orbital tuning eh? Well there’s problems there too amigo…
Humanism and also TEists seem to think that outside of your world views there can be no possible solutions, however, that tells me that you do not understand the entire problem with TEism…it attempts to explain a philosophical position using non philosophical methods. To me that’s like trying to rebuild a car engine with a shovel! I accept that the are dilemmas that Young Earth Creationist face, however, i also know there are a great number of significant problems with the opposing science interpretations. Each has its own solutions (or proposed solutions). The difference is, mine is also aligned almost perfectly with my philosophical world view using a normal reading and comprehension of language…which is clearly also consistent with different bible writers from different territories and times in history (ie Moses aligns specific writings of Matthew, Luke, and Peter). If one is to remain consistent, then i am doing exactly that…harmonising my scientific interpretations with my philosophical beliefs. I do that without twisting common reading and comprehension of language. And lets face it, science doesnt provide any avenue for salvation, so the idea that its more important than the bible in knowing God is foolhardy.
Well you actually do this to suit your whim. If you didn’t then you have to accept the many places the earth is described as a flat disk, supported by pillars, and covered with a dome. I believe the flat earthers have over 200 scriptures to support their position.
There are new techniques that address the issue of assumed water O18 (i. e., are independent of it), thus this becomes irrelevant. And, incidentally, they don’t show significantly different results in terms of the overall patterns; the magnitude of individual changes turns out to have been different than thought in many cases, but it’s at the “off by 50%” sort of level, not “off by a factor of >10”.
This conveniently leaves out the fact that O18 levels match really well with transgressive-regressive cycling in shallow marine deposits, radiometric absolute dating, macroscopic index fossils, and extinction rates.
This mentions global planktonic foraminifera, but still doesn’t address the question of “Why is dating using them coherent, let alone accurate?” And to any purported reasons for why relative dating techniques don’t work, there’s a simple answer: “Then why do oil companies use them?”
You are obsessed with salvation. Salvation is not the message of Christianity.
The main message of Christianity is that , yes God exists, but He is not the fearful, violent and destructive God that humans tend to think He is. Neither is He a distant uncaring God whose actions are not related to us at all. Neither is He a god of many.
He is the God who created all things and He is not only approachable, He approaches us. He can help us with our daily lives. He guides and comforts us. He tells us not to worry if we make mistakes. He forgives our little transgressions. He gives peace in a troubled world, and He has conquoured death If death is no longer an enemy to be feared we can live this life without fear of it…
Death is still the main fear of this world, but you promote the idea that it can result in eternal torment? What comfort is that? How would you lie to be told that all your ancestors, your friends and love ones are living in Hell because they were not Christians! You would not.(and nothing would ever make you believe it! That person is lost to Christianity and God because of your insensitivity and callous message)
Christianity has to be more than sin and death. Christianity has to be relevant to the here and now because that is where we are. It is not that Heaven can wait, it is more that Heaven is still a long way off We are living now. Eternity? Well we can confront that as and when it becomes more pressing.
Sin not nly upsets God, it upsets people as well. They know what is right and wrong. They do not need you to tell them. But what they don’t know is how to get past it. We dwell on our mistakes, God doesn’t! He forgives them! Can’t you see how that helps? It has nothig to do with heaven or hell, it is to do with living with ourselves (and God).
Death is real. People understand that it means loss. They may or may not be concerned with the well being of the dead person, but what matters more is the reality of loss. That person is no longer there. To listen, to comfort and support, to be a confidant, or friend. God can replace them. God does not die. God is always there. That is the message of religion
Get off your obsession with Sin. it is no longer relevant. Jesus saw to that!
A second radiocarbon calibration data set was used to convert 14 C “ages” into calendar ages. But this radiocarbon calibration was tied to a sediment core from the Icelandic Sea, which was itself tied to the upper and middle portions of the GISP2 ice core chronology.
You do not see Jake Hebert’s barefaced lie, do you? As usual, YEC is not about an alternate interpretation of the data, but misrepresenting the data itself.
Is it the same?
To the extent that both can be changed if newer or more correct information is obtained, yes.
But I have found that attempting to put “science” and “theology” in the same “box”, is counter-intuitive, and counter-productive. They each have their purposes and functions, and never the twain shall meet.
I’m working on a talk project that hopefully, I can wrap up by the end of the year.
But, that isn’t the main problem of the G-d centered worldview. The main “problem” is that they are Hell-bent on explaining every possible bit of minutia, using what they “perceive” as science. If they leave even a tiny opening, their “house” will be blown over by “The Big Bad Wolf”. They are the champions of what is referred to as eisegesis.
