Not teaching Darwinism child abuse?

[Jig]

Is not an assumption used in science or in any dating methods. You are confusing it with methodological naturalism, which is not only fully compatible with Christianity, but more so is an originally Christian idea. I have the same problem with ontological naturalism you do, but that doesn't have anything to do with dating methods.

I am confused by this statement. All forms of naturalism require that a hypothesis be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events. Naturalism is the principle assumption underlying all of modern science.

As for the various dating methods, you are correct - naturalism has nothing to do with the results created by these methods. However, naturalism is one of the assumptions that critically supports the foundation in which these results are read and interpreted.

A supernatural event occurring in the past is not seen as a supernatural event when interrupting the physical evidence through the philosophy of naturalism. It must instead be interrupted wrongly as a natural event. This interpretation will be hugely dissimilar to what actually happened. Accordingly, when interpreting the results of any dating process, this philosophy restricts any possible supernatural explanations.

Can science be done outside of the methodologies of naturalism and materialism?

Is the assumption we discussed earlier, that the physical laws we observe being constant in all places and times we test them are constant in all places and times. While that is an assumption, it is at least the most conservative assumption possible. To understand the data any other way, as you apparently are arguing for, jig, is to assume that that the physical laws we observe being constant in all places and times we test them are changed in places and times into specific other values jig has chosen, which have never been measured anywhere, at any time. I'll point out that my assumption(blue) is not a huge assumption compared to yours (in brown).

I am glad you see that it is an assumption. As for it being the "most conservative" assumption. That is your fallible opinion.

If the stories of Creation, the Fall, and the Flood found in the book of Genesis were literal events, would uniformitarianism still be the "most conservative" assumption to make when dating rocks?

By what exactly do you mean here? That everything is gradual? That's certainly not assumed - the K-T extinction is anything but gradual, as are many other things found by science. You'll have to be more clear about this assumption before it's clear what your objecting to.

In the natural sciences, gradualism is a theory which holds that profound change is the cumulative product of slow but continuous processes. Obviously, it is safe to assume that things CAN occur this way, the problem is not knowing when to properly apply this assumption - since supernatural events have occurred in the past. Gradualism is contrasted with a belief that God is responsible for some of the profound changes are world has experienced.

Again, you'll have to be more clear. Darwinism is used in a number of different ways by different people. If you mean the idea that some species evolve from other species, I think we agree on that being a fact, so it must not be that.

So its a proven fact that humans evolved from tetrapods? So no assumptions are being made here?

Jig,(question 1) do you recognize that scientific evidence, and the determination of a "fact" do not require that a person witness the original occurance being studied?

This question down plays the importance of observation in scientific research.

The scientific method does not and cannot work for the forensic sciences in its standard form because it does not work for past events. Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally.

The scientific method requires observations of nature to formulate and test hypotheses. It consists of these steps:
1. Asking a question about a natural phenomena
2. Making observations of the phenomenon
3. Hypothesizing an explanation for the phenomenon
4. Predicting a logical consequence of the hypothesis
5. Testing the hypothesis by an experiment, an observational study, or a field study
6. Creating a conclusion with data gathered in the experiment

Observation plays a role in the second and fifth steps.

Does this mean I am against forensic science? No. Especially since I don't believe supernatural events are occurring at crime scenes. But I do feel it has shortcomings.

I'll have to answer the rest of your questions later. School work is calling me.

 

[Assyrian]

Should I believe God or you?

Exodus 20:11 (KJV)
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:

Not everything in the bible is literal. Not even in the ten commandments. Have a look at the same commandment in Deuteronomy.
Deut 5:13 Six days you shall labour and do all your work,
14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.
15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.
God brought the Israelites out by literally stretching out his arm?

 

[Jig]

question #3 - Do you recognize that dedrochronology is independent, and that varves are independent, and that speleotherms are independent, and that coral is independent?

Independent as different individual tests, sure. How their results are interpreted, not so much.

You continue to deny that there is a framework.

Clare Patterson in 1956 produced an isochron using the lead isotope ratios measured in five meteorites, giving an age of 4.55 billion years. He claimed these meteorites were all left over fragments from the accretion of the earth, and thus claimed 4.55 billion was the age of the earth. At the time, famous geochronologist Arthur Holmes said that using meteorites to calculate the age of the earth was ‘unsound in principle’. That’s because the meteorites raise a host of unknowns about their origin and history, unknowns which are impossible to resolve by observation. If there is no genetic relationship between meteorites and the earth then the result is meaningless. Holmes said that the correct method was to use terrestrial materials but there doesn't appear to be any primordial rocks left on the earth.

Nevertheless, Patterson’s number quickly became the consensus and it still stands to this day. But today the assumptions that Patterson made about the earth are no longer accepted as valid (e.g. that ocean sediments represent the earth’s average lead composition, and the earth only underwent a single stage differentiation), which means that his calculation is not valid. So why is his number still accepted? One geologist said that his result was fortuitous. It is interesting to consider just how fortuitous it was to get precisely the right age for the earth, to the second decimal point, and to do it by luck, using wrong assumptions.

To me that illustrates how the age of the earth a philosophical issue. From a secular perspective, the age needs to be old enough to allow time for the geological evolution of the earth, and young enough to allow time for the astronomical evolution of the universe. Anywhere between 3 and 7 billion years would be reasonable. It’s also important that the number be precise, believable, convincing and not change from year to year. 4.55 billion has nicely fit the bill.

On top of that, what framework, specifically, alters the measurement of varves? What alters the measurement of dendrochronolgy? (Q4)

Before the age of the earth (or anything) can be calculated we have to assume its history. Naturalists have their own assumed history, just as Creationists do. It is this assumed Earth history that makes up the backbone of the framework I am discussing.

