Evolution, your “it”, isn’t called a theory except by someone with the self-assurance to stand alone against reason and fact.
I mentioned dinosaurs.
The FLOOD began as a pagan explanation of a real event.
Genesis rebuts pagan theology.
Genesis does not bother correcting pagan cosmology - or would you rather that God had explained, in full real time fact, exactly how the universe was formed in the tiniest instant we can fathom (the time for light to cross the width of an atom - which is suitably tiny, but artificial.[[ time is quantum; but quantum and "related to events matched to aspects of materials made of quarks is not really defensible. ]])
Conveying reality would have required (??) thousands of pages of text - which would obscure the theology that is perfectly delivered in the opening chapters of Genesis. By accepting “The Pagan Cosmology,” the certain object was for God to reveal God, not the fine details of Creation.
Creation cannot mislead those who take a very close–up look at it. It has taken all of Western civilization a quarter of a thousand years of this closest-feasible examination to tease out some of its secrets - particle physics, for instance. We understand that God invented time, space, matter, and energy (light) per Genesis 1:1,3. Genesis 1:2 seals off the science by stipulating the prior pagan view of creation - vast featureless water, earth hidden below, a firmament with an inexhaustible supply of rainwater above it - all pagan, and all beside the point. Genesis is God’s great self-reveal against a context of numerous pagan deities whose funky attributes would thrill a gossipy small town.
The necessity of a Flood story is due to accepting the broad outlines of the history of the universe as told to pagans. That history was irrelevant. At every turn God’s actions shone with power and mercy while the pagans’ actions were self-serving and mistake-prone.
Net net, Genesis is theology. Bible stories deliver profound truths about God to young children. The story format works. Requiring Genesis to support a 21st Century reading as serious fact simply fails to support it as from God. It is from God, hence divine and perfect - - - as theology.
1 Like
Why is that?
How so?
Alright, having surveyed the article, I feel this is the crux of it:
“Therefore I expect they would resort to proposing that earthquakes were 1000X more common after the Flood than they are now.”
Yes, indeed we would. Note exactly how the author of the article answers the question. I’ll break it down after the quote
“Is such a vastly higher earthquake rate in the past feasible? Quade et al (2012) calculated that 50,000 to 100,000 hours of shaking at the equivalent of a category 5 earthquake would be necessary to create the erosion they observed. 100,000 hours is the equivalent of 11 years of constant shaking. But individual earthquakes only last for a few second to a few minutes and would not be expected to be continuous. In places that experience frequent earthquakes most are very small (< category 3) and would not be able to move these boulders. Earthquakes over category 5 are understandably rare given the tectonic stresses that must build up prior to the release such enormous energy. Even if there were two earthquakes a year of this magnitude—which is far greater than the observed rate over the past 100 years—that would only account for 133 hours of shaking over 4000 years.”
Okay, let’s go through this piece by piece. First, the author asks the question, “Is such a vastly higher earthquake rate in the past feasible?” This is a very valid question, however it is never actually answered either in this quote or in the article as a whole.
Next, the author of the article quotes an estimate for how long the rocks would have to shake at a category 5 intensity to produce the erosion seen.
Next, the author makes their errant statement, “But individual earthquakes only last for a few second(s) to a few minutes and would not be expected to be continuous.”
The author gives no evidence for why this would be the case, especially in a post-flood situation, in which the continental planes would be experiencing incredible shifts. The tectonic activity would have been enormous! There is no reason not to suggest that the rocks did indeed shake for years at magnitudes of 5 or greater. In fact, most creationist geologists promote the idea that tectonic, volcanic, and geothermal activity would be at an all time high for dozens of years following the flood (I’m happy to dig up some references, if anyone would like to see).
Continuing the quote, “Earthquakes over category 5 are understandably rare given the tectonic stresses that must build up prior to the release such enormous energy. Even if there were two earthquakes a year of this magnitude—which is far greater than the observed rate over the past 100 years—that would only account for 133 hours of shaking over 4000 years.”
Note the key phrases “observed rate” and “tectonic stresses”. The author is making assumptive statements as if the observed rate of earthquakes and tectonic stress is exactly the same now as it was in the past, in the midst of his attempt to substantiate a lack of significant tectonic activity in the past.
