A Concern for Applying the Bible to the Natural Sciences

[The Barbarian]

21 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Actually, I was thinking about the "Greenhouse effect" as greenhouse gasses are the barrier between the sun's radiation and the loss of heat from the earth.  I sad 92%.  The last report I read said 95%.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.  source

Yes, and warming will indeed make that a bigger problem, because a warmer Earth will cause more water vapor and more warming eventually.   That is still to come.   But there are several reasons your website got the story wrong.  

Let's say you have a glass 95% full, filled from container A.     Now container B has only 8% of the water that was in container A, so your site concludes that one can safely pour in the water from container B, because it has only 8% of the water that was in container A.    Do you see the error?

The second issue is that carbon dioxide absorbs and retains solar energy at wavelengths other greenhouse gases do not.   So that warming process is based only on atmospheric carbon dioxide:
 

Carbon dioxide has a more complex absorption spectrum with isolated peaks at about 2.6 and 4 microns and a shoulder, or complete blockout, of infrared radiation beyond about 13 microns. From this we see that carbon dioxide is a very strong absorber of infrared radiation.

https://meteor.geol.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/spectrum.html

Greenhouse gases have different absorbtion spectra, and they matter.

Greenwich, England.

Royal Observatory: Where East Meets West

https://www.space.com/20910-royal-observatory-greenwich.html

Turns out, Kipling was wrong.

21 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

That is a man made line designed to make a more global measurement of time/daylight. 

Like "East" and "West" are man-made concepts.   But at some point on a globe, on has to say which is east and which is west; it's an unnatural concept, like longitude.    So the line was drawn at Greenwich, because God never set up any way to decide on such a man-made concept.   Greenwich is where east and west meet.

[Still Alive]

A fun question: We've all seen that first line in the bible, but I like to disect it further. It starts with, "In the beginning...". So, my question is, "the beginning of what"? 

[FJK]

31 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

So, my question is, "the beginning of what"? 

It goes on to say The heaven and The earth, that is what it was the beginning of.

FWIW, The heaven and The earth is pretty much all inclusive, can you think of anything that would not be or is not a part of it?

[Still Alive]

6 minutes ago, FJK said:

It goes on to say The heaven and The earth, that is what it was the beginning of.

FWIW, The heaven and The earth is pretty much all inclusive, can you think of anything that would not be or is not a part of it?

Yes. anything outside the earth's atmosphere. I see it as the beginning of the age of man. Which is roughly 6,000 years. I think of the heavens as the atmosphere and the earth as the surface of the earth. Who knows how many "beginnings" there were before that one. As far as we're concerned, that is the only one the bible is trying to discuss. Just my opinion, of course. 

Frankly, whenever I hear that someone "may have" done a certain thing, I always mentally add, "or may not have", to remain unbiased. I do something similar with verses in the bible about creation with the phrase "as far as we're concerned". That is, the "whole earth" or "all of creation" may really just mean a limited area, but "as far as the reader to which the verse is written" is concerned, it is all of creation. 

The bible does not speak of the full universe including the quadrillions of galaxies, other than to say God is our creator and, as far as we're concerned, he is the creator of everything. 

i.e. as far as I'm concerned, God is the author of everything and creator of everything. But that leaves room for dinosaurs millions of years ago, life on other worlds in other galaxies, etc. And for the sentient ones, "as far as they are concerned", their planet is the center of the universe. 

God is pretty big.😉😎

[teddyv]

4 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

One does not gain enlightenment by taking phrases from the Bible out of context.  Read the entire passage and it makes more sense.  If you have the Holy Spirit within you, He can reveal it to you.  If not, take it to your pastors or you can come to forums like this with other believers to diligently seek the opinions of others.

However, suppose you see a figure walking in the distance that looks like a man.  The man beside you says, "That's an android.  I built him in my lab over the last year.  Isn't he magnificent?"  However, though you have no reason to doubt the creator, you insist that the figure is a man, and that he is at least 30 years old.  The creator then describes to you the process of how he made the android.  You refuse to believe him.  You go to the Robot and Android Fabrication page and contend that that android in fact had a mother, father, grandparents and great grandparents.

That is not enlightenment.  That is putting your limited understanding over the word of the creator and trying to convince others that you are right and the creator is wrong.

That works with those who have little or no faith in the creator.  Those who know him and know how he created the android are NEVER going to be convinced that he was born naturally.  So you take the phrases from the creator out of context and try to make an argument that the words of the creator are wrong or misunderstood.

At some point it ceases to be about finding a better understanding and becomes nothing more than an attack on the creator.  Can one continue to say he has faith in that creator if he doesn't believe a thing the creator says about his creation?

Just curious if you misinterpreted Scott Free's use of Enlightenment as I read that as referring to the period of the so-called Enlightenment, the shift to philosophical naturalism from which modern scientific inquiry developed (not sure if that is phrased well), generally referred to as Modernity.

He is correct (and something I have said numerous times as well) that YEC is viewing the Biblical narrative through Modernity because it is seeking natural evidence of the Biblical stories like Creation and the Flood. It is why they must commit to explaining incredible tectonic activity occurring in a couple thousand years, and explaining current speciation from (poorly defined) created "kinds", among other issues.

(I am not ascribing the above paragraph to you specifically, but this is what the major creationist organizations are suggesting)

[Still Alive]

32 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Just curious if you misinterpreted Scott Free's use of Enlightenment as I read that as referring to the period of the so-called Enlightenment, the shift to philosophical naturalism from which modern scientific inquiry developed (not sure if that is phrased well), generally referred to as Modernity.

