Four questions for YECs - (and a little history of creationism vs evolution)

[HAZARD]

3 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

Hi FJK. A long read but well worth it.

Scriptures show that originally, Long before Adam and Eve were created, God created the Earth and placed Lucifer as ruler of the society there.

 

God gave Lucifer control of the Earth kingdom (Rev. 12:12; Ezek. 28:11-18; Isa. 14:12-14).

Lucifer obeyed God and ruled for an unknown time before "Iniquity was found in him. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee" (Ezek. 28:13-15).

Before Adam Lucifer was the ruler of the Earth.

God is taking about Lucifer in these Scriptures. He was a perfectly created arc angel;

 

"Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee" (Ezek. 28:13-15).

Lucifer wanted to control the universe and knock God off His throne. He over a long period of time convinced one third of God's angels to rebell with him and they rebelled against God and His universal rule, and invaded heaven to try and de-throne God Himself. (Ezek 28:17; Isa. 14:12-14).

Naturally Lucifer was defeated, and his kingdom on the earth was totally destroyed by a flood and by the fierce anger of God (Gen. 1;2; Jer. 4:23-26; Ps. 104:5-9; 2 Pet. 3:5-6), hence the severe geological contortions of the earth's crust, vast deposits of bones in various places world wide, fossiles thousands or millions of years old etc. The earth was turned upside down in this process, ever wondered why the moon is poc marked by countless craters, and yet we never see anything plowing into it these days causing such destruction. What about the other dead planets in our immediate solar system? The flood God caused to cover the earth remained for an unknown period of time, and then God, in six days restored the earth to a habitable state and made Adam and his creation to carry out the original plan of God concerning the Earth (Gen. 1:3-2:25).

Lucifer and his spirit rebels caused man to fall and by this regained dominion of the earth through Adams submission (2 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 2:1-3; 6:10-18; Rom. 5:12-21). Lucifer has been in control ever since and he will remain in control untill the second coming of Jesus Christ who will put down all rebellion in the Millennium. God will then finally make a New heavens and a New Earth wherein dwelleth righteousness forever (1 Cor. 15:24-28; Rev. 19:11-22:5).

This doctrine is so simple for most men to understand, so they reject it. Especially many churches for some reason.

2 Peter 3:5-7 expresses this clearly in plain human language, "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing (emerging) out of the water and in the water:

Whereby the world THAT THEN WAS, being overflowed with water, PERISHED:

But the heavens and the Earth, WHICH ARE NOW, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

This is where people become confused and say the world "that then was," was the world before Noah's flood, but this cannot be because:

If the world that THAT THEN WAS" is that between Adam and the flood of Noah, then God created The heavens and the Earth WHICH ARE NOW" since the flood of Noah. Noah and his family lived prior to his flood and after it. The world "THAT THEN WAS PERISHED" and everything in it also perished. What change could Noah's flood make to the heavens? None, for floods on Earth can never cover the heavens. The earth, vegetation, the heavens, all remained the same after Noah's flood.

Peter, in (2 Peter 3:3-7) taught that scoffers were totally ignorant of the flood that destroyed the social system and the earth "that then was" (lucifers flood). These scoffers all knew of Noah's flood and still know today. This proves that the truth of the flood that destroyed the original creation was hidden from them, while they knew about Noah's flood.

What was it that the scoffers were ignorant of unless it was the destruction of the social system before Adam?

This is the doctrin of which men are still ignorant of, which they call "the gap theory." Peter said that the scoffers were willingly ignorant of this truth showing that it is a clear doctrin of Scripture if men would stop being ignorant of it. There are many Scriptures that make this doctrin clear; so "If any man wants to be ignorant, let him be ignorant," as Paul expressed in (1 Cor. 14:38).

Peter said these scoffers of the last days, the days we are in now, since Noah, would be ignorant of the fact that the heavens were of old; that the social system ruled by Lucifer on the old Earth perished by water; that the heavens and the Earth since the six days of restoration are kept in store to be purified again- the next time by fire; that the Lord is not slack concerning His promises of final restoration of the earth to its third perfect state; and that God was longsuffering to all men, not willing that any should perish, but all come to repentance. In Isa. 14:12-14 we have statements which cannot possibly of an earthly King. The passage is universally refering to the fall of Satan. We can quote it and note the facts.

"How art thou fallen from Heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which dist weaken the nations! For thou art hast said in thine heart, I WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN, I WILL EXALT MY THRONE above the stars of God: I WILL sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I WILL ascend above the heights of the clouds; I WILL BE like the most High," Now note the following facts this passage proves of Satan:

1. That his name is Lucifer.

2. That he was a son of the morning, and therefore, no earthly man.

3. That he fell from Heaven. This could never be spoken of a man. Satan is the only person in all Scripture who is spoken of as falling from Heaven (Luke 10:18).

