Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (9011 total)
55 online now:
Aussie, AZPaul3, jar, PaulK, PurpleYouko, Tangle (6 members, 49 visitors)
Newest Member: Burrawang
Upcoming Birthdays: Coragyps
Happy Birthday: DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 881,649 Year: 13,397/23,288 Month: 327/795 Week: 28/95 Day: 9/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Off Topic Posts aka Rabbit Trail Thread - Mostly YEC Geology
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1 of 409 (684309)
12-17-2012 2:25 AM


I don't know if this is a good or bad idea but I don't want to continue with the off topic stuff that's messing up the Heat Release from Tectonic Friction thread, yet it's hard to avoid the temptation, so I thought I'd bring my answer to PaulK's latest to a separate thread.

This could be a sort of junk yard thread for the collection of all such rabbit trails from other threads as well. You know, a whole messy melange of unrelated rabbit trails. Should keep the dedicated threads a little neater. I figure if someone seriously wants to discuss one of these rabbit trails a topic for the purpose can be proposed so this thread is just to keep the tangents from messing up the main threads.

If this is a lousy idea feel free to scratch the thread.

ANSWER TO PAULK on TECTONIC HEAT THREAD:
Anyway here's PaulK's last post and my reply to it:

*My* interpretation of the Bible is the historical interpretation of the Bible that was accepted in the formative years of Geology.

And one that was rejected when it turned out that the evidence did not fit. That's the reality.

That's what happened in the field of Geology, it is not what happened in the Christian churches, which is my overall frame of reference.

There's nothing peculiar to *me* about my interpretation, it's quite standard. A lot of novel, corrupted and liberal ideas have sprung up over the last century but I'm representing the traditional historical interpretation.

So in your mind tradition MUST be believed ? Even if the evidence is strongly against the truth of that interpretation ?

My point in emphasizing the historical facts about Christian belief is not to reduce it to "tradition" but to emphasize that it's Biblical truth according to the majority of Bible believers, historically and through the present. You keep reducing it to **my** dogma, **my** belief, I'm answering, No, I'm representing mainstream Biblical Christianity, a huge company of believers through the millennia that I agree with.

As for "evidence," you continue to think you HAVE evidence for an old earth, at least you think your evidence is iron-clad, and I am disputing that claim on the ground that evidence about the past can only be inferential. I've answered a lot of it to my own satisfaction if not yours, such as about Hutton's ridiculous speculative subjective "evidence" that was accepted by the whole field of Geology, but I've also said on that thread that if I can't answer a piece of your inferential "evidence" I still have to take the position of Kurt Wise that the Bible is God's word and I choose it over your evidence. And again I'll say that evidence in the context of the true sciences does not come in conflict with the Bible and that's the majority of the sciences.

I don't see that I should have any obligation to prove that God claims the Earth is young when that was the standard historical Christian understanding of Genesis for all orthodox believers back to the beginning (with the exception of Augustine and a few others who had an allegorical understanding of it). Surely you are aware of this history.

I'm aware that the traditional interpretation was for a young Earth. I am NOT aware that there was a tradition that God said so - and THAT is something that cannot be derived from a plain reading of the Bible.

Oh I think there is no doubt that the plain reading of Genesis describes a young earth. It takes some fancy footwork to make it say anything else. And the Bible is God's Word, so since this is the accepted understanding by Bible believers down the centuries of course God said so.

But even if it was a tradition, why should WE believe it ? Just because you hate the other interpretations ?

Because it's the truth, Paul, because it's the truth.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2012 2:52 AM Faith has responded
 Message 11 by Genomicus, posted 12-17-2012 10:33 AM Faith has responded
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 12-17-2012 11:56 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2 of 409 (684311)
12-17-2012 2:37 AM


Another one on YEC beliefs from the Tectonic Heat thread
I'm on record here in a number of places including nonYEC's among "real Christians" so you are wrong about that. While I think Genesis is extremely important to the gospel itself, I've allowed that there are probably true believers who give in to science on that, although they shouldn't and I think it's sad that this has happened. I regard them as "real Christians" if they hold to the doctrines of salvation nevertheless

You're also on record as saying that they SHOULDN'T be Christians....

