|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Scientific Dating Methods and Counter Claims
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
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.
"In the Beginning" doesn't imply a timeline. It's barely more than "Once upon a time." It doesn't even say what the beginning is the beginning OF. It certainly doesn't say anything about how long ago this was. Just "the beginning." It's very precise -- the terminus of a line segment -- and also very vague -- WHAT line segment?
Chronology? Well, 7 days are mentioned, although it's not clear what is meant by "day" since the sun isn't created until day -- what is it, 3? So the "chronology" is clearly metaphorical at least in part.
And the names are pretty iffy too. "Adam" means "man."
It doesn't exactly scream "history." It whispers "myth" in a fairly husky voice.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
So it comes back to whether the Biblical creation story is myth, allegory or narrative.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Your comment about 'world view' is telling. You admit tactly that that is what this discussion is about.
Jamat, I think that you're spot on with both these two observations. They're exactly right.
Regarding the first, I presume that you aren't bothered whether (for example) there was or wasn't really a man who travelled to Jericho, got mugged, then got helped by a Samaritan. Because you probably (reasonably) believe that a parable is a story with a message, and its basis in fact is neither here nor there. So let's say we met a Christian whose comment on Jesus' words "There once was a man who travelled..." was that there MUST have really been a man. Otherwise Jesus is lying. And if Jesus was lying, then the whole of Christianity falls down. It wouldn't matter how much we told them that it doesn't, and all they have to do is understand the literary nature of a parable, and it's then really not an issue. If they simply asserted that the only way to understand Jesus words was literally, then there wouldn't be space for much more discussion.
Now the irony is that we'll never be able to show whether or not the man in Jesus story was real or fictional. So someone who only understands parables literally would be able to comfortably go on in that belief without much challenge. However, when it comes to how the earth was formed, we do know a lot. Not everything, but enough to be able to comfortably say that Young Earth Creationism is not true.
So just as we need to read parables as stories, not necessarily literal events, we need to read the Genesis myths as just that. Myths, not historical records. There's a lot of truth in myths, and usually they're grounded in some kind of historical reality. Acknowledging the first few chapters of Genesis as a creation poem within a larger myth narrative is not saying that God is a liar, just as saying that if the man the Samaritan helped didn't exist then Jesus is a liar. It's just recognising different types of literature.
Which takes us to the second point, that of worldview. I think you're conflating two things. The first is a certain systematic theology which requires a historical fall, and the second is "what the bible says". So when you tell us that
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You believe that scripture is God-breathed or you don't. If it is and you ignore it then you place yourself in the path of those who refuse to have ears.
the problem, as others have pointed out to you, is that although you're imply that we ignore Scripture, that's not true. We're just ignoring (or dismissing) your interpretation of scripture, which is defined by a world-view - a systematic theology that requires a historic fall. That systematic theology is NOT the bible. It's an interpretation of the bible, and one that I believe is wrong.
It's your worldview that is colouring the way you read the bible, and the way you look at geological evidence.
The quote from Augustine is so apt. I remember getting fairly heavy on ByHisBlood in Hell (during his short time here) over this issue when it came up, maybe a bit harshly. But it's a big deal, because it pushes people away from Christ, not towards.
If we told the world that they could only become Christians if they believed that the sky is green with pink polka-dots, there wouldn't be any new Christians. Because they'd just have to look out their window to see that it's not true. That's what's happening here too. YECism pushes people away from Christ, not towards.
I'm no big fan of Augustine, but he understood the underlying principles on this issue really well. Given the knowledge at the time, (AFAIK) he settled on believing in a literal 6-day creation. Fair enough. But I have no doubt that had he lived now, he'd have been vehemently arguing alongside Alan and the rest here, with probably stronger words than they've used. Because he understood how our knowledge of the universe and scriptural and theological truth are meant to work together, and how an abuse of that is an insult to Christ.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
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.
An admirably frank response.
Do I understand your position correctly that if (as has been asserted on this thread) there are simply far too many fossils and other remains for any plausible 6000 year natural history to account for them all, you would conclude not that the earth is old, but that it was created 6000 years ago with a 'back story' written into the rocks? There would have to be fossil remains of animals which never actually lived.
In the same way, wouldn't you need to say that light was created as if it had travelled from a distant star, but which in fact originated not in the star itself, but from God's creative act, to give the world an astronomical back story?
If so, why are you arguing against "scientific dating methods" at all? You can (and, I think, must) concede that there are at least some details which God made to look older than they are. You can argue that this need not make God "a liar", I think, but that then becomes the real point of contention.
It seems to me that if your position really is 'nothing would convince me', not even kilometre-thick deposits of more remains than could have existed in the vicinity over anything like 6000 years, you are necessarily committed to the argument that "what we see now isn't necessarily what really happened". Arguing the science on one or other specific dating method might delay the crisis point where you have to say that, but I think it's pretty clear that you have to say it eventually, and your case stands or falls on that being a respectable position. Are you prepared to defend it?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
That Baghdad battery can have been made and used without any concept of what was being used by applying the principles of alchemy (according to a hypothesis I have developed based on the forms and the materials of the structure) and then using it for plating metal objects (a use which has been observed).
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
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
Neptune's orbit is perfectly normal. Do you mean Uranus' axial tilt? No-one knows for sure, but most likely a collision with a proto-planet is the cause. It's hardly "Oh shit, mainstream astronomy is bunk, therefore Goddidit". I can see you see this as a silver bullet against the scientific nosferatu, but it misses badly on three counts:
1. You got the wrong planet
2. You got the wrong feature
3. It's explanation does not require a special creation by God.
I expect you got that snippet free from some LCW (Lying Creationist Weasel) website, but if you got it from a book then whatever you paid, you were robbed.
quote:
and maybe why trees are sometimes found straddling coal seams in an upright position.