Calibration and collaboration create attractive consistency among measurements (and also make for pretty graphs), while an old-age framework, and other assumptions, ultimately drive the interpretation of the results.

Admitting your positions is filled with philosophical assumptions is step one. I understand this about my position, while clearly seeing this with current historical and origin sciences. Creation should NOT be taught is science class, it should be taught in philosophy class. The same is true for Darwinianism.

Please, a source from a real journal. You know, one that is peer reviewed. Let's list the request for a real source from a peer reviewed journal as Q5.

That was a real journal. I apologize that its conclusions don't fit into your world view.

Critics of creation and design science often claim that their advocates don't publish their work in appropriate scientific literature. As if the highly biased publishers for these journal would even consider printing articles from creationists.

Other critics (such as you) have made the more specific claim that creation and design advocates do not publish their works in peer-reviewed scientific journals - as if such journals represented the only avenue of legitimate scientific publication.

In fact, scientists routinely publish their work in scientific anthologies, conference proceedings, and in trade presses. Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science was first published not in scientific journal articles but in scientific books -- including Copernicus' De Revolutionibus, Newton's Principia, and Darwin's Origin of Species. In any case, the scientists who advocate the theory of intelligent design and/or creation have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues. Including the journal I cited.

You were claiming that the idea of an old earth is the result of using a "framework" that is anti-Christian. I was pointing out that the fact that the earth is old was first established by Christian, operating explicitly in a Christian framework. Q6 - Do you know about the Rev. Adam Segewick?

I never said the framework was anti-Christian - please provide a quote of me saying this. You only provided a logical fallacy.

I will state, however, that an old-age framework goes against the literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis.

 

[Papias]

Jig, thanks for continuing this discussion, though it looks like we both had to skip back over pages of stuff!

Jig wrote:

I am confused by this statement. All forms of naturalism require that a hypothesis be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events.

OK, let's look at the difference between ontological naturalism and methodological naturalism.

Ontological naturalism is the belief that only the natural world exists, and that there is no supernatural god or gods. It is roughly equal to atheism, and is NOT required in science. In fact a huge chunk of scientists explicitly believe in God.

That's completely different from METHODOLOGICAL naturalism. Methodological naturalism means that one tests for natural explanations first, and if those have sufficient evidence, then supernatural explanations are superfluous (not that they are excluded). An example - if you woke up and your bedroom was freezing, you'd check the furnace, and the thermostat, see if they are turned on, have electric power, have a clear and not clogged filter, aren't set to a cold temperature, etc. You'd do all of those before you conducted an exorcism to scare away the god of cold air. That's methodological naturalism, and that's how we all operate every day on most things. That's also all that is required in science.

There are plenty of questions for which there isn't good evidence of a natural cause - such as "how do our minds give rise to our feeling of being happy". For questions where there isn't evidence, it's perfectly fine to invoke the supernatural. It's not science, but that's OK.

In the case of the age of fossils and the earth, there is tons of clear, unabiguous, and cross-confirmed evidence, so invoking a supernatural creation 6,000 years ago is like doing an exorcism to scare away the god of cold air before first checking the furnace. Methodological naturalism is not atheistic any more than math is. After all, 1+1 =2 doesn't include God anywhere, does it?

Naturalism is the principle assumption underlying all of modern science.

No, METHODOLOGICAL naturalism is the principle assumption underlying all of modern science. Ontological naturalism or materialism are not required, and are rejected by hundreds of thousands of scientists. Scientists, like the general population, include a huge chunk of Christians, as well as Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintos, and so on. Those many scientists who believe in a god or gods see no problem between their faith and their science, because their isn't one.

However, naturalism is one of the assumptions that critically supports the foundation in which these results are read and interpreted.

No, it isn't. It is the assumption that allows you do even do the analysis. Let's say that one afternoon I find a clock under a fallen branch that reads 12:04. If I first look at natural causes (the branch fell and broke the clock around 12:04), I can interpret the evidence. If I don't first look at natural causes, then anything could be my conclusion, such as:

• Zeus created a clock and put it under a branch
• The cosmic egg gave birth to a branch, which then gave birth to a clock
• Vishnu transformed himself into a branch, and wanted a clock to rest on, so Brahma created a clock couch for him
• and so on (either of us could make hundreds of these).......

Methodological naturalism excludes nothing, it only says that natural causes are looked at first, and only those solutions are called science.

I am glad you see that it is an assumption. As for it being the "most conservative" assumption. That is your fallible opinion.

No, it's "most conservative" because it requires no further evidence. Your assumption - that "the physical laws we observe being constant in all places and times we test them are changed in places and times into specific other values jig has chosen, which have never been measured anywhere, at any time." Is less conservative because it is making a claim about an unknown in contradiction to the evidence we have. Please don't blame me for the rule of logic.

A supernatural event occurring in the past is not seen as a supernatural event when interrupting the physical evidence through the philosophy of naturalism.

It is not "forced" to be a natural event. Rather, any evidence that is to be tested by the scientific method relies on methodological naturalism, because those are the only ones you can actually test. You can't physically test the hypothesis that Zarathustra warped time because it's outside of the ability of a physical scientist to create supernatural conditions in the lab. It's perfectly OK for the scientist to say "we don't know what happened here", as they say all time, and then to speculate about supernatural causes.

In the natural sciences, gradualism is a theory which holds that profound change is the cumulative product of slow but continuous processes. Obviously, it is safe to assume that things CAN occur this way, the problem is not knowing when to properly apply this assumption

No, gradualism is a good starting point because we see that all the time. Non-gradual events are perfectly fine to hypothesize too. After wall, was not the K-T event "Profound Change"? It's hard to imagine changes much more profound than that. The changes of the K-T even are on the order of those proposed by Noah's flood.

