Jump to content


Photo

Genesis: Literal Or Metaphorical?


  • Please log in to reply
178 replies to this topic

#121 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 28 January 2010 - 11:22 AM

4) Hmmm, I don't think so. There is ample scientific evidence that we have a biased interpretation of the information provided. Further there are the savant syndrome clearly pointing us at our limitations. However, we may not be perfect in our processing of the information but I think this is still incorporated in the scientific principle. Constant questioning rather than blind faith.

View Post

In fact, your fundamental observation here had an crucial, foundational role in motivating the launch of the scientific enterprise. Peter Harrison's second book, The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science makes the case that the recognition of this limitation on human cognition and intellectual capacity:

Peter Harrison provides an account of the religious foundations of scientific knowledge. He shows how the approaches to the study of nature that emerged in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were directly informed by theological discussions about the Fall of Man and the extent to which the mind and the senses had been damaged by that primeval event. Scientific methods, he suggests, were originally devised as techniques for ameliorating the cognitive damage wrought by human sin. At its inception, modern science was conceptualized as a means of recapturing the knowledge of nature that Adam had once possessed. Contrary to a widespread view that sees science emerging in conflict with religion, Harrison argues that theological considerations were of vital importance in the framing of the scientific method.


So, you're observation concerning the limitations of the human intellect is not only grounded in and explained by the Bible, ameliorating that limitation was a fundamental motivation for the pioneers of science - who, incidentally, were more often that not believers in the bible.

#122 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 28 January 2010 - 03:15 PM

First, you're assuming that all that 'guesswork' is correct.

No, I assume it is making sense in a context and is a working model. Like the geometry of the earth for instance...
It is round and it is flat. At the same time how could that be? It depends on the perspective and on what aspect you are investigating. Context and application of model.
What I assume is that the guesswork is meaningful and works in a sense.

Second, even granting for the sake of argument that all that's left is 'small, tiny specks' of assumption and guesswork left, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. In radiometric dating, for instance, there are the three necessary assumptions I pointed out in my last post (initial conditions, decay rate & closed/open system); get one of these wrong, and your radiometric dates aren't worth a warm bucket of spit.

You don't need to tell me that. I did my PhD on plutonium chemistry. But as for the weakest link I don't agree that the metaphore is appropriate. It is rather a piece of paper with holes in it sometimes it does not really matter if you cannot go the straight way from A to B. It may be okay to pass by C also...

No, you don't get it. I'm saying that for science to work, the universe must be ordered and logical. If it weren't there is no reason, to take one example, to expect that water would freeze or boil at the same temperature (taking altitude into account) today as it did yesterday. The fact that the universe is reliably predictable necessitates that it be ordered and logical. The logic and order of science is simply a reflection of those same principles inherent in the universe.
First, that is an assumption; how do you justify it? Second, I never said that the universe needs rules to operate, I'm saying that it does, in fact, operate according to a set of objective rules/laws and it is this fact that permits the scientific enterprise to flourish.

Wow, even I as a scientist would not go as far as to say that the world operates according a set of rules. I would say it seems to operate according to a set of rules...

But if you are convinced that there is a set of rules that is obeyed how do you regard miracles?

The universe could just as well be the result of a random, chaotic jumble of matter, space and time; but if that were the case, these aspects of reality wouldn't be amenable to the scientific method.
As to your assumption that the universe exists, I refer you back to the C.S. Lewis quote above. e Of course theories are evaluated according to their usefulness, but that highlights the problem. A useful theory is one that can reliably predict outcomes of investigations or experiments (e.g. Einstein's gravitational predictions being verified by solar eclipse observations). Such theories employ the principles of causality, rigorous mathematics/physics and detailed models of other natural phenomena. The fact that we can mathematically predict such things strongly suggests that the universe is operating according to something very much akin to rigorous mathematics. It's not for nothing that, after analyzing the energy of the carbon nucleus, atheist and astronomer Fred Hoyle stated:
Einstein once said something very much like this:
Neither of these men were bible-believers, but they had the intellectual honesty to call a spade a spade.

Yes it is hard not to wonder about the origin of the universe and the eternal question of why we are here... Sometimes I actually think I am a closet Theist...

That our sense give us a reliable window on reality is often taken for granted, as you seem to do here.

To an extent yes, but as I do so I'm also utterly aware that the reality I window is my reality and that what applies to me is not necessarily what applies to others. At least I nurish this thought but acting on it is hard as our default assumption as humans seem to be that others experience the world in the same way...
Since I have been a Christian and now am not I can say that for me it did not change much of my fundamental experiences of the world. i.e. my senses work no different than before, which was implied in some post on the forum. This was what I wanted to adress.

The problem is you need to explain why this should be the case; just as you must with the intelligibility of the universe in general.

No that is not a problem for me. That is a problem for a person who has an objective world view and espescially one who claims to be aware of the objective truth. My favourite paradox: The truth is that there is no truth...

Where is the disagreement? I meant no more than your last sentence above. We must have some measure of faith that our brain can process the sense data with reasonable accuracy, or we wouldn't even bother with science - or anything else, for that matter.
With one glaring exception; we must exercise blind faith in materialism and never question it.  :P

In a sense yes. We need to accept that there is a material world blindly or else everything is imagination... solipsism. but iknow this is not the same as faith in materialism.

There are indeed many differences between the various denominations of Christianity, but there is a core which all share. Among the beliefs comprising that core are those I listed in my post:

1 - God is a rational, moral being
2 - He created man in his image, which entails rationality and morality
3 - He created the universe in general and the earth in particular as a home for man
4 - He commanded man to 'subdue' [bring under his dominion] the earth.

These are the beliefs that I said form a solid rationale for doing science. I challenge you to to find a Christian denomination that rejects these beliefs.

View Post

Oh I cannot do what you challenge me to do. but I could challenge almost anything else in the passage.
point 1 is not supported by the bibli in my opinion. Many acts inconsistencies in his supreme text indicate otherwise especially the older testament but also the four significantly different versions of the gosples...

2. Isn't the exact quote only in his image? And does not that make your addition only an interpretation of your own flavor? And further if what you hold o be true actually is true what would that mean? Does it mean that man is all-rational? Does it mean that all men are moral? Do all variations of Christianity answer my two questions here similarly?

3. How about that eh? What about some tempral shift... ? Lets go back a few hundred years. How was the interpretation of the same passages you interpret? spanish inquisition and gallileo ring a bell? WHats to say that YOUR interpretation of the scripture to encompass all of the universe i will be still accepted in the christian community 100 years from now. In the past you would be tortured for less.

4. This I actually have no ojection to since it is actually what I dislike most about christianity. The selfcentered envisionment that all this was made with us in mind. All billions of galaxies were made just for us to be amazed about...I agree this is a solid ground for christianity. Good for you...

