- If X and Y are brothers and live in “a house divided against itself”, how seriously should I take X’s criticism for not living in the same house?
1 Like
Imagine someone citing Augustine with respect to the foolishness of YECism!
2 Likes
There has been discussion of so-called “soft tissue” finds and the misrepresentation of them by various popular sources. In fact, the young-earth errors do not differ much from the popular headlines (including those from what should be reputable scientific sources).
Again, there are multiple things called “soft” tissue in fossils.
-
Durable organic material. Hair, nails, wood, arthropod exoskeletons, etc. If these are protected from oxygen and from decay by burial, they can last a long time. Some are extremely chemically resistant - many of these fossils are prepared by dissolving away the rock to extract this material. These show chemical alteration from fresh material, in keeping with them having been buried for a long time. Although the headlines claimed that Schweitzer’s finds were shocking, such material had been known about for many, many decades. She developed new techniques and located such material in places where it hadn’t been looked for, but the existence of such material in dinosaurs should not have been a surprise, given far older fossils with such preservation have long been published about.
-
Replacement of soft tissue with durable minerals. For example, the claims of “red blood cells” in the dino bones were actually round iron mineral lumps. Might that iron have come from blood cells and the lumps be somewhat petrified cells? Perhaps, but iron minerals can form such lumps on their own; it’s quite tricky to tell. A more definite example would be the clay minerals that preserve soft-part features in the Burgess Shale, or the replacement of soft parts by pyrite or phosphate minerals during decay. Once you’ve turned the tissue or an impression of it into a durable mineral, having that stick around for a long time is no surprise.
-
Some soft tissue may be preserved in young fossils through mummification, trapped in amber, etc. So-called dinosaur mummies are the impressions from a buried mummy, not the original tissue, but the occasional freeze-dried mammoth is basically a mummy.
Occasionally preserving any of these over long periods of time is not surprising; the young-earth attempts to make a big deal about them are misguided. Conversely, a young-earth model cannot explain the basic features of the geological record. All of the events recorded in the geological record must have enough time to happen. The approach of “What about this? What about that?” that never takes into consideration the overall picture is not an honest search for scientific understanding.
7 Likes
I did not know that. Thank you for this post.
I’m curious what degree of soft tissue is in the insects trapped in amber. Thanks
1 Like
Gosh…i am off working for a couple of days and have fallen so far behind on where this thread has gone.
I am in bed just waking and started reading from my phone. I think i shall have to move to the desktop pc.
In response to a complaint that perhaps Armitages horn was from a Bison. I am not a scientist, however i doubt that claim can be put forward…note the following images of Tricerotops from wikipedia
It seems that even within Hells creek itself are specimens with horns that do not have the distinctive reverse curve.
So a little research and that claim is addressed.
In terms of the other claim…it cant be a dinosaur because it was not found in the right layer…
I am yet to look into this however, from researching about Hells Creek it appears to me that paleontologusts have already accepted that a large number of dinosaur bones are found in very shallow ground at that site. I shall do some digging and see what evidence i can find to help unravil that one.
Im not sure where the sudden change ro the attack on Seventh Day Adventists came from. Is that ontopic or just an attempt at muddying the waters by clouding over tue discussion? You already know SDAs are largely YEC…why is that flooding into this thread by a bunch of indivudals who crow so much at me apparently being offtopic. Is this supposed to be payback?
- Attack on SDAs? Which ones: the ones who are YECS or the ones who aren’t?
3 Likes
The denominations fundamental belief is that ALL SDAs are YEC.
If you recall many of my other forum posts…its because SDAs keep the seventh day Sabbath.
Now before anyone comes out with any silly responses to the Sabbath Doctrine and its importance to SDA YECism…
In six days the lord made the heavans and the earth but on the seventh day he rested from all his work. He blessed the seventh day and hallowed it.
That is why all SDAs must be YEC. If they are not, they cannot adhere to the fourth commandment.
Further to the above, those who dont follow that command i would suggest face backlash from church hierarchy. I know of a case in an SDA church here in Australia where an elder who doesnt believe in YEC is facing calls by members of the congregation for his removal from his position after he recently came out in public (during a sabbath school lesson) with his views
I tried to convince one member over the phone to let him be…but they just got upset with me and told me to stop pleading his case.
