ewh??? so a scientist with a PhD in paleontology is of no serious interest to you? I don’t follow your logic on this, you know what a paleontologist area of study is right?
Lets recap…
Evolution cannot explain how the big bang originated. Where did the energy and matter come from that started the big bang? Answer from ALL modern scientists…“we don’t really know…yet” (that is a unanimous answer…not a single scientist worldwide has a definitive answer to that question…not one!)
there are numerous theories as to possible reasons, however, they are neither unanimous or without enormous problems and most often discounted by opposing scientists even on the same side of the evolutionary debate. There is simply no explanation for it that even makes sense outside of the biblical model. We cant test it or view it.
So, in light of the above, you wish to tell me that on the basis of no knowledge of the very foundation of all existence, you are willing to reject any YEC scientist explanation of the flood, which is also consistent with accepted scientific research methods…so you don’t give a ■■■■ what DR Kurt Wise thinks?
Sorry but I think the wrong person here is being delusional!
For information for those who don’t want to watch all of the video I posted from Kurt Wise regarding the fossil record…here it is again with the point relevant to the timeline and deposition of fossils…
Go to the 7 minute mark where Kurt focuses on the exact issue highlighted. Kurts claim is that 95% of fossils do not fit with the evolutionary timeline in the record…only about 5% of them do. That is a huge claim and worth looking into why this might be the case. Of that 5% the best example of the fossil record that does fit with the evolutionary timeline is that of plants. However, Dr Kurts explanation of how this could be possible in a flood theology is awesome…quaking bog (image of one at 11:40 in video)
First up, this is ultimately an apologetic dressed in the formal language of scientific method. Such a hypothesis can in principle be valid, but in practice is rarely consistent or stands up to scrutiny. This is the case here.
Next, science is cumulative. When a scientific theory or model has been thoroughly argued, tested and established for generations, it takes on a certain robustness. To overturn the consensus, an alternate explanation must be consistent with both the existing data and what might be new. Einstein supplanted Newton, but his theory was consistent with the body of prior experiments as well as newer differentiating observations. The geological history of North America has been uncovered by the investigation of many thousands of studies, and is not some balloon one can pop with a single gotcha pinprick. Nobody pays some researcher to just say, I think there was water here, but I don’t accept Noah’s flood so I’ll call it an inland sea. Detailed and exhaustive work has gone into charting the past, and identifying the signatures of ancient river courses, mineral concentrations, biogeography, dried lakes, volcanic tephra, dating techniques, shoreline, earthquakes, erosion patterns, tectonic movements, and sequence of events. This is boring to YEC, because they are only interested if they can find a Noah’s flood angle. Energy, mining companies and further academic investigation however, rely on these geological surveys. This is not going to be upended by some article in some apologetic journal.
So the presence of marine fossils must be considered in the totality of information we have. You are attempting to make this observation concerning whale bones into a test not of fossilization, but an extraordinarily naïve and ridiculous test for the entire existence of the inland sea. Furthermore, your test (which is based on uniformitarian thought, BTW), only applies to common case whale fall, where the body come to rest on firm sediment and remains exposed to oxygenated water. Both now and in the past, some sea floor areas are murky and disturbed, so that whale fall would be completely covered upon impact, and in other cases landslides or powerful currents will cover the remains. Given that, objective, physical observation is consistent with mainstream geology.
Certainly. I am in agreement with the vast majority of PhD paleontologists, so I am not the one offside here.
If you believe God started the big bang, I’m fine with that. That has nothing to do, however, with my post responding to your statement about animals trying to get to higher ground. It seems neither yourself or Kurt Wise has any serious explanation of the fossil record given all the animals living at the same time, so deflection is the only retort.
and that is just the problem…lets say that, as is claimed by YEC through scientific study, that catestrophic tectonic plate activity occurred at the time of the flood, and that this best explained certain geological features (such as huge mile sized borders in places where they simply should not be)…i don’t see why it is that Theistic evolutionary scientists refuse to even consider this view. Almost every argument I see from humanistic influences discounts the YEC view for one single reason…GOD! A secular view cannot entertain even the remotest input into any theory of there being a God.
I find that in TEism, there can never be a true eclectic balance…that is because T and E simply do not mix. One uses secular/humanism and the other God. There is no denying this problem. At least YEC do not incur that diametric opposition within.
That is more about dogma than science. As has been pointed out a number of times already, the catastrophic tectonic plate movement promoted by YEC would generate levels of friction heat that would melt the crust, (and that is not even including heat from accelerated radioactive decay), so how can that represent scientific study or be an explanation of geological features?
