Proposed as a "Great Debate", perhaps to be opened to general debate later.

The following is a variation of Moose message 135, of the YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology topic.

To Faith:

The essence of your position is that you consider the study of the Bible to be the ultimate authority on how the creation happened, and I consider the study of the creation itself to be the ultimate authority on how the creation happened.

Focusing in on geology - Being a quasi-geologist, I essentially think that the story of the creation of the Earth's geology is "written in the rocks". You think it is written in the Bible. I think that you must either think that geologists are incapable of properly "reading the rocks" or that God has presented some grand deception in what he "wrote in the rocks".

Why should what has been written in a book, the Bible, trump what has been written in the rocks?

Moose

Note: I don't particularly like the title I gave this topic ("Two Different Stories About the Creation"), but I am at the moment unable to come up with a better one. I don't want a geology specific title, as I think the discussion may well ultimately go beyond geology. Admin comments/suggestions requested, prior to topic promotion.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I think to head off any others who might not see the Great Debate header for some reason, I'll put a message on my own posts to say:
***** Great Debate thread. Only Moose may answer (until further notice).*****
===========================================================

I will probably have to take long breaks on this thread due to the holiday season, having a guest and being a guest and all that, but to start:

After giving it some thought, I think the title you came up with is about the best that can be found for this purpose myself.

I would have you reword this, though:

The essence of your position is that you consider the study of the Bible to be the ultimate authority on how the creation happened, and I consider the study of the creation itself to be the ultimate authority on how the creation happened.

The "study" of anything can't be an authority. The Bible IS the authority, and the parallel would be the creation itself as authority unless you have a better way of stating this.

=============================================================
AbE: I hope it is taken for granted for purposes of this discussion that the Bible IS the word of God. Then we are comparing God's revelation in His written word with His revelation in His creation.
=============================================================

You think it is written in the Bible. I think that you must either think that geologists are incapable of properly "reading the rocks" or that God has presented some grand deception in what he "wrote in the rocks".

I think that human beings are incapable of properly reading the rocks or anything in nature, yes. I do believe that the true story is contained in those rocks but without The Manufacturer's Manual we could never figure out what they are saying. I won't go so far as to say the Bible IS such a manual, as it does not address scientific questions as such, but I would say that whatever you think the rocks are telling you may not be allowed to contradict anything that God has said directly in His word as He does not lie and He cannot contradict Himself.

Why should what has been written in a book, the Bible, trump what has been written in the rocks?

Because the written word is far less ambiguous than the rocks. The rocks are utterly inscrutable in themselves.

A. It took a few millennia to come up with the theory about the creation based on the rocks that you apparently consider to be authoritative, but we are all capable of understanding the written (or spoken) word, all of us from at least the time of Moses to the present.

B. The creation story you get from the rocks, that you take to be authoritative, is also by definition open to falsification is it not? That means a completely new theory about the creation COULD come along and completely discredit the current one. How then can it claim higher authority than the unchangeable written word from God about how it happened?

==============================================================
***** Great Debate thread. Only Moose may answer (until further notice).*****

This message has been edited by Faith, 11-23-2005 06:50 PM

I will probably have to take long breaks on this thread due to the holiday season...

You are welcome to take many days to respond to my messages, regardless of the reason. Indeed, I encourage such. I expect that I will not be doing fast response messages.

That is an (THE?) advantage of the "Great Debate" format - More thought, less messages, and (hopefully) higher quality messages (and less clutter).

No reply to this message called for. Stand by for the real reply to message 3.

Moose

Improper post. This is a debate between Faith and minnemooseus only. Please respect the debating restriction for the Great Debate forum.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS POST.

edit: above comments added by AdminNWR

{Content deleted by Adminnemooseus}

This message has been edited by AdminNWR, 11-23-2005 01:20 PM

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-23-2005 02:33 PM

I hope it is taken for granted for purposes of this discussion that the Bible IS the word of God.

You are saying Bible=God. I absolutely contest that.

Then we are comparing God's revelation in His written word with His revelation in His creation.

Which of the two (Bible vs. Earth's geology) is the pure creation of God, and which is something that has undergone processing at the hands of man?

You have absolute faith in written word, and no faith in what can be seen in the creation itself?

We are comparing the content of a book to the content of the creation.

Moose

Full disclosure: While I do consider myself to be agnostic, in the context of this debate I am some variety of theistic evolutionist.

***** Great Debate thread. Only Moose may answer (until further notice).***** =============================================================

I hope it is taken for granted for purposes of this discussion that the Bible IS the word of God. You are saying Bible=God. I absolutely contest that.

