Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?

You are not logged in. [Log In] unOFFICIAL WORLDWIDE ADVENTIST FORUM » Forums » Bible, Theology and Related items » Origins » Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?

Page 4 of 17

...

Topic Options

Rate This Topic

#80529 - 04/30/06 05:43 PM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: Billy Dennis]
David Koot Craftsman Registered: 03/13/06 Posts: 3513 Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m	Quote: *Bravus said:* This Wikipedia article provides a pretty decent introduction to the topic. (Yes, I know what Wikipedia is and isn't, but one of the things it often is is a useful place to start.) Yeah, I read the article. A good survey of the idea for a sixth-grade science class. The ASSUMPTIONS of the theory are what I am particularly interested in. One of the basic ones, stated in the article, is that layers at a lower level are older than layers in a higher level of strata. That seems significant. And therein lie some problems with the theory, I submit, due to discovery of inverse layers. The Wikipedia article explains that away as 'displacement' of layers. HOWEVER, THAT too is an assumption, and, as well, assumes the validity of the theory itself. There may be other causes of the layers being 'inverted.' I also noticed the article's reference to 'problematic' fossil discoveries. Hmmmm. They don't fit neatly in the 'box.'
Top

#80530 - 04/30/06 07:52 PM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: ]
Bravus Husband and Father Registered: 09/05/04 Posts: 6185 Loc: Brisbane, Australia	Couple of things responding to various points in your posts above: 1. Given your comfort with an ancient but lifeless universe, how do you account for the creation of the sun and moon in the creation story? Seems to me we're back to the title of this thread. 2. Creating something mature would presumably not include implanting a fossil sequence that looks strongly as though it progresses from less complex to more complex organisms. If the only thing to be accounted for in the geological column was the layering of the rocks and the effects of millions of years of erosion, the 'ancient earth, recent life' model would fit, but it's the locations of the fossils in the rock layers that is perhaps the single biggest obstacle for someone like me who would dearly love to accept recent creationism, but finds this difficult to understand even with the 'mature earth' hypothesis. 3. Basic assumptions of radiometric dating: a. certain unstable elements decay, with the release of alpha or beta particles and gamma rays, to form different elements b. although each individual decay event is random, the pattern of many such events is highly predictable statistically. The time taken for half of all the atoms of the 'parent' element in a given sample to decay to form the 'daughter' element is called the 'half-life' for that element and is known for all naturally occurring radioactive elements and many man-made elements c. assuming the 'daughter' element is not itself radioactive, and assuming we know the starting quantities of the two elements in a sample, a simple comparison of the proportions of the two elements will tell us how many parent atoms have decayed, and therefore, knowing the half-life, how long the decay process has been going on. (for radioactive daughters, there is a recognised track to the next decay, so age determination is still possible but more complicated) I do not believe it is tenable to posit a changing speed of light. There was some work in that area but it is strongly discredited, and involved fitting rather fanciful curves to very limited data. Additionally, a far higher speed of light 6000 years ago would have the effect (among others) of accelerating radioactive decay to such an extent that all life on earth would be fried. This is not a fundamental assumption, just a rebuttal to one possible challenge to radiometric dating. http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/ Edited by Bravus (04/30/06 07:53 PM) _________________________ If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve
Top

#80531 - 05/01/06 02:17 AM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: Billy Dennis]
Bravus Husband and Father Registered: 09/05/04 Posts: 6185 Loc: Brisbane, Australia	Quote: The ASSUMPTIONS of the theory are what I am particularly interested in. One of the basic ones, stated in the article, is that layers at a lower level are older than layers in a higher level of strata. That seems significant. And therein lie some problems with the theory, I submit, due to discovery of inverse layers. The Wikipedia article explains that away as 'displacement' of layers. HOWEVER, THAT too is an assumption, and, as well, assumes the validity of the theory itself. There may be other causes of the layers being 'inverted.' I also noticed the article's reference to 'problematic' fossil discoveries. Hmmmm. They don't fit neatly in the 'box.' Well, I would think that 'lower level layers are older than higher level layers' is actually trivial. After all, it's pretty hard to lay down new layers of sediment under the old ones! That doesn't in itself say how much older, though - it could be seconds, minutes or millenia. The idea that the layers don't just lie there, but sometimes get pushed up or down by earthquakes, volcanoes, tectonic drift and so on... or even flipped over, seems pretty uncontroversial too. I think your last sentence is revealing: the 'box' that scientists understand was never neat or simple in the first place. There isn't really such a thing as a single, full layer 'geological column' sitting there undisturbed in one geographical location. the 'column' is a concept that pulls together information and evidence from all over the world. Its general outlines are clear and fairly consensual, but there are definite arguments about the details. One of the basic misunderstandings that creationists bring to these discussions is the idea that discussions and the lack of complete consensus and certainty among scientists in relation to a theory impeaches it completely. As Bevin has pointed out, that's just the way science works... the continuous effort to challenge and improve its own methods by challenging its conclusions. _________________________ If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve
Top

