Look out, creationists: The Grand Canyon just got older
For decades, scientists have posited that the Grand Canyon is about 6 million years old. But according to a paper published today by University of New Mexico researchers in the journal Science, the canyon’s western half actually began to open at least 17 million years ago. This though the upstream end of the canyon ought to be older than the downstream end. The Associated Press reports:
Remember, geologists caution, that the Grand Canyon was carved from drainage systems that didn’t turn into the single river we now know as the Colorado until roughly 6 million years ago. The new research suggests two canyons formed that eventually joined. And it makes sense that the older side would even look different, less jagged, thanks to more years of gravity and wind erosion to soften its edges.
“This is really exciting for those of us who work in the stories and theories of how the Grand Canyon has evolved,” Arizona geologist Wayne Ranney, author of “Carving the Grand Canyon,” said of the new work. “This paper helps us to more clearly understand that different parts of the canyon formed at different times.”
Here’s a standard explanation for the canyon that appears on a website listing the Wonders of the World:
Compared with the nearly two-billion-year process of deposition, erosion has set a brisk pace. The Grand Canyon itself is less than six million years old, created only since the Colorado River changed course and began flowing through the ancestral Colorado plateau. In just two million years, the river sliced to within 500 feet above its current depth.
Will such exposition now have to be rewritten? And what will the young-earth creationists say?




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!








Click to Print
Include Comments









back to top655 Comments to “Look out, creationists: The Grand Canyon just got older”
Will such exposition now have to be rewritten?
Yes, of course they will, if other geologists, on reviewing this paper, replicating and verifying the tests it uses, and if other study and evidence supports its hypothesis about how the canyon was formed.
This is science, working exactly as it should. As new evidence becomes availble, the theories, models, and explanations are revised.
To me, this is really an exciting thing. The processes God used to shape and form the Earth can be understood by our intellect, and we are constantly finding new information, and that the Earth is much more interesting and dynamic than we thought!
Report comment to moderator
We will not let a couple of million years one way or another come between us.
Report comment to moderator
I doubt that this will change any minds in the young-earth community. They might as well say that the canyon formed 100 trillion years ago. Young earth creationists will still believe as they do.
Report comment to moderator
There are still those people who believe we never reached the moon, and there are people who believe the earth is flat also… So, I’m nearly certain there will still be those who believe the earth is only 5-10K years old.
Report comment to moderator
In other science news, the Milky Way just doubled in size.
I’m sure that’ll cause a few text-book rewrites.
Report comment to moderator
…Well, of course, the Milky Way didn’t actually just double in size
. Scientists have just discovered that it’s twice as big as previously thought.
Report comment to moderator
For decades, scientists have posited that the Grand Canyon is about 6 million years old.
Question: Does this mean the canyon is 6 million years old, making the rock older? Or does this statement indicate the age of the rock, making the canyon much younger?
Dating the canyon’s carving has been difficult because it has largely depended on evidence from exposed rock and mineral deposits that themselves erode over time.
Question: Does this statement indicate that the canyon was formed in a process other than erosion over time?
So cave specialist Carol Hill said they should provide a record of how the water table dropped over time as the canyon was cut deeper and deeper.
Question: If the water table has dropped 500 feet, where did all the water go? Doesn’t this imply that the entire aquifer dropped 500 feet?
Then the action really started, with the eastern side of the canyon being cut at a rate of about 8 inches to almost a foot every thousand years, they report.
Question: Doesn’t this statement assume a constant rate of change? Aren’t flash flood events common in Arizona?
Report comment to moderator
This isn’t a problem for me as a long-day creationist. See http://www.reasons.org.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A (#3) has it right and, though I’m agnostic on the whole Age of the Earth thing, here’s my prediction of the Young Earth response:
Yesterday, we were supposed to believe the Grand Canyon was six million years old. Today, it’s 17 million. If the science was off by a factor of 3 yesterday, who’s to say it wasn’t really off by a factor of 10? 10,000? And who’s to say today’s estimate is valid?
I’m vaguely sympathetic, but this puts the geologists in an untenable situation. If they refuse to pursue new data, they’re being dogmatic and unscientific. If they publish new studies which contradict old ones, they’re open to the “Now you yourself admit you were wrong yesterday, why should we believe you today?” argument.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, that god of yours… going around making things look older just to fool us! He’s slick.
Report comment to moderator
I suppose the kneejerk YEC response is something similar to what has already been said, but I think something was left out.
The part about “We don’t care what science thinks, we know from the Bible”.
That’s the part that makes YEC science denialism.
Report comment to moderator
Roger, I think the article suggests that the canyon is that old, not the rock.
#2, not at all. It suggests that the erosion process is still working on the eroded materials.
#3 not at all. there can be local depressions in water tables that do not immediately affect the regional aquifier. google images of ‘cone of depression’
#4 ‘constant rates of change’ are averages of non-constant events. evidence of massive rates of change would presumably be visible if it existed. yes flash floods are common in AZ.
Report comment to moderator
“I suppose the kneejerk YEC response…”
Now don’t go look in the mirror or anything, because you might learn something about yourself….
Report comment to moderator
Do tell.
And please address the denialism issue while you are denying it.
Report comment to moderator
What denial issue? Did you not read my post at #4?
But y’know, you ought get that automatic reflex looked at. You might kick someone sometime…
Report comment to moderator
MIM I know that ‘YEC’ ain’t you, so what’s the problem here? Am I too thick to understand the subtle nuances of your humor?
maybe you are saying that calling rote denialism a ‘knee jerk response’ is itself a knee jerk response. perhaps. might slip down the rabbit hole on that one though.
Report comment to moderator
I’m half kidding you, but there’s usually as much knee-jerk reaction to YEC as there is on the YEC side…
Report comment to moderator
I mean, anytime someone brings up the topic of YEC, suddenly there’s this cacophany of “It’s NOT Science!” from the agnostic/atheist side of the fence. Just stand back and watch it sometime… It’s rather amusing to watch the pavlovian reaction.
Report comment to moderator
I’m a YEC, and it seems to me this new finding is just trying to explain away why the western part of the Grand Canyon is not as well defined as the eastern part. Is there something wrong with their original theory?
Of course neither theory can hold a candle to the rapid canyon formation theory. Google it sometime, it’s most assuring for us poor uneducated and unscientific YEC’s
Report comment to moderator
By the way, I do tend to believe in a young earth, although I think I’m open minded on it.
My point is that it makes absolutely no difference to the young-earth position to say that the Grand Canyon is 1 million years old, 1 billion years old, or anything in between. People can say it was formed 800 quadrillion years ago for all I care.
What is true about the new findings is that they are based on assumptions. That’s how the geologic timeline works. If X is true, then Y is true, and if Y is true than Z is true. But X has never been observed or proven.
Report comment to moderator
I should be more specific.
The X in the above syllogism (or maybe the Y) could be stated thus: certain processes take a very long time to occur. Evolutionists NEED that proposition to be true. But what about. . .
1. The restoration of wildlife around Mount St. Helens much more rapidly than anyone predicted.
2. The rapid building of Surtsey Island.
3. The rapid erosion of earth during local floods. I saw one myself in Indonesia. I was absolutely dumbfounded at the amount of soil and rock that was moved in a few hours’ time by a huge flood. Hours–not days or weeks or years. Huge boulders were pushed down the mountain–miles from where they started. New stream beds formed instantly.
These natural processes occur much more rapidly than you would guess and much more rapidly than textbooks claim.
Report comment to moderator
According to my extensive knowledge of American natural history, the Grand Canyon was created by either Paul Bunyan (with the help of Babe (the Blue Ox) or Pecos Bill. Natural historians differ on which, although personally I lean toward Pecos Bill.
Report comment to moderator
Make It Man: I mean, anytime someone brings up the topic of YEC, suddenly there’s this cacophany of “It’s NOT Science!” from the agnostic/atheist side of the fence.
And from a large number of Christians, who are frustrated and appalled that YEC’s persist in insisting that Christianity demands ignorance of and hostility to knowledge.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, that last comment is a strawman. I know of no one reputable in Christianity, YEC or otherwise, who insists “that Christianity demands ignorance of and hostility to knowledge.” That is simply not accurate.
Is there a demographic of professing Christians who would say something like this? Probably. But one could probably equally point to segments of the greater unbelieving public who are ignorant about a great many things and at least apathetic to a great many things involving knowledge.
Report comment to moderator
#22: Drill, I think it must have been Pecos Bill. Paul Bunyan formed the Great Lakes with the help of Babe, I think. Of course, I think I heard once that Bunyan got into a wrestling match with someone and the aftermath is what formed the Great Lakes.
I do have a solution (a bit of a compromise), though: perhaps either Bunyan or Bill formed part of the Grand Canyon, and then the other helped form the other part. That accounts for the discrepancy in age.
Report comment to moderator
TJ: To be a young-earth Creationist requires ignorance of and hostility to knowledge.
Sorry, but it’s true.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, SteveG, but that is just an assertion on your part. It is not true.
Report comment to moderator
TJ: I agree, it probably was Pecos Bill.
Whatever, the Grand Canyon has been a great boon to the local economy. Before Pecos Bill carved out the Canyon in the 1800’s, the local Indians had tried to have a theme park and a string of casinos there, but the only people they got was the occasional half-starved Spaniard from a wrecked galleon on the west coast. And usually the Indians just ate them, anyway, before the Spaniards could manage to spend any money.
Now, the local Indians have wised up. They don’t eat the tourists anymore. They just fleece them.
Report comment to moderator
“To be a young-earth Creationist requires ignorance of and hostility to knowledge. Sorry, but it’s true.”
That is not true. My quest for the truth has led me to many paradigm shifts, but belief in a scientific young creation is not one of them.
Report comment to moderator
I prefer to believe the origin of the Grand Canyon is magical in nature.
Report comment to moderator
Who are you and what have you done with the real RDean?
Report comment to moderator
The Grand Canyon was obviously carved during the Great Deluge that began on Saturday November 16, 2343 BC and ended 40 days later. In fact, it was originally called the Great Deluge Canyon but the mexicans began calling it the Taco Grande Canyon because it was shaped like a great big taco. The name stuck and now it is the Grand Canyon.
Upset that Mexico renamed the ancient biblical site, Americans tried to get revenge by calling the Rio Bravo to be the Rio Grande but Mexicans never took the bait. Silly Americans. And now Americans think they can export Taco Bell into Mexico in order to lure all of the Mexicans back across the Rio Bravo into Mexico.
It’ll never happen. In fact, soon we’ll be learning in US history classes about Jorge Washington. The greatest president of the US. That will be a dia grande.
Report comment to moderator
Hmmm… So I have a question about scientific ignorance of Christians.
Reading this topic, I feel somewhat insulted since I happen to believe that the Earth cannot be millions of years old. How old it is, I don’t know. But I do know that everything I have read about dating methods makes me think they are flawed. Mainly because science is based on observation of actual data, and most of the methods I have heard about make very large assumptions about the way the Earth was millions of years ago. I have to wonder about that since we have no reliable records of what it was like that long ago.
I would love to regal you with all my sources for why I believe that. But unfortunately parts of that are all based on what I remember from my science courses a few years ago. The rest is based on books I have read by Christian authors.
So, according to several of the people I have read on this blog over the years I have lurked, that makes me ignorant or anti-science. (No one has actually said that, but that is the feeling I get.)
My problem with being called that, is that I am a college student spending my time learning to program. I don’t have time to spend hours researching evolution, or dating methods, or the latest political issue.
So how does the fact that I will take the opinion of people I know to be trustworthy make me ignorant?
An example would the Charles Colson. The man is a very strong Christian leader. He has professed his faith in Jesus publicly. Thus, since I also am a Christian, I know that he will not knowingly lie. I also know that it is his job to research and learn about all the various issues, like Creationism. And even if he doesn’t research it directly, he has staff that are trustworthy as well. He also has demonstrated his character through the excellent ministry of Prison Fellowship. All of that combined means I will trust what he says about how old the Earth is, or how full of holes evolutions.
Likewise, a liberal evolutionist will trust another liberal evolutionist more that Charles Colson. Even though Colson has done just as much research as the liberal authority figure.
So, to tie all together. Am I ignorant because I do not have the time to research all the science of geology and old earth theory? Am I ignorant because I choose to believe what Charles Colson says when he pokes holes in evolutionary theory?
The post that mainly prompted this was #26.
Report comment to moderator
TJ at #27: Sorry, SteveG, but that is just an assertion on your part. It is not true.
I’m not going to get into an “is not-is too!” exchange about this. But just to be sure I’m not being misunderstood, what I am saying is that to believe the universe is only a few thousand years old requires rejecting all of the relevant evidence from every relevant field science. It requires being either ignorant of the science altogether, or else dogmatically rejecting it because it doesn’t accord with a narrow literal reading of ancient stories.
And it also requires hostility; as we see on this very blog, let alone in the larger world, that narrowly literalistic type of Christian greets attempts to teach evolution as a threat.
If that is indeed the position you are taking, then I will cordially agree to disagree. Because my batteries for talking to people who are brick walls on these topics were run down during the ‘Hopeful Monster’ thread and still need recharged.
Report comment to moderator
Jerrac,
I too respect Colson, but he has little or no scientific training or knowledge, as far as I know. I wouldn’t disagree with his positions, necessarily, but one can’t quote him as an expert on scientific issues. You’ll get slaughtered if you try to. (Quote him on prison ministry, or worldview issues, etc. But he isn’t a scientist and doesn’t pretend to be.) That doesn’t mean that only “scientists” can speak to issues of science, or origins, but that citing someone with a completely different expertise as the person you’d listen to on this topic is a sure way to get yourself attacked.
Plenty of people on here have some scientific knowledge or background, and they still get attacked as anti-science. My suggestion is stay out of the fray unless you have something specific to add, a specific point that can be supported. (And if you get attacked by RDean, don’t fight back. Just answer his points briefly, or ignore them, and move on.) This isn’t arguing with you, just an older Christian giving friendly advice.
Report comment to moderator
Jerrac you should look into bayesian thinking. you might find it applicable to what makes scientific theories different from speculation.
but to be honest I think you are a sockpuppet and a darn good one.
why’d you pick chuck colson? why not chuck norris? or perhaps chuck darwin? charles manson? charles schulz?
Report comment to moderator
If we might be humble enough to be honest here, we would all readily admit that even COLLECTIVELY we ‘know’ only a fraction of the total information in the universe TODAY, would we not? Much less, the universe of all ages. Thus we would at the very least be very careful in our conjecturing backwards from observations today… about things back to the very beginning.
Moreover, since no one has yet come up with a plausible theory of how something came from nothing, we have a currently insurmountable logic-gap… making me even less sure about what I think I ‘know’ about ageless history past.
Worse yet, were I to accept the preponderance of ’science’ theory to date, I would believe that I am only a product of unintelligent randomness… thus by definition incapable of knowing ‘truth’ if I happened upon it.
You can’t have it both ways — either we’re all unintelligent by definition… or there IS an omniscient intelligence who created us… and who, alone, knows everything including history past. And who may, or may not, share that truth with us. And if so, only the intelligent would accept his communication to us.
So tell me again why I should believe (most) ’scientists’ somehow know truth?
Until then, let me rely on the written evidence left at the scene… as a forensic scientist might do. It tells how the universe came into existence. And it tells us how old it really is. Moreover, it self-validated by foretelling the future. And it foretells your & my futures, depending on your acceptance of it.
Report comment to moderator
Indychristian: Thank you for your excellent post. Could you please clarify something?
And it tells us how old it really is.
That sentence seems to contradict the rest of your post, especially the first paragraph.
Report comment to moderator
Jerrac, the Earth is not millions of years old, it’s around 4 to 5 billion years old.
This is not a wild guess. It is based on a variety of measurements from different fields of science, all of which serve to reinforce and confirm one another.
You stated in another thread that you were homeschooled until college. The fact that you apparently know nothing about this important field of science is about as good an argument against homeschooling as I can think of.
Report comment to moderator
The problem with what you have said, SteveG, is that it is only an assertion by you, it borders on the ad hominem fallacy, and it does not help forward the discussion one iota. It is the type of well-poisoning that one might expect from RDean, but you are usually far more thoughtful than that. Simply saying, “The other side is just hostile and ignorant” is not an argument. One counter-example should prove your assertion to be false: Raymond Damadian.
The comment in your last paragraph about Jerrac is completely uncalled for and completely beneath you. If one were to challenge you by saying that you were ignorant and hostile because you apparently know nothing (or choose to ignore because it does not fit in with your presuppositions) about the evidence that runs counter to an old earth, I’m guessing you wouldn’t take kindly to that. Most folks (I hope) would treat you better than that.
Just for the record, I reject the philosophical presuppositions of naturalism, not science. That’s not the same thing.
Report comment to moderator
The reason I used Colson is that he has done essentially what I would end up doing if I had the time to do the research. He has read the papers and examined the data, that I would end up looking at to come to the conclusions he wrote. So, while I wouldn’t use him as a direct scientific source, he does know what he is talking about.
Also, I wasn’t actually arguing about science. I was asking why I could be considered ignorant when I don’t have the time to research the science of things like young earth theory, and I choose to listen to those who do have the time.
SteveG, I learned in my homeschooling years that billions are actually made up of millions.
Also, assuming you were talking about dating methods, would you be kind enough to post a link or two that explains how they reinforce each other? Or at least how they work?
Report comment to moderator
TJ: I reject the philosophical presuppositions of naturalism, not science. That’s not the same thing.
Actually, I think it is the same thing, but it also hits on the reason the whole argument is so unnecessary.
Science is limited to exploring the natural universe and seeks natural explanations for phenomena. The error comes in when someone (whether an overzealous science defender or an underinformed science attacker) draws the incorrect inference that because science is limited to examining the natural, science is therefore assuming that the natural is all that exists.
I also reject the presupposition of naturalism when considering the whole of what is real. But science is, by definition, limited to the natural. If there is a God who is beyond nature, science will neither discover nor disprove God. It uses the wrong tools for that, because that is not its purpose.
And it is for that reason that science and faith need not be at odds. In fact, I submit they are not at odds. What is at odds is the unthinking dogmatism that can lead to some people insisting that only one or the other must right.
I don’t believe there is evidence that “runs counter to an old Earth.” Please show it, if there is. But I also don’t believe the age of the Earth has any bearing on the existence of God or the truth of Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, I agree with most of what you say in your last post. Naturalism is a faulty philosophical system (and you seem to agree). Indeed, modern science came into being because of a Christian worldview. But you are right, the two should not be at odds. The problem comes in when science is perceived to be superior to revelation. This, I think, is the real source of the disagreement.
Your last post is more indicative of the posts I’ve come to expect from you. As far the evidence that tends to raise questions about an “old earth”, there is a good bit of it. I’m actually going to post some of this on my own blog later today (click on my gravitar and it will take you there).
Report comment to moderator
Steveg at #34: Virtually every creationist that I know personally … of which there are MANY … does not believe that “age of earth” = “age of universe” … as your comment at 34 seems to imply. No doubt this view of yours stems from the fact that “stars” are mentioned in Genesis 1; however, there are various interpretations of this text. Among them: (1) The light from the stars was created, bringing the light to earth. (2) Our galaxy was created, and these stars are referred to. (3) Moses was seeing this visually in a vision, and perhaps there was a change in the atmosphere that allowed him to see the stars for the first time on that day.
As far as your repeated assertions about the ignorance of young earth creationists, I find to the contrary that many of them know more about evolution than members of the public who believe in evolution. It is absolutely not about “knowledge” … it’s about trust. Do I believe scientists, with all their preconceived opinions, limited knowledge, one-eye-closed approach to learning (by which I refer to their refusal to accept as true what science cannot verify), the downright dishonesty of some, their philosophical agendas, etc., etc. Or do I believe what God has inspired in His Word, and repeatedly affirmed over millennia, even at a time when evolution-like theories were arising and challenging Christian belief (as was happening in the apostles’ day, which they directly address in their writings)?
Report comment to moderator
To clarify my “trust” point at #44, it is usually not an either/or situation. In most cases the findings of science are perfectly in harmony with Scripture, or else are outside the scope of its commentary. The question is who to trust in those instances of conflict, all of which are singular events beyond the capability of anyone to observe or test, other than what we’d expect would be the outcome of such events. But even that is speculative.
Report comment to moderator
SodiumPowered at #44: Or do I believe what God has inspired in His Word, and repeatedly affirmed over millennia,
Funny that in this same post you offer three possible “interpretations” of a line in Genesis. This is the revelation you want to declare more trustworthy than science, one that demands suppositional “interpretations” in order to fit? And, not a small point, your first interpretation makes God a liar, in that he created the stars far away but then also created light beams to make it seem they’ve been around long enough for the light to have traveled the distance.
Report comment to moderator
# 46: There is another possibliity, SteveG: the assumption is that the speed of light has always been constant; there have been studies that have suggested otherwise (that is, that the speed of light has actually decayed over time).
Report comment to moderator
Will such exposition now have to be rewritten? And what will the young-earth creationists say?
Perhaps not – the “capture” theory has been around for sometime – the newly derived age of the antecedent streams is older, but the age of “capture” can plausibly be still be considered the age of the canyon, and has not substantially changed.
Report comment to moderator
Hmm… Does anyone know of a site that compiles links to information on both sides of scientific debates?
So, for instance, on the age of the earth, the site would list a link to an article presenting evidence that the earth is billions of years old. Right after that link would be one to an article on evidence for the earth only being thousands of years old.
Report comment to moderator
TJ – the assumption is that the speed of light has always been constant; there have been studies that have suggested otherwise (that is, that the speed of light has actually decayed over time).
This claim is not taken seriously now, even by many YEC’s – see Is the Speed of Light Decreasing?
Moreover, the speed of light would have to change by orders of magnitude more than was ever claimed in order to get light currently detected from over 10 billion LY away here in 6,000 years. The very notion is ludicrous and is no longer the preferred YEC solution to the distant starlight problem, even from hotbeds like AIG.
Report comment to moderator
#49 Talkorigins posts creationist claims and mainstream science rebuttals:
Index to Creationist Claims
More references from both sides are available on this academic site:
Origins Science and Creationism References Online
Origins Science and Creationism Bibliography
Report comment to moderator
“So, for instance, on the age of the earth, the site would list a link to an article presenting evidence that the earth is billions of years old. Right after that link would be one to an article on evidence for the earth only being thousands of years old.”
Check the age of the earth FAQs from talkorigins:
Age of the Earth FAQ Page
This is a mainstream science site that responds to creationist claims, but each article has links to the original creationist claims, and often to creationist responses to the rebuttals as well.
Report comment to moderator
As far the evidence that tends to raise questions about an “old earth”, there is a good bit of it.
No there isn’t – there are lots of creationist lies, distortions, frauds, and misrepresentations of data, but no actual ‘evidence’ that flies in the face of a 4.5 billion year old earth. In contrast, there are overwhelming loads of independent evidence for an old earth and an old universe.
Report comment to moderator
TJ – I read your blog “evidences” against an old earth. There are out of date (e.g., 100+-yo earth-heat argument from before the primary source of earth’s heat – radioactivity – was discovered!) and glaringly wrong. Rather than refute them here, I will just link to standard refutations:
See Specific Creationist Arguments (against an old earth) from Dave Matson.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the links. I am looking at them now.
Report comment to moderator
p.s. Another site that addresses YEC arguments against an old earth is Brent Dalrymple’s Some Creationist Ages of the Earth. Dalrymple is a professional geochemist that has published extensively in radiometric dating. He has written two wonderful books about the mainstream scientific evidence for the age of the earth and universe:
The Age of the Earth and
Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The Age of Earth and its Cosmic Surroundings
The first is slightly technical; the second is the mathless version, but still VERY GOOD!
