Tristen

Hey again Bonkey, I thought it might save us some time if I summarise my perspective on a couple of points we’ve discussed. (A) I have proposed that all historical claims are unfalsifiable. You responded by claiming that Common Ancestry could be falsified by finding a rabbit in Precambrian rock. My argument is that even if you found a rabbit in Precambrian rock, that fact would be insufficient to force a rejection of Common Ancestry; namely because there is always the logical possibility of the rabbit entering the rock after the rock had formed by some currently unknown, undescribed method. That is, we could always say, “Yes – we found a rabbit fossil in Precambrian rock, No – we don’t know how it got there, But there remains the logical possibility that the rabbit entered the rock, subsequent to the rock’s formation, by some (yet to be determined) means” Then I presented evidence of this logic being employed to account for pollen found in Precambrian rock. - Yes – we found pollen fossils in Precambrian rock OR “The rocks concerned are unquestionably ancient (Precambrian) … Yet standard palynological techniques recovered well-preserved fossil pollen from the samples” - No – we don’t know how it got there OR “by no conceivable means could the pollen (and spores) have entered the metamorphosed sediments from the outside” - But there remains the logical possibility that the pollen entered the rock, subsequent to the rock’s formation, by some (yet to be determined) means OR “it remains an intriguing geological mystery” Now you have criticised the example, but what is required is that you explain how such a find would logically force the necessary rejection of Common Ancestry (i.e. falsify Common Ancestry). Without that explanation, Common Ancestry remains unfalsifiable. (B) We are debating two versions of reality; Faith premise 1: God has interacted with the universe in accordance with the Biblical account Faith premise 2: No God has interacted with the universe - A model (including sub-models) of unobserved history has been formulated within the parameters of faith premise 1 (model 1) - A model (including sub-models) of unobserved history has been formulated within the parameters of faith premise 2 (model 2) - All of the currently available evidence can be rationally interpreted to conform to model 1 - All of the currently available evidence can be rationally interpreted to conform to model 2 - None of the historical claims underpinning model 1 have been scientifically observed - None of the historical claims underpinning model 2 have been scientifically observed - Therefore model 1 is logically unfalsifiable - Therefore model 2 is logically unfalsifiable Now advocates of model 2 claim that their model is the only scientifically valid model. Since the same logical methodology is applied to both models throughout, and since the only point of difference is the fundamental faith premises, I have to assume that this claim of exclusive validity is founded in faith, rather than objective scientific reasoning. Hope this clears up my position a bit.

