What Happened to the Dinosaurs?

[Enoch2021]

 

I have read your response numerous times and I still have no idea what your point was, so I can't say whether it was savvy.

 

Your point seems to be

 

a) paleontologists don't use the Scientific Method; therefore claims they make are trustworthy...?  IF they used the Scientific Method, then their claims would be out of court.  Have I got that right?  You see a flaw in the Scientific Method??

 

b) that when scientists claim the earth to be very old, they are merely making claims, not scientific claims--does this mean they have applied no method; there is no evidence in favor of an old earth?

 

I doubt that is what you mean (the two are contradictory), so to keep things moving I will reiterate my point made to Shiloh (and I said "and others" so as not to isolate him; I hadn't read your posts).

 

In all discussions regarding the age of the earth (which, by the by, is a subject pertinent to the branch of paleontology and that the majority of vote of that branch is in favor of a very old earth) claims made by scientists were dismissed because, again, the overwhelming vote was that the earth was much older than a literal reading of Genesis would have us believe.   The conflict was not over the distinction between "Scientific Claims" and "Claims made by scientists".  The conflict was between Scripture and Science.  I take the position that if the sciences tell us the earth is older than one reading of the Bible, then it is a legitimate maneuver to question our reading of Scripture.  Shiloh (if I understood him) said no.

 

However, in the question of dinosaurs he was quite eager to accept any theory that supported the flood narrative.

 

This to me is terribly inconsistent.

 

 

clb

 

 

Let me post these and we'll refer to them for clarification......

 

'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

'Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

"paleontologists don't use the Scientific Method; therefore claims they make are trustworthy...?"

 

Don't know, define trustworthy?  I'm saying their "claims" can not be classified as "Scientific Evidence." (see definition above)

 

 

"IF they used the Scientific Method, then their claims would be out of court."

 

Could you rephrase, I don't understand what you mean by "out of court".  Also, it's not that they don't use the Scientific Method....by the mere Inherent nature of Paleontology ie (study of the past) they can't even get to STEP 1 of the "Scientific Method".

 

"You see a flaw in the Scientific Method??"

 

Nope, there isn't any Flaw.

 

"that when scientists claim the earth to be very old, they are merely making claims, not scientific claims"

 

Yes, correct. Just "claims" without employing the "Scientific Method."

 

"--does this mean they have applied no method; there is no evidence in favor of an old earth?"

 

The Scientific Method and only the Scientific Method can be used for "Scientific Evidence."  There's a difference between Scientific Evidence and Evidence (see above definitions).

 

"In all discussions regarding the age of the earth (which, by the by, is a subject pertinent to the branch of paleontology and that the majority of vote of that branch is in favor of a very old earth)"

 

Don't understand "by and by"?  TRUTH isn't voted on.....Consensus doesn't = Truth.  And your statement is a Fallacy (Appeal to Popularity)

 

"I take the position that if the sciences tell us"

 

Sciences don't talk and it's a Fallacy (Fallacy of Reification)

 

 

"The conflict was between Scripture and Science"

 

I've never seen this.

 

"I take the position that if the sciences tell us the earth is older than one reading of the Bible"

 

That's fine, but your basis for that position is compromised. (See: Scientific Evidence)

 

"then it is a legitimate maneuver to question our reading of Scripture."

 

"Legitimate"?, How so? We base our Hermeneutics on Scripture ie(comparing Scripture with Scripture) as GOD'S WORD admonishes.... we don't allow "science" to filter our Hermeneutics.

 

"in the question of dinosaurs he was quite eager to accept any theory that supported the flood narrative."

 

I don't think he accepted "any" Theory.... but go ahead and ask him.

 

"This to me is terribly inconsistent."

 

It appears he stayed consistent.

[kwikphilly]

Blessings Spock,

       The Glory belongs to God & we are ALL better than that & are ALL here FOR one another!You were forgiven before you ever asked,I love you brother!

      Back to our topic-LOL   I too see leviathon as some sort of serpent /lizard type dragon....there are so many ancient drawings & references to dragons,why not the leviathon of Gods Word?In any event it is now extinct & it did co-exist with man..........Won't you consider re-evaluating the behemoth & see how he eats like an ox(an elephant does not graze as an ox does he uses his trunk),we already examined his tail-lol,strength in his hips & stomach muscles(sounds like a rhino),the mountains yield food for him & yet he lies down under the lotus tree in reeds I marsh(now he sounds like a hippo but hippos do not typically go too far from water).....only the One Who made him could bring near His sword(a beast you would not ant to mess with)......does he not sound like perhaps some type of Deinotherium or Stephanorhinos or maybe a Wooly Rhino?

       Well,I really believe they were creatures that are long extinct & I especially always pondered how the Lord puts emphasis that he created this animal "along with you"....I don't know ,I always felt that that verse was a hint for me......just my little 2 cents

                                                                                                                              With love,in Christ-Kwik

[a-seeker]

 

 

I have read your response numerous times and I still have no idea what your point was, so I can't say whether it was savvy.

 

Your point seems to be

 

a) paleontologists don't use the Scientific Method; therefore claims they make are trustworthy...?  IF they used the Scientific Method, then their claims would be out of court.  Have I got that right?  You see a flaw in the Scientific Method??

 

b) that when scientists claim the earth to be very old, they are merely making claims, not scientific claims--does this mean they have applied no method; there is no evidence in favor of an old earth?

 

I doubt that is what you mean (the two are contradictory), so to keep things moving I will reiterate my point made to Shiloh (and I said "and others" so as not to isolate him; I hadn't read your posts).

 

In all discussions regarding the age of the earth (which, by the by, is a subject pertinent to the branch of paleontology and that the majority of vote of that branch is in favor of a very old earth) claims made by scientists were dismissed because, again, the overwhelming vote was that the earth was much older than a literal reading of Genesis would have us believe.   The conflict was not over the distinction between "Scientific Claims" and "Claims made by scientists".  The conflict was between Scripture and Science.  I take the position that if the sciences tell us the earth is older than one reading of the Bible, then it is a legitimate maneuver to question our reading of Scripture.  Shiloh (if I understood him) said no.

