YEC explanations

Status
Not open for further replies.

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
LewisWildermuth said:
Hmmm... Two strikes and a proverb used as an insult to my character.

Ah come on. I was actually looking for a different passage on seeking riches. That's the only one I could find. You're taking it way too hard.

Just to state it publically, I believe Lewis has a fine character. I've not discovered any flaws yet, except perhaps bad hermeneutics. And I'm not convinced that's a character issue.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Mallon said:
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).

Not quite. Let's see if I can't state it concisely. I believe science, in conjunction with biblical guidance, can be very helpful in many areas of this debate. I believe the scientific method apart from revelation leads only to an irrational worldview (mainly because of the issue of infinite regressive causality). Thus I think it's more rational to look at scientific theories in light of the Bible, rather than looking at the Bible in light of scientific theories.

Mallon said:
Do you believe that the miracles in the Bible left behind evidence for us to find or not?

Yes absolutely. But not necessarily evidence that can be discerned by the scientific method. Scientific knowledge can help (as in the resurrection example), but cannot help on its own.

Mallon said:
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.

I don't know the answer. My perspective is from the philosophical/theological side of the debate. Creationists do believe the Flood caused many fossils to be sure. Whether they say it caused all of them, I don't know. I seriously doubt it. Ken Ham's favorite fossil is one of a hat only a few dozen years old.

My concern is correctly handling the written account. That's central to this debate.
 
Upvote 0

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
51
Bloomington, Illinois
✟11,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Calminian said:
Ah come on. I was actually looking for a different passage on seeking riches. That's the only one I could find. You're taking it way too hard.

Just to state it publically, I believe Lewis has a fine character. I've not discovered any flaws yet, except perhaps bad hermeneutics. And I'm not convinced that's a character issue.

I have no problem with the jabs, as long as they stay good natured, if you deal them out you have to expect them in return.

However, to use Biblical verses in such a way is not cool. Too many people use verses to rip others apart instead of looking at said verses and trying to apply them to their own lives.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Calminian said:
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.

He didn't think Creation took place in 6 days, that's for sure. I have little doubt that everybody up until the 19th century thought there was a global flood. But Augustine pointed out that someone may know this or that about the functioning of the world and that an ignorant Christian should not lead people to believe that an opposing view necessarily follows from doctrine.

I assume you don't need a direct quote and citation, but if you do I can provide one.

Calminian said:
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.

Aquinas was dealing with the re-introduction of Aristotelian philosophy into Europe. He adapted some of Aristotle's proofs to arrive at what we have as the five-fold natural proof. However, Aristotle argued (very persuasively) that the universe was eternal. Aquinas was persuaded. But he still argued that the source of this infinity of causes was, itself, caused by God. This is totally irreconcilable with a literal historical reading of the Creation story. Again, I don't doubt that he thought there was a literal flood. But, then, as you say, science was still philosophy and mathematics.

Calminian said:
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.

It also violates the bulk of theology through the ages, in which nature has been treated as the domain of the philosophers (more recently, scientists).
 
Upvote 0

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
51
Bloomington, Illinois
✟11,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
shernren said:
I assume I shall be left alone to complete my ruminations in unanswered silence, since I have no-one to insult and nothing to rebut. :p

Awwww. I enjoy your posts, so insult me about something and carry on!
 
Upvote 0

Marshall Janzen

Formerly known as Mercury
Jun 2, 2004
378
39
46
BC, Canada
Visit site
✟8,214.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Calminian said:
One could object I suppose and argue that science also rules out the possibility of resurrections happening at all.
Only if one were a materialist and were confusing one's philosophy with science.

To this the apologist would say, it was a miracle. The naturalist would then accuse him is selectively using science. Sound familiar?
Yes, I think we've already been through this. Materialism is not a part of science, but science can only study what is natural. Science can make no claims about whether miracles are possible. That would be like proving mathematically that poetry is impossible.

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.
But finding the body doesn't destroy my personal relationship with Jesus. I would need to reinterpret because I wouldn't be willing to say everything I've experienced was a delusion. I know he rose and he's alive and active, but finding the body would convince me that he didn't rise the way I thought he did. After all, I believe people who are cremated will also be bodily resurrected, so I've always viewed Jesus' resurrection of the same (yet different) body as a bit of an anomaly. I wouldn't be willing to turf my faith just because it didn't happen the way I imagined.

