Uggh… I’ve been trying to remember this quote off and on over the last few weeks and have googled for it periodically. Something to the effect of…
“The Creator, who gave us reason, would not expect, upon a particular challenge, for us to abandon it.”
I will be very grateful if someone could chime in and supply it. Perhaps @jongarvey can help.
Greg: (@Greg) You should pick up a copy of the Archko Volume. I think that you would really enjoy it. In the mid-19th century, a man named Whydaman spent nearly five years in the Vatican with unprecedented access to the archives. There, he was shown many scrolls that were from antiquity and which were purported to have come from the library at Alexandria. The contents of the scrolls included some of the greatest extra-biblical literature pertaining to the life and death of Jesus, the disciples, and other non-Christian figures who are known from the New Testament.
The Romans were known to be meticulous keepers of records and among the surviving scrolls were the report from Caiaphas to the Sanhedrin concerning Jesus’ execution, The Acta Pilati (Pilate’s report to Caesar regarding Jesus arrest and death), Herod Antipater’s report to the Roman Senate regarding John the Baptist’s execution, the Hillel letters, and more.
For anyone for whom the scriptures themselves are insufficient evidence regarding the details presented in the NT concerning Jesus life, death and resurrection, these documents serve as conclusive proof that the stories are accurate as recorded. They are sure comfort to a soul who struggles to believe that the gospel narrative is factual. The only problem is that, as comforting as they are, they are not real. One cannot know why the book was written, but it was shown to be utterly fraudulent and has no historical value.
When you request for us to evaluate seemingly reliable information that explains how the earth can be just six to ten thousand years old, you must understand why we dismiss that which you put forth. The reason is that we have all read similar literature, viewed similar videos, and listened to similar audio recordings of experts who present “evidence” that the earth is very young. We have read, seen and listened to them, and, using our God-given intellect, we have found them to be unreliable. Further, we have meticulously evaluated the evidence for an ancient earth and found it, in stark contrast, to be utterly reliable. This is not a worldview dichotomy as you suggest, it is a juxtaposition of facts.
What you need to understand is that, to those who have fairly adjudicated the evidence on both sides, the earth is clearly very old. Even if one is to see, read or listen to a presentation that is perfectly polished and casts doubt upon this being so, the earth is still old. Because it cannot be both young and old, further evaluation of YEC literature is a waste of time. If you were to evaluate the literature, even from Christian sources, that explains not only why the earth is not young, but why we know for certain that it is very old, you would see this as well.
Does anything think this story is credible?
I was given a copy of the book by a friend many years back. It was presented to me as legitimate. As I read it, I became suspicious and did some research and learned that it, of course, was not. I do not believe that any scholars believe it to be legitimate. I would imagine that there are many individuals who may believe so. @John_Harshman
Sorry @cwhenderson - haven’t a clue on this one. On the face of it, Amen.
On the other hand, if it was written after about 1700, that “reason” may be a weasel word for a particular kind of reason, very different from what, say, a Patristic writer regard as reason (which had a greater component of emotional and moral sensitivity).
As I’ve just explored at The Hump, if postmodernism has achieved anything, it’s the dethroning of human reason. By way of analogy, one could replace “reason” with “moral righteousness” in your quote, and it would instantly be shown to be a “motherhood and apple pie” statement that utterly fails to address the problems in the world.
The quote which inspired my blog I can attribute, to N. T. Wright:
“Postmodernity is about announcing the doctrine of the Fall to arrogant modernity."
How does that apply to YEC? Sadly, in a nuanced rather than an absolute way, I think. We have a natural endowment of reason, but it’s also true that “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” Every inch of ground has to be prayerfully and intellectually won.
Not that I believe reason, or faith, ultimately support young earth views - I’ve just sent of 11K word book to the publisher on that issue.
Galileo is not a church father, but he had this to say:
Even better than what I was looking for.
Is there another kind?
