Which came first: the young earth, or the inerrant scripture?

answers to you off topic post here (new coffeehouse topic)This is off-topic for this thread, which has to do with conversion from secular to faith and what steps that takes. If you are not a person who has "converted" you comments are innapropriate here.I would be happy to continue this conversation in the coffeehouse.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Also off topic. To say nothing of logical fallacies.see here for response

Meanwhile a thread started to discuss some gross logical fallacies promulgated here is closed. One has to love irony. This needs to be closed for consistency, perhaps for a day, to bring it back on topic.So far the only transitions noted were from YEC to evo, and none the other way.This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*26*2005 07:00 PM

I originally posted this in coffeehouse to keep this thread from getting to far OT. Seeing as Admin has closed that topic for political reasons, while letting this one stagger on OT post after OT post, it appears that this is the admin preferred venue for response. THEREFORE:From: http://EvC Forum: hoaryhead: evidence and logic please. and from: http://EvC Forum: hoaryhead: evidence and logic please.: hoaryhead made one response before the thread was arbitrarily closed, and I have included that below together with my comments in yellow :FROM: http://EvC Forum: hoaryhead: evidence and logic please. Questions asked originally that were not answered:(I'll assume your total capitulation on "man older than beasts" to answer the first two in the negative) Can you show us fossil evidence of humans being virtually unchanged in time and existant in every age that any other life is found in?Let me simplify that: show fossil evidence of humans being virtually unchanged in the time and existence of all hominids. Show that there math was correct.

​

Correlate {biblical} dates with dates known from other historical records where-ever possible.Particularly of interest would be the date of the worldwide flood, especially from a source other than the bible.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I'm sorry, I didn't think you would misinterpret the post that way. I quoted IN FULL two of my posts from ANOTHER thread that is now closed so that they would be part of this totally off topic rant session on this thread, and everyone would know the basis behind my ALSO ....... posting YOUR (previous) answer from that thread, WITH MY COMMENTS interjected to show the logical lapses, the missing information and the need to provide actual substantiation for your assertions.You only repeated them ONCE (oh dear), in answer to the repeated posts and NOT to the comments I made on your post. Sorry to put you out so. Again, you make an assertion but absolutely fail to provide any substantiation. Sorry, but denial of evidence is not refutation or in any way a challenge to the evidence: it will continue unabashed by your opinion.Previously you said "The world is full of debates about fossil evidence" to which I replied: "but NOT that they (1) exists or (2) show compelling evidence for common decent. Nor is there fossil evidence that contradicts evolution" and you have made no dent in those statements. This makes your position of blind denial tenuous at best, deceitful at worst. So it is allegorical and open to interpretation depending on the spirit inspired whim of the person reading it? Whose history do we use? How does math help reading? I repeat, they were already history when the bible was written, thus cannot be PREdiction but are POSTdictions -- just another record of history, with the caveat thrown in that {{our}} god caused it. ad hominem attacks and not addressing the points raised. Why do you feel you need to insult instead of just providing the information?Your quoting {scripture} at me is worthless, because it is not providing substantiation for your position, and makes you look like you have no real answer. Please provide real substantiation for your positions or withdraw them. Failure to do one or the other means that you do not debate in good faith.Shakespeare said it best when he said "the devil can cite scripture for his purpose" as it does not substantiate anything but a facile knowledge of the words of one book (and not necessarily the meaning). Prove it. Put up the evidence, provide the substantiation. I will respect what you demonstrate, and not what you claim. Making a claim to know God is, to me, the height of arrogance and self-delusion. Again I asked for information to substantiate the date "especially from a source other than the bible" not just a bald assertion of your personal interpretation.Tell me again (1) how you arrive at these dates and (2) where there are dates in the bible such that interpretation is not needed.Tell me again how a tree is 4,844 years old if the flood happened during its lifetime? One continuously living tree. Surrounded by others, several older than 2500 years. Still living, still growing.It seems to me that either:(1) The bible, in accordance with {your correct interpretation of it} is incorrect, OR
(2) That your interpretation is incorrect.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

brian,hoaryhead doesn't quote directly, but apparently runs your post through his perception filter and then puts down the message that he recieved.read through all his supposed quotes and compare them to the actual statementsthe advantage is that you can see he doesn't understand the questionthe disadvantage is that it is the classic strawman logic approach.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

What's the big deal here?Math is often refered to as the {one} perfect science (because you can make proofs) This still does not make writing or reading sciences, and thus still makes hoaryheads assertion an overstatement.

