Hi Fred, thanks for your thoughts on this.
I have zero knowledge of, ‘the complete remaking of the universe as a result of Noah’s Flood.’
I am unable to say either way on that one, but perhaps you could explain why you think that creationists believe that, and/or you believe that.
Thanks,
God Bless,
jon
In other words, empirical science.
Clear thinking would suggest that such preservation rules out a high energy flood which destroys and disrupts everything in its path.
She did not try to explain anything away. Mary Schweitzer researched to understand the data.
Scientists have no need or interest in proving the Earth is ancient - that has been comprehended for a couple of hundred years. They are interested in deepening the understanding of the biological and geological details of what happened over that time. It is not just that the present illuminates the past, but the past illuminates the present. I’m always struck by how bored YEC are with actual science. It is all about apologetics and explaining away the data, and beyond that there is little interest. Improved techniques, more sensitive instrumentation, and discovery, just make the YEC narrative harder to sustain.
Why??? You cannot answer this yourself?
Almost any recent remains contain DNA and/or protein which is extractible and sequencible. Contrary to YEC, at six thousand years, you generally do not find much permineralization.
I think he’s just failed FizzBuzz. Again.
Science has long gone beyond uniformitarianism as a strict framework. Earth history has been punctuated with catastrophes such as the Chicxulub impact and other extinction events, just not a global flood.
In relation to ordinary objective empirical science, I agree with that as far as I know, but I may be wrong!
As we were not there, it is not possible to be absolutely dogmatic about it, either way.
Of course as the Bible clearly tells us God imposed the Global Flood that wiped all that had the breath of life in their nostrils, we just don’t know if there were on occasions, miracles where God performed processes were outside those laws. I don’t think it is possible to be dogmatic either way.
All that clear thinking concludes in my mind is that the creatures must have been extremely rapidly entombed in deep sediment that prevented oxygen and bacteria and of course marine scavengers from destroying the creatures.
As I have stated many times previously, this is a battle of worldviews.
I reject the claims you make about Bible believing Christians who accept the creation and flood accounts as they are so clearly written by God.
I believe that God in His foreknowledge inspired the authors to write down the words in a manner that is clearly comprehensible to people of any time throughout history.
Please understand that our Gracious, Loving God spoke the vast, vast universe into existence; He is incomprehensibly mighty and Lord over ALL, regardless of when people lived, thus, I do not think that God is incapable of such a small thing as making the Bible when translated, understandable for all of mankind throughout the ages. The 63 translations I listed earlier in this forum attest to that fact.
God Bless,
jon
As I have stated many times previously, this is nothing of the sort.
We can start discussing worldviews once we’re on the same page about the practical details. You cannot meaningfully discuss the philosophy of science until you’re getting your facts straight about the mechanics of science.
I certainly don’t know why not.
**That is precisely the point! **
We are clearly not on the same page, and that is because we have radically different worldviews.
It really is that simple!
God Bless,
jon
Because, as I said, the mechanics of science do not depend on your worldview.
How mathematics works does not depend on your worldview.
How measurement works does not depend on your worldview.
What scientists actually do in the laboratory does not depend on your worldview.
How scientists actually collect and process samples does not depend on your worldview.
What they actually do when they do radiometric dating does not depend on your worldview.
What error bars mean does not depend on your worldview.
The issue at stake here, Jon, is that you must make sure your facts are straight. The only worldview which disagrees with that is called “lying.”
My worldview is not that the Earth is ancient.
My worldview is that all truth is God’s truth, and that God created an orderly world so that we can learn about nature from rigorous observation.
That the Earth is ancient is a necessary consequence of that worldview, not the basis of the worldview.
Totally agree with you up to here and no Christian that I know of who works in science and believes the Biblical account of creation and the flood would disagree either to my knowledge.
But a researchers Worldview absolutely DOES come into play when the data from the analysis is interpreted! Which is precisely why worldviews are entirely relevant and do matter enormously.
Very accurate instruments DO NOT PROVIDE AGES OF SAMPLES!
The ages are interpreted within the worldview of the researcher doing the analysis of the sample.
To say otherwise, betrays a lack of understanding about how dating procedures operate!
As I have stated previously, we all have the same data, the instruments we use are good instruments and getting more precise all the time, so the results that we obtain from testing samples is very accurate and have a high degree of precision. But, and it is an enormous BUT, the conclusions that are, derived, or extrapolated or just plain interpreted from the data is exactly where the researchers worldview is front and centre. To say otherwise as you do, again, betrays a grave misunderstanding of how science operates.
