|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Meteorite Impacts - 11/15/2006 11:10:49 AM
|
|
|
CCCdnt
Posts: 359
Joined: 3/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Plebe
quote:
ORIGINAL: CCCdnt
If I have time I will try to look into this thread. For me to adequately address this will require that I look into some studies done by the secular science world about supposed meteor impacts, techniques that were used to make certain determinations, assumptions involved, etc. This takes time. It may take me a while but I will do this when I can (I did something similar when looking into the Milankovitch theory).
I will say that the sarcasm and childish behavior seen in this thread is enough to make one not want to bother even addressing this thread.
As a suggestion, read up on Eugene Shoemaker. He was the first person to really push the theory of large meteoric impacts on earth. One of the important observations he made was comparing the rock types (eg shocked quartz) produced by nuclear bomb tests with rocks found around craters. Tektites are also a rock type produced by meteor impacts, and they can be used to date the impact. It is interesting to note that tektites are also associated with craters on the moon.
I think I have come across him already in what little reading I have already done - shocked quartz, etc. I also found that there is some controversy of some kind about tektites and relating them to metero impacts, and I do not mean from YEC but from science in general. Still have more reading to do however.
_____________________________
http://www.abort73.com
See for Yourself
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Meteorite Impacts - 11/15/2006 11:27:44 AM
|
|
|
CCCdnt
Posts: 359
Joined: 3/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: scutus
quote:
I will say that the sarcasm and childish behavior seen in this thread is enough to make one not want to bother even addressing this thread. We're just having a little fun.
Having a little fun at whose expense?
quote:
I wouldn't be poking fun at the YECs if only they actually attempted to address the OP. They're posting everywhere else but ignoring this thread.
Do you really think that a productive way to try to facilitate discussion with those that believe in YEC is to "have fun" as you have been doing? If you want others to want to have a serious discussion about a topic then that is not the way to go about it. I almost did not want to even bother with this thread after seeing some of the posts.quote:
If they don't know, be honest about it and say it.
Currenlty, I do not know how to answer this which is why I am trying to take the time to look into it. However, this does not effectively shatter the YEC view. Whether you agree or not, there is evidence that does line up with the YEC view. Until a way to understand how to reconcile apparent evidence for metero impact sites with the YEC view is found, I just consider this an area where we just do not have an understanding yet.
quote:
We're all looking for the truth aren't we?
Interesting that you would say this. This greatly depends on what you mean. For example, I am not looking for the truth. I have already found the truth. Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life..." (John 14:6) God's Word is true. Now, it is just a matter of trying to understand God's creation. To do this, one must first start with God's Word.
_____________________________
http://www.abort73.com
See for Yourself
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Meteorite Impacts - 11/15/2006 7:25:55 PM
|
|
|
secondtimearound
Posts: 9
Joined: 8/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
The global summer temperature dropped 0.5°C (32.9°F) below average, snows fell in midsummer and Europe experienced an unusually stormy winter.
There's a typo in this sentence re the temp drop. Could you correct this please? I am confused and want to have accurate info.
Thanks.
PS. I did (please note the past tense) believe in the YEC theory after reading Whitcomb's The Genesis Flood....about 20 years ago. However, sometime between then and now, I began to question this theory. In the last couple of months Bede on this very forum has further caused me to put away this theory.
So, speaking for myself, as a non scientist with absolutely no geology background, how do you expect me to argue meaningfully with you who all seem to have spent years studying this science?
a. I no longer hold to YEC.
b. I have no where near the background to be able to speak intelligently about it. In the research that I have done so far, I am finding that Christian geologists accept the basic age of earth as taught today.
c. The one identifiable person here who opposes what I believe, jmeert, has a Ph. D. in geology and is an assistant prof in geological studies. And, if I were foolish enough to take the side of YEC, even for the sake of the argument, the only thing I can say is that I can't even envisage an admission of a problem from him of anything that would support my position/challenge his own. He has not shown any spirit of disinterested objectivity period. In actual fact, I pity his students because I do not believe that a well rounded education is going to come from anyone who cannot "play the devil's advocate" and give the variant viewpoint objectively.
And by the way, I realize that this is against the TOS of not being negative about another person, or whatever it says.
I just think it needs to be said.