They also rarely can listen to anyone. Granting them a “mulligan” probably isn’t worth the effort.
Relating a scientific theory to a religious doctrine may make for a reasonable comparison but I doubt it would be helpful to critics of science. Theory is built on empirical data while doctrine is built on abstract ideas. Critics of evolution will use the phrase ‘it’s just a theory’ to disparage evolution. The analogy of theory with doctrine would mean that any doctrine could be equally disparaged by the phrase ‘it’s just a doctrine’. Human nature has an intrinsic need to make value judgements that involve assigning relative importance to competing views. For many people, the view provided by reason competes with the view provided by faith. In ancient times, there was debate as to whether physics or mathematics provided greater value and truth. It will always be that way.
What I have noticed is that non-scientists tend to have a much more philosophical bent on how science works compared to scientists (like myself) who tend to have a more pragmatic and practical approach. Scientists have data they need to explain and understand, much of which non-scientists are not familiar with. With that in mind, here is how I view fact, theory, and hypothesis.
Fact - observable and verifiable measurements, otherwise called “the data”.
Theory - an overarching model for how you think nature works in a specific system.
Hypothesis - a specific set of predictions derived from the theory. A hypothesis takes the form of “If A is true, then B and not C”. Falsifiability is a big factor, as is the experimental design in that it should be able to produce falsifying observations if the hypothesis is false.
So a theory allows us to make specific predictions that can be tested against facts.
One parallel I see with Christian theology is taking generalized teachings (e.g. “love your neighbor”) and applying them to specific situations in much the same way a theory is used to make specific predictions in a hypothesis. I do agree that the foundations of theology are pretty much set in stone (e.g. no new scriptures are forthcoming), but I do think there is something to be said for how Christian theology is applied to an ever changing world.
The facts don’t go away, but our explanation of the facts can change. This is certainly what happened when Einstein’s theory of curved spacetime replaced Newton’s instantaneous gravitational force as an explanation for the facts of gravity.
I’ve analyzed data measuring pain in humans and animals, and it’s definitely a subjective measure. It’s still possible to make useful conclusions based on these subjective scales. For example …
It changes with time as well. After my first hip replacement eliminated the pain from bones grinding and crumbling the relief was so striking that I wondered that I’d actually kept hiking and bicycling for months! And I know that what seems like a level 8 pain now is something I would have called a 5 or possibly a 4 before because I had become accustomed to the constant pain.
When I ran cross-country in high school I never felt pain during a race; I was probably aware of the sensation but it was like it was happening to someone else. The pain from a race usually didn’t actually rise to be on my radar until we hit the showers or even later; I recall once when we’d creamed the competition and it wasn’t until I was drinking a milkshake at McDonalds’ after the race that the pain hit me (bad enough two of the guys had to almost carry me to the van to get home). I just didn’t seem to have been ‘wired’ to notice pain when I was focused on something important or was buoyed up by some success.
The head of the pain clinic at the facility just up the coast was an early prescriber of medical marijuana, and he got investigated every few years. When he was being investigated while I was a patient the government idiots kept demanding his records of “physically” measuring pain! I was present when he bluntly told them that even if he put each of us through an MRI or any other scan and could “read” some level of nerve activity to “measure” pain, it would still be meaningless because the feeling of pain was not in the nerve endings or pathways but was in the brain. I muttered “Absolutely” louder than I thought and got asked if I had a comment, so I told them about the time as a camp counselor a kid kicked me hard right between the legs and did the same to another male counselor: to me that intense pain was a distraction, to my fellow counselor it was debilitating.
I managed to refrain from asking if I could kick him between the legs and the doc could run him through an MRI or something to “read” how much pain he was in.
IIRC Neanderthals used slings, and stones from a sling used by an expert can hit with as much force as a small-caliber firearm bullet.
You should forget that, because bringing it up suggests that you believe that the vast international science community is deliberately working together to fabricate evidence.
Nor is there one by which some of the vast flood basalt deposits could have cooled in less than thousands of years given their thickness along with the measurable change in crystal sizes between the bottom, middle, and tops of the columns – a continuous change that can be used to indicate how long the lava took to cool.
I knew there was no point in reading further when I encountered the phrase “the biblical creation position”, because the organization for which the author was writing does not actually engage with the text enough to be able to state what such said position might be.
