Scientific proof?

[Dracil]

Mere reversals are so blase.

You're missing the whole element of "Come on, you couldn't possibly have thought of something that silly! Right? ... RIGHT?!"

 

[oncelost]

creation<->scripture
interpretation of creation<->interpretation of scripture.

We hold that there can be no conflict at the upper level of creation<->scripture.

But there can be and are conflicts at the lower level of interpretation of creation<->interpretation of scripture. Such conflicts are inevitable given our partial and incomplete understanding of both creation and scripture.

In this case we need to look at what flaws there may be in both interpretations, not just in the interpretation of creation. It also follows that if the flaw is not to be found in the interpretation of creation, it must be found in the interpretation of scripture.

But this is not a disagreement with scripture (which exists on the higher level) but with an interpretation of scripture which is just as human and fallible as an interpretation of creation.

YECists, for their own purposes, refuse to recognize this distinction and equate a disagreement with their interpretation of scripture as a disagreement with scripture itself. And they similarly refuse to recognize the harmony of scientific interpretations of creation with the God-given properties of creation itself.

Seriously, I can't say we're in the same sub-camp, but you do have a very logical and refreshing way of explaining foundational points. I'd say there are some YECists who, albeit with good intentions, take the position stated in you last paragraph and give rise to being good straw men. But could you give an example of what you see as a YECist "refus[ing] to recognize the harmony of scientific interpretations of creation with the God-given properties of creation itself ?"

 

[oncelost]

Mere reversals are so blase.

Touche. What's good for the goose...

You're missing the whole element of "Come on, you couldn't possibly have thought of something that silly! Right? ... RIGHT?!"

Obviously. Your wit is too esoteric for me.

 

[Dracil]

It's just one of those "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" things

 

[vossler]

And here is where the hypocrisy of YECists is most evident.

We have from God two revelations:

1. creation
2. scripture

Both of these revelations require human interpretation.

So we have four elements altogether:

1a. creation
1b. human interpretation of creation

2a. scripture
2b. human interpretation of scripture

What YECists do is assume that 2b (their human interpretation of scripture) is equivalent to 2a (scripture). At the same time they assume that 1b (human intepretation of creation) is not equivalent to 1a (creation). Hence they conclude that 1b (human description of creation) contradicts 2a (scripture).

But this is to confuse the issue. The correct conclusion is that 1b (human description of creation) contradicts 2b (their human interpretation of scripture.)

By substituting 2a (scripture) for 2b (their interpretation of scripture) they totally avoid the crucial question. Does 1b (human interpretation of creation) agree with 1a (creation)?

Gluadys, that is quite an interesting and well thought out comparison. I must say as much as we always seem to disagree, I do like your style. Unfortunately, it’s based solely on man and his ability to reason and use logic to come to his conclusions.

Still, I’m intrigued enough to say I’ll play along and follow your rules just to prove a point. I hope you won’t object to my use of scripture to state what creation says. I hope you find it applicable.

So, here are your basic ground rules.

1a. creation
1b. human interpretation of creation

2a. scripture
2b. human interpretation of scripture

For clarity and simplicity I’m going use Psalm 19 1-4 to describe God’s creation.

1a. Creation says: The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.

1b. Human (theistic evolutionists) basic interpretation of creation say God created in 4.5 billion years and that mammals evolved from reptiles, reptiles from amphibians, amphibians from fish etc.

2a. Scripture says: “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.” “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.”

At this point I wish to point out that no human interpretation of scripture has occurred. Now, let’s put in the human interpretation of said scripture.

2b. In six days God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. He also created animals according to their kind.

Given what I’ve shown above, 2a and 2b are one in the same and therefore do render 1b false. In addition, I will state that 1a creation and 2a scripture are one in the same; for to do otherwise would be calling God a liar because God cannot contradict Himself.

So with this point secured, all other arguments made fall in the face of these truths.

As rmwilliamsll has pointed out several times, we get confusion when we don't keep the proper levels of comparison in mind. The correct parallels are:

creation<->scripture
interpretation of creation<->interpretation of scripture.

We hold that there can be no conflict at the upper level of creation<->scripture.

I would certainly hold to that myself given what I said above.

But there can be and are conflicts at the lower level of interpretation of creation<->interpretation of scripture. Such conflicts are inevitable given our partial and incomplete understanding of both creation and scripture.

