Log In | Register
86 Comments
Printadvertisement
A Creationist website, Answers in Genesis, has presented several arguments to "prove" that the Earth is 6,000 years old and therefore that Creationism is more accurate than evolution. The following article examines some of their claims (which can be found here, here(warning: pdf), and here)
But creation scientists believe that most of the fossils—including most of the dinosaur fossils—formed at the time of Noah's Flood, only about 4,500 years ago. This means that fossils must have formed rather quickly.
So, is there any evidence that fits with this?
Note how they say creation scientists believe that the flood created fossils. They are assuming this to be true. Therefore, they are searching for evidence that fits with the preconceived conclusion. From a scientific perspective, this methodology is highly problematic. The evidence should point towards a conclusion, rather than vice versa. Moreover, by searching for evidence to support preconceived notions, it is likely that they will cherry-pick evidence and ignore contrary information. Hence, their sources are:
A museum in New Zealand showcases a petrified ham, which formed after a volcano covered a village in ash in 1886 (see Tarawera's night of terror). And a museum in Tasmania features a petrified hat. It was left in a mine, and after fifty years it had changed from being a soft, felt hat into a hard hat! (See 'Fossil' hat.)
These two incidents (one incident and one example, actually) are rather sparse, but let's accept them nonetheless. As Miguel pointed out in What Are Fossils?, there are many ways for fossils to form. Some (like being encased in amber) are almost instantaneous. Some, like petrification, take much longer. Neither example AiG cites is of a petrifaction. One is calcification, the other was coating with ash. Neither of these are the proposed mechanisms of ancient fossil formation, and so irrelevant to a discussion of the speed of petrification.
Further, present day Tigris and Euphrates rivers sit on thousands of feet of fossil bearing sediments, indicating these rivers must have formed after sin
Now, this is also irrelevant, but does reveal their poor grasp of science. Sediment, as a quick look at wikipedia indicates, is
any particulate matter that can be transported by fluid flow and which eventually is deposited as a layer of solid particles on the bed or bottom of a body of water or other liquid. Sedimentation is the deposition by settling of a suspended material.
So, the presence of such sediments is a sign of the great age of the rivers, the exact opposite of their conclusion.
Expected results of the Flood: Rainbow reminds us of God's promise never again to send a global Flood.
Irrelevant also, but just so ludicrous I had to include it.
Which do you trust to tell the truth about the past and about eternal life... the infallible Word of God or the fallible words of man?
This is not scientific. It is utterly meaningless unless one presumes that the Bible is the literal word of God without any human interference, a position that is very difficult to sustain.
It's only a few thousand years old—less than 10,000, probably around 6,000 years or so.'
To my surprise, he said, 'That's good.'
'Why?' I blurted out.
'Because,' he replied, 'I've always thought it looked young.'
Which is important, since the subjective evidence of how the world looks is obviously the basis of scientific theories of its age.
If the continents were billions of years old, they would have eroded by wind and water many times over. Mountain uplift and other 'recycling' processes are nowhere near capable of compensating for this.
This assumes that the speeds of weathering and mountain uplifting are constant. Taking this assumption, we get the doctrine of Uniformitarianism, the basis of the "Old Earth" point of view. It is worth noting that geological evidence of both processes indicates great lengths of time are needed for any geologically significant changes. And so, the articles claim can be answered on two counts:
Today, however, most if not all mainstream scientists support uniformitarianism as do most mainstream religious denominations.
The understanding of slow geological processes have changed in several ways. Before continental drift (see plate tectonics) was recognized in the 20th century, the surface of Earth was believed to have remained generally unchanged since creation. Cooling from a molten state was believed to have caused shrinkage, which caused mountains and folding of the surface. Currently it is accepted that much of the mantle is plastic and fluid, and the crust is slowly moving over it. It is this relative motion that produces folding, compression, rises, depressions, etc.
Next,
Helium, a light gas, is formed during radioactive alpha decay in rock minerals. It rapidly escapes and enters the atmosphere much faster than it can escape Earth's gravity.2 Even if God had created the world with no helium to begin with, the small amount in the atmosphere would have taken at most around two million years to accumulate. This is far less than the assumed 3,000-million-year age of the atmosphere.