Message 198

That Black Sea stuff is an accommodation to the OE paradigm. The Bible SAYS "the whole world," that MEANS the WHOLE WORLD. You've bought the OE. You'd be a lot better off if you just gave up the Bible, because it's a great sin to try to conform it to such nonsense. Go whole hog and become a secular geologist, you'll be a lot safer. Maybe later on if there's still time you can rethink it all and come back to the Bible. A compromised Bible is worse than no Bible.

I've since allowed that foreveryoung is probably a Christian, but I will admit to still having doubts. When you deny the Biblical record so far as to call what it calls a worldwide Flood a local flood instead, or when you suppose humans to have pre-existed Adam and Eve, and death to have pre-existed them, when the historical Biblical reading of the text has death entering with the Fall and not before, I would say you are in danger of not really believing in salvation. Because what we are saved FROM is death and the sin that causes it. If death pre-existed sin the whole message of redemption is messed up.

If it's better to be a non-believer than a non-YEC Christian it's hard to see how you can count non-YECs as "real Christians". Certainly you can't accept that there is any possibility that they are saved. Which is odd really as there's nothing in the Bible to say that salvation depends on accepting YEC views.

But as I say above, redemption or salvation is all of a piece with the historical understanding of the Fall and when you add millions of years and assume that death pre-existed the entrance of sin you are compromising the very foundations of salvation.

That's what prompted my post to foreveryoung. I've allowed that he and Buz and others who compromise these things are saved if they adhere to the basic doctrines of salvation, but I must admit I'm not sure how far to allow this.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2012 4:06 AM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16577
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 3 of 409 (684313)
12-17-2012 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
12-17-2012 2:25 AM


Following Faith's Rabbit Trail...
quote:

That's what happened in the field of Geology, it is not what happened in the Christian churches, which is my overall frame of reference.

But it DID follow in Christian churches.

quote:

My point in emphasizing the historical facts about Christian belief is not to reduce it to "tradition" but to emphasize that it's Biblical truth according to the majority of Bible believers, historically and through the present. You keep reducing it to **my** dogma, **my** belief, I'm answering, No, I'm representing mainstream Biblical Christianity, a huge company of believers through the millennia that I agree with.

i.e. you are arguing for it on the grounds that it is a tradition....

quote:

As for "evidence," you continue to think you HAVE evidence for an old earth, at least you think your evidence is iron-clad, and I am disputing that claim on the ground that evidence about the past can only be inferential. I've answered a lot of it to my own satisfaction if not yours, such as about Hutton's ridiculous speculative subjective "evidence" that was accepted by the whole field of Geology, but I've also said on that thread that if I can't answer a piece of your inferential "evidence" I still have to take the position of Kurt Wise that the Bible is God's word and I choose it over your evidence. And again I'll say that evidence in the context of the true sciences does not come in conflict with the Bible and that's the majority of the sciences.

Since how you can't explain how the scenario you use to "answer" Hutton is even possible it can't be said to be satisfactory to any honest thinking person. It can't even be a valid reason to condemn Hutton's rationality. At this stage your argument only calls your own rationality into question

And indeed we DO have very strong evidence that you can't answer. If you choose to reject that then that's up to you. But you can't expect us to reject it just because you do.

And I note that you have yet to answer my point about the sheep. Do genetics and developmental biology fail to meet your criteria for "true sciences" ?

quote:

Oh I think there is no doubt that the plain reading of Genesis describes a young earth. It takes some fancy footwork to make it say anything else. And the Bible is God's Word, so since this is the accepted understanding by Bible believers down the centuries of course God said so.

So the "accepted understanding by Bible believers" dictates what God and did not do, even if the Bible itself does not say so ? Even if the Bible itself weighs AGAINST that view ? That's a very odd stance for someone who supposedly believes in sola scripture.

quote:

Because it's the truth, Paul, because it's the truth.

It's up to you to convince us of that. Appeals to tradition aren't going to do it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 12-17-2012 2:25 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 12-17-2012 3:44 AM PaulK has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 4 of 409 (684316)
12-17-2012 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by PaulK
12-17-2012 2:52 AM


Re: Rabbit Trail.. YEC Biblical doctrine, Hutton.
That's what happened in the field of Geology, it is not what happened in the Christian churches, which is my overall frame of reference.

