It’s in his whinging tone in an apologetics video on YouTube. I’ll track it down. It’ll take a while.
Hi Craig,
The studies he omitted were documented in exquisite detail in post #15. I pointed this out to you in post 37.
Why are you asking for what has already been provided to you?
As I read through your post #60, it appears that you did not even bother to read my post #37 that I labored over for hours. For example, I provided sources on the fact that neither the sum of zero-point energy nor the density of ZPE is changing over time. Yet in your post #60 you start with the assumption that ZPE is somehow changing–and your erroneous assumption is foundational to all your physics arguments.
Since you seem to have lost track of things, I am reposting the relevant parts of my post for your convenience:
Six of one, half dozen of the other. Orbital vs. atomic time is a distinction without a difference.
Atomic clocks simply measure the same ol’ passage of time that has always been denoted by orbits and revolutions. 86400.0000000 seconds as measured by an atomic clock is still a day in orbital time.
The only difference is that the atomic clock is more accurate than the cuckoo clock in my grandfather’s house in Landeck, Ohio. And the atomic clock is more accurate than the clocks that were used in the early speed of light measurements.
That’s the one difference: accuracy. There is no other difference.
Best,
Chris Falter
3 Likes
A whining tone is not special pleading, and does not invalidate an argument. I have never noticed him whining. But I guess that is subjective.
On the contrary, one of the attributes about Lennox I really appreciate is his winsomeness and pleasantness, even when debating an adversary.
1 Like
The special pleading was done with a whinge. Possibly more like a whine. I haven’t watched enough videos as I couldn’t get past the whining in the first sample, but where there’s a whine, there’s a whinge: it’ll be a habit. One whine does not a whinge make, but it does. Like a dinosaur fossil makes evolution.
I’ve not yet encountered a humble apologetic. Apart from my own of course.
“Whinge”! Thanks for giving me a new vocabulary word for the day. Had never heard it before … should be in every moderator’s vocabulary I’m sure!
3 Likes
No one will doubt that the atomic clock is more precise. I suspect you can measure billionths of a second with it. That does not mean it is more accurate (or less accurate). I really don’t know. But here is the issue. I am six feet tall. How do I know? I used a yard stick 40 years ago, and sure enough, I was precisely six feet tall. But now the yard stick and I differ. I claim that I am the standard for six feet, and that the yard stick is now an extra half inch longer than a yard. And since I am the standard, then I will always be six feet tall.
So also, if atomic processes are all changing at the same rate, then by measuring themselves by themselves, we will never know. It is just as by measuring myself by myself I will never know if my height has changed; I can only know that by an external standard.
The first time I encountered this word was in the name of Harry Potter’s subdivision–“Little Whinging”! I had to look it up. I still don’t know the difference between “whinging” and “whining”–I thought they were the same.
I do whinge, myself; God have patience with me. 
1 Like
Amen–that is most important. Have you read the book, “The Fool and the Heretic,” by Todd Wood and Darrel Falk? It’s a model investigation for discussion of how YEC and EC can interact.
Thanks
Thanks. I have gotten the Kindle sample, and will consider spending $10 if the sample meets my approval. I think what this book addresses is vitally important. In most of the discussions here, I am the “fool” and most of the rest of the folks are the “heretics.”
And that is why I am engaging here. I want to hear what others are saying. And as I came across this particular forum, I would have liked to find that Setterfield was on to something, as his presentations are (at least to me) clear and engaging. And his ideas are elegant and simple. But it seems that his conclusions are not valid.
Also, let me clarify–Setterfield’s ideas are not widely embraced by YEC. So don’t let that be a mark against YEC.
I am working on a chart that shows what YEC, OEC, and EC believe and how they view each other. The first draft is done, and it is working (in my mind, kinda like yeast works and the dough expands) and when it settles down, I will go in an make changes and additions. I don’t know that it will be for anyone but myself, but I am working on the principle that before we discuss, we really need to ask questions and understand. Too many times I have gotten into an “argument” only to find we are arguing about issues we really don’t disagree about, and haven’t yet gotten into the issues that we don’t agree on. Or, we are misrepresenting a position and arguing against the misrepresentation.
2 Likes
This is not at all how it works, Craig. I am deeply perplexed at how anyone could make this statement. The atomic clock and the astronomical clock remain as tightly synchronized as ever.
I truly hope that you are not arguing that an underlying reality (the flow of time) has changed, but we have no way of detecting/measuring that change because we stand inside time. Down this path lies absurdity–invisible Martians that can’t be seen, conspiracies that can’t be detected, the whole lot.
Yet this is exactly what you are doing, Craig.
The key position Lennox takes in his book (which I have now read, it’s quite succinct) is explained on p. 62 (chapter 3):
“The major thrust of my argument … is that there is a way of understanding Genesis 1 that does not compromise the authority and primacy of Scripture and that, at the same time, takes into account our increased knowledge of the universe.”
In the next paragraph, Lennox specifically states that this increased knowledge of the universe points to, among other things, the “ancient earth.”