I read just the other day that the timeline for homo something-or-other was adjusted a bit because they found evidence of earlier fossils. Is this what you're referring to? If abused, it would be a logical fallacy. I'm not suggesting mainstream science can't be wrong or they have to be right because they are experts. We send samples or data to experts all the time to have them provide their feedback. So from my point of view, I see a group of people who disagree with an extreme vast majority of scientists in many different fields...but it's not JUST that they disagree, for me it's the reason WHY they disagree. Let's be frank, isn't it because any claim or position that calls scripture into question needs to be categorically denied or excluded? For instance-- "Most importantly, the Bible believing creationist will be careful to confine himself to speculations that are consistent with God's Word." --Dr. David Mention [Answers in Genesis] "The Bible is the divinely inspired written Word of God. Because it is inspired throughout, it is completely free from error--scientifically, historically, theologically, and morally. Thus it is the absolute authority in all matters of truth, faith, and conduct. The final guide to the interpretation of the Bible is the Bible itself. God's world must always agree with God's Word, because the Creator of the one is the Author of the other. Thus, where physical evidences from the creation may be used to confirm the Bible, these evidences must never be used to correct or interpret the Bible. The written Word must take priority in the event of any apparent conflict." --Greater Houston Creation Association "verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific [sic] and historical as well as moral and theological." --Institute for Creation Research I find this world view to be very suspect, but then, that's my opinion. If the criticism has any "teeth" yes. If the rejection is nothing more than "they could be wrong" [as I've seen before] than it can be ignored. If it was a global flood there are other ice sheets other than Greenland, and they show many many years of seasonal accumulation uninterrupted by any flood. If what you say is true, we should only see what about 4400 years of accumulation? That's a falsifiable claim right? I'm just going to be honest, I'm not sure what to say if I'm understanding you right. Are you suggesting that "mobile" animals will show up at the top of the fossil record and immobile at the bottom? I have to think I'm misunderstanding you. The strongest, fastest animal can't stop itself from drowning and being swept away in a current. For now I'll assume I'm misunderstanding your position. So if the Mormon Bible had a claim that would leave natural evidence and we don't find this evidence, you thing it's perfectly logical to keep believing anyway? I was merely stating that I wouldn't expect issues to arise based on the work you do. I'm looking at the wide range of data in any field that's relevant. You seem a bit edgy and suspicious, I'm not attacking you Not until you've shown that this model is worth anything I'm just saying, that your position requires that every test that concludes deep time must be way off. We're not talking about one type of measurement, various methods of radio decay, ice core dating, the measurement of distant stars that shouldn't be visible in a 7000 year old Universe. There are many more but these are just a few. LOL, I don't care about the dinosaur extinction and I'm well aware that there are scientists with differing views on that. Using the biblical timescale, WHEN did this meteor impact take place? Did anyone notice the earth was on fire and the sun wasn't shining like it used to? You're also referencing an article that talks about very deep time, I find that ironic. Anyway, I don't care about the extinction, I'm asking how life on Earth just goes on while all hell breaks loose from a meteor impact. Usually this is attempted to be solved by just tossing it in with the global flood event. What they showed is that there is a mechanism for preserving tissue. From the article: They are offering a potential way that soft tissue can be preserved, I think you mischaracterize them as if they are just being less than honest or just covering up a problem. Presupposition and "personal revelation" aren't the same thing. It's not about starting points, it's about the idea of changing scientific inquiry such that it includes "personal revelation". Then to be honest, I don't know that you've ever suggested clearly what it is that you'd change about scientific inquiry. I'm still trying to get a handle on what it is that you're proposing. Your paradigm supports supernatural explanations that would not conflict with scripture, isn't that more accurate? Regarding your desire to include supernatural explanations, Laplace said it best "I have no need for that hypothesis". Hey again Bonkey, You said “As both you and the article admit, there is mechanism that would possibly explain why the pollen is found there. I'm not aware of a mechanism that would explain why a fossilized rabbit would be found there. Pollen is a bit different from a rabbit, pollen gets into all kinds of places because of the fact that it's extremely small grains floating here there and everywhere. I don't know if subduction could cause a fossil to go that far down, that may not even be reasonable at all. So if there isn't a mechanism that is plausible to explain the rabbit fossil, then I'd say that's a separate case.” So to falsify “evolution”, we have to specifically find a rabbit fossil in Precambrian rock. But we are in no sense falling over ourselves to preserve the faith paradigm underpinning Common Ancestry – I.e. by moving and narrowing the goalposts – that’s definitively not what we’re doing. Pollen was not discovered on the rock, but in the rock. The author examined the possibility of contamination and determined that “by no conceivable means could the pollen (and spores) have entered the metamorphosed sediments from the outside. They are dense impermeable rocks compressed by an overburden of hundreds of feet” (Stainforth, Nature Vol. 210, 1966). Bailey (Nature Vol. 202, 1964), who tested these claims, found “The rocks concerned … are physically dense, with no obvious routes (such as natural permeability/porosity or crack systems) through which solid particles might enter them. Yet standard palynological techniques recovered well-preserved fossil pollen from the samples!!!” - so all of the actual observations suggest that pollen entered the layer before it completed forming (allegedly 1.7 billion years ago). I’m not sure how “subduction” could beam pollen fossils into hardened rock. Burial intrusions can explain larger organisms found out-of-place (such as rabbits). It’s much more difficult to extend the range 1.3 billion years without anyone noticing – so we’ll just leave it for now and hope no one brings it up till we find an answer “And if that happens to be the case, then I'd be on your side criticizing the scientists for doing that” Then feel free to join me brother. Nevertheless you appear to have missed my point – which is that the unobserved nature of past claims provides us with the opportunity to employ logical work-arounds to account for contrary observations. Therefore a rabbit fossil in Precambrian rocks is insufficient to warrant the necessary rejection of “evolution”. “Shouldn't we see pollen everywhere in the geologic column? We're bringing up a couple of extreme examples where we find pollen where it shouldn't be, but shouldn't this be the norm if the creation story is true? Like I was saying earlier, pollen gets everywhere!” Just in case you are unaware, the creationist model considers sedimentary layers to represent the flood and post-flood period. I would expect mature pollens to be stripped from a plant early in a deluge. In terms of the geological column, since angiosperms are land organisms, and most plant material floats, I would expect their fossils to be generally above marine fossil layers, but beneath land mammal fossil layers. Note that rather than investigate creationist models, how prone you are to applying silly assumptions to our position; presuming to provide us with an overly simplistic model. In order for pollen to get “everywhere” (ignoring for a moment all the hydraulic and geophysical forces in play during a global flood – and just sticking to the issue of pollen), we would have to assume that an abundance of angiosperms were releasing pollens from mature flowers at the start of the deluge. The vast majority of angiosperms are pollinated by other organisms (e.g. insects) – very few angiosperms are wind pollinated. If the rain started early or late in the day, then most flowers would be closed; all the time assuming that the flowers were in season. Many flowers utilise temporal maturation separation between stigmas and anthers etc. So your pollen-“everywhere”, creationist model assumes an awful lot of things about my model, that my model doesn’t actually claim. “I suppose if the evidence shapes up 99% of the time and you find an example or two where things are what you expect it may be viewed as an unsolved anomaly” And there we have the logical ‘out’ for any contrary evidence discovered – rendering the discovered facts to be meaningless. What does “if the evidence shapes up” mean? Does this concept incorporate all those times where contrary evidence forces a redesign of the hypothesis? Does it consider the context of the very same facts being consistent with a completely different hypotheses? The ever-present possibility of “an unsolved anomaly” entirely makes my point about all historical models being unfalsifiable. Faith means high confidence in a claim; independent of our capacity to verify the claim “That seems like a definition that differs from the dictionary and the Bible. Are you aware of that?” So you would like me to justify my definition of faith – Ok then. I’m not overly concerned with unsupported claims about dictionary definitions. If you look hard enough, you’ll usually find a definition skewed to your own beliefs. E.g. atheists like to denigrate faith by defining it as confidence in the absence of evidence. I would call that blind-faith. Christianity does not promote blind faith. The Bible admonishes Christians to "test all things", to think about (“meditate on”) why we believe what we do, to pursue knowledge, truth and wisdom, to question the validity of human philosophies, to apply “reason” to the defence of our beliefs etc. Even without external support, the Bible itself is a form of recorded testimony, and therefore qualifies as evidence. So there is a rational distinction between faith, and blind-faith. Belief is a general term covering a broad spectrum of confidence – so in some contexts can be used interchangeably with faith (high confidence). The Greek word pistis is the main word translated as “faith” in the New Testament. Most Greek dictionaries define pistis simply as trust. I don’t see any inconsistency here with my definition. My definition contains extra information to distinguish it from blind faith. The Bible sometimes uses the phrase “the faith” – which can mean ‘the Christian belief system’. The meaning is pretty obvious when read in context (see 2 Corinthians 13:5, Galatians 1:23, Colossians 2:7, 1 Timothy 4:1, Jude 1:3 etc.). I don’t think I’ve used faith this way during our discussion. Faith is distinct from knowledge; which is confidence based on strong evidential support (as determined by the claimant). So what term would you use to describe “high confidence in a claim; independent of our capacity to verify the claim”? “If supernatural causes can't be verified, then why would anyone suggest them?” - Because of the logical possibility of them being true - Because they are consistent with a preferred faith paradigm Naturalistic causes for historical claims cannot be verified. They are “suggested” for the same reasons. “I'm pointing out that when faced with a troubling mystery, he resorting to supernatural explanations and Laplace showed they weren't needed. … I don't have anything against there being a creator God that created our Universe, I'm just not convinced that we need one to explain the Universe.” You are confusing two concepts; the existence of a logically plausibe natural explanation with verification of God’s non-involvement. Just because you can formulate a logically plausible story to account for a past claim doesn’t mean it actually happened that way. ‘God isn’t logically required’ is a different logical construct to ‘God wasn’t involved”. You also speak as though we commonly default to a god-of-the-gaps strategy – which is just another strawman misrepresentation of our position. We have a model of reality that permits supernatural explanations – I don’t think that is in dispute. But we are only permitted to dogmatically appeal to the supernatural when the claim is explicit in our model. We cannot claim God’s involvement with any confidence unless the Bible tells us that God was involved. So there is no logical reversion involved (i.e. we don’t dogmatically claim God was involved because we have no other explanation. We may suggest the possibility, but it doesn’t truly represent our position unless solidly supported by scripture). “To demand that I should be convinced is asking me to resort to an argument from ignorance” I have not demanded you be “convinced” by anything. Neither have I utilised argument from ignorance in any of my positions. I haven’t even claimed my position to be true. And I certainly haven’t based my confidence on lack of evidence to the contrary. I can interpret all of the facts to be consistent with my preferred model of reality. Therefore my model is validly available to objective consideration and scrutiny. Likewise, the secular community can interpret all of the facts to be consistent with their preferred model of reality. And therefore their model is also validly available to objective consideration and scrutiny. The only issue here is that the secular community thinks their model is the only valid model because it’s the one that agrees with their preferred faith perspective. “Who knows what the true nature is of our Universe and why it's here etc etc...I can imagine the answer being something that surprises us all” Or maybe the Biblical God really is the eternal Creator of the universe and has communicated its nature to humanity through the Bible. “If you were to "fix" scientific inquiry how would you do so? Explain what this would look like if we were to consider non-naturalistic [or whatever] sources of data” I’m not trying to “fix” anything. My goal is to provoke advocates of secular models to consider the quality of the logic underpinning their position - to the end that they are capable of giving fair and objective consideration to other positions. The only kind of observation available to science is current, naturally occurring phenomena. The only way to test claims about either the past, or supernatural, is through indirect methods such as modelling. The secular community is happy to use this method to investigate the past but baulks when it comes to applying identical logic to examine supernatural claims. The logical weakness of indirect modelling is the same across the board; namely that confidence attributed to the initial claim necessarily requires the application of the logical fallacy Affirming the Consequent. “Okay, so I'm at a complete loss on what it is your suggesting we do to make scientific inquiry more fair or open to other possibilities and do so in a way that gets us anywhere” I’m only suggesting that we apply objectivity to the process. Operational science is a separate issue since it can only utilise currently available, natural facts (until we invent a time-machine or spirit-o-metre – so we can make the necessary observations required to attribute legitimate scientific confidence). Science is the main way we pursue knowledge. Science is supposed to be objective (i.e. it is not the pursuit of naturalistic knowledge, but knowledge; regardless of the faith preferences of those involved). The facts can be interpreted to support (at least) two contrary models of reality. Therefore both have equal scientific legitimacy. Both have strengths and weaknesses in logic and evidence. Some evidence better supports one over the other and vice versa, though this somewhat subjective. Therefore the dismissal of one model from consideration can only be justified by faith preference. Such a dismissal is not justified through scientific reasoning. “Would you say that the existence of God is an absolute "must be true" fact?” No “If you say "no" then we're back to this God needs to be established first before we worry about referring to it/him when establishing scientific theories.” Why? – The specific purpose of hypothesis formulation is an attempt to explain what is not known. No one has “established” that reality is independent of God. No one has “established” that the Big Bang ever occurred, or that a subsequent inflationary event occurred, or that dark matter and dark energy actually exist – yet these claims are fundamental to the prevailing naturalistic model of the history of the universe (i.e. Standard Cosmology). It has always been difficult for naturalistic faiths to comprehend that their foundational claims about reality and God are as much faith as foundational religious claims about reality and God. They oddly never feel quite so compelled to ‘establish’ the faith limitations of their own perspective before engaging in investigation. Simple observations such as causality, order, function and complexity provide justification enough to hypothesise the existence of a Creator. “The gospel Matthew goes spends a lot of time trying to establish Christ as divine and he does so by referring to the power he was able to exhibit” Actually, Matthew focusses comparatively little on divine power (i.e. compared to say, the gospel of John). Matthew’s main argument is to demonstrate Jesus’ legitimacy through His fulfilment of Old Testament Messianic prophecies, and by linking Jesus to Messianic promises made to Abraham and David, and by establishing His royal lineage. Matthew 7:22-23 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 1 John 4:1 4 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. Clearly, the Bible teaches that supernatural power is insufficient to establish that a person represents God. Mind you, it’s compelling evidence – but deeper scrutiny is required. "being born of a virgin and rising from the dead doesn't establish that everything you say will be true or that you are the Son of any God. That's not the topic here, I just wanted to throw that in b/c if Hitchens is right, technically the Creator embraces illogical arguments" ... The Bible is very clear that not all who operate in supernatural power represent truth or God. The problem here is that you (and Hitchens) are making assumptions about our beliefs that are over-simplistic and untrue “I don't see why Hitchens or myself is way off base” You are off base because you have accused the Bible of being “illogical” based on an argument that the Bible doesn’t actually make; i.e. based on a misrepresentation of our beliefs (aka a Strawman fallacy). “Also, if incredible displays of power don't establish truth, then doesn't that put any claim in the Bible into question [especially new testament miracles etc and what they mean]?” Every claim is always open to “question”. The point you appear to be missing here is that there are other lines of evidence are used to establish Jesus’ legitimacy – on top of the manifestations of divine power. Just for added information, the power Jesus manifested on earth was from the Holy Spirit, not Himself. To qualify as our Saviour, Jesus had to live as a human. So the miracles were accomplished by faith – not Jesus’ divinity. I think you have missed my point which is – Historical claims are all logically unfalsifiable. So no evidence could immediately warrant the surrendering of faith in any historical model “If the historical claim states that the Earth rests on a giant turtle, it's absolutely falsifiable. So yes, depending on what the claim is, it is falsifiable.” But this is not an historical claim. An historical claim would be phrased ‘The earth rested, at some time in history, on a giant turtle’. There is no way to falsify that claim. You could point to its logical weaknesses, but never confirm its untruth. “Also it's not just about whether facts can be interpreted to mesh with a model of reality, one needs to establish that the model of reality is trustworthy” Comparing the model to the facts is how the trustworthiness of a model is established. “I've watched documentary on tribes in the Amazon, they believe the jungle is literally alive. They can probably interpret facts that are consistent with their model but that doesn't do anything to establish the model is any good” I wouldn’t presume to know the quality of their model before hearing their arguments. You however have prejudged the outcome before giving any consideration to arguments. The Gaia Hypothesis sounds similar in some respects – and is unusually popular among secular scientists (though many are also highly critical of it). “You provided an example that differed from my request, you provided an example that involves pollen and isn't a solid case because of the agreed upon possibility of contamination” You mean the purely speculative possibility of contamination which has no basis in evidence whatsoever; and contradicts the actual observations. You have tried to move the goalposts, but failed due to your being unaware of the various ways larger fossils can legitimately find their way out-of-place (e.g. the various kinds of intrusion burials). The reason “evolution” is unfalsifiable is because the absense of observation for historical claims leaves any contrary find open to being labelled “an intriguing geological mystery”. I provided evidence which you have poorly criticised, but you have failed to provide any argument as to why this same logic could not be applied to a “Precambrian rabbit”. It’s not so much about the pollens, but about the way the evidence can be rendered logically meaningless due to the temporal gap between claim and observation. With regards to past claims, we can always logic our way around the facts. evolutionary range expansions are very common in the scientific literature “I read just the other day that the timeline for homo something-or-other was adjusted a bit because they found evidence of earlier fossils. Is this what you're referring to?” This does sound like a range expansion – though I wouldn’t waste your time with random examples. I’d highlight those examples that forced major revisions of the Common Ancestry story (e.g. having to move and rearrange tetrapod evolution). “If abused, it would be a logical fallacy” So what was the implication of your “not just by random people, but folks who are experts in the relevant fields. I think that has some weight to it” comment, if not to imply that alternative arguments should defer to their expertise. I have no problem with experts weighing in, but their expertise doesn’t undermine my right to scrutinise their arguments. So a general, unsupported comment about the experts agreeing with you, thereby adding “weight” to your claims, is an Appeal to Authority. “it's not JUST that they disagree, for me it's the reason WHY they disagree. Let's be frank, isn't it because any claim or position that calls scripture into question needs to be categorically denied or excluded?” All you’ve demonstrated here is that the creationist faith paradigm also has limitations. Under the naturalistic faith paradigm, non-natural explanations are “categorically denied or excluded”. Under the Biblical faith paradigm, anything that directly contradicts the claims of scripture is scrutinised and disputed. Both paradigms contest and dismiss claims that fall outside of their established purview. In reality, the only dispute arising from these paradigm limitations is regarding unverifiable, unfalsifiable, unobserved, historical claims whose truths only impact the underlying faith premise upon which each paradigm is formulated. In practise, none of these boundaries inhibits any scientific advancement. The logic might slow down the pace of some advancement (as when the evolutionary assumption of vestigiallity delayed research into organs later found to be functional). But there is little other practical impact of these paradigm limitations. Criticising the weakness of an opposing position is a perfectly rational debate strategy “If the criticism has any "teeth" yes. If the rejection is nothing more than "they could be wrong" [as I've seen before] than it can be ignored.” On all sides of the debate you’ll find people who are informed, and others – not so much. I think we’ve established that you haven’t had much opportunity to consider the informed creationist position to any significant degree. Nevertheless, mitigating exaggerated confidence in a claim through pointing out its assumptions and speculations remains a perfectly rational strategy. The scientific method does not mandate that an alternative hypothesis be provided before the right to scrutinise has been met. Each hypothesis must be assessed on its own merits; regardless of the existence of an alternative explanation. According to the preferred creationist model, Greenland ice sheets were accumulated post flood. Creationists also consider sedimentary burial order during the flood to be associated with the habitat and mobility of each organism – so a general pattern of succession is expected in the fossil record “If it was a global flood there are other ice sheets other than Greenland, and they show many many years of seasonal accumulation uninterrupted by any flood” Yes, I am most familiar with the GISP2 ice cores because they are the only ones I’ve studied in any detail. But there are Antarctic cores as well. In both cases, secular models presume them to be millions of years old, and creationist models presume them to be post-flood. “If what you say is true, we should only see what about 4400 years of accumulation? That's a falsifiable claim right?” No it’s not falsifiable. The assumptions of each model determines how we interpret what we find. Under the creationist model, the initial (deeper) ice sheets represent around 700 years of rapid deposition followed by around 3800 years of compression. Therefore we would interpret the lower layers to be metres thick; containing evidence of sub-annual storm deposition. Under the secular model, lower ice sheets represent a presumed ‘standard’ deposition under hundreds-of-thousands to millions of years of compression. Therefore the lower layers are interpreted to be paper thin. The issue in question is – how do we determine what represents each year of deposition? The assumptions of oxygen isotope markers are agreed upon by both parties, but only work for the first few hundred metres. [Noting that this agreement does not necessarily make those assumptions universally accurate.] I don’t know how much detail you want to go into. For now I’ll quote one of the GRISP2 studies; “Fundamentally, in counting any annual marker, we must ask whether it is absolutely unequivocal, or whether non-annual events could mimic or obscure a year. For the visible strata (and, we believe, for any other annual indicator at accumulation rates representative of central Greenland), it is almost certain that variability exists at the sub-seasonal or storm level, at the annual level and for various longer periodicities (2-year, sunspot, etc). We certainly must entertain the possibility of misidentifying the deposit of a large storm or a snow dune as an entire year or missing a weak indication of a summer and thus picking a 2-year interval as 1 year” (Alley et al. 1997, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 102) -which is a wordy way of saying ‘we have assumed that the markers we have selected represent annual layers, but that is not necessarily the case’. So they have, to their credit, acknowledged their assumptions. It’s also interesting that the first layer-count did not conform to the expectations of the secular model (i.e. at 2800m was ‘out’ by 25000 years/layers). So they went back and tweaked their instruments till they ‘found’ the 25000 extra layers between 2300m and 2800m (Meese et al. 1997, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 102). So to answer your original question, we have to make assumptions about what we expect to find, then make assumptions about how the markers we select equal layers of deposition, then assume that every layer of deposition equals one year. The method relies on too many assumptions to be falsifiable. “Are you suggesting that "mobile" animals will show up at the top of the fossil record and immobile at the bottom?” What I presented was a very small example of a highly complex model – to give you an idea of the reasoning employed. Under the flood-based model, we would expect sediment deposition to generally be reflected by early stages of the flooding. For example, the first sediment deposition would occur through run off in the deeper oceans. So at the lowest layers we would expect to find things which live under the ocean floor – like marine worms – then deep ocean sedentary creatures (plants/algae and corals etc.), then mobile creatures with a greater capacity to escape the initial inundation. We would subsequently expect that general pattern to be repeated for shallow habitats and on land. Obviously, this is still a very general representation of a much broader and more complex model. It doesn’t address for pre-flood fossils or prokaryotes or species abundance or terrestrial-marine overlap or the capacity of an organism to float or swim etc. Fossilisation also requires very specific conditions, so we likely lost most of the drowned organisms to decay. “The strongest, fastest animal can't stop itself from drowning and being swept away in a current” I would suggest to you that birds are better adapted to survive a flooding event than moss. Therefore, I think it is rational to assume that birds would remain alive in the air, or on flotsam, or on higher ground, or in high trees long after the mosses had been entombed in sediments. And therefore it would be surprising for a creationist to find a bird deeper in the fossil record. You need to justify the implication that I have ignored the “bigger picture” “I was merely stating that I wouldn't expect issues to arise based on the work you do. I'm looking at the wide range of data in any field that's relevant. You seem a bit edgy and suspicious, I'm not attacking you” And apart from some pre-existent creationist stereotype, why should you assume that I am incapable of “looking at the wide range of data in any field that's relevant”. Innuendo is a strategy that attempts to use unstated insinuation to undermine an opposing position. Therefore I will call it where I see it. I didn’t take it personally, though I am now “suspicious” that you are trying to misrepresent me as overly precious. If I could offer an interpretation of all of those very same facts, individually and collectively, so that they are consistent with the Biblical model, then my model also represents a logically valid “bigger picture”. “Not until you've shown that this model is worth anything” I have made a testable claim that creationists can interpret all of the very same facts the secular models uses, but to be consistent with Biblical creationism. There is no point to me presenting random evidence of my position because 1) you will just demonstrate that there is a secular interpretation (of which I am already aware) and 2) random examples have no capacity to undermine your naturalistic presupposition. The best way to test my claim is for you to provide facts which you think cannot be accounted for by my model, and for me to demonstrate otherwise – as we have started to do with ice cores and Chicxulub. “I'm just saying, that your position requires that every test that concludes deep time must be way off. We're not talking about one type of measurement, various methods of radio decay, ice core dating, the measurement of distant stars that shouldn't be visible in a 7000 year old Universe. There are many more but these are just a few.” And yet I am not disputing any fact produced by these tests. But age cannot be directly measured. All of these methods require hefty applications of assumptions – which in turn are dependent upon faith presuppositions. On top of which, the propaganda that all these methods are in broad agreement does not accurately represent the data – as can be evidenced in the scientific literature. With each method there are ways of logically rejecting contrary “ages” – so as to give the impression that all “ages” agree (since all ‘accepted’ ages agree – and can you guess what determines whether or not an “age” qualifies as accepted?). If we look at things with a young earth view I find serious problems. When did the Chixculub meteor impact earth? There was only a global nuclear winter that devastated life on earth. As a result we have a band [K–Pg] that is global in scale showing evidence of fires and containing iridium. When did this happen in the biblical model of time? Again we encounter a problem with making such bold claims about what happened in the past. See; http://www.princeton...dex.xml?section Claims pertaining to what has happened in the past will always remain subject to adjustments and revision – because the claims themselves were never scientifically observed. “Using the biblical timescale, WHEN did this meteor impact take place?” What “meteor”? What we have is a crater. Ravilious (2004, New Scientist, Vol. 182) has proposed that such craters could result from flood basalt Verneshot events. Keller et al. (2004, PNAS, Vol. 101) has demonstrated that the Chicxulub crater formation does not align with the other evidence you proposed. “You're also referencing an article that talks about very deep time, I find that ironic” Unjustifiably so. I am able to make the fundamental scientific distinction between the empirical and theoretical. I can distinguish between facts and hypotheses and interpretations and assumptions and presuppositions – as should any moderately trained scientist. If I refused to consider secular sources of information I would be accused of ignoring facts. I am sometimes accused of that anyway by virtue of being a creationist. “I don't care about the extinction, I'm asking how life on Earth just goes on while all hell breaks loose from a meteor impact” You’ll have to send me the video. “Usually this is attempted to be solved by just tossing it in with the global flood event” Presumably you understand that pre-stating an opponent’s position doesn’t actually undermine it in any logical sense. According to the creationist model there are three possibilities; pre, intra or post flood. The global flood model incorporates massive geological upheaval – as one would expect from the massive hydraulic forces produced by a global flood. I would suggest that the crater probably appeared (by meteor or Verneshot event) late during the flood – since it was not filled-in with sediment. “What they showed is that there is a mechanism for preserving tissue” What they actually showed is that there is a mechanism for preserving tissue for two years in artificial laboratory conditions; conditions which do not resemble what is found in nature. “They are offering a potential way that soft tissue can be preserved, I think you mischaracterize them as if they are just being less than honest or just covering up a problem” I didn’t address their motivations – I addressed the ridiculous disparity between the evidence and its suggested implications. It is not credible to suggest that this evidence provides a plausible mechanism of such long-term preservation. Extrapolations of such ridiculous magnitudes are only ever embraced when required in support of naturalistic models (e.g. radiometric dating methods do the same). There is nothing in this study that would make such long-term preservation of tissue plausible. If this evidence is acceptable, why not just say that dinosaurs had formaldehyde running through their veins? It’s a more efficient cross-linking preservative than iron – but only preserves soft tissue to a magnitude of hundreds of years (and therefore is disqualified as a naturalistic tissue preserver). But apparently the less efficient preservative (and the one that hasn’t been observed for hundreds of years) has some undiscovered and undescribed property allowing it to preserve tissue for hundreds of millions of years. I do think the nonsensically exaggerated application of this research speaks volumes about their motivations – which you obviously do as well by how you have interpreted my comments. It is entirely grasping at straws. It’s only plausible to those who are desperate to defend the naturalistic time frame. A more obvious interpretation is that these tissues are much younger than the secular story permits. No need to appeal to the mystic properties of iron. “Presupposition and "personal revelation" aren't the same thing. It's not about starting points, it's about the idea of changing scientific inquiry such that it includes "personal revelation". Then to be honest, I don't know that you've ever suggested clearly what it is that you'd change about scientific inquiry. I'm still trying to get a handle on what it is that you're proposing” I haven’t said anything about “personal revelation”. I haven’t proposed any change to “scientific enquiry” – apart from correcting the popular bias based on allegiance to the naturalistic faith paradigm; such that other faith paradigms can be subjected to objective consideration. “Your paradigm supports supernatural explanations that would not conflict with scripture, isn't that more accurate?” My paradigm considers the logical possibility of both natural and supernatural explanations. Yes, my paradigm has limitations (as discussed above), but it still encompasses the possibility of natural explanations within those limitations. “Regarding your desire to include supernatural explanations, Laplace said it best "I have no need for that hypothesis"” And I have no need of naturalistic stories about the unobserved history of life and the universe. You have an explanation and I have an explanation. The difference is – I can disagree with your explanation without marginalising it as irrational, invalid, illogical, dangerous, ignorant or unscientific.