This seems convincing at first, but going over Wikipedia reveals some misinformation. The helium source they are talking about here is the alpha particle, technically only the nucleus of the atom. This is what wikipedia has to say about alpha particles:
Because of their charge and large mass, alpha particles are easily absorbed by materials and can travel only a few centimeters in air. They can be absorbed by tissue paper or the outer layers of human skin
So the evidence suggests that the quantity of helium released into the atmosphere would be taken up again fairly quickly, or at least would not pose a great problem to the age of the Earth.
4) Many processes, which we have been told take millions of years, do not need such time-spans at all. a) Coal formation.
Argonne National Laboratories have shown that heating wood (lignin, its major component), water and acidic clay at 150°C (rather cool geologically) for 4 to 36 weeks, in a sealed quartz tube with no added pressure, forms high-grade black coal.
Now, I don't approach the author's level of expertise, but the requirement of sealed quartz tubes is rather suspect. Is all coal packed in quartz? If not, then wouldn't addition of this variable dramatically weaken the evidence? Oh wait, it would. Adding additional variables makes causality harder to prove.
Despite the common teaching that it takes millions of years to form opal, Australian researcher Len Cram has long been growing opal in his backyard laboratory. His opal (photo right, by Dr Cram) is indistinguishable, under the electron microscope, from that mined in the field. He was awarded an honorary doctorate (by a secular university) for this research. All he does is mix together the right common chemicals — no heat, no pressure, and definitely no millions of years.
This is also highly relevant. Especially since this demonstration proves that all opals are produced this way. Even though industrial processes are often better at producing materials than natural ones are, this must be the case.
Each year, the world's rivers and underground streams add millions of tonnes of salt to the sea, and only a fraction of this goes back onto the land. Using the most favourable possible assumptions for long-agers, the absolute maximum age of the oceans is only a tiny fraction of their assumed billions-of-years age.
The oceans were originally fresh water, first off. Second, any student of chemistry can tell you about solubility. At a certain point, a solution is saturated and will absorb no more solute. The exact limit of the ocean's solubility is, of course, open to debate, but this mechanism does suggest that the salt concentration of the oceans would not be increasing arithmetically for very long.
Finally, let's consider this argument:
There are billions of fossil fish in rock layers around the world which are incredibly well-preserved. They frequently show intact fins and often scales, indicating that they were buried rapidly and the rock hardened quickly. In the real world, dead fish are scavenged within 24 hours. Even in some idealized cold, sterile, predator-free and oxygen-free water, they will become soggy and fall apart within weeks.3 A fish buried quickly in sediment that does not harden within a few weeks at the most will still be subject to decay by oxygen and bacteria, such that the delicate features like fins, scales, etc. would not preserve their form. Rapid burial in the many underwater landslides (turbidity currents) and other sedimentary processes accompanying Noah's Flood would explain not only their excellent preservation, but their existence in huge deposits, often covering thousands of square kilometres.
This explains why fossils are so rare and why the well-preserved ones take place in special circumstances, where these problems do not occur. In fact, it is more appropriate to view fossils as an aberration, an exception to the ecosystem's recycling of valuable resources. The process of fossilization must begin quickly, before the specimen can be recycled. Provided nothing disturbs the fossil, it can take quite long to form and still have the same results. The loss of detail and structure in fossils often comes from the loss of "soft" material from the specimen, leaving only the "hard" skeleton and similar structures.
The author's claim, that the fossil evidence is best explained by the Great Flood, is a very easy one to test and falsify. We know the length of the storm, so it would not be that difficult to pour water into a controlled environment for that period of time. Any other conditions could be used, just so long as investigators try to recreate the conditions at the time of the Flood. Two conditions are required to present the same evidence that the fossil record currently gives us. First, fossils must be formed. Second, these fossils must be (loosely) organized in term of increasing complexity. The more complicated, and often heavier, species must fossilized layers of sediment above simpler, lighter species. Although this result would contradict physics, it is not hard to test. Until such an experiment has been performed, though, the claim that fossils were formed in from the flood remains far from scientific acceptance.
