mightychurch.com

Radiometric dating methods are the main ones used though. An actually, having multiple methods only shows how unreliable they are when they differ widely.

Which science institute do you frequent? If I’m going to denigrate them I should at least get to know who they are.

And when assertions are made connecting theology (the doctrine of sin) with science (the manifestation of physical death), both disciples need to be interrogated in order to unearth the truth. When the latter seems to be at odds with the Bible, it’s far more likely that one’s Biblical interpretation is in error than the science, given science’s testability.

Please tell me, how will you test repeatedly the deposition of kilometres of rock so that we can know for sure how many layers were laid each year? How can we test the exact chemical composition of each of these rocks when they were first laid? How can we test mutations repeatedly to see how the fossil record was formed when the fossils have no DNA?

Have I indicated anywhere that I do not?

I think you’ve made the theological error that physical death cannot be such a consequence.

Dannii, I will ignore the first two paragraphs above, which are nothing more than obfuscatory red herrings, smoke-and-mirrors…

Please tell me, how will you test repeatedly the deposition of kilometres of rock so that we can know for sure how many layers were laid each year?

Not being a geologist myself, I’d say by repeatedly examining sedimentation rates now (on the not unreasonable assumption that they weren’t radically different in the distant past) in different parts of the world in as wide a variety of climates and circumstances as possible. As far as I know, scientists have been doing exactly this for many decades now and have reached some consensus on this subject - one that is utterly at odds with YECs pseudoscience.

How can we test the exact chemical composition of each of these rocks when they were first laid? How can we test mutations repeatedly to see how the fossil record was formed when the fossils have no DNA?

I don’t see why any of that is necessary. I produced a counterexample - the carnivorous killer Tyrannosaurus Rex from the Cretaceous Period, fossilized over 100 million years ago - that simply explodes your bizarre ‘physical death only occurred after “Adam” sinned’ literalist reading of Genesis 1-3, exposing it as a completely erroneous theological interpretation.

I think you’ve made the theological error that physical death cannot be such a consequence.

“Cannot” be such a consequence? No; but, rather, is not. I have demonstrated the correctness of my theological reading - and the delusion of yours - via thoroughly compelling evidence from the natural world, whose author (as with the Bible) is none other than God Himself.

Please stop wasting our time with your shonky YECs theology (it’s about time you came clean and named it for what it truly is) and pseudoscience. If you have a beef with mainstream science, then go and take it up with its scientists. You are tilting at windmills, and seem prepared to go to whatever extreme lengths you deem necessary - e.g. adopting totally ludicrous hypotheses about the natural world while poo-pooing long-established scientific fact - in order to bolster your own quaint theology. I for one have had enough of it, and am beginning to get somewhat cranky…

Not being a geologist myself, I’d say by repeatedly examining sedimentation rates now (on the not unreasonable assumption that they weren’t radically different in the distant past) in different parts of the world in as wide a variety of climates and circumstances as possible. As far as I know, scientists have been doing exactly this for many decades now and have reached some consensus on this subject - one that is utterly at odds with YECs pseudoscience.

That only tells you the deposition rate of the last few decades. To say that they were the same before that is an untestable assumption. A good one perhaps… or perhaps not. Mt St Helens showed us that a lot can be deposited very quickly.

I don’t see why any of that is necessary. I produced a counterexample - the carnivorous killer Tyrannosaurus Rex from the Cretaceous Period, fossilized over 100 million years ago - that simply explodes your bizarre ‘physical death only occurred after “Adam” sinned’ literalist reading of Genesis 1-3, exposing it as a completely erroneous theological interpretation.

What I’m asking is how can you prove (through repeatable testable science) that it is actually that old. Radiometric dating relies again on several untestable assumptions, one of which being that original chemical composition of these rocks. It assumes that there was no daughter isotopes present in the rock to begin with. But how could we possibly know that? For one simple counter example see: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=438 (Yes it’s an ICR page, but is there anything in the article itself that you would question?)

Please stop wasting our time with your shonky YECs theology (it’s about time you came clean and named it for what it truly is) and pseudoscience. If you have a beef with mainstream science, then go and take it up with its scientists.

No, I have a beef with people who think origins science (ie, science about the untestable past) is more infallible than their Bibles.

That only tells you the deposition rate of the last few decades. To say that they were the same before that is an untestable assumption. A good one perhaps… or perhaps not. Mt St Helens showed us that a lot can be deposited very quickly.

A good one indeed! Geologists would have taken into account events like the Mt St Helens 1980 volcanic explosion already, which is why I wrote “repeatedly examining sedimentation rates now (on the not unreasonable assumption that they weren’t radically different in the distant past) in different parts of the world in as wide a variety of climates and circumstances as possible”. [boldface emphasis added]

What I’m asking is how can you prove (through repeatable testable science) that it [i.e. Ian’s counterexample - the carnivorous killer Tyrannosaurus Rex from the Cretaceous Period, fossilized over 100 million years ago] is actually that old.

By sedimentation rates of course, in conjunction with stratigraphy, as well as the rate at which fossilization occurs. I see no need for recourse to radiometry here, which is why I chose this particular counterexample… (And don’t forget erosion rates, also well established empirically by now. These have established that formations such as the Grand Canyon ‘evolved’ into their present state over many millions of years of fluvial erosion.)

No, I have a beef with people who think origins science (ie, science about the untestable past) is more infallible than their Bibles.