Am I the only one here who thinks that a debate on evolution should have it own thread and not be integrated with a thread on the big bang? It appears to me that we have completely diverged from the named topic - I know this not the first time I have encountered this phenomena in my short stint but it does seem to be somewhat inappropriate, not to mention a very inefficient method on focusing on a single subject. Maybe we can just change the thread name to evolution since this is truly what is being debated? Sorry if I offend - it's just a suggestion. In Christ, Pat Hi Pat, The Biblical creation account incorporates the creation of both the universe and life. The naturalistic models separate these into temporally disparate events. Since the same logic is used to justify both, and since it is this logic I am questioning, it shouldn’t matter whether we are dealing with Standard Cosmology (incorporating Big Bang) or Common Ancestry. Also, the two secular models are related. The history proposed by Standard Cosmology provides the massive time-frames required to make Common Ancestry plausible.

Hey MorningGlory, Sorry if it’s confusing. My responses sometimes take days (or weeks if I’m busy) to put together so I do them in word rather than leaving the webpage open and trusting my computer and the website not to extinguish all my work before I’ve had a chance to post it. It seems easier to cut and paste the quotes into word (I do colour them differently) - then paste them back together with my responses. Also seems like it might be a lot of work to keep hitting the quote button, then deleting the rest of the quote that is not being responded to – especially when there are so many points being addressed. Maybe there’s another way I haven’t considered.