4. That he was cut down to the ground in his fall.

5. That he weakened the nations on Earth.

6. That he was exalted in his heart.

7. That he invaded hHeaven where God rules.

8. That he was a KING, for he had a Throne and SUBJECTS over whom he ruled.

9. That he wanted to exalt his kingdom above the clouds, stars, and into Heaven itself to dethrone God.

10. That he wanted to be worshiped in the congregation of God (Ps. 72:2; 82:1; Isa. 6:1).

11. That he led a rebellion against God but was defeated.

12. That his kingdom was on Earth, or he never could have tried to ascend above the clouds, stars, and into Heaven. When a kingdom is located under the clouds it has to be on the Earth.

13. That the ground, clouds, stars, and Heaven were already created.

14. That it had to be before Adam, for this was not the position of Lucifer when he was in Adam's Eden. Adam had dominion at that time. Lucifer had no kingdom on the Earth at the time of Adam and he has not had one since in the sense of a visible personal rule on Earth. He has only ruled through others since Adam's day; so this must refer to a time before Adam.

15. That he was not in Heaven when he rebelled, else he could not have desired to ascend into Heaven. He was under the stars, or he could not have desired to be exalted above the stars. He was under the clouds, or he could not have desired to ascend above them.

16. That God's throne is located in the north part of the universe (Psalms 75:6-7). Thus, this passage proves the location of Satan's original kingdom and the time of his fall. It was located on Earth, and his fall was before Adam, for he was all ready a fallen creature when he entered Adam' Eden.

In Coll. 1:15-18 we read of Christ creating thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers in Heaven and on Earth. They were located somewhere in the heavens and on the Earth. Lucifer was given a kingdom here on Earth, as proved by the passages cited above. His own subjects were earthly creatures of various kinds which were destroyed when the flood of Gen. 1:2 came upon the Earth. God created the Earth to be inhabited by earthly creatures (Isa. 45:18). They are called "nations" in the above passages. The demons who are now Satans emissaries could well be the spirits of the pre-Adamites. At any rate they are not part of the creation at the time of Adam. Thus Isaiah teaches the the Earth was inhabited before Adam and was ruled by Lucifer, whos' kingdom was overthrown when he rebelled.

There is so, so much more found in Scripture regarding this doctrin, many dozens of Scriptures support this. If this is false teaching, it amuses me that no one comes up with nothing more than Noah's flood, which occured much later, did not compleatly destroy the Earth, shake mountains, turn them upside down, turned off the stars and the sun so that there was no light. God had already created the Heavens, they were in existence as well as the Earth only their lights were withheld from shining on the Earth thus causing darkness Gen. 1:2. There was no darkness during Noah's flood? There were men and animals on the earth before Noah's flood, and Noah and his family and the animals survived the flood and were on the Eart after it?

That the Earth ONLY was (became) without form and void (Hebrew tohu vabobu, litterally wast and ruin or desolate and empty), as in Gen. 1:2. That there were mountains of Earth that were shaken and turned upside down by an earthquake so severe, which no doubt caused the remains of animals to be deposited in the very depths of the Earth beneath many layers of solid rock, such as are now been found. Noah's flood never buried animals hundreds of meters beneath solid rock.

Many other scriptures apart from those above can be presented to prove the doctrin of a pre-Adamite world.

To try and put this in a nutshell, God created the heavens first, then the Earth, all in the beginning or in the dateless past (Gen. 1:1; Job 38:4-7). He caused the heavens and the Earth to be inhabited and gave Lucifer control of the Earth-kingdom, those that find this hard to believe, read, (Coll. 1:15-18; Rev. 12:12; Ezek. 28:11-18; Isa. 14:12-14).

Lucifer ruled the earth for God for an unknown period before he rebelled and invaded heaven to try and dethrone God. Not my idea, read (Ezek. 28:11-18; Isa. 14:12-14). He was defeated and his kingdom on Earth was destroyed by a flood and the fierce anger of God (Gen. 1:2; Jer. 4:23-26; Ps. 104:5-9; 2 Pet. 3:5-6).

The Earth was turned upside down, a process which caused all the present formations of the Earth. The flood remained on the Earth for an unknown period of time, and then God in six days restored the Earth to a habitable state and made Adam and Eve and his creation to carry out the original plan of God concerning the Earth (Gen. 1:3-2:25).

Lucifer, now called Satan, and the spirit rebels caused man to fall, and they regained dominion of the earth through Adam's submission (2 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 2:1-3; 6:10-18; Rom. 5:12-21). They have been in control ever since and will be in control untill the second coming of Christ, who will put down all rebellion in the Millennium and make a New Heavens and a New Earth wherein dwelleth all righteousness forever (1 Cor. 15:24-28; Rev. 19:11-22:5). Why does science show the earth to be many millions of years old and the Bible "(allegedly)" says it is only six thousand years old? So, as with everything missunderstood in Scripture men call what they do not understand a theory. Hence, the gap theory, or even a herecy. But there was a gap and its no theory. Scripture shows there was a creation "in the beginning" and then a re-creation.

