Tristen

The best way to counter attacks against the authority of scripture is to analyse the claims in the light of scripture itself. 1. Paul read the Bible out of context. Pete Enns claims that Paul interpreted scripture out of context – citing Paul’s use of Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 in Romans 9:25-26.The claim is that Paul used Hosea as evidence that the Gentiles were included in God’s plan. Now, if you read Romans 9:24-25 in the English NKJV, then I can readily concede that Paul appears to be using Hosea to evidence Gentile inclusion. “24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? 25 As He says also in Hosea: “I will call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved.” 26 “And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ There they shall be called sons of the living God.”” However, if we take the time to look at the context (which the author has ironically failed to do), then it becomes clear that Paul was actually using Hosea to evidence God’s inclusion of the Jews – not the Gentiles. Paul had already established the Gentile inclusion in God’s covenant prior to chapter 9; further evidenced by the fact that he was writing to a primarily Gentile audience in Rome. Chapter 9 is explicitly about Israel’s rejection of the gospel – not about the Gentiles at all. Now consider the other two verses Paul uses to evidence his point; “27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, The remnant will be saved. 28 For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness, Because the Lord will make a short work upon the earth.” 29 And as Isaiah said before: “Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, We would have become like Sodom, And we would have been made like Gomorrah.”” Both of these are specifically about the restoration of Israel. So Paul’s point is about the restoration of Israel, and not about “Gentiles and Jews full and equal partners in the eyes of Israel's God” or “God having mercy on Gentiles” as Enns claims. Paul’s use is therefore a perfectly legitimate (and contextual) use of Hosea. 2. Paul didn't just read scriptures in odd ways; he also accepted the odd readings of others who preceded him Firstly, even if true, this would represent no problem for the Christian faith. All scripture is considered to be God-inspired. There is no rule that all New Testament claims be explicitly evidenced in Old Testament scriptures – only that they provide a consistent revelation of God and reality. The Law was new when delivered to Moses, as were the Prophets at the time of their authorship. Secondly, the evidence provided for this by Enns is weak to the point of ridiculous. Assumptions are made regarding Paul’s intent, and the source of information, for which there is no support provided. 3. Paul pitted one verse of the Bible against another. Again, the evidence used to support this claim is a bit odd (Romans 10 5-8, citing Leviticus 18:5 and Deuteronomy 30:11-14). Paul simply used two verses from the Law to demonstrate that the inward aspect of Law (i.e. faith) had been ignored by the Jews –in spite of their zeal for the outward adherence. Jesus makes a similar claim in Matthew 23:23. Why does Paul do these things? Two reasons. And finally, Enns bases his conclusions in logical fallacy. Namely, innuendo and appeals to motivation. Enns speculates that Paul felt pressure to “bend” scripture to suit his purpose of promoting Jesus. So Enns expects us to believe that Paul, who gave up a life of honour and plenty to experience life-long persecution, intimidation, tribulation and death, thought God needed some deceptive assistance to get His message through. Well, we could believe that, or we could simplyexamine what the Bible actually says – in context.

I am willing to answer these questions, but not here. I have two fundamental reasons for that. First, the outer court is apparently supposed to be for the engagement of believers and unbelievers for witnessing purposes. I don't see how that would be accomplished by us going at here. Second, I hate the existence of this sub-forum. I find it positively appalling. Why is it fatih *vs* science? This just propagates the image that if you become a believer you must embrace anti-intellectualism and turn against science. Or, the false understanding that science as a whole is someone entirely opposed to faith. You can see this is untrue by simply looking at some of the greatest scientists who ever lived and see that they were often inspired *by* their faith in their profession. Alright, all that is a long way to say, if you want to post this on another part of the forum I'll engage your questions. If not, that's cool also. Hi alpha, As a YEC myself, I obviously disagree with your conclusion that the evidence best supports Big Bang Theory. I also disagree that the issue is “not worthy of debate”. The prevalence of secular scientific models represents a significant cause of people rejecting the Christian faith; as well as a major stumbling block for people coming to the faith. So I think it benefits both Christians and non-Christians to see that questioning and debating secular scientific dogma is actually permitted (actually encouraged by the correct application of the scientific method) – and that one can promote alternative models of reality without compromising their scientific or intellectual integrity. I do agree that the “faith v science” label promotes the illegitimate conflict myth – that science and faith are fundamentally incompatible with each other – which, in my opinion, panders to atheistic propaganda. I also think the admins can be a bit funny about what can and can’t be discussed in this section (which, in my humble opinion, stifles debate and engagement with unbelievers). Most importantly, I appreciate your use of hedging language; “I accept”, “the … model” & “I think”. I think this somewhat nullifies the challenge of the OP. It indicates that you already understand that Big Bang is not ‘a fact’, or ‘proven’, or, as Neil deGrassy Tyson suggests, ‘scientific law’ – levels of confidence which cannot be justified in logic, or by the scientific method. Your use of hedging language further indicates that you understand the role of presupposition in scientific interpretation – which is a welcome change from the usual position of Big Bang proponents.

Hey chloe, I've noticed several threads locked down in the last week or so; - "Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells" was closed because a "Nonbeliever" referenced a secular website - "Science Disproves Evolution" was closed because they had reached 528 posts - "Science and Exegesis" (the one I had prepared a response to) was closed because the admin saw "no further use for this post" with regards to the ministry goal of "pointing the lost to Jesus". I'm not sure how to practice "25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will." (2 Tim 2:24-26) if I am not permitted to respond to their stated position. - "Creationists, I'd be interested in learning about your knowledge of evolution" was closed because of an impression that evolution was being discussed in the absence of "creationist commentary". This one is a bit odd to me since it seems that most responses to the thread were of creationist origin (including a response from myself).

As stated by Fez, the purpose of this ministry is to "point people to Jesus". So I craft a response to an unbeliever with the motive of being "ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear" (1 Pet 3:15) only to find upon returning to the site that the thread has been closed. Surely we can be secure enough in our faith to allow for questions and assess information provided by unbelievers - especially in a forum entitled "faith vs. science". Otherwise who are we 'pointing to Jesus' besides each other? Why should an unbeliever take anything we say seriously when we are too precious to consider, or even tolerate, dissenting opinions? If our goal really is to "point people to Jesus", why are interesting threads closed when believers and unbelievers are respectfully engaging in discussion? It's not like new threads are constantly being created in this forum so that we need to let go of old threads to make way. Now I am unable respond in a thread of interest, and there are no new threads to respond to.

Hi Jerry. Evolution is the general term used to describe the secular explanation accounting for the observed variety of life on earth. It is variously defined; incorporating a range of concepts such as Natural Selection, Speciation, Genetic Mutations, Common Ancestry etc. It has been overly-simplistically defined as change over time. I have also seen it defined as any heritable change in a population. [Am I permitted to respond to your posted claim that “evidence of evolution as overwhelming”? – if not, please disregard the following] As a creationist, the only above concept I dispute is Common Ancestry (along with its required/assumed time frames and the necessary assumption of abiogenesis). There are no logical discrepancies between the other concepts and Biblical creationism. I suspect that the “overwhelming” amount of your “evidence” falls into one of these other categories. Also, since the creationist claim is that all of the facts that are interpreted to support evolution can alternatively be interpreted to be consistent with the creationist model, the amount of “evidence” is irrelevant. We all have the same facts (and therefore the same amount of facts). Neither position has the legitimate right to arbitrarily disregard any fact.

Hi Tristen, I have read it numerous times since this last post. Your suggestion insinuates that reading Genesis 1 and 2 as separate creation narratives is original to me! May I inform you that it is quite a popular reading, and by no means modern (i.e. a response to modern science). Even if it were, it is not as if only this reading is liable to charge of ulterior motives; motives exist on both sides. What baffles me is that people like you don’t admit the several problems that arise from your own reading—or, when you do, you immediately dismiss it with the exegetical “Well, God can do what He wants.” But I will attempt to play along: I present here a running commentary of my reading of Genesis; I will attempt to ignore issues typically answered by the “God can” trump card, i.e. the fact that vegetation sprouts at a miraculous rate, or that light appears without a physical source (suns), and indeed is held at bay without a physical object (light and darkness are equally present, yet there are no objects to cast a shadow upon regions of light). So, here I go. (Oh, in order to avoid discussions of evolution, Big Bang, Age of the earth, I will call your reading of Genesis 1account, mine 2accounts. On Day 3 of Genesis 1 we are told that God created at the very least a wide variety of plants. There is no explicit indication of other species forthcoming. At least not in English. Now, perhaps, as some 1accounters claim, the Hebrew of Day three relays a very specific scope of vegetation. A modern parallel would be a story in which a farmer says, “today I will plant every coniferous tree”—anyone with a smidgen of arboreal knowledge would see what was missing and might expect to hear of deciduous trees later. Some 1accounters have argued that the plants specified here are edibles; or perhaps there is a clue in the reiterated description SEED. So, if the Hebrew indeed indicates this, then we would have here a subtle, but not extradinary, instance of foreshadowing. The original recipient of this narrative would pick up on what was missing as easily as we would in the farmer’s narrative given above. But I have yet to find a lexicon that supports major distinctions among the vegetation mentioned on day 3. On day 3 we are given (as of now) no indication, no hint, that God has done anything other than create every single species of plant. The ancients did not make a distinction between seed and spore or pollen. There is nothing in the plants here to suggest that only edible plants are being created. As of now, the author has done his best to say, “We have them all”; God is done creating vegetation. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM POINTING FORWARD TO GENESIS 2….WE ARE NOT THERE YET. IF I HAVE MISSED SOMETHING IN THIS SECTION, THEN THAT IS OBVIOUSLY PERTINENT TO THIS EXPERIMENT. On day 4 God creates lights and fixes them in the “expanse of the heavens”. IF I allowed my preconceptions to operate, this would be unproblematic. The author has basically said, God created lights in space. But when I go back and read carefully, that is not what the author has said. God fixed lights in the “expanse”. And the expanse is (day 2) what separates water below from water above. That is strange cosmology: water above an expanse, luminaries below an expanse, and water below the luminaries…odd, moving on. Day 6 clearly has beasts created from the earth, and then the creation of Man/Woman (interesting, I have always assumed that we have a single couple—but upon a fresh reading, I see that the numbers are not explicit; similar to the assumption, perhaps, that there were 3 wise men at Jesus’ birth). 2.4b says “on the day God made the earth and the heavens”. Hmm, this is a little odd. We just saw He made it over 6 days. Why didn’t the author say, 6 days? You urged me to read this again and see if “on the day” is really what the text says. Perhaps you see something I do not? I see “on the day”, nothing more. I have looked up this detail and found that even answersingenesis and creation.com thought it worth solving (so, it is a potential problem for 1accounters). Their answer is that the Hebrew construction used here can be translated “when”. And of course this is true. “When” can always replace “on the day” in any instance. This is a subterfuge. The real question remains: does this Hebrew construction ever, EVER, indicate a time period MORE than a day? I have made it through the Pentateuch and found none. It always points to a single 24 hour period. The text says, "in the 24 hour time period that God created the heavens and the earth". If we play with meaning of "day" here, we leave room for day=agers to play with the word elsewhere. Moving on. v. 5 I read that no bush of the field or small plant had sprung up and this because it had not rained and there was no man to work them…. …now this is a little odd. Last I heard plants were created several days before man and with no indication that their growth and survival depended on man. So when is this taking place? Day 3? Well that would be very odd, for then days 4 and 5 are completely skipped. Again, it is fruitless to explore the Hebrew as YECs do (or claim) and say that the plants here mentioned are quite distinct from those indicated on day 3. The Hebrew does not support this. To fit all this in day 6 (per YEC) the mind has to make a sudden revision of day 3, and without any literary help from the author—no foreshadowing given on day 3; no explanation at 2.5 of plants missing on day 3. Only a mind long fostered on a YEC reading would deny that this is odd; for of course hardened custom can make almost anything sound natural. In v. 18 the Lord declares it is not good for man to be alone and that He will form a helper. The Hebrew of “formed” is the same used wherever God is creating something new. So one should expect God to make something new. Now, what do we have? Something to do with birds and beasts: beasts made from the earth and (hmm…day 4 didn’t have this detail) birds as well). Hmm, that is odd. I thought birds and beasts were created before Man? Now, my ESV has “had formed” which would resolve this….but I look up the Hebrew and see that what would easiy yield a perfect, is absent. It is used elsewhere to indicate things that had already happened, but not here. Thus far, every time this form of “made” has been used it is used of things being created there and then. Maybe the next verse illuminates….well, not exactly, we have Adam naming the beasts. So, God just declared that he was going to make a helper, and now he has Adam naming beasts?! Odd. Next we see this highly suggestive bit, “But no helper was found for Adam”. What? God just said he was going to make Adam a helper. We see something to do with birds and beasts. We see Adam naming them, and somehow through this naming process, no helper is found. What’s next? The creation of Eve. What happens after? He names her, simultaneously with the realization that she is a suitable helper! So, to yield a consistent account, I have to suppose something like this: God declared he was going to make a helper He postpones this by having Adam name birds and beasts already created. How to explain…Either God, or the author, thought that perhaps a new creative process might not be necessary—“hmm. let’s see what we already have. No need for extra work, after all!” Or God has Adam consider unsuitable creatures by naming them in order to show him how suitable Eve is (compare and contrast). MASSIVE EISOGESIS. Nowhere do we see this in the text. The author was very intentional in explaining why God had Abraham attempt a sacrifice on his son (Now I know!). Nothing of the like is here. We do not have a subjective explanation (but Adam could find no helper) or any kind of explanation from God, “Now you know that Eve is….”. What we have is the very objective, “But for Adam there was no helper”. Even on your own reading, without eisogesis, God had Adam consider animals as a real, viable source for companionship. Assuming a) (for only ‘a’ avoids the enormous amount of eisogesiis) Nope, I guess God will, after all, have to make something new; animals will not do He makes Eve, Adam names her, lo and behold, she works. Now, my request of you. Do you recognize these are real difficulties in your reading? To admit they are difficulties is not the same as admitting you were wrong. But if you cannot even see these as difficulties, then we operate on such different planes of thought that discussion here is pointless. Of course, if you have solutions or corrections not mentioned above I am, of course, interested in hearing them. Now, a second request, I invite you to treat my own reading similarly (showing the exegetical problems that arise from reading the two accounts as separate and distinct, though overlapping thematically). clb Hey CLB. I think your post demonstrates the clear difference between a) someone who has accepted the premise of the Bible as inerrant scripture and is sincerely seeking the author’s intent, and b) someone who is hyper-critically, super-pedantically analysing the text to expose any putative cracks and holes they can find in the traditional reading. I don’t have any problems with acknowledging the questions you raised, however, my default response is not to question the integrity of the text itself (as interprted in its own context), but to question the limits of my knowledge. That is, if I don’t understand something, then I assume that I don’t understand something. What I don’t do is assume the rest of the account to be therefore, suddenly invalidated as written – just because I don’t understand some of it. Since your account has apparently been banned, I don’t think it would be good form for me to address your arguments more specifically – i.e. until you are afforded a right of reply.