Now, since nobody seems to be able to match all of your (collective) years of training/experience, why doesn't one of you be the "devil's advocate" and give the best possible spin that you can to any YEC/other geologically oriented subject in order to clarify the subject? (In all honesty, I don't think that the evidence you have stated here can be refuted so that the Flood is put into a <10,000 year framework, so I don't think anyone of you could effectively play "da" with this OP.)
By the way, I do appreciate the tag for Scutus:
"It is by doubting that we come to inquiry and by inquiry that we come to truth."
I do apologize for my own snarkiness when and where that is warranted. But I will not cave just to conform!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Meteorite Impacts - 11/15/2006 11:27:32 PM
|
|
|
Quasar6
Posts: 98
Joined: 10/29/2006
Status: offline
|
Nice post!
quote:
Now, since nobody seems to be able to match all of your (collective) years of training/experience, why doesn't one of you be the "devil's advocate" and give the best possible spin that you can to any YEC/other geologically oriented subject in order to clarify the subject?
I would have already done this, (No, seriously, its what I do whenever I find a thread being ignored by my opponents) but in this case, despite thinking about it for a long time, I just cannot come up with a way to fit all these apocalypse style disasters into the YEC theory. I won't conclude that it can't be done, because I am eagerly waiting for CCCdnt's answer, but I simply cannot reconcile the hard, observational, empirical evidence of thousands of massive apocalypse's with the YEC interpretation of the Old Testiment.
This is by far the best argument I've seen against a young earth in a long time.
_____________________________
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
"If Americans descended from Europeans, why are there still Australians?" Quasar
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Meteorite Impacts - 11/16/2006 1:04:50 AM
|
|
|
scutus
Posts: 356
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
|
quote:
Having a little fun at whose expense? So who is offended by my comments?
quote:
Do you really think that a productive way to try to facilitate discussion with those that believe in YEC is to "have fun" as you have been doing? And what have I been doing? I've posting 'bump' repeatedly. Is that offensive now?
quote:
If you want others to want to have a serious discussion about a topic then that is not the way to go about it. I almost did not want to even bother with this thread after seeing some of the posts. Okay, then don't. I'm not forcing you to respond. You've acknowledged that you don't know the answer (yet). That's a truthful position. You've come out and said it. I'm happy enough. Now lets get unclemonkey in here to say the same thing.
quote:
Currenlty, I do not know how to answer this which is why I am trying to take the time to look into it. However, this does not effectively shatter the YEC view. Whether you agree or not, there is evidence that does line up with the YEC view. Until a way to understand how to reconcile apparent evidence for metero impact sites with the YEC view is found, I just consider this an area where we just do not have an understanding yet. You're the most honest YEC on this board. But you should always keep in mind that your position might be wrong and instead of re-interpreting evidence to meet the YEC perspective, let the evidence lead you to wherever it may.
quote:
Interesting that you would say this. This greatly depends on what you mean. For example, I am not looking for the truth. I have already found the truth. Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life..." (John 14:6) God's Word is true. Now, it is just a matter of trying to understand God's creation. To do this, one must first start with God's Word.
And what if our interpretation of God's Creation says something different to your interpretation of God's Word?
Who's wrong here? It could be us or it could be you. Keep your mind open.
_____________________________
Suo enim quisque studio maxime ducitur.
—Cicero, De Finibus, 5.5
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Meteorite Impacts - 11/16/2006 3:53:38 PM
|
|
|
CCCdnt
Posts: 359
Joined: 3/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: scutus
quote:
Having a little fun at whose expense? So who is offended by my comments?
quote:
Do you really think that a productive way to try to facilitate discussion with those that believe in YEC is to "have fun" as you have been doing? And what have I been doing? I've posting 'bump' repeatedly. Is that offensive now?
I did not realize that posting "bump" is all that you have been doing. I gave a quick look at the posts before and saw other comments besides "bump", but they may not have been from you. Since you said "We're just having a little fun", I assumed that you posted some of the other comments or that you were speaking for all that had been posting the negative comments I commented on.
quote:
quote:
Currenlty, I do not know how to answer this which is why I am trying to take the time to look into it. However, this does not effectively shatter the YEC view. Whether you agree or not, there is evidence that does line up with the YEC view. Until a way to understand how to reconcile apparent evidence for metero impact sites with the YEC view is found, I just consider this an area where we just do not have an understanding yet. You're the most honest YEC on this board. But you should always keep in mind that your position might be wrong and instead of re-interpreting evidence to meet the YEC perspective, let the evidence lead you to wherever it may.
