclusions.
To be honest I don't think you can convince me because to believe in the millions of years I'd have to believe God has lied.
Your comment about 'world view' is telling. You admit tactly that that is what this discussion is about.
IME worldviews are either empirical and based in natural understandings or spiritual. They predicate a reality that is unseen. To me the Bible is God's message from the unseen world and it is also our access to that world.
God could have created the universe in 7 minutes. He says he created the world we inhabit in 7 days. You say: "No, he didn't."
What would cause any sane person to believe you over him?
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To be honest I don't think you can convince me because to believe in the millions of years I'd have to believe God has lied.
Your comment about 'world view' is telling. You admit tactly that that is what this discussion is about.
IME worldviews are either empirical and based in natural understandings or spiritual. They predicate a reality that is unseen. To me the Bible is God's message from the unseen world and it is also our access to that world.
God could have created the universe in 7 minutes. He says he created the world we inhabit in 7 days. You say: "No, he didn't."
What would cause any sane person to believe you over him?
Yep - there is your problem. You think that 'God says' where as, actually, all we have is what people say God says.
Enormous difference - and while you believe that the Bible is about 'God speaking' in such a literal way, you'll constantly look for convoluted ways to describe the world. Because, for you, the world has to fit 'the word' - and you'll make it fit come what may.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Jamat, it sounds as if you're hanging on to a reading of the Bible on creation that has only really been understood in that way for a relatively short time. That reading of the Bible means that you are really having to blinker yourself to the world around you so you can continue to believe that God hasn't lied. And the majority of Christians do not read the Bible as a literal book to be read as we now understand histories, since the Reformation and Age of Enlightenment when we divided fact and fiction in our writings.
We haven't just decided to believe in evolution - it's a gradual comprehension that this is how it must be from all the evidence that surrounds us.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To be honest I don't think you can convince me because to believe in the millions of years I'd have to believe God has lied.
The problem is, for me to accept your literal reading of the opening chapters of Genesis I'll have to believe God is a liar. There are (broadly speaking) three options:
- God created everything in the recent past, exactly as recorded by a literal reading of Genesis. In which case the testimony of the rocks that the world is very much older and developed over time (the sequences of sedimentary layers, fossils, various chronometers based on radioactive decay and other processes) is a colosal lie. Those rocks were, Genesis tells us, created by God and are good ... in which case God intended to lie to us through his creation.
- The world really is billions of years old and developed over time, and Genesis is a literal description of how the world came to be and is a lie.
- The world really is billions of years old and developed over time, and Genesis was never intended as a literal description of how the world came to be. In which case no one is telling porkies.
The first two options rely on a particular, and as I've said before, novel interpretation of Genesis. The third allows for a variety of interpretations of Genesis, some of which will be more reasonable than others.
BTW,
quote:
God could have created the universe in 7 minutes. He says he created the world we inhabit in 7 days.
I entirely agree creation could have happened over any period of time. That he created in 7 days is an interpretation that can not be supported by any interpretation of Genesis. Six days, yes. But, not 7.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Pretty much what Alan said.
Jamat: I'd like you to understand exactly what it is you're saying, and why it's so intensely damaging to the cause of Christianity.
You are proposing two things. Firstly, you are proposing that Jesus is Lord. Secondly, that the world, the universe is only 6000 or so years old.
How are you going to get to the point where people will listen to your first proposition if they know that your second is demonstrably false? There is no evidence whatsoever of a young Earth. Everything about the universe screams that it is old, from the faint starlight in the sky from far-distant galaxies to the very rocks under our feet.
And this is the mad, stupid thing. Even if everyone accepted that the world was made in 4000BC, we'd have to pretend that it was made 4.5by ago in order to do any useful geology and astronomy. You'd make liars of us all and it makes me angry.
I'm with Saint Augustine on this:
quote:
If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To be honest I don't think you can convince me because to believe in the millions of years I'd have to believe God has lied.
Your comment about 'world view' is telling. You admit tactly that that is what this discussion is about.
The problem is the selective way in which this metric is applied by you.
If adding up the list of begats in Genesis indicates a world only a few thousand years old, then the Universe is lying when it seems to be older.