The fact that he is a scientist with a PhD in paleontology does not make him right. It does, however, make it a much more serious matter if he isn’t. J Random Creationist in your Bible study group can be excused on the grounds of ignorance if he or she starts making claims that are untrue, inaccurate, or incoherent. Scientists with PhDs in paleontology such as Kurt Wise do not have the luxury of that excuse.
In any case, to accept what Kurt Wise says just because he is a scientist with a PhD in paleontology means that we must reject what hundreds of thousands of other scientists with PhDs in paleontology have to say, because they all tell us in no uncertain terms that he is wrong. If this were the case, then having a PhD in paleontology would not be a legitimate reason for listening to anyone talking about the subject, Kurt Wise included. As such, your appeal to his PhD in paleontology is self defeating.
Let’s recap…
Evolution does not attempt to explain how the big bang originated. The fact that we do not know where the energy and matter that started the big bang came from does not change the fact that it happened 13.8 billion years ago and not six thousand, and nor does anything to do with evolution for that matter.
I’ve made this point already to you Adam. The fact that there are things that we do not know does not mean that the things that we do know could be wrong.
I think it would probably help if you actually understood what accepted scientific research methods are and how they work.
Accepted scientific research methods work on the basis of something called measurement. They also have to be subjected to something called quality control. If young earth scientists want to claim to be “consistent with accepted scientific methods,” they must demonstrate a commitment to accurate and honest weights and measures (Deuteronomy 25:13-16 again), and they must also demonstrate a commitment to meeting the same standards of quality control as everybody else.
As it stands, YEC “science” sets standards for their own research that are so low that if you applied those same standards to any other area of science, you would kill people. At the same time, they set standards for anything that contradicts their own research that are so unrealistically high that if everyone applied those same standards to every other area of science, we would still be stuck in the Stone Age.
I explain it here if you need me to remind you where I’m coming from:
Kurt’s claim is indeed huge as you say. But that means that it needs to be substantiated. Where is he getting that figure of 95% from? And when he says that “95% of fossils do not fit with the evolutionary timeframe in the record,” what exactly does he mean by that?
When I’ve seen such claims in the past by science deniers, it’s usually turned out that the claimed inconsistencies are (a) small at most, (b) inaccurately portrayed, and (c) only out of kilter with a garbled misunderstanding of evolution that thinks that if we evolved from monkeys that means there shouldn’t still be monkeys. If he’s talking about proverbial Precambrian rabbits, then that’s news to me.
I do not accept that your claim of it being a dogma is accurate. That is absurd and certainly inappropriate claim given that TEism has huge theological flaws in its belief structure that cannot ever be reconciled biblically. I am a very strong studier of biblical theology and biblical history…i have a very keen interest in both of those areas. It should come as no surprise given my dad has a degree in theology and i have a degree in education.
So for me here is the inescapable dilemma that TEism faces:
God must come first…and one cannot ignore self evident biblical narratives of Genesis or explain them away. There is very good theological reason for this…i put it to you that if you make the claim (which TEism does) that death, both physical and spiritual, did not enter this world because of and through sin, you leave the entire gospel (and indeed the whole reason for our need of salvation) out in the cold. To then turn around and make the claim that the apostles (when they referenced creation and the flood) are ignorant and indeed even in error, that is an absolute theological disaster given that all Christians believe that God himself inspired these writings. Do you honestly believe that a teacher instills beliefs into his students that the teacher full well knows are completely wrong? How can a teacher with the kind of qualities that Jesus displayed do such a thing. If Jesus really did this, how can we call him God or even good? That would make the entire fundamental basis for the Christian gospel to be based upon a complete lie.
TEism makes the claim that because of their lack of scientific knowledge, the apostles, Jesus, the prophet Isaiah, and in particular Moses, are either ignorant or worse…liars!
How could you possibly believe that when it is written consistently in the Bible that God and Moses spoke face to face?
Are you honestly going to make the theological claim that God telling Moses “he bent down close and breathed the breath of life directly into Adam nostrils” was a lie? Please explain to me why God would need to even say that if we evolved over millions of years?
Wouldnt God more than adequately be able to get Moses to understand millions of years? Its very clear the reason God did not explain it any other way is because he really did create Adam on day 6, bent down close, and physically breathed the breath of life into his nostrils.