You seem to have ignored the context of my statement. Based on additional investigation of this topic, others weren't able to replicate these findings [to my knowledge]. So I'm not sure it's fair to state yet that there are any external influences to decay rates [at least not yet]. If someone truly went through with this exercise and then tried to use it as evidence that carbon dating is untrustworthy [or whatever] then that person is either uneducated in carbon dating OR they're dishonest. What I am surprised about is that you would come across this and find it useful to suggest the same thing. The only reason we haven't gone through this in more detail is because the detail hasn't been provided. I searched for this claim briefly and found variations in the story. Some say it was a penguin, some say a seal. Some say the sample was dated at 1300 years and some said 3000 etc. I wouldn't be surprised if this event is completely fabricated. We can dispense with this example once and for all, it's a dead horse at this point. As I see it, what I'm being asked to consider [from those asserting a young earth and critical of radiometric dating] is that almost every single radioactive isotope has been wildly affected by some outside influence. Even though we have plenty of examples where we can cross date something using different methods, even though we have dating methods that utilize multiple decay chains, somehow the Earth really is roughly 7000 years old. I think it's much more likely that the great ages that radiometric dating suggests, are credible and reliable. Oard made a concrete statement about a research paper that wasn't warranted. If I were him I would have either reached out to the author to get clarification or I would have tempered my statement. He paraphrased them and had them stating that temperature fluctuations of up to 20C were happening in 1-3 years. They mentioned other time windows of up to 100k years if I recall right. If this situation was reversed I have a hard time believing that you wouldn't be responding the same way. I don't know about identical methods, I agree that secular science employs models and those models have assumptions. But what "method" does one use to determine anyone has a condition brought on by a supernatural entity such as a demon? In my view, what can be arbitrarily asserted can be arbitrarily dismissed. If you knew what I meant by "entertain" why did you feel the need to put it in quotes and then use a different word that means the same thing? I understand giving an idea [even radical] some time to kick around and ponder etc. But how much time would you spend considering the reason why you can't find your car keys is because a goblin hid them? You might respond by saying "Who believes goblins exist?" or something similar, well this is how I feel about demons. So absent of something tangible to go on, yeah there are some explanations that are not going to get much consideration. Ok so they moved to higher ground while alive but aren't you suggesting that somehow they stayed there? Even though they eventually perished [like everything else] and would be subjected to whatever current, wave or turbulence post mortem. I see no reason to think that there's going to be any kind of sorting based on mobility, the flood is described as a catastrophic event! Bill Nye just had a public debate with Ken Ham and I didn't see any backlash against him. I know there were some who told him he's wasting his time but I don't know of any black eye whatsoever suffered by Nye. Michael Behe teaches at a public University and is a huge ID advocate. So I can't say that I'm seeing what you're seeing. Now I do see people laughing and mocking Ken Ham but then he's not writing scientific journals or anything and if you watch the debate, he was completely out of his element. Even when I presented you with the idea that we can use multiple techniques on the same sample and come up with very close dates you were unphased. You countered with the fact that because this success rate isn't 100% we can go back to suggesting the methods are unreliable. My understanding is that we can also utilize isochron diagram's to help determine if the sample has been contaminated. For one of the methods as used in 1969 perhaps. I don't know the past 45 has brought on additional tools or insight than what was used then. I may have misstated the reason why carbon dating something recently dead is problematic. It seems that nuclear tests in the 50's and fossil fuel burning today [suess effect] can cause problems for accurate carbon dating. Well considering carbon dating itself would be considered "long age" [in many cases] by young earth standards I don't see what it matters. You present radiometric dating like it's such a sloppy clownish approach to estimating the ages of things. I'm not so sure it's as flawed as you try to make it sound. Hey Bonky, you said, “You seem to have ignored the context of my statement. Based on additional investigation of this topic, others weren't able to replicate these findings [to my knowledge]. So I'm not sure it's fair to state yet that there are any external influences to decay rates [at least not yet]” The actual context is my suggesting that you investigate research into possible external sources influencing rates of radiometric decay (something I did for myself over a decade ago when I was looking into this). I suggested this to circumvent your tendency to assume that anything I present as inherently dishonest creationism (also because I’m quite bust ATM). So you went away and found something, then I pointed out the implications of the research – as you described it, and now you have found a reason to disregard it. But I played no role in this investigation, so it doesn’t have any implications for me. I would only suggest that you appear to be assuming that the one study you found is the only research on this issue (which if true, would itself be telling). ‘Back in the day’ I recall finding several studies citing several differing sources of influence over radioactive decay. I also recall (in the past few years) skimming over a paper claiming neutrinos as a possible source of flux in radiometric decay – to give you another target if interested. after I thought we’d agreed that carbon dating has these extra complexities, you can’t help yourself but to throw some more innuendo my way over this example. “If someone truly went through with this exercise and then tried to use it as evidence that carbon dating is untrustworthy [or whatever] then that person is either uneducated in carbon dating OR they're dishonest” Or it was done before the reservoir effect was understood. Or it was done after the reservoir effect was understood – and the reservoir effect was factored into the research. If it was done after the reservoir effect was understood, it wouldn’t be an issue – since the carbon context of the sample would be known (and therefore no calibration necessary). Also, if I understand the resource you provided, the reservoir would only account for relatively minor discrepancies. “what I'm being asked to consider [from those asserting a young earth and critical of radiometric dating] is that almost every single radioactive isotope has been wildly affected by some outside influence. Even though we have plenty of examples where we can cross date something using different methods, even though we have dating methods that utilize multiple decay chains, somehow the Earth really is roughly 7000 years old” I think you are parroting propaganda. You appear to have fallen for the myth of overwhelming universal agreement (with a tentative acknowledgement of a few possible, rare exceptions). Yet there are also “plenty of examples” where “different methods” disagree, or where they agree with each other – but not the accepted secular age of the sample. The existence of multiple decay chains has no logical impact on my argument (or at least, you haven’t presented an argument for it - beyond stating its existence). “I think it's much more likely that the great ages that radiometric dating suggests, are credible and reliable” You mean you consider the ‘good dates’ suggested by radiometric dating to be “credible and reliable” – i.e. the ones that conform to the accepted secular presupposition. And you are simply happy to ignore all the bad dates, and inherent assumptive weaknesses of the theory, and basically anything else which speaks to the unreliability of these methods – writing off any supposed inaccuracies as rare anomalies and probably (though untestably) contamination. So your probability analysis (i.e. what is “more likely … credible and reliable”) is intrinsically linked to your preferred faith perspective. “Oard made a concrete statement about a research paper that wasn't warranted. If I were him I would have either reached out to the author to get clarification or I would have tempered my statement. He paraphrased them and had them stating that temperature fluctuations of up to 20C were happening in 1-3 years. They mentioned other time windows of up to 100k years if I recall right. If this situation was reversed I have a hard time believing that you wouldn't be responding the same way” I would not ever have questioned your honesty for having the gall to disagree with me. I would have requested your evidence and argument. Oard said “uniformitarian scientists now are forced to believe that the temperature on Greenland changed up to 20°C in periods as short as 1 to 3 years!” The original referenced article said “[1]From the central Greenland ice cores we now know that the Earth has experienced large, rapid, regional to global climate oscillations through most of the last 110,000 years on a scale that human agricultural and industrial activities have not yet faced. [2]These millennial-scale events represent quite large climate deviations: probably up to 20oC in central Greenland, twofold changes in snow accumulation, order-of-magnitude changes in wind-blown dust and sea-salt loading, roughly 100 ppbv in methane concentration, etc., with cold, dry, dusty, and low-methane conditions being correlated. [3]The events often begin or end rapidly: changes equal to most of the glacial-interglacial differences commonly occur over decades, and some indicators, more sensitive to shifts in the pattern of atmospheric circulation, change in as little as 1-3 years.” SENTENCE 1: The introductory sentence to this paragraph indicates that we should expect claims about changes to the climate (“climate oscillations”) which were “large” in scale and “rapid” in transition. This sentence also claims that the scope for this research is the “last 110,000 years”. SENTENCE 2: The second sentence describes claims regarding the nature of the change involved (i.e. the types of “large climate deviations”), including the claim that these events lasted thousands of years (i.e. were “millennial-scale events”), and claims of temperature changes “up to 20oC” – along with descriptions of other types of change which we don’t need to address for the sake of brevity and relevance. SENTENCE 3: The third sentence describes claims about the transition period of the changes (i.e. how quickly they “begin or end”). There are two primary claims in this sentence; 1) “most” of these transitions occurred “over decades”, and 2) “some” transitions occurred “in as little as 1-3 years”. NOW: The authors make no specific correlation between any of the specific nature-of-changes and any of the stated rates of transition. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that no such correlation was found in the data. That lack of stated correlation strengthens the validity of this assumption in the context of a scientific article. THEREFORE: It is perfectly reasonable to interpret this passage as; “In most instances we found changes of up to 20oC with transition times of over decades, and in some instances we found changes of up to 20oC with transition times of as little as three years” Oard characterised the research as claiming “the temperature on Greenland changed up to 20°C in periods as short as 1 to 3 years!” – IMO a perfectly reasonable paraphrase of one of the above claims. I have never heard of anyone feeling obligated to contact the authors of every reference they use. The whole point of providing references is that a reader can look up the source of the information; and if necessary, determine for themselves the validity of the claim. “I don't know about identical methods, I agree that secular science employs models and those models have assumptions. But what "method" does one use to determine anyone has a condition brought on by a supernatural entity such as a demon?” Since one cannot directly observe any supernatural claim (e.g. “demon possession”), to investigate such a claim, anyone making the claim would have to model the claim (i.e. propose what facts we should expect to find if the claim were true - ancillary to the claim itself). [so the only logical limitation to this method is that the claim must incorporate some form of interaction with the physical universe]. Then the model would be tested against what we actually find. As previously discussed – this path of investigation is logically weaker than operational investigation because no matter how consistent the evidence is with the model, we can never logically verify either the initial claim, or that no other possible story can account for the same facts. Now in the above paragraph, if you replace “any supernatural claim” with ‘any historical claim’, you have an accurate description of the logical method used to investigate secular history (and Biblical history; including both natural and supernatural claims). The same general logical framework is employed to investigate any claim that cannot be subjected to scientific and repeated observations. “what can be arbitrarily asserted can be arbitrarily dismissed” When did “arbitrary” assertion become the logical equivalent of impossible? How do you know an idea is “arbitrary” if you dismiss it before consideration? Very few ideas are completely “arbitrary”. Take your “demon possession” example; the concept of demon possession appears in the Bible. So any such suggestion is likely premised at least somewhat upon faith in scripture. You “arbitrarily dismiss” this possibility, not because the idea itself is arbitrary, but because it cannot be reconciled with your own faith perspective. This again speaks to a lack of objectivity. Arguments are only rationally obligated to be consistent with the context within which they are formulated. It’s irrational to judge an argument by a contrary premise. I wonder if you apply this “arbitrarily asserted … arbitrarily dismissed” rule to the claims of secular models. For example, Standard Cosmology has encountered several embarrassing episodes over its lifetime. The concept of Inflation is simply a story invented to account for discrepancies between the model and observations (e.g. the Horizon Problem). Then Dr Guth comes along and says ‘maybe the initial Big Bang wasn’t quite so big, but then the universe, for no proposed reason, underwent some massively rapid expansion, and then, also for no proposed reason, slowed down again’. Now there is no other reason to assume inflation occurred beyond the discrepancy between the model and observations – but it can be mathematically described in a way that reconciles the two. And it’s now Standard Cosmology dogma. Similarly, the momentum of galaxies was found to not fit the Standard Cosmology model – not enough gravity. So a source of gravity was proposed that makes up over 90% of the matter in the universe – but which we’ve never actually observed – but which can be mathematically described to reconcile the model to the observations. Likewise, observations regarding the expansion of the universe contradicted the model. So a source of energy is proposed which, like dark matter has never actually been observed – but which can be mathematically described to reconcile the model to the observations. These ideas are just as “arbitrary” as anything described in the Biblical model – yet you have failed to “dismiss” them because they fall within the purview of the naturalistic faith. “If you knew what I meant by "entertain" why did you feel the need to put it in quotes and then use a different word that means the same thing?” In the context of your use, I considered “entertain” to have an emotive, patronising quality – as though we were merely tolerating the idea; rather than giving it serious and fair consideration. “But how much time would you spend considering the reason why you can't find your car keys is because a goblin hid them? You might respond by saying "Who believes goblins exist?" or something similar, well this is how I feel about demons” I understand that you don’t believe in demons. But objectivity incorporates the capacity to consider arguments in the context of their own premise; even when it disagrees with your own preferred premise – especially when it disagrees with your own preferred premise. Why bother even engaging in conversation if you can’t even consider the possibility of an alternative faith perspective being true? But if you are reasonable enough to realise that other perspectives are at least logically possible – then you have to consider their arguments in the context within which they are formulated. Otherwise you are being irrational; judging an argument by a premise with which the argument was never designed to agree with. You don’t have to give up your own faith perspective to be able to see alternative arguments through the eyes of their proponents – you just have to develop a capacity for objectivity. “Even when I presented you with the idea that we can use multiple techniques on the same sample and come up with very close dates you were unphased. You countered with the fact that because this success rate isn't 100% we can go back to suggesting the methods are unreliable” Again, I think your phrasing equates to a grotesque overstatement of the data and a mischaracterisation of my position. You are happy to accept dates from “multiple techniques” when they agree (with each other and the secular model), but seem uninformed or dismissive about when they disagree. You still haven’t defined how to determine a “success rate” beyond secular presupposition. Your use of “isn’t 100%” suggests some overwhelming agreement – even after I’ve made you aware of both disparate data and the logical flaws used to formulate this impression. My actual argument is that these methods are unreliable because; a) They are all highly assumptive – with the foundational assumptions being demonstrated to be unreliable in several instances; which in any logical or scientific sense renders the methods themselves to be unreliable, and b) Many of these assumptions rely on extrapolations of magnitudes of millions and billions times the observed data, and c) The ‘accurate’, or ‘good’, or ‘successful’, or ‘accepted dates’ are determined by their conformity to secular presupposition; with no experimental way to determine good from bad dates beyond that presupposition, and d) There are many examples of so-called ‘bad dates’ in the literature including dates which (according to secular presupposition) are too old, or too young, or disagree with other dating methods etc., and e) The only way to account for these anomalies is some untestable, nebulous claim of contamination; which, if broadly accepted, renders the methods immune to rational scrutiny, and f) The recent tendency to simply disregard ‘bad dates’ gives a false impression of abundant consistency within and between the methods. “My understanding is that we can also utilize isochron diagram's to help determine if the sample has been contaminated” My understanding is that the opposite is true – there is no experimental way to distinguish an isochron from a (contaminated) mixed line. “I may have misstated the reason why carbon dating something recently dead is problematic. It seems that nuclear tests in the 50's and fossil fuel burning today [suess effect] can cause problems for accurate carbon dating” Yep – and solar events increase the concentration of C14, and volcanic events dilute C14 concentrations etc. But if the events occurred recently enough for the carbon context to be recorded – it shouldn’t be an issue. “You present radiometric dating like it's such a sloppy clownish approach to estimating the ages of things. I'm not so sure it's as flawed as you try to make it sound” I’m not claiming incompetence on the part of those employing the methods. I’m providing a reality-check for those under the false impression that radiometric dating is so supremely robust that it has put the issue to rest.

Christians relate to God under a different covenant than the Covenant between God and the nation of Israel (i.e. the Mosaic Law). Christians are therefore not obligated to the precepts contained within that covenant (including those pertaining to diet). Christians relate to God under a new and "better" covenant (see Hebrews chapter 8).

It’s a good question. I think the answer can be “yes” or “no” – depending upon the perspective. The primary issue IMO is the sincerity of the faith confession (which only God and the individual can determine). If an individual sincerely surrenders ownership of their life to Christ, then they are immediately purified by the blood of Christ; their sins are dealt with forever – the blood of Christ is sufficient to account for all sin. God has accepted the cost of Christ’s sacrifice (the perfectly sinless Son of God) as sufficient to redeem us from the just eternal consequences of our sin – for those who accept God’s offer of salvation through Christ. Yet as we are all aware, that doesn’t make us perfect with regards to our behaviour. So there is a paradox that Christ has “perfected forever those who are being sanctified” (Hebrews 10:14). We should consider that the reason we are provided with a Saviour is that God is aware that we are incapable of being righteous by our own efforts. So He is not surprised by our weaknesses. Christ has made us legally clean in the eyes of God's perfect justice (the only perspective that matters); regardless of our personal failures. Therefore 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) – not because we are clean in ourselves, but because we are clean in Christ [Note that we are encouraged to come to God’s throne when we need grace and mercy – not just when we are feeling righteous]. If one is sincere in their faith confession, they are provided with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The indwelling of the Spirit will influence our life towards righteous behaviour and away from sin (Galatians 5:19-23). Therefore a life that is epitomised by a continued justification of sin indicates possible insincerity in the original faith confession. That is, it is legitimate to question whether or not that life has really been surrendered to Christ – if one is making no effort to do His will (2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8). Remembering that the point of our accepting the gospel was the recognition that sin is bad (including bad for us), and that we need to be saved from sin and its consequences. So a continued pursuit of sin indicates that this has not been understood. Galatians 6:7-8 7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life So even though we all stumble at times; this general pattern of change towards righteousness will be evident in a sincere believer (Galatians 5:22-23). And a pattern of justifying unrighteousness is evidence of insincerity (Galatians 5:19-21, 2 Peter 1:5-9, 1John 3:8, Jude 1:4). 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. If one’s faith confession is insincere, that individual has not accessed the grace of Christ and remains accountable for their own sins. So you asked; “Does God overlook/ turn a blind eye to sin in the life of the believer?” The real answer is no – God has paid a massive price to secure a path of salvation and redemption for all sinners. Nothing has been overlooked. God’s perfect justice has held every sin to account. Only in the case of a sincere believer – Jesus has voluntarily suffered the consequences of our sin in our stead.

Can we get the admins to look into this feature? I have, on several occasions, had the same frustration trying to access/find some of my earlier posts.