Then I think this debate is probably not going to be about the Creation stories so much as about our basic premises, Science versus God/Bible, as usual, and the authority to define Creation.

Then we are comparing God's revelation in His written word with His revelation in His creation. Which of the two (Bible vs. Earth's geology) is the pure creation of God, and which is something that has undergone processing at the hands of man?

Geology is the product of human thinking, Moose, there's nothing pure about it.

The Bible is the only written record on earth purported to be the direct communication of God to mankind. Yes, it was mediated through humanity, of course, God didn't just boom His message out from heaven to all ears, except in one notable case. It came by the Spirit into the human spirit of men chosen by God for the purpose, prophets who heard directly from God Himself, and there were many of them, and they relayed His message in their own words through their own personalities.

You have absolute faith in written word, and no faith in what can be seen in the creation itself?

I have faith in a particular written word that I know through my own regenerated spirit is God's own revelation.

What can be seen in the creation itself is subject to an enormous variety of interpretations through the fallen mind of humanity. An incredible array of explanations of the physical world have occurred to humanity over the millennia. Until the advent of modern science there was very little you could hold onto in the explanations of the physical universe humanity came up with, and what is modern science but an improvement and refinement but still nothing but the product of the human mind? And its tenets are in fact ON PRINCIPLE rightly declared to be subject to modification and falsification.

The Bible on the other hand, being the revelation of the God who made it all, is unchanging and true forever.

A proper geology would start with God's revelation.

We are comparing the content of a book to the content of the creation.

No, we are comparing the content of a God-inspired communication about His own creation, to the content of a strictly human-inspired and admittedly fallible study of the creation.

Moose Full disclosure: While I do consider myself to be agnostic, in the context of this debate I am some variety of theistic evolutionist.

I pray that by the end of it you will be a Biblical creationist.

==============================================================
***** Great Debate thread. Only Moose may answer (until further notice).*****

This message has been edited by Faith, 11-25-2005 08:04 PM

Geology is the product of human thinking, Moose, there's nothing pure about it.

Technically, you may be correct. Geology is the study of the Earth, just as theology is the study of God. But at the roots of the study of the Earth, is "the geology" of the Earth - The rocks themselves.

The Bible is the only written record on earth purported to be the direct communication of God to mankind. Yes, it was mediated through humanity, of course, …

My bolds. Thank you for that concession. Now I mention the rocks of the Earth again - The products of God's creation, unedited by man.

A proper geology would start with God's revelation.

Geology, as in "the study of the Earth", does start with God's revelation, the rocks of the Earth.

Returning to something you said in message 3:

I think that human beings are incapable of properly reading the rocks or anything in nature, yes. I do believe that the true story is contained in those rocks but without The Manufacturer's Manual we could never figure out what they are saying.

But God did give us a "manufacturer's manual". The processes of the modern day Earth shows us at least substantial parts of God's ongoing creative process. This is the concept of "unifomitarianism", the modern form being "non-strict uniformitarianism", better termed "actualism". In other words, the modern version of uniformitarianism does recognize that "not of the modern world" catastrophes have happened in the past. But getting far into the concept of uniformitarianism is something for another topic (by the way, one that I have previously started).

By studying how geologic processes currently work, we can understand how the geology (rocks) of the Earth came to be created. God did give us "a manual", and the intelligence to use it.

Moose

Hm, I don't see that you answered me really. The rocks remain the inscrutable rocks, the science that collects knowledge about them remains subject to correction and falsification, and human intelligence remains seriously flawed.

Geology is the product of human thinking, Moose, there's nothing pure about it. Technically, you may be correct. Geology is the study of the Earth, just as theology is the study of God. But at the roots of the study of the Earth, is "the geology" of the Earth - The rocks themselves.

But the origin and structure of rocks, as I also said, aren't easy to know, certainly not without taking pains to study them, and anything scientists now know about them didn't come about for millennia so it's hard to see how you can compare them to a written revelation that is understandable to anyone who can read. [AbE: Or hear it when it is preached, as reading isn't essential to it; we're talking about ordinary human communication through language which is universal to all, as versus the physical universe which hardly discloses its secrets except to its most committed students]

The Bible is the only written record on earth purported to be the direct communication of God to mankind. Yes, it was mediated through humanity, of course, … My bolds. Thank you for that concession. Now I mention the rocks of the Earth again - The products of God's creation, unedited by man.

No concession at all. The direct revelation of God to the human spirit was given and relayed in words that are understandable by our human spirit. We are word-understanders. Rocks are, again, inscrutable and hard to read in themselves. The people who heard God's word as read to them by Moses understood it straight and we can still hear or read and understand it as they did. Nobody understood anything about the rocks until quite recently and what IS known is still open to correction.

