Jump to content


Photo

Questions For Theistic Evolutionists


  • Please log in to reply
126 replies to this topic

#21 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 27 May 2015 - 09:55 AM

Piasan,

 

Why the reluctance to tell me what parts of Genesis you take literal and what you don't?  Any comments on the soft tissue of dinosaurs?

 

TeeJay



#22 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 28 May 2015 - 09:58 AM

Piasan

 

Don't bother answering anymore.  I will read some of your arguments on other threads on this site and see where you're coming from.

 

Just one question:  Do you still believe that dinosaurs died out 65 - 70 millions years ago?

 

TeeJay



#23 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 28 May 2015 - 10:12 PM

Don't bother answering anymore.  I will read some of your arguments on other threads on this site and see where you're coming from.

Sorry, I've just been taking a few days off.

 

 

Just one question:  Do you still believe that dinosaurs died out 65 - 70 millions years ago?

No.  Dinosaurs survived.... we now know them as "birds."

 

With regard to dinosaur "DNA"  ......

The discovery is a great example of "serendipity" in science that I use in my classes.  I don't know that any actual DNA has been extracted, but the discovery of non-fossilized material in dinosaur fossils offers huge opportunities for research that didn't exist before.  I do not see it as a major challenge to established dating methods.

 

Explanation....

Organic decay rates are subject to a dozen or so variables that are known to change the rate by orders of magnitude.  If I gave you a piece of bone and asked you to date it by the state of decomposition, you couldn't tell me if it was a few weeks or a few thousand years old.  Further, the process is not well understood.  On the other hand, radioactive decay rates are known to be stable within a few percent (that usually is seasonal in nature, therefore cancels out over a year's time) and we have a much better understanding of nuclear decay than biological decay.  This is not to say that radioisotope dating is without problems....  but when properly applied it will produce statistically valid results.

 

Further, the astronomical evidence is that the universe is billions of years old, not thousands.  I can walk out in my back yard and see, with my unaided eye, the galaxy Andromeda.  That galaxy is 2.4 million light years from Earth.  This is 400x the distance we should be able to see in a 6000 year old universe .... and by astronomical standards, Andromeda is our next door neighbor.

 

The Genesis account has the Earth created before the stars.  The overwhelming observational evidence is that light from distant astronomical objects has been traveling toward Earth for billions of years.  It is only after the age of the universe is established to be billions of years that I consider the age of the Earth.

 

See the "It's a Matter of Time" discussion.



#24 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 28 May 2015 - 11:03 PM

Why the reluctance to tell me what parts of Genesis you take literal and what you don't?  Any comments on the soft tissue of dinosaurs?

I've already commented on the soft tissue issue.

 

I wasn't being reluctant.... though I have no desire to get into a verse-by-verse discussion.  It was about 3:30 in the morning and I had to get to work. 

 

Besides, you didn't ask which parts I took as literal.  Here's one ...  "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."  (Gen 1:1 NIV).  We disagree about how and when, not Who.

 

The creation account and story of the Fall... metaphor.   The evidence supports a flood, but regional rather than global.  There is no evidence people lived hundreds of years.... which renders the use of Genesis genealogies to establish the time of creation questionable.

 

That should give us more than enough for discussion.....



#25 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 29 May 2015 - 02:36 PM

Piasan,

 

As one Christian brother to another, I must warn you:  "My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment" (James 3:1).  I must be blunt.  When a professing Christian sees self-evident evidence that agrees with God's word, he should dance on his kitchen table and shout to the world that God's word is true and is the ultimate standard that proves everything else we want to know.  Instead you dig in and are now looking for how Dinosaur flesh could have been preserved for 65 to 70 million years.  You do realize that you are hoping against hope that God's word in Genesis and Job is not true?  Why?

 

Piasan, I have never seen any transitional fossils that remotely show evolution from dinosaurs to birds.  And I watched an hour show put on by AiG professor (expert in this field), where he showed conclusively that this is absolutely impossible.

 

In Christ, TeeJay



#26 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 29 May 2015 - 11:31 PM

There is empirical evidence for a global flood, because logically it would be defined as the consequent.

 

Example: "If a global flood occurred, THEN we would expect evidence X (example, living things buried while alive, and preserved, for example)

 

 

No. Since local floods can bury living beings too, this is no evidence for a global flood.



#27 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 29 May 2015 - 11:40 PM

Besides, you didn't ask which parts I took as literal.  Here's one ...  "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."  (Gen 1:1 NIV).  We disagree about how and when, not Who.