Then you are guilty of what Bertrand Russell called a “category error” - here confusing the role of science with that of theology. Science, which deals with the physical nature of Nature, is more trustworthy than the Bible on this subject, which deals in mythoi concerning Nature and not physical actualities.

Enough of the YECs rubbish! If its (pseudo)science were correct, then the mainstream science textbooks would have been completely rewritten over the last few decades. I have read various YECs booklets on the subjects you raise, and they all make the same mistake of trying (but failing) to undergird their aberrant theology by taking very special cases of natural phenomena and attempting to map them onto the world as a whole under every circumstance - e.g. as if the sedimentation rate of Mt St Helens during that 1980 catastrophe (over 30 feet of new strata in about a week!) were universal, and applicable to the formation of the Grand Canyon’s strata, for example. Give us a break…

The consequences of sin are deeply theological, while touching of the physical too. Creation and floods and dinosaurs don’t matter! What matters is what Paul writes in Romans and 1 Corinthians. What he says is that if Christ was not physically raised our faith is pointless. Christ was raised physically because physical death disgusts God, just as sin and spiritual death does too. I am content to believe that the existence of physical death is a direct consequence of the first humans’ sin. I only pray that God will show you that his word is reliable and that Paul was not mistaken. There is no category error.

The consequences of sin are deeply theological, while touching [on] the physical too. Creation and floods and dinosaurs don’t matter!

Yes, the consequences of sin are indeed deeply theological, but the extent to which they touch upon the physical world needs to be tested in the physical world. And if you really believed your last sentence above, then why have you spent considerable time and effort on the subject (in a futile attempt to support your own theological position)?

What matters is what Paul writes in Romans and 1 Corinthians. What he says is that if Christ was not physically raised our faith is pointless. Christ was raised physically because physical death disgusts God, just as sin and spiritual death does too.

I have no problem whatsoever with that.

I am content to believe that the existence of physical death is a direct consequence of the first humans’ sin.

Quite obviously, I am not - because there is compelling physical evidence that such a belief is WRONG.

Dannii, you’re not going to slide off the hook quite so easily. Enough of your digressions into radiometry and viral mutations; enough of your obfuscatory denigration of mainstream science! I intend to nail this matter once and fall, and have some specific questions for you that require clear, specific answers devoid of any smoke-and-mirror distractions:

1. Since you obviously adhere to an historicist, literal reading of Genesis 2-3, then you believe that the first putative man, ‘Adam’, sinned and (by your own admission) brought physical death into the world. Now let’s keep this simple - vis-à-vis my post #8, 15.12.2009, which briefly discussed various hominids: In your opinion, was ‘Adam’ a Neanderthal or a homo sapiens? Or some earlier hominid? Approximately how long ago did he live (round figures will suffice here)? Did he live contemporaneously with dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus Rex?

2. In your post #67, 8.04.2010, you declared: “I believe that the carnivorous dinosaurs we have fossils of died after sin brought death to the world”. Now let’s stay with my Tyrannosaurus Rex example, raised in my post #62, 7.04.2010. Given T. Rex’s 6-inch-plus fangs (as evinced by numerous fossils), I think we’re both agreed that this dinosaur was indeed a carnivour who feasted on other beasts. When did T. Rex live? When did T. Rex become extinct? (Again, round figures will suffice here.) Did T. Rex live contemporaneously with ‘Adam’?

I only pray that God will show you that his word is reliable and that Paul was not mistaken.

Oh, I have no doubt whatsoever that God’s word, the Bible, is reliable; it’s certain peoples’ interpretations of it that I deeply distrust. As for Paul, he may or may not be mistaken: I dealt with the relevant options concerning his assertions on sin and physical death back in my post #56, 6.04.2010.

There is no category error.

Yes there is, and you’re making it… (Theological smugness noted.)

I eagerly await you direct answers to my questions above.

Here’s an interesting article :

” Though the Christian community is still largely divided when it comes to their belief in how God created the universe and over how much time, scholars from the two most popular streams of thought agreed that this past week’s landmark experiment by the informally dubbed “Genesis machine” may lead to notable insights into the handiwork of God….. “

Christian Creationists, Evolutionists See Potential in ‘Genesis Machine’

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100404/the-large-hadron-collider/index.html

..... BioLogos, which was founded in 2007 by renowned geneticist Francis Collins, emphasizes the compatibility of Christian faith with scientific discoveries about the origins of the universe and life.

While Lisle would likely disagree with Giberson’s view of the Big Bang, he agreed Tuesday that whatever scientists discover about the universe from the LHC “will show that the universe is upheld by God in a consistent way.”

“God has promised in Genesis 8:22 to uphold the universe in a consistent way such that the basic cycles of nature are uniform. So, we have God’s Word that the laws of physics will be the same tomorrow as they were yesterday. Such consistency is what makes science possible,” he wrote in AiG’s official blog Tuesday. “God upholds the universe in a consistent way. Without such a promise, experiments like the LHC (or any other scientific experiment) would be completely useless.”.....

Very interesting indeed.

Kevin, this is yet another nail in Dannii’s physico-theological coffin. It bolsters the idea that scientific testing of things like sedimentation and erosion rates nowadays can be trusted to map well onto those from the (distant) past - see posts #77-79 above.