If we are not needing redemption because death already existed prior to the “fall of man”, theologically you have no reason to need the Cross. This is an irrefutable Christian fundamental…it is impossible to deny this without rewriting your own bible. If you do not need to cross…why on earth are you even Christian…any morality can be explained into even an atheist world view (one doesn’t need Christianity to make that claim). Are you also claiming that the humanistic science of philosophy on the issue of morality is wrong? How can you make this claim when you claim humanistic science of our origins is absolute truth and YEC is wrong? Do you see the inconsistency in TEism there? (obviously not)
Theologically, the reason why a literal account of Genesis 1-11 must be taken is because the rest of the entire bible hangs upon it. If you turn Genesis into an allegory, the whole plan of salvation becomes an allegory…why the heck do we even need it? We may as we all become Budhists or even Mormons! We don’t need God, we can elevate ourselves to become like him. btw, isn’t that the exact statement Satan tricked Eve with in Genesis 3:5?
Im sorry but you are philosophically wrong…you will always be philosophically wrong under the Christian world view according to the Bible. There is no current textual criticism where traditional Bible theology has been changed because of new evidence. Sure there may be some religious groups who attempt to make this claim, however, their doctrines very quickly begin to fall apart under scrutiny. Probably the best example of this is the LGBT debate. Whether or not one agrees or not, gay is not ok in the bible. It is very clearly an abomination. Do i personally believe a gay person could go to heaven? hmm, that depends on whether the sin of homosexuality is worse than thinking a sexual thought about another mans wife? My gut tells me only God can judge that one…however, if left up to me…I wouldn’t have even given up my life to die for my creation after the fall…i would have started again. Then again, Im human and not God!
So in summary I put the following to you…which is more important philosophy or knowledge? Which comes first? For me it is the need to know which comes first…so philosophical prevails. Therefore, the bible is king.
If it flies in the face of every last shred of evidence that God sends us from earth and sky, if it demands that we reject the evidence of our eyes and ears as its final, most essential command, all in order to conform to a cartoon caricature of Genesis 1-11 with a thick layer of science fiction slathered on top of it, then it is dogma. End of story.
And this, it seems, is the end game of every science denier once they realise that they haven’t got a leg to stand on and that it’s not just “atheists” and “secularists” who see through their nonsense, but other Bible believing Christians. They weaponise the Bible to try and bully and intimidate them into endorsing their alternative reality, falsely accuse them of calling God a liar, and then play the LGBT card.
It’s school playground tactics. It’s no different from the kinds of characters that I had to put up with when I was twelve years old who would pick on the intelligent kids who were good at maths and science but not so good at sports.
If you maintain that you believe in a young earth because that is your take on theology, or doctrine, or dogma, others may wish to dispute with you, but not for my part. If for you “the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it”, then peace be on you as you go on your way. But when science is misrepresented and common sense is mauled to support these claims, the record must be corrected.
That animals that lived together would die together is not “man’s knowledge”; it is clear thinking. That galaxies gravitationally interacted over millions of years is not some cosmologist’s fantasy, you can see the photographs for yourself. Anyone who appreciates getting out in nature knows that, in general, one year yields one tree ring, and it does not take a PhD to count rings. Above and beyond what you can immediately see for yourself, a whole world of instruction, books, courses, and programs, especially in this day and age, enables anyone with the curiosity and willing effort to immerse themselves deeper in an area of study. These are facts, and dogma does not abrogate them.
In response, YEC posits hyper evolution from original kinds, accelerated radioactive decay, hypervelocity of plate tectonics, algae blooms for chalk cliffs, floating vegetation ferries for biogeography, none of which is scientifically plausible, but rather more telling, not in the Bible either. For instance, the Bible states that Adam named the animals, which contradicts the YEC contention that even animals named in the Bible, such as lions and leopards, foxes and wolves and dogs, did not yet exist as named creatures.
7 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
185
When religious terror grabs you by the testes, your heart and mind follow. And yes it’s always male. I was primed for pre-millennial Great Tribulation fundamentalism age 10 in '64, by Auschwitz and Hiroshima.
complete nonsense. you haven’t even provided a shred of biblical evidence that is contrary to what I claimed. The Bible very specifically calls homosexuality, and indeed any other form of sexual immorality, an abomination. That is a theological fact. I challenge you to prove from the bible where that is an incorrect doctrine!
an interesting point…especially when one considers that I have provided clear evidence from scientist with PhD degrees and whom are well known in their fields. Some of their work is both revolutionary and pioneering in that it fits with good science and the bible. That is a wonderful witness for the inerrancy of the bible…it can be read as it is without compromising its self evident doctrines by corrupting it with humanism.
In terms of Wise, Snelling, Myer, Behee and the many other YEC scientists, these guys are writing papers that are peered reviewed and your answer to some of the best evidence we have to date for a literal reading of the Bible is to say “but when science is misrepresented and common sense mauled”.
