Is the Bible Divinely Inspired? Part 1: The Flood
At the request of several readers, I am starting a series of debate threads of various aspects of biblical inspiration and (in)errancy. Rather than debate the many controversial aspects of the Bible at once, I intend to run a series of threads. Each thread will be open for comment for one month, more if I see a need for it. After that, comments will close and I will open a new thread.
The usual rules apply: this is a conversation, not a place to preach. Present evidence and argument, not just attestations of faith. Trolls and sockpuppets ejected with prejudice.
This thread will deal with the historicity of Noah’s Flood.
Relevant Bible Passages: Genesis 6-8
Relevant Wikipedia Entries: Deluge, Flood geology
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:02 am
Oh, goodie.
Let’s just pretend for a moment that the same geologists who are in conclusions concerning historical floods of all agreed that there was once a global flood. Again, we’re pretending here because, well, they don’t. Not even close. In fact, to my knowledge, and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, the only ones promoting the concept are creation scientists, but there could be a stray loon or two in the fold.
Again, we’re pretending the geology of a massive, global flood is confirmed by pesky geologists. That will make the birth of this discussion easier, as I’m assuming there are no actual geologists and archaeologists present.
Let’s start with a simple question:
Using the story of the ark, can you explain the existence of penguins?
If so, please present your evidence.
We will start here and work our way to nostril-bearing fish.
Caveats: Magical powers will not be accepted to explain the existence of penguins, so don’t even go there. And, since we have a unified naturalistic understanding regarding the history of the penguin, “It’s a mystery” is also unacceptable.
Unless you’re Mormon.
I say this because their entire faith is based on the belief that the American Indians were actually descendants of the Jews. Of course we know this is not true, but Mormons will use the “It’s a mystery” bit as a way of putting their collective heads in the sand.
Also, I’m certain that the writers of a miracle-filled bible would have leapt for joy to document “the miracle of transporting indigenous animals from half way around the world.” Yep, that would have surly made list, don’t you think?
It did ‘not’ make the list because men of that era had no idea what “indigenous” meant. This was not an oversight.
I’m fairly certain similar ignorance exists today.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:19 am
Oh brother.
It happened.
That’s my case.
Just kidding.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:27 am
Good one TF.
Do you have something more to add? ; )
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:29 am
Maybe Noah just saved the town zoo … not all of the indigenous animals of the world.
Maybe the animals were only meant to show symbolism to the people who were watching who were about to die.
And why save animals anyway? … they have no “soul” … they don’t go to heaven. The Bible says this.
The point was to destroy most of humanity …. perhaps the sum of humanity didn’t occupy much of the earth at that time … and it was only “their” world … and not the whole world that flooded.
Yes … not of this is logical debate …. just interpretation and an “apologetic” view of something I chose to believe regardless of the logical holes in the whole idea.
I’m just looking forward to reading this thread … I won’t fill much of it up with chatter.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:37 am
why is it some much more of a reach for you to believe that God provided the penguins at the site of the ark? If you believe the story of the flood, you’ve already had to deal with much tougher issues than whether or not God had the power to provide a couple of arctic birds. Fiiting all the species of animals into a boat made 6000 years ago is much ahrder for me to imagine. SO IF I believe THIS was possible, I believe a broken off piece of iceberg could float down to the middle east. right?
IW, this is much more interesting to me. Thanks! I am not really open to discontinuing my belief in God, but I’d love to argue about the specifics of the bible and see if my faith can handle it.
Hi, Jon. I still don’t get your darn principles. As I have had to learn in my line of work, maybe the problem isn’t with the student, but with the teacher. : )
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:16 am
Todaysfate,
Thanks for providing some ideas for us to consider. That’s a step in the right direction. I’ll address each, and look forward to your thoughts:
Even the “town zoo” would have been absolutely enormous and incapable of fitting into a boat. But, let’s assume this is the case.
So, where did penguins come from?
Right back to the original question…
Then how do you know the entire story is not symbolic? And where is the textual support for symbolism? There is none — and that is part of the process of hermeneutical study (referring back to my posts to Katie.)
You cannot make the claim that parts of a story are symbolic without direct textual support for such a claim. As mentioned, there is none. And, you cannot claim the entire story of the ark was symbolic (as many forward-thinking Christians try to do) because Jesus’ blood line was (errantly) traced back to an actual Noah.
Spiritually, a good question — but ecologically this would be a disaster. I think we can all agree that animals are kinda sorta important, and not just because they’re cute and cuddly. Some of them. ; )
Now we have a valid “ah-ha”. Good point, TF. Let me get into theology for a moment.
There are two camps of actual flood believers in theological circles: partial world flood and global flood.
Global flood believers do not have a leg to stand on. As one geologist so aptly put it, “Had the entire world been the victim of a global flood, it would be categorically impossible for the evidence to escape.”
Apparently it did.
The partial flooders derive their belief from (a) common sense backed by the absolute lack of evidence for a global flood; and (b) the word “world” in Hebrew. The word can be translated as “land”, or in our lingo, “known world.”
Sounds like a great fit, doesn’t it? The Bible could actually be used to support a partial flood! Well, not so fast.
This same word was used to describe land masses as small as a few miles and as large as the world itself. A few miles would hardly be an event that would “cover the tallest mountains” — let’s not forget that. So, we have to think bigger.
In order to cover Ararat, the flood waters would have to have been at least 15,000 feet in height. Simple physics and common sense come into play. If there been sufficient water to cover Ararat, and this was not ‘global’ in nature, what contained the water? Magic dams, perhaps?
And what of your key point: That the purpose was to destroy most of humanity? Then why order the animals into the ark? Remember — no support for symbolic or hyperbolic interpretation is found within the text itself nor the bible. None.
In fact, there is support for just the opposite. 1 Samuel 15
clearly illustrates a pissed-off God ranting on Saul for not killing every living creature. Apparently this was God’s M.O. when it came to wrath.
Also, since we know (repeat: KNOW) that there were people living elsewhere in the world, a partial flood makes absolutely no sense if the goal was to erase humanity like an Etch-o-Sketch and start all over with Noah.
Even that makes no sense, as we have evil today just as we had evil back in Noah’s day, so obviously God ‘failed’, or simply did not understand how DNA gets a bit crusty over the generations. Who knows.
We’re left with one conclusion when considering the text itself and the physics of floods — a partial flood is not only impossible given the known facts of height, duration, and textual considerations for the purpose, and a global flood simply did not happen, and even if it did we are left with dead penguins, Koala Bears, beavers, bison, and so-forth. These are among the list of thousands of indigenous animals existing at that time on the earth.
Believe it or not, I disagree. I think you are using logic in some of these arguments, but coming up with answers that do not stand up under scrutiny.
However, the crux of the entire point against these assumptions is, “…something I choose to believe regardless of the logical holes…”
That makes the belief irrational, and should call into question the rationality of the biblical god — or at least this biblical story.
One would be no better or worse off believing in Simon, the God of Hairdos.
(Buddha Bless Eddie Izzard. ; )
Jon
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:43 am
Katie,
Well, right…and wrong.
I’ve given you a simple question to address first before you dive right into the complex questions. If we start simple and deduce that the appearance of penguins on the ark would be categorically impossible, then there is really no need to work outward to the so-called “tougher issues.”
The lowly penguin is a tougher issue than you might imagine, as we’ll soon discover. You are still missing Principles 1 and 2, but I’ll just assume you do not accept these principles as credible. For no reason, mind you, but nonetheless.
First, I stated that you cannot claim “magical powers” as evidence for the existence of penguins. You did so when you said, in essence, “God can do anything.”
Circular reasoning. Please reacquaint yourself with the term.
Second, you walked right pass my logical rebuttal to this from a textual point of view. The Biblical writers claimed EVERYTHING as miraculous that they did not understand. If you can actually believe that God zapped hundreds of thousands of creatures into the pathway of the Ark’s doors — and that just so happened to NOT be mentioned as the miracle to end all miracles in this story, as it would be — then I do not feel too sorry for you.