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 was replying to your post. I intentionally used the word "we" instead of "you" just so you wouldn't seem to be singled out.
 
Upvote 0

LetHimThatGlories

Regular Member
Nov 28, 2005
244
29
Texas
✟8,030.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Whew!

I've spent all this time reading through the past eleven pages, and I'm almost too tired to make a post of my own.:)

I do work during the day, so I might not be here very much. I'm going to have to turn in after this post (11:00 p.m.).

Really, I don't know of any specific answers to the questions that you ask right now. Since the Genesis account is not incredibly descriptive in regards to the flood, there is not much to go on from that direction, short of the flood covering the whole earth, fountains of the deep, etc. So it's hard for me to answer specific questions like that, in a manner which I would consider to be accurate.

Generally, though, I don't think that all of the layers in the geographical strata were laid down during the Flood. There have been numerous local floods since then, and possibly even before. God only promised not to cause another world-wide flood.

I am not particularly convinced of the significance that science has attributed to radiometric dating, however. I've looked through piles and piles of stuff (admittedly on the internet) from both sides of the issue, and I think that there's a lot more than meets the eye. I'm still looking through it. I don't think that there's much fault on the part of the equipment used to perform the testing, more on the topic of the assumptions that go into interpreting the various isotopic ratios in the results. Along that line of thought, I think that different geological layers at different physical locations around the globe could have been deposited at the same time, even if they date differently. I suppose I could get a hold of a mass spectrometer for testing, but that wouldn't do much good, since I don't really dispute the results. It's more a matter of leaching, original composition of the rocks, etc. Is it possible to believe that a rock has sat under the ground for millions...or billions...of years with its properties not being affected by its environment?

God Bless
 
Upvote 0

Dannager

Back in Town
May 5, 2005
9,025
475
38
✟11,819.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Democrat
LetHimThatGlories said:
Is it possible to believe that a rock has sat under the ground for millions...or billions...of years with its properties not being affected by its environment?
Welcome to OT, LetHimThatGlories. You are certainly correct that buried rock could have its properties altered by any number of circumstances, but what is important is which properties could be altered. As I'm sure you're aware, radiometric dating in all its methods deal with isotope decay rates, which (as far as science is aware) are constant throughout nature for given isotopes. Granted, finding the right method to use is important for getting an accurate measurement.
 
Upvote 0

Robert the Pilegrim

Senior Veteran
Nov 21, 2004
2,151
75
63
✟10,187.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Cut and paste rearrangement:
Calminian said:
My biggest concern with scientists is that they don't grasp the assumptions their field is based on.
I suggest that perhaps you should reign in on your arrogance of presuming to know what scientists do or don't grasp.

Any scientific investigation starts out with presumptions, those on the frontiers often start out with many presumptions.

But ultimately, each presumption is tested, shown to be justified, or modified to fit the evidence, or discarded.

Until finally the only assumption left is that what we percieve has some reasonably good correlation to reality.
Calminian said:
My point was [Creation Science organizations] are honest about their approach. They start with the presupposition that the Bible is historically accurate.
No, that is what one would be led to believe by reading the front page and the "about us" page.

Their approach is that Genesis 1-11 is literally true and that all evidence must be interpreted in such a way to support that belief.
They have a superior method because they don't limit themselves to naturalistic assumptions.
On the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that their method is fatally flawed because they limit themselves to a particular supernaturalistic dogma.
Creation ministries use scientific evidence along with other forms of evidence (the Bible, etc.) in their rational arguments for a young earth.
Quote-mining and spreading false information may be rational by some views, but it certainly isn't Christian.
You irrationally limited yourself to methodological naturalism. Why be irrational? Why limit yourself?
For the same reason that I don't start looking in another state when I am trying to find my keys.

Experience.

Centuries of experience.

If we use the Bible as a science notebook then we believe that the Earth is unmoving with the Sun and moon rotating about it.

Many of the first geologists were Christian and believed in the Flood, but they couldn't find any evidence for it, and the evidence they did find pointed to a very old Earth.

If you ask Gluadys, she has a list of early geologists whose history is informative to read.

More recently, at the beginning of the last century it was noted that Africa fits nicely over S. America, with geology and fossils matching.

There was no physically possible way (known) for continents to move.

That left three choices:
Continental Drift is false
The continents moved but we don't know how.
God did it! Or more specifically, during the Flood God caused mountains to be raised and continents to move.

After much debate, most geologists took choice 1.