On the other hand, if the Bible says the Earth is immobile and strongly implies that it's the Sun that goes around the Earth, well then that assertion of immobility is just a metaphor for the way the Earth moves. Or something. I'm not sure how you can conclude that accurately describing reality being different than the Bible means "God lied" in one case but not the other.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
IME worldviews are either empirical and based in natural understandings or spiritual. They predicate a reality that is unseen. To me the Bible is God's message from the unseen world and it is also our access to that world.
God could have created the universe in 7 minutes. He says he created the world we inhabit in 7 days. You say: "No, he didn't."
What would cause any sane person to believe you over him?
So how do "we know the Earh [sic] orbits the sun" if such an assertion is contrary to the Bible (which you equate with direct statements by God Himself)? Why would any sane person believe Galileo instead of God?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure how you can conclude that accurately describing reality being different than the Bible means "God lied" in one case but not the other.
This is the crux of the matter right here. Jamat gets to decide which things in the Bible can be taken figuratively, and which must be taken literally or God's a liar. That's really the end of any conversation about it, isn't it? I mean the teleos: it always comes to exactly this.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I suppose I have some sympathy - in the sense that we all bend our perceptions to fit our inner meta-narrative to some extent. We do tend to amplify the things that agree with us and downplay or explain away the things that don't.
But creationism is so pernicious because it seems so blind to the actual evidence. And it seems to require lumping so many things together which are not actually connected to each other - for example the accusation that the age of the earth was concocted by science to give time for the evolutionary theory, which is an idea I've actually read several times in their literature.
It seems to me to be very close to acupuncture or homeopathy in seeking to offer pseduo-scientific sounding explanations for phenomena which are in their very first steps clearly wrong.
What can you do? There is no way to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced.
--------------------
"..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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
... I don't think you can convince me because to believe in the millions of years I'd have to believe God has lied.
As Alan & Doc Tor just said, to believe that the world is only a few thousand years old I'd have to believe that God lied. That creation was a fake. The idea is blasphemous. One reason that I dislike YEC so much is that it is a claim that creation is fraudulent, a sort of virtual reality video-game world, and that makes God out to be a liar.
And by looking at the world as a kind of stage-set, a fake, special effects, YEC implies that the Incarnation is a sort of play-acting fraud as well. Jesus really came "in the flesh" into a real world. It fails the Saint John test:
quote:
By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I'm glad Doc Tor used the Augustine quote - mind you, I did in another place and got told in no uncertain terms that I had no right to quote a saint of his standing in a cause which he would not agree with, and should be ashamed.
I've just come across a tangential mis-historical reference in a piece of fiction in which a medieval scholar in Cambridge is known for his lecture on creationism! How could this be done in that past when the idea is so recent? Creation, yes, but the ism is, as someone has said above, a product of a very recent style of literalism. (And it was someone whose background material usually looks well researched.
I've tried to argue, in other places, as so many of you are doing, that to stick to the literal is to make the Earth and the cosmos great lies, but never succeeded in getting the point across. (I've just bought a book called "The rocks don't lie" to help with the argument. It has a lovely picture of an unconformity on the front, and I had a nice conversation with the lady in the closing book shop about her holiday going up the Moine Thrust in Scotland.)
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm glad Doc Tor used the Augustine quote - mind you, I did in another place and got told in no uncertain terms that I had no right to quote a saint of his standing in a cause which he would not agree with, and should be ashamed.
For those who don't know, the Augustine quote is *exactly about this subject*. The Greek-influenced North Africans knew a very great deal about astronomy and science, and it seems Mr Hippo got very cross with ill-educated Christian preachers making arses of themselves in public, contradicting well-known natural processes because the Bible told them otherwise.
Would that his good advice (summary, shut the fuck up, you ignorant tossers: you're making us all look bad) was heeded more fully today.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I've tried to argue, in other places, as so many of you are doing, that to stick to the literal is to make the Earth and the cosmos great lies, but never succeeded in getting the point across.