Report comment to moderator
#37 Indychristian:
“Until then, let me rely on the written evidence left at the scene”
There is no written evidence “left at the scene” or recorded at the time for that matter. Genesis was written only 3,000 years ago or so and does not record any scientific details about the origin of the Universe and/or Earth and/or life/species. Nor could it, since these were unknown to its human author(s).
There is, however, an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence in rocks and in photons coming from stars/galaxies far away, etc., that declare the ancient age of the Earth and Universe.
It is not necessary to give up Christianity in order to accept the empirical fact of the age of Earth:
see Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Roger Wiens
Report comment to moderator
#26 from SteveG – “TJ: To be a young-earth Creationist requires ignorance of and hostility to knowledge.”
Initially, it requires only ignorance I think. But to maintain this position does indeed require some kind of aversion to either learning or accepting the facts. A great deal of the time, this aversion is indeed a type of hostility!
TJ’s blog certainly shows ignorance; his consistent referral only to YEC arguments on the blog also shows aversion to listening to scientific results. “Sodiumpowered” is the embodiment of prejudicial well-poisoning hostility:
Do I believe scientists, with all their preconceived opinions, limited knowledge, one-eye-closed approach to learning (by which I refer to their refusal to accept as true what science cannot verify), the downright dishonesty of some, their philosophical agendas, etc., etc.
Such a person will never be able to learn the truth of the matter! And while we’re poisoning wells, let’s not forget influential YEC Ken Hovind is now in jail for not rendering unto Caesar $850,000 of what was Caesar’s. The whole idea that YECs (or Chuck Colson, for example), “wouldn’t lie” because they’re “Christian”, but that scientists do it all the time, is sheer delusion. To wit, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, etc. Henry Morris, Duane Gish, and Ken Ham belong in this very same list.
“What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church…a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.”
Martin Luther in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmuthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. 1.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for reading, Spinoza. Your responses more or less prove my point.
Report comment to moderator
Tychicus…
>>>Indychristian: Thank you for your excellent post. Could you please clarify something? “And it tells us how old it really is.” That sentence seems to contradict the rest of your post, especially the first paragraph.<<<
By ‘written evidence’, I am of course alluding to the Bible. And if we lay aside any motivations to make it say what WE want it to say, it reads very easily in terms we all understand (if we want to)… evening, morning, day, year, etc. Plain hermaneutics yield a pretty compact conclusion that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
Moreover, Jesus alluded to Adam & Eve being present near the ‘beginning’… That is, they didn’t evolve into being historically-closer to Jesus’ time, than the (true) beginning.
But Genesis is not the only wildly-miraculous portion of the Bible — it’s only the beginning. I also believe Exodus, taken at face-value. Also Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, etc… all the way through a New Testament filled with wildly-miraculous events. And in final analysis, despite all the weight of evidence logically opposed to it, I believe what it says about loving me enough to die to pay the liability for my sins. Go figure.
But to date, no one has posited a reasonable theory about sparking nothing into the first something. Nor have they ably explained away Isaiah (and so many others) foretelling of a merciful suffering Messiah… 700 years in advance. Nor why eye-witnesses of Christ (& his miracles & resurrection) would suffer martyrdom rather than recant their stories.
Seems to me the ‘intelligent’ thing to do would have been to roll-over and come clean. Unless of course, they feared God rather than man.
Report comment to moderator
But to date, no one has posited a reasonable theory about sparking nothing into the first something.
Indeed they haven’t. So let’s do away with your silly arguments for a god beast doing it. Petard, hoist, thou.
Report comment to moderator
Observers, note that a ‘conspiracy of scientists’ or ‘blind philosophical allegiances to chance and random meaningless’ ARE SCIENCE DENIAL. we are full circle.
MIM, take note. This is the denialism that I mentioned first. Note that it developed without my assistance or prodding.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza I believe the issue is that the deniers wish to abolish empiricism.
Note that fundamental dishonest claim that is integral to every presuppositional argument: science came from a ‘christian’ worldview. This claim is only made by two kinds of folks: Those who are ignorant and who don’t know any better (usually those who like Jerrac have accepted the word of some authority), and those who know better yet don’t let that stop them from scoring points on rhetoric and bluster.
Atomism, empiricism and methodological naturalism are direct descendants of greek philosophers and scientists. the notion that the world is observable is not unique to christianism, as every single human that has ever lived has derived this notion for themselves. also bees, toads, sunflowers and e coli bacteria. trivial. the notion that the world seems to behave according to uniform principles or processes is also not a christianist proposition, but is a component of many many cultures predating christianism (sun worshipping mayans and egyptians). again, it is also a component of the ‘worldview’ (to use a particularly stupid metaphor) of rising trout, oak trees, spiders building webs and praying mantis eggs. in short, we have observed and recorded this in our phenomenon many times. it is not a blind assumption and to suggest that is truly poisoning the well.
Report comment to moderator
TJ at #59: Your responses more or less prove my point.
See how you insist that red is really green no matter how red it looks?
That’s just what I was talking about.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, that comment was addressed to Spinoza and referenced something I said on my blog. It was a reference to his attitude and really had nothing to do with our previous discussion.
Instead of going to my blog, though (which I suspect you did not do, especially after the well was poisoned), here is an article linking other problems with an old earth view: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
Just in closing, I would note that if the case is so obviously open-and-shut, it seems odd that the proponents of naturalism find it necessary to engage in logical fallacies (e.g., ad hominem attacks, special pleading, genetic fallacy, straw men etc.) to make the point. This was my initial complaint and it seems that nothing has changed. That is sad and regrettable.
Report comment to moderator
Instead of going to my blog, though (which I suspect you did not do, especially after the well was poisoned), here is an article linking other problems with an old earth view: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
I did look at your blog, but did not have time earlier to read in detail. I’ve now looked at the link above as well.
I don’t have the knowledge at my fingertips to respond to all the detail points, though if time allows, I will research some of them. But I do have two general observations:
1. I notice that most of the footnotes, save for a few references to Nature, are to other Creationist publications. It looks to me like the Creationists are nodding among themselves affirming that yes, this is a problem for evolution, when the scientists who work in the disciplines involved are unaware of it.
Before you write this off as an “ad hominem,” let me say that it is such only in the sense that it would be if I said that a great major league pitcher has no place on the Miami Dolphins.
2. Like most all other evidences for Creation I’ve seen, this are not so much evidences for Creation as they are assertions (of unconfirmed veracity) that evolutionary sciences have not (so far) explained this or that.
Just in closing, I would note that if the case is so obviously open-and-shut, it seems odd that the proponents of naturalism find it necessary to engage in logical fallacies (e.g., ad hominem attacks, special pleading, genetic fallacy, straw men etc.) to make the point. This was my initial complaint and it seems that nothing has changed. That is sad and regrettable.
It is, but it sounds to me like the tactics Creationists use.
So perhaps there is no real dialogue taking place.
Report comment to moderator
#59 – Tj, it sounds like you deliberately didn’t read the links that expose your “young-earth” arguments, but instead red-herringed an irrelevant response defending your mighty integrity. Sorry, that just doesn’t wash!! For the benefit of other readers, I guess I have to go through the details:
TJ’s Blog – “Meteor dust: the amount of meteor dust on the earth and the moon is far less than it should be if the earth were billions of years old.”
Science:
The high number creationists quote for dust accumulation (14 million tons per year on earth) comes from the high end of a single preliminary measurement that has long been obsolete. Other higher estimates come from even more obsolete sources, although they are sometimes incorrectly cited as being more recent. The actual influx is about 22,000 to 44,000 tons per year on earth and around 840 tons per year on the moon.
The oft-repeated story that scientists worried about astronauts sinking in moon dust is a total fabrication. As early as 1965, scientists were confident, based on optical properties of the moon’s surface, that dust was not extensive. Surveyor I, in May 1966, confirmed this.
In summary – Your claim about meteoritic dust is not true
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza, I concede the point on moon dust. Check my blog and you will see that I even posted an update.
Report comment to moderator
TJ’s blog – “Moon recession: the length of the earth’s rotational period, which is lengthening due to the influence of tidal forces, results in a compensation in change in the moon’s orbit. Had this been happening for billions of years, the moon would be much farther from the earth than it is now, even if it had begun by being in contact with the earth.”
Science – The moon today is retreating from Earth anomalously rapidly due to tidal resonance with the Earth’s oceans. This is as expected from theoretical models and paleontological evidence that gives a pretty strong picture of the tidal evolution of the Earth-moon system. Bills & Ray (1999) Lunar Orbital Evolution: A Synthesis of Recent Results – Geophysical Research Letters 26(19): 3045-3048, October 1, 1999 – give a good review of the current status of this harmony. They incidentally explain why the creationist arguments are unacceptable.
In summary – your “uniformitarian” assumption that the moon’s rate of recession is constant is false. Ergo, so is your argument.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, the original point that I responded to was your assertion of ignorance and hostility. You said that YEC “demands” and “requires” such. You also stated that you didn’t believe there was evidence that runs counter to an old earth. I was trying to demonstrate that was not correct. You will note that, even though you were not aware of such points (apparently), even though you do not seem to know about the counterexample (Raymond Damadian) that I offered, and even though I did not approve of the less than cordial way you have spoken to some of the folks on this blog, I still did not resort to describing you as “ignorant” and “hostile.” If there is a lack of real dialog, that might be the reason for it.
Report comment to moderator
TJ’s Blog – “Hot planet: the earth (along with the moon and at least 5 other planets) is too hot internally to have been losing heat at the present rate for a period of billions of years.”
Science – Current planetary heat sources include radiogenic heating and latent heat of crystallization and do nicely account for the earth’s current heat flow after billions of years!! Arguments to the contrary usually invoke Kelvin’s pre-radioactivity arguments, even though these were made without knowledge of either effect over a hundred years ago, and have long been rejected by science.
See Dalrymple’s Cooling of the Earth
Report comment to moderator
For contrary data to Spinoza’s moon recession arguments, see:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/moon.asp
http://www.irishscientist.ie/2000/contents.asp?contentxml=190as.xml&contentxsl=insight3.xsl
Report comment to moderator
Ah – I see you’ve retracted the moon dust argument. That’s good! Well even the YEC AIG site has it’s list of Arguments we think creationists shouldn’t use. Unfortunately, it’s a much smaller list than it should be!
Tell me, WHY DO YOU NOT THOROUGHLY FACT-CHECK YOUR CREATIONIST SOURCES AGAINST MAINSTREAM SCIENCE REBUTTALS BEFORE POSTING THEM?
The fact that you did/do not supports my contention that you have an aversion to real science and empirical data that manifests itself as strong reticence to go hear the mainstream science side coupled with gullible readiness to believe anything YEC’s throw out there (presumable because of the false assumption that “Christians wouldn’t lie”).
Report comment to moderator
#72 TJ – thanks for proving my point …
It’s clear you didn’t read the detailed link with the argument, because you couldn’t have posted the rebuttals (to the argument you never read) on that timescale.
This is not a simple discussion – one of my graduate advisors was Peter Goldreich who has contributed to the relevant tidal theory. I am prepared to have a science discussion about AIG “rebuttals” vis a vis lunar recession if you wish, but I’m quite certain TJ that you are not willing to do anything but quote YEC sites. I did look at your DeYoung link – simplistic and ridiculous and utterly ignorant of tidal coupling between oceans, continents and the earth’s interior. DeYoung does not rebut the scientific story, he just ignores it!
Report comment to moderator
As usual, Spinoza, you respond with a logical fallacy (a false dichotomy). If the data, for instance, was old and I had not checked it recently (admittedly, I should have), then that would be a different reason.
Your bold text emphasizes part of the problem. You assume, for instance, your sources are always and irrefutably correct, when that may very well not be the case. I would suspect, for instance, that you might not accept correction if the shoe were on the other foot (for example, if you attempted to interpret a Biblical passage and relied on old text critical arguments that have been discarded — some skeptics on here have done this very thing). Another false assumption might be “scientists wouldn’t lie” or “scientists are always right.” You will recall, for instance, the reason for the moon dust argument in the first place was because of a scientific error.
Report comment to moderator
# 74: Spinoza, calm down. I was simply pointing out that there are other viewpoints out there. No need to resort to name-calling on the issue.
My point is not to argue scientific detail. I was letting SteveG know that other things are out there, which he had not seemed to consider. It is fairly obvious that nothing short of agreeing with you 100% will suffice, and you are correct, I am not interested in the least in such an approach. Since I reject the philosophical presupposition of naturalism and consider it to fallacious, that would probably be a better starting point, but even that would a slow and tedious conversation (and probably not a road you would be willing to venture down).
Report comment to moderator
Your posts are starting to look like Victoria’s, btw.
Report comment to moderator
TJ’s Blog – “Evidence of catastrophic upheaval: even uniformitarian geologists admit that the sediments existing on the earth were deposited during catastrophic floods. The concession, though, is that there were numerous localized floods occurring over vast periods of time. The evidence, however, suggests that there was one such event, a worldwide flood, which would do damage to the uniformitarian theories and mitigate against the necessity of an old earth (e.g., the widespread existence of polystrate fossils buried in a short time span, the preservation of soft tissues and DNA of some fossils, the absence of bioturbidity and erosion in successive geological layers, the existence of coal deposits and fossilized trees in Antarctica, the absence of meteorite remains in the deeper levels of geological formation, etc.).
This is so full of lies about the geological record I don’t even know where to begin – The overwhelming majority of the geological record is NOT composed of flood deposits, and there is no evidence of a “global” flood at any time in the history of the Earth! A few problems for you TJ:
Fossil desert dunes
Limestone Coral Reefs
River deposits
Buried Canyons
Animal tracks
Raindrop casts
Mud cracks (from drying mud)
These are just a few of many types of non-flood sedimentary structures that rhythmically interbed the occasional local (never global) flood deposit. I am not just passing on what is from the literature – I know where to see each of these in a multi-thousand-foot sequence of rocks all within 200 miles of my house! (I live south of grand canyon/grand staircase).
See The Flood Geology FAQs
But I expect you’ll just link a rebuttal without reading the scientific literature.
In citing this nonsense without fact-checking, you have proven SteveG is absolutely correct about your hostility to empirical truth! This is not intended as a “personal” affront, but simply an observation that you are held fast in delusion. I pity you.
Report comment to moderator
TJ – “I was letting SteveG know that other things are out there, which he had not seemed to consider.”
Another devious lying creationist trick – take NO RESPONSIBILITY for the truth of what you say but just “put it out there.” Are you somebody’s campaign manager? Ah yes – you are a campaign manager for Ken Ham, I think!
Report comment to moderator
And we have more special pleading…
Report comment to moderator
And more hostility…
Report comment to moderator
“My point is not to argue scientific detail.”
This is completely inconsistent with the act posting “scientific arguments” against an old earth on your blog. You lie even to yourself.
Report comment to moderator
81 – “and more hostility” – Actually, it’s just pure moral indignation – I truly HATE IT when people lie about nature. Especially people who claim to be representing God while doing so. Especially when they know they are lying but just try to use it to mislead others.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, Spinoza, you have no way of knowing my motivations about anything.
BTW, why is it wrong to lie and mislead others?
Report comment to moderator
A few other observations:
Is it possible for scientists to lie?
Is observation foolproof?
Is empericism the same thing as truth?
Are scientists unbiased when they observe data?
Have scientists ever been wrong?
What do scientists do when they are wrong? How willing are they to correct the paradigm when they are wrong?
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza I believe the issue is that the deniers wish to abolish empiricism.
I wouldn’t be so hasty. After all Lord Kelvin calculated the age of the earth to be just over 100 million years old based on the time it would take for the earth to cool off to its present temperature.
Apparently Lord Kelvin knew nothing of the heat that radioactive decay produces. And even under pressure from other scientists, Lord Kelvin remained a “denier”, sticking with his original estimate.
According to many posting in this blog, Lord Kelvin was ignorant.
Fine.
How many other scientific theories have been found to be incomplete, inadequate, or simply wrong after new discoveries were made by subsequent generations of scientists?
As a practical matter, the public need only wait a few years while the next generation of scientists change everything again. In the 1800’s the age of the earth was but 100 million years old. In the 1900’s scientists think the earth is 4.5 billion years old. But who knows what scientists will think once they make the next big discovery?
Report comment to moderator
85 – And you accuse me of special pleading! You side-track your way out of a discussion of empirical fact by casting science-o-phobic aspersions, all the while uncritically accepting YEC assertions because they support your ideology.
Scientists are human with human faults. When evidence proves them wrong, the best of them admit it. The worst are pronounced wrong by others and fade into obscurity if nature continues to show them to be so.
Many Christians are severe critics of the nonsensical YEC arguments you so nonchalantly pass off. Whadya suppose their motives are?
I am no longer a Christian, but was a YEC who was honest enough to look at empirical truth, hoping to find real evidence for things like a young earth and a global flood.
There ain’t any!
Report comment to moderator
So, what are you saying about any scientist who disagrees with you, who honestly looks at the evidence and concludes that the earth is young?
No side-tracking, btw. You were asserting non-emperical arguments first, and I was simply asking you to justify them.
Report comment to moderator
86 – ah – the old ’science is arbitrary so pay no mind’ argument.
You have no right to medical attention.
The great age of the earth does not rest on a single overturnable discovery, but on many thousands of observations. 4.56 billion may some day be refined to 4.55 billion, but the likelihood of it becoming 6,000 is virtually nil.
Report comment to moderator
And # 85 was not special pleading. Just as an example, special pleading might be when one blogger ridicules another for linking to a website that supports his point of view, while at the same time linking to websites that support his own.
And asking someone who holds so tightly to scientific naturalism to justify his belief in scientific naturalism is not side-stepping. If you wish to convince someone of your viewpoints, you’re probably going to have to convince them to be a naturalist first. If you cannot or are not willing to do that, then it would probably be best not to get so worked up on the matter.
Report comment to moderator
So, what are you saying about any scientist who disagrees with you, who honestly looks at the evidence and concludes that the earth is young?
I don’t know any modern examples –
There are YECs with some scientific training who take Genesis as a given on religious grounds and then try to explain away the data to justify their religious belief. I don’t frankly know how they live with themselves, and I certainly would not claim this practice as “honest.”
I have studied some of the YEC/ICR works like Austin’s “Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe”.
The sheer distortion, selectivity, and misrepresentation of fact in such works is anything but “honest.” I can’t for the life of me see any difference between such works and outright lying.
Report comment to moderator
Special pleading is when you accept YEC criticisms of science, but don’t even READ scientific criticisms of YEC arguments.
I read links from both sides. Do you?
Report comment to moderator
“And asking someone who holds so tightly to scientific naturalism to justify his belief in scientific naturalism is not side-stepping”
It is if you do this in the middle of a critique of your own pseudo-scientific arguments against an old earth, solely on an appeal to naturalistic propositions. Respect for scientific naturalism is implicit in the kind of arguments you posted. If you don’t believe in it in any degree, why post such arguments at all? Just quote scripture and be done with it!
Report comment to moderator
# 92 — Sure. If this is the blogger who used to go by the name Dave, you know I do, because we had a discussion on this a while back. Your repeated attempts to impugn some evil motive toward me are most unbecoming. So were your comments to Roger in # 89. Even though I think you are wrong, I have tried to be respectful to you, but your tone has gotten worse.
But your comments in # 91 show the crux of your position. You have placed everything on your own faith in naturalism, and anyone who doesn’t see things your way either isn’t a real scientist (the old “No True Scotsman” fallacy) or he is a liar (a pure ad hominem). You understand, I think, that not everyone agrees with, that people have different presuppositions, that science cannot provide all the answers, that science has (and often does) made mistakes, and that — gasp! — even scientists have been guilty of manipulating data to forward their own pet theories. Yet you impugn all evil intent to the other side. More special pleading.
Report comment to moderator
# 93 — It doesn’t appear you understand all the philosophical underpinnings of scientific naturalism.
Report comment to moderator
Your posts are starting to look like Victoria’s, btw.
Ok that is really funny.
There are YECs with some scientific training who take Genesis as a given on religious grounds and then try to explain away the data to justify their religious belief. I don’t frankly know how they live with themselves, and I certainly would not claim this practice as “honest.”
That is really true. It’s funny how quickly the conspiracy card (or worldview) is played when consilience is brought up. It’s the E.A.C. yo!!!!
Report comment to moderator
TJ, the problem I have with your objection to “scientific naturalism” is that I think you’re objecting at the wrong time on the wrong grounds.
If a scripture that you believe is divine revelation states something that appears to be contradicted by all observed evidence, it isn’t “naturalism” to conclude the the Scripture must either be not a true revelation after all, or else one not intended to be taken literally.
If a book you believe is authoritative about a historical figure spoke of the person eating mashed potatoes with a spoon at a banquet, and you were there and know he ate his mashed potatoes with a fork, you might conclude that the biographer was mistaken, and you might further conclude that which utensil the historical figure used was not the point. You would be unlikely to conclude that he actually did eat them with a spoon even though you saw the fork with your own eyes.
Objecting to naturalism when the discovered facts don’t accord with the Bible is a losing battle, and unnecessary to boot. The time to raise that objection, in my opinion, is when someone tries to argue that the limits of what we can observe empirically are the limits of what can exist.
Report comment to moderator
#94 TJ – this appears to be the method of your argument:
1. Post YEC arguments against the well-established multi-billion-year-old age of the earth under the pretense that such arguments stand solely on the basis of empirical data – hope that no one will fact-check these arguments and that they will successfully elicit suspicions about established scientific conclusions that you reject solely on ideological (not empirical) grounds.
2. When confronted with evidence that YEC arguments are either out of date or downright fraudulent – i.e., they are refuted by mountains of empirical data – try to avoid further scrutiny by beginning a new argument about the philosophic merits of relying on empirical data. Wave the “naturalistic assumptions” red-herring flag as vigorously as possible, even though this assumption was implicit in your previously proposed YEC arguments.
Classic bait and switch!
Do yourself a favor and stay out of the YEC kool-aid. At least your anti-empirical bibliolatry has a chance of being self-consistent.
Report comment to moderator
Hmm… Back to why the Grand Canyon is not billions of years old.
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Radiometric_dating_falsely_assumes_initial_conditions_are_known
The methods only work for Uniformitarianism. Since I do not believe that the Earth’s rate of change has remained the same for as long as it has existed, then I cannot agree with the way most of the dating methods work.
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Uniformitarianism
Not to mention the instances where radiometeric methods gave inaccurate results.
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Radiometric_dating_gives_unreliable_results
If you have a resource that proves Uniformitarianism (sheesh, couldn’t they come up with a better word?), feel free to post a link.
Spinoza, thanks for the links to Talk Origins. While I disagree with just about everything they say, I appreciated the fact that they linked to CreationWiki. I had a fun time reading through their index of creationist claims, and then reading the rebuttal on CreationWiki.
Report comment to moderator
Jerrac:
You have two problems in your reasoning here.
1. If you can successfully argue that the results of radiometric dating are not certain, due to the assumptions they require, you still have not shown that they are wrong. And you certainly have not shown that they are wrong by the orders of magnitude necessary to support a young Earth.
2. An alleged global flood is repeatedly invoked as an event that could have thrown off the dating methods. But there’s no evidence there ever was a global flood. And such a flood would have left unmistakeable signs.
Report comment to moderator
Well, here is this link:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp
Has a bunch of stuff on flood geology. I’d point you to the best articles, but I am rather tired right now and my brain doesn’t want to work well enough to analyze the data. I’ll look at it later.