30+ years later the evidence started piling up and plate techtonics provided a naturalistic answer that fit the evidence.

30+ years after that we actually measured the movement of continents.

The flood hypothesis, any YEC hypothesis, predicts uniform age for the ocean floor.

Plate techtonics predicts that the farther from the central range where the plates are formed the older the floor.
It provides a ready and natural (as opposed to ad hoc) explanation for the pattern of reversed magnetic fields in the floor.
It predicts the difference in sediment depths.

Any YEC hypothesis must invoke miracle after miracle after miracle.

In order to defend their particular interpretation of the Bible they must add reams of unmentioned miracles to it. It isn't a question of whether God could do it, but rather that there is no evidence that he did do it.

Now, if a group of Christians started emulating the early Christians and when they laid on hands they had a significantly higher than normal recovery rate then science might start considering a supernatural cause as a hypothesis that should be explored in that case, but just as medical examiners don't start looking at blocked heart arteries as cause of death when a young man is brought in with a bullet hole through the head, in general supernatural explanations are not worth investigating.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
For the same reason that I don't start looking in another state when I am trying to find my keys.

A policeman saw a drunk searching for something under a lamppost. "What have you lost, my friend?" the policeman asked. " My keys", said the drunk. The policeman then helped the drunk look and finally asked him: "Where exactly did you drop them?" "Over there", responded the drunk, pointing toward the dark street. The policeman then asked: "Why are you looking here?" The drunk immediately replied: "Because the light is so much brighter here."


it may very well be true that the light in the Bible is brighter than the light in the universe. However, as the joke points out, looking where things are is more important than looking where the light is brighter.

to extend the metaphor just a little.
If God in the Scriptures puts the light on the moral and spiritual side of human life, isn't it a little arrogant of people to think that He really meant to illuminate the scientific and historical truths(with this light), just because that is what interests their societies now?
 
Upvote 0

Remus

Senior Member
Feb 22, 2004
666
30
53
Austin, TX
✟8,471.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Mallon said:
There are fossil trackways found in the Coconino and Hermit Shale, yes. Not sure what your point is, though...
You asked how the Flood could leave behind such fossils. It seems to me that you have the same problem if these layers were later covered by water. But I think I misunderstood your answer based on what you've posted below.
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.
Okay then, let's use their answers. The article on AiG used Brand's work. Here's something else he wrote on the subject:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/05064.htm
This looks as reasonable as anything else out there. Where's the problem?
Show me a stratigraphic sequence preserving fossils that Creationists DON'T argue was deposited during the Flood.
You're shifting the burden of proof. You made the claim, but I will give you something to work with. Here's something from the EvoWiki 'disputing' the same argument that you based your question on.
http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Geologic_column_was_deposited_by_the_Flood
There's a section on this page that lists the source(s) for this argument. Notice that this section is blank.

So, what do Creationists say? It seems that the most prominent opinions revolve around this:
http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp

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.
It's not a smoke screen, but I am questioning your assumptions. If you want to deal with something specific, like we have been with the Coconino layer, then fine. However, you can't ask very general questions and sit back and act like there are no answers if no one takes you to task.

Upon rereading this, some of it may come across as rude or at least less than polite. I'm sorry for this and please understand that it's not meant that way.
 
Upvote 0

RichardT

Contributor
Sep 17, 2005
6,642
195
34
Toronto Ontario
✟23,099.00
Faith
Pantheist
Marital Status
Single
Remus said:
You asked how the Flood could leave behind such fossils. It seems to me that you have the same problem if these layers were later covered by water. But I think I misunderstood your answer based on what you've posted below.

Okay then, let's use their answers. The article on AiG used Brand's work. Here's something else he wrote on the subject:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/05064.htm
This looks as reasonable as anything else out there. Where's the problem?

You're shifting the burden of proof. You made the claim, but I will give you something to work with. Here's something from the EvoWiki 'disputing' the same argument that you based your question on.
http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Geologic_column_was_deposited_by_the_Flood
There's a section on this page that lists the source(s) for this argument. Notice that this section is blank.

So, what do Creationists say? It seems that the most prominent opinions revolve around this:
http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp


It's not a smoke screen, but I am questioning your assumptions. If you want to deal with something specific, like we have been with the Coconino layer, then fine. However, you can't ask very general questions and sit back and act like there are no answers if no one takes you to task.

Upon rereading this, some of it may come across as rude or at least less than polite. I'm sorry for this and please understand that it's not meant that way.

