Geology challenge *repost*

[Jet Black]

how would you ascribe a mathematical formula to it then?

 

[JohnR7]

how would you ascribe a mathematical formula to it then?

It depends on the miracle. We see a lot of miracles for blindness and for hearing loss. Those are things the doctors can measure using numbers.

 

[Jet Black]

It depends on the miracle. We see a lot of miracles for blindness and for hearing loss. Those are things the doctors can measure using numbers.

where are they in medical literature then?

 

[Superman53142]

Science can accept miracles IF there is a formula that is repeatable. I see christians who try and use the "scientific" methoid to understand God. It usually does not work, but it can. If they come to realize they can not manipulate God. That we have to go by His rules and not ours.

A miracle by definition is something initiated by a supernatural cause Hence it is impossible to have a "formula that is repeatable" by humans, as the miracle relies entirely on the supernatural.

 

[JohnR7]

where are they in medical literature then?

There have been well over 100 studies. I think the last count was around 160 plus studies. One of the most conclusive was a study done on prayer, reading the bible attending church and it's effect on high blood preassure. The study showed a 40% lower blood pressure rate compared to those who do not attend church, read the bible and pray on a regular basis.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Seems like this thread is getting pretty far off topic. Are there any examples of geologists who dispute the recognized age of the earth who base their opinion purely on evidence? It doesn't look like it?
The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Why should we admit to anything other than that Jesus is Lord and that He is coming soon and His reward will be with Him.

Rev. 22:12
"Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.

As usual, a spin off the topic of my post because you couldn't actually address it. That is because you are wrong.

Dr Wise seems to make an honest attempt to bring forth evidence that will support his belief in a 6000 year old earth. I think it is of value to look at the evidence that he presents.

It doesn't matter whether he thinks it's an honest attempt or not. The point is that his stance on the age of the earth is motivated by religion. In the other thread on Wise, for the umpteenth time, he has stated that even if all evidence was in favor of a very old earth, he would still be an advocate of a 6,000 year old earth. That is, his belief about the age of the earth is independent of the evidence. His belief about the age of the earth rests entirely on a motivation from his religious beliefs. Whether geologic evidence supports his belief or not is immaterial to him. That is the point.

The challenge was to provide a geologist who disagrees with mainstream geology with respect to the age of the earth who does so because of evidence, not because of a religious motivation. Does Wise meet the challenge? The answer is a resounding "no" so please stop playing your game and pushing him as an answer to the challenge when he is not and after you have had this repeatedly explained to you by multiple users on the forum. Just move on already.

 

[JohnR7]

It doesn't matter whether he thinks it's an honest attempt or not. The point is that his stance on the age of the earth is motivated by religion. In the other thread on Wise, for the umpteenth time, he has stated that even if all evidence was in favor of a very old earth, he would still be an advocate of a 6,000 year old earth. That is, his belief about the age of the earth is independent of the evidence. His belief about the age of the earth rests entirely on a motivation from his religious beliefs. Whether geologic evidence supports his belief or not is immaterial to him. That is the point.

That is the point that your trying to prove. That it is religious conviction and not the evidence that leads Dr. Wise to believe that the earth is 6000 years old. For some reason you seem to think that a few out of context quotes will establish your "point".

 

[notto]

That is the point that your trying to prove. That it is religious conviction and not the evidence that leads Dr. Wise to believe that the earth is 6000 years old. For some reason you seem to think that a few out of context quotes will establish your "point".

Interview with creationist paleontologist, Dr Kurt Wise
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3119.asp

"'Creation isn't a theory', he says. 'The fact that God created the universe is not a theory — it's true. However, some of the details are not specifically nailed down in Scripture. Some issues — such as creation, a global Flood, and a young age for the earth — are determined by Scripture, so they are not theories. My understanding from Scripture is that the universe is in the order of 6,000 years old. Once that has been determined by Scripture, it is a starting point that we build theories upon. It is within those boundaries that we can construct new theories.' "


I don't think that Dr. Wise could make it any cleary that his religious conviction is what leads him to his conclusion, it seems he is rather proud of that. I would guess that even he would disagree with Johns attempts here.

He openly admits that he puts his religious convictions first, and then seeks evidence to support them. This, along with his other quotes that he would deny any evidence to the contrary, seems to show clearly that his religious beliefs come before evidence.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

That is the point that your trying to prove. That it is religious conviction and not the evidence that leads Dr. Wise to believe that the earth is 6000 years old. For some reason you seem to think that a few out of context quotes will establish your "point".