#123 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 28 January 2010 - 03:36 PM

So, you're observation concerning the limitations of the human intellect is not only grounded in and explained by the Bible, ameliorating that limitation was a fundamental motivation for the pioneers of science - who, incidentally, were more often that not believers in the bible.

View Post


Ahum, my observation is not grounded upon the bible but upon examination of human behavior as I recall. But I grant you that much of the science was within the ranks of church in the old days. This the begs the question: Is it science that has outgrown religion or is it religion that has made significant advances in the last century? Do we have TV through belief? The tide has changed. The time you refer to was a time when church was the way to be educated unless you were a military man. Today science does not need the goodwill of religion.

#124 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 28 January 2010 - 06:51 PM

Ahum, my observation is not grounded upon the bible but upon examination of human behavior as I recall. But I grant you that much of the science was within the ranks of church in the old days. This the begs the question: Is it science that has outgrown religion or is it religion that has made significant advances in the last century? Do we have TV through belief? The tide has changed. The time you refer to was a time when church was the way to be educated unless you were a military man. Today science does not need the goodwill of religion.

View Post

I didn't mean to imply that such a conclusion (human limitation) could only be reached through the bible; I should have been more clear. The bible explains both man's rationality and his fallen state and/or limitations. The pioneers of science sought to use 'what remains of man's intellect' to restore what was lost at the fall. On the other hand, while evolutionary theory of any stripe (other than theistic evolution) can explain man's fallenness/imperfection/limitation, it cannot account for his rationality. It is in this sense that the Bible provided the necessary philosophical impetus for science.

#125 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 28 January 2010 - 07:49 PM

Wow, even I as a scientist would not go as far as to say that the world operates according a set of rules. I would say it seems to operate according to a set of rules...

View Post

Fair enough, given our limitations and the necessarily tentative nature of science, I agree that the best we can say is that the universe seems to operate according to a set of rules. However, it is on this basis that we can have any confidence in our scientific conclusions. In any case, I would say that the notion that the universe is governed by a set of rules/laws is at least as secure a conclusion as, say, the 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics. In fact, those most established of scientific laws (and every other one) sit upon the very premise of a universe that operates according to identifiable laws.

But if you are convinced that there is a set of rules that is obeyed how do you regard miracles?

View Post

I regard the 'rules' as the normal means by which God governs the universe. Miracles are exceptions (or, in the words of C.S. Lewis, additions) to those rules; instances where God, for His own purposes, intervened in an exceptional way. In fact, miracles only make sense in an orderly, law-governed universe. It is only against a backdrop of general uniformity (i.e. orderly behavior) that a miracle can even be distinguished from any other phenomenon; for if the universe behaved in a chaotically random - or lawless - manner, there would be no 'norm' from which something might depart.

Since I have been a Christian and now am not I can say that for me it did not change much of my fundamental experiences of the world. i.e. my senses work no different than before, which was implied in some post on the forum. This was what I wanted to adress.

View Post

I agree with you here; being a Christian isn't going to change the way your physical senses perceive the world. The point I would make here is that it is not a question of what someone believes, it is a question of what is true. It isn't necessary that you believe in a rational, creator God for your senses to work; it is, however, necessary that such a God indeed exists and that He is the Creator.

2. Isn't the exact quote only in his image? And does not that make your addition only an interpretation of your own flavor? And further if what you hold o be true actually is true what would that mean? Does it mean that man is all-rational? Does it mean that all men are moral?  Do all variations of Christianity answer my two questions here similarly?

View Post

This hinges on the word 'image'; as God is spirit, it cannot refer to physical attributes. Thus, it must be that we reflect God's spiritual nature; that nature entailing love, justice, morality, rationality, etc. I've yet to see a commentary (outside of some errant 'prosperity gospel' types that claim that our similitude to God is of a physical nature.

3. How about that eh? What about some tempral shift... ? Lets go back a few hundred years. How was the interpretation of the same passages you interpret? spanish inquisition and gallileo ring a bell? WHats to say that YOUR interpretation of the scripture to encompass all of the universe i will be still accepted in the christian community 100 years from now. In the past you would be tortured for less.

View Post

The old saw about Galileo, huh? The common mythology of him being persecuted by the Church for heresy is a myth that has been debunked numerous times. For example, Giorgio de Santillana's study The Crime of Galileo; even anti-creationist Ronald Numbers debunks the myth in his book Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion. For a good survey of the issue, see Thomas Schirrmacher's TJ paper The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?. The summary:

The 17th century controversy between Galileo and the Vatican is examined. Fifteen theses are advanced, with supporting evidence, to show that the Galileo affair cannot serve as an argument for any position on the relation of religion and science. Contrary to legend, both Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials. Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues and the politics of Pope Urban VIII. He was not accused of criticising the Bible, but disobeying a papal decree.


From the introduction:

Galileo was a scientist who believed in the trustworthiness of the Bible and sought to show that the Copernican (heliocentric) system was compatible with it. He was fighting against the contemporary principles of Bible interpretation which, blinded by Aristotelian philosophy, did not do justice to the biblical text. Galileo was not blamed for criticising the Bible but for disobeying papal orders.


Of the fifteen points S advances in support of his thesis, number 3 is particularly relevant here:

Thesis 3. Envy, not religion, was the trigger

The battle against Galileo was not started by Catholic officials, but by Galileo’s colleagues and scientists, who were afraid of losing their position and influence. The representatives of the church were much more open to the Copernican system than were the scientists and Galileo’s colleagues. Galileo avoided and delayed an open confession in favour of the Copernican system in fear of his immediate and other colleagues, not in fear of any part of the church.27

This was already true of Copernicus himself. Gerhard Prause summarises the situation:

Not in fear of those above him in the Church—as is often wrongly stated—but because he was afraid to be “laughed at and to be hissed off the stage”—as he formulated it himself—by the university professor, did he refuse to publish his work “De revolutionibus orbium coelestium” for more than 38 years. Only after several Church officials, especially Pope Clemens VII had requested it, did Copernicus finally decide to publish his work.


Only a few scientists living in Galileo’s time confessed publicly that they followed Copernicus. Some did so secretly, but most denied the Copernican system.

‘Thus, while the poets were celebrating Galileo’s discoveries which had become the talk of the world, the scholars in his own country were, with a few exceptions, hostile or sceptical. The first, and for some time the only, scholarly voice raised in public in defence of Galileo, was Johannes Kepler’s.’

Beside this, the church represented not only the interests of theologians but also the interests of those scientists who were part of the orders of the church. The Order of the Jesuits, who were behind the trial against Galileo, included the leading scientists of that day.

Galileo’s case confronts us with the heaviness and clumsiness of scientific changes due to the social habits of the scientific community, which Thomas Kuhn has described in his famous book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. More than once, it was not the church hindering scientific progress but the scientific community!

Thus, as it has today, some in the Church had wedded their theology to the reigning scientific & philosophical paradigm of the day. In Galileo’s day it was the Aristotelian paradigm; today, it is the Darwinian one.