Dannii, I’m still waiting for your answers to my questions in post #81…

What does the LHC have to do with sedimentation or erosion?

1. Since you obviously adhere to an historicist, literal reading of Genesis 2-3, then you believe that the first putative man, ‘Adam’, sinned and (by your own admission) brought physical death into the world. Now let’s keep this simple - vis-à-vis my post #8, 15.12.2009, which briefly discussed various hominids: In your opinion, was ‘Adam’ a Neanderthal or a homo sapiens? Or some earlier hominid? Approximately how long ago did he live (round figures will suffice here)? Did he live contemporaneously with dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus Rex?

Firstly: I believe that radiometric dating methods cannot be trusted to give anything close to a reliable date.
Secondly, I believe that today’s sedimentation rates can tell us nothing about the sedimentation rates of the cataclysmic great flood.

So then, Adam was an earlier hominid than the Neanderthals… they were his descendants. He was as human as we are now. More so in fact, because God created him perfectly in his image, but all of us have been corrupted by sin. We have become less than human. He lived in the order of thousands of years ago, as did the dinosaurs.

2. In your post #67, 8.04.2010, you declared: “I believe that the carnivorous dinosaurs we have fossils of died after sin brought death to the world”. Now let’s stay with my Tyrannosaurus Rex example, raised in my post #62, 7.04.2010. Given T. Rex’s 6-inch-plus fangs (as evinced by numerous fossils), I think we’re both agreed that this dinosaur was indeed a carnivour who feasted on other beasts. When did T. Rex live? When did T. Rex become extinct? (Again, round figures will suffice here.) Did T. Rex live contemporaneously with ‘Adam’?

I don’t think it is likely that T Rex was an animal originally created by God, but rather one that has descended from the original theropods. Perhaps T Rex grew to such a great size due to island gigantism. The smallest theropods were only 34cm long, and could have shrunk due to similar forces. The original theropods that God created could have been perhaps just a couple of metres long, with correspondingly smaller teeth. Just because T Rex ate meat doesn’t mean the original theropods did. Bears have large teeth, but they generally don’t use them for tearing animals apart.

What does the LHC have to do with sedimentation or erosion?

Nothing actually, Dannii. But did you read the link in full? One of your YEC ‘scientists’ therein declared: “God has promised in Genesis 8:22 to uphold the universe in a consistent way such that the basic cycles of nature are uniform.” That includes those two phenomena I mentioned.

Thank you for answering the first group of my questions (although you didn’t answer the second, preferring to digress…):

Adam was an earlier hominid than the Neanderthals… they were his descendants. ... He lived in the order of thousands of years ago, as did the dinosaurs. ... I don’t think it is likely that T Rex was an animal originally created by God, but rather one that has descended from the original theropods. ... Just because T Rex ate meat ...

[boldface emphases added]

So you are a YEC after all, but one who also believes in evolution! (Neanderthals [and homo sapiens] are “descended” from ‘Adam’; T. Rex, a dinosaur not “originally created by God”, is “descended from the original theropods”. Such ‘descent’ presumably entails evolution, yes?)

Anyway, your key admissions here are in boldface above: (i) Early man and all dinosaurs lived just a few thousand years ago contemporaneously; and (ii) T. Rex ate meat. Let’s examine these propositions separately:

i. Putting aside the relatively brief time-scale (since it is actually irrelevant to my argument), our knowledge of dinosaurs stems entirely from the fossil record, their fossilized remains having been excavated from various strata of bedrock. Given your assertion that early man and dinosaurs co-existed contemporaneously, how is it, then, that there is precisely zero evidence of fossilized early human remains being discovered in exactly the same bedrock strata - particularly the deeper strata - as fossilized dinosaur remains? Not one jot of evidence!

CONCLUSION: early man and dinosaurs lived and physically died in different ages, aeons apart, the latter predating the former since the latter’s fossils are located in deeper rock strata. Ergo, ‘Adam’s sin did not introduce physical death into the world, because prehistoric dinosaurs were already long-dead, -buried, and -fossilized.

ii. You concede that Tyrannosaurus Rex ate meat. Since it has been demonstrated above that T. Rex preceded early man by ages (indeed many millions of years, I contend, T. Rex living throughout the Cretaceous Period), the meat that this dinosaur ate must itself have been physically dead by the time it was digested - otherwise we are left with the plainly ludicrous scenario I articulated in my post #62, 7.04.2010:

... when a Tyrannosaurus Rex was happily chomping away on some smaller prey a couple of hundred million years ago during the Cretaceous Period, that prey remained physically alive all the while it was being torn apart, indeed remaining physically alive throughout the digestion of it within the stomach of the T. Rex! What’s more, that nasty carnivorous dinosaur T. Rex itself remained physically alive for millions upon millions of years right through the gradual fossilization process of its body, only expiring amongst the bedrock when naughty ‘Adam’ bit on a particular chunk of fruit, thereby sinning!

CONCLUSION: Again, ‘Adam’s sin did not introduce physical death into the world, because the much earlier Tyrannosaurus Rex’s food was killed and eaten.

Dannii, your theological interpretation of Genesis 3 and Paul’s writings on sin and physical death (that, to quote your own words, “I am content to believe that the existence of physical death is a direct consequence of the first humans’ sin”) has now been completely discredited. I now rest my case, and as far as I’m concerned CAUSA FINIS EST!