---

This thread is terminally of topic, imho. I don't believe holmes has been back since the OT, and there are no YEC to evo conversions posted. Perhaps it should be moved to coffeehouse and re-titled?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

any solution here?

What I have asked for (in general) is documentation that the dates you gave were actually in the bible with clear references to the years involved so that no interpretation is needed.All the events that are BC dates were written before the bible, because the bible was written ~200? ~300? (I forget which) AD.That makes them pre-existing historical record and not predictions. Documenting the actual history of the events by other sources does not alter that fact. NONE of these historical "predictions" involved peoples and places that were unknown to the people of the bible (like the Ansazi Indians in NAmerica). Again, some kind of source to check the dates, locations, claims, would make your assertion more valid. I tried several googles to get more information, but came up blank. So I can only take this at face value.So the flood only rose 10,000 feet (whoops that's not what the book says, is it?) and the Himalayas stuck out above the water, towering up to another 19,000 feet (+/- allowing for change in Everest since then)? That doesn't sound right either.http://www.pacificislandtravel.com/..._gallery/mountains.htmThis is evidence of ancient sea bottom and shoreline and not of flood. There are seashells on Everest. This is not evidence for a flood, but for the tectonic movement and the geology that is still on-going (and measurable) in the Himalayas and elsewhere. There are LOTS of places where there are ancient {bottom\shoreline}. Problem is that they are in different strata, and have different dates, different fossils, and some are layered on top of others.Nor is this evidence for a worldwide event, as you need to show evidence for the flood in one layer around the world: no matter how turbulent {you\others} speculate things were at the beginning of the flood, there were NO massive earthquakes and restructuring of the earth post flood: it was calm, and there was sufficient time for a significant enough sedimentary layer to be deposited on every acre of land. This would be like the iridium layer found around the world in the same layers and at an age of 65 mya at the end of the age of dinosaurs and indicative of the {asteroid\meteor} striking the Yucatan. Unfortunately (for you) this is NOT in a sedimentary layer. What is the reported age of your shoreline? If it had truly cut into the rock that would require sufficient time for erosion.Carbon dating is only valid up to 50,000 years ago, is invalid on rocks (it is an organic process being measured, the object tested had to have lived and consumed oxygen carbon from the atmosphere), and is generally NOT done on shells (because the carbonate used to make the shells can come from ancient reservoir sources that would bias the ¹⁴C data to make the object appear to be more ancient than it really was). Other systems are used that give valid dates for these objects. If nothing else, the layers above and below are dated and that {brackets} the time of the shoreline. And usually more than one system is used to date objects to ensure against errors and corrupted samples.What artifacts? All you mentioned was shoreline.More compelling to me is the evidence of the Black Sea inundation being the source for the mythification of a massive flood:Black Sea deluge hypothesis - WikipediaAnd I repeat, how do you reconcile your position with an actual tree was 4844 years old when cut down in 1957 (that makes the world at least 4,894 years old, and also means that the flood occurred more than 4,894 years ago -- as absolute minimums). This evidence contradicts your asserted age for the earth and the time of the flood, so either:(1) your dates are all completely wrong, and based on false speculations OR
(2) the age of the tree is wrong ... and the corroborating evidence of climate and age with oaks in england, ice in greenland, ice in the andeas and lake sediment in japan (among others), the evidence of ¹⁴C dates from the trees and organic objects in the lake varves and ice layers is all mysteriously the same even though they are totally different {systems\environments\processes}.Care to speculate which is correct? Logical fallacy (appeal to consequences), has nothing to do with the argument. Logical fallacy (style over substance), has nothing to do with the argument. Ah, yes. Every time I see a news report on the "miracle" of {this} and the "miracle" of {that}, and especially when the {event} is due to human actions (the evacuation of a plane in Toronto, medical procedures, athletic prowess ... numerous examples come to mind), this is based on some atheist kind of {miracle} eh? ... riiiiiight. This is just another groundless assertion of the same degree of validity as the claim that the news is a liberal conspiracy.More to the point, news is not science and frequently mis-reports scientific findings.And there is plenty of scientific evidence of ancient sea bottom and shoreline in the Himalayas, so this is NOT suppressed. Then let us talk with evidence and not assertions.Enjoy. I don't do off-site debates. Put your evidence here where all can see and we'll see how it pertains to the claims and counterclaims. Without any refuting evidence of any kind? Hardly.{{fixed quote box}}This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*29*2005 07:24 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