4. This I actually have no ojection to since it is actually what I dislike most about christianity. The selfcentered envisionment that all this was made with us in mind. All billions of galaxies were made just for us to be amazed about...I agree this is a solid ground for christianity. Good for you...

View Post

It all depends on your perspective...

#126 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 31 January 2010 - 06:26 AM

I'm not sure what you mean, can you give an example?

A non-literal interpretation is the example. People argue against literal interpretation because of the simplistic explanantion of creation the Bible contains. However, God did not give us the Bible so we could understand the universe. He gave us the Bible so we could understand Him and us. THe rest He would teach us in time.

That question at the end is the sometimes an argument used for a metaphorical interpretation. With that question in mind; Could God even begin to explain the nature of the universe?, why proclaim that what is written down in Genesis is 100% accurate in its depiction of the nature of the universe?


The question poses no reason to not accept a literal interpretation. If I state that my cup is full of water. I am 100% accurate without defining any part of the claim. God did as much with the Creation story. He claims "I did it in 6 days". He gave only detail relavent to our needs.

While our understanding may increase, I do believe that God has given us all the information and tools we need to forge a strong, long lasting relationship with Him, and with it, salvation. So while knowledge about the inner workings of the universe is fascinating, IMHO, it is not necessary or important on a spiritual level.

True

When bringing in the supernatural, science has nothing to say about it. So the idea that God created the heavens and the Earth is not inconsistent with science, only the ideas brought forth on how it was created.

Unless we understand there is no difference. Supernatural is a false concept. All is within creation. All creation is natural. Therefore there is no "supernatural".

There is nothing we cannot study and understand although there are many things we cannot understand yet.

On saying that Genesis says that God created the universe is a valid interpretation, and I so happen to think that is the main purpose of Genesis 1 and 2. It is the claims like there was a world wide flood around 4 thousand years ago; or that the Earth, Sun, stars, galaxies and all the wonders of the universe was created 6 thousand years ago, that I think are in-congruent with what we know about the natural world. As far as I know Christian doctrine clearly teaches that the God of the Bible is the one and only God, and is God both of the natural and supernatural. So it only stands that if He decided to write a book and tell us about the natural world, that we would be able to look at the natural world and see exactly what has been written. Personally, I don't see that with a literal interpretation of Genesis YEC's proclaim.


Because you accept the fictin of evolution without evidence. I cannot help you there.

If I recall the disciples called Jesus rabbi, indicating that Jesus himself may have been part of the clergy.


Jesus was absolutely not part of the clergy. Rabbi means teacher. His disciples recognized Him as their teacher.

Also, many of Jesus' actions were against the corrupt nature many of the Pharisees and Sadducees had, not so much the system itself. I'm not to sure that they rejected Jesus because they held a metaphorical interpretation. From what I've read they seem too corrupt and blinded to realize that Jesus is the Messiah.


It was the people and the system He challenged. Their flawed interpetation allowed the clergy to enlist the people in a system of useless laws and sacrifice. They tried to make salvation attainable by human ability so that they could control it. This was possible by explaining that the scriptures were not literal.


That statement is an idea behind the metaphorical interpretation

.

But the metamorphical assumes God lied when He claimed to make the universe in 6 days.

#127 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 31 January 2010 - 09:04 AM

Today science does not need the goodwill of religion.

View Post

And yet, some are determinate to keep the goodwill of evolutionary religion as the mainstay of science (or more succinctly a "Ministry" of evolutionary science) , whilst the end-goal (macro-evolution) is of no empirical value to the scientific method.

#128 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 02 February 2010 - 04:38 PM

Today science does not need the goodwill of religion.

View Post

I beg to differ. We you detach science from religion, you're headed for trouble. Science tells us 'what we can do', it gives no guidance whatever regarding whether we should something just because we can. The eugenics movement in years past, as well as its full flower in Nazi Germany are examples of the wonders of science unmoored from religion. Today, eugenics seems to be enjoying a bit of a revival in the [irrational] push for embryonic stem-cell research and the suggestion that we should explore the creation of human/animal hybrids.

You can also see this in the reductionism that many evolutionists engage in. Evolutionists have rationalized everything from rape to infidelity in terms of supposed evolutionary advantage; it's neither right nor wrong, it's whether a particular behavior confers a survival/reproductive advantage. A rather gross and disgusting utilitarianism, if you ask me. Einstein once said:

Religion without science is blind, and science without religion is lame


I think he might have been a bit shortsighted; perhaps it is more accurate to say that science without religion is dangerous. As Vox Day writes in his superb - and delightfully savage - book The Irrational Atheist (direct link to free pdf):

As Richard Dawkins Demonstrates in his ode to science, Unweaving the Rainbow, the New Atheists harbor nearly as great a love for science as they do a hatred for religion. Like the science fetishists who regard science as a basis for dictating human behavior, atheists like to posit that Man has evolved to a point where he is ready to move beyond religion. This has been their constant theme for more than 100 years, but as Daniel C. Dennett points out, the evidence is mounting that this simply isn’t going to happen. A more interesting and arguably more relevant question that none of the New Atheists dare to ask is whether science, having produced some genuinely positive results as well as some truly nightmarish evils over the course of the last century, has outlived its usefulness to Mankind. Man has survived millennia of religious faith, but if the prophets of over-population and global warming are correct, he may not survive a mere four centuries of science.

~The Irrational Atheist, pp. 43-44 of pdf

Besides, it's not just the goodwill of religion that science (or rather, the human race vis-à-vis science) desperately needs, it's the philosophical justification only it can provide.

#129 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2010 - 07:26 PM

It is the scientific interpretation - not the data - that involve unverifiable assumptions and guesswork. All of science is subject to this limitation, though there are (from what I have learned) two general categories in this regard.


I apologize for taking so long in my response. Upon returning to college there was a period in the beginning of the semester where the internet doesn't want to cooperate.

First, science in general relies upon several assumptions without which science could not operate. Among these are the following: 1) an intelligible, logically ordered universe; 2) consistent, uniform 'rules' governing the operation of the universe; 3) that our senses give us a reliable 'window' on reality; 4) that our human mind is capable of processing the information provided by our senses. These assumptions might seem to be 'givens', but it's not that simple.


I agree with all but 1. While a logically ordered universe would make scientists lives much more easier, it doesn't have to be in order to pursue knowledge through the scientific method. And as we (humans) are designed to think logically, we tend to order things and concepts logically and with a defined order that is, well, logical.

A Christian worldview, for instance, provides a solid rationale & explanation for why the universe is like this. Among the premises of Christianity is that 1) God is a rational, moral being; 2) that He created man in his image, which entails rationality and morality; 3) that He created the universe in general and the earth in particular as a home for man; and 4) that He commanded man to 'subdue' [bring under his dominion] the earth. The preceding 4 biblical premises directly and fully justify the 4 assumptions that underpin science listed above.