Of course there are conflicts here if we don’t hold to the same upper level understanding. I think here is an area where there is an essential difference. It is my belief that, first and foremost, the Bible tells me the basics about creation, not man. With that as my foundation everything else is rather simple. Does science correspond or agree with the Bible, if not there is something wrong with science.

 

[Critias]

Well said Vossler, well said!

 

[gluadys]

Since, in this thread, we're playing fast and loose with the rules of quotation:



Reversed.

Ah, but will it reverse as well when you actually have to present the evidence?

 

[gluadys]

Seriously, I can't say we're in the same sub-camp, but you do have a very logical and refreshing way of explaining foundational points. I'd say there are some YECists who, albeit with good intentions, take the position stated in you last paragraph and give rise to being good straw men. But could you give an example of what you see as a YECist "refus[ing] to recognize the harmony of scientific interpretations of creation with the God-given properties of creation itself ?"

The first one that comes to mind is the refusal to recognize the validity of radiometric dating. This is based on the properties of sub-atomic particles---basic physics which is the foundation of all material existence.

Ironically, they will point to the "fine-tuning" of the universe which makes it habitable for humans. Yet when the very same properties are used as a principle for dating, considerations of fine-tuning are tossed aside because they must disagree with the test results. But you can't have it both ways. The behaviour of electrons and atoms that suggests anthropic principles and the behaviour of electrons and atoms that permits accurate radiometric dating are one and the same. You can't have one without the other.

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys, that is quite an interesting and well thought out comparison. I must say as much as we always seem to disagree, I do like your style. Unfortunately, it’s based solely on man and his ability to reason and use logic to come to his conclusions.

And what other animal consistently uses reason and logic to come to conclusions? You do know that Christian theologians generally identified precisely these qualities as a mark of the image of God in human nature, don't you? And you do know that according to St. Paul--and many theologians after him--that rational logic is sufficient to establish the existence of a divine creator, even though the scriptures are needed to tell us of the acts, purpose and character of God.

Still, I’m intrigued enough to say I’ll play along and follow your rules just to prove a point. I hope you won’t object to my use of scripture to state what creation says. I hope you find it applicable.

For clarity and simplicity I’m going use Psalm 19 1-4 to describe God’s creation.

1a. Creation says: The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.

A beautiful passage of scripture. But you correctly identify it as "a description of God's creation". Hence its proper place is 1b not 1a. This is a text, not creation itself. It is an interpretation of what creation is saying.

1b. Human (theistic evolutionists) basic interpretation of creation say God created in 4.5 billion years and that mammals evolved from reptiles, reptiles from amphibians, amphibians from fish etc.

And this intepretation is completely compatible with the intepretation of Psalm 19 above. There is no place they come in conflict.

2a. Scripture says: “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.” “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.”

Right.

At this point I wish to point out that no human interpretation of scripture has occurred. Now, let’s put in the human interpretation of said scripture.

2b. In six days God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. He also created animals according to their kind.

But this is only a repetition of the text, not an interpretation of the text. What you have neglected to include is the YECist interpretation that the six-days were historical solar days.

Given what I’ve shown above, 2a and 2b are one in the same and therefore do render 1b false. In addition, I will state that 1a creation and 2a scripture are one in the same; for to do otherwise would be calling God a liar because God cannot contradict Himself.

Yes, 1a and 2a are, by definition, in agreement since both owe their existence to God's action. The conflict is always on the level of 1b and 2b where human interpretation comes into play.

What you have shown is that you have difficulty in properly identifying the interpretation of something as opposed to the thing being interpreted. In reference to creation you identified an interpretation of creation as creation itself, and in reference to scripture you assumed an interpretation as part of scripture rather than distinguishing it as an interpretation.

It is my belief that, first and foremost, the Bible tells me the basics about creation, not man. With that as my foundation everything else is rather simple. Does science correspond or agree with the Bible, if not there is something wrong with science.[/size][/font]

The bible tells us some basics about creation: principally that nature is a creation and owes its existence to a Creator. But you err in thinking it is simple to determine if science agrees with the bible. What is simple is to determine if science agrees or disagrees with your understanding of the bible. But to complete the circuit, we need also to determine if your understanding of the bible is the only correct interpretation of the text.