Creationists are by and large not point-get-across-to-able, or they wouldn't be creationists in the first place. It's not a scientific position for them, it's a faith position and it's a group membership position (this is what WE believe). It's hugely threatening to even consider that it might not be true. If you come to believe Evolution is true, you could lose your church home and all your friends. That's pretty darned frightening! So the vast majority just don't consider it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
It is the rejection of reason I find terrifying. And, I find the closed-minded acceptance a testament to the weakness of one's faith, not its strength.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I think it's largely just groupthink.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
That is scary as well. That is what gets people lynched by mobs.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Scary thought but true.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Jamat: Think of this. Whenever we look at an object, we see it as it was when the light we see left that object. We see the object as it was at a time in the past. For something in the same room, the time lapse is all but instantaneous. For the moon, it is not very long, but by the time we reach the sun, the time lapse is about 8 minutes. The light from the nearest star took 4 years to reach us. Do you agree so far?
Then consider our own Milky Way galaxy. Our star, the Sun, is in one of the spiral arms, and the light from the centre of the galaxy took around 25,000 years to reach here. Do you agree with this?
Move on to neighbouring galaxies, and the time for light from them to reach us has taken longer still. The most distant object discovered so far is so far away that the energy from that took well over 13 billion years to reach us. For all we know, there may be still more distant objects, with the energy from them yet to arrive, at least in a form which we may presently discern.
Given all this makes it very difficult to accept ++Ussher's calculation that the creation started on 24 Sept 4004 BC, with the preliminaries starting around 3 pm the afternoon before. But none of it makes it difficult to accept the Genesis 1 account in ways other than the very literal way in which you would have it interpreted. Start with Augustine of Hippo, writing and preaching 1600 years ago and well before the ability we now have to peer into the created universe existed. Move on from there. You will end up with a much mightier and more powerful Creator than your present concept permits.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
mousethief, here in the UK, the people I currently know who are creationists are not part of a church that teaches that. They are members of three churches and denominations, only one comes from a (very small and getting smaller) inerrant Bible believing church. To be creationist they've gone out of their way to find that interpretation - either by the annual faith camp they attend or other routes.
The other person I'm thinking of took herself out of the local churches because they weren't teaching properly (Biblical inerrancy and creationism) and she researched her arguments from American websites on the internet.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Jamat: Think of this. Whenever we look at an object, we see it as it was when the light we see left that object. We see the object as it was at a time in the past. For something in the same room, the time lapse is all but instantaneous. For the moon, it is not very long, but by the time we reach the sun, the time lapse is about 8 minutes. The light from the nearest star took 4 years to reach us. Do you agree so far?
Then consider our own Milky Way galaxy. Our star, the Sun, is in one of the spiral arms, and the light from the centre of the galaxy took around 25,000 years to reach here. Do you agree with this?
Move on to neighbouring galaxies, and the time for light from them to reach us has taken longer still. The most distant object discovered so far is so far away that the energy from that took well over 13 billion years to reach us. For all we know, there may be still more distant objects, with the energy from them yet to arrive, at least in a form which we may presently discern.
To be fair to Jamat, it is not obvious that the light is from very distant objects and there needs to be an amount of data processing in order to get to the point that you believe the light took 4 years to get to you.
Even if you agreed that some light took 4 years to get to earth, that is a long way from proving there is other light took 13 billion+ years to arrive.
I'm not an astromoner, I am not doubting their observations. But this argument is of no use in proving anything to someone who questions the basis of the science.
Moveover, I'm not sure it is reasonable to expect Jamat or any Creationist (or anyone else) to know in detail the basis of all modern scientific theory. However, we can at least expect them to know about the natural processes they claim are proving their position - and to have observed them 'in the wild' rather than via a very old, very flawed, book.
[ 30. September 2012, 15:27: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
--------------------
"..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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Moveover, I'm not sure it is reasonable to expect Jamat or any Creationist (or anyone else) to know in detail the basis of all modern scientific theory.
Actually, I disagree with this, because that's exactly what they expect of me.
My area of expertise is geology and geophysics, with a decent amount of cosmochemistry and astronomy (since my speciality was early solar system processes). Inside that, I'm still reasonably up to date. Outside of that, especially the squishy stuff of molecular biology and cell structure/processes, I am happy to say I'm more than a bit clueless.
Yet I don't know a single Creationist who isn't an expert in absolutely every area of science, who can not only refute my own arguments, but those of chemists, biologists, microbiologists and evolutionary biologists.
Why none of them have won the Nobel prize, or been elected Prime Minister/President is beyond me. They're so brainy!
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
God made the rocks, men wrote the Bible. Who do you trust, Jamat?