To simply the fallacy here, let me present a fictional equivalent. Question: “Did Abraham Lincoln really exist?” Evidence: “Well, he existed all right.” And the conclusion: “So there, he existed!” See the issue?
And the equivalent; question: “Is a higher rate of tectonic activity feasible?” Evidence: “But right now earthquakes at an arbitrary magnitude don’t last very long.” And the conclusion: “No one would look at these boulders and come to the conclusion that they formed just a few thousand years ago.”
Am I missing something? The author never even touches the question of increased tectonic activity in the past beyond just asking the question. Therefore, the author simply assumes that the answer to the question is negative and moves on. It’s a complete logical fallacy without any consideration of real evidence.
1 Like
No we are being a historian instead of a theologian ( or persons of faith)
God is only a reality if you have faith, and that reality *is your faith.
You cannot just impose God onto a world they either can not or refuses to see Him.
Richard
1 Like
So, by your logic, does God blink out of existence if no one is believing in Him?
No, that’s silly. God exists whether or not He is acknowledged. In the Bible, Paul states that God’s invisible attributes are clearly visible through creation so that no one has any excuse.
Not everyone has read, let alone believes what Paul or the Bible says and we have no right to impose it on them.
Therefore if your theory relies on biblical understanding you have lost well over 70% of the population before you start. In fact, claiming any theistic evolution will exclude anyone who does not believe in God (which is also the majority of scientists)
Whether God exists or not will not change what people see as reality. I can tell you that many people look at the world and its makeup and cruelty convinces them that there cannot be a God. It is just a matter of perspective.
Richard
1 Like
Richard, I mean this with all respect and good will, please read what I actually wrote here.
First off, I never even mentioned “imposing these views on other people”. My responses here are tailored to this forum, assuming that everyone here is well-versed in Scripture and well educated as well.
Secondly, my response already answers for me; No one has an excuse, regardless of Biblical knowledge. This is a Scriptural quote, so please read the text: Romans 1:20.
And finally, what I wrote earlier about reality has nothing to do with the subjective nature of what people see as reality, but instead the actual true reality. There are people that believe they are cats. This will never make them into cats, so their believe is irrelevant. It’s a delusion. Whether God exists or not isn’t a question. He does exist and does uphold the universe, so ignoring His existence and His active work in upholding the universe is a complete and total delusion.
Why can’t you understand that this scripture is meaningless if you have no faith?
And that what people se may not be what Paul, you, or I see?
Regardless of what you or I believe about Scripture…
We cannot enforce it upon an unbelieving world.
Even if it is true people can, and do, choose to ignore or disbelieve it.
And God is quite happy with that, because that is what He wants.
He does not want people to follow or agree with Him because it is, or even out of some sort of fear of what might happen if they don’t. He wants people to come to Him on their own, because they see His presence, and they want to align themselves with Him.
Anythng else is empty and hollow (Please see True Q on TNG) Peopple must be free to choose.
Richard
1 Like
You appear to be confused by my words … I didn’t state that “biological mechanisms are merely theory”.
I agree, since “Evolution” is change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time … a demonstrable, factual process.
But we’re not talking about the demonstrable fact of evolution - we’re talking about the theory of evolution (ToE), which says the history of life on earth is the result of known biological mechanisms.
Incidentally, which area of the life sciences has produced a practical use for the theory that known biological mechanisms produced the history of life on earth?
Well, you would know, having created many a universe yourself.
What does any of that have to with the claim that ToE is a fact?
I think you mean, a “mutually corroborating” belief.
And U think you might be confusing "the best scientific explanation " with a fact.
If you’re referring to the theory of evolution, no one can demonstrate that that the history of life on earth is the result of known biological mechanisms. Therefore, to claim that ToE is a fact is clearly erroneous.
Your analogy is meaningless and irrelevant. It’s impossible to know what process produced the history of life on earth. Anyone who thinks it is possible is delusional … or at least, seriously misinformed.
1 Like
Maybe we can bridge some gaps here.
I reject black and white Cartesian dualism like this. Nothing, including modern history, has to be perfect to be useful. Miracles are rare events to most Christians. So even though they occur, history still get most things right under the guise of methodological naturalism.
Methodological naturalism is not philosophical naturalism. It simply looks for natural causes. When I release a ball and it falls I don’t explain it by imagining there are ghosts pulling it down. I look for a natural explanation. It’s how science and academic history work.