Thus it would appear, regrettably, and sadly, that you and many others on this website, have traveled a considerable distance down the uniformitarian, evolution, ‘deep time’ rabbit hole of this fallen world, that unfortunately has you believe the premise you are operating under, i.e., that the uniformitarian, evolution, ‘deep time’ worldview framework is objective science fact. It is most assuredly not!
God Bless,
jon
No Jon. YEC apologists in fact do not accept how measurement works. If they did, they would not be playing the farce of dating carbon dead materials and argon dating material from Mount St. Helens. That is nothing at all to do with interpretation. When YEC leaders parade results which violate the operating range of the measurement to deceive their audience, that is not differing interpretation of the same data, that is intentional misconduct.
Whether an instrument is measuring custody transfer between industrial facilities, or performing dating of age, there is always a level of confidence and a level of uncertainty. You must understand the error contributions of calibration, rangeability, span, sensitivity, hysteresis, bias, memory, offset, and installation and procedural considerations for any and every instrument. You cannot deflect that by crying worldview.
What can I say Ron!
Of course all relevant factors of calibration etc… are taken into account but that doesn’t alter the indisputable fact that at the end of the day, the precise accurate measurements of whatever is being tested are interpreted through the lens of a uniformitarian, evolution, ‘deep time’ worldview framework.
I reiterate, to say otherwise is not only in error, it betrays a very poor understanding of how solid empirical science operates!
Time and time again, your good self and some others make very serious, accusations of impropriety, untruthfulness and deception against Bible believing Christians like myself and millions of others. Rather than throwing baseless abuse around, it would be refreshing if instead, you cited precisely where these heinous acts are allegedly occurring.
We all have worldviews, they’re unavoidable. I have a worldview, you have a worldview, the differences we have mainly originate from the differences in our worldviews.
As I have said repeatedly, the data is the same, but it is the interpretation of that data that determines what we conclude from the data. In the case of radiometric dating you conclude according to your worldview and I conclude according to mine.
God Bless,
jon
No Jon. Young earthists do not take all relevant factors of calibration etc into account. Time and time again, when addressing young earth claims, it is rules of mathematics and measurement that do NOT depend on worldviews that we see being flouted.
Young earthists need to clean up their act with respect to these rules and principles that do not depend on worldviews before trying to address questions that do. It’s as simple as that.
It’s as simple as this, Jon. If you don’t want to be accused of impropriety, untruthfulness and deception, then stick to the rules that do not depend on worldviews. Because it is the rules that do not depend on worldviews that differentiate between telling the truth and lying.
And stop using the words “Bible believing Christian” when you mean “young earthist.” Because young earthism is not the Bible.
And I think that if you actually re-read our posts properly, you would see that we do precisely that. For example:
Hello Fred,
Thank you for your answer and explanation.
I did first put in my mind with “historical reality” before reading Gen 1. But since I also have “earth rotate & day/night happen simultaneously”, then I conclude that Gen 1 can’t be about “historical reality”.
Yes… that’s what happened to me, Fred.
So… only if I throw away “earth rotate & day/night happen simultaneously” from my mind, then I can apply that “it was evening and it was morning” is reality, a progression of time where Earth Day-1 begin at night/evening.
Yes… I agree. Thank you for your advice, Fred.
Now I just feel it’s fun to know more how the YEC view on the other subjects. For example about the fall of Satan, the Tree of Life, etc
Thans once again, Fred.
Read it again. As has been pointed out above, samples were submitted which are clearly below the threshold of applicable range for the tests involved.
When it comes to geochronology, YEC repeatedly misrepresents signal as noise, and noise as signal. That is because there is no way to authentically interpret the data to support a young earth.
Thanks Ron, for being candid about what you believe, it’s appreciated!
I also know that God is Truth and that He created an orderly creation that enables modern science to be practiced.
When I look around at the amazing beauty in every aspect and the whole of creation from spectacular galaxies, to subatomic particles, I see goodness and brilliance beyond the comprehension of my feeble brain.
The provision that our benevolent Creator has gone to for our benefit is nothing short of wonderful and undeserved, yet He holds all of creation in existence right now for our benefit.
If I am wrong about what I believe, God knows my heart, and He knows that I sincerely believe that the gospels foundations rest absolutely in Genesis.
Framing the history of creation into a uniformitarian, evolution, ‘deep time’ worldview does serious damage to the gospel message. I am surprised and concerned that good people on this site who clearly have a heart for the Truth, don’t seem able to see this inescapable Truth.