After you get past this rather large intellectual and contextual gap, you would then have to assume God provided ice for the poor little critters. They are ARTIC fowl, after all, and last time I checked there was no mention of snow, ice or even an air conditioner in the ark account.
Polar bears…well, we’ll get into that if you can get past the lowly penguin. But you cannot, short of saying “it was magic.”
Or, “God did it. He can do anything.” A complete violation of the first two principles, and of anything resembling reason.
Yes, I would say that would be a real challenge to believe. But, I will assume you do.
A broken ice sheet with two penguins floating down and landing on Ararat, or simply floating about until the waters receded? After all, if they wound up in the middle east, they’d die very quickly. And one must wonder how these two brave sojourners from the Arctic world managed to survive on their sheet of ice without food…and with tidal wave-size currents to contend with.
Then there’s that whole “bible text” thing to contend with. Noah was to GATHER two of every kind. Well, there’s another version (in the bible) that says SEVEN of a kind, but that’s another story. (What a mess…)
And finally, we have…what?
Koalas on tree branches floating about Australia?
Bison on really, really big trees floating about North America?
Can you see how absolutely ridiculous this entire story becomes when you apply even a modicum of thought to it?
Cool deal…but they are in a sense one in the same. If the text for your god is shown to be in error, you must question the claims from that text in all matters. That does not mean that God does not exist. No one is stating that. But it “may” mean that this particular god does not exist and, in fact, was a myth created by man.
Heh…well, that may very well be. Hence my plea for someone else (Robert perhaps) to dive in and help.
: )
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:46 am
Jon,
I have some ideas … ill get back to you after lunch in about an hour.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Todaysfate.
I’ll be checking in off and on today, and I look forward to your reply.
Jon
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Well, Jon, I actually believe in a global flood as described in the OT. I believe that scientists are missing it when they claim the Earth is millions of years old BECAUSE of the flood. From how I understand the reasoning of science and aging the earth, it is because of how rock layers and fossils lie on the earth’s surface that scientists believe the earth is millions of years old. Well, if you take into account a global flood just as the bible describes, where the earth was flooded for around a year and mud, silt, dead animals, and rock are moved about under the flood waters, it fits and reasons out pretty well, that what science today believes happened over millions of years actually happened much more quickly in the flood.
And as for the animals, I relooked at the text. It, of course, doesn’t say the word “species” it says “kind”. Well, I am thinking that there were no Koalas and penguins on the ark. Do you remember when I said forever ago that I believe in animal adaptation and interbreeding? That comes into play here in that over the ~ 6000 years since the flood, thousands of species have come from interbreeding and adaptation to different climates/conditions. I believe your buddy Darwin did a study that proved this possible with finches, was it? And I also found another study with mosquitos in London that show an entirely new species of mosquitos was produced within a century.
So please forgive my floating iceberg comment as I was only stating that I believe with God all things are possible. Rightly, you as a non believer, shot me down.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I may not be able to argue very well (although my husband would disagree with you), but send me your 2nd grader and I’ll teach her to multiply or your kindergartener to read. This is where my talent lies. I really hope any readers will offer me that benefit of the doubt and not judge the existence of the God of Abraham on what silly little Katie has to say or doesn’t have to say.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Katie,
Let’s take this a step at at time. First, as stated, you can believe whatever you want to believe. No worries. : ) Second, you are encouraged to give rational reasons for that belief or at least (as you’ve done) theories as to how other beliefs or ideas are in error. So far, so good.
Let’s just say that 99.98% of all scientists who believe that the earth is not young are wrong — and that they are mistaken ‘because of the flood’ as you state. Or rather, because they are in line with the 99.98% of geologists who do not believe in a global flood.
That in and of itself is an enormously bold claim given the exponential nature of scientific growth in today’s world, but we’ll pretend for a moment it’s true.
Let’s forget the flood. What of the distance of stars? This alone is sufficient reason for an old, old earth, and the rebuttals against it are pretty funny if you follow them over time.
Just a few include, “We will never make it to the moon.” Why? Because the same system of measurements that determine distance to stars and planets are foundational to space travel in general. When that proved horribly wrong, the assertion changed to either, (a) “We never went to the moon! It’s a hoax!” or (b) “Okay, so we were wrong about the distance of the moon and, I suppose, the age of the earth. But that’s just how God did it.”
Again using the same methods of determining distance, we landed a Mars rover within a few hundred feet of its intended target. Lucky guess? Hardly — just science and “theory” applied.
What you are now claiming is that these same tested, proven principles are not only false — they are horribly false. Off by a factor of millions. It’s like saying the Grand Canyon is the size of a pencil. You are saying these ’same’ measurements are THAT OFF.
It’s painfully obvious that when we can determine the distance of XYZ star to be millions of light years from earth that earth is at least “that” many millions of years old.
We have ice sheets with “rings” that date them accurately back 400,000 years. We have carbon dating — something creationists have tried in vain to discount since its inception, to no avail.
More than all of this, we have the absolute LUNACY of people who, when backed into an intellectual corner, conclude that NASA is a conspiracy and satanic in origin - that we never went to the moon, to mars, or even orbited the earth.
Let this serve as a warning to you: Believing something and THEN seeking to prove it true is the foundation of dogma. The opposite is the foundation of truth.
Give me enough time and enough incentive, and I can make a case for the Constitution demanding ducks be given equal rights if I start with the assumption that God said ducks are equal to men. My reasoning would be equally as flawed as what’s presented here, but I could make the case.
Back to the flood…
Please provide evidence for the following:
1. A global flood.
2. Assuming such an event happened apx. 4500 years ago (almost universally agreed not to have happened), provide evidence and support for the belief that the evidence that support it would appear to trained geologists in some kind of “time warped” fashion; as events taking millions of years rather than thousands. Sheer conjecture is not sufficient.
3. Assuming 1 and 2 are reasonable and evidential, please explain how this same distortion of time and earth measurements would not also affect more recent land evidence as well. If one is altered by the flood, ALL would be altered by the flood, rendering most geology and archaeology meaningless as seen by today’s scientists. The problem here is that we know it is NOT meaningless, as we have used these same measurements of time to determine locations of ruins.
Or, safe yourself some time and ask any geologist if the Grand Canyon could have formed in five minutes — a rather common assertion by creationists. Give yourself all the water in the world if you wish to make this happen.
In an equally silly story, Adam is called to name every “kind” of animal. Boy, that would take a while.
But, onward we go…
Dismissing the fossils of penguins and those pesky facts about how long they’ve been around, you are suggesting that “kind” means…what? And exactly what proof can you offer (damn that proof stuff!) that some form of middle eastern land-dwelling post-ark animal migrated to the Antarctic and became the penguin of today?
(We’re sticking with penguins because I’ve always liked those silly fowl.)
Something as incredibly recent as 4500 years would leave a very visible fossil trail.
Do we see this? No.
We also do not see any evidence for an interspecies tree-hugger who hung out in the middle east, decided to swim to Australia, and poof: The Koala Bear was born.
Ditto about a thousand North American, Pacific Island, and various other indigenous creatures.
Evidence? Zero. None. Nada. Ziltch. And we’re talking about an event in history that, to geologists, happened seconds ago on the universal clock.
Again, the assertion of an idea is cool, but back it with ’some’ evidence. Please. Humor us.
So, we’re accepting this as evidence? Interesting. I suppose evolution is now cherry-picked for evidence when it suits the argument. : )
Nonetheless — the arguments are horribly flawed. Both the finches and the mosquitos pattern of evolution are no where near as complex and transitional as what would have to occur for penguins to wind up in at the pole or koalas in Australia. Not even close. Although this ‘is’ what happened, it happened over millions of years, and the critters have claimed their current homes for almost as long.
