Geology challenge *repost*

[JohnR7]

When will you actually admit that you are wrong?

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

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

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

 

[Arikay]

Because, gods interpretated truth is never wrong (when you ignore everything that falsifies it).

 

[ashibaka]

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.

But if you accept the "one day is a thousand years", that adds only another 6,000-7,000 years onto the Creationist timeline... a drop in the bucket, in geological terms.

He is coming soon

/me wonders how soon "soon" is... considering one day is as a thousand years.

But this isn't related to the challenge, anyway... ;

 

[Philostratus]

My head hurts from reading this thread. My impression is that JohnR7 is not deliberately misunderstanding it, but is apparently incapable of understanding it.

JohnR7: are there any non-christian geologists who believe that the geological record supports the assertions of the YEC?

 

[JohnR7]

But if you accept the "one day is a thousand years", that adds only another 6,000-7,000 years onto the Creationist timeline... a drop in the bucket, in geological terms.

At least it gives you 1000 years to accomplish what others try and say happened in a 24 hour period of time. Actually we believe the GAP theory. That is not real popular around here either, but that is what we believe.

[/QUOTE]me wonders how soon "soon" is... considering one day is as a thousand years. [/QUOTE]

Exactly, a day is 1000 years. Jesus said He would perform miracles and healing on the first and second day and on the third day He would be perfected. So I believe you can expect Him to return about 2000 years from when the Age of Grace or the Church dispensation began on the day of Pentacost.

 

[Superman53142]

Which is precisely the point of this thread. To see if the evidence is tenable independent of religious beliefs. Find me someone who agrees with them about the age of the Earth, but who does not share their particular religious beliefs. If the evidence really points away from an old Earth, then there should be someone who can see this without a pre-existing belief in the Bible.

As I have not yet read through the entire thread, someone may have already mentioned this fact. However, I can not help but note that it is also highly unlikely that you will find an evolutionist who can state his opinion independent of any religious beliefs. The vast majority of humankind has, either conciously or subconciously, an opinion on God and/or eternity. Hence, I submit that all opinions have at least a small amount of bias inherent to them

A technicality, yes, but I just thought I'd throw that out there before I continue reading the thread

 

[notto]

As I have not yet read through the entire thread, someone may have already mentioned this fact. However, I can not help but note that it is also highly unlikely that you will find an evolutionist who can state his opinion independent of any religious beliefs. The vast majority of humankind has, either conciously or subconciously, an opinion on God and/or eternity. Hence, I submit that all opinions have at least a small amount of bias inherent to them

A technicality, yes, but I just thought I'd throw that out there before I continue reading the thread

Not sure, but you seem to be implying that "evolutionist" holds some religious belief or is akin to atheism. If this is the case, then why are their "evolutionists" - pronounced "mainstream biologists" who are Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Hindu, etc. If the acceptance of evolution was based on religious beliefs, I would think that this would not be the case.

Also, this thread, should you choose to read it, is dealing with geology. Evolution deals with biology. Of course, we also have Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Hindu, etc geologists who have no problem accepting the evidence that convincingly shows the earth to be old. Science is agnostic, hense the difficulty of anyone being able to show a geologist who is led by the evidence to believe the earth to be young independently of any religious beliefs or convictions.

I question your assertion and do not believe it is valid. Science is agnostic and the explainations given by geology and biology are agnostic as well and can be verified and supported by evidence independent of any preconceived religious notions.

 

[Superman53142]

Now that I have commenced reading the thread, I must state that, John, your arguing about Dr. Wise serves no purpose in this context Please try to find evidence to furfill the original challenge, rather than turn the challenge into something else. If you wish to discuss the validity of Dr. Wise's discoveries, I would suggest you open a new thread

As one who is not a YEC, I have nothing further to contribute to this thread Peace out.

 

[JohnR7]

I can not help but note that it is also highly unlikely that you will find an evolutionist who can state his opinion independent of any religious beliefs. The vast majority of humankind has, either conciously or subconciously, an opinion on God and/or eternity. Hence, I submit that all opinions have at least a small amount of bias inherent to them

Bingo, you win the cigar. It is difficult to find data that is not tainted by some sort of bias. In some cases you can though. Take the oil industry. They are not really bias in the research they support. They are just motivated by making money. But the individual researches far to often seem to be bias toward evolution or creationism or something.

 

[Superman53142]

Not sure, but you seem to be implying that "evolutionist" holds some religious belief or is akin to atheism. If this is the case, then why are their "evolutionists" - pronounced "mainstream biologists" who are Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Hindu, etc. If the acceptance of evolution was based on religious beliefs, I would think that this would not be the case.

Regardless of what I may have subconciously implied, I do not believe evolutionists are atheists I myself believe in micro-evolution. More forthcoming...

Also, this thread, should you choose to read it, is dealing with geology. Evolution deals with biology. Of course, we also have Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Hindu, etc geologists who have no problem accepting the evidence that convincingly shows the earth to be old. Science is agnostic, hense the difficulty of anyone being able to show a geologist who is led by the evidence to believe the earth to be young independently of any religious beliefs or convictions.

That was a "my bad." Call it a Freudlian slip to declare evolution the opposite of YEC.