Hey Bonkey, you said, “No but it would certainly mess with the "associated time frames" that you mention … It's interesting that you state "the find has been subjected to intense scientific scrutiny" and the article that I came across time and again complained of the opposite. That scientists haven't found this an interesting paradox to figure out. The article mentions that Nature magazine has never released an article revisiting this mystery because nobody has intensely investigated it.” Honestly, I think you have just made my point for me. You claimed that a rabbit found in Precambrian rock would falsify “evolution” – since such a find would be irreconcilably inconsistent with the Common Ancestry account. I direct you to an article in highly respected secular journal, Nature, revealing fossils which are 1.3 billion years out-of-date – and you default to ‘it needs more investigation’. So what is to stop you from employing that same rationale to a rabbit in the Precambrian? You don’t have to question Common Ancestry, you just have to say, “We haven’t figured it out yet … it’s an intriguing geological mystery” and leave it at that. The original discovery was made in 1963. The 1966 article I referenced in my previous post lists the subsequent (i.e. 1963-1966) excursions confirming the find (i.e. finding more fossilised pollen spores in re-dated Precambrian rock). [NOTE: I made an error in my previous post: the rock layer was dated to “no less than 1.7 billion years” and angiosperms are said to have ‘evolved’ no earlier than 380 million years ago – still a 1.3 billion year gap] By way of update: Hochuli & Feist-Burkhardt (Frontiers of Plant Science, 2013) found pollen in Anisian (Middle Triassic) rock layers. This is only 100 million years too early, but still out of place according to the current Common Ancestry story. In this case, they might just consider extending the range of angiosperm “evolution” – which is convenient; just tweak the Common Ancestry story till it fits the evidence – then proclaim to the world how Common Ancestry has survived so much scrutiny; since it is (now) consistent with the evidence. It’s much more difficult to extend the range 1.3 billion years without anyone noticing – so we’ll just leave it for now and hope no one brings it up till we find an answer. “I don't know why it would question the common ancestry account” The context is your claim that a fossil found so far out-of-date would falsify “evolution” (i.e. your rabbit in Precambrian rock). I have provided you a real-life example of such a find in the secular scientific literature – and it hasn’t come close to questioning your faith in the Common Ancestry account of history. That’s what makes historical claims unfalsifiable; they are not directly observed; therefore providing a constant opportunity for us to rationalise our way around the actual evidence – whenever it conflicts with our deeply held presuppositions. “I would look at DNA/genetics for that, not rocks.” You again forget the context of my response. It was your claim that “evolution” could be falsified by out-of-date fossils (a “Precambrian rabbit”). Precambrian is a geological designation, not a biological (or genetic) classification. I am more than happy to discuss the genetic evidence. “The article I read [which I have to admit was well written] mentions that there are off chances that "contamination" could be involved.” Good point – however there is no evidence provided to support the hypothesis for contamination; so it’s currently speculation. Now what could possibly compel an objective scientist to speculate beyond the actual observations? Could it be that there is some pre-existing paradigm to which the scientists feel obligated? So then, what stops us from speculating that a rabbit found in Precambrian rock is due to contamination? Yet another logical ‘out’ for Common Ancestry – further demonstrating the unfalsifiable nature of all historical claims (including Common Ancestry). “Here is the article by the way:” I have the originals articles if you would like a copy (pdf files). However, I don’t know how to get them to you through this forum. “You'll have to define "faith" as you're using it here” Faith means high confidence in a claim; independent of our capacity to verify the claim. “I think the reason why we assume naturalistic explanations is because that's historically what we come across” Unfortunately, naturalistic can have multiple connotations. I’m using the philosophical connotation which claims that no truth exists beyond what can be naturally defined. It’s subtly different from atheism and materialism – but the same general vibe; i.e. only natural explanations are valid. It is a faith paradigm because the absence of supernatural causes cannot be verified. It is the default faith paradigm of most scientists. The reasoning in your statement here is circular. Since observation is a purely natural process, our observational experience is comprised, through logical necessity, of exclusively natural observations. That does not verify the assumption that there are only natural explanations. Consider observing the miracle of someone rising from the dead – All that is observed is a body, formerly meeting the criteria of dead, yet now meeting the criteria of alive. There is no way to verify through observation any supernatural intervention – but that doesn’t render supernatural intervention to be automatically, logically impossible. “RIGHT!! How well did that work out for us? Name a time when the church got involved with supernatural explanations that actually panned out?” Anyone can find silly examples of opposing arguments and proceed to mock their opponents based on those examples. I’m not talking about supernatural explanations per se. I’m talking about scientific investigation in the context of God’s creation. Within this paradigm, the foundation for most modern science was established, for example; modern astronomy and cosmology is performed on the shoulders of Christians such as Copernicus and Galileo. Gregor Mendel, an explicit creationist, is considered the father of genetics. You mock Newton, but his immense contribution to physics and mathematics remain foundational to our current understanding of the universe etc. And it was the church who constructed the first scientific institutions – such as Oxford University. So all-in-all, it worked out pretty well for us. “When you mention "faith" here are you talking about our confidence in our senses and our ability to interpret the data? You use the term "faith" a lot when talking about secular science and my suspicion is that you want to put secular science on the same platform as religious "faith". Just in case this is true, I'll let you know in advance that I'm not going to buy that” So your pressupositions overide your capacity to give fair considertion to my arguments? What you “buy” is irrelevant to what is rationally justifiable. The majority of modern science is conducted within the naturalistic faith paradigm – i.e. the unverifiable assumption that no God has ever interacted with the physical universe. This paradigm only permits certain interpretations of the evidence – and arbitrarily dismisses interpretations that do not conform to the paradigm. But this paradigm is no more or less verifiable/falsifiable than the Biblical theistic paradigm. Therefore both paradigms are faith paradigms; and on the same “platform” whether you “buy” it or not – unless of course you can verify that no God has ever interacted with the physical universe. “So what are you saying here? Are you suggesting that when looking at data or evidence, we have a panel of naturalistic scientists, witch doctors, Christians and pagans that all weigh in on how to interpret the data??” The scientific method does not place any limitations on who is permitted to scrutinise scientific claims. Nevertheless, I find your list telling. Only those who approach the data from a naturalistic perspective are afforded the title of “scientists”. That’s a very narrow world-view. I am a Christian with a science degree from a secular university – where do I fit on your list? If the “witch doctors, Christians and pagans” are scientifically educated, then they have as much right as anyone to “weigh in” on how the data is interpreted, as any atheistic (or “naturalistic”) scientist. “Are you saying demon possession could be a valid scientific explanation for odd mental behavior?” It depends how you define “valid scientific explanation”. The hypothesis is a logical possibility – though until tested, is little more than speculation. In the context of our conversation this is a false analogy – since it requires the capacity to test/measure the supernatural source of observed behaviour. Our debate is dealing with historical models containing temporal (and therefore testable) claims – not the faith premises which underpin them. Both secular and creationist models make unverifiable assumptions about the existence and interaction of God in the universe. In both cases, the logical method utilised does not directly test those assumptions – but the historical claims stemming from those assumptions. “Well let's play it this way, does the exhibition of extreme power prove that one is truthful and of divine origin?” No. The Bible is very clear that not all who operate in supernatural power represent truth or God. The problem here is that you (and Hitchens) are making assumptions about our beliefs that are over-simplistic and untrue. “Maybe so but if you want to convince people that a particular claim is true, you probably should care about the evidence” I think you have missed my point which is – Historical claims are all logically unfalsifiable. So no evidence could immediately warrant the surrendering of faith in any historical model. It is not the job of a scientist to “convince people that a particular claim is true”. If you advocate for a particular claim, it is your job to demonstrate that you claim can be rationally supported through evidence and argument. And an opposing position should not care about the evidence, but the facts. If you can interpret a fact as evidence supporting a secular model, then great. But if I can interpret that very same fact to be consistent with the creationist model of reality, then the only reason to prefer one interpretation over the other is the biased application of a faith paradigm. “Now you've shown me one example of a case where pollen appears where it shouldn't be. It didn't sound like an air tight case to begin with” So your response to evidence is to dismiss it with empty innuendo. I wasn’t claiming ‘air tightness’. In fact I was demonstrating the opposite. You provided standards that you claimed would falsify “evolution”. I provided an example from 1966 which met those standards – yet here we are almost 50 years later with Common Ancestry remaining the prevailing scientific dogma for the history of life on earth. So what are you disputing? Are you disputing that pollen spore fossils were found at this location? Or are you disputing that the rock layers were dated to 1.7 billion years old? What is the justification for you dismissing this evidence? Remember that my point with this evidence was to demonstrate that such a find could not falsify “evolution”. I think your response has accomplished this nicely. “You speak here as if "this happens all the time" and I don't think that's been supported” The Precambrian pollen is an extreme example (albeit, one that best meets your criteria for evolutionary falsification), however evolutionary range expansions are very common in the scientific literature. I am happy to go through some of those if you think I am exaggerating. “Oh sure you wouldn't have to surrender your faith, but there may be a consequence for this if you're vocal about it [people questioning mental health]” Only those people who lack the rational perspective to realise that no knowledge, scientific or Biblical, is absolute. And only those who are unaware how often their own faith models have been forced to encounter seemingly insurmountable evidence (at the time of discovery). “Right and not just by random people, but folks who are experts in the relevant fields. I think that has some weight to it” The logical fallacy you employ here is Appeal to Authority. Authority in itself does not add weight to any claim because of the possibility of scientists being wrong, or lying, or succumbing to confirmation bias etc. Each argument has to be rationally assessed on its own merits. “When I look at creationist criticisms of mainstream cosmology and other scientific evidences for "deep time", I merely see the questioning of the confidence in the conclusions” Criticising the weakness of an opposing position is a perfectly rational debate strategy. “I'm not seeing alternative hypothesis” Then respectfully, you are not looking. “Was there a global flood? I personally think the evidence should be pretty overwhelming. Wouldn't it show up in the ice cores that we retrieve from the arctic regions? Wouldn't the fossil record be a jumbled mess all across the globe no matter where you look?” No & No. These questions demonstrate how a paradigm can hinder our capacity to give objective consideration to an opposing position. According to the preferred creationist model, Greenland ice sheets were accumulated post flood. Creationists also consider sedimentary burial order during the flood to be associated with the habitat and mobility of each organism – so a general pattern of succession is expected in the fossil record. “If we did declare that there was a global flood, would it prove that EVERYTHING in the Bible is therefore true? Nope. So why would anybody ignore this evidence again?” I haven’t accused anybody of ignoring evidence. I have made the case that everybody prefers the interpretation of facts that is consistent with their faith presuppositions. And I don’t have a problem with that (since I do the same). The problem is that most people are seemingly unaware that their preferred interpretations are influenced by unverifiable presuppositions – and therefore feel justified in dismissing other interpretations because they are based on different unverifiable presuppositions. “I'm looking at the bigger picture” This is more innuendo. You need to justify the implication that I have ignored the “bigger picture”. “To be a young earth creationist, you essentially have to suggest that the extreme vast majority of mainstream science is dead wrong in EVERY area of inquiry that suggests deep time” “Wrong” would be an unscientific claim. I would say ‘highly disputable with interpretations dependent upon unverified naturalistic assumptions’. If I could offer an interpretation of all of those very same facts, individually and collectively, so that they are consistent with the Biblical model, then my model also represents a logically valid “bigger picture”. “I feel that mainstream science seems to be doing something right. After all, we have robots on Mars and we're growing human organs in labs” Neither of which has any necessary reliance upon the truth of any historical model. “I feel pretty confident that mainstream science is collecting and analyzing the data correctly [regarding anything that establishes deep time]” This is another false analogy – comparing operational (or experimental) science with historical modelling. They use logically different methodologies. Legitimate scientific confidence cannot be attributed to historical models without committing the logical fallacy called Affirming the Consequent. Experimental science can attribute scientific confidence through direct and repeated observations. That’s what makes operational science falsifiable, and historical science not. “If we look at things with a young earth view I find serious problems. When did the Chixculub meteor impact earth? There was only a global nuclear winter that devastated life on earth. As a result we have a band [K–Pg] that is global in scale showing evidence of fires and containing iridium. When did this happen in the biblical model of time?” Again we encounter a problem with making such bold claims about what happened in the past. See; http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/11/90M29/index.xml?section Claims pertaining to what has happened in the past will always remain subject to adjustments and revision – because the claims themselves were never scientifically observed. “I heard about this a while back and in what I was reading there WAS suggestion that iron [i think it was iron] could enable proteins to last that long. After I typed this up I found the article I believe I read a while back:” This further demonstrates the power of the naturalistic bias. What this experiment shows is that proteins soaked in artificially concentrated levels of haemoglobin, in laboratory controlled conditions, can preserve soft tissue for 2 years. This is taken as evidence that tissues encountering haemoglobin at naturally occurring levels, in unideal conditions, can survive for 65-199 million years. Do you seriously contest that secular science is separate from faith? “I don't think it makes logical sense to throw out an entire theory because you find a flaw” I didn’t suggest that. I am suggesting two problems pertaining to unjustified confidence. 1) Secular models have often required adjustments due to encountering contrary evidence to the then-current models. Yet advocates of secular models commonly claim that the models have survived large periods of scientific scrutiny in order to bolster confidence in the models. A model has only legitimately survived scrutiny since it most recent adjustment. 2) In a context where secular models are often espoused as beyond question (or even “fact”), demonstrating the logical weaknesses of these models is a perfectly rational strategy. And we are not referring to a single “flaw”. The role of presupposition has implications for the interpretation of every single fact presented in support of the secular models. “how or why would we permit a view that embraces "personal revelation" to weigh in on naturalistic evidence?” If presupposition disqualifies a person from considering the evidence, then every human is disqualified. There is no contradiction in my position. My paradigm considers the possibility of natural and supernatural explanations. The naturalistic paradigm only considers the possibility of natural explanations, and dismisses the possibility of supernatural explanations. So which perspective is more restrictive when it comes to consideration of truth based on the facts?