There aren't to the best of my knowledge. There are trees spanning palaeosoils, limestone strata and so on. They're not a mystery; they've been known about for over a hundred years and a mainstream model of how they form has been in place for the same time.
[i]Strata do not always form at the same speed. There are periods of rapid deposition - there's an inch of mud at the bottom of my garden pond that formed in a month, and would make a measurable layer. At other times, and in other situations, deposition is slow. We know the mechanisms, we know how these things happen. And before you say that we can't be sure, that doesn't matter, because you're trying to claim that these things are fatal for mainstream science; to show that isn't so it is necessary only to show how they are not inexplicable.
quote:
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.
Puddles, holes, etc. Others have covered this one rather well. If we were a bit further from the sun no doubt we'd be a bit more like Cardassians.
quote:
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?
You know, we do have oil. And do you know how we find it? We use the predictions of mainstream science to reconstruct natural history to tell us where to drill. Do you know of any oil companies using creationist models? How are they doing? Have you bought shares?
[ 01. October 2012, 10:43: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
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.
In terms of the literary genres of the Bible, this article is a very good and accessible account of the literary structure and genre of Genesis 1 and 2 by Daniel Harlow, Prof of Religion at Calvin College: Creation According to Genesis: Literary Genre, Cultural Context, Theological Truth. Please take the time to read it Jamat, you will find it very informative of the position others on this thread who oppose your interpretation have, even if you do not find it wholly convincing yourself. It is vital though that you make yourself fully aware of the view you are arguing against (even if it is just to argue against it more effectively).
In terms of the similarities of Genesis (and the Bible as a whole) to ancient pagan myths (in an awareness of them, and refutation of their theology only of course) Page 172 is very useful.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
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."
It is interesting that you (once again) claim that though bits of the story can be adequately described as symbolic/allegorical (the talking snake isn’t a real talking snake) you still claim that the whole thing cannot possibly be symbolic/allegorical or this would make God a liar. In other places on this and similar threads posters have pointed out the fallacy of this argument, that parts of the Bible talk about storehouses of heaven, and windows in the sky through which hail and rain falls. Yet since we now know the sky is not solid, with windows in it, we can explain these away as symbolic. Yet still the idea of doing this with other symbolic descriptions of creation in the same or similar passages remains utterly repellent to you? Read Harlow’s article on page 175 for his argument on this:
quote:
Evidently, ancient Near Easterners conceived of the sky as a transparent, glass-like shell. The sky-dome has set within it the sun, moon, and other heavenly bodies. The dome also has windows or casements cut into it (for example, Gen. 7:11; 8:2; Isa. 24:18; Mal. 3:10) through which come rain, snow, hail, and wind, elements that have their own storehouses above the sky (Job 38:22; Ps. 135:7; Jer. 10:13; 51:16). Above the sky-dome is a vast ocean of water (for example, Ps. 148:4; see also 2 Esdras 4:7)... Although the majority of the references given above come from poetic sections of the Old Testament, a few derive from prose narratives such as Deuteronomy and the books of Samuel …So even though Old Testament descriptions of the physical cosmos occur mainly in poetic passages, they seem to be more than just figurative language. Of course we must take them as such, but they probably represent how the ancient Israelites actually conceived the physical make-up of the world….If we were to insist that the Bible gives an accurate picture of the physical cosmos, then to do so with integrity, we would have to believe that the earth is flat, immobile, and resting on pillars; that the sky is solid and has windows in it; that the sun, moon, and stars are set in the sky and move along it like light bulbs along a track; that the sun literally rises, moves, and sets; that there is an ocean of water surrounding the earth; and that beyond the waters above the sky is the very heaven of God. That’s what the Bible says.
As you can see, to claim as you do that parts of Genesis are indeed intended to portray the author’s literal understanding of the cosmos, and bits aren’t, is to be dishonest to the text. The whole of it is intended to portray the contemporary knowledge of the earth and the cosmos surrounding it – according to the best understanding of the age it was written. It was wholly a product of its time.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I guess you could look closely at interpretive principles here.
I think that is very sensible. But your principles you use to define genre appear vague and unsubstantiated. Please take a little more time to analyse the text before leaping to your pre-conceived conclusions. Compare it to the other texts in the Bible, and ask yourself, does it honestly seem similar to the narrative histories/biographies of Samuel and Kings – with their attempted placing within a specific historical framework, and wider political context. The way that the narrative histories of the Israelites were written are very different to Genesis. You must be able to see this?
Read Harlow’s article – page 169-70 and 180-1for his analysis and conclusions about the literary genre.
quote:
The literary genre of Genesis 1 may be classified broadly as prose narrative. (Even the label narrative is potentially misleading, though, since Genesis 1 has no plot and no character development.) It is not written in Hebrew poetry, since it lacks parallelism, but it is not composed in typical Hebrew prose, either. Its syntax or sentence construction is different in degree if not in kind from what we find in normal narrative prose. It is marked by formulaic repetitions, tight symmetries, and an elevated style. There is nothing quite like it anywhere in the Hebrew Bible, certainly not among Old Testament historical narratives. In its literary compactness, exalted tone and solemn contents, it most resembles passages such as Psalm 104, Job 38, and Proverbs 8––all of which are in Hebrew poetry.
When taken on its own terms and read in its own context, it shows itself not to be a historical narrative and certainly not a scientific one. On the one hand, Genesis 1 is too stylized, too repetitious, and too systematic to be historical writing. If we look for comparable passages elsewhere in the Bible, we will not find them in the historical narratives of the Old or New Testament but in the Psalms and in a passage like the prologue to the Gospel of John. On the other hand, Genesis 1 is too lapidary, too restricted to the bare essentials, and too contrary to empirical reality to be scientific writing.