I will say this, there is evidence for a global flood. It’s just that when old earth people look at the data, they interpret it as multiple local disasters.
Also, where is the conclusive proof for uniformitarianism? If there are multiple small catastrophes, why not one giant one? Couldn’t the Earth have been hit by an asteroid that set off enough changes that uniformitarianism doesn’t work?
Report comment to moderator
#99 Hey Jerrac – Glad you like the links.
Well if your brain is tired now – here’s some exercise for later.
Strict uniforitarianism is not held by geologists who prefer the term “actualism” to refer to the assumption that physical laws have remained constant. Geologists accept past events with no present analog. For instance, the early earth had no atmospheric oxygen but plentiful oceanic iron that yielded “Banded Iron Formations” that are not forming today anywhere on Earth. Protoerozoic glacial deposits at equatorial latitudes imply the earth was once iced over completely – not happening now.
On the other hand, most sedimentary rocks have features – grain sizes, shapes, composition, etc. – that are matched by depositional environments active today and are studied in this light. This is what sedimentary petrology is largely about! Since floods also happen in historical times, flood deposits are amenable to the same kinds of study – there are no global sedimentary rock units that bear any resemblance to observed and/or theoretical identification of flood origin as described in Genesis. Local catastrophes (including floods) happened in the past, and they happen in the present. But they are both geographically local and comprise a very small fraction of the total sedimentary time record. The proof for “multiple local flood disasters” is the major fraction of non-flood deposits that separate flood deposts. YECs don’t like to talk about them, or if they do – they claim they could be flood-generated without providing any justification and by ignoring pretty much all of sedimentary geology!
“Earth’s rate of change has remained the same”
I’m not sure what you mean by the “Earth’s rate of change.” If you mean the rate of radioactive decay, its constancy is not just an assumption but is constrained by observations. Changes in decay rates commensurate with a 6,000 year old Earth would have observable consequences for astronomical observations of objects far away (these are seen as they were long ago). Observations of Supernova 1987A, for example, show that decay rates were the same 169,000 years ago. Galaxies billions of light years away show both that the universe is billions of years old, and that radioactive decay rates were the same. Decay rate changes of the magnitude proposed by the YEC “RATE” program would have melted the earth and basically unraveled the world as we know it. They are incompatible with the historical record of having people (or indeed any organisms at all) actually alive on the earth thousands of years ago!
For a brief list of reasons why constant radioactive decay is a good assumption constrained by observations, see:
Creationist Claim CF210: Radiometric dating assumes that radioisotope decay rates are constant, but this assumption is not supported. All processes in nature vary according to different factors, and we should not expect radioactivity to be different).
Unertainties in radiometric dating are well known. Creationists misuse these to discredit the technique by ignoring 90+% of data that work quite well and by fraudulently invoking cases known not to work as if they were a failure of method. For example, Woodmorappe’s selection and exaggeration of bad dates (together with other YEC arguments) from the literature is discussed by former ICR/YEC turned OEC Glenn Morton here:
Are Radioactive Dates Wrong?
You can easily find a back-and-forth discussion between Morton and Woodmorappe on the web (also look for debates between Henke and Woodmorappe and for analysis of “Woody” by Dalrymple.
As another of many examples, I find on the link you cited a reference to alleged dating problems with Grand Canyon basalts that is the result of the fraudulent “Grand Canyon Dating Project” by Steve Austin. I am very familiar with this – see a good analysis of it here:
Criticism of ICR’s Grand Canyon Dating Project.
What it shows is that Austin knowingly collected non-cogenetic basalt samples for Rb-Sr isochron dating, knowing full well that these would give a date, not of rock origin, but of the much older mantle reservoir. He then touts this as a problem for isochron dating that justifies ignoring it altogether.
This is just plain fraud.
Cheers
Report comment to moderator
There are some enormous boulders in old talus fields underneath some of the steepest slopes of Great Smoky Mountains National Park. These fields have accumulated during glacial transitional erosion and intermittent slope failures. A research project excavated underneath one such house-sized rock and found pieces of plants and exoskeletons of ants and other insects that had long been extinct and were new to science.
How does the flood do that, is what I wanna know? The pleistocene lasted much longer than choose-you-favorite-date-from-whatever-less-than-whatever-scientific-evidence-support.
There is a world full of such examples. It’s just crazy to claim that ‘Since I do not believe that the Earth’s rate of change has remained the same for as long as it has existed, then I cannot agree with the way most of the dating methods work.’
If you are going to to suggest that ‘the earth’s rate of change has not remained the same for as long as it has existed, you have to show positive evidence for that claim. Just claiming that you have found another way to ‘interpret the data’ is trivial. So have tribesmen with plates in their lips or those who worship pineapples etc.
The way that godless materialistic atheist science deals with the problem of ‘ways to interpret the data’ is we immediately strike that foolishness from the book and then we formulate hypotheses and test them against data from the real world.
Do you agree that what you are doing is completely the opposite, i.e. ‘making a claim, denying it is a hypothesis, then shielding it from all confrontation with the empirical world’? I can not reject that hypothesis.
What steve has mentioned I find very intriguing. Steve’s hypothesis would suggest that Jerrac may claim that his behavior, ie claims not suspect to empirical testing, is a result of my commitment to ‘naturalism’ or some other such business.
It is unfair, this presupposition, one might whine. After all, you can’t test your assumption that the universe operates consistently or according to laws, they might plea. and then this man gets on the elevator or changes a tire or plants peas. Such an assumption is the business of solipcism. My experience with Chewbacca was the first time that I had ever had this discussion with someone who had added a particular self-referential tautology, the notion that even thinking at all is proof of the god of the bible, and any argument against this proposition using any sort of logic or discussion at all was deemed invalid since those tools were the ontological possession of my counterargument.
I must admit that is a new twist on what is otherwise the boringly contrived and wishful thinking ontological argument for god. What an orgy of postmodernism at it’s finest, unwitting (perhaps) but glorious in it’s own right.
Report comment to moderator
p.s. “Couldn’t the Earth have been hit by an asteroid that set off enough changes that uniformitarianism doesn’t work?”
The overwhelming majority of scientists believe it was – many times. There are over 150 terrestrial craters to prove it, among other things.
Terrestrial Impact Craters
Each of these no doubt had very catastrophic consequences for life. Most known craters are embedded in what flood geologists interpret as flood deposits – apparently there were several dozens of giant impacts during the “year” of the flood, including the one that silly scientists believe did in the dinosaurs, who were busy making footprints at the bottom of an ocean (but only for a very brief time – they somehow timed their deaths to facilitate burial in a small layer of flood deposits intermediate between the burial of trilobites below and a cemetary of large mammals above). By all rights, not even Noah’s ark should have survived. It must have been another miracle!
The “uniformitarian” label is a YEC strawman. Scientists don’t swear allegiance to it the way ICR/YECs swear allegiance to the Tenets of Scientific Creationism. Geologists are not bound to believe that all past events have to have a present analog; if there really were evidence for a past global flood it would certainly be accepted by now; there is no “uniformitarian” ideology in place to hinder acknowledgment of putative data in favor of a deluge. On the other hand – if a sedimentary rock looks exactly like a lithified version of a modern sediment deposit, the simplest hypothesis says that’s just what it is. This is called “Ockham’s razor,” and scientists are generally committed to it.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza — You have no right to medical attention.
Roger — If the talk concerns 17th century medicine, I’d take my chances with hope and prayer after reading about the medical procedure called “bleeding.” Medical practitioners would have done well to remember God’s word through noticed a complete lack of discussion on this bloMoses, “The life is in the blood.”
Moreover, I’m hoping your statement is hyperbolic because I would hate to think people actually believe what you implied, i.e. only intelligent people, or people with scientific knowledge, or people who agree with the current paradigm deserve medical attention.
However, you completely miss the point as you posture yourself to “win” the debate. I can only conclude that your mocking tone is born of your inability to deal directly with the issue of epistemological certainty. Scientists are never as certain about their theories as their apologists seem to be and your attitude reveals you to be a devotee rather than an actual participant in science.
Why should I listen to a science “groopie” tell me something about the world?
Report comment to moderator
Roger at #105: Scientists are never as certain about their theories as their apologists seem to be
However, they are not as uncertain as Creationist critics would require them to be.
Many Creationist arguments run along this line: “Because Professor Boles thinks the Earth is 4 billion years old, while Dr. Carver says it’s 4.5 billion, and Professor Davis argues for 4.25, we can therefore conclude that these scientists are just making it up.”
Point being, while scientific ideas don’t always line up cleanly, they do not deviate by anywhere near enough to allow for the Earth to be 6,000 years old by any empirical measure.
Report comment to moderator
#106 – “I’m hoping your statement is hyperbolic because I would hate to think people actually believe what you implied, i.e. only intelligent people, or people with scientific knowledge, or people who agree with the current paradigm deserve medical attention.”
It was hyperbolic – but even in that form not directed at the unintelligent or uninformed, but at creationist “groopies” [sic] who profess that findings of modern science are arbitrary, have made no progress, and will be overturned any minute now. Why would you even trust modern medicine?! This sentiment is well expressed in a recent Doonesbury cartoon:
Are you a Creationist?
Why should I listen to a science “groopie” tell me something about the world?
Who you should listen to about the age of earth is experts in historical geology and radio-isotope dating. These are the ones who spend their lives studying the problem.
Report comment to moderator
Scientists are never as certain about their theories as their apologists seem to be and your attitude reveals you to be a devotee rather than an actual participant in science.
I have over a 100 peer-reviewed publications in planetary science and astronomy that imply otherwise.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza…
>>>It is not necessary to give up Christianity in order to accept the empirical fact of the age of Earth<<<
Without quibbling over your presumed definition of ‘empirical fact’, let me cut to my bottom line and oversimplify by saying…
Yes it is quite necessary to give up Christianity in order to accept (mere empirical evidence for our existence, past present & future). The very heart of Christianity asserts a transcendant, omniscient divine being who not only operates outside of ‘nature’ (ie, super-natural), He in fact created it and sustains it… and intervenes in it in wildly miraculous ways not subject to your or my measurement. Christianity by definition asserts “Jesus is Lord; I must get to know Him as Truth. (And thank you, Lord for offering me peace with you now & eternally!)”. On the other hand, relying solely on empiricism flies in the face of the Almighty by precluding super-natural intervention, and asserting that “My mind is Lord; I am the final decider of truth.”
But I very much appreciate everyone’s inputs in the dialog so far. It sparked me to start writing out my position, at…
http://cityreaching.pbwiki.com/Neil%27s%20Approach%20To%20Science%20Apologetics
Report comment to moderator
Indy – The very heart of Christianity asserts a transcendant, omniscient divine being who not only operates outside of ‘nature’ (ie, super-natural), He in fact created it and sustains it… and intervenes in it in wildly miraculous ways not subject to your or my measurement. Christianity by definition asserts “Jesus is Lord; I must get to know Him as Truth.
Frankly, I don’t see anything in that statement strictly precluded by science. But neither is it mandated by science. There are many scientists who believe as you have articulated above. If the acts of God are “not subject to … measurement,” then they lie outside of science and cannot be part of “creation science” or “intelligent design science.” This doesn’t mean you can’t believe them, it just means you can’t establish them scientifically.
Science offers no ultimate explanation for existence. It does endeavor to uncover whatever chain of physical causes it can that led to our biological existence, but this is not what you seek. Science doesn’t mandate or preclude belief in a religious solution to the problem of existence.
The real problem comes when you insist that physical events outlined in revealed religious texts literally correspond to a scientific account of what occurred, even if evidence indicates otherwise. Many devout Christians rightly reject this interpretation and consider it to be blasphemous, because it contradicts revelation-in-nature from the kind of God you describe.
Many secular persons, however, see inadequate justification for such belief.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus — If you are going to to suggest that ‘the earth’s rate of change has not remained the same for as long as it has existed, you have to show positive evidence for that claim.
Roger — Actually, this is not true. Contrary to Spinoza’s inept dodge, the idea that earth changes are gradual and small, requiring vast amounts of time is the common assumption among geologists. The idea that the Earth has NOT been affected by sudden, violent events, is an assertion that must be proved, not assumed, since we all experience these sudden violent events within our own lifetimes.
The article under discussion here, and the science behind it, assumes that the water, not the wind, earthquake, or other forces, cut the canyon out of solid rock over eons of time. The debate is over the duration of the process, not the process itself.
But then, as you pointed out earlier, the subject of the article is really about the age of the rock, which forms the canyon, not the canyon itself.
As I understand it, in order to discover the age of rocks, geologists look for nature’s “watches”, i.e. timepieces in the form of radioactive isotopes. Just as an hourglass allows sand to flow from the top glass to the bottom glass at a constant rate, these little isotopes act like an hourglass, in which radioactive ions decay into more stable atoms at a constant rate over time. Geologists merely have to open up the ground, find the “hourglass” and read it to know when nature put it there.
(To say that “Nature” put it there is an unfortunate anthropomorphism common to much of these discussions.)
Anyway, geologists are actually looking for meteoric deposits, especially radioactive metals from outside the earth, which have come here sometime in the past. What geologists actually measure is the byproduct of the interaction between these radioactive metals from space and the native surrounding rock. The radioactive decay from these metals presents measurable changes to the surrounding rocks, which can be used to determine how long the meteor has been embedded in the rock. By analogy, geologists are measuring, not the amount of sand left in a closed hourglass, but how much of the sand has spilled out of the bottom of a broken one.
In this, geologists make the incontrovertible assumption that radioactive decay happens at a constant rate.
At first I thought the debate centered around the formation of the canyon, which might have been formed over vast amounts of time or might have been formed due to short, violent episodes. How can geologists discount a rapid, violent formation? I don’t know. But the article is making a different point.
The article is claiming that the rock itself is 12 million years old. That is, nature put the time piece, i.e. the meteor, on the ground 12 million years ago. Since then, stratified layers of rock have covered the meteor, while the radioactive isotope interacted with it. Having measured the transfer from the meteor to the earth rock, geologists have determined that layer of rock to be 12 million years old.
Two assumptions can be made at this point, given these geologists are correct: 1. the layers above this point are younger. Or 2. The layers above this point are the same age, but were moved to this location AFTER the meteorite landed on that spot.
And the article doesn’t say whether the geologists took samples from the bottom of the canyon or somewhere halfway up.
Report comment to moderator
Roger what article are you talking about? Are you still talking about the grand canyon, with the meteorite stuff?
Report comment to moderator
Roger post 111,
your comment:
“Erasmus — If you are going to to suggest that ‘the earth’s rate of change has not remained the same for as long as it has existed, you have to show positive evidence for that claim.
Roger — Actually, this is not true.”
has at least the following problem with it:
if we are going to say that radioactive decay is not constant over time and tectonic motion is not approximately constant over time, you will need to show positive evidence for this.
And be careful to consider the energy implications if you accelerate these processes by perhaps 10,000X or more.
Report comment to moderator
Steve — Many Creationist arguments run along this line: “Because Professor Boles thinks the Earth is 4 billion years old, while Dr. Carver says it’s 4.5 billion, and Professor Davis argues for 4.25, we can therefore conclude that these scientists are just making it up.”
Roger — I wonder if that is really the creationist argument? That certainly wasn’t my point when I reminded us of Lord Kalvin’s insistence that the earth was 100 million years old based on his measurements, etc. I thought the talk had ventured over into the subject of the supposed dogmatism and ignorance of certain viewpoints. I wasn’t suggesting that scientist “make stuff up”. But I was suggesting that some scientists (even scientific societies) hold their own theories tightly, even in the view of contrary evidence. That is, scientific knowledge, like other forms of knowledge, has inertia — a resistance to change and challenge — which those of us living 100 years later seem to forget.
Steve — Point being, while scientific ideas don’t always line up cleanly, they do not deviate by anywhere near enough to allow for the Earth to be 6,000 years old by any empirical measure.
Roger — Again, I want to be cautious here. Lord Kalvin was and still is a well respected scientist of his time. That’s why I used him as an example. As far as I know, no one accuses him of being a crack pot “creationist.” He just didn’t know things that we know now. That’s all.
His “young” earth wasn’t based on an assumed catastrophic formation of the earth, but on a uniformly steady state of heat loss for the sun and the earth, which dated the earth anywhere from 20 to 400 million years. He didn’t know about the heat from radioactive decay or the nuclear processes in the sun.
In other words, empiricism isn’t the answer, or at least it isn’t the complete answer. After all, who in Lord Kelvin’s time could “observe” radioactive decay or nuclear processes? And it’s not as if Marie Curie invented radioactivity, she discovered it by accident.
Again, dogmatism is not the luxury of science.
Report comment to moderator
What is interesting in these discussion is that YECs generally suggest that they are not anti-science.
Which means they must therefore, when considering scientific questions, play by the rules of science.
And this assumption is in genral shared by YECs and non-YECs.
YECs, however, typically add the additional assumption that the Bible is strictly inerrant.
But of course there is a mass of material which has been reviewed scientifically demonstrating that an old earth is not disproved by a scientific evaluation of the evidence.
YECs, by the nature of the term, posit a young earth: typically 10,000 years or less.
But now YECs have a propblem: if they are to consider the question scientifically, so as not to be anti-science, they must produce evidence which, when reviewed scientificallyt, falsifies an old earth and specrfically doees not falisfy a young earth.
Raising questions about the details of any single piece of evidence for an old earth is, given the large number of evidences and models demonstrating an old earth, not sufficient.
Unfortuantely there is no scientifically reviewed evidence which does not falsify a young earth (10,000 years old or less).
And without evidence which does not support a young earth, YECs are by, the definition of the process, being anti-science.
They really have two logical choices:
1) admit that their adherance to YEC is a religious, not a scientific, position
OR
2) provide conclusive scientifically reviewed data which falsifies an old earth and which could, but does not, falsify a young earth
When YECs fail to accept either of these two positions, the logical conclusion is that they are being illogical.
Report comment to moderator
roger post 114,
now your comment here:
“In other words, empiricism isn’t the answer, or at least it isn’t the complete answer. After all, who in Lord Kelvin’s time could “observe” radioactive decay or nuclear processes? And it’s not as if Marie Curie invented radioactivity, she discovered it by accident. ”
seem very telling.
Lets look at the scientific process (we are talking science here). The scientific process depends on empirical observation as the key tool by which to attempt to falsify scientific hypotheses.
So when you down play empiricism, it is porbably excusable for one to interpret this comment as also downplaying science and arguably being anti-science.
But of course the question to the YEC community is is YEC scientifically supported, or alternatley, is adhering to the YEC position anti-science.
So when you suggest empiricism is not the complete answer, what is it not the complete answer of?
Report comment to moderator
Dang – them scientists just completely changed their mind about the age of the universe again. They used to say it was 13.7 billion years old. Now that’s been changed to:
13.73 billion years old!
Don’t believe a thing they say!
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza — It was hyperbolic – but even in that form not directed at the unintelligent or uninformed, but at creationist “groopies” [sic] who profess that findings of modern science are arbitrary, have made no progress, and will be overturned any minute now. Why would you even trust modern medicine?!
Roger — That’s not how you worded it the first time. You said I didn’t deserve medical attention. Quote: “You have no right to medical attention.” This is the kind of morally inferior thinking that worries me, coming from so-called scientist thinkers. The fact that you would even think that some people are undeserving of medical attention puts you in the same class as those who want to abort retarded people. I’m hoping that you will distance yourself from that and come to your senses, but I wonder how many others like you exist? Is this what we can expect from others who place a value on intelligence and rate the value of human beings based on what scientific facts they affirm?
Spinoza — Who you should listen to about the age of earth is experts in historical geology and radio-isotope dating. These are the ones who spend their lives studying the problem.
Roger — I’m glad to hear you say it is a problem. But I’m concerned about a deeper problem, one that you modeled here for us today. I’m worried about a new scientific “fundamentalism”, which will feel free to deny the so-called benefits of science, such as medicine, to those who do not affirm certain beliefs. Perhaps you are alone in this belief. I hope so.
Report comment to moderator
Roger: “After all, who in Lord Kelvin’s time could “observe” radioactive decay or nuclear processes?”
Henri Becquerel
Just to be clear, according to Dalrymple, Kelvin privately admitted that his hypothesis regarding the age of the Earth had been disproved by the discovery of the enormous amount of energy available from within the atom, although he never recanted. Kelvin apparently realized that he had lost the argument and simply gave up, turning his energies to other matters until his death in 1907.
Burchfield, J. D. 1975. Lord Kelvin and the age of the earth. Science History Publ., New York. 260 pp.
Report comment to moderator
I’m glad to hear you say it is a problem.
Actually it’s more of a series of puzzles. There is no problem or controversy about the great age of the earth within science. There are still puzzles like the age-dating of many events along the way. Virtual certainty that Earth is billions (not thousands) of years old is maintained by the vast majority of working scientists. This is not because of fundamentalism; it’s because of overwhelming empirical evidence. if even more overwhelming evidence miraculously appeared in favor of a 6,000 year earth, everybody would jump the old-earth ship. But I expect we’d all look very carefully before we leaped.
And stop with the “you would deny me medicine” stuff – I admitted it was hyperbole; I wish you all the best health in the world!
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus — if we are going to say that radioactive decay is not constant over time and tectonic motion is not approximately constant over time, you will need to show positive evidence for this.
Roger — Maybe. But that’s not your original claim. You asserted, “If you are going to to suggest that ‘the earth’s rate of change has not remained the same for as long as it has existed, you have to show positive evidence for that claim.”, which is speaks about the earth’s rate of change, not radioactive decay. With regard to earth changes, our generation has witnessed great changes and catastrophic changes within a lifetime. Observable evidence is on the side of those who affirm earth changes include moments of swift and violent processes.
In order for your statement to be true, you must prove that earth has never gone through catastrophic change — ever — or in your words, “for as long as it has existed.”
Report comment to moderator
But then, as you pointed out earlier, the subject of the article is really about the age of the rock, which forms the canyon, not the canyon itself.
Well not exactly – it’s about the U-Pb age of recent cave features (”mammillaries”) that are stratigraphically associated with the water table that in turn fell with the carving of the canyon. The rocks that “form the canyon” are orders of magnitude older than 17 million years.
The article is claiming that the rock itself is 12 million years old. That is, nature put the time piece, i.e. the meteor, on the ground 12 million years ago. Since then, stratified layers of rock have covered the meteor, while the radioactive isotope interacted with it. Having measured the transfer from the meteor to the earth rock, geologists have determined that layer of rock to be 12 million years old.
I can’t follow this. What “meteor” are you referring to? Uranium is all over this area and carried in the ground water – I assume that is trace uranium in the CaCO3 mammillary ages were derived.
Report comment to moderator
p.s. There is actually an abandoned Uranium mine in the Grand Canyon – and there have been recent attempts to open the park to uranium mining again.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza — And stop with the “you would deny me medicine” stuff – I admitted it was hyperbole; I wish you all the best health in the world!
Roger — Glad to hear it. In the mean time, you should know something else. Nobody, except scientists perhaps, gives a flying fig about how old the earth is. But people really care about moral issues, especially those concerning the right to medical care, and the right to life.
So if we were going to compare a person who believes both in a 6,000 year old earth and the love for all people with another person who believes in a 4.5 million year old earth, but also believes that some human beings are more worthy of the benefits of science, I’ll take the first one over the second one.
What good is all this knowledge if it doesn’t make a man into a better person? What if the man is a very loving father, loving husband, generous man to his community, works hard, respects authority, pays honor to whom honor is due and taxes to whom taxes are due and his only fault is that he affirms a young earth? Are we going to say he doesn’t deserve to live simply because he got his facts wrong?