I agree, but I'm not sure how 4 justifies any of the underlying assumptions of science.

In fact, only the bible provides a solid rationale for the scientific enterprise and this is precisely why modern science was launched in Christian Europe largely by Christians It is also the reason science could never get a foothold in countries like China or the Islamic world; these cultures/religions lacked the necessary philosophical framework to provide a firm foundation for science. The same is true of atheism, as it too lacks the framework to undergird and justify the scientific enterprise.


Now here I must protest. The modern foundations of science were indeed built by Christians, but they were only able to do so through the pre-knowledge kept by the Middle East during the dark ages of Christian Europe. Which ultimately came from Rome and Greece.

I almost see the world advancing in knowledge by different countries/cultures passing on the piton of knowledge to different countries/cultures; similar to how the great powers of the world change over time. For example the U.S. basically took the knowledge of Europe and added onto it becoming the super power it is today and in the past. Now the U.S. is decreasing in power and it looks like China is going to rise up in a new global/international economy. I don't think any country/culture is inherently lacking a framework to understand science, or to get there, but due to other factors in the world, the great safe haven of knowledge is constantly changing.

I think, even when talking about humans devoid of religion, we can come to the conclusions necessary to implement scientific thinking, inquiry, discovery and understanding beyond any reasonable doubt.

This makes it all the more galling when evolutionists prattle on about the war between religion and science and how they, as atheists, are more rational and refrain from superstition. All of this has long been known and many scholars of the history of science have contributed to this thesis. Among them are Rodney Stark, Toby Huff and Peter Harrison.


Religion has made some very important contributions to science, same with philosophy. But as science progresses many of these things that once nurtured it is now snaring it; suffocating the life out of it. The right balance between science and religion must be found, and the right balance seems to change over time; both as a philosophical framework and in a pragmatic way. Now it looks like religion needs to back off of science, so science can reach its full potential in an objective way, free from religious influence. That is one of my main reasons for participating in the evo-creo debate; I see creationism as crossing the line and tainting science in the public schools.

Second, and to answer your question, is the category of the historical sciences. These include origins science, archeology and forensics. I would also include much (but not all) of astronomy - especially cosmology since given the distances involved, we are actually 'looking back into the past' when we gaze through a telescope. Here, assumptions play a more direct and visible role. Many times, the subject under investigation is a historical singularity - what happened only happened once and in a particular way. We cannot repeat history in the lab. Even if we manage to recreate a given phenomenon, there is no way to prove that it happened in that particular way regarding what is being examined.


Technically I think we see everything in the past, as light does have a speed and there is distance between our eyes and anything we see, but point taken. I suppose that the biggest assumption in astronomy is that the same rules apply here as well as everywhere. And while we can't recreate a big bang from a singularity, we can definitely observe the effects, making it a part of scientific inquiry.

As to how this relates to the age of the earth, take radioactive dating. We have a chunk of igneous rock that we want to date with, say, the Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) method. This involves measuring the ratio of parent isotope (potassium) to daughter isotope (argon) and then calculating how long it would have taken the potassium to have decayed into argon given the known half-life of potassium. Seems pretty straight-forward - until you think about it for a minute. What assumptions are involved in this determination? 1) that the decay rate has been constant throughout history; 2) that the rock in question was a 'closed system' throughout its entire history (no leeching, no contamination by addition of exogenous parent or daughter isotope, etc.); 3) that the ratio of parent-to-daughter isotopes at the rocks creation can be known. All of these assumptions bear directly on the credibility of radioactively determined dates.


I'm hesitant to comment, with geology, radiometric dating is not something I'm really familiar with. As far as 1 is concerned, the rate of decay is consistent as far as we know. Under intense physical and chemical environments, the rate of decay cannot be changed. So unless we impose different laws for different times, I don't see 1 as strong evidence against it. For 2, if I remember correctly (please don't hesitate to correct me) once the rock is formed it will not get contaminated to the point that inaccurate results will form, meaning that scientists know when they see a contaminated part that isn't part of the original rock. So the contamination must happen during the rocks formation. For 3, this is something that I myself have asked other evolutionists before. I hate cop outs, but there's not much else I can say about it other than I've been told that you don't need to know the original ratio to find the age. I wish I knew more, as I'm sure I'm missing something.

There is simply no means at all to make confident determinations of points 2 & 3 - especially point 3. In fact, the literature is littered with dates being rejected or modified because they didn't fit with evolutionarily determined expectations. Common excuses are that the rock was 'reworked' or 'reset' (fully or partially) by subsequent melting, there is 'excess argon' giving an anomalously old date, and others. Point 1 is a bit more amenable to scientific investigation since, if decay rates were different in the past, there should be evidence consistent with that hypothesis. The was the main focus of the RATE project and they did find such evidence (helium retention, polonium halos, etc.)


From what I've read from the RATE team, they found some anomalies regarding radiometric dating, but those anomalies are in no way enough to disprove the basic outline mainstream science has put forth.

Now, as to the comparison between interpreting 1) propositional statements and 2) scientific data. There are fewer assumptions, at a foundational level, when it comes to interpreting language vs. scientific data. First, the very purpose of language is to communicate ideas and concepts. We have a very good knowledge of the grammar, syntax, word usage history and culture of, for instance, the Hebrew and the Greek languages. We know the distinctive characteristics that distinguish Hebrew poetry for Hebrew historical narrative, for example. This knowledge gives us a very good handle on interpreting ancient texts despite the fact that here are difficulties with obscure words or sentence construction here and there.


I agree.

In contrast scientific data is 'stuff'; it is just 'there'. It doesn't 'say' anything; the data means nothing if not placed in the context of an overarching framework. A good example is the redshift of starlight. The data is the magnitude of the redshift - that's it. This data is interpreted as the recession of the stars/galaxies due mostly to the expansion of space. The redshift doesn't 'say' that directly, it has to be interpreted in the framework of modern cosmology to yield that conclusion. And it's not the only way the redshifts can be understood, either. Halton Arp - no creationist he - has made the case that a great many of these redshifts are intrinsic and not indicative of distance.


Interesting stuff on red-shift, but astronomers don't use red-shift do determine distance though, just the radial velocity of the object. In fact, redshift is a good example of how new data influences/changes the existing paradigm of the day. Before we really looked at the redshift of galaxies many were in the steady state theory mindset, when we realized that things were going away from us, we were able to conclude a singularity at some point in the distant past. Either way, I suppose the data must be interpreted into a model if we are to use that data. But from what I've seen of scientific interpretation, it flows logically and I see no reason to discount the 'interpretation' as it is based off of the data.

