The Deception of Genesis

[KerrMetric]

you DO know what the means, right?

Honestly didn't see it.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Honestly didn't see it.

cool then. nevermind.

 

[Uphill Battle]

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.

the key words in this (although, the whole thing is valid, in my estimation, good post ) is the words I DON'T KNOW. It is a foreign concept to so many TOE's.... the fact that they DO NOT KNOW everything. For instance, "how did this particular formation come about?" do they know? no. So, they go with "well, our best guess is this... and that is what is fact until it is falsified." I DON'T KNOW is more honest.

 

[Micaiah]

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.

You obviously have a lot of faith in your girlfriends estimate. I'd prefer to see something a little more rigorous.

I'd be interested to know what percent of scientists are Christians in the sense that we understand the word.

 

[random_guy]

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.

Things such as the age of Earth and evolution are natural processes that can be studied by science. Things such as Jesus's resurrection can not be studied nor explained by science, and must be accepted on faith. There's nothing wrong with accepting things on faith and accepting other things on science as long as we're clear which is which.

I do not have any problems YECists that believe the a global flood did occur, and it was a supernatural event. I do have problems when they try to justify their beliefs with science because modern geology just doesn't back up a supernatural event nor can science and the supernatural mix.

 

[KerrMetric]

For instance, "how did this particular formation come about?" do they know? no. So, they go with "well, our best guess is this... and that is what is fact until it is falsified." I DON'T KNOW is more honest.

This is an incorrect summary. You will almost never see the word guess in a journal paper. It would be rejected in all likelihood. You might see the word appear in a conclusion where future work is being proposed and even then "guess" is not being used in the everyday manner you are using.

Also science is probably more honest about using the "don't know" than any other human endeavour.

 

[KerrMetric]

You obviously have a lot of faith in your girlfriends estimate. I'd prefer to see something a little more rigorous.

Use Google. I seem to remember a survey of PhD biologists on this matter. My girlfriends estimate has one clear number though, zero, the number of creationists. Not one or two or ten but zero. My own experience in science (quite a few years more than hers) is zero in the geophysics/planetary science community. I think between us that must encompass well over 1000 academics. That's a statistically significant sample if you know much about stats.

I'd be interested to know what percent of scientists are Christians in the sense that we understand the word.

Probably not very high. I'm an exception rather then the rule. I'd say in the 10% or so region. I'd say agnosticism is the largest group. But I have never encountered anything that could be labelled an atheistic conspiracy. In fact I'd say none of these people even give a thought to religious matters in their job one way or the other. I don't get out the Book of Job during work hours, it wouldn't be of any use.

 

[Uphill Battle]

This is an incorrect summary. You will almost never see the word guess in a journal paper. It would be rejected in all likelihood. You might see the word appear in a conclusion where future work is being proposed and even then "guess" is not being used in the everyday manner you are using.

Also science is probably more honest about using the "don't know" than any other human endeavour.

of course you won't see the word guess. They substitute Theory. more scientific-like.

really now. That is why every time geological timelines for any formation is given, it is given as HARD fact... not theory given to adjustment. Go to any natural park... and the information they give is presented as undeniable fact. No quibbles at all. no mention that it is theoretical... no matter how much you believe it to be true, or not.

 

[random_guy]

the key words in this (although, the whole thing is valid, in my estimation, good post ) is the words I DON'T KNOW. It is a foreign concept to so many TOE's.... the fact that they DO NOT KNOW everything. For instance, "how did this particular formation come about?" do they know? no. So, they go with "well, our best guess is this... and that is what is fact until it is falsified." I DON'T KNOW is more honest.

Actually, "I don't know" seems to be more what scientists say than Creationists. Creationists tend to think the answer is always God (what caused the BB/where did the matter come from/etc..) where as a physist will admit we don't know where the energy came from.

I really doubt that anyone will call something a fact, either. Perhaps you could point out in biology the fact of abiogenensis or the fact of the origin of matter of BB or the fact of gravitons. Seems like a hyperbole to me.