I cannot think of any one label that characterizes the literary genre of Genesis 1 best. Just above I used the word credo. Other labels such as edict or proclamation or manifesto would be suitable. Genesis 1 tells us nothing factual about the age or size of the universe, about the physical processes by which either the earth or life on earth developed, or about the order in which different forms of life emerged on our planet. Instead, it affirms the sovereignty of God, the goodness of creation, and the dignity of humanity. These theological truths are timeless and normative for us, but the ancient cosmology that serves as their vehicle is not.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
the genre here is narrative. It has chronology, dates and names.
It has a chronology, but that is not exclusive to narrative history. It has no dates. And it has no personal names. The word ‘adam’, is the generic, genderless Hebrew word for ‘human being’. (Incidentally even God is not named, but referred to as ‘Elohim’, the generic Hebrew word for ‘deity’)
Apologies all for the long quotations – but they seem entirely relevant, and despite my encouragement above, I doubt Jamat (or most other people) will have the time to read the whole article to find these nuggets of gold.
--------------------
“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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
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."
Isn't that your issue too? I mean, isn't that the same reason you use to to prefer the heliocentrism of science over the geocentrism of the Bible?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
That's a fantastic article, Hart; many thanks for posting the link. A superb example of informative, technical writing that is understandable to the non-specialist (rather than being theological gibberish).
--------------------
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
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
Seconded - thanks, Hawk. The analysis of Genesis 1 and 2 is a fascinating area of study, and one that leads to all sorts of places.
(Reminds me of the story about, I think, Hormuzd Rassam, who discovered the Gilgamesh Epic and was so excited he practically tore his clothes off on the spot...
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
Seconded - thanks, Hawk.
Hawk, Hart - it's an easy mistake to make... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) Sorry, Hawk!
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I'm not going to play Creationist whack-a-mole with you, Jamat, where you say "well what about A?" and I give an explanation for A, followed immediately by "well okay, but what about B?".
You're simply, obviously and self-admittedly not interested in any scientific explanations whatsoever if they contradict a young Earth. Either you accept that the scientific method is mostly likely to arrive at a naturalistic explanation for natural phenomena, or you don't, whether it's phenomenon A or phenomenon Z, including so-called 'polystrate' fossils or the axial tilt of Uranus, or the evolution of the eye, or light from distant stars, or fossils on the tops of mountains, or whatever.
You've already accepted a heliocentric solar system, that stars are distant from Earth, and that the Earth is spherical, all of which contradicts scripture. Your levels of cognitive dissonance must be simply extraordinary.
This does not mean, of course, that I'm not a thoroughgoing supernaturalist. I am. I accept the death and resurrection of Jesus within time and space.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
What puzzles me, Jamat, is how you can construct a lose-lose proposition and cling to one of the "lose" positions so ferociously while somehow denying the "lose" inherent in the other.
If I understand you correctly, accepting as correct information which conforms to current understanding of scientific principles makes God out to be a liar, since it appears to you that science and scripture conflict, and you accept God as the author of scripture.
Is God not also the author of creation, and is not God therefore responsible for all these apparently much-older geologic structures (and other evidence) found by scientific investigators?
It seems to me that if God is not "lying" in scripture, then God has to be "lying" with the creation He fashioned; the two sets of evidence, if taken as Truth, simply don't agree on basic facts.
Efforts to deliberately mislead and deceive God's children, and lead them away from Truth -- isn't that lying? So if you take scripture as truth, God lies with creation; if you take the evidence we find in creation as truth, then God lies with scripture.
Seems to me much simpler all around, for a believer, to accept each set of evidence as true, but true in different ways and at different levels.
--------------------
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
quote:
1. You got the wrong planet
2. You got the wrong feature
3. It's explanation does not require a special creation by God.
Yes, I am sorry for the errors. Posted hurriedly.
My point about the solar system is only its utter uniqueness. The checks and balances there defy the randomness explanation for mine.
--------------------
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:
science and scripture conflict, and you accept God as the author of scripture.
I don't think Science and scripture conflict at all. I would contend that Science when it becomes speculative about the past isn't really Science as she is done in the present. Its not about Science at all but about differing interpretations of history using Scientific tools. But when a 20 yr old rock from Mt St Helens gets dated at millions of years you have to ask some questions.
--------------------
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:
My point about the solar system is only its utter uniqueness. The checks and balances there defy the randomness explanation for mine.
Uniqueness compared to what? Ours is the only solar system we've been able to thoroughly survey. As far as I know (and an expert should feel free to correct me) we don't even have a way to measure the axial rotation of exoplanets yet. When you're working with a sample size of one you can argue that your sample is both completely congruent with all observations and totally different from all the other samples (which don't exist). I'm guessing any answer you give (if one is forthcoming) will be both vague and massively incorrect on some crucial point.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I don't think Science and scripture conflict at all. I would contend that Science when it becomes speculative about the past isn't really Science as she is done in the present. Its not about Science at all but about differing interpretations of history using Scientific tools.
So where does that put astronomical observations of distant galaxies? Given the finite speed of light this is, by definition, science being "speculative about the past". Are you postulating some mechanism that can speed up light so we can observe distant objects in real time? Because that would be a huge boon to the guys at NASA trying to maintain communications with distant probes. So lay it on us. What's the secret of FTL communication?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
My point about the solar system is only its utter uniqueness. The checks and balances there defy the randomness explanation for mine.