Hey Bonky, you said “One could use the term "creationism" and might just be referring to the supernatural creation of our Universe or one could refer to a literal interpretation of Genesis. If it's the latter, we're now looking at biology, geology etc.” I use the term ‘historical’ or the phrase ‘as written’ rather than “literal” – since ‘historical’ speaks to the grammatical context, whereas “literal” is unnecessarily (and unjustifiably) prohibitive. The Genesis account of creation speaks to both the creation of the universe as well as life. “My understanding is that evolution is falsifiable, if you find a Precambrian rabbit...evolution is in hot water.” I tend to avoid the term “evolution” as much as is practically possible because it can be used to mean so many different concepts. For example, when you say “evolution”, do you mean the General Theory of Evolution (that all life on earth is related through a series of common ancestors), or the suite of concepts that often find themselves under the 'umbrella' of evolution (such as natural selection, speciation, genetic mutations, common ancestry etc.), or do you simply mean any heritable change in a population? Of all these, I as a creationist, only dispute the claim that Common Ancestry (and its associated time frames) is the only scientifically valid interpretation of the available evidence. I have no issue with natural selection, speciation, genetic mutations etc. A rabbit found in Precambrian rock could in no way falsify Common Ancestry. According to the evolutionary account of history, angiosperms (flowering plants) ‘evolved’ around 200 million years ago. In the early 1960s, pollen spores were discovered in Precambrian rock (dated and re-dated to 1.5 billion years old) on Mt Roraima, Venezuela. That's about 1.3 billion years before pollen was supposed to have evolved (according to the Common Ancestry timeline). The find has been subjected to intense scientific scrutiny and there is, to date, no scientifically testable explanation, as to how these pollens got into that rock. Stainforth (the scientist who made the discovery) concluded the find to be a "highly intriguing geological problem" (Nature, 1966, Vol. 210). Note that in no sense was it even considered to question the Common Ancestry account. Contrary evidence gets defaulted to - ‘It's just something we haven't figured out yet’ (i.e. rendering the actual evidence to be meaningless - and the evolution hypothesis to be therefore unfalsifiable). That is, directly contrary evidence could just be a case of "we haven't yet figured out how this evidence fits our hypotheses" – which, to be fair, is a logical possibility - but a possibility which can be used to render any evidence questioning Common Ancestry to be invalid. “Assuming reality is as we perceive it, we do have experts that analyze data, we don't have a "pope" on a thrown giving a thumbs up or down. I believe, overall historically, that the scientific community has done a pretty good job of going where the evidence leads” According to what standard? You clearly understand that we are all operating on assumptions about reality, but you haven’t considered how those assumptions might influence the interpretation of the facts. If you assume reality to be naturalistic (i.e. only natural explanations can represent truth), then that limits how the facts can be interpreted. But a purely naturalistic reality is an unverifiable faith assumption. Scientists are not simply following evidence, but interpreting facts within the context of their particular faith paradigm. Up until the late 1700s (around the time of James Hutton), science was primarily interpreted within the Biblical theistic faith paradigm. Then the naturalistic faith paradigm was proposed for science, and after an initially gradual adoption, has become the default paradigm of most secular scientists - to the point where the only science most people are ever exposed to is naturalistic science; giving people the false impression that it is the only valid scientific paradigm. In reality, all that has occurred is a switch from one starting faith presupposition to another. Science would not be possible without faith assumptions. As you have acknowledged, even the trust of observation (fundamental to the scientific method) is an unverifiable faith assumption; as is the assumption of a rationally ordered universe (such that observation, experimentation and repeatability have meaning). So the naturalistic faith paradigm is not fundamental to science – and its adoption can be traced historically. Having grown up in a secular household, upon conversion to Christianity as a young adult, I was astonished to discover that creationists still existed. That’s because every piece of scientific information I had previously been exposed to had been presented from a naturalistic perspective. My new faith forced me to re-examine the science – finding that I had allowed myself to be fed a naturalistic-faith-biased account of science. “being born of a virgin and rising from the dead doesn't establish that everything you say will be true or that you are the Son of any God. That's not the topic here, I just wanted to throw that in b/c if Hitchens is right, technically the Creator embraces illogical arguments.” I don’t think you’ve established any logical fallacy here whatsoever – apart from a Strawman oversimplification of the Christian position. “Ironically I thought it was creationists who state things such as "If you find one area where the bible is wrong, you can toss the rest out"” Either the Bible is the trustworthy word of God, or it is not. No sincere believer could consider scripture subject to fallible human judgement. That is, if we consider the Bible to be the Word of God, then we don’t get to decide which parts are acceptable or not. If we are dealing with historical claims, then it is logically impossible to declare the Bible “wrong”. Historical claims are unfalsifiable – no matter which model or evidence is provided. Even regarding repeatable, testable Biblical claims, we should have the same right as the secular community to plea to ignorance – i.e. we don’t know yet how this evidence can be made consistent with our model – however to date, no such explanation has been necessary. For example, there is a popular myth that Christians once believed the earth to be flat. The shape of the earth is both testable and repeatable (i.e. not historical). If the Bible explicitly stated that the earth is flat (and did so in an obviously literal context), that would be a problem for someone like me. But I would still reserve the rational right to say “I don’t currently have an answer for that question” – without having to surrender my faith. “If the context is young earth creationism, it seems to me there's quite a bit of evidence that doesn't support that model” More correctly – there are many facts which have been interpreted to be inconsistent with the creationist/Biblical model. The creationist position is that all of the very same evidence interpreted to support naturalistic models of reality can alternatively be interpreted, both individually and collectively, to support the Biblical model of reality. “based on many conversations with YEC's [i keep changing the term i know] I'm not sure how one can be a YEC and NOT embrace various conspiracy theories. Let me give a recent example so I can show I'm not just being a troll. In a recent discussion about the global flood, I was actually being told that there's all kinds of evidence for the global flood but the scientific community just won't accept it. Does that not sound like a conspiracy theory to you?” It’s not an organised “conspiracy”, but a general failure to recognise how the prevailing faith paradigm influences which interpretation of the evidence is preferred (likely due to confirmation bias). There is evidence of catastrophic flooding across the planet – that is not in dispute. What is in dispute is how that evidence should be interpreted. And that can depend on the faith presupposition of the interpreter. That said, scientific journal editors have publically expressed their bias against manuscripts with creationist implications. And there is a growing list of scientists who have lost professional careers upon professing their creationist beliefs. And even at least one example of an evolutionist scientist who lost his job for teaching his students to engage with creationists (for the purpose of correcting them/us/me). That’s not the entire scientific community, but there is an element within the scientific community that refuses to tolerate any rational engagement with the creationist community. It’s not secret – so I don’t know if it qualifies as a conspiracy or not. “If it's biblical creation, my view is that I don't know how one would embrace both” Then I respectfully suggest that you haven’t given objective consideration to the informed creationist position. My area of specialisation is molecular biology (i.e. microbes and genetics). I have found no inconsistency between my creationist position and any raw/uninterpreted data. It’s only after humans put their presuppositions onto the facts that such inconsistencies arise. “I'm not sure what you're referring to in the first statement [As the naturalistic faith prevails in spite of contrary evidence, objectivity requires that the same rational right be afforded to the Biblical faith] I'll need an example” There is the Precambrian pollen example I mentioned above. Other examples might include soft tissues found in allegedly 190 million year old dinosaur fossils (when every experiment suggests these proteins cannot last more than a couple of million years (or less) – even in perfect preservation conditions). Historically, both Standard Cosmology and Common Ancestry models have undergone massive changes. These changes were forced by observations which contradicted the then-current models. At no time did these contrary evidences mandate a rejection of the naturalistic-faith, or the supporting models. The models were not abandoned, but changed to suit the evidence; or written off as unsolved mysteries. Yet creationists are expected to surrender our faith upon every new allegation of evidence which is allegedly contrary to our model. “As you've mentioned, science has various mechanisms to see if what someone is hypothesizing is true” No. Science does not deal in absolutes such as true/false, right/wrong, proof etc. Legitimate science only claims confidence and probability. “What mechanism do you have with faith in the supernatural [biblical claims] to know that your "absolute confidence" is justified? Another words, I'm sure we can find examples of people who have faith in something you find absurd or delusional [supernatural claims etc]. How do you know that you're any different?” I can’t speak to the claims and experiences of others – though I would note that prejudging a claim as “absurd” would reflect poorly on my own objectivity. My current faith is founded on a combination of study and experience (including experience of fellowship with God – though I understand this means little outside of myself). The Bible also indicates that faith can be supernaturally delivered. I have completed informal studies in philosophy and history and formal studies theology and science. I have specifically studied many allegations against the integrity of scripture and found simple logical remedies to account for every allegation (e.g. most allegations of Biblical contractions don’t even qualify as technical contradictions when properly examined). Ultimately, having studied various belief systems (including the non-religious ones), I have come to the conclusion that the Biblical model of reality is by far the most consistent with the reality I observe and experience. And my life experience as a Christian for over two decades has abundantly reinforced that position.

Adam was enticed and deceived into sin. Satan (the deceiver) had full knowledge of his actions and their ultimate consequences. Therefore there is no redemption provided for Satan. HIs rebellion was fully informed.

Claiming baptism to be a condition of salvation implies that the sacrifice of Christ is insufficient to account for sin.

Romans 6:16 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?

1 John 1:9-10 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. 1 John 2:1-3 2 My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. 1 John 3:2-3 2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. 3 And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure. Ephesians 4:17-24 17 This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; 19 who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. 20 But you have not so learned Christ, 21 if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: 22 that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, 23 and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24 and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness. 2 Corinthians 6:16-7:1 16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people.” 17 Therefore “Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you.” 18 “I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters, Says the Lord Almighty.” 7 Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God

I know you weren't responding to me but I just found your post interesting. I thought I'd throw my two cents in. Your post kind of reminds me of a quote from Kurt Wise [Geologist]: Now Wise didn't state what his scientific reasons were for a young earth, but I see a similar approach that you've taken. When looking at the bullet points for your stance on a young earth they appear to be based on scripture alone. The reason why I bring that up is that in the reply above you stated you woud consider the position of those who believe in big bang cosmology. I guess I'm a bit confused, if scripture is the ultimate authority, why would any evidence or position matter [evidence/position contrary to scripture]? What do you have to consider? Hi Bonky, you said “Now Wise didn't state what his scientific reasons were for a young earth, but I see a similar approach that you've taken. When looking at the bullet points for your stance on a young earth they appear to be based on scripture alone. The reason why I bring that up is that in the reply above you stated you woud consider the position of those who believe in big bang cosmology.” I think you have somewhat decontextualized my response. I was responding to the claim that there is no contradiction between the secular models and the Biblical model. I presented Biblical points for the purpose of demonstrating the contrary claims of the two positions. So in context, I am happy to consider any argument which attempts to reconcile secular models with scripture. Nevertheless, the ability to consider an opponent’s argument only requires the capacity to be objective; it does not require a surrendering of one’s own position. Objective consideration of arguments is a test of rational integrity – not truth. If conclusions, arguments and evidence are logically consistent with premise, then the argument can be considered rational. In the context of a naturalistic faith premise, I have no rational issue with Standard Cosmology. My main problem with Standard Cosmology is that its advocates tend to exaggerate confidence in the model; far beyond what is scientifically, or even logically, justified. The quote you provided was poorly worded, and I take issue with several of its underlying premises; namely contained in the statement: “if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism”. Firstly, due to the historical nature of all models (including creationist and secular models), none are subject to direct observation or repeated experimentation. Therefore all models are logically unfalsifiable. No weight of evidence could force the surrendering of any proposed model. Second, No facts speak for themselves – so they cannot “turn against” any position. The term evidence simply refers to facts; after they have been interpreted to support a particular position. Since interpretation is a subjective endeavour, subject to human presupposition, it cannot speak to ultimate truth. Therefore the proposal of “all the evidence in the universe” turning “against creationism” is logically unsustainable. “I guess I'm a bit confused, if scripture is the ultimate authority, why would any evidence or position matter [evidence/position contrary to scripture]? What do you have to consider?” The Biblical model of reality incorporates a rational Creator which implies a rational, ordered creation. The model makes temporal/historical claims. If the Biblical model is correct then the facts must be consistent with the model. That is, all of the facts must be able to be interpreted to be consistent with the Biblical model. I think your question implies a tension between faith and science that has not been established in argument. It firstly implies that if evidence arises which is contrary to the model, that there are only two choices available; either a) reject the science, or b) reject the faith premise. Standard Cosmology has undergone so many revisions because it has encountered contrary evidence – yet neither the model, or the underlying naturalistic faith was abandoned. So the implication that Biblical creationists be required to choose one or the other employs the logical fallacy called Special Pleading. It secondly implies that facts in existence have rendered faith and science to be mutually exclusive. Yet no one has ever presented a fact which cannot be interpreted to be consistent with the Biblical model. So again, there is no objective logical reason for a Biblical creationist to surrender their faith or abandon the scientific method. Thirdly, it misrepresents the scientific method – which, unlike faith, does not permit absolute levels of confidence. As the naturalistic faith prevails in spite of contrary evidence, objectivity requires that the same rational right be afforded to the Biblical faith. The scientific method is designed to be wrong most of the time. It is the failure of a test (i.e. falsification) that is most informative in science. Passing a test improves confidence, but does not establish the truth of an hypothesis (because we don’t know what we don’t know). But absolute confidence is permitted by faith – which is why no one has ever been logically obligated to surrender their faith (naturalistic, theistic or otherwise) in the light of contrary evidence. Naturalists will sometimes deny that they have faith – but that’s a different discussion. So if I was inclined to be obtuse, I could turn the same question around – replacing Biblical faith with naturalistic faith. If one considers objectivity a virtue, then the same logical standards must be applied across the board.