Finally, consider the history of science; it is littered with revolutions. Paradigms are turned inside out, upside down and thrown on the garbage heap by as little as a single observation. Scientific textbooks today are constantly revised in light of new evidence; a textbook from the 1950s would be largely obsolete today. Nature, practically speaking, is infinite; we will never know even close to everything about nature. There will always be more unknowns than knowns; thus the potential for radical revisions of our understanding. Language, on the other hand, is a much more limited arena. There are far fewer unknowns in language than there are in science and thus far fewer assumptions.

Revolutions are necessary to the progress of science, and we will never know everything there is to know about the nature of the universe, but that doesn't mean we can't get close to understanding how the universe functions and operates on the laws and properties it possesses.

This is why I say that interpreting propositional statements is simpler and employs fewer assumptions than does historical science.
[right][snapback]49314[/snapback][/right]

On the surface I agree, but once studied, both can be accepted beyond reasonable doubt.

#130 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2010 - 03:53 AM

I'm not clear on how a real Adam would change any of this.


1 The word of the LORD came to me again, saying, 2 “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying:


‘ The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
And the children’s teeth are set on edge’?

3 “As I live,” says the Lord GOD, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.
4 “ Behold, all souls are Mine;
The soul of the father
As well as the soul of the son is Mine;
The soul who sins shall die...

20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. <Ezekiel 18:1-4, 20 NKJV>

By implementing a literal Adam, I see it as saying humanity is cursed for the sins of our fathers (original sin), which I believe to be incorrect. Plus, I see the whole garden scenario as a complete set up; why would a loving, all-powerful all-knowing God do such a thing to His own creation that He made in "His own image" and proclaimed as "good"? The closest thing I believe to original sin is from an evolutionary view in morality. In that there was a period of time when our ancestors evolved the ability to really comprehend sin to the point where they were capable of being held accountable for their sins to God, as they evolved bigger and bigger frontal lobes in the brain. In this sense we gained the knowledge of good and evil forever from our ancestors, giving us the ability to truly sin against God, and since then everyone has fallen short the glory of God.

Well, I would say that creationist sources, as opposed to anti-creationist ones, would be the best place to see what creationists think of a particular passage. Not that anti-creationists can't accurately characterize the creationist position, it's just better to get it straight from the horses mouth.

Why it does say that explicitly, I don't know. Regardless, the context makes the meaning clear.


Agreed :)

I don't believe that the bible is 'an authority on science', but that its accounts are accurate. Where those accounts have scientific implications, I believe the bible will be found to be accurate. A fine distinction, I admit, but an important one.


I'm not sure I see the distinction. Different words are used, but the implication is the same; it just seems like two different ways to say the same thing.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that the issues I listed (and I forgot about the transition for asexual to S@xual reproduction) are not unsolved and seemingly intractable problems within evolutionary theory? Do you think that creationists are 'making those problems up'?


I wouldn't use the word "problem", I would say "question" instead. Do we have all the answers to those questions? No. But I think there's enough known that it doesn't pose as a threat to the modern evolutionary theory. I think that these "problems" are made up by the top/famous creationists, but at the same time I think many of these problems are born out of their ignorance, and I do think some of them flat out lie. I know this looks harsh and arrogant on my part, but I truly have heard the most idiotic things from creationists, that I can't help but associate the more intelligent creationist claims with these other claims; as they all associate with each other.

As far as your points individually, they are all valid questions. The origin of life technically isn't evolution, and I really do wish people would stop treating it as such. I think the origin of the DNA code would be very similar to how we get life from non-life. As to the transition from prokaryote to eukaryote, without looking into it I would think that the symbiosis theory might explain some things; a bunch of cells combined to eventually create on cell: a eukaryote cell. The DNA/protein thing is probably going to be explained through RNA, as it is can function as an enzyme (being the protein) and as an information molecule (standing in for DNA). As for single cell to multi-celled, there are clear advantages for multi-celled versus single celled, and there is a strand of yeast that is single celled, but acts and functions as a multi-celled organism. I know some scientists think that this is a beginning stage of going from single to multi celled. For asexual to S@xual reproduction, again there are clear advantages to S@xual over asexual that would have easily been selected for, and we know of bacteria that essentially perform S@xual reproduction by combining their genes and then dividing into two cells that contains genetic material from both. While it isn't S@xual production like we know it, it appears to be the beginning stages of such.

If a layer of rock is laying there for a few years (let alone millions of years), it will be subject to erosion. Instead of a nice, flat surface, there will be little channels carved out by the rain, burrows dug my insects and animals, and other similar disturbances. All of this would result in an uneven surface like this:

Posted Image

Now, imagine a fresh layer of sediment laid down on top of such a surface; it would necessarily follow the contour of the erosional surface. In other words, it won't be flat as a pancake. For instance, look at the bedding plane between the Hermit Shale (bottom brownish rock) and the Coconino Sandstond (top, pale rock) in the Grand Canyon:

Posted Image

Note the knife-straight edge between the two layers. The Hermit Shale has been dated at 280 million years old and the overlying Coconino Sandstone is purportedly 270 million years old. This means there is supposed to be a ~10 million year span of time between the time between the deposition of these two layers. Apparently, were supposed to believe that no erosion took place in all of that time. Further, many layers, when examined up close, gradually gradate into one another such that it is difficult if not impossible to determine where one begins and the other ends. This is strong evidence for rapid, continuous deposition of these layers with one layer being laid down over another while it is still soft and unconsolidated.


Well I looked up that erosion claim and it appears to be correct. Interesting points you brought up, unfortunately my geological knowledge is so little I can't really comment on them. :P But very interesting nonetheless. Thanks for the info, if I come across anything I'll be sure to bring it up.

First, if layers 'don't have to form' resulting in missing 'slabs of time' (like the phrase  :D ), on what basis can we come to reliable conclusions? Second, the flood lasted for just over a year, not 'years'. Floods do produce erosion, but the issue here is the deposition of sediment. While sediment is being precipitated out of the water and settling into layers, it is still very soft and unconsolidated. At this point, any 'erosion' that goes on will not cause erosion features, but will simply shift the soft sediment around. Layers might not form all the time, but they do as a rule. Back in 1998 & 1994, CMI published two papers on sedimentation by Guy Berthault (originally published in the Proceedings of the French Academy of Sciences). The first was Experiments on Lamination of Sediments, the second Experiments on Stratification of Heterogeneous Sand Mixtures. The upshot of these papers was summarized by Andrew Snelling in a subsequent 1997 article Sedimentation Experiments: Nature Finally Catches Up!:
              Posted Image
Figure 1: Experimental multiple lamination of a heterogranular mixture of sediments due to dry flow at a constant rate.

Snelling goes on to note:
Posted Image
Figure 2: Fine layering was produced within hours at Mt St Helens on June 12, 1980 by hurricane velocity surging flows from the crater of the volcano. The 25-foot thick (7.6 m), June 12 deposit is exposed in the middle of the cliff. It is overlain by the massive, but thinner, March 19,1982 mudflow deposit, and is underlain by the air-fall debris from the last hours of the May 18, 1980, nine-hour eruption.

