What's enough evidence?

[Calminian]

And I think your post shows a fundamental flaw in your understanding of how a good proportion of Christians think.

You'll have to define “christian.”

No. The group of people who think this are not "Christians", they are "some Christians".

This is true.

It's an important distinction. Personally, I don't think there's much of what we moderns would call History prior to at least Samuel and Chronicles. I'm of the party that leans towards the belief that when the book of the law was "found" whilst spring cleaning the temple, the ink wasn't fully dry.

Okay?

Yes, but we've been round this particular mulberry bush before, haven't we? We don't reject a miraculous six day creation because it's scientifically impossible; we reject it because it's scientifically falsified. Very different.

Falsified hey. Well as you know many in your camp disagree with you. They emphatically believe they are basing their beliefs on scripture. They claim they are not letting scientific theories dictate their hermeneutical approach. It's good to hear someone being honest for a change.

And when the physical evidence falsifies the possible conclusions of those other forms of evidence - by which you mean Genesis 1-3, if "those other forms" are taken as literal history, what then? Do we let reality guide our conclusions, or do we insist the conclusions must be right and to hell with reality?

You are not letting reality guide you, you are letting presuppositions guide you. You are doing what many in the church did in Galileo's time. Many in the church (about half I've heard estimated) were blindly accepting Aristotelian science. These contemporary scientists were quite the dogmatists and many in the church followed (probably not wanting to be thought of as unintelligent). When Copernium science came along, the Aristotelian scientists were up in arms. These scientists were quite aggressive and drove Galileo indoors to live like a hermit for a period of time. Some in the church also participated in the bashing. Sad time, really. They failed to look to the scriptures and notice it was equivocal on the issue.

No, just accept Genesis 1-3 as being non-literal. Perfectly reliable for the purposes for which it was written, but not scientifically accurate.

What was the purpose 'for which Genesis was written?' What was the purpose of the connecting very detailed genealogies? Please share?

 

[AirPo]

The exact same thing can be said by creationists about evolutionists.

They can and do. But of course their claims do not stand up to scrutiny.

Argh, I was hoping this would be a thread strictly about evolution, I guess I underestimated all the posters here.

It's difficult to have a discussion about evolution if you don't know what evolution is.

 

[mikeski52]

They can and do. But of course their claims do not stand up to scrutiny.

the same thing can be said about evolutionists' claims

It's difficult to have a discussion about evolution if you don't know what evolution is.

What are you talking about?? That's not at all what my statement was talking about. I wanted to discuss only evolution and not get creationism involved but of course it happened anyway.

 

[AirPo]

the same thing can be said about evolutionists' claims

Such as?

What are you talking about?? That's not at all what my statement was talking about. I wanted to discuss only evolution and not get creationism involved but of course it happened anyway.

Sorry, let me clairify. It's difficult to have a discussion strictly about evolution if you don't know what evolution strictly is. If you are not clear on what evolution is, you'll let creatolution slip in. That's why I asked which defination of macroevolution you were using.

 

[mikeski52]

Such as?

I personally have not seen a single piece of evidence that straight out proves evolution exists. I'm not saying that creation is true, but I feel more confident that evolution is false than creation is false.

Sorry, let me clairify. It's difficult to have a discussion strictly about evolution if you don't know what evolution strictly is. If you are not clear on what evolution is, you'll let creatolution slip in. That's why I asked which defination of macroevolution you were using.

So tell me what the differences are between the two?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I personally have not seen a single piece of evidence that straight out proves evolution exists. I'm not saying that creation is true, but I feel more confident that evolution is false than creation is false.

you are not looking very hard then.

the GLO pseudogene
the HERV's building the same clades as structure and genetics
the chimp 2p+2q=human 2 chromosomes with internal teleomeres and 2nd centrosome
the consistent nested hierarchical structure of living things, seen at macroscopic level down to level of genetics.

there is lots more. but these persuaded me.


.....

 

[AirPo]

So tell me what the differences are between the two?

Creatolution is the creationist strawman version of evolution.

For instance, the scientific definition of macroevolution is any evolutionary change at or above the level of species, (from talk.origins.)

Creatioinist definitions run the gamet from any evolutionary change at or above the level of "kind", without ever defining "kind," to something ridiculous as a watermelon evolving into a hippo.

The point is, if you want to discuss strictly evolution, you have to buy into the scientific definitions.

 

[wagsbags]

If you come into the debate believing the universe had no miraculous beginning, yes it does appear evolution might be the best explanation. I’m not a scientist, so can’t say for certain.

