#80619 - 05/08/06 04:31 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:
*Exegetically, the 'days' in Gen. 1 were literal, 24-hour days.
Accepted for the time being on the basis that I don't see any point in discussing the issue further with those whose minds are already made up. I still maintain that the specific term for 'day' may have been used in a poetic/symbolic sense.
Quote:
*Exegetically, Gen. 1:2 would seem to support the understanding of an old earth, with recent creation of life.
I'm willing to stipulate this for the purposes of this discussion, although I maintain that in conjunction with Genesis 1:14-19 this stipulation constitutes the death of strict biblical literalism.
Quote:
*The DNA tree can be understood in harmony with the Biblical account of recent creation of life.
At a simplistic and non-specialist level of discussion (which is where I live!), I agree that the DNA record cannot be used as a means of distinguishing between the two theories.
Quote:
*The fossil record shows, in many places, evidence of the occurrence of a flood.
To be more precise, the fossil record can be interpreted, in many places, as showing evidence for flooding. The case still needs to be that this evidence is all due to one global flood rather than to local floods at different times.
Quote:
*The following points would seem to indicate the that the flood was in fact a GLOBAL flood:
----"If the biblical record of the Flood is accurate, and if it was as violent as depicted, physical evidence that would support such a claim must exist world-wide. Such evidence does exist. It includes widespread sedimentary deposits, large-scale geological changes, and massive burial and preservation of plants and animals.”
Widespread sedimentary deposits are what we would expect with the running of rivers over a very long period, and in fact the features of the sedimentary deposits are better explained in terms of being laid down slowly than quickly. Rapidly laid down sediment would be likely to be more homogeneous and less stratified, and that's not what we see.
Large-scale geological changes are very *unlikely* to have been caused by water, even great quantities of violent water, and much more likely to have been caused by tectonic processes occurring over long periods of time. Water is powerful to change geology at the surface level, but it's not as powerful as the movement of multi-billion tonne tectonic plates against one another.
Massive burial and preservation of animals and plants likewise better fits these processes occurring locally over long periods of time - particular as the fossils are distributed through many layers rather than found in a single layer - than a single cataclysmic event.
Basically, your source has simply made assertions, with no accompanying cites or science, about things that are not capable of distinguishing between the theories unless they are looked at closely, and when they are looked at closely, they distinguish in favour of a long age for the earth and against a global flood.
Quote:
----"Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial."
A tiny proportion of the total number of fossils show evidence that can be construed as denoting rapid burial. Some of them may have been rapidly buried in local floods and other disasters, others are likely to have 'sunk in gunk' and been preserved that way. The fact remains that thsi theory fails to account for the vast majority of the fossil record.
Quote:
----“The presence of fossilized remains of many other animals, buried in mass graves and in twisted and contorted positions, suggest violent and rapid burials over large areas."
----"Furthermore, almost all sediments were sorted by water. The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood. The fossil record is not evidence of slow change."
It's redundant to say 'sediments were sorted by water' - sediments are laid down by water, by definition. The world wide fossil record, when taken as a whole rather than cherry-picked, is very much evidence for a long age of the earth.
The logical fallacy here is the one I tried to describe with the 'stone arch/dry stone wall' analogy: the claim is that questioning one feature of a whole field of science invalidates the whole field, whereas all it reflects on is that one feature. This explanation of some of the soft-body fossils has essentially zero to say to the vast majority of the fossil record.
Finally, David, we presented a large amount of evidence on fossils and fossilization, from a wide variety of credible, cited sources, and you essentially chose to set all of that aside and rely on some very opinionated statements from a single Creationist web site. That's exactly the kind of argumentation that makes it difficult to take creationist perspectives seriously, as much as I would like to.
So we can either look at the rest of the fossil record in a serious way, using all that evidence, and focus away from the tiny proportion of rapidly formed fossils that are essentially a red herring, or we can simply leave the discussion of the fossil record for greener pastures.
_________________________
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80620 - 05/10/06 06:21 AM
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:
I still maintain that the specific term for 'day' may have been used in a poetic/symbolic sense.
But you have only provided statements of opinion or conjecture--nothing exegetically. Exegetically, the words are clearly defined.