This 1/40th scale 'Little Grand Canyon' formed in one day.

View Post


Again, interesting stuff, and I wish I knew more geology. While my knowledge is somewhat limited, I do know that a volcano erupting is different than a massive flood :blink:. And, I also learned that the phrase 'little Grand Canyon' is only used by creationists, which makes me wonder how true it is, being that I'm an evolutionist.

#131 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 February 2010 - 07:18 PM

The question poses no reason to not accept a literal interpretation.  If I state that my cup is full of water.  I am 100% accurate without defining any part of the claim.  God did as much with the Creation story.  He claims "I did it in 6 days".  He gave only detail relavent to our needs.


Maybe it is only relevant that we know God created all that we see, and He tried to establish a system in which we worked and rested (work 6 days rest on the sabbath). While many theologians in the past have favored a literal interpretation, at the same time they didn't deny the allegory and symbolism present. This is seen when Paul talks about Abraham and his two sons and two wives. We could debate all day long whether Paul believed them to be real people or not, but either way it is irrelevant to the fact that Paul did see and preach the allegorical meaning. Sorry to go off on a tangent, but I don't think we will reconcile our differences here, so now I'm trying to point out that while you believe that it all happened in 6 days (I'll be happy to discuss it further) you can also accept the metaphorical interpretation as well to gain new insights.

Unless we understand there is no difference.  Supernatural is a false concept.  All is within creation.  All creation is natural.  Therefore there is no "supernatural".


I've heard this before, and I like it as well as detest it. All are within God's power and present in creation, but I still think there is a distinction. Categories of how the universe functions and how God does His will here and in Heaven. Take the examples of the known four fundamental forces; each different but together create a whole. In the same way I view the natural and supernatural forces; separate but all under God's power.

Because you accept the fictin of evolution without evidence. I cannot help you there.


Not without evidence, precisely the exact opposite. And it is not just evolution, geology just doesn't show a global flood, and everything that I know goes against the possibility of Noah's story as portrayed by YECs.

Jesus was absolutely not part of the clergy.  Rabbi means teacher.  His disciples recognized Him as their teacher.


You may be right about this. At a minimum He clearly wasn't part of the main clergy, if at all. Do you know if "rabbi" was used for people outside of the clergy?

It was the people and the system He challenged.  Their flawed interpetation allowed the clergy to enlist the people in a system of useless laws and sacrifice.  They tried to make salvation attainable by human ability so that they could control it.  This was possible by explaining that the scriptures were not literal.


But the Sadducees were known for having a literal interpretation, and they completely rejected Christ as well as the rabbinic sects that held more metaphorical interpretations.


But the metamorphical assumes God lied when He claimed to make the universe in 6 days.

View Post


Unless it was never meant to be read literally. Meaning that while the ancient Hebrews read it literally, they didn't understand what God was saying. A good example of this is when Jesus was talking about eating the flesh and blood of the messiah.
In John 6:53 -- Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you."
Because they took it at face value, many of the 'would be disciples' left Him that day. But Jesus of course wasn't talking about eating literal flesh and drinking literal blood, but rather what we now know today as holy communion. In the same way it may be that Genesis 1 isn't literal, and through science we can understand that. If you want to say that it's a stretch, I can see why, just thought I'd throw it out there.

#132 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 08 February 2010 - 01:38 AM

I beg to differ. We you detach science from religion, you're headed for trouble. Science tells us 'what we can do', it gives no guidance whatever regarding whether we should something just because we can. The eugenics movement in years past, as well as its full flower in Nazi Germany are examples of the wonders of science unmoored from religion. Today, eugenics seems to be enjoying a bit of a revival in the [irrational] push for embryonic stem-cell research and the suggestion that we should explore the creation of human/animal hybrids.

You can also see this in the reductionism that many evolutionists engage in. Evolutionists have rationalized everything from rape to infidelity in terms of supposed evolutionary advantage; it's neither right nor wrong, it's whether a particular behavior confers a survival/reproductive advantage. A rather gross and disgusting utilitarianism, if you ask me. Einstein once said:
I think he might have been a bit shortsighted; perhaps it is more accurate to say that science without religion is dangerous. As Vox Day writes in his superb - and delightfully savage - book The Irrational Atheist (direct link to free pdf):
Besides, it's not just the goodwill of religion that science (or rather, the human race vis-à-vis science) desperately needs, it's the philosophical justification only it can provide.

View Post

Talk about strawman to make a point...

My assertion was only that today we do not have the spanish inquisition to tell us which science is "kosher". I did not make imply any moral spins in this at all...

In your last sentence you seem to say that science needs a philosophical justification that only religion can provide. Care to elaborate on that?

I hold that any philosophical justification, for anything, that is provided by religious means is a matter of HUMAN interpretation and therefore is as valid as any philosophical justification by HUMAN interpretation.

Just saying that you know does not mean that you know...

I understand that you have a problem with doing good without god. You just don't see any point with it. I see it like this: If there is a god it would like us to do good IRRESPECTIVELY of any belief in it. Find what is right in your gut and you can't go wrong... When this is understood the next step is to apply it to others. They need to find their truth aswell.

What is right in your world?

#133 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 08 February 2010 - 01:51 AM

I think he might have been a bit shortsighted; perhaps it is more accurate to say that science without religion is dangerous.

View Post

That is what you take out from the einstein quote. I would rather focus on the first part: "Religion without science is blind". So if you like what E is saying, do you consider your faith blind, or do you hold that it is scientifically supported?

#134 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 08 February 2010 - 02:36 AM

On the other hand, while evolutionary theory of any stripe (other than theistic evolution) can explain man's fallenness/imperfection/limitation, it cannot account for his rationality.

View Post

This argument is basically at the heart of evolution v.s. creation isn't it?

Since the second law of thermodynamics implies that order cannot be achieved spontaneously I understand why this is such a problem.

The argument seems to go something like this:
The reasoning mind is more ordered than the unreasoning mind. Order cannot come from chaos. Things does not spontaneously become more ordered or organised.

But this is not a true deduction from the second law of thermodynamics. It is stated for an ISOLATED system. And truly there are no isolated systems with the exception of the universe. Some systems come close though.

I will make an example. Take a seed for a pine tree that is dislodged in the soil waiting for spring. This system is at this point nearly isolated and at equilibrium. There is not much change within the system. Now as spring comes along the temperature rises, the suns rays heating the seed introducing new energy into the system and removing the equilibrium, at first the energy that is deposited in the seed is in a very ordered fashion which in turn alters the equilibrium. The seed starts to change into a more phisically ordered state but where the energy is distributed more evenly. It becomes a tree, which is an organised structure developed spontaneously with the influence only of sunlight (external energy) and abundance of the necessary building blocks.