I never knew about the trueorigins site... Thanks for the link !
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟15,392.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Remus said:
You asked how the Flood could leave behind such fossils. It seems to me that you have the same problem if these layers were later covered by water.
Not at all. In fact, water is (usually) necessary for preserving fossils. Thing is, the water must be low energy so as not to destroy the track impressions (entirely possible if we're considering a slow marine transgression). Flood Theorists don't seem to get this. They continually refer to the "catrastrophic" and "raging" floodwaters (look at the links I've provided).
In any case, the best interpretation I've seen so far suggests an aeolian or subaerial deposition of sediment within the Coconino Sandstone, and so the prints would've been covered already before any water got to them.
Okay then, let's use their answers. The article on AiG used Brand's work. Here's something else he wrote on the subject:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/05064.htm
This looks as reasonable as anything else out there. Where's the problem?
Brand's work is refuted here and elsewhere:
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grandb.htm
You're shifting the burden of proof.
Sorry, but it's a MAJOR burden to bear. How many links would you like? Many of the websites I've linked to point to different fossiliferous layers in the "geologic column" as evidence for the Flood. Look! Here's more!
http://www.awitness.org/bible_commentary/genesis/flood_geology_fossils.html
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/facts/dinosaurs/nov2002.html
http://www.nwcreation.net/fossils.html
http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Geologic_column_was_deposited_by_the_Flood
There's a section on this page that lists the source(s) for this argument. Notice that this section is blank.
Probably because there were too many to name. But here's another source for you to check out: Henry Morris and John Whitcomb's book "The Genesis Flood."
So, what do Creationists say? It seems that the most prominent opinions revolve around this:
http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp
This article is poking at a strawman. The entire, complete-from-top-to-bottom geologic column is seen nowhere on earth, and I very much doubt that any competent geologist would claim otherwise (though we do find places on earth where it is MOSTLY intact, with layers missing due to erosion). The geologic column is assembled largely through correlation of different-but-similar rock sequences throughout the world. These sequences share the same rock types, fossils, facies, geochemistry, etc. If Creationists want to question the notion of the geologic column and correlative geology, then they will have to attack these basic geologic principles.
However, you can't ask very general questions and sit back and act like there are no answers if no one takes you to task.
Well, we've been focusing on the Grand Canyon these last few pages, and my questions still stand.
Upon rereading this, some of it may come across as rude or at least less than polite. I'm sorry for this and please understand that it's not meant that way.
No offence taken. But ditto for me.
 
Upvote 0

Remus

Senior Member
Feb 22, 2004
666
30
53
Austin, TX
✟8,471.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Mallon said:
Not at all. In fact, water is (usually) necessary for preserving fossils. Thing is, the water must be low energy so as not to destroy the track impressions (entirely possible if we're considering a slow marine transgression). Flood Theorists don't seem to get this. They continually refer to the "catrastrophic" and "raging" floodwaters (look at the links I've provided).
In any case, the best interpretation I've seen so far suggests an aeolian or subaerial deposition of sediment within the Coconino Sandstone, and so the prints would've been covered already before any water got to them.
I'll agree that the mainstream does focus on the catastrophic nature of the flood and I can see how you could misunderstand this. I think they should spend some time on other aspects of the flood which would not be considered "raging" and such.
Brand's work is refuted here and elsewhere:
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grandb.htm
Brand's work was refuted by some geocities site? I can't even find the name of the author of this paper. Perhaps we should stick to the "elsewhere" part.
Sorry, but it's a MAJOR burden to bear. How many links would you like? Many of the websites I've linked to point to different fossiliferous layers in the "geologic column" as evidence for the Flood. Look! Here's more!
http://www.awitness.org/bible_commentary/genesis/flood_geology_fossils.html
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/facts/dinosaurs/nov2002.html
http://www.nwcreation.net/fossils.html
Let's stick with the mainstream shall we? We can both throw out a bunch of websites that say whatever we like, but it doesn't prove anything.

Probably because there were too many to name.
Yeah, that's got to be it.

But here's another source for you to check out: Henry Morris and John Whitcomb's book "The Genesis Flood."
Can you quote from this 30 year old book that says that the entire geologic column was laid down during the flood?

