RocksInMyHead
God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
- May 12, 2011
- 9,304
- 10,070
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It does. Just not your interpretation of it.Wouldn't God's science agree with His word?
It's not simple speculation - there is solid evidence of decay rates, and radiometric dating is supported by other, non-radiometric, methods that would be unaffected by any changes in rates. And changes to rates should produce specific evidence - evidence that we don't see.
All of these truly are guessing - there is no evidence at all for them, except for an arbitrary age of the Earth assigned by a human's interpretation of the text of the Bible. Unless you can demonstrate that decay rates could be sufficiently accelerated under reasonable earth-like conditions, propose a mechanism by which only dinosaurs would have lower levels of C-14, or demonstrate that cleaning the flesh from bones would remove all C-14 from them, they are simply guesses.
It's all true. See: https://ncse.com/files/pub/CEJ/pdfs/CEJ_30.pdf
Here is the truth. And its the same for the whole bacteria salt discussion being held elsewhere in this forum.
Every individual has the ability to go out, collect samples, and submit samples for radioactive dating. There isnt some sort of conspiracy going around where everyone is like, oh no, a young earther gave us this, we have to hide it so nobody sees it.
Its not like that at all.
Typically, the chemists or physicists doing these analyses arent even going to know the nature of the object submitted for dating. You dont have to tell them anything about the samples you submit. And if they reject it on the basis of contamination or a lack of a certain amount of carbon material, its not a conspiracy, its just the way it is.
Solid evidence of decay rates today does not mean you can generalise from them by way of analogy. So you are guessing when you use this also.
"Here is the truth", people can do the above but at the end of the day however professionally they collate and collect evidence when they talk about the distant past they will be guessing. Just cause we can observe processes today does not mean we can generalise from them. Analogous rationalisations may well have consistent explanatory power but they are not evidence themselves. So it simply does not matter that you are a professional when it comes to this discussion.
"Decay rates have changed" is a testable hypothesis - we can predict the things that we would see today if we compressed an apparent 4 billion years of radioactive decay into less than 6000 years. For example, that much radioactive decay in that short of a time period would produce a LOT of heat, and yet we have rocks dated to 4Ga that show no evidence of having been heated above 1000 degrees (let alone hotter - that amount of decay would produce enough heat to melt the planet - which would have the effect of resetting the age of every rock). We would also expect ages of the same rock using different methods to be wildly different. Different radioactive isotopes decay down different decay chains - some have dozens of steps, while others only go through one or two, and they all use a different sequence of alpha, beta, and gamma decay (as well as electron capture) to progress through those chains. All of those differences mean that accelerating the decay rates would have an unequal effect on the various isotopes used for radiometric dating. And yet, the vast, vast majority of the time, different dating methods give identical ages for the same rock.Solid evidence of decay rates today does not mean you can generalise from them by way of analogy. So you are guessing when you use this also.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Earth is 6000 years old - that was an interpretation by Bishop Ussher. Nor does the Bible specify the method by which God created the Earth and all of its inhabitants (edit: except for Eve). As far as the Flood goes, most scientists believe that the Biblical account refers to a large local flood (possibly the flooding of the Black Sea when the Straits of Bosporous opened up). To the people living there at the time though, such an event would have seemed global and could have certainly been interpreted as divine punishment.I find the claim that the secular conclusions from science is "God's science" difficult because there is an apparent disconnect between what the Bible says and the assertions of billions of years, evolution, no flood, etc...
It doesn't just have to be believed to be scientifically sound. It has to be demonstrated as such. Your hypothesis must be tested and shown to explain what you believe it to explain. That is what makes God not a scientific explanation - His existence can't be tested in a scientific sense. If you allow God to be included in scientific explanations, then a non-believer could just as easily cite Thor, aliens, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.If God is not a scientific explanation; however, then the answer to all questions that science seeks to address can really be anything believed to be scientifically sound, so long as God is not in that answer. This alone, I feel, is possibly the greatest flaw of the secular scientific framework.
