Science and Exegesis

[Enoch2021]

Hello Enoch,

 

It is difficult for me to find common ground with you because I simply do not believe in your "conspiracy theory"...that the scientists are claiming an ancient earth for the sole purpose of undermining Scripture, and that not one single bit of evidence is there to suggest an cosmos older than a literalistic reading of Genesis would have us believe.

 

It seems (obviously i have not read all your posts) that your arguments are purely negative: i.e. meant to debunk OE, but are there any positive arguments which show scientific evidence for a young earth?  For instance, I know you are fond of criticizing carbon dating, the time span being much shorter than is often claimed.  Based on your more modest assessment of carbon dating, does the evidence point to a cosmos that is 6,000 years old?  Is there any positive evidence for a 6,000 year old earth?

 

clb

 

 

 

==================================================================================

 

It is difficult for me to find common ground with you because I simply do not believe in your "conspiracy theory"

 

Strawman (Fallacy). What "Conspiracy Theory" might that be?  There are ZERO in any of my rebuttals to your opening argument ?? 

 

 

that not one single bit of evidence is there to suggest

 

There isn't, unless you can show "Scientific Evidence of even One....

 

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.'

 

The Scientific Method:

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

Step 2: Lit Review

Step 3: Hypothesis

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Step 5: Analyze Data

Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7: Report Results

 

 

It seems (obviously i have not read all your posts)

 

It's quite obvious that you haven't read any of my initial rebuttals to your opening salvo.  Or you read them then ignored the Arguments.

 

 

that your arguments are purely negative

 

This is quite strange, I had no arguments whatsoever other than refutations.  How do you suggest I refute a postulate other than using a negative??

 

Moreover, you had no argument whatsoever for an Old Earth except.... "The scientists tell us that the earth is very old, much older than the sum of years mentioned in Genesis".  Do you think this is an Argument?

 

 

I know you are fond of criticizing carbon dating

 

Actually, I'm fond of Criticizing ALL "dating methods" because they're demonstrably pseudo-science.

 

 

Based on your more modest assessment of carbon dating, does the evidence point to a cosmos that is 6,000 years old?

 

First of all, C14 dating isn't used to date the age of the earth since it's half-life is 5700 years.

 

2nd, it's quite the Non-Sequitur (Fallacy) to date Rocks using C14 since they are Inorganic.

 

 

Is there any positive evidence for a 6,000 year old earth?

 

1. Helium in Zircons. http://creation.com/helium-evidence-for-a-young-world-continues-to-confound-critics

 

2. Dr. Russ Humphries predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune based on 6,000 years timescale ...Voyager 2 Space Craft confirmed them.

http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-and-the-age-of-the-earth

 

3. Dino Soft Tissue

 

4. Recorded History

[a-seeker]

 

Hello Enoch,

 

It is difficult for me to find common ground with you because I simply do not believe in your "conspiracy theory"...that the scientists are claiming an ancient earth for the sole purpose of undermining Scripture, and that not one single bit of evidence is there to suggest an cosmos older than a literalistic reading of Genesis would have us believe.

 

It seems (obviously i have not read all your posts) that your arguments are purely negative: i.e. meant to debunk OE, but are there any positive arguments which show scientific evidence for a young earth?  For instance, I know you are fond of criticizing carbon dating, the time span being much shorter than is often claimed.  Based on your more modest assessment of carbon dating, does the evidence point to a cosmos that is 6,000 years old?  Is there any positive evidence for a 6,000 year old earth?

 

clb

 

 

 

==================================================================================

 

It is difficult for me to find common ground with you because I simply do not believe in your "conspiracy theory"

 

Strawman (Fallacy). What "Conspiracy Theory" might that be?  There are ZERO in any of my rebuttals to your opening argument ?? 

 

 

that not one single bit of evidence is there to suggest

 

There isn't, unless you can show "Scientific Evidence of even One....

 

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.'

 

The Scientific Method:

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

Step 2: Lit Review

Step 3: Hypothesis

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Step 5: Analyze Data

Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7: Report Results

 

 

It seems (obviously i have not read all your posts)

 

It's quite obvious that you haven't read any of my initial rebuttals to your opening salvo.  Or you read them then ignored the Arguments.

 

 

that your arguments are purely negative

 

This is quite strange, I had no arguments whatsoever other than refutations.  How do you suggest I refute a postulate other than using a negative??