31 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- Darkness's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: none
- Regions: none
- Public Discussion (86)
- Public Discussion (0)
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
28
11
7.0
{"commentId":244260,"authorDomain":"darkness"}
{"commentId":244291,"authorDomain":"yar"}
{"commentId":244298,"authorDomain":"yar"}
{"commentId":244344,"authorDomain":"talkingm"}
I think yar's point is a very good one...hence why the belief that God created two fully adult human beings and also a fully "mature" earth is so absurd. Why would God create two fully developed human beings? And how on earth would they (adam and eve) have any clue how to care for children...since children would be completely foreign to their world up to that point (I guess God taught them how?).
So let's just leave the science to the scientists...and the faith to religious types. And if creationists want to go against accepted scientific beliefs...well then they can prove all of us wrong by making a computer that runs on faith. I'd be convinced then. :)
{"commentId":244344,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"talkingm"}
- 2 votes
#4 - Wed Aug 9, 2006 10:12 PM EDT{"commentId":244367,"authorDomain":"yar"}
{"commentId":244808,"authorDomain":"Rigbee"}
I already have a computer that runs on faith...when it runs. ;-)
{"commentId":244808,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"Rigbee"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":244824,"authorDomain":"talkingm"}
So assuming God knew that man would one day be smart enough to actually start tinkering in his little workshop, don't you think he would of taken a different route outside of creating a universe that "looks" old but really isn't?
"I shall now create a world that looks old...but is really only 6000 years old...I am a clever God." I think this concept of God works if his name is Loki, the jokester god of the Norse pantheon.
Is he trying to stack the cards against people who actually want empirical evidence? I mean are we going to go back to the old "God...or the devil...planted this evidence here to challenge the believers and test their faith!"
{"commentId":244824,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"talkingm"}
{"commentId":245945,"authorDomain":"darkness"}
{"commentId":244362,"authorDomain":"yar"}
{"commentId":244509,"authorDomain":"rarty"}
I don't understand why more people don't notice the necessary change in perspective (read: reference frame) between "In the beginning" and Genesis 2 and 3. There is no need to invent or alter the way we understand physics here, or even the way we understand cosmology. It takes little imagination to think that a creating God would exist in a different reference frame than the matter rushing to expand the universe following the big bang. After switching reference frames to that of creation (earth and man), it is not as if only 6 days as we experience days have passed. So we look up and down and see an old earth and an old universe. That is exactly how it should look. The universe experiences time dilation the same way mu-mesons do. We cannot measure an absolute time with a cesium clock anymore than we can with archeology.
Whether or not a random creationist understands reference frames and time dilation is irrelevant though. There is no way an argument over how old the earth or universe is can say anything about whether the universe was created. Maybe if the account in the Talmud was from one clear reference frame, one could test the story out with a few quick measurements and some calculation. But I think it is very clearly from an initial radically different reference frame before the story settles on mankind.
This isn't based on any radical ideas either. Some basic principles of relativity, the cosmological standard model, and a traditional reading of Genesis.
{"commentId":244509,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"rarty"}
- 2 votes
#6 - Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:06 AM EDT{"commentId":245954,"authorDomain":"darkness"}
{"commentId":244736,"authorDomain":"rutty"}
Fossils have all been created by prankster using Mother Shipton's Petrifying Well near Knaresborough, and then buried to confuse scientists. It's starting to make sense to me now ;)
Good article Darkness - I'm about to email the link to an Atheist friend who likes these sorts of arguments
{"commentId":244736,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"rutty"}
- 3 votes
#7 - Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:03 AM EDT{"commentId":245132,"authorDomain":"paddy"}
Darkness, I enjoyed your well-researched article. As mentioned in the comments which sparked this article of your, I am not willing to defend AiG. I identify much more with their position than with the ToE, but I'm not ready to take up camp there (yet :-)
Some general comments:
- The argument that AiG start their investigation with a preconceived idea is valid. On the other hand, no one looks at things completely objectively. And even then, a biased examination reflects negatively on the trustworthiness of the results, but does not logically imply that the results are wrong.