I don't understand why this argument keeps coming up. Uniformitarianism does not preclude the occurrence of catastrophes. In a very simplified sense, it states that the processes we see in action today are the same processes that were in action in the past. Catastrophic events occur now, and they occurred in the past as well.Separately, while it has its usefulness at times, uniformitarianism does not always help this framework either, and is one of the main drivers behind where long ages comes from. By contrast, while catastrophism does not explain every feature of what is observed here in the present, it is equally valid and necessary to arrive at reasonable conclusions since all scientists to one degree or another believe the earth has had a catastrophic past.
Is it any less of a miracle if we were created through the mechanism of evolution or the Earth was formed out of the Big Bang rather than poofed into existence?Where I am still not clear on my understanding is how our OEC brothers and sisters make the distinction. See, they admittedly also invoke supernatural explanations when it seems suitable to them. For example, we all accept Jesus was born of a virgin and this defies natural laws; with the new heavens and new earth we will live with Christ for forever and this defies natural laws; every miracle performed and recorded in the Bible defied natural law. Apparently; however, supernatural causes cannot be acceptable as it relates to the creation of the universe--even though we have many passages that tell us God (a supernatural being) was very involved in the creation process.
The ~6,000 is also believed by those who believe the lineage from Adam to Christ (multiple times this is given in the Bible).Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Earth is 6000 years old - that was an interpretation by Bishop Ussher. Nor does the Bible specify the method by which God created the Earth and all of its inhabitants (edit: except for Eve). As far as the Flood goes, most scientists believe that the Biblical account refers to a large local flood (possibly the flooding of the Black Sea when the Straits of Bosporous opened up). To the people living there at the time though, such an event would have seemed global and could have certainly been interpreted as divine punishment.
Hard to demonstrate something that supposedly takes millions/billions of years to take. You can infer it, but you cannot observe, demonstrate, test, or falsify it.It doesn't just have to be believed to be scientifically sound. It has to be demonstrated as such. Your hypothesis must be tested and shown to explain what you believe it to explain. That is what makes God not a scientific explanation - His existence can't be tested in a scientific sense. If you allow God to be included in scientific explanations, then a non-believer could just as easily cite Thor, aliens, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I agree with the definitions you have given. You wouldn't conclude long ages if you assumed God created everything in 6 days as He said though (including laying down the foundations of the world), or that He immediately created complex life would you? No, instead, you would only conclude long ages if you believe little rivers carve out massive canyons (and yes the Colorado is little compared to the major rivers of the world), and that life slowly evolves (by random mutation and natural selection of all things).I don't understand why this argument keeps coming up. Uniformitarianism does not preclude the occurrence of catastrophes. In a very simplified sense, it states that the processes we see in action today are the same processes that were in action in the past. Catastrophic events occur now, and they occurred in the past as well.
Not less miraculous, just less accurate. Certainly God used a process over the 6 days, and the mechanism seems to be His voice and His breath... Jesus is the word made flesh and all things were created through Him. The word is the 'mechanism'.Is it any less of a miracle if we were created through the mechanism of evolution or the Earth was formed out of the Big Bang rather than poofed into existence?
Yes, that is what was used by Bishop Ussher. It's an interpretation of the lineages in the Bible, which have some gaps and inconsistencies. And 6000 years to Adam doesn't necessarily translate to 6000 years to the creation of the Earth. There are some who theorize that Adam was a symbolic figure - not the first human, but simply the first to recognize God.The ~6,000 is also believed by those who believe the lineage from Adam to Christ (multiple times this is given in the Bible).
I refer you to post #345. Even if you reject all concepts of modern science that make a claim of billions of years testable and falsifiable, the claim that billions of years of apparent age were compressed into ~6000 years is a testable claim. It has been tested, and it has failed those tests.Hard to demonstrate something that supposedly takes millions/billions of years to take. You can infer it, but you cannot observe, demonstrate, test, or falsify it.
There are many aspects of the world that simply don't mesh with a young Earth - I could go on for hours reiterating them. In the face of that evidence, we are forced to conclude that either a literal interpretation of Genesis is incorrect or that God created the world with an appearance of age - something that would serve no purpose but to deceive. Given that the latter does not fit into what I know of God, I am forced to go with the former - that the Genesis account is non-literal.I agree with the definitions you have given. You wouldn't conclude long ages if you assumed God created everything in 6 days as He said though (including laying down the foundations of the world), or that He immediately created complex life would you? No, instead, you would only conclude long ages if you believe little rivers carve out massive canyons (and yes the Colorado is little compared to the major rivers of the world), and that life slowly evolves (by random mutation and natural selection of all things).
