#80579 - 05/04/06 05:35 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: Mandy]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Quote:
bevin said:
It was you who started down the road with
>>I do notice that your response is presented in terms of generalities and rhetoric.<<
I don't think that statement could be characterized as uncivil. It was an observation that you were not providing specifics or cites, hence no basis to evaluate the accuracy of your contentions. Rhetoric and generalities accomplish little, if anything, in a discussion like this one. You followed up later by providing cites, which is always helpful.
Quote:
So far the following issues are lacking a short-age explanation . . .
Right now, we are focusing on the fossilization process. Once that has been put to rest, then I would be interested in exploring some of these other areas, keeping in mind that the specific issue of this thread has to do with Biblical literacy, and also remembering that the 'old earth, recent creation of life' position would seem to this student to be consistent with Scripture. Once again, the age of the rocks, the evidence of meteor impacts, etc., are simply not issues pertinent to this discussion.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80581 - 05/04/06 06:57 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Husband and Father
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 7070
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
Quote:
Dear Bravus: So what you're saying is that we have to choose between scientific discovery and the word of God. Very well.
Nope, that's so not what I'm saying!! I think I've been very clear about that.
I have repeatedly said that the discussion is between science (aka our experience and what we see around us) and one particular interpretation of the Bible.
What I did in this thread was to concede - not because I agreed but because I could see it was futile to argue any further - to those who claimed 'this is the only possible interpretation of the Bible'. My comment was that if you believe that then you have a decision to make between that understanding of the Bible and what science (or even looking carefully as a lay person) tells us about the world around us. To me, it's a false forced choice.
Interestingly, I think this thread has answered the question posed in its title in the negative. David Koot has acknowledged that the events of the 4th day of creation are somehow symbolic and not literal. What say you on that issue, olger? Did God create the sun and moon on Day 4?
Throughout this whole discussion (which, as the thread bevin excavated from the depths a couple of days ago shows, has been going on for well over a year), I have determinedly pushed away from setting up forced choices like the one you attributed to me in your post above, and those I've been arguing against have continually tried to set them up. I have the greatest respect for you,but I have to once again respectfully reject that choice.
_________________________
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80582 - 05/04/06 07:01 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: Billy Dennis]
|
Husband and Father
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 7070
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
I think the 'show me fossilization happening today' argument might be exactly the same as the 'show me evolution happening today' one. Fossilization is a process that takes a long time, and happens in inaccessible places. We can see some of the precursor processes and the onvolved processes, but an entire fossilization sequence just *takes* thousands of years, so we're not going to observe the entire process in our lifetime.
_________________________
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80583 - 05/04/06 07:05 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: Billy Dennis]
|
Husband and Father
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 7070
Loc: Brisbane, Australia
|
...plus I'm not quite sure what it proves...? There exist fossils, ergo there exists fossilization... Perhaps if you could clarify where you're going with the argument about fossilization, David? If the point is that all fossils were made at the time of the flood, then perhaps we should redirect to look at the evidence in relation to that.
_________________________
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80584 - 05/04/06 07:07 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: Billy Dennis]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Quote:
Bravus said:
We can see some of the precursor processes and the onvolved processes,
Do I understand that the article you cited about elephant bones, etc, in an African country, pertained to the 'precursor processes?' Or, something else?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80585 - 05/04/06 07:10 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: Billy Dennis]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Quote:
Bravus said:
There exist fossils, ergo there exists fossilization... Perhaps if you could clarify where you're going with the argument about fossilization, David?
In order to answer that question, I would need a little more information about the fossilization process. That is where I am going right now. Once I have a more complete picture, then I will be in a position to know where to go with it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80586 - 05/04/06 07:26 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: Billy Dennis]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Quote:
Bravus said:
David Koot has acknowledged that the events of the 4th day of creation are somehow symbolic and not literal.
