LewisWildermuth said:Hmmm... Two strikes and a proverb used as an insult to my character.
Mallon said:Calminian, I can hardly follow your line of thought. Sometimes you seem to be arguing that science cannot test miracles, and other times you seem to be saying that it can (by using the Bible as evidence in support of itself).
Mallon said:Do you believe that the miracles in the Bible left behind evidence for us to find or not?
Mallon said:Do you believe that the Flood deposited the world's fossils? If not, then you are in the same boat as the rest of us, and I don't understand your reason for arguing.
Calminian said:Ah come on. I was actually looking for a different passage on seeking riches. That's the only one I could find. You're taking it way too hard.
Just to state it publically, I believe Lewis has a fine character. I've not discovered any flaws yet, except perhaps bad hermeneutics. And I'm not convinced that's a character issue.
Calminian said:Ouch Wiltor where'd you get this. There's some very misleading info out there on the ECFs, mainly from TEs and it looks like you've gotten ahold of it.
You say Augustine didn't hold to a historical reading of Genesis? He did dabble in allegory more than my liking, but he did not dismiss the Genesis account as allegory. He was actually a young earther. He believed the earth was less than 5,600 years old. He did not allegorize the genealogies obviously. This view went against the long age philosophical views of his day. He also believed in a literal global flood along with just about every other ECF, Philo, Josephus (jewish historian), Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian, Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom.
Calminian said:I've not studied Aquinas on this particular subject. But I guarantee he was not using science to keep his interpretations of the Bible honest. Science as the method we see today didnt even exist at that time. Aquinas did believe reason played a prominent role in christianity and theology. I do also. In fact it doesnt seem to be playing enough of a role nowadays. Id like to see a little less science and a little more logical reasoning about the scientific assumption of naturalism.
Calminian said:And lastly, I also believe science books should be read along side the Bible. The difference is, I believe the Bible should be used to help us understand science. Not the other way around. But this obviously violates the religion of scientism.
shernren said:I assume I shall be left alone to complete my ruminations in unanswered silence, since I have no-one to insult and nothing to rebut.
Only if one were a materialist and were confusing one's philosophy with science.Calminian said:One could object I suppose and argue that science also rules out the possibility of resurrections happening at all.
Yes, I think we've already been through this. Materialism is not a part of science, but science can only study what is natural. Science can make no claims about whether miracles are possible. That would be like proving mathematically that poetry is impossible.To this the apologist would say, it was a miracle. The naturalist would then accuse him is selectively using science. Sound familiar?
But finding the body doesn't destroy my personal relationship with Jesus. I would need to reinterpret because I wouldn't be willing to say everything I've experienced was a delusion. I know he rose and he's alive and active, but finding the body would convince me that he didn't rise the way I thought he did. After all, I believe people who are cremated will also be bodily resurrected, so I've always viewed Jesus' resurrection of the same (yet different) body as a bit of an anomaly. I wouldn't be willing to turf my faith just because it didn't happen the way I imagined.Ouch! This is case and point. If the body of Jesus was discovered the Bible should be rejected not reinterpreted. The record is explicit, unambiguous and unequivocal about the bodily resurrection of Jesus. But this is the tendency of christians in this age. They ignore the obvious meaning of the text and try to harmonize it with other theories and beliefs. Now in your example, a body means the record has been falsified. Alternative interpretations are futile.
I was replying to your post. I intentionally used the word "we" instead of "you" just so you wouldn't seem to be singled out.I agree. But I noticed you had no words for the poster I was responding to. Could that be because he shares your view?
Welcome to OT, LetHimThatGlories. You are certainly correct that buried rock could have its properties altered by any number of circumstances, but what is important is which properties could be altered. As I'm sure you're aware, radiometric dating in all its methods deal with isotope decay rates, which (as far as science is aware) are constant throughout nature for given isotopes. Granted, finding the right method to use is important for getting an accurate measurement.LetHimThatGlories said:Is it possible to believe that a rock has sat under the ground for millions...or billions...of years with its properties not being affected by its environment?