A proper geology would start with God's revelation. Geology, as in "the study of the Earth", does start with God's revelation, the rocks of the Earth.

But if we can't understand them the way we understand words they're not much of a revelation. Again, nobody knew how to "read" them until the last couple of centuries? Words can be read by anyone who can read. Not so the physical universe. It has been the subject of all kinds of superstitions and untenable theories and weird ideas through the millennia. It's not much of a revelation if nobody can read it except modern scientists.

Returning to something you said in message 3: I think that human beings are incapable of properly reading the rocks or anything in nature, yes. I do believe that the true story is contained in those rocks but without The Manufacturer's Manual we could never figure out what they are saying. But God did give us a "manufacturer's manual". The processes of the modern day Earth shows us at least substantial parts of God's ongoing creative process. This is the concept of "unifomitarianism", the modern form being "non-strict uniformitarianism", better termed "actualism". In other words, the modern version of uniformitarianism does recognize that "not of the modern world" catastrophes have happened in the past. But getting far into the concept of uniformitarianism is something for another topic (by the way, one that I have previously started).

I must definitely object to this idea, Moose. Uniformitarianism is simply a human-originated concept, as all science is. And as all scientific concepts are officially defined to be, it is subject to modification and correction and even complete falsification. Uniformitarianism is challenged by creationists, you know. There is simply no evidence that the way things are now is the way they always have been. Uniformitarianism is a presupposition, not a proven fact. If the Bible is true and the Flood occurred as it describes and the world before and after were as drastically different from each other as it appears to imply, then uniformitarianism is falsified.

By studying how geologic processes currently work, we can understand how the geology (rocks) of the Earth came to be created. God did give us "a manual", and the intelligence to use it.

Scripture tells us that the physical creation IS a revelation and it DOES speak -- but not so much about itself, rather about the nature of God:

Psalm 19:1-2: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech and night unto night shows knowledge. There are no words nor language where their voice is not heard..."

And Romans 1:20-21: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse; because even when they knew God they did not glorify him as God..."

The idea being that what should be learned first from the Creation, what is most evident in the Creation, how it really IS a revelation, what it DOES speak about, is God Himself. It shows His eternal power, it says, and His glory. We can infer pretty readily that it also shows His immensity by the vastness of the universe, His wisdom in the incredible complexity and harmony and interaction of the whole, His goodness too, in His provision for all living things, His invisibility in that His works are all that our senses are able to appreciate at all. From our own consciences we can infer His perfect holiness and righteousness too.

In other words, knowledge about the nature of the physical universe is a much lesser knowledge than what we COULD learn from it about God Himself.

But that's a bit of a digression in a way. The main point is that the physical universe is not at all a legible revelation to the poor fallen mind of man, even if God originally intended it to be. The Fall interfered with our ability to know the creation and to know the Creator both. He had to give us a revelation in words for us even to begin to understand any of it. (Real science did not really get going until Christians began applying the inference of a lawful universe made by a rational God to the study of the physical creation).

This message has been edited by Faith, 11-27-2005 06:35 PM

This message has been edited by Faith, 11-27-2005 06:36 PM

This message has been edited by Faith, 11-27-2005 06:38 PM

This message has been edited by Faith, 11-27-2005 07:07 PM

I think your subtitle, "The rocks are mute until we see God through them" is a bit muddled. My guess is that you meant something along the lines of "The rocks are mute until we see them through God". But I actually agree with part of the (as presented) subtitle. My argument is that one of the ways to see God's creation process is "through the rocks". But on the main body of the message.

Hm, I don't see that you answered me really. The rocks remain the inscrutable rocks, the science that collects knowledge about them remains subject to correction and falsification, and human intelligence remains seriously flawed.

OK - I had to look up the meaning of "inscrutable".

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inscrutable:

Difficult to fathom or understand; impenetrable.

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=inscrutable

not readily investigated, interpreted, or understood

But the origin and structure of rocks, as I also said, aren't easy to know, certainly not without taking pains to study them, and anything scientists now know about them didn't come about for millennia so it's hard to see how you can compare them to a written revelation that is understandable to anyone who can read.

But geologists are willing to, and do "take the pains to study them". You are saying "new and greater detailed information can't supplement or supercede old (Biblical) information"?

The direct revelation of God to the human spirit was given and relayed in words that are understandable by our human spirit. We are word-understanders. Rocks are, again, inscrutable and hard to read in themselves.

For someone trained in geology, the rocks are neither inscrutable nor hard to read. You may be a "word-understander", but to me the Genesis story contains very little information, and in general doesn't make much sense.