Here is an article about Wise

http://www.weeklywire.com/ww/05-18-98/knox_feat.html

and a quote. I added the bold.

He laid out the dilemma in a lecture at an Origins Conference at Bryan in February. If Christianity arises from the redemption offered by Jesus Christ, it must also arise from the sin that led to the need for salvation. Original sin came in the garden of Eden; Eden came from the creation. If life actually evolved slowly over millions of years, there was no "first man" or "first woman." There was also death—of whole species, not to mention individual organisms—well before there were humans. But the Bible says death was imposed only after the fall from grace, again setting the stage for the resurrection promised by Christ.
"If the earth is old, throw out your Bible!" Wise told an audience at the college's chapel/auditorium.
Wise says he came to that conclusion as a teenager, when he carefully read the Bible and cut out all the passages that would have to be false if evolution were true. The result was a tattered gospel that didn't have enough paper left to hold together. [/b]

Wise was a YEC before he studied at Harvard and he is furthermore a paleontologist and not a geologist so he fails to meet the criteria on two points. He has also explicitly admitted that he accepts YEC for scriptural reasons and would do so no matter what the evidence. You have been hammered on this enough that you should have gotten the point many times over by now. Why haven't you?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

That is the point that your trying to prove. That it is religious conviction and not the evidence that leads Dr. Wise to believe that the earth is 6000 years old. For some reason you seem to think that a few out of context quotes will establish your "point".

They prove that point quite well. I even used the quotations YOU provided in the other thread. Evidence is irrelevant to Wise. That he clings desperately onto a falsified notion of the age of the earth is based upon a religious motivation which has been more than well established on this thread as a fact. It's time for you to actually concede for once and discontinue your trolling games.

 

[JohnR7]

They prove that point quite well.

Ok, I just got a email from Dr. Wise. This is what he said:

"I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant. Thus I would suggest that the challenge you are trying to meet is unmeetable."

 

[NebraskaMan]

Ok, I just got a email from Dr. Wise. This is what he said:

"I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant. Thus I would suggest that the challenge you are trying to meet is unmeetable."

So is this it, John? Are you giving up on the search and (finally) answering Pete's question with "claiming the earth is young based on scientific evidence alone is ignorance"? Just wondering.

 

[JohnR7]

So is this it, John? Are you giving up on the search and (finally) answering Pete's question with "claiming the earth is young based on scientific evidence alone is ignorance"? Just wondering.

He did not say it was ignorance, he said it was "scientifically ignorant". Why did you quote him out of context like that?

If Dr. Wise suggested the challange was "unmeetable", so I am not planning to put anymore time into it right now. He should know better than me.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

So is this it, John? Are you giving up on the search and (finally) answering Pete's question with "claiming the earth is young based on scientific evidence alone is ignorance"? Just wondering.

This seems to be what Kurt Wise is saying and he is a YEC with a Ph.D. in paleontology. Hmmm. How are you coming in finding someone?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Ok, I just got a email from Dr. Wise. This is what he said:

"I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young....

Bingo. His motivation is religious, not scientific. You've refuted yourself again. Wise clearly is not an example that meets the requirements of the challenge.

"Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one....

He even admits that the scientific evidence "favors" and old earth. Evidently his position is has a theological motivation, not a scientific one. Evidence is irrelevant to him. The challenge was to find a geologist who disputes the age of the earth accepted by mainstream geology due to the evidence. He believes the earth is young because he must to preserve his interpretation of a religious text. He even recognizes that the evidence doesn't actually support his position.

"I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant. Thus I would suggest that the challenge you are trying to meet is unmeetable."

So even Wise admits that your use of him as an answer to the challenge was inappropriate and that the challenge cannot be met because the evidence clearly does not indicate a young earth.

I guess that was finally your concession. Apparently us providing quotations of Wise's opinions and you yourself providing quotations of Wise's opinions weren't sufficient until he actually addressed you personally with the response which was what was clear pages ago.

 

[Superman53142]

Now, now, Mechanical, let's not get our knickers in a knot

 

[ashibaka]

Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant.

Looks like Dr. Wise thinks the challenge cannot be answered!

Thanks for reposting that e-mail, John, that was brave of you!

 

[Philostratus]

Somehow I think JohnR7 thinks he won the argument.

 

[PhantomLlama]

Maybe, but I think we should quit while we are ahead. At least we (almost) got him to admit that he was wrong.