From what I hear not so much the best explanation, as it is the explanation that is extremely well evidenced and nature is practically shouting at us. It's not like this is one of many many theories that just fits the facts slightly better. I would encourage you to read some stuff on talkorigins.org and see what those scientists have to say about it.

The classic flaw that never goes away. If Christ made some wine miraculously, naturalists would be fooled about its age. This doesn’t prove Christ tried to deceive them. It only proves they refused to let go of a wrong presupposition.

If god made the earth 6000 years ago why we he create light in transit from stars more than 6000 light years away? If a star 10,000 light years away stops shining today that means it stopped shining 10,000 years ago and therefore never existed. Radioisotopes were forced to look older than they actually are. How is none of this deception?

 

[futzman]

Yet another shining example of a person that has no business posting in a “discussion and debate” forum. If nothing can ever sway your opinion then you aren’t here to discuss nor are you here to debate. You are simply here to evangelize and spread your particular brand of propaganda.

Obviously. Haven't you noticed that SackHunch will always post a new thread when one of his other threads falls off the list? On most forums these type of people are called "trolls" but I guess on this forum, since it's a Christian forum, it's allowed since he's trying to save us heathens

Futz (still wondering why God hated those 4400 genera of brachiopods...)

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The classic flaw that never goes away. If Christ made some wine miraculously, naturalists would be fooled about its age. This doesn’t prove Christ tried to deceive them. It only proves they refused to let go of a wrong presupposition.

you use the water into wine miracle to miss the critical criticisms of "creation with apparent age".

there is a big difference between creation with a history(or Adam's scars) and creation with apparent age(Adam's belly button).

If Adam stands before you, 1 minute after his creation, and has a scar on his knee from a childhood accident and the memory of it, this is deception. Scars or a history that is specific is MEANT to deceive the observer into miscalculating how old Adam is.
If he is without scars, without a history, without specific memories then you can play the game of last thursdayism if you desire, but as countless generations of freshman philosophy students have discovered it leads nowhere interesting or realistic.

getting back to the water into wine miracle. If it is simply wine, the miracle is not a scar, is not a deceptive history, however if there are traces of lead from the radiator used to distill it, or a soil fungus contamination that would lead an investigator to conclude that it came from a particular field then that is DECEPTION and you are proposing a trickster god.

Simply because it is wine and AFAIK wine is also a process taking time is not in itself deception. Nor does it support your contention of a universe created with apparent age, for the wine need not have a history at all*. Unlike the universe which not only has a very systematic history, not only does it bear developmental scars but these things point consistently to an immensely old universe.

*if it is simply molecules of alcohol and components of wine they have no history encoded in them, nor do they have information as to how they came to be in that water jar. However the presence of some molecules, like the field fungus or lead, which are not normal components of wine, but are indicative of a particular history are deceptive, being there to mislead.
For instance, it i had the knowledge i could combine things from a chemistry lab that would mimic wine, i am sure it would not be good wine, but that only means i am not the chemist as is God. And in doing so i would not be intending to deceive.
.....

 

[wagsbags]

Yeah. What he said. We don't find an earth that just "looks older than 6000 years" we find evidence of ice ages, ancient species, big bangs, stars more than 6000 light years away etc.

 

[Calminian]

Yeah. What he said.

First let’s touch on a few things you’ve said.

We don't find an earth that just "looks older than 6000 years" we find evidence of ice ages, ancient species, big bangs, stars more than 6000 light years away etc.

Creationists believe in an ice age. I don’t think they believe in multi ice-ages. Creationists certainly believe in extinct species. Their ancientness I would assume would depend on naturalistic dating methods. Creationists also believe the stars are millions of light years away. The most popular theory is White Hole theory by Humphreys. You may not know this but creations actually believe in a young earth and old universe which were created at the same time. Confusing? Has to do with time dilation and a whole bunch of other things over my head. Einstein came up with the trippy theories.

you use the water into wine miracle to miss the critical criticisms of "creation with apparent age".

I’m vary aware of the criticisms.

there is a big difference between creation with a history(or Adam's scars) and creation with apparent age(Adam's belly button).

No young earth creationists believe Adam was created with scars.

getting back to the water into wine miracle. If it is simply wine, the miracle is not a scar, is not a deceptive history, however if there are traces of lead from the radiator used to distill it, or a soil fungus contamination that would lead an investigator to conclude that it came from a particular field then that is DECEPTION and you are proposing a trickster god.

