Folded rocks question

Faith & Science Conversation
81

The cosmic microwave background radiation. Galaxies at a distance of approximately 13B light-years. A universe that has been expanding as far back as the eye can see, all the way to the CMBR.

I get that you’re not a professional astronomer, my friend @Ecerotops. You might consider learning something about the subject, rather than making assertions that contradict vast catalogs of astronomical facts that have been gathered over recent decades.

Biology is no different than physics, chemistry, astronomy, meteorology, or computer science. You wrote your little post to this forum using the fruits of several different branches of science (physics, chemistry, and computer science for sure). All of that knowledge was necessary to build the computing device you used.

Now I know some technologists (Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos) that take their leadership in technology as license to do some evil things, like hurl insults at cave rescuers or divorce a faithful wife. But do you, Earl, as a consequence of this abuse condemn the whole enterprise? Or do you continue to use the fruits of their effort for good, doing things like posting to this forum?

Biology is the same way.Just as we do not abandon technology because some technologists use it as occasion for atheism, let us not abandon biology because some biologists use it as occasion for atheism. Let’s put evolution to good use, just as we endeavor to put technology to good use. The insights of evolution are important to cancer research, to fighting tropical diseases, and to being good stewards of the ecosystems in which we live.

Like any product of human effort, science can become an idol. But we don’t stop using money just because it is the root of all sorts of evil, and we don’t stop spending romantic time with our spouses just because sex can go off the rails. And we don’t stop doing biology research just because some atheists misuse it.

So no, the struggle is not between a branch of science and God; the struggle is between human pride and God. Farmers can be tempted to idolatry–think of Jesus’ parable of the landowner whose crops were so bountiful!–but we don’t tell farmers to stop farming. Instead, we encourage them to recognize that their crops are the fruit not only of their hard work and knowledge, but also of God’s grace and providence. Likewise, we ought to encourage biologists to see their findings as the fruit not only of their hard work and knowledge, but of God’s grace and providence that have given us life, breath, and reason.

Your gracious spirit is surpassed only by your humility.

Best,
Chris

4 Likes
82

The whole point, Earl, is that the scientific consensus only changes in response to evidence. You can’t just use “scientists are always changing their minds” as a magic shibboleth to dismiss any and every scientific finding that you don’t like.

The age of the earth does not fall into that category. Nor, for that matter, does universal common ancestry.

I’m not all that familiar with “junk” DNA. But even if it can be shown that “junk” DNA is not junk after all, that does not reduce the age of the earth from 4.5 billion years, and it does not falsify universal common ancestry for all life on earth.

Through from what to what? From freedom in Christ Jesus to the bondage of nonsense about Noah having had dinosaurs on board the Ark?

4 Likes
83

Hello Chris. You’re next, Jim.

I’m not an astronomer let alone a professional astronomer. But the knowledge I share with you is from those that are. But don’t you also recognize their authority as as scientists despite their opposing stance? With science defined in the dictionary as knowledge, none of it is against God who is the source of knowledge. I hope these links will help:

Deep-Space Objects Are Young

One comment I will add is how I very well appreciate creationist scientists as they clearly share knowledge of the glory of God in all the natural things around us.

I very much appreciate the fruit of scientific effort and do not condemn it. I only condemn the misuse of it

Thank you. Of course the struggle is not between science and God, but human pride as you say. Neither is here’s any struggle between any branch of science and God as long as its data is truthful. All of the sciences showcase the glory of God. The fruit of biological science is to be well appreciated. It thus behooves us to allow none of predious scientific knowledge to cloth a wolf that may sneak among us.

Thank you for your complement. I appreciate it! Did my remark give you a good laugh?

 
 
Hello Jim,

[quote=“Jammycakes, post:82, topic:40884, full:true”]

The whole point, Earl, is that the scientific consensus only changes in response to evidence. You can’t just use “scientists are always changing their minds” as a magic shibboleth to dismiss any and every scientific finding that you don’t like.

I have to disagree with you on that. The age-of-the earth and universal common ancestry issues are issues of controversy that only encourage doubt against the Bible whose abundant evidence all around us tend to be ignored. Is our faith in the first books of the Perfect Law of Liberty or in men that make themselves appear to speak with the authority of science even though they are not? Read on to an upcoming link.

[quote=“Jammycakes, post:82 topic:40884”]

Is your faith in God’s documented word or in fallible man’s “wisdom?” Did God really say? Are the first chapters in Genesis really from God? Do you remember what happened to Eve? Here’s a link

Link Title: Origins - Millions of Years: Where did the idea come from?

I thought I spoke well of you with this statement.