heh, I have shouldered a few 'broads' ...people tell me I am strong(but odor isn't everything)

So the oldest record of this text is from ~280 BCE, according to your source. That's 50 years (a lifetime) before the oldest record of the text ... and the text describing Alexander's viewing of it is dated ... when? Same as Daniel?Do you not see a problem with the first record of the "prediction" being 50 years after the fact? Now you are conflating {early christian} with the {writing of the bible} to obfuscate the issue that I raised. There were many sects of christians, and some with very different viewpoint, I believe. In any event the bible was not {written\assembled\codified} until much later.The Council of Nicea is a good place to start, where the "Nicene Creed" was codified and agreed on ... by all that weren't banished and {ex-communicated\exiled} for having false beliefs.FROM: The Council of Nicaea and the Bible(click)
Of course this is using the records of the Coucil of Nicea ... and without questions.I just love people verbally stumbling over trying to minimize the fact that "almost no" means {there was some} evidence. There is also an unavoidable bias in believers having to believe that the bible they believe in is not made of cloth, and this makes their analysis questionable at best.In any event, whatever evidence they do or don't have (from the perps?) or that they choose or don't to view, there are also writings that have been found by archaeologists that are NOT in the bible and that appear to be as valid accounts of one or the other apostles as any in the bible, like Thomas the Gnostic (and what happened to the Gnostics anyway eh?). Exclusion is evidence of censorship regardless of what is known to have been censored eh?we also have
FROM: Oldest known Bible to go online (click)
and FROM: Oldest Bible Version(click)
The older "vulgate" is not in existence and in only known by reference, and so cannot be compared directly to a current bible. This leaves us with 383 CE as the earliest known fully recorded version.The point being that the book was {written\assembled\codified} between ~200 and ~300 CE (if not later), some elements known to have existed then are omitted, so there could well be others -- others with as much validity as the elements that are included. We do not know what they say. We do know that there were sects that were persecuted by more "main-line" christian sects.I note in passing that 168 BCE is a LOT later than 280 BCE ... and loooong after 331 BCE. But I also note to be fair, that the dead sea scrolls span a time from the ~third century BCE to ~70 CE, so just that one portion is 168 BCE.All of this is just a long winded way of saying that all you have is a book {written\assembled\codified} after an event that you say it predicted.And this doesn't even address this issue of a {non-bias\arms-length} prediction muddied by letting the person involved in on the hoped for results of the experiment: I also do not see a predicted year for the conquest (didn't you originally include that or did I just misread you?), so we are in effect, sitting around waiting until the first conqueror comes along that could be called "greek" and who happens to conquer "persia" and if it hadn't been Alexander, there would have been other candidates made to fit the "prediction" -- this is the pattern of your later "predictions" btw.Results so far:(1)
ACTION - Alexander conquers persia
PRE^POSTDICTION - follows 50 years (or more) later in the earliest known records.(2)
Earliest date (new testament) contents of bible can be verified is 383 CE, without knowing what has been left out or purged as contradictory. This makes all historical references to {actions\occurrences\happening} from before that period just historical references and not predictions of any kind.You have not shown {documented\dated\sealed} PREDICTION {followed by} EVENT {followed by} REVELATION OF PREDICTION.You still have not shown how you derive dates from the bible: Or later (it just has to follow the event)? John would have to have been in his 60's at the time, not unreasonable, but why so late? Again, how do you get to 66 CE? My searching only finds that his rule ended in 39 CE, and there doesn't seem to be any agreement on when he died.FROM: Herod Antipas (click)
I would expect an encyclopedia to have birth and death of {relevant person} when those dates are known.AND.You still have not shown how a 4894 year old tree can be explained in your timeline of the world and the universe.It seems to me to be rather irrelevant to be discussing dates at all until this issue is resolved, seeing as it challenges the whole structure of your dating frames, but that would be me.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

