I can prove you wrong! But I’m tired of discussing even a third week in this thread, now, actually. And if this indeed were about science, this would be a scientific discussion, but it isn’t, as nothing about your worldview is scientific. It’s as much scientific as creationism. The main difference to creationism is, that it is a religious belief system camouflaged in a scientific taint, while creationism is admittedly religious.
Learn living with it.
What do you mean by “finally”? I’ve admitted from the very beginning that my position is an >interpretation of the observable data on the basis of unprovable assumptions about the past<. YOU guys are the ones not admitting that the exact same is also true for your worldview! It’s never been about science from the beginning - and that’s true for your side, as well!
Exactly! It’s taken from Charles Lyell’s “Principles of geology” and Darwin’s “the origin of species”. Entirely scriptural! Nothing scientific at all! 
To me it was not clear for sure until now from your position on if you believed you’re claims were scientifically influenced or not. Now I know it’s not. So I don’t have to spend time on that.
So I can now focus on teasing out your exact scriptural reasonings and argue my point from there. I assumed until now that you believed you had a reasonable scientific position. Now I know you don’t for sure.
Youre clearly not going to accept scientific reasoning on evolution or the age the earth. There is mountains of it out there and that’s why the majority believe it including Christians and especially those who work within the scientific fields. So it’s a waste of breath, or energy of fingers in this case, to try to argue it.
So how do you harmonize the two creation accounts in genesis 1 and 2?
3 Likes
Oh, don’t get me wrong! The Bible doesn’t conflict with science at all. It conflicts with your evolutionary paradigm! Profound difference! Don’t think that evolution is science-based. It’s clearly not!
As I said earlier: evolution is a worldview-dependant interpretation of the observable data based on unprovable assumptions about the past!
The mere reason why I don’t hold up my beliefs as scientific is because I cannot observe, repeat and demonstrate that God created things. What I can do is to deduce from biblical premises a forensic conclusion. Guess what: that’s the exact same way you evolutionists do it, too. You only deduce from other premises. So, if your position is scientific, mine is, too.
Both paradigms can be investigated on the basis of forensic science - but not on the basis of empirical science with a much greater probative value.
So, if you think you’ve successfully defeated anything >you< believe in, you’re clearly >wrong<.
Argument from majority opinion fallacy. Just sayin’.
You deceive yourself. Be honest. You believe what you want, which is fine until your want includes science proves magic, fantasy. It . does . not
There aren’t two of them. The second is an exploded view of the first. A scene within the first account.
I believe what’s scriptural and scientifically reasonable. Think of me whatever fits your bias!
If you have to believe that irreconcilable paradox, that’s fine. Really. No really. But you actually don’t. Not without having your own private, idiosyncratic definition of science. My bias is toward the rational. I want to believe that Jesus has the words, is the Word, of eternal life. Which is rational, the desire that is.
I’m amused! If you want to believe Jesus, then DO IT and believe in the flood and the creation week! He’s verifying it as historical events! Otherwise you’re an idolater creating your own God to fit your needs! At least your belief is inconsistent with the Bible.
I assumed you were going to say that.
So according to genesis 1 male and female were both created on the sixth day right? Is that a 24 hour day period?
I like the cut of your gib Cap’n Dalcke. But who has the weather glass eh?
Well, it is jib, but that’s not overwhelming.
Believe me it is. Just keelhaul me.
You clearly not. That’s for sure.
In genesis 1 on the sixth day, after plants were already created, God created beasts of the field and mankind, both male and female. So he made man and woman on the sixth day.
Then in genesis two, we read this about the day Adam was made, which would have to have been the sixth day. He made Adam. He then created a garden full of the edible fruit trees that was pleasing to look at and so forth. He then noticed that although creation was good, it was not perfect, and that it was not good for the man to be alone. So god brought every beast on earth before the man, that he just created . The man named them all. None was suitable. Then Adam went into a trance where he saw himself split in half and one side became a woman. We know it was a vision based off of how deep sleep is used elsewhere, and we know it’s more than a rib since it says flesh and bone , the same word is used for side throughout all the rest of scripture, and he explained when two comes together they become one.
Does not that seem like a bit much for a literal 24 hours on the sixth day?
2 Likes
Not intentional falsification. Rather, there will be anomalies, and thus will be discarded. And, despite claims to the contrary, there is censorship of opposing views when it comes to evolution topics.
What would be really convincing is if there were some kind of practical consequence if dating turned out to be wrong. I saw mention somehow this is relevant to oil drilling. I suppose the idea is oil only forms after X million years, so if the rocks are too young they don’t drill. A lot of evidence on both sides, good drills correspond with finding old rocks before drilling, amd bad drills correspond with finding young rocks before drilling, would be really convincing. Since there is a lot of money on the line for rock dating on evolutionary timescales to be reliable, and there is no room for censorship and confirmation bias, I think this would be decisive.
Additionally, there is a lot of money on the table for creationists if rock dating is unreliable, since evolution based drilling companies will miss all the wells with young looking rocks.
This was Glenn Morton’s livelihood, in one of his posts here he writes:
I worked in the oil industry and when I was 29 was in charge of recruiting and training geophysicists for Atlantic Richfield, which at the time employed 50,000 people, probably 1000 geophysicists. I hired geophysicists from Christian Heritage College, Henry Morris’ college. After a few years, they either left the industry because they couldn’t justify what they saw with what Henry taught, or they gave up the young earth. We didn’t indoctrinate them, it was the data that did it. And at the time, I was still a YEC myself. But by the mid 1980s, I threw in the towel.
The geologic data simply doesn’t support a young earth.
Oil companies are not primarily concerned with the age of rocks in which to drill; that is assumed and the analysis is focused on knowing what was happening at that age and afterwards. Oil requires a particular sequence of geological history to create the hydrocarbon reserves and to cap those reserves to contain them afterwards. To successfully find oil requires training and understanding that allows an accurate reconstruction of geological history.
This raises a very important point in regards to geochronology. None of the effort expended for radiometric dating, stable isotope analysis, ice core inclusions, ocean floor cores, magnetic topology, cave stalactite/stalagmites, coral reef analysis, geochemistry, or geology in general, is to demonstrate that the earth is old. That has been settled for generations and no scientist is going to gain recognition for establishing the antiquity of the planet. Henry Dalcke can indulge his YouTube videos and few mainstream scientists care. Scientists want to know the details of what happened during that time, what were the conditions, what precipitated change, what was the interplay of life, geology, and climate? These are the interesting questions. Earth history is being written with finer granularity with every relevant journal publication.
8 Likes
How’s that matey? Jesus assumed the OT in every way. How could He not? What’s that got to do with science?
1 Like
Then how is rock dating relevant to extracting oil? That’s the big question in my mind, as it provides a practical reason for rock dating to be reliable.