 

The creation account and story of the Fall... metaphor.   The evidence supports a flood, but regional rather than global.  There is no evidence people lived hundreds of years.... which renders the use of Genesis genealogies to establish the time of creation questionable.

 

Piasan, how do you determine which parts are metaphor and which part is not? This question does not only refer to the genesis account.

I notice you do not use the christian label here. Somehow I'm thinking I've read elsewhere you do sometimes label yourself a christian. Is my memory correct?

If not, do you consider alternative religions (Judaism, Islam, Shintoism, ...) just as valid?

 

If you prefer I move these questions to the topic where you discussed your worldview, just say so and I'll ask them there. Thanks.



#28 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 30 May 2015 - 06:33 AM

No. Since local floods can bury living beings too, this is no evidence for a global flood.

driewerf,

 

The real question here is that if evidence were presented to you, would you except it and admit you were wrong?  When did the last dinosaur die?

 

TeeJay



#29 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 30 May 2015 - 08:01 AM

driewerf,

 

The real question here is that if evidence were presented to you, would you except it and admit you were wrong?  

Sure.

I will investigate it, and if after investigation it stands as evidence, I will change my mind. But what Mike claimed to be evidence for The Flood wasn't evidence at all.

 

But I can ask you the same question:

 

The real question here is that if evidence were presented to you, would you except it and admit you were wrong?  

 

When did the last dinosaur die?

 

TeeJay

Since birds are descendents from dinosaurs and hence still considered as dynosaurs,  a dinosaur died a few seconds ago. (World wide every second a bird dies somewhere.)



#30 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 30 May 2015 - 01:29 PM

Sure.

I will investigate it, and if after investigation it stands as evidence, I will change my mind. But what Mike claimed to be evidence for The Flood wasn't evidence at all.

 

But I can ask you the same question:

 

The real question here is that if evidence were presented to you, would you except it and admit you were wrong?  

Since birds are descendents from dinosaurs and hence still considered as dynosaurs,  a dinosaur died a few seconds ago. (World wide every second a bird dies somewhere.)

driewerf

 

Fair enough.  Can you present us with the transitional fossils that show dinosaurs evolved into birds?

 

If you can't, then dinosaurs were created by God as fully functional dinosaurs and died as they were created--dinosaurs.  So, I will ask again:  When did the last dinosaur die?  If you answer 65 - 70 million years ago, then you only escape hatch is the absurd answer that "we just have to find out how this tissue could have been preserved for 65 to 70 million years."  

 

What is most humorous to me is that for as long as I can remember the atheist (and theistic) evolutionists have used dinosaurs as their main arguments for an old Earth.  And then came the unfossilized dinosaurs.  It's almost as though God allowed you all to dig a deep enough hole before He took away your shovels.  Talk about lol, lol, lol, lol ha ha ha.

 

TeeJay



#31 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 30 May 2015 - 06:18 PM

What is most humorous to me is that for as long as I can remember the atheist (and theistic) evolutionists have used dinosaurs as their main arguments for an old Earth.  And then came the unfossilized dinosaurs.  It's almost as though God allowed you all to dig a deep enough hole before He took away your shovels.  Talk about lol, lol, lol, lol ha ha ha. 
TeeJay


Main argument for an old earth ?? Strawman much ? There's a whole lot more than that.

#32 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 30 May 2015 - 11:51 PM

As one Christian brother to another, I must warn you:  "My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment" (James 3:1).  I must be blunt.  When a professing Christian sees self-evident evidence that agrees with God's word, he should dance on his kitchen table and shout to the world that God's word is true and is the ultimate standard that proves everything else we want to know.  Instead you dig in and are now looking for how Dinosaur flesh could have been preserved for 65 to 70 million years.  You do realize that you are hoping against hope that God's word in Genesis and Job is not true?  Why?

What should a professing Christian do when he sees self-evident evidence that disagrees with God's word?  If you take Genesis literally, we shouldn't even be able to see more than 99.99999999% of the universe.  I can walk out in my back yard and see, with my unaided eye, the galaxy Andromeda .... that's 400x farther than we should be able to see in the 6,000 or so year timeframe of Genesis literalism.  This isn't exactly an insignificant issue as there are over 100,000,000,000 galaxies and the typical galaxy has over 100,000,000,000 stars.