So does this violate the second law of T? No, for this system the sun must be included and the energy of the sun is highly organised. So what happens is that the local order created here on earth is still less ordered than the loss of order at the sun.


Second, I am not sure about this "rationality" of man, isn't this a gross overrepresentation? To me we are not very rational at all. I agree that we are aware, reasoning and self-prolific, but if there was pure reason, would it not be consensual? The ideal rationality is absolute, we would all be equally reasoning, coming to the same conclusion given the same facts, but this is not the case. We are therefore no more rational than any animal, since we obey the same mental processes.

If you now want to introduce the soul of man as an trancendent aphysical factor, you still do not account for the dissimilarities of men, how could rationality differ?

#135 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 08 February 2010 - 06:30 PM

I agree with all but 1. While a logically ordered universe would make scientists lives much more easier, it doesn't have to be in order to pursue knowledge through the scientific method. And as we (humans) are designed to think logically, we tend to order things and concepts logically and with a defined order that is, well, logical.
On the surface I agree, but once studied, both can be accepted beyond reasonable doubt.

View Post

I disagree. One of the most important foundations of science is the principal of causality; without it, there is no science. Since the universe clearly 'obeys' the this principal, and does so reliably and predictably, it must be logically ordered. For something to be predictable, it must have an internal, logical consistency.

 
I agree, but I'm not sure how 4 justifies any of the underlying assumptions of science.

View Post

God's command to man to 'subdue' the earth and its creatures is a command to bring the creation under his control and to rule it wisely and exercise responsible stewardship of it. This cannot be done without an understanding and manipulation of nature. The accumulation of this understanding and exercise of manipulation is science.

 
Now here I must protest. The modern foundations of science were indeed built by Christians, but they were only able to do so through the pre-knowledge kept by the Middle East during the dark ages of Christian Europe. Which ultimately came from Rome and Greece.

View Post

I don't deny Greece and Rome had a hand in laying the foundations of science, but that contribution was limited by the paradigm of Greek science. Before 'modern' science took off, Aristotle was the authority. Much of the 'science' of that period was measured as to its adherence to Aristotilean principles. The problem was that Aristotle's approach to investigating nature was that he didn't so much investigate, but rather contemplated it from afar; he took a rational one as opposed to an empirical one. Thus, he saw animals as imperfect expressions of an abstract, perfect 'form'; a horse was an expression of the 'Horse Form', and example of 'horseness'. Certain things were regarded as perfect expressions of some abstract principal. For instance, a circle was regarded as the 'perfect shape'.

This led directly to difficulties in astronomy. Since circles were perfect, and planets appeared to move in a circle, it was reasoned that they must move in perfect circles. When calculations based on this principle didn't pan out, epicycles upon epicycles were added to the Ptolemy's system to reconcile it with observations. It wasn't until Copernicus was willing to consider elliptical orbits that things fell into place. Likewise Aristotilean science dictated that heavy objects fall at a faster rate that lighter ones. This was 'consensus science' until the time of Galileo when it was proven false. Aristotle's and his followers apparently never bothered to actually test ideas through observations, the very essence of 'doing science'. It wasn't Aristotle's purely rational approach to science was jettisoned in favor of an empirical one that 'modern science' was launched.

I think, even when talking about humans devoid of religion, we can come to the conclusions necessary to implement scientific thinking, inquiry, discovery and understanding beyond any reasonable doubt.

View Post

Then why didn't it happen before Christianity became the dominant cultural influence in Europe?

Religion has made some very important contributions to science, same with philosophy. But as science progresses many of these things that once nurtured it is now snaring it; suffocating the life out of it. The right balance between science and religion must be found, and the right balance seems to change over time; both as a philosophical framework and in a pragmatic way. Now it looks like religion needs to back off of science, so science can reach its full potential in an objective way, free from religious influence. That is one of my main reasons for participating in the evo-creo debate;

View Post

I think you misunderstand Christianity's influence on science. It wasn't just that it provided (for whatever reason) a cultural environment amenable to science; it provided the philosophical foundation and justification for it. A house cannot be removed from its foundation without serious consequences.

I see creationism as crossing the line and tainting science in the public schools.

View Post

The current paradigm of strict naturalism crosses the same line; why should this philosophical framework be preferred over another? Science always entails philosophy, it's just a matter of whose philosophy.

I'm hesitant to comment, with geology, radiometric dating is not something I'm really familiar with. As far as 1 is concerned, the rate of decay is consistent as far as we know. Under intense physical and chemical environments, the rate of decay cannot be changed. So unless we impose different laws for different times, I don't see 1 as strong evidence against it.

View Post

Actually, radioactive decay rates have been shown to vary with respect to the earth's distance from the sun, chemical environment and otherwise.. These variations are nowhere near the magnitude required to reconcile conventional dating with YEC, but decay rates aren't as inviolable as some would have you believe.

For 2, if I remember correctly (please don't hesitate to correct me) once the rock is formed it will not get contaminated to the point that inaccurate results will form, meaning that scientists know when they see a contaminated part that isn't part of the original rock. So the contamination must happen during the rocks formation. For 3, this is something that I myself have asked other evolutionists before. I hate cop outs, but there's not much else I can say about it other than I've been told that you don't need to know the original ratio to find the age. I wish I knew more, as I'm sure I'm missing something.

View Post

I'm fairly sure that igneous (volcanic) rock is subject to leaching by hydrothermal fluids even after solidification. I'll have to look it up to be sure. In any case, it's on such basis that 'anomalous' dates are discarded. I'll see if I can dig up some examples.

From what I've read from the RATE team, they found some anomalies regarding radiometric dating, but those anomalies are in no way enough to disprove the basic outline mainstream science has put forth.

View Post

Well, this is the heart of the debate - regarding RATE anyway. It wasn't just anomalies they found, the discovered systematic differences. For instance, dates given by alpha decay always gave older dates that those given by beta decay. Likewise, the longer the half-life of a mineral, the older the radiometric age. Humpreys' helium data was not only dead-on his prediction, but would be exactly what would be found if accelerated decay had happened: billions of years worth of decay and nearly all of the decay product (helium) still there. But that's all for another thread.

#136 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 08 February 2010 - 06:34 PM

That is what you take out from the einstein quote. I would rather focus on the first part: "Religion without science is blind". So if you like what E is saying, do you consider your faith blind, or do you hold that it is scientifically supported?

View Post

I do not consider my faith blind, but consistent with both science and history.

#137 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 08 February 2010 - 07:00 PM

Talk about strawman to make a point...

My assertion was only that today we do not have the spanish inquisition to tell us which science is "kosher".  I did not make imply any moral spins in this at all...

View Post

It's not a strawman; it you wish to consider religion's influence on science, you must also consider the consequences of its expulsion.

In your last sentence you seem to say that science needs a philosophical justification that only religion can provide. Care to elaborate on that?

