Science and Exegesis

[Tristen]

Hi Tristen,

 

 

“So let me know if I am allowed to consult the rest of Scripture, ancient documents, and, depending on your answer, I will provide evidence for the temple motif”

My response was to you reducing your argument to allow secular claims to prompt a re-examination of Genesis – and no influence beyond that prompting. In response I proposed a simple re-examination of Genesis without any preconceptions whatsoever (which I would consider to be a valuable exercise for all of scripture). If we were dealing with Exodus, then we would need to consider the context of Genesis, but Genesis (the book of beginnings/origins) has no antecedent information. Though, Genesis 2 has to consider the context of information provided in Genesis 1 (i.e. in the two chapters we are considering; only preceding verses provide information pertinent to the author’s intent). As a rule of typology, additional information about what is meant is only valid if it is explicitly stated in later scriptures.

 

 

 

obviously that will not work.  If I tell you I can bench two hundred, and you say prove it, then tie my hands together, you havn't refuted my claim.  You've just cleverly changed the rules so that I have to fail.  My claim was that science can prompt a reexamination of Scripture; you added what that reexamination can and can't consist of.  That was never part of my proposal.  Reexamination means using all the tools pertinent to the topic.

 

You are asking me to treat literature as no literature should be treated, at least to any purpose.

 

No pre-conceptions!!  I cannot return to infancy.  Is it a preconception that light typically comes from a luminous source? Is looking at the Hebrew a pre-conception because it is not my native tongue.  For that matter, is it a pre-conception to conceive "day" as a 24 hour period?  Maybe back then a "day" was much longer.  Now we've opened the door to day/age, which I think both of us would reject.

 

Your entire claim that Genesis should be read without reference ahead is artificial.  Who is to say that Genesis was written first?  Because it comes first in our Bibles?  Then we should say Matthew was written before Mark and all the gospels before Paul.   When I open up Exodus the first thing I see Moses writing is the law-covenant.  Why should that not be a starting point?

 

But even so:

 

Genesis 1 has the world made in 6 days, Genesis 2.4 opens up with it being a day.

Again (but I have been over this so many times), in Genesis 2.18 God declares it is not good for man to be alone.  He declares he will make a helper fit for him.  What is the next thing he does...makes birds and beasts (not had made, but made).

 

 

clb

 

(I wonder if I should just give it a rest).

 

 

Hey CLB, you said, “My claim was that science can prompt a reexamination of Scripture; you added what that reexamination can and can't consist of.  That was never part of my proposal.  Reexamination means using all the tools pertinent to the topic”

 

If that re-examination permits outside ideas to determine the meaning of scripture, then you are subjecting the interpretation of scripture to those ideas – the very thing which you are so adamant that you are not doing.

 

 

 

“You are asking me to treat literature as no literature should be treated, at least to any purpose”

 

To establish the intent of the author, I am contending that we should read what the author has written. I’m not sure how that represents a mistreatment of literature.

 

 

 

“No pre-conceptions!!  I cannot return to infancy”

 

No – but you are surely intelligent enough to distinguish whether or not the text actually says what you have interpreted to be the meaning. i.e. is that idea actually contained in the text – or is it something I have attributed to the text from some outside source?

 

 

 

“Is it a preconception that light typically comes from a luminous source?”

 

No – this concept is implicitly redundant; given the definitions of “light” and “luminous”.

 

 

 

“Is looking at the Hebrew a pre-conception because it is not my native tongue”

 

No – Since Hebrew is the language of the written account, examining the Hebrew is deriving information from the text.

 

 

 

“is it a pre-conception to conceive "day" as a 24 hour period?”

 

No – the word “day” has a basic, understood definition. Any departure from that definition would have to be determined by the context.

 

 

 

“Maybe back then a "day" was much longer”

 

That is the reason why eisogesis is not permitted as a valid interpretation technique. “Maybe” any scripture that we are uncomfortable with actually means something else. The scripture no longer has any authority – because anything we disagree with can be undermined by “maybe” it means something else. That standard is not satisfactory for anyone truly believing the Bible to be the Word of God. There are interpretation standards (mainly common sense) that keep the Biblical doctrine safe from such nebulous subjectivity. One such standard is only permitting exegesis – i.e. only considering ideas to have Biblical authority if they are actually contained in the Biblical text.

 

 

“Your entire claim that Genesis should be read without reference ahead is artificial”

 

That is not actually my claim – it was my response to your “the only influence I am allowing to science: the impulse to reexamine...not what we will find” claim. This seemed to me like a call to objective analysis – which I applaud. So I suggested a properly objective re-examination – making every sincere attempt to ascertain the author’s intent apart from preconception (i.e. without the prompting and influence of any outside source).  Unfortunately, you apparently meant “the only influence I am allowing to science: the impulse to re-examine” and influence over the outcome. However as soon as you permit outside ideas any influence over how you interpret scriptures, you subject the authority of scripture to these ideas. No matter how much you protest that it’s not your intention – that’s what is occurring.

 

It boils down to two interpretation strategies; 1) your strategy of determining the intent of the author by applying ideas that don’t actually exist in the manuscript, and 2) my strategy of determining the intent of the author by reading what the author has actually written. Appealing to the original language falls neatly into the purview of my strategy.

 

 

 

“Who is to say that Genesis was written first?  Because it comes first in our Bibles?”

 

- And because it is titled “Genesis” – which means beginnings/origins etc. - And because it’s content deals with the beginning of the universe/earth/humanity – providing the historical context and philosophical doctrinal foundation for the rest of scripture. Jesus spoke of creation as the beginning (Mk 10:6). So the order of writing is barely relevant. I think a more pertinent question is why wouldn’t we consider Genesis to be the first book of the Bible? How do those arguments compare to my above argument?

 

 

 

“Then we should say Matthew was written before Mark and all the gospels before Paul”

 

The content and historical context is more important than the order of writing.

 

 

 

“When I open up Exodus the first thing I see Moses writing is the law-covenant.  Why should that not be a starting point?”

 

- Because the content and historical context of Genesis precedes that contained in Exodus.

 

 

 

“Genesis 1 has the world made in 6 days, Genesis 2.4 opens up with it being a day.Again (but I have been over this so many times), in Genesis 2.18 God declares it is not good for man to be alone.  He declares he will make a helper fit for him.  What is the next thing he does...makes birds and beasts (not had made, but made)”

 

Is that really what it says? Read it again. Now read Genesis 2 after Genesis 1. I would suggest to you that anyone who had read Genesis 1  would not make the assumptions you are making about Genesis 2 (apart from external motivations). The tense of “formed” (or “made”) is somewhat obscure in relation to the immediate context (though both are implicitly past-tense in the absence of context), but when Genesis 1 is considered, not only is the order of creation explicit, but the language determining order is also explicit. Your assumptions regarding the order of events in Genesis 2 only stand if you, for some reason, eject Genesis 1 from the account – i.e. remove the account from its intended context. Decontextualizing is also considered bad interpretation methodology – and not just for scripture.

[a-seeker]

“When I open up Exodus the first thing I see Moses writing is the law-covenant.  Why should that not be a starting point?”

 

 

 

- Because the content and historical context of Genesis precedes that contained in Exodus.

 

 

 

 

I wrote a response to each of yours; but then unfortunately came to this at the end.

 

Is this an accurate summary of your thinking:

 

 

1) Genesis is about the beginning

 

2) God would never inspire a work about the beginning which presupposed content later to come; because those events haven’t yet occurred.  And Genesis is obviously a history book meeting the modern criterion of history.  There is no question here of it being anything other than a historical account of the Universe.