The research I was referring to was done in cooperation with folks from Purdue and Stanford. I've read more on this topic over the weekend and it turns out that this research is not conclusive [EB Norman - ‎2008]. Even if it was, the question I would have is whether or not the outside influence would affect all isotopes or just some? Evidently we're still looking for the facts at this point [research inconclusive]. I haven't found more detailed documents on how exactly they went about this process. What I did find however was a document that explains how they determined the distance from Earth to the supernova.http://chem.tufts.edu/science/astronomy/sn1987a.html Maybe "conned" wasn't the best word. I don't think he was trying to be deceptive, I believe he didn't know much about what he was talking about. I remember questioning your integrity with regard to the Oard article. Yes, I'm rather surprised that you would bring up the marine carbon dating example. From the Oard discussion, you do strike me as someone who has a really hard time admitting a mistake. We've spent almost all of our time examining secular claims. In the past when I tried to narrow down what science would look like under your worldview I thought you ended up admitting [i apologize if my memory fails] that 'demon possession' would be a possible valid scientific explanation for certain behaviors. This kind of thing happened with Michael Behe in the Dover trials, he wanted to tinker with the term "scientific theory" so much that astrology would become a scientific theory. So if we're going to accept un-natural causes for things [or what have you] I'm going to need to understand why we're even entertaining it. Additionally, the response I got from you regarding the flood and fossil placement was..."the mobile creatures were able to get to higher ground". I mean I don't even understand how this is to be taken seriously. It literally answers nothing. Give me something substantial to consider and I promise I'll give you credit. I've never come across a biblical prophecy [i haven't heard them all I'm sure] that blew me away. Or they don't seem to really narrow down how to know when this prophecy has been fulfilled. I know you don't like the phrase "God did it" to be used to describe creationist explanations. Yet I find a textbook example of a case where creationists are doing just that and your response is that I'm merely resorting to ad-hominem? And you wonder why creationists aren't taken seriously sometimes? If you understand the concept behind the dating method being used you know what environments are especially susceptible to producing inaccurate dates. Ironically it looks like the same guy who you refer to regarding the lava flows also wrote an extensive article that is posted on talk origins. My understanding is that there needs to be enough time for the decay to be detected. Your objections are so bizarre sometimes. There's no signs at all at how long something has been dead right, we literally have no way of figuring that out. There won't be any chemical clues at all, no analysis known to man would give us any kind of indication. Hey Bonky, you said “the question I would have is whether or not the outside influence would affect all isotopes or just some?” I think that’s a good question. I have several follow-up questions. 1) does this lack of knowledge for all isotopes mean that we can necessarily rely on those where we haven’t yet found an external influence on their decay rates, and 2) given that we are now aware that decay rates of isotopes can be influenced by outside forces, can we reliably accept and apply the assumption that isotope decay rates haven’t been influenced by any external forces; and thereby assume to make reliable extrapolations of magnitudes millions and billions of times that of any observed data? “I'm rather surprised that you would bring up the marine carbon dating example” I made a case including several (non-marine) examples that lead me to initially question the reliability of carbon dating. You became fixated with one of those examples (the marine one) because you believed you had some kind of ‘gotcha’. And you have since tried to wiggle your way around painting the use of this example as dishonest – even though we haven’t actually looked into the example itself. Was it creationist research or not? Was it prior to our knowledge of the reservoir effect or not (which would undermine any claim of dishonesty)? In all honesty, I don’t remember the details. I threw it in as part of an overall argument (including other, non-marine, examples) pertaining to my experience. And even now, after I thought we’d agreed that carbon dating has these extra complexities, you can’t help yourself but to throw some more innuendo my way over this example. “From the Oard discussion, you do strike me as someone who has a really hard time admitting a mistake” Even here you are directly implying that I made a mistake – but without any supporting arguments. I don’t think you demonstrated any logical error in my position that would warrant such unmitigated confidence. I’m happy to go over it again if you like – and properly break down the logic. “In the past when I tried to narrow down what science would look like under your worldview I thought you ended up admitting [i apologize if my memory fails] that 'demon possession' would be a possible valid scientific explanation for certain behaviors” My position is that no hypotheses should ever be dismissed arbitrarily. When it comes to things that cannot be directly observed/tested (e.g. a claim about the past or a supernatural claim), the only way to investigate them is indirectly; through modelling – then comparing the model against the current evidence. But even then, no legitimate scientific confidence could be attributed to the initial claim without committing the logical fallacy called Affirming the Consequent. So this indirect method is logically much weaker than the operational method – where the claims themselves are available and subject to direct and repeated observations. Now you would readily recognise this weakness when it is applied to a supernatural claim (such as “demon possession”), or to the creationist model of history in general, but you have difficulty getting your head around the fact that the secular model of history employs the identical methodology, with the identical inherent weaknesses. Therefore, all I would propose is that; what constitutes a "valid scientific explanation" be fairly and objectively applied across the spectrum of possibility. Either all that utilise this method qualify; or none. “if we're going to accept un-natural causes for things [or what have you] I'm going to need to understand why we're even entertaining it” We “entertain” (aka consider) ideas because they there is a logical possibility that they represent the truth. Refusing to entertain an idea prior to consideration is an act of faith. The subsequent attributing of quality to an idea is in its testability (i.e. not as good for historical or supernatural claims – which is why we distinguish scientific confidence from faith), and in the testing itself (e.g. experimental results). “Additionally, the response I got from you regarding the flood and fossil placement was..."the mobile creatures were able to get to higher ground". I mean I don't even understand how this is to be taken seriously” Whilst my answer was admittedly a concise summary of one of the creationist models, it was markedly more complicated than your mischaracterisation here. But note again your empty innuendo. Just because you right something as though you think it should be thought of as silly, doesn’t make it silly. Why is it so ridiculous to suggest that flying birds, for example, would appear in a flood record towards the top – because of their superior capacity to move to higher ground, or find natural flotsam etc.? “It literally answers nothing” Well my actual answer explained the general tendency of fossil succession observed in sedimentary layers – in the context of a global flood model. It answered the question you asked. “Give me something substantial to consider and I promise I'll give you credit” It’d be nice if you would give fair consideration to the answers I provide – i.e. instead of the usual a-priori dismissal. “I know you don't like the phrase "God did it" to be used to describe creationist explanations. Yet I find a textbook example of a case where creationists are doing just that and your response is that I'm merely resorting to ad-hominem? And you wonder why creationists aren't taken seriously sometimes?” I don’t “wonder why creationists aren't taken seriously sometimes”. I can see the influence of secular confirmation bias everywhere I look. It’s almost a sport for me now to see how long it takes a science show to squeeze Common Ancestry or Standard Cosmology into the narrative – even when the discussed topic couldn’t be further away from either of these issues. I see the letters from Journal editors stating how reluctant they would be to ever consider publishing an article stating creationist implications. I see publishing run dry for well-published scientists the moment they out themselves as creationists. I see, even secular scientists, loose prestigious positions because they dare to suggest that creationists should be engaged with. Anyone with open eyes can see the bias. The trick is to see how well you can justify it to yourself – i.e. to see if you can come up with some ad-hominem excuse to ridicule or ignore the creationist arguments altogether – before even bothering to consider them. “If you understand the concept behind the dating method being used you know what environments are especially susceptible to producing inaccurate dates” What constitutes an “inaccurate date”? If we know that there are external forces at play that mess with the process, how can we assume any specific date is accurate? How do you know that a so-called ‘accurate’ date hasn’t been subjected to contamination? If we are able to simply explain away “inaccurate dates” as contaminated, have we not rendered the process logically immune to scrutiny? “Ironically it looks like the same guy who you refer to regarding the lava flows also wrote an extensive article that is posted on talk origins” It’s not really ironic or surprising – he has always expressed anti-creationist sentiments and hates that his data is used by creationists. But we are not claiming his data to mean anything beyond what is stated in his research. This data has valid implications for one of our arguments. “My understanding is that there needs to be enough time for the decay to be detected. Your objections are so bizarre sometimes” You couldn’t help yourself. You are not filtering your arguments for assumptions – and you’re expressing generalisations as statements of fact. Isn’t the point of carbon dating to determine the age of the material? And again, the machines don’t detect decay; they detect absolute amounts of chemicals. In carbon dating, those chemicals are available in detectable amounts at the point of death (in many other methods, there is often the assumption of no daughter isotope at the time of formation – but that’s not a problem for carbon dating. In fact the C14 is theoretically at the highest amount at the point of death – and subsequently reduces/decays). The ratios may not be significantly different from the context of death – by which, according to carbon dating theory, we could assume that the death was recent. There is no reason that those chemical measurements can’t still be placed into the appropriate formula. The problem arises when you don’t bother carbon dating material because you assume it’s already too old. That introduces a long-age bias into the process and skews the data towards this assumption (i.e. only using methods that give you the range you want).

I wrote a response to each of yours; but then unfortunately came to this at the end. Is this an accurate summary of your thinking: 1) Genesis is about the beginning 2) God would never inspire a work about the beginning which presupposed content later to come; because those events haven’t yet occurred. And Genesis is obviously a history book meeting the modern criterion of history. There is no question here of it being anything other than a historical account of the Universe. 3) Therefore, there is no reason to read ahead. Genesis is needed to make sense of Ex-Dt.. But Ex-Dt. is not necessary for appropriately reading Genesis. If so, then there is no point for further discussion. All of that is a faith based assumption, assuming the genre of Genesis and how God would write it, “Well, if I were God, I certainly would write it this way; therefore it is written this way”. And of course I cannot disprove an assumption based on faith by the text (though references in Genesis to the future time of the author render it highly implausible; obviously the author has the present in mind when writing on the past). I think this position illogical and it imposes questionable controls on how God can and cannot inspire a document. But it does not seem likely to me that someone who holds that view would ever loosen his grip enough to give another view a fair hearing. So once again, perhaps it is best to leave it. clb Hey CLB, I think the problem with your assessment of my position is that you are being anachronistic. I am not predetermining how the text was written; I am determining how the text was written through actually reading it. It is true that responsible Christians employ logical interpretation safeguards against the human tendency to read their own ideas into the text. This is necessary to maintain logical consistency with the faith assumption that the Bible is the Word of God – and therefore has authority superior to any human idea. Your “summary” of my “thinking” is a decontextualized, overly-generalised, mischaracterisation of my position. I’m not sure why my position is “illogical”. It seems to me to be overwhelmingly, logically sound that, in our attempt to determine the author’s intent, we should give the author’s own words the highest authority. What I find logically questionable is the concept that we can interpret the Word of God however we choose – i.e. subject the intent of the omniscient Deity to the whims of finite, fallible humans. Therefore sincere believers employ logical methods to guard against our desire to hijack God’s Word (i.e. to guard against our tendency to make the Bible say what we want rather than what it actually says). These methods are mainly common sense; such as using exegesis and not eisegesis, interpreting the meaning of scripture within its own grammatical context etc. All we are assuming is that God is a rational, logical Being. If that assumption is false, then the entire reliance of our faith upon scripture is pointless and any appeal to scripture at all is meaningless. Whether you decide to “leave it” or not is your call. I’m not frustrated by the conversation. I think my main goal is to convey to you the idea that when a person is convinced that God is real and that the Bible is His Word, we do not permit ourselves the luxury of a liberal approach to scripture. We don’t consider ourselves to have the right to mitigate any of God’s Word based on the existence of some external idea. Based on the propaganda surrounding the secular models of history, I can understand why some Christians may feel obligated to find a way to mitigate Genesis however, on personal extensive study of Genesis, I have found no objective reason to think the author of Genesis meant anything other than what is written. The evidence in the text points to an historical account. I am happy to entertain other ideas, but the text itself remains my highest authority. Furthermore, on formal studies into the secular models of history, I have found no objective reason for any Christian to feel obliged to accept them as more reliable than the Biblical account. Hmmm. Remember, My "summary" was placed in the form of a question. So the real answer would be "no" or "not quite". I don't know what you mean by a "liberal approach"; but I do believe in God and believe that the Bible conveys salvific history (though i would say it is God's Word, I refrain from using that label since it has so many connotations). I don't think my interpretation "mitigates" Genesis whatsoever (what would that even mean? In my mind real "mitigation" would be an interpretation that excludes: Creation ex-nihilo; monotheism; Man as imago Dei; the Fall. I don't see how questioning whether the story of the snake is true history or fable mitigates Genesis. If at the end of the day we are left with the doctrines just now named, what has been lost? Perhaps the chief problem is that we are speaking in the abstract with very few (if any) real examples of what I mean. But, once more, if you don't allow other documents written by Moses to help interpret Genesis, then my hands are tied. I am arguing that Moses wrote all 5 of the Pentateuch and that Scripture should interpret Scripture: this does not go against the principle of authorial intent; it does, however, goes against he assumption that the Genesis account in no way is influenced by the present time of the author. That is the linchpin of my argument. Without it, I have nothing except a few word studies from Genesis, and curiosities about Eden, the garden of Eden, and their relation to the land; but even these point beyond Genesis 1 and 2 and so they are, under your restrictions, out of court. Hence, I questioned whether there was a point to this discussion. But to maintain good will, I pose a question. In JOsephus we find a commentary to this extent (my Josephus is elsewhere, so I paraphrase) "every element in the temple is meant to point the mind to Creation". Now, what would one make of this? Should such a sentence be dismissed because it is not from the Bible? Does it impel studies in any direction? clb Hey CLB, you said; “Hmmm. Remember, My "summary" was placed in the form of a question. So the real answer would be "no" or "not quite".” Or the answer I gave. “I don't know what you mean by a "liberal approach"” - An approach that removes the primary emphasis of authority away from the words of the text being interpreted. “I don't think my interpretation "mitigates" Genesis whatsoever (what would that even mean? In my mind real "mitigation" would be an interpretation that excludes: Creation ex-nihilo; monotheism; Man as imago Dei; the Fall.” In my mind mitigation means that the first 2 chapters of Genesis are taken to not mean what they say in their grammatical context – but rather, most of the explicit details are waylaid to accommodate some tenuous symbolic link to an as-yet, non-mentioned concept. “I don't see how questioning whether the story of the snake is true history or fable mitigates Genesis” So by your standards, we now have the right to determine certain scriptures to be untrue? Yet the account of the fall of Adam provides the philosophical foundation for how such a cruel and corrupt reality could stem from the hands of such a good and benevolent Creator. It also supplies the foundation of God’s holding humanity accountable for that corruption; and the subsequent requirement of a Saviour to save us from the just consequences of that corruption. If death and corruption existed before humanity, then God made an horrific, “survival of the fittest”, reality where humans are unjustly held accountable (with the severest possible consequences) for corruption that pre-existed them. You don’t see how that might make someone pause at the inconsistency between their reality, and the God of the Bible? Christians cannot simply decide what they want and don’t want to believe. Such an approach to scripture undermines the logical legitimacy of the entire belief system. “if you don't allow other documents written by Moses to help interpret Genesis, then my hands are tied” You’ve become fixated on an irrelevant point. So here’s what really happened – you started a discussion implying that outside sources should have influence over how we interpret scripture – but with the caveat of not subjecting scriptural interpretation to the influence of outside sources. Then I pointed out that if we allow outside sources to have influence over how we interpret scripture, we are in fact, subjecting the interpretation of scripture to the influence of those outside sources. Then you adjusted your wording so that the initial influence of the outside source was restricted to prompting a re-examination of scripture - with no further influence permitted. Then I suggested that Genesis (which by all reasonable standards is the foundational document of our scriptures – and therefore has no logical requirement for antecedent information) provides us with a unique opportunity to objectively re-examine the scriptures; independently of the influence of any outside sources whatsoever. Now you have reverted to your original argument of permitting outside influences authority over how we interpret scripture – so this aspect of the discussion has become irrelevant. “ In JOsephus we find a commentary to this extent (my Josephus is elsewhere, so I paraphrase) "every element in the temple is meant to point the mind to Creation". Now, what would one make of this? Should such a sentence be dismissed because it is not from the Bible? Does it impel studies in any direction?” Let’s consider what you are asking me to take to God; considering that, as a Christian, I take God seriously when He says “do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt 10:28). “Dear God, I have decided that there are parts of Genesis that I don’t have to take seriously because a group of people, most of whom hold a default atheistic or naturalistic faith, have come up with an alternative story to account for the history of reality. Since I have decided that their story is more believable than what is actually written in Genesis, I have come up with some tenuous symbolic link between the early chapters of Genesis and Solomon’s temple, and can therefore disregard the some of the specifics of the Genesis account in order to maintain consistency with the secular account – but please don’t interpret this as me distrusting Your words, or subjugating the authority of Your words to outside influences.” It is not my intention or motivation to criticise you or your position, however, I honestly don’t understand how this approach could be reconciled with a sincere conscience towards God. - So to Josephus’ claim; Firstly, any such claim would need to be thoroughly supported by scripture before given any credence or doctrinal authority (I suspect Josephus didn’t just state this claim and move on). Furthermore, I have no general issue with the creation account being the antecedent for a temple analogy; though, as with any claim of typology, I would need some fairly specific scriptures to back it up (i.e. with the proposed concept found in those scriptures; not read into them). For example, I would be more inclined to interpret the temple as an antecedent to Jesus’ sacrifice providing a covering for sin and providing access to the Holy of Holies – as these concepts are mentioned abundantly together in scripture (especially the New Testament). But I would not take any of those related passages to suggest that any of the initial references to the temple details be set aside as “fable”.