So its a proven fact that humans evolved from tetrapods? So no assumptions are being made here?

Yes, it is. Our vertebrate ancestry is as well an established fact, based on more lines of evidence, than is the fact that the Roman Empire existed. The only the assumption is that the physical laws we see operating today operated then. There are plenty of reasonable conclusions, like "a backbone likely contained a spinal cord", and so on.

Jig,(question 1) do you recognize that scientific evidence, and the determination of a "fact" do not require that a person witness the original occurance being studied?

This question down plays the importance of observation in scientific research.

The scientific method does not and cannot work for the forensic sciences in its standard form because it does not work for past events. Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally.

The scientific method requires observations of nature to formulate and test hypotheses. It consists of these steps:
1. Asking a question about a natural phenomena
2. Making observations of the phenomenon
3. Hypothesizing an explanation for the phenomenon
4. Predicting a logical consequence of the hypothesis
5. Testing the hypothesis by an experiment, an observational study, or a field study
6. Creating a conclusion with data gathered in the experiment

Observation plays a role in the second and fifth steps.

Does this mean I am against forensic science? No.

The scientific method does not require direct observation of whatever is being studied, it simply requires making and testing a prediction. For instance, in the case of OJ:

1. Might OJ have killed her?
2. Observe blood stains, flight information, gloves, etc.
3. Hypothesize that OJ killed her,
4. Predict that if OJ killed her, OJ's DNA will be found in the blood.
5. Test the blood for OJ's DNA
6. Support the hypothesis if OJ's DNA is found, reject it if not.

See? The prediction need not be an observation of the phenomena, or else we could never scientifically study most things, as described before.

Especially since I don't believe supernatural events are occurring at crime scenes.

How could you possibly say you have any clue about when or where supernatural events can or can't happen? What possible reason can you give for your belief that crime scenes are "supernatural event free" zones? Does that apply only to felonies, or does the commission of a misdemeanor also cast a "supernatural event free" zone? How wide is the zone? If my neighbor gets a parking ticket, then drives home, should I cancel my seance?

Yes, all that is me being silly. However, it's being silly to make a point, and that point is that by looking at natural causes first at crime scenes, operating under methodological naturalism, just as we all do, in every aspect of our lives - there is nothing wrong nor anti-christian about methodological naturalism.

(continued)
​

 

[Papias]

(from before)

question #3 - Do you recognize that dedrochronology is independent, and that varves are independent, and that speleotherms are independent, and that coral is independent?
​

Independent as different individual tests, sure. How their results are interpreted, not so much.

How does one test influence the other, especially when the two (or three or three hundred) tests are being done in different places, without knowledge that the other tests are even being done?

You accidentally didn't see Q2:

Question 2. Do you recognize that the description of dendrochronology using the idea of an "isolated log" was not correct, and that continuous sets of tree rings reach back through the entire time measured?

You continue to deny that there is a framework.

Clare Patterson in 1956 produced an isochron using the lead isotope ratios measured in five meteorites, giving an age of 4.55 billion years. He claimed these meteorites were all left over fragments from the accretion of the earth, and thus claimed 4.55 billion was the age of the earth. At the time, famous geochronologist Arthur Holmes said that using meteorites to calculate the age of the earth was ‘unsound in principle’. That’s because the meteorites raise a host of unknowns about their origin and history, unknowns which are impossible to resolve by observation. If there is no genetic relationship between meteorites and the earth then the result is meaningless. Holmes said that the correct method was to use terrestrial materials but there doesn't appear to be any primordial rocks left on the earth.

Nevertheless, Patterson’s number quickly became the consensus and it still stands to this day. But today the assumptions that Patterson made about the earth are no longer accepted as valid (e.g. that ocean sediments represent the earth’s average lead composition, and the earth only underwent a single stage differentiation), which means that his calculation is not valid. So why is his number still accepted? One geologist said that his result was fortuitous. It is interesting to consider just how fortuitous it was to get precisely the right age for the earth, to the second decimal point, and to do it by luck, using wrong assumptions.

To me that illustrates how the age of the earth a philosophical issue.

May I ask where you got that from, because it is rife with errors? First, it doesn't matter that one geologist called it "foruitous". What matters is that there are several lines of evidence to give us the age of the earth, none of which require Patterson to ever have existed.

The most egregious error of that description is that it misleads one to think that the current age of the earth was based solely on Patterson's work, without scrutiny then or now. That's misleading at best, outright lying at worst - not that you would intentionally do that, but whoever you got this from did.

Let's look at just some of the evidence for the age of the earth.

((font change due to my switching here to type this in a word document first because I hate it when it doesn't load right or something and I end up losing the whole thing))

First, remember that the formation of a planet the size of the earth would have taken some time, so what you are quoting as 4.5 billion years is the age of the solar accretion disk.

For here, there are many rocks on earth that give an age, by a variety of radioactive methods. The Jack hills in Australia date to 4.4 billion years, for instance. No rocks on earth have been found to have an age older than 4.6 billion years when their ages have been measured (and literally millions of rocks have been tested, from thousands of locations around the globe).

Plus, samples from the moon give an age of 4.5 billion years also.

Samples from dozens of meteors, from many different scientists in different countries tested by Sm-Nd, Re-Os, Pb-Pb, and Ar-Ar radioactive methods, as well as by dislocation track dating (not a radioactive method). All of those hundreds of tests give an age of 4.4 to 4.6 billion years.

Add to this the helioseismic dating of the Sun (which measures the age of the sun based on vibration relaxation using the equations dictated by standard acoustic physics – no “interpretation” needed), also gives an age of 4.5 billion years. And yes, I can give references in peer –reviewed journals for those if you like.