This would seem to be a claim that atheists are incapable of wisdom, perhaps of doing science. No?
How does it apply to Intelligent Design?
How does it apply to Evolutionary Creation?
I had assumed it was an early church father too, so my search criteria was all out of whack! In my defense sure sounded like something Augustine would have said. Thank you, @T_aquaticus!
Dr. Wise has now provided his YEC explanation for angular unconformities
Sadly it’s more unabashed hand waving and outright lies. The processes involved in the formation of angular unconformities DO NOT happen in less than 1 year. In particular plate tectonic tilting and erosion takes millions of years to occur. Notice Wise is offering nothing besides “the Flood did it!” empty claim.
I didn’t expect much from Wise beyond the usual YEC excuses and lies and I wasn’t disappointed. We should archive this ridiculous non-answer from Wise the next time someone offers him as an example of an “honest” creationist.
I have to agree that’s extraordinarily pathetic. The only thing that saves Wise from the charge of lying is that he has probably managed to delude himself on this subject.
Like you, i would presume ( since you are a genetisist not a geologist,) i dont have near the depth of understanding geology like wise. And if you were a geologist getting an education in mainstream, i would imagine that you never would have explored consideration of a lithostratigraphic column built in short order due to a massive flood. I honestly dont remember having a desire or having a focus on learning about geology like this very much. I read wises book, Faith, Form and Time back when it came out, but that was over 15 yrs ago and Biology tends to grab the headlines in my mind ever since.
Since running across wise and learning about the stratographic column, i have been dumbfounded as to how to explain a thousand feet of rock that are ordered from the bottom up, iron, black shales, sands, chalk(made of microscopic shells) and blackshales all across the world in that order. Where does all of that rock come from? Why that order?
I am intrigued about the science of flood geology like never before. So far, the data seems fitting of a worldwide flood, because vast amounts of time does not make any sense of the order of the column, nor the vast amounts of rock. What did time do? Usher a cosmic wheelbarrow from space and dump more rock and in an order fitting if a one time event? Iron sediments always at the bottom of the column throughout the world? White chalk always at the top? Then i think, if all of that rock is a result of a catrostrophic flood event, could it be that geologists missed the obviousness of the interpretation all this time? What are the others? I think i read about 5 worldwide flood events over millions of yrs. Does this explain the order as we see it in the column well? Or does a one time flood explain it better?
I actually ask these questions and have no idea where to even begin in order to answer appropriately. I have always believed in a worldwide flood. I would have never guessed the amount of sediment and other dynamics like what i speak of as the result. Is wise onto something?
You presume incorrectly. I have a pretty good education in geology, enough to know Wise is egregiously wrong. You are right that nobody considers the idea of a global flood in geology education, just as nobody considers a host of other ideas that are unsupported by the data, like volcanoes belching out sandstone.
Don’t have to explain it as there is no such thing, no worldwide layers. Not even the K/T boundary clay is preserved worldwide. A layer of iron? What are you talking about?
Are you perhaps talking in a really garbled way about the banded iron formations in the early Precambrian? They aren’t worldwide, but the do result from a worldwide event: the release of free oxygen by the advent of photosynthesis. Not a flood.
White chalk appears in only a limited number of places, and not at the top. Most of it, if I recall, is Cretaceous. It’s a medium-deep sea sediment that could not possibly have formed or have been uplifted in a single year.
Simple answer: no. In fact the idea that rocks are the result of the flood is one of the earliest hypotheses, considered and rejected hundreds of years ago. Thanks for playing.
You are mistaken. There has never been a worldwide flood, and you have never read about such events.
Again, no. Wise is merely making transparent attempts to rationalize his faith in Genesis, because he thinks his religion depends on it.
So this research on sedimentology here
Is one big fabricated lie? I may have misunderstood terms about layers and miscommunicating…perhaps wise states that the sedimentary column is not everywhere, but where the sedimentary layer is represented is always in order everywhere around the world…iron based sediment is at the base of this column, chalk at or near the top. And never any exception. Is this a fabrication? Can someone without bias look at this video and tell me that every bit of it is just downright bad science?