You see whilst i am YEC, i am also a person who believes that when significant evidence is at hand, both sides must be able to rigorously examine each others views. We must have a strong enough faith to be able to handle debate of this kind because if we do not, trouble awaits
An example of my point above was the Des Ford Heavenly Sanctuary saga in the 70s, 80s and 90s which caused an enormous divide within the church. Rather than promote debate through the membership and through its universities, the church appeared to deal with him mostly at a high level. The outcome was never in doubt, however, Dr Ford thought perhaps he would receive a favorable outcome and he was grossly mistaken. I find it strsnge that such a well-educated man would be naive enough to think he could force a core foundation doctrine of an entire organization to be changed. He got pummelled as history now shows.
On the positive side, his descent produced ongoing rigorous debate for years and the more recent outcome from the subsequent extensive research and study by quite a large number of academics and members has actually proved his position was entirely wrong.
So…its highly unlikely that SDA will ever change their YEC foundation. To do so destroys a very significant foundation doctrine of the church. I dont know that anyone is expecting to find a smoking gun…sometimes we have to accept that blind faith might be the only option. I say this because my theology is pretty consistent and widely connected with biblical themes. I can quite confidently say that evidence that finally proved the Genesis 7 day creation narrative 100% wrong would be the end of all logical Christian beliefs.
ok. so now to read backwards and catchup on all of the posts above that i have missed over the last couple of days.
Kendel, that is not even an argument. You guys spend the entirety of your responses on this forum, justifying outrageously deficient bible theology. Which doing exactly what you have just blurted out above.
Im sorry to highlight this but honestly, most of the biblical theology that i see from Biologos followers on this forum is terrible. The inability of individuals to soundly develop their theology using connected and consistent biblical themes (and failure to even consider using their own bibles study guides in its margins for cross referencing) is almost amusing.
For all of the apparent scientific intellect here, the theological claims are severely limited in their biblical knowledge and understanding. What i find really interesting is that quite a number of individuals here have even admitted their theology isnt great…its doesnt even appear to interest them when significant theological inconsistencies are encountered…they just ignore them.
So the point is, whilst you claim i have no scientific knowledge, yours is a theology that is equally bad. I think that its perfectly ok for some of us to be better at some things and others at other stuff…thats life.
I believe that the difference is, that Christians are so because of a philosophical world view not a scientific one. So if your science is bad, God doesnt mind…but if your theology is completely false, then you are in deep deep trouble. I am happy to be shown wrong on this, however, i dont recall if there are any passages in the bible that tell me that to know God i must prove a deep knowledge of this world and the things in it. God asks us to follow Him and not look to this world…and that is simply because the world is corrupted by sin.
Whilst it may seem a strange illustration only those who really think carefully about it will get this one…Samuel’s words to King Saul ring true here…“to obey is better than to sacrifice!”
Not in the least. Christian faith is not based on Genesis, it is based on Christ. The starting point of theology is the Incarnation and nothing else.
But more to the point perhaps, your statement reveals a misunderstanding of the purpose of revelation. Genesis 1 doesn’t rely on being “historically accurate” to be true, it relies on the fact that God gave it to us. Requiring that the Holy Spirit had to meet modern standards in order to communicate with ancient Israel is both arrogant and ignorant because it tells God how He has to do things and ignores the fact that none of Genesis was written to us, it was written to ancient people in ancient literature in an ancient language.
2 Likes
To be blunt, I’m still waiting to see some honest and coherent theology from the YEC side. None of the YEC supporters here have ever acknowledged that the Old Testament was written from ancient worldviews, instead insisting that the early Genesis narratives must be interpreted using a modern worldview. Critically, the essence of that modern worldview is that in order for something to convey truth it has to be 100% scientifically and historically accurate – something the scriptures nowhere even hint, but which comes from the philosophy of scientific materialism.
Until the idea that the scriptures have to fit that modern worldview is abandoned, the message of the scriptures can’t be seen clearly enough to do any theology, let alone honest and coherent theology.
That statement denies the Gospel, given what you generally mean by “theology”.
You keep using that, but you haven’t shown what the connection is to your assertions about theology. The apparent meaning is that bowing to YEC arrogance constitutes “obey”.
1 Like
Hi terry,
thank you for postinhg this article from Richard Hannon. I had not read it before as this group are not representative of any Adventist Church department or generators of church theology.
This organisation is, according to its own philosophical statement on the website, here to attempt to forward an idea where individuals “believe in the freedom to explore new understandings of God without censure through accessible, independent journalism”
I applaud that approach however, what i find highly problematic with this article is that it does not even address the divide it has created.