Based on all that, it seems odd to me that your cited paragraph seems to be very misleading at best. Do you agree?

On top of that, what framework, specifically, alters the measurement of varves? What alters the measurement of dendrochronolgy? (Q4)

Before the age of the earth (or anything) can be calculated we have to assume its history. Naturalists have their own assumed history, just as Creationists do. It is this assumed Earth history that makes up the backbone of the framework I am discussing.

Calibration and collaboration create attractive consistency among measurements (and also make for pretty graphs), while an old-age framework, and other assumptions, ultimately drive the interpretation of the results.

Why would any assumptions about the history of the earth be needed prior to measuring and dating something? Why not simply directly observed that 1 varve is formed a year, calculated to see if this makes sense, see that it is the unavoidable result from the known laws of physics, and then count the number of varves present, and see that there are several million of them? What possible assumptions are required in that, other than the assumption that the physical laws haven’t changed? How does an old-age framework even enter into the picture, much less “drive the interpretation of the results”?

That was a real journal.

Jig, we both recognize that the publication you cited is not peer reviewed, right? A non peer reviewed publication is not a scientific journal, just as the non-peer reviewed Jehovah’sWitnesses “Watchtower Journal” isn’t a scientific journal.

Critics of creation and design science often claim that their advocates don't publish their work in appropriate scientific literature. As if the highly biased publishers for these journal would even consider printing articles from creationists.

OK, let me get this straight. You are saying that your cited publication, which is put out by a sectarian ministry with a stated position that it won’t consider studies that don’t support it’s predetermined evangelizing method, is less biased than the peer-reviewed, scientific journals of the world, which are staffed by a mix of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, and so on? Really? If so, when which religion are those people of all different religions biased toward?

In fact, scientists routinely publish their work in scientific anthologies, conference proceedings, and in trade presses. Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science was first published not in scientific journal articles but in scientific books -- including Copernicus' De Revolutionibus, Newton's Principia, and Darwin's Origin of Species.

News flash – the initial roots of an idea are irrelevant in science. Let me make up a story. Let’s say that Darwin was a flaming satan worshipper, who, while sacrificing a baby on a black altar, looked at the branching trickles of blood, and thought of the branching family tree of life. He asked his new age crystals if that was right, and because he was completely insane and had been bashed in the head as a child, he heard them say “yes, with that idea you can destroy all that is good and pure, now go out and double park your car to be truly evil!!”, and he did so. Then, on his deathbed, he recanted his idea, and began a nationwide tent revival tour.

OK, if that were the case, then the evidence in favor of evolution would be just as strong, because it is supported by current work, and as in all of science, the circumstances of the original idea are irrelevant. Maybe creationists are the actual “Darwinists”, since they seem to care so much about Darwin himself as the origin of the idea of evolution?

I never said the framework was anti-Christian - please provide a quote of me saying this. You only provided a logical fallacy.

I will state, however, that an old-age framework goes against the literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis.

OK, fair enough. Also, the idea of a beautiful woman not needing to have fruit on her face and livestock on her chest goes against the literal reading of the Song of Solomon. You still didn’t answer Q6.

have a good day-

Papias

 

[Jig]

There are plenty of questions for which there isn't good evidence of a natural cause - such as "how do our minds give rise to our feeling of being happy". For questions where there isn't evidence, it's perfectly fine to invoke the supernatural. It's not science, but that's OK.

In the case of the age of fossils and the earth, there is tons of clear, unabiguous, and cross-confirmed evidence, so invoking a supernatural creation 6,000 years ago is like doing an exorcism to scare away the god of cold air before first checking the furnace. Methodological naturalism is not atheistic any more than math is. After all, 1+1 =2 doesn't include God anywhere, does it?

I am glad you recognize that it is not science. This may be okay to you, but for others it is not.

I fully understand that many scientist's have religious backgrounds. Those who utilize methodological naturalism may believe in God, but this philosophy on how we acquire knowledge will never give them information on anything outside of the natural world. In essence, this philosophy excludes a supernatural God even if the scientists personally believe in a supernatural God. I would call the method atheistic, not necessarily those who practice it atheistic. They must believe in other philosophical ideas alongside naturalism.

Methodological naturalism excludes nothing, it only says that natural causes are looked at first, and only those solutions are called science.

Scientific naturalism as a philosophy does exclude the supernatural. Natural causes are the only thing looked at. This is a limitation.

No, it's "most conservative" because it requires no further evidence. Your assumption - that "the physical laws we observe being constant in all places and times we test them are changed in places and times into specific other values jig has chosen, which have never been measured anywhere, at any time." Is less conservative because it is making a claim about an unknown in contradiction to the evidence we have. Please don't blame me for the rule of logic.

You keep throwing around the word "evidence". I never said there is a contradiction in the evidence. That would be impossible since evidence does not speak for itself. It is our interpretations of the evidence that are examined for contradictions.

It is not "forced" to be a natural event. Rather, any evidence that is to be tested by the scientific method relies on methodological naturalism, because those are the only ones you can actually test. You can't physically test the hypothesis that Zarathustra warped time because it's outside of the ability of a physical scientist to create supernatural conditions in the lab. It's perfectly OK for the scientist to say "we don't know what happened here", as they say all time, and then to speculate about supernatural causes.

Scientist's can say that they don't know what happened, but a natural explanation is still assumed to exist.

Yes, it is. Our vertebrate ancestry is as well an established fact, based on more lines of evidence, than is the fact that the Roman Empire existed. The only the assumption is that the physical laws we see operating today operated then. There are plenty of reasonable conclusions, like "a backbone likely contained a spinal cord", and so on.