Quote:
I'm willing to stipulate this for the purposes of this discussion, although I maintain that in conjunction with Genesis 1:14-19 this stipulation constitutes the death of strict biblical literalism.
vv. 14 - 19 describe the creation of the sun and moon. There is nothing in this passage to suggest other than that God created them on the fourth day of creation week. The fact that we cannot understand how God could do that, does not negate the fact that He did so. Our knowledge is finite and partial, and extremely limited.
Quote:
To be more precise, the fossil record can be interpreted, in many places, as showing evidence for flooding. The case still needs to be that this evidence is all due to one global flood rather than to local floods at different times.
Hmmm . . . so I read statements by several geologists who say the opposite. How do you suggest I should decide whom to believe? Flip a coin? I suppose that one could take a look at the curricula vitae for the several presenters, in deciding how much weight to give to each one--although, that does not, by itself, guarantee accuracy. Two opposite explanations for the same phenomenon. Interesting.
Quote:
Large-scale geological changes are very *unlikely* to have been caused by water, even great quantities of violent water, and much more likely to have been caused by tectonic processes occurring over long periods of time. Water is powerful to change geology at the surface level, but it's not as powerful as the movement of multi-billion tonne tectonic plates against one another.
Reading Genesis 7:11, major geological disruption is suggested:
"Ge 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."
That doesn't sound like geology merely at the surface level. Ten again, I must balance your statement against those of the geologists. And, if the geologists disagree among themselves? (which they, undoubtedly do) Then what?
Quote:
Massive burial and preservation of animals and plants likewise better fits these processes occurring locally over long periods of time - particular as the fossils are distributed through many layers rather than found in a single layer - than a single cataclysmic event.
Still again, quite a different story from that told by the several geologists. I expect additional study would be needed in order to begin to sort out where the truth lies. Now, having read both sides, I will find it interesting to explore this further. I read the statements by the Creationist geologists. I also read your statements in rebuttal. Now, I must attempt to figure out a basis for how much credibility to assign to each.
Quote:
Finally, David, we presented a large amount of evidence on fossils and fossilization, from a wide variety of credible, cited sources, and you essentially chose to set all of that aside and rely on some very opinionated statements from a single Creationist web site.
Oh, I carefully read your cited material. I found little that I would consider credible as far as answering the questions. Much speculation, quite a bit of repetition, and simply not very credible. I found the statements and photographs presented by the Creationist geologists, to be more persuasive. "A picture is worth a thousand words."
Now, as to the two position statements about the QUANTITY of the fossils and the various percentages. That would seem worthwhile following through on. That could give added credibility. Your sources indicated that a very small percentage of the living organisms actually became fossilized, and that a smaller percentage still has been discovered. The Creationists describe 'massive,' worldwide rapid burial of living organisms. So, which to believe . . . Will check further.
Edited by David Koot (05/10/06 06:24 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#80621 - 05/10/06 07:18 AM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Registered: 05/18/02
Posts: 618
Loc: B,C.
|
So...what if Moses was shown a video of creation week and he wrote what he saw. What if the sun and moon were not visible until the fourth day because of the form in which the water canopy existed.
God obviously made the laws of gravity and there would have been no reason to repeal them in this case. The solar system is a balanced unit all rotating in perfect order. if there had been no sun that watery planet descibed in the beginning would have been solid ice.
Of course if you prefer to insist on a literal reading you can have God suspending his natural laws of gravity too but why would he do that? The scripture allows for our solar system having been created in some distant past but not without the sun at it's center. So in your interpretation David do you have all the other planets created on the fourth day? And the stars too....literally of course!....:-)
mel
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80622 - 05/10/06 01:48 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 4699
Loc: New England
|
Quote:
Exegetically, the words are clearly defined
Exegetically, the words in "The Cat in the Hat" are clearly defined (well, most of them  ). However you need to determine whether the author intended the book to be read literally.
Quote:
Quote:
The case still needs to be that this evidence is all due to one global flood rather than to local floods at different times.
read statements by several geologists who say the opposite. How do you suggest I should decide whom to believe?
You have to stop believing in people, and start understanding both human processes and geological/biological ones.
People: Just like you, there are geologists who are strongly committed to short-age creationism. Dwight Hornbacher for example. Once you understand this, you will understand that people don't matter, evidence does.