That was not my intended meaning. I recall saying that I could not understand how it could happen, but that I am willing to accept what the Bible says--and, that there are many things about God which I don't understand, but I am comfortable with that.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80587 - 05/04/06 07:51 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 4699
Loc: New England
|
So, what are fossils? Here are sites with clear and simple info http://www.museum.vic.gov.au/prehistoric/what/index.htmlhttp://www.scsc.k12.ar.us/TuttS/fossil_formation.htmHow long do they take to form? It depends on which variety of fossil you are talking about - in amber
- in tar
- in ash from volcanoes
- in sedimentary rock
- in sedimentary rock with complete cal
So many fossils form literally in SECONDS. The ones you are probably thinking only of - which look like they are plaster casts of the organism - form in two ways (a) By filling a mold, made by the decaying organism (b) By replacing the material of an organism gradually Try Googling "rates of fossilization clive trueman" Also try Googling "rapid fossilization". You find things like http://www.aims.gov.au/news/pages/media-release-20050714.html Quote:
Even the geologists aboard the voyage were puzzled about fossil sand dollars and sea urchins sitting right beside recently deceased or living organisms. "We suspect the minerals associated with the seep fluids cause a rapid fossilisation process," said Dr Gregg Brunskill.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361.html
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003AM/finalprogram/abstract_60700.htm
Quote:
Fossilization has been shown to occur at a rapid rate and laboratory studies have shown that the process begins within seconds of death. Though the sorption rate of most metals decreases with higher alkalinity, organic acids and biogenic processes from bacteria may provide a mechanism for lowering the pH near fossils thus increasing the potential for the aqueous species to sorb during fossilization. Lake stratification likely plays a significant role in the actinide accumulation. A plausible sequence of events of fossilization could be: 1. Fish (or other bony animal) dies and begins descent to the lake bottom at which fossilization begins. 2. Soft tissue decays and produces locally lower pH. Organic acids and phosphate released during the decay of the soft tissue may play a role in complexing some of the incorporated trace elements. 3. Aqueous carbonate, phosphate and organic species with complexed trace elements enter into bone pore spaces and become incorporated during permineralization.
So, the process of replacing the original biochemical stuff with more durable stuff can be measured in hours, days, years, or millenia.
And, yes, we see fossilization happening around us today.
/Bevin
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80588 - 05/04/06 08:17 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: Mandy]
|
Craftsman
Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
|
Quote:
bevin said:
http://www.aims.gov.au/news/pages/media-release-20050714.html
Okay, so the scientists believed that the mineral seep could have accelerated the rate of fossilization. IOW under extraordinary conditions, fossilizations may occur rapidly. Correct?
Quote:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361.html
The only specific information provided, pertained to fossils found in amber. The article suggested a process requiring thousands of years, and, for the oils to evaporate, possibly millions of years. Not a lot of detail, and no supporting documentation. I should also note that 'talkorigins' is the counterpart of the 'discovery' website. They are both 'attack' websites, and should not be given a lot of credibility, standing alone.
Quote:
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003AM/finalprogram/abstract_60700.htm
Umm, the article addresses fossils purportedly dating from the eocene era. That is not what one would call recent, or in process.
Quote:
And, yes, we see fossilization happening around us today.
The only possible candidate to support that statement, from what you cited, would be the sand dollars in the proximity of the mineral seep. Of course, those were not observed to fossilize. The scientists speculate as to their fossilization. That example would seem to support rapid fossilization under extraordinary conditions, as would be expected for a GRGF.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
SEARCH OUR SITE
|
|
This full membership income helps pay for hosting, advertising, domain names, software support etc etc
|
|
|
60 registered (aldona, Beryl, Bravus, Bruno, c freeland, carolaa, CoAspen, Coulsty, Curly, darlene, dgrimm60, Dottie, fca, fccool, forgie, Gerry Cabalo, Gladussee, Jerry D Thomas, John317, Kevin H, Kountzer, lazarus, LifeHiscost, Lineman, Liz, Loren Fenton, LynnDel, max, Maxi, melvin mccarty, mikeyswen79, Nan, Neil D, Nightingale, Norman, olger, pkrause, Planey, Redwood, Robert, Sapphire, SMAN, Taylor, vern, 16 invisible),
416
Guests and
236
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Registered: 03/18/00
Posts: 598
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