So...you say it is a fact, but at the same time agree that a philosophical assumption is needed. Regardless if you feel that this assumption is reasonable to make, it doesn't stop it from being an assumption.

The scientific method does not require direct observation of whatever is being studied

Yes it does. You are suggesting a modified version of the scientific method - that is not the true scientific method.

How could you possibly say you have any clue about when or where supernatural events can or can't happen? What possible reason can you give for your belief that crime scenes are "supernatural event free" zones? Does that apply only to felonies, or does the commission of a misdemeanor also cast a "supernatural event free" zone? How wide is the zone? If my neighbor gets a parking ticket, then drives home, should I cancel my seance?

Yes, all that is me being silly. However, it's being silly to make a point, and that point is that by looking at natural causes first at crime scenes, operating under methodological naturalism, just as we all do, in every aspect of our lives - there is nothing wrong nor anti-christian about methodological naturalism.

I don't believe supernatural events are occurring at crime scenes because I have no good reason to believe such. As for supernatural events in the past, my good reasons lay within my interpretation of the Bible. I have no problem saying this.

I'll continue to the next post later.

 

[Preecher]

A matter of opinion.

To believe otherwise is nonsense. Jesus certainly believed the OT to be literal.

Luke 17:28-30 (KJV)
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

 

[Preecher]

Not everything in the bible is literal. Not even in the ten commandments. Have a look at the same commandment in Deuteronomy.
Deut 5:13 Six days you shall labour and do all your work,
14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.
15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.
God brought the Israelites out by literally stretching out his arm?

There is no reason to believe the creation account is not literal.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

There is no reason to believe the creation account is not literal.

Sure there is, you can't have morning and evening prior to the existence of sun, moon and stars. Where did the water come that God divided between the waters on earth and the waters above the earth? The text doesn't say, but yet right there in Genesis 1:

"And the land was a formless waste and darkness upon the face over the abyss. The Spirit of God hovered upon the face of the waters." - Genesis 1:2

Land is formless and unshapen and there is an abyssal sea.

Where did the land (eretz) come from? Where did the waters (mayim) come from?

The text is mytho-poetic. That doesn't make the text not true, it just makes it not literal.

If I were to take Genesis 1 literally I would be compelled to believe that when God created the heavens and the earth there already existed a primordial earth and a primordial sea which God then worked from through the act of creation.

Genesis 1:2, just so we're clear, if taken literally does not teach a creation ex nihilo. The Young Earth Creationist who says they take Genesis 1 literally and also says they believe God created ex nihilo is contradicting themselves. A literal reading of Genesis 1:2 contradicts a creation ex nihilo.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Preecher]

Sure there is, you can't have morning and evening prior to the existence of sun, moon and stars. Where did the water come that God divided between the waters on earth and the waters above the earth? The text doesn't say, but yet right there in Genesis 1:

"And the land was a formless waste and darkness upon the face over the abyss. The Spirit of God hovered upon the face of the waters." - Genesis 1:2

Land is formless and unshapen and there is an abyssal sea.

Where did the land (eretz) come from? Where did the waters (mayim) come from?

The text is mytho-poetic. That doesn't make the text not true, it just makes it not literal.

If I were to take Genesis 1 literally I would be compelled to believe that when God created the heavens and the earth there already existed a primordial earth and a primordial sea which God then worked from through the act of creation.

Genesis 1:2, just so we're clear, if taken literally does not teach a creation ex nihilo. The Young Earth Creationist who says they take Genesis 1 literally and also says they believe God created ex nihilo is contradicting themselves. A literal reading of Genesis 1:2 contradicts a creation ex nihilo.

-CryptoLutheran

When you get it all figured out let us know. Until then I'll believe what God said.

Exodus 20:11 (KJV)
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:

 

[Assyrian]

There is no reason to believe the creation account is not literal.

Have you looked? One thing we learned from our look at the ten commandments is that metaphors crop up in places literalist least expect them. Personally I would say there are plenty of reasons to think the creation accounts in Genesis are not literal, not least is the fact we know the earth is billions of years old. You also have two completely different sequences of creation in chapters 1 & 2, that hardly fits creation accounts that are meant to be literal. If Genesis was literal then the messiah was supposed to step on the snake's head and get bitten on his heel. We don't read about Jesus doing any of this in the gospels, though if Genesis was speaking figuratively, then Jesus wonderfully fulfilled this messianic prophecy on the cross. It wasn't a snake he defeated though. I only know of one tree that can give us everlasting life, It wasn't a fruit tree growing in Eden, it was the wooden cross Jesus died on outside Jerusalem.

 

[Preecher]

Have you looked? One thing we learned from our look at the ten commandments is that metaphors crop up in places literalist least expect them. Personally I would say there are plenty of reasons to think the creation accounts in Genesis are not literal, not least is the fact we know the earth is billions of years old.

So you're saying you have more faith in scientists than the Bible?

You also have two completely different sequences of creation in chapters 1 & 2, that hardly fits creation accounts that are meant to be literal.

Did you discover that yourself or did someone else persuade you?

If Genesis was literal then the messiah was supposed to step on the snake's head and get bitten on his heel. We don't read about Jesus doing any of this in the gospels, though if Genesis was speaking figuratively, then Jesus wonderfully fulfilled this messianic prophecy on the cross. It wasn't a snake he defeated though. I only know of one tree that can give us everlasting life, It wasn't a fruit tree growing in Eden, it was the wooden cross Jesus died on outside Jerusalem.

Using the obviously non-literal accounts to disprove the obviously literal makes a mockery of the Bible.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

When you get it all figured out let us know. Until then I'll believe what God said.

Exodus 20:11 (KJV)
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:

I believe what God said too. Clearly then the issue isn't with what God said but how we read and interpret what God said.