 

Moreover, you had no argument whatsoever for an Old Earth except.... "The scientists tell us that the earth is very old, much older than the sum of years mentioned in Genesis".  Do you think this is an Argument?

 

 

I know you are fond of criticizing carbon dating

 

Actually, I'm fond of Criticizing ALL "dating methods" because they're demonstrably pseudo-science.

 

 

Based on your more modest assessment of carbon dating, does the evidence point to a cosmos that is 6,000 years old?

 

First of all, C14 dating isn't used to date the age of the earth since it's half-life is 5700 years.

 

2nd, it's quite the Non-Sequitur (Fallacy) to date Rocks using C14 since they are Inorganic.

 

 

Is there any positive evidence for a 6,000 year old earth?

 

1. Helium in Zircons. http://creation.com/helium-evidence-for-a-young-world-continues-to-confound-critics

 

2. Dr. Russ Humphries predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune based on 6,000 years timescale ...Voyager 2 Space Craft confirmed them.

http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-and-the-age-of-the-earth

 

3. Dino Soft Tissue

 

4. Recorded History

 

 

As for the conspiracy theory, I am referring to other posts by you in which you accused scientists of consciously fabricating an OE with the sole purpose of undermining Scripture. This is irreconcilable with the fact that there are many Christian scientists who believe in an OE.

 

I will attempt to read the links, though my background is not in that area.  Are they all from YEC's or are there any proponents of a YE who are also non-believers?  It would greatly strengthen the case if there were and alleviate the suspicion of bias.

 

But again, the point of this thread has been missed.  The point was never that the earth was old.  The point was that it is legitimate to reexamine Scripture in light of claims made by scientists.  Let me put it in a chronological sequence (this is not exactly biographical, but it will make the point).

 

Let us suppose

 

1) I am a YEC who reads Genesis 1 literalistically.

 

2) an overwhelming number of scientists claim the earth older than YEC allows.

 

3) Numerous Christians are among them who still believe the Bible to be inspired.

 

4) I reexamine Scripture: I study the language of the Bible as well as documents close to it in age.

 

5) A revelation unfolds: Genesis is structured very carefully and thematically, but has no interest in 24 hour periods (note, I am not advocating the day/age theory; I think it is wrong).

 

6) (And this is very important) Genesis is not interested at all about the age of the earth.  It does not confirm OEC; but neither does it confirm YEC.

 

7) Scientists withdraw their statement: the earth is younger than they have been claiming...

 

.....I would not return to a 6 day literalist reading of Scripture.

 

In other words, science only put into motion the research; it did not produce the new interpretation.  Exegesis did.  When OE is abandoned by scientists, the exegesis still stands.

 

make sense?

 

clb

 

(I should say this: if a perfected science did reveal the earth to be exactly the age arrived at by adding all the numbers, I would then be a YEC; but the least important part of the 6 days would be their measurement.  The significant part was the meaning that the number 7 had for the ancients).

[Tristen]

 

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.

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).

[Tristen]

 

Hi CLB, You said, “When is it permissible for the secular sciences to inform our reading of Scripture?”

 

According to the Christian faith, scripture is the highest authoritative communication of God to humanity. Eisogesis is considered a poor interpretation methodology because it diminishes the authority of scripture and subjects it to the authority of outside influences. Scientific discoveries may help us to understand scripture, but not reinterpret it. Only evidence from the context can be used to interpret scripture.

 

 

 

“Why should secular science NOT influence our reading of scripture?”

 

Science is fallible by design. Christians believe that the scriptures are inerrant in the autographic manuscripts, and that God has preserved all essential doctrine. Why should the infallible word of God be subjected to fallible, subjective human systems? Either these Christian claims about the inerrancy of scripture are true, or they are not.

 

 

 

“the question is NOT “When should Scripture yield to Scientific claims?” This is not about a contest between infallible Scripture and fallible science, or of God’s word vs. Man’s.  Rather it is the issue of man’s exegesis of Scripture and its relationship to what I call man’s exegesis of nature; or, between scholarship and physical science”

 

You are suggesting that we reinterpret scripture in the light of science – so you are suggesting that scientific claims be given influence and authority over how we interpret scripture. You are suggesting that if the claims of science contradict the claims of the Bible, then the Bible should give way to science – e.g. we should assume (without any evidence from the scriptures themselves) that the Bible is meant to be interpreted symbolically – because it has the gall to disagree with a scientific claim. So it is a competition where in your mind, science wins. You want to mould scripture to fit the fallible and changing claims of science. Then when the scientific story changes because of some new evidence, we will need to reinterpret scripture again.

