In this post, I am replying to several issues, and adding some of my own:
Adam, like me, you are likely frustrated by many of the posts in this thread. There are some that are helpful in promoting understanding, others that are not at all. I think Dennis Prager’s advice is excellent—seek understanding, not agreement.
adamjedgar, consider this: T_aquaticus et al believe that it is a misrepresentation to say that original unfossilized blood cells, blood vessels, blood vessel valves, soft tissue, osteocytes, and intact nerves have been found in fossils. Apparently, the folks on this forum would find it hard to believe that these could last for 65 million years. Does this mean that if I can show that the literature confirms my statements, BioLogos adherents would agree that this is evidence that the dinosaurs died off considerably less than 65 million years ago? Of course not.
Even though there is credible evidence in the literature, even from evolutionists, that all of these assertions are true, no theistic evolutionist is going to change their mind based on this evidence. We can only hope that we can give better understanding of our position.
For example, take the issue of blood cells in fossils. I first accessed this article on June 9, 2015 when I first heard the objection that it was not blood cells that were found, just blood products. The article is still at: 75-million-year-old dinosaur blood and collagen discovered in fossil fragments | Science | The Guardian.
You will find this interesting. OEC or EC (Evolutionary Creationists as those at BioLogos identify themselves) will find a way to discredit this. But at least I have a basis for asserting this, contra T-aquaticus. And early after Schweitzer’s discovery, the report was that there were blood cells in that dinosaur fossil. Whether that terminology was later changed because it was imprecise or misunderstood, or just that it was inconvenient, we can’t know.
Adam, consider—why are you on this forum arguing for YEC positions. Do you think you will change any minds? Of course not, unless they are “new” to the forum and still searching for the truth. Dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago, and that is that, and no amount of evidence you or I might present will ever change their position.
Consider the following Adam. Suppose you lead an expedition to Novarupta in Alaska which erupted a little more than 100 years ago. You brought back rocks from that eruption, took them to an accredited lab, and they identified these 100 year old rocks as 55 million years old. And your research also shows that there are several other rocks of known recent origin that show the same magnitude of error. So the accuracy of radiometric dating can be tested and falsified. Would that cause OEC folks to consider the accuracy of radiometric dating? Of course not. For one, you are not a geologist, so it will immediately be rejected out of hand. Any evidence from YEC sources is also automatically rejected, justifiably in the BioLogos mindset. Academic authority triumphs over truth. So why trouble yourself to argue the point on this forum? (Based on an actual expedition and a previous BioLogos thread.)
Adam, suppose undeterred you earned a doctorate in geology to meet the BL objections about academic credentials. Then you asked T-Aquaticus to give you a list of everything you need to do to meet his standards of research. Then you go out and research the Coconino limestone layer to assess whether it originated from dry desert sand or was laid down in an aquatic environment. You read all the literature, do extensive field and laboratory research over 40 years, You have met all of T-A’s standards. From your research, you come to the conclusion that using multiple lines of evidence, that the evidence strongly supports that the Coconinio limestone strata was laid down by water, not of desert dune origins. Would that change any minds in the BioLogos forum? Of course not. Although your research is be very valuable to others, it would not be accepted in this forum. (based on Dr. John Whitmore’s research over 40 years. And he received his degree at Loma Linda University, so perhaps he is SDA, which again disqualifies him for some on the BioLogos forum.)
In this forum, I have been asked to provide examples of where otherwise valid research by YEC or other non-evolutionists has not been recognized. That has already been done. See Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview, which also give multiple references for follow-up. Jerry Bergman et al have written “Slaughter of the Dissidents,” about widespread discrimination by Darwin loyalists against Darwin skeptics in academia. Is accepted as adequate to prove my point? For some on this forum, likely not. So why trouble myself to argue the point ad naseum in this forum? And suppressing skeptics indicates to me that some Darwin loyalists are not confident in their ability to defend their position with reason and evidence.
Dr. James Tour, prominent scientist, synthetic organic chemist and Professor at Rice University, states that young non-evolutionists seeking higher degrees in science will not receive them unless they hide the fact that they don’t believe in evolution. It is manifestly evident that YEC and even non-evolutionists are being cancelled in academic circles regardless of the quality of their research or conclusions, and it is foolish to deny it. Of course, some in the forum may believe that is as it should be. There, I have said it so that BioLogos adherents don’t have to.
Adam, consider Behemoth. If you believe that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, then Behemoth could not be a dinosaur. If you believe that dinosaurs were on the Ark, then of course, Behemoth could be a dinosaur, perhaps a sauropod. So on its own, the Behemoth of Job is inconclusive.
But suppose you pile up the evidence from literature and art and other sources that humans and dinosaurs co-existed in the past, and write a research article on this topic. This is not just an argument over what Behemoth was, which is only one small issue, but a cumulative case argument backed by significant research and evidence using abductive reasoning as an inference to the best explanation. Behemoth would be just one of many evidences in a cumulative case argument. Would this ever be published in a mainstream journal? (And such YEC arguments exist.) Of course not, regardless of its merits. Will they change any EC minds? Probably not. So why trouble yourself to argue the point in this forum? The above scenarios are modeled after actual events.
Now let me be careful to state what I am not inferring from the following scripture passages or what I believe they are warning about. I am not saying that any of these apply to any of the responders on the BioLogos forum. They may or may not apply to some. I have no way of knowing.
Consider the rich man and Lazarus—Luke 16:19-31. Lazarus, the poor man, went to Abraham’s bosom when he died. The rich man went to the torment of Hell. The rich man asked Abraham for Lazarus to be brought from the dead and sent to his still living brothers to warn them so they would not also end up in torment. Abraham refused his request, stating that they already had Moses and the prophets, and even sending someone back from the dead would not be of any value. There was nothing that would be effective in changing the minds of his brothers. That is not uncommon, and certainly common in our increasingly secular society today.
Also consider Romans 1:19-32. Even though people know the truth about creation and are without excuse, they suppress this truth. As a result, God gives them over to shameful lusts and a depraved mind. In our nation’s public arena, we can see the progression of depravity. We think that reason and evidence should be effective in changing minds and hearts. But that is an illusion. Truth and evidence have no effect on a depraved mind. For example, there are many who claim that there is no objective way to know what a woman is; what a woman is is subjective.
BioLogos adherents are a strange breed living between two worldviews. They believe in biological and cosmic evolution. But they avoid the unsolvable problem of why there is something rather than nothing because they are theists. Absolutely the answer for them is God starting everything off as do you and me. So one of their feet is firmly planted in theism. But the other foot is planted on the slippery banana peel of materialism, deep time and evolutionism.
Adam, here is my conclusion. You are not going to change your mind nor am I, and we are not going to change the minds of BioLogos evolutionary creationists, no matter how strong our arguments are. So don’t spend a lot of time trying to do it unless you find value in understanding how others think and argue.
Note: For convenience, we will identify the position that the earth is around 6000 years old as YEC—young earth creationist, and the position that the earth is about 4 billion years old at OEC-old earth creationist. Of course, at 73 years, my 13 grandchildren consider me old, and the earth is approximately 100 times that old, so from my perspective, I actually believe the earth is very old.