Geological: You need to understand the depth of study involved. You can't just say "the sediments are sorted by water", you have to ask yourself what the alternatives are and what differences there would be in the resulting sediments.
Quote:
That doesn't sound like geology merely at the surface level.
You are right. Imagine Noah's flood smashed the continents up and moved them alround the world. How does that account for the patterns of rock, fossils, erosion, magnetism, meteor impacts, that we see today?
Quote:
I found little that I would consider credible as far as answering the questions. Much speculation, quite a bit of repetition, and simply not very credible. I found the statements and photographs presented by the Creationist geologists, to be more persuasive.
How are you judging what is credible? What are your criteria? You have already admitted that you know practically nothing about the topic, so how can you determine which information is correct?
You need to do a lot more study, and to admit to yourself that right now you are not studying to get to the truth, you are doing a superficial search to justify your current position.
As you begin to understand the depth and the breadth of the evidence for a long-age earth, you will eventually reach the point where you actually want to know the truth enough to at least weigh both sides objectively.
/Bevin
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80623 - 05/10/06 04:49 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:
Exegetically, the words in "The Cat in the Hat" are clearly defined (well, most of them ). However you need to determine whether the author intended the book to be read literally.
Exegesis and hermeneutics are areas in which I have formal training and some years of experience. I can speak to the issue from a background of working knowledge. Without question, the author of Genesis intended the Creation account to be read literally. Since you refer to this issue, Bevin, what is your level of study and experience in regard to hermeneutics?
Quote:
You need to do a lot more study, and to admit to yourself that right now you are not studying to get to the truth, you are doing a superficial search to justify your current position.
That is something which you would not know. It is also a major put-down. The truth is that I can look at the same evidence that you do, and come away with a different conclusion. That is the nature of the subject. It is also important to respect the intelligence of others, even if they don't agree with you, and to assume the best about their motives and intentions. That is also the nature of religion. God intentionally has not laid out the evidence in such a way as to be beyond a reasonable doubt. ('Evidence,' also, is a subject with which I am very familiar, both by training and professional background.) He has left plenty of 'wiggle-room,' and has given each person the freedom to choose, as well as lots of room to make the choice.
Quote:
you actually want to know the truth enough to at least weigh both sides objectively.
I am there now.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80624 - 05/10/06 05:18 PM
Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable?
[Re: ]
|
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 4699
Loc: New England
|
Quote:
Since you refer to this issue, Bevin, what is your level of study and experience in regard to hermeneutics?
Nothing significant, which is why I have stayed away from this area in this discussion, and shall continue to do so.
Quote:
God intentionally has not laid out the evidence in such a way as to be beyond a reasonable doubt.
Actually the evidence He has laid out in the world around us is incredibly wide-spread and detailed. However it does require a significant amount of detailed study.
If you came at the evidence without the pre-existing 'the world was made 6000 years ago with no death in it and there was a global flood 4000 years ago' bias, and prepared to actually study the science...
Okay - back to the details, to the facts. Those White Cliff's and their associated other deposits.
Let us see what we can make of them
http://www.discoveringfossils.co.uk/chalkformationfossils.htm
LOCATION
The location of the deposits around the world and their placement amongst other rocks fits the following detailed movement of the plates
Quote:
Most Chalks formed during the Cretaceous period, between 100 and 60 million years ago, and Chalks of this age can be found around the world. The Cretaceous Chalks record a period when global temperatures and sea levels were exceptionally high. This coincided with the break up of the supercontinent Pangea, which broke apart to form the continents of today. As continents move apart, an ocean forms between them, and new ocean-floor is added along the line of spreading (known as the mid-ocean ridge) by magma which rises from below. As the continents moved apart in the Cretaceous, a very high volume of magma rose up to form the new ocean-floor in what is known as a superplume event. The mid-ocean ridges became swollen, and large volumes of magma spilled out elsewhere onto the ocean floor, displacing water onto the continents (i.e., causing sea-level to rise). The volcanic activity also produced greenhouse gases which raised temperatures, prevented ice from forming at the poles and hence kept sea levels high. Chalks formed in the sea-ways of the flooded Cretaceous continents.
This is a reference to a very specific path that the Pangea plates moved in. This path is reflected in the fossils that we find, and other phenomona.
http://geology.com/pangea.htm
Many of these phenomona can not be accounted for with a rapid breakup and movement around the world - i.e. the 'everything moved during the Flood' hand-wave.