My point is this…if one is going to come out and say, science must be right, and the traditional belief wrong…one must then provide the gap filling caulking in order to not have other members give up their faith and leave in droves. We cannot simply tell literalists “hey your world view is proven false” and then leave them to the elements.
I dont have a problem really with any of the article above…only that it has stopped at the halfway point of the issues it raises. It has made no effort to do the right thing and actually discuss solutions that both sides are putting forward. And to be honest, this is where this group of individuals (ie adventist today) are wrong.
I am quite certain that i have always tried my best to put forward arguments to the best that i can with the knowledge i have. Where i cannot, i have gone looking for answers. I disagree that its not reasonable to obtain those answers or at least support for them, from others…that is what academia spends almost all of its time doing (note referencing in essays as point and example).
For example…did you read anywhere in the above article how Adventist today proposes to address the 4th commandment problem in taking the scientific approach that Richard is proposing?
No and do you know why that is?
Because Richard Hannon hasnt got a clue how he could theologically address that huge problem.
Biologos also has the exact same problem only for Adventists its far worse…our entire denomination is founded on the 4th commandment (and we follow all the commandments as Moses gave them…they are still relevant today exactly as they were thousands of years ago)
Therein is my answer to the article.
EDIT nope hang on…then there’s these quotations from another article from the same website…
> No, Jesus hasn’t returned. None of the things our prophecies said would happen have happened. And the more time has passed, the less happy we seem to be, and the less we are a community of people who are able to live out the goodness and peace of Jesus.
*> *
> We are still, from the top on down, a tragically dysfunctional family…Our leaders are increasingly abusive. Rarely does Ted Wilson rise to the microphone without blasting LGBTQ people.
*> *
*> I can confess now—now that most of my lifetime is in the rear view mirror—that I have never really looked forward to Jesus’ return. *
*> *
> I have seen no repentance from the General Conference
*> *
> and the clincher of the entire reason why i do not place much credit on the Adventist Today group is found in this single very damning phrase…
*> *
> Because the older I get, the less foolishness I’m willing to abide from organized religion.
One can always tell when a website is setup simply for the purposes of sticking a knife into the ribs of someone else (in this case the very church these people claim to be members of)!
The above quotes are from Loren Seibold (executive editor of Adventist Today)
This is part of why when some Christians leave their echo-chambers they deconstruct and lose faith. YEC organizations groom children and young adults and set them up to fail. A millstone comes to mind.
1 Like
St Roymond, i have given up trying to rationally explain anything theological to you. You are incapable of engaging in a logical discussion. You comment above is nothing more than a blind statement ignorant of the large amount of theological evidence that has been provided for to you over a long period of time on this forum. Every single piece of evidence, all of the bible concordance cross references given…you ignore them all and continue with the above type of responses.
I will not bother wasting my time with quotes…it is pointless obtaining them right now so i will just say this…
For a Christian, the claim that the Old Testament is nothing more than writings of ancient worldviews demonstrates how truly poor your theology is. What you simply cannot comprehend is that the Old Testament writings point forward to Christs coming as the messiah (to save his people from their sins).
The entire reason why the Old Testament goes into a very long narrative about the journey of salvation should be obvious to you. But as you are blinded by your scientific rage, you cannot find the relevance of the O/T writings to the gospel.
You have no idea of why Christ died physically on the cross. I will tell yo again…its was to save people from their sins.
Why is that even important?
Because Romans 6:23 tells us “for the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God through Christ our Lord is eternal life”
Unless you are willing to understand how sin entered this world and what the consequences of it are, you cannot possibly comprehend the importance of the physical sacrifice Christ made for sinners…and you cannot truly appreciate the physical Second Coming of Christ.
Salvation is not merely spiritual St Roymond, it is no allegory.
Salvation hinges on a physical event known as the Cross and the prophetic demonstration of that event was given via the O/T Sanctuary Service. The O/T sanctuary Service describes and teaches the model of salvation to us…that was the point. It is not some rambling set of ancient worldviews that are no longer relevant in Christianity today.
thanks for quoting me out of context…a lot of brain power was consumed in that comment given i have made numerous statements in the past the absolutely illustrate that i do not believe we can find God in science.
My point was that “if science was able to prove God did not exist”… It was merely a statement used in illustration…not a personal belief. You have intentionally conflated the two to support a sarcastic response. Good one amigo, really intelligent (not)
I agree with Ted NC Wilsons view.