I’m not saying this in order to prove you wrong about a 4.5 million year old earth. I’m saying this in response to the attitude displayed here and other places when folks get together to discuss the issue. You made this about the denial of medical treatment, not me. You made this a moral issue, not me.
Report comment to moderator
#121 “Earth’s rate of change” of WHAT exactly?
Geologists just look at the rocks – if something catastrophic is the only explanation, it becomes the preferred theory. Some examples:
1. Snowball Earth on several occasions
2. To break Snowball earth CO2 had to climb to 100’s of times present levels (by not being absorbed into ice-covered oceans). Huge Carbonate deposts cap Snowball earth deposits as expected – must’ve been VERY HOT after snowball earth and unlike anything today.
3. Mass Extinctions – Five big ones in the Phanerozoic
4. Sudden rises of oxygen, first at the beginning of the proterozoic, then a more dramatic one at the beginning of the Cambrian.
5. Big Drops in oxygen – especially following the horrific Permian extinction. Don’t time-travel to the early Triassic unless you take oxygen tanks.
6. Massive flood basalts in Siberia and India, the like of which are not seen today – these may have resulted in the eventual opening up of supercontinents.
These are just a few off the top of my head
Having said that, most of geological history is comparatively boring, according to the rocks. And the rocks have the final say.
Report comment to moderator
Nobody, except scientists perhaps, gives a flying fig about how old the earth is.
YECs care a great deal, and insist that no one who believes the Earth to be older than 6-10,000 years could possibly be a moral person. If you want to see how loving and ethical they are, read the story of the ICR “excommunication” of Glen Morton for simply disagreeing about the age of the earth:
Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism
Report comment to moderator
Roger – What if the man … pays taxes to whom taxes are due…
Ironic example, considering the example of YEC tax-evader Kent Hovind aka Dr. Dino
YEC beliefs do NOT make individuals a better citizen. Rather it turns them into them hateful anti-science hinderers of national progress and security. And teaching your children lies about nature is never a good foundation for ethics. It makes for paranoid opponents of all academic learning. Or it causes family strife when the kids figure out yer lyin’.
If you REALLY care about human spirituality, you will seek to promote it within a framework of truth about the physical world. Any other context is a foundation of sand.
Report comment to moderator
TJ has me cynical about whether people actually read links, so here is Glenn Morton’s Story reproduced:
Why I left Young-earth Creationism
by Glenn R. Morton
Copyright 2000 by Glenn R. Morton. This may be freely distributed so long as no changes are made to the text and no charges are made to the reader.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm
For years I struggled to understand how the geologic data I worked with everyday could be fit into a Biblical perspective. Being a physics major in college I had no geology courses. Thus, as a young Christian, when I was presented with the view that Christians must believe in a young-earth and global flood, I went along willingly. I knew there were problems but I thought I was going to solve them. When I graduated from college with a physics degree, physicists were unemployable since NASA had just laid a bunch of them off. I did graduate work in philosophy and then decided to leave school to support my growing family. Even after a year, physicists were still unemployable. After six months of looking, I finally found work as a geophysicist working for a seismic company. Within a year, I was processing seismic data for Atlantic Richfield.
This was where I first became exposed to the problems geology presented to the idea of a global flood. I would see extremely thick (30,000 feet) sedimentary layers. One could follow these beds from the surface down to those depths where they were covered by vast thicknesses of sediment. I would see buried mountains which had experienced thousands of feet of erosion, which required time. Yet the sediments in those mountains had to have been deposited by the flood, if it was true. I would see faults that were active early but not late and faults that were active late but not early. I would see karsts and sinkholes (limestone erosion) which occurred during the middle of the sedimentary column (supposedly during the middle of the flood) yet the flood waters would have been saturated in limestone and incapable of dissolving lime. It became clear that more time was needed than the global flood would allow.(See http://www.seg.org/publications/geoarchive/1996/sep-oct/geo6105r1336.pdf for an article showing an example of a deeply buried karst. For a better but bigger (3.4 meg) version of that paper see http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/97/97ng/ng97_pdf/NG4-1.PDF
One also finds erosional canyons buried in the earth. These canyons would require time to excavate, just like the time it takes to erode the Grand Canyon. This picture was downloaded from a site which is now gone from the web. It was http://ic.ucsc.edu/~casey/eart168/3DInterpretation/Deltain3d1.gif
I worked hard over the next few years to solve these problems. I published 20+ items in the Creation Research Society Quarterly. I would listen to ICR, have discussions with people like Slusher, Gish, Austin, Barnes and also discuss things with some of their graduates that I had hired.
In order to get closer to the data and know it better, with the hope of finding a solution, I changed subdivisions of my work in 1980. I left seismic processing and went into seismic interpretation where I would have to deal with more geologic data. My horror at what I was seeing only increased. There was a major problem; the data I was seeing at work, was not agreeing with what I had been taught as a Christian. Doubts about what I was writing and teaching began to grow. Unfortunately, my fellow young earth creationists were not willing to listen to the problems. No one could give me a model which allowed me to unite into one cloth what I believed on Sunday and what I was forced to believe by the data Monday through Friday. I was living the life of a double-minded man–believing two things.
By 1986, the growing doubts about the ability of the widely accepted creationist viewpoints to explain the geologic data led to
a nearly 10 year withdrawal from publication. My last young-earth paper was entitled Geologic Challenges to a Young-earth, which I presented as the first paper in the First International Conference on Creationism. It was not well received. Young-earth creationists don’t like being told they are wrong. The reaction to the pictures, seismic data, the logic disgusted me. They were more interested in what I sounded like than in the data!
John Morris came to the stage to challenge me. He claimed to have been in the oil industry. I asked him what oil company he had worked for. I am going to let an account of this published in the Skeptical Inquirer in late 86 or early 87. It was written by Robert Schadewald. He writes,
“John Morris went to the microphone and identified himself as a petroleum geologist. He questioned Morton’s claim that pollen grains are found in salt formations, and accused Morton of sounding like an anticreationist, raising more problems than his critics could respond to in the time available. Morris said that the ICR staff is working on these problems all the time. He told Morton to quit raising problems and start solving them. “Morton chopped him off at the ankles. Two questions, said Morton: ‘What oil company did you work for?’ Well, uh, actually Morris never worked for an oil company, but he once taught petroleum engineering at the University of Oklahoma. Second, How old is the Earth?’ ‘If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning.’ Morton then said that he had hired several graduates of Christian Heritage College, and that all of them suffered severe crises of faith. The were utterly unprepared to face the geologic facts every petroleum geologist deals with on a daily basis. Morton neglected to add that ICR is much better known for ignoring or denying problems than dealing with them.”
It appeared that the more I questions I raised, the more they questioned my theological purity. When telling one friend of my difficulties with young-earth creationism and geology, he told me that I had obviously been brain-washed by my geology professors. When I told him that I had never taken a geology course, he then said I must be saying this in order to hold my job. Never would he consider that I might really believe the data. Since then this type of treatment has become expected from young-earthers. I have been called nearly everything under the sun but they don’t deal with the data I present to them. Here is a list of what young-earthers have called me in response to my data: ‘an apostate,’(Humphreys) ‘a heretic’(Jim Bell although he later apologised like the gentleman he is) ‘a compromiser’(Henry Morris) “absurd”, “naive”, “compromising”, “abysmally ignorant”, “sloppy”, “reckless disregard”, “extremely inaccurate”, “misleading”, “tomfoolery” and “intentionally deceitful”(John Woodmorappe) ‘like your father, Satan’ (Carl R. Froede–I am proud to have this one because Jesus was once said to have been of satan also.) ‘your loyality and commitment to Jesus Christ is shaky or just not truly genuine’ (John Baumgardner 12-24-99 [Merry Christmas]) “[I] have secretly entertained suspicions of a Trojan horse roaming behind the lines…” Royal Truman 12-28-99
Above I say that I with drew from publishing for 10 years. I need to make one item clear. It is true that I published a couple of items in the late 80s. The truth is that these were an edited letter exchange I had with George Howe. When George approached me about the Mountain Building symposium, I told him I didn’t want to write it. He said that was ok he would write it, give it to me for ok and then publish it. Since it was merely splicing a bunch of letters together, it was my words, but George’s editorship that made that article. To all intents and purposes I was through with young-earth creationist (not ism yet) because I knew that they didn’t care about the data.
But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,”
That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.
And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist. During that time, I re-read a book I had reviewed prior to its publication. It was Alan Hayward’s Creation/Evolution. Even though I had reviewed it 1984 prior to its publication in 1985, I hadn’t been ready for the views he expressed. He presented a wonderful Days of Proclamation view which pulled me back from the edge of atheism. Although I believe Alan applied it to the earth in an unworkable fashion, his view had the power to unite the data with the Scripture, if it was applied differently. That is what I have done with my views. Without that I would now be an atheist. There is much in Alan’s book I agree with and much I disagree with but his book was very important in keeping me in the faith. While his book may not have changed the debate totally yet, it did change my life.
Report comment to moderator
roger posr 121,
that was not erasmus, it was myself.
And you seem to have ducked a key point which falsifies a young earth (10,000 years or less).
And do you have evidence for changes in the rate of radioactive decay or major changes in the rate of plate tectonic motion on the whole?
If you do not, then you also are admitting that the earth is very old (grerater than hundreds of millions of yesrs).
Once this is clear, then we can beging to examine the best evidence to establish the most probable age of the earth.
And in any event we have clearly falsified YEC.
Report comment to moderator
Roger re 121 and 129, my comment was directly quoted from Jerrac in #99. I certainly agree with you that this claim was incoherent as formulated and, if we wish to deal with it honestly then as you suggest, we should clean it up a bit to make it sensible.
At any rate your post 124 has significantly changed the substance of your debate. Now you are arguing, it appears, from your perception of the supposed moral or metaphysical consequences of a scientific theory. Note, as musing I am sure will reiterate, that these consequences have no bearing on the truth of the matter.
Report comment to moderator
If I had to choose between being a good father, loving husband, hard working, generous man who respects authority, pays honor to whom honor is due and taxes to whom taxes are due who believes against the availalbe evidence that the earth is several thousand years old and a similar man who believes it’s on the order of billions, I’d prefer to be the latter. What’s to commend being good and wrong over being good and right? {:~)
Report comment to moderator
Roger at #114: Steve — Many Creationist arguments run along this line: “Because Professor Boles thinks the Earth is 4 billion years old, while Dr. Carver says it’s 4.5 billion, and Professor Davis argues for 4.25, we can therefore conclude that these scientists are just making it up.”
Roger — I wonder if that is really the creationist argument? That certainly wasn’t my point when I reminded us of Lord Kalvin’s insistence that the earth was 100 million years old based on his measurements, etc. I thought the talk had ventured over into the subject of the supposed dogmatism and ignorance of certain viewpoints. I wasn’t suggesting that scientist “make stuff up”. But I was suggesting that some scientists (even scientific societies) hold their own theories tightly, even in the view of contrary evidence. That is, scientific knowledge, like other forms of knowledge, has inertia — a resistance to change and challenge — which those of us living 100 years later seem to forget.
Steve — Point being, while scientific ideas don’t always line up cleanly, they do not deviate by anywhere near enough to allow for the Earth to be 6,000 years old by any empirical measure.
Roger — Again, I want to be cautious here. Lord Kalvin was and still is a well respected scientist of his time. That’s why I used him as an example. As far as I know, no one accuses him of being a crack pot “creationist.” He just didn’t know things that we know now. That’s all.
I wasn’t thinking about Kelvin when I made my comments. I was thinking about Creationists today, when we do know about things that hadn’t been discovered in Kelvin’s time.
I find it ironic that scientists are accused of holding on to ideas and interpreting new data through the filter of those ideas, thus supposedly leading to biased findings that serve to reinforce the dominant paradigm.
It’s ironic because what is the alternative the Creationists offer? To filter all data through the pre-scientific Genesis stories and insist that all the data must fit those stories no matter how much it seems to contradict them.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza: Thanks for #128. I think that article points out a real reason why Creationism is dangerous (one IndyChristian would do well to consider): When people who believe that Christianity itself is untenable without YEC are forced to confront the realities of science, that can very possibly conclude that they have to chuck the whole thing.
And the sad thing is, that isn’t true at all. Many Christians have found that integrating their faith with a more scientific understanding of the hows of creation is not actually a hard thing to do.
Report comment to moderator
Not all, but some Christians and some evolutionists have a lie in common: that if accepted, evolution discredits who God is and what He has done through Christ to reconcile us to Himself. This simply is not the case. I appreciate the approach of proponents of evolution who don’t push this lie. And I am sorry for the Christians who believe it. They remain Christians, but hobble themselves unnecessarily in their dealings with the world around them.
Report comment to moderator
Serious George: If Yahweh is not our Creator, He has no authority over our lives. He cannot be our law giver, and we need no redemption.
I suppose it’s possible to believe some sort of theistic evolution (God started the process, and He specifically created man) and still keep much of Christian theology. But it’s completely impossible to throw out God as Creator and still keep Him as Redeemer. He’d be a false god, making a false claim to our loyalty and obedience.
I don’t really care much about young earth arguments. The Bible nowhere tells us any sort of precise age of the earth, and we need not lock ourselves in. But it does present God as literal Creator, and I for one don’t think that the evolutionary model (even a model “guided” by God) fits the biblical record…or the world itself. I won’t quibble over the details, but God as Creator is absolutely non-negotiable.
Report comment to moderator
Serious George & Cheryl…
What would be the goal of ‘theistic evolution’? Would it be to somehow reconcile naturalism and the Bible? Ask yourselves, how could someone reconcile miracles (super-nature) with empiricism (using only observations in nature)? Could theistic evolution ever reach a point of being able to empirically explain/reconcile how the first-effect appeared empirically to be some ‘age’, while in fact at the same time accepting that it was truly only ‘poof’ old?
You can’t have it both ways… Theistic evolution can at best only be poor theism or poor evolution, or both.
Report comment to moderator
serious george post 131,
now your statement here is critical:
“If I had to choose between being a good father, loving husband, hard working, generous man who respects authority, pays honor to whom honor is due and taxes to whom taxes are due who believes against the availalbe evidence that the earth is several thousand years old and a similar man who believes it’s on the order of billions, I’d prefer to be the latter. What’s to commend being good and wrong over being good and right? {:~)”
since you would appear to be exp[licitly admitting that you are refusing to accept the scientific evidence based on religious grounds.
Fair enough and an honest position.
However please note:
1) you are explcitly being anti-science
2) I suggest you have presented a false dichotomy: you appear to be making an excluded middle error
However you are being more honest than most YECs.
Report comment to moderator
#137
Musing,
On the contrary, Serious George explicitly expressed a preference for accepting the evidence that the age of the earth is “on the order of billions” when he says he would “prefer to be the latter.” See also his statement in #134 that it is a lie to say that “evolution discredits who God is.”
Report comment to moderator
SteveG post 13,
your comment here is true:
“And the sad thing is, that isn’t true at all. Many Christians have found that integrating their faith with a more scientific understanding of the hows of creation is not actually a hard thing to do.”
HOWEVER, it is difficult if not impossible to be an intellectually honest YEC without rejecting science (c.f. comments by serious george and outkast).
Fortunately Christianity does not require the acceptance of YEC at all, so your point is true.
Many YECs, however (c.f. serious george), do not understand that Christianity does not require YEC: in fact, the denominatioonal demographic majority of Christians do not accept YEC.
Report comment to moderator
pauline/serious george regarding post 131,
yes you are correct.
My apologies to both here. Not enough coffee yet.
My point still stands, however: it is difficult to be a YEC and not be anti-science. And it is not necessary to be a YEC to be a Christian.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: Pauline is right at #138. You misread Serious George.
IndyChristian at #136: What would be the goal of ‘theistic evolution’? Would it be to somehow reconcile naturalism and the Bible? Ask yourselves, how could someone reconcile miracles (super-nature) with empiricism (using only observations in nature)? Could theistic evolution ever reach a point of being able to empirically explain/reconcile how the first-effect appeared empirically to be some ‘age’, while in fact at the same time accepting that it was truly only ‘poof’ old?
The goal of theistic evolution is not to “reconcile miracles with naturalism.” It is to reconcile the observed realities of the universe with theism.
You are fighting a losing battle. If you insist that YEC must be true for your theology to make sense, then your theology dies at your own hand. It is, contrary to your assertion, young-earth Creationism that is “poor theism.”
We will never know through science the ultimate answer to why there is something rather than nothing. That is a realm properly reserved for the philosophers and theologians. We can, and do, however, know quite a bit through science about how the something that is came to be what it is. And the facts simply do not support YEC. They just don’t. And to insist that they must because of ancient Scripture is willful blindness.
There are ways to integrate a scientific understanding of the hows of nature with a Christian view of the why. It does, however, require taking the stories in Genesis as something other than a literal account.
(And this is not a new idea forced by the ascent of Darwin and Hubble. Many Jewish and Christian theologians throughout history have argued that the Genesis account doesn’t require six literal 24-hour days.)
You may, of course, persist in your insistence. No one is stopping you. But you greatly weaken any argument you might make to the skeptics if you insist that being a Christian requires rejecting science. And that’s a loss because, as I said earlier, it’s a completely unnecessary assertion.
Report comment to moderator
Oops … Musing posted #140 while I was writing #141. And IndyChristian had made a comment I meant to address but forgot to, so I will now … the idea that God would create something that “appeared empirically to be some ‘age’, while in fact at the same time accepting that it was truly only ‘poof’ old?”
If I read this right, you’re suggesting that God would create things that appear to be much older than they really are, and I have to ask, why do you imagine God would do such a thing?
That would essentially make God a liar, by deliberately creating an illusion of a much greater age than the reality. Is this really the idea of God you have, or did I misunderstand your (somewhat vague) question?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG…
Make no mistake, I’ve not postulated that man, via empiricism, needs to argue a case — strong or weak — for God. He does quite nicely on His own. I’m merely commenting that I accept His case as made.
And no, I’ve not argued that God is tricking anyone — He tells us quite plainly of the many wildly-miraculous things He’s done… including poofing trees, sky, people into existence. Opening gaps in the Red Sea and the Jordan. Water into wine. Blind people seeing, while lame walk. Resurrecting people (and Himself) from the dead. That you would seek to ONLY accept empirical evidence as ‘reality’ is to limit yourself to a non-theistic existence.
And trust me, you wouldn’t want a non-theistic existence — it’s what hell is all about.
Report comment to moderator
Well Indy, if God creates a rock that looks like it’s a million years old even though it really appeared only yesterday, then God is lying.
I don’t believe God does that. I believe that if God gives us the reason to figure out how to measure the age of the Earth, and we use the tools and find out that the Earth looks to be 4.5 billion years old, it’s because the Earth IS 4.5 billion years old.
And if we take the Genesis account and add in the 6,000 year age calculated by Bishop Ussher (not part of the story, but assumed by most YECs) as literal truth, then we’re faced with a God who lies to us either in the revelation or in the material world.
But if God can’t lie, then either our empirical measurements are wrong or we’ve misunderstood the story. The empirical measurements have been reconfirmed time and again through multiple methods. So I conclude that to read Genesis literally is to misread it.
As for hell … I’m not the one calling God a liar.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, also … I’m not arguing that empiricism is the only valid method of information. I’m saying that empiricism is how science works. The existence of God, as I said earlier, is beyond the reach of science.
But it is interesting that the examples you offer of revelation are all things that actually are subject to empirical measure. If revelation tells me Jesus gave a blind man sight, and I know the man and I know he was blind and now can see, then empiricism has confirmed the revelation.
But what if I know the man and I know he was blind and is still blind? Do I insist that in fact he can see, maybe try to convince him that he can even though he still walks into walls, because something I take as divine revelation says so? Or do I conclude that I must have misunderstood the revelation?
Report comment to moderator
I’ll bite.
Someone please show me how they obtained knowledge from a non-empirical method. please explain to me how ‘revealed’ knowledge, for instance, is actually knowledge.
Indy is a fine example of the cart before the house view of YEC presuppositionalists. X must be true, therefore it is true. Any data that disconfirm X must be filtered through the distorted lens of atheism/naturalism/scientism/god-denialism/choose-your-favorite-ism.
And as musing has pointed out, this is the crystallization of intellectual dishonesty.
Report comment to moderator
So I see what appears to be a continuing misaprehension, perhaps.
Science is dependent on observation.
The empitrical, as apparenlty used in this discussion, is regarding observation.
So empirical and science as used so far are highly linked concepts and, again as used so far in this conversation, to discount emiricism would also be to discount science or as more typically discussed be anti-science.
Let me add one more point: science, observation, and, as used so far, emiricism all are restricted to what may be defined as the objective world.
And comments such as those by indychristian in post 136 suggest a rejection of the concept of objective world itself. After all if what we observe is not in fact what is being observed, how is observation even possible.
And to continue to hammer my point here: insisting on YEC and the dominance of belief or authority over observation is in and of itself a statement of being anti-science.
Report comment to moderator
#40: about the evidence that runs counter to an old earth, I’m guessing you wouldn’t take kindly to that
That’s because it doesn’t exist. It’s only imagined. Like Heaven or the Land of Milk and Cookies. And if evidence of any of these could be found, the finder would become one of the most famous people is history.
Report comment to moderator
But, and this is where I sense those arguing science and those arguing religion seem to get confounded, is the objective the only “world” that there is?
This is the question I asked rdean in another thread.
I suggest that there is a subjective world, and the Cartesian tautology demonstrates this quite nicely. To discount the subjective is, I suggest, to neglect what is arguably the starting point of knowledge.
Having said this, those who typically describe themselves as believers then attempt to extend the realm of the subjective far beyond its useful and valid boundaries.
So ask these questions:
1) is there an entity doing the thinking?
2) if there is such an entity is there any evidence that what this entity thinks has validity beyond the entity?
3) on what basis can we extend this subjective reality of the entity to the more general case?
I suggest we begin to see an interesting paradox: the subjective is simulataneously both extremely powerful and yet very limited.
And since religion is an instantiation of this subjective, religion is both very powerful and simultaneoulsy very limited.
And now for the final point in the syllogism, since God is a religious concept, God would therefore be both very powerful AND simultaneously very limited.
And if someone objects to the objective truth of the above statements, I suggest that there is a simple test by which the intellectually honest individual can resolve the challenge.
Report comment to moderator
The “omphalos” (Greek for navel, as in: Did Adam have one?) theory of a mature creation is bandied about above. Interesting to note that even dyed-in-the-wool YECs at AIG are mostly abandoning this for its God-as-trickster theological implications. It is now frowned on as a solution to the distant startlight problem, because it would suggest that God created light in transit from non-existing galaxies that look like they existed billions of years ago, when in YEC reality, nothing had existed then. This signals a change – Duane Gish has been known to use “omphalos” for this very YEC problem.
See AIG’s Jason Lisle reply to a comment:
Feedback: Did God Create the Universe with the False Appearance of Age?
Report comment to moderator
#149: Arn’t you suggesting that the subjective is limited in the sense of proving validity beyond the entity? The reality and capability of the entity is another matter.
Report comment to moderator
Musing — And you seem to have ducked a key point which falsifies a young earth (10,000 years or less).
Roger — You have me confused with someone else. Have you been reading my posts? Where do I say the earth is young or old either way?
Report comment to moderator
norm p post 151,
ah but if you can’t prove it objectively, then objectviely it does not exist beyond the entity!
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus — At any rate your post 124 has significantly changed the substance of your debate. Now you are arguing, it appears, from your perception of the supposed moral or metaphysical consequences of a scientific theory. Note, as musing I am sure will reiterate, that these consequences have no bearing on the truth of the matter.