 

3) Therefore, there is no reason to read ahead.  Genesis is needed to make sense of Ex-Dt..  But Ex-Dt. is not necessary for appropriately reading Genesis.

 

 

If so, then there is no point for further discussion.  All of that is a faith based assumption, assuming the genre of Genesis and how God would write it, “Well, if I were God, I certainly would write it this way; therefore it is written this way”.  And of course I cannot disprove an assumption based on faith by the text (though references in Genesis to the future time of the author render it highly implausible; obviously the author has the present in mind when writing on the past).  I think this position illogical and it imposes questionable controls on how God can and cannot inspire a document.   But it does not seem likely to me that someone who holds that view would ever loosen his grip enough to give another view a fair hearing.

 

So once again, perhaps it is best to leave it.

 

clb

[Bonky]

[Tristen]

 

Hey Bonky, you said “I thought they have tried and found only incredibly small impacts on decay rates. Nothing that would make any significant impact”

 

What constitutes a “significant impact” is subjective. The point is that any impact undermines the assumption that decay rates have been unaffected since the material formed. This logically undermines one of the fundamental assumptions of these dating methods. Remembering that these methods are used to extrapolate ages into billions of years of history – so if we find that the assumptions are non-universal, we can no longer rely on that method. When you logically remove an assumption supporting a claim, the claim becomes meaningless – at least that’s how it works in every other discipline of science and philosophy. Even if it is claimed to work most of the time, the reality is that we cannot determine the difference between a valid and invalid result. We therefore cannot legitimately trust any result.

 

The scientific integrity of any method requires that the underlying assumptions be correct for every test. Since the assumptions are known to not be universally correct, the method can never be considered reliable. The accuracy of each test can only be established if the age of the material is already known – in which case, the test is redundant anyway (except when testing the assumptions of the method).

Like I said the research from Purdue seems to indicate that there can be slight changes [changes less than 1% right?]. I don't see a reason to whole hog toss radio metric dating. I don't believe all isotopes were tested so I'm not so sure we can use such a broad brush and declare them suspect. I thought this only applied to beta decay anyways?

 

 

So you are not “looking at the past when we observe stars”, you are looking at photons of light as they reach our eyes/instruments, then making assumptions about the history of those photons – based on some assumed properties of light over massively large distances. So at the outset, you are employing uniformitarian assumptions to determine the history of the light back to its source. How is the “change” of the “radioactive elements” determined from this evidence?

 

Can you source the research so I can have a look at what you are claiming (the research determining the distance of SN1987a and the research measuring the “radioactive elements” from the supernova and comparing them to earth elements)?

I don't know what method they used to determine the distance. Here is the research paper, the section that applies starts with [Radioactivity lines]:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/9912131v1.pdf

 

 

 

“That's the point I'm making Tristen! Why did they choose a marine animal knowing full well that we wouldn't have to worry about a reservoir effect with a terrestrial one. It reeks of purposely choosing a method we could predict will cause false dates and then pretending that this isn't what we would expect”

 

I think we need to return to the context of my response. I simply listed data sets that I have observed that have caused me to question the integrity of carbon dating. You have latched on to one example (the marine example) and have gotten carried away with unspecified assumptions about who did the research and their motives and integrity. I think you are experiencing target blindness with this example. The specific example I was referring to I read so long ago that I don’t remember these details. Maybe it was before the reservoir effect was discovered – for all I remember, they may have factored in the reservoir effect – I suppose I can look it up if you need it. But I also provided terrestrial examples with the same issues – which are easily sourced in the literature; and which were absolutely not creationists.

Which brings up a point, I actually haven't seen any research on this marine carbon dating example. I focused on it because it sounds fishy to begin with.

 

 

 

 

Is that what I did – have an “episode”? How did you determine this? How do you even know the research was conducted by creationists – or even what research I was referring to? You’re like a dog with a bone – except in this case, there is no bone. This just reinforces my point that you are not even trying to be objective – you’re just overly anxious to latch onto anything that might paint creationists in a negative light.

I heard this years ago when I was a Christian. Later on I revisited it and read some of the fundamentals on carbon dating. I realized then that I had been conned by the Pastor.

 

 

So where does that leave me? What if I do make a mistake – does that automatically reinforce your perception of creationists as dishonest or inept?  That’s not how a rational discussion is supposed to work. It’s certainly not how objectivity works.

I don't know what mistake you are referring to.

 

 

 

 

“I feel that I try to filter through the information that I'm presented with and try not to adopt nonsense”

 

I’m glad that’s your goal. Unfortunately, in all our conversations so far, you have demonstrated a propensity for impenetrable confirmation bias. On several occasions, you have refused to subject your own position to the same standards you require of creationists, you have been explicit that you feel no obligation to consider any argument beyond the naturalistic position, you have been dismissive of any attempt to explain the evidence beyond the naturalistic account, you have consistently failed to separate the empirical form the theoretical in your analysis, and you have abundantly resorted to logical fallacy to distract from consideration of arguments. Even the tenor of your previous question resorts to ridiculous measures to mischaracterise creationists – and based on nothing at all.

I thing you're being a little dramatic. I've agreed with you on multiple occasions. I gave you a shot with regard to the penguin nonsense because it's deserved.

 

 

I think these strategies impede objectivity – if that’s your goal. It’s really not necessary. The same logical weaknesses that I ascribe to the secular position also weaken my own position – so the only risk to you is that you may come to realise that alternative positions can also be rationally justified. You’ll never be forced to give up your position.

And this is a perfect segue to an issue that I feel you didn't address. Based on the strict rules you have to attaining confidence in historical claims, how in the world did you come to determine the Bible was the written word of God. I know it's your faith, I'm not asking that. I'm asking how you were able to shift from non-belief to belief on historical claims that are pretty phenomenal?

 

I was not questioning your capacity to follow a link from the talkorigins website. I acknowledge that I’m making assumptions, but my assumptions are supported by the quality of your arguments.

 

I haven’t studied the RATE project in any depth. So according to a cursory search I can ascertain that RATE is a project incorporating 8 years of experimental research producing copious amounts of data culminating in several research articles and scientific convention presentation proceedings. Based on this data, the RATE participants subsequently formulated a creationist model to account for radiometric decay.

 

Then you come along and ‘find’ a one page (4 paragraph) non-technical article containing a brief summary, acknowledging and addressing in general terms some of the problems associated with their  model – you then proceed to take a single line from that resource and use it to question the legitimacy of the entire project and its participants.

 

This is classic ad-hominem – i.e. find a reason to be critical of the participants in order to justify ignoring their evidence and arguments. You are too eager to grab hold of anything you can find to paint creationists in a negative light; prior to considering arguments. That is why I question your capacity to be objective.

You asked where I based my statement, I provide the exact link and now you're bashing me? I never said the RATE research was bogus, I DO however have an issue where you employ magic to deal with a problem.

 

 

 

This again speaks to objectivity. The secular model separates the origins of the universe/earth and the origins of life, whereas the Biblical model considers the two to be part of a single creation event. So we are comparing the evidence against competing models. In this example, the most obvious interpretation of the facts is that the dinosaur lived less than 100,000 years ago. This is more consistent with the creationist model than the secular model which has these dinosaurs becoming extinct millions of years ago. The facts can be interpreted to support the creationist model which incorporates a young earth – ergo these facts can be interpreted to support a young earth.

Even if you showed that something wasn't 450 million years old, it DOES NOT support a young earth. All it does is cast doubt on something being 450 million years old. You have a whole lot more work ahead if you assert the earth is merely 10k or less.

