YEC explanations

[Robert the Pilegrim]

I see a lot of these hit and runs.....

A hit and run is somebody who posts and doesn't respond to answers.

honestly I don't understand why bother posting at all?

To express an opinion?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I said if science is all we had. In other words, if we had no corroborative testimonial evidence (the gospels), no historical evidence (Josephus etc.), nothing but science we could never conclude a body can raise from the dead after 3 days.

Correct, but you said we would have to reject it, that would be false. Saying "Gee, we cannot explain that" is not saying "Gee, that never happened." It always amuses me to hear how I as a TE am in lockstep with atheists, only to have a YEC espouse atheist theology at me later.

And likewise no study has been shown that God cannot create a functioning universe is six literal days. Both are miracles.

However studies of Gods creation have shown that, unless God is planting false evidence in His creation, that the world was not created in six days just a few thousand years ago.

Nope nothing made up. It's all just basic common sense. I'm surprised you're struggling with it.

I am not struggling with it at all, I am just pointing out that you seem to have some false ideas about what science is saying.

As far as what you are saying being "common sense", I would have to disagree, it is not common sense to try and fit a book written thousands of years before the enlightenment movement into the thought processes of the enlightenment movement, ignoring the culture to whom that book was aimed.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

I am going to have to admit that I haven't read all of what you linked, but according to this link:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/grand_canyon.asp
it doesn't look like they are saying that the layers of the Grand Canyon were laid down during the flood.

It varies with the creationist and creationist group.

The only layer that I see that they claim was laid down during the flood was the Paleozoic Strata.

Unfortunately for their position that includes the Coconino sandstone which in turn includes quadraped and spider footprints and raindrop fossils.

That position also fails to explain how you get 1000 foot sheer cliffs.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

the statement:
It's all just basic common sense.

belongs with these:

sure i'll respect you in the morning.
i'm from the government, i'm here to help you.
it won't hurt a bit.
just one more time for the camera.
the check is in the mail.
i gave at the office.
don't worry, he doesn't bite.
try it, you'll like it, tastes just like chicken.
Go ahead and tell me. I promise I won't get mad.
Having a great time. Wish you were here.
i didn't inhale.
i don't know who did it.

 

[Calminian]

Correct, but you said we would have to reject it, that would be false. Saying "Gee, we cannot explain that" is not saying "Gee, that never happened." It always amuses me to hear how I as a TE am in lockstep with atheists, only to have a YEC espouse atheist theology at me later.

Trust me you're missing the point. Do you also believe greek mythology? Science cannot disprove it but other methods can be used to discredit it. It doesn't have the corroborative testimonies that the Bible has. Rejecting greek mythology does not make one an atheist nor atheistic. This is very poor logic and a very poor argument.

I am not struggling with it at all, I am just pointing out that you seem to have some false ideas about what science is saying.

Believe me you're struggling. Read the other posts and you'll come around.

As far as what you are saying being "common sense", I would have to disagree, it is not common sense to try and fit a book written thousands of years before the enlightenment movement into the thought processes of the enlightenment movement, ignoring the culture to whom that book was aimed.

Your confusing two different issues. We don't attempt to interpret the Bible apart from historical and cultural context. Different subject.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Believe me you're struggling. Read the other posts and you'll come around.

Okay, I'll trust you incredible psychic powers that let you know what issues that I am struggling with.

BTW I cannot find my keys, could you use your powers to find them for me?

What about the winning lotto numbers for this weekend? I could use the money.

 

[Calminian]

Okay, I'll trust you incredible psychic powers that let you know what issues that I am struggling with.

Okay. I'll search for my charismatic side and give this a shot.

Hmmm. I see a book.....it's the bible. I see another book....it's a science book. A man picks up one and leaves the other alone. He then switches them and he is now confused. What can he do? Then it hits him. He picks them both up. Finally it makes sense!

BTW I cannot find my keys, could you use your powers to find them for me?

I cannot. My powers need a rest. I’m not normally charismatic.

What about the winning lotto numbers for this weekend? I could use the money.

On this one I'll just give you some good advise.

Prov. 28:22 A man with an evil eye hastens after riches, And does not consider that poverty will come upon him.

 

[Mallon]

Actually, it's not a semantics issue. I don't believe they argue this. At least not the way you are stating it.

Okay. Then let's stick to what you say here:

The only layer that I see that they claim was laid down during the flood was the Paleozoic Strata.

Note the Palaeozoic "layer" (actually composed of many layers) makes up more than half the depth of the canyon and is thousands of feet in thickness:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y44/roxrkool/gc_layer.gif
(I would post the pic, but these stupid forum rules won't allow me to)

On a side note, haven't they found a lot of marine fossils in this layer?