If we take the time to carefully read all the Scriptures regarding this doctrin and not just skim over them retaining old knowledge in the mind, and the READ these below, which backs up what is said, and see for yourselves

You see, God spoke, and as soon as the materials were made, God created and formed with His hands the heavens, with all its light and darkness first, then the Earth, all in the beginning, or in the dateless past (Gen. 1:1; Job 38:4-7). God created the heavens and the earth to be inhabited and He gave Lucifer control of the Earth kingdom (Col. 1:15-18; Rev. 12:12; Ezek. 28:11-18; Isa. 14:12-14). Lucifer obeyed God and ruled for an unknown time before he rebelled and invaded heaven to try and de-throne (Ezek 28:11-18; Isa. 14:12-14).

Naturally Lucifer was defeated, and his kingdom on the earth was totally destroyed by a flood and by the fierce anger of God (Gen. 1;2; Jer. 4:23-26; Ps. 104:5-9; 2 Pet. 3:5-6), hence the severe geological contortions of the earth's crust, vast deposits of bones in various places world wide, fossiles thousands or millions of years old etc. The earth was turned upside down in this process, ever wondered why the moon is poc marked by countless craters, and yet we never see anything plowing into it these days causing such destruction. What about the other dead planets in our immediate solar system? The flood God caused to cover the earth remained for an unknown period of time, and then God, in six days restored the earth to a habitable state and made Adam and his creation to carry out the original plan of God conserning the Earth (Gen. 1:3-2:25).

Lucifer and his spirit rebels caused man to fall and by this regained dominion of the earth through Adams submission (2 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 2:1-3; 6:10-18; Rom. 5:12-21). Lucifer has been in control ever since and he will remain in control untill the second coming of Jesus Christ who will put down all rebellion in the Millennium. God will then finally make a New heavens and a New Earth wherein dwelleth righteousness forever (1 Cor. 15:24-28; Rev. 19:11-22:5).

This doctrin is too simple for most men to understand, so they reject it.

Now, 2 Peter 3:5-7 expresses this clearly in plain human language, "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing (emerging) out of the water and in the water:

Whereby the world THAT THEN WAS, being overflowed with water, PERISHED:
But the heavens and the Earth, WHICH ARE NOW, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

This is where people become confused and say the world "that then was," was the world before Noah's flood, but this cannot be because:

If the world that THAT THEN WAS" is that between Adam and the flood of Noah, then God created The heavens and the Earth WHICH ARE NOW" since the flood of Noah. Noah and his family lived prior to his flood and after it. The world "THAT THEN WAS PERISHED" and everything in it also perished. What change could Noah's flood make to the heavens? None, for floods on Earth can never cover the heavens. The earth, vegetation, the heavens, all remained the same after Noah's flood.

Peter, in (2 Peter 3:3-7) taught that scoffers were totally ignorant of the flood that destroyed the social system and the earth "that then was" (lucifers flood). These scoffers all knew of Noah's flood and still know today. This proves that the truth of the flood that destroyed the original creation was hidden from them, while they knew about Noah's flood.

What was it that the scoffers were ignorant of unless it was the destruction of the social system before Adam?

This is the doctrin of which men are still ignorant of, which they call "the gap theory." Peter said that the scoffers were willingly ignorant of this truth showing that it is a clear doctrin of Scripture if men would stop being ignorant of it. There are many Scriptures that make this doctrin clear; so "If any man wants to be ignorant, let him be ignorant," as Paul expressed in (1 Cor. 14:38).

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Just as God told Adam and Eve to do when He restored the Earth to a habitable state and He created them, Genesis 1:28, “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth”

 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

 

Ezekiel 28:11-18).

The  earthly king of Tyre was Ithobalus 11, The supernatural king of Tyre was Lucifer, who is mostly referred to in this prophecy (V. 11-19), as proved by the many statements that could not possibly apply to any earthly man.

No earthly king of Tyre was ever in Eden, as was does this angel, nor does this Eden refer to Adam's Eden although Lucifer was in it also (Gen. 3; 2 Cor. 11:3). The Eden here was a garden in the earth when he ruled in perfection and sinlessness before he fell (V. 13).

Ezek. 28:14-16, Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

V. 15, Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
V. 16, By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

No angel was in any holy mountain of God when an earthly king of Tyre ruled, so the reference is to the eternal past when the cherub himself had a literal throne on earth on the holy mountain of God.

Here we have an insight into the position of Lucifer before his fall, and a revelation regarding the cause of his fall (V. 13-17). The term mountain of God occurs seven times (V. 14, 16; Ex. 3:1; 4:27; 18:5; 24:13; 1 Kings 19:8). The mountain of the Lord occurs six times(Gen. 22:14; Num. 10:33; Isa. 2:3; 30:29: Mic. 4:2; Zech. 8:3). All these Scriptures do not refer to the same mountain in the same place, as can be seen from the various passages.

 

The time of his iniquity was when he rebelled against God to exalt his throne and kingdom from earth to heaven (Isa. 14:12-14). The time of his corruption and sin was surely before the days of Adam for Lucifer was already a fallen creature at the time he came into Adams Eden (Gen. 2; 2 Cor. 11:3).