I suggest that perhaps you should reign in on your arrogance of presuming to know what scientists do or don't grasp.Calminian said:My biggest concern with scientists is that they don't grasp the assumptions their field is based on.
No, that is what one would be led to believe by reading the front page and the "about us" page.Calminian said:My point was [Creation Science organizations] are honest about their approach. They start with the presupposition that the Bible is historically accurate.
On the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that their method is fatally flawed because they limit themselves to a particular supernaturalistic dogma.They have a superior method because they don't limit themselves to naturalistic assumptions.
Quote-mining and spreading false information may be rational by some views, but it certainly isn't Christian.Creation ministries use scientific evidence along with other forms of evidence (the Bible, etc.) in their rational arguments for a young earth.
For the same reason that I don't start looking in another state when I am trying to find my keys.You irrationally limited yourself to methodological naturalism. Why be irrational? Why limit yourself?
A policeman saw a drunk searching for something under a lamppost. "What have you lost, my friend?" the policeman asked. " My keys", said the drunk. The policeman then helped the drunk look and finally asked him: "Where exactly did you drop them?" "Over there", responded the drunk, pointing toward the dark street. The policeman then asked: "Why are you looking here?" The drunk immediately replied: "Because the light is so much brighter here."
You asked how the Flood could leave behind such fossils. It seems to me that you have the same problem if these layers were later covered by water. But I think I misunderstood your answer based on what you've posted below.Mallon said:There are fossil trackways found in the Coconino and Hermit Shale, yes. Not sure what your point is, though...
Okay then, let's use their answers. The article on AiG used Brand's work. Here's something else he wrote on the subject:And yet every Creationist article I've read argues that the Coconino was deposited during the Flood...
Don't think that there aren't more problems with the Flood scenario than just trace fossils, though.
You're shifting the burden of proof. You made the claim, but I will give you something to work with. Here's something from the EvoWiki 'disputing' the same argument that you based your question on.Show me a stratigraphic sequence preserving fossils that Creationists DON'T argue was deposited during the Flood.
It's not a smoke screen, but I am questioning your assumptions. If you want to deal with something specific, like we have been with the Coconino layer, then fine. However, you can't ask very general questions and sit back and act like there are no answers if no one takes you to task.Except every feature I pointed to was at one point or another used by Creationists as evidence for the Flood. Look at all the links I've provided for you so far. I'm not poking at a strawman. In fact, you seem to be doing your best to avoid having to deal with the evidences I've been putting forth by putting up a smoke screen and questioning my assumptions/background knowledge/etc.
Remus said:You asked how the Flood could leave behind such fossils. It seems to me that you have the same problem if these layers were later covered by water. But I think I misunderstood your answer based on what you've posted below.
Okay then, let's use their answers. The article on AiG used Brand's work. Here's something else he wrote on the subject:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/05064.htm
This looks as reasonable as anything else out there. Where's the problem?
You're shifting the burden of proof. You made the claim, but I will give you something to work with. Here's something from the EvoWiki 'disputing' the same argument that you based your question on.
http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Geologic_column_was_deposited_by_the_Flood
There's a section on this page that lists the source(s) for this argument. Notice that this section is blank.
So, what do Creationists say? It seems that the most prominent opinions revolve around this:
http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp
It's not a smoke screen, but I am questioning your assumptions. If you want to deal with something specific, like we have been with the Coconino layer, then fine. However, you can't ask very general questions and sit back and act like there are no answers if no one takes you to task.
Upon rereading this, some of it may come across as rude or at least less than polite. I'm sorry for this and please understand that it's not meant that way.
Not at all. In fact, water is (usually) necessary for preserving fossils. Thing is, the water must be low energy so as not to destroy the track impressions (entirely possible if we're considering a slow marine transgression). Flood Theorists don't seem to get this. They continually refer to the "catrastrophic" and "raging" floodwaters (look at the links I've provided).Remus said:You asked how the Flood could leave behind such fossils. It seems to me that you have the same problem if these layers were later covered by water.