 

[KerrMetric]

of course you won't see the word guess. They substitute Theory. more scientific-like.

really now. That is why every time geological timelines for any formation is given, it is given as HARD fact... not theory given to adjustment. Go to any natural park... and the information they give is presented as undeniable fact. No quibbles at all. no mention that it is theoretical... no matter how much you believe it to be true, or not.

Some things are fact. Or as close to factual as you can ever get. I think the reason the information on guided tours is given as it is, is because people don't talk like or really understand science as a discipline and the language would make the tours too dry and unpalatable for public consumption.

Even many scientists run afoul of blurring the distinction in conversation though usually not in journals. I think most geologists would consider the age of the Earth at 4.5 Gyr or so as being pretty much a fact. It might be theoretical in one sense but it is considered very unlikely to change to the point of being factual for all intent.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Actually, "I don't know" seems to be more what scientists say than Creationists. Creationists tend to think the answer is always God (what caused the BB/where did the matter come from/etc..) where as a physist will admit we don't know where the energy came from.

I really doubt that anyone will call something a fact, either. Perhaps you could point out in biology the fact of abiogenensis or the fact of the origin of matter of BB or the fact of gravitons. Seems like a hyperbole to me.

right. Do geologists admit they don't know? this is right out of a pamphlet for our local Halton Hills park.

The Niagara Escarpment was formed 450 million

years ago along the shore of a shallow tropical sea

that covered a vast area of Ontario and Michigan.

Skeletons of primitive sea creatures and debris from

ancient mountains were compressed into massive

layers of reef and sedimentary rock. These ancient

coral reefs formed a layer of amabel dolostone to

create the cap of the escarpment. Beneath this

layer are soft, easily eroded shales. Over

succeeding millions of years, erosion, glaciers,

ancient rivers and lakes, and the elements shaped

the escarpment into its distinctive craggy cliffs and

rugged slopes that can be seen today.


Link is www.conservationhalton.on.ca if you really want to look it up.

point being is... this is presented as if it is absolute, known, without a doubt, fact.
of course, nobody was around 450 million years ago to verify this.

 

[KerrMetric]

right. Do geologists admit they don't know? this is right out of a pamphlet for our local Halton Hills park.

The Niagara Escarpment was formed 450 million

years ago along the shore of a shallow tropical sea

that covered a vast area of Ontario and Michigan.

Skeletons of primitive sea creatures and debris from

ancient mountains were compressed into massive

layers of reef and sedimentary rock. These ancient

coral reefs formed a layer of amabel dolostone to

create the cap of the escarpment. Beneath this

layer are soft, easily eroded shales. Over

succeeding millions of years, erosion, glaciers,

ancient rivers and lakes, and the elements shaped

the escarpment into its distinctive craggy cliffs and

rugged slopes that can be seen today.


Link is www.conservationhalton.on.ca if you really want to look it up.

point being is... this is presented as if it is absolute, known, without a doubt, fact.
of course, nobody was around 450 million years ago to verify this.

See my post immediately above yours. You cannot write such material as a journal paper would. But the overwhelming odds are that such a picture is correct to some high level of certainty.

But I do take exception the nobody was around argument. By that argument most prisoners should be released from death row since no one witnessed the crime. The laws of physics allow us to make inference with acceptable certainty into the past. Without this science in totality would cease to exist. No result on anything could be trusted yet we know we get correct answers to real problems with the scientific method and its assumptions.

 

[Uphill Battle]

See my post immediately above yours. You cannot write such material as a journal paper would. But the overwhelming odds are that such a picture is correct to some high level of certainty.

But I do take exception the nobody was around argument. By that argument most prisoners should be released from death row since no one witnessed the crime. The laws of physics allow us to make inference with acceptable certainty into the past. Without this science in totality would cease to exist. No result on anything could be trusted yet we know we get correct answers to real problems with the scientific method and its assumptions.

"some high level of certainty" really only describes your beliefe that the evidence states as much doesn't it?

most do. Nobody likes their methodology questioned. "acceptable certainty" as it comes to geology, is unprovable, and hence, unreliable.