Just take the time to read up on evolutionary theory and you’ll see the flaw in the deduction. It would take too long to explain it here, but it’s safe to say that the majority of confusion people have over evolution is simple ignorance.
Nothing wrong with being ignorant of a subject. This is true for all of us. But it is not a valid reason for asserting a logical argument.
Let’s take a look at what we DO know…
The oldest known fossil penguin species is Waimanu manneringi, which lived in the early Paleocene epoch of New Zealand, or about 62 million years ago (Slack et al. 2006). (Quoted from Wikipedia)
This fits in perfectly with the other new-earth problem: tectonic plate shifting. Thanks to GPS technology, we can now track the exact rate of movement of the primary land masses. I believe this is down to centimeters per year — something very small, but I do not recall the exact number. Simply do the math backwards, and you will find out how long it would have taken for our friend the Waimanu manneringi to make its way from Paleocene New Zealand to what we now call the Antarctic.
Hint: Just a tad longer than 4500 years. Just a ’smidge’… ; )
Of course, the fossils could be lies of Satan, or all the world’s marine biologists and paleoentologists just absolutely dilusional. Anything to keep that flood/bible gig going, eh?
Back to Principles 1 and 2.
A = God wrote the bible.
B = The Bible claims things that are impossible.
C = With God, all things are possible.
D = Therefore, the Bible is true.
Do you see the error in this line of reasoning?
As for your ability to ‘argue’, I would agree with your husband. You argue very well. But arguing and participating in a reasonable, logical debate are two different animals.
Pardon the pun… ; )
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Katie,
Sue wants you to e-mail her at bit0xtra_thot@gmail.com .
Far be it from me to keep BFFs apart.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Actually, you bring up the grand canyon, which i have read contains a lot of evidence in support of a young earth and a collosal flood.
And you brought up stars which led me to some questions and some answers. First of all, I didn’t really understand what you were saying about the moon. I do not get why anyone would say we didn’t land on the moon (although i have heard this before) or why that would make a young earth more difficult to prove. I read what you said a few times, and I just coulnd’t understand what you were saying. Would you mind either reexplaining it SLOWLY for us Elem Ed Mommies… : ) OR providing me with a link so I can read more about it. I am interested in finding out more.
I do know that a old earth scientist has trouble explaining the shrinking sun. We can measure that the sun is shrinking every year, and if you take even the smallest estimate for how much the sun shrinks every year, and you “add” it back to the sun to account for the millions of years we supposedly have been here, the sun would be so large that the first 4 planets of our solar system would have been sucked into it from it’s gravity. There were several other consequences having to do with this sun issue, but I can’t think of them and don’t have time to look it up right now. I just remember this from the astronomy curriculum I am teaching this year. Totally off the top of my head. But if you rebutt, as i assume you will, I’ll look more into it and get all the details straight.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
well, thanks for giving me her email address. why did you boot her?
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Katie,
See this comment. If you still have questions, e-mail me.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Katie,
You are correct — there are divergent opinions as to the age of the Grand Canyon. See below…
Quoting Wikipedia:
Creationists take this data and say, “See! The scientists can’t agree!”, all while dismissing the obvious: They all agree that the bloody ditch is millions of years old.
Find me ONE reputable, published, and peer-reviewed geologist who claims to have evidence for a 4500 Grand Canyon.
Good luck with that one.
You will find high school geology teachers who are young-earth creationists who will make this claim, but they have been laughed off of more debate panels by ‘actual’ geologists than I care to recall.
The bits about the moon: No problem. I was typing pretty fast. ; )
We know how far the moon is from the earth, right? Right. We’ve been there. We had to know how far away the moon was in order to actually go there. Right? Right. : )
The same principles of measuring the distance of the moon to the earth are (roughly speaking) used in determining the distance to the sun, the distance of Pluto from earth, and the nearest star, and so-on. There are other considerations when dealing with vast distances to be sure, but triangulation and basic trig definitely come into play.
This isn’t a minority opinion. This isn’t something that one guy tests in Alabama and another guy gets a totally different answer in Sidney. This is the accepted process for measuring distances.
Like measuring distances on earth, the only thing that will change (and has changed) over time is the accuracy. One hundred years ago many distances were calculated incorrectly — but the “process” or the science of calculating distance was not discarded, merely refined. A really cool video on YouTube shows the progression over time of world maps. They began with dragons in the water, a flat-earth “falling” at the ends, one or two land masses, and so-on. The progression was “upward”, not backward.
The same principle applies to measuring distances or proving evolution. Nothing has be submitted to falsify evolution — nothing. And, nothing for falsifying the methods of determining distances.
The sciences just keep growing and becoming more precise. And, as they do, the ages tend to ‘increase’ rather than decrease, and evolution becomes more specific rather than gap-oriented.
If you still want some links, do let me know. Or visit http://www.astronomy.com. Lots of good research stuff there.
Long since discarded as evidence. See here. This is a direct link to Stanford University’s solar education department. ; )
And, if you’re like me and advanced mathematics gives you a headache, you can go here.
Every study conducted since has confirmed this simple fact: The sun is not shrinking. And, if it ever did, it is expanding as well, rendering the point moot.
The way these things get started is ALWAYS (repeat after me…’always’) the result of taking science and running with a pre-conclusion to form a hypothesis.
If anything, I hope you all come away with a very poor taste in your mouth for the ethics of creation scientists. If you want to learn more about how unethical these guys are when it comes to defending their ’science’, just read up on the Dover school board case and the resulting ruling.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Oh, and btw — no one has yet given me a plausible explanation as to how the penguin made it on to the ark.
Funny how such a deceptively simple problem cannot be readily answered.
And just think: We’ve not even begun to discuss displacement issues, animals that feed on others, various living conditions for the thousands of animals that would be required, feeding the animals (one guy wrote an entire book on this subject; his conclusions were disconcerting even to creationists), and the incredibly huge room for poo.
That’s chapter 2.
Chapter 3 can be the physics of water travel during a torrential flood in a roughly square boat made of gopher wood.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:33 pm
In the spirit of this discussion, I’d like to refer any takers to this YouTube.com series of videos, beginning here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHvyDEOtsAA
Feel free to view all three parts.
Despite the poor quality of video (text only, no sound), the arguments are all valid. What I like about them in particular is that they refer to the goofball I mentioned in an earlier post who wrote an entire book on how Noah’s Ark was possible — Woodmorappe.
This is not ad hominem, but rather an illustration of the lengths someone fairly well-versed in science and logistics has to go to in order to remotely make a case for the Ark.
Unfortunately, his case is full of holes. Ridiculously so, in fact. It’s been debunked by more experts from various fields than just about any apologist book I can think of.
The point is simple: This guy (and others) spent a practical lifetime trying to figure out every possibility of how this story could have actually happened and were forced into extrapolation and literal impossibilities to even begin to make a case.
This alone proves nothing, except the lengths pseudo-scientists will go to in order to justify their pre-conceived beliefs. Unlike evolution, the age of the earth, etc., the Bible’s divine inspiration renders every notion preconceived. Darwin was not an atheist set out to disprove God — not in the least. The early astronomers who debunked the 1500-year-old “biblical truth” of a geocentric universe were believers themselves.
They observed and simply complied to the evidence.
Hopefully you will all see the difference in the two approaches.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:51 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:06 pm
“Find me ONE reputable, published, and peer-reviewed geologist who claims to have evidence for a 4500 Grand Canyon.”
I found you THREE: Dr John Baumgardner, Dr. John Whitmore, and Dr Andrew Snelling.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:12 pm
oh and please don’t start in with the whole “the really smart scientists laugh at those guys”. I don’t really care. countless other scientists over the centuries have been laughing stocks and then proven correct.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Katie,
Bravo! Evidence! You did it! Seriously, very good job.