History attempts to reconstruct the past through probability. Miracles are the most improbable of all events. History is scarcely capable of dealing with them. It cannot reconstruct them and it’s right 99.9999% of the time to reject “supernatural”stories from the past. Unless you think all the ones outside the Bible are completely true. I do not.
This does not mean miracles never occur. Just that sober, academic history cannot reconstruct them. Since Jesus was God incarnate, history can only offer a very incomplete and sometimes incorrect portrait of him. It can’t deal with theological claims.
Compare the possibility of the author of Mark making up the empty tomb story vs a man truly rising from the dead. What are the odds of the latter? Which one is more probable? How does a historian even quantify that? It just can’t be done. Conservative apologetics that use historical arguments to try to prove the resurrection occurred are misinformed .
I feel you are conflating the academic study of history with exactly what happened in the past. These are the different things. History is a best guess reconstruction of the past based on certain rules and canons.
God performed miracles. They are a part of history, but the academic study of history can never prove or reconstruct them. That is just a limitation of historical investigation.
Genesis 1-11. It’s self evident to me. Ccontradictions in the accounts, punishment that doesn’t fit the crime, monsters (nephilim) impregnating women, 600 year old men building gigantic boats out of wood, a worldwide flood requiring penguins and kangaroos to swim across vast oceans, primitive images of God who doesn’t know before hand none of the animals will be a suitable helper for Adam before he parades them in front of him, multiple accounts of the same incidents, talking snakes, trees of immortality, a magic gardens and so on. Not to mention the whole account is heavily steeped in or blatantly copies existing ANE mythology
The article you read summarizes scholarly consensus in historical Jesus research. Anyone remotely familiar with the field understand the different evidence for a historical Jesus and Noah. There is nothing even remotely controversial on that page.
Just to clarify, it’s the second definition I use.
It’s a great and legitimate question but our desire for certainty isn’t an argument. If the Bible doesn’t intend to give us easy answers then it doesn’t intend to give us easy answers. What more is there to say? I can point out that the all or nothing arguments about the Bible is highly illogical. Scripture doesn’t have to conform to what you think it should.
So your interpretation of the Bible is objective truth. Whether inerrant or not all we have are “subjective”. interpretations. As you say, we are fallible sinners fallibly interpreting scripture. Whether errant or not we are stuck with that. I trust God, not my ability to interpret a 2,000 year old text that has been reconstructed by a committee of textual scholar and then translated by a mother committee. Dale Martin wrote:
“We may trust scripture to provide what we need for our salvation. We may trust that we can read scripture in prayerful hope that God will speak to us through our reading that text. But ultimately this belief-or, perhaps better put, this stance, attitude, or habitus-is actually an expression of our faith not in a text but in God and the holy spirit. We “leave it up to the holy spirit” to protect us from damnable error in our readings of scripture. We depend on God to keep us with God in our readings of scripture. Properly understood, the doctrine of the infallibility of scripture is a statement less about a text and more about God." [The Meaning of Scripture in the Twenty-first Century]”
God’s Word (you capitalized it) is Jesus. Please don’t confuse Jesus with a bunch of paper. I don’t worship a book or call it Lord. I am a Christ-Ian. I am not a Bible-ian. The Bible did not incarnate itself and die for my sins.
The Bible is not errant because God makes mistakes. i would disagree with your model of inspiration which may assume God wrote the Bible from his heavenly perspective. I think God inspired the authors to write and moved over them but He is not as coercive as some seem to think. He let them write. I talked about this here.
God’s character is knowable through the cross. That is the Rosetta Stone.
I don’t go around trying to discredit every other philosophy. I haven’t read or studied them. Neither have most Christian’s who would just caricature and misrepresent them in their hubris and effort to prove their faith’s intellectual superiority. I also don’t feel my faith is invalid unless I do that. I formulate beliefs based on my life experiences. The truth is geography is a good indicator of religious belief. I’ll bet if all the Christians on this forum were born in Muslim country, many of us would be Muslims.
I believe what I believe because I had a salvation experience with the transforming and risen Son of God. I’ve felt my sins forgiven. Nothing more is needed and nothing can compare to that. Reading the Bible and doing theology is useful. As CS Lewis said, it’s like looking at a map of the ocean. Experiencing God is being at the ocean, toes in the sand—drink in hand.
