Geology challenge *repost*

ashibaka

ShiiAce
Jun 15, 2002
953
22
36
Visit site
✟9,047.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
Find a geologist who disagrees with the current accepted age of the Earth (~4.5 billion years), but does so for reasons independent of any religious convictions.

Find a geologist who disagrees with the current accepted age of the Earth (~4.5 billion years), but does so for reasons independent of any religious convictions.

Find a geologist who disagrees with the current accepted age of the Earth (~4.5 billion years), but does so for reasons independent of any religious convictions.

Find a geologist who disagrees with the current accepted age of the Earth (~4.5 billion years), but does so for reasons independent of any religious convictions.

Should I do this a bit more, or is it a lost cause? The Challenge is a perfectly sound argument that geological evidence does not support Creationism, but John has been posting for 6 pages trying to get his invalid answer accepted.

Hey, John... IT'S NOT WORKING. Maybe you should spend your time on something more useful, like trying to find a geologist who supports your oh-so-obviously correct hypothesis for reasons other than their being a fundamentalist. Or do you already know, deep down inside, that the chances of that are zero?
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
ashibaka said:
Find a geologist who disagrees with the current accepted age of the Earth (~4.5 billion years), but does so for reasons independent of any religious convictions.

You can not judge a person's motive. All that you can judge is the evidence that they present. There is a growing body of geologists that are presenting scientific evidence for a 6000 year old earth.

Now, just because you do not accept their scientific evidence, does not mean I did not produce the geologists. I have a thread going right now where they feel the chalk deposits is geological evidence for a 6000 year old earth.
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
71
✟9,874.00
Faith
Other Religion
JohnR7 said:
You can not judge a person's motive.

Any geologist working for either ICR or AIG is required to affirm a statement of faith that places their Biblical interpretation as the first and last word on matters of creation. So, they are prohibited from interpreting the geological evidence independent of their pre-existing religious conclusions about the age of the Earth.

All that you can judge is the evidence that they present.

Which is precisely why I am wondering why there are no non-religious geologists raising issues about the age of the Earth.

There is a growing body of geologists that are presenting scientific evidence for a 6000 year old earth.

Last time I checked, there are a whopping 4 geologists that subscribe to a YEC view. That's hardly a "growing body". Furthermore, they all interpret the age of the Earth from a pre-existing Biblical viewpoint.
 
Upvote 0

ashibaka

ShiiAce
Jun 15, 2002
953
22
36
Visit site
✟9,047.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
JohnR7 said:
There is a growing body of geologists that are presenting scientific evidence for a 6000 year old earth.

If I recall correctly, the purpose of this challenge was not to find a geologist with scientific evidence for YEC, but to find a geologist who presents scientific evidence for a 6000 year old earth without a religious motivation which incites him to dig up such evidence.
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Pete Harcoff said:
Any geologist working for either ICR or AIG is required to affirm a statement of faith that places their Biblical interpretation as the first and last word on matters of creation. So, they are prohibited from interpreting the geological evidence independent of their pre-existing religious conclusions about the age of the Earth.

Could you present your evidence for this please.
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
ashibaka said:
If I recall correctly, the purpose of this challenge was not to find a geologist with scientific evidence for YEC, but to find a geologist who presents scientific evidence for a 6000 year old earth without a religious motivation which incites him to dig up such evidence.

Motivation was not an issue. They were looking for someone who was not "tainted" by religious conviction. Their belief has to be based on the natural record and scientific evidence. Not based or dependant on religious conviction.

Why would motivation be an issue here? Would you feel better if they were motivated because they had to much starch in their underware? What motivates anyone to do anything? What is the motivation behind this thread?

They were motivated to get their degree. They were motivated to get the scientific evidence to support their theory. The issue then becomes does the evidence support their claim?
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
71
✟9,874.00
Faith
Other Religion
JohnR7 said:
Could you present your evidence for this please.

From the ICR (http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm):

"... the administration and faculty of ICR are committed to the tenets of both scientific creationism and Biblical creationism as formulated below."