Nothing actually, Dannii. But did you read the link in full? One of your YEC ‘scientists’ therein declared: “God has promised in Genesis 8:22 to uphold the universe in a consistent way such that the basic cycles of nature are uniform.” That includes those two phenomena I mentioned.

Yes of course, excepting when he acts supernaturally. I believe the Bible portrays both Creation and the great flood as two of those occasions. That’s the whole point of giving this covenant promise after the flood… God is promising to never again destroy the earth like that. The regularity of the current physical processes contrast completely with the single great flood.

So you are a YEC after all, but one who also believes in evolution! (Neanderthals [and homo sapiens] are “descended” from ‘Adam’; T. Rex, a dinosaur not “originally created by God”, is “descended from the original theropods”. Such ‘descent’ presumably entails evolution, yes?)

No. I believe in adaptation. God created life with a huge abundance of biodiversity. Through various factors populations get split, and these splits mean the daughter populations have smaller gene pools. One of these populations had an abnormally high percentage of people with genes for big skulls and distinctive foreheads. It’s also quite likely that as well as not having all the genes of the parent population they also didn’t have all the parent population’s technology. But losing technology doesn’t mean they lost intelligence too, and they would have quickly adapted their society and customs to their new environment. It was cold and so they lived in caves. We call them the Neanderthals now.

With the therapods, for other reasons some population groups lost their small genes, and others lost their big genes. This is just like the dog species, which is one species but many breeds, some big and some small. No matter how much you try, you’ll never be able to turn a Great Dane into a Chihuahua, they’ve lost those genes. Only though cross-breeding can you shrink a Great Dane. (Note we can’t actually tell which theropods could actually breed together. Some of the theropod species could have regularly interbred. Others may have been able to interbreed but would not willingly do so for behavioural reasons.)

i. Putting aside the relatively brief time-scale (since it is actually irrelevant to my argument), our knowledge of dinosaurs stems entirely from the fossil record, their fossilized remains having been excavated from various strata of bedrock. Given your assertion that early man and dinosaurs co-existed contemporaneously, how is it, then, that there is precisely zero evidence of fossilized early human remains being discovered in exactly the same bedrock strata - particularly the deeper strata - as fossilized dinosaur remains? Not one jot of evidence!

What it shows is that humans were not living with the preserved dinosaur populations. That they lived at the same time does not mean they lived near each other, nor was every dinosaur population preserved.

Genesis suggests that God would have created many, possibly in the millions, of each animal kind, but he created only one pair of humans. The human population certainly quickly grew, but it would probably be outnumbered significantly, even by the dinosaurs. On a numerical basis alone we would expect that of the tiny fraction of creatures that got fossilized humans would not be among them.

After the flood humanity rebelled against God’s command to fill the earth and instead stayed in a single small area. Genesis doesn’t say this but it would be reasonable to assume that before the flood humanity had also rebelled against God’s command and had also congregated in a small area. And they would most likely have killed the nearby dinosaurs, either for food or safety. If the fossil fields represent the populations of a contiguous geographical area we would not expect humans and dinos to be buried together, because although they lived at the same time, they didn’t actually live together.

Also humans would be smarter than the dinosaurs. I’d expect them to stay afloat a little longer.

I’m through with you on this subject Dannii. Your arguments (often mere speculations from a position of nil evidence, as above) are getting more and more desperate, contrived, and risible by the second! I have recently made it a policy never to debate a YEC, because it is a complete waste of my time and mental effort: you people are utterly closed-minded to any reasonable (let alone highly probable) alternative explanations for natural phenomena, preferring to adhere doggedly and blinkeredly to your own utterly weird literalist theologico-cosmogony.

As I wrote in my previous post, Causa finis est - the matter is concluded!

Are you still willing to discuss theology? Do you agree that God’s promise to Noah only makes sense if the flood wasn’t consistent with the uniform cycles we see today?

Do you deny that island gigantism and insular dwarfism are real?

Ian, I’m sorry to say this, but you seem closed-minded to me! You’re willing to assume for the sake of argument that time-scales are irrelevant, but then say that the only possible explanation of human and dino fossils not being found together is that they were formed at different times, even though I’ve provided at least one alternative, that the fossil record only preserved a part of the world geographically. For time to be the only explanation would mean that every geographical area was preserved, but we know that’s not the case! Fossilisation is an incredibly rare process.

If you can accept that only a small part of the world’s life would have been preserved, is there an argument that humans and dinos wouldn’t have lived near each other geographically? I think there is. It’s not pure speculation, but based on a similar situation later in history. When God renewed his command for humans to fill the earth they disobeyed it, and there’s no reason to think they wouldn’t have disobeyed it the first time too.

Are you still willing to discuss theology?

Yes, just not those matters that most concern YECs.

Ian, I’m sorry to say this, but you seem closed-minded to me! You’re willing to assume for the sake of argument that time-scales are irrelevant, but then say that the only possible explanation of human and dino fossils not being found together is that they were formed at different times, even though I’ve provided at least one alternative, that the fossil record only preserved a part of the world geographically.