Brand's work is refuted here and elsewhere:Okay then, let's use their answers. The article on AiG used Brand's work. Here's something else he wrote on the subject:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/05064.htm
This looks as reasonable as anything else out there. Where's the problem?
Sorry, but it's a MAJOR burden to bear. How many links would you like? Many of the websites I've linked to point to different fossiliferous layers in the "geologic column" as evidence for the Flood. Look! Here's more!You're shifting the burden of proof.
Probably because there were too many to name. But here's another source for you to check out: Henry Morris and John Whitcomb's book "The Genesis Flood."http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Geologic_column_was_deposited_by_the_Flood
There's a section on this page that lists the source(s) for this argument. Notice that this section is blank.
This article is poking at a strawman. The entire, complete-from-top-to-bottom geologic column is seen nowhere on earth, and I very much doubt that any competent geologist would claim otherwise (though we do find places on earth where it is MOSTLY intact, with layers missing due to erosion). The geologic column is assembled largely through correlation of different-but-similar rock sequences throughout the world. These sequences share the same rock types, fossils, facies, geochemistry, etc. If Creationists want to question the notion of the geologic column and correlative geology, then they will have to attack these basic geologic principles.So, what do Creationists say? It seems that the most prominent opinions revolve around this:
http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp
Well, we've been focusing on the Grand Canyon these last few pages, and my questions still stand.However, you can't ask very general questions and sit back and act like there are no answers if no one takes you to task.
No offence taken. But ditto for me.Upon rereading this, some of it may come across as rude or at least less than polite. I'm sorry for this and please understand that it's not meant that way.
I'll agree that the mainstream does focus on the catastrophic nature of the flood and I can see how you could misunderstand this. I think they should spend some time on other aspects of the flood which would not be considered "raging" and such.Mallon said:Not at all. In fact, water is (usually) necessary for preserving fossils. Thing is, the water must be low energy so as not to destroy the track impressions (entirely possible if we're considering a slow marine transgression). Flood Theorists don't seem to get this. They continually refer to the "catrastrophic" and "raging" floodwaters (look at the links I've provided).
In any case, the best interpretation I've seen so far suggests an aeolian or subaerial deposition of sediment within the Coconino Sandstone, and so the prints would've been covered already before any water got to them.
Brand's work was refuted by some geocities site? I can't even find the name of the author of this paper. Perhaps we should stick to the "elsewhere" part.Brand's work is refuted here and elsewhere:
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grandb.htm
Let's stick with the mainstream shall we? We can both throw out a bunch of websites that say whatever we like, but it doesn't prove anything.Sorry, but it's a MAJOR burden to bear. How many links would you like? Many of the websites I've linked to point to different fossiliferous layers in the "geologic column" as evidence for the Flood. Look! Here's more!
http://www.awitness.org/bible_commentary/genesis/flood_geology_fossils.html
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/facts/dinosaurs/nov2002.html
http://www.nwcreation.net/fossils.html
Yeah, that's got to be it.Probably because there were too many to name.
Can you quote from this 30 year old book that says that the entire geologic column was laid down during the flood?But here's another source for you to check out: Henry Morris and John Whitcomb's book "The Genesis Flood."
This article is poking at a strawman. The entire, complete-from-top-to-bottom geologic column is seen nowhere on earth, and I very much doubt that any competent geologist would claim otherwise (though we do find places on earth where it is MOSTLY intact, with layers missing due to erosion). The geologic column is assembled largely through correlation of different-but-similar rock sequences throughout the world. These sequences share the same rock types, fossils, facies, geochemistry, etc. If Creationists want to question the notion of the geologic column and correlative geology, then they will have to attack these basic geologic principles.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.htmlTalkorigins said:In fact, the entire geologic column can be observed from top to bottom in several locales, including North Dakota, as this article describes.
