Old Earth Geology Part 3 (Green River Formation)

[Job 33:6]

CC: @KomatiiteBIF , @-57

I'm suggesting we are making a lot of assumptions (and refuting those assumptions) in order to discount what is clearly written in scripture.

As a brief step into history...

Suggesting the events written in scripture (albeit written in historical narrative) were in fact not historical but rather allegory for the purposes of teaching a more 'spiritual lesson' is a false teaching that originated with early church fathers who attempted to harmonize what was understood as historical truth by the Jews & what was taught by Christ, and blend that with Greek mythology and the philosophers that had prominently influenced the Greek civilization (in particular, Plato). In Greek mythology and philosophy, the physical was viewed as negative and the spiritual viewed as positive:

"For Plato . . . the body is a hindrance, as it opposes and even imprisons the soul" (Phaedo 65–68; 91–94)

This contrasting view of physical/spiritual is associated with Platonism and is not what is taught in scripture.

Fast-forward about 4 centuries from Plato to early church fathers such as Philo, then later Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, their admiration for the Greek culture and philosophy of Plato (plus I'm sure a desire to see Greek souls won to Christ) led to their synthesizing Greek philosophy into Christianity in order to accommodate the prevalent views of that time. Their writings caught on and in time it was viewed that educated people were considered more qualified to find the bible’s “hidden” meanings in texts that the everyday person would understand as written.

This more 'modern' approach of interpretation (at the time) was embraced by Christian intellectuals as a kind of elitist approach that separated the educated clergy from the 'ignorant' and led to viewing literal interpretations as suspect, while allegorical and symbolic interpretations deemed more
spiritual and intellectually meaningful. That said, there is truth and symbolism in scripture, but this does not mean it also did not actually happen.

Now you often reference Augustine in your posts and he himself was influenced by these early church fathers mentioned above. This is why there is the disconnect from what is written in scripture vs what was taught and believed by the early church fathers... it seems Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc... they all seem to have this otherwise 'naive' view where Jonah really was in the belly of a great fish for 3 days, that there really was Noah and all life really did perish in the judgment, and there really was Adam and Eve... and of early Jewish writings that the Sabbath is on the 7th day because God really worked 6 days and rested from creation on the 7th. Then, when we get to the early church fathers, a different 'truth' is now being taught where these historical accounts are to taught be understood in a seemingly deeper and more 'spiritual' way (allegorical to reveal that hidden truth) that only the elect can understand and not as a historical account as the biblical authors understood.

Fast-forward again a couple of millennia and the views of Augustine have influenced your own views and many others who also support the "allegorization movement" in order to accommodate the scientific (contemporary philosophy) of our day.

All that said, I know you're a 'crabby old white guy' who's not likely going to change his mind. Just as well, I still love you as my brother in Christ.

God bless.

As interesting as all this is, it doesn't address the matter at hand. That being the physical evidence for an ancient earth.

We can talk about ideas over interpretations of scripture all we want, but at the end of the day, we have 5 million varves for which there is no logical explanation but a prehistoric lake influence by glacial melt.

 

[RTP76]

To: @The Barbarian , @KomatiiteBIF
CC: @-57

Apologies for the long post... addressing multiple prior posts.

As Augustine's interpretation is clearly influenced by Platonistic philosophy and in contradiction with what is written by biblical authors, his view that this section of scripture (and others such as Revelation and doctrines of Eschatology) should only be interpreted allegorically is in error.

Similar in thinking to Komatiite, you made the request that I provide you with a case where a passage states it is "literal history" (Komatiite, you'll recall that to disprove your interpretation of Green River formation the presence of Marine fossils would need to be shown). If either of you are presenting your request as if that's the only way to disprove your claim, then you are in error in your thinking, but I'll address Barbarian first.

Barbarian: to begin, no where in any scripture are the words (or the like) "this is to be understood as literal history" so by this line of reasoning, anybody can make any passage of the Bible mean whatever they want it to mean... thus stripping it of any truth and rending it meaningless. Now, the Hebrews did recognize the 7th day of the week as the Sabbath (from the evening to the morning of the following day), so by their actions, they lived out the belief of 6 days of labor followed by a day of rest (Exodus 20:11). And this is all true regardless of your incessant request a sun exist. This is a demonstration that the text is to be understood literally. Further, Genesis 2:4 of the NIV reads as:

"This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."

Written "accounts" aren't given of things that didn't happen. When a witness gives an account in a courtroom, the expectation is that they will be testifying to things that actually (literally) happened. Likewise here, this is an account of things that actually happened.

BTW, how are you able to respond to even my posts... should we just assume you are taking what I write as literally meaning what I write or writing what I literally mean?