Roger — I can’t hear what Musing says. What I said in 124 is a direct response to Spinoza’s wish that certain people in our society should be denied medical treatment. He would have us take an intelligence test or swear loyalty to the dominant scientific paradigm before being allowed medical attention. Where does that kind of thinking come from?
With regard to truth and facts, I am reminded of what my friend Ron says about it. Not all facts have the same weight or impact my life in the same way. That Paris is the capital of France is a fact. But this fact demands nothing of me personally. It doesn’t require me to make an existential decision; it doesn’t demand that I change my mind about who I am.
On the other hand, Jesus is Lord. But in contrast to the fact that Paris is the capital of France, the fact that Jesus is Lord demands something personal of me. If true, I am obligated to obey him, learn from him, follow him, accept his leadership and act like him. If he claims me to be a sinner in need of salvation, this fact demands that I adopt a particular, very personal, view of myself and my world.
I say this in reaction to the invective discourse demonstrated here in this thread. I am struck by the contrast between the kinds of facts that Jesus demands I affirm, and the consequent behavior he challenges me to exhibit, and the kinds of ideas a naturalist affirms and the consequent behaviors and attitudes that arise from the philosophical underpinnings of naturalism.
I ask this again. What good are facts if they don’t make you into a better person?
Report comment to moderator
roger post 152,
no actually I don’t think I am.
You were discussing constancy of rate. Constancy of rate is a critical understanding in radioactive dating and in tectonic activity.
If one does not accept constancy of rate there are two problems:
1) experimental data for radioactivity and tectonic activity supports a high level of overall constancy
2) if we argue for significant variations in rates (10,000X or more) then the energy release rates do not appear to match the observed energy release rates
So I suggest that the assumption of significant rate variations does need empirical variation if we are to accept the speedups required for YEC to be viable.
And it is your comment on constancy which drives this portion of the conversation.
Report comment to moderator
Well I didn’t follow the discussion about who does or does not deserve medical treatment so I’ll just say I don’t have a dog in that there fight.
As far as what good are facts that don’t make you a better person, I’d say ‘How can denying facts make you a better person?’. Then I’d leave this sterile debate for a discussion of the facts again (but first, let me just state that claiming ‘Jesus is Lord’ is a fact, in the same way that ‘Objects fall at 9.8 m/s/s in a vacuum’ is a fact, is doing extreme violence to the concept of a ‘fact’).
Report comment to moderator
Roger at #154: What good are facts if they don’t make you into a better person?
Well, they have the advantage of being factual. What good is a belief that makes you a better person if it turns out to not be true?
Well yes, you become a better person … but do you really need a belief in Jesus for that? I trust that my neighbor won’t break into my house, slit my throat and steal my microwave because of basic human decency. And if we had a conversation over the back fence in which he averred that the only thing that keeps him from doing that is his belief in divine judgment, I would be very leery of him.
In fact, religious belief does not necessarily make one a better person, nor does a lack of religious belief make one a bad person.
Report comment to moderator
Had God created the earth WITHOUT great apparent age, it would have been totally uninhabitable for most life forms, including human life.
So the argument that God would not do that ‘because He would be a trickster’ is REALLY stupid.
Exactly as stupid as asserting that the universe does NOT display scientific evidence of great age.
In that sense a doctor examining Adam the day he was created, would have scientifically (and correctly) based on the evidence before him estimated Adam to be say 30 years old, etc. I would not want to go to a doctor who would not be able to reach such a determination.
Scientists should be able to go where the evidence leads them without nonsensical and non-logical arguments that the evidence for old is actually evidence for young.
Simultanteously people of faith, both scientists and non-scientists, should also be able to point out that, if God is greater than His creation, the argument that God COULD NOT create things with apparent age because then He would be a ‘trickster’ is totally moronic.
No matter whether it is coming from a YEC or a materialist who believes that Shakespeare’s sonnets are merely an incidental and transient result of the random and blind orbits of particles in submolecular space.
Report comment to moderator
Drill, again, you with the conflating mereological nihilism and atheism. You refuse to learn from your mistakes my friend. It is regrettable to see you resort to this dishonesty.
However, I am glad to see that you are not directly arguing for Last Thursdayism, just that it could be true. I note that you do not even attempt to exhaust the litany of other things that also could be true. For instance, it could be that purple is not really purple we just see it that way. Similarly, we could all have 11 arms but for reasons unbeknownst to us (and to your credit possibly due to the effects of gods who are still not tricksters) we only see two per person. Also we are all really dreaming reality, or we are just figures in the dream of a great slumbering giant. Etc. It should be enough to stop here, because you know this is a stupidly trivial argument.
So yes onmnipotent omniscient omnipresent godbeasts could do whatever they wished. Of course they could. the question is do such beasts exist? and of course we have no evidence for those beasts other than the say-so of authorities. so without any evidence for your first premise, the argument that super-sky-beast could create from omphalos without contradicting his good nature is just hand-waving.
Report comment to moderator
oops drill, not atheism but this time but “materialism”. they seem to be all the same for you however.
Report comment to moderator
IndyChristian, #136,
If you’d really read my post, you’d see I don’t support theistic evolution. I merely said it might be possible to do so and still be a Christian (and then in the last paragraph I clarified again that that is not my position). I think it’s an unnecessary compromise (unnecessary scientifically as well as biblically). But can a person be a Christian and take a wrong position? Sure.
I’m not willing to be dogmatic on the age of the earth–science hasn’t proven anything, and the Bible says nothing about the age of the earth. Is it absolutely impossible, biblically, for instance, for God to have made the earth and let it sit uninhabited for billions of years? It probably isn’t. Or God could have made “old” rock in the same way He made adult people and animals rather than babies. It simply doesn’t matter to our position one way or another–I’d say we surrender the point. But God as Creator is one we can’t surrender, and need not.
Report comment to moderator
Drill: <i.Simultanteously people of faith, both scientists and non-scientists, should also be able to point out that, if God is greater than His creation, the argument that God COULD NOT create things with apparent age because then He would be a ‘trickster’ is totally moronic.
On the contrary, it’s the only logical conclusion.
An omnipotent God could create a universe suited for human life that didn’t give the illusion of being billions of years old.
An omniscient God would know that if He created a universe that seemed to be billions of years old, millions of people would mistakenly believe that it is in fact billions of years old.
Therefore, if God could forsee the consequences of creating a universe with the illusion of great age and could create a universe without that illusion, but chose to do it anyway, God is a trickster. That is the inescapable logical conclusion to your position.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus: You are going to make me look up mereolotical nihilism again? I don’t think I said anything about ‘atheism’ this time around. Not sure of your point here. Either you believe in ’something beyond’ or you don’t. Or you could (of course) be agnostic, i.e. ambivalent, and say ‘I don’t know’. Label yourself according to your preferences. But how I am conflating anything by making that rather obvious observation, I don’t get.
Those things (the 11 armed argument you advance) are certainly possible (not probable though) and would not disturb me a great deal if they were true, and in fact would be quite interesting.
Actually purple is not necessarily purple and we do just see it that way – since the color purple is associated with a wavelength of light(or a superposistion of wavelengths – I forget my physics), some creature with completely different sensory apparatus then we can even imagine with our present level of science, may not see it the way we see it at all. And in fact may be able to see that what we human beings with our little brains PERCEIVE as light and think of as ‘just light’ is actually only the visible superficial froth of some amazing completely beyond-science-as-we-know-it process. I would not be surprised at that – I don’t draw the box so small to be surprised.
Contrary to the sense of your comment, I have always argued that instanteous YEC COULD be true – without in any way disadvantaging the character of the Creator. I have never said that I believed it necessarily happened that way.
Finally, more interesting, would be the arguments regards whether or not ‘godbeast’, as you say exists (a self-contradiction in the word, by the way). I believe that even without religious faith, per se, traditionally defined, whatever, there is the knowledge of such in every conscious sentient being – through awareness of existence, the presence of such puzzling qualities as Hope, Beauty, Good, Joy, Love, etc.
You know, all the types of things that are scorned and belittled as mere emanations of gas in our smarmy and arrogant current state, but which nevertheless show a good purpose. Such things are greater than death, erasmus, whether the death of the individual, or the heat-death of the physical universe.
I know it. Even if it WERE all pretend and wishful thinking (which it is not), it sure beats your conception of ‘what really is’ all to pieces. Assuming, of course, I actually understand your conception of what really is. I think I do, but could always be corrected.
Anyone who fiddles (and enjoys) it can’t really believe that good music is not evidence divine. Not if they think about it hard enough.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg: I completely disagree. If God had wanted to make us fish (in this view), He would have created a world of water for us to swim in. Otherwise we would not be fish – or we would not make it.
The environment (in this view) is determined by the needs of the creatures as created. In fact, the environment is simply an EXTENSION of the creatures for which it is created. So it fits. What else would you expect?
This argument of ‘God as trickster’ is, as I indicated, simply ridiculous. There may be sound theological arguments against YEC (I don’t really know of any) but this is certainly NOT one of them.
Report comment to moderator
Drill: An omnipotent God, one who created the laws of physics, could have made a world that is perfect for us and also clearly not old. Of course the Earth’s ecosystem is necessary for human life, but it need not appear to be billions of years old when it is only thousands.
And why create a vast universe made up of countless galaxies and stars, with a measureable size and rate of expansion that allows us to calculate an age on the order of 15 billion years, if that were not accurate?
God didn’t have to give the illusion of age, and and in His omniscience, He could not have been unaware of the consequence of doing so.
There are only two logical options: Either God in fact created the universe much longer ago than YEC can allow … or God is a trickster.
To say “God is not a trickster, he just deliberately made the universe appear to be 15 billion years old even though it’s really only 6,000″ is internally contradictory.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg: I do not think that you are thinking of God as quite God-like, the way I understand Him. Think of God as Creator, pure and simple. The purpose of the Creation is Beauty and Joy.
An artist paints a painting – he imagines a thing of beauty and wonder – say a tree or a stream or an old barn beside a stream, whatever. He paints the thing he envisions as mature and leaping full from his brain to the painting – completely realistically – it is the beauty that he is after, the expression of beauty that takes on life and gives the world a thing of wonder even as his brush moves across the painting.
That is the purpose of Creation. To articulate Beauty and Joy and Desire and Love. Not to fit into a neat package that can be comprehended and matrixed and tallied by beings with brains the size of grapefruits squatting on a third-rate planet circling an average star in a mediocre galaxy.
He does not exist to give us satisfaction, Steveg. It is quite the other way round.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg: Explain to me how we as humans would be able to operate in a world without . . . say soil. Productive soil being composed of the detrius of organic matter decayed and rotten. Or how can a tree survive without soil? How could the sun not give approximately the right kind and magnitude of radiation if it were not created with exactly the right balance that the bio-systems on Earth require? How could Adam have been created and not had the appearance of age? – and why is THAT a theological problem?
This seems silly to me – in fact, God would actually indeed BE a trickster if He did NOT make a completely seamless world and make it as a consistently mature world (under the YEC view). He would be a LOUSY creator, a LOUSY artist.
Report comment to moderator
drill post 166,
but the number os assumptions behind your comment:
” The purpose of the Creation is Beauty and Joy.”
is truly huge!!
It is fair to say that your interpretation of creation is that it is for beauty and joy, but you simply have no way of demonstrating that this is objectively true.
Report comment to moderator
#158: Had God created the earth WITHOUT great apparent age, it would have been totally uninhabitable for most life forms, including human life.
Why? In the words of Madonna, “shiney and new, touched for the very first time.”
It is unusual that he also put the light from distant stars in transit. Guess he thought of everything. He know Columbus would need a locator when he traveled.
Report comment to moderator
Drill .. God could easily create fertile soil without making it look to be 750,000 times older than it really was. The illusion of age when you’re talking about fertile soil (a few months newer than it looks) or even a specially created adult human (30 years newer than he looks) would indeed be so trivial as to not be a problem.
But that’s not what’s at issue. What is at issue is making radioisotopes appear to decay at a measureable rate and then seeding them in the Earth so that humans would mistakenly believe the Earth to be far older than it is.
As it is, I happen to agree that the creation is beautiful and there is value in beauty for beauty’s sake. I just happen to think the creator did it the way it appears He did (over a long period of time, which would be nothing to an eternal being), rather than tricking us into thinking so.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: I do not agree that there is no way of demonstrating that the ‘purpose of Creation is Beauty and Joy’ is true. I am not sure what you mean by ‘objectively’ true. Something is either true or it is not true, it would seem. Please show me something that is simultaneously true and untrue, and I would have to revise my statement.
The very existence of joy and beauty (and other absolute qualities – some Evil as well as well as Good) are themselves proofs of the statement.
When a scientist detects large amounts of a trace element found only in extraterrestial domains within a large region of underseas sediment on the planet Earth, he can correctly and logically infer that these elements are from ‘outside’ the earth system (hence evidence of an asteroid impact, etc.).
Thus one can use the existence of joy and beauty and etc. to infer that they are the evidences of the fabric beyond the material corporeal world.
You may choose NOT to believe the evidence. You may choose to believe that such things are only transient and ill-defined emanations of matter. That is your right.
But the evidence is there – far more plain than fossils moldering in the ground, actually, although I will not generally dispute the scientific lessons drawn from the fossils, as you know.
Report comment to moderator
Now the following is plausible and supportable to state:
If I act as though the purpose of creaton is beauty and joy, then I have the energy and enthusiasm to actively work at living effectviely.
But be very clear: this does not mean that becuase you find it convenient to believe that the purpose of creation is beauty and joy that we can make any statements about whether objectively the purpose of creation is beauty and joy.
We can continue this line of discussion point by point for pretty much all religious interpretations and beliefs, and all will follow approximately the same pattern.
Report comment to moderator
To #154 – What good is the act of posting on an age-of-the-grand-canyon thread if you and all your friends don’t give a “flying fig” (#124) for how old the earth (or indeed anything) is?
Report comment to moderator
Steveg: Again, I totally disagree. Read what I wrote concerning creation from the standpoint of the artist. If He created coral reefs ‘in a flash’, He would have by necessity created the enormous dead mass of coral beneath the living coral in the same instance – with no trickery involved. Sure, maybe He COULD have used a steel framework out of girders and metal plates instead. But I would think that would be the mark of a lousy artist, myself.
Creation (instantantous creation) of the universe in the YEC scenario REQUIRES great age, or what we are referring to as ‘appearance of great age’. Is God, at least as understood by the folks you are arguing with, not Lord over time as well as space?
Heck, you may not PREFER God to have done it that way. Even though had He done it YOUR way, we would be something much different than humans, as we understand humans, and the world would by necessity look and be MUCH different.
But of what moment is that to Him? Personally to me, as I noted above, He would have been a trickster to have done anything else. Had He done it that way (instant creation).
Report comment to moderator
drill post 171,
in your comment:
“Musing: I do not agree that there is no way of demonstrating that the ‘purpose of Creation is Beauty and Joy’ is true. I am not sure what you mean by ‘objectively’ true. Something is either true or it is not true, it would seem.”
First there are things which are true subjectively: that rainbow is beuatiful! Note the consonance with your comment about beauty and joy. Note: that not all may agree with you: beauty is not an objective quantifiable entity.
Second there are things which are true objectively: there is a rainbow. This can be observed, recorded etc.
It is arguably the same rainbow but there are two different types of truth and, as you have noted, beauty is a key truth for you. And as I note, beauty is purely subjective.
So here is a clear difference between objective and subjective truth. Further, as noted, subjective truth need only be valid for the individual. Objective truth has a generality to which is not present with subjective truth.
We have discussed this several times in this blog, but we can explore further if you like.
Next, I suggest that you will have grave difficulty providing objective demonstration that the purpose of creation is beauty and joy, but I am happy to explore with you how you might do this.
P.S. be aware that the construct of objective truth is a pragmatic construct, not an assumption or religious belief. This is a key concept, but we can discuss more if you like.
Report comment to moderator
#158 Had God created the earth WITHOUT great apparent age, it would have been totally uninhabitable for most life forms, including human life…So the argument that God would not do that ‘because He would be a trickster’ is REALLY stupid.
Yes – so current YECs prefer the term “fully functional” instead of “mature.” This implies that the universe should show the minimum amount of age detail needed to function as special fiat creation. The problem is, the universe shows a great deal more age-detail than this! Why in Heavens name would God give the appearance of ~10 million yearsr of cosmic history prior to the Creation of the Earth? Why would there be a fossil record of single-celled life for almost 4 billion years before multi-cellular life and a record of fossil progressions for 500 millions before even arriving at humans? None of this detail is necessary for functionality, nor is it recorded in Genesis. Therefore, it is indeed the act of a deceiving deity if it the real history is as stated in Genesis. Consequently, AIG YEC priests invoke omphalos sparingly and try to argue away all the rest of the evidence.
Report comment to moderator
drill post 171,
now you comments about beauty are, I suggest, useful logically in the following way: they are additional confirmatory evidence of the subjective. They also allow us to explore the differences between the subjective and the objective.
But they do not prove objectively that the purpose of creation is beauty and joy. and while they may prove it subjectively, such proof is only valid for the individual: it is not generalizable.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg: Finally if you are trying to understand God by simply fitting Him to the known scientific data, it is probably a doomed enterprise. Known scientific data is less than a molecule of a single drop in the infinite ocean of what really is (man, I bet some of you like erasmus get tired of me saying this).
Which is why those who choose to look at the evidence of things unseen, believe – or try to believe – in Revelation. Revelation, by its very nature, is utterly superior to scientific knowledge and enterprise (as glad I am for scientific knowledge and enterprise and very very happy that it exists).
I understand then that one has to try to understand what is true Revelation. Which is not always easy, given the propensity of the human race to self-generate so many and so clever ‘revelations’, all by itself.
Like our creator, we are creative. Just too often in all the wrong ways.
Report comment to moderator
#174 – So I take it, Drill, that you are a proponent of “Last Thursdayism” (i.e. from B. Russell – for all we know in this view, the universe was created last Thursday and your memories were created with it). Fine – you should have no problem with any scientific conclusions about the past that differ from Genesis, as these would be – in this view – just the way God made the world appear, rather than the way God actually made the world.
So the scientific study of Origins is just the study of God’s fiction. I would suppose that would at least be of some theological interest? What is God’s fictional history trying to say? Even if metaphorically?
Report comment to moderator
drill post 178,
but you comment here:
“Revelation, by its very nature, is utterly superior to scientific knowledge and enterprise”
would appear to be a totally unsupported statement and many would disagree with you.
I do suggest that you are projecting out your own subjective reality and insisting that others accept your subjective reality as their objective reality.
I do fear it does not work that way. In the extreme case, there are medications and treatments.
Report comment to moderator
#178 – given the propensity of the human race to self-generate so many and so clever ‘revelations’, all by itself.
Indeed! I would say it’s virtually impossible to differentiate between revelation and imagination in any meaningful way whatsoever!
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza: Thanks for the functionality discussion which are used by YEC. I have not tracked much on that. I do not think it fits the bill, though, for the same reasons as I state in the comments I have made here. YEC does not require in any way a ‘trickster God’. It does require that one say that the earth was created mature with consistency in terms of its age with respect to current processes (so of course it appears as very very old).
God no where is demanded to create ONLY a functional universe. He creates a universe of beauty – and hangs it in time and space as He sees fit. Any other take on it (whether YEC argues for it or the material secularist argues for it), would not be as nice. I assure you.
Report comment to moderator
#182 – But what of the fact that the fictional version is not just “supplemental” to Genesis, but actually contradicts it?
Is that not a little devious?
Report comment to moderator
Musing: How have I ever INSISTED that you accept this? I would like you to, surely; it would do you good, no doubt. But you cannot force a horse to drink, or if you do (I can attest), you will see the water plus much else again very soon.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza: I am not a ‘proponent’ of Last Thursdayism’. Simply pointing out that God would not be a trickster as is falsely claimed if He created our existing universe instanteously.
Report comment to moderator
Drill at #174:
Read what I wrote concerning creation from the standpoint of the artist. If He created coral reefs ‘in a flash’, He would have by necessity created the enormous dead mass of coral beneath the living coral in the same instance – with no trickery involved. Sure, maybe He COULD have used a steel framework out of girders and metal plates instead. But I would think that would be the mark of a lousy artist, myself.
It would be trickery by its very nature, as it would appear to make the coral formations much older than they are. That tricks people into thinking the Earth actually is much older than it is, and that provokes arguments like this one.
But you can resolve the logical dilemma by simply seeing that the Creator chose to create the coral formation by forming things long enough ago that it had time to develop through the natural process the Creator ordained. What is wrong with that?
Also see Spinoza at #176 for more.
Report comment to moderator
I would think de novo creation of fossilized creatures that never existed a bit on the tricky side.
Report comment to moderator
trouble getting this posted. been some activity since I wrote it so pretend it is comment 170
—————————————————
not only that Rdean but she even gave us some awesome fireworks (that musta never actually happened) like supernovae to look at. Oh, the heavens declare his majesty. blah blah.
omphalosism, like solipcism, is internally consistent. lesser thinkers see this as a virtue, when in reality nearly every belief system is internally consistent. the proof is in the tasting, and both views (actually the same view) are discredited by the absolute absence of anyone using them fruitfully, except in this case I suppose there is the fruit of ignorance that is always ripe.
Drill yes I misspoke, you said materialism and i responded with atheism. i think, for you, that the two terms are synonymous but in the interest of clarity i won’t assume that to be true.
i think you are referring to qualia wrt the purpleness.
as a fiddler i don’t believe that music is evidence of divinity. i do however believe that it is evidence for music. i do contest your assertion that i have not thought about it enough. i’ve probably thought about music as much as i have anything else.
interesting that you bring up soil. while your defense of Omphalosism from the necessity of soil is certainly valid, it is interesting to note that YEC and Duh Flud are fellow travelers. you may have Old Earth and Duh Flud, but never YEC without Flood.
The argument against teh flud from soil is devastating. of course, that is if you assume all those nasty godless materialistic constant universe and constant parameter values that make going to the moon possible and recharging your batteries or turning on CBN for duh news.
Russell Cave, AL, was home to paleolithic peoples until their presumed conquest by new invaders. there is an unbroken ~40 foot deposit of fluvial sediments near the mouth of the cave. I don’t remember when but in the last 30 years or so there have been coring and other archaeological studies performed upon this deposit, with the results suggesting that human artifacts were present at the bottom of the sediments. along with leaves and charcoal and all the sorts of things you would find alongside a stream. dates are 12-15000 years for those artifacts. longer than Duh Flud.
what is interesting is the nature of the cave itself. fossilized coral reefs. just like the rest of the cumberland plateau. coal. the works. miles and miles and miles long, no one knows where it goes. duh fluddites say that the same process is responsible for 1. the formation of limestone, marble, coal, etc 2. the formation of the cave by erosion 3. the uplift of the surrounding mountains (remember the coral reefs) and 4. the erosion of the stream valleys subsequent to the erosion.
the standard response is questioning naturalism (whtever that is) on the grounds that a Super Duper Mega Omniscient Omnipresent Omnipotent Omniarmed OmniPurple Sky Beast can do whatever it wants and make anything look like anything else.
In other words, the very argument you are defending as sound. here is what it looks like in action.
by defending science deniers you are their fellow traveller. this puts you at odds with the reality-based community my friend.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #184 from Drill – So what parts of the pre-historic record are fact, and what parts are creative fiction in your view?