This article is poking at a strawman. The entire, complete-from-top-to-bottom geologic column is seen nowhere on earth, and I very much doubt that any competent geologist would claim otherwise (though we do find places on earth where it is MOSTLY intact, with layers missing due to erosion). The geologic column is assembled largely through correlation of different-but-similar rock sequences throughout the world. These sequences share the same rock types, fossils, facies, geochemistry, etc. If Creationists want to question the notion of the geologic column and correlative geology, then they will have to attack these basic geologic principles.
Talkorigins said:
In fact, the entire geologic column can be observed from top to bottom in several locales, including North Dakota, as this article describes.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

You may be right about the "competent geologist" part, but Trueorigins was started to refute Talkorigins. So as you can see, it is an argument that Talk is making and True is disputing. So it is not a straw man.
Well, we've been focusing on the Grand Canyon these last few pages, and my questions still stand.
Then we are at an impasse it seems. Your questions are based on the assumption that mainstream creationists say that the "geologic column" was laid down during the flood. I've shown that mainstream creationists do not say that. The article on Trueorigins states that "the geologic column does not exist and so does not need to be explained by Flood geology." This direct quote proves that your assumption is false. I don’t understand why you are trying to keep this up.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

vossler

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2004
2,760
158
63
Asheville NC
✟19,363.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Calminian said:
Not quite. Let's see if I can't state it concisely. I believe science, in conjunction with biblical guidance, can be very helpful in many areas of this debate. I believe the scientific method apart from revelation leads only to an irrational worldview (mainly because of the issue of infinite regressive causality). Thus I think it's more rational to look at scientific theories in light of the Bible, rather than looking at the Bible in light of scientific theories.
Well said, especially the last sentence.

Calminian said:
My concern is correctly handling the written account. That's central to this debate.
It's refreshing to hear someone say that. Thanks!
 
Upvote 0

vossler

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2004
2,760
158
63
Asheville NC
✟19,363.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Calminian said:
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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
:thumbsup: I wish I could rep you for this post, but alas I must spread some around first. Never have I read a better assessment as to the real issues of naturalism, evolution, and creationism. Your posts in this thread have thoroughly impressed me, you have a biblically based worldview of the subjects at hand.

You are the one of the very few people I've read that could get me interested in the science of all this. :cool: Science hasn't become your god and regulated your thought, therefore it is only a tool that you use to help explain the world we live in. Scientific findings must be reconciled to the scriptural account without altering Scripture in any form. Decisions regarding origins don't have a scientific foundation, but a scriptural one. Scripture is the foundation; what a novel concept!

Your posts here have given me a new hope and sense of optimism concerning the view people can have of science. Thanks!
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟15,392.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Remus said:
Brand's work was refuted by some geocities site? I can't even find the name of the author of this paper. Perhaps we should stick to the "elsewhere" part.
Please deal with the points brought up in the article rather than attacking the fact that it was posted on a geocities website. You are avoiding the issue.
Let's stick with the mainstream shall we? We can both throw out a bunch of websites that say whatever we like, but it doesn't prove anything.
I am simply complying with your insistance that I back up my points with web links, and showing you that I am not making this stuff up.
Can you quote from this 30 year old book that says that the entire geologic column was laid down during the flood?
Good question. I should hold creationists to the same accountability when they refer to Darwin's works.
But to comply:

"The geologic column does not represent the slow evolution of life over many ages, as the evolution model alleges, but rather the rapid destruction and burial of life in one age, in accordance with the creation model." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 112)

"The fossil-bearing strata were apparently laid down in large measure during the Flood, with apparent sequences attributed not to evolution but rather to hydrodynamic selectivity, ecological habitats, and differential mobility and strength of the various creatures." (Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood, 1961, p. 327)
Then we are at an impasse it seems. Your questions are based on the assumption that mainstream creationists say that the "geologic column" was laid down during the flood. I've shown that mainstream creationists do not say that. The article on Trueorigins states that "the geologic column does not exist and so does not need to be explained by Flood geology." This direct quote proves that your assumption is false. I don’t understand why you are trying to keep this up.
Ugh! I thought we were past this. I have conceded that creationists do not necessarily hold that the entire rock record was deposited as a result of the Flood. But they do, by and large, argue that much of the Grand Cayon was deposited by the Flood (see the half dozen links I've posted in this thread). This is why we have switched our focus to the Grand Canyon. Now, twelve pages later, please address my proposed questions as they pertain to the Grand Canyon and stop dancing around them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Remus

Senior Member
Feb 22, 2004
666
30
53
Austin, TX
✟8,471.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Mallon said:
Please deal with the points brought up in the article rather than attacking the fact that it was posted on a geocities website. You are avoiding the issue.
No, I'm avoiding digging though what is obviously a poor source. But if you insist.