 

If I gave you a piece of bone, could you tell from its state of decomposition if the animal died 2 months or 2,000 years ago?  You can't, can you?  That's because the rate of biological composition can be changed by orders of magnitude due to the influence of a dozen or so external factors.  Can you list for me the external factors that will significantly change the rates of nuclear decay?  I know of two.... 1) a temperature over 200,000,000 C or 2) a nuclear chain reaction. 

 

Wouldn't Occam's Razor demand I go with the better understood and more stable processes .... the speed of light and nuclear decay .... rather than one that is poorly understood and varies significantly due to a number of external factors?  Doesn't a logical, rational, objective approach to the evidence demand the same thing?

 

What I do is try to approach such evidence without presupposition as to whether the Bible is literal or not.  Is there something wrong with that?

 

You want to convince me humans and dinosaurs coexisted, show me either (1) human remains in a dinosaur fossil bed or (2) dinosaur remains with human tool marks on them.

 

More later ......



#33 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 31 May 2015 - 08:03 AM

driewerf
 
Fair enough.  Can you present us with the transitional fossils that show dinosaurs evolved into birds?

Why should I? I thought you should present evidence that shows me wrong.
 

If you can't, then dinosaurs were created by God as fully functional dinosaurs and died as they were created--dinosaurs.

You put too much confidence in my humble person: if I can't present evidence of the evolution of birds, then dinosaurs are created? That"s quite a leap. It can mean that the fossil record is incomplete, or that my knowledge of paleontology is lacking etc. There are plenty of other possibilities. 
 
 

So, I will ask again:  When did the last dinosaur die?  If you answer 65 - 70 million years ago, then you only escape hatch is the absurd answer that "we just have to find out how this tissue could have been preserved for 65 to 70 million years."


 A few seconds ago.
 
 

What is most humorous to me is that for as long as I can remember the atheist (and theistic) evolutionists have used dinosaurs as their main arguments for an old Earth.  And then came the unfossilized dinosaurs.  It's almost as though God allowed you all to dig a deep enough hole before He took away your shovels.  Talk about lol, lol, lol, lol ha ha ha.


Heu, no Teejay.

Scientists have never used dinosaurs as argument for an old Earth. Snientists have used the distance of stars, magnetic reversals in the oceanic floor, ice core layers, varves, treerings, radioactive dating and many other methods of dating as evidennce of an old earth. It's creationists who always come with this foolish notion that humans and (non avian) dinosaurs lived together.



#34 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 31 May 2015 - 10:04 AM

Main argument for an old earth ?? Strawman much ? There's a whole lot more than that.

wibble,

 

In light of the discoveries of unfossilized dinosaurs, will you admit that they can't possibly be 65 to 70 million years old?  I know it's a baby step, but you can do it.

 

TeeJay



#35 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 31 May 2015 - 10:33 AM

 

 

What should a professing Christian do when he sees self-evident evidence that disagrees with God's word?  If you take Genesis literally, we shouldn't even be able to see more than 99.99999999% of the universe.  I can walk out in my back yard and see, with my unaided eye, the galaxy Andromeda .... that's 400x farther than we should be able to see in the 6,000 or so year timeframe of Genesis literalism.  This isn't exactly an insignificant issue as there are over 100,000,000,000 galaxies and the typical galaxy has over 100,000,000,000 stars.

 

Hello piasan,

 

Why not look in the mirror and ask yourself:  "What should a professing Christian do when he sees self-evident evidence that agrees with God's word?  Answer:  Dance on your kitchen table and shout to the unbelieving world that God's word must be our Ultimate Standard.  In light of the unfossilized dinosaurs, can you take a baby step and agree with Gen. 1:24?

 

 

 

If I gave you a piece of bone, could you tell from its state of decomposition if the animal died 2 months or 2,000 years ago?  You can't, can you?  That's because the rate of biological composition can be changed by orders of magnitude due to the influence of a dozen or so external factors.  Can you list for me the external factors that will significantly change the rates of nuclear decay?  I know of two.... 1) a temperature over 200,000,000 C or 2) a nuclear chain reaction.

 

If I gave a bone to a Texas rancher who had a fourth grade education and spit tobacco juice out the side of his mouth, he, using common Texas horse-sense, would know that it could not be 70 million years old.  Only someone who wants to be self-deceived would believe that.  You;re having much difficult with the unfossilized dinosaurs, so let's not get into nuclear chain reactions, yet. 