- As long as AiG tries to present their beliefs as acceptable to scientists, I think they are barking up the wrong tree. There is value in explaining why my beliefs (based on the Bible) can be reconciled to known scientific facts and laws, but it's pointless (IMO) to try and convince atheists of the reasonableness of my beliefs, as these depend on a belief in God
And some specifics:
- When you write about the two examples presented of "quick-fossils", you say: "One is calcification, the other was coating with ash. Neither of these are the proposed mechanisms of ancient fossil formation" What strength does the word "proposed" have in your sentence? Does it mean that science "suggests" these fossils were formed by petrification, or is it certain that that is how it happened? I had another look at Miguel's excellent article on fossils, and couldn't find an answer.
- About Helium, you write: "This seems convincing at first, but going over Wikipedia reveals some misinformation. The helium source they are talking about here is the alpha particle, technically only the nucleus of the atom ... so the evidence suggests that the quantity of helium released into the atmosphere would be taken up again fairly quickly, or at least would not pose a great problem to the age of the Earth." This seemed convincing at first, but looking back at the original article, they link to a larger article which deals exclusively with the Helium argument, addressing the points you mention (link). Have a look at it
Well, that will have to do, or this will turn into another article. I leave in a couple of hours for a short trip, hoping to return on Monday afternoon.
May the light dispel the Darkness :-)
{"commentId":245132,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"paddy"}
- 3 votes
#8 - Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:19 PM EDT{"commentId":245998,"authorDomain":"darkness"}
{"commentId":251274,"authorDomain":"paddy"}
Even in Creationist collaborations, I have not seen anyone seriously question or review the work of others, normally because they will go with anything that agrees with them.
An honest question: is your assessment above the fruit of objective observation?
I agree completely. However, it still does imply that they aren't scientific.
I also agree.
As for your second point, I recognize it and disagree. But it seems like a debate for another day.
Do you mean "... a biased examination ... does not logically imply that the results are wrong"? If so, I would be interested in hearing why you disagree.
I meant that the information currently gathered suggests that the petrification was the method of fossilization. It is no more certain than any other scientific result.
Thanks; that's clearer.
It also occurs to me that the entire issue of the speed of fossilization is irrelevant, since that does not change their age.
But is not the proposed speed of fossilization (or method of fossilization) one of the factors in determining their age?
The discussion about helium escaping the atmosphere is rather disingenuous. [snip] The article does not explain how anything stopped by tissues moves through rock, which was the author's entire point.
Some sites show the limitations of Creationist dating techniques, while others do the same to the scientifically accepted ones. I honestly haven't the time (nor the inclination) to study the science behind all these claims (at least at the minute).
May the Darkness subsume the light.
"Subsume" - thanks for teaching me a new word (albeit it in a wrong sentence :-)
{"commentId":251274,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"paddy"}
{"commentId":251563,"authorDomain":"darkness"}
{"commentId":251619,"authorDomain":"paddy"}
An honest question: is your assessment above the fruit of objective observation?Probably not. Although I think it is less subjective than it could have been.
You have the gift of the gab, mate. When did you kiss the Blarney stone? :-)
it's pointless (IMO) to try and convince atheists of the reasonableness of my beliefsI don't think people's beliefs are completely static and impervious to argument.
You have a point. But I was contending that to someone who refuses to accept anything but empirical evidence (I used "atheists" incorrectly there), arguments about beliefs born from faith seem pointless.
Relative merits of dating techniques is a rather dry topic, though, so I'd be willing to turn to other matters
Agreed.
"Subsume" - thanks for teaching me a new wordI'd meant it in the sense of "to incorporate" or a less biological sense of "to consume."
My on-line dictionary knows it, but my biological one learnt it from you :-)
{"commentId":251619,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"paddy"}
{"commentId":251835,"authorDomain":"darkness"}
{"commentId":251914,"authorDomain":"paddy"}
I think you were referring to materialists, not atheists
My mistake - I've been a bit sloppy with my terminology today. I arrived back last night from a longish journey, had to be up at 6am this morning, and should only catch up with my sleep tonight. I think I'm on auto-pilot :-)
{"commentId":251914,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"paddy"}
{"commentId":245137,"authorDomain":"paddy"}
By the way, I voted for your article :-)
{"commentId":245137,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"paddy"}
- 2 votes
#9 - Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:21 PM EDT{"commentId":245895,"authorDomain":"darkness"}
{"commentId":245906,"authorDomain":"kpegler"}
Excellent read.