But it DID follow in Christian churches.

Some churches went liberal and that was one of the tenets that was compromised along with many others. Those churches are rejected by the Bible believing churches as not Christian at all. I'm aware of the TRUE churches that continue to exist and the historical thread of true churches that goes back to the apostles and you keep bringing in the deviations and erosions. I don't know what the statistics are but I'm aware that those deviations exist, the problem is that you don't seem to be aware that there remains a genuine Bible-inerrancy Bible-believing body of believers and collection of churches that continues as the true Church.

My point in emphasizing the historical facts about Christian belief is not to reduce it to "tradition" but to emphasize that it's Biblical truth according to the majority of Bible believers, historically and through the present. You keep reducing it to **my** dogma, **my** belief, I'm answering, No, I'm representing mainstream Biblical Christianity, a huge company of believers through the millennia that I agree with.

i.e. you are arguing for it on the grounds that it is a tradition....

Yes in the sense you are using the word, but I avoid that word because in Christian history that term refers to NONBiblical doctrine, to man-made additions to the Christian life, and everything I'm saying here is about the BIBLICAL understanding, which is regarded as God's word.

As for "evidence," you continue to think you HAVE evidence for an old earth, at least you think your evidence is iron-clad, and I am disputing that claim on the ground that evidence about the past can only be inferential. I've answered a lot of it to my own satisfaction if not yours, such as about Hutton's ridiculous speculative subjective "evidence" that was accepted by the whole field of Geology, but I've also said on that thread that if I can't answer a piece of your inferential "evidence" I still have to take the position of Kurt Wise that the Bible is God's word and I choose it over your evidence. And again I'll say that evidence in the context of the true sciences does not come in conflict with the Bible and that's the majority of the sciences.

Since how you can't explain how the scenario you use to "answer" Hutton is even possible it can't be said to be satisfactory to any honest thinking person.

Oh it should be but it would be hard to get it through the barriers set up by prejudice. It's quite reasonable to suggest that the angular unconformity of Siccar Point, and all such uncomformities such as the one at the base of the Grand Canyon, were created after the entire stack of sediments was in place, by tectonic or volcanic force from underneath that displaced a certain depth of the strata even to upright position while leaving the upper stack horizontal. Yes it does work and I am a thinking person. You can ponder my posts at my blog on the subject if you like:

http://evofantasy.blogspot.com/...l/Angular%20unconformities.

And then come back and insult me about them.

Also, Hutton claimed in accordance with his idea that the lower strata were first tilted and then the upper strata laid over them, that there had to be millions of years between the two, but anyone with eyes can see there is no difference in the erosion or weathering of the two sections of the formation, which common sense should tell you there would be if there were millions of years between them. And this is also true for the exposed strata in the Grand Canyon and everywhere else. The strata show NO signs of differences in age let alone such huge differences.

It can't even be a valid reason to condemn Hutton's rationality.

It's his THEORY that's irrational, indefensible, pure subjective speculation. I'm sure the man himself was otherwise quite rational.

At this stage your argument only calls your own rationality into question
\

That's the risk creationists must take.

And indeed we DO have very strong evidence that you can't answer. If you choose to reject that then that's up to you. But you can't expect us to reject it just because you do.

Hutton's theory is not strong evidence and not hard to answer. The only "strong" evidence you have is radiometric dating, that's the only evidence that's hard to answer, but someone will. Even now it's easy to see that there's an awful lot of slippage between the theory and the practice.

And I note that you have yet to answer my point about the sheep. Do genetics and developmental biology fail to meet your criteria for "true sciences" ?

I guess you mean Jacob's thing about spotted sheep or something like that? I've never done an experiment to see if there's anything to it, have you? But I'd assume this was something God arranged. Surely there's nothing wrong with the genetics as such, it's only the means that was chosen to ensure the emergence of a particular trait that's in question.

Oh I think there is no doubt that the plain reading of Genesis describes a young earth. It takes some fancy footwork to make it say anything else. And the Bible is God's Word, so since this is the accepted understanding by Bible believers down the centuries of course God said so.