Now, if you'd be so kind, where did the land and water from Genesis 1:2 come from. Taking the narrative literally, of course.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jig]

How does one test influence the other, especially when the two (or three or three hundred) tests are being done in different places, without knowledge that the other tests are even being done?

It is not the tests themselves that necessarily influence each other rather it is the philosophical assumptions that influence the interpretation of the results - even before the tests are preformed.

You accidentally didn't see Q2:

Question 2. Do you recognize that the description of dendrochronology using the idea of an "isolated log" was not correct, and that continuous sets of tree rings reach back through the entire time measured?

This appears to be a loaded question because it really is two questions in one. This is why I skipped it. However, I do not believe I was wrong.

May I ask where you got that from, because it is rife with errors? First, it doesn't matter that one geologist called it "foruitous". What matters is that there are several lines of evidence to give us the age of the earth, none of which require Patterson to ever have existed.

Strange how Patterson came up with the same age for the Earth that modern science predicts using premises that scientists now reject. The only one of his assumptions that is not rejected today is the presupposed historical framework and chronology he used. I bring this story up to show how certain assumptions will form similar interpretations regardless of the tests.

First, remember that the formation of a planet the size of the earth would have taken some time, so what you are quoting as 4.5 billion years is the age of the solar accretion disk.

You are assuming Earth is not the product of special creation.

For here, there are many rocks on earth that give an age, by a variety of radioactive methods.

These rocks don't have an age sticker on them. These test produce results that must be interrupted based on certain assumptions.

Based on all that, it seems odd to me that your cited paragraph seems to be very misleading at best. Do you agree?

I do not feel that I am the one being misleading. I fully understand my position is philosophical and promote it as such. You are promoting your position as fact, when in reality it also is philosophical in nature.

Why would any assumptions about the history of the earth be needed prior to measuring and dating something?

Naturalism requires it. It is impossible for the Earth to have formed, naturally - without supernatural assistance, within a time frame less then 3 to 4 billion years. This means no test result interpreted under the philosophy of naturalism will produce a date that interferes with this. Strange dates are assumed to be contaminated, etc.

Jig, we both recognize that the publication you cited is not peer reviewed, right? A non peer reviewed publication is not a scientific journal, just as the non-peer reviewed Jehovah’sWitnesses “Watchtower Journal” isn’t a scientific journal.

Though I would strongly disagree with some of the theological content within the Watchtower. However, I can not deny that a globally published journal available for all to review and read is not a proper venue to publish such content. It is.

I feel a double standard is created here. Why should it be required that creationists submit their work to be peer reviewed by evolutionists? Do evolutionists submit their work to be peer reviewed by creationists? No.

OK, let me get this straight. You are saying that your cited publication, which is put out by a sectarian ministry with a stated position that it won’t consider studies that don’t support it’s predetermined evangelizing method, is less biased than the peer-reviewed, scientific journals of the world, which are staffed by a mix of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, and so on?

Of course my publication is biased toward creationism. I don't complain about your sources being biased toward Darwinianism. Bias exists on both sides.

OK, fair enough. Also, the idea of a beautiful woman not needing to have fruit on her face and livestock on her chest goes against the literal reading of the Song of Solomon.

I interpret Song of Solomon differently because it is of a different genre. You read potions of the Bible literally too (resurrection of Jesus from the dead, water into wine, etc.) - nothing wrong with a literal interpretation if no literary devices are being used and the genre agrees. We just have a difference on interpretation of the first few Chapters of Genesis. I view it as historical narrative and have valid reasons to do such.

 

[Preecher]

I believe what God said too.

Are you referring to the Bible?

Now, if you'd be so kind, where did the land and water from Genesis 1:2 come from. Taking the narrative literally, of course.

Colossians 1:16 (KJV)
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Are you referring to the Bible?

Yup. I don't deny the inspiration of Holy Scripture. It is God's holy and inspired written word. What I reject is a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, it is a mytho-poetic narrative declaring God as supreme, Creator and that He created things with purpose--in contradistinction to the creation narratives of the Near East such as the Enuma Elish which has creation being a chaotic byproduct of the war of the gods. Genesis 1 summarily dismisses those mythologies by offering a narrative of creation whereby God, the one and only God, creates the heaven and the earth, He is before all things and sets all things into place with order and purpose. It is a theological declaration, not a literal-historical one.

Colossians 1:16 (KJV)
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Amen, God created all things through His Logos, who became incarnate as our Lord Jesus Christ in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Assyrian]

So you're saying you have more faith in scientists than the Bible?

I trust rigorously tested and confirmed studies of the world God created when they contradict subjective and untestable opinions on how scripture should be interpreted. But I am in pretty good company there, when Copernicus showed the earth went round the sun, and people like Kepler and Newton filled out theory showing how gravity could move the planets in their elliptical orbits, the church, Catholic and Protestant abandoned their traditional geocentric interpretations, trusted in the reliability of science, and found new ways to interpret the geocentric passages. Were they wrong?

Did you discover that yourself or did someone else persuade you?

I found it out for myself. You can too, if you simply read Genesis 2 and see what it says without trying to make it fit Genesis 1. When does Genesis 2 tell us God created beasts and birds?

Using the obviously non-literal accounts to disprove the obviously literal makes a mockery of the Bible.

We are back to your opinion again that the six day creation is obviously literal. However, my point did not disprove a literal interpretation of Genesis, you are overstating the argument to try to give yourself grounds to reject it. What I was showing is that the bible is filled with metaphors and parables, often where people least expect them. There is no shortage in scripture either of people mistakenly taking parables and metaphors literally. Remember the parable Nathan told David of the poor man whose pet lamb was stolen? David took the parable completely literally until Nathan told him "you are the man!" 2Sam 12:7. In the New Testament we have Nicodemus thinking Jesus was speaking literally when he said you must be born again, and the disciples in John 6 who left Jesus when they thought he was literally advocating cannibalism.