First, I believe that the Bible is true. Second, I have read and studied about the best way to understand the creation account, flood account, etc. based on the Hebrew language, context, etc. From what I have read, the best way to interpret this is the YEC view. This approach is letting God's Word be the authority - starting with an understanding of God's Word and then trying to understand/interpret the evidence (geological, astronimical, etc.) based on that. To go the other way - to try to interpret God's Word based on an understanding of geology, astronomy, etc. puts "science" as the authority. The other interpretations of Genesis - OEC and theistic evolution - cause many problems with doctrine, such as original sin, Christ being the "last Adam", all being sinners and all being able to be saved because we are directly descended from Adam, God's character, etc.
quote:
quote:
Interesting that you would say this. This greatly depends on what you mean. For example, I am not looking for the truth. I have already found the truth. Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life..." (John 14:6) God's Word is true. Now, it is just a matter of trying to understand God's creation. To do this, one must first start with God's Word.
And what if our interpretation of God's Creation says something different to your interpretation of God's Word?
Who's wrong here? It could be us or it could be you. Keep your mind open.
And this is where faith comes in. What does one choose to have faith in...man's understanding of nature...or God's Word? Now granted, one must be interpretating God's Word correctly, but Scripture is supposed to be understood by Scripture, which is still letting it be the authority. Believing Scripture, I believe that a literal Fall happened as described in Genesis, which means that God's once perfect creation is now corrupt. As such, when we study nature, we are studying a cursed nature (world). Also, any study of origins that excludes God's Word and thus God is automatically flawed. If God did create the world as He said He did in Genesis and the rest of the Bible (as I believe), then one must start from that premise. Otherwise, one is ignoring vital information about origins - what the Creator told us that He did.
_____________________________
http://www.abort73.com
See for Yourself
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Meteorite Impacts - 11/16/2006 5:08:32 PM
|
|
|
Quasar6
Posts: 98
Joined: 10/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
And this is where faith comes in. What does one choose to have faith in...man's understanding of nature...or God's Word? Now granted, one must be interpretating God's Word correctly, but Scripture is supposed to be understood by Scripture, which is still letting it be the authority. Believing Scripture, I believe that a literal Fall happened as described in Genesis, which means that God's once perfect creation is now corrupt. As such, when we study nature, we are studying a cursed nature (world). Also, any study of origins that excludes God's Word and thus God is automatically flawed. If God did create the world as He said He did in Genesis and the rest of the Bible (as I believe), then one must start from that premise. Otherwise, one is ignoring vital information about origins - what the Creator told us that He did.
This, to me, is a perfectly valid viewpoint. Accept scripture as total authority. However, it is not science. Science starts from a neutral viewpoint (agnostism) and follows the evidence where it leads. As interesting as it is to see YEC's come up with ways that their scripture based view can conform with science, the fact remains that following the evidence from a neutral viewpoint leads to a very different position.
Which isn't to say that scripture is not total authority, and that science doesn't conform with it. Simply that science alone shows a very different world to scripture alone.
_____________________________
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
"If Americans descended from Europeans, why are there still Australians?" Quasar
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Meteorite Impacts - 11/16/2006 5:19:06 PM
|
|
|
Hiker02
Posts: 199
Joined: 2/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
As interesting as it is to see YEC's come up with ways that their scripture based view can conform with science, the fact remains that following the evidence from a neutral viewpoint leads to a very different position.
Is there such a thing as a "neutral viewpoint"?
_____________________________
"He who loves the Workman and his work, and does what he can to preserve and improve it, shall be accepted by Him." John Adams
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Meteorite Impacts - 11/16/2006 5:56:22 PM
|
|
|
CCCdnt
Posts: 359
Joined: 3/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Quasar6
Science starts from a neutral viewpoint (agnostism) and follows the evidence where it leads. As interesting as it is to see YEC's come up with ways that their scripture based view can conform with science, the fact remains that following the evidence from a neutral viewpoint leads to a very different position.