{"commentId":245906,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"kpegler"}
#10 - Thu Aug 10, 2006 6:56 PM EDT{"commentId":246002,"authorDomain":"freestatement"}
Creationists and scientists don't necessarily hold the Bible's belief about the origin of all things. On the other hand, the message of Scriptures doesn't seem to be the age of the earth, the fossils formation, the seven days of creation or the like. In the final account those things are irrelevant. What really matters is man's response to God, I mean, the Scriptures are the account of God dealing with man since creation; why worrying about the so-called mysteries of the human existence or the evolutionist issue? why not being concerned better with our moral condition before God, since human race is racing towards to its total destruction due to have totally rejected God's moral law of which the Bible is absolutely clear for those who really want to obey it.
{"commentId":246002,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"freestatement"}
#11 - Thu Aug 10, 2006 8:29 PM EDT{"commentId":246378,"authorDomain":"rutty"}
I think the point is that if why believe anything in the Bible at all if parts of it are proved to be untrue? If the bible is absolutely clear on "God's moral law" why isn't it clear on creation when science can show that the Bible is mostly likely inaccurate?
{"commentId":246378,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"rutty"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":246509,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
I've actually tried for a while to understand exactly how a lot of OT+NT followers decide which parts to take more literally and which parts are deemed "somewhat silly to really believe" (admittedly, you're deeming such when you say "this part is just allegory... and not Truth").
Were Adam & Eve literally a pair of naked people in a holy oasis, who happened to talk to a snake?
Did Moses really walk into an active volcano and come out with carved rock slabs?
I've yet to get a satisfactory answer--one that is self-consistent and rooted in logic abstracted from both historical precedent (the word of God shouldn't be decided by dead white men) and personal appeal (the word of God isn't something that can be deemed "inconvenient" and thrown out).
{"commentId":246509,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":246812,"authorDomain":"erectlocution"}
"I've actually tried for a while to understand exactly how a lot of OT+NT followers decide which parts to take more literally and which parts are deemed "somewhat silly to really believe" (admittedly, you're deeming such when you say "this part is just allegory... and not Truth")."
My lovely and well-meaning aunt has on a few occasions tried to regale me with the epic quality of the stories in the Bible. As if I might be so moved by Tolkien's Middle Earth that I worship Gandalf. That's entirely beside the sort of guerrilla marketing tactic, built on the presumption that I'll be inspired by the self-evident truth (or "Truth") and will have no reasonable choice but to convert. At least she didn't try to pimp it as "Xtreme".
{"commentId":246812,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"erectlocution"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":246813,"authorDomain":"yar"}
{"commentId":247011,"authorDomain":"erectlocution"}
"On the OT if you accept that God could create the world in 6 days...."
I don't mean to attack your every comment, and I'm grateful that you're taking the time to describe your beliefs; but this colossal IF is the crux of this entire thread. IF you accept the existence of an entity of unfathomable power and of a nature arbitrary enough to fit any supposition you fancy, any supposition you fancy can logically follow. But there's still the issue of that IF.
{"commentId":247011,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"erectlocution"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":247059,"authorDomain":"yar"}
{"commentId":247063,"authorDomain":"vincentgrayson"}
Perhaps if a supernatural explanation for *anything* had been proven to be a better explanation than natural phenomena, then it might be worth more believable. But with most supernatural explanations in human history disproved or pushed aside for natural, workable explanations, saying the supernatural one is more believable for creation is a bit illogical. It would be much more logical to simply say that we don't yet have enough information to prove how natural creation happened.
{"commentId":247063,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"vincentgrayson"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":247138,"authorDomain":"erectlocution"}
IF you accdept [sic] fusion you can believe there are atomic bombs.
There is verifiable evidence of both.
If you believe nature can create something from nothing you can oppose God.