But…
(Isn’t there always a ‘but’?)
I asked for “peer-reviewed geologists.” So, we need to look at what his/her not-so-biased peers think of his/her research, right? After all, this goes on in every branch of science. Creation ’science’ should not be exempt.
The big boy in this group is Baumgardner. PhD is in geophysics, and he’s a very smart guy. So, a bit of history on Dr. B. –
This is not an attack on Dr. B., but rather a rebuttal against ‘anyone’ going into a field of study for the sole purpose of proving a belief correct. This is at best poor science; at worse, dogma masquerading as a scholar. This does not make his claims invalid, but it certainly makes his intentions worth noting.
So, Dr. B. gets saved, enrolls in college to get his PhD in order to support the claims of his bible (notice the wording) and then creates a very inventive model of the world that claims the world is very young, evolution is very wrong, and the flood really happened.
The crux of his argument was the elaboration on a theory called catastrophic plate tectonics. Sounds kinda scary. It is. He correctly assumes that the only way for a global flood to occur would be for the tectonic plates to move — but move very, very quickly. Not at the measured rates universally agreed upon by geologists who are not affiliated with creation groups…and who use the latest in GPS technology to measure it.
Interesting theory. You can find where he’s presented it by a simple Google search. I’ll sum it up for you: Three Creation Science Conventions, creationist magazines (various), and one geophysics journal (that I could find.)
From his bio:
At any rate, let’s get to his peer review from actual geologists. Just a little digging on the web rendered this result, complete with the claim number. This is not some “atheist” knocking on him. These are geologists analyzing the validity of a theory against KNOWN DATA. That’s important, you know. There’s theory, and then there’s known data. We know where Arkansas is. No one is presenting a theory that says Arkansas is in Canada.
Read the findings carefully, and this ask a geologist to explain it (I certainly don’t understand half of it myself ; ) But, I do understand the resounding conclusions.
Again, I RE-EMPHASIZE — this is a peer review.
————-
Claim CD750:
Plate tectonics occurred, but catastrophically. Slabs of oceanic crust broke loose and subducted along continental margins. This lowered the viscosity of the mantle, leading to meters-per-second runaway subduction. The earth’s magnetic field rapidly reversed several times. Steam caused a global rain. Flood basalts erupted. The lighter mantle material of the new ocean floors made them rise, causing the oceans to flood the continents. The flood carried and redistributed sediments. The process slowed almost to a stop when nearly all the old ocean floor had been subducted. Subsequent cooling of the ocean basins caused them to sink to where they are today.
Source:
Austin, S. A., J. R. Baumgardner, D. R. Humphreys, A. A. Snelling, L. Vardiman and K. P. Wise, 1994. Catastrophic plate tectonics: A global flood model of earth history. Proceedings of the third international conference on creationism. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., pp. 609-621.
Response:
Much geological evidence is incompatible with catastrophic plate tectonics:
Island chains, such as the Hawaiian islands, indicate that the ocean floor moved slowly over erupting “hot spots.” Radiometric dating and relative amounts of erosion both indicate that the older islands are very much older, not close to the same age as catastrophic tectonics would require.
Catastrophic plate tectonics says that all ocean floor should be essentially the same age. But both radiometric dating and amounts of sedimentation indicate that the age changes gradually, from brand new to tens of millions of years old.
As sea-floor basalt cools, it becomes denser and sinks. The elevation of sea floors is consistent with cooling appropriate for its age, assuming gradual spreading.
Guyots are flat-topped underwater mountains. The tops were eroded flat from a long time at the ocean surface, and they sank with the sea floor. Catastrophic tectonics does not allow enough time for the sea mountain to form, erode, and sink.
Runaway subduction does not account for continent-continent collisions, such as between India and the Eurasian plate.
Catastrophic plate tectonics has no plausible mechanism. In particular, the greatly lowered viscosity of the mantle, the rapid magnetic reversals, and the sudden cooling of the ocean floor afterwards cannot be explained under conventional physics.
Conventional plate tectonics accounts for the evidence already and does a much better job of it. It explains innumerable details that catastrophic plate tectonics cannot, such as why there is gold in California, silver in Nevada, salt flats in Utah, and coal in Pennsylvania (McPhee 1998). It requires no extraordinary mechanisms to do so. Catastrophic plate tectonics would be a giant step backwards in the progress of science. (Emphasis mine.)
————-
Re-read the bolded final sentence. Do you just assume all of his peers are just jerks who hate God? You would practically have to.
This is not an issue of intelligence. Dr. B is a smart fellow. This is an issue of bad science from a smart but desperate man. I am not a geologist, nor do I claim to possess more than a casual knowledge of the subject. We only have so many hours in the day, and none of us are experts at everything.
But I ‘do’ know human nature pretty well, and I certainly know the mind and heart of an apologist. I WAS ONE.
And, from a good friend of mine who ‘is’ a geologist, I can get some inside info here and there. Trust me — this guy would LOVE (absolutely LOVE) to prove the world was 6000 years old. When I say “prove”, I mean present a theory that was not full of holes, straw men, and obvious distortion of the data.
He’d win a freakin’ Nobel prize man!
Chris, like many geologists (he says) could care less about a religious book’s version of history. He is a professed Christian, but very much an old-earther. However, IF the evidence was proven all wrong and a theory was presented that could do so, he’d be the first to embrace it.
True scientists want proof Katie, not confirmation of their beliefs. If the two coincide, it’s a great day I’m sure.
I’ll tackle the other two tomorrow, but I know one of them already and…well, you guessed it.
Jon
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:06 pm
P.S. Dr. B.’s life’s work is to prove the mechanism for Noah’s flood. His assertion was rejected as…well, really REALLY bad science by his peers.
That’s fine. He could still be correct. He isn’t, but let’s pretend.
The good Dr. still cannot explain penguins on the ark. Isn’t that interesting?
You see, the “flood happening” is only one head of a 47-headed Hydra. The other 46 heads would have to be severed to slay the beast.
It ain’t happening.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:33 pm
He is still not proved” wrong” (Dr. B.). His theory is still a theory. You can say this and that about him. You can cry all day long no way, no way!!!!!!!! But, isnt that what happened to many scientists long ago? It went against what the normal thinking was and every one thought they knew what they were talking about then as today! But, look, hundreds of years later it seems to have been right! Why can’t it happen again? History does repeat it’s self. It was impossible for copernicus to be right then! But lo and behold time has proven him right! Same exact scenario. So, if it happened once it could very well happen again.(And it has happened way more than once).
What makes any thing more infallible today than yesteday when it comes to science and it’s theories? Technology you say? Isnt the technology that we use today still based on what we have “learned” and put into it? that is what happened way back in copernicus’ time we just have more technology to glamorize our “theories”. Do we know every thing about every thing? That is why most of our “facts” are based on theories that are still theories, but have been around for so long that they have now become “facts”. Great theories, but, still just that. So, based on what , makes your scientist better than mine? peers? that’s what copernicus’ peers said to: No way the earth moves around the sun caus thats what all my scientist buddys have said for centuries and thats what I and they “believe”. ( There’s that word again), I’m telling you. I say science is a religion also. there is more belief there than probably in christianity. and it is still based on alot of theories. ( Not all science), but I’d say most of it.
Trey
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:47 pm
So Dr. B is dead wrong huh? no rrom for negotiation? Consider this. If you say ; “Based on what we know He is wrong.” How do you know that what we know it is basedon is for sure, and I mean 100 % dead on the money accurate? How come the plates couldn’t just jump all at once very very fast? were you there? Were your sxcientist friends there? Oh wait. I would have to ask Noah! No wait, scratch that….. I would have to ask the sqiud that was there caus technology hadnt advanced enough yet for noah to be undr water that long or deep, ( or had it? I dunno I WASN”T THERE.)
