Please dont feel sorry! You would think that after being inmundated by facts, figures, defenses, theories etc that completely trash YEC for prob 3 yrs now, starting over at Biologos, that i would start to soften towards AT LEAST an old earth creationist view, but i am most invigorated and more zealous towards YEK! And i literally told Dr Wise the other day that i am in almost no mans land bc i had vocalized to some YEC bretheren in a YEC parachurch how perhaps a different approach to things that focus away from trying to fit science into a God mold when perhaps science is a mute pointâŚwhich is not always taken kindlyâŚso here i amâŚas joy filled and completely comfortable as a young earth creationist as this seems to be what Genesis says! I have no real face to face human support âŚjust a few articles, but it is as if a real God gives His approval! Goodnight Mr. Horton.
Of course. You canât reason a man out of a position he wasnât reasoned into in the first place.
But what about the many many Christian scientists who would say the same thing as @Timothy_Horton? I canât simply be Christian vs atheist.
Talk about a simplistic reduction. Yes⌠floods have been the context of many a mass burial and resulting mass fossilization!
Hereâs the secret of how that happens: floods occur all the time!
So how does a global flood interweave mass burials with new levels of terrestrial plant life⌠and then a new flood on top of that layer⌠with yet another level of terrestrial plant life ⌠even with some land-based fossils in that layer?
You are thinking with a desperate mind⌠not a logical and scientific one.
Ahhh the sweet savor of burning incense coming out of a zealot cranium filled with the sweet zeal of devotionâŚ
By reference to sites such as Great Salt Lake in Utah and Lake Tyrrell in Australia. The latter is a salt-encrusted depression that every winter receives an influx of water that subsequently evaporates, leaving more salt on the lake bed than there was before. If it wasnât being commercially mined, the halite on the lake bed would be increasing in depth over time.
Only if âconfoundsâ means âcan be answered without pause for thought.â
The content of your conversation over the existence of God with a person who is an atheist would be of a type that would be kind, respectful, and lovingâŚbut of a very different type in content compared to speaking with a person who believes in God. This statement was not directed to you.
And the point i was making on the interpretation in the rocks was to point out how sometimes a thinking about life may be so different, that communication that assumes that thinking might be very difficult. Think about this: About yecs in particular-they might subscribe to a view of God who so powerfully transcends the natural that science may be incapable of truly deciphering His works such as in the creation event or a global flood. A naturalist who does not believe in God or who believes that Gods supernatural hand was largely removed from history takes on assumptions that science IS fully capable of deciphering deep past history.
So when these two speak to one another, they may be speaking past each other. The basis of language may be so different that they just write each other off and never contemplate what they are saying.
Greg,
Iâm sympathetic to this view. I think a literalist interpretation of the Bible that results in a YEC view, and that simply answers the questions raised by science by âI donât know, God doesâ is actually a pretty coherent theological approach. YECâs get into trouble when they try to use science to support a YEC view point as the science points (at the very least) quite clearly to an old earth.
But just to be clear, Iâve come to the conclusion that there are other interpretations of the Bible, even ones that I would still describe as literalist, that better match what we can see in science.
Well i read an article that proves that many geologists were troubled about how to explain salt 1 km thick. Since that time new theories have surfaced i see⌠I dont know the dynamics enough to comment to your simplistic statement on whether it is valid or not.
Hereâs another bare-faced lie from that video:
There are only five modern classes of Arthropods
- Spiders etc (arachnida).
- Horseshoe crabs (xiphosura)
- Centipedes (chilopoda)
- Millipedes (diplopoda)
- Pseudocentipedes (symphala)
- Shrimps (branchipoda)
- Barnacles (maxillopoda)
- Crabs etc (malacostrata)
⌠and others too.
Oops.