 

[vossler]

And what other animal consistently uses reason and logic to come to conclusions? You do know that Christian theologians generally identified precisely these qualities as a mark of the image of God in human nature, don't you? And you do know that according to St. Paul--and many theologians after him--that rational logic is sufficient to establish the existence of a divine creator, even though the scriptures are needed to tell us of the acts, purpose and character of God.

My point here was, and continues to be, that man's reasoning and logic cannot and will not ever know the mind of God. It is beyond his capabilities, just as creation is beyond human understanding. The sooner we humans understand that the better.

A beautiful passage of scripture. But you correctly identify it as "a description of God's creation". Hence its proper place is 1b not 1a. This is a text, not creation itself. It is an interpretation of what creation is saying.

You insist on holding creation itself as a totally separate revelation, that isn't accountable to God's own Word. By doing so it gives you the latitude to use Scriptures like Psalm 19 which describe the wonder of creation while minimizing or changing those that specifically make direct claims concerning it.

But this is only a repetition of the text, not an interpretation of the text. What you have neglected to include is the YECist interpretation that the six-days were historical solar days.

To this I again refer you to my signature.

What you have shown is that you have difficulty in properly identifying the interpretation of something as opposed to the thing being interpreted. In reference to creation you identified an interpretation of creation as creation itself, and in reference to scripture you assumed an interpretation as part of scripture rather than distinguishing it as an interpretation.

I gave you Scripture itself to interpret creation. From where I stand God himself is the best interpreter of creation, not you or I. My difficulty actually lies in the human and worldly interpretation of God's creation.

The bible tells us some basics about creation: principally that nature is a creation and owes its existence to a Creator. But you err in thinking it is simple to determine if science agrees with the bible. What is simple is to determine if science agrees or disagrees with your understanding of the bible. But to complete the circuit, we need also to determine if your understanding of the bible is the only correct interpretation of the text.

Well if the Bible says 6 days and I interpret that to be 1,642,500,000,000 days then yes, I think you're right, I do have a problem with my understanding of the Bible and whether or not my interpretation is correct.

Once again gluadys I give you the last word.

I've stated what the Holy Spirit has put in my heart and led me to say.

May God Bless You

 

[shernren]

2a. Scripture says: “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.” “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.”

At this point I wish to point out that no human interpretation of scripture has occurred. Now, let’s put in the human interpretation of said scripture.

2b. In six days God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. He also created animals according to their kind.

But that's not the human interpretation, that's a human interpretation. Other possible interpretations include:

2.b.1. (Gap theory) In 6 days God recreated the earth and the heavens and all that was in them and animals according to their kind, which were previously formless and void after a few billion years of existence due to angelic war and devastation.

2.b.2. (OEC) In 6 long periods, represented by days since the Jews needed / had no concept of geologically lengthy time, God created the earth and the heavens and all that was in them and animals according to their kind.

2.b.3. (Theistic evolution) God told the Jews that He created the earth and the heavens and all that was in them in 6 days and animals each of their kind to give them a holistic and theologically acceptable understanding of the world's origins and a reflection of His character as a God of order who mandates Sabbath rest for His people ... without acknowledging the historicity of the account itself or the myth-forms God took and edited and expanded in His communication with the Jews.

2.b.4. (Framework theory, AFAIK) God told the Jews that He created the earth and the heavens and all that was in them in 6 days, and animals according to their kind, in order to preserve in Scripture a framework of His entire creative-redemptive work from the origins up to the re-creation of a new Heavens and Earth.

I'm not saying these are completely valid and perfect interpretations. But they are relatively sound and subscribed to by others. So while you may be able to say that the YEC interpretation is the best, to you, it is not the only.

I gave you Scripture itself to interpret creation. From where I stand God himself is the best interpreter of creation, not you or I. My difficulty actually lies in the human and worldly interpretation of God's creation.

Before I make any mistake: I'm assuming you mean the act of interpreting creation to be: drawing conclusions about the nature, purpose and governing rules of creation ("the interpretation") from creation itself ("creation", heh). Thus we can make further distinction: creation has metaphysical interpretation ("God made the world so apples fall") and physical interpretation ("Gravity makes apples fall"). I would contend, drawing these lines, that Scripture aids us in the metaphysical interpretation of creation. This interpretation would correspond to specific revelation as it would be different for people of different beliefs. For example the strict Hindu would believe that reality is, well, un-real, while a true Christian wouldn't.