I've never said anything of the sort, and have actually several times noted that I do not oppose the existence of a god. I oppose the availability of naturalistic resources to demonstrate such existence, ergo such existence is equally resistant to proof and disproof. I oppose attempts to demonstrate some logical extrapolation from the existence of a god as a premise for that existence.
IF you admit you do not know about the absolute first creation, you should be open to other possibilities.
I think the empirical view is open to any possibility so long is its nature is demonstrable either by direct evidence, or inference from other, direct evidence.
{"commentId":247138,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"erectlocution"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":247280,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
yar, the point tha many of us are trying to make is not that "beliefe in God is wrong." It is that, even if belief in God is logical because there are no better answers, that does not mean we need to say "Hallelujah! God did it! That's Truth."
IF you accdept fusion you can believe there are atomic bombs.
I can show you videos of nuclear detonations. Can you show me videos of God?
If you believe nature can create something from nothing you can oppose God.
By the current laws of physics, this isn't possible without parity (which would lead to subsequent reannihilation). But, the difference is that creationists say "this IS DEFINITELY what happened. This is ABSOLUTE TRUTH." Scientists say "we think this is what happened, but hey, give me some contrary evidence and we'll change our theories."
Scientists mold theory to fact.
Religious creationists mold fact to theory.
The real discussion is either natural or supernatural creation. SN is much more believable.
On the second sentence, we differ.
It's more believable? Why? There's no evidence, aside from a novel written by long-dead men, edited by less-dead men, and transliterated by even less dead men.
Its believability is a matter of faith.
{"commentId":247280,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":251286,"authorDomain":"paddy"}
I've actually tried for a while to understand exactly how a lot of OT+NT followers decide which parts to take more literally and which parts are deemed "somewhat silly to really believe" (admittedly, you're deeming such when you say "this part is just allegory... and not Truth").
Jack, as an "OT+NT follower", I'll bite the bait :-)
First, a contradiction: accepting that some things are allegories is completely different from admitting that they are silly (unless the reason for saying that they are allegories is "because they are silly", which is a silly argument :-)
In interpreting the Bible, I try to start from the assumption (unproved and unprovable scientifically) that the Bible is one consistent volume (thus every part should be interpreted in context), and that allegory is a literary method which will be identifiable as such. That is, if the text in question is not identified by the Bible as being a parable or a prophetic vision (both of which make constant use of allegories and figurative language), I would need strong internal evidence to accept that it is not history. Treat it literally, unless it is plainly not.
Just basic introduction, as I'm not sure exactly what you're after. If you care to identify which of my statements above bothers you more, I'll do my best to explain (if I can :-)
{"commentId":251286,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"paddy"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":251307,"authorDomain":"vincentgrayson"}
Correct me if I get any of this wrong.
You (and many others) believe the Bible to be inerrant, and representative of God's divine inspiration, committed to paper (eventually) by mankind, no?
If you, believing this first and foremost, encounter a story in the Bible which asserts certain things as fact (say, the creation story and all of its' details, or the flood story) but find the contradict things the rest of the world "knows" by nature of scientific inquiry, how to do you reconicle the two?
Do you change your belief in the inerrant word, such that perhaps some parts aren't meant to be taken literally, or do you presume that certain vast bodies of human knowledge are simply wrong? Or some other, third possibility that escapes me at the moment?
The story of say, the flood, cannot simultaneously be literal, accurate, and not in conflict with established scientific knowledge...so, which needs to be changed first (in order to reflect the whole truth), in your opinion?
{"commentId":251307,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"vincentgrayson"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":251375,"authorDomain":"paddy"}
Do you change your belief in the inerrant word, such that perhaps some parts aren't meant to be taken literally, or do you presume that certain vast bodies of human knowledge are simply wrong? Or some other, third possibility that escapes me at the moment?
Vincent, it would need to be one of the first two options. I honestly can't tell you what I would choose - it would certainly be a difficult decision. It would depend on how clear the evidence was both ways.
The story of say, the flood, cannot simultaneously be literal, accurate, and not in conflict with established scientific knowledge...so, which needs to be changed first (in order to reflect the whole truth), in your opinion?
I'm not so sure about this one. Even a literal interpretation of Genesis chaps. 6 to 9 would allow for a local flood.