"Decay rates have changed" is a testable hypothesis - we can predict the things that we would see today if we compressed an apparent 4 billion years of radioactive decay into less than 6000 years. For example, that much radioactive decay in that short of a time period would produce a LOT of heat, and yet we have rocks dated to 4Ga that show no evidence of having been heated above 1000 degrees (let alone hotter - that amount of decay would produce enough heat to melt the planet - which would have the effect of resetting the age of every rock). We would also expect ages of the same rock using different methods to be wildly different. Different radioactive isotopes decay down different decay chains - some have dozens of steps, while others only go through one or two, and they all use a different sequence of alpha, beta, and gamma decay (as well as electron capture) to progress through those chains. All of those differences mean that accelerating the decay rates would have an unequal effect on the various isotopes used for radiometric dating. And yet, the vast, vast majority of the time, different dating methods give identical ages for the same rock.
The claim that "nobody knows what happened in the distant past so it's all just guessing" is a massive cop-out and extraordinarily intellectually dishonest. If that's truly the best argument you can come up with for a young Earth, then I think I'm done here.
Ah, so you weren't really interested in responses to the creationist arguments you posted. I think I'm done with this conversation.You do not recognise your own uniformitarian naturalistic assumptions. There is no scientific way to map the history of a world formed supernaturally , catacylsmically destroyed and then restored in diminished form. What we see today is a pale shadow of what was, fossils are the remains of the vast unmourned crowds of the fallen dead. Unstable radioactive elements like carbon 14 are not the ways we date the original creation that was made good. They are more likely the products of judgment and cataclysm. Maybe there is no way for a creationist to argue this from Creation itself. But Gods word is clear and his miraculous nature is clear. The Earth is Young
Ah, so you weren't really interested in responses to the creationist arguments you posted. I think I'm done with this conversation.
@Dan Brooks
You are spot on with the "wouldn't God's science agree with His word" comment! The immediate rebuttal, of course, is that it does and that it is our our interpretation of Genesis, of other OT references to Genesis, NT references to Genesis, and what Jesus Himself says in reference back to Genesis that is wrong, all of it.
I find the claim that the secular conclusions from science is "God's science" difficult because there is an apparent disconnect between what the Bible says and the assertions of billions of years, evolution, no flood, etc... Further, where are all of the scientific journals publishing papers and articles where we see the results of scientific findings alongside with references to scripture showing where the two agree? In fact, where is God Himself ever mentioned in secular science? In fact, should God ever even be inferred in a secular scientific publication, the following is usually what happens:
Hand of God? Scientific anatomy paper citing a 'creator' retracted after furore
The usual response is that God is not a 'scientific' explanation, so should not be referenced. In fact, if you or I 'invoke' supernatural explanations in support of a YEC perspective, we can expect a degree of criticism to accompany. If God is not a scientific explanation; however, then the answer to all questions that science seeks to address can really be anything believed to be scientifically sound, so long as God is not in that answer. This alone, I feel, is possibly the greatest flaw of the secular scientific framework. Separately, while it has its usefulness at times, uniformitarianism does not always help this framework either, and is one of the main drivers behind where long ages comes from. By contrast, while catastrophism does not explain every feature of what is observed here in the present, it is equally valid and necessary to arrive at reasonable conclusions since all scientists to one degree or another believe the earth has had a catastrophic past.
Where I am still not clear on my understanding is how our OEC brothers and sisters make the distinction. See, they admittedly also invoke supernatural explanations when it seems suitable to them. For example, we all accept Jesus was born of a virgin and this defies natural laws; with the new heavens and new earth we will live with Christ for forever and this defies natural laws; every miracle performed and recorded in the Bible defied natural law. Apparently; however, supernatural causes cannot be acceptable as it relates to the creation of the universe--even though we have many passages that tell us God (a supernatural being) was very involved in the creation process.
@Dan Brooks
You are spot on with the "wouldn't God's science agree with His word" comment! The immediate rebuttal, of course, is that it does and that it is our our interpretation of Genesis, of other OT references to Genesis, NT references to Genesis, and what Jesus Himself says in reference back to Genesis that is wrong, all of it.