Hi alphaparticle, you said “I find it amusing Christians would feel a need to respond with their assertions of amusements at the efforts of other Christians to make sense out of things. Or, maybe I don't find that amusing, but just unfortunate and immensely disappointing.” I agree that shiloh, in his expression of amusement, employed the logical fallacy Appeal to Ridicule. However I find it a bit precious that you take issue with this - considering that your original post heavily employed the Ad-hominem fallacy in representing your detractors as “believers with a very narrow viewpoint on what is an acceptable reading of Genesis and limited understanding of the relevant science” and “scientifically illiterate or alternatively reject the scientific consensus”. And your expression of dissapointment is little more than Innuendo. It is inconsistent to pretend that you want a rational discussion, having derided your opponents with logical fallacy. “I don't think this has any direct relevance to God's existence or creative action and find the emphasis put on that distracting and unfortunate, and for some of us, straight up deflating” So do we have the right to disagree with you about the importance of the Biblical creation account – or should we be prohibited from communicating our sincerely held beliefs - because you happen to find our beliefs “distracting” and “deflating”? This is an issue that has implications for the trustworthiness of scripture, and is identified as the primary hurdle inhibiting non-Christians from considering our faith, and as a major influence on the decision of former Christians to depart from the faith. So some of us consider this issue to be important – and believe we have the right to defend the integrity of scripture as written. “There are a number of well developed lines of evidence that leads to the big bang conclusion” Evidence does not lead to conclusions. Facts do not speak for themselves. Evidence refers to facts that have been interpreted to support a conclusion (i.e. as ‘evidence’ for said conclusion). Interpretation is a subjective process – reliant upon the presuppositions and biases of the interpreter. “These can't be wished away in the minds of individuals, even if they are inclined to try personally” Claiming that we are “wishing away” evidence employs another logical fallacy known as a Strawman Misrepresentation of our position. The scientific method explicitly permits the scrutiny of any scientific claim – no exceptions. Any suggestion that we not be permitted to do so is founded in faith – not objective science. And that right to question is amplified in the context of historical claims; that have neither been scientifically observed, nor can be subjected to repeated experimentation. There are many proposed models of the universe which do not incorporate the Big Bang. Some models are galactocentric, others are infinite, and still others propose a multiverse model. Some have a flat universe, others a contracting universe, as well as an array of differently-shaped universes. There are even several creationist models. The current preferred creationist model incorporates time dilation. All models including Standard Cosmology (i.e. the most popular Big Bang model) are highly speculative and scientifically unfalsifiable. Standard Cosmology is an excellent example of how these models can be tweaked to adapt to any evidence – and as such, has been forced to ‘evolve’ over time to incorporate an ever-increasing array of unobserved conceptualisations. Therefore, we all have the rational right to point out the fundamental weaknesses in logic and evidence of Standard Cosmology (along with any other model). “It is a fact there are many believers in the world who do not have issues with reconciling their faith and their scientific positions such as big bang cosmology” And I am happy to consider their position. But it is not my position (which I also support using scientific evidence and reasoning – and therefore is also a “scientific position”). Do I also have a right to express a position? In being honest with myself, I cannot find these long-age models in the scriptural text without having to read them into the text from some external source. * If we claim metaphor: a metaphor is supposed to relate to something similar; an antecedent. If creation is a metaphor, it is definitely not a metaphor for Standard Cosmology or Common Ancestry. There should also be some grammatical indicator pointing the reader to a metaphorical interpretation – which does not exist in the creation account. * Metaphor is unnecessary. The core concepts of Standard Cosmology and Common Ancestry are not so difficult to understand. The concept of a very old universe with humans descending from animals is hardly too complex; even for a putatively primitive mind. * A common sense rule of interpretation is that the texts should be interpreted according to the grammatical style in which they are written (That is, the grammatical context). The account of origins in Genesis is written as an historical account. * Using the above measures, if creation is not true, then the ultimate Author (Who we believe to be God) either didn't know what He was talking about, or He is lying. If any part of scripture is unreliable, then the scripture in its entirety must be considered unreliable. The integrity of the Bible has either been preserved by God or not. If we get to decide which verses are relevant and which verses can be rejected (or mitigated), then we make ourselves judges over God's word. Christians are often accused of cherry picking scriptures - if we interpret Genesis as anything other than history, then that is exactly what we are doing. * The long ages concept does not exist in the text. It has to be read into the text from external sources. Human science is fallible and must be constantly updated and revised to account for new evidence. There is no objective scientific reason for a Christian to doubt the reliability of the Genesis account. * Jesus interpreted Genesis as history. Both Old Testament and New Testament authors interpreted the Genesis account as history. The logical default of secular models being correct is that Jesus, and the other authors of scripture are ignorant of truth. So again we call into question the divine inspiration and integrity of the whole Bible. * The Genesis account is necessary to explain the origin of death and suffering. God created the world corruption free. It was through our sin that corruption entered the universe. Long age theories put death and corruption before humanity. How can a loving God (as described in the Bible) create such a cruel, survival of the fittest, universe? * Death before sin undermines the entire reason for the gospel of Christ - to save humanity from the consequences of our sin. If death and suffering existed before humanity, then it would be unjust of God to hold us accountable. If we are not accountable then why do we need a Saviour? So from my perspective, the creation account is the foundation of all Christian doctrine and philosophy. I understand that not everyone will agree, however I have provided a rational argument – including some fairly substantial logical hurdles that would have to be overcome by those adhering to secular models whilst wishing to maintain a Biblically-consistent world view. “I remain unconvinced there is an impossible contradiction between the scientific consensus here and the Bible.” No one is claiming an “impossible contradiction”. But there are obvious, prima-facie contradictions. And every effort I have heard in attempting to resolve these contradictions, has fallen back on either eisegesis or the arbitrary labelling of Genesis as symbolic. “That is only the case on a very restricted reading of the Bible” Here you combine the logical fallacies of Innuendo and Unsupported Assertion. Nevertheless I admit a “restricted reading of the Bible” – i.e. restricted to what is actually in the text. My conscience does not permit me to force my opinions and presuppositions onto scripture – or to make the Bible conform to demonstrably fallible human standards; such as “scientific consensus”. “As far as the scientific evidence for the big bang goes, I freely admit, and have never hidden, I accept it for scientific reasons” This is more innuendo and unsupported assertion. I dispute Standard Cosmology for scientific and logical reasons – yet I realise how meaningless this statement would be in the absence of any argument. “I think you can have interesting discussions about fine tuning and whatnot, but it becomes subtle pretty fast. However, none of this is a problem for the theist, insofar as someone who believes in God would expect that God has created everything, whether it be through the big bang or not.” I am not just a “theist”. I am a Christian; i.e. a Biblical theist. From the perspective of my faith, the Bible is the Word of God. In it, a model of reality/history is presented that explicitly contradicts the secular models in time-scales and orders of events. And I consider that I have every right to defend the integrity of the Bible wherever I percieve it to be undermined.

Not looking to undermine God, but to prove Him. If you can have a mathematical equation that points to a ~6,000-10,000 year-old earth, that would go a long way...otherwise, you are attacking the scientific method. If you can't come up with that, no problem really because God is all about faith. We just look foolish when when we use natural science to explain a supernatural God. Hey Jerry, you said “Not looking to undermine God, but to prove Him” Actually, the scientific method is based on the fundamental premise that ideas can be falsified, not proved or proven. Science doesn't deal in absolutes such as proof. We can never be sure that we've considered all the axioms, and for all we know, we could be just one discovery away from undermining what we think we know. Put simply, we don't know what we don't know. Science deals in probability and confidence - not proof. Legitimate proofs only exist in math and logic – and in neither of these do they refer to absolute verification of truth. “If you can have a mathematical equation that points to a ~6,000-10,000 year-old earth, that would go a long way...otherwise, you are attacking the scientific method” I pointed you to resources explaining the math behind a 6000 year old model (based on time dilation). I also pointed you to a resource explaining the math underpinning an infinite universe model. Which fully demonstrates my (and Stephen Hawking’s and George Ellis’) point – that preferences for one model over another are 'ideological' and "philosophical", rather than scientific. So not only have your repeated requests for the math been demonstrated to be disingenuous, but you continue to miss the point; that the math is not in dispute – it is the logical justifications for the math that are questioned (i.e. the unverifiable faith aspects of each model). The math is meaningless without the underpinning logic. Go to the anti-creationist website talkorigins and you will find refutations of the creationist models – but the refutations are not based on incorrect equations; rather on the assumptions underlying the specific use of those equations. Even if I hadn’t pointed you to the math, the scientific method explicitly permits me to question any idea. So your repeated, unsupported accusations of my “attacking the scientific method” for daring to question the Standard Model, lack any logical merit. - But by all means repeat the accusation. After all - you never know when someone dopey enough to fall for such an obviously, logically-flawed strategy might be reading. “If you can't come up with that, no problem really because God is all about faith” And yet opponents of Christianity continue to criticise our beliefs; claiming that the science contradicts our faith. So it’s ok for anti-creationists to use science to claim inconsistencies with our model, but it’s not ok for creationists to point out the weaknesses of naturalistic faith models, or defend our model with science. This logical fallacy is called Special Pleading (i.e. the application of a double-standard). The Christian faith is about a God who has interacted with the physical creation in accordance with a particular model of reality. The Biblical model (which incorporates the existence of God) makes temporal, historical (and therefore testable) claims. It is a logically valid, albeit unfalsifiable, model of reality – just like all of the secular models (including Standard Cosmology). Oh yeah (and not to labour the point) but I did actually point you to a resource containing the math you requested – which you have roundly ignored. So I did “come up with that” “We just look foolish when when we use natural science to explain a supernatural God” Well first of all, Appeals to Ridicule are considered logically fallacious because they bear no logical relevance to arguments. Until our opponents can present rational arguments to justify such accusations, then it is they who are ironically indulging in foolishness. Secondly, we are not using “natural science to explain a supernatural God”. We are using science to support the Biblical model of reality (which incorporates the existence of a supernatural God). Whether your faith is in a theistic reality, or in a naturalistic reality – the identical logical method is used to investigate both. Only permitting the consideration of naturalistic models demonstrates a strong naturalistic faith bias. It is certainly not a scientific strategy (as science is supposed to be objective; i.e. not preferring one faith perspective over another).

Hey Jerry, you said “As I mentioned this is an opportunity for creationsist to actually have proof as proof only exists in math” And I directed you to articles explaining the math (which you have apparently ignored) – as well as suggested authors who specifically deal in the mathematical side of the creationist models. In reality, no one ever questions the math (because no one is silly enough to publish unchecked formulas; especially not creationists who know that they will be highly scrutinized). “If one could show that the total gravity of the universe could slow time to make it look like the stars we see are much farther away, it would go a long way toward their cause.” I suspect you have misunderstood the creationist model – which doesn’t claim this. But I could be equally obtuse and say – If one could show how the universe could suddenly inflate many times the speed of light, then suddenly slow, “it would go a long way toward their cause”. But that would require you being objectively sceptical of your own preferred, faith-based model. “Otherwise they are just dealing in what-ifs and attacks on accepted math and science” Once again – if you understood how the secular models are formulated, you would not be so critical of the speculation involved in the construction of all cosmology models. But since you are obviously only willing to apply your high standards to models that disagree with you, you can do little but repeat Unsupported Assertions. In his 1973 book, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Stephen Hawking admitted, “we are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology”. In an American Scientist profile (1995 Vol. 273(4)), George Ellis, the co-author of the abovementioned book, said “People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” “Creationists often lament that they cannot get published, well, no one can argue if their math is correct” Here you employ a logical fallacy known as Non-sequitur. You don’t “argue” to get published; you submit a manuscript. Editors have an absolute right to reject any publication for any reason they see fit (regardless of the integrity of the math). Since many editors have publically admitted their confirmation bias against creationist manuscripts, your veiled Appeal to Authority renders your argument to be specious. Journals have limited publication space and generally only accept about 30% of submissions for publication anyway (even less for better known journals). So many articles, including those with correct math, are not published. There is no obligation whatsoever for a journal editor to publish a manuscript based on the correctness of the math. Even so, when it comes to considering cosmology models, no one ever argues over the correctness of the math. Arguments stem from whether the particular use of math is logically justified. Consider an alternative secular model found here; [http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1007/1007.1750.pdf] This (2010) model revisits an older idea of an infinite universe. The math is consistent with observations (and does ot require the existence of Dark Matter) – it just operates on different set of assumptions to the Standard Model. It is not the math that is in dispute; it is the logical justifications which deviate from the Standard Model that are questioned. Note that it also contains 26 pages of pure mathematical equation. And this is just the formula that deviates from the Standard Model. You seem to think you have formulated an effective ‘gotcha’ by requesting a single mathematical variable for our cosmology model. But anyone who comprehends the complexity of mathematical cosmology models would be aware that such a variable in the absence of the model would be ridiculously uninformative. So either you yourself are uninformed concerning the complexity of cosmology models, or you are dishonestly trying to create the false impression of a solid argument – in the hope that none of the audience has the capacity to see through it.

Hey gray wolf, you said “The details and mechanisms are not revealed in Scripture, we really do not know. It tells us WHAT God did. I do not dispute that. But the danger lies in taking scientific speculation as absolute truth, then having that idea proved wrong later and looking foolish.” I agree. And all of the creationist physicists that I have heard who have proposed creationist cosmology models readily acknowledge the speculative nature of the weaker aspects of their models. Creationists in particular understand the error associated with attributing scientific confidence to any claim about the past (and I have never heard any claim that their ideas represent “absolute truth”). But there are three things to consider; 1. Opponents of our position constantly claim that their model is the only valid interpretation of the evidence – and apply this unsubstantiated innuendo to undermine the theistic position. They often misrepresent their position as “proof” or “fact”. I once heard a famous secular physicist claim that Bing Bang theory should be scientific law – which is an outrageous misrepresentation of scientific terminology. So pointing out the highly speculative nature of the secular models is necessary to undermine this propensity for secular exaggeration. 2. Our critics will attack us if we don’t present a rational, cohesive model – as though if we don’t know everything, that automatically means we are wrong. Our presented models don’t have to ultimately be true; they only have to demonstrate a logically plausible model of reality that is consistent with Biblical theism – providing a rational alternative to the bombardment of secularist indoctrination that the world is constantly exposed to. Having a plausible, rational model also strengthens the faith of Christians – who now don’t need to feel embarrassed by the unjustified mocking of secularists. 3. Modern science has its philosophical foundations in Christianity. So a Christian has as much right to engage in the scientific process as a secularist. We simply employ the same scientific method from a theistic faith perspective (in contrast to the popular naturalistic faith perspective). We should be permitted to engage in speculation and hypothesis forming along with all the non-Christian scientists.