I wrote a response to each of yours; but then unfortunately came to this at the end. Is this an accurate summary of your thinking: 1) Genesis is about the beginning 2) God would never inspire a work about the beginning which presupposed content later to come; because those events haven’t yet occurred. And Genesis is obviously a history book meeting the modern criterion of history. There is no question here of it being anything other than a historical account of the Universe. 3) Therefore, there is no reason to read ahead. Genesis is needed to make sense of Ex-Dt.. But Ex-Dt. is not necessary for appropriately reading Genesis. If so, then there is no point for further discussion. All of that is a faith based assumption, assuming the genre of Genesis and how God would write it, “Well, if I were God, I certainly would write it this way; therefore it is written this way”. And of course I cannot disprove an assumption based on faith by the text (though references in Genesis to the future time of the author render it highly implausible; obviously the author has the present in mind when writing on the past). I think this position illogical and it imposes questionable controls on how God can and cannot inspire a document. But it does not seem likely to me that someone who holds that view would ever loosen his grip enough to give another view a fair hearing. So once again, perhaps it is best to leave it. clb Hey CLB, I think the problem with your assessment of my position is that you are being anachronistic. I am not predetermining how the text was written; I am determining how the text was written through actually reading it. It is true that responsible Christians employ logical interpretation safeguards against the human tendency to read their own ideas into the text. This is necessary to maintain logical consistency with the faith assumption that the Bible is the Word of God – and therefore has authority superior to any human idea. Your “summary” of my “thinking” is a decontextualized, overly-generalised, mischaracterisation of my position. I’m not sure why my position is “illogical”. It seems to me to be overwhelmingly, logically sound that, in our attempt to determine the author’s intent, we should give the author’s own words the highest authority. What I find logically questionable is the concept that we can interpret the Word of God however we choose – i.e. subject the intent of the omniscient Deity to the whims of finite, fallible humans. Therefore sincere believers employ logical methods to guard against our desire to hijack God’s Word (i.e. to guard against our tendency to make the Bible say what we want rather than what it actually says). These methods are mainly common sense; such as using exegesis and not eisegesis, interpreting the meaning of scripture within its own grammatical context etc. All we are assuming is that God is a rational, logical Being. If that assumption is false, then the entire reliance of our faith upon scripture is pointless and any appeal to scripture at all is meaningless. Whether you decide to “leave it” or not is your call. I’m not frustrated by the conversation. I think my main goal is to convey to you the idea that when a person is convinced that God is real and that the Bible is His Word, we do not permit ourselves the luxury of a liberal approach to scripture. We don’t consider ourselves to have the right to mitigate any of God’s Word based on the existence of some external idea. Based on the propaganda surrounding the secular models of history, I can understand why some Christians may feel obligated to find a way to mitigate Genesis however, on personal extensive study of Genesis, I have found no objective reason to think the author of Genesis meant anything other than what is written. The evidence in the text points to an historical account. I am happy to entertain other ideas, but the text itself remains my highest authority. Furthermore, on formal studies into the secular models of history, I have found no objective reason for any Christian to feel obliged to accept them as more reliable than the Biblical account.

Like I said the research from Purdue seems to indicate that there can be slight changes [changes less than 1% right?]. I don't see a reason to whole hog toss radio metric dating. I don't believe all isotopes were tested so I'm not so sure we can use such a broad brush and declare them suspect. I thought this only applied to beta decay anyways? I don't know what method they used to determine the distance. Here is the research paper, the section that applies starts with [Radioactivity lines]: http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/9912131v1.pdf Which brings up a point, I actually haven't seen any research on this marine carbon dating example. I focused on it because it sounds fishy to begin with. I heard this years ago when I was a Christian. Later on I revisited it and read some of the fundamentals on carbon dating. I realized then that I had been conned by the Pastor. I don't know what mistake you are referring to. I thing you're being a little dramatic. I've agreed with you on multiple occasions. I gave you a shot with regard to the penguin nonsense because it's deserved. And this is a perfect segue to an issue that I feel you didn't address. Based on the strict rules you have to attaining confidence in historical claims, how in the world did you come to determine the Bible was the written word of God. I know it's your faith, I'm not asking that. I'm asking how you were able to shift from non-belief to belief on historical claims that are pretty phenomenal? You asked where I based my statement, I provide the exact link and now you're bashing me? I never said the RATE research was bogus, I DO however have an issue where you employ magic to deal with a problem. Even if you showed that something wasn't 450 million years old, it DOES NOT support a young earth. All it does is cast doubt on something being 450 million years old. You have a whole lot more work ahead if you assert the earth is merely 10k or less. I wouldn't say it is. If we understand why the various anomalies occur then we can look to see if it makes complete sense why the dates are off. I don't understand why this is an issue. I've just started reading the book "Nature's clock" by MacDougall, I hope to learn more about radiometric dating and perhaps learn more about what we're talking about. You carbon date dead [not recently dead either] organic matter. I would imagine they have ways to determine what is a good candidate for carbon dating and what isn't. The RATE team seems to have no issue agreeing that there does appear to be vast amounts of radio decay. I haven't read their reports however. Hey Bonky, you said, “Like I said the research from Purdue seems to indicate that there can be slight changes [changes less than 1% right?]” Who is Purdue? I suggested you look for evidence of external forces influencing decay rates – and good for you, you apparently found some. There is an important point of logic that I apparently haven’t gotten across to you (though I have tried) – If any claim is fundamentally reliant upon the truth of an assumption, and that assumption is found to be unreliable, then the claim is logically undone. It’s fairly simple logic which applies in all contexts (not just dating methods). Now the radiometric decay dating methods rely fundamentally upon the assumption that decay rates proceed consistently, unaffected since the formation of the material. You have found evidence that this assumption cannot be relied upon; that decay rates can change in certain contexts. Therefore, the methods and subsequent claims are rendered logically unreliable. The amount of “changes” found in this specific research is irrelevant. It was previously believed that radiometric decay was immune to all change. Then further research, some of which you seem to have found, demonstrated that moderate changes to decay rates can occur. Perhaps later research will illuminate other mechanisms with greater impacts on decay rates – or perhaps not (I think RATE may have come across something like this in lab conditions). The point is – you have found a deviation from one of the assumptions supporting radiometric dating. Therefore we cannot place any legitimate confidence in any outcome that relies on these methods. In symbolic terms – this evidence pulls the logical rug from under the feet of radiometric dating. “I don't see a reason to whole hog toss radio metric dating” Logically and scientifically – that’s exactly what it represents. There is an anecdote about Einstein being criticised by 100 German scientists for his “Jewish science” – Einstein’s apparent response was “They don’t need 100 scientists; all they need is one paper”. That’s how science works. If a fact undermines a fundamental assumption, then you can’t just dismiss the evidence as, “Well it probably works most of the time – don’t throw the baby out with the bath water etc.” “I don't know what method they used to determine the distance. Here is the research paper, the section that applies starts with [Radioactivity lines]: http://xxx.lanl.gov/...h/9912131v1.pdf” I wish this was a published paper – the format makes it hard to track down the references. It doesn’t really explain how decay rates are measured through gamma ray observations (which themselves only indicate that decay has occurred). There are a couple of sentences of statement (in section 2.1), rather than explanation. I’ll have to brush up on my nuclear physics and track down the references to see if they can shed a little more light on your claim. I think perhaps the nature of your claim may misunderstand the creationist argument anyway. We are not proposing that the laws of physics have changed, only that decay rates can be affected by external sources – which contradicts a fundamental assumption of radiometric dating (that decay rates have proceeded at a consistent, unaffected rate since the formation of the tested material). So then, ignoring for a moment, the massively assumptive base of determining history of a supernova by extrapolating current observations backwards - measuring the actual decay rates in such an event would not only be indirect and presumptive, but also have no bearing on my claim. Note also that the article was very cautious and highly theoretical – making it fairly clear that the real test of their claims would be in future research; as instruments become more accurate. The article was authored in 1999 - It would be interesting to look at some of the subsequent research in this area. The article also spelled out the initial-condition assumptions required for the method to be valid (section 2, para 1) – which of course cannot be directly observed or verified. So as it stands, there are a lot of serious logical gaps that your theory hasn’t accounted for (or at least not in the evidence you’ve presented). “Which brings up a point, I actually haven't seen any research on this marine carbon dating example. I focused on it because it sounds fishy to begin with” Nice. “I heard this years ago when I was a Christian. Later on I revisited it and read some of the fundamentals on carbon dating. I realized then that I had been conned by the Pastor” I am assuming we are still talking about the marine example. My question to you is – were you really being “conned”? Is it possible that the Pastor’s information was simply out-of-date, or not supported by due diligence? “Conned” implies an intentional misleading – so you are jumping to judgement regarding a person’s motives when it is possible that they may have been sincerely wrong. I wasn’t there so I can’t know either way, but this is a pattern that I have observed in you during our discussions; a default (ad-hominem) appeal to the motives of an opponent. Did you go back to the Pastor with your new information and give them a chance to reconsider their position – or did you simply write them off as intrinsically dishonest? So where does that leave me? What if I do make a mistake – does that automatically reinforce your perception of creationists as dishonest or inept? That’s not how a rational discussion is supposed to work. It’s certainly not how objectivity works. “I don't know what mistake you are referring to” I’m not referring to a specific mistake. I’m referring to your tendency to jump on any potential mistake (or even disagreement) and interpret it as dishonesty on my part. That appears to be your MO. That puts me on eggshells – since I already recognize that my knowledge is imperfect. I occasionally ‘misspeak’ or don’t express my thoughts as succinctly as I might like. Sometimes my information might be out-of-date. So I don’t think this default, ad-hominem approach is conducive to a rational discussion. “I feel that I try to filter through the information that I'm presented with and try not to adopt nonsense” I’m glad that’s your goal. Unfortunately, in all our conversations so far, you have demonstrated a propensity for impenetrable confirmation bias. On several occasions, you have refused to subject your own position to the same standards you require of creationists, you have been explicit that you feel no obligation to consider any argument beyond the naturalistic position, you have been dismissive of any attempt to explain the evidence beyond the naturalistic account, you have consistently failed to separate the empirical form the theoretical in your analysis, and you have abundantly resorted to logical fallacy to distract from consideration of arguments. Even the tenor of your previous question resorts to ridiculous measures to mischaracterise creationists – and based on nothing at all. “I thing you're being a little dramatic. I've agreed with you on multiple occasions. I gave you a shot with regard to the penguin nonsense because it's deserved” I’m not sure what “penguin nonsense” you are referring to. I was referring to the extensive conversations we have had in this and another post – and the patterns I have observed in your arguments. “And this is a perfect segue to an issue that I feel you didn't address. Based on the strict rules you have to attaining confidence in historical claims, how in the world did you come to determine the Bible was the written word of God. I know it's your faith, I'm not asking that. I'm asking how you were able to shift from non-belief to belief on historical claims that are pretty phenomenal?” Firstly, I make a distinction between scientific confidence and faith (another type of confidence). I am careful not to claim scientific confidence in the Biblical model as this would be Affirming the Consequent (as much so as scientific confidence in secular models). I’m not going to pretend to know the inner mechanisms of faith. At the right time of my life I heard a sermon on a particular prophecy and its fulfilment - which was enough to convince me about the reality of God and the reliability of the Bible. Over time, my own personal study and experience have overwhelmingly, consistently and continually reaffirmed to me the validity of those initial beliefs (including a necessary re-examination of everything I had been taught during my secular upbringing). The “phenomenal” aspects of my faith can be rationally supported through modelling – as is the case for every claim that cannot be directly observed. To me, the claims of Standard Cosmology, Abiogenesis and Common Ancestry are equally “phenomenal” – given the underlying logic and standard of evidence used to support them. “Scientists say ‘billions of years’” and they might just as well be Old Testament prophets saying ‘Thus saith the Lord’ – the way people simply fall in line without due consideration. That is also faith. “You asked where I based my statement, I provide the exact link and now you're bashing me?” Is that what I’m doing? Or was I merely pointing out your propensity of seeking an ad-hominem ‘out’, rather than considering opposing arguments. “If we understand why the various anomalies occur then we can look to see if it makes complete sense why the dates are off. I don't understand why this is an issue” What do you mean by “If we understand why the various anomalies occur”? If anomalies occur, how can we legitimately determine the “anomalies” from the ‘good dates’ (I’m sure if you think about it, you can figure out how they actually do this)? It’s “an issue” because your logic renders the method immune to scrutiny. If we don’t get the results we want – we can just assume that something messed with the sample prior to testing. “You carbon date dead [not recently dead either] organic matter. I would imagine they have ways to determine what is a good candidate for carbon dating and what isn't” Yes, “they have ways to determine what is a good candidate for carbon dating” - It’s called presupposition. Why not “recently dead” – and how recent is “recently” – and how do we know how “recently dead” the sample is before we’ve had a chance to test it etc.? As I explained, they wouldn’t bother to carbon date a fossil that was presupposed to be over a million years old. Ergo – there is intrinsic bias in the process; even in the choosing of the specific method.

obviously that will not work. If I tell you I can bench two hundred, and you say prove it, then tie my hands together, you havn't refuted my claim. You've just cleverly changed the rules so that I have to fail. My claim was that science can prompt a reexamination of Scripture; you added what that reexamination can and can't consist of. That was never part of my proposal. Reexamination means using all the tools pertinent to the topic. You are asking me to treat literature as no literature should be treated, at least to any purpose. No pre-conceptions!! I cannot return to infancy. Is it a preconception that light typically comes from a luminous source? Is looking at the Hebrew a pre-conception because it is not my native tongue. For that matter, is it a pre-conception to conceive "day" as a 24 hour period? Maybe back then a "day" was much longer. Now we've opened the door to day/age, which I think both of us would reject. Your entire claim that Genesis should be read without reference ahead is artificial. Who is to say that Genesis was written first? Because it comes first in our Bibles? Then we should say Matthew was written before Mark and all the gospels before Paul. When I open up Exodus the first thing I see Moses writing is the law-covenant. Why should that not be a starting point? But even so: Genesis 1 has the world made in 6 days, Genesis 2.4 opens up with it being a day. Again (but I have been over this so many times), in Genesis 2.18 God declares it is not good for man to be alone. He declares he will make a helper fit for him. What is the next thing he does...makes birds and beasts (not had made, but made). clb (I wonder if I should just give it a rest). Hey CLB, you said, “My claim was that science can prompt a reexamination of Scripture; you added what that reexamination can and can't consist of. That was never part of my proposal. Reexamination means using all the tools pertinent to the topic” If that re-examination permits outside ideas to determine the meaning of scripture, then you are subjecting the interpretation of scripture to those ideas – the very thing which you are so adamant that you are not doing. “You are asking me to treat literature as no literature should be treated, at least to any purpose” To establish the intent of the author, I am contending that we should read what the author has written. I’m not sure how that represents a mistreatment of literature. “No pre-conceptions!! I cannot return to infancy” No – but you are surely intelligent enough to distinguish whether or not the text actually says what you have interpreted to be the meaning. i.e. is that idea actually contained in the text – or is it something I have attributed to the text from some outside source? “Is it a preconception that light typically comes from a luminous source?” No – this concept is implicitly redundant; given the definitions of “light” and “luminous”. “Is looking at the Hebrew a pre-conception because it is not my native tongue” No – Since Hebrew is the language of the written account, examining the Hebrew is deriving information from the text. “is it a pre-conception to conceive "day" as a 24 hour period?” No – the word “day” has a basic, understood definition. Any departure from that definition would have to be determined by the context. “Maybe back then a "day" was much longer” That is the reason why eisogesis is not permitted as a valid interpretation technique. “Maybe” any scripture that we are uncomfortable with actually means something else. The scripture no longer has any authority – because anything we disagree with can be undermined by “maybe” it means something else. That standard is not satisfactory for anyone truly believing the Bible to be the Word of God. There are interpretation standards (mainly common sense) that keep the Biblical doctrine safe from such nebulous subjectivity. One such standard is only permitting exegesis – i.e. only considering ideas to have Biblical authority if they are actually contained in the Biblical text. “Your entire claim that Genesis should be read without reference ahead is artificial” That is not actually my claim – it was my response to your “the only influence I am allowing to science: the impulse to reexamine...not what we will find” claim. This seemed to me like a call to objective analysis – which I applaud. So I suggested a properly objective re-examination – making every sincere attempt to ascertain the author’s intent apart from preconception (i.e. without the prompting and influence of any outside source). Unfortunately, you apparently meant “the only influence I am allowing to science: the impulse to re-examine” and influence over the outcome. However as soon as you permit outside ideas any influence over how you interpret scriptures, you subject the authority of scripture to these ideas. No matter how much you protest that it’s not your intention – that’s what is occurring. It boils down to two interpretation strategies; 1) your strategy of determining the intent of the author by applying ideas that don’t actually exist in the manuscript, and 2) my strategy of determining the intent of the author by reading what the author has actually written. Appealing to the original language falls neatly into the purview of my strategy. “Who is to say that Genesis was written first? Because it comes first in our Bibles?” - And because it is titled “Genesis” – which means beginnings/origins etc. - And because it’s content deals with the beginning of the universe/earth/humanity – providing the historical context and philosophical doctrinal foundation for the rest of scripture. Jesus spoke of creation as the beginning (Mk 10:6). So the order of writing is barely relevant. I think a more pertinent question is why wouldn’t we consider Genesis to be the first book of the Bible? How do those arguments compare to my above argument? “Then we should say Matthew was written before Mark and all the gospels before Paul” The content and historical context is more important than the order of writing. “When I open up Exodus the first thing I see Moses writing is the law-covenant. Why should that not be a starting point?” - Because the content and historical context of Genesis precedes that contained in Exodus. “Genesis 1 has the world made in 6 days, Genesis 2.4 opens up with it being a day.Again (but I have been over this so many times), in Genesis 2.18 God declares it is not good for man to be alone. He declares he will make a helper fit for him. What is the next thing he does...makes birds and beasts (not had made, but made)” Is that really what it says? Read it again. Now read Genesis 2 after Genesis 1. I would suggest to you that anyone who had read Genesis 1 would not make the assumptions you are making about Genesis 2 (apart from external motivations). The tense of “formed” (or “made”) is somewhat obscure in relation to the immediate context (though both are implicitly past-tense in the absence of context), but when Genesis 1 is considered, not only is the order of creation explicit, but the language determining order is also explicit. Your assumptions regarding the order of events in Genesis 2 only stand if you, for some reason, eject Genesis 1 from the account – i.e. remove the account from its intended context. Decontextualizing is also considered bad interpretation methodology – and not just for scripture.