So you contend that agnostism is a neutral viewpoint? I would argue that no position is neutral. For example, if the Bible is true and God does exists and God is as such as described in the Bible, then to choose to study the world from a position that tries not to consider either way whether or not God exists is a viewpoint that goes against God, which would not be neutral. Someone could say how one could be going against God if he does not consider His existence either way. Well, if one were to study the Bible, one would see that God reveals Himself as a necessary element for His Creation. God is presented as the uncreated Creator. He is presented as being absolutely necessary for the existence and function of our world. The Bible presents information about many things some of which is the origin of our world which includes humans. The Bible says that it is the Word of God and is without error. If the Bible is true, then one would have to factor what God said He did into the equation when trying to interpret evidence. To choose not to do this, regardless of the reason, is to take a position that is contrary to God and the Word of God.
Take the case of a world-wide flood. I know there are those that try to interpret the Bible to say that a local flood happened. However, from reading about the context, original languages, references and comparisons made to the Flood at other places besides Genesis in the Bible, I believe the correct interpretation is that a world-wide flood happened. I would also contend that if one reads about the Flood without bringing in any outside influence about what secular science says about the subject that one would conclude that the Bible is describing a world-wide flood and that it is only when one believes where "science" says that a Flood did not happen and then tries to make the Bible fit with that belief that one would choose to believe otherwise. For sake of argument, assume that a world-wide flood interpretation is the correct interpretation. If the Bible is truly the Word of God, if God exists, etc. then that means that a world-wide flood did in fact happen. This would mean that one should study nature with the premise that a catastrophic Flood did occur (which I assume would affect some if not many of the uniformitarian assumptions usually made when interpreting evidence). For one to choose to look at evidence to see if a world-wide flood occurred is to have a non-neutral viewpoint from the start. This would be starting from the viewpoint that you do not necessarily believe that a world-wide flood occurred which would mean that you do not necessarily accept the Bible as true (again, this is assuming that a world-wide flood is the correct interpretation). Any viewpoint that questions the accuracy of the Bible, questions God existence, etc. cannot be a neutral viewpoint.
Also, one cannot just follow the evidence where ever it may lead. For this to be the case, then evidence would have to be able to interpret itself. Evidence has to be understood within some type of framework (world-view), whether that world-view is that God does exist and the Bible is true, God may or may not exist and the Bible may or may not be true, or God does not exist and the Bible is not true, or a variant of one of these. For one to say that he is interpreting evidence from a position that does not consider God's existence at all is still a world-view...it would be a world-view that is still choosing to exclude what God has said in the Bible.
_____________________________
http://www.abort73.com
See for Yourself
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Meteorite Impacts - 11/16/2006 6:21:33 PM
|
|
|
Quasar6
Posts: 98
Joined: 10/29/2006
Status: offline
|
That's a very well thought out post, CCCdnt. Bravo!
I don't agree with it, but Bravo!
Here's my reasons for thinking that Agnostism is a neutral viewpoint...
There are hundreds of different religons on earth. There is also atheism, which is unique but for the sake of this post will be considered a religon. Most all religons claim a different God, (or no God, in atheisms case).
T
So we can concider a circular spectrum, with all the different religons, and atheism, on the outside pulling towards their viewpoint. A neutral position would not agree with any one of them (including atheism) because doing so would exclude some of the others. So a neutral postition sits in the centre, not claiming that there exists this god or that god or no god...
That is agnostism, the acceptance that all opinions have equal value. Then science comes in, and rather than being tugged by all the faiths we follow it. Current science leads a short way in the general direction of atheism, but it doesn't get all the way there. I agree that being an atheist requires a certain amount of faith, and because I distrust faith (I see it as a concept for deluding people) I'm not willing to make that jump. So I'm an agnostic with a couple atheistic tendancies.
he whole point of agnostism is that it does not deny the possibility of god, in the same way it does not deny the possibility of no god.
I agree that you need a framework to study the evidence, but that framework has to be supported by and created because of the evidence. Old earth is currently that framework, it was created as a way to explain the evidence and the evidence supports it. It changes as we build it upwards to study the evidence more and more closely, but it is by far the best framework we have.
But anyway... enough of this! We're getting off track. Lets deal with the OP. How did we survive over 300 meteorite impacts, many different super-volcano's and the deccan flows and all the other stuff as well in the last 6000 years? If it happened all at once, why wasn't Noah killed (even if he was protected in the ark, when he comes out he's dealing with many years of nuclear style winter, volcanic ash and infertile ground)?