I always see red flags when Christians for example complain that Christian science differs from humanistic science…i cannot see how any Christian could reconcile a preference for humanistic world view influences in any area of study. That is why I believe AIG exists in the first place…its not because AIG are corrupt…these guys are genuinely searching for and putting out to the world some real research that supports a literal reading of the bible. It is foolish and naive to suggest that they are basing their science upon assumptions…that is exactly what humanism is doing with its science research. The premise for all humanism is that there is no God!
The difference between YEC and TE here is that TE places humanism interpretation of the world around us in front!
Again I come back to an important statement I made that I feel has been intentionally ignored…
If physical death did not come into this world as a result of, and through, sin…(as is claimed by TEism) then why on earth do you need a savior who physically died for all mankind’s sin? Jesus “literally/physically” paid the price for sin…he physically died a painful death on the cross…none of that was an allegory.
Let me add something else to Jesus paying the price for sin…
The reason that the 4th commandment is so very critical to the gospel is because the Jesus is in fact the Sabbath. It was a literal day set aside specially for us (it was not a day of worship just for the Jews), it is a reminder that in “6 days God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them…but on the seventh day he rested and hallowed it”!
By denying creation, you deny the sabbath, you deny our maker, you then add insult to this by also denying that physical death is not a direct consequence of sin. That is a terrible position to take for any Christian. TEism is not Christianity…in a few sentences, I have explained why!
Sure. Our models of supernovae and subatomic particles were tested by observation of supernova SN1987a and by the simultaneous observation of neutrinos from that supernova. It didn’t matter that the event in question took place more than a hundred thousand years ago or that it could not be repeated; studies of that data were empirical science.
Well, no. First, you aren’t actually testing a hypothesis; you’re looking for any data that will support a fixed conclusion that you didn’t come to based on empirical evidence. Second, the hypothesis that fossils are all only a few thousand years old was decisively falsified two hundred years ago; the immense weight of evidence from numerous fields of science that has accumulated in the two centuries since then mean that this isn’t remotely a viable hypothesis. Third, your evidence doesn’t really test the hypothesis. Fossilization of skeletons is a rare event. Observing that fossilization did not occur in a handful of observed cases of whale falls tells you just about nothing about whether it ever occurs.
Adam, there is a time and a place to discuss what the Bible says about LGBT issues, but as a diversionary tactic when you can’t get your patent nonsense about a completely different subject accepted any other way is not one of them.
You’re doing exactly what I said when I referred to “playing the LGBT card” here. You tried and failed to bully and intimidate us into denying the evidence of our eyes and ears as your final, most essential command. You tried and failed to get us to acknowledge your cartoon caricature of Genesis 1-11 with its thick layer of science fiction plastered on top of it as either scientific or Biblical. So you resort to accusing us of waving rainbow flags in your face, when none of us are doing anything of the sort.
As I said, it’s playground talk. Now please can we keep the discussion on topic.
But it isn’t impossible. Again, we have starlight. We can directly observe the past and confirm that the laws of physics were the same in the past. Even more, there were naturally occurring nuclear reactors that were active millions of years ago. The products of those reactors allow us to test the very physical laws that govern radioactive decay, and the results demonstrated that decay rates were the same in the past as in the present.
The constancy of decay rates is entirely empirical.
There is no such thing as historical science. There is just science.
U/Pb concordia dating is another great example (from my understanding as a rank amateur). You have two different isotopes of U with different decay rates that each decay into a different isotope of Pb. This means you get different ratios of U/Pb for each isotope pair. If there was leakage you wouldn’t expect one isotope to leak out more than another, so the differences in these ratios would disappear and you wouldn’t get a concordant date when measuring the age independently with each isotope pair.
Neither can Germ Theory. Do you still believe that infections are a natural process caused by microorganisms?
There is nothing in the theory of evolution that requires the Big Bang. In fact, for about half the existence of the theory of evolution scientists also believed that the universe was eternal and had no beginning.
Kurt Wise has already stated that the evidence won’t change his mind.
I can’t swing a cat without hitting somebody with a PhD, so that’s not exactly compelling. YECs with PhDs who are well known in their fields? Who?
Do you mean Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe? As far as I know, neither is a YEC. Meyer isn’t even a scientist (he’s a philosopher) and Behe is a biochemist without any particular expertise in evolution (and who accepts common descent). Wise and Snelling are YECs but are hardly well known in their field.
11 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
195
Ongoing American anti-intellectualism is unique in the developed world. It is always associated with totalitarianism historically. Including in the previous presidency. But travelling in different directions of cause and effect.
democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’