 

 

Well my first question would be; ‘What constitutes “often”?’ Different methods likely have different strike rates. Is 30% enough, or 60 or 80 or 99%? Even at 99% - think about what that means in terms of absolute numbers of anomalies. In any other discipline, any anomalies have to be accounted for before the process can be considered reliable – why is radiometric dating immune to this logic?

I wouldn't say it is. If we understand why the various anomalies occur then we can look to see if it makes complete sense why the dates are off. I don't understand why this is an issue.

 

My second question is, ‘How can we “account for” anomalous ‘ages’ without the capacity to make the observations?’ Is there any experimental way to test the “account” of the anomaly – or is it just a matter of another “maybe” story? i.e Maybe the sample was contaminated by older rock or maybe some subsequent heating event messed with the isotopes. And what do we do when the derived ‘ages’ are outrageously beyond expectations? Well maybe there was some other form of contamination involved; before or since the sample’s formation, or in the collection or lab process – either way we can disregard it because we ‘know’ it can’t be right.

 

Now if we disregard all of the ‘bad dates’, what are we left with? Check it out – we have universal agreement in the data. So we can now claim that all of the data points to the reliability of the method.

I've just started reading the book "Nature's clock" by MacDougall, I hope to learn more about radiometric dating and perhaps learn more about what we're talking about.

 

That happens. There are also many examples of differing dating methods giving different results. So can this calibration method be considered reliable when multiple methods sometimes agree and sometimes disagree? And how do you decide which method to use? Different methods are useful for different presumed ages. So you wouldn’t, for example,  carbon date something that you presumed to be millions of years old – because you know that it’s a waste of time, because according to the fundamental principles of carbon dating, there will be no measurable C14 left in the sample after all that time. So even the chosen method demonstrates bias and introduces bias into the process.

You carbon date dead [not recently dead either] organic matter. I would imagine they have ways to determine what is a good candidate for carbon dating and what isn't.

 

 

 

“Right and what I'm asking is, given the amounts...and the rate at which we observe decay presently, how would you account for this in a young earth?”

 

I would incorporate assumptions about what happened in the past (i.e. theorize) into my model – then test the plausibility of those assumptions. I believe that’s what the RATE project did. Should we have a look at waht they found?

The RATE team seems to have no issue agreeing that there does appear to be vast amounts of radio decay. I haven't read their reports however.

 

 

 

Hey Bonky, you said, “Like I said the research from Purdue seems to indicate that there can be slight changes [changes less than 1% right?]”

 

Who is Purdue? I suggested you look for evidence of external forces influencing decay rates – and good for you, you apparently found some.

 

There is an important point of logic that I apparently haven’t gotten across to you (though I have tried) – If any claim is fundamentally reliant upon the truth of an assumption, and that assumption is found to be unreliable, then the claim is logically undone. It’s fairly simple logic which applies in all contexts (not just dating methods).

 

Now the radiometric decay dating methods rely fundamentally upon the assumption that decay rates proceed consistently, unaffected since the formation of the material. You have found evidence that this assumption cannot be relied upon; that decay rates can change in certain contexts. Therefore, the methods and subsequent claims are rendered logically unreliable.

 

The amount of “changes” found in this specific research is irrelevant. It was previously believed that radiometric decay was immune to all change. Then further research, some of which you seem to have found, demonstrated that moderate changes to decay rates can occur. Perhaps later research will illuminate other mechanisms with greater impacts on decay rates – or perhaps not (I think RATE may have come across something like this in lab conditions). The point is – you have found a deviation from one of the assumptions supporting radiometric dating. Therefore we cannot place any legitimate confidence in any outcome that relies on these methods. In symbolic terms – this evidence pulls the logical rug from under the feet of radiometric dating.

 

 

 

“I don't see a reason to whole hog toss radio metric dating”

 

Logically and scientifically – that’s exactly what it represents. There is an anecdote about Einstein being criticised by 100 German scientists for his “Jewish science” – Einstein’s apparent response was “They don’t need 100 scientists; all they need is one paper”. That’s how science works. If a fact undermines a fundamental assumption, then you can’t just dismiss the evidence as, “Well it probably works most of the time – don’t throw the baby out with the bath water etc.”

 

 

 

“I don't know what method they used to determine the distance. Here is the research paper, the section that applies starts with [Radioactivity lines]:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/...h/9912131v1.pdf”

 

I wish this was a published paper – the format makes it hard to track down the references. It doesn’t really explain how decay rates are measured through gamma ray observations (which themselves only indicate that decay has occurred). There are a couple of sentences of statement (in section 2.1), rather than explanation. I’ll have to brush up on my nuclear physics and track down the references to see if they can shed a little more light on your claim.

 

I think perhaps the nature of your claim may misunderstand the creationist argument anyway. We are not proposing that the laws of physics have changed, only that decay rates can be affected by external sources – which contradicts a fundamental assumption of radiometric dating (that decay rates have proceeded at a consistent, unaffected rate since the formation of the tested material).

 

So then, ignoring for a moment, the massively assumptive base of determining history of a supernova by extrapolating current observations backwards - measuring the actual decay rates in such an event would not only be indirect and presumptive, but also have no bearing on my claim.

 

Note also that the article was very cautious and highly theoretical – making it fairly clear that the real test of their claims would be in future research; as instruments become more accurate. The article was authored in 1999 - It would be interesting to look at some of the subsequent research in this area. The article also spelled out the initial-condition assumptions required for the method to be valid (section 2, para 1) – which of course cannot be directly observed or verified.

 

So as it stands, there are a lot of serious logical gaps that your theory hasn’t accounted for (or at least not in the evidence you’ve presented).

 

 

 

“Which brings up a point, I actually haven't seen any research on this marine carbon dating example. I focused on it because it sounds fishy to begin with”

 

Nice.

 

 

 

“I heard this years ago when I was a Christian. Later on I revisited it and read some of the fundamentals on carbon dating. I realized then that I had been conned by the Pastor”

 

I am assuming we are still talking about the marine example. My question to you is – were you really being “conned”? Is it possible that the Pastor’s information was simply out-of-date, or not supported by due diligence? “Conned” implies an intentional misleading – so you are jumping to judgement regarding a person’s motives when it is possible that they may have been sincerely wrong. I wasn’t there so I can’t know either way, but this is a pattern that I have observed in you during our discussions; a default (ad-hominem) appeal to the motives of an opponent. Did you go back to the Pastor with your new information and give them a chance to reconsider their position – or did you simply write them off as intrinsically dishonest?

 

 

 

    So where does that leave me? What if I do make a mistake – does that automatically reinforce your perception of creationists as dishonest or inept?  That’s not how a rational discussion is supposed to work. It’s certainly not how objectivity works.

“I don't know what mistake you are referring to”

 

I’m not referring to a specific mistake. I’m referring to your tendency to jump on any potential mistake (or even disagreement) and interpret it as dishonesty on my part. That appears to be your MO. That puts me on eggshells – since I already recognize that my knowledge is imperfect. I occasionally ‘misspeak’ or don’t express my thoughts as succinctly as I might like. Sometimes my information might be out-of-date. So I don’t think this default, ad-hominem approach is conducive to a rational discussion.

 

 

 

    “I feel that I try to filter through the information that I'm presented with and try not to adopt nonsense”

    I’m glad that’s your goal. Unfortunately, in all our conversations so far, you have demonstrated a propensity for impenetrable confirmation bias. On several occasions, you have refused to subject your own position to the same standards you require of creationists, you have been explicit that you feel no obligation to consider any argument beyond the naturalistic position, you have been dismissive of any attempt to explain the evidence beyond the naturalistic account, you have consistently failed to separate the empirical form the theoretical in your analysis, and you have abundantly resorted to logical fallacy to distract from consideration of arguments. Even the tenor of your previous question resorts to ridiculous measures to mischaracterise creationists – and based on nothing at all.