Closed-minded? Now that’s a standard YEC tactic: flinging this accusation at anybody who is simply fed-up and exhausted arguing with a YEC who has no intention of ever changing their mind about the relevant aspects of palaeobiology, palaeontology, anthropology, archaeology, cosmogony, theology, etc. The YECs’ blanket dismissal of the mainstream physical sciences - whose (always provisional) theories have been settled upon after millions of man-hours’ work by many of the world’s smartest people - is simply breathtaking in its arrogance. I’ll allow others to be the judge of my degree of open-mindedness, adding only that I have examined all of the major theologico-cosmogonic theories and rejected, for a variety of perfectly valid reasons, the YEC interpretation (which bears no resemblance to reality).

Time-scales were indeed irrelevant to my case, Dannii. You still overlook the fact that while dinosaur fossils have been found on every continent - often across many widespread areas thereon - whereas human fossils have been found nowhere on Earth within the same rock strata as dinosaur fossils, time-scales are extraneous to the verity of this observation. Your explanations for this fact (argued from a position of the absence of physical evidence) are frankly preposterous.

Enough, please! I’m through debating the matter. I was only interested in demonstrating that physical death preceded the emergence of humankind, that’s all - not the whole bag of YEC dross… At Luke’s request, I’d now like to get back to illuminating the metamathematics/atheism nexus.

You overlook the fact that dinosaur fossils have been found on every continent, often across many widespread areas thereon, whereas human fossils have been found nowhere on Earth in the same rock strata as dinosaur fossils. Your explanations for this (argued from a position of the absence of physical evidence) are frankly preposterous.

The fact is that according to the known ecosystems of the past (ie, the few that have been preserved by fossilisation) humans and dinos didn’t live together. So, either they lived in separate times, they lived in separate areas, or they lived in the same area but those ecosystems haven’t been preserved.

Most scientists will say they simply lived in separate times, largely because based on current sedimentation rates the differing layers would have taken a long time to form. But thanks to Genesis 8:22 we have good reason to believe that the flood would have involved different sedimentation rates, as it was before God’s promise to uphold the cycles of nature. The other main method of dating, radiometrics, I discount because of the unprovable assumptions of original daughter isotopes etc.

Most scientists will say they [humans and dinosaurs] simply lived in separate times, largely because based on current sedimentation rates the differing layers would have taken a long time to form.

Indeed! And the scientists are correct.

But thanks to Genesis 8:22 we have good reason to believe that the flood would have involved different sedimentation rates, as it was before God’s promise to uphold the cycles of nature.

Garbage! Yet again, you are reading mythos as precise, literal historiophysicality. Anyway, Genesis 8:22 merely speaks of the Earth’s cyclical phenomena (days and seasons) - none of which would have been interrupted by the καταστροϕή.

The other main method of dating, radiometrics, I discount because of the unprovable assumptions of original daughter isotopes etc.

This was entirely immaterial to my argument anyhow. (But don’t you think that all of those mainstream scientists would have taken this into account already, discarding radiometrics altogether if it was so unreliable and its foundational assumptions concerning isotopes etc. so precarious? The experts know full well this dating-method’s weaknesses and limitations. But your own willingness in this light, as a non-expert, to so readily “discount” radiometrics speaks volumes concerning your own prejudices, Dannii…)

A footnote from metascience: nothing is “provable” within any scientific discipline aside from the sole exception of mathematics. Outside of mathematics, which is ruled by “proof” built upon sets of axioms, one may only speak of ‘compelling evidence’ or ‘theories’ that may (or may not) be described by mathematical formulae and which haven’t been overturned through ongoing experimentation. So demanding “provable assumptions” within the physical sciences is both unreasonable and parades your own ignorance of the fundamentals of science.

Drop it, for pity’s sake…

Garbage! Yet again, you are reading mythos as precise, literal historiophysicality. Anyway, Genesis 8:22 merely speaks of the Earth’s cyclical phenomena (days and seasons) - none of which would have been interrupted by the καταστροϕή.

What evidence can you give for arguing that it was not historical?

Remember that you are the one who linked the quotes from the LHC article to sedimentation rates (#83, 85):

It bolsters the idea that scientific testing of things like sedimentation and erosion rates nowadays can be trusted to map well onto those from the (distant) past
...
One of your YEC ‘scientists’ therein declared: “God has promised in Genesis 8:22 to uphold the universe in a consistent way such that the basic cycles of nature are uniform.” That includes those two phenomena I mentioned.

God said more than just verse 22 though. In 9:11 he says a flood will never again destroy the earth. All floods deposit some sediments. I think my point still stands - we can’t look at the sediments laid by floods today and know what the Genesis flood did, because God promised he would never send another like it.

Thank you for answering the first group of my questions (although you didn’t answer the second, preferring to digress…):

That’s because it was almost the same as the first. Though I did just notice I didn’t answer when it became extinct, sorry. My answer is, after the flood, probably a few thousand years ago.

A footnote from metascience: nothing is “provable” within any scientific discipline aside from the sole exception of mathematics. Outside of mathematics, which is ruled by “proof” built upon sets of axioms, one may only speak of ‘compelling evidence’ or ‘theories’ that may (or may not) be described by mathematical formulae and which haven’t been overturned through ongoing experimentation. So demanding “provable assumptions” within the physical sciences is both unreasonable and parades your own ignorance of the fundamentals of science.

I would say that each domain of science makes its own demands for proof. It is true that nothing can be proved like mathematical theorems can be proved, but then mathematical theorems only show that a constructed mathematical system is self-consistent. Everyone is free to develop new mathematical systems which work differently. For example the Pythagorean theorm is a property of, and dependent on, Euclidean geometry. Construct a non-Euclidean geometry and it’s no longer true. Our physical laws only work because a Euclidean geometry is such a good model of the real world.