 

 

 

Wouldn't Occam's Razor demand I go with the better understood and more stable processes .... the speed of light and nuclear decay .... rather than one that is poorly understood and varies significantly due to a number of external factors?  Doesn't a logical, rational, objective approach to the evidence demand the same thing?

 

Why are you not applying his Razor to Gen. 1:24 when it agrees with the unfossilized dinosaur?

 

 

 

What I do is try to approach such evidence without presupposition as to whether the Bible is literal or not.  Is there something wrong with that?

 

The worldview that one does not have a presuppositional worldview is itself a presuppositional worldview.  But here, Piasan, you have something that agrees with Gen. 1:24 literally.  Yet, you will not accept it.  Jesus had it right when He taught that "even if they do not believe the OT, they won't believe someone who rises from the dead [paraphrased]."

 

 

 

You want to convince me humans and dinosaurs coexisted, show me either (1) human remains in a dinosaur fossil bed or (2) dinosaur remains with human tool marks on them.

 

As Sherlock said:  "Eliminate the impossible and you are left with the possible."  Will you admit that it is not possible for a dinosaur re remain in the ground unfossilized for 70 million years?  Can you take this small baby step?

 

TeeJay ......



#36 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 31 May 2015 - 11:25 AM

Why should I? I thought you should present evidence that shows me wrong.

 

I did present it to you:  unfossilized, fully formed dinosaurs, with no feathers.  Driewerf, you made the assertion that dinosaurs evolved into birds.  If you can present no transitional fossils, then you assertion is simply arbitrary.  Arbitrary assertions need not be addressed.

 

 

You put too much confidence in my humble person: if I can't present evidence of the evolution of birds, then dinosaurs are created? That"s quite a leap. It can mean that the fossil record is incomplete, or that my knowledge of paleontology is lacking etc. There are plenty of other possibilities.

 

If you argue that if you can't present evidence with fossils, and then you assume that the reason for you lack of evidence is that it is because paleontologists haven't fount it yet, is circular reasoning.  You are assuming that you are correct without proving that you are correct.    
 
 


A few seconds ago.
 Without evidence, this is an arbitrary assumption.
 
 

Heu, no Teejay.

Scientists have never used dinosaurs as argument for an old Earth. Snientists have used the distance of stars, magnetic reversals in the oceanic floor, ice core layers, varves, treerings, radioactive dating and many other methods of dating as evidennce of an old earth. It's creationists who always come with this foolish notion that humans and (non avian) dinosaurs lived together.

 

I'm 80, and not good with computers.  Would you like me to get my wife or grandson to give you several 18-wheeler loads of examples of atheists claiming that dinosaurs were prehistoric?

 

TeeJay



#37 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 31 May 2015 - 01:54 PM

Note to Teejay.... all of your posts lately seem to be double posts.

What should a professing Christian do when he sees self-evident evidence that disagrees with God's word?  If you take Genesis literally, we shouldn't even be able to see more than 99.99999999% of the universe.  I can walk out in my back yard and see, with my unaided eye, the galaxy Andromeda .... that's 400x farther than we should be able to see in the 6,000 or so year timeframe of Genesis literalism.  This isn't exactly an insignificant issue as there are over 100,000,000,000 galaxies and the typical galaxy has over 100,000,000,000 stars.

Why not look in the mirror and ask yourself:  "What should a professing Christian do when he sees self-evident evidence that agrees with God's word?  Answer:  Dance on your kitchen table and shout to the unbelieving world that God's word must be our Ultimate Standard.  In light of the unfossilized dinosaurs, can you take a baby step and agree with Gen. 1:24?

Why are you avoiding an answer to my question?  What should a professing Christian do when he sees self-evident evidence that disagrees with God's word?

 

As for Gen 1:24....

"And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so."  (NIV)

 

I note that God commanded the land to produce living creatures.  I have no difficulty at all with that and have never denied it.  In fact, I've mentioned it before (see post #13).  But there's a big difference between agreeing that God commanded the land to produce living creatures and saying He did so only a few thousand years ago.

 

Your turn.... look in the mirror and ask yourself.... "What should a professing Christian do when he sees self-evident evidence that disagrees with God's word?  This isn't a new question either.... St. Augustine discussed this over 1600 years ago when he wrote (in part):

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

 
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
 
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
Our ability to directly observe objects and events (such as Sn1987a) far beyond 6,000 light years is about as self-evident as it gets that creation is billions of years old, not thousands.  How do you address this when speaking to the unbelieving world?  Do you tell them to ignore what they see "as being certain from reason and experience?"

