A short explaination of the human-nature

[Larniavc]

And I used to play AD&D when I was younger.

Me too. I still do (but it’s in it’s 5th edition now).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Anyone could run a hose across loose soil
and quickly make a miniature canyon.
They'd have no luck trying it on solid rock.

Exactly my point. Same with the 'experiment' of putting sand, gravel and soil into a water filled container, shaking it up and then letting it settle, saying that it's proof that the Flood caused the geological layers. It's not the same thing at all.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That wasn't my focus, but we could talk about it. It would be similar to other, observed canyons that have been carved out in a single incident, like a dam break. There's one near where I live. And Mt St Helens is a good one, because we know when the deposits happened, as well as when the canyon was carved.

View attachment 337973

That's a beautful picture of the remnants of a devastating event, but I notice there's not much, if any, sign of diverse levels of stratification, just erosion through what looks like a large collection of silt. Quite unlike the structures of the Grand Canyon which formed through the natural shaping of deep time.

So, my friend. I'm sorry. I'm afraid I'll have to stick with the mainstream geological conclusions of Davis A. Young & Ralph F. Stearley (both whom are Christians and Geologists by the way).

Reference

Young, Davis A., and Ralph F. Stearley. The Bible, rocks and time: geological evidence for the Age of the Earth. InterVarsity Press, 2008.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Me too. I still do (but it’s in it’s 5th edition now).

Yes, I'm aware of their current edition(s). And although I don't have the time to play AD&D, I do play shorter board games like Civilization or 7 Wonders, etc.

 

[Astrid]

Exactly my point. Same with the 'experiment' of putting sand, gravel and soil into a water filled container, shaking it up and then letting it settle, saying that it's proof that the Flood caused the geological layers. It's not the same thing at all.

It's useful for self deception.
The less ethical would try to fool others.

 

[Astrid]

That's a beautful picture of the remnants of a devastating event, but I notice there's not much, if any, sign of diverse levels of stratification, just erosion through what looks like a large collection of silt. Quite unlike the structures of the Grand Canyon which formed through the natural shaping of deep time.

So, my friend. I'm sorry. I'm afraid I'll have to stick with the mainstream geological conclusions of Davis A. Young & Ralph F. Stearley (both whom are Christians and Geologists by the way).

Reference

Young, Davis A., and Ralph F. Stearley. The Bible, rocks and time: geological evidence for the Age of the Earth. InterVarsity Press, 2008.

Do you know the origin of the term
" deep time"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you know the origin of the term
" deep time"?

Generally speaking, I do:

Deep time - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you know the origin of the term
" deep time"?

Of course, I know that you already know all of this much better than I do. So, I submit to any additional info or correction you may want to give where you geologists are concerned.

 

[Derf]

Exactly my point. Same with the 'experiment' of putting sand, gravel and soil into a water filled container, shaking it up and then letting it settle, saying that it's proof that the Flood caused the geological layers. It's not the same thing at all.

Of course it's not the same thing. How many scientist do you know that can exactly duplicate the thing they are studying? Think of astronomers, biologists, physicists, meteorologists, and of course, geologists. Can they create the things they study? No. Yet they try something on a small scale to see if it can duplicate the effects apparent at larger scale. Think wind tunnels, nuclear bomb tests, vacuum chambers, etc.

Your standard would have only the narrative, with no way to test it. That's where it turns into real mythology, where real science is dead.

 

[Derf]

That's a beautful picture of the remnants of a devastating event, but I notice there's not much, if any, sign of diverse levels of stratification, just erosion through what looks like a large collection of silt. Quite unlike the structures of the Grand Canyon which formed through the natural shaping of deep time.

Presumed. Not informed by current carastrophic events. That's why I bring up dam breaks and Mt St Helens. They are natural effects we can observe to test our theories. To cast them aside as irrelevant says you're only interested in the narrative you already have.

So, my friend. I'm sorry. I'm afraid I'll have to stick with the mainstream geological conclusions of Davis A. Young & Ralph F. Stearley (both whom are Christians and Geologists by the way).

Reference

Young, Davis A., and Ralph F. Stearley. The Bible, rocks and time: geological evidence for the Age of the Earth. InterVarsity Press, 2008.

Ah, yes. Science by consensus and unwilling to consider how it might be wrong.

 

[Derf]

That’s a picture. Which geological process are you claiming it evidences?

You agree that a picture is evidence? I already described the effect, and presented a picture to show what I was talking about. Now you're asking for particular geologic processes? In other words, you need the narrative/story/myth to process the idea. Why is that any different than using the bible's narrative to process the idea?