Heb. rekullah, traffic. It refers to Lucifers walking up and down slandering God to his own subjects on earth, and to God's subjects among the angels, until he had all his earthly subjects rebelling against the creator, as well as over one-third of the angels (Isa. 14:12-14; 2 Pet. 3:4-6; Rev. 12:4). Whatever it was, it is clear here that the behaviour resulted in violence; and Lucifer sinned and broke with God. This could never refer to an earthly king, as the ruler of Tyre, carrying on ordinary trade with the nations. It definitely concerns the traffic of a cherub, not a man. All trade between nations in the entire world could not cause an angel to sin as here in V.16.

Lucifer has already been humbled before kings for he was cast down to the ground before all the nations over whom he ruled previous to the time of Adam (Isa.14:12-14). He will again be brought down in the deepest humiliation before the kings of the earth whom he will lead with Antichrist in the battle of Armageddon (Rev. 12:7-12; 16:13-16; 19:11-21; 30:1-3). Then again at the end of the Millennium he will be brought down to Hell before all the kings and others who will spend eternity with him in the lake of FIRE (Matt. 25:41; Rev. 20:10).

[The Barbarian]

23 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Let us talk about what science is and what science is not. Since shifts in the paradigm of what science was (observable and repeatable) changed with Darwin,[/quote]

Bad assumption.   Darwin's theory, for example, was based on repeated observations and tests.    His book has data in numbing detail.  More importantly, Darwin proposed a number of testable claims that have since been repeatedly confirmed.   Would you like to learn about some of it?

23 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

we need a definition of what science was during this period.

 

23 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Is this new “science” of evolution open to higher criticism and critical thinking, debate, and experimentation?

Since it makes testable claims, it is indeed open to all of that.   For example, Darwin claimed that natural selection tends to increase fitness in a population over time.   This has been repeatedly verified.   Darwin claimed (contrary to the assumptions of most scientists at the time) that new species developed from older ones.  This has been directly observed.   Even most creationsts now admit the fact. 

There are many others.  Would you like to learn about more of them?

23 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Absolutely not; it is rebuked, ostracized, and not allowed in public schools and institutions of dumber learning.

In fact, there are scientists who don't accept evolution in public schools and universities.   I took my first training in immunology from such a scientist at a large state university.  Scientists like Michael Behe, Kurt Wise, and others still work at universities, while denying Darwin's theory.   You were really misled there.

23 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Many evolution scientists now admit DNA is so complex that it had to be engineered by someone; natural processes could not have created it over time.

In fact, the more we learn about nature, the less likely it is that such a thing was done apart from nature.  Even many Intelligent Design advocates, like Michael Denton dismiss such an assumption.   Would you like me to show you that?

23 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Scientific and government reports, in general, and the official government UFO report, in particular, assume evolution in its findings.

UFOs, and reports on them, have nothing whatever to do with evolution.   Perhaps you don't know what evolution is.   What do you think it is?

[Vine Abider]

Didn't we do a couple threads like this no more than 2-3 months ago? 

[TrueFollowerOfChrist]

On 3/7/2023 at 7:40 AM, FJK said:

Was old age and death designed in to man, as he was perfect as God designed him in the Garden, or did the process of aging and death begin when he sinned and only occurred after the expulsion from the garden?    Could man have lived millions of years in eternal youth in the Garden, or would he still have grown old and died in a few short years there anyway?

Does the Scripture offer any insight into this?

Death was not built into man. Had Adam and Eve not sinned, they would have lived forever in the garden. Aging and death began when they sinned. They and we however will live not millions of years, nor billions of years, but for all of eternity in a paradise even better that what Adam and Eve gave up when we are in the New Earth.

[The Barbarian]

8 hours ago, TrueFollowerOfChrist said:

Death was not built into man. Had Adam and Eve not sinned, they would have lived forever in the garden.

Not according to God.   In fact, in Genesis, He expresses concern that Adam might become immortal, and makes sure that he does not:

Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

8 hours ago, TrueFollowerOfChrist said:

They and we however will live not millions of years, nor billions of years, but for all of eternity in a paradise even better that what Adam and Eve gave up when we are in the New Earth.

That became possible only when we were capable of knowing good and evil.   At that point we were like God, and potentially capable of fellowship with Him.   But we could not be truly good, and so were estranged from Him.    That's what a Savior was needed for.

 

[TrueFollowerOfChrist]

17 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Not according to God.   In fact, in Genesis, He expresses concern that Adam might become immortal, and makes sure that he does not:

Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

That became possible only when we were capable of knowing good and evil.   At that point we were like God, and potentially capable of fellowship with Him.   But we could not be truly good, and so were estranged from Him.    That's what a Savior was needed for.

 

God only expressed that concern AFTER Adam had sinned. After sin, we had to die or else be stuck in this sin cursed state forever.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, TrueFollowerOfChrist said:

God only expressed that concern AFTER Adam had sinned.

God never said Adam was immortal.   That's a modern revision of Genesis, not found in the actual Bible.   In fact, as God notes, the tree of life was necessary for Adam to live forever, which is why he was sent out of the Garden.

 

[TrueFollowerOfChrist]

19 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

God never said Adam was immortal.   That's a modern revision of Genesis, not found in the actual Bible.   In fact, as God notes, the tree of life was necessary for Adam to live forever, which is why he was sent out of the Garden.