 

However, in the question of dinosaurs he was quite eager to accept any theory that supported the flood narrative.

 

This to me is terribly inconsistent.

 

 

clb

 

 

Let me post these and we'll refer to them for clarification......

 

'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

'Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

"paleontologists don't use the Scientific Method; therefore claims they make are trustworthy...?"

 

Don't know, define trustworthy?  I'm saying their "claims" can not be classified as "Scientific Evidence." (see definition above)

 

 

"IF they used the Scientific Method, then their claims would be out of court."

 

Could you rephrase, I don't understand what you mean by "out of court".  Also, it's not that they don't use the Scientific Method....by the mere Inherent nature of Paleontology ie (study of the past) they can't even get to STEP 1 of the "Scientific Method".

 

"You see a flaw in the Scientific Method??"

 

Nope, there isn't any Flaw.

 

"that when scientists claim the earth to be very old, they are merely making claims, not scientific claims"

 

Yes, correct. Just "claims" without employing the "Scientific Method."

 

"--does this mean they have applied no method; there is no evidence in favor of an old earth?"

 

The Scientific Method and only the Scientific Method can be used for "Scientific Evidence."  There's a difference between Scientific Evidence and Evidence (see above definitions).

 

"In all discussions regarding the age of the earth (which, by the by, is a subject pertinent to the branch of paleontology and that the majority of vote of that branch is in favor of a very old earth)"

 

Don't understand "by and by"?  TRUTH isn't voted on.....Consensus doesn't = Truth.  And your statement is a Fallacy (Appeal to Popularity)

 

"I take the position that if the sciences tell us"

 

Sciences don't talk and it's a Fallacy (Fallacy of Reification)

 

 

"The conflict was between Scripture and Science"

 

I've never seen this.

 

"I take the position that if the sciences tell us the earth is older than one reading of the Bible"

 

That's fine, but your basis for that position is compromised. (See: Scientific Evidence)

 

"then it is a legitimate maneuver to question our reading of Scripture."

 

"Legitimate"?, How so? We base our Hermeneutics on Scripture ie(comparing Scripture with Scripture) as GOD'S WORD admonishes.... we don't allow "science" to filter our Hermeneutics.

 

"in the question of dinosaurs he was quite eager to accept any theory that supported the flood narrative."

 

I don't think he accepted "any" Theory.... but go ahead and ask him.

 

"This to me is terribly inconsistent."

 

It appears he stayed consistent.

 

Okay,

 

I think I am starting to figure your position out...I think...let me probe

 

"that when scientists claim the earth to be very old, they are merely making claims, not scientific claims"

 

Yes, correct. Just "claims" without employing the "Scientific Method."

 

Okay.....Now when a group of scientists tell me that the earth is very old, they have not used the scientific method....does that mean that they have applied NO method?  That it doesn't even rank as an educated hypothesis?  There is NO, ZIP, NADA evidence.  They simply got together and thought, "what if the world were old??" and then told us that it was in fact old? I find that hard to believe.  I am a layman when it comes to science; now I admit that the majority vote doesn't = truth.....but if 10 doctors tell me I have cancer and one doesn't, law of probability says I should believe the 10.  If I have an interpretation on some passage from Scripture, and then consult 20 commentaries and find that none of them agree with me, well, maybe I am a genius.....but probably I'm a fool.  When it comes to the age of the earth, it seems the overwhelming consensus points to it being very old, and this consensus does not exclude scientists who are also Christians--so I can exclude "bias" being the driving force.  (curious, are there any scientists, Christian and non, who claim a young earth?)

 

Now a  question: claims made about the age of the earth lack the support of the Scientific method and therefore are "just claims."  So What is it about paleontology that is so very much more reliable than these claims, so that when they tell me the earth is old, I shouldn't believe them; but when a paleontologist tells me that the dinosaurs were killed by a great flood, I should believe him?  You talk of paleontology as if it were a branch of history, not physical science.  But history is not an exact science (none are, but history one of the least, for it cannot test its theories in a laboratory--i.e. cannot reproduce ancient Rome and Julius Caesar).

 

 

"then it is a legitimate maneuver to question our reading of Scripture."

 

"Legitimate"?, How so? We base our Hermeneutics on Scripture ie(comparing Scripture with Scripture) as GOD'S WORD admonishes.... we don't allow "science" to filter our Hermeneutics.

 

....if by "we" you are using the royal "we", then fine.  If by "we" you mean you and I, then no.  I just said that I allow science to inform (I am not sure how "filter" is functioning above) my reading of Scripture.

 

I follow Augustine's doctrine of the two books.  Nature is not against Scripture (I am not a gnostics); and when something from our experience of nature disagrees terribly with Scripture, it is okay to question my view of Scripture...note this is not a battle between Nature and Scripture, nor science and exegesis.  Rather, it is a battle between my reading of Scripture and Scripture's actual intent.  I see it as Scripture and Nature on one side, and myself on the other.  I consult the one to better understand the other, because both have the same author behind them.

 

But perhaps something autobiographical will help (don't worry, I'll keep it short).  When it seemed hopeless to me that the Genesis account could not be literal I began to question whether I understood Scripture (again, note that the problem is with my interpretation of Scripture, not Scripture itself).  My studies led me into the culture of the ancient near east.  I discovered there all sorts of cultural idiosyncrasies that were strikingly similar to the language of Genesis (the importance of 7 days, the meaning of "image", the meaning of "resting", the geographical structure of Eden, the garden of Eden, and the rest of the world).  I have come to the conclusion that Genesis was not intended to give a precise chronological record of the earth's creation.  In fact, I found new, richer meanings being elicited from almost every line once I abandoned the literal 6 day reading....all because I allowed claims made by scientists to inform my reading.  We do a similar thing when we allow historians of ancient Rome to inform our exegesis of the New Testament: although perhaps you would reject even that, since (as you said) we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture.  If so, then the difference between us is perhaps too wide for discussion....but I have enjoyed it thus far.