Right but I was saying this is irrelevant to other dating methods. I thought they have tried and found only incredibly small impacts on decay rates. Nothing that would make any significant impact. Supernovae produce radioactive isotopes correct? The gamma ray frequencies and intensities produced by the radioactive elements in the supernova remains change in the same predictable way that they do here on earth. So for the supernova SN1987A which is 169,000 lightyears away...we can conclude in this case that the decay rates weren't different 169K years ago. We are looking at the past when we observe stars. I know I know, we don't have a spaceship and a tape measure 169K lightyears long. I wasn't the one who brought up carbon dating specifically. My understanding is that we have other dating methods that are "immune" so to speak to the issues that arise with carbon dating. I tend to notice that creationists spend much more time criticizing carbon dating because they know in advance that there are known environmental issues that can affect the dating of a sample. They just don't usually tell the audience that scientists are well aware of the limitations and the issues that can arise. That's the point I'm making Tristen! Why did they choose a marine animal knowing full well that we wouldn't have to worry about a reservoir effect with a terrestrial one. It reeks of purposely choosing a method we could predict will cause false dates and then pretending that this isn't what we would expect. To be honest, I don't know first hand what would happen if you carbon date a living mammal for instance. I don't know if the machinery is geared to spit out a measurement of 0 in that case. Because we have episodes where they do things like carbon date living creatures from the ocean and report *gasp* inaccurate readings. Wait a minute, did you read the article I'm referring to? I feel that I try to filter through the information that I'm presented with and try not to adopt nonsense. I can recall many times when I've heard an atheist go on about Christianity and I knew their argument was illogical and unsound. I have no interest in believing things that are false I can assure you of that. After reading this from you, what I find interesting is that somehow you were able to have assessed the bible as the word of God [which is final authority and unquestionable]. So I'm curious how you were able to attain this level of confidence with historical claims made in the Bible that you have very little [if at all] direct data on. You are so cautious to give credence to historical claims but you managed to determine that the Bible is the word of God?? Easy there, I got this from ICR's website. Don't be so quite to assume I just parrot something from talk origins. http://www.icr.org/article/rate-review-unresolved-problems/ Check out the "heat problem". "The RATE group is confident that the accelerated decay they discovered was not only caused by God, but that the necessary removal of heat was also superintended by Him as well." At this moment you aren't being a very thoughtful person. I actually posted this already in this thread once [page 1] and thought you already knew what I'd be referencing. Item number 1 right away is useless. Once again instead of SUPPORTING the argument for young earth they try to cast doubt on millions of years. Even if true, this doesn't make the Earth "young". I see some other items in there [biological evidences] that try to cast doubt on the ancient dates given to this or that. What does that have to do with the earth being young? I'll peruse through the geological evidences in the near future. Part of the issue is I don't know what the ratio is of "expected results" vs. "unexpected results". If we often get results that we would predict, [using the logic behind radiometric dating] then I'd say when we come across times when the dates aren't as expected AND we can account for why that would be, we can be confident in the process. I'm told that we can even use two different dating methods on one sample and often see dates that are very similar. Right and what I'm asking is, given the amounts...and the rate at which we observe decay presently, how would you account for this in a young earth? This is all I have time for now, I have to run! I'll post more later. I do appreciate your time Tristen. Hey Bonky, you said “I thought they have tried and found only incredibly small impacts on decay rates. Nothing that would make any significant impact” What constitutes a “significant impact” is subjective. The point is that any impact undermines the assumption that decay rates have been unaffected since the material formed. This logically undermines one of the fundamental assumptions of these dating methods. Remembering that these methods are used to extrapolate ages into billions of years of history – so if we find that the assumptions are non-universal, we can no longer rely on that method. When you logically remove an assumption supporting a claim, the claim becomes meaningless – at least that’s how it works in every other discipline of science and philosophy. Even if it is claimed to work most of the time, the reality is that we cannot determine the difference between a valid and invalid result. We therefore cannot legitimately trust any result. The scientific integrity of any method requires that the underlying assumptions be correct for every test. Since the assumptions are known to not be universally correct, the method can never be considered reliable. The accuracy of each test can only be established if the age of the material is already known – in which case, the test is redundant anyway (except when testing the assumptions of the method). “Supernovae produce radioactive isotopes correct? The gamma ray frequencies and intensities produced by the radioactive elements in the supernova remains change in the same predictable way that they do here on earth. So for the supernova SN1987A which is 169,000 lightyears away...we can conclude in this case that the decay rates weren't different 169K years ago. We are looking at the past when we observe stars. I know I know, we don't have a spaceship and a tape measure 169K lightyears long” So you are not “looking at the past when we observe stars”, you are looking at photons of light as they reach our eyes/instruments, then making assumptions about the history of those photons – based on some assumed properties of light over massively large distances. So at the outset, you are employing uniformitarian assumptions to determine the history of the light back to its source. How is the “change” of the “radioactive elements” determined from this evidence? Can you source the research so I can have a look at what you are claiming (the research determining the distance of SN1987a and the research measuring the “radioactive elements” from the supernova and comparing them to earth elements)? “My understanding is that we have other dating methods that are "immune" so to speak to the issues that arise with carbon dating” Yes – each method has assumptions that are specific to that method. But all dating methods rely on at least the three common assumptions I have mentioned in the previous post – i.e. the initial condition/context of the tested material, the consistent rates of some systematic process, and the integrity of the sample over time since its formation. “I tend to notice that creationists spend much more time criticizing carbon dating because they know in advance that there are known environmental issues that can affect the dating of a sample. They just don't usually tell the audience that scientists are well aware of the limitations and the issues that can arise” Well I can only speak for myself. I think the secular scientists are just as guilty of glossing over these “limitations” when dealing with their “audience”. So it is perfectly rational for creationists to point these “limitations” out when big bold claims are being made without mention of these “issues”. And the act of being “well aware” of the “issues” doesn’t mitigate the impact of these “issues” on the claims. “That's the point I'm making Tristen! Why did they choose a marine animal knowing full well that we wouldn't have to worry about a reservoir effect with a terrestrial one. It reeks of purposely choosing a method we could predict will cause false dates and then pretending that this isn't what we would expect” I think we need to return to the context of my response. I simply listed data sets that I have observed that have caused me to question the integrity of carbon dating. You have latched on to one example (the marine example) and have gotten carried away with unspecified assumptions about who did the research and their motives and integrity. I think you are experiencing target blindness with this example. The specific example I was referring to I read so long ago that I don’t remember these details. Maybe it was before the reservoir effect was discovered – for all I remember, they may have factored in the reservoir effect – I suppose I can look it up if you need it. But I also provided terrestrial examples with the same issues – which are easily sourced in the literature; and which were absolutely not creationists. “I don't know first hand what would happen if you carbon date a living mammal for instance. I don't know if the machinery is geared to spit out a measurement of 0 in that case” Well for starters, the “machinery” doesn’t spit out an 'date'. It measures absolute amounts of chemicals in the sample (it might have some associated software that does the calculations – but if I sent a sample away to a lab, I would need the raw data back). I have no problem whatsoever with you questioning any claim. My issue is that you cast aspersions on creationists without providing supporting arguments. You expect standards of creationists that are beyond what is found in secular science journals. So you’re not actually considering arguments – but disparaging creationists prior to such consideration. That demonstrates a lack of objectivity. “Because we have episodes where they do things like carbon date living creatures from the ocean and report *gasp* inaccurate readings” Is that what I did – have an “episode”? How did you determine this? How do you even know the research was conducted by creationists – or even what research I was referring to? You’re like a dog with a bone – except in this case, there is no bone. This just reinforces my point that you are not even trying to be objective – you’re just overly anxious to latch onto anything that might paint creationists in a negative light. So where does that leave me? What if I do make a mistake – does that automatically reinforce your perception of creationists as dishonest or inept? That’s not how a rational discussion is supposed to work. It’s certainly not how objectivity works. “I feel that I try to filter through the information that I'm presented with and try not to adopt nonsense” I’m glad that’s your goal. Unfortunately, in all our conversations so far, you have demonstrated a propensity for impenetrable confirmation bias. On several occasions, you have refused to subject your own position to the same standards you require of creationists, you have been explicit that you feel no obligation to consider any argument beyond the naturalistic position, you have been dismissive of any attempt to explain the evidence beyond the naturalistic account, you have consistently failed to separate the empirical form the theoretical in your analysis, and you have abundantly resorted to logical fallacy to distract from consideration of arguments. Even the tenor of your previous question resorts to ridiculous measures to mischaracterise creationists – and based on nothing at all. I think these strategies impede objectivity – if that’s your goal. It’s really not necessary. The same logical weaknesses that I ascribe to the secular position also weaken my own position – so the only risk to you is that you may come to realise that alternative positions can also be rationally justified. You’ll never be forced to give up your position. “So I'm curious how you were able to attain this level of confidence with historical claims made in the Bible that you have very little [if at all] direct data on” I have as much data as the proponents of the secular models. In reality, it’s all the same facts – I just interpret those facts differently. “You are so cautious to give credence to historical claims but you managed to determine that the Bible is the word of God?” I have no problems attributing my trust in the reliability of scripture to faith. I have consistently acknowledged the role of faith presupposition in arguments supporting my position. It’s the other side’s failure to acknowledge their faith presupposition that leads to logically unjustified levels of scientific confidence. “I got this from ICR's website. Don't be so quite to assume I just parrot something from talk origins. http://www.icr.org/a...olved-problems/ Check out the "heat problem". "The RATE group is confident that the accelerated decay they discovered was not only caused by God, but that the necessary removal of heat was also superintended by Him as well."” I was not questioning your capacity to follow a link from the talkorigins website. I acknowledge that I’m making assumptions, but my assumptions are supported by the quality of your arguments. I haven’t studied the RATE project in any depth. So according to a cursory search I can ascertain that RATE is a project incorporating 8 years of experimental research producing copious amounts of data culminating in several research articles and scientific convention presentation proceedings. Based on this data, the RATE participants subsequently formulated a creationist model to account for radiometric decay. Then you come along and ‘find’ a one page (4 paragraph) non-technical article containing a brief summary, acknowledging and addressing in general terms some of the problems associated with their model – you then proceed to take a single line from that resource and use it to question the legitimacy of the entire project and its participants. This is classic ad-hominem – i.e. find a reason to be critical of the participants in order to justify ignoring their evidence and arguments. You are too eager to grab hold of anything you can find to paint creationists in a negative light; prior to considering arguments. That is why I question your capacity to be objective. “At this moment you aren't being a very thoughtful person. I actually posted this already in this thread once [page 1] and thought you already knew what I'd be referencing” I’m not sure how this makes me “unthoughtful”. The original post suffers from the same logical weakness as the latter post. The problem with all dating methods is the same for creationists – the reliance upon unverifiable assumption. Yes, there are many evidences that point to a young earth, but those all depend on making assumptions about the initial conditions, the systematic rates and systematic integrity of the facts used. Creationists acknowledge these assumptions. Find an older (2009) summarized example list here; < http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth> “Item number 1 right away is useless. Once again instead of SUPPORTING the argument for young earth they try to cast doubt on millions of years. Even if true, this doesn't make the Earth "young".” This again speaks to objectivity. The secular model separates the origins of the universe/earth and the origins of life, whereas the Biblical model considers the two to be part of a single creation event. So we are comparing the evidence against competing models. In this example, the most obvious interpretation of the facts is that the dinosaur lived less than 100,000 years ago. This is more consistent with the creationist model than the secular model which has these dinosaurs becoming extinct millions of years ago. The facts can be interpreted to support the creationist model which incorporates a young earth – ergo these facts can be interpreted to support a young earth. “Part of the issue is I don't know what the ratio is of "expected results" vs. "unexpected results"” That’s the problem – we can’t know the real ratio because much of the “unexpected” ‘ages’ don’t make it to the literature. “If we often get results that we would predict, [using the logic behind radiometric dating] then I'd say when we come across times when the dates aren't as expected AND we can account for why that would be, we can be confident in the process” Well my first question would be; ‘What constitutes “often”?’ Different methods likely have different strike rates. Is 30% enough, or 60 or 80 or 99%? Even at 99% - think about what that means in terms of absolute numbers of anomalies. In any other discipline, any anomalies have to be accounted for before the process can be considered reliable – why is radiometric dating immune to this logic? My second question is, ‘How can we “account for” anomalous ‘ages’ without the capacity to make the observations?’ Is there any experimental way to test the “account” of the anomaly – or is it just a matter of another “maybe” story? i.e Maybe the sample was contaminated by older rock or maybe some subsequent heating event messed with the isotopes. And what do we do when the derived ‘ages’ are outrageously beyond expectations? Well maybe there was some other form of contamination involved; before or since the sample’s formation, or in the collection or lab process – either way we can disregard it because we ‘know’ it can’t be right. Now if we disregard all of the ‘bad dates’, what are we left with? Check it out – we have universal agreement in the data. So we can now claim that all of the data points to the reliability of the method. In reality, until an anomaly can be experimentally accounted for, the existence of any anomaly undermines the logical integrity of the proposed method (at least in every other scientific discipline). “I'm told that we can even use two different dating methods on one sample and often see dates that are very similar” That happens. There are also many examples of differing dating methods giving different results. So can this calibration method be considered reliable when multiple methods sometimes agree and sometimes disagree? And how do you decide which method to use? Different methods are useful for different presumed ages. So you wouldn’t, for example, carbon date something that you presumed to be millions of years old – because you know that it’s a waste of time, because according to the fundamental principles of carbon dating, there will be no measurable C14 left in the sample after all that time. So even the chosen method demonstrates bias and introduces bias into the process. “Right and what I'm asking is, given the amounts...and the rate at which we observe decay presently, how would you account for this in a young earth?” I would incorporate assumptions about what happened in the past (i.e. theorize) into my model – then test the plausibility of those assumptions. I believe that’s what the RATE project did. Should we have a look at waht they found?