 

[Larniavc]

You agree that a picture is evidence? I already described the effect, and presented a picture to show what I was talking about. Now you're asking for particular geologic processes? In other words, you need the narrative/story/myth to process the idea. Why is that any different than using the bible's narrative to process the idea?

Posting a picture and going "ta da!" does not count as evidence.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Presumed. Not informed by current carastrophic events. That's why I bring up dam breaks and Mt St Helens. They are natural effects we can observe to test our theories. To cast them aside as irrelevant says you're only interested in the narrative you already have.

That's a misrepresentation of my praxis. Please don't assume that about how I think. Thank you.

Ah, yes. Science by consensus and unwilling to consider how it might be wrong.

I understand it appears to be consensus, but actually my understanding here is cumulative and I'm just applying the "Inference to the Best Explanation." Also, if you don't know how and why two geological brothers in Christ arrive at their conclusions, then you can't really make an evaluation about their thinking since you haven't actually engaged their thoughts.

You're going to have to realize that my mind CAN be changed. But, I have literally studied many things over 30 plus years, some of which was involved with my studies at a few different colleges and universities where I attended. So, I'm not trying to be a stick in the mud; it's just at present, the best I can do is see things, or believe Christianity, through the lens of a kind of "Anthropic Principle Ultra-Lite." I do see something. I just can't say I'm able to sufficiently prove it to anyone else's satisfaction. (Then again, in today's social environment, few people give others the room or time to engage and demonstrate any evidences either way.)

Oh, one last thing: let me just note that even though I typically interpret the book of Genesis, especially the first 11 chapters, somewhat on the "less than very literal side" of history, this doesn't mean that my evaluations of the Bible vary from yours greatly once I reach Exodus.

So, maybe try to remain friendly about all of this since we are fellow Christians, neither of whom can have the last say upon the full nature of the Bible.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Of course it's not the same thing. How many scientist do you know that can exactly duplicate the thing they are studying? Think of astronomers, biologists, physicists, meteorologists, and of course, geologists. Can they create the things they study? No. Yet they try something on a small scale to see if it can duplicate the effects apparent at larger scale. Think wind tunnels, nuclear bomb tests, vacuum chambers, etc.

Your standard would have only the narrative, with no way to test it. That's where it turns into real mythology, where real science is dead.

You really have no idea how science works if you think that duplicating is the only way scientists do testing.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I had to go back and see what the original posts that caused this whole mess of a chain were.

To the first: the evidence we have shows that early hominids were found in Africa. That is not a 'creation myth', that's a simple statement of fact. If you think that clashes with your view of the Bible, than that's a solid 'you' problem.

To the second: we have evidence that major civilizations began in Mesopotamia, yes, but we also have evidence that larger civilizations began at roughly the same periods around the Nile river, the Indus valley, the Yellow river and the Supe river across the world. But that's just what those places represent: the start of mass, centralized civilization. That does not mean that mankind literally began at those places in history.

I'm just going to bump this.

 

[Derf]

You really have no idea how science works if you think that duplicating is the only way scientists do testing.

Let me remind you what I was replying to.

It's not the same thing at all.

As if you thought an experiment could only be valid if it were the same thing. Are you retracting that now?

 

[Derf]

Anyone could run a hose across loose soil
and quickly make a miniature canyon.
They'd have no luck trying it on solid rock.

What about solid concrete?

Oroville Dam: What made the spillway collapse?

A process called ‘cavitation,’ where tiny vapor bubbles in fast-moving water can smash concrete is a key suspect. Why didn’t California officials guard against it?

www.mercurynews.com

 

[Derf]

That's a misrepresentation of my praxis. Please don't assume that about how I think. Thank you.


I understand it appears to be consensus, but actually my understanding here is cumulative and I'm just applying the "Inference to the Best Explanation." Also, if you don't know how and why two geological brothers in Christ arrive at their conclusions, then you can't really make an evaluation about their thinking since you haven't actually engaged their thoughts.

You're going to have to realize that my mind CAN be changed. But, I have literally studied many things over 30 plus years, some of which was involved with my studies at a few different colleges and universities where I attended. So, I'm not trying to be a stick in the mud; it's just at present, the best I can do is see things, or believe Christianity, through the lens of a kind of "Anthropic Principle Ultra-Lite." I do see something. I just can't say I'm able to sufficiently prove it to anyone else's satisfaction. (Then again, in today's social environment, few people give others the room or time to engage and demonstrate any evidences either way.)

Oh, one last thing: let me just note that even though I typically interpret the book of Genesis, especially the first 11 chapters, somewhat on the "less than very literal side" of history, this doesn't mean that my evaluations of the Bible vary from yours greatly once I reach Exodus.

Then what do you think about the Sodom and Gomorrah episode?