 

 

clb

Edited January 27, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown

[ARGOSY]

 Argosy, didn't mean to jump you either, although I did enjoy writing that nitpicking post. Lol To everyone else who perhaps was upset with my tone, I apologize to you too and ask for your forgiveness. I'm better than that.

Spock humbly walking out

 

 

Hi Spock, no problem at all. 

 

blessings to you 

[Enoch2021]

 

Okay,

 

I think I am starting to figure your position out...I think...let me probe

 

"that when scientists claim the earth to be very old, they are merely making claims, not scientific claims"

 

Yes, correct. Just "claims" without employing the "Scientific Method."

 

Okay.....Now when a group of scientists tell me that the earth is very old, they have not used the scientific method....does that mean that they have applied NO method?  That it doesn't even rank as an educated hypothesis?  There is NO, ZIP, NADA evidence.  They simply got together and thought, "what if the world were old??" and then told us that it was in fact old? I find that hard to believe.  I am a layman when it comes to science; now I admit that the majority vote doesn't = truth.....but if 10 doctors tell me I have cancer and one doesn't, law of probability says I should believe the 10.  If I have an interpretation on some passage from Scripture, and then consult 20 commentaries and find that none of them agree with me, well, maybe I am a genius.....but probably I'm a fool.  When it comes to the age of the earth, it seems the overwhelming consensus points to it being very old, and this consensus does not exclude scientists who are also Christians--so I can exclude "bias" being the driving force.  (curious, are there any scientists, Christian and non, who claim a young earth?)

 

Now a  question: claims made about the age of the earth lack the support of the Scientific method and therefore are "just claims."  So What is it about paleontology that is so very much more reliable than these claims, so that when they tell me the earth is old, I shouldn't believe them; but when a paleontologist tells me that the dinosaurs were killed by a great flood, I should believe him?  You talk of paleontology as if it were a branch of history, not physical science.  But history is not an exact science (none are, but history one of the least, for it cannot test its theories in a laboratory--i.e. cannot reproduce ancient Rome and Julius Caesar).

 

"then it is a legitimate maneuver to question our reading of Scripture."

 

"Legitimate"?, How so? We base our Hermeneutics on Scripture ie(comparing Scripture with Scripture) as GOD'S WORD admonishes.... we don't allow "science" to filter our Hermeneutics.

 

....if by "we" you are using the royal "we", then fine.  If by "we" you mean you and I, then no.  I just said that I allow science to inform (I am not sure how "filter" is functioning above) my reading of Scripture.

 

I follow Augustine's doctrine of the two books.  Nature is not against Scripture (I am not a gnostics); and when something from our experience of nature disagrees terribly with Scripture, it is okay to question my view of Scripture...note this is not a battle between Nature and Scripture, nor science and exegesis.  Rather, it is a battle between my reading of Scripture and Scripture's actual intent.  I see it as Scripture and Nature on one side, and myself on the other.  I consult the one to better understand the other, because both have the same author behind them.

 

But perhaps something autobiographical will help (don't worry, I'll keep it short).  When it seemed hopeless to me that the Genesis account could not be literal I began to question whether I understood Scripture (again, note that the problem is with my interpretation of Scripture, not Scripture itself).  My studies led me into the culture of the ancient near east.  I discovered there all sorts of cultural idiosyncrasies that were strikingly similar to the language of Genesis (the importance of 7 days, the meaning of "image", the meaning of "resting", the geographical structure of Eden, the garden of Eden, and the rest of the world).  I have come to the conclusion that Genesis was not intended to give a precise chronological record of the earth's creation.  In fact, I found new, richer meanings being elicited from almost every line once I abandoned the literal 6 day reading....all because I allowed claims made by scientists to inform my reading.  We do a similar thing when we allow historians of ancient Rome to inform our exegesis of the New Testament: although perhaps you would reject even that, since (as you said) we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture.  If so, then the difference between us is perhaps too wide for discussion....but I have enjoyed it thus far.

 

 

clb

 

 

"Okay.....Now when a group of scientists tell me that the earth is very old, they have not used the scientific method....does that mean that they have applied NO method?"

 

No not by default; However, if it's not the Scientific Method that is employed, the method is irrelevant based on the Tenets of Scientific Evidence.

 

"That it doesn't even rank as an educated hypothesis?"

 

Hypothesis is Step 3 of the Scientific Method....in the case of Paleontologists, they can't get to Step 1.

 

 

"They simply got together and thought, "what if the world were old??"

 

I have no idea.  If you're asking my opinion.... well, due to the fact there is NO Scientific Evidence and never has been and the paradigm is defended rigorously; that's telling me that there is something behind those individuals "Pushing an Idea" for an AGENDA. Who could that be?....  See Genesis 3.

 

"but if 10 doctors tell me I have cancer and one doesn't, law of probability says I should believe the 10."

 

You're equivocating Medical Doctors and "scientists".  Also, you can TEST for Cancer...there's empirical data, it's not based on Opinion.

 

"When it comes to the age of the earth, it seems the overwhelming consensus"

 

Then you said...."now I admit that the majority vote doesn't = truth"  ??  See the contradiction?

 

"does not exclude scientists who are also Christians--so I can exclude "bias" being the driving force."

 

then....."(curious, are there any scientists, Christian and non, who claim a young earth?)"

 

Question: how can you exclude Bias, and then ask if there are Christian Scientists who claim a young earth?