You’ve missed my point. You asked why I should let science even prompt me to reexamine Scripture. My point is, if I pick up a commentary, it will give an explanation of a certain passage, and that very fact means it has an influence on my reading of Scripture. Perhaps I will reject the interpretation, perhaps I will accept it. But it prompted my rethinking. I agree. I don’t think I have said anything to contradict this. To reexamine Scripture because the sciences say the earth is very old is acceptable. When YECs attack the scientists, they are, indirectly, allowing them to influence their reading of Scripture. There is nothing controversial in what I have proposed. What I have challenged is the a priori assumption that any new interpretation discovered, prompted by scientific claims, is merely an accommodation to the sciences and devoid of any substantial evidence. That is illogical. That is rather bold to say what I would or would not find. Now, when you say, “without appealing beyond these passages” are you saying that I cannot consult the rest of Scripture? Or ancient documents outside of Scripture? That is rather restrictive. After all, Scripture interprets Scripture, right? Pick up your Josephus and he will tell that the temple was, in all its features, intended to lead the mind to contemplate creation. That alone should warrant at least the curiosity in seeking temple motifs in the creation account, and creation elements in the Jewish temple. So let me know if I am allowed to consult the rest of Scripture, ancient documents, and, depending on your answer, I will provide evidence for the temple motif. No. I suppose I was talking with “tongue in cheek”. I do find it amusing when Christians denounce evolution as threatening to the imago dei, when the imago dei was created out of dirt! As if monkeys were a less respectable material cause than dirt. But no, I was certainly not deriving the theory of evolution from Adam’s creative process. Now come on. I am addressing issues arising in a thread that has touched upon the age of the earth. I thnk you are being too hard. And again, you are (or seem to be) demanding that I interpret Genesis 1 and 2 without consulting the rest of Genesis! Why? I really don’t get your point. I am saying that the ages mentioned later should not be added to the seven days of Genesis 1 (or the one day of Genesis 2) to give an age for the earth. clb Hey CLB, you said “My point is, if I pick up a commentary, it will give an explanation of a certain passage, and that very fact means it has an influence on my reading of Scripture” I don’t think any commentary should in any sense override an individual’s responsibility to examine the text for themselves. That would not be considered good interpretation practice. If the commentary makes a claim about a passage of scripture, the reader is responsible to the higher authority of the Bible – not the commentary. That is, the claims of the commentary must be justified in scripture. So it may “influence” the reading, but it has no authority in terms of interpretation. Here you use the term “influence” and in your OP you use “question the intended meaning”. That is a different construct to simply prompting a re-examination of the text. But the important point is the structure and quality of such re-examination. If a commentary tells us something that contradicts our current understanding of scripture, then we go to the scripture to see if that’s what it really says. If secular historical models tell us something that contradicts our current understanding of scripture, then we go to scripture to see if that’s what the scripture says. Secular history tells us that the universe and earth is massively ancient – stemming from a Big Bang/historical inflation/abiogenesis/Common Ancestor story of history. The Bible tells me that the universe arose through the special creation of an eternal Deity. And through measuring the specific information provided in the Bible, I am able to conclude that the creation is roughly 6000 years old. These are not compatible accounts of history. They are self-evidently, contrary - so one has to give way to the other. So the question becomes – whose meaning do we question? The natural response of a believer would be to trust the scripture and question the secular accounts. Those (even believers) who feel somehow obligated to secular history (or indoctrinated to believe that the secular account is the only rational, valid account) will try to make the Bible fit that account. “Perhaps I will reject the interpretation, perhaps I will accept it. But it prompted my rethinking” I have no problem with being “prompted” to rethink. But the outcome of that rethink has to be rationally justified in the context of the premise that the Bible is the highest authoritative communication from God to humanity. Disregarding what the scripture actually says – in deference to an outside influence doesn’t qualify as acceptable interpretation methodology. It is inconsistent with the premise of divine inspiration, Biblical inerrancy and the divine shielding of essential doctrine. “When YECs attack the scientists, they are, indirectly, allowing them to influence their reading of Scripture” Do we really “attack” them, or do you mean ‘when YECs have the gal to scrutinise scientific claims about unobserved history’? Any suggestion that any scientific claim is immune to scrutiny is a standard of faith – not science. I’m not really sure how they are “allowing them to influence their reading of Scripture”. “What I have challenged is the a priori assumption that any new interpretation discovered, prompted by scientific claims, is merely an accommodation to the sciences and devoid of any substantial evidence” From a Christian perspective, any “new interpretation” of scripture has to be justified in argument and evidence; within the premise that the Bible is God’s Word. The further you deviate from that authority, the less quality a Christian is going to afford any “new interpretation”. Any attempt to mitigate what is actually written in scripture is going to be viewed with rational suspicion by a Christian. No human system has the right to mitigate any of God's Word – not Christian commentaries, not preachers or theologians, and not secular historical claims. If the “new interpretation” mitigates what is actually written in the Bible because of some outside influence, then it is rational to assume that the Bible is being made subject to the authority of that outside influence – namely because that is exactly what is happening. The danger we must be vigilant to avoid is the propensity of interpreting scripture however we want. Permitting such nebulous interpretation methodology mitigates the authority of scripture to conform to human opinions – which is unacceptable for any sincere believer. The tendency to write-off uncomfortable scriptures as somehow symbolic is one of the methods commonly applied to undermine what is actually written. That is why claims of symbolism must be justified in the text itself. This is the safest way to establish and preserve the author’s original intent. “That is rather bold to say what I would or would not find. Now, when you say, “without appealing beyond these passages” are you saying that I cannot consult the rest of Scripture? Or ancient documents outside of Scripture? That is rather restrictive” The aim of the exercise was to read the text anew – setting aside all preconceptions (including those from previous studies of scripture). We are trying to figure out the author’s intent without appealing to influences outside of what we are reading – i.e. so we can avoid reading anything into the text that isn’t actually there. Genesis is the natural starting point in the Bible – so there is no antecedent information required. As with all communication, the best way to establish the author’s intent is by reading what it says. Along the way we can examine the clues from the text itself – e.g. are there obvious clues for symbolism (e.g. metaphors or similes, or prophetic context, or lyricism etc.), or is it written as an historical narrative? God intended the Bible for humans; to be understood by human readers. These clues should be recognisable by all readers. It was not written by the Riddler – only to be comprehended by those with some kind of special knowledge. That form of interpretation is called Gnosticism – and is considered a heretical methodology by Christians (because once again, the authority of scripture is subjected under this special knowledge). Under these conditions I can confidently claim that you will only find what is written in the text. “So let me know if I am allowed to consult the rest of Scripture, ancient documents, and, depending on your answer, I will provide evidence for the temple motif” My response was to you reducing your argument to allow secular claims to prompt a re-examination of Genesis – and no influence beyond that prompting. In response I proposed a simple re-examination of Genesis without any preconceptions whatsoever (which I would consider to be a valuable exercise for all of scripture). If we were dealing with Exodus, then we would need to consider the context of Genesis, but Genesis (the book of beginnings/origins) has no antecedent information. Though, Genesis 2 has to consider the context of information provided in Genesis 1 (i.e. in the two chapters we are considering; only preceding verses provide information pertinent to the author’s intent). As a rule of typology, additional information about what is meant is only valid if it is explicitly stated in later scriptures. “I am addressing issues arising in a thread that has touched upon the age of the earth. I thnk you are being too hard. And again, you are (or seem to be) demanding that I interpret Genesis 1 and 2 without consulting the rest of Genesis! Why? I really don’t get your point” Again – I am responding to your reduced claim that secular claims exert no more influence over scripture than to prompt a re-examination. My proposal is that an objective re-examination (free of any outside influence) is a better solution – i.e. clean the slate of all preconceptions and just read it as you would any other document. I consider that the safest way to establish the author’s intent. “I am saying that the ages mentioned later should not be added to the seven days of Genesis 1 (or the one day of Genesis 2) to give an age for the earth” Why not? Is there a reason from the basic reading of the text to assume that the days meant anything other than days? Is there any reason to assume that the Adam mentioned in Genesis 2 is different to the Adam of the very mathematically specific genealogies starting in Genesis 5? I think the text, as written, has the sixth day of the creation week as the first day of Adam’s 930 year life. I don’t see any obvious evidence in the text that the five previous days would mean anything other than days – when considered on their own merit, in their own context.

I'm aware that there are assumptions and no I reject your claim that "all methods" suffer from the same assumptions. Not all dating methods are affected by amounts of carbon in the atmosphere, 239U and other alpha-decaying radionuclides are unaffected by the physical state. We can see from supernovae [hundreds or millions of lightears away] the decay rates are no different than what we see here on Earth. The U-Pb method gives us two independent decay chains[235U and 238U]. So I can see why creationists focus so hard on carbon dating. So if this is truly your goal, why would you carbon date something that is known to cause dating issues due to this KNOWN reservoir issue?? It sounds like a dishonest tactic considering the people reading these articles probably aren't aware of this. I absolutely have every reason to question these claims from creationists. I don't know how many rebuttal articles I've read where someone went over the procedures undertaken by a creation "scientist" only to find out they didn't follow proper guidelines. The polonium halo report from Robert Gentry is an example [talk origins]. Okay sure we don't have a time machine to go back and take measurements and verify 100%, nobody is claiming 100% accuracy. We don't have 100% accuracy or confidence in anything at all, even reality. We could be brains in a vat! Just recognize that many many years before radio metric dating was around people were suspecting long ages after what they saw in their field research [James Hutton et al]. Later on radio metric dating confirms these vast ages albeit not with 100% accuracy. The RATE group's answer to all this radio decay in a 6000 year old Earth was "God must have done something with it" [essentially]. Do creationists have any dating method that consistently comes up with "young" ages? Or anything outside scripture? Okay, so in what ways are these decay rates supposed to vastly vary and by what source? We also have radio decay methods for open systems, I mentioned one above. You don't find it odd, that every single metric we have consistently shows vast ages? They're not all susceptible to the same variables mind you. It's not like the Bible predicts a 4 billion year old earth, the common age I hear is 6000 - 10k years! What are the chances that all these dating mechanisms are THAT far off? So you agree with the vast amount of decay we detect. How do you account for that in such a young earth? The RATE group used divine intervention. Sure, I'd be interested in looking at support for the creation model rather than spending so much time talking about wild hypotheticals in how the secular model might not be 100% accurate. Due to observed patterns/behaviors in the present we can make judgments about the past. I do however agree that not with 100% certainty. In the case of radiometric dating, I think it's well supported considering that there are many atomic clocks that are not susceptible to the same known possible issues. A 10k year old earth doesn't appear to be well supported in light of this. It is verified in a scientific sense, I mentioned the gamma ray decay rates were the same as observed in several supernovae. This lends credibility to the idea that the decay rates weren't different in the past. Maybe not to you but to others it is justified. I myself would reject the biblical model before trying to balance the biblical and secular model. I'm curious about the reading from volcanic material that you mentioned. Hey Bonky, you said “I'm aware that there are assumptions and no I reject your claim that "all methods" suffer from the same assumptions” In order to establish an age for something whose age was not observed, assumptions about the initial conditions and systemic rates and systemic integrity are required. Some methods require additional assumptions, but all rely on these basic ones. they provide the foundational logic for each method. “Not all dating methods are affected by amounts of carbon in the atmosphere” Are you being silly on purpose? Carbon in equilibrium is an additional assumption of the C14 dating method. “239U and other alpha-decaying radionuclides are unaffected by the physical state” Just because they are not affected by the atmosphere, doesn’t mean we can assume them to be unaffected by any external force. You should be asking yourself (and looking into) whether or not decay (even alpha decay) can be impacted by pressure, temperature, … even obscure possibilities such as exposure to neutrinos, gravity etc. The atmospheric carbon assumption only applies to the C14 method that claims to ‘date’ living creatures that exchange carbon with their environments. “We can see from supernovae [hundreds or millions of lightears away] the decay rates are no different than what we see here on Earth” Do you need me to break down the logic of that claim for you so that we can distinguish between what we actually “see”/observe, and what we are assuming? Explain to me the actual evidence, and what you think it means. “The U-Pb method gives us two independent decay chains[235U and 238U]. So I can see why creationists focus so hard on carbon dating” Is that what I’m doing? Should I take this innuendo to mean that you now understand the complexity of the assumptions associated with carbon dating – so that we can move on to discussing the U-Pb method (or alpha decay methods, or isochron methods – which are my personal favourites to discuss. You should look into isochron methods – they claim to have mathematically done away with one the assumptions I raised). “So if this is truly your goal, why would you carbon date something that is known to cause dating issues due to this KNOWN reservoir issue?? It sounds like a dishonest tactic considering the people reading these articles probably aren't aware of this” The “reservoir issue” is no “issue” at all if you can measure the reservoir. Even if it was, it only applies to creatures in marine environments, not terrestrial. I think you are straying from the context of my response. You asked why one would carbon date something of known age – I said as an experimental control. I don’t see why you would have a problem with this – apart from the problem that it has shown to yield some ‘wrong’ ages (and I didn’t claim that anyone has done this – I just provided a valid answer to your question). “I absolutely have every reason to question these claims from creationists” I have no problem whatsoever with you questioning any claim. My issue is that you cast aspersions on creationists without providing supporting arguments. You expect standards of creationists that are beyond what is found in secular science journals. So you’re not actually considering arguments – but disparaging creationists prior to such consideration. That demonstrates a lack of objectivity. “I don't know how many rebuttal articles I've read where someone went over the procedures undertaken by a creation "scientist" only to find out they didn't follow proper guidelines. The polonium halo report from Robert Gentry is an example [talk origins]” I don’t know how many you’ve read either. But one unsupported assertion from an explicitly biased website does not justify this logically fallacious strategy. My encouragement is, and has always been, don’t just take sides and believe the side that agrees with you – think for yourself; examine the arguments, separate the facts from the theoretical etc. – i.e. think critically about all arguments, not just the ones that suit your confirmation bias. Most of the issues we are discussing can be traced back to faith – so you can never be logically obligated to surrender your position – and therefore should not fear objectivity. “Okay sure we don't have a time machine to go back and take measurements and verify 100%, nobody is claiming 100% accuracy. We don't have 100% accuracy or confidence in anything at all, even reality. We could be brains in a vat!” Many people do claim these methods to be beyond question, or even as "absolute dating". But in reality, we don’t even have a time machine allowing us to verify anything to even half of a percent. Even from an operational science perspective, where we implicitly trust observation, we can never claim certainty – simply because logic must make allowances for imperfect knowledge; i.e. we don’t know what we don’t know. Maybe some future discovery will undermine knowledge which we have derived through experimentation up to that point. But in contrast, historical claims require the filling of a further, massive logical gap with unverifiable assumption. And that gap in the logic warrants a necessary mitigation of all scientific confidence in all past claims. “Just recognize that many many years before radio metric dating was around people were suspecting long ages after what they saw in their field research [James Hutton et al]” Yes – James Hutton expressed both naturalistic and uniformitarian assumptions in his work – and was one of the first to do so. That may very well be the birth of the naturalistic paradigm’s influence over modern science. But this in no logical sense undermines the claim that these unverifiable assumptions continue to influence scientific interpretations today. “Later on radio metric dating confirms these vast ages albeit not with 100% accuracy” More accurately, “radio metric dating [is interpreted to support] these vast ages”. “The RATE group's answer to all this radio decay in a 6000 year old Earth was "God must have done something with it" [essentially]” Is that what they said, or is that what talkorigins told you they said? Have you examined their arguments for yourself, or just examined criticisms of their position? Is this the only solution they offered, or has it been cherry-picked from a range of offered solutions for the purpose of disparaging their research and thereby avoiding argument? Can you understand why such an unsupported claim has no meaning to any thoughtful person? “Do creationists have any dating method that consistently comes up with "young" ages? Or anything outside scripture?” The problem with all dating methods is the same for creationists – the reliance upon unverifiable assumption. Yes, there are many evidences that point to a young earth, but those all depend on making assumptions about the initial conditions, the systematic rates and systematic integrity of the facts used. Creationists acknowledge these assumptions. Find an older (2009) summarized example list here; < http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth> “You don't find it odd, that every single metric we have consistently shows vast ages?” I find it “odd” that anyone who has examined the data would continue to make claim this – but we can get to that as we go through each method and its discrepancies in the literature. In my own research it is common for me to set aside bad data. But in my case the bad data means unreliable signalling. I can tweak the protocol to get a better signal next time (i.e. repeatability). In radiometric dating, bad data means results that don’t agree with expectations. So what do you suppose happens to a radiometric 'age' when it disagrees with expectations (beyond the quantified error) – is that even a possibility in your mind? How much of that ‘wrong’ data do you think gets published? And what affect do you think that would have on the outward impression of the method’s overall reliability? “So you agree with the vast amount of decay we detect. How do you account for that in such a young earth? The RATE group used divine intervention” Except – the instruments don’t actually detect decay, they detect absolute amounts. “The vast amount of decay” is interpreted into these amounts based on unverifiable assumptions. “I'd be interested in looking at support for the creation model rather than spending so much time talking about wild hypotheticals in how the secular model might not be 100% accurate” And yet in other conversations, I have demonstrated the creationist interpretations of evidence you provided – and you were dismissive; without argument. There was a secular interpretation, and that’s all you were concerned with. You don’t need to consider any other position. So if I simply give you some random evidence that I interpret to support creationism – you will simply dismiss it because there is a secular interpretation of the same evidence . What does that achieve? So we have to go back a step and address the logic used to justify each claim – otherwise you won’t be able to give objective consideration to our position. As I stated above – there is no risk to you. Realising that an opposing position is rational doesn’t make it right – and therefore doesn’t require the surrender of your own position. Consider your “might not be 100% accurate” statement. It implies that science has brought to a place of all-but certainty about these past claims. It’s purely innuendo that has no rational justification in logic or the scientific method. You have to be able to get past that bias before you can consider our position objectively. Nothing I say can ever force you to stop believing the secular story of history; because no matter how well my story can be supported by facts, it wasn’t observed scientifically – therefore any confidence in my story is reliant upon faith. But you don’t understand that the same is true of the secular story. And so – before I can get you to even consider my position, I have to dig through all the ‘creationists are ignorant, evidence-ignoring, unscientific, science-hating, religious, dishonest etc.’ nonsense propaganda. I have to break through this indoctrinated propensity to defend the secular position with religious zeal and resorting to logical fallacy. I have to break down the logic of each claim in order to demonstrate that the levels of confidence expressed in these models are not supported by either logic or the scientific method. Until I get through all that nonsense, you’ll never be able to see the issue through my eyes – i.e. you can’t be objective until you are prepared to consider the issue in the context of my faith premise. “It is verified in a scientific sense, I mentioned the gamma ray decay rates were the same as observed in several supernovae. This lends credibility to the idea that the decay rates weren't different in the past” So what exactly has been measured in the past? Break down the logic for me. Bold unsupported claims don’t cut it – explain to me why and how these observations in the present demonstrate what happened in the past. I actually am encouraged by your measured language here; i.e. “lends credibility” – no more ‘confirms’ or ‘verifies’ or ‘almost 100% certainty’ nonsense. You might say that these facts can be interpreted to support the assumption that decay rates remained constant in the distant past. But we’ll see how well that claim holds up to scrutiny as we go through it. More accurately – 'based on the popular, secular interpretation of the available facts'. However, neither a reinterpretation or rejection is justified; given an objective logical analysis of the facts and arguments. “Maybe not to you but to others it is justified” Disagreement can be justified – but not outright rejection of consideration. “I myself would reject the biblical model before trying to balance the biblical and secular model.” Yes – outright rejection of consideration, prior to hearing arguments, demonstrates a faith allegiance. It’s not a reasonable strategy – and certainly not a scientific one. “I'm curious about the reading from volcanic material that you mentioned” Well let’s start with Dalrymple (1969) found here; http://www.toriah.org/articles/dalrymple-1969.pdf Dalrymple is an excellent example because he is unequivocally anti-creationist - and has subsequently, vigorously defended his research against its use by creationists. Yet the data explicitly supports the creationist claim that the assumption of a known initial condition cannot be considered reliable. Around 1/3 of the 26 samples demonstrated anomalous argon36 levels; which resulted in “apparent” ages that contradicted the known ages of the samples. Therefore, when dating material of unknown age, we can never be certain that our assumptions regarding the original condition of the material is correct. This find undermines the logical and scientific legitimacy of this method.