I question your assertion and do not believe it is valid. Science is agnostic and the explainations given by geology and biology are agnostic as well and can be verified and supported by evidence independent of any preconceived religious notions.

Point taken. I concede that the argument holds no significant bearing in this instance, but will continue to discuss it if the thread-starter doesn't mind the hijacking of his thread. I do, however, disagree with your argument that "science is agnostic." Evidence, in itself, is quite agnostic, as it mearly records what took place. Science, however, offers, as you say, an "explanation," and as that explanation is formulated by humans, I submit that our past knowledge and experience heavily biases our conclusions. Still, a technicality. I was mearly attempting to make the only feasible objection to your challenge, which was to complain on a technicality

I have nothing further to add

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

As I have not yet read through the entire thread, someone may have already mentioned this fact. However, I can not help but note that it is also highly unlikely that you will find an evolutionist who can state his opinion independent of any religious beliefs.

As Notto has already pointed out science is agnostic. Christian geologists falsified the young earth and global flood more than 150 years ago. There are geologists of every religious faith who accept the overwhelming evidence for an ancient earth and against a worldwide flood. The only geologists who claim that there is evidence for a young earth and global flood are fundamentalists in the Judeo-Christian tradition. YECs claim there is scientific evidence for their religious beliefs but for some reason only they can see it. Pete's point is that if there really is such evidence YECs should be able to find at least one geologist who looked at the evidence without a prexisting religious bias and concluded that the evidence pointed to a young earth and global flood. Apparently none exist. It is easy to find individuals who eventually accepted the evidence for an ancient earth in spite of their religious beliefs. Davis Young and Glenn Morton come to mind and there are others including the late 18th and early 19th century geologists who falsified the young earth and global flood. However, only those already thoroughly indoctrinated in a literal interpretation of Genesis seem to able to see the alleged evidence for YEC. Why is this? Could it be because there is no real evidence for YEC? That would seem to be the logical conclusion.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Btw, just to clarify the opening post, I'm not specifically looking for a geologist who subscribes to the YEC age of the Earth (6000-10000 years). It could be a geologist who thinks the Earth is 1 million years old, 15 billion years old or whatever.

The issue, really, is if there is any dissent on the age of the Earth among geologists, but that is not obviously derived from religious beliefs, as opposed to empirical evidence.

 

[Superman53142]

Frumious, I appreciate your lengthly argument in support of an ancient earth, and agree John may continue to argue in favor of YEC, but if he chooses not to, and no one else comes in to support YEC per the terms of the challenge, I propose that we either a) desert the thread, or b) discuss one of the side arguments that has cropped up throughout the thread. I hate to see anyone wasting their time convincing me, or anyone else for that matter, of something already believed

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Well, I was kinda hoping NebraskaMan would show up for this thread, since the last time I posted this (just before the crash), he had promised examples "soon".

 

[Jet Black]

John may continue to argue in favor of YEC, but if he chooses not to, and no one else comes in to support YEC per the terms of the challenge,

it isn't supporting YEC wihthout any religious convictions, as that would be almost impossible by definition (since one has to believe in a creator in order to believe in creationism), all he wants is a geologist who independently things the earth is not about 4.5 billion years old. that shoudln't be hard to find if the evidence is as debatable as many claim it is. Consider something like physics, there are a multitude of people who believe in something like superstrings, but there are alot that think that this is wrong and are looking at other theories, the area is open to debate even within the community. but this simply doesn't exist within geology as far as wI know, except for people who attempt to mould their results around some pre-formed notion of how old the earth is. there are probably many subjects in geology that are debated on within the community, but the age of the earth just isn't one of them.

 

[notto]

Science, however, offers, as you say, an "explanation," and as that explanation is formulated by humans, I submit that our past knowledge and experience heavily biases our conclusions.

This is why scientific studies rely on
a) natural explainations (no miracles need apply)
b) repeatability of observations and data collection
c) peer review for faulty or biased assumptions

Science is self correcting. Any major theory in geology, biology, and physics that has not been falsified has submitted to the above and continues to hold. They are not based on any individuals bias.

 

[JohnR7]

This is why scientific studies rely on
a) natural explainations (no miracles need apply)
b) repeatability of observations and data collection
c) peer review for faulty or biased assumptions

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

 

[Jet Black]

Science can accept miracles IF there is a formula that is repeatable.

what is miraculous about something you know is going to happen?

oh look, that apple fell.

not exactly a miracle is it?

 

[JohnR7]

there are probably many subjects in geology that are debated on within the community, but the age of the earth just isn't one of them.

They debate the age of the earth all the time. What they do not debate is that the earth has no age. A 6000 year old earth, basicly says that the earth has no age. Or that literally an age took place in a 24 hour day that happened to be 12 hours at the time.

The only way I can figure this to be possible is if God sort of morphed the universe into being. I look at the glaciers and how much material they moved, and wonder: How could that have happened in a day?

Then I look at things like Oil, Limestone and other organicly produced deposits and wonder: How could that have happened in a 24 hour day?

 

[JohnR7]

what is miraculous about something you know is going to happen?

oh look, that apple fell. not exactly a miracle is it?

A miracle can not be explained by natural causes.