Then we are at an impasse it seems. Your questions are based on the assumption that mainstream creationists say that the "geologic column" was laid down during the flood. I've shown that mainstream creationists do not say that. The article on Trueorigins states that "the geologic column does not exist and so does not need to be explained by Flood geology." This direct quote proves that your assumption is false. I dont understand why you are trying to keep this up.Well, we've been focusing on the Grand Canyon these last few pages, and my questions still stand.
Well said, especially the last sentence.Calminian said:Not quite. Let's see if I can't state it concisely. I believe science, in conjunction with biblical guidance, can be very helpful in many areas of this debate. I believe the scientific method apart from revelation leads only to an irrational worldview (mainly because of the issue of infinite regressive causality). Thus I think it's more rational to look at scientific theories in light of the Bible, rather than looking at the Bible in light of scientific theories.
It's refreshing to hear someone say that. Thanks!Calminian said:My concern is correctly handling the written account. That's central to this debate.
Calminian said:And of course the rest of the evidence (biblical evidence) shows it did indeed happen. Science played a role, complimenting other methods of investigation. One could object I suppose and argue that science also rules out the possibility of resurrections happening at all. To this the apologist would say, it was a miracle. The naturalist would then accuse him is selectively using science. Sound familiar?
Then of course you have those who claim to be christian but have spiritualized the resurrection account. They would side with the naturalist. Again, sound familiar?
I would agree. There is of course lasting evidence, vast evidence, but not a physical body as it was said to have ascended. That fact that there is no body is evidence in and of itself.
On the other hand this is a leap of logic. The truth is, while we know about the miracles we dont know the details. Weve never observed a six day creation and have no idea how the aftermath looks. We can speculate but thats all we can do. We dont have many details on the Flood either. Was it a simple nudge by God and the rest fell into place like dominos? Or were there several hundred sustaining miracles occurring during the entire event? And what about the receding waters? Was this a natural event or did God intervene there also? And what of the rainbows? Was that a natural result from the previous interventions, or a new one? Did God use any mechanisms we're not yet aware of? And what affect did all these interventions have on what we observe today? We can never know, for we have never observed anything like it. All we can do is look at natural floods. Just as all we can do is look at natural dead bodies. The worldwide interventions in Genesis are so extensive, its hard to imagine how science (on its own) can give us much insight at all. To view the Bible in light of naturalistic scientific theories is irrational for those who believe in miracles. We must rather view naturalistic theories in light of the Bible.
Actually the analogy holds up well in the sense that the floods (and their effects) we observe today would be vastly different from the supernatural event that occurred in Genesis. Even more so for the creation week. We dont know what goes into creating a fully functioning world in 6 days. Imagine the interventions necessary. It's mind boggling.
Ouch! This is case and point. If the body of Jesus was discovered the Bible should be rejected not reinterpreted. The record is explicit, unambiguous and unequivocal about the bodily resurrection of Jesus. But this is the tendency of christians in this age. They ignore the obvious meaning of the text and try to harmonize it with other theories and beliefs. Now in your example, a body means the record has been falsified. Alternative interpretations are futile.
1Cor. 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
I agree. But I noticed you had no words for the poster I was responding to. Could that be because he shares your view?I don't mind the rebuke, but when they're selective they're ineffective.
Please deal with the points brought up in the article rather than attacking the fact that it was posted on a geocities website. You are avoiding the issue.Remus said:Brand's work was refuted by some geocities site? I can't even find the name of the author of this paper. Perhaps we should stick to the "elsewhere" part.
I am simply complying with your insistance that I back up my points with web links, and showing you that I am not making this stuff up.Let's stick with the mainstream shall we? We can both throw out a bunch of websites that say whatever we like, but it doesn't prove anything.
Good question. I should hold creationists to the same accountability when they refer to Darwin's works.Can you quote from this 30 year old book that says that the entire geologic column was laid down during the flood?