In the article, the author writes…
The question will be whether key members of the Adventist academy will publicly confront the propaganda issued by Wilson II and his supporters. The behavior of Adventist academics will be a critical element in determining whether an intellectually viable Adventism will continue to expand and flourish. If those who have led in moving Adventist theology and higher education in a positive direction over the last four decades are now rendered silent by this direct attack and a new type of Dark Age descends on our faith tradition, there may rapidly come a time when there will be little left to recommend the Adventist faith tradition to our children and grandchildren.
Whether or not anyone here is willing to admit or accept…doctrines that are core fundamentals to an organisation’s very existence cannot be changed without destroying the entire organization. If any of the church hierarchy gave up on the literal reading of Genesis (and therefore 4th commandment in Exodus 20 ), then the entire adventist church falls apart. It would be like Biologos agreeing with my views on the same passages of scripture. If they did, Biologos falls apart…it loses all credibility.
is may very well be part of that equation yes, however i dont think we are straw plucking only about one location (hell Creek) here…there are others.
Also, lets not forget that when Schweitzer first came out with her discovery, she was shouted down…she was absolutely annihilated by those mainstream scientists at the time. So much so that for the most part of the 90’s she went underground and it wasnt until much laster that finally, her discovery was recognised as being valid.
Since then, it is now widely accepted that what she found is in fact real science…its proven. We are now in the second stage of that journey…science is saying that the possiblity of real blood vessels, real nerves…nope that cant be…it must be fake (same thing said against Schweitzer early on).
What i note of interest in the youtube video posted claiming Armitage to be a crackpot…even in that video they do agree that it may be a triceritops horn and not a bison. They also acknowledge that it could be a ancient bison horn more than 30k years old.
I think to be bluntly honest…science is quitetly hoping that Armitage is proven right. The idea of Jurassic park is so near and yet so far away…but we all desperately want it dont we? Its as enticing as our dream of flying was in DaVincies day.
You seem to falsely think understanding parts of the OT as accommodated or not true as literally narrated on the page means dismissing all of it as myth. That is your imagination and convenient way of caricaturing a view you want to easily without doing any real work to analyze or understand it. I don’t take Genesis 1 literally like you but I assure you I take what it intends to teach just as seriously as you do.
I also think Christians certainly back-read things into the OT but this does not mean they invented the prefiguring of Christ. That could be very real and Christians ran with it. Also, the Bible could dramatize and add details to all its narratives but that does not mean the basic gist of any story is or is not true. There is no way to actually evaluate the historicity behind the majority of Biblical narratives.
you know what i find insulting about this statement …Armiatge holds a recognised doctorate degree and he was engaged in working alongside professors in a recognised univesity where his expertise in microscopic investigation was being utilised.
How you can possibly make the claim that an expert in the use of that area of investigation has no formal training???
What instead i am hearing in support of stupid claims like the above on youtube, oh but he got his degree from a sympathetic institution who just give out degrees to anyone wililng to pay money for them.
How the hell did he get employment in the very university where 3 professors sort to have him sacked by pretending his job was redundant?
I would suggest that the highly unethical and downright dishonest behaviour of the university that sacked him should give us a strong insight into what really is going on here…and it isnt interested in facts!
What should have happened is those turd faced individuals get off their fat highhorses and appropriately engage with the research Armitage was publishing. Seek to provide a fully balanced debate…honestly try to substantiate his position…and if and when they failed, then publish all of that and let the world make up its own mind.
Education is not about indoctrination (even i accept this). Yes we all have our biases, but we must be willing to argue fully all points…weigh up the knowns and the unknowns…make suggestions for improvement and try to improve the research…is that what Armitages case or was he merely assassinated
You won’t start at the beginning, with the text, so you aren’t qualified to make such statements.
Here you go again ignoring that pesky instruction given through Moses: both of your sentences above are falsehoods.
Once again you seem to be the prisoner of a worldview that cannot conceive of more than two possibilities.
Okay, I’m going to be blunt and not just hint: this is a bald lie.
I keep asking you to deal with the text, but you won’t do it; instead you make baseless accusations.
Another lie.
Unless you are willing to understand that the Incarnation is the foundation of theology you’ll never see the Gospel.
This doesn’t address a single thing I’ve said, in fact it assumes falsehoods about what I’ve written.
1 Like
So basically the SDA organization is based to a large degree on defying St. Paul’s admonition to examine one’s self. It’s also based on a false understanding of theology: Christian theology rests on the Incarnation, nothing else.
1 Like