_____________________________
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
"If Americans descended from Europeans, why are there still Australians?" Quasar
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Meteorite Impacts - 11/16/2006 7:26:02 PM
|
|
|
secondtimearound
Posts: 9
Joined: 8/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CCCdnt
quote:
ORIGINAL: scutus
But you should always keep in mind that your position might be wrong and instead of re-interpreting evidence to meet the YEC perspective, let the evidence lead you to wherever it may.
First, I believe that the Bible is true. Second, I have read and studied about the best way to understand the creation account, flood account, etc. based on the Hebrew language, context, etc. From what I have read, the best way to interpret this is the YEC view. This approach is letting God's Word be the authority - starting with an understanding of God's Word and then trying to understand/interpret the evidence (geological, astronimical, etc.) based on that. To go the other way - to try to interpret God's Word based on an understanding of geology, astronomy, etc. puts "science" as the authority. The other interpretations of Genesis - OEC and theistic evolution - cause many problems with doctrine, such as original sin, Christ being the "last Adam", all being sinners and all being able to be saved because we are directly descended from Adam, God's character, etc.
quote:
quote:
Interesting that you would say this. This greatly depends on what you mean. For example, I am not looking for the truth. I have already found the truth. Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life..." (John 14:6) God's Word is true. Now, it is just a matter of trying to understand God's creation. To do this, one must first start with God's Word.
And what if our interpretation of God's Creation says something different to your interpretation of God's Word?
Who's wrong here? It could be us or it could be you. Keep your mind open.
And this is where faith comes in. What does one choose to have faith in...man's understanding of nature...or God's Word? Now granted, one must be interpretating God's Word correctly, but Scripture is supposed to be understood by Scripture, which is still letting it be the authority. Believing Scripture, I believe that a literal Fall happened as described in Genesis, which means that God's once perfect creation is now corrupt. As such, when we study nature, we are studying a cursed nature (world). Also, any study of origins that excludes God's Word and thus God is automatically flawed. If God did create the world as He said He did in Genesis and the rest of the Bible (as I believe), then one must start from that premise. Otherwise, one is ignoring vital information about origins - what the Creator told us that He did.
quote:
We find out more about God from the
moral law than from the universe in
general, just as you find out more
about a man by listening to his conver-
sation than by looking at a house he
has built. - CS Lewis
I realized that my scientific life was look-
ing at the house, while I had never consid-
ered the conversation (the moral law) as
evidence of God. I needed to study the Cre-
ator.
This entire quote comes from an article presented by Francis S. Collins, the current director of the Human Genome Project which I have referenced in another thread and it provides another viewpoint for your statement that: quote:
From what I have read, the best way to interpret this is the YEC view. This approach is letting God's Word be the authority - starting with an understanding of God's Word and then trying to understand/interpret the evidence (geological, astronimical, etc.) based on that. To go the other way - to try to interpret God's Word based on an understanding of geology, astronomy, etc. puts "science" as the authority.
Now let me preface this by stating that I too believe completely that the Bible is true and reliably gives us the revelation of God. That revelation however is not centrally concerned with teaching us science but rather with re-establishing a relationship between a holy God and His sin cursed creation, especially humanity, his "special creation" since we are made in His image. If this is the case (and I firmly believe that it is) then we need to differentiate between doctrines that we hold and will not give up (the divinity of Christ, his death and resurrection, for example) and other interpretations of Scripture that, while they may be important to us, ones that we are fully convinced of, etc., but that we realize that Christians can understand differently the ones from the others. Some believe that the Church is spiritual Israel and that national Israel has no further role in God's plans; others that although the church is spiritual Israel, the Jewish people are still the Chosen People who will once again return to follow God INCLUDING that they will put their faith in Jesus as their Messiah. Is not scientific understanding one of those areas where sincere christians can differ? I think that it is.
quote:
What does one choose to have faith in...man's understanding of nature...or God's Word?
Are you sure that this is what we do when we study nature according to the best information we have been able to gather?
And is this what you want to make as a distinction- having faith in science or God's Word? I don't have faith in science in any way that relates to salvation. However I do trust that science is in agreement with God as He created the natural world. Further, since science is constantly revising and refining its "truths", it would be foolish to put absolute faith in it, even about those things that we hold most assuredly, gravity for example, or the sun-centered solar system or that many diseases are caused by germs, bacteria, viruses and not by demonic attack or by falling out of God's favor/being cursed by God.