“I thing you're being a little dramatic. I've agreed with you on multiple occasions. I gave you a shot with regard to the penguin nonsense because it's deserved”

 

I’m not sure what “penguin nonsense” you are referring to. I was referring to the extensive conversations we have had in this and another post – and the patterns I have observed in your arguments.

 

 

 

“And this is a perfect segue to an issue that I feel you didn't address. Based on the strict rules you have to attaining confidence in historical claims, how in the world did you come to determine the Bible was the written word of God. I know it's your faith, I'm not asking that. I'm asking how you were able to shift from non-belief to belief on historical claims that are pretty phenomenal?”

 

Firstly, I make a distinction between scientific confidence and faith (another type of confidence). I am careful not to claim scientific confidence in the Biblical model as this would be Affirming the Consequent (as much so as scientific confidence in secular models).

 

I’m not going to pretend to know the inner mechanisms of faith. At the right time of my life I heard a sermon on a particular prophecy and its fulfilment - which was enough to convince me about the reality of God and the reliability of the Bible. Over time, my own personal study and experience have overwhelmingly, consistently and continually reaffirmed to me the validity of those initial beliefs (including a necessary re-examination of everything I had been taught during my secular upbringing).

 

The “phenomenal” aspects of my faith can be rationally supported through modelling – as is the case for every claim that cannot be directly observed. To me, the claims of Standard Cosmology, Abiogenesis and Common Ancestry are equally “phenomenal” – given the underlying logic and standard of evidence used to support them. “Scientists say ‘billions of years’” and they might just as well be Old Testament prophets saying ‘Thus saith the Lord’ – the way people simply fall in line without due consideration. That is also faith.

 

 

 

“You asked where I based my statement, I provide the exact link and now you're bashing me?”

 

Is that what I’m doing? Or was I merely pointing out your propensity of seeking an ad-hominem ‘out’, rather than considering opposing arguments.

 

 

 

“If we understand why the various anomalies occur then we can look to see if it makes complete sense why the dates are off. I don't understand why this is an issue”

 

What do you mean by “If we understand why the various anomalies occur”? If anomalies occur, how can we legitimately determine the “anomalies” from the ‘good dates’ (I’m sure if you think about it, you can figure out how they actually do this)? It’s “an issue” because your logic renders the method immune to scrutiny. If we don’t get the results we want – we can just assume that something messed with the sample prior to testing.

 

 

 

“You carbon date dead [not recently dead either] organic matter. I would imagine they have ways to determine what is a good candidate for carbon dating and what isn't”

 

Yes, “they have ways to determine what is a good candidate for carbon dating” - It’s called presupposition.

 

Why not “recently dead” – and how recent is “recently” – and how do we know how “recently dead” the sample is before we’ve had a chance to test it etc.? As I explained, they wouldn’t bother to carbon date a fossil that was presupposed to be over a million years old. Ergo – there is intrinsic bias in the process; even in the choosing of the specific method.

[Tristen]

 

“When I open up Exodus the first thing I see Moses writing is the law-covenant.  Why should that not be a starting point?”

 

 

 

- Because the content and historical context of Genesis precedes that contained in Exodus.

 

 

 

 

I wrote a response to each of yours; but then unfortunately came to this at the end.

 

Is this an accurate summary of your thinking:

 

 

1) Genesis is about the beginning

 

2) God would never inspire a work about the beginning which presupposed content later to come; because those events haven’t yet occurred.  And Genesis is obviously a history book meeting the modern criterion of history.  There is no question here of it being anything other than a historical account of the Universe.

 

3) Therefore, there is no reason to read ahead.  Genesis is needed to make sense of Ex-Dt..  But Ex-Dt. is not necessary for appropriately reading Genesis.

 

 

If so, then there is no point for further discussion.  All of that is a faith based assumption, assuming the genre of Genesis and how God would write it, “Well, if I were God, I certainly would write it this way; therefore it is written this way”.  And of course I cannot disprove an assumption based on faith by the text (though references in Genesis to the future time of the author render it highly implausible; obviously the author has the present in mind when writing on the past).  I think this position illogical and it imposes questionable controls on how God can and cannot inspire a document.   But it does not seem likely to me that someone who holds that view would ever loosen his grip enough to give another view a fair hearing.

 

So once again, perhaps it is best to leave it.

 

clb

 

 

 

Hey CLB,

 

I think the problem with your assessment of my position is that you are being anachronistic. I am not predetermining how the text was written; I am determining how the text was written through actually reading it.

 

It is true that responsible Christians employ logical interpretation safeguards against the human tendency to read their own ideas into the text. This is necessary to maintain logical consistency with the faith assumption that the Bible is the Word of God – and therefore has authority superior to any human idea.

 

 

Your “summary” of my “thinking” is a decontextualized, overly-generalised, mischaracterisation of my position.

 

 

I’m not sure why my position is “illogical”. It seems to me to be overwhelmingly, logically sound that, in our attempt to determine the author’s intent, we should give the author’s own words the highest authority. What I find logically questionable is the concept that we can interpret the Word of God however we choose – i.e. subject the intent of the omniscient Deity to the whims of finite, fallible humans. Therefore sincere believers employ logical methods to guard against our desire to hijack God’s Word (i.e. to guard against our tendency to make the Bible say what we want rather than what it actually says). These methods are mainly common sense; such as using exegesis and not eisegesis, interpreting the meaning of scripture within its own grammatical context etc. All we are assuming is that God is a rational, logical Being. If that assumption is false, then the entire reliance of our faith upon scripture is pointless and any appeal to scripture at all is meaningless.

 

 

Whether you decide to “leave it” or not is your call. I’m not frustrated by the conversation. I think my main goal is to convey to you the idea that when a person is convinced that God is real and that the Bible is His Word, we do not permit ourselves the luxury of a liberal approach to scripture. We don’t consider ourselves to have the right to mitigate any of God’s Word based on the existence of some external idea.

 

Based on the propaganda surrounding the secular models of history, I can understand why some Christians may feel obligated to find a way to mitigate Genesis however, on personal extensive study of Genesis, I have found no objective reason to think the author of Genesis meant anything other than what is written. The evidence in the text points to an historical account. I am happy to entertain other ideas, but the text itself remains my highest authority. Furthermore, on formal studies into the secular models of history, I have found no objective reason for any Christian to feel obliged to accept them as more reliable than the Biblical account.

[a-seeker]

 

 

“When I open up Exodus the first thing I see Moses writing is the law-covenant.  Why should that not be a starting point?”

 

 

 

- Because the content and historical context of Genesis precedes that contained in Exodus.

 

 

 

 

I wrote a response to each of yours; but then unfortunately came to this at the end.

 

Is this an accurate summary of your thinking:

 

 

1) Genesis is about the beginning

 

2) God would never inspire a work about the beginning which presupposed content later to come; because those events haven’t yet occurred.  And Genesis is obviously a history book meeting the modern criterion of history.  There is no question here of it being anything other than a historical account of the Universe.

 

3) Therefore, there is no reason to read ahead.  Genesis is needed to make sense of Ex-Dt..  But Ex-Dt. is not necessary for appropriately reading Genesis.

 

 

If so, then there is no point for further discussion.  All of that is a faith based assumption, assuming the genre of Genesis and how God would write it, “Well, if I were God, I certainly would write it this way; therefore it is written this way”.  And of course I cannot disprove an assumption based on faith by the text (though references in Genesis to the future time of the author render it highly implausible; obviously the author has the present in mind when writing on the past).  I think this position illogical and it imposes questionable controls on how God can and cannot inspire a document.   But it does not seem likely to me that someone who holds that view would ever loosen his grip enough to give another view a fair hearing.