 

The Bible says that DEATH came from Adam. That means that before the fall,  there was no death. Immortality is the result of no death. 

[farouk]

On 3/7/2023 at 8:30 PM, Tristen said:

 

“Many thanks for your detailed reply (at least, detailed in answer to one of my questions, and to my narrative).”

As you can see, addressing “one” question quickly becomes more-than large enough for a substantial conversation.

But if you think I am dodging, I am happy to switch the conversation to one of the other questions. But I’ll still only be dealing with one at a time.

 

“While I do agree with your hypothesis that the Protestant reformation did indeed give rise to the freedom of personal thought that led to philosophical naturalism (and also much scientific advancement, to be fair)”

Actually, under the Christian paradigm, science advanced quite a bit prior to the Protestant Reformation. This progress was simply amplified by the Industrial Revolution (another notable historical period stemming from the Reformation).

 

“I do not agree that this had a material impact on the early interpretation of the fossil record. I also disagree with your interpretation of how science works - that it inevitably is starts with the paradigm (or worldview) of the scientist, and then facts (which are neutral and common to all scientists) are interpreted to "fit" the paradigm of the viewer.”

I would firstly point out that there is a difference between historical modelling, and the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method uses experimentation to generate precise mathematical confidence in hypotheses about the current, natural universe. By contrast, historical modelling observes existing facts, then makes up a story (model), which may or may not be true, to explain those facts – and any subsequent facts are then tested against the story to generate only anecdotal confidence in the model – given that the model can not be claimed to be confirmed without Affirming the Consequent (logic fallacy).

I am happy to call them both “science” – but they are not the same method – and can therefore not be considered equally robust. My claim about Philosophical Naturalism only applies to historical modelling. The Scientific Method applies Methodological Naturalism (basically, the assumption that no supernatural force is messing with the experiments).

Whether or not a paradigm is required to interpret the historical conclusion is very easy to demonstrate. Produce a fact that you think ‘points’ exclusively to the secular conclusion. We can examine the fact to determine what information is derived from the fact itself (and is therefore rationally indisputable), and what has been inferred onto the fact from external sources. If I can interpret the very same fact to fit the YEC conclusion, then we know that each paradigm has molded the fact to itself, rather than the fact having been neutrally followed to the paradigm.

 

“doubts as to the flood narrative as explaining the fossil record predated this time considerable”

The very idea that fossils can be explained by the Biblical flood was only a new idea at the time. It would be disingenuous to imply that some longstanding view was being questioned. Therefore, a general statement that some devout Christians questioned this new interpretation of fossils does not have any logical relevance to our debate. It certainly does not logically address my claim that interpreting the facts towards a particular historical conclusion requires a starting premise (paradigm).

That is, I nowhere claimed that the fossil/flood explanation could not be questioned by devout believers. I rather claimed that whatever explanation one arrives at, is implicitly, necessarily influenced by one’s pre-existing world view.

The devout doubters “as to the flood narrative as explaining the fossil record” where not questioning the “flood narrative”, but rather, they were questioning whether or not the Biblical flood adequately explained the fossils. As such, this evidence of their “doubt” is not logically relevant to how the Naturalistic paradigm is a required starting premise for the generation of the secular interpretation of fossils.

 

“On how Science works - and avoids pandering to worldviews of scientists While I clearly agree that all scientists have a preferred paradigm or worldview, I do not agree that all scientific conclusions, by extension, must derive from this worldview. You stated:

  On 3/4/2023 at 10:17 PM, Tristen said: When interpreting the available facts, the conclusion stems from the paradigm. Facts are neutral. No fact tells you about its history. Those details must be, of logical necessity, read into the facts based on an external narrative – i.e. the paradigm comes first.

If science merely worked by taking known facts and evidence and interpreting them one way or another, you would be 100% right. But that isn't how science works.”

I think I addressed this adequately above – notably: that my comments only applied to historical modelling, and not to the Scientific Method – and therefore not to “all scientific conclusions”.

 

“Rather, a scientist if forced to form a hypothesis (which may well be coloured by his worldview) and then list testable predictions or retrodictions of his hypothesis in order to allow other independent scientists to test these”

I’d say this is a close-to accurate summary of the Scientific Method. The scientist(s) making the hypotheses are usually the one(s) testing the hypothesis through experimentation. It’s actually rare for these to be repeated externally (though publication usually requires internal repeats).

 

“Only hypotheses whose predictions and retrodictions pan out are accepted as scientific theories.”

This is a propagandist definition of “theory”. It is not how the word is used in scientific literature – because it is a logically useless definition.

In actual scientific usage (i.e. in the Scientific Method), the “hypothesis” predicts the outcome of the experiment. The “theory” describes the proposed mechanics that underlie the rationale of the “hypothesis” – that is, the reasons the scientist believes he/she will see this outcome.

Ask yourself – what is this magic standard that transitions an “hypothesis” into a “theory”, and where is this standard recorded in the scientific literature? What exactly/precisely does it mean for an “hypothesis” to “pan out”? Where can I find the list of such proceedings in the literature – where this graduation is recorded? And why are thoroughly debunked “theories” still called “theories”?