 

[Jig]

Hmmm...I tried my hardest to stay out of this discussion because I am already in a separate discussion within this same thread. But I can't let this comment get by.

I trust rigorously tested and confirmed studies of the world God created when they contradict subjective and untestable opinions on how scripture should be interpreted.

Rigorously tested, yes. Confirmed? Well, that depends on what you are talking about. Let us review your examples below shall we.

But I am in pretty good company there, when Copernicus showed the earth went round the sun, and people like Kepler and Newton filled out theory showing how gravity could move the planets in their elliptical orbits,

This is all based in operational science. We are learning how something works using observation and experimentation. This cannot be used to support claims based in historical/origin science. The two are not the same.

the church, Catholic and Protestant abandoned their traditional geocentric interpretations, trusted in the reliability of science, and found new ways to interpret the geocentric passages. Were they wrong?

I would agree with what they did. They trusted in operational science. Christians trust this on a daily basis when taking Tylenol for a headache or sending an e-mail to a friend. It is far different trusting in historical/origin science.

"the geocentric passages" This wording is fallacious - it suggests these passages promote geocentric ideas on their own without human interpretation.

I found it out for myself. You can too, if you simply read Genesis 2 and see what it says without trying to make it fit Genesis 1. When does Genesis 2 tell us God created beasts and birds?

The author/s/editor/s of Genesis didn't seem to think these two chapters were contradictory. Why would they want to combine contradictory tales when trying to write a coherent account? Unless you'd like to support the idea that the author didn't care about the intelligibility of his work.

 

[Papias]

Jig wrote:

I fully understand that many scientist's have religious backgrounds. Those who utilize methodological naturalism may believe in God, but this philosophy on how we acquire knowledge will never give them information on anything outside of the natural world. In essence, this philosophy excludes a supernatural God even if the scientists personally believe in a supernatural God. I would call the method atheistic, not necessarily those who practice it atheistic. They must believe in other philosophical ideas alongside naturalism.

It's not "alongside naturalism", since theistic scientists obviously don't believe in ontological naturalism at all. They, just like you, I, and nearly all sane people, operate under methodological naturalism in our daily lives.

Natural causes are the only thing looked at. This is a limitation.

No, it's not. Natural causes are only looked at when one is proposing natural explanations. One can propose and look at supernatural explanations all one wants - just don't do so and say one is practicing methodological naturalism.

​

You keep throwing around the word "evidence". I never said there is a contradiction in the evidence. That would be impossible since evidence does not speak for itself. It is our interpretations of the evidence that are examined for contradictions.

Evidence does speak for itself. If I posit it is raining, and look outside and see it is raining, that's evidence speaking for itself. That's why you cannot say that you have measured evidence of the natural laws being different in another place or time - because it hasn't been measured. That's evidence speaking for itself.

​

Scientist's can say that they don't know what happened, but a natural explanation is still assumed to exist.

What? No it's not. If a scientist says he or she doesn't know, then he or she doesn't know. You don't have to read additional stuff into other's statements. Why do you think that when a scientist who is a Christian says that he or she does't know exactly how Jesus was raised from the dead, that this Christian scientist is assuming that it could only have happened by natural means? After all, a scientist who is a Christian already likely believes in the resurrection and that the resurrection is central to their faith. It sounds like you are saying that scientists can't be Christians.

So...you say it is a fact, but at the same time agree that a philosophical assumption is needed. Regardless if you feel that this assumption is reasonable to make, it doesn't stop it from being an assumption.

The only assumption I've said is needed is that the physical laws we've seen in all times and places measured are the ones operating in all times and places. We all assume that, every day.

If you didn't assume that, then you couldn't be sure that gravity would not reverse at 8 pm tonight. So, if you were going to go for an after dinner walk, you would attach a long rope to yourself and the mailbox at the other end, so that if gravity reversed, you would not fall into space. You assume, like all of us, that the physical laws we see now are constant, or, if not, please explain to me what you do to ensure your safty should gravity reverse.
​

Yes it does. You are suggesting a modified version of the scientific method - that is not the true scientific method.

​

Jig, maybe look into the scientific method yourself. Here is one tutorial: The Scientific Method
​

The problem here is that you have again swallowed the distortions from the creationists, who distort the scientific method so as to attack science. As I've pointed out, most of science would not be possible if one were to use the method you outlined. Remember that in addition to whole fields of science (like anthropology, forensics, autopsies, astronomy, and so on) can't be direclty observed, not to mention the huge amount of science using intruments (gamma-ray detectors, electron microscopes, and so on) where it is not a person observing the phenomenon.

I don't believe supernatural events are occurring at crime scenes because I have no good reason to believe such. As for supernatural events in the past, my good reasons lay within my interpretation of the Bible. I have no problem saying this.

You can say it all you want, but your personal interpretation of the same Bible that you recognize has metaphors in it is not a reason to ignore the evidence from the real world. I hope that you recognize that Genesis itself has clear metaphors in it.
​

 

[Papias]

Originally Posted by Papias

How does one test influence the other, especially when the two (or three or three hundred) tests are being done in different places, without knowledge that the other tests are even being done?
​

Jig wrote

It is not the tests themselves that necessarily influence each other rather it is the philosophical assumptions that influence the interpretation of the results - even before the tests are preformed.