Other domains of science have different demands, with good reason. For one, they aren’t constructed like mathematics is. I’ll admit, maybe unprovable wasn’t the best word to use. How about untestable? With counter evidence (that sneaky argon.) Neither of us are geologists… we can’t do our own dating tests. Based on what some geologists I knew personally have told me, the assumption of no daughter isotopes is untenable. If the geologists you trust think their assumptions are valid, that’s fine. But I’d still ask them how they would account for the argon.

What evidence can you give for arguing that it was not historical?

Because it - Genesis 1-12 - doesn’t conform with physical reality on so very many points (at least one of which I’ve laid to rest above), as I noted much earlier within this thread. We’re going around in circles now Dannii… Stop!

Regarding the LHC article, you asked “What does the LHC have to do with sedimentation or erosion?”. And my answer back in post #85 was: “Nothing actually, Dannii”. Yet another red-herring from you…

God said more than just verse 22 though. In 9:11 he says a flood will never again destroy the earth. All floods deposit some sediments. I think my point still stands - we can’t look at the sediments laid by floods today and know what the Genesis flood did, because God promised he would never send another like it.

The καταστροϕή did not “destroy the Earth”! (Right there you have evidence for the partly mythical nature of Genesis 7.) But certainly there is both ample mythological and physical evidence for this καταστροϕή (for instance, every surviving ancient myth from throughout the world, right back to the Epic of Gilgamesh, ventilates it), the latter of which is undoubtedly pretty well understood by geologists - who can certainly tell the difference between strata deposited by it and strata formed by more regular natural processes.

METASCIENCE REVISITED

A brilliant display of your ignorance of (meta)science here, Dannii:

I would say that each domain of science makes its own demands for proof. It is true that nothing can be proved like mathematical theorems can be proved, but then mathematical theorems only show that a constructed mathematical system is self-consistent. Everyone is free to develop new mathematical systems which work differently. For example the Pythagorean theorem is a property of, and dependent on, Euclidean geometry. Construct a non-Euclidean geometry and it’s no longer true. Our physical laws only work because a Euclidean geometry is such a good model of the real world.

1. Gödel’s Second Incompleteness Theorem proves that a “constructed mathematical system” can never be shown to be self-consistent. (This will be part of the backbone of my work to come explicating metamathematics, if you ever let me get around to it…)

2. Einstein showed, via his General Theory of Relativity, that Euclidean geometry is not “such a good model of the real world”, but that Riemannian geometry is better.

Other domains of science have different demands, with good reason. For one, they aren’t constructed like mathematics is.

But they are all underpinned by mathematics…

Based on what some geologists I knew personally have told me, the assumption of no daughter isotopes is untenable.

They wouldn’t be YECs, perchance?

THE END

Because it - Genesis 1-12 - doesn’t conform with physical reality on so very many points (at least one of which I’ve laid to rest above), as I noted much earlier within this thread. We’re going around in circles now Dannii… Stop!

Once again your are putting humanity’s knowledge as more infallible than God’s word. I had hoped you would have a linguistic or textual reason for saying this was nonhistorical.

The καταστροϕή did not “destroy the Earth”! (Right there you have evidence for the partly mythical nature of Genesis 7.)

Such a simplistic understanding! Of course it didn’t destroy the planet! But the Hebrew for “earth” had a much greated meaning than the planet (if it even included the planet meaning at all.) God is speaking to both humans and animals here, so I think the most straight forward interpretation would be that earth means the world of habitation for all land life. If that’s the case then a global flood certainly could destroy the earth, without it being mythical.

the latter of which is undoubtedly pretty well understood by geologists - who can certainly tell the difference between strata deposited by it and strata formed by more regular natural processes.

Are you sure they could? The flood could very well be thought of as miraculous, and when science investigates miracles there are really two options: science says they can’t happen (ie, what science says to the resurrection), or science says nothing out of the ordinary happened. This is because science can’t investigate the truly unique and miraculous (which I’m sure you’ll be familiar with your studies on metascience.) If you tested the water which Jesus turned into wine it would in every way appear to be regular wine grown from a vinyard of Galilee.

Do you consider yourself to be evangelical Ian?

Once again your are putting humanity’s knowledge as more infallible than God’s word. I had hoped you would have a linguistic or textual reason for saying this was nonhistorical.

And once again you are misinterpreting God’s infallible word, Dannii. You really do need to learn more about the nature of mythology. May I recommend, as a suitable starting-point, this excellent little book by the Emeritus Professor of English and Comparative Literature at the University of Connecticut, David Leeming: Jealous Gods and Chosen People: The Mythology of the Middle East [Oxford UP, Oxford, UK, 2005].

Such a simplistic understanding! ...

Well you’d know; and I was quoting you, after all… (Though to be scrupulously fair, I did change your “earth” to “Earth”, because that’s how I [mis]interpreted your intended meaning.)

Are you sure they could? ...

Yes.

... The flood could very well be thought of as miraculous, ...

It wasn’t - in the sense that it was an historiophysical event resulting from some secondary physical cause (the prime mover behind it all being God). There are theories as to what that “secondary physical cause” was ... but let’s not get into that now…

If you tested the water which Jesus turned into wine it would in every way appear to be regular wine grown from a vineyard of Galilee.