Hi Jerry, you said, “I was actually just looking for a verifiable formula to back up the Gravitational Time Dilation anthonyjmcgirr used to refute the currently accepted science of the age of the universe.” My point is that understanding how the figures are derived is far more important than what the figures actually are. No, that is not how math works. No matter how well you describe how well you understand 2+2=5, it doesn't. If one wants to say that the age of the universe is impacted by time dilation, one must provide the math, not just explain how it "could have" worked. This is a chance for Creationism to stop attacking current physics, sicience and math and provide actual mathmatical proof of our claims. Hey Jerry, you said “No, that is not how math works. No matter how well you describe how well you understand 2+2=5, it doesn't.” I would suggest that if one concludes that “2+2=5”, they actually don’t “understand” simple addition. But we are not dealing with simple addition. We are solving complex equations for an unknown variable – which is exactly the way the figures for Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Inflation were calculated for the secular cosmology model. “If one wants to say that the age of the universe is impacted by time dilation, one must provide the math, not just explain how it "could have" worked.” All of the parameters for the secular model are theoretical conceptualizations. None have been scientifically observed. They are simply ideas that have been formulated to remedy inconsistencies in the secular model. For example, when it was discovered that the current model couldn’t explain the observed structure of galaxies, someone came up with the idea that – maybe there is matter in the universe that we just haven’t discovered yet. Then the equation was solved to give us the amount of “Dark Matter” that would be required to make the model consistent with the observations. Understanding the logical process is more important than memorizing the equation. All models rely heavily on unobserved theoretical aspects; i.e. “how it "could have" worked”. Nevertheless, if you need the math for the creationist models, then you can look up creationist physicists who have been involved in their development. I mentioned John Hartnett in a previous post because the model he proposes is (to my knowledge) the latest and most widely accepted model among informed creationists. You could also look up Russel Humphreys and Danny Faulkner; both highly credentialed physicists who have written extensively on creationist cosmology models. Here are two examples of papers written for a creationist journal; http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j22_3/j22_3_84-92.pdf “This is a chance for Creationism to stop attacking current physics, sicience and math and provide actual mathmatical proof of our claims” Like I said, the math is there if you have the time to do the research. But knowing how the figures are derived is more important. According to the scientific method, subjecting current ideas to scrutiny and presenting alternative ideas, is a perfectly legitimate pursuit. From a scientific perspective, questioning is not “attacking”. The suggestion that any idea is immune from such scrutiny stems from faith, not science. So I have not ‘attacked’ anything. Pointing out the inherent weaknesses of an argument is a legitimate, rational strategy. You however, have heavily employed Innuendo (a logical fallacy – and therefore irrational strategy) to undermine the creationist position. You have described our model in terms of being ‘sickening’ and ‘illegitimate science’ and ‘inhibiting science’ and ‘stifling learning’ (so add Unsupported Assertions to the logical fallacy list). You have presented Strawman misrepresentations of our position (another logical fallacy); in describing our arguments as “God of the gaps”. You have made an appeal to peer-review (which is effectively an Appeal to Authority – another logical fallacy); demonstrating an unjustified faith in the objectivity of a process which is (ironically) not supported by peer-review itself. You have employed further unsupported Innuendo in describing our view as a ‘departure from reality’. You have made several Unsupported Assertions about the incompatibility of science and a model which incorporates the supernatural. You have misapplied Occam’s Razor to a premise rather than the argument. You have used a false convergence of historical-claim and experimental-science as another Strawman argument against our position. You have made Unsupported Assertions regarding the nature of the Bible, and it’s original audience. And that’s just in this thread. So whilst I am not offended in the slightest by your strategy, I do think it is a bit precious to describe our position in terms of aggression.

Hi Jerry, you said, “I was actually just looking for a verifiable formula to back up the Gravitational Time Dilation anthonyjmcgirr used to refute the currently accepted science of the age of the universe.” My point is that understanding how the figures are derived is far more important than what the figures actually are. If you need the specific math, there are creationist physicists, such as Prof. John Hartnett, who have written extensively on creationist cosmology models. Furthermore, the formulas on the linked page don’t apply to the creationist use of time dilation. They don’t address the amount of time that would be dilated when space is stretched (because there is no scientific way of measuring such an outcome for an unobserved past event). So the question was irrelevant. “ I appreciate the time you took to type all that out, but your assumptions and God of the gaps assertions don't hold water.” There is no raw (uninterpreted) scientific observation undermining the possibility of the existence of God. Until we can figure out a way to determine what exists beyond the boundaries of the natural universe (i.e. God, nothing, other etc.), then “God did it” is no less valid than “nature did it” or “It did itself” (if one is prone to reducing opponent’s arguments to misrepresentative, oversimplified rhetorical slogans). We have a model of reality that incorporates a supernatural Deity. Therefore we can appeal to the supernatural without compromising logical consistency. Your refusal to consider one unverifiable faith premise in deference to another unverifiable faith premise only speaks to a lack of objectivity. Nevertheless, I did not present any “God of the gaps” argument. God-of-the-gaps arguments propose to replace a gap in the information with an arbitrary, unspecific supernatural cause (which, as discussed above, is not the outrageous deviation of logic you imply). However, my arguments appealed to two sources of information; scientific theory and explicit claims found in the Bible (the foundational source of my preferred model). So your accusation lacks logical legitimacy. Where is photosynthesis whithout the sun? There is a scientific error in Genesis, the first book of the Bible, about the nature of plants. Genesis depicts God creating plants on the third day even though the sun, which is responsible for the ability of plants to live, isn't created until the fourth day. You can't have plants without photosynthesis and you can't have photosynthesis without the sun, so the biblical account of creation contradicts what we know from science.” Photosynthetic plants need light (not necessarily the sun). There was light before plants (Genesis 1:3). Saprophytic and parasitic plants get their energy from sources other than light. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, there was sunlight the very next day after plants were created. The vast majority of photosynthetic plants can survive for more than a day without sunlight (which these plants didn’t have to do – they just had to wait overnight). So your claim of “scientific error” in Genesis is therefore logically unsustainable. The inconsistency you claim is easily remedied with only a moderate amount of thought and consideration of the model in its own context.

Hi Jerry, you said “It sickens me that creationists piggyback this kind of argument onto legitimate science and physics. Bad for science and bad for Christianity.” Let’s briefly examine Standard Cosmology history. Step 1: You presuppose a uniformitarian reality, and apply those assumptions to reverse Hubble’s observations of an expanding universe. You end up with an unobserved conceptualization of the beginning of the universe – as a mass of heat and energy called a “cosmological egg”. Step 2: Realizing that this “egg cosmology” model can be used to support the faith presupposition of an atheistic (or naturalistic) reality; you tweak and reframe the conceptualized model as a “Big Bang”. That is, an almost infinite singularity undergoes a rapid expansion (aka “Bang!”) into (i.e. forming) the observed universe. The most popular proposed origins of this singularity include; quantum fluctuations and multiverses – both of which are untestable, unfalsifible (and technically supernatural). Step 3: You set the rate of expansion at 50km per second per mega-parsec to sit the mathematical model in line with current (1960s) observations. Anyone who dares disagree with this figure (of an unobserved process) is to be ruthlessly mocked. By this figure, the universe is 16 to 18 billion years old (i.e. 17 billion + or – 1 billion years). Step 4: When observations collected over the next 30 years are found to be inconsistent with this initial figure, the mathematical model is re-tweaked so that the new figure (80km per second per mega-parsec) is consistent with observations. So now the universe is considered to be 13.71 billion years (+ or – 1%). Step 5: You encounter 2 massive inconsistencies between the mathematical model and new (1980s) observations; the Horizon problem and the Flatness problem (I’ll let you look up the details). So how are these problems reconciled? What we do is conceptualize (i.e. imagine/invent) a super-rapid expansion event of the universe itself (which we shall call “Inflation”) occurring shortly after the initial Bang. With no plausible cause, the universe suddenly expanded at a rate thousands of times the speed of light, then suddenly and inexplicably slowed. So how much Inflation is required? Since we are dealing with an unobserved event (and therefore cannot scientifically measure the actual amount of Inflation), we can tweak the mathematical model till the amount of Inflation makes the model consistent with current observations. Step 6: You encounter another massive inconsistency between the mathematical model and the observations; there is not enough gravity in the universe to explain the motion and structure of galaxies. So how do we reconcile this inconsistency? What we do is conceptualize a substance (which we shall call “Dark Matter”) to provide the necessary gravity. So how much “Dark Matter” is required? Since we are dealing with an unobserved substance (and therefore cannot scientifically measure the actual amount of Dark Matter), we can tweak the mathematical model till the amount of Dark Matter makes the model consistent with current observations. Initial estimates had Dark Matter making up ~94% of the known universe. Step 7: The mathematical model has the expansion of the universe slowing down because the energy of Big Bang and Inflation is being slowly used up and countered by gravity. The problem is - all observations suggest that the expansion of the universe is actually speeding up. So how do we reconcile this inconsistency? What we do is conceptualize a substance (which we shall call “Dark Energy”) to provide the model with enough energy to accelerate the rate of universal expansion. So how much “Dark Energy” is required? Since we are dealing with an unobserved substance (and therefore cannot scientifically measure the actual amount of Dark Energy), we are free to tweak the mathematical model till the amount of Dark Energy makes the model consistent with current observations. - Now 40 years ago, the secular scientific community was supremely confident in their cosmology model; i.e. the model of a 17 billion year old universe with a Big Bang expansion rate of 50kms-1m-p-1 – and no Inflation, Dark Matter or Dark Energy. Today, no one would take you seriously if your cosmology model excluded any of these newer conceptualizations. Which doesn’t necessarily make it wrong – but all serves to demonstrate how malleable and unfalsifiable the current cosmology model really is. Now let’s examine Creationist Cosmology. Step 1: You presuppose a Biblical theistic reality; which incorporates an eternal, supernatural Creator of the physical universe, and His scriptures delivered to humanity. These scriptures therefore form the basis of your model of reality. Step 2: You encounter an alleged scientific inconsistency between secular scientific claims and Biblical claims; namely pertaining to cosmology and the age of the universe. So how do we reconcile this inconsistency? We do three things; 1) Firstly we scrutinize the claims of secular science; pointing out the highly speculative, plastic and fundamentally unverifiable nature of the proposed model. 2) We then search out the scriptures and the scientific literature for possible solutions the alleged inconsistency. 3) We combine the implications of general relativity with the Biblical claim that God “stretched out the heavens” to conceptualize a force called Time Dilation; whereby stretching space also stretches time – so that billions of years can exist in outstretched parts of a 6000 year old creation. So how much “Time Dilation” is required? Since we are dealing with an unobserved force (and therefore cannot scientifically measure the actual amount of Time Dilation), we are free to tweak the mathematical model till the amount of Time Dilation makes the model consistent with current observations. Since the same logical methodology is generally applied to both models, your propensity to consider only one model to be “legitimate science and physics” speaks more to your lack of objectivity, than to the legitimacy of the arguments themselves. The main differences I see in the models (apart from the obvious divergence in faith presupposition) is that the creationist model is more parsimonious, and that those who propose and advocate the creationist model are ready to acknowledge that it contains highly speculative elements – As opposed to the secular model where its advocates claim to “know” that their speculations are true, even though they have never been scientifically observed. And yet you somehow find a way to judge our position as exclusively “Bad for science”. “Answering what you don't know with "God did it" only stifles learning - learning about God and learning about science.” "God did it" is a pejorative oversimplification of our position; levelled at us by those who are unable to give unbiased consideration beyond their own limited set of axioms. It would be like me reducing the naturalistic position to "It did itself". The existence of God is a logical possibility – regardless of whether one believes in God or not. Therefore, the arbitrary dismissal of God’s involvement in a claim is not rationally justified. Nevertheless, if we truly claimed that God did something based on nothing more than the absence of knowledge (as you are claiming), then the argument would be logically weak. However, since our claims are explicitly supported in our model, then our claim is justified (though not verified) by every rational standard. “Ironically, this is one area where a creationist could probably come up with mathmatical proof to bolster this idea - starting from E=MC2. This could even be published in peer reviewed journals.” Creationist models detailing the math have been published – though not in secular journals. It’s cute that people still see peer review as an infallible standard of scientific legitimacy – as though all scientific journals are objectively open to non-secular scientific implications. This trust is maintained in spite of secular journal editors having stated unequivocally that they are loath to consider any submissions for publication with creationist implications; Even though secular (i.e. non-creationist) science educators have lost careers for daring to suggest engagement with creationists; Even though scientists with healthy publication histories suddenly found even their non-creationist-related papers being rejected after coming out of the creationist closet; And even though the peer reviewed scientific literature itself is highly critical of the peer review process. For example; Confirmatory bias is the tendency to emphasize and believe experiences which support one's views and to ignore or discredit those which do not. The effects of this tendency have been repeatedly documented in clinical research. … In addition to showing poor interrater agreement, reviewers were strongly biased against manuscripts which reported results contrary to their theoretical perspective. (Mahoney MJ (1977) ‘Publication Prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System’, Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 161-175(161)) [Available at: http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1097087/908376224/name/mahoney.pdf ] peer review is impossible to define in operational terms (an operational definition is one whereby if 50 of us looked at the same process we could all agree most of the time whether or not it was peer review) … Robbie Fox, the great 20th century editor of the Lancet, who was no admirer of peer review, wondered whether anybody would notice if he were to swap the piles marked ‘publish’ and ‘reject’. He also joked that the Lancet had a system of throwing a pile of papers down the stairs and publishing those that reached the bottom. When I was editor of the BMJ I was challenged by two of the cleverest researchers in Britain to publish an issue of the journal comprised only of papers that had failed peer review and see if anybody noticed. I wrote back ‘How do you know I haven’t already done it?’ (p178) … there is no agreed definition of what constitutes a good paper or a good research proposal. … we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused. … People have a great many fantasies about peer review, and one of the most powerful is that it is a highly objective, reliable, and consistent process. … peer review is a subjective and, therefore, inconsistent process. (p179) (Smith R (2006) ‘Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals’, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 99, pp. 178-182.) [Available at: http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.full.pdf ] Throughout the literature, charges of systematic bias—not just isolated incidents—are repeatedly aired … (p3) the stringency and consistency with which peer review procedures are applied across this population are variable. … (p4) There are many reasons to challenge this ideal notion of impartiality in peer review. … (p5) Confirmation bias is the tendency to gather, interpret, and remember evidence in ways that affirm rather than challenge one’s already held beliefs (Nickerson, 1998). Historical and philosophical analyses have demonstrated the obstructive and constructive role that confirmation bias has played in the course of scientific inquiry, theorizing, and debate (Greenwald, Pratkanis, Leippe, & Baumgardner, 1986; Solomon, 2001). In the context of peer review, confirmation bias is understood as reviewer bias against manuscripts describing results inconsistent with the theoretical perspective of the reviewer (Jelicic & Merckelbach, 2002). (p9) (Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G & Cronin B (2013) ‘Bias in Peer Review’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 64(1), pp. 2-17.) [Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.22784/pdf ] In 2013, the journal Science conducted an investigation into peer review. They created a fake scientific manuscript with obvious errors and submitted it to 304 scientific journals. 157 were accepted for publication. (Bohannon J (2013) ‘Who’s Afraid of Peer Review?’, Science, Vol. 342, pp. 60-65.) I am not anti-peer review by any means. But it is clearly not the pillar of objectivity that your comment implies.