Sorry, but I’m not going to wade through an hour and a half of video to find out what you think you’re talking about.
It’s true that the banded iron formations are quite ancient, but the reason for that is that they disappear once there’s enough oxygen in the atmosphere so that all exposed iron becomes oxidized. Nothing to do with t flood. It’s true that there is no chalk in the Paleozoic or before, but that’s because coccolithophores didn’t evolve until the Mesozoic. The only major chalk deposits are Cretaceous, and only in Europe.
Yes.
I believe that’s been done, unless by “someone without bias” you refer to young-earth creationists only.
Now arent you guilty of assuming things here? I am beginning to embody the mind of swamidass: show me science without bias. Why can you not assume that maybe God created these in the beginning? Because you think the subjective assumption of naturalistic universal common decent evolution is somehow less subjective than the idea of God creating?
Wise here:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wKuFQLkFW7o
Reveals that Gould himself counters evolutionary science with a theory about the fossil record showing high disparity, low diversity the exact opposite of expectations from a universal common decent evolutionist.
So if one banks on coccolithophores not evolving but rather being created in the beginning, then the interpretation of rock layers completely changes-does it not?
Just like you seem to have faith that seems to be bent towards energy possibly eternally existing in the past that rolls on to make every interpretation of everything from a naturalistic framework, guys like Wise and myself place faith in the fact that God created energy, mass, plants and animals and we roll on with our interpretations.
I am not sure that there is any hope of achieving “peace” in the interpretation of the past, the rocks included with such vast differences in presumption betw an atheistic mindset vs a theistic. You seem to be atheistic bent and i wholehearted embrace the idea of a personal God. We are so different at our base. Even a discussion i had w an atheist on morals presents a huge cavern of difference even though we are agreeable on some moral matters.
He says morality is based on majority consent and not revelation. When i accused him of being a future supporter of racism because the moral fabric may go there one day based on majority consent, he skirts the issue. Im not ever a racist bc “God so loved the WORLD” For the case of atheism, racism may come back and not sure of anything that it can do to cause it to be disuaded. This stance of subjective morality in and of itself is a moral issue.
So you and i are different, and i wish this were not the case. Im not going to treat anyone badly…i may treat those in disagreement w me better! But i cannot turn a blind eye to our differences either.
Peaceful science is not about science. It is a battle of opinions that i can see resulting in peacefully going on our own ways still friendly but agreeing to be different. I can see no resolve towards agreement on the history of the world’s past unless the undergirding worldview flips on the heart level.
There is one simple question that can illuminate this whole conversation.
What specific features would a geologic formation need in order to refute a recent global flood?
If YEC’s can’t produce a detailed and honest answer to this question, then they really don’t have a leg to stand on.
What data, if found, wouldn’t fit a worldwide flood?
Well Greg, now that you’ve seen how Wise blatantly lied about angular unconformities, are you ready to see the next geologic formation impossible to form in a one time one year Flood?
No.
Because they don’t appear until the Triassic. The Triassic wasn’t the beginning.
What publication of Gould’s is Wise talking about? If it’s Wonderful Life, much of that disparity has gone away upon closer examination. If it’s Gould talking about Fortey’s arthropod analysis, that also has been questioned, and it doesn’t mean what you think Wise thinks Gould thinks it means anyway.
No. It just renders all data meaningless. The order of the fossil record becomes meaningless, explained only by God’s whim in the flood. You might as well give up on geology and paleontology because they make no sense at all. Is that really where you want to go?
No, that isn’t the distinction here. It’s between those who think data matters and those who think their interpretation of Genesis trumps all data. Note that a great many Christians fall on the “data matters” side.
Euthyphro. God can not be the ultimate source of objective morality, even if there is such a thing. Deal with it.