and, adding to what AdminBrian said: There are two buttons at the top of the message you are replying to that allow you to chose between {normal} and {peek mode} -- in peek mode you can see how quote boxes like the above are coded. Excuse me for not being more explicitly specific. My mistake. My intended meaning was that there was no period, immediately following a (supposed) worldwide flood, of world-wide massive earthquakes that restructured the whole earth in the last 65,000,000 years or more (that goes back to the {meteor\asteroid} impact at the end of the age of dinosaurs, which comes the closest, imho).All these {images} of yours are just more evidence of tectonic movement of plates of the earth such as have been going on for as long as there has been a solid surface (~4 billion years). So you concede:

• That the Brokaw video (whatever it shows) is not scientific evidence of a flood, but just normal tectonic plate lifting and mountain forming,
• That there is no evidence for a worldwide flood,
• And that your dates are all completely wrong, and based on false speculations.

I say this because you have presented no evidence or argument to refute these points made in the post you replied to, nor do you demonstrate that you misunderstood those points (so you must have understood them if I did better at explaining them to you, right?).Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

See:andClick on the images for larger versions easier to read.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I agree, particularly about YEC, evidenced by OEC and gapEC and ... etc. ... just among fundamentalists.In fact this is why Christianity will survive acknowledging that the evidence for an old earth is at least as compelling (if not more accessible to the average bear) than the evidence for the earth circling the sun.YEC is dead, Christianity will live on.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

ROFLOLthe old declare victory and run from the field (at a gallop) gambit. Pure unadulterated ad hominem attack on the person and not on the message.Problem for you: the message defeats you if you have no answser to it. What I actually said was: So if there is another source out there and you did not provide it, this can hardly by my fault, eh? If you have other, valid information (even if you failed to provide it before) I will be glad to consider it. All I ask is for substantiation of your positions.From Septuagint - Wikipedia WHAT??? making changes??? For {political} reasons???And this is, of course, still after Alexander did his conquering thing.Any speculations come to mind there?Of course I also said: And these are notably ancient hebrew (and LOTS of stuff not in the bible ... although I believe there a couple of ones in other languages). Dated from artifacts? Sorry I am going to need much more of a reference than this. And you still have yet to provide that handy dandy conversion metric to get from {mythical\historical} dates to a method that is only 1000 years old (and erroneous). See if you can substantiate this one point, seeing as you have been unable to substantiate any other. It doesn't bother me that you acknowledge defeat, even if you have to pretend to yourself that you are leaving a winner (the evidence says otherwise).Thank you for conceding the points on himalayan shorelines, tectonic movement, lack of evidence for worldwide events of flood and restructuring, post-dictions of events, the actual validity of the many dating methods including ¹⁴C, and that the fossil evidence supports common descent and evolution (I think that about covers the list of your points I have corrected with evidence and which you have not attempted to refute)....AND.You still have not shown how a 4894 year old tree can be explained in your timeline of the world and the universe.Enjoy your gallopBe sure to cover your eyes and ears and yell LA-LA-LA-LA-LA as you go.Watch out for the trees. Especially Pinus longaeva ... they have long roots.bu-bye.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}