 

If I gave you a piece of bone, could you tell from its state of decomposition if the animal died 2 months or 2,000 years ago?  You can't, can you?  That's because the rate of biological composition can be changed by orders of magnitude due to the influence of a dozen or so external factors.  Can you list for me the external factors that will significantly change the rates of nuclear decay?  I know of two.... 1) a temperature over 200,000,000 C or 2) a nuclear chain reaction.

If I gave a bone to a Texas rancher who had a fourth grade education and spit tobacco juice out the side of his mouth, he, using common Texas horse-sense, would know that it could not be 70 million years old.  Only someone who wants to be self-deceived would believe that.  You;re having much difficult with the unfossilized dinosaurs, so let's not get into nuclear chain reactions, yet. 

I take your avoidance of a direct answer as an acknowledgement that you could not tell if that animal had died 2 months ago or 2000 years ago.  Nuclear decay is relevant because it is the method used to determine the Earth is billions of years old.  If you want to use unfossilized dinosaurs you will need to address nuclear decay as that is the dating method you are challenging by using biological decay.

 

Even a Texas rancher (or anyone else) with a fourth grade education is familiar with quartz watches.  If you came to him and said: "You have a quartz watch that says this happened 2 years ago and we have a water clock that has been outside for the last two years (meaning it has probably frozen a few times) that says it happened last month.  You should trust my water clock and discard your quartz watch."  I bet he would go with the more stable time keeping method that is less subject to external factors.... like freezing or water depth.

 

As for the unfossilized dinosaurs..... I didn't know we had even finished with the flood.  I don't recall you showing where the water went and rainfall could account for no more than a few inches of the water.  All of the creation science flood models involve the release of so much heat energy it would sterilize the planet.  In other words, a flood would have been the least of Noah's problems.

 

It's relevant with regard to the speed of light and distant objects as well..... even with a 4th grade education, most of us could figure out that if Dallas is 60 miles away and we travel at 60 mph, it will take 1 hour to get there.  For the same reason, if an object (such as Sn1987a) is 167,000 light years from Earth, it will take 167,000 years for that light to reach us.

 

 

Wouldn't Occam's Razor demand I go with the better understood and more stable processes .... the speed of light and nuclear decay .... rather than one that is poorly understood and varies significantly due to a number of external factors?  Doesn't a logical, rational, objective approach to the evidence demand the same thing?

Why are you not applying his Razor to Gen. 1:24 when it agrees with the unfossilized dinosaur?

I am.  We have three processes at work here:

1)  Biological decay .... which is well known to vary dramatically due to a number of external factors.

2)  Nuclear decay .... which is known to be stable and immune to significant change by virtually any external factor.

3)  The speed of light.... which is also known to be highly stable and consistent.

 

What you are doing is saying I should embrace (1) and discard (2) and (3).  Isn't that the exact opposite of what Occam's Razor would say I should do?

 

Besides, Gen 1:24 says nothing at all about WHEN God commanded the land to bring forth life.

 

What I do is try to approach such evidence without presupposition as to whether the Bible is literal or not.  Is there something wrong with that?

The worldview that one does not have a presuppositional worldview is itself a presuppositional worldview.  But here, Piasan, you have something that agrees with Gen. 1:24 literally.  Yet, you will not accept it.  Jesus had it right when He taught that "even if they do not believe the OT, they won't believe someone who rises from the dead [paraphrased]."

Well, I didn't claim to be perfectly objective.... only that I try.

 

Honestly, I don't see how anything I've said disagrees with Gen 1:24.  You may need to explain that more completely.

 

As Sherlock said:  "Eliminate the impossible and you are left with the possible."  Will you admit that it is not possible for a dinosaur re remain in the ground unfossilized for 70 million years?  Can you take this small baby step?

I will admit we don't know enough about biological decay to tell if remains could remain unfossilized for 70 million years or not.  Will you admit that it is not possible for us to see even the center of our own galaxy (distance over 20,000 light years) in a universe only 6,000 years old.  Can you take this small baby step?



#38 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 31 May 2015 - 03:42 PM

Piasan, how do you determine which parts are metaphor and which part is not? This question does not only refer to the genesis account.

I notice you do not use the christian label here. Somehow I'm thinking I've read elsewhere you do sometimes label yourself a christian. Is my memory correct?

If not, do you consider alternative religions (Judaism, Islam, Shintoism, ...) just as valid?