 

As the inerrant Word of God, we would expect the Bible to be consistent with the facts. So long as I can interpret a fact to be consistent with the Biblical version of reality, I have no need to compromise my faith in the reliability of scripture.

 

 

 

“And most here will acknowledge certain tools which will help refine or correct those “best” explanations: whether it be better handling of the Greek or Hebrew, better understanding of the historical context etc.  Sometimes a discovery, like that of the Dead Sea Scrolls, prompts scholars to reexamine traditional readings of Scripture.  Should secular science be allowed the same force?”

 

In the preceding examples you are examining scripture by looking into and comparing scripture to scripture. That is desirable and logically consistent. Our understanding can be improved by exegesis – drawing information out of the text – i.e. information contained in the text. If “secular science” is permitted the same authority, you are employing eisogesis – reading information into scripture that is not actually contained in the text. Thereby you have subjected God’s word to the fallible judgement of human systems.

 

When we consider that many secular historical claims are interpreted within the naturalistic paradigm (i.e. in a context that excludes the possibility of an interactive God), the danger faced by subjecting the Bible to “scientific” eisogesis is amplified. The faith premise of these claims directly contradicts the premise of scripture – so your suggestion amounts to submitting our scriptures to a contrary faith perspective.

 

 

 

“Obviously the example that looms largest here is cosmology and its influence on our reading of Genesis”

 

Cosmology is an historical science. Operational science attributes confidence to claims through observation. Historical claims cannot be observed without a time machine – so a different method is required to examine those claims; an indirect method – where we make up a story to account for the past (a model), then test that story against the currently available evidence. But since there is more than one story which can account for the current evidence, we can never be confident (apart from faith) which story is true. So these claims have no logically legitimate standing upon which to influence our interpretation of scripture – apart from secular propaganda.

 

 

 

“The scientists tell us that the earth is very old, much older than the sum of years mentioned in Genesis would lead us to believe”

 

Find here a list of highly credentialed scientists who consider the Biblical creation account to be a viable explanation of the history of the universe.

http://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation

This is not a science versus faith issue. It is about the secular, naturalistic paradigm vs the Biblical paradigm. It is not an issue of facts, but how the interpretation of those facts is influenced by the faith presupposition of the interpreter. Biblical creationists can interpret all of the very-same facts used by secular science to support their models, but to be consistent with the Biblical model of reality. So there is no objective scientific reason for us to surrender our faith in the Biblical version of reality – or to submit our scriptures to the secular faith’s interpretation of facts.

 

 

 

“This has led some to question the intended meaning of the creation account (s)”

 

Those who lack the understanding required to break down the logic underpinning the secular claims allow themselves to be convinced by the propaganda that these claims warrant logically and scientifically unjustified levels of confidence. Yet there is no objective scientific reason for anyone to question what is written in Genesis.

 

I think if you are honest with yourself – you are not suggesting a reinterpretation of the creation account, but a rejection of what is actually written. There is nothing in the Genesis account that mirrors Standard Cosmology or Common Ancestry. There is no logical antecedent/metaphor relationship between Genesis and the secular models. You are basically saying that what is written is wrong because it doesn’t conform to secular ideas – then to reconcile your conscience your make an arbitrary claim that Genesis must have been meant symbolically. And thereby, you circumvent the authority of scripture – if it doesn’t agree with science, the Bible is either wrong or symbolic. Science is king and the Bible must submit.

 

 

 

“On the other hand it has been maintained on this forum by many that the abandonment of a literal 6-day reading of Genesis 1 in response to scientific claims made about the earth’s age constitutes nothing less than the abandonment of God’s Word as revelation.  I struggle to see why”

 

I would not consider belief in Genesis creation to be a salvation issue. However, the creation account provides the philosophical foundations for many of the most important Biblical doctrines; such as holding humanity accountable for sin and death – and our subsequent requirement of a Saviour, or how can a good God create such a cruel reality? Genesis answers these questions. Also Jesus, and both Old and New Testament authors referred to Genesis as historical events – so in accepting secular interpretations of facts, there is and implication that they were wrong/ignorant.

 

 

 

“But I am not here concerned with this or that maneuver but with the general condemnation of even searching for alternative readings”

 

I wouldn’t condemn the search. But I would question the motivation. The Genesis record has been thoroughly researched. The overwhelming evidence from the text itself is that Genesis means what it says; i.e. an historical creation account. The only reason to presume otherwise is some prevailing obligation to contrary (yet unverifiable) secular claims about history.