 

"So What is it about paleontology that is so very much more reliable"

 

It's not more reliable, "Reliable" is your superimposed label based on...."they're are Paleontologists"

 

"so that when they tell me the earth is old, I shouldn't believe them;"

 

If you base a belief on someone's Opinion (a fallible human); then, you get what you get.  If you base it on Empirical Evidence then it has a much stronger foundation.  If you base it on the WORD of GOD.....GOLD!!!!  See the Hierarchy?

 

"You talk of paleontology as if it were a branch of history, not physical science."

 

Historical Sciences (Paleontology, Archeology, Anthropology, Cosmology, et al);  Empirical/Experimental/Operational Sciences (Biology, Chemistry, Physics et al)

The only "Physical" Tenet of Paleontology is digging up bones.

 

"if by "we" you are using the royal "we","

 

Now that is funny, which Movie is that?  When I said "we", I meant me and Shiloh.

 

"I follow Augustine's doctrine of the two books."

 

I follow Jesus Christ and what he Plainly Says in the WORD.

 

"Nature is not against Scripture"

 

I agree

 

"when something from our experience of nature disagrees terribly with Scripture"

 

Humans are fallible...our experiences can't always be trusted.  And, I Trust The WORD of GOD and the Authority of Scripture.  If there was ever a case where Nature did disagree (as of right now, I have never seen such an occurrence) I will TRUST The LORD.

 

"I see it as Scripture and Nature on one side"

 

I see Nature as created; therefore, the creature.  Hence....(Romans 1:25) "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

 

 

"it seemed hopeless to me that the Genesis account could not be literal"

 

Well if you base that "seemed' on claims that scientists make.... then those are just opinions and not proof.  We are admonished to....(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

IMHO, you need to re-evaluate the Proof.

 

 

Hope this helps

[Spock]

Blessings Spock,

       The Glory belongs to God & we are ALL better than that & are ALL here FOR one another!You were forgiven before you ever asked,I love you brother!

      Back to our topic-LOL   I too see leviathon as some sort of serpent /lizard type dragon....there are so many ancient drawings & references to dragons,why not the leviathon of Gods Word?In any event it is now extinct & it did co-exist with man..........Won't you consider re-evaluating the behemoth & see how he eats like an ox(an elephant does not graze as an ox does he uses his trunk),we already examined his tail-lol,strength in his hips & stomach muscles(sounds like a rhino),the mountains yield food for him & yet he lies down under the lotus tree in reeds I marsh(now he sounds like a hippo but hippos do not typically go too far from water).....only the One Who made him could bring near His sword(a beast you would not ant to mess with)......does he not sound like perhaps some type of Deinotherium or Stephanorhinos or maybe a Wooly Rhino?

       Well,I really believe they were creatures that are long extinct & I especially always pondered how the Lord puts emphasis that he created this animal "along with you"....I don't know ,I always felt that that verse was a hint for me......just my little 2 cents

                                                                                                                              With love,in Christ-Kwik

Ok, ok, it could even be whatever you said up there. I'm easy today, and besides, you know how much I like to make you smile. (I wouldn't concede this to Shiloh though. Lol)

[kwikphilly]

Aww...Blessings my Brother Spock....

   You are always so good to me,you better behave & play nice with the others-LOL    You are so funny ,you do always make me smile and I already knew in my heart we can always reason things together & even agree to think differently.......thank you Spock,my bro

                                                                                                                       With love,in Christ-Kwik

[Spock]

Aww...Blessings my Brother Spock....

   You are always so good to me,you better behave & play nice with the others-LOL    You are so funny ,you do always make me smile and I already knew in my heart we can always reason things together & even agree to think differently.......thank you Spock,my bro

                                                                                                                       With love,in Christ-Kwik

You are welcome (said while blushing)

[a-seeker]

 

 

Okay,

 

I think I am starting to figure your position out...I think...let me probe

 

"that when scientists claim the earth to be very old, they are merely making claims, not scientific claims"

 

Yes, correct. Just "claims" without employing the "Scientific Method."

 

Okay.....Now when a group of scientists tell me that the earth is very old, they have not used the scientific method....does that mean that they have applied NO method?  That it doesn't even rank as an educated hypothesis?  There is NO, ZIP, NADA evidence.  They simply got together and thought, "what if the world were old??" and then told us that it was in fact old? I find that hard to believe.  I am a layman when it comes to science; now I admit that the majority vote doesn't = truth.....but if 10 doctors tell me I have cancer and one doesn't, law of probability says I should believe the 10.  If I have an interpretation on some passage from Scripture, and then consult 20 commentaries and find that none of them agree with me, well, maybe I am a genius.....but probably I'm a fool.  When it comes to the age of the earth, it seems the overwhelming consensus points to it being very old, and this consensus does not exclude scientists who are also Christians--so I can exclude "bias" being the driving force.  (curious, are there any scientists, Christian and non, who claim a young earth?)

 

Now a  question: claims made about the age of the earth lack the support of the Scientific method and therefore are "just claims."  So What is it about paleontology that is so very much more reliable than these claims, so that when they tell me the earth is old, I shouldn't believe them; but when a paleontologist tells me that the dinosaurs were killed by a great flood, I should believe him?  You talk of paleontology as if it were a branch of history, not physical science.  But history is not an exact science (none are, but history one of the least, for it cannot test its theories in a laboratory--i.e. cannot reproduce ancient Rome and Julius Caesar).

 

"then it is a legitimate maneuver to question our reading of Scripture."

 

"Legitimate"?, How so? We base our Hermeneutics on Scripture ie(comparing Scripture with Scripture) as GOD'S WORD admonishes.... we don't allow "science" to filter our Hermeneutics.

 

....if by "we" you are using the royal "we", then fine.  If by "we" you mean you and I, then no.  I just said that I allow science to inform (I am not sure how "filter" is functioning above) my reading of Scripture.