What’s the problem with Noah’s having dinosaurs on the ark? Is it the 65 megannum problem? Are you aware that native Americans and people of cultures around the world have depictions of dinosaur like creatures? Where did they get the idea to draw and craft such images? Why do dragons familiar to those of different cultures tend to have basically similar reptilian characteristics? Why may we think the Chinese are so familiar with dragons? Should we think that the images were invented?

Here are several links.

Why are there depictions of dinosaurs that supposedly died 65 million years ago?

Of course there are sights that contradict. Here’s one.

I hope these are helpful.

Earl

84

Earl, your post was flagged as inappropriate as it is reminiscent of a disreputable technique called the Gish Gallop. That is when someone overloads the argument with so much fluff that no one cares to respond to it. If you are interested in conversation, make one or two points rather than a dozen links to old arguments. I will let the post stand intact as a monument to how not to encourage dialogue, but future posts of this nature will be deleted.

2 Likes
85

OK. I’ll remember.

86

The link above references the work of Halton Arp, who appears to be an atheist astronomer who was a bit of a maverick in that he was a prominent standard bearer for the steady theory of cosmology which implied that the universe is infinitely old. I would like to hear your own personal take on how you think this supports your position on a young universe.

2 Likes
87

Stop right there Earl. This is where Literal Six Day Young Earth Creationism turns toxic. The accusation that anyone who isn’t prepared to be spoon fed Ken Ham’s interpretation of Genesis 1 is “speaking with the voice of the serpent”. It is passive-aggressive, hostile, and Pharisaical.

You can’t just quote mine Genesis 3:1 like that and take the serpent’s words to Eve out of context to shut down discussion. The Bible tells us that we are to test everything (1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1). Acts 17:11 commends the Bereans for examining the Scriptures carefully to check whether Paul said was true.

Of course we need to check and make sure that we heard and understood God correctly. To fail to do so is to give a free pass to all sorts of liars and deceivers. There’s no end to the number of cults and heresies that you could introduce by attempting to shut down discussion that way.

And yes, the first chapters of Genesis really are from God. But the LSDYEC cartoon caricature of them with a thick layer of science fiction slathered on top is not.

3 Likes
88

First, humans are inventive, so they well could be made-up. Second, just because people only started systematically studying and cataloging fossils a couple hundred years ago does not mean no fossils were ever found before then. Ancient peoples could and did find dinosaur fossils and wonder what they had looked like in life.

What’s the problem with Noah’s having dinosaurs on the ark? I mean, if you lean hard enough into with God, all things are possible, no one’s going to be able to dissuade you, but you have to stick a whole lot of words that aren’t from God into the story to even kind-of justify it, and it winds up flying in the face of just about everything we know about animals. And boats. And storms. And the earth. And people. And history.

But hey, keep believing what you want, I guess.

1 Like
89

I wrote an article just for people like you.

Are you familiar at all with Adrienne Mayor? She basically started the whole branch of investigation called geomythology.

6 Likes
90

Hello everyone,[

I sometimes include opposing links and place them at the end of a list for comparison and indicate what they are as in the case with the dinosaur artifact list in my last post. It was my mistake that I didn’t do the same with this link. There are of course many more opposing links. As for the battle between sides, it’s written, “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, … (Ephesians 6:12)”

One thing I can at least say about Ken Ham is that he himself said that he does not judge people that don’t believe the six-day creation scenario as lost. Faith in Jesus is what saves. The same is true with Dr. Snelling. I appreciate my hominem buddies.

Should there have been another book written in the Bible called “Fossils” to serve as documented support for evolutionists’ claims? Oops! That would have contradicted too many Bible passages especially of the fall!  Jesus turned water into wine instantly! No millions of years, fermentation time, nor aging was needed.

Adherence to the simplicity of God’s word eliminates the need for multitudes of words.

The “mythical” images shown in the links too well resemble the real things to be seen as folklore. Don’t people generally tend to draw or model what they actually saw? Although true that Folklore makes its additions, that does not negate the actual observed facts.

I was not familiar with Adrianne Mayor until I read your link to her.

But as for me, I prefer to rely on the concrete drawings and artifacts shown in my links as evidence for help in determining dinosaur history. The depictions are obvious with no need for interpretation or deciphering.

Earl

91

So…you think it’s appropriate handling of the word of truth to apply this verse to online debates and links to opposing arguments? I’m so confused.

They actually saw fossils. The fossils were observed facts.

Right. But the actual fossils that can be dated using multiple lines of evidence to 65 million years ago need lots of interpretation and deciphering to explain away what is obvious about them. Better to assume imaginative things about drawings. I see how that works.

4 Likes
92

Hello Christy,

I’m speaking of the simple fact that there’s a battle. Why is there division over revealed Biblical truth instead of unity that truth characteristically brings?