He is correct (and something I have said numerous times as well) that YEC is viewing the Biblical narrative through Modernity because it is seeking natural evidence of the Biblical stories like Creation and the Flood. It is why they must commit to explaining incredible tectonic activity occurring in a couple thousand years, and explaining current speciation from (poorly defined) created "kinds", among other issues.

(I am not ascribing the above paragraph to you specifically, but this is what the major creationist organizations are suggesting)

I'm a creationist, but I don't adhere to  YEC. Frankly, I think that the "age of man" is 6,000 years, but on a very old planet. I compare it to an oil painting on a canvas that has had several paintings on it, each one covered with whitewash and a new painting applied. And if you peal back the layers you will see remnants of previous paintings. 

Or, in the case of the earth the remnant of previous ages. Stuff like Neanderthal man, dinosaurs, etc. All of which were created by God, but the bible is silent on the issue because that's not the subject matter it is focused on. 

I'm not saying that IS what happened. Rather, I'm saying it could be what happened, or something like it. It's easy to speculate on subjects on which the bible is silent. It's why I don't use the bible to help me decide which brand of car to buy, or which breakfast cereal, or brown vs white eggs to buy.

 

Frankly, I think adhering to YEC because it's "what the bible teaches" is like believing the earth is the actual physical center of the universe because it's "what the bible teaches". 

i.e. it isn't. Rather, it is what some interpret the bible to say, while others interpret it to be saying something else. There are places in english translations where the word "forever" is used, even though the event was actually for a limited period, and sometimes a very short period. the bible uses figures of speech just like we do today. You know, like someone saying, "I had to wait in line forever." Same with "In the beginning", "the whole earth", etc. 

Edited February 12 by Still Alive

[teddyv]

3 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

I'm a creationist, but I don't adhere to  YEC. Frankly, I think that the "age of man" is 6,000 years, but on a very old planet. I compare it to an oil painting on a canvas that has had several paintings on it, each one covered with whitewash and a new painting applied. And if you peal back the layers you will see remnants of previous paintings. 

Or, in the case of the earth the remnant of previous ages. Stuff like Neanderthal man, dinosaurs, etc. All of which were created by God, but the bible is silent on the issue because that's not the subject matter it is focused on. 

I'm not saying that IS what happened. Rather, I'm saying it could be what happened, or something like it. It's easy to speculate on subjects on which the bible is silent. It's why I don't use the bible to help me decide which brand of car to buy, or which breakfast cereal, or brown vs white eggs to buy.

That's fine. I don't have a problem with "I don't know, but this is what I think". YEC as used typically implies a young earth. You might better fit under the Old Earth Creationist (OEC) group, but there is likely various definitions under there as well.

Generally, these discussion are typically rooted in the hypotheses and interpretations put out by the major creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Ministries International.  Since they make testable claims, then they are subject to scrutiny. Unfortunately much of their explanations are on an ad hoc basis and they rarely consider implications of one explanation on another process or interpretation.

[RV_Wizard]

4 hours ago, Scott Free said:

Questioning the accuracy of a literal interpretation to a spiritually appraised text is more a challenge to one's capacity to comprehend than God's ability to act.

I have no problem with questioning anything in the Bible.  One only asks questions if they are interested in the subject. and one only gains knowledge that is passed on to him.  That's not the issue.  Saying that the creation of light is invalid because it wasn't named the sun is foolishness.  Claiming that evolution is validated because the Bible says the earth brought forth life while ignoring that fact that the passage concludes with the statement that it happened in one day is dishonest.  Deliberately misquoting the Bible to teach as fact something diametrically opposed to what is written is heresy.

The Bible is the ultimate authority.  There are many things which are written in such a way that they can be interpreted with different meanings, Genesis one is written in a concise narrative form.  It is 100% incompatible with the notion of common descent.  God created man in His image.  Our only ancestors were human.

[FJK]

7 minutes ago, RV_Wizard said:

I have no problem with questioning anything in the Bible.  One only asks questions if they are interested in the subject. and one only gains knowledge that is passed on to him.  That's not the issue.  Saying that the creation of light is invalid because it wasn't named the sun is foolishness.  Claiming that evolution is validated because the Bible says the earth brought forth life while ignoring that fact that the passage concludes with the statement that it happened in one day is dishonest.  Deliberately misquoting the Bible to teach as fact something diametrically opposed to what is written is heresy.

The Bible is the ultimate authority.  There are many things which are written in such a way that they can be interpreted with different meanings, Genesis one is written in a concise narrative form.  It is 100% incompatible with the notion of common descent.  God created man in His image.  Our only ancestors were human.

Something to consider when trying to talk about light in the scientific, photons are generally considered to be light, and a description of photons gleaned from the internet (theoretical physicists might want to add something) would be:

Photons:

Charge: Photons are chargeless.

Role: They act as carriers of energy in the electromagnetic field.

Nature: Photons are massless elementary particles associated with electromagnetic radiation, including light and radio waves. They are the force carriers for the electromagnetic force.

Chargeless, massless carriers of energy, not something that would require a sun or other emitter to exist, more like (maybe) something that was used to create those apparent emitters  and other physical matter in the first place.

[Tristen]

17 hours ago, Scott Free said:

On 2/12/2024 at 6:09 AM, Tristen said:

Insinuating that those who disagree with you think they know everything is (ironically) both arrogant and dishonest.

So, that is what you got out of it

Yes. That is the clear progression of the discussion. 

In one breath you are suggesting we should avoid dogmatism, but in the next breath you are negatively characterizing those who disagree with you about creationism (i.e. as angry fanatics who think they "know everything" and are "not in the spirit of Christ").

You are claiming open-mindedness for yourself, while throwing shade at the opinions of those who disagree with you. And instead of addressing rational arguments against your position, you instead resort to insinuating the intractability of those holding the opposing position.