And further down, under Tenets of Biblical Creationism:

"All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous;"

and,

"The Biblical record of primeval earth history in Genesis 1-11 is fully historical and perspicuous, including the creation and fall of man, the curse on the creation and its subjection to the bondage of decay, the promised Redeemer, the worldwide cataclysmic deluge in the days of Noah, the post-diluvian renewal of man's commission to subdue the earth (now augmented by the institution of human govemment) and the origin of nations and languages at the tower of Babel."

In other words, they already have drawn up their conclusion and cannot deviate from it.


AIG is a little more explicit in their Statement of Faith:

"The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge."

"The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe."

"The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect."

And the real kicker is at the bottom,

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

* (emphasis all mine)


So, you'll understand if I'm more than a little skeptical at accepting a geologist's claims about the age of the Earth who works for the ICR or AIG.
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Pete Harcoff said:
Which is precisely why I am wondering why there are no non-religious geologists raising issues about the age of the Earth.

Why make an issue out of it? There are a lot of christian geologists. From what I know they neither endorse not argue against whatever time frame is assigned to the various ages. At least every christian geologist I ever talked to when you ask them about the time frame that has been assigned to the ages, they just shrug their shoulders and say: I don't know.
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
71
✟9,874.00
Faith
Other Religion
JohnR7 said:
Why make an issue out of it? There are a lot of christian geologists. From what I know they neither endorse not argue against whatever time frame is assigned to the various ages. At least every christian geologist I ever talked to when you ask them about the time frame that has been assigned to the ages, they just shrug their shoulders and say: I don't know.

The point of this thread is merely to find out if there is any dissent among geologists on the subject of the age of the Earth, but one that is not motivated based on religion.

I don't care if there are Christian geologists who think the Earth is old, or for that matter, have no opinion on the matter. That is entirely moot within the the subject matter of this thread.

To re-iterate the opening post (again), "Find a geologist who disagrees with the current accepted age of the Earth (~4.5 billion years), but does so for reasons independent of any religious convictions."

So far, there are no examples of this. This leads me to believe that the worlds geologists are united in their stance on the age of the Earth, except for a select few (very few) who claim otherwise, but do so because of their religious beliefs and not the empirical evidence within the Earth itself.
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Pete Harcoff said:
From the ICR ([url http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm[/url])

So, you'll understand if I'm more than a little skeptical at accepting a geologist's claims about the age of the Earth who works for the ICR or AIG.

I can understand if they have the preconceived idea that:"The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation." Then they are just trying to get scientific evidence to back up what they already assume to be true. Then they just end up selling their books to people with this same preconceived notion. I have heard them called "hucksters".

But people are not always guilty by association. The statement of faith only applys to the board of directors. You still have the burden of proof to show that the geologists I came up with are biased and thus disqualified.

Take Dr. Wise for example. He is a member of the Geological Society of America. Would you then associate him with their beliefs also?

http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position.htm

If your guilty by association, as you seem to feel. Then Dr. Wise should vindicated by his association with the Geological Society of America.
 
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
JohnR7 said:
But people are not always guilty by association. The statement of faith only applys to the board of directors. You still have the burden of proof to show that the geologists I came up with are biased and thus disqualified.

First off, the tenets indicate, in the section labelled "ICR Educational Philosophy", in the third paragraph:
More explicitly, the administration and faculty of ICR are committed to the tenets of both scientific creationism and Biblical creationism as formulated below.
The statement does not apply only to the borad of directors, but to all faculty and administration. Dr. Austin is a faculty member of the ICR, and is therefore subject to this statement, or, at very least, is voluntarily a member of an organization that states that he believes it. Dr. Austin is not a credible source as a geologist who has come to their conclusions independantly of their religious beliefs.

JohnR7 said:
Take Dr. Wise for example. He is a member of the Geological Society of America. Would you then associate him with their beliefs also?

Dr. Wise has indicated in his own statements that his conclusions are derived from his religious beliefs. It does not matter whether he is a member of the ICR or not, he has disqualified himself directly. In case you've forgotten, from your own post in the thread Dr Kurt Wise:
'To accept the entire evolutionary model would mean one would have to reject Scripture. And because I came to know Christ through Scripture I couldn't reject it.' At that point he decided his only option was to reject evolutionary theory.
Dr. Wise is not a credible source as a geologist who has come to their conclusions independantly of their religious beliefs.