Uniqueness compared to what? Ours is the only solar system we've been able to thoroughly survey. As far as I know (and an expert should feel free to correct me) we don't even have a way to measure the axial rotation of exoplanets yet. When you're working with a sample size of one you can argue that your sample is both completely congruent with all observations and totally different from all the other samples (which don't exist). I'm guessing any answer you give (if one is forthcoming) will be both vague and massively incorrect on some crucial point.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I don't think Science and scripture conflict at all. I would contend that Science when it becomes speculative about the past isn't really Science as she is done in the present. Its not about Science at all but about differing interpretations of history using Scientific tools.
So where does that put astronomical observations of distant galaxies? Given the finite speed of light this is, by definition, science being "speculative about the past". Are you postulating some mechanism that can speed up light so we can observe distant objects in real time? Because that would be a huge boon to the guys at NASA trying to maintain communications with distant probes. So lay it on us. What's the secret of FTL communication?
Not at all. I know far less that you and others about such things. The explanation that I've heard that most suits the facts of stellar distances in conjunction with scripture is Einsteins discovery of 'space time.'The old 'one twin on a space ship' story. He goes away for a short time at light speed and when he comes back it is hundreds of years later for others but not for him.
By the way,is sarcasm necessary?
--------------------
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:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm guessing any answer you give (if one is forthcoming) will be both vague and massively incorrect on some crucial point.
<snip>
So where does that put astronomical observations of distant galaxies? Given the finite speed of light this is, by definition, science being "speculative about the past". Are you postulating some mechanism that can speed up light so we can observe distant objects in real time? Because that would be a huge boon to the guys at NASA trying to maintain communications with distant probes. So lay it on us. What's the secret of FTL communication?
Not at all. I know far less that you and others about such things. The explanation that I've heard that most suits the facts of stellar distances in conjunction with scripture is Einsteins discovery of 'space time.' The old 'one twin on a space ship' story. He goes away for a short time at light speed and when he comes back it is hundreds of years later for others but not for him.
By the way,is sarcasm necessary?
Obviously you know nothing at all about relativity. One of its foundational aspects is the premise that the speed of light is the same regardless of the relative motion of the observer. In other words, the one twin on a spaceship gedankenexperiment explicitly does not apply to light. Almost as key, time dilation does not apply to an observer within a single frame of reference, like someone observing photons emitted by various sources from the Earth's surface. So there we are: both vague and massively incorrect on some crucial point. Thanks for not disappointing.
And no, the sarcasm is not necessary. It's a service thrown in free of charge. The contempt, on the other hand, is something you've definitely earned. I wouldn't want to deprive you of that.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm guessing any answer you give (if one is forthcoming) will be both vague and massively incorrect on some crucial point.
<snip>
So where does that put astronomical observations of distant galaxies? Given the finite speed of light this is, by definition, science being "speculative about the past". Are you postulating some mechanism that can speed up light so we can observe distant objects in real time? Because that would be a huge boon to the guys at NASA trying to maintain communications with distant probes. So lay it on us. What's the secret of FTL communication?
Not at all. I know far less that you and others about such things. The explanation that I've heard that most suits the facts of stellar distances in conjunction with scripture is Einsteins discovery of 'space time.' The old 'one twin on a space ship' story. He goes away for a short time at light speed and when he comes back it is hundreds of years later for others but not for him.
By the way,is sarcasm necessary?
Obviously you know nothing at all about relativity. One of its foundational aspects is the premise that the speed of light is the same regardless of the relative motion of the observer. In other words, the one twin on a spaceship gedankenexperiment explicitly does not apply to light. Almost as key, time dilation does not apply to an observer within a single frame of reference, like someone observing photons emitted by various sources from the Earth's surface. So there we are: both vague and massively incorrect on some crucial point. Thanks for not disappointing.
And no, the sarcasm is not necessary. It's a service thrown in free of charge. The contempt, on the other hand, is something you've definitely earned. I wouldn't want to deprive you of that.
Wow! Thanks for putting me straight. I didn't understand a word of that except the contempt. Do you by any chance masquerade occasionally as a Christian?
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
My point about the solar system is only its utter uniqueness. The checks and balances there defy the randomness explanation for mine.
By what evidence do you posit our solar system is unique? we cannot yet sufficiently explore our galaxy, never mind the staggeringly vast universe.
The frustration shown by some of the participants on this thread is due to your failure to address the counterpoints raised to your original contentions. Instead you hop from one poorly researched hypothesis to the next.
The scientific community is not a conspiracy, not a cohesive, singular group. The scientific community does not have an agenda. It is atheists, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and Christians; all who have developed techniques and methodologies which cross-correlate and agree the universe is ancient.
Creation scientists have an agenda. They work at science backwards, without rigor and often without honesty.
--------------------
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
quote:
The frustration shown by some of the participants on this thread is due to your failure..
Oh really? That is some sort of excuse for personal contempt?
There are rules of discussion nevertheless. There are manners. I may verge occasionally on sarcasm. I apologise if I transgress. I focus on issues. I do not disrespect others.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I am not offering excuses, merely reasons. While I can hardly be seen as respecting the creationist viewpoint, I offer you no personal contempt.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Obviously you know nothing at all about relativity. One of its foundational aspects is the premise that the speed of light is the same regardless of the relative motion of the observer. In other words, the one twin on a spaceship gedankenexperiment explicitly does not apply to light. Almost as key, time dilation does not apply to an observer within a single frame of reference, like someone observing photons emitted by various sources from the Earth's surface.