But you don’t do that: you assume that without doing the requisite homework you can understand ancient literature in a translation, which rests on the arrogant belief that the Holy Spirit was required to inspire men to write using a worldview that would have been completely alien to them. “Normal reading and comprehension of language” begins with recognizing the genre at hand, something that we do naturally with genres with which we are familiar, but when we read literature that is not from our culture what we think we recognize is almost certain to be not the case.
But it isn’t – it only appears consistent (in your meaning of the term) because you are imposing your personal worldview on all those writings rather than asking what worldview(s) those writers held, and thus you claim more than what the text will actually sustain.
Why do you insist on repeating this falsehood? You’re the only one here who ever mentions science as providing an “avenue for salvation”, so the assertion is a complete scarlet herring.
The scriptures tell us that the Creation reliably tells us about God, which means that what science tells us has things to teach us about God. You regularly deny one of the things it teaches us – and agrees with the scriptures on – which is that God is faithful, that He does not change rules in the middle of the game; you call it “uniformitarianism” (without actually grasping what that means), which is exactly what we should expect from a faithful God. Indeed YEC requires us to believe that God cannot be trusted or counted on because it requires that the rules have been changed repeatedly for no real reason at all.
Yep. There’s a great YouTube video about who reads the Creation accounts literally and shows irrefutably that YEC picks and chooses what to take literally and what not to, without any guide except that a particular reading fits their premises. It’s just the flip side of the liberal/humanist approach of ruling out miracles, as epitomized with the “Jesus Seminar” who do the very same thing that YEC does: they read the scriptures as though they were (supposed to be) like objective news reports from a generation or two ago.
Or just ignoring it.
Which is what happened to Bart Ehrman: he believed the lie that if there are errors then the Bible isn’t true (which just shows that he never bothred to ask how the Bible defines “truth”).
Sounds like a similar phenomenon to me not noticing pain very much (from insect bites, overexertion, cuts, etc.) when focused on birds or collecting fossils.
That would have to be a rather small sling bullet to leave a 9 mm entry wound, but plausible. Another possibility that comes to mind (without finding a picture of the skull in question) would be something like a spear point or carnivore tooth, paired with a very hard blunt-force blow to the opposite side of the head (having those happen at the same time would not be implausible).
I don’t know much about the Broken Hill Skull but searched pictures about the skull. A detailed picture about the left lateral side suggested four holes in the skull, all of different size. One is situated so that it is more conspicious than the rest. I guess that it is the claimed ‘bullet hole’. In the detailed picture, the hole was not perfectly round, it looked more like a rounded square. The right lateral side is incomplete, much missing, so it is not possible to say whether there were any holes on that side.
A quick look at a detailed picture gave the impression that the claim of a ‘bullet hole’ is misinterpretation. If you look at a picture that is not detailed, the hole resembles a round bullet hole. I can imagine why someone might make that kind of mistake but I would need more convincing evidence before I could accept the claim that the rounded square was a bullet hole.
One page mentioned chronic ear infection. The assumed ‘bullet hole’ may be a hole caused by the infection.
Edit:
a paper by Puech (Broken Hill man or Kabwe skull) suggests that “A round perforation could have been caused by a pointed wooden spear”. During that time, hominins (Homo heidelbergensis and Neanderthals) had wooden spears and the Broken Hill man is a H. heidelbergensis.
There is no certainty whether the hole was caused by infection or other creatures (hominids, predators or scavengers). Multiple holes in the skull suggests that the person had serious infections and at least some holes were caused by infections. Whatever caused the hole, there is no reason (or evidence) why it would have been caused by a bullet.
It may not be the same item, but I remember reading how a skull was found with a wound that someone attributed to an arrow and someone else said that arrows used arrowheads so it couldn’t have been . . . only for the discovery to come along a few years later that the people there and then did in fact use arrows with a fire-hardened tip. Such a tip could pierce a skull but the point would be blunted on entry and thus make a larger exit wound (assuming enough force behind it).
There was a vigorous discussion of what such tips would be used for; one archaeologist maintained that arrowheads were too valuable to waste on shooting at things that couldn’t be eaten and thus were for warfare. Along with that is the idea that you don’t want to have to track and pursue food any farther than necessary but didn’t care if an enemy stumbled off and died.
I had cousins who lived alongside a golf course. They and neighbors complained for years about golf balls hitting their second-floor deck and balcony, but nothing was done until a teenager at a neighbor’s party was hit in the head and dropped like a rag doll. He lived, but it took months before his vision on that side returned to normal and more till his skull healed.