--------------------
I am largely against organised religion, which is why I am so fond of the C of E.
Posts: 514 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
God made the rocks, men wrote the Bible. Who do you trust, Jamat?
I think Jamat's answer would be that we only know about the rocks through the interpretations of men who set out to counteract the Bible, and the men who wrote that down were inspired by God to write the truth. This does not apply, in his world view, to the geologists.
Not that I agree with that, and think he should go out and look at some suitable exposures.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Hopefully not, Jamat: why must we all believe, interpret, understand the bible like a three year old ?
Because the alternative opens the floodgates for anything goes. It reduces Biblical understanding to the point where it is about as understandable as Nostradamus, and finally because If, ‘the cat sat on the mat’ as someone saw it there and told you, and that someone was God, then the cat very probably sat on the mat.
quote:
How can a scrap of poetry on the back of a fag packet edited throughout the entire bronze age be in conflict with science?
Some of Shakespeare’s sonnets were probably written on the backs of old envelopes.
quote:
How can science, i.e. what we KNOW using our God given senses and brains which have come up with sublime, abstract, perfect, theoretical and concretely REAL quantum mechanics; one of the foundations of creation (in which God had NO choice at all of course), how can that make God a liar ? How can God make God a liar ?
It doesn’t. The argument is not about deductive or reproducible outcomes. Nor is it about technology. The argument is about speculative interpretations of geological and anthropological evidence which are dictated by a materialistic world view which (IMV and others disagree obviously,) cannot be put to bed with supernaturalism. For the record, I am not a creationist, I am a supernaturalist.
quote:
The Word does not, cannot under any circumstances contradict the MERE word which is a HUMAN construct. An artefact. A multicultural 500 year span library from humanity's early-mid childhood. No matter that the humans concerned were in relationship with God. An APPARENT killer God. With their feet planted firmly in the mire.
This is a category error. Whose word are you talking about Martin? The word of the creator who spoke the universe into being surely has the ability to inspire similar creative utterances through chosen vessels called prophets and to explicate a narrative that can communicate across cultures and time zones? What colossal arrogance it would be (and I do not accuse you of this) to, knowing what it actually is, a message from a world of spirit spoken in terms of human comprehensibility,to then dismiss it as an artifact or human construct.
This would be such colossal arrogance as is spoken of by Paul in Romans ch 1 or indeed demonstrated by those who would seek to muzzle your own mendacious and obscure mutterings which I know are offered in the cause of the maintenance of your own mental health and mitigation of your fears which I do not share, contrary to all assertions, pleas and dismissals by yourself and other posters. quote:
With you and me.
You have elevated the word ABOVE the Word. This is true, childish, utter idolatry.
So again, what are you SO terrified of ? That's rhetorical in the sense that we're ALL psychotic and reconciled to it, unaware of it since Eden.
quote:
Terror of hell fire is common among those who sense the heat and sniff the smoke. As TS Eliot says: “Burning burning..”
quote:
We haven't the faintest idea how FALLEN we are.
Oh yes we do but do we have any idea of whose grip most of us are in? I think not.
quote:
It's obvious in other ways. You think, or rather feel or think experientially, as in how you cross the road, because you cannot analytically think about your thinking; you implicitly 'think' that if the Word contradicts the wooden word (a false dichotomy in the first place) - just like the Church confronted by Galileo - then the word is a lie and therefore the Word lies, therefore ... there is no Word. All is meaninglessness NOW and oblivion awaits NEX.....................................
Now you presume beyond what you know. We all need a cornerstone. The longer one is on the journey the more one realizes reason and the enlightenment thinking of hope that all will be one day explained in terms of naturalism is a dead cuckoo. A poetry of tears and a sad and dead end.
No, one needs a rock. Where then does one go? To the new age? To the ‘secret’ (LOL) to sprirtualism? To the liberal evangelical mishmash that one encounters so often here? No, there is one rock. But he is a total package. You can’t cherry pick the bits that you want. You can’t leave out the creation story.
quote:
Even when God WENT WITH THEIR NARRATIVE (which was Indo-European and more, if not universal) and told the Israelites that He was the God who made the world in seven days, He did NOT lie even though it's taken Him 13.6 Ga so far.