Wow! Thanks for putting me straight. I didn't understand a word of that
The central premise of Special Relativity is that the speed of light is constant for all observers. Imagine a lab where light is produced by a powerful laser; within the lab the speed of light from the laser is measured at 299,792,458 m/s. Now take a space ship travelling directly away from the lab at 100,000,000 m/s observing the speed of light from the laser - "common sense" would say they'd observe the speed of light as 399,792,458 m/s, they don't (as was conclusively proved in the Michelson-Morley experiment, albeit still on earth). The space ship still observes the speed of light from the laser (and everywhere else) as 299,792,458 m/s. The "common sense" view of relative speed doesn't apply to light, for which a Special form of Relativity applies.
One of the consequences of Special Relativity is that other properties of the universe are not constant for observers in different frames of reference. In particular, length and time will be different for observers travelling at different speeds - although these effects are only measurable at speeds which are a significant fraction of the speed of light. Sitting on earth observing something travelling at near light speed you would observe that that object experiences time slower than you do; it's called time dilation and is observed all the time with cosmic ray produced muons (produced in the upper atmosphere by energetic cosmic ray particles they have a very short half life and even at the speeds they travel should have decayed long before reaching the surface of the earth, however due to their extreme speed their time runs slow relative to us effectively increasing the half life we observe and allowing measurable numbers of muons to reach the surface where we can detect them).
--------------------
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
|
|
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
The frustration shown by some of the participants on this thread is due to your failure..
Oh really? That is some sort of excuse for personal contempt?
There are rules of discussion nevertheless. There are manners. I may verge occasionally on sarcasm. I apologise if I transgress. I focus on issues. I do not disrespect others.
But, Jamat, you break the rules of discussion by not responding to people's counterpoints.
--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.
If only.
Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Oh really? That is some sort of excuse for personal contempt?
There are rules of discussion nevertheless. There are manners. I may verge occasionally on sarcasm. I apologise if I transgress. I focus on issues. I do not disrespect others.
I dispute the assertion that you focus on issues. On the contrary, every time I ask you about the detail of the issues you put forward, you ignore me.
--------------------
"..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 Jamat:
But when a 20 yr old rock from Mt St Helens gets dated at millions of years you have to ask some questions.
Yes, you do.
Those questions include:
Is the mass spectrometer you're using capable of detecting such fine differences in the target isotopes, or have the lab concerned put a minimum age of 2Ma due to the known size of their errors?
Have the researchers adequately prepared their samples, being careful to measure only the recent volcanic melt, or have they included xenoliths and xeonocrysts entrained in the melt?
Have the researchers accounted for the excess Ar caused by melting previously melted rock that hasn't had chance to gas away before resolidifying?
Those are the questions I'd be asking. Apparently, the answer is, no they didn't take any of those things into consideration.
Also, Jamat: enough of the faux humility, "I'm only interested in the issues", "no need for sarcasm" thing. You've proved repeatedly that you're simply parroting things you've heard, with no real interest or understanding of science, and you're not interested in the answers either. Do you have any idea just how disrespectful, arrogant and down-right rude this is? No one here is being as offensive as you are.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I wondered where the Mount St Helen's story came from - and found it here - an article from the Institute for Creation Research site. But the same google search gave me this refutation which says that those results were flawed for all the reasons given by Doc Tor above. It wasn't the only refutation from the same google search - there's this one too.
Jamat, you're really not going to influence anyone with arguments that you could have refuted with a simple Google search yourself.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
There is a term for arguments of the type Jamat puts forward - they're called PRATTs - it stands for Points Refuted A Thousand Times.
It is fundamentally dishonest. Creationists put forward these arguments as if they had validity, whereas in fact they've been shown to be bullshit many, many times. But if they think they might get away with them, they present them anyway. This is because they don't care whether they're true or not.
The simple fact is that no-one is a creationist because of Mt St Helens, or Uranus' axial tilt, or the depth of moondust, or the Paluxy tracks, or any other of these regular PRATTs. Jamat has admitted that there's no evidence, refutation, or anything else that will stop him being a YEC. PRATTs are merely attempts to suggest to the man in the pew that scientists don't really know what they're doing. That's why creationists like to claim that there is a lot of fraud in "evolutionism", and harp on about Haeckel's embryo drawings as if the entire edifice depended on it, try to make out that Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man and Archaeoraptor were deliberate frauds by scientists to hide the fact they had no evidence for evolution, and so on.
"Creation Science" is a fundamentally dishonest endeavour.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
From Porridge, with some suggested amendments:
Efforts to deliberately mislead and deceive God's children, and lead them away from Truth -- isn't that lying? So if you take scripture as you interpret it as truth, God lies with creation; if you take the evidence we find in creation as truth, then God lies with your interpretation of scripture.
The conclusion this leads to is that the proper approach is to examine your interpretation, and see what other interpretation is available, and which is consistent both with the revelation in scripture and with the evidence in His creation.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I suppose for me the main problem is that Creationism points out some interesting points, but then extrapolates from those to ridiculous lengths.
It is interesting that the MS in the study above apparently was contaminated by previous samples. That actually is an interesting finding. And quite worrying in some ways.
But to extrapolate from that to the point which says all measurements must therefore be wrong (and by extension all aging systems are wrong - and not a bit wrong but by many many multiples) is not proven. In fact in any decent scientific investigation, you'd have to take account of the measurement errors implicit in a piece of machinery and anything else which might be causing the problem. And of course you'd have to repeat the experiment many times to see if you got the same result.
That isn't scientism, that is plainly obvious, I'd have thought.
--------------------
"..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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I suppose for me the main problem is that Creationism points out some interesting points, but then extrapolates from those to ridiculous lengths.
It is interesting that the MS in the study above apparently was contaminated by previous samples. That actually is an interesting finding. And quite worrying in some ways.