OK, still waiting to see what assumptions those are. So far the only assumption we have is that the physical laws we've seen in all times and places measured are the ones operating in all times and places. We all assume that, every day, as I pointed out before. In fact, even creationists who argue for a global flood assume that, such as when they say there must have been a "water canopy" (if the physical laws were different, then water could have just popped into existance, no canopy needed), and so on. Instead, they use the same assumption, then say scientists aren't justified in using the same assumption.

Question 2. Do you recognize that the description of dendrochronology using the idea of an "isolated log" was not correct, and that continuous sets of tree rings reach back through the entire time measured?

This appears to be a loaded question because it really is two questions in one. This is why I skipped it. However, I do not believe I was wrong.

OK, then let's split it up so you can address each separately:

Question 2a. Do you recognize that the description of dendrochronology using the idea of an "isolated log" was not correct?



Question 2b. Do you recognize that continuous sets of tree rings reach back through the entire time measured?

May I ask where you got that from, because it is rife with errors? First, it doesn't matter that one geologist called it "foruitous". What matters is that there are several lines of evidence to give us the age of the earth, none of which require Patterson to ever have existed.
​

Strange how Patterson came up with the same age for the Earth that modern science predicts using premises that scientists now reject. The only one of his assumptions that is not rejected today is the presupposed historical framework and chronology he used. I bring this story up to show how certain assumptions will form similar interpretations regardless of the tests.

I'll wait to hear from a real geologist about Patterson's assumptions (I would advise you do too, since we've seen creationist distort time and again, and your refusal to explain your source suggests it is a creationist source). At any rate, it doesn't matter, because like my Darwin story, it shows the creationist obsession with the first proposal of an idea, as if that (Patterson and his work) were relevant in any way.

You are assuming Earth is not the product of special creation.

No, I'm not. God could well have used the process of accretion to specially create Earth.

For here, there are many rocks on earth that give an age, by a variety of radioactive methods.
​

These rocks don't have an age sticker on them. These test produce results that must be interrupted based on certain assumptions.

Would not an age sticker need to be in some language, and as such, interpreted? The test results were measured just as your temperature is measured. The only assumption invovled is that the physical laws we've seen in all times and places measured are the ones operating in all times and places, which, as we saw, we all accept. I'm still waiting for the list of any additional assumptions.

I do not feel that I am the one being misleading. I fully understand my position is philosophical and promote it as such

Do you agree that of the many different ways of dating the earth (Ar-Ar- Sm-Nd, Disloc track, Pb-Pb, helioseimic, and so on) done on hundreds of samples in thousands of tests, a story that lists just one of them, and then says it was questionable, so the age of the earth is questionable, is misleading? Is that how you'd describe, say, a medical diagnosis you had to your mother?

. You are promoting your position as fact, when in reality it also is philosophical in nature.

No, as we saw, the age of the earth is based on evidence. That's why the philosophical debates over the age of the earth ended when evidence became available.

It is impossible for the Earth to have formed, naturally - without supernatural assistance, within a time frame less then 3 to 4 billion years. This means no test result interpreted under the philosophy of naturalism will produce a date that interferes with this.

There is no reason why the Earth could not have formed (naturally) in much less than this, well under 2 billion years. And more to the point, many early test results (with flawed methods) did indeed produce ages much less than that.

Strange dates are assumed to be contaminated, etc.

No, they aren't. Contamination is not assumed, but shown based on evidence.

Though I would strongly disagree with some of the theological content within the Watchtower. However, I can not deny that a globally published journal available for all to review and read is not a proper venue to publish such content. It is.

​

OK, Jig, do you understand what the process of peer review is?

I feel a double standard is created here. Why should it be required that creationists submit their work to be peer reviewed by evolutionists? Do evolutionists submit their work to be peer reviewed by creationists? No.

Scientific work is expected to be peer reviewed by those who understand the field invovled. Hindus peer review Christians, Buddhists peer review Muslims, Jews peer review atheists, and so on.

Your objection is the same as complaining:

"I feel a double standard is created here. Why should it be required that flat earthers submit their work to be peer reviewed by globists? Do globists submit their work to be peer reviewed by flat earthers? No.

Of course my publication is biased toward creationism. I don't complain about your sources being biased toward Darwinianism. Bias exists on both sides.

​

So you are still saying that the whole global scientific endeavor, of millions of scientists, of different religions, different backgrounds, different worldviews, and different motivations, are all somehow tied together and biased against creationism? Have you ever tried to herd cats?

And then you maintain that creationists, with fewer than 0.01% of the publications, with practically no support from those trained in the relevant fields, with explicitly stated goals of evangelizing, who are practically all Christian, is on par? Come on.

I interpret Song of Solomon differently because it is of a different genre.

Are you denying that there is plenty of metaphor use in Genesis? Could you please list for me the verse that states that SoS is a different genre? I'm sure you aren't using man's opinion to guide your views.
​

OK, re-posting the questions so they are handy:
(question 1) do you recognize that scientific evidence, and the determination of a "fact" do not require that a person witness the original occurance being studied?

(being discussed, link given)

Question 2a. Do you recognize that the description of dendrochronology using the idea of an "isolated log" was not correct?


Question 2b. Do you recognize that continuous sets of tree rings reach back through the entire time measured?

Jig wanted them split up.


question #3 - Do you recognize that dedrochronology is independent, and that varves are independent, and that speleotherms are independent, and that coral is independent?

Still waiting for assumptions other than that the physical laws we've seen in all times and places measured are the ones operating in all times and places.

what framework, specifically, alters the measurement of varves? What alters the measurement of dendrochronolgy? (Q4)


Q5 - what a real, peer-reviewed journal is. Being discussed above.



Q6 - Do you know about the Rev. Adam Segewick?


(Because an old earth was first worked out in the Christian framework).



Thanks, have a good day -

Papias

​