JohnR7 said:
If your guilty by association, as you seem to feel. Then Dr. Wise should vindicated by his association with the Geological Society of America.

John, this is a combination of a strawman and a tu quoque fallacy. Firstly, the GSA does not require its members to adhere by its position statements, while the ICR does. Comparing membership in the two as it relates to their beliefs is not valid. Secondly, even if your assertion weren't a strawman, that wouldn't make this a valid argument.
 
Upvote 0

Frumious Bandersnatch

Contributor
Mar 4, 2003
6,390
334
77
Visit site
✟15,931.00
Faith
Unitarian
JohnR7 said:
I can understand if they have the preconceived idea that:"The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation." Then they are just trying to get scientific evidence to back up what they already assume to be true. Then they just end up selling their books to people with this same preconceived notion. I have heard them called "hucksters".

But people are not always guilty by association. The statement of faith only applys to the board of directors. You still have the burden of proof to show that the geologists I came up with are biased and thus disqualified.

Take Dr. Wise for example. He is a member of the Geological Society of America. Would you then associate him with their beliefs also?

http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position.htm

If your guilty by association, as you seem to feel. Then Dr. Wise should vindicated by his association with the Geological Society of America.

Have you been paying attention? Dr. Wise has explicitly stated that he believes in a young earth primarily for scriptural reasons and he was an avowed YEC before he studied for his Ph.D. Steve Austin was writing young earth literature before the ICR paid for his graduate studies in geology. Do you think they would have paid if he hadn't signed the oath? You have NOT shown that there are any YEC geologists who are not also religious fundamentalists and were not religious fundamentalists before they became geologists. I doubt that any geologist in at least the last 170 years has accepted YEC because of evidence. All the geological evidence is against YEC and we consistently see how YEC geologists omit evidence and distort the evidence they do discuss when trying to support YEC geology with science.

Wise can also be a member of the Geological Society because, unlike ICR and AiG real scientific societies do not require their members to sign oaths of faith. His membership is thus irrelavent to the argument.

You keep posting the same arguments over and over even after they have been shown to be wrong. While you are not explicitly a YEC you have shown that you can (fail to) think like a YEC.

The Frumious Bandersnatch
 
Upvote 0

Mechanical Bliss

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
Nov 3, 2002
4,897
241
43
A^2
Visit site
✟21,365.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Democrat
JohnR7 said:
You still have the burden of proof to show that the geologists I came up with are biased and thus disqualified.

Take Dr. Wise for example. He is a member of the Geological Society of America. Would you then associate him with their beliefs also?

http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position.htm

If your guilty by association, as you seem to feel. Then Dr. Wise should vindicated by his association with the Geological Society of America.

Once again:

You end up refuting yourself in the other thread:

Dr. Kurt Wise

Quotations from your post:

For Dr Wise, the authority of the Bible is non-negotiable.

'To accept the entire evolutionary model would mean one would have to reject Scripture. And because I came to know Christ through Scripture I couldn't reject it.' At that point he decided his only option was to reject evolutionary theory."

Wise is biased, thus disqualified, plain and simple. How many times do we have to go over this until you finally concede that what you are doing is the antithesis of what the challenge proposed?

Furthermore, anyone can be a member of GSA (including myself) as long as they are studying the geosciences or hold a degree in the geosciences and actually pay their membership dues. It is not a dogmatic organization like AiG.

Most significantly however is if a person applies for a job at AiG:

All applicants are required to submit a written testimony and written statement explaining their position on Creation (no more than one page each), and be in complete agreement (with no qualifications) with the AiG Statement of Faith.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/employment.asp

The statement of faith must apply to all employees of AiG. Biased, and discredited, period.
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Frumious Bandersnatch said:
Have you been paying attention? Dr. Wise has explicitly stated that he believes in a young earth primarily for scriptural reasons

Come on, you guys just do not want to admit defeat. Let us take a look at Dr. Wise.