Especially, what about man’s common ancestry with apes? Fossils, genes, anatomy, etc., all point to this. Do you
1. Reject this evidence
2. Accept it and interpret Genesis as metaphorical
3. Believe that it shows God’s “creativity” as a fictional appearance of age?
Report comment to moderator
drill post 184,
nor can you demonstrate that any of your subjective statements are true.
You would like to believe they are true, and amusingly in a subjective sense I agree with you.
But they have no objective content what so ever.
Report comment to moderator
musing i dont think drill is really making a positive objective argument, just flirting with solipcism vis a vis his contention that we only perceive a ‘miniscule fraction of reality’.
to expand, the grand mean of our estimates is vanishingly small compared with the grand mean of ‘reality’, hence the distribution of the variance is orders of magnitude larger than the distribution of our observations. it is a classic, although more subtly nuanced than usual, argument from ‘we can know nothing’.
i think i know drill enough to know that he/she doesn’t really believe this, but it is a useful stopgap method for actually dealing with uncomfortable empirical results, that is to claim that such results may be true but they have no referential content outside of the scale of observations, which is so arbitrarily small as to be meaningless.
Report comment to moderator
Serious George: So in the YEC view, Adam had no fingernails? This is a reduction to the absurd of the argument that the universe by necessity had to be created without apparent age (to keep God from being ‘tricky’). If Adam had a chainsaw and he sawed down a tree or two on that first day, would the trees have had rings he could have counted? I think so – otherwise they would not have been trees, at least as I define trees.
Did the deer and the elk have antlers? – and if not, then they were no deer or elk that I would recognize. A glacier is intrinsically made from thousands of layers of compressed snow and ice (upwards of a million in some places) corresponding in the scientific view to annual precipitation – that is what a glacier is, so that is exactly what it is created as. You cannot make a glacier that is not that. Otherwise you don’t have a glacier. You have something else.
The galaxy would have been by necessity created with given angular motion, exactly as if it had spun that way for eons of time. If not, the whole system would not work with the laws of physics or the present universe structure would be unlivable for us as humans. Presumably we would be then bulleting into intergalactic space sans sun sans light and heat.
Again, the argument that God would be a ‘trickster’ if He suddenly created the universe with apparent great age is utterly without merit, theologically speaking and logically as well.
Science does not address the issue, as it cannot – until and unless science is capable of extra-material explanations at which point it would no longer be science anyway. Science can only shrug at it. In any event, the ‘trickster God comment’ shows a lack of understanding of both the capability and the purpose of the Divine and also a lack of simple reasoning, at least given the ‘constraint’ of the Divine actually existing.
As yet another example, if I was a really automobile-crazy Supreme Being and I had an entirely blank-slate universe to play with and all I wanted was to create a SUCCESSFUL Buick vehicle, I would by virtue of creating the true Buick experience have to create (along with the Buick itself) the entire infrastructure to support that Buick vehicle, including coal and gas fields to provide fuel for it, and maybe for kicks and grins simultaneously raise up out of the dust a mature race of creatures to polish it and put air in its tires and change its oil. There is no trickery involved.
Report comment to moderator
erasmus post 191,
of course this is is the glass half full, the glass half empty, or is there too much glass problem.
The key issue of course is whether we have adequate objective information to make reasoned predictions on issues of interest.
And here the answer is emphatically yes.
We have more than enough objective evidence on evolution to make reasoned predictions both of fossils we might expect to find (feathered dinosaurs come to mind) and what kind of responses we should expect when we subject populations to additional selective pressures (selective breeding, green revoltuion for example).
We certainly have enough objective data to make valid predictions regarding certain astro-physical phenomenon.
We have neough objective data to make valid predicton regarding information theory and computers.
And I can continue.
And of course virtually all of this information is based on results obtained using the scientific process. There is no revelation involved.
So as you and I both know, the argument that we know so little as to be meaningless is nonsense.
We also both agree that there is much more to learn, and much of what we learn will undoubtedly be pragmatically useful (the ability to make good predictions improves survival).
And amusingly, much of what drill seems to insist is critical has little pragmatic impact.
In short I suggest his argument has an interesting narcissistic tinge: what the individual consider to be metaphysically important to the individual must be important to everyone (or it is their loss).
In reality the metaphysical interests of even those who are keenly interested in metaphysical issues varies so much that any generalizations here are quite risky.
Report comment to moderator
Drill,
I wasn’t asking about fingernails. I was asking about the oddity of creating fossilized remains of animal species and plants that had never lived. Don’t you find that even a little bit queer? Absurd, even?
Report comment to moderator
SG mebbe drills gods just get off like that. I mean, under his criteria, that is just as meaningful an argument as any other.
Report comment to moderator
The “trickster” argument can be answered quite easily, I think: God gave us revelation in His Word. Those who are quick to see the earth as billions of years old and not created have already rejected His Word. God has absolutely no obligation to create things in such a way that they will be forced to believe Him. Your child may sometimes insist on proof before believing an assertion you have made; you are under no obligation to provide the proof. If the child misunderstands what he has seen, and chooses not to trust you, that is the child’s own problem and not proof that you have deceived him. I’m not taking a stand one way or the other on the age of the earth. My point is that we don’t truly know the age of the earth. We know only one thing in this discussion for absolute certain: God made it. If other stuff seems to us to contradict that certain, known fact, that is our problem and not God’s. He has already told us the truth, and He is under no obligation to create His universe in just the way scientists think it should have been created, were it created. Many of them have already chosen not to believe, and that truly is their problem, not God’s.
While I was writing this, Drill has brilliantly addressed why “apparent age” is not a problem AT ALL. And again, insisting that God had to create a universe with no apparent age so that you’d believe what He already asserted to be true is being the spoiled child who doesn’t believe the parent. God has no need to cater to that kind of stuff; He made the universe as He saw fit. God is in heaven; He does whatever pleases Him, not what we demand, though He does it for our good.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg: You must be insufferable in an art exhibit.
Do you look at the picture “The Old Mill by the Stream” and immediately judge the artist who made it as ‘tricky’ and ‘devious’ because he did not clearly show in numerous side-panels the construction process by which the mill was made, a view of the mill when new, pictures of the mill in snowstorm and rainstorm and sun and by moonlight?
Or equivalently (maybe more relevant from your standpoint), you are irritated that the artist did not stamp THIS IS A WORK OF ART AND THE MILL WAS MADE REALISTICALLY OLD-LOOKING BECAUSE THIS IS A WORK OF ART (i.e. a ‘Creation’) all over it so that you could barely even see the details of the painting to begin with?
Both YEC’ers and you (including Spinoza and Erasmus and Musing) take a far different and more limited view of the universe than I, that is for sure.
However, again (and I think you understand this) I am not arguing anything here but that God would not be a ‘trickster’ were He to have created the universe with apparent age. In fact, the only way that God would be a ‘trickster’ is if ‘what really is’ is not glorious beyond our imaginations – because we have hints of that glory everywhere both inside us and outside of us.
Report comment to moderator
CherylD post 196,
but your comment:
“The “trickster” argument can be answered quite easily, I think: God gave us revelation in His Word. Those who are quick to see the earth as billions of years old and not created have already rejected His Word.”
clearly shows that you are addressing this as a religious not a scientific question.
I have no problem with this position, so long as we have the intellectual honesty to admit that your position is not based on science and should not be taught in science class.
Once we get through this stage of the discussion, we can then explore the usefulness of the various positions.
Report comment to moderator
Drill and Cheryl,
I think you are missing a very important point. Earth and life on it have the appearance of not being created at all, but having evolved unmiraculously from antecedents that pre-date man by almost 14 billion years. Thus, the “mature creation” contains within it eons of detail unnecessary to the Genesis account as well as evidence that we evolved by natural selection from lower animals in contradiction to the Genesis account. If this was accomplished only as appearance and Genesis is correct, it is indeed deceptive!
The Heavens are telling … that the bible is wrong! But God is just kidding … about the bible or creation???
Report comment to moderator
#85
Have scientists ever been wrong?
What do scientists do when they are wrong? How willing are they to correct the paradigm when they are wrong?
#86
Apparently Lord Kelvin knew nothing of the heat that radioactive decay produces. And even under pressure from other scientists, Lord Kelvin remained a “denier”, sticking with his original estimate.
According to many posting in this blog, Lord Kelvin was ignorant.
Fine.
How many other scientific theories have been found to be incomplete, inadequate, or simply wrong after new discoveries were made by subsequent generations of scientists?
As a practical matter, the public need only wait a few years while the next generation of scientists change everything again. In the 1800’s the age of the earth was but 100 million years old. In the 1900’s scientists think the earth is 4.5 billion years old. But who knows what scientists will think once they make the next big discovery?
Though I suspect that wasn’t the intent of post 86, it does respond very nicely to TJ’s at # 85.
Scientists have often been wrong, as it appears (I haven’t researched this) that Lord Kelvin was. And yes, I have no problem agreeing that Kelvin was ignorant of many things. As was Einstein. As are all scientists today. All of us are ignorant of what will be discovered in the future.
What scientists do, when they are wrong, is revise their predictions, their estimates, and their theories.
Thus, as #86 points out, as new information has come to light, the best estimate of the age of the earth has been revised from ~100M years to ~4500M years. And we don’t know what new information will be discovered in the future, so like all statements that science can possibly make, it is provisional: “Given what we know now, we believe that ….”
#85 also raises an excellent point. Scientists are human, and as prone as anyone else to cling stubbornly to outdated paradigms or theories, especially if they have invested a significant portion of their professional lives, to say nothing of their emotions, in those theories. Heck, mainframe programmers resist the switch to PC and web-based programming for the same reason. No one likes having their skills or ideas become outdated.
But, science isn’t based on the ideas and ego of just one person, however foundational their theories may have been. Newton has been proven “wrong” by relativity. Science works, because it always remains OK to question, and revise, as needed.
Report comment to moderator
drill post 197,
so long as you are intellectually consistent enough to admit that your position has no scientific basis but is a purely religious construct, I have no problem here.
I do suggest that the further your revelations veer from observation and the more arcane your arguments justifiying your revelations, the less credance they will have.
But of course this is at core the weakness of the YEC position. No objective evidence and with each contradicition by the evidence, the argument gets more convoluted.
When one observes ones arguments becoming increasingly convoluted to match the objectvie data, it perhaps is time to reevaluate your assumptions.
Report comment to moderator
Drill – “In fact, the only way that God would be a ‘trickster’ is if ‘what really is’ is not glorious beyond our imaginations – because we have hints of that glory everywhere both inside us and outside of us.
Every cosmologist I know believes that, and darn few believe in God at all.
You still have not addressed the question of correspondance between scripture and nature. That is what the “trickster” question is all about.
Metaphorical Genesis works. Is that what you believe?
Report comment to moderator
To clarify my statement in 202:
Every cosmologist I know believes that “‘what really is’ is glorious beyond our imaginations”, and darn few believe in God at all. …
Report comment to moderator
Serious George: See the numerous comments as to why I do not find that absurd – or queer. I find it more absurd that someone would expect that the Creator of the universe is not fully capable and utterly self-justified to create a completely consistent and mature universe as a finished polished creation which fits perfectly in time-space matrix AS CREATED. And could do that either in tens of billions of years or in an instant, as He saw fit. I see no trickery in that. I do see arrogance (on the part of some) in asserting that there is any trickery to it.
And certainly one can state that one is more ‘comfortable’ with the long view. That is fine, and does not disagree with my own view as a matter of fact. However, I am not exactly sure that the degree of your comfort, or my comfort, is the point of the universe or of God’s plan for the universe to begin with.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza, no, actually, the earth, life in it, and the universe give every evidence of being created. They’re all far too complex, orderly, beautiful, and functional to have come by chance.
Musing, I’m not pretending it’s a “scientific” question. I am saying it’s true. There are not scientific truths and religious truths, merely truths. Science really can do what it wants–but when it takes as a starting point “there is no God, there is no God,” then it’s not being scientific. Science isn’t supposed to start with beliefs, but with evidence.
“Ah, I caught you! Cheryl, you want them to start with belief in God, so you’re arguing that they should start with a certain belief, at the same time you’re saying they’re not allowed to.” No, not really. I do think that as human beings, we need to start with the understanding that we were created, and I do believe the Bible is clearly true. I do think that a Christian who’s a scientist must assume that the Bible is true and refuse to assert things contrary to the Bible–I don’t mean he can’t assert things that are puzzling, but, for instance, that once a scientist says, “God wasn’t involved at all,” he has stepped outside the range of orthodoxy. But he has also stepped outside the range of science!
The believing scientist and the unbelieving scientist really should have the same way of doing science–looking at the evidence and only the evidence. The believing scientist has an extra insight, in that he’s marveling at what his Creator did. But both need to look at the evidence and not pretend they can prove or disprove God.
Report comment to moderator
drill at #197: Do you look at the picture “The Old Mill by the Stream” and immediately judge the artist who made it as ‘tricky’ and ‘devious’ because he did not clearly show in numerous side-panels the construction process by which the mill was made, a view of the mill when new, pictures of the mill in snowstorm and rainstorm and sun and by moonlight?
Or equivalently (maybe more relevant from your standpoint), you are irritated that the artist did not stamp THIS IS A WORK OF ART AND THE MILL WAS MADE REALISTICALLY OLD-LOOKING BECAUSE THIS IS A WORK OF ART (i.e. a ‘Creation’) all over it so that you could barely even see the details of the painting to begin with?
No, but I assume I am looking at a picture of an old mill, not a new mill created to look old.
The picture is just a representation of the real object. Ceci n’est pas une pipe. I will assume that the real mill it is a picture of was constructed new and has stood for however many years necessary to make it seem as old as it does. I do not demand the two-dimensional picture of it have gone through the same steps.
Report comment to moderator
205 – Spinoza, no, actually, the earth, life in it, and the universe give every evidence of being created.
The earth gives the appearance of having been created by natural law from a collapsing molecular cloud. This is the field in which I work.
Our species give the appearance of having evolved by natural selection.
Neither of the above is “random”. Both are contrary to a fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis.
Either you reject evidence, or don’t interpret Genesis literally, or you believe God is a trickster.
I am not arguing whether or not the universe is created, per se – I am saying that the Genesis version of “how” is completely at odds with Nature’s version of “how.”
Report comment to moderator
Drill and Cheryl:
I think what’s at stake for YEC isn’t preserving important truths about who God is, but rather the protection of a very specific and certainly not universally accepted reading of Genesis. Defending the built-in-old conception of instantaneous creation seems an awfully strenuos bit of mental contortion to endure for the sake of a reading that even in its most literal form doesn’t speak of the course of creation being instantaneous.
Regards,
SG
Report comment to moderator
CherylD at #196: The “trickster” argument can be answered quite easily, I think: God gave us revelation in His Word. Those who are quick to see the earth as billions of years old and not created have already rejected His Word. God has absolutely no obligation to create things in such a way that they will be forced to believe Him.
Neither you nor Drill are addressing the problem.
If God created the universe to look old when it is not old, that is a trick. A lie if you prefer.
And as I argued earlier, an omnipotent God could have done it another way and an omniscient God would have know how much trouble the appearance of age would cause once humans advanced enough to comprehend it. If God knew that and could have chosen another way but did not, that’s a conscious choice to create an illusion on God’s part.
Why DID God create fossils of animals that never really existed? What possible purpose could that serve, other than trickery?
Report comment to moderator
A God who could have created a false past could have just as easily created the same historical past in actuality without deception. What reason is there to believe in the former instead of the latter?
YECs would answer that evangelical salvation hinges on believing Genesis 1 is actually what happened. (No Adam no Fall; No Fall no Salvation; Jesus believed in Genesis; Yadayada)
I find it far more plausible to believe that simplistic and comparatively boring narrative of Genesis was written by not-so-imaginative men without knowledge of fossils, the CMB, etc., and that continued insistence that this is what literally happened hinges on the trickery, not of God, but of YEC “theologians.”
Report comment to moderator
Musing: You have the your basis backward – science is, as I have noted – Thomas and Cheryl D. as well, if I am interpreting their comments correctly – a mere subset of a larger reality. If I perceive a conflict between science and the Revelation of Jesus Christ, I would say that science is incomplete or there is something that science does not know, yet, or maybe ever. But I really don’t perceive any conflict at all; never have.
Spinoza: I have stated my position on this before to the usual blank looks. Because I believe in Revelation, I believe in the literal truth of the Christian scriptures, including the Genesis account. However, I actually believe in it as a SUPER-LITERAL account, by which I mean that the story we have is quite literally true but is only a simplified (but true) explanation of something that is far beyond our comprehension or ability to intellectually understand, no matter how great our science or advanced our instruments.
When I describe the processes of nuclear fusion to a 8 year old, I use simplified (but true) language and simple picture-book techniques. And hence with much of the more difficult to understand Biblical accounts. If the scribe stated that the ‘God made the sun stand still’ for Joshua, then that was quite literally true – even though it would have perhaps been even more fulsome (but totally incomprehensible to the ancient Israelites) to say that ‘God stretched a sort of hole in the space-time fabric such that local time appeared to move extremely slowly in the local vicinity of the planet Earth’. That is also literally true. And in the language of some far more intelligent race than ours, perhaps another far more elegant explanation of the same event could be offered that is ALSO literally true.
I guess the ‘falsification’ business does not really interest me, nor does the time frame business that occupies such attention by many concerned.
You also still seem to think that the telling point is that God should be worried about the trouble He might cause modern people because He made the universe completely and consistently mature – instead of some hodge-podge monstrosity that did not – nor could not – even work right (just to satisfy some bizaare requirement that there be NO apparent evidence of past events) in an instantanteous creation.
Report comment to moderator
#211 – I believe in the literal truth of the Christian scriptures, including the Genesis account. However, I actually believe in it as a SUPER-LITERAL account, by which I mean that the story we have is quite literally true but is only a simplified (but true) explanation of something that is far beyond our comprehension or ability to intellectually understand, no matter how great our science or advanced our instruments.
I don’t see how Genesis 1 can be interpreted even remotely as a simplified but “SUPER-LITERAL” account of what we know empirically about origins. The conflict is with what we do comprehend, not with what is “far beyond our comprehension.”
Substitute “metaphorical” for “SUPER-LITERAL” and I have no problem.
Again, the problem for Judeo-Christian myths of instantaneous creation is that they contradict the answer that we get from an investigation of Nature.
But, whatever – back to the point of the thread.
The Earth is Old! Long live the Earth!
Report comment to moderator
drill post 211,
but your comment:
“Musing: You have the your basis backward – science is, as I have noted – Thomas and Cheryl D. as well, if I am interpreting their comments correctly – a mere subset of a larger reality.”
is one I have already in part agreed to.
The dichotomy which falls out from the analysis of your statement is where I get the terms subjective and objective. We can discuss further if you like.
However, when you insist that that which is purely subjective, in the case what you appear to mean by the Revelation of Jesus Christ, is in fact objective, I do believe you have made a severe over reaching of your metaphysical foundations.
So lets try it this way:
show me an objective proof for “the Revelations of Jesus Christ”.
To simplify the discussion: you may use none of the Biblical references.
If you insist on the Biblical references, then we of course must examine the Bible objectively and determine what if any of the Bible is objectvie fact. This of course would be pursued in an objective manner, and if there were inadequate objective supporting evidence, then of course you would not be in a position to argue that your point is valid objectively.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg: You write the intriguing line “The picture is just a representation of the real object”. I am not sure that is not the case with the universe as well – so that, to coin a line from Lewis, here we live in ’shadow-lands’ and that the love, and beauty, and joy we experience, as wonderful as they are, are but pale shadows of the ‘really real’ things.
So, my analogy with the painting (and maybe your negative response to the analogy) are not so far off, after all. Maybe your discomfort with the idea is because you cannot perceive (directly with your senses, anyway) that the painting is NOT all there is, when other things seem to indicate that there is.
And that, if we are in a kind of painting (a very complex and active creation, actually), the very existence of the painting implies a painter. And the thought that there is a painter is maybe kind of unsettling to the figures in the picture who would like to think that they are autonomous.
Report comment to moderator
drill post 211,
now the most interesting aspect for your efforts to introduce yet more assumptions to address problems with your earlier assumptions is that you are working your way into a Goedel’s theorem contradiciton.
The more assumptions you have, the more you are likely to get contradictions between your assumptions AND you can never have enough assumptions to prove all possible theorems in your space.
In this case, I suggest the problematic assumption is the assumption of a strict form of Biblical inerrancy. I suggest that essentially all of the contradictions which erasmus et. al. are calling you on stem from this assumption. Further, this assumption is quite clearly not necessary for Christianity: you hold this assumption because it appeals to you, not because it is necessary for the Christian faith.
Report comment to moderator
drill post 214,
but your statement:
“the very existence of the painting implies a painter”
is objectively true for a painter.
There is, however, no objective evidence for this regarding the universe.
You assume a creator of the form you assume because you choose to assume it. You then seem puzzled that others do not hold your assumptions.
But it is only an asumption. It is not proved, and by the nature of an assumption, within your assumed framework, can never be proved.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: I am afraid I have little interest in playing your ‘objective truth’ game because in such a game one can always by elimination of all but dead certainties, parse things back to the ONLY objective reality (as you really define it) – and that is that the only ‘objective truth’ is ones own existence, or the existence of the ego – the ‘I exist, everything else is uncertain’ mantra. I guess that might be of interest to you (or maybe not, not meaning to state your views) but it really does not hold much for me, except that I intellectually understand the process of arriving at it.
In other words, if you are relentlessly consistent and hard-nosed with your own demands for proof that something is ‘objectively true’, you end up nowhere at all.
I take my stand on the belief (and sure knowledge) that the universe is indeed real, that it is only part of an infinitely greater reality, and that God is good.
I think it would be impossible to objectively prove any of those points using purely scientific data or methodology. In fact, if you could prove them using science, it would render them false by definition. So in that, with all due respect, I actually hope you never succeed.
Report comment to moderator
# 97 — SteveG, the reason I mentioned scientific naturalism was only to make a small point: that no one, not even scientists, observe a set of data with biases. This is the reason two people can look at the same set of data and come to completely different conclusions. It does not necessarily mean, as certain near-hysterics above seems to suggest, that either side is necessarily lying, but that certain basic assumptions are involved in analyzing that data. If someone is willing to examine his assumptions, if he is unwilling to even consider they may be wrong or need modification, or he is so unwilling to consider the contrary to the point that he repeatedly engages in emotion appeals and logical fallacies (noted above), then this is not exactly a convincing or helpful enterprise.
Not that I am saying you are doing this. I only objected to your use of “ignorant” and “hostile” and then noted that there are others who have a differing view of the age of the earth. Because people might disagree, that does not mean they are “ignorant” or “hostile” (e.g., many have scientific credentials, although certain opponents wish this were not so and poison the well whenever the opportunity presents itself). Obviously some of the comments from some of the YEC above (even if you do not agree with them) would be a demonstration of this.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: When did I state that I am puzzled because others do not share my ‘assumputions’? As I have repeatedly said, most people, either YEC or materialists emphatically do NOT share my ‘assumptions’ at ALL. I might be puzzled as to the lack of logic behind a statement like the one that God is somehow a ‘trickster’ if He created the universe with apparent age. There has been nothing presented here that would support that statement except ‘preferences’, pure and simple.
But that is about it – I am certainly not puzzled by the existence of people who refuse to acknowledge God at all or by those who demand that He accomodate their narrow view of things.
Having been around for a while, I expect it.
Report comment to moderator
Musing — You were discussing constancy of rate. Constancy of rate is a critical understanding in radioactive dating and in tectonic activity.
Roger — I certainly was not disputing the idea that radioactive material decays at a constant rate. You might want to check my post number 111 in which I say that the rate of radioactive decay is incontrovertible.