COLOR
The purity of the chalk needs to be accounted for. If it was formed in the turmoil of Noah's Flood, why is it so pure?
Quote:
Chalk is white because it is formed from the colourless skeletons of marine plankton. The same is true of many limestones, so why aren't they all white? The reason is that most limestones contain impurities, such as clays sourced from the land, or organics, which give them colouration. Cretaceous Chalk is free from impurities because sea levels were very high, so there was little land exposed to supply other sediments, and as the continental margins were flooded most land was far away. The Cretaceous sea floor was also very active so any organics were quickly broken down. The result was a very pure lime mud, formed almost entirely of planktonic skeletons.
VOLUME
Where did all the material come from, in just the short period of the Flood?
CONTENTS
Ignoring for now the order of the fossils...
Quote:
Chalk is characterised by flint bands and nodules. This was formed from silica, sourced from sea sponges and siliceous plankton such as diatoms, and radiolarians. This precipitated as concretions within the chalk sediment, often around sites of decaying organics such as dead echinoids and burrow networks.
Flint is very resistant to weathering and erosion, whilst Chalk is not. Erosion of chalk landscapes leaves behind large deposits of flint gravel. These flints can then be transported by rivers, glaciers and longshore drift.
I pointed you at the White Cliffs on purpose. They are very large, very structured, relatively simple to understand if you are prepared to dig into the details, and I have never seen a plausable short-age earth account of them.
/Bevin
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80625 - 05/10/06 05:34 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:
I pointed you at the White Cliffs on purpose. They are very large, very structured, relatively simple to understand if you are prepared to dig into the details, and I have never seen a plausable short-age earth account of them.
/Bevin
I will promptly follow up. I am curious as to whether or not there is 'a plausible short-age earth account of them.' (And, of course, leaving open the question of what might be 'plausible.')
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80627 - 05/10/06 05:46 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
|
I emailed to an organization called 'Geoscience Research Institute SDA ('GRISDA') asking for information about the White Cliffs of Dover. I am awaiting their response. I also noticed the following links to Creationist websites, which I am posting as a matter of interest.
Amazing Discoveries - Walter Veith (British Columbia, Canada)
Amen Website (United Kingdom) - | earth history |
Answers in Genesis - Ken Ham
Apologetics Press
Baraminology Study Group - Bryan College (Dayton, TN)
Biblical Creation Society
Centro Studi Creazionismo (Italy)
Center for Scientific Creation - Walter Brown (Phoenix, AZ)
Christian Answers Network - Ken Ham (Florence, KY)
Creation Illustrated — Bible-based nature journal
Creation-Evolution Headlines
Creation Research Society (St. Joseph, MO)
- journal: Creation Research Society Quarterly - | selected articles |
Creation Science
Creation Science Resource
Earth History Research Center - Art Chadwick (Keene, TX)
Institute for Creation Research (Santee, CA)
- publications: "Acts & Facts", "Back to Genesis", "Impact"
Institute for Biblical and Scientific Studies
Internet Center for Creation Science
Moody Bible Institute
- videos: Moody Video
- sermons: Wonders of Science
Revolution Against Evolution
Sociedade Criacionista Brasileira (Brazilian Creation Society) — Portuguese
The Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (United Kingdom) — society for catastrophist information and research
South Bay Creation Science Association
- periodical: Creation in the Crossfire
Triangle Association for Scientific Creationism (Research Triangle Park, NC)
True.Origin Archive — not affiliated with the "Talk.Origins Archive"
Ashby Camp’s List of Articles Supporting Biblical Creation
Twin Cities Creation Science Association (Brooklyn Park, MN)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#80628 - 05/10/06 05:52 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:
I'm afraid your position that 'the earth existed for a long time and the creation story is just the story of the creation of life' position does not hold together if you also want to maintain that the sun and moon were created on Day 4.
Your point (and Melvin's) deserves serious consideration. Last night I did a little research on the Hebrew word for 'made' in Gen. 1. Same word used for each day of the week, and beyond. I may have to revisit my previous conclusion. Although exegetically the Gen. account may allow for an old earth-recent life model, that is not, standing alone, definitive.
|
|
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