We would disagree on that strongly though, I'd wager.

 

[Micaiah]

Things such as the age of Earth and evolution are natural processes that can be studied by science. Things such as Jesus's resurrection can not be studied nor explained by science, and must be accepted on faith. There's nothing wrong with accepting things on faith and accepting other things on science as long as we're clear which is which.

I do not have any problems YECists that believe the a global flood did occur, and it was a supernatural event. I do have problems when they try to justify their beliefs with science because modern geology just doesn't back up a supernatural event nor can science and the supernatural mix.

I think the idea that God was constrained to only do during the Creation week what man could scientifically analyse and understand is laughable. Equally laughable is the idea that a person should only accept explanations about our origins and natural environment that are the result of man's scientific study.

There is nothing that prevents God from revealling to man some of the facts of Creation in His Word. The idea that Scripture was only intended to reveal spiritual truth and in not reliable on other matter is a TE/liberal invention. As previously stated, He alone has the credentials to make absolute statements on the matter.

 

[Micaiah]

of course you won't see the word guess. They substitute Theory. more scientific-like.

really now. That is why every time geological timelines for any formation is given, it is given as HARD fact... not theory given to adjustment. Go to any natural park... and the information they give is presented as undeniable fact. No quibbles at all. no mention that it is theoretical... no matter how much you believe it to be true, or not.

Come up with any explanation of the evidence you like as long as the TOE is not contradicted.

 

[random_guy]

Come up with any explanation of the evidence you like as long as the TOE is not contradicted.

So would you like to show some evidence that this is true? From what I've read, the ToE has changed over time with new discoveries. The only way this can happen is if the new discovery contradicted from the current theories.

Just last week, I went to a lecture about a new theory proposing that endosymbiosis of bacteria in insect cells actually started as a disease, not a mutualistic relationship. This is completely different from current thought.

So what's your evidence that things that contradict evolution is repressed.

 

[KerrMetric]

"some high level of certainty" really only describes your beliefe that the evidence states as much doesn't it?

most do. Nobody likes their methodology questioned. "acceptable certainty" as it comes to geology, is unprovable, and hence, unreliable.

We would disagree on that strongly though, I'd wager.

Your criticism amounts to basically discarding the entire scientific method and all its successes for the last 2500 years.

If it is unreliable then every oil and mineral company would employ crystal ball gazers and dowsers and quickly go bankrupt. The fact is they don't because the science works and produces results. Technically no theory is provable, but it can be trusted if it produces the results. If it was unreliable the concordancy of results we obtain would not be present. The very fact we get working accurate results flies in the face of your statement.

 

[Critias]

But isn't the problem that the average YEC is uneducated in general. It's not they all ran away to Bible College or Seminary it's the fact they tend to be less likely college grads than the other groups. Also I'm not specifically talking biology - but geology, physics, astronomy etc.

Why is it that amongst Christianity the words fundamentalist and scholar are usually considered oxymoronic. The Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox churches have a rich tradition of Theological scholarship, the modern fundamentalist and evangelical groups have people who author the "Left Behind' rubbish or are televangelists. These churches have it seems an anathema to academic pursuits and this is reflected in not only their organisations but their flocks as well.

Jews have a longer and richer line of Theological scholarship than any you mentioned above. Are the many Jews stupid because they believe a six day creation?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Your criticism amounts to basically discarding the entire scientific method and all its successes for the last 2500 years.

If it is unreliable then every oil and mineral company would employ crystal ball gazers and dowsers and quickly go bankrupt. The fact is they don't because the science works and produces results. Technically no theory is provable, but it can be trusted if it produces the results. If it was unreliable the concordancy of results we obtain would not be present. The very fact we get working accurate results flies in the face of your statement.

I was right in the strength of the disagreement, at the very least.

 

[KerrMetric]

Come up with any explanation of the evidence you like as long as the TOE is not contradicted.

And this is why talking to non science savvy people is frustrating and they should stick to selling insurance or whatever it is they do. We are talking geology for the most part which has nothing to do with evolution.