It is not I or others like me who imagine that the creation was completed in six ordinary days, nor is it I who said the Flood of Noah was Global, i.e., it was absolute and covered the whole Earth to a depth of about 15 cubits above the highest mountain peaks at the time.
It was the Lord God who stated those two things clearly in Genesis so that every human will know why we need to repent of our sins and accept the merciful gift of salvation that because of His great Love for us, He has bestowed through His infinite grace, on every one of us. Praise Him forever and ever, Amen.
God Bless,
jon
Sorry to interrupt…
I don’t understand what does “clearly” means actually.
Because to me, it’s not clear, whether God is walking “flop flop flop” in a cool weather in Eden which cause Adam and Eve heard the sound “flop flop flop” of the Lord God’s walking.
There are many which is not clear to me.
On the other hand, I realize that some other people will say “it’s clear that means God is walking “flop flop flop” in a cool weather in Eden”.
But,
when one say “God say that He is walking, so then of course it’s clear that means God is walking “flop flop flop” just like when we walks our foot hit the floor make a sound” …
So…if it’s clear then how come the other one say it’s NOT clear that means God is walking “flop flop flop” just like when we walks our foot hit the floor make a sound" ??? 
???
When one say “it’s clear that means Adam lost one of his rib” …
So… if it’s clear then how come the other one say “it’s NOT clear that means Adam lost one of his rib” … ??? ???
when one say “God say In the beginning He created the heavens and the earth, so then of course it’s clear that means the whole Earth Day-1 started in the darkness/evening/night”
So… if it’s clear then how come I say “it’s not clear that means the whole Earth Day-1 started in the darkness/evening/night” ??? ???
Back to about Adam’s rib.
Q : How many ribs left Adam have after God took one of Adam’s ribs ?
A : N ribs.
The next logical conclusion based on the “it’s clear that means”, then, before God took one of Adam’s ribs, it’s clear that means Adam has N+1 ribs.
Thanks.
(emphasis mine)
Your view undermines the entire enterprise of science – it requires belief in a capricious Creator who is not trustworthy.
You’ve been corrected on this before. So far, none of the supposed evidence you have provided measures up.
You mean like the rock samples we examined in the lab in one of my university geology courses and based on measurements in the lab determined them to be at the very least hundreds of thousands of years old. There were no assumptions involved, just measurement compared with other measurement.
So by your requirements as stated above, the Earth is at the very least hundreds of thousands of years old.
Not much of a witness given that he gives the wrong reason why the assertion is “complete nonsense”: it’s nonsense because there is no Divinometer for testing and measuring for God, and thus science cannot make as assertion that “we don’t need God any more”. Such a statement is a category error by atheists that is take up by YECists.
You have been corrected on this before more than once, which means that at this point you are just lying – there’s no other way to put it.
Hebrew scholars back before Copernicus concluded just from the text of Genesis 1 that the universe is unimaginably ancient and the Earth is also uncountably ancient. No one needs evolution or indeed any science to find deep time. Indeed honesty requires admitting that given those Hebrew scholars the claim that the Bible tells us how old the universe or the Earth is must be abandoned.
Nice and clear.
No, they weren’t. That you can make that claim indicates that you have not actually studied the science.
Besides which, uniformitarianism is what we should predict given how Yahweh is presented to us in the Old Testament scriptures, as trustworthy and faithful – He can be counted on to keep running things according to the rules He established.
Hi Reko, thanks for you post, and questions.
My understanding from my limited experience on this website is that as I had stated in previous posts, a persons worldview will heavily influence how they interpret data and it appears that carries across to the Bible also.
Prior to my first excursion onto the Biologos Forums some months back, I was not really that aware of the depth of misunderstanding that theistic evolutionists have about what God states in the Bible nor did I realise the depths of distrust and outright hostility towards Bible believing Christians like myself.
We are all brothers and sisters in Christ our Lord, one human family on this little rock hurtling through the cosmos at unimaginable velocities. As we are all one human family it would be wonderful if we could all get along and be a unified witness for the One and only Living God who died for our many sins, and Hallelujah, He rose again to conquer death, that is the last enemy.
It is different worldviews that I think are causing you to have difficulties as you try to understand what God is telling us in the Bible, when the Theistic evolutionists are saying one thing and Bible believing Christians who see Genesis as historical narrative, like myself are saying something different for the same passages of text.
With regard to Adams rib, that is quite straightforward, and is explained well in the article at:
God Bless,
jon
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.