I object to those who assume that earth changes were the result of uniform, small, and incremental changes, not even allowing the possibility that earth changes came about due to catastrophic events. And I disagree with those who suggest that uniformitarianism is the default position, which may be assumed without question, while catastrophism must be proved.
Report comment to moderator
#218 – The equations of radio-isotope dating are beyond subjective interpretation.
Measured values of isotope ratios are beyond subjective interpretation.
Their proper use may depend on geochemical context, but this, too, consists of natural chemical laws, not subject to private interpretation.
At the heart of this process is repeatability of the experiment (not of the event); everyone must be able, in principle, to get the same result from the same experiment (within the uncertainties).
This is called science.
It shows us that the earth is many billions of years old.
It also shows us that it is not 6-10,000 years old.
No two ways about it.
Report comment to moderator
I object to those who assume that earth changes were the result of uniform, small, and incremental changes,
Roger it would be helpful if you were specific about “earth changes.” I have no idea what you mean by that, and could never assess whether said changes are likely to be fast or slow.
Report comment to moderator
Steve — In fact, religious belief does not necessarily make one a better person, nor does a lack of religious belief make one a bad person.
Roger — You still didn’t answer the question. I wasn’t talking about your neighbor or your hypothetical people. I’m talking about a real attitude displayed by a real person. A person on this blog, calling himself a scientist, suggested that I had no right to medical attention because I dared to question the dogmatism of chrono-centric people who think they have the advantage of history.
I agree with your statement above as it concerns religious belief. But let’s take that idea further and ask ourselves what makes the difference between the two.
Part of the answer is the fact that not all believing is of the same quality. For instance, if I told you that I believe a plane was going to crash into my house tomorrow, you can measure the quality of my belief based on whether I actually leave the house and stay away for a couple of days. It’s easy for me to claim that an airplane will hit my house. But unless I actually act on that belief, I appear to grant no credence to that belief.
My original question is an attempt to get at the ultimate purpose for education. What is the purpose of memorizing the fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Why memorize facts in the first place? Why put in all this effort? What purpose does it serve? What good is an education if it doesn’t make a man or woman into a better person?
Report comment to moderator
TJ – there are others who have a differing view of the age of the earth.
Yes, but they only do so because they swear allegiance to a completely different epistemology than that of science. Their vested interest in religious claims makes them hostile to contradictory conclusions of science. People who believe them naively, as if their conclusions are scientifically warranted, are ignorant of the relevant facts.
SteveG’s choice of words was spot on!
Report comment to moderator
A person on this blog, calling himself a scientist, suggested that I had no right to medical attention because I dared to question the dogmatism of chrono-centric people who think they have the advantage of history.
That would be me Roger is referring to, although I have no idea what the “dogmatism of chrono-centric people” is supposed to mean.
In context, my brief off-the-cuff hyperbolic point implied that someone who denies the results of modern science as unreliable and arbitrary – as Roger had done wrt age of Earth – has an iffy entitlement claim to the medical benefits of such science. If you oppose science as arbitrary, why would you even trust the result?
This is not a point I’d want to force or belabor, but I don’t think it’s totally without merit.
I never implied or intended to imply – as Roger keeps harping in paranoid obsession – that there should be some sort of social policy that actually denies, in practice, medical attention to anybody, or that I would ever advocate such an action to Roger personally. I made this clear above.
But like many political opportunists, Roger can’t seem to resist quote-mining for the purpose of some imagined advantage in his debate over the superior importance of moral issues to origins issues, as if these were completely independent. Why he posts here on the “age of the Grand Canyon” thread I can’t imagine. Shouldn’t he restrict himself to “moral issue” discussions of vastly greater importance?
Report comment to moderator
drill post 217,
ah your comment:
“Musing: I am afraid I have little interest in playing your ‘objective truth’ game because in such a game one can always by elimination of all but dead certainties,”
is interesting from a number of perspectives.
First, this “objective truth” game of course is the scientific process, and it is clear from your comments that you are anti-science. This comment cinches the case.
Second of course, it also demonstrates that you are not interested in evidence. But of course you have already admitted that in your opinion “revelation” is superior to evidence. Of course it is always interesting to watch two believers in “revelation” converse. Very soon we get into interesting squabbles over whose “revelation” is correct. Of course for objective questions, we must merely look at the evidence: ah but you don’t trust evidence.
Third, if you truly understood science and objective data, you would realize that objective truth is always tentative. It is “revealed” truth which is always certain. I am reminded of the “often wrong but never uncertain” comment.
Finally, of course, since you have reduced the conversation to the level of a game, you must realize that your Biblical inerrancy game is a game followed by very few. And as noted above, those few seem to have a strong tendency to argue amongst themselves over whose inerrancy is most correct.
But I do believe we have conclusively demonstrated that:
1) you are anti-science
2) you do not accept evidence
3) you insist on a level of certainty which does not exist in questions of science
4) you do not appear to understand the scientific process
5) you are indeed arguing for an approach to the Bible which is accepted by a minority of Christians.
I do commend you on putting so much information into such a compact phrase.
Report comment to moderator
roger post 220,
so then we are in agreement on an old earth: significantly older than say 10,000 years?
Report comment to moderator
Roger – What is the purpose of memorizing the fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? … Why put in all this effort?
Exactly how hard is it to remember that the earth is 4.5 billion years old?!
Report comment to moderator
drill post 219,
I suggest that your comment:
“But that is about it – I am certainly not puzzled by the existence of people who refuse to acknowledge God at all or by those who demand that He accomodate their narrow view of things.
Having been around for a while, I expect it.”
when you provide no objective evidence for your position effectively proves my point.
Report comment to moderator
Drill – Did the deer and the elk have antlers? – and if not, then they were no deer or elk that I would recognize.
But you weren’t there then – you are here now, and deer have had plenty of time to grow antlers.
A better question perhaps –
Did the Lion not have giant teeth for killing and eating other creatures, even before sin and “death” entered the world?
Wonder what those were for then?
Report comment to moderator
Drill, for the record, I take the Genesis creation as literally true. I believe in six literal days of creation, and I think Jesus did too (and Jesus wouldn’t have been in error). I lean toward young earth, but I don’t think that it’s necessary for my faith. If somehow the earth is older than a few thousand years, due to any reason at all, it doesn’t touch my faith a wee little bit. I trust God’s written Word more than I trust carbon dating, and I think God could well have done the “appearance of age” bit. If by chance He did it some other way (recycling or whatever), and the earth’s materials really are billions of years old, it doesn’t affect my faith or the Bible’s veracity. God’s truthfulness isn’t even slightly up for debate. God also doesn’t tell us everything, nor does He need to.
As to those who speak of fossils of animals that never lived being imbedded in the rocks to look as though they’d lived and died–I’m fairly sure no Christian would suggest that answer. I’m also fairly sure that no calendar gives us the exact age of any fossils or tells us “this one predates Genesis.” I don’t actually trust carbon dating, and I know that geology and paleontology bend over backward to make evidence fit into predetermined evolution. And not being an expert who can test the evidence and theories, I’m content to say that I know God is true and someday I’ll find out the details. That really is enough for me, though I find science fascinating. The Creator is infinitely more fascinating, Truly He is.
Report comment to moderator
I’m also fairly sure that no calendar gives us the exact age of any fossils or tells us “this one predates Genesis.” I don’t actually trust carbon dating, and I know that geology and paleontology bend over backward to make evidence fit into predetermined evolution.
Sigh … and here we have the perennial problem. None of this is true (the small piece I excerpted here, I am not talking about your entire post), but you believe with all your heart that it is, that it must be.
No amount of reason or evidence will make a dent in that.
Report comment to moderator
As to those who speak of fossils of animals that never lived being imbedded in the rocks to look as though they’d lived and died–I’m fairly sure no Christian would suggest that answer.
Well you’re wrong, historically, at least. Christians before the 19th century were loathe to believe in extinctions, so fossils of organisms with no living counterparts were routinely interpreted as either growing directly in the rock or implanted by God. I think some actually believed they may have been implanted by Satan – but I can’t find a quick source for that.
“In the eleventh century Avicenna accounted for the fossils by suggesting a “stone-making force”; in the thirteenth, Albert the Great attributed them to a “formative quality;” in the following centuries some philosophers ventured the idea that they grew from seed; and the Aristotelian doctrine of spontaneous generation was constantly used to prove that these stony fossils possessed powers of reproduction like plants and animals.
Toward the end of the sixteenth century, theologians, philosophers, and even some scientific men of value continued to explain fossils as the product of “fatty matter set into a fermentation by heat”; or of a “lapidific juice”; or of a “seminal air”; or of a “tumultuous movement of terrestrial exhalations”; and there was a prevailing belief that fossil remains, in general, might be brought under the head of “sports of Nature,” a pious turn being given to this phrase by the suggestion that these “sports” indicated some inscrutable purpose of the Almighty.
["sports" = tricks of the Almighty Trickster!]
Even well-past the Copernican Revolution – the prevailing doctrine of the Church continued to be that “all things were made at the beginning of the world,” and that to say that stones and fossils were made before or since “the beginning” is contrary to Scripture. Theological explanations included hollow—making fossils “sports of Nature,” or “mineral concretions,” or “creations of plastic force,” or “models” made by the Creator before he had fully decided upon the best manner of creating various beings.
Although some latitude was allowed among the various theologico-scientific explanations in the mid-19th century, it was still held meritorious to believe that all fossils were placed in the strata on one of the creative days by the hand of the Almighty, and that this was done for some mysterious purpose, probably for the trial of human faith.
More is in White’s
HISTORY OF THE WARFARE OF SCIENCE WITH THEOLOGY IN CHRISTENDOM
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus — As far as what good are facts that don’t make you a better person, I’d say ‘How can denying facts make you a better person?’.
Roger — I’m not surprised you seem to have trouble with this concept since the major universities of the United States abandoned their mission in the late 1800’s, switching from a liberal arts education to a technical curriculum. In this the universities decided to support industrialization adding classes in science and technology and dropping the emphasis on philosophy and the classics. Prior to that time, the purpose of education was to expose the student to the universal ideas and concepts of humanity, especially those ideas that promoted the living of a better life.
If a man is trying to live a better life, he will not only learn the facts of the case, but he will be able to apply those facts to the betterment of himself and those around him.
To simply accept a fact as true or not true doesn’t go far enough. As anyone with an open mind can see, some naturalists on this blog care more about the age of the earth than the well being of other human beings. To suggest that a man has no right to medical attention if he disagrees with a fact of science is to take the philosophical position of naturalism to it’s logical conclusion.
Erasmus — Then I’d leave this sterile debate for a discussion of the facts again (but first, let me just state that claiming ‘Jesus is Lord’ is a fact, in the same way that ‘Objects fall at 9.8 m/s/s in a vacuum’ is a fact, is doing extreme violence to the concept of a ‘fact’).
Roger — Not in his opinion.
Report comment to moderator
But, science isn’t based on the ideas and ego of just one person, however foundational their theories may have been. Newton has been proven “wrong” by relativity. Science works, because it always remains OK to question, and revise, as needed.
. . . which totally misses the point. I’m not arguing that scientists can’t know anything because they have been proven wrong so many times in the past. I’m arguing that the apologists of science shouldn’t be so dogmatic and haughty when having these discussions.
Report comment to moderator
Roger: To simply accept a fact as true or not true doesn’t go far enough. As anyone with an open mind can see, some naturalists on this blog care more about the age of the earth than the well being of other human beings. To suggest that a man has no right to medical attention if he disagrees with a fact of science is to take the philosophical position of naturalism to it’s logical conclusion.
As has been pointed out (and should have been obvious), that was hyperbole. The point being that people who reject the methods and finding of science but still expect to benefit from what it brings us should rethink their criticisms.
Also, I daresay we’re not all the “naturalists” you think we are.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza — Exactly how hard is it to remember that the earth is 4.5 billion years old?!
Roger — I didn’t say it was hard. I asked what purpose it serves. Anyone can look up this information in the encyclopedia. But it takes a special person to suggest that we deny medical treatment to ignorant, dogmatic people.
Report comment to moderator
Roger
A host of non-sequitors aside, i’d say that correcting erroneous and mistaken opinions about the natural world is a way to “apply those facts to the betterment of himself and those around him.”
Living in denial of those facts is a sure way to perpetuate the bonds of ignorance that have been used by ideologues for millennia. On your side of this ‘debate’ I might add.
YEC has everything to gain from science denial and nothing to lose. It’s a social disease that is going nowhere, the best you can do is free yourself from these bonds of willful stupidity.
Report comment to moderator
# 224 — You’re equivocating, Spinoza; you are correct in saying there are two different epistemologies, but science and scientific naturalism are not the same thing (and “hostility” if it is defined that way, cuts both ways). There are folks who do science but reject naturalistic presuppositions.
I am curious, though, why you provide a reference in # 233 to a work that has been pretty much debunked historically (as well as damaging to both religion and science). Dare I ask why you did not do a little fact-checking of your own before recommending this resource? I won’t show you the disrespect you have shown me and others on this thread, but it would not be a stretch if someone were to call Andrew Dickson White a liar. He was blinded by a hatred for religion which caused him to invent “facts” to support his own ideals. His 100+ year old work (so much for criticizing outdated sources and 100 year old arguments, I suppose) still apparently thrives on atheist and skeptic websites, but it is not considered reliable by students of history, both Christian and non-Christian alike.
“While some historians had always regarded the Draper-White thesis as oversimplifying and distorting a complex relationship, in the late twentieth century it underwent a more systematic reevaluation. The result is the growing recognition among historians of science that the relationship of religion and science has been much more positive than is sometimes thought. Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavor, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule.” Gary Ferngren, Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction
“Draper takes such liberty with history, perpetuating legends as fact that he is rightly avoided today in serious historical study. The same is nearly as true of White, though his prominent apparatus of prolific footnotes may create a misleading impression of meticulous scholarship” — Colin Russell, Encyclopedia of the History of Science and Religion
“White’s and Draper’s accounts of the actual interaction between science and religion in Western history do not differ greatly. Both tell a tale of bright progress continually sparked by science. And both develop and utilize the same myths to support their narrative.” — Stephen Jay Gould, Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History
See also the following links:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040717084200/http://www.id.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html
http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/steno.html
It was disturbing to you when you thought Creationists lied to you; does it matter when anti-Christians lie in order to promote a specific scientific agenda?
Report comment to moderator
Musing: You state pompously “But I do believe WE (sic) have conclusively demonstrated that:
1) you are anti-science (but only if science is defined narrowly as ‘the conspicious cultivation of a lack of free-thinking’; if we define it that way, I am indeed guilty as charged, and conversely you are very very pro-science indeed.)
2) you do not accept evidence (as utterly unalterable dogma – without a clear understanding of the alternative possibilities and a logical and meaningful construction of all possible pathways that such evidence can reasonably be interpreted as providing; in fact you seem to have confused the act of ’scrutiny of evidence’ with the act of ‘non-acceptance of evidence’, a common fallacy among scientifically illiterate science groupies – a phenomena made possible in the age of the 50 minute documentary and politicized science at the cartoon level).
3) you insist on a level of certainty which does not exist in questions of science (which statement is neither true nor relevant in any way to the issues being discussed – a better way to put it would be that you (Musing) insists that whatever tripe you parrot is certainty, that any belief system other than the parroted version you prate about is invalid).
4) you do not appear to understand the scientific process (only to someone who worships the process itself without understanding both its strengths and its limitations and the larger issues that encapsulate the scientific process itself)
5) you are indeed arguing for an approach to the Bible which is accepted by a minority of Christians. (which is actually NOT what I have been arguing as any one who can read knows – I have been arguing that it is nonsense that God would be ‘tricky’ to create instantaneously a mature and consistently old-in-appearance Earth, whether it was done that way or not.)
I think the only thing ‘we’ have conclusively ‘proved’ is that (unfortunately) there is always a subset of folks in every discussion who end up waxing arrogant, pompous, and asinine when arguments fail them.
Report comment to moderator
drill c’mon. you have been arguing for the position that we cannot know anything because your gods are ominpotent omnipresent omniscient omniarmed and omnipurple.
and you are right. and the utter futility and sterility of the fruit of those arguments is one reason why they are wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Roder – “I’m not surprised you seem to have trouble with this concept since the major universities of the United States abandoned their mission in the late 1800’s, switching from a liberal arts education to a technical curriculum.”
I think you have the 1800’s confused with the 60’s!
Roger — “I didn’t say it was hard. I asked what purpose it serves.”
You said, “What is the purpose of memorizing the fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? … Why put in all this effort?” (italics mine)
My point was – what effort? How much effort does it take to learn this? Will 1 semester do, or do you need 2?
Besides – this is not a thread about science education; no one but you has even made a statement on this thread about whether or not – and if so, how much – origins science should be taught in schools. You’re having a conversation with yourself!
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus — A host of non-sequitors aside, i’d say that correcting erroneous and mistaken opinions about the natural world is a way to “apply those facts to the betterment of himself and those around him.”
Roger — Can you be more specific? How does a fact like “the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old” contribute to a man’s journey toward temperance, chastity, humility, goodwill, generosity, loyalty, industry, or creativity?
But we can assuredly say that the devout adherents to the premise, “everything can be explained in terms of physical and chemical laws” has no commitment at all to the sanctity of the human race or the dignity of human kind. For this man, the withholding of medical treatment from another human being is as morally neutral as gravity.
Erasmus — Living in denial of those facts is a sure way to perpetuate the bonds of ignorance that have been used by ideologues for millennia. On your side of this ‘debate’ I might add.
Roger — Really, and what side is that? Do you honestly think this is a debate about the age of the earth?
Erasmus — YEC has everything to gain from science denial and nothing to lose. It’s a social disease that is going nowhere, the best you can do is free yourself from these bonds of willful stupidity.
Roger — Well maybe you should have a talk with Dr. Chumley.
Report comment to moderator
#239 – TJ – I am curious, though, why you provide a reference in # 233 to a work that has been pretty much debunked historically (as well as damaging to both religion and science)”
Simply because it was the quickest online reference I could find with citations to Christian historical interpretations of fossils. I’ve read these in other works and have no reason to doubt them; they are well referenced. Do you think they are wrong? No further endorsement of this work’s central thesis was implied. So ride your red herring whither you will; I ain’t followin’.
You’re equivocating, Spinoza; you are correct in saying there are two different epistemologies,
Thank you
but science and scientific naturalism are not the same thing (and “hostility” if it is defined that way, cuts both ways). There are folks who do science but reject naturalistic presuppositions.
Nonsense. Scientific hypotheses must be testable by empirical experiment, ergo its theories are restricted to natural causes and effects. A scientist can believe in miracles, but he/she can do no science with them.
Creationist pseudo-scientists that take Genesis as a dogmatic starting point for alleged “scientific” theories are not doing science at all. They are doing some weird kind of theology.
Even if supernatural causes were to be admitted within science, there is no justification for dogmatically affirming a religious text and imposing its conclusions on the data as do YEC “creation scientists” so-called. To act as though this is objective treatment of the data is dishonest. To claim the data, alone (without swearing an oath to creationist tenets), can be reasonably interpreted to yield a young earth age is a lie. Moreover, to claim that the data can be harmonized with a dogmatic adherence to a literal Genesis narrative – even if philosophically allowable, which it isn’t – is also a lie. Those who affirm this are either ignorant of the empirical facts, or are deliberately lying about them, or both.
Report comment to moderator
Besides – this is not a thread about science education; no one but you has even made a statement on this thread about whether or not – and if so, how much – origins science should be taught in schools. You’re having a conversation with yourself!
Roger — Yea, and I’m doing a pretty good job of it too.
In fact, I’m not talking about science education, which is an oxymoron to say the least. Rather, I view this thread in the context of the entire WOW blog in which particular folks continue to act out the script from the movie “Groundhog day”. I ask myself, “whats really at stake? What’s in it for those who participate? and Can I redeem the time I spend talking about this stuff?”
So, I’m talking about what interests me. And what interests me is what you said about my right to medical treatment, why you said it, and an examination of the philosophical underpinnings of such an audacious statement. You all can continue to beat each up over the head with your encyclopedias. Might as well get some use out of it.
Report comment to moderator
Musing — so then we are in agreement on an old earth: significantly older than say 10,000 years?
Roger — I’ll agree that it’s older than I am. And that’s all that really matters.
Report comment to moderator
Roger at #243: Can you be more specific? How does a fact like “the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old” contribute to a man’s journey toward temperance, chastity, humility, goodwill, generosity, loyalty, industry, or creativity?
The better question is, how wise is it to teach people that their faith is dependent on their believing the Genesis story is both literal and relatively recent?
I submit to you that a thinking person who accepts that this belief is an inalienable component of their faith is bound to lose their faith altogether. Because what will happen is that for a time they will read only things that serve to allow them to continue to believe this, but eventually their intellectual honesty will compel them to challenge those beliefs. They will conclude (rightly) that if the belief doesn’t hold up under challenge, it should be discarded.
And if the baby and the bathwater are all one thing, it will all go out the window.
On the other hand, if they understand from the beginning of their faith journey that the point of the Genesis story is about who created us and why, while science has the purview of discovering how He created us and when, they will not find a need to toss out the baby while draining the bathwater.
Report comment to moderator
roger, how do you know the earth is older than you? how do you know that you weren’t born yesterday?
anyway, How does a fact like “the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old” contribute to a man’s journey toward temperance, chastity, humility, goodwill, generosity, loyalty, industry, or creativity?
Temperance, you got me. Episcopalians and Catholics and biologists are often drunks.
Chastity, again, you got me. I have known a lot of hot and sassy YEC chicks. Maybe your method is failing them.
Humility. A LONG WAYS. Getting over human exceptionalism opens you up to an entirely new humbling world that does not give a damn for your existence. That is an eye opener.
Goodwill. Shedding the religious bigotry entwined with a literalist position might make you hate the muslims and teh gays a bit less. Victoria could use a dose if you hadn’t noticed, and she is one of the most vociferous YEC’ers here, and for the same religious reasons of every single YEC’er.
Generosity. See humility, goodwill.
Loyalty. I don’t know. being beholden to man or gods is not something i am interested in. you tell me why this is important.
industry. you tell me why this is important.
creativity. ROFLMAO. presuppositionalism is stifling to creativity and intellectual exploration.
looks like you are holding a mixed, mostly empty, bag.
Report comment to moderator
roger post 234,
your cmment here is interesting:
“To simply accept a fact as true or not true doesn’t go far enough. As anyone with an open mind can see, some naturalists on this blog care more about the age of the earth than the well being of other human beings.”
I suggest an alternate itnerpretation however. Some on this blog, I suggest, care more for ensuring that we educate our children properly and make rational public decisions than we care about insisting on imposing a minority interpretation of the Bible on society as a whole.
We do not make better people by insisting that they ingore the data as available.
What does make better people is to challenge them to think. Think about what they know. Think about why they know it. And perhaps most importantly, think about the implications of their actions when they act based on what they know.
Rigidly insisting that Genesis, for example, must be interpreted word for word literally as written I suggest is by contrast an encouragement not to think.
Report comment to moderator
roger post 246,
when you say:
“Musing — so then we are in agreement on an old earth: significantly older than say 10,000 years?
Roger — I’ll agree that it’s older than I am. And that’s all that really matters.”
I suggest you are at best being facile and disingenuous in your comments.
You made a statement reagrding constancy of radioactive decay. this has technical consequences. It would appear that you are trying to defend an earth younger than the scientific data. These two positons are not scientifically consistent.
CherylD and, even more strongly, outkast seem to have a more honest position here: they do not care what the scientific data is and do not care to consider it. They consider that only the Biblical material as valuable to them in their life.