However, I would equally contend that Scripture does not aid us in the physical interpretation of creation - i.e., in simple words, the Bible is not a Geology textbook. This is because the physical interpretation of creation corresponds to general revelation. Both Hindu and Christian agree that gravity is governed by an inverse-square law (though what that gravity ultimately means they may disagree).

To reply specifically to your statement: Yes, God is the best interpreter of creation. He is the Creator. But what He communicates specifically through His word the Scriptures is the specific, metaphysical interpretation of creation: that it is created for His glory, with orderliness, etc. The physical interpretation of creation He allows all humans to discover by their own intellect. Perhaps you may think it worldly for us to rely on our own brains instead of being beamed down the Great Scientific Theory Of Everything from God ... but I don't think so. It is not worldly for a person to feel disgusted at murder and therefore conclude that it is wrong to kill: it is not worldly either for a person to watch an apple fall and conclude that it is being drawn by a force towards the center of the Earth.

 

[gluadys]

My point here was, and continues to be, that man's reasoning and logic cannot and will not ever know the mind of God. It is beyond his capabilities, just as creation is beyond human understanding. The sooner we humans understand that the better.

We can know as much of the mind of God as God chooses to reveal to us and scripture points to creation as a revelation from God, so yes, we can understand creation because God made it understandable and made us to understand it. That is the basis of God's righteous judgment on those who did not receive the law.

You insist on holding creation itself as a totally separate revelation, that isn't accountable to God's own Word. By doing so it gives you the latitude to use Scriptures like Psalm 19 which describe the wonder of creation while minimizing or changing those that specifically make direct claims concerning it.

I take it that by God's Word you mean scripture and specifically your understanding of scripture. There is no reason why creation needs to be accountable to scripture since it is already a direct expression of the Word of God, its maker. Scripture on the other hand is the words of men. Inspired men to be sure, but still basically a human word that testifies to the Word of God incarnate in Christ. Both creation and scripture are founded on the eternal Word of God, one as the work of God's Word and one as inspired by God. This means that their relationship to each other is one of equality, not one in which the written word or the word of creation stands in judgment over the other.

What is necessary is that they be in accord with each other, since they are both a revelation of the Word. It is a given that the Word of God cannot be in disagreement with itself. So creation and scripture agree even if we cannot see the agreement. Learning to see the agreement is what science and theology are about. We study both creation and scripture until we figure out how they agree. We do not opt for one or the other and say: since this one is true the other must be false. The other cannot be false. (Note that in saying this I am speaking about "level a" creation<->scripture, not about "level b", the level of interpretation.)

What is not necessary is that creation accord with your understanding of scripture. Nor is it necessary that science (the interpretation of creation ) accord with your understanding of scripture. What we require from science is that it accord with creation. What we ask of your interpretation is that it accord with scripture. When both interpretations accord with what they are interpreting, there can be no disagreement since, as noted above, creation and scripture cannot disagree. As long as we perceive disagreement, one or both interpretations are faulty. The problem with YECism is that it decides a priori that it is always our interpretation of creation that is at fault and never concedes that it may be our interpretation of scripture that is at fault. This in spite of the fact that most YECists accept past revisions to human understanding of scripture.

To this I again refer you to my signature.
I gave you Scripture itself to interpret creation. From where I stand God himself is the best interpreter of creation, not you or I. My difficulty actually lies in the human and worldly interpretation of God's creation.

And I agree wholeheartedly that it is a wonderful interpretation of creation. My point is that it is an interpretation of creation, not creation itself. Hence you should have categorized it as 1b, not 1a. The fact that it is a scriptural interpretation does not change the fact that it is still an interpretation, not the thing being interpreted.

To look at creation itself you do not read a book, not even an inspired book. You go out and look at dandelions or pebbles or ants. Or you get a telescope to look at the stars or a microscope to study micro-organisms. You gather observations directly from creation. That may lead to the conclusion that the heavens-and all works of creation-declare the glory of God. It may also lead to the conclusion that the earth is very old and that evolution is a natural process for creating new and diverse species. The first conclusion does not make the second invalid.

As for "human and worldly" interpretations of creation, all interpretations are human, including interpretations of scripture. And since nothing in science is a priori hostile to theism, it cannot be described as essentially worldly either. Some people, when commenting on science, will set it in the framework of a worldly philosophy, but that does not and ought not to reflect on the science itself. I understand that it is difficult to make this distinction when some of the worldly commentators are scientists themselves. But one has to keep in mind always that scientific conclusions are neutral in regard to philosophical and theological conclusions. Atheism is never a scientific conclusion even if some atheist scientists think it is.