Any time you consult a commentary on a Biblical passage you are allowing "outside" ideas and motives influence you. We interpret in a community. Again, when we look at the historical context of the Bible, at documents derived from archaelogy, or how language was used outside the Bible, we are allowing influence of outside ideas and motives. When I pick up a Greek Bible, I am allowing the ideas and motives of text criticism, employed by scholars, to influence my reading of the Bible. And yes, I would find a temple motif; and no, I would not discover the gap theory. No, I certainly would not discover any form of evolution, except perhaps in the very limited sense that Adam is described as "evolved" from dirt, and eve from a rib. Yes, I would discover that the 7 days was a literary structure. Yes, I would conclude that the Bible makes no comment on the age of the earth; that was not the point of the 7 days. clb Hey CLB, you said, “Any time you consult a commentary on a Biblical passage you are allowing "outside" ideas and motives influence you” Commentaries do not hold the authority of scripture. Any claim in a commentary is subject to scripture – not the other way around. No responsible interpreter would ever suggest that scripture doesn’t mean what it says because some commentary said so. “We interpret in a community. Again, when we look at the historical context of the Bible, at documents derived from archaelogy, or how language was used outside the Bible, we are allowing influence of outside ideas and motives” These are issues relating to direct textual context. We allow them to influence our understanding because they speak directly to the intent of the author. That is consistent with the requirement of scripture to “test all things” and to use reason in defence of our faith. These represent internally consistent “motives” - consistent with the endeavour of ascertaining the intent of the author. They are internal because they focus our understanding of scripture. Whereas scientific claims about history do not speak to the direct context of scripture. They cannot broaden our understanding of the author’s intent. They are external sources of information – hence their influence over scripture would count as eisegesis. “And yes, I would find a temple motif” Not if you had truly set aside your preconceptions you wouldn’t. Or if I’m wrong – show me where in these passages the concept exists (without appealing beyond these passages). “I certainly would not discover any form of evolution, except perhaps in the very limited sense that Adam is described as "evolved" from dirt, and eve from a rib” And you are seriously contending that you would even consider such a link if you had truly separated all preconceptions? – I am highly sceptical. “I would conclude that the Bible makes no comment on the age of the earth; that was not the point of the 7 days” Why would you conclude anything of the sort based on these two chapters? The age of the earth wouldn’t enter your mind until you started to go through the very specific age claims made of the pre-flood patriarchs –describing how long the person lived, at what age they had their children, and how long those children subsequently lived etc. That is a very specific structure enabling accurate age derivations.

I advise you to read up on the reservoir effect. It would explain the reading. Is this another example of creationists not using a tool properly and then claiming it doesn't work? Finding limitations in a tool does not invalidate the tool. http://www.radiocarbon.com/marine-reservoir-effect.htm I didn't assume you carbon dated anything, trust me on that. I'm aware that dendrochronology is used to help double check radio carbon dates but I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to. It's not unsupported. As shown above, the findings you report are bogus because they don't mention the reservoir effect...they just claim the tool doesn't work. I didn't state that there weren't any differences, I stated that I don't buy this claim that one is inferior to the other. You've failed to support this. I gave radiometric dating as an example of how we CAN make claims about the past and while the measurements are't 100% accurate [time ranges] we can be very confident in our conclusions. I even agreed that certainly there are cases when there is so little data, we only have hypothesis as to what may have happened, but that's not to say that we can't make any hard claims of the past using scientific instruments. You want to chalk up any study of the past as amounting to story telling or subjective interpretation and that's false. I don't see the logic in your argument, that's the issue. Measurements of known processes are not interpretations, and we indeed can justify confidence in the date ranges. I certainly don't assert that the data is unquestionable or that we have absolute certainty, but confidence? Absolutely. I can see why someone would reinterpret or reject biblical scripture based on scientific evidence. P.S. It would be great if you provided the research behind the claims you were making about the carbon 14 dating inaccuracies. Rather than outright reject the claims, I'd like to see the research behind them. Hey again Bonky, you said, “I advise you to read up on the reservoir effect. It would explain the reading. Is this another example of creationists not using a tool properly and then claiming it doesn't work? Finding limitations in a tool does not invalidate the tool. http://www.radiocarb...voir-effect.htm” I wonder if you read the introduction; “The basis of radiocarbon dating includes the assumption that there is a constant level of carbon 14 in the atmosphere and therefore in all living organisms through equilibrium … It is also assumed that there is equilibrium between carbon 14 formation and its decay, thus there is a constant level of carbon 14 in the atmosphere at any given time in the past up to the present … There are several factors that need to be considered because they affect the global concentration of carbon 14 and therefore that of any given sample for radiocarbon dating” So then, your own resource acknowledges that the method is premised upon “assumption”. It also acknowledges that we have discovered external factors that affect C14 concentrations. I think these claims reinforce my position rather than countering it. The article goes on to say; “There are many factors to consider when measuring the radiocarbon content of a given sample, one of which is the radiocarbon content of the plant or animal source when it was alive and its local environment”. So in order to derive a carbon ‘date’, we also have to make assumptions about the starting conditions of the tested material – i.e. conditions which were not observed. “Another factor to consider is that the magnitude of the marine reservoir effect is not the same in all locations” – but then how can this be established for each sample if the specific conditions were not observed? The only solution offered by the article is to compare the ‘dates’ against other C14 dates or the ‘dates’ derived from other methods utilising the same fundamental assumptions. I have no problem with this article because it readily acknowledges the underlying assumptions of the method. The same assumptions apply to all dating methods. C14 dating is made more complex than other methods by varying environmental carbon contexts. And I’m not sure why you attribute any of my examples to creationists – apart from your obvious strategy of ad-hominem in order to avoid engaging in actual arguments. One might use dating material of known age as an experimental control. “I'm aware that dendrochronology is used to help double check radio carbon dates but I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to” No. Dendrochronology alone also relies upon the same set of unverifiable assumptions (unless the specimen is already of known age with a verifiable context). You initially asked why C14 dating would be applied to a living creature. In a living creature, you don’t have to make assumptions about the starting carbon context of the material. Therefore, the collected material provides a suitable experimental control for the C14 method. “It's not unsupported. As shown above, the findings you report are bogus because they don't mention the reservoir effect...they just claim the tool doesn't work” I didn’t provide a report. I didn’t even claim that the “tool doesn’t work”. In material collected from a living creature, the carbon context is known – so there is no logical reason to appeal to any reservoir effect. So again, rather than consider the logic, your whole strategy revolves around painting creationists as dishonest or inept. “I didn't state that there weren't any differences, I stated that I don't buy this claim that one is inferior to the other. You've failed to support this” To quote myself, “It really is pretty basic logic – if multiple stories about the unobserved past can account for the same currently available facts, then both should be considered reasonable explanations of the facts. One can make arguments about the quality of each argument with regards to the facts – but both arguments warrant objective consideration” And more specifically, “The historical method is different from the operational method; and logically inferior in several aspects – namely 1) the claims themselves can never be subjected to observation, 2) therefore the claims can only be tested indirectly – through comparing the current evidence to the formulated models (i.e. unobserved stories about what might have happened in the past), and 3) since the claims themselves can never be tested through experimentation (only the models can be tested), no legitimate scientific confidence can be attributed to the claims without committing the logical fallacy Affirming the Consequent. Operational science does not suffer these logical weaknesses” “I gave radiometric dating as an example of how we CAN make claims about the past and while the measurements are't 100% accurate [time ranges] we can be very confident in our conclusions” Some vague appeal to “radiometric dating” does not qualify as an argument. We have to examine the logic underpinning the method. We have to separate the facts from the theoretical and analyse the underlying assumptions of each method. And since there are an abundance of methods, it’s not good enough to just say “radiometric dating - case closed – nah nah n’ nah nah” You can only be “very confident” in your claims about the past if you assume that your unverifiable assumptions are correct – i.e. if you apply faith to the process. To claim such scientific confidence in past claims is to Affirm the Consequent. It requires a series of non-trivial ‘ifs’ – If we assume to know the initial chemical conditions of the rock, if we assume constant decay rates unaffected by outside forces over billions of years, and if we assume an effectively closed system over that same time period, if we assume a purely naturalistic context – then we can further assume the dates derived from these methods to be accurate. But scientifically, if any of these assumptions are called into question, then the method is rendered unreliable. The actual “measurements” are very accurate. It is the conversions of these “measurements” into ‘ages’ that is questionable. “that's not to say that we can't make any hard claims of the past using scientific instruments” I have no problem with the instrument measurements. This again comes back to the fundamental scientific distinction between the empirical and theoretical. The empirical is not being disputed. “You want to chalk up any study of the past as amounting to story telling or subjective interpretation and that's false” All interpretation is subjective – no facts are interpreted in a logical vacuum. I never claimed that secular models can’t be supported by evidence. My claim has always been that the evidence doesn’t necessarily, exclusively support the secular models. There is more than one way to interpret the available facts. It is absolutely “story telling” – and necessarily so - since observing the claims is impossible. I never claimed the secular models or arguments for an old earth to be irrational, only that there is another rational position that warrants objective consideration. (I have admittedly labelled the secular tendency towards arbitrary dismissal of other positions as irrational – but that’s a different issue). “I don't see the logic in your argument, that's the issue” Then the objective, rational response is to demonstrate where my logic has failed – not to further perpetuate unsupported innuendo about my ineptitude. “Measurements of known processes are not interpretations, and we indeed can justify confidence in the date ranges” The instruments do not measure “date ranges”. The “date ranges” are derived from the application of assumptions upon the measurements. The measurements themselves say nothing about the ‘age’ of the material until subjected to interpretation. Therefore, any confidence in “date ranges” is reliant upon faith – confidence beyond what can be verified in any scientific sense. “Absolutely. I can see why someone would reinterpret or reject biblical scripture based on scientific evidence” More accurately – 'based on the popular, secular interpretation of the available facts'. However, neither a reinterpretation or rejection is justified; given an objective logical analysis of the facts and arguments. “P.S. It would be great if you provided the research behind the claims you were making about the carbon 14 dating inaccuracies. Rather than outright reject the claims, I'd like to see the research behind them” Which would you like to look at first – C14 found in samples that are theoretically far too old (according to secular history) to contain measurable amounts of it, or just general C14 ‘dates’ that are rejected because they don’t conform to the secular history story, or maybe a couple of examples of C14 dating materials into the future? These examples are readily available in the secular literature (less-so since labs started requiring geological context before releasing results – but there are still many).

Tristen, No, that is in no way what I am proposing and I have made this explicit in the OP and in posts! Here, from the OP I mean, I don't know how else to put it! Someone, please help me. Did I not clearly say in the OP that we should not accommodate the sciences by reinterpreting Scripture!? I clearly have said that it is responsible to reexamine Scripture. Reexamining and reinterpreting are not the same thing. Reexamining simply means, looking at it again with fresh eyes (don't read it with the intention of seeing what you always saw). Perhaps you will see what you saw previously. A doctor may have originally thought his subject died of poison; then studies in poison are published which makes him wonder whether his original diagnosis was correct. He goes back to study it again...and he consciously resists the impulse to look at all the same things in the same manner. 1 of 2 things happens: he finds nothing new, and so confirms his original diagnosis; or he sees things he did not see at first, and corrects his original diagnosis. It is the same with exegesis. There are people here who suspect any reading of Scripture other than one that affirms YEC because they can only conclude that an interpretation other than YEC is an accommodation of science. This is NOT true. The doctor's renewed diagnosis was not an accommodation to the new discoveries. The reexamination was influenced by the new discoveries. That is the only influence I am allowing to science: the impulse to reexamine...not what we will find. If we find nothing, then we dismiss the scientific claims. But perhaps you will see something else. In either case it is not natural science but exegesis (and its sub-disciplines of linguistics and history and archaelogy) that guides the process. Scientific claims are merely the spring board. There is no obligation to make Scripture agree with science; there is an obligation to reexamine Scripture when 99% of the scientific community says something contrary to A POPULAR INTERPRETATION. I capitalize to show that we are not pitting scientific claims against God. We are pitting scientific claims against exegetical claims. CLAIMS IN BOTH!! I hate using captilization Both are claims made by humans. Fallible interpreters; interpreting both creation and scripture. Both creation and scripture come from God. We are trying to read both, through the tools of science in the one and the tools of exegesis in the other. Why is this so hard to understand? It's as if everyone thinks that science is a completely human enterprise while the study of Scripture is so easy that we intuitively understand every verse as it was intended by the author! if the latter were true, why would we have so many commentaries over so many years disagreeing with each other--and don't anyone dare say because Satan has his hand in the pot. Pious Christians disagree over interpretations with pious Christians. Both Scripture and Creation were created by God. Both Scripture and Creation should point to God as they were intended. Both Scripture and Creation are therefore objects of study presented to fallible subjects (i.e. us). We are all therefore trying to figure out creation and scripture. Hey CLB, you said, “There are people here who suspect any reading of Scripture other than one that affirms YEC because they can only conclude that an interpretation other than YEC is an accommodation of science. This is NOT true” Not an accommodation to “science”, but an accommodation to secular historical models. We conclude that it is true because of the propensity to use these other interpretations to make the Bible consistent with the secular models. In every instance there is an attempt to either squeeze genesis together with secular history, or just write off the Genesis account as non-historical, so that there is no discrepancy between Genesis and these models. The secular models are not questioned; therefore the Bible has to make way for their assumptive version of history. “That is the only influence I am allowing to science: the impulse to reexamine...not what we will find” So why give science any influence at all – why not just say “let’s try to be objective in our examination of Genesis, let’s make an effort to lay aside all our preconceptions and read Genesis anew”? What do you think we would find? If we examined Genesis 1 & 2 without any preconceived ideas, only relying on the context itself, do you think we would find your vague “God created the universe in His temple” idea, or would we discover the gap theory, or some other form of theistic evolution, or would we find the young-earth creation account? I have no problem ‘re-examining’ the text. Many scholars have done so on countless occasions. But it has to be an honest examination; free from the influence of outside ideas and motives. “It's as if everyone thinks that science is a completely human enterprise while the study of Scripture is so easy that we intuitively understand every verse as it was intended by the author!” Not “intuitively”. We have the tools of logic and reason and the intellectual capacity to establish the most likely intent of the author through examinations of grammatical context. We are not using ‘the force’ – we are examining the actual evidence on its own merit. That doesn’t mitigate the possibility of disagreement – but the opposing arguments have to be equally justified in a logical examination of the textual evidence – not just some extraneous, nebulous suggestion that maybe we are wrong. Remember that as believers, we consider ourselves to be accountable to God for how we approach the scriptures. So weakly supported arguments about what someone thinks the Bible might mean beyond what it actually says, doesn’t cut it for us. So we will defend sound doctrine based on sound interpretation methods in the face of such arguments. Perhaps some get a bit carried away with their defence, but the defence itself is justified. We want to know what the Bible teaches as much as anyone – so we are motivated to defend the scriptures against specious interpretations – and are not motivated to ignore anything that God may want to address to us. “ Pious Christians disagree over interpretations with pious Christians. Both Scripture and Creation were created by God. Both Scripture and Creation should point to God as they were intended. Both Scripture and Creation are therefore objects of study presented to fallible subjects (i.e. us). We are all therefore trying to figure out creation and scripture.” I have no problem with any of this.