But to extrapolate from that to the point which says all measurements must therefore be wrong (and by extension all aging systems are wrong - and not a bit wrong but by many many multiples) is not proven. In fact in any decent scientific investigation, you'd have to take account of the measurement errors implicit in a piece of machinery and anything else which might be causing the problem. And of course you'd have to repeat the experiment many times to see if you got the same result.
That isn't scientism, that is plainly obvious, I'd have thought.
I think the point is you wouldn't use K-Ar dating on a sample you know is young and may contain xenoliths. And if you don't know that it may be young, and the minimum age the lab can manage is 2 million years, because below that the Ar is too low to measure with their equipment, and you get results of < 2 million years, the correct interpretation of the result is "this rock is 2 million years or less in age" - in other words, the samples dated correctly - Austin just lied about what the result meant. Either that or he's utterly incompetent as a geologist, because any geologist would know all this.
Typical LCW. Shame Jamat is happy to take his bullshit on board.
Let's try an analogy for Jamat. Suppose I have a device that can measure the amount of copper sulphate in water by measuring the absorbence of blue light. Suppose that the machine has an error of +/- 5ppm.
Suppose I have a sample that's 200ppm. The machine will come up with a result anywhere between 195ppm and 205ppm. That's fine for most purposes for this sample.
But suppose I have a sample that's 2ppm. The machine could give me any result betwen -3ppm (which it would actually render as 0) and 7ppm. A 7ppm result is useless for almost any purpose for this sample, and we'd reject it and find a more precise method. Except if we were Austin, at which point we'd announce that the method doesn't work, gives meaningless results and can't be relied upon and therefore the whole principle of measuring concentration by light absorbence is nonsense and we really know nothing at all about solution.
This is the sort of dishonest shit your sources are giving you, Jamat. This is the sort of shit they have to pull, because it's all they've got.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I focus on issues.
Jamat, I appreciate that you are arguing on your own against multiple disputants, but I would be grateful for a response to my question above:
If it turned out that Earth (or any given locality thereon) contains more animal and plant remains than 6000 years of natural history could account for, then, given that you have said that no evidence could convince you that the Earth is old, would you contend that God created the Earth with an apparent record of creatures that never existed, so that it looked old?
And the secondary question is: if you have no problem with that sort of explanation in principle, why are you so committed to attacking scientific dating methods? Because if God can create a world that looks old in one respect, it seems strange to me that you are so certain he hasn't done it in other respects.
--------------------
"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
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Wow! Thanks for putting me straight. I didn't understand a word of that except the contempt. Do you by any chance masquerade occasionally as a Christian?
AFAIK Croesos isn't in the God Squad. (S)he's one of those ruddy atheists. They seem to get everywhere.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Some of this is getting unduly personal and insulting - if you get into a personal conflict with another poster your option is to start a Hell thread.
One we get into the personal qualities of other posters, contempt for other posters and whether people are 'masquerading' as Christians, then that belongs on the Hell Board. Please stick to the arguments here. Comments on posting style should not veer into personal insults.
thanks,
Louise
Dead Horse Host
hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
science and scripture conflict, and you accept God as the author of scripture.
I don't think Science and scripture conflict at all. [/QUOTE]
Yet we are on page 8 of a thread which amply demonstrates otherwise.
quote:
I would contend that Science when it becomes speculative about the past isn't really Science as she is done in the present.
All science which is currently being done is being done in the present. It doesn’t “speculate” about the past; it proposes questions, figures out methods for attempting to answer those questions with evidence and information, gathers and critiques the results of those attempts. Some questions and attempts involve working with materials which existed before the present. This activity does not consist solely of reading textual material and thinking up possible explanations (except may in theoretical physics); it consists of physical analyses.
[/QB][/QUOTE] Its not about Science at all but about differing interpretations of history [/QB][/QUOTE]
There’s that word again. Geology (a science) isn’t much concerned with history (which is a separate discipline concerning itself with written records of human activity). Human writing emerged around 6,000 years ago. Physical evidence exists of human activity which ocurred many thousands of years earlier – for example, the cave paintings at Lascaux.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I know far less that you and others about such things.
And yet, despite this acknowledgment, you are unwilling to accept the possibility that some of us might actually “know” information which is reliable, valid, and true.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I didn't understand a word of that
And yet you remain willing to dismiss it out-of-hand, because your interpretation of Scripture is inconsistent with it.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
There are rules of discussion nevertheless.
<snick-snick> I focus on issues. I do not disrespect others.
Then how about addressing some of the points raised by others?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
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.
An admirably frank response.
Do I understand your position correctly that if (as has been asserted on this thread) there are simply far too many fossils and other remains for any plausible 6000 year natural history to account for them all, you would conclude not that the earth is old, but that it was created 6000 years ago with a 'back story' written into the rocks? There would have to be fossil remains of animals which never actually lived.
quote:
Why is the number of fossils an issue? Given an antediluvian world of even climate, teaming with flora and fauna of all kinds which were then uprooted and buried suddenly in sediment by a cataclysmic barrage of water. The sediments probably were moved and redeposited over the year of the flood and the years of its aftermath. The issue is just how suddenly or otherwise it all happened.
In the same way, wouldn't you need to say that light was created as if it had travelled from a distant star, but which in fact originated not in the star itself, but from God's creative act, to give the world an astronomical back story?
quote:
The issue of starlight is a major problem for yecs. But then the 'horizon' problem is also a problem which required the positing of 'inflation.'