 

“While this does build in inertia to science (old theories have to have predictions disproven, which can take many years of research), it also builds the possibility of objective falsification to scientific discovery. Indeed, in Mclean vs Arkansas Board of Education, presiding Judge William Overton noted that "Creation Science" could not be science because its adherents refused to make or disclose testable predictions that would lead to the falsification of their central hypotheses.”

All historical models - stretching into the unobserved past - are logically impossible to falsify (or verify). The fact that the “Judge” only recognized this for “Creation Science” speaks to the bias of either the “Judge”, or the case itself (was it only considering the falsification capacity of creationism, or was the secular historical narrative also being assessed for falsifiability?).

But yes – much of creationism also uses historical modelling. The question is, are we applying these standards consistently – across the spectrum of belief, or it is different rules for different paradigms?

As far as logical consistency is concerned, if historical modelling is “science”, then it is “science” – regardless of who is using it to support their position.

 

“Such was not always the case with scientists who believed in the literal biblical account of creation. They did indeed have predictions and expectations of the evidence they would find. When these predictions started proving false, they started to doubt themselves. In similar ways, the idea that the earth is very old and that the fossil record shows various changes and extinctions to life on earth also makes testable predictions. The difference in the modern age is that these predictions are public and testable, whereas modern creationists avoid making predictions at all costs.”

This is all rhetorical bluster. There is no argument here for me to respond to – just an array of Unsupported Assertions (logic fallacy).

 

“The mere existence of these extensive examples represents more of a problem for the secular narrative than the YEC narrative – given the massive amounts of supposed evolution that was happening in other forms while these creatures remained unchanged over the same (putative) periods of time.

Firstly, I disagree that living fossils are particularly abundant. There are of course many millions of species on earth, and therefore there are bound to be examples of prolonged evolutionary stasis among them. But these should be, and are, a small minority. But with millions of species available, there should always be enough to write a book on them. Secondly, this doesn't advance the YEC narrative. While living fossils may or may not challenge the evolutionary narrative, YECs are still faced with the challenge that the vast majority of living forms today do not appear in the fossil record, and that the vast majority of the fossil record does not record forms in the same species, genus, or even family as living creatures today.”

You are dodging the point. Your question is, “1. Why are modern animals not found in the fossil record?”. Therefore, a book full of examples of living creatures that are found throughout the fossil record directly contradicts the central premise of your question.

Now you want to Move the Goalposts (fallacy) to – ‘but not as many as I would expect’. Well, that is subjective. Your expectations are biased, and not based on the YEC understanding of the YEC model.

What is objective, is that there are many (at-least a book full of) examples of such fossils that directly contradict your challenge to YEC.

 

“Therefore, it is logically spurious to argue, ‘If you were right, we should find these specific fossils in the record’.

It would be spurious to argue that, yes. But it is not what I argued (other than for human beings, which is one of the only particular species we are certain existed in Noah's time, and was certainly killed in massive numbers by the flood). However, to have the vast majority of modern species not appearing in the fossil record is a massive challenge to the literal biblical narrative found in Genesis 1 - 9. Which is a very different proposition.”

It's actually exactly what you “argued”. Allow me to rephrase my general statement to be more specific; you are arguing, “If YEC was right, we should find the vast majority of modern species in the fossil record”. It’s the identical logic flaw as my original statement claimed.

And given my overall argument, this is no “challenge” at all to the historical “biblical narrative found in Genesis”. This lack of “modern species” in the fossil record is actually the expectation of the YEC model, given that, a) many “modern species” did not exist at the time of the flood (discussed further below), b) there is no reason to assume any species would necessarily undergo fossilization, c) even if such a species was fossilized, there is no reason to assume they would be buried where we are looking for fossils, and d) there are, in fact, many examples (at least a book full) of living creatures found in the fossil record.

 

“With regards to fossils, I would also argue that the mere fact we haven’t found something does not mean it doesn’t exist. In terms of fossil sites, we have barely scratched the surface of planet. Therefore, not having what you might be expecting is meaningless, and technically an Argument from Ignorance (logic fallacy).

Sadly this misunderstand statistical sampling. We have found literally hundreds of thousands of fossils. While this may be only a small percentage of the total to be found, it gives us a valid statistic sample on which to base conclusions. For example, that the vast majority of the fossil record does not bear significant similarity to creatures alive today.”

Here you have moved from fallacy to empty posturing. E.g. ‘If I disagree with you, it “sadly” means I must not understand how to math’.

In order for your statistical method to make sense (in reality), you would have to assume a uniform distribution of fossils across the face of the planet (in statistics terminology, you would have to assume a ‘normal’ distribution). Then, you would be able to take a group of samples randomly from any part of the earth’s surface – and subsequently make inferences from the samples to the overall population of fossils. But there is no reason to assume that fossils are ‘normally’ distributed, and we observe that they are not ‘normally’ distributed, and the sampling is not random (as your statistical analysis would require). Therefore, “sadly”, it is you who have misunderstood both the utility and application of “statistical sampling”.