Let me come at this from another angle: Matt. 22/35 to 40 tells us that there are 2 great commandments: Love God with all your heart, strength and mind and love your neighbor as yourself. Is not scientific study one way to "love God with our minds"? And, just to maybe soothe your fears somewhat, as a Bible School/Seminary student I learned to not just take the "established" truth or current theological opinion as being the truth. Principles of interpretation, the revealed character of God, the life of Christ are all needed to evaluate and "correctly divide" the Word of God. In fact, studying the history of biblical interpretation and the history of doctrine, systematics, philosophy, etc., are all helpful in not being quickly swayed by every wind of doctrine but taking the time to study and to pray through issues of import for our beliefs/belief structures.
Again, if I am to be humble, I must recognize that just as I have mistakenly understood parts of Scripture in the past, I may make or be making mistakes even now. (Of course, this applies to the scientists/scientific method just as much as it applies to theological thinking...   )
This post is too long already. I'll end here...maybe come back later if you have a response that I can reply to myself...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Meteorite Impacts - 11/16/2006 7:50:43 PM
|
|
|
CCCdnt
Posts: 359
Joined: 3/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Quasar6,
I suppose I see it this way. If God does exists and the Bible is true, then He claims to be Truth...the only Truth. This would mean that all other "ways" that claim to be a "way" or the only "way" would have to be false. God says that there is no middle ground...either you are for Him or against Him. To consider that He might be there is still a position against Him because He says He exists. This would be true of any position that claims to be the only truth.
quote:
...a neutral postition sits in the centre, not claiming that there exists this god or that god or no god...
I see this - "not claiming that God exists", which flows from "not claiming that there exists this god or that god or no god..., as in opposition to what God says in the Bible...that He does exist.
Anyway, this would actually be a good thread on its on...that of "Is there really such a thing as a neutral postion?" I am not sure in what area it would go however. In the Science folder I suppose this question could be asked, "Can science truly take a neutral position regarding God/the existence of the supernatural."
But back to the OP...I am still looking into this. I ask for patience. I do not have a lot of time at present. I am basically working one full-time job and an at-home part-time job and trying to spend quality time with my family (which is about to be increased by another little one in a few months). I will post a reply to the OP as soon as I have had time to study up on this.
_____________________________
http://www.abort73.com
See for Yourself
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Meteorite Impacts - 11/17/2006 3:52:25 AM
|
|
|
scutus
Posts: 356
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
|
quote:
I did not realize that posting "bump" is all that you have been doing. I gave a quick look at the posts before and saw other comments besides "bump", but they may not have been from you. Since you said "We're just having a little fun", I assumed that you posted some of the other comments or that you were speaking for all that had been posting the negative comments I commented on. Please provide those negative comments. As far as I can see, they weren't insulting. They were commenting on why creationists weren't responding.
quote:
First, I believe that the Bible is true. Second, I have read and studied about the best way to understand the creation account, flood account, etc. based on the Hebrew language, context, etc. From what I have read, the best way to interpret this is the YEC view. This approach is letting God's Word be the authority - starting with an understanding of God's Word and then trying to understand/interpret the evidence (geological, astronimical, etc.) based on that. To go the other way - to try to interpret God's Word based on an understanding of geology, astronomy, etc. puts "science" as the authority. I disagree.
For example, what would you make of the Bible's talk about a 'firmament'? The Hebrews used the word raqiya for the firmament. The root of this word, raqa means 'to spread out' or expand by hammering, implicating a malleable metal. The Ancient Hebrews believed the sky to be a solid, broad plate. How are you going to interpret the scientific evidence that says the atmosphere isn't solid into something that aligns with God's Word?
Can't you just accept that the Hebrews didn't know what we did about the atmosphere and that they were wrong?
_____________________________
Suo enim quisque studio maxime ducitur.
—Cicero, De Finibus, 5.5
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Meteorite Impacts - 11/17/2006 10:29:34 AM
|
|
|
CCCdnt
Posts: 359
Joined: 3/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: scutus
quote:
First, I believe that the Bible is true. Second, I have read and studied about the best way to understand the creation account, flood account, etc. based on the Hebrew language, context, etc. From what I have read, the best way to interpret this is the YEC view. This approach is letting God's Word be the authority - starting with an understanding of God's Word and then trying to understand/interpret the evidence (geological, astronimical, etc.) based on that. To go the other way - to try to interpret God's Word based on an understanding of geology, astronomy, etc. puts "science" as the authority. I disagree.