To hammer the point home, at the conclusion of Chapter 4 Lennox includes the following in his “four salient considerations”:
- “The current scientific evidence for an ancient earth.”
- “Scripture…does not require” a young earth interpretation. “There are other possible interpretations in terms of an ancient earth that do not compromise the authority of Scripture.”
- “It is not shame or compromise today for people to change their minds about the age of the earth.”
I do not understand why you are castigating us for disagreeing with Lennox about an area in which he has no expertise (Ancient Near East culture, linguistics applications to translation), while you at the same time are vehemently opposing the chief points that he is making in an area where you think he has considerable expertise.
Having read Lennox on the cosmic temple framework (Appendices A and B), I will post some more when I have more time.
Thanks for sharing your perspectives, Craig.
Chris
2 Likes
Lennox’s expertise is in a discipline, formal mathematics, in which culture plays very little if any role. Set theory, indeed all of math, has its own language. When you translate from English to mathematical symbols and back, implicit context plays no role whatsoever; encoding and decoding is the name of the game.
Given that background, I am not surprised that Lennox evinces no awareness of the cultural issues in Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible that he overlooks. Those issues are outside his field of vision. That does not make those issues unimportant, though; linguistics has shown us how extremely important the implicit cultural context is to understanding any text, sacred or otherwise.
Now Lennox does understand that metaphor must be taken into account. Without a deep understanding of ANE cultures and literature, however, he is not prepared to discern metaphor where he is not expecting it. Nor is he prepared to discern other important ANE genres like the exalted prose narrative, which scarcely exist in our literature.
Let me move from generalization to specifics. Lennox points out that the Enuma Elish, a Babylonian etiology, has important theological differences from Genesis. He concludes therefore that Genesis is not a derivative work. Walton explicitly agrees 100% with this. However, Lennox then falls into a non sequitur–somehow, he thinks that the fact that (A) Genesis is not a derivative work means that (B) Genesis 1 is not a cosmic temple narrative. But B does not follow from A. The Enuma Elish and other ANE literature show the functional orientation of etiologic accounts, and that is the thought world that Genesis monotheistically inhabits.
Lennox further reveals his blinders when he analyzes Solomon’s prayer in I Kings 8:27:
“But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!"
Lennox treats this statement as if it were a mathematical axiom in a contra-positive proof.
AXIOM: God cannot dwell on earth or in heaven.
CONTRA-POSITIVE: The cosmic temple framework points to God “taking rest” in the heavens and earth.
DEDUCTION: The cosmic temple framework is wrong.
The key issue here is that John Lennox, the brilliant mathematician, is entirely unaware of the cultural context needed to understand Solomon’s prayer. It is not at all a mathematical axiom; the prayer is an expression of wonder and humility appropriate in the presence of an awesome Sovereign. It is a way of saying, “How could it be that God would inhabit anything at all? God is far above all! That He would inhabit this temple I built is too much for my understanding!”
Lennox misses the clues earlier in the chapter:
10 When the priests withdrew from the Holy Place, the cloud filled the temple of the Lord. 11 And the priests could not perform their service because of the cloud, for the glory of the Lord filled his temple. 12 Then Solomon said, “The Lord has said that he would dwell in a dark cloud; 13 I have indeed built a magnificent temple for you, a place for you to dwell forever.”
If God can indeed dwell in a temple built by human hands, why can He not in the same sense dwell in the temple He Himself built?
This has far-reaching implications for how we are to worship God and be stewards, even vice regents, of His creation.
I agree with everything Lennox says in chapter 5 of his book about the message of Genesis, by the way. But if I have to choose between an interpretation of Genesis offered by a faithful Christian who is world-renowned ANE scholar and a faithful Christian who is a world-renowned mathematician, I am going with the ANE scholar every time.
I hope you find this post helpful, Craig.
Best,
Chris
4 Likes
Thanks to all on this forum for your input on Setterfield’s ideas about the variability of the speed of light. With your input, I have come first to the conclusion that Setterfield has not validated his position–made his point. That is, of course different from saying that his position is wrong. For that we need additional evidence.
Again, with your input, I have also concluded that it is likely that his position IS wrong, based on the additional evidence provided. In addition to that, I cannot find anyone who seems to support his position at the present, regardless of their scientific perspective or worldview. So although I would have liked Setterfield’s position to be right, it seems it is not.
4 Likes
What I am asking of YECs is that they pay attention to data that falsifies what they belief. Having spent my life making theories of geologic history for various parts of the world, looking for oil, I know one thing. Proving something happened in a historical context is not possible. Proving that something DIDN’T happen is very easy. One constructs a good theory by looking at falisification for it. INdeed, it is extremely important to have a theory that isn’t falsifiable with observational data.
And I only don’t require this of YECs, I require this of one and all–for instance, I can’t see how an ark floating on a Mesopotamian river flood, which would be headed south into the Indian Ocean, is giong to land up north in Turkey. My problem is that I think I am the only geoscentist here on this list and yall don’t understand the force of the data.