 

 

 

“For it seems to me that many on this forum are not even willing to entertain alternative readings that are prompted by scientific claims: they are regarded wrong a priori, and that simply because behind them lies the influence of secular disciplines.  This baffles me. Why the prejudice?”

 

I don’t think its “prejudice” at all. Our faith is in the authority of scripture. We have examined the scriptures to establish the intent of the author and found overwhelming evidence that Genesis is meant as an historical account. Then we examine the claims of secular history and find them logically unverifiable and formulated around the precepts of a contrary faith. So we need more than the mere suggestion that there may be another way to interpret these scriptures – or the unsupported dismissal of these scriptures as symbolic.

 

Ultimately, if you don’t want to believe the Bible, then don’t. But we will take issue with people who go to extraordinary lengths to make our scriptures say something they don’t in order to justify some allegiance to the claims of another faith perspective.

 

 

 

“I think it also highly irresponsible not to acknowledge these claims and reexamine what we think we know about Scripture”

 

I am more than happy to examine any claim – so long as the claimant is happy for me to subject their claim to scrutiny. If I provide copious evidence and argument supporting my position, but my opponent just says “maybe it’s meant symbolically”, then I’m sure you’ll understand why I might be tempted to question their motives. Nevertheless, I agree that no claim should be ignored.

 

 

 

“Does the fact that it was a secular discipline which initiated the initial search vitiate those finds?  Is secular science such a vulgar catalyst that nothing good can come from it, however attractive and (I must say) invigorating results?”

 

I don’t know what you mean by “secular discipline”. Science does not belong to the secular community. I think we may again need to revisit the difference between the historical and operational methodology. Your example is cosmology – that is historical. All such claims are unverifiable because we cannot perform experiments or make observations in the past - unlike gravity, for example, which can be tested and retested by the operational/experimental method.

 

Secular historical models do rely on unverifiable faith assumptions – and are therefore inherently biased (in reality – all historical models are influenced by such bias – including creationism). It’s only ‘vitiated’ when this bias is ignored, and confidence in the claims are subsequently exaggerated beyond what is logically and scientifically justified.

 

Hi Tristen,

 

Hi CLB, You said, “When is it permissible for the secular sciences to inform our reading of Scripture?”

 

According to the Christian faith, scripture is the highest authoritative communication of God to humanity. Eisogesis is considered a poor interpretation methodology because it diminishes the authority of scripture and subjects it to the authority of outside influences. Scientific discoveries may help us to understand scripture, but not reinterpret it. Only evidence from the context can be used to interpret scripture.

 

 

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 think if you are honest with yourself – you are not suggesting a reinterpretation of the creation account, but a rejection of what is actually written. There is nothing in the Genesis account that mirrors Standard Cosmology or Common Ancestry. There is no logical antecedent/metaphor relationship between Genesis and the secular models. You are basically saying that what is written is wrong because it doesn’t conform to secular ideas – then to reconcile your conscience your make an arbitrary claim that Genesis must have been meant symbolically. And thereby, you circumvent the authority of scripture – if it doesn’t agree with science, the Bible is either wrong or symbolic. Science is king and the Bible must submit.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

I don’t know what you mean by “secular discipline”. Science does not belong to the secular community. I think we may again need to revisit the difference between the historical and operational methodology. Your example is cosmology – that is historical. All such claims are unverifiable because we cannot perform experiments or make observations in the past - unlike gravity, for example, which can be tested and retested by the operational/experimental method.

 

 

 

"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.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

============================================================================================

 

I am referring to other posts by you in which you accused scientists of consciously fabricating an OE with the sole purpose of undermining Scripture. This is irreconcilable with the fact that there are many Christian scientists who believe in an OE.

 

Strawman Fallacy.  I said all it would take is a few @ the top of academia/ "Peer Review".....Gate Keepers to run the whole show.  And if you can "Fog a Mirror", that's been going on for @ least the past 80 Years.  Would you like a list of the "Expelled"?

 

Craig Venter PhD (Gemomics Pioneer NIH, Celera Genomics):  "peer review is like ‘the prisoners running the prison’.

 

I also have Geoffrey Burbidge Astrophysicist (Director Kitt Peak National Observatory) say what everyone already knows in the first place.... that the "Peer Review" System is Corrupt.  And Pray Tell, why would that be?