Trey
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:57 pm
so I will do what thinkers should do, which is not let history repeat it’s self, and not be so quick to say WRONG to any credible new science theory. And, by credible i mean, went to school for that particular field of study to better understand that specific field of study to make an educated hypothosis, which in turn became his theory. I will also make sure, before I cry, foul! That any, and all evidence has been fully exhausted! Hmm… lets see… how long DID it take to get convinced of the heliocentric theory?…..
You guy’s debunk quicker and less subtly than we Bible believers do.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:43 pm
jon said - Let’s just say that 99.98% of all scientists who believe that the earth is not young are wrong — and that they are mistaken ‘because of the flood’ as you state. Or rather, because they are in line with the 99.98% of geologists who do not believe in a global flood.
I say - there’s that “believe” word again. Twice actually. And look you used almost 100 % twice. I guess that must be why they “Believe”. Majority rules. Hmm… poor, poor, copernicus. Minorities never win. wait….
Jon says - That in and of itself is an enormously bold claim given the exponential nature of scientific growth in today’s world, but we’ll pretend for a moment it’s true.
I say - Given the exponential nature of scientific growth… as in what? All these new “thoeries” they are coming up with? Or all the new facts they are coming up with based off of the old “theories” that have been around for years? Scientific growth… well, would that or COULD that include Dr. B.? Oh no, wait a minute! That could not be caus he is trying to prove the Bible right!!!!! That discredits him right there. We know our knowledge blows the creator thing right out of the water. Sorry he’s debunked.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Jon says - Let’s forget the flood. What of the distance of stars? This alone is sufficient reason for an old, old earth, and the rebuttals against it are pretty funny if you follow them over time.
I say - What of the distance of the stars? Sure we know the distance of the moon, mars, saturn….etc. ( or do we?) But tell me, have you been to a star? has a satellite been to a star? honestly The planets and the stars are different areas. we know much of nothing of what hapens in actual space and time in space. So…what of the distance of stars? Oh wait there’s those theories again. I’m starting to equate “theories” with “belief”, and “scientific knowledge” with “faith”. Starting to sound like a religion to me!!! Whoa, slow down there silver!!!!!!! Gonna get an ear full for THAT one!!!! As a matter of fact, think I might even get yelled at for a lot of my scientific remarks.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:02 am
Jon said - Just a few include, “We will never make it to the moon.” Why? Because the same system of measurements that determine distance to stars and planets are foundational to space travel in general. When that proved horribly wrong, the assertion changed to either, (a) “We never went to the moon! It’s a hoax!” or (b) “Okay, so we were wrong about the distance of the moon and, I suppose, the age of the earth. But that’s just how God did it.”
I said - So waht if we were wrong about the distance of the moon? That has nothing to do with the age of the earth.
A little inuendo here, a dash of theory there, a pinch of time over here and PRESTO! We have come to believe the simple fact that because we misjudged the distance of the moon, ladies and gentlemen , that we now know the age of the earth is millions and millions……
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:07 am
Jon said - Again using the same methods of determining distance, we landed a Mars rover within a few hundred feet of its intended target. Lucky guess? Hardly — just science and “theory” applied.
I said - Yup that’s it !!!! Nothing more nothing less! that’s what Dr. B. said too. His LIFES work, just science and theory applied. And HE is wrong? Hmmmm..
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:20 am
Jon said - What you are now claiming is that these same tested, proven principles are not only false — they are horribly false. Off by a factor of millions. It’s like saying the Grand Canyon is the size of a pencil. You are saying these ’same’ measurements are THAT OFF.
I said- Yup! That’s what she said! That’s what I am saying to! Prove to me they are not off, in the slightest. Have you ever watched a creek form? Better yet running water down a dirt ditch? I have; You figure if you scale the ditch and water up, (quite alot I might add), water “could”do that. Let’s see what could have happened on that big of scale….oh wait i know!! Pick me, pick me!
You know I think I know a couple of scientists who think that the grand canyon was something like a run off or something of the sort. Oh wait, they are creation “SCIENTISTS”. Not the right kind of scientists. Right kind of theory make ups and all, right kind of scientific principles and all, right kind of tested and proved simulations and all, JUST THE WRONG KIND OF SCIENTISTS. I get it now!
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:29 am
Jon said - It’s painfully obvious that when we can determine the distance of XYZ star to be millions of light years from earth that earth is at least “that” many millions of years old.
I said - WOW!!!!!!!!! Millions of light years
light year-a unit for measuring distances outside the solar system. The star nearest to our sun, Alpha Centauri, is more than four light years away.
I’m sure we’ve been there to prove that! Yup, I can date the Earth on that theory. I can also prove how old my cat is by running to the store and back.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:45 am
Jon said - We have ice sheets with “rings” that date them accurately back 400,000 years. We have carbon dating — something creationists have tried in vain to discount since its inception, to no avail.
I said- So , yuo are saying carbon dating is 100 % accurate huh? No one has been able to discount it at all huh? How about googling : debunked carbon dating. You can check out any of those and see for your self. But hey, my info is in books like your info is. I have scientists like you do on my side of the coin. Wait, they are working in the Bible’s favor…never mind they don’t count!
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:48 am
Jon said - More than all of this, we have the absolute LUNACY of people who, when backed into an intellectual corner, conclude that NASA is a conspiracy and satanic in origin - that we never went to the moon, to mars, or even orbited the earth.
I said - Wow, any one get that from any one here on this thread? Goes back to the pinch of this, and a dash of that deal.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:52 am
Jon said - Let this serve as a warning to you: Believing something and THEN seeking to prove it true is the foundation of dogma. The opposite is the foundation of truth.
I said - TRUTH - a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, or principle.
Hmm… Carbon dating…
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:57 am
Jon said - Give me enough time and enough incentive, and I can make a case for the Constitution demanding ducks be given equal rights if I start with the assumption that God said ducks are equal to men. My reasoning would be equally as flawed as what’s presented here, but I could make the case.
I said - O.k. TIME GRANTED go do it. no assumptions that God said that about ducks though, He would never say that, caus the angels aren’t even equal to us. Thats just what rthe Bible says though. You’re Bible speaks of this carbon dating thing……
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:21 am
Jon said - Please provide evidence for the following:
1. A global flood.
I said - Uhm… Oh, I know!…The Grand Canyon.
Jon said - 2. Assuming such an event happened apx. 4500 years ago (almost universally agreed not to have happened), provide evidence and support for the belief that the evidence that support it would appear to trained geologists in some kind of “time warped” fashion; as events taking millions of years rather than thousands. Sheer conjecture is not sufficient.
I said - How about the making of crude oil.
How about, whats that thing called when something turns to rock? O h yeah!, things becoming petrified.
Jon said - 3. Assuming 1 and 2 are reasonable and evidential, please explain how this same distortion of time and earth measurements would not also affect more recent land evidence as well. If one is altered by the flood, ALL would be altered by the flood, rendering most geology and archaeology meaningless as seen by today’s scientists. The problem here is that we know it is NOT meaningless, as we have used these same measurements of time to determine locations of ruins.
I said - your right! in the terms of which you are speaking of geology and archaeology, (I assume you mean, guessing the age of the shit we find), it WOULD be meaningles. Here is the definition of:
Archaeology-The systematic study of past human life and culture by the recovery and examination of remaining material evidence, such as graves, buildings, tools, and pottery.
Thats it nothing more, nothing less.
Here is the definiton of :
Geology - 1735, Mod.L. geologia “the study of the earth,” from ge “earth” + logia, from logos “speech, word, discourse.” In M.L., geologia (14c.) meant “study of earthly things,” i.e. law, as distinguished from arts and sciences, which concern the works of God.
That was for good measure. ; )
heres another definition:
Geology - The scientific study of the origin, history, and structure of the earth
that doesn’t sound like any dating to me.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:28 am
Jon said - Or, safe yourself some time and ask any geologist if the Grand Canyon could have formed in five minutes — a rather common assertion by creationists. Give yourself all the water in the world if you wish to make this happen.