So the "accepted understanding by Bible believers" dictates what God and did not do, even if the Bible itself does not say so ?

But it does say so as Bible believers affirm. You are the only one saying it doesn't, based on what I can't imagine. The plain text is quite clear.

Even if the Bible itself weighs AGAINST that view ? That's a very odd stance for someone who supposedly believes in sola scripture.

The Bible does not weigh against that view. That's your own bizarre notion.

Because it's the truth, Paul, because it's the truth.

It's up to you to convince us of that. Appeals to tradition aren't going to do it.

Most likely nothing I could say would do it. You could try believing it though.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2012 2:52 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2012 4:34 AM Faith has responded
 Message 17 by Coragyps, posted 12-17-2012 2:05 PM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16577
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 5 of 409 (684319)
12-17-2012 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Faith
12-17-2012 2:37 AM


Re: Another one on YEC beliefs from the Tectonic Heat thread
Here,s a simple answer. If there is even a possibility of salvation while "compromising" your dogma, it would be better for them to remain Christian, would it not? So why claim otherwise ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Faith, posted 12-17-2012 2:37 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 12-17-2012 5:41 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16577
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 6 of 409 (684320)
12-17-2012 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
12-17-2012 3:44 AM


Re: Rabbit Trail.. YEC Biblical doctrine, Hutton.
quote:

Some churches went liberal and that was one of the tenets that was compromised along with many others. Those churches are rejected by the Bible believing churches as not Christian at all.

In other words your point was that acceptance of an old Earth didn't happen in the churches where it didn't happen. Not much of a point, then, was it ? (And I note that you're back to claiming that non-YECs aren't Christian)

quote:

Yes in the sense you are using the word, but I avoid that word because in Christian history that term refers to NONBiblical doctrine, to man-made additions to the Christian life, and everything I'm saying here is about the BIBLICAL understanding, which is regarded as God's word.

Then it seems to be tradition in the sense that you would use the word, too.

quote:

Oh it should be but it would be hard to get it through the barriers set up by prejudice.

I would say that the sheer implausibility of your scenario is the major barrier.

quote:

It's quite reasonable to suggest that the angular unconformity of Siccar Point, and all such uncomformities such as the one at the base of the Grand Canyon, were created after the entire stack of sediments was in place, by tectonic or volcanic force from underneath that displaced a certain depth of the strata even to upright position while leaving the upper stack horizontal. Yes it does work and I am a thinking person. You can ponder my posts at my blog on the subject if you like:

http://evofantasy.blogspot.com/...l/Angular%20unconformities.


No, it isn't. You can't just ignore the upper strata. It isn't a given that they would just sit there, hardly affected, while the rock underneath is being so grossly distorted. There WILL be strong upward forces being exerted on those rocks, for a start.

And your link doesn't work.

quote:

Also, Hutton claimed in accordance with his idea that the lower strata were first tilted and then the upper strata laid over them, that there had to be millions of years between the two, but anyone with eyes can see there is no difference in the erosion or weathering of the two sections of the formation, which common sense should tell you there would be if there were millions of years between them. And this is also true for the exposed strata in the Grand Canyon and everywhere else. The strata show NO signs of differences in age let alone such huge differences.

That's not even true. There are lumps of the (lower) greywacke found in the sandstone in places, which requires that the lithified greywacke was being eroded before or even while the sand was being deposited. And, of course, if you're talking about vertical sections weathering would start when they are exposed, not when they were deposited.

quote:

It's his THEORY that's irrational, indefensible, pure subjective speculation. I'm sure the man himself was otherwise quite rational.

What's irrational about it ?

quote:

Hutton's theory is not strong evidence and not hard to answer. The only "strong" evidence you have is radiometric dating, that's the only evidence that's hard to answer, but someone will. Even now it's easy to see that there's an awful lot of slippage between the theory and the practice.

You seem to have problems answering Hutton, and of course there is other evidence (such as observed erosion) which needs explanation.

quote:

I guess you mean Jacob's thing about spotted sheep or something like that? I've never done an experiment to see if there's anything to it, have you? But I'd assume this was something God arranged. Surely there's nothing wrong with the genetics as such, it's only the means that was chosen to ensure the emergence of a particular trait that's in question.