 

“If you are hoping for a massive fossil trove that completely overturns this statistical anomaly, then I would suggest the chances diminish every day, and are now almost zero.”

My only hope was to convey to you that the logical integrity of your position is undermined by the fact that your argument is premised on a logic fallacy. As such, the fact that we don’t have fossils that you might expect to find, given your understanding of the creationist narrative, does not logically speak to the truth of the matter.

To be clear, the point of my above argument is that any argument based on logic fallacy is breaching the rules of logic – and therefore has no logical relevance to reality.

 

“I would also wonder what you mean by “modern” forms? The typical YEC position is that most “modern” forms speciated from their ancestors on the Ark. That means, for example, that there were no lions, or tigers, or panthers, or Jaguars, or domestic cats etc. on the Ark – but only a pair of cat-kind ancestors

I have also heard this hypothesis Tristen, many times. The ark could not possibly contain all species (there are millions), therefore it must have contained creatures at the level of genus or family (and this must be what the Bible means when it discusses "kinds").”

There are not “millions” of animal species that would have qualified for the Ark (even assuming each species is representative of a “kind” – which it is not). The overwhelming majority of the “millions” figure are insects (and most are speculations as to how many might exist – I’ve heard guesses between 4-100 million). Whilst there were no-doubt insects on the ark, insects did not strictly qualify for the Ark (i.e. are not breathing, blood-bearing, land animals). But even if they did qualify, a few million insect pairs would fit on the Ark easily.

Once you remove the species that did not qualify for the Ark, we are left with about 50,000 species (give or take). Considering that many species-groups can be reduced to a single representative “kind”, creationist, John Woodmorappe, did an Ark feasibility study and generously estimated around 8,000 “kinds” were on the Ark (~16,000 individuals). Given the dimensions of the Ark, and assuming an average size of a sheep, that would leave about a third of the Ark free for whatever else they needed to take.

There is no reason to assume Biblical “kinds” directly mirrors any one level of the Linnaean classification system. So yes – some of the representative ancestors on the Ark could have subsequently produced a Class, or Order, or “Family”, or “Genus” of descendants (according to the Linnaean system).

 

“While this supposes a ludicrously accelerated period of evolution between the ark and modern day,”

It depends on what you mean by “evolution”. If you mean information appearing in the genome in an additive fashion, that is novel, functional, beneficial, heritable etc., then I would agree that this is “ludicrous” – regardless of the provided time frame. But if by “evolution” you simply mean that many diverse types of descendants can be produced from a high diversity ancestor due to speciation conditions, then your skepticism is “ludicrous”.

Scientific literature is saturated with examples lauding this kind of rapid “evolution”.

Also consider the example of domestic dogs (though not technically separate species). Around two centuries ago, there was only a handful of breeds. Through artificial selection, humans have generated hundreds of very diverse types of dog breeds - by breeding out the existing genetic diversity from each breed. Why shouldn’t Natural Selection be able to do the same over 4,000 years? In-fact, Natural Selection has been observed to change populations this way many times – as attested to in the scientific literature.

SIDE NOTE: I am more than happy to provide examples/references for anything I claim on request. For now, I am assuming you are somewhat familiar with what I’ve said enough to know it’s accurate (or at-least can do a rudimentary web search to test what I’ve claimed).

 

“it still doesn't help Young Earth Creationists. The simple reason being, the vast majority of families represented in the fossil record are not alive today.”

My suggestion that most living species did not exist when most fossilization occurred, directly, logically addresses your question as to why they are not prevalent in the fossil record.

Whereas the fact that some fossils are not represented by living descendant-relatives, is entirely logically irrelevant to the question.

 

“In reality, contemporaries of Darwin had begun contemplating Philosophical Naturalism (which had recently become permitted).

That is true. But doubts over the Biblical narrative explaining the fossil record predate Darwin by almost two centuries.”

I’ll try another way to explain why this is not relevant:

My general claims:

- by the mid 1800s, Philosophical Naturalism was becoming increasingly popular.

- in the mid 1800s, Philosophical Naturalism was used to interpret the fossils to conform to Philosophical Naturalism.

Facts relevant to your response:

- in the late 1600s (early 1700s), some Christians proposed that fossils could be explained by the Biblical flood.

- in the early 1700s, some other Christians questioned whether the fossils could be explained by the Biblical flood.

Hopefully by this, you can see that your response does not logically address my claims in any relevant way.

 

“An observation which is very easily explained by extinctions (either pre or post flood).

So between 10 thousand years ago and 4.5 thousand years ago, there have been multiple catastrophic extinctions that, though they wiped out between 65% and 97% of all life on earth (including all creatures over 20kg twice), never wiped out humans? And presumably these were then followed by vastly accelerated periods of guided biological evolution by unnatural selection to create a totally new set of species? And these affected both land and sea animals? Such an outlandish hypothesis must make hundreds of testable predictions. Perhaps you could list them? After all, it's only a maximum of 10k years after the end-Permian extinction. Shouldn't we still be feeling the after effects? And if the Chicxulub meteor landed 8000 years ago, shouldn't we still be able to measure the atmospheric disturbance? You see the issue here Tristen - a series of massive catastrophes (that BTW are mentioned nowhere in the Bible) in the last 10000 years - it's bound to bring up some questions and demand some predictions...”