I said - O.K. I will ask ANY geologist that question. How about Dr. Gary Parker. He should do. Thank you very much!
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:31 am
Jon said -In an equally silly story, Adam is called to name every “kind” of animal. Boy, that would take a while.
I said- Really? Not if you had all the time in the world? My bad that’s Bible belief over scientific “evidence”.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:36 am
Jon said - So, we’re accepting this as evidence? Interesting. I suppose evolution is now cherry-picked for evidence when it suits the argument. : )
I said - It’s science isnt it? I guess when your side suits our side you can accuse all you want about cherry picking. I would never accuse of that, IF you picked something from MY side.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:47 am
Jon said -Nonetheless — the arguments are horribly flawed. Both the finches and the mosquitos pattern of evolution are no where near as complex and transitional as what would have to occur for penguins to wind up in at the pole or koalas in Australia. Not even close. Although this ‘is’ what happened, it happened over millions of years, and the critters have claimed their current homes for almost as long.
I said - evidence, from non other than a SCIENTIST from YOUR side, and all you got is “Nonethe less” the arguments are flawed? Less complex? regardless of what is evolving, the process is just as complex as the next to “evolve”. This is the best part - “Although this IS what happened”…. it just took millions of years? YOU can’t prove that it took millions of years to do it any more than you CAN’T prove it only took 4,500 yrs. Huh. That’s funny.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:49 am
There you Katie your not alone here. Gotta go to bed.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:34 am
Trey,
I’m sure Jon and/or I will have more to say about your rebuttals soon. For the moment, I want to give you a couple tips on being a good citizen on this forum. Each time you add a comment, I get an e-mail. If you add 20 comments, I get 20 e-mails. In fact, so does everyone else who subscribes to this thread.
So, if you want to create a long rebuttal, please do it in as few comments as possible. Learn how to quote others properly, using the <blockquote> tag. You’ll help keep the threads here clutter free and easy for all to read, and you’ll leave a better impression on people trying to understand your arguments.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:52 am
Granted, I am very very uninformed on internet conversing, IW, but I’ve tried every way I can think of to use the block quote and I cannot figure it out. How do I “learn” how to use it? I’ve never been on a blog like this before — if that’s even what this is called.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:55 am
Trey and Katie,
Let me ask you both a few questions. I’m sincerely interested in your answers. None of these question relate specifically to the flood or even theology— I just want to understand more about what motivates you.
Do you think of yourself as teachable?
Do you love learning?
Do you consider yourself to be a “life-long learner?”
Are you here to learn?
Are you here to teach?
Why are you here?
Think back to when you were a kid, and tell me about a science demonstration you saw— possibly on television, in a classroom, or in a museum— that made an impression on you. Why do you think it left that impression?
Do you think of yourself as someone who values science?
If so, what fields of science (e.g., physics, biology, etc.) do you value the most, and why?
Do you ever read science magazines, read popular books about science, or listen to science radio shows or podcasts?
Could there be something about science you have yet to learn?
Are you interested in learning more about science?
In general, do you think it is better to look for evidence to back up your conclusions, or to look for the conclusions that best fit the evidence?
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:09 am
great questions! unfortunately, I am walking out the door. hopefully i can sit down at the computer while I am out of town. ya’ll have a great week in case i don’t get the chance.
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:09 am
Katie,
Quoting others is quite easy: just remember the less-than (”<”) and greater-than (”>”) symbols (sometimes called “angle brackets”) are special characters, and you can only use them when typing HTML “tags.” Tags are special character sequences that you use to “mark up” your text with formatting information. (Thats why HTML stands for “Hypertext Markup Language”.)
So when you want to quote somone (and please, use as short a quote as possible just to provide context for your reply) simply copy the text you want to quote into your reply, then add a “start blockquote” tag before it and an “end blockquote” tag after it. Here’s an example:
<blockquote>The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.</blockquote>
Note how both tags use angle brackets, but the ending tag has a forward slash (”/”) just after the opening angle bracket. All HTML ending tags do this. Of course, to get the angle brackets themselves to show up above, I had to use a special notation we don’t need to get into right now. If I just type the angle brackets as you see them, it shows up this way in your web browser:
Here is a basic HTML tutorial. I guarantee if you spend at least 30 minutes with it, you’ll be a much better Internet citizen.
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:13 am
trying to see if this works
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:15 am
by goeorge, i think i’ve got it. thanks and sorry for my ignorance on this. i’ll check out the tutorial…
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:15 am
Katie,
Notice that you copied and pasted two literal angle brackets as part of your quote— and everything between them “disappeared.” This is because they are interpreted as some kind of strange “tag” that the browser doesn’t know, and so it just omits it from what you see.
Other than that, bravo!
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:45 am
So many responses from Trey. I cannot cover them all, but here’s the gist:
You can have a theory about anything. It means nothing. I can theorize that my lucky rabbit’s foot is more powerful than prayer. I can do a double blind test to determine the results. I can then present the results to an atheist group who, naturally, would be prone to agree. I could then present this evidence to a group of impartial philosophers, scientists, brain specialists, and theologians (although the latter would be partial.) They would undoubtedly be able to present another ‘theory’ to explain my findings, but could not “disprove” my theory.
But who do you trust?
I say trust the known facts — facts that have been used to calculate and determine things that are useful in the real world. If evolutionary theory was, say, used to produce vaccines that proved effective, then the theory has more validity than those that try to say it’s hogwash.
This is a reality.
Or, if we see (as Katie pointed out) the evolution of one form of mosquito into another, we have visual evidence of the processes ‘behind’ evolution. Again, this is evidence stacked in favor of the theory — but not proof.
There’s just some ignorance on what a “theory” means going on here and in the creationists world in general.
Sure, Dr. B. could be correct. If you read my posts more accurately, you would find that I stated that. (Followed by, “He isn’t, but…”) Sure. He could be. And pigs may one day fly.
The bottom line is that 99.999% of geologists — some faithful, some not — disagree with a passion. The reason? They’ve used documented theories and tested the applications in the real world. Dr. B’s applications cannot be found, cannot be tested, have been falsified, and blatantly depend upon the miraculous to support them. Just read the critiques.
And, by the way — the “theory” I quoted above about prayer was an actual study, although it involved a lucky horse shoe and was not conducted by me.
The horse shoe won.
But even I do not count this as “proof” that prayer is “invalid” — merely highly inconsistent and doubtful as to divine intervention within the process.
One of the most ignorant statements you’ve made, Trey. Please don’t force me to lose my respect for you.
It’s a waste of time to tear this logic apart, but for your education:
1. I was not there when the Constitution was drafted. But I believe in the Constitution.
2. I was not there when Mount Everest was formed. But I believe in Mount Everest.
3. I need not be a the scene of a murder to deduce, from the evidence that a murder was committed if I see a corpse with a severed head and four knives stuck in his back.
4. And, Dr. B. was “not there either” 6000-10000 years ago, therefore your argument would apply to his findings as well.
It’s completely nonsensical and ignores the foundations of all science, deduction, and even our legal system — the foundation of evidence.
More ignorance. I’ve now lost all respect.
Trey, get out a freakin’ science book. Look up “NASA”, “Apollo Missions” and “distance to moon”. Use your brain to deduct that yes, in fact we know the distance to the moon. And to the sun. And to Mars. And no, I have not been there — but WE, mankind, have been to the moon and to Mars (probes.) Voyager and other probes have been to the edge of our solar system. The time it take for sound to travel confirmed the distance to each planet, moon, etc — and wow, it was correct by calculation prior. Go figure.
By this line of ‘reasoning’ (pardon the term), you should question every event, location, and fact based on the fact that YOU were not present to witness it first-hand. Live life in this fashion and you’ll end up in a cave with 9 inch fingernails.