The Bible doesn't say that God had any part in it. And what makes you think that sheep's coats will be affected by the parents seeing striped rods while mating ? That's obviously not genetic and I doubt that you can come up with any plausible natural mechanism.

quote:

But it does say so as Bible believers affirm. You are the only one saying it doesn't, based on what I can't imagine. The plain text is quite clear.

OK, please quote the verse of the Bible where God explicitly says that the Earth is young. Include any other verses necessary to show that God did say it, according to the Bible.

quote:

The Bible does not weigh against that view. That's your own bizarre notion.

You mean that it is against your traditions - in YOUR sense. I've read the Bible, I know what it says.

quote:

Most likely nothing I could say would do it. You could try believing it though

Not really. Intellectual honesty forbids it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 12-17-2012 3:44 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 12-17-2012 6:59 AM PaulK has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 7 of 409 (684321)
12-17-2012 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by PaulK
12-17-2012 4:06 AM


Re: Another one on YEC beliefs from the Tectonic Heat thread
Here,s a simple answer. If there is even a possibility of salvation while "compromising" your dogma, it would be better for them to remain Christian, would it not? So why claim otherwise ?

The context in which I said it would be better to be a secular geologist rather than hold on to a tattered idea of the gospel was his already having denied so much of what the Bible says, and specifically what the Bible says in so many words about the Flood's having been world wide. He was instead trying to talk me into the idea of a local flood in the Black Sea area having been what occurred at that time and what the Bible was supposedly really referring to. NOT when the Bible SAID the Flood was world wide. When you've already falsified the actual words of scripture you are on very dangerous ground, and you would be way better off just abandoning the whole thing than going further into that sort of mishandling of God's word. We can always hope he might come back some time in the future. I'm just saying it's best to minimize the damage.

If he is truly saved, by the way, he'll stay saved and God will bring him back eventually.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2012 4:06 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2012 7:41 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 8 of 409 (684324)
12-17-2012 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulK
12-17-2012 4:34 AM


Re: Rabbit Trail.. YEC Biblical doctrine, Hutton.
Some churches went liberal and that was one of the tenets that was compromised along with many others. Those churches are rejected by the Bible believing churches as not Christian at all.

In other words your point was that acceptance of an old Earth didn't happen in the churches where it didn't happen.

Which are the true Churches which adhere to the Biblical revelation.

Then it seems to be tradition in the sense that you would use the word, too.

But I don't want to create confusion by using it so I don't.

It's quite reasonable to suggest that the angular unconformity of Siccar Point and all such uncomformities such as the one at the base of the Grand Canyon, were created after the entire stack of sediments was in place, by tectonic or volcanic force from underneath that displaced a certain depth of the strata even to upright position while leaving the upper stack horizontal. Yes it does work and I am a thinking person. You can ponder my posts at my blog on the subject if you like:
http://evofantasy.blogspot.com/...l/Angular%20unconformities.

No it isn't. You can't just ignore the upper strata. It isn't a given that they would just sit there, hardly affected, while the rock underneath is being so grossly distorted. There WILL be strong upward forces being exerted on those rocks, for a start.

I don't IGNORE them, I picture a huge stack of horizontal strata that was originally in place such that its weight would be a great resistance to any force from beneath so that the tilting action would be stopped at the point in the stack where ithe weight above equals the force from beneath. And when I was looking for the best model for this I ran across Lyell's illustrations and discussions that provided it for me. In the Grand Canyon the upward force was sufficient to lift the entire stack, which accounts for the "uplift" into which the canyon was cut. I do take all these things into account.

And your link doesn't work.

Here's the link to the blog: http://evofantasy.blogspot.com
Scroll down the right margin to "Angular unconformities" and that will bring up the page that wasn't working.

Also, Hutton claimed in accordance with his idea that the lower strata were first tilted and then the upper strata laid over them, that there had to be millions of years between the two, but anyone with eyes can see there is no difference in the erosion or weathering of the two sections of the formation, which common sense should tell you there would be if there were millions of years between them. And this is also true for the exposed strata in the Grand Canyon and everywhere else. The strata show NO signs of differences in age let alone such huge differences.