 

I follow Augustine's doctrine of the two books.  Nature is not against Scripture (I am not a gnostics); and when something from our experience of nature disagrees terribly with Scripture, it is okay to question my view of Scripture...note this is not a battle between Nature and Scripture, nor science and exegesis.  Rather, it is a battle between my reading of Scripture and Scripture's actual intent.  I see it as Scripture and Nature on one side, and myself on the other.  I consult the one to better understand the other, because both have the same author behind them.

 

But perhaps something autobiographical will help (don't worry, I'll keep it short).  When it seemed hopeless to me that the Genesis account could not be literal I began to question whether I understood Scripture (again, note that the problem is with my interpretation of Scripture, not Scripture itself).  My studies led me into the culture of the ancient near east.  I discovered there all sorts of cultural idiosyncrasies that were strikingly similar to the language of Genesis (the importance of 7 days, the meaning of "image", the meaning of "resting", the geographical structure of Eden, the garden of Eden, and the rest of the world).  I have come to the conclusion that Genesis was not intended to give a precise chronological record of the earth's creation.  In fact, I found new, richer meanings being elicited from almost every line once I abandoned the literal 6 day reading....all because I allowed claims made by scientists to inform my reading.  We do a similar thing when we allow historians of ancient Rome to inform our exegesis of the New Testament: although perhaps you would reject even that, since (as you said) we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture.  If so, then the difference between us is perhaps too wide for discussion....but I have enjoyed it thus far.

 

 

clb

 

 

"Okay.....Now when a group of scientists tell me that the earth is very old, they have not used the scientific method....does that mean that they have applied NO method?"

 

No not by default; However, if it's not the Scientific Method that is employed, the method is irrelevant based on the Tenets of Scientific Evidence.

 

"That it doesn't even rank as an educated hypothesis?"

 

Hypothesis is Step 3 of the Scientific Method....in the case of Paleontologists, they can't get to Step 1.

 

 

"They simply got together and thought, "what if the world were old??"

 

I have no idea.  If you're asking my opinion.... well, due to the fact there is NO Scientific Evidence and never has been and the paradigm is defended rigorously; that's telling me that there is something behind those individuals "Pushing an Idea" for an AGENDA. Who could that be?....  See Genesis 3.

 

"but if 10 doctors tell me I have cancer and one doesn't, law of probability says I should believe the 10."

 

You're equivocating Medical Doctors and "scientists".  Also, you can TEST for Cancer...there's empirical data, it's not based on Opinion.

 

"When it comes to the age of the earth, it seems the overwhelming consensus"

 

Then you said...."now I admit that the majority vote doesn't = truth"  ??  See the contradiction?

 

"does not exclude scientists who are also Christians--so I can exclude "bias" being the driving force."

 

then....."(curious, are there any scientists, Christian and non, who claim a young earth?)"

 

Question: how can you exclude Bias, and then ask if there are Christian Scientists who claim a young earth?

 

"So What is it about paleontology that is so very much more reliable"

 

It's not more reliable, "Reliable" is your superimposed label based on...."they're are Paleontologists"

 

"so that when they tell me the earth is old, I shouldn't believe them;"

 

If you base a belief on someone's Opinion (a fallible human); then, you get what you get.  If you base it on Empirical Evidence then it has a much stronger foundation.  If you base it on the WORD of GOD.....GOLD!!!!  See the Hierarchy?

 

"You talk of paleontology as if it were a branch of history, not physical science."

 

Historical Sciences (Paleontology, Archeology, Anthropology, Cosmology, et al);  Empirical/Experimental/Operational Sciences (Biology, Chemistry, Physics et al)

The only "Physical" Tenet of Paleontology is digging up bones.

 

"if by "we" you are using the royal "we","

 

Now that is funny, which Movie is that?  When I said "we", I meant me and Shiloh.

 

"I follow Augustine's doctrine of the two books."

 

I follow Jesus Christ and what he Plainly Says in the WORD.

 

"Nature is not against Scripture"

 

I agree

 

"when something from our experience of nature disagrees terribly with Scripture"

 

Humans are fallible...our experiences can't always be trusted.  And, I Trust The WORD of GOD and the Authority of Scripture.  If there was ever a case where Nature did disagree (as of right now, I have never seen such an occurrence) I will TRUST The LORD.

 

"I see it as Scripture and Nature on one side"

 

I see Nature as created; therefore, the creature.  Hence....(Romans 1:25) "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

 

 

"it seemed hopeless to me that the Genesis account could not be literal"

 

Well if you base that "seemed' on claims that scientists make.... then those are just opinions and not proof.  We are admonished to....(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

IMHO, you need to re-evaluate the Proof.

 

 

Hope this helps

 

Yes it was helpful.   Unfortunately I suspect you and I are on opposite sides of the net and no rapprochement is possible; I hope we still consider each other to be on the same courts of Christianity.

 

I have 4 difficulties with what you’ve said:

1) I find it impossible for me to subscribe to the “conspiracy theory” which would have the majority of scientists claiming a very old earth on absolutely no evidence whatsoever but claimed simply  with the sole purpose of  undermining Scripture (or rather, a particular reading of Scripture) with Satan being the efficient cause behind this project.  For one thing there are a good many Christian scientist who affirm the Old Earth theory while also affirming the central tenets of Christianity.  For another, it seems to me that there is evidence: and when so many people more educated in a field than I make a claim, I regard it as presumptuous for me to deny them (I used an analogy before about many doctors telling me I had cancer—it was an analogy,  not comparison of the relative sciences.  My point in that analogy was that when people far more knowledgeable than I are telling me the earth is very old, I must have very good reasons for disbelieving them—if this attitude is wrong then we may call it an error of humility.  The only argument I have against them is one particular reading of Genesis; a particular reading which I do not think vital or even true……..so, on what grounds do I deny their claim?  I am in quite a predicament: I am not skilled enough to deny them on scientific grounds; I am not convicted enough to deny them on exegetical grounds!  What would you have me do, and why?  