Yes, as well as many terrestrial tree fossils, reptiles, and amphibians (and the trace fossils they left). They vary depending on which layer you're looking at. Some layers contain no fossils at all.
And so again: how does such a Flood preserve these particular fossils in such a way? The three questions I posted at the outset of this thread have yet to be answered.

 

[Willtor]

Okay. I'll search for my charismatic side and give this a shot.

Hmmm. I see a book.....it's the bible. I see another book....it's a science book. A man picks up one and leaves the other alone. He then switches them and he is now confused. What can he do? Then it hits him. He picks them both up. Finally it makes sense!

. . .

And that man is named. . . just a second. . . it's coming to me. . . St. Augustine! Am I right? No, wait. St. Thomas Aquinas. No, hold on. Karl Barth.

Oh, wait. It couldn't be any of these. They all picked up both books and used the science book to keep their interpretations of the Bible honest. Not one of them subscribed to a literal historical reading of Genesis. And these are some of the greatest theologians the Church has ever known.

 

[Mallon]

2ble post. Sorry. (Any way to delete these things?)

 

[Mallon]

You’re still not grasping my point. Did you catch the illustration I on post# 65 where scientific knowledge actually contributes to the validation of the resurrection account?

Yes, the illustration which you later admitted was not actually supported by any real scientific experiment in msg #80? Yeah, I caught that. You used the Bible again to validate itself. And your assertion that the different books of the Bible may be used conjointly as evidence for the resurrection story might carry some weight if it could actually be shown that the Synoptic Gospels were written independetly of one another.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

I said if science is all we had. In other words, if we had no corroborative testimonial evidence (the gospels), no historical evidence (Josephus etc.), nothing but science we could never conclude a body can raise from the dead after 3 days.

Science describes what naturally happens. So yes, both our modern science and the rudimentary science of thousands of years ago agrees that people long-dead cannot naturally rise from the dead. This accords with the Bible's testimony that Jesus' resurrection was a supernatural event that supports his divinity, rather than a natural occurrence or clever trick. Rather than disproving the miracle, science continues to show that if it happened, it must have been a miracle.

And likewise no study has been shown that God cannot create a functioning universe is six literal days. Both are miracles.

The miracle of Jesus' resurrection wouldn't be expected to leave physical evidence lasting to the present, and there is no disconfirming evidence. The miracle of creating the universe would be expected the leave evidence lasting to the present, and indeed, the universe is all around us.

The analogy between Jesus' resurrection and six-day creation would only hold the way you want it to hold if we were living in the first century and had access to Jesus' dead, decomposing body. That is not the case. Even if that body did exist unresurrected back then, it would not be expected to still exist today. By contrast, the universe God created does still exist, and we can still examine it in the present.

If we were in the first century and we did have access to that decomposing body, knowing conclusively it was Jesus', then I would not believe that Jesus' resurrection included the physical resurrection of the same body that died. I would not believe a miracle that contradicted the evidence. Similarly, living today in a universe that bears the marks of events over billions of years, I do not believe that God's miracle of creation happened in a way that contradicts this evidence.

It's all just basic common sense. I'm surprised you're struggling with it.

These conversations would be far more enjoyable if we could show civility to each other.

 

[Calminian]

And that man is named. . . just a second. . . it's coming to me. . . St. Augustine! Am I right? No, wait. St. Thomas Aquinas. No, hold on. Karl Barth.

Oh, wait. It couldn't be any of these. They all picked up both books and used the science book to keep their interpretations of the Bible honest. Not one of them subscribed to a literal historical reading of Genesis. And these are some of the greatest theologians the Church has ever known.

Ouch Wiltor where'd you get this. There's some very misleading info out there on the ECFs, mainly from TEs and it looks like you've gotten ahold of it.

You say Augustine didn't hold to a historical reading of Genesis? He did dabble in allegory more than my liking, but he did not dismiss the Genesis account as allegory. He was actually a young earther. He believed the earth was less than 5,600 years old. He did not allegorize the genealogies obviously. This view went against the long age philosophical views of his day. He also believed in a literal global flood along with just about every other ECF, Philo, Josephus (jewish historian), Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian, Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom.

I've not studied Aquinas on this particular subject. But I guarantee he was not using science to “keep his interpretations of the Bible honest.” Science as the method we see today didn’t even exist at that time. Aquinas did believe reason played a prominent role in christianity and theology. I do also. In fact it doesn’t seem to be playing enough of a role nowadays. I’d like to see a little less science and a little more logical reasoning about the scientific assumption of naturalism.

And lastly, I also believe science books should be read along side the Bible. The difference is, I believe the Bible should be used to help us understand science. Not the other way around. But this obviously violates the religion of scientism.