93

It’s something to mourn, isn’t it? Paul asked that question in I Cor 11:19; and I don’t think he was in favor of the divisions (as in, "I please with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche…"Phil 4:2) Nevertheless, there have been many schisms in the Church, with thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of denominations since the Reformation. If you are saying that we all wrestle against evil when we struggle about division, that’s very reasonable and true. I agree! It’s just easy to confuse that with saying that the Christian you disagree with is one of the “Dark Forces.” :wink:

I appreciate your saying that Ken Ham agrees that it’s not an issue of salvation!

On the other hand, maybe God didn’t make it so clear as we think it is–maybe be cause He doesn’t, as Mr Ham says, make it a salvation issue. Maybe it doesn’t matter too much in the end. Maybe He asks us to focus on His Son more–both to grow in knowledge and love of each other in imitation of him. :slight_smile: Thanks for the thoughts and the discussion, Brother!

2 Likes
94

Well to start, because AiG and other YEC organizations aggressively promote wild assertions which are neither Biblical, or scientifically defensible.

Speeded up light is not in the Bible. Accelerated radioactive decay is not in the Bible. Dinosaurs on the ark is not in the Bible. Juvenile forms on the ark is not in the Bible. Lions, leopards, and house cats all being the same kind is not in the Bible. The moon and mercury being pelted with meteorites during the flood is not in the Bible. Rapid magnetic reversals is not in the Bible. A shrinking sun is not in the Bible. On and on. None of these assertions are from exegesis of revealed scripture or hermeneutics, nor are they to be found in church history or any creed. If [your interpretation of] the Bible says it and that settles it, then fine; blessing be upon you. But let’s not make up extra-Biblical stuff that is not there. If assertions are made in the domain of science, have your data and math in order, and be prepared to be challenged.

9 Likes
95

How many images from ancient folklore did the proponents of these websites sift through to find giant lizards that reasonably resembled dinosaurs? And what about these pictures are accurate beyond what we could expect from ancient people (who cut up all their own meat and therefore were reasonably grounded in animal anatomy) finding fossils and extrapolating?

3 Likes
96

He speaks out of both sides of his mouth on that one, Earl. He tries to get as close to saying “non-YECs are not Christians” as he possibly can without actually saying it. And he certainly uses some pretty vitriolic language to describe us old-earthers. Terms such as “compromisers” or “speaking with the voice of the serpent.” As I said, it’s passive-aggressive and hostile, and if I see any of it coming from you I shall start flagging your posts, so be warned.

The basic message of salvation may be simple enough that a child can understand it, Earl, but the whole Bible isn’t. The Bible itself admits that it contains some things that are hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16) and it also tells us that we need to move on from a simple child-like faith into one that is mature and responsible (e.g. in Hebrews 6:1-3).

There’s a joke that physicists tell of the bloke who tried to bet on the Grand National by writing a computer program to simulate horse racing, but ended up over-simplifying it to the point that his horses were spherical and racing in a vacuum. Ascribing to the Bible a “simplicity” that it does not possess is a bit like that. It reduces it to absurdities. Regardless of how you interpret the Bible, it isn’t spherical, and it wasn’t intended to be read in a vacuum.

3 Likes
97

Very often it is the naive assumption that what one already believes is correct. So when people who look to the same book as you for the truth disagree humility is called for. Being able to re-examine ones own assumptions is tough when faith is understood to call for the steadfast defense of ones own interpretation.

Another reason for discord is that people start with different assumptions. Assuming the Bible was written in order to maximize coherence for English speakers in the 21st century has got to be a lot more convenient, but it is hard to imagine why our current time rates that kind of priority. More likely is the assumption that the Bible contains a message intended for people living a long time ago. You always have to keep in mind audience and intent when deciphering the written word.

5 Likes
98

One could follow up that by saying that if well meaning people disagree on a particular “truth” then perhaps the truth is not that evident. After all, look how difficult it was to agree on what was said in the relatively short and simple Nicene creed.

5 Likes
99

Hello @Randy,

The creation issue is a salvation issue in the sense that it covers the beginning and gives us vital knowledge of the fall without which it would be difficult for us to grasp knowledge of our need for salvation.

Ken Ham’s primary effort is to keep us aware of who is in authority by holding on to the view that points to God as sole authority versus the other view that gives an impression that God needs needs a little “help” from human “experts” for us to know how we came about while not judging those of the other view.

I will be back with more shortly.

Earl

100

Perhaps I was taught a bit differently, but while the fall was mentioned off and on in church, my need for salvation was always explained as having been made necessary by my personal sin, and not based on what someone else (Adam) did. Adam may have been the first, the archetype, but I alone bear responsibility for my sin.
Explain, if you will, how your knowledge of your need for salvation is based on a literal rather than an illustration of sin by Adam.

5 Likes