To be honest, I’m not 100% convinced that this particular tale about Jesus is definitely historiophysical; from my research into New Testament gematria, etc., I’m prepared to entertain the possibility that the water-into-wine story is mythos and/or somehow allegorical.

Do you consider yourself to be evangelical Ian?

Why do you ask? My provisional answer is that I am definitely unafraid to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ to people.

Dannii
If the flood actually happened then it was a miracle cos God not only laid down the strata evenly and clear order (a claim found on AiG sites) He also did so in the context of massive upheaval and tectonic plate shifts huge enough to cause the Himalayas to form, but still largely kept small animals in the lower layers, larger ones in the upper layers, sea animals mostly where the sea is and land animals mostly where the land is.
So, on the one hand he provides us with clear layering that is ordered, on the other hand He did so in a world wide upheaval that formed and shattered continents, oceans and formed masses of mountains at a level that would make the Tsunami a few years back look like nothing. This would not give us anything like even, predictable layering.
Curiously, you only want to refer to the Bible about this.
If the Bible is not able to be referenced against actual events then it is impossible to actually proclaim it to be infallible, nor even to describe what you mean by infallible. We know it isn’t totally correct already.
(Nebuchadnezzar wasn’t his real name. (Nebuchadrezzar)
How did Judas die? (choice of two ways)
What is actually the smallest seed? (Jesus said it was the mustard seed)
It may be that the Jewish concept of truth is different to the one you are using. If so, then you are not so much putting biblical eyes on the truth as your culturally defined ones. I’d say that is a common problem.

(edited cos I really should slow down when posting)

@Owen.

If the Bible is not able to be referenced against actual events then it is impossible to actually proclaim it to be infallible, ...

Precisely!

It may be that the Jewish concept of truth is different to the one [Dannii is] using. If so, then [he is] not so much putting biblical eyes on the truth as [his own] culturally defined ones. I’d say that is a common problem.

Indeed ... which is why it is necessary to engage in cultural studies, the study of mythology, the interrogation of scientific evidence, etc. in an attempt to approach texts like the Bible with a mind-set as close as possible to those who originally wrote it down and then to see how well it maps on to physical reality. Put another way, more technically: we should firstly seek to avoid eisegesis...

@Dannii.

Men die;
Grass dies.
Verily, all men are grass.

Is this statement true, Dannii?

You asked me: “Do you consider yourself to be evangelical Ian?”. Overnight, after I gave you my provisional response, I was pondering why you might have made such a query. So before you ‘play your hand’, I’d just like you to read and ponder the following quote (which I stumbled upon purely by chance last night in a book I’ve just finished reading, by John Blanchard and Dan Lucarini: Can We Rock The Gospel? - Rock Music’s Impact on Worship and Evangelism [Evangelical Press, Darlington, England, 2006], p.248), but in relation to the exegesis of Biblical excerpts such as Genesis 1-13:

‘Let each be fully convinced in his own mind’ (Romans 14:5 [NKJV]). The issue with which Paul was dealing when he wrote these words ... [which] are powerfully relevant to our subject ... pinpoint[s] two vital principles. The first is indicated by his use of the word ‘each’, which emphasizes the element of personal liberty, the birthright of every Christian. [We] have no reason to be browbeaten by anyone, nor should [we] ever feel forced by peer pressure to go along with the crowd. The matter under discussion is one between [each of us individually] and God and [each of us as an individual has] the right and the privilege of exercising [our] own conscience in the light of his Word. Never let the fact that many or even most Christians take a certain line on a particular issue rob [us] of [our] own God-given prerogative. ...

Ian
I have a personal distaste of churches that presume to tell me what to believe, either overtly or subtley. It is certainly a reason for my distaste of creationism, where the usual response to my non-compliance is: “so you don’t believe the Bible then.” which is, by any measure a presumptuous challenge to my faith and status. I know, for example that there are a number of people here in town who pray for my conversion as a result of 1) my being anti-creationist and 2) my having studied NLP & hypnotherapy and 3) practising martial arts. Only two of these people have ever asked me about these things and one did so in a ten second conversation.
Now, I am happy to prayed for (God knows I need it) but I resent the presumption and presuppositions underpinning it. (ie; I cannot be a Christian cos of my interest in these things. Incidentally there is a less prominent fourth which is my closeness to Anglo-Catholicism- but it apparently doesn’t rate as highly in town as it does on these forums.

I wonder how many people are driven away from church because of such rampant ignorance in interpersonal behaviour. In certain circles of protestantism it is considered OK to insult someone simply by “telling them the truth”. Well in my opinion, the medium is the truth. If what you say is true, but it is said in a way that is unloving, insulting or condescending, then it makes no difference how true your message is, the way it is delivered is an insult. And I am unimpressed with the claim that you tell the truth and the Holy Spirit does the rest. I consider that a cop out of the first order. Given what we know about communication today there is simply no excuse for doing things that way.

Now how does this relate to this thread? Well, I am guessing that Dannii’s question is based on the presupposition that Evangelical = Christian (or at least “proper Christian”). If not, I apologise Dannii. I have however been there in regards to this question and usually state outright that I am not an Evangelical. I’d like to think I am something like a Baptist friend’s comment about the local Anglo-Catholic priest in Mayfield (many years ago) “He is an Anglo-Catholic by doctrine but he has an Evangelical heart”. My only reservation on that is that the word “Evangelical” has become polluted of late by the way that the USA versions have been portrayed in the media. (Swaggart, Bakker, Ham, Hovind, Gish and other fringe dwellers). I have no desire to be bundled with them. They may be family, but they are not close rellies at all.