#80532 - 05/01/06 06:23 AM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: Billy Dennis]
David Koot Craftsman Registered: 03/13/06 Posts: 3513 Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m	Quote: *Bravus said:* 1. Given your comfort with an ancient but lifeless universe, how do you account for the creation of the sun and moon in the creation story? Seems to me we're back to the title of this thread. By way of background, I am taking into consideration findings from the field of astrophysics. One significant discovery, seems to me to be the discovery of the Doppler shift in the spectra of distant celestial objects. This was first recognized by a Dutch astronomer, Maartens, at Cal Poly, using the Hale reflector. More recent observations have indicated that the farther away objects such as galaxies, quasars, etc., are, the faster they are traveling AWAY from our viewpoint. Another item is the structure of a galaxy. If you recall, Chandrasekhar theorized the existence of what would later be called 'black holes,' as a young scientist. Sir Arthur Eddington shut him down cold. Decades later, however, Chandrasekhar and others revisited the subject, and recent discoveries using the 'Chandra' X-Ray telescope have pretty well confirmed the general outlines of the theory. At the center of this and other galaxies are black holes. The powerful gravitational forces of the black holes help hold the galaxies together, and account for the spiral arms and the swirling formation often observed. A 'black hole' is the final stage of a star of sufficiently large mass (called the 'Chandrasekhar limit') to morph into a black hole rather than a white dwarf, as the star becomes denser and denser. (The nuclear fusion engine starts to run down, and gravity overpowers the thermal energy of fusion. Both options are the final stages of stellar evolution ('evolution' meant in a different sense than Darwinian evolution--simply the life cycle of a star) ) This life cycle can span billions of years. How does all this relate to God's Creatorship? The Bible suggests that the heavens and the earth wax old, but that God recreates them. The Bible also says that God created the stars also. (Gen. 1) I accept the possibility that God created the universe untold billions of years ago. How about the Earth, and this solar system? How could the Earth exist in any state (Genesis 1:2 indicates a "barren and unfruitful state,) without being in orbit around a star? A planet does not simply hurtle through interstellar space. How about the craters on the moon? (interesting viewing with a 10-inch diameter telescope and a 2-inch widefield eyepiece, such as I have) These are questions which I am unable to answer. There are other fields of study which also have such questions: for example, the mystery of the incarnation, the Trinity, etc. I recognize, 'thus far and no farther.' I recognize the limits of my understanding, and I am willing to, as far as mindset goes, 'take the shoes off my feet,' for the place where I stand is holy ground. May I suggest that areas such as these may be real tests of faith, and of our willingness to accept what God has said? Not unlike the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. We should recognize that we are creatures, that our knowledge is very imperfect, and be willing to trust God, even though we can't understand how it could have happened. Quote: 2. Creating something mature would presumably not include implanting a fossil sequence that looks strongly as though it progresses from less complex to more complex organisms. That, precisely, is where the assumptions of a theory come into play. 'Fossil sequence'? From what I have read, heard presented, and seen photographic evidence of, that whole assumed progression has been upended. THAT seems to be one of the causes of discomfort for some who previously bought into long-age evolution. Yet, setting aside the issue of such a 'progression,' one should examine the process of fossilization. It has been too many years since I studied the requirements for that to occur. Perhaps you could refresh my memory? I seem to recall that tremendous pressure, in the absence of oxygen, applied instantaneously, is required. Is that correct? Quote: Basic assumptions of radiometric dating Thank-you for the info about radiometric dating. Am I correct in thinking here, that a number of assumptions would have to be made about the origin and history of the sample? And, would assumptions need to be made about the levels of solar AND short-wave radiation in past ages? Quote: I do not believe it is tenable to posit a changing speed of light. Such a thing would, indeed, seem rather preposterous.
Top