2) What evidence, you might ask, is there for an old earth?—My guess is you know them all; to me it seems far more than not.  That of the speed of light and the time it would take for the light of distant stars to reach us seems very convincing.  But of course there are always counter attacks. One might say that we have no proof that the distance between us and those stars is that great; or that God might cause the speed of light to fluctuate.  These counter attacks made by YEarthers sound (to my ears) desperate and at times embarrassing: as when they claim that before God created the Sun, plant life could flourish apart from photosynthesis; but afterwards He altered this (Why?!!) so that photosynthesis was absolutely essential and required the Sun.  Or, again, when I am told that God created the earth to “look” old.   It is these types of ripostes that appear to have an “agenda” behind them; the agenda being to protect a particular, and not at all indisputably “correct”, reading of Scripture. 

3) You describe the conflict as between God’s word (which is infallible) and science (which is fallible).  This is far too idealistic for me.  God’s word is not easy.  It requires interpretation, which relies upon historical evidence (which itself relies upon interpretation) and linguistic studies and what not.  Thus for me the conflict (though I do not think that ultimately there is a conflict) is between the Exegesis of Scripture (a human enterprise) and the exegesis of Nature (a human enterprise).  Of course Scripture (as intended by its authors and Author) is infallible; but then so is nature as it actually is.  But we can no more isolate Scripture from the subjective element of human fallibility (our reading of Scripture) than we can nature as it actually is from the scientific method or even scientific claims (based on evidence).  It seems you have omitted the subjective side of Scripture and left it only for the sciences.  Of course if you claim to have full and perfect knowledge of the Scriptures (which means there is nothing left for you to learn from them; no sermon or commentary will ever tell you what you do not know) well, I am not yet there, so be patient with me.

But there is also a fourth difficulty which I believe takes us to the heart of the matter.  Often I am accused of submitting Scripture to the authority of Science.  I believe behind this charge lies fear.  It is feared that if we get into the habit of submitting Scripture to the claims of scientists (either founded on the Scientific Method or merely on evidence) one day the scientists will “prove” some theory which will “disprove” the central tenets of our faith. But I can conceive of no proof that has this power.  I disbelieve the possibility of any proof, not the grounds of faith, but simple logic.  Let me give an example: years back someone claimed to have found the tomb and remains of Jesus of Nazareth.  This created quite a stir.  Now I admit that if we actually found the true remains of Jesus, then intellectual integrity would demand I abandon my faith (as it would’ve for Paul—if Christ is not raised our faith is in vain).  But there is no conceivable way of proving such a claim.  Such an identification would involve a comparison between the DNA extracted from the suspected remains and the DNA taken from the historical and living Jesus of Nazareth—which is no longer possible—because He ascended.  But even if He didn’t, even if we thought his bones lied in some remote tomb, still we’d have no way of proving we found them: you cannot compare the DNA of remnants with the DNA of those very same remnants.

 

I believe all imagined fears of “what if science shows such and such??” are like the above example.  They are chimerical, the product of the hypochondriac imagination and therefore a symptom not only of weak faith but weak reasoning.  Thus I have no problem when science tells me something is true; perhaps it isn’t.  Perhaps one day they will tell me they were wrong.  Nothing they will ever tell me will or even can challenge the central tenets of my faith---because my faith is so strong? No, because reason sees a priori that they can’t.  If they tell me the earth is very old, well, what does it matter:  such a “fact” does nothing to my belief in Creation, the fall, Redemption by Jesus, the Trinity or the inspiration of Scripture or any other tenet of my faith.   It may alter a particular reading of Scripture here and there; but then not only one reading is reconcilable with belief in the doctrine of inspiration, and all readings are the result of exegesis made by fallible humans.

My guess is there is little else for us to say to each other; if that is true, then know I have very much enjoyed this exchange (and I admit my knowledge of the sciences is weak—the point about the Scientific Method was a good stroll down memory lane for me… a stroll that took me back to high school!!!).

clb  

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

Okay,

 

I think I am starting to figure your position out...I think...let me probe

 

"that when scientists claim the earth to be very old, they are merely making claims, not scientific claims"

 

Yes, correct. Just "claims" without employing the "Scientific Method."

 

Okay.....Now when a group of scientists tell me that the earth is very old, they have not used the scientific method....does that mean that they have applied NO method?  That it doesn't even rank as an educated hypothesis?  There is NO, ZIP, NADA evidence.  They simply got together and thought, "what if the world were old??" and then told us that it was in fact old? I find that hard to believe.  I am a layman when it comes to science; now I admit that the majority vote doesn't = truth.....but if 10 doctors tell me I have cancer and one doesn't, law of probability says I should believe the 10.  If I have an interpretation on some passage from Scripture, and then consult 20 commentaries and find that none of them agree with me, well, maybe I am a genius.....but probably I'm a fool.  When it comes to the age of the earth, it seems the overwhelming consensus points to it being very old, and this consensus does not exclude scientists who are also Christians--so I can exclude "bias" being the driving force.  (curious, are there any scientists, Christian and non, who claim a young earth?)

 

Now a  question: claims made about the age of the earth lack the support of the Scientific method and therefore are "just claims."  So What is it about paleontology that is so very much more reliable than these claims, so that when they tell me the earth is old, I shouldn't believe them; but when a paleontologist tells me that the dinosaurs were killed by a great flood, I should believe him?  You talk of paleontology as if it were a branch of history, not physical science.  But history is not an exact science (none are, but history one of the least, for it cannot test its theories in a laboratory--i.e. cannot reproduce ancient Rome and Julius Caesar).

 

"then it is a legitimate maneuver to question our reading of Scripture."

 

"Legitimate"?, How so? We base our Hermeneutics on Scripture ie(comparing Scripture with Scripture) as GOD'S WORD admonishes.... we don't allow "science" to filter our Hermeneutics.