Ian,

And once again you are misinterpreting God’s infallible word, Dannii. You really do need to learn more about the nature of mythology. May I recommend, as a suitable starting-point, this excellent little book by the Emeritus Professor of English and Comparative Literature at the University of Connecticut, David Leeming: Jealous Gods and Chosen People: The Mythology of the Middle East [Oxford UP, Oxford, UK, 2005].

I’m sure we both misinterpret God’s word at different times…

What I know about mythology is that it manifests itself in the texts themselves. This is why I was asking what linguistic or textual reasons you had for calling it a myth. If mythology is not manifest in the text, then all that “mythology” can mean is that you think it is not history for external reasons.

It wasn’t - in the sense that it was an historiophysical event resulting from some secondary physical cause (the prime mover behind it all being God). There are theories as to what that “secondary physical cause” was ... but let’s not get into that now

I don’t know… Genesis 7 is quite similar to Exodus 14, which is definitely thought of as a miracle. In both cases God controls the weather.

To be honest, I’m not 100% convinced that this particular tale about Jesus is definitely historiophysical; from my research into New Testament gematria, etc., I’m prepared to entertain the possibility that the water-into-wine story is mythos and/or somehow allegorical.

I’m not sure about gematria… that’s like in Matt 1 isn’t it? Is there gematria in that story? Couldn’t it be thought of as just a type of constrained writing? But in any case, even if there was gematria with this story, why does that mean it must be mythological or allegorical? And even if it was, it was definitely still within the Son of God’s power!

My point (not getting sidetracked into the historicity of another miracle) is that even a known miracle will appear to science as if it was natural. The wine tasted good because it tasted like old matured wine. The bread that fed thousands tasted like bread that had been baked in ovens and not like something made out of thin air.

Why do you ask? My provisional answer is that I am definitely unafraid to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ to people.

I ask because this is an unofficial Sydney Anglican forum, who are usually considered to be evangelical. You seem to believe the unusual mix of both the Bibles infallibility while also accepting that Paul made mistakes in what he wrote. Those don’t seem like beliefs evangelicals usually hold to.

(That’s all… not saying non-evangelicals aren’t true christians. But I do think that the evangelical focus on the Bible and its truth is better than the non-evangelicals nonfocus.)

Owen said:

If the Bible is not able to be referenced against actual events then it is impossible to actually proclaim it to be infallible, nor even to describe what you mean by infallible.

This is pretty much exactly my point!

His name wasn’t Nebuchadnezzar or Nebuchadrezzar! Those are both English translations of the Hebrew translations of his actual name. Each language has a different set of phonomes (and they change over time…) so we’d expect to pronounce his name differently in English than he would have said so himself. But I don’t think that should be considered a problem for infallibility!

About Romans 14:5: this is about secondary issues, about which there is no absolute unchanging truth. But gospel issues are different - we are to be uncompromising with the gospel, as Paul says in Galatians 1:9.

I believe that we must be firm about the gospel only. But that means being firm about sin too. And a huge problem that many people have about sin is that it doesn’t make sense to them, because what the Bible calls sin’s consequence, they know to be a natural part of life. This is why I am firm that physical human death is a result and consequence of sin.

@Owen.

Your experiences and comments resonate with me very much! I musn’t be a Christian either, because: (a) I’m anti-YEC (as you can surely tell from this thread!); (b) I’m anti-(hyper)Calvinism (all but the P petal of Calvin’s TULIP is the outcome of perverse [Augustinian] theology, in my book, and is at odds with authentic, Apostolic Christianity); and (c) like you, I practised martial arts for many years (judo). Regarding Anglo-Catholicism, there are indeed some doctrines therein with which I do not concur (and I’m also rather bemused by excessive liturgical fuss), but anybody who would deny you your Christian status for being an Anglo-Catholic has their head up their own arse: doctrinally, a Christian is somebody who wholeheartedly embraces the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds - pure and simple. And as for Christians putting people off the faith, please read my earlier posts #71 (8.04.2010) and #73 (9.04.2010).

Further in regard to ‘Christian classification’, this is what I have published on my Facebook page about myself: “Christian - Sydney Anglican (neither Calvinist nor Anglo-Catholic)”. Personally, I aspire to emulating the authentic Christianity of the Apostolic church (i.e. 1st-2nd century), and am quite literally - and in spirit, one hopes - an Anabaptist! Moreover, I strongly believe that ‘Right-Wing Christian’ is decidedly an oxymoron - one that encompasses many of those US “Evangelical” creatures you listed…

When you wrote about Biblical inerrancy in your post #96, I really think you hit the nail on the head. Just tonight, I was discussing the arguments within this thread with the Assistant Minister at my church. In his view, the opposition between YECs and non-YEC Christians boils down to a divergent attitude as to what Biblical inerrancy actually means. For YECs, it seems to require a literal, historicist reading of passages therein that are undoubtedly mythoi overriding mainstream scientific ideas about the natural world. On the contrary, Biblical inerrancy resides at a deeper level than such superficial interpretations.

Now to Dannii’s latest posting…