Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-14-2017 5:01 AM
332 online now:
CosmicChimp, frako, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Pressie, Tangle (6 members, 326 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,107 Year: 28,713/21,208 Month: 779/1,847 Week: 154/475 Day: 1/46 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Author Topic:   Could asteroids lead to the extinction of YECism ?
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1417
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 121 of 137 (723156)
03-27-2014 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Faith
03-27-2014 8:24 AM


Re: Old Earth views of some Christian leaders
I was afraid you wouldn't get the point. Tectonic plates moving at several feet per day would have happened in the "observable past", according to your view. 3,000 + feet of sediment in the GC was laid down in the "observable past", according to your view. Dinosaurs would have lived in the "observable past" according to your view. And the list goes on and on ...

If you really believe that your view is correct, there is no "unobservable past". You have everything happening in the "observable past", so it should be completely knowable - even without the Bible to tell us what happened.

However, when we look at the evidence that we can see TODAY, in the present, and try to understand what happened in the past, we get a very different picture.

So we have 3 options:

1. The Bible is wrong.

2. We have misunderstood what the Bible teaches about these things.

3. The "knowable past" is actually "unknowable".

The third choice is a logical inconsistency, so that is not the correct choice. But that is the one you keep falling back on.

My personal position is #2.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 03-27-2014 8:24 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by NoNukes, posted 03-27-2014 5:48 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7277
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 122 of 137 (723168)
03-27-2014 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Faith
03-27-2014 3:56 AM


Re: Old Earth views of some Christian leaders
Not missing this at all. Of course some interpretations are wrong, that's the whole point.

So how would you know if your interpretation is wrong? What evidence, if found, would falsify your interpretation with respect to asteroids?

I've simply pointed out that the establishment interpretations of the unknowable past . . .

First you were saying that we just have different interpretations. Now you are saying that we aren't allowed to interpret the facts at all. Which is it?

Can we reconstruct the past using evidence found in the present? Yes or no?

And I believe that at least some of the opposing creationist interpretations are the correct ones, but I can't prove those either.

I would be happy if you at least tried to demonstrate that the interpretations are consistent with the facts we do have. If you can't do that, then what good are those interpretations? Even worse, if you can't show that the interpretation is falsifiable, then it isn't even an interpretation.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 03-27-2014 3:56 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7277
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 123 of 137 (723169)
03-27-2014 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Faith
03-27-2014 8:35 AM


Re: Old Earth views of some Christian leaders
But as HBD said, I don't have an unobservable past to deal with, I have an observed past that tells me when some things happened so I can place the Flood in history for instance while secular science ignores all the evidence for it and goes on making up stuff that has NO verification whatever.

How do you know that it was observed?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 03-27-2014 8:35 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13968
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 124 of 137 (723170)
03-27-2014 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by kbertsche
03-26-2014 3:22 PM


Re: Old Earth views of some Christian leaders
kbertsche writes:

More accurately, it's some interpretations of the Bible that are wrong, just as in Galileo's day his opponents wrongly interpreted the Bible to teach geocentrism.


Fair enough, but you have to jump through a lot of hoops to get an interpretation that matches reality. Geocentrism is a particularly bad example. While the Bible might not specifically dictate geocentrism, it certainly doesn't specify otherwise either. It's vague enough that you could shoehorn almost any shape of universe into it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by kbertsche, posted 03-26-2014 3:22 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by kbertsche, posted 03-27-2014 2:16 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13968
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(4)
Message 125 of 137 (723171)
03-27-2014 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Faith
03-27-2014 7:49 AM


Re: Old Earth views of some Christian leaders
Faith writes:

Christians do not reject science, REAL science....


You most certainly do reject science. You've invented a fantasy called "REAL science" but you most certainly do reject the science that scientists do.