Science would say that a man dead and decaying for a period of 3 or 4 days cannot be brought back to life. And science that says that energy cannot be created or destroyed wants to slap itself in the face in the frustration of trying to explain the presence of mass energy that is impossible to naturalistically understand as having eternal existence in the past. If energy is scattered and made useless, then there is no rationale that it could have been used to create the beginning of mass energy. So the existence of an eternal God who transcends the natural and who created the cosmos is much better than naturalistic explainations which science clings to for discovery. So from this, i believe it is logical to call all good science âcreation scienceâ because i see no other rational option about non-creator science. And from this, allegiance to a balance of science and revelation seems rationalâŚi have read many ârevelationsâ in differing religions, and Christianity is the only one i know carries any weightâŚ
And for the record: i never said that all yec science is bad. Some i believe makes powerful arguments for a young earth. The temptation to force science into a mold can be real for yecs and i believe that we need to step away from this and towards the God who transcends the natural and who can tie physics into a knot.
In the same way, naturalists force science into their worldview. Naturalistic universal common decent evolutionism carries with it attempts at forcing science into their moldâŚand i dont buy them as having any rationale.
This from an âexcitable unitarianâ
Floods occur all of the time but for fossils to form, they must be so catstrophic that the animal is buried deep so that the powers of decay and scavinging cannot dismantle the animal before the fossil is formed. That is what i learned from Wise. Is he wrong on this too?
General localized flooding here and there over i dont care if it was a trillion trillion yrs does not help to explain fossils. Show me if this is incorrect
Traditionally, those three arenât classes, all being included within Crustacea. Then again, Crustacea is sometimes considered a subphylum with 6 classes. Wise is simply working with an old classification. Shrimp, however, are malacostracans, not branchiopods. The branchiopod you would be most familiar with would be brine shrimp.
So, to summarize, science is great when it supports your personal prejudices and bad when it doesnât. I would be fascinated to learn what you think are powerful arguments for a young earth.
Yes. I think he knows that. I canât see any other explanation for what he says other than dishonesty. The Burgess Shale, for example, is the result of a turbidity flow off a continental slope. Purely local event. The geology of that event is well understood. Fossil deposits vary in their geologic contexts, but not a one points to anything like a global flood.
Youâre right - I should have said âbrine shrimpâ, not just âshrimpâ.
I typed this for george and system kicked it:
quote="gbrooks9, post:149, topic:5109"]
Talk about a simplistic reduction. Yes⌠floods have been the context of many a mass burial and resulting mass fossilization!
[/quote]
Show me the proof. Say a flood hits my town and i an buried in 10 feet of sediment. Will my body become fossilized or will my flesh and bones turn into mushâŚdust to dust I dont know the answer! Im asking. If the answer is the latter and we see information from a scientist who says that a large number (70 or 80%) of species representatives of living mammels in Europe are represented in the fossil record in Europe and even more when you go worldwide, this is telling.
But back to my questionâŚif im buried in 10 feet of flood sediment, do i become a fossil? What is the depth necessary for fossilzation to take place?
Are you familiar with Pompeii and Herculaneum? Not floods, exactly, but certainly ash and mud.
Itâs been shown that that claim is false, right? Remember that discussion?
No depth at all. It can happen on the surface, depending on conditions. Bones and shells are pretty hard. Teeth are harder, and most mammal fossils are teeth.
I doubt that it âprovedâ such a claim. More likely, it simply asserted such a claim.
One of many reasons why I left the Young Earth Creationism some years ago was that I discovered that a lot of bold claims stated in the literature published by my favorite YEC authorities were seriously outdated, sadly mistaken, or seriously confusedâor all of the above.
Greg, I think a lot of my background was probably similar to yours. I was told that one either accepted a particular brand of hyper-literalism in Genesis or one was on a slippery slope to blatant atheismâwith no possible territory to be found in-between. (At least, not for long.) The love of false dichotomies was something I found often among my YEC brethren and I eventually became exasperated by it.
Moreover, thick layers of salt and thick layers of fossils (representing an enormous quantities of biomass) represent far greater problems for Young Earth Creationists than for anybody else.
Greg, I do hope that you will eventually come to understand that you can trust Godâs revelations in his creation just as you can trust Godâs revelations in his scriptures. You donât have to choose the one and reject the other.