Presenting isolated examples of fraud as if they were representative of the entire body of evidence as a whole.
3 Likes
The fossils are still considered to be 65 million years old, and finding remnants of soft tissue does nothing to cast doubt on that age.
Are you trying to make a scientific argument? Are you preaching science?
Which of these are intentionally falsified?
Are you trying to make a scientific argument? Are you preaching science?
This is an admission that your interpretations are not scientific.
5 Likes
I believe God is doing things that we call miracles. I believe God could have done things literally as it is written in the Genesis story of Noah and the flood. But, even miracles leave signs in history. For example, if someone is healed miraculously, we cannot explain how the person got healed but we have a person that was ânot healthyâ and then, after the miraculous healing, was âhealthyâ. There may be some documents showing the states (ânot healthyâ vs. âhealthyâ) or at least, there is the experience and witness of the people involved, those who know what the situation was before and after the event.
A miracle of the size of a huge flood would leave signs in all the area that was beneath the flood. If someone interprets the flood as being global (I do not), we should find signs of the flood around the globe. There are no evidence for a global flood. There are some claims of evidence but none of those claims stand closer inspection. Evidence of a global flood would be a major finding and top scientific journals would want to publish such a finding, even if the reviewers of the scientific report would not believe in God or miracles. But, as I wrote, there are no credible evidence of a global flood.
If you play the miracle card, you should have two miracle cards: the first one to cause the flood, the second one to wipe away all evidence of the miracle.
A global flood is an interpretation that has no supporting material evidence. In addition, the interpretation does not have strong support in the original text. There is a story of a great flood that drowned all the land the writer knew but nowhere is a claim that the flood was global, in the modern sense of the word âglobalâ.
5 Likes
Although hyped news reports from sources that should have known better as well as young-earth sources have claimed that the finding of the âsoftâ tissue was amazing, in reality such âsoftâ material has long been known from the fossil record, and there is no reason to doubt that they can last for billions of years, much less the millions needed for dinosaurs. This has been addressed more than once; the young-earth claims on this topic are not honestly presenting the evidence.
3 Likes
This is just more of the YEC failure to understand either scripture or science, and as a result muddling the two badly.
No, it doesnât â naturalism says no such thing; thatâs just an irrational claim made by idiots.
He needs some actual science and not YEC misrepresentation.
1 Like
The popular impression of âsoftâ tissue is probably something close to a steak. Something like the best preserved mammoths in permafrost - I have read that some people have tasted parts of such a mammoth. Not good food but anyhow meat that could be consumed. It is difficult to believe that a steak could last millions of years.
The reality is far from the popular impression. There is no dinosaur meat to eat, unless we classify chicken and turkey as dinosaurs. The âsoftâ tissues are remains of the proteins that are structurally and chemically most likely to last long, or transformed remains of such tissue. That is very different matter than a steak. The difference between the popular impression and reality is like the difference between hair and fat - nails, feathers and hair are keratin that is one of the long-lasting proteins.
5 Likes
Basically, theyâre misunderstanding the terminology.
Another one is âorganic.â Iâve seen young earthists claim that organic compounds canât last long and should have all decayed away to nothing within 65 million years. But âorganicâ only means âcarbon based.â Organic compounds decay to other organic compounds. The claim that there shouldnât be any of them left at all after 65 million years is simply patent nonsense.
6 Likes
Oil?
âŚ
4 Likes
Diamonds???
You should know that diamonds are not formed from decay but predate life.
Richard
You should know that life (~4bya) predates most natural diamonds (1-3bya).
Diamonds arenât organic, as they are all carbon, (and the fact that they are considered a mineral, which means that they are inorganic).
Most definitions of organic require something like carbon-hydrogen or carbon-halide bonds.
2 Likes
Yes, thatâs the point. Diamonds arenât organic, but may have formed from organic compounds (carbon dioxide, methane) under pressure.
1 Like
The boundary between âorganicâ and âinorganicâ isnât all that well defined. Some authorities define it to mean any compound that contains carbon, whereas others define it as containing a carbon-carbon or carbon-hydrogen bond. All of these definitions are problematic because they donât neatly coincide with compounds that are referred to as âorganicâ or âinorganicâ in practice. For example, CO2 is usually considered inorganic, but CS2 is often classified as an organic solvent.
Wikipedia has a whole section on it.
3 Likes
Bravo!
Not entirely, but if it is taken to mean that nothing from outside the scriptures is needed to understand the scriptures then itâs gone off the rails.
The only valid one would be that of the original writer and audience, but Adam makes that circular: he thinks that what he thinks a section means is of course what it meant to the original writer and audience then he uses what he thinks it means to define the historical context and claims that that tells us what the original meaning was.
Bravo again!
2 Likes
I think that is limiting Scripture. Scripture works on many levels, that is its beauty and uniqueness.
Even just looking at Genesis 1. The original audience and (probably) the writer would be in alignment with the modern YEC but we can draw out teaching about God and His part in creation that I claim ToE denies. God is sovereign over His creation and made everything nut ToE basically claims that creatures are made by accident, with no control from God. Even if you claim that god set things in motion there are too any variables and too much randomness built in to be certain of the outcome⌠even parameters would not necessarily produce the Human make up from scratch. As soon as you introduce independent thought and action, control goes out the window. Genetics cannot decree which animal meets what, even if there are physical bias, towards an end, you only have to follow football to see that a so say weaker team can still succeed beyond expectations. No matter how omniscient God is He is not creating if ToE is in Control. He is watching.
Going back to the matter to understanding Scripture. It is more than just one view or understanding be it ANE, linguistic or Reformation (to name a few)
Richard
I rebuke this: taking that passage out of its historical context and claiming that the result is even a part of the Christian worldview is just false. Indeed even taken in context it isnât anywhere near to central to the Christian worldview, which rests on the Incarnation.
Itâs a repeat of the arrogance of much of Rome in the middle ages, insisting that their particular view of certain scriptures and their preferred understanding of science defined who was a Christian. Itâs a old, old error that has cropped up over and over every time people have tried to force scripture to fit their worldview.
And yet the primary effort of YEC is to preach science. Any more, if someone starts spouting YEC dogma to me my inclination is going to be to just say, âShut up. Jesus didnât call us to preach science, so just shut upâ.
One of my geology professors, an atheist, said the same thing about finding Noahâs Ark â if there was the least evidence such a thing had actually been found, he would want to investigate and publish, and enjoy the consternation of his colleagues because the greatest and most exciting thing in science is to overturn standing paradigms.
Three: one to hold the Ark together among waves ten times its height.
Yes. If it werenât for that human tradition there would be no reason to see a global flood in the text. Indeed there is no doctrinal value in that position!
2 Likes
When she was taking organic chemistry my sister had an extended definition: carbon-based molecules than can decay.
1 Like
Not at all â itâs not that kind of literature. More importantly, a scientific understanding of that text was not part of their worldview. And the YEC worldview throws out the great majority of the theology!
1 Like
In any case the fifth commandment is about having a day off once a week. To turn it into a commandment to treat Genesis as if it were a computer program misses the point entirely.
Typical young earthist quote mining.
1 Like