The Deception of Genesis

[KerrMetric]

and they would be wrong. He would have been a carpenter up until he was 30, and his ministry lasted 3 years, till his death at 33. Plenty of time to get decent with a lathe. Casting an insult at Jesus' woodworking ability seems low anyways.

I believe it is used as a joke, something many on this forum don't seem to appreciate. This has to be the most rigid forum on the internet this side of Rapture Ready.

 

[KerrMetric]

However YEC's typically believe that these were created through natural processes. TE's assume these natural processes took many millions of years. YEC's say in some cases the layers were formed by natural processes that occured during a world wide flood as described in Genesis and this meant that things occured at a much faster rate than assumed by evolutionists.

And this is why YEC's get into a muddle. If they kept the supernatural explanation for it all they could not be attacked as they are. But when they plainly cannot do the science necessary for their position and that it is falsified then they look foolish. There is catastrophism in geology and all geologists know this but it leaves tell tale signs just from the basic physics of hydrodynamics and vulcanism that we do not see for 99.9% of strata. The YEC turkey doesn't fly since they ignore the science.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I believe it is used as a joke, something many on this forum don't seem to appreciate. This has to be the most rigid forum on the internet this side of Rapture Ready.

Yes, a joke. A mocking joke, to be sure. It isn't about rigidity, Christians see their Lord's name slandered all to often. You'll excuse me for defending my God.

 

[Uphill Battle]

And this is why YEC's get into a muddle. If they kept the supernatural explanation for it all they could not be attacked as they are. But when they plainly cannot do the science necessary for their position and that it is falsified then they look foolish. There is catastrophism in geology and all geologists know this but it leaves tell tale signs just from the basic physics of hydrodynamics and vulcanism that we do not see for 99.9% of strata. The YEC turkey doesn't fly since they ignore the science.

what are the telltale signs of a global deluge? can you know? it's never happened within your scope of experience, so of course not.

and please, stop saying 99.9%. Save hyperbole for when you REALLY need it.

 

[random_guy]

and please, stop saying 99.9%. Save hyperbole for when you REALLY need it.

I don't think it was a hyperbole. If anything, he underestimates how little a global deluge is actually reflected in the strata. Why don't you do what no Creationists dares to do, and point out exactly where in the geological time scale did the flood occur in.

Here's a link for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_timescale - simplified explanation
http://www.geosociety.org/science/timescale/timescl.htm Geological Society of America for the more scientific view
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect2/Sect2_1b.html for even more science

 

[KerrMetric]

what are the telltale signs of a global deluge? can you know? it's never happened within your scope of experience, so of course not.

and please, stop saying 99.9%. Save hyperbole for when you REALLY need it.

Yes you can know. This is basic physics. We know what small floods do. We know the effects of hydrodynamics. And we also know that a world wide flood has catastrophic effects we don't see and in fact would destroy the things we do see. When I say 99.9% I think I am being conservative not hyperbolic. An extra 9 or two would be in order.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I don't think it was a hyperbole. If anything, he underestimates how little a global deluge is actually reflected in the strata. Why don't you do what no Creationists dares to do, and point out exactly where in the geological time scale did the flood occur in.

Here's a link for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_timescale - simplified explanation
http://www.geosociety.org/science/timescale/timescl.htm Geological Society of America for the more scientific view
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect2/Sect2_1b.html for even more science

no, no, go back to the 99.99%. If we can't believe anything without empirical evidence, I want studies produce proving without a doubt that 99.9% of people believe in Evolution, that 99.9% of the evidence is proven fact, (which supposedly science doesn't do...) etc.. the statement is invalid unless it's backed up. I'm only giving what is received.

 

[random_guy]

no, no, go back to the 99.99%. If we can't believe anything without empirical evidence, I want studies produce proving without a doubt that 99.9% of people believe in Evolution, that 99.9% of the evidence is proven fact, (which supposedly science doesn't do...) etc.. the statement is invalid unless it's backed up. I'm only giving what is received.

Maybe I'm confused. I thought he said 99.9% of the Earth's strata is inexplicable by a global deluge, not 99.9% of people accept evolution (which we know is false because Americans aren't very science savy).

 

[KerrMetric]

no, no, go back to the 99.99%. If we can't believe anything without empirical evidence, I want studies produce proving without a doubt that 99.9% of people believe in Evolution, that 99.9% of the evidence is proven fact, (which supposedly science doesn't do...) etc.. the statement is invalid unless it's backed up. I'm only giving what is received.

I said 99.9% of the academic community of life scientists. I don't believe I said what you say above. Evidence can be fact, it is theorising of mechanism for the evidence that technically is not subject to proof per se.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I said 99.9% of the academic community of life scientists. I don't believe I said what you say above. Evidence can be fact, it is theorising of mechanism for the evidence that technically is not subject to proof per se.

alright, then produce the evidence that 99.9 (or was it 99.999?) percent of the academic comunity etc... you see my point?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Maybe I'm confused. I thought he said 99.9% of the Earth's strata is inexplicable by a global deluge, not 99.9% of people accept evolution (which we know is false because Americans aren't very science savy).

99.9% is inexplicable by global deluge? I doubt that. See, you use a statement like that, and it cannot be backed up. There is no way that 99.9% of the earth's strata has even been EXAMINED. like I said, hyperbole. Argument overstating the evidence.