I find the claim that the secular conclusions from science is "God's science" difficult because there is an apparent disconnect between what the Bible says and the assertions of billions of years, evolution, no flood, etc... Further, where are all of the scientific journals publishing papers and articles where we see the results of scientific findings alongside with references to scripture showing where the two agree? In fact, where is God Himself ever mentioned in secular science? In fact, should God ever even be inferred in a secular scientific publication, the following is usually what happens:
Hand of God? Scientific anatomy paper citing a 'creator' retracted after furore
The usual response is that God is not a 'scientific' explanation, so should not be referenced. In fact, if you or I 'invoke' supernatural explanations in support of a YEC perspective, we can expect a degree of criticism to accompany. If God is not a scientific explanation; however, then the answer to all questions that science seeks to address can really be anything believed to be scientifically sound, so long as God is not in that answer. This alone, I feel, is possibly the greatest flaw of the secular scientific framework. Separately, while it has its usefulness at times, uniformitarianism does not always help this framework either, and is one of the main drivers behind where long ages comes from. By contrast, while catastrophism does not explain every feature of what is observed here in the present, it is equally valid and necessary to arrive at reasonable conclusions since all scientists to one degree or another believe the earth has had a catastrophic past.
Where I am still not clear on my understanding is how our OEC brothers and sisters make the distinction. See, they admittedly also invoke supernatural explanations when it seems suitable to them. For example, we all accept Jesus was born of a virgin and this defies natural laws; with the new heavens and new earth we will live with Christ for forever and this defies natural laws; every miracle performed and recorded in the Bible defied natural law. Apparently; however, supernatural causes cannot be acceptable as it relates to the creation of the universe--even though we have many passages that tell us God (a supernatural being) was very involved in the creation process.
"From nothing nothing comes" is scientific. (I think it still is, isn't it? Under debate, maybe).
"The universe is something." I think that would be classified as a true statement.
"Therefore the universe came from something." I think that would be a nice logical conclusion.
Now, since it is universally observed (which observation is required in order for anything to be classified as scientific), that anything made has a maker, some consideration should be taken as to the nature of the maker of a given thing.
The maker of a wooden chair just needs to know enough about woodworking in order to have planned and accomplished the fashioning and construction of the chair. It is a functional item, with a useful purpose, so it would require intelligence to accomplish the production of a wooden chair, albeit not necessarily a great intelligence, because the item is not very complex.
A Rolex watch also requires a maker, and one who needs enough intelligence to make all the small intricate parts of the watch, and to make them all work together correctly and properly, and over a long period of time. The maker would have to know how to tell time, and how to cause the made item to also be able to tell time. This item is also quite functional, and also has a useful purpose, but since it is much more complex than a wooden chair, it requires more intelligence, and more labor as well, to accomplish the production of it.
Now the same could be said of a house, a hotel, a hospital, a skyscraper, or an entire city. Each requiring more intelligence, more organization, and more manpower to accomplish it's respective product.
So using this same reasoning, (and I think it is logical reasoning. Correct me if I am wrong), we must assume that the level of intelligence, organization, and power required to accomplish such a thing as an entire universe, and not just any universe, with all of it's nearly innumerable complexities, but a universe in which there is life, and not just life, but an astoundingly wide variety of forms of life, each with their various levels of intelligence, purpose, and function- I say we must assume that the level of intelligence, organization, and power required to accomplish this is utterly incalculable.
I think that conclusion is quite logical, and about as scientific as we can be, since, though we did not witness the creation of the universe, all other things that we know to be made are also known to have a maker, and the making of such made things can be observed. It would I think, therefore be quite an illogical conclusion that the universe itself could not have a maker.
Now if such a maker exists (which, I think, would be the most logical and reasonable assumption to make), and if this maker has communicated to us in some fashion, and if the words of this maker include information on how the maker made everything, would it not be most reasonable to assume that the way the maker said everything was made, is actually the way it was made?
Unless it would be even more logical and more reasonable to assume that the maker is not trustworthy, in absence of reason to assume such a thing, I think there can be no other logical conclusion to make other than that the way the maker said everything was made, is actually the way everything was made.