But lets start with a simple thing. How about a termite burrow being dug into by some termite eater–which happened during the global flood.
Now I will explain the order of events.
1 the sediments were deposited at least to the top of the picture where the orange line is.
2. The termides dig a nest through the sediments and carve out a home. (red)
3. then some termite eater finds the nest and digs down, excavating everything in the green area at the top right of the picture.
Now lets do some Junior Hi math. There are 5000=5500 meters of sediment in this basin, about 18000 feet of sediment YECs believe was deposited by the flood. Lets figure out how much is deposited per day. The flood lasted say a year, and thus, each day, 18000/365= 50 feet of sediment is deposited each and every day on average.
What YEC theory asks us to believe is that the termites dug their nest in much less than a day, and the mammal termite eater found it and spent time digging into it, all the while 2 feet of sediment each hour was pouring down on both of them. Is this realistic? I don’t think so.
As I said, it is easier to falsify a theory than to prove it. One falsification should require an alteration to the theory to fix the mismatch between observation and theory. I have lots of these kind of burrows, some of which are even worse than this one.
I am not singling out YECs alone for their mis-match of observation with their theological theories. From my geologic perspective, I think almost all Christians avoid the problems they have with geologic data and are unwilling to actually deal with these problems without either going to YEC falsified science, or simply making the Bible say something it didn’t say(removing phrases and parts that dont fit). But, as I said, I don’t think anyone else here is a geoscientist–which of course says something about the data of my chosen profession and how hard it is to conform to what christian theology wants
Edited to add. YOu can see the layers in the lower sediments. Those are variations of sand and shale, and the whole package of rock is deposited from the bottom to the top of the picture. ONly when the bottom layer is totally deposited can the 2nd layer start being deposited. And these layers likely run for miles.
.
2 Likes
I think the chief lesson to be drawn is that dismissing scientific evidences because they are inconsistent with theological consensus does not bode well. Galileo did not wind up under house arrest primariliy because of scientists partial to Ptolemy.
1 Like
@Chris_Falter, thanks for this reminder from I Kings 8 Chris, it reinforces the neo-orthodox trinitarian hypostatic union position recently re-asserted for me that the person Jesus was fully God in the Second Person as well as fully human. God the Son, the Second Person of the Undivided Trinity, which encloses infinity from eternity, incarnates in persons, Sons of God, concurrently.
1 Like
Well, according to Mark A Kalthoff, a professor of history at Hillsdale College, the issue is not that open and shut. First of all, all the people involved were Christians. Secondly, the Catholic Church was not anti-science as is commonly portrayed. It was the greatest patron of astronomy in that time–more than all other institutions combined.
Galileo believed he had evidence to prove the Copernican hypothesis, but he did not. Again, according to Kalthoff, Galileo’s theory was seriously flawed. Although his idea was later validated, he did not provide the scientific proof that it was so. So your assumption that the church dismissed scientific evidence is not correct.
One of the primary factors for dismissing Galileo’s view was that it was contrary to scientific consensus and he did not have the evidence to back it up. Accepting current scientific consensus seems to be a primary value here on the BioLogos Forum. So whatever other complaints you may have against the Catholic Church, I would think you would be supportive of the Church in this regard.
2 Likes
From reading Lennox, he both appreciates some of what Walton says, and strongly disagrees with other issues. He is willing to consider that there may be some validity to the idea of Genesis 1 talking about function, but not that this is ALL that it about, and that it tells us nothing about origins. I appreciate that about Lennox. He identifies both what he agrees with and what he does not rather than dismissing an entire argument.
In reading through The Lost World of Genesis One, I can almost hear Lennox responding to much of what Walton says, particularly about the god of the gaps and other philosophy of science issues.
Well, that is not intended as a shot over the bow to open discussion on that issue in this thread. Maybe there is a more suitable thread to talk about these issues. Now I understand why Lennox stated that he was emboldened as a scientist (and a philosopher of science) to respond to Walton’s textual analysis who as a text analysist delves deeply into science and philosophy.
I’m fully aware the the Galileo affair was not the simplistic church vs science conflict often portrayed.
The big stumbling block, both scientific and theological, was the concept of the earth’s inertia. But the theological implications of upstaging geocentrism was what attracted the attention of the holy office of the inquisition. Galileo anticipated the theological discussion in his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, which is very accessible and remains one of the best treatise concerning the relationship of faith and science.
3 Likes
On the point of Lennox rejecting common ancestry he doesn’t, if memory serves, provide much of an argument for why he rejects it. I’ve read some of his work, and I’ve listened to him in person at Oxford (where he did not broach the topic of common ancestry, or I would have pressed him on it).
Common ancestry is extremely well supported science. It uses the same principles that give you confidence that the New Testament you hold in your hands has an accurate recording of the original autographs. Lennox offers no substantive argument for why I should accept textual criticism in support of the New Testament and reject the same principles as they pertain to human and chimpanzee genomes. He just doesn’t engage the evidence - but rather makes side comments about it from time to time. If he did ever make a substantive argument I’d be happy to engage it.
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.