On the other hand, "reading the rocks" can yield vast amounts of information. For example, take a piece of granite. Study reveals that it is made up of certain percentages feldspar, quartz, and other minerals. The elemental and even isotopic make up of the minerals can be determined. The orders, temperatures, and time durations of the crystallizations of the various minerals can be determined. The absolute age of some of the minerals crystallizations can be determined. All this and more, from a piece of material the size of your fist.

And that's just one type of rock. From a metamorphic rock, the same can be determined. The temperatures and pressures of the metamorphic event can be determined.

For sedimentary rocks, the source materials and the processes that those materials went through can be determined.

Nobody understood anything about the rocks until quite recently and what IS known is still open to correction.

Certainly, any conclusions of a geologic study is open to refinement.

I must definitely object to this idea, Moose. Uniformitarianism is simply a human-originated concept, as all science is. And as all scientific concepts are officially defined to be, it is subject to modification and correction and even complete falsification. Uniformitarianism is challenged by creationists, you know. There is simply no evidence that the way things are now is the way they always have been.

The short comment is that there is NO evidence that the processes that are happening now were NOT happening in the past.

Uniformitarianism is a presupposition, not a proven fact. If the Bible is true and the Flood occurred as it describes and the world before and after were as drastically different from each other as it appears to imply, then uniformitarianism is falsified.

Mighty big "if" there. How is it that we have had happen a great "Biblical flood", that has left no evidence behind?

But that's a bit of a digression in a way. The main point is that the physical universe is not at all a legible revelation to the poor fallen mind of man, even if God originally intended it to be.

Some people can "read the creation", others can only "read the limited printed text about the creation".

The Fall interfered with our ability to know the creation and to know the Creator both.

You're saying that "the fall" has left humanity in a state of terminal stupidity?

Moose

=============================================================
***** Great Debate thread. Only Moose may answer (until further notice).***** =============================================================

I think your subtitle, "The rocks are mute until we see God through them" is a bit muddled. My guess is that you meant something along the lines of "The rocks are mute until we see them through God".

No, I meant it as written, as I showed in the post itself from the Bible: what the Creation reveals to the discerning eye is God Himself, His nature, more than {AbE: or at least as much as} it reveals the nature of the Creation.

But geologists are willing to, and do "take the pains to study them".

Yes, but my point was that modern geology is a very new thing, and if you are going to say that the rocks reveal the mind of God you have to account for the fact that for the vast majority of human history they didn't reveal one explanatory thing to humanity, who remained deaf and blind to any supposed message in the rocks. Who do the rocks speak to? Only a very few very recent scientists? How can that be said to be any kind of communication from God to humanity?

You are saying "new and greater detailed information can't supplement or supercede old (Biblical) information"?

Well, no, that wasn't the subject, but the answer nevertheless is that you can't supercede the eternal word of the eternal omniscient God.

The direct revelation of God to the human spirit was given and relayed in words that are understandable by our human spirit. We are word-understanders. Rocks are, again, inscrutable and hard to read in themselves. For someone trained in geology, the rocks are neither inscrutable nor hard to read.

Yes, again, "for someone trained in geology." Not much communicating going on there overall, as the great majority of humanity both past and present are excluded from the communication. Not so with the Bible which is written in human language which all can understand.

You may be a "word-understander", but to me the Genesis story contains very little information, and in general doesn't make much sense.

All you mean is that you reject its meaning, but you don't have trouble reading the words.

On the other hand, "reading the rocks" can yield vast amounts of information.

But again, to a scant minority of all human beings over all time, which makes it a pretty inferior form of communication. And not revealed reliably either, because it is always subject to revision. And at this point I'd begin to suggest that WHAT it reveals is of minor importance compared to what the Word of God reveals as well.

For example, take a piece of granite. Study reveals that it is made up of certain percentages feldspar, quartz, and other minerals. The elemental and even isotopic make up of the minerals can be determined. The orders, temperatures, and time durations of the crystallizations of the various minerals can be determined. The absolute age of some of the minerals crystallizations can be determined. All this and more, from a piece of material the size of your fist.

Certainly I agree completely that science has a lot to say. But it is science that is saying it, not the rocks. The rocks are the mute objects of science, and science is a hard-won discipline that only in the last few hundred years has become of real use to humanity. You simply cannot compare it to a book that speaks to all humanity all over the world in all times and places, and about matters quite a bit more important than the composition of rocks.

Nobody understood anything about the rocks until quite recently and what IS known is still open to correction. quote: Certainly, any conclusions of a geologic study is open to refinement.