 

[Remus]

Okay. Then let's stick to what you say here:

Note the Palaeozoic "layer" (actually composed of many layers) makes up more than half the depth of the canyon and is thousands of feet in thickness:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y44/roxrkool/gc_layer.gif
(I would post the pic, but these stupid forum rules won't allow me to)

Does this view represent the mainstream creationist view? From what I can tell, AiG is tossing it out there as a possibility. But really, without reading Austin's book, I don't think I would be able to argue his position reliably. Perhaps we could go with someone that has written something that is online?

Nice drawing btw. I like how each layer stack up real nicely.

Yes, as well as many terrestrial tree fossils, reptiles, and amphibians (and the trace fossils they left). They vary depending on which layer you're looking at. Some layers contain no fossils at all.

What is your opinion on how those marine fossils got up there?

And so again: how does such a Flood preserve these particular fossils in such a way? The three questions I posted at the outset of this thread have yet to be answered.

I did answer your 3rd question and I'm still waiting for valid answers for the two questions that I posed in post #69.

 

[Mallon]

Does this view represent the mainstream creationist view?

Put it this way: I have yet to hear a Creationist who doesn't think that the World's sedimentary deposits weren't a result of the Flood. What do YOU think?

Perhaps we could go with someone that has written something that is online?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp
http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_grandcanyon.html
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=95

Nice drawing btw. I like how each layer stack up real nicely.

It's a diagram. Creationists use the same one.

What is your opinion on how those marine fossils got up there?

"Up there" was once the bottom of a sea. Marine transgressions and regressions, I believe, is the typical scientific explanation of the Grand Canyon. Hence the marine/terrestrial sedimentary turnover pattern we observe.

I did answer your 3rd question

And I refuted it. Catastrophic floods of the magnitude of Noah's Flood do not preserve footprints. We need need quiet deposition for this type of preservation.

and I'm still waiting for valid answers for the two questions that I posed in post #69.

I gave you valid answers in post #74. If my answers are invalid, please tell me why.

 

[Remus]

Put it this way: I have yet to hear a Creationist who doesn't think that the World's sedimentary deposits weren't a result of the Flood. What do YOU think?

Me? I'm still on the fence about the whole global flood thing.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp
http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_grandcanyon.html
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=95

Well, I did ask for it. Okay, give me a bit to read up on this. Probably won't be able to 'till tomorrow.

"Up there" was once the bottom of a sea. Marine transgressions and regressions, I believe, is the typical scientific explanation of the Grand Canyon. Hence the marine/terrestrial sedimentary turnover pattern we observe.

Aren't there trace fossils in the Coconino Sandstone layers which is under this one?

And I refuted it. Catastrophic floods of the magnitude of Noah's Flood do not preserve footprints. We need need quiet deposition for this type of preservation.

But if they were preserved prior to the flood, then there wouldn't be a problem. Just like the ones that were preserved Coconino Sandstone layer.

I gave you valid answers in post #74. If my answers are invalid, please tell me why.

Because you have not shown that Creationists argue that the entire "geologic column" was laid down during the flood. If no one is arguing this, then bring up some feature and asking "how did the flood do this" makes no sense. You might as well point to the Statue of Liberty and ask the same thing.

 

[Mallon]

Aren't there trace fossils in the Coconino Sandstone layers which is under this one?

There are fossil trackways found in the Coconino and Hermit Shale, yes. Not sure what your point is, though...

But if they were preserved prior to the flood, then there wouldn't be a problem.

And yet every Creationist article I've read argues that the Coconino was deposited during the Flood...
Don't think that there aren't more problems with the Flood scenario than just trace fossils, though.

Because you have not shown that Creationists argue that the entire "geologic column" was laid down during the flood.

Show me a stratigraphic sequence preserving fossils that Creationists DON'T argue was deposited during the Flood.

If no one is arguing this, then bring up some feature and asking "how did the flood do this" makes no sense.

Except every feature I pointed to was at one point or another used by Creationists as evidence for the Flood. Look at all the links I've provided for you so far. I'm not poking at a strawman. In fact, you seem to be doing your best to avoid having to deal with the evidences I've been putting forth by putting up a smoke screen and questioning my assumptions/background knowledge/etc.

 

[Calminian]

Science describes what naturally happens. So yes, both our modern science and the rudimentary science of thousands of years ago agrees that people long-dead cannot naturally rise from the dead. This accords with the Bible's testimony that Jesus' resurrection was a supernatural event that supports his divinity, rather than a natural occurrence or clever trick. Rather than disproving the miracle, science continues to show that if it happened, it must have been a miracle.