And what about Ex 20:11, which explains what all was involved in Gen 1?
Exodus 20:11 KJV — For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

So, maybe try to remain friendly about all of this since we are fellow Christians, neither of whom can have the last say upon the full nature of the Bible.

That's why we seek truth, which inevitably involves refuting someone when there are conflicting views. And that's why I'm interested in these discussions. Sure we do it with gentleness and respect. But we dont hold back what we think is truth from our brothers. If we're wrong we need correcting. If they're wrong they need correcting. Unless biblical truth is relative or unattainable.

Same with scientific truth. Which eventually will be shown to coincide with biblical truth in all areas, or God is not capable of imparting truth to us.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then what do you think about the Sodom and Gomorrah episode?

I'll just answer that with a very basic response: Sodom and Gomorrah are the names of two cities in the narrative of Genesis. No one knows for sure about their actual remains in the world and whether they have been (or will yet be) identified with certainty by archaeologists. In the meantime, we can all wonder about it and mull over their possible historical significance.

Their value to us as literary remnants in the book of Genesis is in their prophetic meaning. It's the same with how we'll evaluate the value of the narratives about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, even up to Joseph. In that endeaver, I'd probably read something by someone like Old Testament scholar, Gordon J. Wenham or Dru Johnson, among many, many others.

And what about Ex 20:11, which explains what all was involved in Gen 1?
Exodus 20:11 KJV — For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

On that particular point, we'll all have to decide which interpretive camp we're in as Christians, won't we?

Comparing Interpretations of Genesis 1 - Article - BioLogos

If God’s purposes in Genesis 1 did not include teaching scientific facts to the Israelites, then we shouldn't look here for scientific information today.

biologos.org

In addition to whether we Christians each go in for a concordist or non-concordist, literal or metaphorical/poetic interpretation, we'll also have to face off against aspects of robust forms of Higher Criticism of the Bible. I suggest we do so by taking them head on with academic intelligence and scholarly scrutiny. We don't want to bury our heads in the sand and ignore issues within the biblical texts that might be cited by biblical skeptics and its detractors for the sake of giving the appearance of "pure faith." On the other hand, we also don't want to walk under a cloud of suspicion or fear that all or anything we read in the Bible is somehow thoroughly doubtful simply because one bit of the bible happens to not be true in the way that we assumed or were told it "has to be."

I refuse to do either: I won't stick my head in the sand and I won't walk under the skeptic's cloud. Of course, I always refuse to walk the typical half-baked byways of either fundamentalist Christians or throughly skeptical atheists. It's the advantange I have by being a philosopher and not a theologian. I don't have to rely on just one denomination or school of Christian thought; I can even be ecclectic in my philosophical evaluations, and still be more than able to look to the Author and Finisher of our faith, just like anyone else.

That's why we seek truth, which inevitably involves refuting someone when there are conflicting views. And that's why I'm interested in these discussions. Sure we do it with gentleness and respect. But we dont hold back what we think is truth from our brothers. If we're wrong we need correcting. If they're wrong they need correcting. Unless biblical truth is relative or unattainable.

I disagree with this, for epistemological reasons. I see engagement with the Bible as an ongoing opportunity for conceptual exploration and clarification. ... so, I'd be slow to assume any of us needs to go around with prophetic aplomb and admonishing every Sam, Sally or Ted who doesn't accord with the theology of our favorite local church.

Same with scientific truth. Which eventually will be shown to coincide with biblical truth in all areas, or God is not capable of imparting truth to us.

I disagree. I think science and biblical theology are two non-overlapping magisteria. It's best not to mix them much, if at all.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Let me remind you what I was replying to.

As if you thought an experiment could only be valid if it were the same thing. Are you retracting that now?

The comment you are reply to: "It's not the same thing at all." is the final sentence in this post:

Exactly my point. Same with the 'experiment' of putting sand, gravel and soil into a water filled container, shaking it up and then letting it settle, saying that it's proof that the Flood caused the geological layers. It's not the same thing at all.

Which is a continuation of my commentary on this post:

Creationists will always try and use Mount St. Helens' eruption as 'proof' that the Grand Canyon was formed in a majorly short amount of time... even though that the two things are demonstably different.
Physically, they are similar, but they are 100% not the same thing.

I was making the statement of fact that you and others who claim that the Mount Saint Helens' eruption is evidence that the Grand Canyon can be formed in a short amount of time is bogus and any attempts to explain it use bogus science.

The first example does not show that sediments can form from a catastophic flood, only that weight density between different particles has them settle at different layers.

The second example is even worse since the Mount Saint Helens eruption was that: a volcanic eruption, leading to a massive shift of silt to form something that physically looks like a canyon but it isn't.

You don't know science.