And please don't drag all Christians down to your level.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 03-27-2014 7:49 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10119
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


(2)
Message 126 of 137 (723178)
03-27-2014 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Faith
03-27-2014 8:35 AM


Re: Old Earth views of some Christian leaders
I don't have an unobservable past to deal with

Don't be ridiculous. Who observed the Grand Canyon forming or Adam being formed from dust or the creation of the moon and the lesser lights.

You argue that materialistic evidence supports your position on those things all the time.

Further you don't require observation before you spout silly stuff anyway.

Every time we look at Alpha Centauri we are observing how it appeared 4.3 years ago. That is from the observable and knowable past. And when we view the andromeda galaxy, we are viewing directly the state of that galaxy 2.5 million years ago. Not unobservable in any sense.

You can 'interpret' that stuff to conform to a 6000 year old universe only because you don' t have any ability to check your work.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 03-27-2014 8:35 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1424
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 127 of 137 (723194)
03-27-2014 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by ringo
03-27-2014 11:36 AM


Re: Old Earth views of some Christian leaders
ringo writes:

Geocentrism is a particularly bad example. While the Bible might not specifically dictate geocentrism, it certainly doesn't specify otherwise either. It's vague enough that you could shoehorn almost any shape of universe into it.


EXACTLY! The Bible is not trying to teach ANY particular "shape" for the universe; it's not concerned about the shape of the universe.

I believe the same is true for the age of the universe. The Bible is not trying to teach ANY particular timetable for creation. The Bible is concerned about WHO created the universe and WHY, not WHEN or HOW. (Note: Genesis does appear to explain "how" God created the universe, but this is a "how" in theological terms, which addresses more the "why" and the "who". It is not a "how" in modern scientific, mechanistic terms.)


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by ringo, posted 03-27-2014 11:36 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by NoNukes, posted 03-27-2014 4:04 PM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 130 by ringo, posted 03-28-2014 11:34 AM kbertsche has responded
 Message 133 by Diomedes, posted 03-30-2014 5:57 PM kbertsche has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10119
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 128 of 137 (723202)
03-27-2014 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by kbertsche
03-27-2014 2:16 PM


Re: Old Earth views of some Christian leaders
EXACTLY! The Bible is not trying to teach ANY particular "shape" for the universe; it's not concerned about the shape of the universe.

Exactly, Exactly. Therefore scientific experiments which provide a more detailed picture of the Big Bang have no Biblical implications, because they deal with an issue that is of no concern of the Bible.

I knew we'd agree on something.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by kbertsche, posted 03-27-2014 2:16 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10119
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 129 of 137 (723215)
03-27-2014 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by herebedragons
03-27-2014 8:57 AM


Re: Old Earth views of some Christian leaders
2. We have misunderstood what the Bible teaches about these things.

2A. The Bible actually makes no attempt to teach about those things.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by herebedragons, posted 03-27-2014 8:57 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13968
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 130 of 137 (723258)
03-28-2014 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by kbertsche
03-27-2014 2:16 PM


Re: Old Earth views of some Christian leaders
kbertsche writes:

The Bible is not trying to teach ANY particular timetable for creation.


So day-age scenarios and gap scenarios are as big a waste of time as young-earth creationism.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by kbertsche, posted 03-27-2014 2:16 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by kbertsche, posted 03-28-2014 2:38 PM ringo has responded

  
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1424
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 131 of 137 (723285)
03-28-2014 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by ringo
03-28-2014 11:34 AM


Re: Old Earth views of some Christian leaders
ringo writes:

kbertsche writes:


The Bible is not trying to teach ANY particular timetable for creation.


So day-age scenarios and gap scenarios are as big a waste of time as young-earth creationism.

No, my statement doesn't imply this. These scenarios do not try to derive a timetable for creation from the Bible. They get their timetables from modern science.