That's not even true. There are lumps of the (lower) greywacke found in the sandstone in places, which requires that the lithified greywacke was being eroded before or even while the sand was being deposited.

I thought you were talking about the Grand Canyon for some reason so I wrote the next paragraph before this one. But the same logic applies. The erosion occurs where the tilted lower strata meet the upper horizontal strata and would have been brought about by the tectonic force that did the tilting. Both sections should have been partially lithified but also still damp from the Flood, and the harder greywacke would erode in lumps while the sandstone would sift downward as sand. The fact that the greywacke was on end or buckled while the sandstone remained horizontal would also contribute to this form of erosion.

The erosion in the Grand Canyon occurs only at the junction between the Great Unconformity and the layer above it, the Tapeats Sandstone. Creationists explain that as erosion created by a massive debris laden wave that picked up and moved debris from the lithified layer, accepting the old earth idea that the lower layer was already there when the Flood occurred. I think of it as created by the violent horizontal movement from beneath against the strata above caused by the tectonic and or volcanic force from below after all were in place. Its depth in the stack would explain why it was already lithified or partially lithified. This is under at least two miles of strata.

But that's the only place you see such erosion, at the junction of the Great Unconformity and the horizontal upper strata. By rights there should be all kinds of erosion in all the strata up the stack if they were laid down over millions of years. Certainly not two miles of neat layers untouched for all those billions of years until the canyon was cut into them, the ONLY disturbance in all that time.

And, of course, if you're talking about vertical sections weathering would start when they are exposed, not when they were deposited.

The idea that they just sat there undisturbed layer after layer for a few billion years until after that long finally they got massively disturbed by the cutting of the canyon among other things, is nonsense no matter how you look at it.

It's his THEORY that's irrational, indefensible, pure subjective speculation. I'm sure the man himself was otherwise quite rational.

What's irrational about it ?

Pondering it now, I think maybe "irrational" isn't quite right. It's a reasonable enough speculation as speculations go. I just wanted to emphasize that it IS a speculation, and not science of the sort that can be replicated and proved in a laboratory and yet it was accepted as gospel by Geology. All this science of the past is inference and speculation and can never be more than that.

Hutton's theory is not strong evidence and not hard to answer. The only "strong" evidence you have is radiometric dating, that's the only evidence that's hard to answer, but someone will. Even now it's easy to see that there's an awful lot of slippage between the theory and the practice.

You seem to have problems answering Hutton, and of course there is other evidence (such as observed erosion) which needs explanation.

I actually don't have any problem answering Hutton at all, I've had a lot of fun thinking it through. It's all there at my blog.

Erosion would naturally occur at the junction between the horizontal upper strata and the tilting lower strata when the tectonic force occurred, pushing the lower layers violently against the upper, perhaps for quite a long horizontal distance.

I guess you mean Jacob's thing about spotted sheep or something like that? I've never done an experiment to see if there's anything to it, have you? But I'd assume this was something God arranged. Surely there's nothing wrong with the genetics as such, it's only the means that was chosen to ensure the emergence of a particular trait that's in question.

The Bible doesn't say that God had any part in it. And what makes you think that sheep's coats will be affected by the parents seeing striped rods while mating ? That's obviously not genetic and I doubt that you can come up with any plausible natural mechanism.

I thought it was cattle, not sheep. I'll go look it up later if you're going to insist on it, but not now. But it's absurd to think they didn't know how to get variation in their flocks. That's ancient knowledge even if they might have had some superstitious means for bringing it about and I don't know, I don't remember the story and don't want to take the time to look it up right now.

But it does say so as Bible believers affirm. You are the only one saying it doesn't, based on what I can't imagine. The plain text is quite clear.

OK, please quote the verse of the Bible where God explicitly says that the Earth is young. Include any other verses necessary to show that God did say it, according to the Bible.

Oh come on. Absolutely not, that's too much to ask. You know perfectly well that the creation is described in "days" and that we understand them as ordinary days timewise and that counting the genealogy of Seth brings us to the Flood at only about 1700 years from the Creation.