Please present your conversation with Dr. Parker for consideration.
Here’s what I could find on him. Obviously a creationist. Published in mostly creationist journals.
Here’s a few reviews for consideration. Look at the facts presented and see for yourself. Note the contradictions in Parker’s own words (in his own book, no less) as well.
When I return, I’ll dig into him a bit more and see what I can find as I’ve never heard of him. I’ll look at both sides of the evidence as well.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:40 am
Standards for this debate are going to be coming from “normal”science, i.e -majority, and “creation” science, i.e -minority. Apparently , from what Jon said the minority is only .02 %, That in it’s self is a hugely gross misrepresentation of the “FACTS” ..02%?.C’mon man where are you getting you’re facts? Out of all the “scientists” in the world, only .02 % represent the minority?
Sometimes “critics” of Creation ( which we will see plenty of here) refer to the creation/evolution debate as “science vs. the Bible” or “reasoning vs. faith.” By framing the debate in this way, perhaps you mean to imply that you use you’re minds and we the creationists do not.
Both creationists and evolutionists are able to reason and do science. The difference is what “I” accept as my ultimate standard. When I give reasons for things I accept as true, I often appeal to a more authoritative standard for support. I believe P because of Q, and I accept Q because of R and so on. But ultimately, any chain of reasoning must end; it cannot go on forever because I can’t know an infinite number of things. So, any chain of reasoning must terminate in an ultimate standard.
An ultimate standard is something that I hold to be unquestionable but cannot prove from anything more foundational (otherwise it wouldn’t be ultimate). Since I have different ultimate commitments, I, as a creationist, and you as evolutionists interpret the same evidence differently.
I, as a Biblical creationist, accept the Bible as the ultimate standard. Most on this blog do not. Some evolutionists hold to the philosophy of naturalism as their ultimate standard. Others hold to rationalism; still others hold to empiricism. But what do all evolutionary philosophies have in common? They all reject the Bible as a standard. All evolutionary standards are man-made. They all assume that human beings are able to reason and gain knowledge without God—autonomous reasoning. So, the creation/evolution debate really comes down to God’s Word versus man’s autonomous reasoning.
But, if you appeal to your own reasoning as your ultimate standard, how can you ever know if that standard is correct? At best you can say that it seems to account for all the things you know; but what about the infinite number of things you do not know? In other words, there might be true things that are contrary to your standard that are as yet undiscovered. Although you could arbitrarily assume a standard of your own choosing, you could never have any reasonable confidence that your chosen standard is universally accurate. Clearly, only an omniscient being could possibly provide a standard of reasoning that is certain to be correct in all cases. Since any manmade standard lacks universal justification, it amounts to nothing more than an arbitrary opinion. So, the debate can really be summed up as: “God’s Word versus man’s arbitrary opinion.”
In reality, both you and I use logical reasoning. We both employ logical deduction more or less correctly. But the real issue is this: what do we accept as our standard for interpreting evidence? Ultimately, one either starts with God’s Word or an arbitrary opinion. So, in reality, you are the one being unreasonable. You have simply dismissed the history recorded in the Bible and have decided to base your thinking on your own guesses rather than on God’s knowledge. This is necessarily arbitrary—which is one form of irrationality.
On the other hand, if I place my faith in the Bible, it makes sense that I should be able to think and reason, and gain knowledge. God has made our minds and has revealed some knowledge to us. Since, “I believe”, God is sovereign over all truth, there are universal standards of reasoning (laws of logic) that I can use to correct and improve my understanding of the universe. Without faith that God created us as He has said in His Word, there would be no reason to think that rationality is possible. So, upon careful reflection I can find that faith in the biblical God is actually necessary in order to have a rational worldview.
My reasoning is one of God’s gifts to me, and God expects me to use the mind He has given me in a way that is faithful to the Word He has given me. That is, I should be able to reason using God’s Word as my ultimate starting point and to reject mere speculations that contradict God’s knowledge.
Unfortunately, many people use their minds in a rebellious way: treating God’s Word as a mere hypothesis to be evaluated according to their own arbitrary philosophy. Philosophies that use human guesses rather than God’s Word as an ultimate starting point are prone to misinterpret evidence since the starting point is necessarily arbitrary.
I am pro-reasoning; and I start with the Bible as my standard because any other standard would be irrational. Only God can provide me with a necessarily correct universal standard for knowledge because only God has universal knowledge. I have faith that the Bible is what it claims to be: the authoritative Word of God. And because I have such faith, I have a reason for reasoning.
That would explain my standards and the reasons for them, and now on to the flood. Next post.
I have to go to work so I will post it later this evening
Trey
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:43 am
I am sorry iornwolf I did not know that. I will not do that any more. I did not realise that. I am new to this blogging.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:58 am
Trey,
I’d like to hear your answers to the questions I asked above before I respond to you further.
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:41 am
Trey,
Before I begin…there are STILL penguins to contend with.
I’ll accept almost any explanation at this point… : )
After that, please look up “Eucalyptus leaves”, and let me know how those very tired Koala bears managed to consume this, their only source of nutrition, aboard a boat for almost a year. That’s a fun one…
No. Standards for this debate — which originated with a single, YET TO BE ANSWERED (sorry to yell) question involving penguins — are based on strength of arguments. The fact that one side has overwhelming support is merely a fact, not a concession that the majority is ‘correct’. But it gives you a starting point to reason with. If this question has less support over fewer years of study, then it would be far more balanced.
Let me give you an example: E=MC(2). Do you believe this? Is it ‘true’? Is it ‘always’ true? Are there any gaps?
To support the validity of the theory of relativity, I would naturally go to sources who have studied it without partiality. This is a MAJOR point of contention when dealing with creation scientists.
Example: Of the millions of scientists, not ONE has been quoted to say,”I, as a scientist, believe that the world is only 10,000 years old and that it was created, but I do not believe in God.” The ‘basis’ for that belief comes ‘from’ their faith, so all evidence will naturally be seen in that light, and all evidence to the ‘contrary’ will be ignored, discarded, or chalked up to “God did it.”
Trey, even the most die-hard creationist will admit this bias! Don’t even try to deny it.
Secular geologists, biologists, etc. do no have this limitation in their reasoning. Many of them are ‘religious’, but very few discard the evidence in favor of their holy books.
As to my stats on creation scientists? I am taking the belief in evolution for that percentage, something denied by most creation scientists. So, I will revise my comment: In 2005, over 95% of the scientific community who study biology or any field that deals with evolutionary theory believe in evolution. Short story quoted below:
A follow-up study in 2007 showed higher numbers: 99% acceptance of evolution, but no statistical difference in belief/non-belief.
So, I stand corrected: 99%, as opposed to 99.whatever I said in order to make a point. : ) Hell, even 95% is staggering, given the precision of research tools today and the Internet — the world’s most critical peer.
Likewise, The Leuba study in 1995 showed a bit over 60% of scientists (all fields) were atheist or agnostic, while the remainder claimed either Deism or a belief in a personal god. So, as you can see, we have three independent studies all saying the same thing.
Does this answer your question?
This is not entirely accurate. While I will grant you that this is, in a sense, “science versus biblical claims”, in no way did I (or anyone here) suggest creationists are not using their minds.
I did suggest and believe that the creationists I have read willfully distort facts and ignore contrary evidence. Worse, they cite “God did it somehow” when backed into an intellectual corner.
It’s more desperation than a lack of mental gifts.
You, as a creationist, ignore evidence. You can go on and on about “interpretation” and how we all think rationally, but willfully ignoring evidence is not rational on either side of the fence.
Seriously.
Provide ANY EVIDENCE for a young earth that has not been thoroughly trounced by rebuttal from equally or more-qualified experts.
Seriously again. I’ll take ONE PIECE of evidence at this point.