#80533 - 05/01/06 06:35 AM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: Billy Dennis]
David Koot Craftsman Registered: 03/13/06 Posts: 3513 Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m	Quote: *Bravus said:* Well, I would think that 'lower level layers are older than higher level layers' is actually trivial. After all, it's pretty hard to lay down new layers of sediment under the old ones! That doesn't in itself say how much older, though - it could be seconds, minutes or millenia. The idea that the layers don't just lie there, but sometimes get pushed up or down by earthquakes, volcanoes, tectonic drift and so on... or even flipped over, seems pretty uncontroversial too. The issue I have, is the apparent lack of objectivity. IOW observations of strata in a different order, are attributed to 'inversion' or some localized phenomenon. That ASSUMES that the theory about the sequence is fact. What if it is not fact, but instead, the layers may be in varying sequences? I mention this, having seen the presentation by a geologist, including photographic evidence of that very thing. Quote: I think your last sentence is revealing: the 'box' that scientists understand was never neat or simple in the first place. That was my reflection after reading the Wikipedia article. They have lined up their ducks in a row. That is their 'box.' Problem is, the facts don't agree. But, proponents of the theory make judgment calls in choosing to explain that in ways that still support the theory. Doesn't seem very objective. At what point do you determine which, if any, were in fact the older layers? On what basis?
Top

#80534 - 05/01/06 06:39 AM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: ]
Bravus Husband and Father Registered: 09/05/04 Posts: 6185 Loc: Brisbane, Australia	Sounds like we have a good basis to continue the discussion. I'm not sure about the fossilisation mechanisms - will need to look into it. On these questions: Quote: Am I correct in thinking here, that a number of assumptions would have to be made about the origin and history of the sample? And, would assumptions need to be made about the levels of solar AND short-wave radiation in past ages? Yes, to the first, no to the second. That is, assumptions about the initial states of the rocks are necessary. The incoming radiation in the past is not relevant because the radioactivity of the rocks does not come from being irradiated but from the radioactive substances included in the rocks. Oops, just realised we might be confusing carbon dating (in which the incoming radiation is relevant for making carbon-14 that is ingested by living things), and the methods used for dating rocks... My answer refers to the long term rock dating methods. Edited by Bravus (05/01/06 06:47 AM) _________________________ If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve
Top

#80535 - 05/01/06 06:42 AM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: Billy Dennis]
David Koot Craftsman Registered: 03/13/06 Posts: 3513 Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m	Quote: *Bravus said:* Oops, just realised we might be confusing cardon dating (in which the incoming radiation is relevant for making carbon-14 that is ingested by living things), and the methods used for dating rocks... My answer refers to the long term rock dating methods. Yes, C-14 is what I was thinking of.
Top

#80536 - 05/01/06 06:49 AM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: ]
Bravus Husband and Father Registered: 09/05/04 Posts: 6185 Loc: Brisbane, Australia	OK, that makes sense. C-14 is almost irrelevant when we're talking about the age of the earth, though, because it only goes back a few thousand years (well, maybe 30-40 thousand max). _________________________ If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve
Top

#80537 - 05/01/06 07:10 AM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: Billy Dennis]
David Koot Craftsman Registered: 03/13/06 Posts: 3513 Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m	As for the age of the earth, I have no problem, from an exegetical standpoint, with an 'old earth.' The Hebrew word is 'bohu.' Here is what NIDOTTE has to say about its occurrence in Gen. 1:2: "The language of the Genesis account of creation can be described as a demythologization of ancient creation accounts . . . In Genesis precreation chaos or void is not a sea monster but is a desolation of waters; the expression tohu vabohu in Gen 1:2 is a hendiadys meaning an unearthly or indescribable emptiness. This would seem to be a creative application of the concept of an uninhabitable empty wilderness to the disordered state before creation . . . Tsumura, on the basis of lexical and discourse analysis, concludes that the phrase tohu vabohu in Gen 1:2 describes a state of "unproductiveness and emptiness," the initial state of barrenness that was not yet productive as it would come to be (41-43)."
Top

#80538 - 05/01/06 07:16 AM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: ]
Bravus Husband and Father Registered: 09/05/04 Posts: 6185 Loc: Brisbane, Australia	OK, I'm not even really going to belabor this point: you know what you believe and where you stand. But it seems to me that the creation account for Day 4 is every bit as explicit and every bit happens within one 'yom' day as much as any other day. Nothing else is created on Day 4 but the sun, moon and stars. I'm not sure how it's consistent to insist very strictly on the events of every other day of creation but have a different explanation for this one day. _________________________ If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve
Top

Page 4 of 17

Hop to:

Vegefood store

Be sure to click on the free shipping at the checkout else you get charged.