Except to you in your arrested development.
And you WON'T see this. And it is NOTHING to do with my failure of communication, except at the most sublime level as some things, most things CANNOT be communicated to someone whose disposition is seared, crushed by fear. Psychotic.
Like me.
Perhaps, with respect this says more about the writer than the intended recipient. God certainly did not lie. The rocks indeed tell a story. The God of the gaps is under no obligation to join the dots if he chooses not to. It is enough to know that the is as Fran Schaeffer said, ‘The God who Is There.’ If you care to look at the last chapters of Job and Romans Ch 9, then maybe you will believe God’s own testimony if you dismiss mine. (Which I’ve no doubt you will.)
quote:
NOTHING can shake faith. Faith is, should be, AWASH with doubt, with humanity. Jesus' was.
Oh really? Was it doubt that caused the blind to see and raised the dead and fed the 5000? But don’t worry, your celebration of inconsistency as part of the human story makes its own point. But if there is a certainty, why glorify the confused morass of pain in which we dwell?
quote:
I'm a creationist. I'm not a Christian materialist as most of the cognoscenti here are. I do not believe that universes have always happened. I believe that God made this, first universe. I do not believe that life arose spontaneously not because it can't, but because it DIDN'T based on Fermi's EASILY falsifiable paradox - show me an exoplanet with more than trace atmospheric oxygen. I do not believe that mind can arise spontaneously, of itself, endogenously, emergently in life.
I COULD BE WRONG. All it will take is a whiff of oxygen.
I used to worry, if I was honest, with the SAME fear you have. If there have always been universes, teaming with intelligent life - us - then whither God ?
Now I just don't care. Thank GOD for that. And, in the mean time, I can STILL happily, validly, faithfully, rationally believe in God being in full relation with His creation, MORE so. The more I read Brian McLaren. DESPITE reading this prophet of the postmodern. As well as because.
quote:
I don’t care either.
I cannot under any circumstances but brain damage have a wooden understanding of Genesis. But I'm pretty lignified. I can EASILY believe that God touched down and made a perfectly smooth insertion of paradise at Eden in to the 4 Ga evolved biosphere. So smooth that our DNA fits as if we'd evolved completely. As it should if we're to survive.
quote:
Think of the goldilocks zone then. Why is the cat sat on the mat ‘wooden’…if it did?
But I could be wrong. quote:
But the Bible cannot be. There’s the rub. You and me and the rest of us since Noah; we most certainly ARE wrong.
quote:
The first 15 minutes of 2001 A Space Odyssey could be more right. Or I could be REALLY wrong, and through sexual selection we ended up as neotenous, bipedal, right angle central nervous systemed, opposable thumbed, naked, beautiful, face to face love making, talking apes with inevitable self awareness.
It certainly post-hoc materialistically looks like it.
If the man originally came from the dust of the ground and the woman from his rib, then you are not the only one who is wrong.
quote:
EXCEPT for Fermi's paradox. We creationists can ignore Christian materialism due to it being hoist with its own petard in that. Until we get a whiff of oxygen.
Yeah that will be scary. But I'm scared all the time any way. Of looming redundancy, unemployemnt, immobility, impotence, increasing mental illness (acute and chronic intrusive thinking) and cognitive dissonance and impairment.
But all will be well and all IS well because I'm IN God and He's with me in it. He doesn't make it go away, He CAN'T, dementia and death will, but He DOES create space around it all. He IS bigger than me.
I think if you really have read Julian of Norwich, that you’ll know SHE wasn’t scared all the time.
quote:
He's bigger with you and your mental frailties, including YEC, too.
Love – Martin
quote:
If you are IN GOD, Martin then you shouldn’t be scared all the time.
Now I’m going to look up Fermi’s paradox.
[ 30. September 2012, 21:14: 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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Sorry, Jamat - this is almost completely incoherent. You've been around long enough to be able to use QUOTE properly, and preview post is always your friend. (but well done on the edit - better late than never. It doesn't change anything that follows)
From what I can decipher, you've made the decision to choose the interpretation of the Bible that makes you look like an idiot and God like a liar, and stick with that come Hell or high water. That's fine, but as you're so far from Christian orthodoxy in this matter I'd be consider you to be the liberal here, if not slipping off into the heretical.