 

....if by "we" you are using the royal "we", then fine.  If by "we" you mean you and I, then no.  I just said that I allow science to inform (I am not sure how "filter" is functioning above) my reading of Scripture.

 

I follow Augustine's doctrine of the two books.  Nature is not against Scripture (I am not a gnostics); and when something from our experience of nature disagrees terribly with Scripture, it is okay to question my view of Scripture...note this is not a battle between Nature and Scripture, nor science and exegesis.  Rather, it is a battle between my reading of Scripture and Scripture's actual intent.  I see it as Scripture and Nature on one side, and myself on the other.  I consult the one to better understand the other, because both have the same author behind them.

 

But perhaps something autobiographical will help (don't worry, I'll keep it short).  When it seemed hopeless to me that the Genesis account could not be literal I began to question whether I understood Scripture (again, note that the problem is with my interpretation of Scripture, not Scripture itself).  My studies led me into the culture of the ancient near east.  I discovered there all sorts of cultural idiosyncrasies that were strikingly similar to the language of Genesis (the importance of 7 days, the meaning of "image", the meaning of "resting", the geographical structure of Eden, the garden of Eden, and the rest of the world).  I have come to the conclusion that Genesis was not intended to give a precise chronological record of the earth's creation.  In fact, I found new, richer meanings being elicited from almost every line once I abandoned the literal 6 day reading....all because I allowed claims made by scientists to inform my reading.  We do a similar thing when we allow historians of ancient Rome to inform our exegesis of the New Testament: although perhaps you would reject even that, since (as you said) we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture.  If so, then the difference between us is perhaps too wide for discussion....but I have enjoyed it thus far.

 

 

clb

 

 

"Okay.....Now when a group of scientists tell me that the earth is very old, they have not used the scientific method....does that mean that they have applied NO method?"

 

No not by default; However, if it's not the Scientific Method that is employed, the method is irrelevant based on the Tenets of Scientific Evidence.

 

"That it doesn't even rank as an educated hypothesis?"

 

Hypothesis is Step 3 of the Scientific Method....in the case of Paleontologists, they can't get to Step 1.

 

 

"They simply got together and thought, "what if the world were old??"

 

I have no idea.  If you're asking my opinion.... well, due to the fact there is NO Scientific Evidence and never has been and the paradigm is defended rigorously; that's telling me that there is something behind those individuals "Pushing an Idea" for an AGENDA. Who could that be?....  See Genesis 3.

 

"but if 10 doctors tell me I have cancer and one doesn't, law of probability says I should believe the 10."

 

You're equivocating Medical Doctors and "scientists".  Also, you can TEST for Cancer...there's empirical data, it's not based on Opinion.

 

"When it comes to the age of the earth, it seems the overwhelming consensus"

 

Then you said...."now I admit that the majority vote doesn't = truth"  ??  See the contradiction?

 

"does not exclude scientists who are also Christians--so I can exclude "bias" being the driving force."

 

then....."(curious, are there any scientists, Christian and non, who claim a young earth?)"

 

Question: how can you exclude Bias, and then ask if there are Christian Scientists who claim a young earth?

 

"So What is it about paleontology that is so very much more reliable"

 

It's not more reliable, "Reliable" is your superimposed label based on...."they're are Paleontologists"

 

"so that when they tell me the earth is old, I shouldn't believe them;"

 

If you base a belief on someone's Opinion (a fallible human); then, you get what you get.  If you base it on Empirical Evidence then it has a much stronger foundation.  If you base it on the WORD of GOD.....GOLD!!!!  See the Hierarchy?

 

"You talk of paleontology as if it were a branch of history, not physical science."

 

Historical Sciences (Paleontology, Archeology, Anthropology, Cosmology, et al);  Empirical/Experimental/Operational Sciences (Biology, Chemistry, Physics et al)

The only "Physical" Tenet of Paleontology is digging up bones.

 

"if by "we" you are using the royal "we","

 

Now that is funny, which Movie is that?  When I said "we", I meant me and Shiloh.

 

"I follow Augustine's doctrine of the two books."

 

I follow Jesus Christ and what he Plainly Says in the WORD.

 

"Nature is not against Scripture"

 

I agree

 

"when something from our experience of nature disagrees terribly with Scripture"

 

Humans are fallible...our experiences can't always be trusted.  And, I Trust The WORD of GOD and the Authority of Scripture.  If there was ever a case where Nature did disagree (as of right now, I have never seen such an occurrence) I will TRUST The LORD.

 

"I see it as Scripture and Nature on one side"

 

I see Nature as created; therefore, the creature.  Hence....(Romans 1:25) "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

 

 

"it seemed hopeless to me that the Genesis account could not be literal"

 

Well if you base that "seemed' on claims that scientists make.... then those are just opinions and not proof.  We are admonished to....(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

IMHO, you need to re-evaluate the Proof.

 

 

Hope this helps

 

Yes it was helpful.   Unfortunately I suspect you and I are on opposite sides of the net and no rapprochement is possible; I hope we still consider each other to be on the same courts of Christianity.

 

I have 4 difficulties with what you’ve said:

1) I find it impossible for me to subscribe to the “conspiracy theory” which would have the majority of scientists claiming a very old earth on absolutely no evidence whatsoever but claimed simply  with the sole purpose of  undermining Scripture (or rather, a particular reading of Scripture) with Satan being the efficient cause behind this project.  For one thing there are a good many Christian scientist who affirm the Old Earth theory while also affirming the central tenets of Christianity.  For another, it seems to me that there is evidence: and when so many people more educated in a field than I make a claim, I regard it as presumptuous for me to deny them (I used an analogy before about many doctors telling me I had cancer—it was an analogy,  not comparison of the relative sciences.  My point in that analogy was that when people far more knowledgeable than I are telling me the earth is very old, I must have very good reasons for disbelieving them—if this attitude is wrong then we may call it an error of humility.  The only argument I have against them is one particular reading of Genesis; a particular reading which I do not think vital or even true……..so, on what grounds do I deny their claim?  I am in quite a predicament: I am not skilled enough to deny them on scientific grounds; I am not convicted enough to deny them on exegetical grounds!  What would you have me do, and why?  