 

If you prefer I move these questions to the topic where you discussed your worldview, just say so and I'll ask them there. Thanks.

First, I do label myself as a Christian.  You need go no farther than my profile information at the left of each post to see that.  It was set up that way when I made my first post to this list and has not changed since.... nor will it.   That said, there are many on this list who label themselves as Christians who would argue Roman Catholics, such as myself, aren't Christian.

 

As for which parts I see as metaphor and which are not.... I'm not sure I have a hard and fast rule.  Mostly, my objections take are with YEC when they try to justify their literalism with science.  This is why you'll find most of my issues are focused on the early chapters of Genesis.

 

Goku made a point back in post #6....

Another overarching theme with theistic evolutionists is the concept of a God that does not deceive. So since God created the natural world we would not expect to find a contradiction between past events and what we empirically observe in nature. As it turns out, at least from our perspective, there is no empirical evidence of a global flood and lots of evidence suggesting that no such event occurred as literally described in the Torah. To paraphrase St. Augustine, if we know through science that such an event could not have happened (it contradicts empirical evidence, not just 'theory' like the Resurrection) then we must forgo a literal meaning in favor of a metaphorical one.

While it is certainly within the power of an omnipotent God to suspend the natural laws and perform miracles, some things simply can't be explained away.  For example, our ability to see distant objects.  When we look at objects like Sn1987a, the light conveys information about events that occurred at the time and place light left its source.  YEC would make almost the entire universe nothing more than a deception filled with objects that never existed and events that never took place. 

 

To me, this creates substantial philosophical and theological issues.  If God is deceptive, we can trust nothing we see nor can we trust any of our memories or knowledge.  In short, everything we think we know could be no more than an illusion.

 

 

 

You asked about other religions....

When I was raised in Catholic schools, we were taught that only Catholics could hope to be saved.... all others, even Christian Protestants, were excluded from heaven.  Since then, at Vatican II, considerable revisions have been made to (Catholic) thinking on the matter of salvation.  We must begin with the concept that God is just, merciful, and loving. 

 

Even Protestant teaching that one must be a professed Christian to achieve salvation has serious problems with the number of people that can achieve salvation.  This would exempt anyone born before Christ and most of the population of the planet since Him who never heard of either Christ or the Bible.  To me, this is contradictory to a just merciful, or loving God.

 

I know most of our YEC friends will disagree with this and (likely) claim it to be some kind of heresy, but my thinking on salvation has .... um .... evolved over the years.  Now, I am much more in agreement with Vatican II which basically takes the position that salvation is available to all.  What we must do is live by the teachings of Jesus Christ.  This path is available to all of mankind .... though it is much easier for those of us who know of His instructions.

 

We can discuss these matters wherever you like.  As I recall, this is the third discussion of theistic evolution since I've been here.  One was started by me, one by usafjay and this one by Teejay.  The others went stale when a lot more material was introduced than I could respond to and I was off on matters of more interest (to me).



#39 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 31 May 2015 - 04:05 PM

What is most humorous to me is that for as long as I can remember the atheist (and theistic) evolutionists have used dinosaurs as their main arguments for an old Earth.  And then came the unfossilized dinosaurs.  It's almost as though God allowed you all to dig a deep enough hole before He took away your shovels.  Talk about lol, lol, lol, lol ha ha ha.

Scientists have never used dinosaurs as argument for an old Earth. Snientists have used the distance of stars, magnetic reversals in the oceanic floor, ice core layers, varves, treerings, radioactive dating and many other methods of dating as evidennce of an old earth. It's creationists who always come with this foolish notion that humans and (non avian) dinosaurs lived together.

 Would you like me to get my wife or grandson to give you several 18-wheeler loads of examples of atheists claiming that dinosaurs were prehistoric?

Just because dinosaurs are said to be prehistoric doesn't mean they are used as the "main arguments for an old Earth."  There are many other life forms that predate dinosaurs.  Most of the strongest arguments I've seen used for an ancient planet have nothing at all to do with living things.  Driewerf gave you a list of a half dozen.



#40 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 31 May 2015 - 04:40 PM

Piasan,

 

Every text book I've seen my sons and grandsons bring home from a public school teaches that dinosaurs died out 65 to 70 million years ago.  In light of the finding of unfossilized dinosaurs, will you now admit that this evidence comports literally (not metaphorically or symbolicly) with Genesis 1:24 and disagrees with your millions of years worldview.  Will you admit this?

 

TeeJay






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users