And this is an honest and suppoprtable position.
There are limitations, however:
1) don’t call it science
2) since it is religion, don’t teach it in science class
3) don’t pretend then that your attacks on the scientific data are driven by scientific motives
If one goes this path, it is one’s belief. Admit it, and leave it at that.
Report comment to moderator
roger post 243,
when you say:
” But we can assuredly say that the devout adherents to the premise, “everything can be explained in terms of physical and chemical laws” has no commitment at all to the sanctity of the human race or the dignity of human kind.”
you would seem, however, to be overstepping the bounds of the argument.
I believe it has been reaised a number of times: science only describes the objective world. It does not address metaphysical questions of the form you are raising.
You would seem tobe continuing to cnfound science with ethics or metaphysics: they are different.
You would seem to be suggesting that naything which does not consider only the metaphysics of the situation is misguided. But the point of the discussio is that metaphysics does not address the objectvie, adn we need to keep these separate.
What strikes me, jhowever, is the old adage “to a man with only a hammer, all problems are nails”.
As Francis Collins demonstrates, being a great scientist need not mean that one does not have and consider religious beliefs.
What it does require is a sensitivity to when questions are scientific in nature, and when they are religious.
And by definition, the assertion that Genesis is a science text ignores this distinction.
Report comment to moderator
roger post 243,
to be simplistic about it, isn’t possible that one might be able to chew gum and walk at the same time?
Report comment to moderator
roger post 245,
if we consider your comment:
” I ask myself, “whats really at stake? What’s in it for those who participate? and Can I redeem the time I spend talking about this stuff?””
I suggest that it is filled with possible isues for consideration.
First, of course, if one does not have any concern for the scientific approach, then why should it concern you when a provides support for concluding that the world is 4.5 billion years old (or the Grand Canyon 6 million or more years old) or that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor. If you truly disregard science, then the scientifically based conclusion is of no import, and by your logic one should not post.
Second, if one is sympathetic to a scientific approach understanding the objective world, then when someone states as objective fact that the world is less than 10,000 years old based on their reading and interpretation of Genesis, I suggest that this would be considered a comment worthy of discussing.
If one is among the majority of Christians, myself among them, who hold that the Bible is not necessarily the inerrant literal word of God, then comments suggesting that for moral reasons or tu sustain our Christian faith we must accept a less than 10,000 years age for the earth based on a reading and interpretation of Genesis would indeed appear to be a subject worthy of discussion. A simple cursory look at this situaton suggests that by insisting on the objectively unsupportable one is weakening Christianity as a whole.
If one is interested in pursuing a deep understanding of the probable intended menaing of the words of Genesis, a strict literal interpretation based on the English translations would be suggestive of perhaps sloppy scholarship and would potentially be justification for further discussion.
And of course if one insists that one is being scientific AND that one must interpret Genesis in a strict literal sense, this subject would be a reasonable subject to discuss.
Interestingly, the only individuals who do not seem to have a dog in this fight are those who believe in a strict inerrant literal interpretation of the Bible and have full confidence in their beliefs. As noted above, whatever the objective evidence may be, they have already admitted it is immaterial.
Report comment to moderator
TJ post 239,
now I suggest your point here:
“in the late twentieth century it underwent a more systematic reevaluation. The result is the growing recognition among historians of science that the relationship of religion and science has been much more positive than is sometimes thought. ”
is reasonable. However, the relationship between science and dogmatic religion have been much less sanguine.
In particular a dogmatic insistence on the strong literal inerrance of the Bible and science is a very troublesome match. As of course is the dogmatic insistence on the primacy of religious hierarchy in all levels of thought and science is also troublesome and problematic.
Report comment to moderator
Re the ‘trickster’… Perhaps there is something that needs to be said here that’s not yet been said out loud.
[I realize that those of you who haven't actually read the Bible are at a disadvantage. Otherwise, you'd know there are many more avenues you could pursue, like the following. But I'll help you for a moment...]
Perhaps like a kindly ‘magician’ who’s not REALLY trying to get you to go home and saw your little brother in half; instead, he’s challenging you to perceive truth from him. Similarly people in Jesus’ day asked why He so often spoke in parables instead of just telling them plainly. Here’s his answer from Matthew 13…
He replied, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
” ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.
*******
Be a little humble for a moment, for your own sake, and ask yourself… which group are you in? Which group would you like to be in? What’s keeping you out, really? And who are you arguing with, anyway?
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus: You well know that I have been extremely consistent on the issue of whether God would be a ‘trickster’ were He to create a mature and consistently mature universe instantly. There is no sound logical or theological reason I have ever heard that would make this so (that He would be a trickster). That is really about as far as I go with what is called Young Earth Creationism. As you also know, that is not the way I think it has happened, however that is no reason to resort to false arguments concerning the belief. One can have the opinion that God would be a trickster in such a case, but it is clearly based on no logic or theological argument, just preference as to what God should be like.
There are the usual pompous asses who,when they have no argument on such a completely non-scientific issue (as I have pointed out, science can do nothing but shrug at such an issue), resort to stupid statements that if you disagree with them, you are therefore ‘anti-science’.
There are two types of pompous asses: The first type are pompous asses, but they sort of have earned the right to be – they know a lot about their subject and they are quite good at it. Many scientists are like that. On balance they are beneficial to the progress of understanding (or whatever it is that they are good at), although they are royal pains in the neck. The second type are just plain pompous asses (boorish and intolerant and excessively narrow-minded), without any of the redeeming features of the first type.
I see a pretty good example of the second type inhabiting these threads.
Report comment to moderator
Well drill normally I would be interested to know how you delimit entities in your taxonomy but at this point I think that it is trivial. Particularly since the pool from which you would be forced to draw from mostly contains scientists, seems like you are just mashing sour grapes. For the record, I know you are not a YEC’er but you are willing to pretend to be one to make your point about cartesian empirical equivalences. I say that makes you guilty by association.
I don’t understand your protesting the assertion that anti-empirical means anti-science. It is plainly obvious to anyone who has ever practiced science. i sense that it is because you don’t believe that science is the only means of obtaining knowledge, and i’ll agree (the jury may still be out regarding what ‘knowledge’ is). But I do think that science is the only way we have of communicating and demonstrating knowledge. This goes to the logic of discovery that fascinated Popper. Where do hypotheses come from, etc.
As noted by Spinoza or Steve above, revelation cannot yield knowledge. Knowledge is obtained by empirical experience and hypothesis testing (even at the relatively simple form of my child knowing that the stove is hot, because he touched it before and not because it was revealed to him by his father. I suggest that those arguing for revelation as a means of obtaining knowledge have a skewed definition of what knowledge means. Please distinguish this from the claim that such revelation is worthless, I am not claiming this.
Report comment to moderator
Musing #249: I don’t want to educate your children, just my own without interference from those who wish to perpetuate a godless view of life. I’m ready to defend my philosophy, but it would be foolish to attempt to force it on anyone.
Musing #250: My belief is supported by real life experiences that can’t be denied. A Christian has an internal witness that validates the existence of God. A moment by moment interaction that’s as real as the relationship I have with my wife and family. God’s vivid presence in my life is so real that I’d have to deny myself to deny Him.
Being anti-science as you define it, I want you to know that I am very interested in working out how God did it. That’s why I’m drawn to this type of blog issue. I attempt to follow both sides of the argument, but I admit that God created everything as related in Genesis. I’m just trying to figure out the correct interpretation.
You might say that I put a lot of faith in something that’s untrue to you. I’d respond that you put a lot of faith in a system that’s held false assumptions sometimes for entire generations. I tend to agree that technological science is self-correcting and generally migrates towards the truth. I’m not so sanguine regarding scientism. I wonder if it leads to a horrible pragmaticism that’s anathema to the individuals at the fringes.
What’s interesting is that scientism and evolution both depend on the positive direction of self-correcting mechanisms. I think that may be true in technical fields concerned with knowledge. I’m not convinced it’s true philosophically or even genetically.
Report comment to moderator
drill post 256,
I do suggest, however, that arguments in whatever form for a young earth with the appearance of age suggest a trap of the form of a Goedel completeness problem.
Specifically, if one’s interpretation of the Bible asserts a young earth, and one accepts the concept of objective evidence BUT the objective evidence yields a conclusion of an old earth, merely adding the assumption (and it is an added assumption) that it only appears old is a classic case of adding assumptions to fix up difficutlties with assumptions.
This is indeed the challenge that, for example, Tycho Brahe faced. His geocentric model of the universe was incredibly accurate for all cases for which there were observations. It was however, incredibly ornate to account for all the different classes of motion. It was also very weak for handling new discoveries of which Galileo’s obervsations of the moons of Jupiter would become an example.
Kepler recast Brahe’s models into a heliocentric universe (which still has its own problems) and released the need for this overlaying of additional assumptions while maintaining or improving the level of accuracy of Brahe’s model.
By the same token, a literal interpretation of Genesis leading to a young earth AND an insistence that one is being scientific with objective data requires, as we are seeing, an ever cascading series of additional assumptions in an effort to handle the observed contradictions.
And when one pursues this one kind of path, I suggest one is working ones way into a Geodel’s completeness problem: you will never have eneough assumptions.
A cleaner approach is to reexamine your assumptions. One can:
either
1) explicitly reject the scientific approach to objective data, in which case there appear to be no issues to be resolved
or
2) reject a strict literal inerrancy model for interpreting the Bible, in which case there appear to be no issues to be resolved
The attempt to preserve both assumptions, however, is effectively untenable logically, as this discussion would seem to be demonstrating.
Report comment to moderator
norm p post 258,
well first since I believe in God and am a Christian, I believe I can accept many of the points you have made.
I also honor your approach to educating your own children. That is, within broad limits, your responsibility and your right.
The challenge becomes when you extend your religious view, as you appear to be doing in your last sentence, to an objective view.
The challenge gets even more pronounced when one extends your view into public policy on science or public policy on science education or in the more extreme case into public policy in general.
I do suggest, however, that it is not neccessary to believe in a strict interpretation of Genesis (or any other portion of the Bible) to be a Christian. So it would appear that you are asserting that you need to interpret the Bible this way so as to support the specific type of Christianity you have chosen to accept.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
I’ve certainly never disavowed interest in science. I have a great interest in science, and in a different life I could have pursued it for a career. (Interestingly, my childhood best friend ended up doing so instead.) There is no distinction between good science and good theology, however. My interest in science stems partly from the original reason for science–to learn more about the mind of the Creator. It is unscientific to say, “There is no God.” Any science that pretends to disprove God is acting outside its proper sphere and can rightly be ignored.
Science allows us to explore “the other book of God” in addition to the Bible. It does not supercede the Bible. Where the two seem to be in conflict, either the Bible has been misunderstood or the scientist’s initial theory is wrong. I have no problem at all in saying that where the Bible speaks clearly (as it does when stating that God created the world in six days), I believe it. But I also have a great interest in science. There is no contradiction; all truth comes from God, and scientists can only discover truth or hide it, not manufacture it.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus: I have never liked the tendency of YEC to try (in my view) to force scientific evidence to fit the model of a young earth, and have said that any number of times. However, I have never seen any theological reason (or logical reason – I take a bigger view of logic than the straight empirical/scientific view) that the universe could not have been created instantaneously as mature (consistently mature which would imply thorough evidence of great age down to the minute detail).
The realm of science is too small to encompass such a concept – because it lies outside evidentary proof. However, it fits religious revelation nicely. And does no injustice to science at all, since it is logically and theologically possible (and does not in any way impugn the character of the Creator). It is neither scientifically possible nor impossible, however. Again, science shrugs and turns back to its testtubes and telescopes, as it should. Based on your statements, you would agree, although you grumble and wax wroth that any one would waste the time on such non-evidentary stuff – which is where I in turn disagree with you.
So if my doctor was examining Adam just after Creation and noted a surgical scar where his appendix would be, with said scar looking 10 years old or so, I would expect the doctor should mark just that observation down in the medical records. Even if Adam argues about it, since, by golly, HE knows that he was just poured out of a bottle the previous day. But the doctor should mark down what he sees in the records; otherwise he is not a good doctor.
Also, I would probably agree with you that anti-empirical means anti-science, although one has to be careful to not define science as one prefers, instead of as what it actually is, or should be. The problem is that I am emphatically NOT anti-empirical. Just, as you note, I think that it (empiricalism) is not the whole story, and in fact is probably a much much smaller subset of the whole story than we like to think it is. And so am not willing to elevate it (empiricalism or science) to golden calf status. But am glad for it (I make my living on it, actually) and believe it works exceedingly well in the local sense of the universe that we inhabit.
There are two ways to learn about the hot stove. One, as you note above, is to touch the thing and find out all about it, in the empirical sense. The other, however, which you discount as useless, is to actually listen to ol’ Pop, who (surprisingly enough) seems to usually know what he is talking about, and actually believe him that the stove is indeed hot, and not touch the thing to begin with. Both ways, I suppose, of obtaining evidence. The second, I realize, implies a degree of trust. But, hang it all, any Creator of a universe which has populated His Creation with good-looking women and trout streams and fiddles and the simple pleasures which are sprinkled here and there throughout our lives, has got my trust, and more besides.
Well, except for pompous asses. I don’t understand where pompous asses fit in with that optimistic view of Creation. They are the fly in the Creation soup. The existence of pompous asses throws a dark shadow upon the good benevolance of Creation and confounds all my thoughts.
Report comment to moderator
CherylD post 261,
when you say the age of the earth is immaterial to you I suggest that in broad strokes you are suggesting that you are ascientific. I keep reviewing your posts and I continue to find them in the main logically sound.
I do suggest, however, that your comment:
“It is unscientific to say, “There is no God.””
while correct as posed is perhaps misleading.
I suggest that the more rigorous formulation is that there is no scientifically validated evidence for God.
And there is a key difference between the two statements.
Science is agnostic as to whether there is a God or not. It can’t be proved or disproved by science: the very concept, being a religious concept, is not amenable to objective proof.
I also suggest that when you make the following assertion:
” Where the two seem to be in conflict, either the Bible has been misunderstood or the scientist’s initial theory is wrong.”
as interpreted by most is anti-science.
So lets try the following thought experiment:
From a scientific perspective, prove that the Bible is inerrantly true. Do remember, that you will now not be able to reference The Bible to provide your proof.
Report comment to moderator
Steve — The better question is, how wise is it to teach people that their faith is dependent on their believing the Genesis story is both literal and relatively recent?
Roger — Okay, you couldn’t answer my question so you asked one of your own. I continue to wonder if resistance to my question is due to the compartmentalization of knowledge, which allows a scientist to split the atom one day and hand it over to the military industrial complex the next.
Anyway, to answer your question, I must say that I have never heard anyone put it quite the way you did. I would say it isn’t very wise to advise people to place their faith in a literal teaching of Genesis. Fortunately, perhaps, I have never heard such a teaching.
And I don’t think genuine faith is as fragile as you postulate in your remarks. Christians don’t put their faith in an idea such as “Genesis is literal and the events are relatively recent.” Christians put their faith in a person, Jesus Christ, who said, “The scriptures can not be broken.” The scriptures are true in what they intend to say. Whether any particular passage should be taken literally or figuratively will rest in the objective, intended meaning of the author, not in a strict adherence to literalism.
Science may challenge a literal interpretation of Genesis, but if it does, it doesn’t necessarily challenge the objective meaning the author intended. At the same time, it isn’t a foregone conclusion that science is always right, and neither is it always foundational to our knowledge.
If God says he created the universe in six days, who are we to say otherwise? If he did, scientists ought to spend their time figuring out how such a thing might happen.
If that is not God’s claim, then we have no business believing it.
Report comment to moderator
drill, without out prior experience of ‘what is hot’, such a revelation is absolutely meaningless. the implications of this simple observation destroy the argument from revelation.
Norm, you made a comment that I find intriguing, and I suspect that I agree with you.
I’m not so sanguine regarding scientism. I wonder if it leads to a horrible pragmaticism that’s anathema to the individuals at the fringes.
I suppose I would first inquire of you, what are ‘individuals at the fringes?’ before proceeding.
Report comment to moderator
roger post 264,
but when you say:
“If God says he created the universe in six days, who are we to say otherwise?”
you also appear to be introducing the following unstated assumptions:
1) the Bible is itself the direct word of God
20 the bible as wrritten is to be interpreted as literally inerrant
I suggest that clarification on these points is critical if your post is to be properly understood. In particular it would appear that your statements:
“If God says he created the universe in six days, who are we to say otherwise?”
and
“I would say it isn’t very wise to advise people to place their faith in a literal teaching of Genesis. Fortunately, perhaps, I have never heard such a teaching.”
are in contradiction of each other.
So clarity here?
Report comment to moderator
Roger, who are ‘we’ to claim that “God says he created the universe in six days?”
The premise of this claim is suspect, not the logical consequences.
Report comment to moderator
drill post 262,
while I agree with the essence of your statment:
” But, hang it all, any Creator of a universe which has populated His Creation with good-looking women and trout streams and fiddles and the simple pleasures which are sprinkled here and there throughout our lives, has got my trust, and more besides. ”
do note that using your logic so far, it is equally valid to argue that this is the result of actions by the flying spaghetti monster.
For the purposes of this discussion, I merely note that I talk with the flying spaghetti monster daily, he assured me that what I am relating is true, it is recorded in a magic book, of which only I have a copy and can’t be read by those hwo don’t believe, and oh yes, the flying spaghetti monster assured me that he is not God.
And I have as much objective evidence for this model as you have for yours.
Amusingly, I have as much subjective or belief evidence for this as you have for your ideas.
I do believe, that in the end you and I will be arguing over how many people believe your version of religious truth and how many believe mine, since it would appear that we have no other framework on which to argue.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. (#231): I understand what you are saying; but as I have noted in posts exchanged with Erasmus, it has always seemed to me to be futile to try to scientifically ‘prove’ that the Earth is 6 – 10000 years old, or whatever. There is just too much evidence against it for me to ask a scientist to try to ignore it.
For instance, ice core samples from polar ice shelves (Greenland) contain distinctly detectable layers (corresponding to annual precipation layers). These layers are distinguishable and linear and number hundreds of thousands in continous sequences.
There is sedimentation (bio-based) deposits on the sea-floor which are very thin at mid-ocean ridge systems where plates are forming and correspondingly very deep near continents where the oceanic plates are being submerged. The plates are measurably moving (plate tetonics) and even with greatly accelerated deposition of this sediment (if one somehow assumes the oceans could support a massive increase in it, somehow – no theory could explain it), it cannot explain the depth of sediments in the subduction zones in less than many hundreds of thousands (actually millions) of years. And also if the plates used to move faster (fast enough to explain the uneven sediment distribution, at these unreasonably huge rates of sedimentation), the Earth would be unlivable, geologically speaking.
There are many other examples as well which indicate (scientifically) great age.
However, I have always been puzzled/irritated by the ‘God would be a trickster’ argument regards instantaneous creation of a consistently mature Earth. I have heard it from both sides (YEC and secular), and it seems to have NO basis either theological or logical – the statement really is purely based on the preference of HOW we would do it were we God.
Actually, I see it the other way, if that happened. God is a master craftsman, to say the least. It is no trickery to create a masterpiece. I think we sometimes tend to forget that God’s thoughts are not our thoughts. His purposes are grand beyond our comprehension. So it is on that basis that I don’t buy into the ‘God as trickster’ argument, even though I don’t claim the YEC mantle myself.
Erasmus says that makes me a ‘fellow traveler’. That is okay with me – I know some absolutely wonderful and highly intelligent people who hold that view. They sometimes think I am sort of apostate because I do not agree with them on that issue and avert their eyes at church socials.
But then I am routinely scorned and maligned by the Musing-types, too.
So then, being Drill, I think I must be on to something.
Report comment to moderator
drill post 269,
nope drill I don’t scorn you.
I do suggest, however, that the logical basis for your conclusions are incomplete and that you are working from mutually incompatable assumptions.
You have, for example, never addressed the Goedel completeness implications of your added assumption that “Actually, I see it the other way, if that [an apparent old earth] happened. God is a master craftsman” where you are apparenlty adding the assumption that God made an apparently old earth.
This is an assumption, and from a logical perspective arguably a very weak one for technical logic reasons, for which you have provided no proof, and in fact as you develop your argument, there can be no proof. Hence it is an added assumption.
Now as we continue through Genesis, you will have to continue to add additional assumptions, each arguably as weak as the apparent old earth assumption, for a number of incidents (the flood comes to mind for example).
We can then extend to Exodus and your additional assumptions and logically contortions will have to increase yet again.
And when we go the the remaining Deuteronomic materials, your added assumptions will have to increase yet again.
And when you are done, you will find yourself tripping over your own assumptions.
In short, you will be unable to assume your way out of the logical entanglement you are slowly drawing yourself into.
So how do you then justify this continued adding of assumptions?
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus: Right – Revelation requires a reference point of experience, no doubt.
Which (I think) is where the Christian concept of redemption ‘from something’ comes into play.
If the child has not fallen (or more relevantly in a religious sense – has not realized he has fallen), he certainly won’t listen to any amount of advice (Revelation) about the remedy for the consequences of falling and how to try not fall in the future.
I think Christ might have meant something like that when He said that He had come to seek and save the lost, not the righteous. But then, I am no theologian, as many here would heartily agree.
Report comment to moderator
And what interests me is what you said about my right to medical treatment, why you said it, and an examination of the philosophical underpinnings of such an audacious statement.
I don’t think this interests you at all – you have rejected my explanation in favor of your own paranoid insistence that science leads to immorality. You are using my comment to continue to beat your drum. No one will ever convince you otherwise, so there’s no point talking about it.
Report comment to moderator
drill post 271,
but I am still wondering how you do the following:
1) reconcile that your revelation disagrees with the revelation of others?
2) on what basis you conclude that this revelation has any objective impact?
You do realize that without clarity on these points your position on these points is becoming increasingly close to what are typically considered medical conditions?
Report comment to moderator
#259
“either
1) explicitly reject the scientific approach to objective data, in which case there appear to be no issues to be resolved
or
2) reject a strict literal inerrancy model for interpreting the Bible, in which case there appear to be no issues to be resolved”
Or believe both and continue searching. Perhaps even the apparent 4.5 billion year age of the earth and a literal creation week will someday be reconcilable through relativity or other physical processes that are unbeknownst to us now.
#260: I’m not attempting to extend my philosophy or religion into public policy beyond my single vote. In fact, I don’t support forcing non-Christians to behave like believers. But I also believe your side will actively propagate unbelief in schools and through court rulings, extending your reach forcibly to my children. On the other hand, most of the court cases inspired by Christian are defensive.
#263: “Science is agnostic as to whether there is a God or not. It can’t be proved or disproved by science: the very concept, being a religious concept, is not amenable to objective proof.”
Then science has a significant limitation. The Bible is self-authenticating, true in my opinion in its assertions and predictions, despite at least 2000 years of critique. Of course, the miraculous will always be denied by those blind to the God’s existence, decrees, and claims on their lives.
#265 It begins with the most vulnerable and progresses from there. I can’t determine how far. It will be decided by consensus. There’s no other truth to live by after killing God.
Report comment to moderator
norm p post 259,
but when you say the following:
“Or believe both and continue searching. Perhaps even the apparent 4.5 billion year age of the earth and a literal creation week will someday be reconcilable through relativity or other physical processes that are unbeknownst to us now.”
I do sense that we are having the drunk under the street lamp problem.
By the nature of the question, your hypothesized solutons require science, and you won’t find answers of these forms without using the scientific process, which you are rejecting.
Report comme