{"commentId":251375,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"paddy"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":251386,"authorDomain":"vincentgrayson"}
Does it? I'll have to take a look at that, it's been quite some time, and I could've sworn there were some words in there making it clear to have been a worldwide flood (although a local one would make far more sense, even with God involved)
{"commentId":251386,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"vincentgrayson"}
{"commentId":251575,"authorDomain":"paddy"}
Vincent, the language used favours a global flood (for example, "They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered", Gn 7:19). But some people contend strongly in favour of a "local" interpretation.
Now we'll have to discuss what "literal interpretation " means :-)
{"commentId":251575,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"paddy"}
{"commentId":246667,"authorDomain":"Sarcophilus"}
I'm struggling to see how intelligent people miss the elephant in the room regarding creationism: namely that there is no evidence that the bible is of divine origin.
Most cultures develop creation myths: humanity appears to be driven to arrive at an explanation of our origins. What appears to distinguish the bible is that the first books were recorded when writing still appeared to be magic to most people.
It's great that we have a recorded source going that far back but preposterous to suggest that everything it contains is literal truth. I'm not arguing that all the values and ideas expressed within the collection of texts (commonly called the bible) have no value at all, but the bits explaining our origins really just need to be seen in the context of a working hypothesis.
Would anyone rely on a doctor who still thought Galen was the last word on medicine?
{"commentId":246667,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"Sarcophilus"}
- 3 votes
#12 - Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:18 AM EDT{"commentId":246738,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
Actually, the Bible's divine origin has been debated over and over again on Newsvine (and surely elsewhere :-p).
Such debates usually just die away when the divine-Bible supporters say that there's some archaeological evidence for the possibility of Jesus being real, and thus validating the rest of what they deem is important in the Bible, and their opposition gets frustrated that the debate never falls far from the tree of "The Bible is right, because the Bible says so. Disprove God, I dare you."
At least, that's what my vague recollections of such debates tell me. I may be horribly biased in this assertion.
Those who have engaged in such debates, feel free to correct.
P.S. - Chuck Norris is the last word on medicine. Boot-thanasia.
{"commentId":246738,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":246842,"authorDomain":"yar"}
{"commentId":246923,"authorDomain":"vincentgrayson"}
Typically, yar, the debates have come down to neither side getting anywhere, because we're not even arguing from the same position. I wish I could remember where it was that someone explained it better, but the basic problem was/is that believers aren't believers *because* of the historical evidence they might cite in such debates, but rather are believers, and have found some things they feel validate their belief. Said "evidence" will never convince non-believers, as looking at the evidence without a pre-conceived belief you are looking to justify leaves open far more explanations than just the one being proposed.
{"commentId":246923,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"vincentgrayson"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":247061,"authorDomain":"yar"}
{"commentId":247290,"authorDomain":"sphinx"}
I agree that people who absolutely deny the possibility of God are thinking emotionally. But, this does not mean that everyone who tries to find a natural mechanism of creation, and in doing so assumes no divine control, is being dogmatic.
{"commentId":247290,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"sphinx"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":251350,"authorDomain":"paddy"}
but the basic problem was/is that believers aren't believers *because* of the historical evidence they might cite in such debates, but rather are believers, and have found some things they feel validate their belief. Said "evidence" will never convince non-believers, as looking at the evidence without a pre-conceived belief you are looking to justify leaves open far more explanations than just the one being proposed.
As a believer, I think that sums up fairly adequately the debates we've had here on the Vine. i might phrase my point in different terms to what Jack uses in #12.1, but the basics I agree with.
I have never notice one of these debates. Could you give me a link to someone who knows about these things.?
Yar, I'm just back from travelling, so maybe this question of yours is too old. If you're still looking for links, let me know, and I'll gather up one or two.
{"commentId":251350,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"paddy"}
{"commentId":246829,"authorDomain":"yar"}
{"commentId":247392,"authorDomain":"darkness"}
A lot of people seem to be forgetting that the argumentum ad ignorantium cuts both ways. If you have no evidence, you can not prove anything. Nor can you disprove anything.