 

So once again, perhaps it is best to leave it.

 

clb

 

 

 

Hey CLB,

 

I think the problem with your assessment of my position is that you are being anachronistic. I am not predetermining how the text was written; I am determining how the text was written through actually reading it.

 

It is true that responsible Christians employ logical interpretation safeguards against the human tendency to read their own ideas into the text. This is necessary to maintain logical consistency with the faith assumption that the Bible is the Word of God – and therefore has authority superior to any human idea.

 

 

Your “summary” of my “thinking” is a decontextualized, overly-generalised, mischaracterisation of my position.

 

 

I’m not sure why my position is “illogical”. It seems to me to be overwhelmingly, logically sound that, in our attempt to determine the author’s intent, we should give the author’s own words the highest authority. What I find logically questionable is the concept that we can interpret the Word of God however we choose – i.e. subject the intent of the omniscient Deity to the whims of finite, fallible humans. Therefore sincere believers employ logical methods to guard against our desire to hijack God’s Word (i.e. to guard against our tendency to make the Bible say what we want rather than what it actually says). These methods are mainly common sense; such as using exegesis and not eisegesis, interpreting the meaning of scripture within its own grammatical context etc. All we are assuming is that God is a rational, logical Being. If that assumption is false, then the entire reliance of our faith upon scripture is pointless and any appeal to scripture at all is meaningless.

 

 

Whether you decide to “leave it” or not is your call. I’m not frustrated by the conversation. I think my main goal is to convey to you the idea that when a person is convinced that God is real and that the Bible is His Word, we do not permit ourselves the luxury of a liberal approach to scripture. We don’t consider ourselves to have the right to mitigate any of God’s Word based on the existence of some external idea.

 

Based on the propaganda surrounding the secular models of history, I can understand why some Christians may feel obligated to find a way to mitigate Genesis however, on personal extensive study of Genesis, I have found no objective reason to think the author of Genesis meant anything other than what is written. The evidence in the text points to an historical account. I am happy to entertain other ideas, but the text itself remains my highest authority. Furthermore, on formal studies into the secular models of history, I have found no objective reason for any Christian to feel obliged to accept them as more reliable than the Biblical account.

 

 

Hmmm.  Remember, My "summary" was placed in the form of a question.  So the real answer would be "no" or "not quite".

 

I don't know what you mean by a "liberal approach"; but I do believe in God and believe that the Bible conveys salvific history (though i would say it is God's Word, I refrain from using that label since it has so many connotations).

 

I don't think my interpretation "mitigates" Genesis whatsoever (what would that even mean?  In my mind real "mitigation" would be an interpretation that excludes: Creation ex-nihilo; monotheism; Man as imago Dei; the Fall.  I don't see how questioning whether the story of the snake is true history or fable mitigates Genesis.  If at the end of the day we are left with the doctrines just now named, what has been lost?

 

Perhaps the chief problem is that we are speaking in the abstract with very few (if any) real examples of what I mean.  But, once more, if you don't allow other documents written by Moses to help interpret Genesis, then my hands are tied.  I am arguing that Moses wrote all 5 of the Pentateuch and that Scripture should interpret Scripture: this does not go against the principle of authorial intent; it does, however, goes against he assumption that the Genesis account in no way is influenced by the present time of the author.  That is the linchpin of my argument.  Without it, I have nothing except a few word studies from Genesis, and curiosities about Eden, the garden of Eden, and their relation to the land; but even these point beyond Genesis 1 and 2 and so they are, under your restrictions, out of court.  Hence, I questioned whether there was a point to this discussion.

 

But to maintain good will, I pose a question.  In JOsephus we find a commentary to this extent (my Josephus is elsewhere, so I paraphrase) "every element in the temple is meant to point the mind to Creation".  Now, what would one make of this?  Should such a sentence be dismissed because it is not from the Bible?  Does it impel studies in any direction?

 

clb

[Guest]

But to maintain good will, I pose a question.  

 

In Josephus we find a commentary to this extent (my Josephus is elsewhere, so I paraphrase)

 

"every element in the temple is meant to point the mind to Creation".  

 

Now, what would one make of this?  

 

Should such a sentence be dismissed because it is not from the Bible?  

 

Does it impel studies in any direction?

 

 

And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. Exodus 25:8

 

Walk

 

And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? Genesis 3:8-9

 

In The Direction

 

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. Matthew 16:24

 

Of Your Creator

 

And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night: Exodus 13:21

 

And Beloved, You Will Know Fellowship

 

And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; Philippians 3:9-10

[Bonky]

[Tristen]

 

 

 

“When I open up Exodus the first thing I see Moses writing is the law-covenant.  Why should that not be a starting point?”

 

 

 

- Because the content and historical context of Genesis precedes that contained in Exodus.

 

 

 

 

I wrote a response to each of yours; but then unfortunately came to this at the end.

 

Is this an accurate summary of your thinking:

 

 

1) Genesis is about the beginning

 

2) God would never inspire a work about the beginning which presupposed content later to come; because those events haven’t yet occurred.  And Genesis is obviously a history book meeting the modern criterion of history.  There is no question here of it being anything other than a historical account of the Universe.

 

3) Therefore, there is no reason to read ahead.  Genesis is needed to make sense of Ex-Dt..  But Ex-Dt. is not necessary for appropriately reading Genesis.

 

 

If so, then there is no point for further discussion.  All of that is a faith based assumption, assuming the genre of Genesis and how God would write it, “Well, if I were God, I certainly would write it this way; therefore it is written this way”.  And of course I cannot disprove an assumption based on faith by the text (though references in Genesis to the future time of the author render it highly implausible; obviously the author has the present in mind when writing on the past).  I think this position illogical and it imposes questionable controls on how God can and cannot inspire a document.   But it does not seem likely to me that someone who holds that view would ever loosen his grip enough to give another view a fair hearing.

 

So once again, perhaps it is best to leave it.

 

clb

 

 

 

Hey CLB,

 

I think the problem with your assessment of my position is that you are being anachronistic. I am not predetermining how the text was written; I am determining how the text was written through actually reading it.

 

It is true that responsible Christians employ logical interpretation safeguards against the human tendency to read their own ideas into the text. This is necessary to maintain logical consistency with the faith assumption that the Bible is the Word of God – and therefore has authority superior to any human idea.

 

 

Your “summary” of my “thinking” is a decontextualized, overly-generalised, mischaracterisation of my position.

 

 

I’m not sure why my position is “illogical”. It seems to me to be overwhelmingly, logically sound that, in our attempt to determine the author’s intent, we should give the author’s own words the highest authority. What I find logically questionable is the concept that we can interpret the Word of God however we choose – i.e. subject the intent of the omniscient Deity to the whims of finite, fallible humans. Therefore sincere believers employ logical methods to guard against our desire to hijack God’s Word (i.e. to guard against our tendency to make the Bible say what we want rather than what it actually says). These methods are mainly common sense; such as using exegesis and not eisegesis, interpreting the meaning of scripture within its own grammatical context etc. All we are assuming is that God is a rational, logical Being. If that assumption is false, then the entire reliance of our faith upon scripture is pointless and any appeal to scripture at all is meaningless.

 

 

Whether you decide to “leave it” or not is your call. I’m not frustrated by the conversation. I think my main goal is to convey to you the idea that when a person is convinced that God is real and that the Bible is His Word, we do not permit ourselves the luxury of a liberal approach to scripture. We don’t consider ourselves to have the right to mitigate any of God’s Word based on the existence of some external idea.