View Post

I'm saying that science requires a philosophical justification of some kind and that Christianity alone provides a rational and consistent one. See my previous posts.

I hold that any philosophical justification, for anything, that is provided by religious means is a matter of HUMAN interpretation and therefore is as valid as any philosophical justification by HUMAN interpretation.

View Post

And that provided by humanistic rationalism? One is just as metaphysical as the other.

I understand that you have a problem with doing good without god. You just don't see any point with it. I see it like this: If there is a god it would like us to do good IRRESPECTIVELY of any belief in it. Find what is right in your gut and you can't go wrong... When this is understood the next step is to apply it to others. They need to find their truth aswell.

What is right in your world?

View Post

The problem is right there in your 'solution'. For too many (e.g. Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao, etc.), what was 'right' in their gut unleashed unparalleled horrors on the world. Without a god, there can be no objective standard; nothing can be called 'good' or 'bad', it just is.

#138 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 08 February 2010 - 07:20 PM

I'm hesitant to comment, with geology, radiometric dating is not something I'm really familiar with. As far as 1 is concerned, the rate of decay is consistent as far as we know. Under intense physical and chemical environments, the rate of decay cannot be changed. So unless we impose different laws for different times, I don't see 1 as strong evidence against it.

Actually, radioactive decay rates have been shown to vary with respect to the earth's distance from the sun, chemical environment and otherwise.. These variations are nowhere near the magnitude required to reconcile conventional dating with YEC, but decay rates aren't as inviolable as some would have you believe.


Scientists have increased radioactive decay rates of thorium-228 "10000 times" by simple cavitation waves in a water solution.

We show that cavitation of a solution of thorium-228 in water induces its transformation at a rate 10000 times faster than the natural radioactive decay would do. This result agrees with the alteration of the secular equilibrium of thorium-234 obtained by a Russian team via explosion of titanium foils in water and solutions. These evidences further support some preliminary clues for the possibility of piezonuclear reactions (namely nuclear reactions induced by pressure waves) obtained in the last ten years.


http://adsabs.harvar...arXiv0710.5177C

And the RATE team have also found evidence of accerated nuclear decay.

http://creation.com/...g-breakthroughs




Enjoy.

#139 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 08 February 2010 - 07:31 PM

By implementing a literal Adam, I see it as saying humanity is cursed for the sins of our fathers (original sin), which I believe to be incorrect. Plus, I see the whole garden scenario as a complete set up; why would a loving, all-powerful all-knowing God do such a thing to His own creation that He made in "His own image" and proclaimed as "good"?

View Post

But you seem to believe in an 'anonymous Adam' a real person who first sinned. I don't see how his being anonymous changes this.

I'm not sure I see the distinction. Different words are used, but the implication is the same; it just seems like two different ways to say the same thing.

View Post

I simply mean that I take the bible as accurate, reliable history. This will have scientific ramifications just as any other historical account might. If a volcano eruption happened in recorded history and rocks from that eruption date at 2.5 billion years old, we know the dating method went awry somewhere. Likewise, if a global flood really did happen, it would leave geological evidence consistent with such an event.

I wouldn't use the word "problem", I would say "question" instead. Do we have all the answers to those questions? No. But I think there's enough known that it doesn't pose as a threat to the modern evolutionary theory.

View Post

It's too bad creationists aren't extended the same grace. Often, problems in creation theories are routinely characterized as fatal flaws that render them useless while problems of the same or greater magnitude in evolutionary science are regarded as 'research opportunities.

I think that these "problems" are made up by the top/famous creationists, but at the same time I think many of these problems are born out of their ignorance, and I do think some of them flat out lie. I know this looks harsh and arrogant on my part, but I truly have heard the most idiotic things from creationists, that I can't help but associate the more intelligent creationist claims with these other claims; as they all associate with each other.

View Post

Well, I certainly wouldn't say a creationist never lied, but we have a ways to go to catch up to the liars and frauds that litter the landscape of evolutionism.

As far as your points individually, they are all valid questions. The origin of life technically isn't evolution, and I really do wish people would stop treating it as such.

View Post

It might not be part of evolutionary science proper, but it is a question that must be answered by the evolutionist. A horse that doesn't make it out of the starting gate isn't going to make the finish line.

Regarding your suggestions about DNA, RNA, cells and the rest. Yes, there are many suggestions and speculations, but that's all they are. Stephen Meyer's new book Signature in the Cell details all of this thoroughly.

For asexual to S@xual reproduction, again there are clear advantages to S@xual over asexual that would have easily been selected for, and we know of bacteria that essentially perform S@xual reproduction by combining their genes and then dividing into two cells that contains genetic material from both.

View Post

No doubt there are advantages to S@xual reproduction over asexual, the question is how and why did it happen? Evolutionists concede that S@xual reproduction is much more costly than asexual reproduction and are puzzled as to what motivated the transition. Asexual production works just fine and would outcompete the more costly S@xual mode. Here are two creationist articles on the subject: The origin of gender and S@xual reproduction and Evolutionary theories on gender and S@xual reproduction


Again, interesting stuff, and I wish I knew more geology. While my knowledge is somewhat limited, I do know that a volcano erupting is different than a massive flood  :P.  And, I also learned that the phrase 'little Grand Canyon' is only used by creationists, which makes me wonder how true it is, being that I'm an evolutionist.

View Post

Pyroclastic flows follow the same aerodymic/fluid dynamic laws. Creationists are the only ones looking to point out the obvious similarities between the two formations. The name simply means that it's a canyon 1/40 as big as Grand Canyon. I'm sure creationists aren't the only source of information on Mt. Saint Helens and the eruption, it should be easy to verify.

#140 Sisyfos

Sisyfos

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sweden

Posted 09 February 2010 - 12:40 AM

The problem is right there in your 'solution'. For too many (e.g. Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao, etc.), what was 'right' in their gut unleashed unparalleled horrors on the world. Without a god, there can be no objective standard; nothing can be called 'good' or 'bad', it just is.

View Post

That is not a problem. Or if it is, receeding to god does not help at all.

What is the point of an objective morality when
1. We cannot access it directly but by interpretation and wild guesses. Even the pope is changing his view we he sees fit.
2. The world is ever changing. Change is life. Either an objective morality is changing or it is fixed. If fixed it cannot be adapted to a changing world unless it is a higher order maxim which then ultimately needs to be interpreted in each case. If it is changing then it is still up to interpretation or god needs to replace his old scriptures and give clearer guidance.
3. We as humans are not objective in our souls. We love different things, we feel different thinigs, we value different things and we want differentthings. This is the main thrust against objective morality, whether it is godsent or obtained by any other means.

The real problem is human gullibility and wish to be told what is good or bad or right or wrong. This wish for an easy answer, laying the responsibility of judgment into the hands of others, is nothing but cowardice.

After all you are responsible for your own actions whether the ultimate judge is transcendent or nature itself.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users