Very clear and succinct way to put it. I think this is why much of what I write flies right by YECers; they have no pigeonhole for the idea that someone might oppose them from the text of the scriptures. They have to call me “Darwinian” because it’s the only category they have for opponents, as though there are only two possible worldviews.
Though it still baffles me that they can’t grasp that the place to look for how to read the scriptures is in the scriptures – and that the scriptures nowhere claim that being 100% scientifically and historically accurate is a part of its definition of truth.
In much the same way that they accused me of taking Deuteronomy 25:13-16 out of context by applying it to science. I seem to remember once being accused of using Scripture to attack Scripture.
It seems that they’re so convinced that theirs is the ultimately faithful, zero-compromise option to the Bible that the very idea that some of the things they’re saying could be unbiblical just doesn’t compute.
3 Likes
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
345
As I and @Jay313 discussed above, the first few chapters of Genesis read like parables or myths, just on their face. We both think this should be obvious to even a modern person who is familiar with the use of myth in theology and philosophy. If someone claims those chapters are meant to be accurate literal history then it begs the question of what they would consider myth. It would surely be an extremely high bar. One would wonder if they think Aesop’s Fables are historical accounts of animals talking to one another.
“I taught middle school English for a while, and the curriculum required teaching the difference between fiction, non-fiction, history, biography, myth, legend, etc. If I went through the required curriculum for six weeks and then presented Genesis 2-3 to a group of kids who were unfamiliar with the story, I promise they would name the genre as myth. If they didn’t, I’d frankly fail them. It’s not a hard test, even in English translation.”– @Jay313
Thanks for that. I’ll probably take you up on it in a year or so. As for the thread derailment, our departed thread starter apparrently wanted to talk about biblical interpretation and prophecy as well as science. I’m not sure there’s much that could be off-topic in this thread!
I’m wading through some of Bonhoeffer’s works, and for me the philosophical framing is a hard slog. He does seem to rely on other things more than Plato, though, such as Paul’s image of us each being one part of the body of Christ, each responsible for the actions of the whole.
I think the prophetic dimension of Adam is best realized simply, like Nathan expected David to see the prophetic meaning of his story of a girl’s pet lamb. “You are that man” is the core truth of the prophetic Adam.
Augustine tried to explain that truth through Aristotelian science, and perhaps Bonhoeffer used Platonic philosophy. I understand that they were trying to translate the truth for their own age, but there are two dangers. First, that eventually times change and what connected with people of one mindset can be offputting or appear obviously false to those of another. Second, that tying our connection to Adam to some science or philosophy distances us from the reality. If we’re only tied to Adam’s sin by being in his loins or sharing his human nature, our involvement is far more passive and theoretical than in a Nathan-styled prophetic word.
I think you are projecting your own opinion and fantasy on Deuteronomy 13 here. Lennon was a famous musician, and frankly if anyone wants to do it they will be able to fit one or two biblical verses to their “favourite” celebrity - lots of verses and lots of celebrities so something will always match up.
No it doesn’t. It’s just a very silly song(opinions may vary), it’s not a prophecy. Lennon never claimed it to be one, and it doesn’t show any hallmarks of being one. It’ like a poem I guess - imagination of its author, and imagination is certainly not the same as prophecy.
I am not the one claiming contamination…that is the opposing view.
Contamination in a sterile environment usually means the gain of unwanted “contaminants”…so im wondering what your statement there is about because I fail to see its relevance in this case. Its your side claiming contamination in AIG sanctioned lab tests. That tells me you are falsifying amd debuncting your own sides claims.
Omg…you are joking right? How about the Holy Bible! That is the argument i have been using since i started on these forums.
Where is said bible support you ask? Start with the genealogies for Christ in Matthew and Mark…then go through the entire Israelite history in the Old Testament.