The easiest solution to this argument is to accept that religion is not science and science is not religion. Trying to force a dichotomy and pick science or religion but not both implies that affirming one denies the other. But to quote Wittgenstein, "wherefore we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent." Science does not say anything about religion or the supernatural, such things (by definition) must be beyond natural observation and proof. Religion does not say anything scientific. Although many religious statements have explanatory power similar to scientific theories, they not testable in the manner of scientific theories. As such, religious views are not a suitable basis for science. There wouldn't even be a problem except that science and religion often try to explain the same things. In such situations, I believe it speaks to a lack of imagination that a suitable resolution is not found. For example, yar has pointed out how the exact date of creation says nothing about its apparent age. A (limited) analogy would be particle-wave duality: two seemingly contradictory options are both true.
{"commentId":247392,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"darkness"}
- 2 votes
#14 - Fri Aug 11, 2006 5:17 PM EDT{"commentId":247426,"authorDomain":"erectlocution"}
Trying to force a dichotomy and pick science or religion but not both implies that affirming one denies the other. But to quote Wittgenstein, "wherefore we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent." Science does not say anything about religion or the supernatural, such things (by definition) must be beyond natural observation and proof. Religion does not say anything scientific.
Again, this isn't the point of this thread. The point is to further develop your thesis:
A Creationist website, Answers in Genesis, has presented several arguments to "prove" that the Earth is 6,000 years old and therefore that Creationism is more accurate than evolution.
The scientific positions offered are not directed at faith, but at assertions of scientific evidence for Creationism.
{"commentId":247426,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"erectlocution"}
{"commentId":247503,"authorDomain":"darkness"}
{"commentId":247728,"authorDomain":"erectlocution"}
Point taken.
{"commentId":247728,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"erectlocution"}
{"commentId":251355,"authorDomain":"paddy"}
Darkness, agreed with your comment #14.
{"commentId":251355,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"paddy"}
{"commentId":247885,"authorDomain":"Sarcophilus"}
Yar
Sorry: I was not intentionally obtuse.
The point I was trying to make is that we are discussing the collision of faith vs provable knowledge.
Most of us (with the apparent exception of fundamentalists) understand science to be concerned with testable, provable hypotheses. This explicitly excludes the contents of the bible as - last time I checked - it contains no references to studies or tests that are replicable, testable or provable.
Creation 'science' - an oxymoron if ever I heard one - appears pre-occupied with imposing a faith on other endeavours, namely science, and appears to have no issues with introducing dogma into a sphere to which that is anathema. I'm sorry, but just because you believe something doesn't mean it's appropriate to introduce it into a discussion of phenomena. In fact most scientific methods (such as the double-blind method) are designed exclude the practicioner's beliefs as far as possible.
I cannot - nor am I interested to - convince you that your belief is inappropriate when discussing evolution.
No one has a issue with you pursuing your faith as - or how - you think appropriate.
But you need to understand that faith has no place in science.
{"commentId":247885,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"Sarcophilus"}
- 1 vote
#15 - Sat Aug 12, 2006 5:37 AM EDT{"commentId":251360,"authorDomain":"paddy"}
But you need to understand that faith has no place in science.
Sarcophilus, but do you (or anyone else in this thread) admit that my faith-based world-view does not forbid me from accepting other explanations for the data that scientific research unearths (without trying to force those explanations on anyone else, of course)?
{"commentId":251360,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"paddy"}
{"commentId":258251,"authorDomain":"Sarcophilus"}
Paddy
Of course you're entitled to your world-view.
A distinction, however, needs to be made between faith and science.
Just as interjecting during a religious service that statements made were 'unscientific' or lacked logic would be inappropriate, so too is bringing faith into discussions of scientific theory.
{"commentId":258251,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"Sarcophilus"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":258501,"authorDomain":"paddy"}
Just as interjecting during a religious service that statements made were 'unscientific' or lacked logic would be inappropriate, so too is bringing faith into discussions of scientific theory.
Agreed :-)
Cheers.
{"commentId":258501,"threadId":"36046","contentId":"319196","authorDomain":"paddy"}
{"commentId":259689,"authorDomain":"yar"}
{"canLink":false,"threadId":"36046","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