Komatiite: I don't know that there would necessarily be marine fossils specifically in the Green River formation or not, as a result of the flood. The account of the flood in the Bible states:

"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it." Genesis 6:17

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened."
Genesis 7:11

Among other passages, that's what can unequivocally be known: God was the cause, the judgment was holistic and that fountains of the great deep burst forth and the windows of the heavens were opened. Beyond that is all speculation/conjecture. What this process looked like and whether it would leave marine fossils in the Green River formation is not something that can be known and your request for it as a demonstration to disprove your interpretation does not seem rationally thought out to its conclusion. The 'matter at hand' you want addressed Komatiite actually is whether you accept the biblical account as truth or yet another imagined allegorical story of things and people that never happened or existed. Oddly enough, Noah and his descendants are listed in the genealogies to Christ... so again, more evidence that this is intended to be understood as a historical/literal account as is evidenced by biblical authors.

As to the alleged 'varves', I'm in agreement with -57 of the assessment these are rhythmites not representing annual cycles. The well-preserved fossils give evidence contradicting the interpretation of annual cycles. Further studies have shown that even in anaerobic environments, flesh on fish begins decaying within just days (before a week is up). Further, marine fossils are found 'out of place' in every rock strata around the world, so while perhaps marine fossils have not yet been discovered in the Green River formation, this does not eclipse the overarching pattern seen most everywhere else.

In order to support your interpretation Komatiite, you keep going into very specific conditions/requirements... you say, "if the flood happened, then we'd see evidence of exactly this... or if millions of years had passed then we'd see precisely that... and 'that' is what we see so we know... etc... etc..." but we all know you've never observed any process for millions of years and I've just shown that the Bible doesn't give many details such that you can validly claim what the flood would or would not have exactly done. This is really just an exercise of going into someone's mind (yours in this case) of imaged events resulting in imagined geological processes, resulting in imagined outcomes (evidence).

As for creation scientists, they're not all in agreement on interpretation of the geological data either... some suggest the lamination occurred during the flood while others are post-flood. The rhythmites may have formed rapidly during the flood possibly by turbidity currents... or maybe the rapid separation of particles of different sizes, shapes and densities in areas of lower currents. That may be how it played out... but maybe not. Ultimately the flood is not known to have occurred by the degree of error in our interpretations of the evidence, but by the truth and account of it having occurred as written in God's word... I hope you're seeing that theme re-emerging in my posts.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian: to begin, no where in any scripture are the words (or the like) "this is to be understood as literal history"

Not even remotely like that. But as early Christians realized, the text itself shows that the days of Genesis were not literal days; logically absurd to imagine mornings and evenings before a sun existed.

so by this line of reasoning, anybody can make any passage of the Bible mean whatever they want it to mean.

If they ignore the text and what it says. But you'll need to talk to the YE creationists about that.

 

[The Barbarian]

Written "accounts" aren't given of things that didn't happen. When a witness gives an account in a courtroom, the expectation is that they will be testifying to things that actually (literally) happened.

Unless their account is not true. An account can be figurative or even wrong. So that won't help YE doctrines, either.

If I say "it was raining cats and dogs yesterday." My account of the weather would be in this case both true and figurative.

 

[Job 33:6]

"As to the alleged 'varves', I'm in agreement with -57 of the assessment these are rhythmites not representing annual cycles. The well-preserved fossils give evidence contradicting the interpretation of annual cycles. Further studies have shown that even in anaerobic environments, flesh on fish begins decaying within just days (before a week is up). Further, marine fossils are found 'out of place' in every rock strata around the world, so while perhaps marine fossils have not yet been discovered in the Green River formation, this does not eclipse the overarching pattern seen most everywhere else."

Here is the bread and butter.

As you will have read, varves are rhythmites. But further, even if hypothetically 2 formed per year, as suggested by -57, you would still have 2.5 million years of rhythmites, which is far too old for any young earth belief.

Well preserved fossils are evidence of rapid burial, but do not contradict the deposition of annual varves as rates of burial varies from location to location as we know. Further, the fact that there are footprints, feeding traces and fecal deposits world wide and in this formation, further demonstrates that time passed, long enough for animals to walk around and to live regular lives. Contrary to the idea that all life was instantly buried by giant waves.

The key point is that in uniformitarianism, we have things like avalanches, rock slides, rock topples, mud slides, tsunamis, hurricanes, and many other events that occur regularly around earth that rapidly deposit sediment. So we understand how some life is rapidly buried. But further, we have fossils in earth and geologic features that demonstrate an extraordinary passage of time. We have feeding traces, foot tracks, nests with eggs, complex burrow networks etc. That all demonstrate the passage of time in every period of time throughout the geologic record going back over 600 million years.

And it is the latter features that young earthers are incapable of accounting for.

The statement you made:
" marine fossils are found 'out of place' in every rock strata around the world,"-RTP

This simply isn't true. You're perfectly welcome to justify your claim. I'll be waiting.

The other statement:
"Further studies have shown that even in anaerobic environments, flesh on fish begins decaying within just days"

If you believe this, then present the research, otherwise I would again suggest that this is not true.

We know that life can be rapidly buried, and we know that certain environments provide ideal forms of fossil preservation. And there is a mountain of research to back this up whether you're willing to accept it or not.

 

[-57]

Contrary to the idea that all life was instantly buried by giant waves.

That would be considered as a type of strawman argument.