Orthodoxy regarding the interface of science and scripture was set out pretty well by Augustine (see the partial quote above) - you appear to have absolutely no idea of the science behind what you assert, and very little understanding of the scriptures involved.
So well done. You've made everyone's job here just a little bit more difficult.
[ 30. September 2012, 21:25: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
God made the rocks, men wrote the Bible. Who do you trust, Jamat?
I think Jamat's answer would be that we only know about the rocks through the interpretations of men who set out to counteract the Bible, and the men who wrote that down were inspired by God to write the truth. This does not apply, in his world view, to the geologists.
Not that I agree with that, and think he should go out and look at some suitable exposures.
First Apologies for issues in post above. Computer crashed in middle of it.
You are right Penny S in what I would say about geologists. They are certainly less inspired by the Holy Spirit that the authors of scripture.
My favourite rock is a piece of petrified tree. I meditate on it constantly.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You are right Penny S in what I would say about geologists. They are certainly less inspired by the Holy Spirit that the authors of scripture.
Except you would be wrong even by your own lights, because the Bible disagrees with you.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You are right Penny S in what I would say about geologists. They are certainly less inspired by the Holy Spirit that the authors of scripture.
Except you would be wrong even by your own lights, because the Bible disagrees with you.
I was responding to martin above.
I hope he will read and react when allowed to by the admins. I'ts goodbye Martin, not goodnight. You are always in my prayers dear man.
It must be hard to be the arbiter of orthodoxy Doc tor. To which of the scriptures were you referring above?
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It must be hard to be the arbiter of orthodoxy Doc tor. To which of the scriptures were you referring above?
I am not the arbiter of orthodoxy. The Church has decided that there is no problem with an old earth, or evolution. The process started with Augustine, 1600 years ago - you, Jamat, are heterodox.
And all those scriptures saying that Christians are filled with the Holy Spirit? Are you so unaware of them?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It must be hard to be the arbiter of orthodoxy Doc tor. To which of the scriptures were you referring above?
I am not the arbiter of orthodoxy. The Church has decided that there is no problem with an old earth, or evolution. The process started with Augustine, 1600 years ago - you, Jamat, are heterodox.
And all those scriptures saying that Christians are filled with the Holy Spirit? Are you so unaware of them?
I have no idea to what you are referring here. sorry.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Doc tor: My area of expertise is geology and geophysics, with a decent amount of cosmochemistry and astronomy (since my speciality was early solar system processes).
So, you are the one who should be able to explain why.. is it Neptune? orbits horizontally and maybe why trees are sometimes found straddling coal seams in an upright position.
And while you are about it what do you make of the goldilocks zone? It is a great wonder to me that we are precisely where we are cosmically as we wouldn't survive anywhere else.
While you are about it.. ancient high technology? They seem to have had majorly clever engineers and maybe even electrical power. But they didn't have oil. Maybe as they hadn't discovered it or maybe because it wasn't there yet. All those fish hadn't been catastrophically entombed to create it?
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
And while you are about it what do you make of the goldilocks zone? It is a great wonder to me that we are precisely where we are cosmically as we wouldn't survive anywhere else.
This question seems akin to asking why the holes we find puddles in are always exactly the same shape as the puddles they contain! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I'm sure the odds against that happening every single time must be pretty unlikely.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
While you are about it.. ancient high technology? They seem to have had majorly clever engineers and maybe even electrical power. But they didn't have oil.
How "ancient" and how "high"? Are you positing the existence of Neolithic iPads? As for the question of oil, Middle Easterners have been using bitumen since Sumerian times. (Mostly as an adhesive.) The first historian to mention something we'd recognize as crude oil (i.e. a thick liquid) was Arrian in his biography of Alexander the Great, though he also mentions that the Persian locals had been using as a lubricant for cart axles when the Alexander's army happened by.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I'm not an astromoner, I am not doubting their observations. But this argument is of no use in proving anything to someone who questions the basis of the science.