2) What evidence, you might ask, is there for an old earth?—My guess is you know them all; to me it seems far more than not.  That of the speed of light and the time it would take for the light of distant stars to reach us seems very convincing.  But of course there are always counter attacks. One might say that we have no proof that the distance between us and those stars is that great; or that God might cause the speed of light to fluctuate.  These counter attacks made by YEarthers sound (to my ears) desperate and at times embarrassing: as when they claim that before God created the Sun, plant life could flourish apart from photosynthesis; but afterwards He altered this (Why?!!) so that photosynthesis was absolutely essential and required the Sun.  Or, again, when I am told that God created the earth to “look” old.   It is these types of ripostes that appear to have an “agenda” behind them; the agenda being to protect a particular, and not at all indisputably “correct”, reading of Scripture. 

3) You describe the conflict as between God’s word (which is infallible) and science (which is fallible).  This is far too idealistic for me.  God’s word is not easy.  It requires interpretation, which relies upon historical evidence (which itself relies upon interpretation) and linguistic studies and what not.  Thus for me the conflict (though I do not think that ultimately there is a conflict) is between the Exegesis of Scripture (a human enterprise) and the exegesis of Nature (a human enterprise).  Of course Scripture (as intended by its authors and Author) is infallible; but then so is nature as it actually is.  But we can no more isolate Scripture from the subjective element of human fallibility (our reading of Scripture) than we can nature as it actually is from the scientific method or even scientific claims (based on evidence).  It seems you have omitted the subjective side of Scripture and left it only for the sciences.  Of course if you claim to have full and perfect knowledge of the Scriptures (which means there is nothing left for you to learn from them; no sermon or commentary will ever tell you what you do not know) well, I am not yet there, so be patient with me.

But there is also a fourth difficulty which I believe takes us to the heart of the matter.  Often I am accused of submitting Scripture to the authority of Science.  I believe behind this charge lies fear.  It is feared that if we get into the habit of submitting Scripture to the claims of scientists (either founded on the Scientific Method or merely on evidence) one day the scientists will “prove” some theory which will “disprove” the central tenets of our faith. But I can conceive of no proof that has this power.  I disbelieve the possibility of any proof, not the grounds of faith, but simple logic.  Let me give an example: years back someone claimed to have found the tomb and remains of Jesus of Nazareth.  This created quite a stir.  Now I admit that if we actually found the true remains of Jesus, then intellectual integrity would demand I abandon my faith (as it would’ve for Paul—if Christ is not raised our faith is in vain).  But there is no conceivable way of proving such a claim.  Such an identification would involve a comparison between the DNA extracted from the suspected remains and the DNA taken from the historical and living Jesus of Nazareth—which is no longer possible—because He ascended.  But even if He didn’t, even if we thought his bones lied in some remote tomb, still we’d have no way of proving we found them: you cannot compare the DNA of remnants with the DNA of those very same remnants.

 

I believe all imagined fears of “what if science shows such and such??” are like the above example.  They are chimerical, the product of the hypochondriac imagination and therefore a symptom not only of weak faith but weak reasoning.  Thus I have no problem when science tells me something is true; perhaps it isn’t.  Perhaps one day they will tell me they were wrong.  Nothing they will ever tell me will or even can challenge the central tenets of my faith---because my faith is so strong? No, because reason sees a priori that they can’t.  If they tell me the earth is very old, well, what does it matter:  such a “fact” does nothing to my belief in Creation, the fall, Redemption by Jesus, the Trinity or the inspiration of Scripture or any other tenet of my faith.   It may alter a particular reading of Scripture here and there; but then not only one reading is reconcilable with belief in the doctrine of inspiration, and all readings are the result of exegesis made by fallible humans.

My guess is there is little else for us to say to each other; if that is true, then know I have very much enjoyed this exchange (and I admit my knowledge of the sciences is weak—the point about the Scientific Method was a good stroll down memory lane for me… a stroll that took me back to high school!!!).

clb  

 

 

"1) I find it impossible for me to subscribe to the “conspiracy theory”

 

Read Psalm 2, that should put the issue of "Conspiracy Theories" to bed.

 

"good many Christian scientist who affirm"

 

Man are wicked.....(Romans 3:10-13) "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:  {11} There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.  {12} They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.  {13} Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:"

 

"What would you have me do, and why?"

 

Put whatever they say to the test. Personally I line it up with Scripture...if it doesn't line up, File 13.   If it's scientific....then it must conform to the "Scientific Method"...if it doesn't, well it's an opinion.  Why?...God admonishes us to: (1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

Example......

 

"or that God might cause the speed of light to fluctuate"

 

Speed of Light >>>>> Scientific Claim. Does it conform to the Scientific Method?.....Nope >>>>> Opinion.  I have a built in Algorithm

 

"claim that before God created the Sun, plant life could flourish apart from photosynthesis; but afterwards He altered this (Why?!!)"

 

Not following.  Plants can survive for a few days without the Sun.

 

"God’s word is not easy.  It requires interpretation"

 

(2 Peter 1:20) "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

 

"scientific claims (based on evidence)."

 

See Algorithm above

 

"lies fear.  It is feared that if we get into the habit of submitting Scripture to the claims of scientists"

 

I am not afraid in the least.  I Love Science "REAL SCIENCE" .....the "sciences" that employ the "Scientific Method".  I just heard somebody say that the Scientific Method is Biblical....I'm gonna have to track that down

 

 

"I am not skilled enough to deny them on scientific grounds"

 

Yes you are.  Apply the Algorithm, you may use mine.   And......(Hosea 4:6) "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."

 

and....(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good

 

"I have very much enjoyed this exchange"

 

I have as well