Well if the Bible says 6 days and I interpret that to be 1,642,500,000,000 days then yes, I think you're right, I do have a problem with my understanding of the Bible and whether or not my interpretation is correct.

I suppose that because the Day-Age interpretation of Old-Earth Creationists is well-known it is generally the first assumption of YECists that a non-literal interpretation of the creative days means a Day-Age equivalence. However, there are other options as well. Personally I do not subscribe to the Day-Age thesis. Nor to gap theory either.

May God Bless You

You too, vossler. I appreciate the time and thought you give to these exchanges. It helps clarify the issues for all readers.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

But we [YECists] do know that on some matters the probability that YEC is right about creation is extremely high--well above 99%. We know this because of the evidence which exists and which points decisively in one direction, a direction toward an intelligent source of life, a young earth, a global flood and the separate direct creation of kinds, including humans.

Except, of course, that the evidence points in no such direction.

The evidence in fact is so strong and unambiguous in the direction of mainstream science (that's why it's mainstream) that if one were to prove that the only valid interpretation of Gen 1-3 is the YEC one, one has succeeded in nothing more than proving Gen 1-3 is simply wrong.

I prefer to find ways to interpret it whereby it is still true. YEC does not qualify.

The choice is not between "What Scripture says" and "what scientists say". It's about choosing between interpretations of Genesis 1-3 which contradict reality, and those which do not. The choice is clear, methinks.

 

[oncelost]

Ah, but will it reverse as well when you actually have to present the evidence?

I think so.

The YEC model squares very nicely with the Bible and what Jesus said. It's also has been an apologetic for me in that it has strengthened my faith in the Word. I see OEC and, esp. TE, as unnecessary, misguided compromises. With that said, I don't pretend to be infallible, especially with historical sciences, which by their very nature are subject to far more interpretation than operational sciences. If I could be shown overwhelmingly convincing proof that the Earth is billions of years old, I would change my mind. But, I see good proof on YEC side of the ledger. So I side with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

As to the age of the earth, I read these articles in AiG, and the evidence looks persuasive (or at least, would you admit, ambiguous for conventional science?).
www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter8.asp
www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i1/howold.asp


Flood geology seems very persuasive with some difficulties (while stata are hydrologic sorted, fossils are not). The notion that the earth's strata developed over many multi-million year eras poses far more difficulties (polystrate fossils, rapid formation of fossils, artifacts found in layers supposedly pre-existing humans, etc.).

The world places far too much value on radiometric dating, esp. carbon. It is based on presumptions which limit its value in the debate, including the age of the universe or original isotope and a constant rate of decay. I've heard the analogy of a burning candle. To estimate how long it is burning, you must assume it's original length.

Astronomical arguments for an old earth seem to presume that either the speed of light is a constant or that God would not have created a star for us to observe.

As for biology, the TOE seems to me a half-baked extrapoltion of observations that takes far too much faith for me. It boggles my mind that Evolutionists are offended by the distinction between Micro and Macroevolution (observable variation with natural or intelligent selection v. the unobservable extrapolation of one kind changing to another kind). To me, its the difference between the verifiable science and specious conjecture.

As for ID, it makes good sense to me. I still struggle with reconciling it with science. To what extent should appeals to intelligence (and most likely the supernatural) be discussed in science? On the other hand, when we can mathmatically show the improbabilty of a chance formation of vast amounts of information, and when the TOE is subject to so much legitimate criticism, I think ID should be discussed any time the origin of the universe or life is dicussed, science class or otherwise.

 

[shernren]

Oncelost, can I ask you some questions that will seem completely offensive in their brevity?

Have you ever visited www.talkorigins.org? Or even considered the possibility that it is even slightly possible for it to be right?

Do you know what isochron dating is? What are the implications for modern science if decay rates are massively variable (i.e. if a 6000-year-old sample can exhibit 4 billion years of decay)? What are the implications for modern science if the speed of light in vacuum is variable?

What makes the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution? What is the qualitative difference between the two?