Hi hmbld, I found these links interesting regarding our knowledge of God. The second one attributes this tendency to evolution, but the implications are the same – as children, we interpret the world to be designed. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/superstition-the-product-of-evolution/story-e6frg6so-1111112182732

Hi fire-heart, I think there is a difference between acting in faith, and operating in faith. Both are legitimate, but the Bible only promises supernatural power to those actually operating in faith. As Christians, we know through teaching and Biblical research that people operating in faith will act and think and speak a certain way. And so, part of our sanctification is to train ourselves so that our behaviour comes into agreement with scripture. But there is a difference between acting like we have faith, and actually operating in miracle faith (i.e supernatural certainty – “with no doubting” (James 1:6)). Miracle faith is an absolute measure – so that even the smallest amount can yield massive, supernatural results. “19 Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, “Why could we not cast it out?” 20 So Jesus said to them, “Because of your unbelief; for assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you.” (Matthew 17:19-20) If one is operating in faith, the “mountain” will move; i.e. physical healing will manifest. If there is no physical manifestation of healing, then continue to act in faith – and take your meds – till such a time as either faith reveals, or the meds fix you up. Acting in faith makes you more receptive to the operation of faith - when it manifests. Words, thoughts and actions have power in themselves – so acting in faith has its own benefits. Also, one should not be offended by the implication of lacking miracle faith. We exist in a world that conditions us to consider the supernatural with suspicion – which directly undermines miracle faith. It is hard to set aside doubts in the face of contrary observations. “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1) We should also be cautious not to fall into pride; i.e. not taking medication because it may imply a lack of faith to the uninformed – we lose a lot of Christians that way. I have yet to see God glorified through Christians dying unnecessarily from treatable disease.

Agreed. I think an anachronistic assumption is being applied; i.e. that future knowledge somehow has the power to influence present decisions – when in reality, the opposite is true; i.e. decisions made in the present directly influence the future (and therefore any knowledge of it). Time is linear/unidirectional. It only travels in one direction. My decisions today may impact future events, but what happens in the future (regardless of God's knowledge of it) does not influence my current capacity to make a free-will decision. We exist within time. God is not so restricted. So God can perceive the entire dimension of time. But from within time, it is logically inconsistent to imply that future events have "already happened". If the events had "already happened", they would be in the past. Only the past can affect the present. And only the past and present can affect the future. But it doesn't work the other way. The future has no power over the present any more than we have power to change the past. God's infinite knowledge and eternal perspective does not change this. I have always read “predestined” in the Bible to mean that God has a prepared destiny for us. By this definition, there is no conflict with free-will. By free-will, we decide how fully we are prepared to commit ourselves to that destiny. That is; “we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10).

Hi firestormx Christian freedom includes; * Freedom to enter into Christ’s rest (Matthew 11:28-29, Hebrews 4:16) in the knowledge that His sacrifice is all-sufficient to provide our eternal salvation – regardless of our imperfections (Hebrews 10:14). So we are free from the conscience of sin (Hebrews 10:1-22, Romans 3:19-20) which would disable us through fear, guilt and self-condemnation. We are furthermore free from the curse of “bondage” to the system of Law (Galatians 5:1, Colossians 2:13-20) which judged us to be imperfect; worthy of eternal condemnation (Romans 2:12-13, Galatians 3:10-14, Galatians 3:22). * Freedom from the “sway of the wicked one” (1 John 5:19-20); in the knowledge that sin corrupts and destroys (i.e. God’s motivation is not to ‘spoil our fun’, but to save us from the “corruption” that results when we submit to our fleshly desires (Galatians 6:8)) * Freedom to “boldly” enter God’s presence and approach His throne in the Holy of Holies – even when we ourselves are in need of “mercy” and “grace” (Hebrews 4:16, Hebrews 10:19-22). * Freedom to live the life that God has created for us and Christ has secured for us (John 10:10). “Freedom” has never implied “without consequence”. A Christian is “able to say and do what [they] wanted when [they] wanted and how [they] wanted” (1 Corinthians 6:12, 1 Corinthians 10:23, Titus 1:15). It is the knowledge of consequences that increases our freedom; i.e. makes our decisions more informed (John 8:32, 1 Timothy 2:3-4, 2 Timothy 2:25).

Hi Robert, I generally agree with your sentiments, but not all of your information. You said “Christmas Day and Easter Day are just arbitrary days chosen by the Catholic church in the 4th century A.D. It's not like these are the actual days of Christ's birth and resurrection” These days are not as “arbitrary” as you claim. According to the Bible, Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection occurred around the Hebrew Passover festival. This is a known date (3 days starting the 14th day of the Hebrew lunar month of Nissan). The classical Hebrew calendar doesn’t exactly coincide with the western calendar, so we generally choose the weekend closest to the full moon of that time (late March, early April). The earliest record of Christians celebrating the birth of Christ on December 25 is 202AD (Hippolytus of Rome - "Commentary on Daniel"). Subsequently, Sextus Julius Africanus noted the celebration of Christ's birth in his "Chronicle" of the year 221AD – [Notably; earlier than any evidence of pagans using this date (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti - celebrating the birth of the sun god, Sol in 274AD – as recorded in the Phonecian Calander of 354AD)] The Bible does not specify the date of Jesus’ birth. This date was probably chosen because of a Hebrew tradition that prophets lived perfect lives; with conception and death occurring on the same date. No educated Christian considers this date to be absolute – it is simply the date we have chosen to celebrate His birth; in the absence of direct information. “there is no commandment to celebrate or make these events a sacred day” Absolutely true. Some of us choose to celebrate the Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection of our Lord on these days because of the importance of these events to our faith. But there is no obligation on any Christian to follow suit. Neither position makes one a better or worse Christian (or more dedicated, or more mature in their faith, or more pleasing to God etc.). It is purely a personal choice. “in our world today, these are mainly commercialized days for the corporations to make money, so maybe we are better off not celebrating them! Focus on what matters my friend, LOVE” I think it is possible, for those who so choose, to celebrate these events and focus on “LOVE”. It is true that the meaning of these festivals is lost on many who participate, but that doesn’t mean that we personally can’t celebrate in truth; from a sincere faith.

Hey Harmone There is no such thing as a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ Christian. The Christian covenant is a covenant of grace. Grace means unmerited favour – i.e. it cannot be earned or forfeited through our actions; it is the free “gift of God” (see Ephesians 2:8-9). No human has ever been “worthy” of God’s favour. Our condition is utterly lost and depraved. This is why we need a Saviour – we cannot earn our way to righteousness; we cannot perform any act of super-righteousness to make up for our depravity. We cannot save ourselves from the just consequences of our sin. We are utterly reliant upon God’s provision of a Saviour. Yet God’s awesome love is demonstrated toward us in that “you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight” (Colossians 1:21-22) “16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) The Christian covenant is between Christ and God the Father. So you can make a freewill decision to reject it, but having entered into it, you can’t break it. God sent us a Saviour because He knows our state – that we cannot justify ourselves through our own actions. Our weaknesses do not surprise Him. Our imperfection has been dealt with by Christ through His vicarious sacrifice (i.e. He suffered the consequences of our sin on our behalf so that we wouldn’t have to). That makes us clean in the eyes of God; regardless of our weaknesses. God has deemed that the sacrifice of the perfect Son of God is worthy to account for all of our sins. If your faith confession is sincere, then you have been perfected by the sacrifice of Christ; that is, His sacrifice is more than sufficient to cleanse you from any trespass you may commit. “14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.” (Hebrews 10:14) So that now we can “come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” (Hebrews 4:16) Recognise that we can now approach the “throne of grace” “boldly” – not timidly, as if unworthy (not because we are worthy in ourselves, but because Christ’s sacrifice has made us worthy). Also note that we can come to God to “obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need”, i.e. not just when we are feeling righteous. The covenant through which Christians worship God is a covenant of grace – not law. Christians are not obligated to a specific set of rules (such as celebrate God on a specific day). “16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.” (Colossians 2:16-17) “5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it.” (Romans 14:5-6) Those who choose to celebrate Christmas and Easter do so to honour God for themselves, but there is no Biblical obligation for any Christian to do so. The sacrifice of Christ has made us free from such ritual obligations.

King David committed adultery; then ordered the woman’s husband on a suicide mission in an attempt to cover his crime. The Apostle Paul (prior to his conversion) viciously persecuted Christians; casting votes to have them murdered (Acts 26:10). The Apostle Peter denied Christ not once, but three times. The blood of Christ is more than worthy to account for any transgression. As a Christian, you have made a decision to trust God above all others; including self. The Apostle Paul said “9 Yes, we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead” (2 Corinthians 1:9). So we cannot trust how we feel because our feelings are untrustworthy. But God is eternally faithful. You have the power to control what you think about. We don’t always have the power to control what comes into our mind, but we absolutely have the power to control what stays there. When you find yourself meditating on the past, catch yourself and remind yourself that you have decided to trust in the Creator of the universe Who has cleansed and forgiven you. So you don’t have to waste any more time thinking and worrying about the past. The blood of Christ is sufficient. The Lord has promised; “My grace is sufficient for you” (2 Corinthians 12:9). This self-correction may take some practice. Self-condemnation is our way of trying to pay for our own sin. But Jesus has already paid a very high price to free us from that condemnation. Who are we to deny the power of that sacrifice? Who are we to imply that the sacrifice is insufficient – such that we have to pay some of the price ourselves? Our sin is against God, and God says we are forgiven. So who are we to question His mercy? As a Christian, you have access to liberty; “17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” (2 Corinthians 3:17) and you have access to rest; “28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” (Matthew 11:28-29) “16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” (Hebrews 4:16) NOTE: “boldly” – not timidly, as if unworthy (for Christ has made us worthy). NOTE: when we need “mercy”, “grace” and “help” – not just when we are feeling ‘righteous’. When you surrendered ownership of your life to Christ you ceased to be that person. “17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” (2 Corinthians 5:17) Now that “old things have passed away” and “become new”, you are free not to dwell on the past. You are free from the curse and condemnation of your past. You are free to move forward in God. “3 If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. 2 Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. 3 For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.” (Colossians 3:1-3) “13 Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, 14 I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.” (Philipians 3:13-14) “4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5)