Moveover, I'm not sure it is reasonable to expect Jamat or any Creationist (or anyone else) to know in detail the basis of all modern scientific theory. However, we can at least expect them to know about the natural processes they claim are proving their position - and to have observed them 'in the wild' rather than via a very old, very flawed, book.
i am not an astronomer either, but I am capable of reading and of thinking. True, I do not know or can I follow the mathematics behind the conclusions astronomers, and those with Doc Tor's expertise, reach, but I can understand the conclusions themselves and can see the work carried out to reach those conclusions. That includes a reading of the field observations against which the mathematics is tested. I can also read Augustine and understand his explanation of Genesis 1, along with works by others, and all with a critical mind. I think it reasonable to expect someone who propounds a viewpoint to be able properly to present an argument and to read and understand the contrary position.
[ 01. October 2012, 01:21: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
While you are about it.. ancient high technology? They seem to have had majorly clever engineers and maybe even electrical power. But they didn't have oil. Maybe as they hadn't discovered it or maybe because it wasn't there yet. All those fish hadn't been catastrophically entombed to create it?
Electrical power? Are you speaking of the Bagdhad Battery? Even if it were conclusively shown to be a battery, the amount of power produced would be insignificant. Yes, there were good engineers the world over, what does that have to do with anything?
As to the Goldilocks zone, what of it? Life as we know it fits the parameters of life as we know it because those parameters are the under which our planet developed. In other words, the conditions are "just right" because if they were not, we wouldn't be here. If there are other conditions, and there are plausible other biochemistries, we simply have not encountered them. And, given the massive size of our universe, there are very likely other life forms in it. Though it is entirely plausible we will never encounter them.
As to the quote:
trees are sometimes found straddling coal seams
Doc Tor can debunk this in clearer terms than I, but it is not what you think it is.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Because the alternative opens the floodgates for anything goes. It reduces Biblical understanding to the point where it is about as understandable as Nostradamus,
Who are you to tell God that God has to be more understandable to you than Nostradamus? God's thoughts are higher than your thoughts and God's ways are higher than your ways. You get the revelation God gave you. If you want to complain that God's revelation opens the floodgates for anything goes that's your problem.
quote:
and finally because If, ‘the cat sat on the mat’ as someone saw it there and told you, and that someone was God, then the cat very probably sat on the mat.
If the story talks about a cat with no paws and eyes or whiskers (like a day with no sun), and then tells a completely different story in which it was the mat is on top of the cat (or in which all the events happen in a different order), then that's a sign that it's a metaphorical cat and a metaphorical mat.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
And while you are about it what do you make of the goldilocks zone? It is a great wonder to me that we are precisely where we are cosmically as we wouldn't survive anywhere else.
It seems to me that you've answered your own point here: we wouldn't survive anywhere else.
--------------------
"..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
My background is organic chemistry, which crosses over with molecular biology, although I haven't done much on it for years. I can teach science to GCSE and I've proof read engineering to MEng over the past few years, taking in far more in than I ever wanted to know.
I'd completely forgotten about the Goldilocks Zone because it's not really thought about now. As the article I've linked to there says, bacteria and micro-organisms have been found in what were thought inhospitable environments on Earth - inside nuclear reactors, in sulphur springs and lakes, in the Arctic - which means the idea that the conditions for life are not as narrow as was thought in the 1970s when the phrase was coined.
In fact, the likelihood of life being found elsewhere is such that the Mars Curiosity* Rover is partly looking for evidence of life on Mars.
(And that does not make Fred Hoyles right either)
* I do wish they'd called it something else - I answer to Curiosity at Ship Meets and every time it's mentioned on the news it's like hearing my name.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Host Mode [ACTIVATE]
Jamat - I am referring to your post dated 30th September.
The quotes on this post are from one of Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard's posts on the Ooo, er, might I call Mark Betts to hell ? And Jamat ? Thread in Hell. Subsequent to this post, Martin PC not etc was given a temporary suspension by Rook.
Firstly, it is hardly fair to argue with a Shipmate when he/she cannot respond.
Equally reprehensible is the importation of quoted material from the Hell board (where the rules allow for more personal disagreement) to another Board, and certainly to do so without making this importation clear to those reading this DH thread.
Jamat, please:
a) use the Hell thread to respond material from that thread.
b) And in any case, on any of the Boards, cease and desist from arguing/debating with Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard until Rook (in his wisdom) lifts his suspension.
Host Mode [DEACTIVATE]
Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Alan Cresswell:The world really is billions of years old and developed over time, and Genesis was never intended as a literal description of how the world came to be. In which case no one is telling porkies.