Ph.D. Invertebrate Paleontology Harvard University

M.A. Geology Harvard University

B.A. Geology University of Chicago

Professional Associations: Geological Society of America, Paleontological Society, Creation Research Society, American Scientific Affiliation, Affiliation of Christian Geologists

In his statement on a "High Regard for the Truth: Dr. Wise says: "that one of the things that has really bothered him is finding creationists who fall into the trap of dismissing justified criticism. He said he has presented data to point out areas that some of them needed to change, and it was either fobbed off or was still being repeated next time he saw them." http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3121.asp

Before you go assigning Dr. Wise to the ranks of Timothy Leary, you had better come up with some more evidence.
 
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

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
71
✟9,874.00
Faith
Other Religion
To once again re-iterate the opening post:

Find a geologist who disagrees with the current accepted age of the Earth (~4.5 billion years), but does so for reasons independent of any religious convictions.

Dr. Wise, by his own admission, does not meet that requirement.

Anyway, we've gone over this enough. Until JohnR7 brings something new to the table, I'd urge people to just ignore his posts.
 
Upvote 0

Mechanical Bliss

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
Nov 3, 2002
4,897
241
43
A^2
Visit site
✟21,365.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Democrat
JohnR7 said:
Oh yeah, Dr. Wise has a Phd from Harvard, and he is going to need to apply to AIG for a job?

Let us recap, shall we?

Pete asserted that any geologist working for AiG or ICR had to adhere to a statement of faith.

You said the AiG statement of faith applied only to board members.

I illustrated that anyone working for AiG must adhere to the statement of faith. You were wrong.

He might have a Ph.D. from Harvard, but he apparently teaches as an Assistant Professor at a tiny university whose motto is "Christ Above All." One would think you'd be able to do a lot better with a Ph.D. in paleontology from Harvard University. Instead, he outright rejects geology and his "research" is geared towards upholding a religious statement of faith. That has been well established here.

When will you actually admit that you are wrong?
 
Upvote 0

Frumious Bandersnatch

Contributor
Mar 4, 2003
6,390
334
77
Visit site
✟15,931.00
Faith
Unitarian
JohnR7 said:
Come on, you guys just do not want to admit defeat. Let us take a look at Dr. Wise.

Ph.D. Invertebrate Paleontology Harvard University

M.A. Geology Harvard University

B.A. Geology University of Chicago

Professional Associations: Geological Society of America, Paleontological Society, Creation Research Society, American Scientific Affiliation, Affiliation of Christian Geologists

In his statement on a "High Regard for the Truth: Dr. Wise says: "that one of the things that has really bothered him is finding creationists who fall into the trap of dismissing justified criticism. He said he has presented data to point out areas that some of them needed to change, and it was either fobbed off or was still being repeated next time he saw them." http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3121.asp


Before you go assigning Dr. Wise to the ranks of Timothy Leary, you had better come up with some more evidence.

Yes Wise is clearly biased. He claims to be an "honest" creation scientist because he does reject some of the YEC nonsense,as you point out.

Perhaps Wise doesn't mistrepresent Scientific research as badly as some YECs but he is not above a bit of misrepresentation

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/a_word_to_the_wise.htm

I have not heard the seminar Tew discussed but I have heard a seminar by Wise in which he clearly mispresented the results of the Coe and Prevet paper in Science, which I have read and told the same false story of the paper's history.

If Digones went searching for an honest man among creation scientists, Wise might be the closest he could come, but would still miss the mark.

I really don't think a non religious YEC scientist of any kind can be found, let alone a geologist. The examples you gave were YECs before they ever studied geology so they clearly don't meet Pete's criteria.

Even if Wise were as scrupulously honest as he claims to be, he has admitted to being a YEC first and scientist second and was a YEC before he ever studied science. I am wondering why you are having such a hard time grasping this simple concept.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
 
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

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Frumious Bandersnatch said:
If Digones went searching for an honest man among creation scientists, Wise might be the closest he could come, but would still miss the mark.

I am wondering why you are having such a hard time grasping this simple concept.

A challange is a challange. As you admit: "Wise might be the closest" you could come to finding someone who would meet the requirements of the challange.

Usually I would not bother with something that left out the authority of the Bible. Esp. when you dealing with literal 24 hour days when I feel a Creation day is at least 1000 years. But for some reason this one interested me.

I would tend to agree that if you want to establish literal 24 hour creation days, then geology is going to be difficult to explain. When you look at sediment, limestone, oil deposits and so forth.
 
Upvote 0