 

Based on the propaganda surrounding the secular models of history, I can understand why some Christians may feel obligated to find a way to mitigate Genesis however, on personal extensive study of Genesis, I have found no objective reason to think the author of Genesis meant anything other than what is written. The evidence in the text points to an historical account. I am happy to entertain other ideas, but the text itself remains my highest authority. Furthermore, on formal studies into the secular models of history, I have found no objective reason for any Christian to feel obliged to accept them as more reliable than the Biblical account.

 

 

Hmmm.  Remember, My "summary" was placed in the form of a question.  So the real answer would be "no" or "not quite".

 

I don't know what you mean by a "liberal approach"; but I do believe in God and believe that the Bible conveys salvific history (though i would say it is God's Word, I refrain from using that label since it has so many connotations).

 

I don't think my interpretation "mitigates" Genesis whatsoever (what would that even mean?  In my mind real "mitigation" would be an interpretation that excludes: Creation ex-nihilo; monotheism; Man as imago Dei; the Fall.  I don't see how questioning whether the story of the snake is true history or fable mitigates Genesis.  If at the end of the day we are left with the doctrines just now named, what has been lost?

 

Perhaps the chief problem is that we are speaking in the abstract with very few (if any) real examples of what I mean.  But, once more, if you don't allow other documents written by Moses to help interpret Genesis, then my hands are tied.  I am arguing that Moses wrote all 5 of the Pentateuch and that Scripture should interpret Scripture: this does not go against the principle of authorial intent; it does, however, goes against he assumption that the Genesis account in no way is influenced by the present time of the author.  That is the linchpin of my argument.  Without it, I have nothing except a few word studies from Genesis, and curiosities about Eden, the garden of Eden, and their relation to the land; but even these point beyond Genesis 1 and 2 and so they are, under your restrictions, out of court.  Hence, I questioned whether there was a point to this discussion.

 

But to maintain good will, I pose a question.  In JOsephus we find a commentary to this extent (my Josephus is elsewhere, so I paraphrase) "every element in the temple is meant to point the mind to Creation".  Now, what would one make of this?  Should such a sentence be dismissed because it is not from the Bible?  Does it impel studies in any direction?

 

clb

 

 

 

Hey CLB, you said; “Hmmm.  Remember, My "summary" was placed in the form of a question.  So the real answer would be "no" or "not quite".”

 

Or the answer I gave.

 

 

 

“I don't know what you mean by a "liberal approach"”

 

- An approach that removes the primary emphasis of authority away from the words of the text being interpreted.

 

 

 

“I don't think my interpretation "mitigates" Genesis whatsoever (what would that even mean?  In my mind real "mitigation" would be an interpretation that excludes: Creation ex-nihilo; monotheism; Man as imago Dei; the Fall.”

 

In my mind mitigation means that the first 2 chapters of Genesis are taken to not mean what they say in their grammatical context – but rather, most of the explicit details are waylaid to accommodate some tenuous symbolic link to an as-yet, non-mentioned concept.

 

 

 

“I don't see how questioning whether the story of the snake is true history or fable mitigates Genesis”

 

So by your standards, we now have the right to determine certain scriptures to be untrue?

 

Yet the account of the fall of Adam provides the philosophical foundation for how such a cruel and corrupt reality could stem from the hands of such a good and benevolent Creator. It also supplies the foundation of God’s holding humanity accountable for that corruption; and the subsequent requirement of a Saviour to save us from the just consequences of that corruption. If death and corruption existed before humanity, then God made an horrific, “survival of the fittest”, reality where humans are unjustly held accountable (with the severest possible consequences) for corruption that pre-existed them. You don’t see how that might make someone pause at the inconsistency between their reality, and the God of the Bible?

 

Christians cannot simply decide what they want and don’t want to believe. Such an approach to scripture undermines the logical legitimacy of the entire belief system.

 

 

 

“if you don't allow other documents written by Moses to help interpret Genesis, then my hands are tied”

 

You’ve become fixated on an irrelevant point. So here’s what really happened – you started a discussion implying that outside sources should have influence over how we interpret scripture – but with the caveat of not subjecting scriptural interpretation to the influence of outside sources. Then I pointed out that if we allow outside sources to have influence over how we interpret scripture, we are in fact, subjecting the interpretation of scripture to the influence of those outside sources. Then you adjusted your wording so that the initial influence of the outside source was restricted to prompting a re-examination of scripture - with no further influence permitted. Then I suggested that Genesis (which by all reasonable standards is the foundational document of our scriptures – and therefore has no logical requirement for antecedent information) provides us with a unique opportunity to objectively re-examine the scriptures; independently of the influence of any outside sources whatsoever.

 

Now you have reverted to your original argument of permitting outside influences authority over how we interpret scripture – so this aspect of the discussion has become irrelevant.

 

 

“ In JOsephus we find a commentary to this extent (my Josephus is elsewhere, so I paraphrase) "every element in the temple is meant to point the mind to Creation".  Now, what would one make of this?  Should such a sentence be dismissed because it is not from the Bible?  Does it impel studies in any direction?”

 

Let’s consider what you are asking me to take to God; considering that, as a Christian, I take God seriously when He says “do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt 10:28).

 

“Dear God, I have decided that there are parts of Genesis that I don’t have to take seriously because a group of people, most of whom hold a default atheistic or naturalistic faith, have come up with an alternative story to account for the history of reality. Since I have decided that their story is more believable than what is actually written in Genesis, I have come up with some tenuous symbolic link between the early chapters of Genesis and Solomon’s temple, and can therefore disregard the some of the specifics of the Genesis account in order to maintain consistency with the secular account – but please don’t interpret this as me distrusting Your words, or subjugating the authority of Your words to outside influences.”

 

It is not my intention or motivation to criticise you or your position, however, I honestly don’t understand how this approach could be reconciled with a sincere conscience towards God.

 

 

- So to Josephus’ claim;

 

Firstly, any such claim would need to be thoroughly supported by scripture before given any credence or doctrinal authority (I suspect Josephus didn’t just state this claim and move on).

 

Furthermore, I have no general issue with the creation account being the antecedent for a temple analogy; though, as with any claim of typology, I would need some fairly specific scriptures to back it up (i.e. with the proposed concept found in those scriptures; not read into them). For example, I would be more inclined to interpret the temple as an antecedent to Jesus’ sacrifice providing a covering for sin and providing access to the Holy of Holies – as these concepts are mentioned abundantly together in scripture (especially the New Testament). But I would not take any of those related passages to suggest that any of the initial references to the temple details be set aside as “fable”.

[Tristen]

 

Hey Bonky, you said, “Like I said the research from Purdue seems to indicate that there can be slight changes [changes less than 1% right?]”

 

Who is Purdue? I suggested you look for evidence of external forces influencing decay rates – and good for you, you apparently found some.

 

There is an important point of logic that I apparently haven’t gotten across to you (though I have tried) – If any claim is fundamentally reliant upon the truth of an assumption, and that assumption is found to be unreliable, then the claim is logically undone. It’s fairly simple logic which applies in all contexts (not just dating methods).

 

Now the radiometric decay dating methods rely fundamentally upon the assumption that decay rates proceed consistently, unaffected since the formation of the material. You have found evidence that this assumption cannot be relied upon; that decay rates can change in certain contexts. Therefore, the methods and subsequent claims are rendered logically unreliable.