Ugh! I thought we were past this. I have conceded that creationists do not necessarily hold that the entire rock record was deposited as a result of the Flood. But they do, by and large, argue that much of the Grand Cayon was deposited by the Flood (see the half dozen links I've posted in this thread). This is why we have switched our focus to the Grand Canyon. Now, twelve pages later, please address my proposed questions as they pertain to the Grand Canyon and stop dancing around them.Then we are at an impasse it seems. Your questions are based on the assumption that mainstream creationists say that the "geologic column" was laid down during the flood. I've shown that mainstream creationists do not say that. The article on Trueorigins states that "the geologic column does not exist and so does not need to be explained by Flood geology." This direct quote proves that your assumption is false. I don’t understand why you are trying to keep this up.
No, I'm avoiding digging though what is obviously a poor source. But if you insist.Mallon said:Please deal with the points brought up in the article rather than attacking the fact that it was posted on a geocities website. You are avoiding the issue.
I dont see how anyone can take this guy seriously. I'm sorry, but I can't except this guy's opinion.Page 22 - 23 said:There is evidence that palms and hand shapes fall into various categories that reveal much of the character of the person. In palmistry an elongate hand is regarded as a sign of the gift of high intelligence, sensitivity, intuition, and psychic ability, whereas a stout hand, of the type sometimes called the square or useful hand, is considered a sign of a "salt of the Earth;" commonsense personality. Differences in hand shape that we can verify for ourselves by simple observations may also reflect gender to some degree; usually the female hand is less stout than a man's. Anthropologists recognize broad and narrow heads and body types expressed within all major racial groups. So broadness or narrowness is seen in the whole body, in the head, in the hand, in the foot. A pattern, surely. As we shall see, inherent qualities are also associated with narrowness and breadth, so we might infer from their foot shape that ancient Celts were more intuitive and mystical, whereas Saxons more practical and down to earth. There is substantial scientific evidence that fingerprints and palm crease patterns fall into distinct categories. For example, susceptibility to Alzheimer's and other diseases has been correlated with certain distinctive fingerprint patterns. There is also strong evidence that left-handedness correlates with certain fingerprint types and personalities. Lefties live shorter lives and are more likely to end up in jail or in mental institutions, but we don't know why. If genes for such diseases and psychological profiles are linked to skin or hand anatomy, then surely such correlations should be studied seriously. At present forensics studies fingerprints but not palms. Why? Perhaps because it is easier and less messy to collect and store fingerprints than palm prints. Or is there a taboo against studying palms, based on scepticism toward the ancient art of palmistry? In the absence of any efforts to explore the scientific underpinnings of palmistry, we shall remain ignorant of its potential, and not appreciate the adage that hands and feet are the instruments of the soul. Within the broad realm of medical science there are many correlations between disease and physical attributes and less tangible characteristics such as behavior and personality. On a more practical level, our immense global fingerprint database could be used to identify individuals with susceptibilities to particular diseases. But a palmprint database would provide considerably more information. Such prospects lend a humanitarian perspective to a data set otherwise used primarily to facilitate bureaucracy and law enforcement.
All I need is one that says what you are arguing against, but it seems that we can't even agree on what that is.I am simply complying with your insistance that I back up my points with web links, and showing you that I am not making this stuff up.
Perhaps I was too vague. I don't believe 30 year old research is valid on either side of the debate. Nice jab at Creationists there though; especially since it was you that brought up the 30 year old source.Good question. I should hold creationists to the same accountability when they refer to Darwin's works.
You say that you conceded this point? The only place that I can see that is close to a concession is in the post that ends with "The three questions I posted at the outset of this thread have yet to be answered". So which is it? Do you concede that your questions are based on a false assumption or do you still think they are valid? You are free to change your questions if you like; I have no problem with that. But dont keep saying my questions still stand.Ugh! I thought we were past this. I have conceded that creationists do not necessarily hold that the entire rock record was deposited as a result of the Flood. But they do, by and large, argue that much of the Grand Cayon was deposited by the Flood (see the half dozen links I've posted in this thread). This is why we have switched our focus to the Grand Canyon. Now, twelve pages later, please address my proposed questions as they pertain to the Grand Canyon and stop dancing around them.
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?