 

[KerrMetric]

99.9% is inexplicable by global deluge? I doubt that. See, you use a statement like that, and it cannot be backed up. There is no way that 99.9% of the earth's strata has even been EXAMINED. like I said, hyperbole. Argument overstating the evidence.

I'd say 95% has been examined. I'd say 99.9% of that is of a non-catstrophic nature. And those do not conform to a recent world wide Noachian flood.

You know between academic geology, minerological prospecting and oil exploration an awful lot of the Earth has been geologically looked at.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I'd say 95% has been examined. I'd say 99.9% of that is of a non-catstrophic nature. And those do not conform to a recent world wide Noachian flood.

You know between academic geology, minerological prospecting and oil exploration an awful lot of the Earth has been geologically looked at.

alot =/95%. Again, you are pulling a number out of a hat. That is a wide accusation of the YEC timeline... yet it doesn't seem to be a problem when TOE proponents do it.

seeing as the world has over more than 5% that hasn't been fully explored, it's impossible that 95% percent of the strata has been examined.

 

[random_guy]

99.9% is inexplicable by global deluge? I doubt that. See, you use a statement like that, and it cannot be backed up. There is no way that 99.9% of the earth's strata has even been EXAMINED. like I said, hyperbole. Argument overstating the evidence.

But we have examined the strata (I assume it's the upper part of the crust). We have a geological column and no where in the column is there any evidence of a global flood. If you want to go deeper, we have seismic wave evidence that help us estimate the temperature, makeup, and density of the mantle. If a global flood occurred, I doubt it would leave no trace in the crust, but somehow leave some sort of trace in the mantle (which we haven't seen anything that suggested a global flood). I gave 3 scientific links that examine the geological column, and none of them required a global flood to explain any of the evidence.

However, If you're arguing 99.9% of the entire planet hasn't been examined, I'm lost. We don't need to examine every single place on Earth to make inferences. There's no hyperbole if we say 100% of cats are have x features even though we haven't examined every single cat in existence.

 

[KerrMetric]

alright, then produce the evidence that 99.9 (or was it 99.999?) percent of the academic comunity etc... you see my point?

I believe there is a well known life science survey (PhD biologists) that gives the evolution side 99.85%. And that includes non-academia. In academia it would be higher. My girlfriend is a virologist at UCLA and I have asked her this question and in her 15 year academic career she has never met a single creationist out of hundreds of fellow researchers.

 

[KerrMetric]

alot =/95%. Again, you are pulling a number out of a hat. That is a wide accusation of the YEC timeline... yet it doesn't seem to be a problem when TOE proponents do it.

seeing as the world has over more than 5% that hasn't been fully explored, it's impossible that 95% percent of the strata has been examined.

Obviously I don't have such a number in front of me, it's an educated guesstimate. But you are wrong if you think it's far less. Anyway, you want a global flood, doesn't that imply everywhere.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Obviously I don't have such a number in front of me, it's an educated guesstimate. But you are wrong if you think it's far less. Anyway, you want a global flood, doesn't that imply everywhere.

yes, it does imply everywhere. I just never claimed that the world had been studied to the extent that you did. Do the geologists realize how close to putting themselves out of work they are?

 

[KerrMetric]

yes, it does imply everywhere. I just never claimed that the world had been studied to the extent that you did. Do the geologists realize how close to putting themselves out of work they are?

I doubt it since:

A) there is a lot of detailed minerological research needed.

B) studies of vulcanism and seismology will be needed

C) basic study of the Earths internal structure

D) hydrology and the impact of geology for civil engineering purposes


I think they'll be in work.

Also a large amount of the Earth is igneous and metamorphic geologically not sedimentary.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I doubt it since:

A) there is a lot of detailed minerological research needed.

B) studies of vulcanism and seismology will be needed

C) basic study of the Earths internal structure

D) hydrology and the impact of geology for civil engineering purposes


I think they'll be in work.

Also a large amount of the Earth is igneous and metamorphic geologically not sedimentary.

you DO know what the means, right?

 

[Micaiah]

And this is why YEC's get into a muddle. If they kept the supernatural explanation for it all they could not be attacked as they are. But when they plainly cannot do the science necessary for their position and that it is falsified then they look foolish. There is catastrophism in geology and all geologists know this but it leaves tell tale signs just from the basic physics of hydrodynamics and vulcanism that we do not see for 99.9% of strata. The YEC turkey doesn't fly since they ignore the science.

I accept there is ambiguity about what was done supernaturally by God during Creation, and what was the result of a natural process. The question of starlight is a case in point. How is it we are able to see starlight from stars scientists estimate to be more than 6000 lightyears away? Was it created as such, or was it the result of the way in which God created the universe. I don't know.

YEC's accept that their are natural laws that operate in our world and many phenomena can be described by such processes. For example the conception and birth of a child happens in accordance with certain natural process. The death of a person follows a certain natural process. Christians believe God can and does suspend those natural processes to suit His purposes. We believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. We all believe that Jesus physical body was resurrected from the dead. I take it those are the beliefs of all TE's on this forum. Using your line of argument, if you want to explain everything using natural processes to be consistent you should reject the possibility of the supernatural.