One thing that is immediately obvious about this seemingly anonymous article is that its reference list is missing some key references. This added to the fact that many of the links in the entire article are dead does little to help the author’s case. The section of interest that you state refutes Brand’s work begins with the title “The Coconino as a Flood Deposit”. We have three quotes from Martin Lockley all of which are not referenced or not referenced correctly in the cited list. It took some digging but I did find the sources of these quotes. The first quote that starts with “The weight of biological…” comes from a book that does actually show up on the cited list, but has the year 1996 instead of the 1995 which is indicated in the article. It is from Dinosaur Tacks and Other Fossil Footprints of the Western United States. The second and third quote comes from a book which does not show up on the cited list. This book is Eternal Trail: A Tracker Looks at Evolution.

Now this second book is a fascinating book. It seems that our expert Lockley has some interest in palmistry.

Page 22 - 23 said:
There is evidence that palms and hand shapes fall into various categories that reveal much of the character of the person. In palmistry an elongate hand is regarded as a sign of the gift of high intelligence, sensitivity, intuition, and psychic ability, whereas a stout hand, of the type sometimes called the square or useful hand, is considered a sign of a "salt of the Earth;" commonsense personality. Differences in hand shape that we can verify for ourselves by simple observations may also reflect gender to some degree; usually the female hand is less stout than a man's. Anthropologists recognize broad and narrow heads and body types expressed within all major racial groups. So broadness or narrowness is seen in the whole body, in the head, in the hand, in the foot. A pattern, surely. As we shall see, inherent qualities are also associated with narrowness and breadth, so we might infer from their foot shape that ancient Celts were more intuitive and mystical, whereas Saxons more practical and down to earth. There is substantial scientific evidence that fingerprints and palm crease patterns fall into distinct categories. For example, susceptibility to Alzheimer's and other diseases has been correlated with certain distinctive fingerprint patterns. There is also strong evidence that left-handedness correlates with certain fingerprint types and personalities. Lefties live shorter lives and are more likely to end up in jail or in mental institutions, but we don't know why. If genes for such diseases and psychological profiles are linked to skin or hand anatomy, then surely such correlations should be studied seriously. At present forensics studies fingerprints but not palms. Why? Perhaps because it is easier and less messy to collect and store fingerprints than palm prints. Or is there a taboo against studying palms, based on scepticism toward the ancient art of palmistry? … In the absence of any efforts to explore the scientific underpinnings of palmistry, we shall remain ignorant of its potential, and not appreciate the adage that hands and feet are the instruments of the soul. Within the broad realm of medical science there are many correlations between disease and physical attributes and less tangible characteristics such as behavior and personality. On a more practical level, our immense global fingerprint database could be used to identify individuals with susceptibilities to particular diseases. But a palmprint database would provide considerably more information. Such prospects lend a humanitarian perspective to a data set otherwise used primarily to facilitate bureaucracy and law enforcement.
I don’t see how anyone can take this guy seriously. I'm sorry, but I can't except this guy's opinion.

I am simply complying with your insistance that I back up my points with web links, and showing you that I am not making this stuff up.
All I need is one that says what you are arguing against, but it seems that we can't even agree on what that is.
Good question. I should hold creationists to the same accountability when they refer to Darwin's works.
Perhaps I was too vague. I don't believe 30 year old research is valid on either side of the debate. Nice jab at Creationists there though; especially since it was you that brought up the 30 year old source.
Ugh! I thought we were past this. I have conceded that creationists do not necessarily hold that the entire rock record was deposited as a result of the Flood. But they do, by and large, argue that much of the Grand Cayon was deposited by the Flood (see the half dozen links I've posted in this thread). This is why we have switched our focus to the Grand Canyon. Now, twelve pages later, please address my proposed questions as they pertain to the Grand Canyon and stop dancing around them.
You say that you conceded this point? The only place that I can see that is close to a concession is in the post that ends with "The three questions I posted at the outset of this thread have yet to be answered". So which is it? Do you concede that your questions are based on a false assumption or do you still think they are valid? You are free to change your questions if you like; I have no problem with that. But don’t keep saying “my questions still stand”.

Where’s that dead horse smilie when you need it?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.