And of course the rest of the evidence (biblical evidence) shows it did indeed happen. Science played a role, complimenting other methods of investigation. One could object I suppose and argue that science also rules out the possibility of resurrections happening at all. To this the apologist would say, it was a miracle. The naturalist would then accuse him is selectively using science. Sound familiar?

Then of course you have those who claim to be christian but have spiritualized the resurrection account. They would side with the naturalist. Again, sound familiar?

The miracle of Jesus' resurrection wouldn't be expected to leave physical evidence lasting to the present, and there is no disconfirming evidence.

I would agree. There is of course lasting evidence, vast evidence, but not a physical body as it was said to have ascended. That fact that there is no body is evidence in and of itself.

The miracle of creating the universe would be expected the leave evidence lasting to the present, and indeed, the universe is all around us.

On the other hand this is a leap of logic. The truth is, while we know about the miracles we don’t know the details. We’ve never observed a six day creation and have no idea how the aftermath looks. We can speculate but that’s all we can do. We don’t have many details on the Flood either. Was it a simple nudge by God and the rest fell into place like dominos? Or were there several hundred sustaining miracles occurring during the entire event? And what about the receding waters? Was this a natural event or did God intervene there also? And what of the rainbows? Was that a natural result from the previous interventions, or a new one? Did God use any mechanisms we're not yet aware of? And what affect did all these interventions have on what we observe today? We can never know, for we have never observed anything like it. All we can do is look at natural floods. Just as all we can do is look at natural dead bodies. The worldwide interventions in Genesis are so extensive, it’s hard to imagine how science (on it’s own) can give us much insight at all. To view the Bible in light of naturalistic scientific theories is irrational for those who believe in miracles. We must rather view naturalistic theories in light of the Bible.

The analogy between Jesus' resurrection and six-day creation would only hold the way you want it to hold if we were living in the first century and had access to Jesus' dead, decomposing body. That is not the case. Even if that body did exist unresurrected back then, it would not be expected to still exist today. By contrast, the universe God created does still exist, and we can still examine it in the present.

Actually the analogy holds up well in the sense that the floods (and their effects) we observe today would be vastly different from the supernatural event that occurred in Genesis. Even more so for the creation week. We don’t know what goes into creating a fully functioning world in 6 days. Imagine the interventions necessary. It's mind boggling.

If we were in the first century and we did have access to that decomposing body, knowing conclusively it was Jesus', then I would not believe that Jesus' resurrection included the physical resurrection of the same body that died. I would not believe a miracle that contradicted the evidence. Similarly, living today in a universe that bears the marks of events over billions of years, I do not believe that God's miracle of creation happened in a way that contradicts this evidence.

Ouch! This is case and point. If the body of Jesus was discovered the Bible should be rejected not reinterpreted. The record is explicit, unambiguous and unequivocal about the bodily resurrection of Jesus. But this is the tendency of christians in this age. They ignore the obvious meaning of the text and try to harmonize it with other theories and beliefs. Now in your example, a body means the record has been falsified. Alternative interpretations are futile.

1Cor. 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

These conversations would be far more enjoyable if we could show civility to each other.

I agree. But I noticed you had no words for the poster I was responding to. Could that be because he shares your view? I don't mind the rebuke, but when they're selective they're ineffective.

 

[Mallon]

Calminian, I can hardly follow your line of thought. Sometimes you seem to be arguing that science cannot test miracles, and other times you seem to be saying that it can (by using the Bible as evidence in support of itself). Do you believe that the miracles in the Bible left behind evidence for us to find or not? Do you believe that the Flood deposited the world's fossils? If not, then you are in the same boat as the rest of us, and I don't understand your reason for arguing.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Okay. I'll search for my charismatic side and give this a shot.

Hmmm. I see a book.....it's the bible. I see another book....it's a science book. A man picks up one and leaves the other alone. He then switches them and he is now confused. What can he do? Then it hits him. He picks them both up. Finally it makes sense!

I cannot. My powers need a rest. I’m not normally charismatic.

On this one I'll just give you some good advise.

Prov. 28:22 A man with an evil eye hastens after riches, And does not consider that poverty will come upon him.

Hmmm... Two strikes and a proverb used as an insult to my character.

Looks like you should give up trying to be a psychic.

I am not conflicted when I look at a science book then look at the Bible, at least not since I gave up on the YEC interpretation of the Bible and began to study who the books original audiences were and how they saw the world. After that I had no problem with anything in the Bible scientifically.

Science does not help investigate the resurrection because there is no evidence of it left. Heck, we still have no idea what tomb it took place in. With nothing but some secondhand testimony about what happened in the tomb, science can say nothing about it. Even if scientists could be there to monitor the whole thing with every tool we have now, if it was truly God acting, all science could say about it was that it was caused by a force unknown to science.