 

My point has nothing to do with the relatively few Christian Scientists...and that hold an OE view....it's painfully irrelevant to my point.

 

Are they all from YEC's or are there any proponents of a YE who are also non-believers?  It would greatly strengthen the case if there were and alleviate the suspicion of bias.

 

You have to be kidding with this Statement lol  What if some liked Blue Berry Pie but others like Banana Cream?  Who cares where they're from or what they believe?? ...are the Postulates True or Not is the question.  Lets go ask the editors of "Nature", "Science" or "Scientific American" what they think.......I'm suuuuuuurrrrreeeeee they're not "Biased"!!

 

 

The point was never that the earth was old.  Then .... The point was that it is legitimate to reexamine Scripture in light of claims made by scientists.

 

Yes, about their claims that the Earth was old.  And Big Difference in their "Claims" and...... "Scientific Evidence" of which there is: ZILCH, Nada, Zero.

 

 

Let us suppose

1) I am a YEC who reads Genesis 1 literalistically.

2) an overwhelming number of scientists claim the earth older than YEC allows.

3) Numerous Christians are among them who still believe the Bible to be inspired.

4) I reexamine Scripture: I study the language of the Bible as well as documents close to it in age.

5) A revelation unfolds: Genesis is structured very carefully and thematically, but has no interest in 24 hour periods (note, I am not advocating the day/age theory; I think it is wrong).

6) (And this is very important) Genesis is not interested at all about the age of the earth.  It does not confirm OEC; but neither does it confirm YEC.

7) Scientists withdraw their statement: the earth is younger than they have been claiming...

 

Everything from #2 is moot.  How many times do I have to tell you that it doesn't matter what people: Think, Believe, their Favorite Color/Ice cream/ Band/ Sports Team/ ad nauseam... It's what they can Support/Validate.  If they're "Scientists" then they have to VALIDATE the Hypothesis via Experiment following the Scientific Method which is Empirical:  Observable, Measurable, Repeatable, Falsifiable.

 

What part of that Don't You Understand?

 

 

In other words, science only put into motion the research; it did not produce the new interpretation.  Exegesis did.  When OE is abandoned by scientists, the exegesis still stands.

make sense?

 

No, it's Baloney.  Read that real slow....you contradicted yourself.

 

 

(I should say this: if a perfected science did reveal the earth to be exactly the age arrived at by adding all the numbers

 

There is no "Science" that can make any claim about the Age, because.......For The 100000^th Time:    It's In The Past     It's outside of "science's" Purview.

 

Not only that, but "Scientists" confirm this self-same point via Quantum Mechanics....Experimentally Validated, Repeatedly; SEE:

 

Double-Slit Experiment

A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9903047

Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.4834.pdf

Experimental realization of Wheeler's delayed-choice GedankenExperiment: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0610241.pdf

 

The act of a conscious observer creates the existence of Matter (Particles) and the objects they entail, Instantly!  A Reality Independent of Observation...doesn't exist!

 

"We have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in shaping what we have always called the past.  The past is not really the past until it has been registered.  Or put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a record in the present".

John Wheeler PhD Physicist, Professor Princeton

 

So when asked: "does a tree make a sound in the woods when it falls and nobody is around?"; the answer is an unequivocal....NO!  There is no sound and more importantly...there is NO TREE! lol

 

"Who deserves to trust their intuition more than Einstein; and Einstein's intuition told him, like everyone's intuition tells them, that things are really there when you're not looking at them.  Well, he was Wrong!  That intuition is Incorrect."

Seth Lloyd, Professor of Mechanical Engineering MIT

[a-seeker]

“the question is NOT “When should Scripture yield to Scientific claims?” This is not about a contest between infallible Scripture and fallible science, or of God’s word vs. Man’s.  Rather it is the issue of man’s exegesis of Scripture and its relationship to what I call man’s exegesis of nature; or, between scholarship and physical science”

 

 

You are suggesting that we reinterpret scripture in the light of science – so you are suggesting that scientific claims be given influence and authority over how we interpret scripture. You are suggesting that if the claims of science contradict the claims of the Bible, then the Bible should give way to science – e.g. we should assume (without any evidence from the scriptures themselves) that the Bible is meant to be interpreted symbolically – because it has the gall to disagree with a scientific claim. So it is a competition where in your mind, science wins. You want to mould scripture to fit the fallible and changing claims of science. Then when the scientific story changes because of some new evidence, we will need to reinterpret scripture again.