If so, why are you arguing against "scientific dating methods" at all? You can (and, I think, must) concede that there are at least some details which God made to look older than they are. You can argue that this need not make God "a liar", I think, but that then becomes the real point of contention.
quote:
I know squat about anything to do with dating methods. My issue is the integrity of the Bible. I am totally aware that this is termed an interpretive issue. No one seems to get why one cannot just accept an allegorical reading. I think though, that that would put human knowledge above revelation. It would be convenient to do so but critics of yec are absolutely correct to say they start with scripture and work backwards and that is why they do it. To them human discoveries must be adjusted to the Bible, not vice versa..or their take on the Bible which is another discussion.
It seems to me that if your position really is 'nothing would convince me', not even kilometre-thick deposits of more remains than could have existed in the vicinity over anything like 6000 years, you are necessarily committed to the argument that "what we see now isn't necessarily what really happened". Arguing the science on one or other specific dating method might delay the crisis point where you have to say that, but I think it's pretty clear that you have to say it eventually, and your case stands or falls on that being a respectable position. Are you prepared to defend it?
quote:
No yec sees any problem with the depth of deposits. The deluge combined with the contortions of the earths volcanoes that most yecs see as the 'opening of the fountains of the great deep' can account for that. I do not think God built a back story of age into something that wasn't old. What I think is that, as I keep saying, our take on facts is determined by our own back story, our preconceptions, what is acceptable to us, our world view. I am challenged to change mine here because from the stance of those on these boards, most of them, it is not credible.
If, however, you put your preconceptions on the table, everyting changes. Now the same charge can, of course, be levelled at me. Why don't I put mine on the table? Well as someone said upthread it is the need for a literal fall. You don't need forgiveness if you are not a sinner. To sum up, for me: no fall=no sin=no need for forgiveness=no gospel=no point.
--------------------
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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Jamat, two things, is that final block meant to be a quotation? If so, where does it come from please?
Secondly, most of the people who made the discoveries that built into our current understanding were Christian. They had a belief system that was built on Christianity with Christian preconceptions and beliefs. What do you think happened to change their view to the back story you think they have?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Jamat, two things, is that final block meant to be a quotation? If so, where does it come from please?
Secondly, most of the people who made the discoveries that built into our current understanding were Christian. They had a belief system that was built on Christianity with Christian preconceptions and beliefs. What do you think happened to change their view to the back story you think they have?
No, sorry, I wrote that,stuffed up the code.
I presume you want me to say they were confronted by facts that demanded they adjust their world view? And then you can say 'Go and do thou likewise?'
It is an open question but it seems more likely to me that they too readily accepted 'new' knowledge. The enlightenment had a lot to do with it. The realities that Science confronted the world with possibly caused a baby and bathwater problem?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
If, however, you put your preconceptions on the table, everyting changes.
Exactly.
With a particular interpretation of scripture comes a set of preconceptions, and you have essentially stated that you are either unwilling or unable to put these on the table.
On the contrary: you insist that your scruptural interpretation is either (A) correct, or (B) the only one available, or (C) relevant, or (D) possible. The interpretation supports your preconceptions about creation. Because you accept your preconceptions as true, there must be something wonky about any scientific investigation whose hypotheses or theories conflict with your preconceptions.
Basic scientific investigation does not begin with interpretation or preconceptions, except for those already investigated. It begins with questions.
For example: When we dig down to Depth Y in Location X, we find skeletal remains of creatures that resemble nothing currently roaming the earth.
What are they? Where did they come from? How did they come to be buried at this particular depth, and in this particular location, and when? How does it come about that there seem to be no similar animals among us now?
We then develop peer-reviewed methodologies that attempt to answer these questions.
[ 02. October 2012, 20:08: Message edited by: Porridge ]
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I presume you want me to say they were confronted by facts that demanded they adjust their world view? And then you can say 'Go and do thou likewise?'
I didn't want you to say anything. I hoped that it would give you food for thought.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
No yec sees any problem with the depth of deposits. The deluge combined with the contortions of the earths volcanoes that most yecs see as the 'opening of the fountains of the great deep' can account for that. I do not think God built a back story of age into something that wasn't old.
Even if you could argue that volcanoes could produce the volume of material deposited, together with the eroded soils and so on from the earlier Earth, you, and other YECs, still have to account for the way the rocks are not a melange (used technically of a mixed up rocky material) of unsorted gunge, largely of volcanic tuffs and redeposited sediments, containing a completely mixed death assemblage of fossils of all types at all levels. (That's an assemblage of fossils which were clearly dead when they were buried, as distinct from a life assemblage of fossils which were clearly in their living position on burial. Think of a bed of cockles in mud which were subsequently buried too deep and suffocated, for example.)
By contrast, what is actually found is a succession of different types of rocks, some derived from identifiable conditions such as braided river systems, desert dunes, underwater dunes, continental rises on the edge of the shelves, wadi deposits, moraines, lake deposits, sandy beaches, shingle beaches, volcanic ash deposits, ocean floor deposits, boulder clays derived from ice sheets, delta swamps, and a huge range of other environments, all stacked up on top of each other in logical order that makes sense in terms of the history (sorry, can't find a better word, despite absence of written records or observers) of any particular location. And the fossils in any of these rock facies are appropriate for that environment. No seals in deserts, no large lizards in the ice.
It all has, if you look with an unbiassed eye, the appearance of a very long development with a coherent structure, of a far past with a sequence of living things of increasing complexity as time went on.
It does not have the appearance, at all, anywhere, of the whole depth being derived from a process of messy flood.
And I have omitted the formation of limestones and especially chalks which form in waters which are not full of muds and gravels and sands.
If YECs are satisfied that all this derives from the flood of Genesis, then they are definitely not using the gifts of sight and mind they have been given.
[ 02. October 2012, 20:26: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I got so far from where I started, that I forgot where I was headed.