For external evidence, study the “Patterns of Evidence - The Exodus” on Youtube (Tim Mahony and David Rohl did a great doco on this - thanks St Roymond, you gave me a great resource there)
Just your referring to a sterile environment reveals that you have not familiarized yourself with the basics of carbon dating before passing on clueless AiG nonsense. The air lab workers breath is rich in 14C, the DNA in your genes and the oil in your skin is full of modern carbon. Even in the best of labs, contamination will be present at some level, mostly from exposure in the field, then from sample preparation, and then trace amounts from the AMS instrument itself. That is why there is a limit of 50,000 years of age give or take, as the amount of intrinsic 14C is less the older the sample, and past that any measurement is just modern 14C contamination and instrument noise. Even past 40,000 years the error bars are more significant.
For 14 C measurements by AMS, the samples are, mostly after pretreatment, combusted to CO2 , which is then reduced to graphite. The produced solid graphite samples are then pressed in sample holders (“targets” or “cathodes”) and are subsequently measured in the AMS by sputtering the surface with Cs ions. The released C– ions are then used for the actual measurement. Due to the number of steps involved, from sample preparation to measurement, utmost care and attention is required to reduce the contamination accumulated over the whole process. For larger samples (1–2 mg C), with near-contemporary 14 C concentrations, contaminations accumulated after careful preparation may be barely discernible. On the contrary, for background materials and small(er) samples (1–200 μg C), measurements can be seriously affected by the inevitable contaminants accumulated during the preparation steps … This is one of the reasons why 14 C dating beyond 50,000 yr is so challenging. The “age,” that is the 14 C content, of the contaminating material matters: by the very nature of the 14 C dating technique, contamination of (sub)-modern samples by old carbon (e.g. from synthetic chemicals used in the preparation steps) only dilutes the sample, and the effects stay marginal. Contamination of old samples by modern carbon (e.g. atmospheric CO2 from the laboratory), on the other hand, can have massive impact.
What this means is that there is no valid radiometric measurement that conflicts with the conclusion that carbon dead material such as coal or diamonds are ancient.
I think you’re missing the point here Adam. It wasn’t that you were claiming contamination. It’s that you seemed a bit confused and/or misinformed about how contamination actually works, where it comes from and to what extent it can or can not be eliminated.
And no, it’s not just “the opposing view” nor is it anything to do with anyone’s “own side’s claims.” These are basic, elementary rules that apply to every area of science, “operational” and “historical” alike, and that apply to both sides of every argument, no matter what that argument is.
This is why young earthism is viewed as such a joke by everyone else, many Bible believing Christians included. It’s all very well telling us that we need to make the Bible our final authority over science, but if you’re tearing up the very first chapter of the rule book on accurate and honest measurement in the process, that’s not making the Bible your final authority over anything. It’s talking nonsense.
8 Likes
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
355
I am talking about YEC arguments for flood geology. Can you put forward an argument from YEC flood geology that does not use uniformitarianism? I bet you can’t.
2 Likes
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
356
If you are claiming the measurements of 14C by creationists is accurate and that the 14C comes from the actual original sample, then you are tacitly claiming there is no contamination. We need to see evidence that contamination could not be the source for the 14C measured in the experiment, especially given the fact that contamination is a known source of 14C in these measurements.
How so? We have long claimed that carbon dating becomes unreliable at around 50,000 years or so due to contamination. Even samples 30,000 years old can be thrown off by contamination as is discussed in the technical literature.
Two quick clarifications: the genealogies of Jesus are in Matthew and Luke, not Mark. Also, biblical genealogies are often telescoped, and different textual traditions (MT/LXX/SP) give different ages, so they don’t function as a precise clock.
The challenge was for a young-Earth or global-flood argument that doesn’t rely on uniformitarian assumptions in geology/physics and doesn’t just appeal to scriptural authority. If your basis is simply ‘the Bible says so,’ that’s a hermeneutical claim, not a scientific one.
So: do you have an empirical YEC argument—independent of uniform rates and independent of textual authority—that predicts observations better than standard geology does?
If not, you need to pack up your tent, get on your wagon, and move on.
As for the thread derailment, our departed thread starter apparrently wanted to talk about biblical interpretation and prophecy as well as science. I’m not sure there’s much that could be off-topic in this thread!