 

 

 

 

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

 

Once more, I do not advocate the immediate abandonment of traditional readings of scripture the second some conflicting claim has been made public by the sciences. That is irresponsible. 

 

 

 

 

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.

Edited August 18, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown

[Tristen]

 

“the question is NOT “When should Scripture yield to Scientific claims?” This is not about a contest between infallible Scripture and fallible science, or of God’s word vs. Man’s.  Rather it is the issue of man’s exegesis of Scripture and its relationship to what I call man’s exegesis of nature; or, between scholarship and physical science”

 

 

You are suggesting that we reinterpret scripture in the light of science – so you are suggesting that scientific claims be given influence and authority over how we interpret scripture. You are suggesting that if the claims of science contradict the claims of the Bible, then the Bible should give way to science – e.g. we should assume (without any evidence from the scriptures themselves) that the Bible is meant to be interpreted symbolically – because it has the gall to disagree with a scientific claim. So it is a competition where in your mind, science wins. You want to mould scripture to fit the fallible and changing claims of science. Then when the scientific story changes because of some new evidence, we will need to reinterpret scripture again.

 

 

 

 

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

 

Once more, I do not advocate the immediate abandonment of traditional readings of scripture the second some conflicting claim has been made public by the sciences. That is irresponsible. 

 

 

 

 

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.

[Bonky]

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”.

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

 

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.

I didn't assume you carbon dated anything, trust me on that.

 

 

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.

 

 

At least you are consistent in your strategy of avoiding arguments through casting unsupported aspersions on your opponents.

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.

 

 

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.

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.

 

 

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 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.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Bonky

[Hobbes]

As one would wish to examine scripture in relations to the current trend in science, one should also examine science itself.  Just as there are those that misapply scripture, so can there be those that misapply science.  Just as there are cults in christianity, so can there be cults in science.

 

People will argue the meaning of the scripture as they do argue the opinions on the evidence in science.

 

As the final authority is Jesus Christ in helping us to see the meaning of His words, then for believers, they will need Jesus Christ to see the truths in science from a science so falsely called.

 

1 Timothy 6:²⁰ O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: ²¹ Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

 

As I state the laws of science as I recall it and apply it, I would prefer those that disagree give the rebuttal with the proper corrections rather than just simply disagreeing with it in general. 

 

1st Law of Thermodynamics:  basically it means nothing can be created out of nothing nor be destroyed.  That means what is set before us is not going to receive anything else out of nowhere.

 

The Law of Biogenesis basically means that kinds begets similar kinds; a cow will always be a cow, it may become a different kind of cow, but still a cow;  just as a rose by any other name is still a rose. 

 

Educated evolutionists will argue that macroevolution does not occur by hybridization, but it was referred to because of the problem of continual reproduction in the cross breeding.  A lion & tiger were cross breeded by science to get a liger, both male & female, but neither one could reproduce.  Just as when a horse and a donkey crossbreed to get a mule but the mule cannot reproduce either.

 

Now by those two laws of science, and the fact that no genetic information has ever been observed as being added to a living organism, then no set kind is going to receive any addtional genetic information out of nowhere into its DNA to become another kind.  To theorize it as a possibility flies in the face agains the two laws of science because a cow is not going to become anything else but a cow because no genetic information is going to come out of nowhere to start slowly changing that cow into a whale.

 

The margin for error or for doubt can be given in that just because it was never observed, it does not mean it did not happen, but then I point to hybridization in how statistically impossible that a random additional genetic material has been added in order to not only change that kind into another kind, which means they can no longer reproduce with its former kind, but to do a similar change to that kind to provide a mate.... and then to top it off with being able to reproduce which hybridization in real life has proven to be zero chance and the same applies of ever happening in wonderland as well.

 

Again, if by natural design that crossbreeding cannot produce a new line to continue, how can an unknown random act of chaos can do in producing anything to have a mate to continue its line?

 

Now opponents may reword the two laws or give the full meaning of those two laws, but the two points of those two laws are made to show how the evolution theory is a science falsely so called. 

 

So adjusting our view of the scripture to go with the current trend in an everchanging evolution science is futile, because the "facts" of evolution are not set in stone as they are always modified & updated as time goes by. I thank Jesus Christ that I prefer the light of scripture in the KJV over the guesswork of educated men in a science so falsely called for regarding the evolution theory.

[a-seeker]

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.

 

 

 

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