Just looking at the first URL you provided: isn't it kind of disturbing that the most recent citation is in 1995? The whole article is 10 years out of date. A lot can happen in 10 years, scientifically: the human genome sequenced, among others. But anyway:

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE380.html

2. Comets disintegrate too quickly

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE261.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE261_1.html

3. Not enough mud on the sea floor

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD220.html

4. Not enough sodium in the sea

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html

5. The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701_1.html

6. Many strata are too tightly bent

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD510.html

gotta run for lecture now. but you can find more rebuttals on your own, can't you?

 

[gluadys]

I think so.

The YEC model squares very nicely with the Bible and what Jesus said.

Of course, since you interpret the bible to agree with the YEC model. The pertinent question, however, is whether it agrees with created reality.

If I could be shown overwhelmingly convincing proof that the Earth is billions of years old, I would change my mind.

If you have ever been shown radiometric evidence you have been shown convincing evidence of the billion-year old age of the earth. But you have taken an a priori position that this evidence must be rejected.

But, I see good proof on YEC side of the ledger.

Not scientific "proof". Of course, science deals in evidence, not proof.

As to the age of the earth, I read these articles in AiG, and the evidence looks persuasive (or at least, would you admit, ambiguous for conventional science?).
www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter8.asp
www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i1/howold.asp

AiG "evidence" is only persuasive to those who wish to be convinced. Scientifically it is fit only for the manure detail. No, I do not admit the evidence is ambiguous, because it is not.

Flood geology seems very persuasive with some difficulties (while stata are hydrologic sorted, fossils are not). The notion that the earth's strata developed over many multi-million year eras poses far more difficulties (polystrate fossils, rapid formation of fossils, artifacts found in layers supposedly pre-existing humans, etc.).

All of these are pseudo problems with rational answers that you can find in ten minutes of googling if you are really interested. The problems for flood geology are far more immense, enough to have convinced 19th century Christians looking for remnants of the flood that it was not a global event. The flood was falsified by geology 200 years ago. And the evidence that falsified it is still there. Check out the web site of Glen Morton for details. Also his posts in the Quiet Thread in the C&E forum, and the threads on the flood in the C&E Archive thread.

The world places far too much value on radiometric dating, esp. carbon.

Do you have information on which to base this assertion?

It is based on presumptions which limit its value in the debate, including the age of the universe or original isotope and a constant rate of decay.

The age of the universe has nothing to do with it. And I don't know what presumption about the original isotope you are alluding to. The measurment does require a constant rate of decay. But that is not a presumption, since every effort was made to find a natural force that would change the rate of decay. No force ever found on earth can change the decay rate. That is not a presumption. That is the conclusion of many experiments in which scientists tried their darndest to make the radioactive decay rate change and consistently failed to do so.

Do you have evidence that the rate of decay can be changed?

I've heard the analogy of a burning candle. To estimate how long it is burning, you must assume it's original length.

Clearly you need to learn more about the actual process of using radiometry for dating, especially isochronic dating.

Astronomical arguments for an old earth seem to presume that either the speed of light is a constant or that God would not have created a star for us to observe.

The theory of relativity is basic to modern physics. The constancy of the speed of light in most circumstances is fundamental to the theory of relativity. I am aware that there are a few circumstances where the speed of light deviates from the constant, but these are very few and do not affect dating to the extend of many orders of magnitude as YECism requires.

I don't understand the second part of your assertion. In the first place science makes no argument about what God would or would not do. In the second place the nearest star to us is 4 light years away. If it was created only a few days before the first humans, the only lights they could have seen would be the sun, moon and planets of our solar system. They could not have seen Alpha Centauri for four years. Astronomical history from the days of ancient Babylon to the present should be filled with the first sightings of many stars as light from them first reached us. And we should not be able to see many stars and galaxies even today as their light has not had time to reach us yet.

If God placed a star near enough to be seen from earth at the time of human creation, what happened to it? Why is it not there now?

As for biology, the TOE seems to me a half-baked extrapoltion of observations that takes far too much faith for me.

And how much biology (and I don't mean AiG biology) have you studied--specifically evolutionary biology? Science often does seem unbelievable until you take the time to learn it. But once you understand why it comes to the conclusions it does, it takes no more faith than believing 2 + 2 = 4.

It boggles my mind that Evolutionists are offended by the distinction between Micro and Macroevolution (observable variation with natural or intelligent selection v. the unobservable extrapolation of one kind changing to another kind). To me, its the difference between the verifiable science and specious conjecture.