The Bible does not weigh against that view. That's your own bizarre notion.
You mean that it is against your traditions - in YOUR sense. I've read the Bible, I know what it says.

Then prove that it weighs against that view.

Most likely nothing I could say would do it. You could try believing it though
Not really. Intellectual honesty forbids it.

Which really means "the wisdom of this world" forbids it.

1Cr 1:20-21 Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

God does not save people by intellectual means, by scientific evidence (although the Bible in itself IS evidence and chock full of it)or by worldly wisdom, but He has one way and one way only: BELIEVE. If you despise that method you've locked yourself out.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2012 4:34 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2012 8:17 AM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16577
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 9 of 409 (684326)
12-17-2012 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
12-17-2012 5:41 AM


Re: Another one on YEC beliefs from the Tectonic Heat thread
A local flood seems to be a pretty common OEC view. Hugh Ross, for instance, seems to prefer it. So my point stands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 12-17-2012 5:41 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16577
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 10 of 409 (684333)
12-17-2012 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
12-17-2012 6:59 AM


Re: Rabbit Trail.. YEC Biblical doctrine, Hutton.
quote:

Which are the true Churches which adhere to the Biblical revelation.

Aside from the implication that only YEC-exclusive churches may be considered Christian, I still don't see the point. It is still a fact that the young-earth view declined in popularity because of the evidence against it.

quote:

But I don't want to create confusion by using it so I don't.

Consistent use of a word would not create confusion.

quote:

I don't IGNORE them, I picture a huge stack of horizontal strata that was originally in place such that its weight would be a great resistance to any force from beneath so that the tilting action would be stopped at the point in the stack where ithe weight above equals the force from beneath. And when I was looking for the best model for this I ran across Lyell's illustrations and discussions that provided it for me. In the Grand Canyon the upward force was sufficient to lift the entire stack, which accounts for the "uplift" into which the canyon was cut. I do take all these things into account.

I don't think that you take sufficient account of how they would be affected. I'll go into an important point below.

quote:

I thought you were talking about the Grand Canyon for some reason so I wrote the next paragraph before this one. But the same logic applies. The erosion occurs where the tilted lower strata meet the upper horizontal strata and would have been brought about by the tectonic force that did the tilting. Both sections should have been partially lithified but also still damp from the Flood, and the harder greywacke would erode in lumps while the sandstone would sift downward as sand. The fact that the greywacke was on end or buckled while the sandstone remained horizontal would also contribute to this form of erosion.

The tabletop experiments on which you base your view rely on the upper layers as being absolutely rigid, so that the lower - and much softer layers can deform beneath them. This is obviously inconsistent with lumps of the "softer" material infiltrating the rigid layers above. Remember you have to explain why the tilting force ONLY raises the higher strata, and doesn't cause it to be bent or deformed.

quote:

The erosion in the Grand Canyon occurs only at the junction between the Great Unconformity and the layer above it, the Tapeats Sandstone.

But that isn't true.

quote:

The idea that they just sat there undisturbed layer after layer for a few billion years until after that long finally they got massively disturbed by the cutting of the canyon among other things, is nonsense no matter how you look at it.

The idea that weathering is caused by exposure to weather is far from being nonsense. There is no reason to believe that older rock should show more weathering if it has been less exposed to conditions that would cause weathering.

quote:

Pondering it now, I think maybe "irrational" isn't quite right. It's a reasonable enough speculation as speculations go. I just wanted to emphasize that it IS a speculation, and not science of the sort that can be replicated and proved in a laboratory and yet it was accepted as gospel by Geology. All this science of the past is inference and speculation and can never be more than that.

So it's a very solid inference that you want to overturn with a scenario that even I can see serious problems with. A real geologist would likely see more problems.

quote:

I actually don't have any problem answering Hutton at all, I've had a lot of fun thinking it through. It's all there at my blog.

Erosion would naturally occur at the junction between the horizontal upper strata and the tilting lower strata when the tectonic force occurred, pushing the lower layers violently against the upper, perhaps for quite a long horizontal distance.


But only if the upper surface was rigid, any bonding between the surfaces was weak enough to be negligible, and the lower strata were malleable enough to be deformed without significantly affecting the upper levels. So how exactly did those lumps of greywacke get into the sandstone?