All that geology poses the appearance of age. If that appearance is not the truth, then that is a back story built into it.
As I don't imagine for one moment that anyone seriously believes that God would do that to us, we are left with the conclusion that the appearance is the truth, and Genesis is about something else.
As for the Fall, what about looking at ourselves, noticing that we aren't quite what we would think God wants, realising that He has worked out a way of getting us there, without needing to explain why we need that. We clearly do. If you think it's because of that little symbolic disobedience in a matter which really doesn't look as if it is worth all the bad things which afflict far more than us, all the diseases and the parasites which are only harmful to plants and animals which cannot possibly have committed any sin (unless you are a Hindu) then that is your choice. In a way, it takes the responsibility away from you and plants it on Eve.
I think that's what I meant.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
If, however, you put your preconceptions on the table, everyting changes. Now the same charge can, of course, be levelled at me. Why don't I put mine on the table? Well as someone said upthread it is the need for a literal fall. You don't need forgiveness if you are not a sinner. To sum up, for me: no fall=no sin=no need for forgiveness=no gospel=no point.
Fairly straightforward, though at the end it boils down to not wanting to examine your preconceptions because they're your preconceptions and should (for some unexplained reason) be more privileged than anyone else's.
This kind of fragile belief system seems as if it cannot withstand any kind of contrary information and must be maintained by willful, deliberate ignorance. You seem to have taken it one step further and regard spewing whatever half-misunderstood bit of trivia you think will support your fragile beliefs with depraved indifference (to borrow a legal term of art) to the truth as a positive and unquestioned good. This kind of "lying for Jesus" is contemptible, hence the contempt.
Here's an example.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So where does that put astronomical observations of distant galaxies? Given the finite speed of light this is, by definition, science being "speculative about the past".
Not at all. I know far less that you and others about such things. The explanation that I've heard that most suits the facts of stellar distances in conjunction with scripture is Einsteins discovery of 'space time. 'The old 'one twin on a space ship' story. He goes away for a short time at light speed and when he comes back it is hundreds of years later for others but not for him.
As has been explained to you Relativity doesn't work like that, and isn't applicable to light in that regard. One could go further and point out that astronomers don't directly measure the age of photons, but simply measure the distance traveled and the speed of light and divide the former by the latter to derive the travel time involved, all of which takes place in a single frame of reference.
But that would be futile, in part because your understanding of Relativity is akin to a belief in "magic that can be invoked to avoid uncomfortable questions". But then there's the underlying premise of your argument, which is "Hey, maybe no one working in astronomy or astrophysics has ever heard of the work of Albert Einstein!" The improbability of this should be immediately apparent to anyone who doesn't have a mind-crippling need to reject certain conclusions a priori. Or anyone who cares about thoughtlessly calumniating whole professions.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Do you by any chance masquerade occasionally as a Christian?
Nope, never. Nor, for that matter, did Albert Einstein ever masquerade as such. Does that make the Theory of Relativity wrong, since it's Jüdische Physik? At any rate, using membership in a group to shore up the validity of weak arguments through such a masquerade would be contemptible.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Fairly straightforward, though at the end it boils down to not wanting to examine your preconceptions because they're your preconceptions and should (for some unexplained reason) be more privileged than anyone else's.
This kind of fragile belief system seems as if it cannot withstand any kind of contrary information and must be maintained by willful, deliberate ignorance. You seem to have taken it one step further and regard spewing whatever half-misunderstood bit of trivia you think will support your fragile beliefs with depraved indifference (to borrow a legal term of art) to the truth as a positive and unquestioned good. This kind of "lying for Jesus" is contemptible, hence the contempt
As you point out and I admit, Einstein isn't my area.
Have a nice day.
--------------------
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:
As you point out and I admit, Einstein isn't my area.
Which simply begs the question of why you cited Relativity as valid explanation for why the stars look so far away? Was it simply a case of "this is a big, famous science guy, so if I borrow his prestige and no one calls me on it I can score a point, even if I have no idea what I'm talking about"? This goes back to that "depraved indifference to the truth" thing I was talking about earlier.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Have a nice day.
It is not daytime where I am.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Here's a fun and perhaps relevant little quote I found today whilst out surfing:
The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false. --Thomas Aquinas
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
Jamat... Are you actually saying that if there is no literal historical Fall, there can be no such thing as sin?
Wow...
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Jamat... Are you actually saying that if there is no literal historical Fall, there can be no such thing as sin?
Wow...
Yes. The fall is the key to the whole deal IMV. What sense does it make for Jesus to die for sinners if they aren't really sinners?
--------------------
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:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
As you point out and I admit, Einstein isn't my area.
Which simply begs the question of why you cited Relativity as valid explanation for why the stars look so far away? Was it simply a case of "this is a big, famous science guy, so if I borrow his prestige and no one calls me on it I can score a point, even if I have no idea what I'm talking about"? This goes back to that "depraved indifference to the truth" thing I was talking about earlier.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Have a nice day.
It is not daytime where I am.
Have a nice night then.
No, it was something I read about time that I didn't really understand that suggested that some sort of multi dimensionality operated in the creation.
I am not about scoring points and when I commented above that I focus on 'issues', all I meant to say was that I try to distance myself from personal comments. Doesn't always work.
--------------------
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
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Jamat... Are you actually saying that if there is no literal historical Fall, there can be no such thing as sin?
Wow...
Yes. The fall is the key to the whole deal IMV. What sense does it make for Jesus to die for sinners if they aren't really sinners?
I'm still trying to wrap my head around this... If there wasn't an actual historical Adam who ate that forbidden fruit, then I can do anything I want and it can't possibly be sin?
I'm not getting the theological rationale here.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