Evolution never shows one kind changing directly into another kind unless you are using the original definition of kind which was "species". (Species is based on the Latin word for "kind" and Linnaeus chose it for that reason to refer to the smallest unit of populations in his Systema Natura.)

Creationists, of course, have long since abandoned the equation of "kind" with "species" since we have observed speciation happening and know that one species does become another species over time.

As for ID, it makes good sense to me. I still struggle with reconciling it with science. To what extent should appeals to intelligence (and most likely the supernatural) be discussed in science?

The only thing science deals with is nature: natural phenomena, natural events, natural forces and processes. Science does not make the statement that nature is all there is (though some scientists do), but it makes no claim to expertise in anything beyond nature. Hence philosophical speculations about the supernatural have no place in science ever. The relationship of science and the supernatural is a philosophical/theological discussion, not a scientific discussion.

On the other hand, when we can mathmatically show the improbabilty of a chance formation of vast amounts of information, and when the TOE is subject to so much legitimate criticism, I think ID should be discussed any time the origin of the universe or life is dicussed, science class or otherwise.

What makes you think the big bang, solar system formation, abiogenesis or evolution have anything to do with chance formation of information? Sounds to me that you are listening to people who are lying to you.

 

[oncelost]

Have you ever visited www.talkorigins.org? ... Do you know what isochron dating is?

Yes. Have you visited www.trueorigins.org
"All in all, [despite some bad crationist sources] I would much prefer creationist sources to the talk.origins FAQ and standard textbook treatments, which gloss over problems that specialists in the fields do not hesitate to admit, and present uniformitarianism, evolution, and radiometric dating as if these were beyond reproach."
http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp#Why%20methods%20in%20general%20are%20inaccurate
http://www.trueorigin.org/henke1.asp

What are the implications for modern science if decay rates are massively variable (i.e. if a 6000-year-old sample can exhibit 4 billion years of decay)? What are the implications for modern science if the speed of light in vacuum is variable?

Implication: We don't know as much as we think we know.

What makes the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution? What is the qualitative difference between the two?

The difference is that which is observed and verified versus that which is extrapolated and conjecture. It's a signficant difference. An exptrapolation takes a greater degree of faith (in this case, much greater). We've only observed dogs that yield dogs; fruit flies that yield fruit flies; and tomatoes that yield tomatoes. We always observe limits: you'll never manipulate generations of tomatoes to get one as big as your house; or a fruit fly resistant to a sledge hammer. To suggest a common ancestory goes beyond what we can observe. You can point to homology or common genes, but that is just as suggestive of a common designer. No one has ever observed one kind changing to another kind. Believe it if you want to, but acknowledge that it takes more fatih to believe Macro than it does Micro evolution.

 

[oncelost]

Of course, since you interpret the bible to agree with the YEC model. The pertinent question, however, is whether it agrees with created reality.

No. I interpret the Bible literally unless the context suggests otherwise. A literal interpretation of Genesis squares nicely with the YEC model, which I've not seen convincingly falsified. So, no reason to interpret otherwise.

If you have ever been shown radiometric evidence you have been shown convincing evidence of the billion-year old age of the earth. But you have taken an a priori position that this evidence must be rejected.
...
Clearly you need to learn more about the actual process of using radiometry for dating, especially isochronic dating.

See my previous post in response to shenron. I wish I had the time to be an expert on isochronic dating, etc. Until then, I rely on experts to do their best to argue their case to laymen. I read and listen to both sides, and tend toward YEC, rather than convention, as my bias, admittedly for theological and philosophical reasons. Many intellects and skeptics (far moreso than myself) have done so, so I feel comfortable in my position. Others chose science, devoid of and contra to any supernatural causes, as their bias. That's fine, but with origins (of universe, life, and all life's forms), I think such a bias can be misleading.

I don't understand the second part of your assertion.

Sorry. It has to do with God creating a mature universe. Perhaps he created a star with its light path already extended to us. Or perhaps, in the big bang of creation, light traveled at a speed far exceeding the constant we recognize today.

The only thing science deals with is nature: natural phenomena, natural events, natural forces and processes. Science does not make the statement that nature is all there is (though some scientists do), but it makes no claim to expertise in anything beyond nature. Hence philosophical speculations about the supernatural have no place in science ever. The relationship of science and the supernatural is a philosophical/theological discussion, not a scientific discussion.