Seems to me that you just aren't seeing the problems with your answer.

quote:

I thought it was cattle, not sheep. I'll go look it up later if you're going to insist on it, but not now. But it's absurd to think they didn't know how to get variation in their flocks. That's ancient knowledge even if they might have had some superstitious means for bringing it about and I don't know, I don't remember the story and don't want to take the time to look it up right now.

It was sheep, and the Bible says that it worked.

quote:

Oh come on. Absolutely not, that's too much to ask. You know perfectly well that the creation is described in "days" and that we understand them as ordinary days timewise and that counting the genealogy of Seth brings us to the Flood at only about 1700 years from the Creation.

So it's an inference, an interpretation of a text. "God says" means your interpretation of a text that you attribute to God. I think that we can agree that I am not required to accept either your interpretation or your attribution without adequate reason.

quote:

Then prove that it weighs against that view.

Not one book of the Bible claims to be directly written by God, but several attribute human authors directly or implicitly. You ought to know that much.

quote:

Which really means "the wisdom of this world" forbids it

Wrong. It means that I can't make myself believe something I consider to be obviously false.

quote:

God does not save people by intellectual means, by scientific evidence (although the Bible in itself IS evidence and chock full of it)or by worldly wisdom, but He has one way and one way only: BELIEVE. If you despise that method you've locked yourself out.

If God requires self-delusion, then too bad for me. But if God is the sort of being who requires self-delusion, too bad for everyone.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 12-17-2012 6:59 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 12-17-2012 2:51 PM PaulK has responded

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 602 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(1)
Message 11 of 409 (684349)
12-17-2012 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
12-17-2012 2:25 AM


Because it's the truth, Paul, because it's the truth.

Why should we trust your subjective interpretation of scripture as being the truth?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 12-17-2012 2:25 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 12-17-2012 1:46 PM Genomicus has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32965
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 12 of 409 (684362)
12-17-2012 11:14 AM


If the Biblical Flood happened as told in the Bible myths then God is only a jokester
If the Biblical Flood happened as told in the Bible myths then God is only a jokester, a prankster like Coyote, nothing more than a demented conman.

All of the evidence shows an old earth and that none of the Biblical Flood myths actually happened and so if they really did happen then God planted false evidence just to fool people.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18799
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 13 of 409 (684378)
12-17-2012 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
12-17-2012 2:25 AM


Faith writes:

Oh I think there is no doubt that the plain reading of Genesis describes a young earth. It takes some fancy footwork to make it say anything else.


I agree.

But Genesis is plainly wrong about the age of the earth. If God's word must be accurate about science, then Genesis clearly is not the word of God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 12-17-2012 2:25 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 12-17-2012 1:49 PM ringo has responded
 Message 23 by foreveryoung, posted 12-17-2012 4:32 PM ringo has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 14 of 409 (684396)
12-17-2012 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Genomicus
12-17-2012 10:33 AM


Because it's the truth, Paul, because it's the truth.

Why should we trust your subjective interpretation of scripture as being the truth?

I've already answered this but I'll answer it again. It is not *my* personal interpretation of scripture I'm talking about, I'm talking about the consensus interpretation of the Bible-believing churches that the Bible is the word of God, and the plainest doctrines of it are agreed upon by all.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Genomicus, posted 12-17-2012 10:33 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2012 2:01 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Genomicus, posted 12-17-2012 5:38 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 15 of 409 (684397)
12-17-2012 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by ringo
12-17-2012 11:56 AM


Oh I think there is no doubt that the plain reading of Genesis describes a young earth. It takes some fancy footwork to make it say anything else.

I agree.

I'm glad, it's silly not to agree with that.

But Genesis is plainly wrong about the age of the earth. If God's word must be accurate about science, then Genesis clearly is not the word of God.

It's the other way around, as I already said. If science is to be accurate then it has to conform to the word of God, and wherever it doesn't it's science that's at fault.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 12-17-2012 11:56 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Tangle, posted 12-17-2012 2:16 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-17-2012 2:22 PM Faith has responded
 Message 52 by ringo, posted 12-18-2012 12:05 PM Faith has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020