now you have to show the improvement is due to rock dating validity
I am not a petroleum geologist, but I know that their models incorporate rock dating as an important factor. A few decades ago I spent time in a geology professor’s office and saw the equations on his chalkboard. Time was a major parameter, and it was expressed in millions of years.
As Glenn Morton has stated, geologists who enter the field as YEC either convert or leave the field because the data overwhelmingly prove that the formations they study are tens to 100s of millions of years old.
If you need more proof than that, I would ask you to pick up some geology textbooks because I’m not the expert you want.
Peace,
Chris
1 Like
Still sad at hearing of his passing. Here’s an excerpt and link to the whole essay:
3 Likes
Untill now nothing but bold unsubstantiated claims. Beef, please!
1 Like
There’s a herd of cattle in the posts above.
3 Likes
Sure, any textbooks in particular you recommend?
1 Like
The author Donald Prothero is a serious field geologist / fossil hunter; the following is accessible, authoritative, and engaging:
The Story of Life in 25 Fossils
3 Likes
I’d like to pass the question over to @jammycakes, who is much more literate in geology than I. What scholarly resource(s) would you recommend James?
Peace,
Chris
2 Likes
The majority of scientists believe that the earth is approximately spherical.
The majority of scientists believe that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa.
Am I committing the fallacy of the argument from majority opinion when I accept these assertions from the scientific community?
Peace,
Chris
3 Likes
This is the kind of thread that keeps me coming back here. Maybe not for the intended reason…but it keeps things lively.
4 Likes
You need to keep in mind that the majority formerly believed that the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat! The premises have to be empirically proven true for a conclusion to become true! It is a true premise that the earth is a sphere. That can be directly observed, but it’s not an empirically proven premise that the earth is old. That cannot be directly observed without erecting assumptions that cannot be verified. Just sayin’.
Radiometric dating is empirical and proves the Earth is old.
The decay rate of isotopes is observed and verified.
The ratios of isotopes in rocks is observed and verified.
The chemistry of rock formation which excludes daughter isotopes and includes parent isotope is observed and verified.
Everything we need for radiometric dating has been empirically verified.
7 Likes
True, but the Hebrew’s cosmology reflected the near eastern cosmology which prevailed at the time. The Bible was not written as a scientific treatise.
3 Likes
Why is that? Please show where they demonstrate that. Where they fail the basic scientific prerequisites of logic and probability. At all. Anywhere. Ever. In the last century and a half.
[I mean, we all see the quality of yours, your authority in this matter speaks for itself.]
2 Likes
It could almost be a cable show, right?
1 Like
You therefore can’t prove the sun is still there. Just sayin’
1 Like
Henry, I hope this conversation has been helpful in the process of developing your hypothesis. Epigentics seemed very promising to me too, when my goal for interpreting Scripture and engaging with science was to prove that my YEC worldview could be true. Your hypothesis is a very interesting place to start, having a model developed from a synthesizer, yet it seems destined to be bound to remain in the YEC framework. Scientists generally do research, tests, and expand and draw applications (usually being just fine with changing their minds and adjusting their models to consider new or unknown data) with the goal of discovering the truth and not necessarily a predetermined end, and it doesn’t seem like you are interested in that.
It has been fairly shown, I think, that we all DO have a worldview that affects the way we interpret the data, evidence, and experiences around us. YEC is a valid worldview for some, EC is a valid worldview for some, etc. If one side needs to have an open mind, then all do. If one side must be wrong, then the others have equal potential to be wrong. If one side needs to honestly say, “I guess I wasn’t there to witness it,” then every side needs to admit they didn’t witness the creation unfold as they propose. Those are the limits of this style of argument. If you were hoping for insight from another worldview, you have quite a bit, which you have been generously responding to.
Those in the YEC worldview are not the only ones who have an honest, conscious, and working understanding with their worldviews. Many involved with BioLogos maintain an EC worldview because they’ve found the YEC one insufficient. Some are not refusing to acknowledge the tenets of YEC because we don’t want to admit we are wrong about God and everything in existence. It is because of our inability to turn from the evidence we find in God’s world, and the grace we received when we were saved. We do not require the sign of a miraculous 6-day creation. God’s character is not dependent on it. In Matthew 16, Jesus says that the sign of Jonah is sufficient. And that is what we (who are believers in Christ here, anyway) hold to, that Jesus is the Son of God, was crucified, dead and buried, and was raised to life on the third day, and is now at the right hand of God. So as my brother in Christ, I hope you understand that asking questions beyond a YEC model is an act of faith that we have found God’s Word affirmed in.
6 Likes
The earth’s shape is only directly observable with the advent of photography from satellites.
Prior to the late 1950s, the earth’s shape could only be inferred from:
- a large catalog of observations (direction of shadows, disappearing ship masts on the horizon, shape of shadow during lunar eclipses, etc.) that were …
- … assembled into a model (approximately spherical shape) that …
- … was compared with alternative models (flat earth) and emerged victorious
Thus your assertion is quite anachronistic with respect to scientists of the 17th century up until the late 1950s. They concluded that the earth was approximately spherical on the basis of numerous observations assembled into a model. They never observed the earth’s shape directly; they could not do so! They did not have the technology to directly observe the earth’s shape.
Biologists are going through the same kind of analysis when they assemble enormous numbers of observations into the theory of evolution. They will, unfortunately, never have the technology (i.e., a time machine) necessary to directly observe the emergence of new phyla. However, the theory of evolution is every bit as sound as the geologists’ and astronomers’ theory of the earth’s geometry prior to the advent of satellite photography.
Peace,
Chris
4 Likes
For the majority of animal species, epigenetics is an expression of genetics. Any differences in epigenetic markers between species is due to the sequence differences between their genomes. It is genes that determine where epigenetic markers go and when which means epigenetics is ultimately determined by DNA sequence. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is evidenced in a very limited number of animal species, such as in nematodes, but is more common in plants. There is no evidence for any significant epigenetic inheritance in mammals or primates, certainly not enough to account for the morphological differences between those species.
2 Likes
I agree! To be clear, since I am not a geneticist I agree that epigenetics is an expression of the already available genes in the DNA. I don’t think it rules out mutations, however. I will gladly listen or read anything suggested, because I am open to understand more if my answer is insufficient as I am not well versed in this field. I’m the lay person.
2 Likes