The Bible is my sacred scripture and I wrestle through it.
5 Likes
You are relatively new here, I am not.
There are two basic approaches to this forum
- I am right and will be teaching everybody to see this
- I wish to discuss and exchange views
There are more than a few of these here. Convinced of their own certitude and accuracy. Anyone who does not see things their way is wrong and clearly does not understand.
There are those who can discuss without feeling the need to assert their viewpoint.but, as soon as they say something that others disagree with, they are subject to the above.
And anyone who dares not to conform is… well we won’t go there.
But there are, I think, quite a few who wish I would go away.
I will freely admit that my views are entrenched and virtually untouchable,. The only difference is that, contrary to popular opinion, I do not insist that others agree. I will argue, of course, but at the end of the day the usual result is
I do not agree with you.
Richard
1 Like
Riiiiiight … a “fact” that no one will ever be able to demonstrate is a fact. Doesn’t sound like much of a fact to me.
???
Yeah, right … what we can “trust” is that such an erroneous approach has resulted in thousands of different churches and sects, each preaching their own version of God speaking to them through their reading of the text … so far from the centrally-controlled, unified church described in the book of Acts.
But I digress …
And what did they do with aquatic taxa, non-salt tolerant plants, and all the other things that would have died outside of the ark?
The earth stayed vaporized for a while longer than just the flood?
Given that Uranium, Thorium, and Potassium are the most common radioactive elements, we can get an estimate of the energy released by looking at them. Both Uranium and Thorium require about 1 half-life to go by in six months, and Potassium-40 about 4 to produce the measured ages. Given their abundance in the earth and earth’s mass, that is roughly 6x10^44 becquerels. Alpha decays emit about 10 MeV each. Hence, 4.5x10^32 joules get poured into the earth in that time. For reference, that is slightly more than Earth’s binding energy, or about the amount of sunlight that hits the earth every billion years. That is also enough to raise temperatures at 1000K/s, re-melting the crust in about a second and vaporizing the earth in 10. By the end of six months, the ball of plasma once known as earth would be (assuming that it stayed the same size) about 22.5 kK and shining as brightly as a small star.
1 Like
Who is to blame for the absence of the unicorns…and only one dragon…leaving the Loch Ness Monster all alone?
1 Like
Actually, the doctrine of inerrancy has produced extremely little consensus on many major issues today and Christian views have changed on a number of issues over the centuries. There is no shortage of ammunition for warmongering, justifying slavery or the patriarchy in scripture.
The Catholic Church has a major belief discrepancy between many of its scholars and its pew warmers… The Protestant church has 40,000 denominations and there are major branches of the church precisely because Christians disagree over the Bible and authority. Even the Christian’s who think the Bible is all accurate disagree on hundreds if not thousands of issues.
At the end of the day all any of us have are our fallible and limited man made interpretations of the Bible. We have to read, process, interpret and apply every single verse. There is no cutting out the fallible human aspect. Some conservatives like to confuse their opinion on what the Bible is and teaches with exactly what God says and teaches for all times. I am not sure if that is intentional or not but it really borders on being a sleight of hand.
Not to mention, scripture treats other scripture in a plastic and pliable fashion at times. It hardly views all of itself as divine and immutable.
1 Like
News to me. What “major belief discrepancy”?
“pew warmers”?
The simplest answer is that God chose to preserve what He wished. If He can predict the event 100 years beforehand, and then bring numerous creatures to Noah in correct quantities and in an orderly fashion, surely He would’ve also worked to preserve the species you mention.
I’m afraid I’m a simple man. Would you mind explaining to me the relevance of this? I appreciate the detailed effort!
Nice punt. It’s still off the rails however, to mix metaphors, because you are making assumptions based on the thoroughly disproven ‘Flood geology’.
Reality:
The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology
Another favorite – this is well done and should be compelling evidence for the antiquity of the earth:
More:
Testing and Verifying Old Age Evidence:
Lake Suigetsu Varves, Tree Rings, and Carbon-14
The evidence for the antiquity of the earth and the cosmos is… I can’t say overwhelming, because you are insisting you could stand up on the beach during a tsunami. So this applies exponentially:
Brandolini’s law states it takes ten times the effort to debunk rubbish as it takes to produce it.
2 Likes