Now even further, for the Christian, who already acknowledges the Lord God Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, and His Christ, the Lord Jesus, Son of the Most High God, and that the collection of books known as the Holy Bible is the written word of God, and also knows the Almighty God to be most trustworthy- I think it would be rightly incumbent on such a one, even more than another, to take the written word of God to mean what it says, rather than interpreting it into oblivion.
I think that would be a most logical and reasonable, and responsible thing to do.
Just my humble opinion.
1. Yes I think day and night are enough. The evening and the morning were the first day. The evening and the morning were the second day. The evening and the morning were the third day. The evening and the morning were every day of creation, and on the seventh such say, God rested (not that He needed rest, but as an example to us, and to establish the seven day week.)I agree with most of this but..... The Eternal Creators intent in creation is not primarily about telling us the time. He gave us the sun to mark the day and the night is that not enough? Also unlike scripture the book of nature is broken and corrupted. A broken clock will not tell the time even if it testifies to the genius of its Creator.
So should God not have created the trees as fully grown, bearing fruit in them? Should He have just planted seed in the ground, and then told Adam, "Sorry, you're going to have to wait a few years before you have anything to eat." Or when God made Eve from Adam's rib, did she think, "Adam has only been here a few days longer than I have, but he looks like he's been here for 30 or 40 years. God is so deceptive." Or did Adam think that about God also when He presented him with Eve as a grown woman? Or should God have made Eve a baby and told Adam he would have to wait a few decades before she could be his wife?There are many aspects of the world that simply don't mesh with a young Earth - I could go on for hours reiterating them. In the face of that evidence, we are forced to conclude that either a literal interpretation of Genesis is incorrect or that God created the world with an appearance of age - something that would serve no purpose but to deceive. Given that the latter does not fit into what I know of God, I am forced to go with the former - that the Genesis account is non-literal.
The problem isn't one of simply apparent age, but of apparent history. There are physical records on our planet - scars, if you will - of events that apparently occurred millions or even billions of years ago. It would be as though God created the trees fully grown, but with damage from past storms that they never actually experienced. Or created Adam as a 30-year-old man with a scar on his knee from where he cut it on a rock when he was 5 - an event which never happened.So should God not have created the trees as fully grown, bearing fruit in them? Should He have just planted seed in the ground, and then told Adam, "Sorry, you're going to have to wait a few years before you have anything to eat." Or when God made Eve from Adam's rib, did she think, "Adam has only been here a few days longer than I have, but he looks like he's been here for 30 or 40 years. God is so deceptive." Or did Adam think that about God also when He presented him with Eve as a grown woman? Or should God have made Eve a baby and told Adam he would have to wait a few decades before she could be his wife?
In other words, would it really make any sense at all if God hadn't created things in their adult state, with apparent age? I don't think so. He made trees, plants and all vegetation in their adult state, as well as all the animals, and also man and woman. It wouldn't make any sense any other way.
I have given Scripture multiple times in here now. I don't believe any of it to be refutable, and also I can't myself find a way to interpret the passages in some sort of allegorical way (maybe you can? would be interested in that). Barring a clear presentation of the apparently quite alternative way in which Scripture must be being interpreted by people such as yourself, I would ask this question.The problem isn't one of simply apparent age, but of apparent history. There are physical records on our planet - scars, if you will - of events that apparently occurred millions or even billions of years ago. It would be as though God created the trees fully grown, but with damage from past storms that they never actually experienced. Or created Adam as a 30-year-old man with a scar on his knee from where he cut it on a rock when he was 5 - an event which never happened.
Agreed, and as to events that supposedly happened millions or billions of years ago there is no independently known record or source to verify such events (all sources used to infer these long ages have no independent, verifiable source). An example I've given before is of my birth certificate. One could try to ascertain my age based upon my various physical features and who my likely parents are through DNA analysis. To be absolutely sure though, just look at my birth certificate and the listed mother and father. In the same sense, the book of Genesis is the birth certificate of all creation.I have given Scripture multiple times in here now. I don't believe any of it to be refutable, and also I can't myself find a way to interpret the passages in some sort of allegorical way (maybe you can? would be interested in that). Barring a clear presentation of the apparently quite alternative way in which Scripture must be being interpreted by people such as yourself, I would ask this question.
Is it perhaps not the Bible which needs to be reinterpreted, but rather the data in question? Appearances may indeed be quite deceptive, but God isn't.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?