Again no creationists believe God would put deceptive ingredients into the wine. I don’t know much about traces of lead or soil fungus so I’ll take your word for it. But if these items don’t contribute to the taste, then they would not be present in miraculous wine. If they do, then I would expect to see them, after all the wine needs to be good.

I’ve anticipated this response to the wine analogy. For sure, when God creates something miraculously there will be anomalies that scientists cannot explain. But surely they will not then conclude “miracle!” They will simply conclude the wine was somehow been kept pure from these components.

I’m confused by your response. Are you saying you believe scientists would conclude the wine Christ made was 1 day old?

Simply because it is wine and AFAIK wine is also a process taking time is not in itself deception. Nor does it support your contention of a universe created with apparent age, for the wine need not have a history at all*. Unlike the universe which not only has a very systematic history, not only does it bear developmental scars but these things point consistently to an immensely old universe.

I hear this but never hear anything convincing. You mentioned tree-rings in an earlier post being an ostensible scar. Do you still believe this? I hear it brought up often in fact. So what’s the deal with these rings? It’s kind of bugg’n me. What’s all this talk about tree-rings?

*if it is simply molecules of alcohol and components of wine they have no history encoded in them, nor do they have information as to how they came to be in that water jar. However the presence of some molecules, like the field fungus or lead, which are not normal components of wine, but are indicative of a particular history are deceptive, being there to mislead.

You are correct. But creationists don’t believe the world was created with scars. Again, my question: What do you believe scientists would conclude about the wine Jesus created or even a modern bottle of miracle wine? Would they conclude it was one day old?

For instance, it i had the knowledge i could combine things from a chemistry lab that would mimic wine, i am sure it would not be good wine, but that only means i am not the chemist as is God. And in doing so i would not be intending to deceive.
.....

Creationists are very careful to avoid scenarios that indicate God deceived. The light-in-transit theory is one that creationists have dropped across the board.

We agree on this.

I think it’s a good challenge you make. I think it falls short when you take into account that whether scientists find lead and fungus or not, they are still deceived. It’s just not God’s fault as you admit. But the miracles of Genesis are even more complicated. The six day creation consisted of a multitude of miracles. The flood as well. Who knows how many and the exact details? Some of their effects may indeed look like scars to scientists, but that’s simply because they are starting with naturalistic assumptions. Recognizing a scar is the essence of the debate.

But there’s no doubt that God does not create false scars. There should be missing belly-buttons here and there and I think creation scientists have done a good job pointing them out.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Tree rings are equivalent to scars on Adam.
They indicate various growth rates, they indicate climate changes and shifts. If these things did not happen then it is deception and the creation with apparent age by a trickster god. The same as placing elements into the wine that are only the result of the aging process or elements that would indicate the field of its origin or elements that would be specific to the process but not to wine.

Not only tree rings, but ice cores and varves and radioactive dating and all the other items continually brought up for YECists to realize that they do propose a deceptive universe despite your protestations above.

A blank universe, like a scarless, memoryless Adam is one thing, but that is not what the book of God's works presents to us, it presents a developmental history.

.....

 

[Calminian]

Tree rings are equivalent to scars on Adam.
They indicate various growth rates, they indicate climate changes and shifts. If these things did not happen then it is deception and the creation with apparent age by a trickster god.

...

... tree rings, ... continually brought up for YECists to realize that they do propose a deceptive universe despite your protestations above......

Okay so let's focus on tree rings since you believe these prove the YEC time frame is deceptive. According to the rings, how old did God trick us into believing certain trees are? Millions of years? Hundreds of thousands of years? Tens of thousands of years?

 

[nvxplorer]

Again no creationists believe God would put deceptive ingredients into the wine. I don’t know much about traces of lead or soil fungus so I’ll take your word for it. But if these items don’t contribute to the taste, then they would not be present in miraculous wine. If they do, then I would expect to see them, after all the wine needs to be good.

Wine is aged for a purpose, as you mention. What purpose would it serve to artificially age the earth?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Okay so let's focus on tree rings since you believe these prove the YEC time frame is deceptive. According to the rings, how old did God trick us into believing certain trees are? Millions of years? Hundreds of thousands of years? Tens of thousands of years?

as a rough figure:
we have 12K years of dendrochronological data
120K years of ice cores and lake varves
available.
no global flood within those time constraints.
if these are scars then creation must have occurred before then.

tree rings alone falsify a 6kya creation and a 4kya global flood.
QED

actually Chinese characters on tortise shell and ox scapula by themselves falsify the flood
....