If we could conclusively show that natural laws cannot account for the cause of something, then may we be permitted to say that we've come to the end of science? ID attempts to suggest that science (the naturalistic process we use to expand our knowledge of the universe) cannot explain all that we see. It's a segway. It should be discussed in a science class in the same way that current events are discussed in a history class. They are so interrelated that where one ends, the next begins.

What makes you think the big bang, solar system formation, abiogenesis or evolution have anything to do with chance formation of information? Sounds to me that you are listening to people who are lying to you.

I was referring particularly to abiogenesis. Lying? That's harsh! What makes you think that the vast amount of information in the DNA, which is far more complex than Internet Explorer, in the first living cell, which (even apart from the DNA) was far more complex than the space shuttle, was formed by anything other than intelligence?

 

[shernren]

Dear oncelost:

"All in all, [despite some bad evolutionist sources] I would much prefer evolutionist sources to AiG and standard mass-pandering treatments, which gloss over problems that specialists in the fields have not hesitated to debunk, and present flood geology, radiodecay rates that fluctuate beyond our ability to measure them, and I'm-not-intelligent-enough-to-understand-the-alternative-to Intelligent Design as if these were beyond reproach."

Can you show me just what is wrong with TalkOrigins? Besides that it has a habit of demolishing your favorite scientific arguments?

Implication: We don't know as much as we think we know.

No, the implication is that practically half the scientific experiments of the century are flat-out wrong. Michelson-Morley, for one, Einstein is pretty mistaken too, the Curies can't have been handling their samples right, there must be viruses in all the computers in all the world's particle accelerators. If 4 billion years' worth of radioisotopes can decay in 6000 years, why should we worry about nuclear waste? All scientific creationists should support massive nuclear energy deployment because by their accelerated decay rates it should be possible to cause all nuclear waste to decay in a matter of days. Bring in the right temperature-pressure and voila! turn Chernobyl back into pristine non-radioactive land. Why isn't it happening? Because it's a fairy tale, that's why.

The difference is that which is observed and verified versus that which is extrapolated and conjecture.

What is extrapolated is not necessarily conjecture. Absolute zero is extrapolated, for example, but it is definitely not a conjecture. On the other hand, there are many many things that "creation scientists" extrapolate from the Biblical accounts. For example, that immense seismic activity is indicated by the phrase "the fountains of the deep", that the "stretching out of the firmament" refers to a 4-D expansion, that there was no animal death before the Fall, that there is a layer of ice at the edge of the universe, that the "kinds" of Genesis 1 are a taxonomical specification, etc. Can't I say all these are conjectures?

We always observe limits: you'll never manipulate generations of tomatoes to get one as big as your house; or a fruit fly resistant to a sledge hammer.

Hmm? That requires bending physics, not biology.

To suggest a common ancestory goes beyond what we can observe.

So does suggesting a common designer.

You can point to homology or common genes, but that is just as suggestive of a common designer.

Just as? So you're saying the scientific case for common ancestry is on equal footing as the scientific case for a common designer. Thanks!

No one has ever observed one kind changing to another kind.

Really? Back in the 60s and 70s "creation science" would have had no problem saying whales and dolphins are "different kinds". Then along came the wholphin. Suddenly, voila! whales and dolphins are now in the same "kind". Creationists change one kind to another kind all the time and nobody makes any fuss. Can I start whining unfairness?

Believe it if you want to, but acknowledge that it takes more fatih to believe Macro than it does Micro evolution.

Not more faith, more science.

 

[The Lady Kate]

My point here was, and continues to be, that man's reasoning and logic cannot and will not ever know the mind of God.

Except we're not delving into God's mind... just His handiwork.

It is beyond his capabilities, just as creation is beyond human understanding. The sooner we humans understand that the better.

All hail futility! Give up and stop asking the difficult questions!

You insist on holding creation itself as a totally separate revelation, that isn't accountable to God's own Word.

Surely you mean God's own word (note the small w) as understood by inspired yet fallible humans?

By doing so it gives you the latitude to use Scriptures like Psalm 19 which describe the wonder of creation while minimizing or changing those that specifically make direct claims concerning it.

And how does the method of Creation minimize its wonder?

I gave you Scripture itself to interpret creation.

You gave us your interpretation of Scripture. "It's all literal or else it's meaningless."

I've stated what the Holy Spirit has put in my heart and led me to say.

As do we.