 

The amount of “changes” found in this specific research is irrelevant. It was previously believed that radiometric decay was immune to all change. Then further research, some of which you seem to have found, demonstrated that moderate changes to decay rates can occur. Perhaps later research will illuminate other mechanisms with greater impacts on decay rates – or perhaps not (I think RATE may have come across something like this in lab conditions). The point is – you have found a deviation from one of the assumptions supporting radiometric dating. Therefore we cannot place any legitimate confidence in any outcome that relies on these methods. In symbolic terms – this evidence pulls the logical rug from under the feet of radiometric dating.

The research I was referring to was done in cooperation with folks from Purdue and Stanford. I've read more on this topic over the weekend and it turns out that this research is not conclusive [EB Norman - ‎2008]. Even if it was, the question I would have is whether or not the outside influence would affect all isotopes or just some?

 

 

 

“I don't see a reason to whole hog toss radio metric dating”

 

Logically and scientifically – that’s exactly what it represents. There is an anecdote about Einstein being criticised by 100 German scientists for his “Jewish science” – Einstein’s apparent response was “They don’t need 100 scientists; all they need is one paper”. That’s how science works. If a fact undermines a fundamental assumption, then you can’t just dismiss the evidence as, “Well it probably works most of the time – don’t throw the baby out with the bath water etc.”

Evidently we're still looking for the facts at this point [research inconclusive].

 

 

 

I wish this was a published paper – the format makes it hard to track down the references. It doesn’t really explain how decay rates are measured through gamma ray observations (which themselves only indicate that decay has occurred). There are a couple of sentences of statement (in section 2.1), rather than explanation. I’ll have to brush up on my nuclear physics and track down the references to see if they can shed a little more light on your claim.

 

I think perhaps the nature of your claim may misunderstand the creationist argument anyway. We are not proposing that the laws of physics have changed, only that decay rates can be affected by external sources – which contradicts a fundamental assumption of radiometric dating (that decay rates have proceeded at a consistent, unaffected rate since the formation of the tested material).

 

So then, ignoring for a moment, the massively assumptive base of determining history of a supernova by extrapolating current observations backwards - measuring the actual decay rates in such an event would not only be indirect and presumptive, but also have no bearing on my claim.

 

Note also that the article was very cautious and highly theoretical – making it fairly clear that the real test of their claims would be in future research; as instruments become more accurate. The article was authored in 1999 - It would be interesting to look at some of the subsequent research in this area. The article also spelled out the initial-condition assumptions required for the method to be valid (section 2, para 1) – which of course cannot be directly observed or verified.

 

So as it stands, there are a lot of serious logical gaps that your theory hasn’t accounted for (or at least not in the evidence you’ve presented).

I haven't found more detailed documents on how exactly they went about this process. What I did find however was a document that explains how they determined the distance from Earth to the supernova.

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/astronomy/sn1987a.html

 

 

“I heard this years ago when I was a Christian. Later on I revisited it and read some of the fundamentals on carbon dating. I realized then that I had been conned by the Pastor”

 

I am assuming we are still talking about the marine example. My question to you is – were you really being “conned”? Is it possible that the Pastor’s information was simply out-of-date, or not supported by due diligence? “Conned” implies an intentional misleading – so you are jumping to judgement regarding a person’s motives when it is possible that they may have been sincerely wrong. I wasn’t there so I can’t know either way, but this is a pattern that I have observed in you during our discussions; a default (ad-hominem) appeal to the motives of an opponent. Did you go back to the Pastor with your new information and give them a chance to reconsider their position – or did you simply write them off as intrinsically dishonest?

Maybe "conned" wasn't the best word. I don't think he was trying to be deceptive, I believe he didn't know much about what he was talking about.

 

 

I’m not referring to a specific mistake. I’m referring to your tendency to jump on any potential mistake (or even disagreement) and interpret it as dishonesty on my part. That appears to be your MO. That puts me on eggshells – since I already recognize that my knowledge is imperfect. I occasionally ‘misspeak’ or don’t express my thoughts as succinctly as I might like. Sometimes my information might be out-of-date. So I don’t think this default, ad-hominem approach is conducive to a rational discussion.

I remember questioning your integrity with regard to the Oard article. Yes, I'm rather surprised that you would bring up the marine carbon dating example. From the Oard discussion, you do strike me as someone who has a really hard time admitting a mistake.

 

 

“I thing you're being a little dramatic. I've agreed with you on multiple occasions. I gave you a shot with regard to the penguin nonsense because it's deserved”

 

I’m not sure what “penguin nonsense” you are referring to. I was referring to the extensive conversations we have had in this and another post – and the patterns I have observed in your arguments.

We've spent almost all of our time examining secular claims. In the past when I tried to narrow down what science would look like under your worldview I thought you ended up admitting [i apologize if my memory fails] that 'demon possession' would be a possible valid scientific explanation for certain behaviors. This kind of thing happened with Michael Behe in the Dover trials, he wanted to tinker with the term "scientific theory" so much that astrology would become a scientific theory. So if we're going to accept un-natural causes for things [or what have you] I'm going to need to understand why we're even entertaining it.

Additionally, the response I got from you regarding the flood and fossil placement was..."the mobile creatures were able to get to higher ground". I mean I don't even understand how this is to be taken seriously. It literally answers nothing. Give me something substantial to consider and I promise I'll give you credit.

 

 

 

Firstly, I make a distinction between scientific confidence and faith (another type of confidence). I am careful not to claim scientific confidence in the Biblical model as this would be Affirming the Consequent (as much so as scientific confidence in secular models).

 

I’m not going to pretend to know the inner mechanisms of faith. At the right time of my life I heard a sermon on a particular prophecy and its fulfilment - which was enough to convince me about the reality of God and the reliability of the Bible. Over time, my own personal study and experience have overwhelmingly, consistently and continually reaffirmed to me the validity of those initial beliefs (including a necessary re-examination of everything I had been taught during my secular upbringing).

 

The “phenomenal” aspects of my faith can be rationally supported through modelling – as is the case for every claim that cannot be directly observed. To me, the claims of Standard Cosmology, Abiogenesis and Common Ancestry are equally “phenomenal” – given the underlying logic and standard of evidence used to support them. “Scientists say ‘billions of years’” and they might just as well be Old Testament prophets saying ‘Thus saith the Lord’ – the way people simply fall in line without due consideration. That is also faith.

I've never come across a biblical prophecy [i haven't heard them all I'm sure] that blew me away. Or they don't seem to really narrow down how to know when this prophecy has been fulfilled.

 

 

 

“You asked where I based my statement, I provide the exact link and now you're bashing me?”

 

Is that what I’m doing? Or was I merely pointing out your propensity of seeking an ad-hominem ‘out’, rather than considering opposing arguments.

I know you don't like the phrase "God did it" to be used to describe creationist explanations. Yet I find a textbook example of a case where creationists are doing just that and your response is that I'm merely resorting to ad-hominem? And you wonder why creationists aren't taken seriously sometimes?

 

 

 

“If we understand why the various anomalies occur then we can look to see if it makes complete sense why the dates are off. I don't understand why this is an issue”

 

What do you mean by “If we understand why the various anomalies occur”? If anomalies occur, how can we legitimately determine the “anomalies” from the ‘good dates’ (I’m sure if you think about it, you can figure out how they actually do this)? It’s “an issue” because your logic renders the method immune to scrutiny. If we don’t get the results we want – we can just assume that something messed with the sample prior to testing.

If you understand the concept behind the dating method being used you know what environments are especially susceptible to producing inaccurate dates. Ironically it looks like the same guy who you refer to regarding the lava flows also wrote an extensive article that is posted on talk origins.