Hi Tristen, I agree, and it was never my point that Biblical interpretation should accommodate scientific claims by any means possible; that is clearly irresponsible. The point was that if the majority of scientists tell us the earth is very old, should this not constitute grounds for going back to the Bible and the tools of exegesis to see if we have been approaching Scripture wrongly? Obviously, if nothing turns up, well then we are obligated to let the original interpretation stand. In my case, the evidence points me away from a literalistic reading of Genesis 1, evidence derived from exegesis, not science. I am honest with myself--and, not to be rude, I am a higher authority on my own self-consciousness than you are. I agree, the evidence of exegesis does not support OEC; but neither does it support YEC. It makes no comment whatsoever on the age of the cosmos. I am not sure if "symbolic" is the appropriate term: but the abundant use of the number 7 in and outside the Bible to represent "fullness" or "completion" should be noticed, as well as the pervasive temple motif in Genesis 1 and 2. The point of Genesis is not historical but theological. It is claiming that God created (which is, of course, an historical event) the world as His temple; a theme that recurs again and again from Genesis to the very last chapter of Revelation. "physical" might be a better term. I understand that cosmology cannot be tested in a laboratory; but I find it inconceivable that there is absolutely no evidence on which an Old earth is based. I reject Enoch's conspiracy theory. clb Hey CLB, you said, “it was never my point that Biblical interpretation should accommodate scientific claims by any means possible; that is clearly irresponsible” Yet the clear implication of the example you provided was that the Genesis account, as written, is wrong – because some majority of scientists tells you so. Therefore you believe that we should deviate from exegesis and somehow try to marry these scientific claims to the Biblical text. Why can’t we instead question the quality of the science (which the scientific method itself expressly encourages)? There are many logical weaknesses incorporated into the secular claims of a “very old” earth. So I have no objective scientific reason to resort to extraordinary Bible interpretation methods. I have no thoughtful reason to distrust what I find written in Genesis using common, logically-justified interpretation techniques. “The point was that if the majority of scientists tell us the earth is very old, should this not constitute grounds for going back to the Bible and the tools of exegesis to see if we have been approaching Scripture wrongly?” Exegesis means taking information from the text – i.e. information that is actually contained in the text. You are proposing bringing outside ideas to the text, and interpreting the text in the light of those outside ideas. That is called eisegesis. Whether it’s your intention or not – the application of this methodology implicitly subjects the authority of scripture to those outside ideas. “In my case, the evidence points me away from a literalistic reading of Genesis 1, evidence derived from exegesis, not science” Well I would have to examine your arguments. I have also examined Genesis and found overwhelming evidence to justify an historical reading of the text, and no reason in the text itself to justify the assumption of symbolic interpretation. “I am honest with myself--and, not to be rude, I am a higher authority on my own self-consciousness than you are” Of course you are. But I would be surprised if you didn’t concede that you are trying to reinterpret the prima-facie meaning Genesis to conform to external models of reality. Had you read Genesis without ever hearing those outside ideas, do you think you’d be looking for alternate interpretations? “I agree, the evidence of exegesis does not support OEC; but neither does it support YEC. It makes no comment whatsoever on the age of the cosmos” Yet it does speak to the approximate age of the universe if you do the calculations – assuming the text means what it says; e.g. days are days and years are years. “I am not sure if "symbolic" is the appropriate term” I use that term to encompass all of the grammatical tools employed by Biblical authors to get their message across; i.e metaphor, simile, parable, prophetic language, poetry, lyricisms etc. “but the abundant use of the number 7 in and outside the Bible to represent "fullness" or "completion" should be noticed, as well as the pervasive temple motif in Genesis 1 and 2. The point of Genesis is not historical but theological. It is claiming that God created (which is, of course, an historical event) the world as His temple; a theme that recurs again and again from Genesis to the very last chapter of Revelation” And by use of this obscure typology, you are able to dismiss the rest of the Genesis creation account. I don’t understand how that could satisfy a sincere believer. Why would anyone be happy with that unless they felt compelled by some perceived obligatory allegiance to an external idea? You’re not reinterpreting scripture – you are ejecting all but a few points from two whole chapters. That is not an interpretation methodology I could employ with a clear conscience. I don't mean to cast aspersions on your sincerity, but I would suggest that you are motivated to conform the Bible to these secular models of history – otherwise I don’t think you’d be happy with the above solution either. “I understand that cosmology cannot be tested in a laboratory; but I find it inconceivable that there is absolutely no evidence on which an Old earth is based” Claims of “no evidence” are usually unthoughtful – regardless of the claim. Evidence just means facts which have been interpreted to support a claim (i.e. as ‘evidence’ of that claim). Clearly there are facts which have been interpreted to support the claim of a massively ancient earth. Creationists, such as myself, simply question the interpretations of these facts, provide alternative interpretations of the very same facts, as well as demonstrating the influence of presupposition on all interpretations; thereby demonstrating the subjective nature of the interpretation process.

Oh Tristen, I can't believe I'm reading this. One of your criticisms of carbon dating is "living sea creatures" were dated over 3000 years old? Do you understand the principles behind carbon dating? If you did you would have known that carbon dating a living organism is a ridiculous exercise. You don't carbon date living organisms!! A living creature is ingesting carbon all the time, it's only a while after it's dead that we can measure any significant amount of decay into nitrogen. So why would anyone carbon date a living creature?? I'll need to see the research to back up your other claims since I can clearly not be confident that you're not just posting poor "research" from creationist websites like AIG or ICR. You have to be able to understand the tool before criticizing it and claiming it doesn't work. It would be like me taking fork and using it to eat soup, after I see the poor results I hold the fork up and say "Told you forks don't work well". So of course if you don't use a tool properly or understand the underlying principles, you're results will indeed vary. Aside from this there many more dating techniques. For example, Uranium–lead (U–Pb) dating has two separate decay chains so we have an internal calibration method we can use [concordia-discordia method]. Hey Bonky, you said “One of your criticisms of carbon dating is "living sea creatures" were dated over 3000 years old? Do you understand the principles behind carbon dating? If you did you would have known that carbon dating a living organism is a ridiculous exercise. You don't carbon date living organisms!! A living creature is ingesting carbon all the time, it's only a while after it's dead that we can measure any significant amount of decay into nitrogen” Carbon dating a living organism should theoretically yield an age of ~0, i.e. little to no evidence of C14 decay from the environmental ratio. So any deviation from that ‘age’ represents a failure in the assumptions underlying the “principles behind carbon dating”. BTW, it wasn’t me that carbon dated these organisms. The living tree example was presented to me as evidence that the earth must be more than 6000 years old. “So why would anyone carbon date a living creature??” One might use dating material of known age as an experimental control. “I'll need to see the research to back up your other claims since I can clearly not be confident that you're not just posting poor "research" from creationist websites like AIG or ICR” At least you are consistent in your strategy of avoiding arguments through casting unsupported aspersions on your opponents. Your initial criticism in this post regards your contention that there is no difference between the historical and operational methods. I have provided an argument containing the simple logic justifying the distinction. You have ignored my argument and proceeded to make insinuations about my supposed lack of understanding. You resort to ridicule rather than rational response. Once you address the logic of my presented argument, I’ll be happy to assess any research you wish to provide supporting your position – or you can start a new post and we can go thoroughly through each dating method; separating the facts from the theory and examining all the research (including the supposedly “wrong” dates yielded by these methods).

I didn't reject this historical/operational concept outright, I listened to the argument for why we should consider it and it doesn't hold water. According to your logic, the folks at the ancient aliens studio have just as good a story as anyone else [on whatever topic] because "hey, none of us were there right?". Do you believe that Pluto has ever made a complete orbit around the Sun? Do you think it's reasonable to suggest that it hasn't because "we haven't personally observed it"? I'm not saying that any or all scientific claims of the past are equally supported by evidence. We agreed that the extinction event that killed off the dinosaurs is not entirely agreed upon by the scientific community for example. Radio decay however is something that can be measured, calibrated and verified [supernovae]...so it's not an interpretation but a solid measurement. But your "competing explanation" is "We weren't there". You're holding an empty sack Tristen. By your logic, any murderer would go free unless we had video footage of the actual murder! What claims are consistent with the facts?! You weren't there right!? It's funny how creationists will criticize mainstream science by saying that they sometimes adjust their views on something in light of new evidence [which is used to cast doubt] and yet ALSO feel perfectly fine in suggesting that scientists only go where their preconceived notions dictate to them. Neat how that works isn't it? The thing is, scientists doubt based on scientific evidence, not holy books. The article is in response to AIG, a creationist organization and their suggestion that there's this distinction between operational science and historical science. So even within the Christian community this argument is rejected. This argument made by creationists is attempt to make a literal view of Genesis seem to be just a valid model as any other. If we come across scientific evidence that contradicts an early earth [radio decay measurements] you sit there and say "You weren't there". Hey Bonky, you said, “I didn't reject this historical/operational concept outright, I listened to the argument for why we should consider it and it doesn't hold water” So tell me why? Don’t just spout empty, unsupported statements - argue the flaws in my logic I supported my claim with an argument – where am I wrong? Otherwise your “doesn’t hold water” claim is meaningless. “According to your logic, the folks at the ancient aliens studio have just as good a story as anyone else [on whatever topic] because "hey, none of us were there right?"” I have made no claims about the subjective quality of any argument (i.e. nothing about any argument being “just as good as” any other). I haven’t heard the “ancient aliens studio” arguments – so unlike yourself, cannot prejudge or arbitrarily dismiss them as being of lessor quality. Only blind adherence to a particular faith perspective permits the arbitrary dismissal of arguments prior to hearing them. So yes, since no scientific observations are possible in the past, I am obligated by objectivity to fairly consider their arguments when presented – i.e. to compare their model against the currently available facts. “Do you believe that Pluto has ever made a complete orbit around the Sun? Do you think it's reasonable to suggest that it hasn't because "we haven't personally observed it"?” Considering all the effort gone to in our other conversation, I have to conclude by this statement that you really haven’t heard my arguments, or are being intentionally disingenuous. I have expressed to you many times that creationists interpret all of the same evidence used by secular science, but to be consistent with the Biblical model. I have personally provided you with alternative interpretations of facts you thought could only be interpreted one way. So we are not just claiming lack of observation (which in itself is a massive logical and scientific weakness), but an alternative explanation of the available facts. I have also pointed out to you that all scientific confidence in such historical claims amounts to the logical fallacy Affirming the Consequent. Pluto’s path is, to my knowledge, not contested. So your use of it hear represents a Red Herring fallacy. If someone was claiming otherwise, I would be happy to consider their argument before formulating an opinion – would you? “I'm not saying that any or all scientific claims of the past are equally supported by evidence. We agreed that the extinction event that killed off the dinosaurs is not entirely agreed upon by the scientific community for example” And the reason for this discrepancy is that interpretation of facts is subjective. Since the claims were not observed, there is logical room for more than one account of the past. All that is required for the story to be rationally valid is that the account be consistent with the currently available facts (regardless of how those facts have been alternatively interpreted). “Radio decay however is something that can be measured, calibrated and verified [supernovae]...so it's not an interpretation but a solid measurement” It’s a measurement of what is occurring today. No one is questioning radiometric decay. What we question is the application of these facts (chemical isotope ratios) to theoretical ‘ages’. Our instruments very accurately measure the chemical make-up of the tested materials. But to derive an ‘age’ from such facts, one has to incorporate several layers of unverifiable assumption and make extrapolations of 100 or so years of data to magnitudes of billions of years. In any other scientific endeavour, extrapolations of such magnitudes would be ludicrous. Not to mention that there are many radiometric decay ‘ages’ in the scientific literature that are considered to be “wrong” – i.e. don’t match up with the predetermined secular ‘age’ of the rock (I think I gave at least one example in our other discussion). There are also many examples in the scientific literature where differing dating methods yield different ‘ages’. Furthermore, rocks of known age (i.e. observed formation from volcanic eruptions) have yielded verifiably wrong radiometric ages. I have seen scientific papers claiming evidence of changing decay rates. I have seen carbon-dating data sets which date living trees to 8000 years old, living sea creatures to >3000 years old, and bark fragments dated 3000 years into the future. Also, the presumed ‘date’ of the measured material determines which method is applied – introducing immediate bias into the process. So your impression of some unequivocal, so-called “absolute” measure of ‘age’ is based in propaganda. There is certainly a general pattern, but nothing to justify the overwhelming confidence in the method. It is now to the point that some labs require a description of the rock context before performing the measurements – and if the determined ‘age’ doesn’t match the context, the lab returns a non-result. That is, ‘ages’ that do not line up with secular assumptions rarely make it into the literature anymore – thereby introducing more bias into the available data. As I mentioned repeatedly in our other discussion, fundamentally important to the analysis of any scientific claim, is the capacity to separate the empirical form the theoretical. “But your "competing explanation" is "We weren't there". You're holding an empty sack Tristen. By your logic, any murderer would go free unless we had video footage of the actual murder!” My competing explanation is, self-evidently, the Biblical creation account and the models formulated around this premise – I’m really not sure how you could have missed this. Pointing out the inability to observe the past (which should also be self-evident to most people) serves to mitigate the logically unjustified levels of confidence often expressed in secular historical claims. It really is pretty basic logic – if multiple stories about the unobserved past can account for the same currently available facts, then both should be considered reasonable explanations of the facts. One can make arguments about the quality of each argument with regards to the facts – but both arguments warrant objective consideration. And ultimately, there remains a possibility that none of the presented stories are true – such is the nature of unobserved historical claims. The jury’s role has never been to determine absolute truth – but to determine the quality of each presented story in order to subjectively establish whether the standard of reasonable doubt has been met. In none of our discussions have I suggested you are irrational to subscribe to the secular story – only that you lack objectivity in your determination to reject any other story without fair consideration. “It's funny how creationists will criticize mainstream science by saying that they sometimes adjust their views on something in light of new evidence [which is used to cast doubt] and yet ALSO feel perfectly fine in suggesting that scientists only go where their preconceived notions dictate to them. Neat how that works isn't it?” Who are you talking to? I have never criticised any science for changing their views “in light of new evidence”. I will take issue with any subsequent claim that their newly changed views have survived scrutiny, but have no issue with adjusting theories to suit the evidence. I don’t recall any example of such an adjustment that contradicted the secular faith perspective. You might say that secular science is happy, for example, to question how Common Ancestry occurred, but not that Common Ancestry occurred. They might question the specifics of what occurred over their putative billions of years of history, but the billion-year-history itself is not up for discussion. It is a rational requirement of the naturalistic faith. Scrutiny (or “doubting”) is a valid pursuit in both historical and operational science. The suggestion that any scientific claim be merely accepted is based in faith, not science. “The thing is, scientists doubt based on scientific evidence, not holy books” In reality, secular scientists doubt based on evidence which has been interpreted to conform to their preferred faith presuppositions – as do creationists. Faith presupposition is faith presupposition – regardless of the source. They are equally unverifiable, and have the same influence on the interpretation process. An objective person would realise that the same logic is applied by both perspectives. Just because it isn’t labelled holy writ doesn’t make it any less faith. “The article is in response to AIG, a creationist organization and their suggestion that there's this distinction between operational science and historical science. So even within the Christian community this argument is rejected” Yes, Christians are permitted to disagree. My point was that the argument presented by this Christian is poor – presuming, but failing to address the actual creationist position. “This argument made by creationists is attempt to make a literal view of Genesis seem to be just a valid model as any other” The argument is made because it is justified in logic. I have presented the logic to you several times in several different wordings – but rather than address the presented argument, you fall back on Innuendo, Appeals to Motive and ad-hominem – as though it’s all part of some creationist conspiracy to deceive. It seems like you’ll do anything to avoid addressing the actual argument. “If we come across scientific evidence that contradicts an early earth [radio decay measurements] you sit there and say "You weren't there"” When have I ever left an argument at this stage? I don’t dispute any radiometric decay fact or “measurement”. I dispute the logic underpinning ‘ages’ derived from these facts. It is perfectly valid for me to point out that the assumptions supporting these claims have been demonstrated to be unreliable. Lack of supporting observation is kind-of a big deal when it comes to attributing scientific confidence.

The Apostle Paul describes an experience; 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a one was caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I know such a man—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— 4 how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. The Apostle John describes how he received the visions of Revelations; Revelation 1:10-11 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, 11 saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” and, “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.” So it’s possible for such testimonies to be true. However scripture is our highest authority. Whether these testimonies are true or not, they can never legitimately circumvent our trust in the testimony of scripture. It’s ok to listen with interest, but we must rest our trust upon the Word of God alone. The same is true for all preaching and testimony. We should get to know God through His word; enabling us to; 2 Timothy 2:15 15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. And to; 1 Thessalonians 5:21 21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.