So it comes back to whether the Biblical creation story is myth, allegory or narrative.
I guess you could look closely at interpretive principles here.
I think as I've stated before that the genre here is narrative. It has chronology, dates and names.
In support of myth, I suppose you've got the talking snake. But Rev 12 tells us that the snake is a metaphor for Satan. he is also called a dragon. So the symbolic name is traceable. He has a variety of nomenclaures in the Bible. Jesus referred to him as the prince of this world. He is also seen as a roaring lion. He is not human. Adam is. Because he is not human, he must be personified in terms of his qualities to be meaningful. He is a personal spiritual force. Consequently, I'd say he fits into the category of marrative.
If you look at genuine myth, Genesis stands well apart from say the phoebus myth or any other creation myth you can name.
If you accept the literary genre as narrative and that metaphor is not non-literal but a way of presenting reality in terms of comparisons and contrast, then your issue becomes: "I can't see it as literal because I know it isn't true."
But it is your world view that dictates a closed mind to the evidence. It is a vested interest in the billions of years that causes you to say the rocks tell the story of millions of years.
To me, the more I read, they tell the story of catastophism, of sudden sedimentation. There is a book by a lutheran minister Byron C Nelson called "The Deluge Story in Stone", that was published in 1929, (He died in 1972,) that I think documents scores of geological phenomena that are better explained by the deluge than by uniformitarianism.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I think as I've stated before that the genre here is narrative. It has chronology, dates and names.
What dates?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
Host Mode [ACTIVATE]
Jamat - I am referring to your post dated 30th September.
The quotes on this post are from one of Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard's posts on the Ooo, er, might I call Mark Betts to hell ? And Jamat ? Thread in Hell. Subsequent to this post, Martin PC not etc was given a temporary suspension by Rook.
Firstly, it is hardly fair to argue with a Shipmate when he/she cannot respond.
Equally reprehensible is the importation of quoted material from the Hell board (where the rules allow for more personal disagreement) to another Board, and certainly to do so without making this importation clear to those reading this DH thread.
Jamat, please:
a) use the Hell thread to respond material from that thread.
b) And in any case, on any of the Boards, cease and desist from arguing/debating with Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard until Rook (in his wisdom) lifts his suspension.
Host Mode [DEACTIVATE]
Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
Reply in styx.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
But it is your world view that dictates a closed mind to the evidence. It is a vested interest in the billions of years that causes you to say the rocks tell the story of millions of years.
Nope, I have no vested interest. William Smith had no vested interest. Nobody I know has any vested interest in believing the world is old. Why would they? I know at least half-a-dozen Christians whose lives would be considerably easier if the rock formations were obviously produced by a recent deluge. Why would they make up something that makes things more complex?
Clearly they don't need to make it more complex, because it is more complex. Nobody needs to make the thing look millions of years old, because it looks millions of years old. Even if you took issue with the accepted dating scheme, it is not possible to look at the evidence and do anything other than conclude that the deposits are old. A lot older than 4000 years.
quote:
To me, the more I read, they tell the story of catastophism, of sudden sedimentation. There is a book by a lutheran minister Byron C Nelson called "The Deluge Story in Stone", that was published in 1929, (He died in 1972,) that I think documents scores of geological phenomena that are better explained by the deluge than by uniformitarianism.
Then I'm sorry, we can only conclude that you're more interested in reading old books that confirm your nescience than the actual evidence shown by the rock deposits.
--------------------
"..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
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I think as I've stated before that the genre here is narrative. It has chronology, dates and names.
What dates?
Apologies. There are no specific dates. In the beginning implies a timeline.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I think as I've stated before that the genre here is narrative. It has chronology, dates and names.
What dates?
Apologies. There are no specific dates. In the beginning implies a timeline.
Now we seem to have strayed off from geology and into biblical history. It seems to me to be a strange point to make - that the snake is not to be taken literally as a talking snake and yet the rest of the story cannot be taken as myth. And the reason it cannot be taken as myth is because it doesn't look like other myths. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
I submit you're just saying the world must be the way you say so because you say so. The bible must mean what you say it means because you say so. Genesis must be metaphor and truth in exactly the points that you say so.
Or not. Nonsense.
--------------------
"..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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