 

 

“You carbon date dead [not recently dead either] organic matter. I would imagine they have ways to determine what is a good candidate for carbon dating and what isn't”

 

Yes, “they have ways to determine what is a good candidate for carbon dating” - It’s called presupposition.

 

Why not “recently dead” – and how recent is “recently” – and how do we know how “recently dead” the sample is before we’ve had a chance to test it etc.? As I explained, they wouldn’t bother to carbon date a fossil that was presupposed to be over a million years old. Ergo – there is intrinsic bias in the process; even in the choosing of the specific method.

My understanding is that there needs to be enough time for the decay to be detected. Your objections are so bizarre sometimes. There's no signs at all at how long something has been dead right, we literally have no way of figuring that out. There won't be any chemical clues at all, no analysis known to man would give us any kind of indication.

 

 

 

Hey Bonky, you said “the question I would have is whether or not the outside influence would affect all isotopes or just some?”

 

I think that’s a good question. I have several follow-up questions. 1) does this lack of knowledge for all isotopes mean that we can necessarily rely on those where we haven’t yet found an external influence on their decay rates, and 2) given that we are now aware that decay rates of isotopes can be influenced by outside forces, can we reliably accept and apply the assumption that isotope decay rates haven’t been influenced by any external forces; and thereby assume to make reliable extrapolations of magnitudes millions and billions of times that of any observed data?

 

 

 

“I'm rather surprised that you would bring up the marine carbon dating example”

 

I made a case including several (non-marine) examples that lead me to initially question the reliability of carbon dating. You became fixated with one of those examples (the marine one) because you believed you had some kind of ‘gotcha’. And you have since tried to wiggle your way around painting the use of this example as dishonest – even though we haven’t actually looked into the example itself. Was it creationist research or not? Was it prior to our knowledge of the reservoir effect or not (which would undermine any claim of dishonesty)? In all honesty, I don’t remember the details. I threw it in as part of an overall argument (including other, non-marine, examples) pertaining to my experience. And even now, after I thought we’d agreed that carbon dating has these extra complexities, you can’t help yourself but to throw some more innuendo my way over this example.

 

 

 

 “From the Oard discussion, you do strike me as someone who has a really hard time admitting a mistake”

 

Even here you are directly implying that I made a mistake – but without any supporting arguments. I don’t think you demonstrated any logical error in my position that would warrant such unmitigated confidence. I’m happy to go over it again if you like – and properly break down the logic.

 

 

 

“In the past when I tried to narrow down what science would look like under your worldview I thought you ended up admitting [i apologize if my memory fails] that 'demon possession' would be a possible valid scientific explanation for certain behaviors”

 

My position is that no hypotheses should ever be dismissed arbitrarily. When it comes to things that cannot be directly observed/tested (e.g. a claim about the past or a supernatural claim), the only way to investigate them is indirectly; through modelling – then comparing the model against the current evidence. But even then, no legitimate scientific confidence could be attributed to the initial claim without committing the logical fallacy called Affirming the Consequent. So this indirect method is logically much weaker than the operational method – where the claims themselves are available and subject to direct and repeated observations.

 

Now you would readily recognise this weakness when it is applied to a supernatural claim (such as “demon possession”), or to the creationist model of history in general, but you have difficulty getting your head around the fact that the secular model of history employs the identical methodology, with the identical inherent weaknesses. Therefore, all I would propose is that; what constitutes a "valid scientific explanation" be fairly and objectively applied across the spectrum of possibility. Either all that utilise this method qualify; or none.

 

 

 

“if we're going to accept un-natural causes for things [or what have you] I'm going to need to understand why we're even entertaining it”

 

We “entertain” (aka consider) ideas because they there is a logical possibility that they represent the truth. Refusing to entertain an idea prior to consideration is an act of faith. The subsequent attributing of quality to an idea is in its testability (i.e. not as good for historical or supernatural claims – which is why we distinguish scientific confidence from faith), and in the testing itself (e.g. experimental results).

 

 

 

“Additionally, the response I got from you regarding the flood and fossil placement was..."the mobile creatures were able to get to higher ground". I mean I don't even understand how this is to be taken seriously”

 

Whilst my answer was admittedly a concise summary of one of the creationist models, it was markedly more complicated than your mischaracterisation here. But note again your empty innuendo.  Just because you right something as though you think it should be thought of as silly, doesn’t make it silly. Why is it so ridiculous to suggest that flying birds, for example, would appear in a flood record towards the top – because of their superior capacity to move to higher ground, or find natural flotsam etc.?

 

 

 

“It literally answers nothing”

 

Well my actual answer explained the general tendency of fossil succession observed in sedimentary layers – in the context of a global flood model. It answered the question you asked.

 

 

 

“Give me something substantial to consider and I promise I'll give you credit”

 

It’d be nice if you would give fair consideration to the answers I provide – i.e. instead of the usual a-priori dismissal.

 

 

 

“I know you don't like the phrase "God did it" to be used to describe creationist explanations. Yet I find a textbook example of a case where creationists are doing just that and your response is that I'm merely resorting to ad-hominem? And you wonder why creationists aren't taken seriously sometimes?”

 

I don’t “wonder why creationists aren't taken seriously sometimes”. I can see the influence of secular confirmation bias everywhere I look. It’s almost a sport for me now to see how long it takes a science show to squeeze Common Ancestry or Standard Cosmology into the narrative – even when the discussed topic couldn’t be further away from either of these issues. I see the letters from Journal editors stating how reluctant they would be to ever consider publishing an article stating creationist implications. I see publishing run dry for well-published scientists the moment they out themselves as creationists. I see, even secular scientists, loose prestigious positions because they dare to suggest that creationists should be engaged with. Anyone with open eyes can see the bias. The trick is to see how well you can justify it to yourself – i.e. to see if you can come up with some ad-hominem excuse to ridicule or ignore the creationist arguments altogether – before even bothering to consider them.

 

 

 

“If you understand the concept behind the dating method being used you know what environments are especially susceptible to producing inaccurate dates”

 

What constitutes an “inaccurate date”?

 

If we know that there are external forces at play that mess with the process, how can we assume any specific date is accurate? How do you know that a so-called ‘accurate’ date hasn’t been subjected to contamination? If we are able to simply explain away “inaccurate dates” as contaminated, have we not rendered the process logically immune to scrutiny?

 

 

 

“Ironically it looks like the same guy who you refer to regarding the lava flows also wrote an extensive article that is posted on talk origins”

 

It’s not really ironic or surprising – he has always expressed anti-creationist sentiments and hates that his data is used by creationists. But we are not claiming his data to mean anything beyond what is stated in his research. This data has valid implications for one of our arguments.

 

 

 

“My understanding is that there needs to be enough time for the decay to be detected. Your objections are so bizarre sometimes”

 

You couldn’t help yourself. You are not filtering your arguments for assumptions – and you’re expressing generalisations as statements of fact.

 

Isn’t the point of carbon dating to determine the age of the material?

 

And again, the machines don’t detect decay; they detect absolute amounts of chemicals. In carbon dating, those chemicals are available in detectable amounts at the point of death (in many other methods, there is often the assumption of no daughter isotope at the time of formation – but that’s not a problem for carbon dating. In fact the C14 is theoretically at the highest amount at the point of death – and subsequently reduces/decays). The ratios may not be significantly different from the context of death – by which, according to carbon dating theory, we could assume that the death was recent. There is no reason that those chemical measurements can’t still be placed into the appropriate formula.

 

The problem arises when you don’t bother carbon dating material because you assume it’s already too old. That introduces a long-age bias into the process and skews the data towards this assumption (i.e. only using methods that give you the range you want).