On the contrary: There are volumes of evidence pointed toward an old earth, evolutionary process, and so-on. The conjecture and post-conclusive theories created to try and explain this evidence away, again, is just woefully lacking.
Google “Dover” and “intelligent design.” This was a landmark case, Trey. The Creation Institute was called to testify. Many of you have cited a few of their members. How many showed up?
None.
Just read up on it.
I bring this to light because of something that ’should’ be glaring down in your eyes: If there was actual evidence of a young earth, a 5-minute Grand Canyon, or how all dating systems are completely flawed, Dover would have been the ideal time to present it.
But, alas…
And just think: The judge who ruled ID is not a science was a Christian who believed in ID. Thank blank he was a real judge and not a puppet of the Bush Administration or Ken Hovind.
No, no, no…and a thousand times NO Trey.
“God’s Word” is a logical fallacy in this debate. You can state, “My opinion of what claims to be the word of god versus ———-,” but you cannot fill “——-” with “man’s arbitrary opinion.” That’s absurd.
Electricity is not arbitrary. Mathematics is not arbitrary. The scientific method is not arbitrary. It is evidential.
Learn this, or I’m closing this chat down quick. If you cannot grasp the rudimentary principles of the debate, it’s a pointless bit of quibering.
This statement speaks for itself.
1. You have not provided us any evidence that the bible is god’s word — merely your belief.
2. You have ignored the evidence to the contrary — that the bible is ‘flawed’, and ipso-facto NOT the word of a perfect, divine being.
This is the very definition of irrational.
But, believe what you want. I have no problem with it, unless you decide to kill the infidels because God speaks to you in a dream and tells you to do so.
Jon
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:46 am
Please define “okay”.
Then, provide your evidence that the world as a whole is getting “worse”. You are making a claim as well. Both claims should be supported.
Before you begin, are you really prepared to calculation every variable?
Have fun… : )
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
More on Dr. Gary Parker - one of Trey’s credible sources.
First, and I apologize for missing this on my initial response, Dr. Parker’s PhD is in education — not biology, not geology, or any other ‘ology’. While he has some knowledge of the subjects from undergraduate work, he is hardly an expert in the field.
I was able to find one debate online, or at least the summary of it. I’m emailing Ed for a transcript if there is one, but according to the write-up it’s the same old arguments that have been debunked time and time again.
Here’s the write-up:
I think it’s insightful to point out Ed’s congenial and fair-minded attitude, as well as his wry sense of humor.
Also, note the bolded comment. This is COMMONPLACE (screaming!) among creation scientists — a willful, not accidental, misrepresentation of FACT. Not “their opinion” as to a conclusion — but of ‘fact’.
If you want proof, I am happy to provide video evidence.
As these debates usually go, there’s a creationist who has ’some’ knowledge in on field and a lot of knowledge in another being forced to confront the field in which he lacks the most expertise.
Jon
P.S. For the record, I was a collegiate debater, and a pretty damn good one at that. It’s a fun ‘art’ in my opinion. I debated both sides of the “is there a god?” argument, despite (at the time) firmly believing in the Christian God. (Part of debate is learning how to make an argument for any condition.)
The most stalemated debates were always “does A god exist?” Even today, those debates really do come down to issues of perception, faith, etc.
However, like Dr. Parker’s debate, and hundred of others I’ve either participated in, listened to, or attended, specific evidence-based debates are usually lop-sided. That does not mean that everyone comes away going, “Wow, creationism as described in the bible really is bullshit!” As Ed says, “few minds were changed.” Nothing new.
But when the debates are judged impartially, the result is more obvious.
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Final post to Trey, as this is just ad nauseum…
Oh, right…Adam was immortal. I keep forgetting.
Wrong. His age is listed in the Bible. He was 500 years old when he began Project Ark, finishing at a ripe young age of 600.
Uhh…yeah. As if ‘that’ is believable, but I won’t even go there.
Anyway, assuming Adam was poofed out of dust into existence, minus a navel of course, we’ll give him all 500 years to name every creature.
Adam’s task was to ‘find’ an animal and then name it. You cannot name what you cannot see…or do you want to argue that as well?
That would mean Adam would have to find literally millions upon millions of species of animals and insect life. One has to wonder how the FISH were named. Care to address that?
Even if you remove “species” from the equation, which makes NO sense with the young earth, no-evolution model of things, you would still be left with an enormous number of “types” of animals, unless you want to call every bird “bird”. Bats, eagles, penguins — “birds.”
Lousy namer.
Let’s stick to the text: the word is not “type”, but akin to our word for “variety”, or species.
Remember: Adam has to not only name them, but FIND them as well.
Ever been hunting Trey? Obviously not.
Anyway, let’s say Adam (at 500 years of age, no less) managed to find the time to locate an animal and name it. How long do you think this would take?
Feel free to test this for yourself by going into an animal-heavy environment with the goal of finding ‘EVERY’ animal. Some would take seconds, others hours. Others would require days or even weeks (ask any bird-watcher or wild game hunter.)
At any rate, the time alloted to Adam find and name an animal, working 18 hour days for 500 years, is a shade under 10 minutes EACH.
500 years. 18 hour days.
That is being overly generous with the word “kind” as well.
Since in Fairy Dust Land…er, the biblical account of the flood, EVERY animal was saved some 4500 years ago, we can exclude all species we know evolved from 4500 years to today. Heh.
Of course, if you’re mentally retarded or six years old, “Horsey” may be sufficient to justify all species of horse-like creatures “named.” And, how Adam managed to jog down to the pole for all the Arctic critters, over to the Americas for the bison and beaver, to the great down under for the koala…
Do you understand the challenge?
No. You don’t, do you?
Since the Sabbath was not “holy” yet for some reason, let’s assume he worked on Saturdays as well.
Geez. That’s just so damn silly it borders on demented.
You’re becoming vile with your logic.
Let me spell this out for you: “Evolution is in fact science, but it’s the science you are arguing AGAINST.” Try not to acknowledge this side of the argument in defense and attack postures.
Feel free to point out one instance where I “cherry-picked” anything.
Apologies for misreading your quote about knowing the distance to the moon. Sorry, but there’s a lot of data here.
But we’re back to where “I” have been.
Trey — the sun is a star.
Yes, or no?
And how do we know the distance from the earth to the sun? The same way we know the distance from the earth to MARS. Creationists bashed that until we landed a rover on the freakin’ surface…just fyi. Or do you believe that we do ‘not’ know the distance to the sun?
If I was responding to you further, I’d laugh at your response, I’m sure.
Please…read something other than creationist rags.
Even better: Google “debunking carbon data atheist.” Have fun with that one.
I don’t have to check them out — I used to believe them, teach them, and refer atheists to them, until actual GEOLOGISTS sat me down and showed me the same flaws they try to show young-earthers.
Far too much to go into here. Short story: more accurate intepretation of C-14 data, and advanced techniques such as the AMS. Poo-pooing this s a very old, very bad, and very dishonest creationist ploy.
As for carbon dating “validating the bible”, this is a joke. Feel free to show us how and where this has happened. Unless you are referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were dated using…
Oh, never mind. It’s a bogus made-up thingy that dumb people use to make God out to be a liar.
The Grand Canyon is evidence for a global flood?
Does this even warrant a rebuttal? Honestly, it’s such a stupid thing to say I have no way to respond other than with an incredulous glare.
I see. So crude oil is evidence of a substance that was created in less than 4500 years and would appear to trained geologists as something requiring millions of years to produce.
Again, I just have to stare, but this time I’ll try and type as well.
Not that it will do any good whatsoever, but here’s some facts on crude oil:
That’s right Trey — that’s the same Babylon as mentioned in your book from God.
And, that would have meant that crude oil was formed in 500 years time, assuming the flood happened 4500 years ago as almost all creationists believe.
And, if you believe that crude oil could form in 500 years, you are absolutely void of intellectual integrity.