This is more bluster and posturing. Nowhere in our discussion have we addressed “multiple catastrophic extinctions”. So you don’t get to throw such ideas at the conversation as truisms, then proceed to build a Strawman argument (fallacy) against my position – all so you can tell me how “outlandish” my (not-my) position is. That is intellectually dishonest.

You have also addressed my statement out-of-context (Contextomy fallacy). My statement was a reply to your claim: “as more and more fossils were found, scientists became more and more unsettled. The simple reason was, the vast majority had no modern day equivalents” (no mention here of “multiple catastrophic extinctions”). Therefore, my perfectly sensible response was to point out that discrepancies between fossils and extant creatures can be easily explained by some creatures having gone extinct.

 

“All classification systems are subjective – so this claim is logically meaningless. Ironically, the classification system you are appealing to was created by an avowed YEC, Carl Linnaeus. Therefore, the purpose of this system was to group creatures according to morphology

Bizarre you would make two claims in the same paragraph that are clearly mutually exclusive. If Linnaean classification has to do with the morphology of animals (which is objective), how can the hierarchically nested taxonomy it naturally produces be subjective?”

I can only assume you are conflating “taxonomy” with relatedness. Otherwise, I don’t understand the contradiction you are claiming.

 

“By the way, you are right that Linnaeas was describing morphology not relatedness. Evolutionary biology is merely one possible explanation for this nested morphological similarity.”

Agreed.

 

“The YEC paradigm does not claim that “modern” animals are the “descendants” of those that perished in the flood, but rather those that survived the flood.

Yes, and it also claims that each "kind" of animal on earth was saved in the flood. The question is, what happened to the Trilobytes and Dinosaurs, I guess!”

“Trilobites” are marine animals – that were therefore not on the Ark.

Some “Dinosaurs” were likely represented on the Ark – but have since gone extinct.

 

“I think your historical challenge there Tristen is that these facts did indeed cause people of faith to doubt this.”

That’s not a “challenge” for me at all. My job is to examine the facts for myself (along with the underlying logic used to interpret those facts). That is what I have done. The “challenge” for you is to provide some fact that can not be interpreted to fit the YEC model – thus justifying the implied intellectual obligation on me reject the straight-forward reading of scripture.

 

“And that the reason such people doubted is because they were following the scientific method of prediction, observation and falsification. If you can come up with an account of the fossil record that conforms with the account in Genesis, you are free to do so and publish it here. But to conform to the method that another devout Christian, Francis Bacon, pioneered - you will need to make testable predictions and retrodictions about the evidence you expect to find as a result.”

I’ve already addressed (above) why it is logically flawed to conflate the Scientific Method with historical modelling. I won’t go over that again until you’ve had a chance to respond.

I would encourage you to look up "the Scientific Method" (usually represented as a flow chart) – and see if you can find where “predictions and retrodictions” actually fit into the process (hint – I’ve actually given you the answer above). You’ll quickly realize that they are far less important to the Scientific Method, than they are to modelling methods.

I’d also encourage you to find examples of actual “predictions” supporting the secular model (as in – a prediction that is in the literature before the fact was found). I’ve been able to find very few. In my experience, most so-called “predictions” are really new facts that happened to fit the model – and can therefore be claimed to be logically consistent with the expectation of the model (or more dishonestly, what the model “predicts” (present tense) we should find). That doesn’t count as a legitimate “prediction”. Surely, according to your confidence level regarding the nature of “predictions”, legitimate “predictions” should saturate the literature in support of the secular model.

I would also ask, what does it mean for the model when “predictions” fail (as is more the rule, than the exception for the secular narrative). If “predictions” are as fundamental to ‘science’ as you are suggesting, surely a failed “prediction” would be as catastrophic to the model as a successful “prediction” is confirming.

And finally, on a matter of logic, does a successful “prediction” add any objective, mathematical confidence to the model, or does it just mean the model still only might be right? Consider that attributing any solid confidence to a model based on a successful “prediction” requires Affirming the Consequent (another logic fallacy).

 

“Just before I leave you with that, I have an interesting example of modern creationist methods for you to consider.”

I’ll happily discuss any of the raised issues once the question we are discussing has come to a resolution.

 

@Tristen An interesting aspect also of how Renaissance and Protestant thinking affected the way scholarship has been done has been that words have been interpreted and their meaning sought by way of their context (historical-grammatical interpretation) rather than a system being called upon to assert itself into whatever data that the description might purport to be speaking of.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, TrueFollowerOfChrist said:

The Bible says that DEATH came from Adam.

Yes.  God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree.   He ate, but he lived on physically for many years thereafter.   This is how we know it was a spiritual, not a physical death.    Adam was never physically immortal, as God notes at the end of Genesis 3, making sure that he would not become so.