 

[Nightson]

Okay so let's focus on tree rings since you believe these prove the YEC time frame is deceptive. According to the rings, how old did God trick us into believing certain trees are? Millions of years? Hundreds of thousands of years? Tens of thousands of years?

Apparently we have an unbroken succesion of tree rings stretching back 9,000 years. In fact, recent pieces of wood collected have given scientists hope of adding another 1,000 years to the record. Which would be beyond the creation of everything by most creationist accounts, and definately beyond the great flood, while showing no evidence for it.

There's the ancient bristlecone pine Methusalah, which is a living tree at 4767 years, and yet shows no evidence of a global flood.

Here's a link to a bit about dendrochronology, the dating hrough tree rings.
http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html

EDIT: Well, 9K or 12K (I'd bet on 12K, I just looked this up on the internet) it doesn't really matter much in the context of this arguement.

 

[Calminian]

tree rings alone falsify a 6kya creation and a 4kya global flood.....

Can you provide some documentation for this 12,000 year old tree? I'd like to read the fine print.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Can you provide some documentation for this 12,000 year old tree? I'd like to read the fine print.

it is not a single tree, but rather interlaced the patterns of growth rings in specific areas. as was pointed out earlier there are 2 special bristlecone pines.
on live one just dated under 5kya, likewise another one chopped down just over 5kya.

http://gorp.away.com/gorp/resource/us_national_park/nv/pin_gb.htm

see: http://www.earthsci.org/geotime/dendro/dendro.htm
for example on how to interlace the living and dead wood samples


the point is that the technique is good enough to correct C14 data for the range of tree ring data we have.

.....

 

[Calminian]

My curiosity is kicking in. I don't get into scientific discussions often mainly because I can't contribute much. But time to learn a few things.

it is not a single tree, but rather interlaced the patterns of growth rings in specific areas. as was pointed out earlier there are 2 special bristlecone pines.
on live one just dated under 5kya, likewise another one chopped down just over 5kya.

Uh, I must be missing something. You claimed the oldest living tree was 12,000 years old. Can you document that one? A tree that is 4 thousand something is plenty close enough to a YEC view. In fact YECs range from a 6 - 10 thousand year old earth. These trees even make the youngest view possible. And I'm sure these are not perfect dating methods and can be off a few years. Seems to me the tree ring argument isn't the best example for you guys to put forth.

In fact my question is now, why do we only have trees that are 4 thousand something years old? Why not a few 5s 6s and 10s? Why does there seem to be an age cap that roughly lines up with YEC flood chronology?

Here's something else interesting. I found this letter to AiG from some skeptics like yourselves.

Don’t bristle at this!
MW: “To say that the Earth is only 6,004 years old is silly, because there are bristlecone pine trees in Nevada that are 9,000 years old, all you have to do is cut one down and count the rings.”

AiG: He is mistaken in two ways. First, he assumes that each tree can only produce one ring per year, when sometimes more than one is produced. However, we would think it was difficult to try to use this to explain a 50% discrepancy, and in fact we don’t do this.
His major mistake is a confusion of two separate things—there is no living bristlecone pine with a 9,000-year sequence. The 9,000-year alleged chronology to which he refers exists, has to do with bristlecone pines, but he has confused it, because it refers to using the so-called overlapping technique (i.e., it is a combination of living and dead/fossil bristlecone pine.) This rests on the assumption that one can overlap similar-looking sequences reliably. It is calibrated by C-14 dating, with all the assumptions inherent in that, and is only as reliable as C-14, therefore. Furthermore, it has been shown that the overlap technique is far from error-free.
So we repeat—there is no living tree with 9,000 rings or anywhere near that. In fact, there is none with 6,000 years because (whether bristlecones or sequoias) the rings on the oldest living trees show that they are all in the 4,000 year bracket—which is in fact an evidence for the reality of the biblical Flood, some 4,500 years ago.

Now that's interesting!

In conclusion, I think it would be important for M.W. (and others who want to write such “challenges”) to first acquaint himself with the extensive AiG literature on this vast subject of how the Bible really does connect to the real world. In fact, he would have done well to search our website before writing such a challenge, because as shown, many of the questions are already answered.

Very interesting.

Another very interesting article:
Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)
by Don Batten, Ph.D.

I guess just from a pure debating strategy one has to wonder why you would bring tree rings into the discussion. But educate me. I'll admit up front I'm coming into this with very limited knowledge.