I must definitely object to this idea, Moose. Uniformitarianism is simply a human-originated concept, as all science is. And as all scientific concepts are officially defined to be, it is subject to modification and correction and even complete falsification. Uniformitarianism is challenged by creationists, you know. There is simply no evidence that the way things are now is the way they always have been. quote: The short comment is that there is NO evidence that the processes that are happening now were NOT happening in the past.

Yes, there is the testimony of the Bible that is evidence against this idea.

Uniformitarianism is a presupposition, not a proven fact. If the Bible is true and the Flood occurred as it describes and the world before and after were as drastically different from each other as it appears to imply, then uniformitarianism is falsified. quote: Mighty big "if" there. How is it that we have had happen a great "Biblical flood", that has left no evidence behind?

That's simply explained by the presuppositions of contemporary science that insist on interpreting the evidence against the Flood. But most of it can just as easily be interpreted for it.

But that's a bit of a digression in a way. The main point is that the physical universe is not at all a legible revelation to the poor fallen mind of man, even if God originally intended it to be. Some people can "read the creation", others can only "read the limited printed text about the creation".

Would you limit knowledge to an elite? But as a matter of fact NOBODY can read the creation in the sense it was meant to be read, as a revelation of the character of God. You are extolling the mere ability of a small elite to understand a few things about the nature of the creation itself, but the Creator remains opaque to these "readers." They are missing the main message. But that message is in the printed book which was given to help us see Him because of our blindness.

The Fall interfered with our ability to know the creation and to know the Creator both. quote: You're saying that "the fall" has left humanity in a state of terminal stupidity?

Oh humanity has much intelligence, which only shows how much greater it would have been if there had been no Fall. But human intelligence as it is misses all the things that matter. Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.... That is why we needed revelation from God Himself.

Faith.

=============================================================
***** Great Debate thread. Only Moose may answer (until further notice).***** =============================================================

This message has been edited by Faith, 12-06-2005 03:55 AM

This message has been edited by Faith, 12-11-2005 05:01 PM

Will get back to this topic someday, but it may be a week or two, or maybe even next year.

Posting this from a friends computer. Mine is more or less operating in the "read only" mode. Major overhaul in progress soon, I hope.

Cheers,

Moose

No problem. Take your time.

GREAT DEBATE TOPIC - MESSAGES BY FAITH AND MINNEMOOSEUS ONLY

I am basically boggled about how to handle this topic. The Bible says essentially nothing about the geology of the Earth, other than that a "great flood" happened. But the geology of the Earth is a vastly complex three dimensional "jigsaw puzzle" of data that can be interpreted by those trained in understanding the processes of rock formation.

I'm going to try not to bring in material from other topics, or even from earlier messages of this topic. But one thing you have said elsewhere, is that you think the "great flood" can explain the nature of the Earth's geology. I can only reply to that, "I must suspect that you haven't a clue about the vast complexity of the Earth's geology." I, myself, have only a bare bones understanding, and geology was the area of my college degree.

I will quote portions of your most recent message (prior to our chit-chat about how slow I am responding with a real new message). I'm not going to requote my content - Hopefully that won't obscure things to much.

Yes, but my point was that modern geology is a very new thing, and if you are going to say that the rocks reveal the mind of God you have to account for the fact that for the vast majority of human history they didn't reveal one explanatory thing to humanity, who remained deaf and blind to any supposed message in the rocks. Who do the rocks speak to? Only a very few very recent scientists? How can that be said to be any kind of communication from God to humanity?

The information is there to be seen, even if it is a relatively recent happening that some people, geologists, have learned how to "read the rocks". Just because you can't or won't "read the book that is the Earth", doesn't mean the information isn't there.

Well, no, that wasn't the subject, but the answer nevertheless is that you can't supercede the eternal word of the eternal omniscient God.

The Bible, even if it is direct information from God, really says nothing about the nature of the Earth's geology. There is really nothing to supercede. If one is to learn about the nature of the Earth's geology, one must look at the Earth's geology.

Well, the remainder of your message seems to be pretty much redoing what was covered above.

Well, about three months have passed, and I've finally gotten something posted. No danger of me getting a POTM for this one.

Moose

GREAT DEBATE TOPIC - MESSAGES BY FAITH AND MINNEMOOSEUS ONLY

GREAT DEBATE TOPIC - MESSAGES BY FAITH AND MINNEMOOSEUS ONLY

Faith, I have just checked, and you do have posting permissions in the "The Great Debate" forum. I don't know if you are aware of that.

Are you interested in pursuing this topic any further? If not, we can close it down. If so, we can leave it open - I'm in no rush to get a reply, so take your time.

Moose

GREAT DEBATE TOPIC - MESSAGES BY FAITH AND MINNEMOOSEUS ONLY