These scenarios (as well as the "Framework", "Days of proclamation", and "Ancient near eastern cosmology" views) are useful in trying to think through the issues and in trying to see how the biblical account can be consistent with modern science.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by ringo, posted 03-28-2014 11:34 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by ringo, posted 03-29-2014 11:46 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13968
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 132 of 137 (723332)
03-29-2014 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by kbertsche
03-28-2014 2:38 PM


Re: Old Earth views of some Christian leaders
kbertsche writes:

... trying to see how the biblical account can be consistent with modern science.


The whole problem, though, is in trying to make the Bible consistent with modern science. It isn't. It was never meant to be.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by kbertsche, posted 03-28-2014 2:38 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 669
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 133 of 137 (723347)
03-30-2014 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by kbertsche
03-27-2014 2:16 PM


Re: Old Earth views of some Christian leaders
The Bible is concerned about WHO created the universe and WHY, not WHEN or HOW.

Are you familiar with the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy?

In a nutshell, energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed. Merely transformed from type to another.

What people in religious circles have difficulty grasping is that while the universe as we know it had a point of origin, the energy that comprises space and time had no point of creation by virtue of the Law of Conservation of Energy. Energy, by its inherent properties cannot be created.

If one wants to ascribe a divine source for creation of the universe, they have to concede that while god could have potentially set certain things in motion, he actually could have not 'created' anything. At least, not in the sense of creation from scratch, so to speak.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by kbertsche, posted 03-27-2014 2:16 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by kbertsche, posted 03-30-2014 9:11 PM Diomedes has responded

  
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1424
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 134 of 137 (723349)
03-30-2014 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Diomedes
03-30-2014 5:57 PM


Re: Old Earth views of some Christian leaders
Diomedes writes:

Are you familiar with the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy?

In a nutshell, energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed. Merely transformed from type to another.


Yes, conservation of mass-energy is very basic physics.

Diomedes writes:

What people in religious circles have difficulty grasping is that while the universe as we know it had a point of origin, the energy that comprises space and time had no point of creation by virtue of the Law of Conservation of Energy. Energy, by its inherent properties cannot be created.

If one wants to ascribe a divine source for creation of the universe, they have to concede that while god could have potentially set certain things in motion, he actually could have not 'created' anything. At least, not in the sense of creation from scratch, so to speak.


We seem to agree that our universe had a beginning. But I don't follow where you are going from here. Are you suggesting that the mass-energy that makes up our universe did NOT have a beginning, that it was eternal? If so, how do you reconcile this with our universe having a beginning? Or are you using conservation of mass-energy to reject the Big Bang?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Diomedes, posted 03-30-2014 5:57 PM Diomedes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Diomedes, posted 03-31-2014 9:26 AM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 136 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-31-2014 9:57 AM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 137 by ringo, posted 03-31-2014 12:19 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 669
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 135 of 137 (723360)
03-31-2014 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by kbertsche
03-30-2014 9:11 PM


Re: Old Earth views of some Christian leaders
We seem to agree that our universe had a beginning. But I don't follow where you are going from here. Are you suggesting that the mass-energy that makes up our universe did NOT have a beginning, that it was eternal? If so, how do you reconcile this with our universe having a beginning? Or are you using conservation of mass-energy to reject the Big Bang?

The universe as we know it had a beginning. But what I am stipulating is that it was not a 'poof' into existence scenario. It was more akin to a state change from one form to another.

The fallacy most are making when they examine the Big Bang is that they make an assumption that it was a something from nothing scenario. That is false. The Big Bang was actually an expansion event where space-time formed from the energy resident in the singularity. A good analogy is to consider states of matter: gases, liquids and solids. An ice cube 'came into existence' as an ice cube. But it originally began as liquid water. It changed states.

Note that this is in no way a 'rejection' of the Big Bang. The Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy follows along perfectly with the notion of the Big Bang. However, the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy is a refutation of the creation supposition, since it automatically refutes the notion of the universe having simply been created from scratch.

There are of course other avenues the creation argument can go. That god used part of his own 'energy' to form the universe. However, this does not seem to conform to scripture.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by kbertsche, posted 03-30-2014 9:11 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017