For example, what would you make of the Bible's talk about a 'firmament'? The Hebrews used the word raqiya for the firmament. The root of this word, raqa means 'to spread out' or expand by hammering, implicating a malleable metal. The Ancient Hebrews believed the sky to be a solid, broad plate. How are you going to interpret the scientific evidence that says the atmosphere isn't solid into something that aligns with God's Word?
Can't you just accept that the Hebrews didn't know what we did about the atmosphere and that they were wrong?
I have seen articles that explain the points you bring up about the use of the word, "firmament". When I have time, I will look back over them and try to explain them. I could provide links (which I think I have already done on other threads when this issue was brought up, but just providing links to an article that addresses something does not seem to be very effective. At the very least, I will try to re-read through them and post some important points from the article(s).)
As I recall, the word "firmament" is only used in the KJV translation and the NKJV, which while I consider them to be good translations, I find others to be translated closer to the original text, such as the NASB.
Genesis 1:7
KJV - 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
NASB - God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.
ESV - 7And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.
As to your last question...
quote:
Can't you just accept that the Hebrews didn't know what we did about the atmosphere and that they were wrong?
I take the Bible as the infallible Word of God. The people that wrote the Bible were guided by the Holy Spirit. What is said in the Bible is what God wanted to say. To say that any part of the Bible is wrong is to say that God did not know how to explain something.
_____________________________
http://www.abort73.com
See for Yourself
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Meteorite Impacts - 11/17/2006 10:54:10 AM
|
|
|
jmeert
Posts: 97
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: me
Status: offline
|
quote:
I take the Bible as the infallible Word of God. The people that wrote the Bible were guided by the Holy Spirit. What is said in the Bible is what God wanted to say. To say that any part of the Bible is wrong is to say that God did not know how to explain something.
Which bible? You've already indicated that there are different versions which are interpreted differently. Today's canon is different from earlier canons and differs among the various sects of Christianity. Coming back to the OP and the issue of neutrality in science let me add my two cents. Scientists are not neutral, but they are open to criticism, testing and retesting. The notion that the biblical flood was an actual event should, in principle, be testable. In fact, the best tests are the ones where we find things that SHOULD NOT BE THERE if a global flood occurred. The meteorite argument in the OP is one example of this, but there are (IMHO) far more damaging observations in the rock record. Things like paleosols, evaporites and continental glaciations that cannot be reconciled with a global flood. In my mind the question has always been "Do we read the bible as a scientific treatise"? If this is a requirement for salvation, then I would return quickly to atheism or agnosticism. The bible does not indicate anywhere that salvation depends on whether or not the Noachian flood was a real event. History (and science) both agree that it was either a local flood that was hyped by storytellers or simply the adoption of another cultures mythology into the Hebrew culture for its teaching value. The message of the bible is very simple and its one of salvation and not science.
Cheers
Joe Meert
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Meteorite Impacts - 11/17/2006 10:59:30 AM
|
|
|
WesP
Posts: 2451
Joined: 11/28/2005
From: Where God needs me to be
Status: offline
|
I was just reading through the posts in this forum and thought I would offer a consideration from the YEC perspective. Since God Almighty has no limitations, I accept that:
quote:
Genesis 1
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
this is absolute truth. This time span is 3 days. The account does not tell us the specifics of how God accomplished these things, so all evidenced impacts, volcanic eruptions, etc. could easily have fallen within this 3-day period. While OEC's and athiests will not accept this argument, the fact is that anything is possible for God to accomplish. If you seek justification for why He would use impacts, eruptions, etc. to make earth what it is, ask Him. Simply put, God is not limited by anything, so I do not espouse theories that place Him in a box.
_____________________________
Peace,
Wes
___________________________________
<--- BTW, this is the true function of corn! It is to help the oil industry and its functionaries, not detract from them! 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Meteorite Impacts - 11/17/2006 11:15:41 AM
|
|
|
jmeert
Posts: 97
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: me
Status: offline
|
quote:
this is absolute truth. This time span is 3 days. The account does not tell us the specifics of how God accomplished these things, so all evidenced impacts, volcanic eruptions, etc. could easily have fallen within this 3-day period. While OEC's and athiests will not accept this argument, the fact is that anything is possible for God to accomplish. If you seek justification for why He would use impacts, eruptions, etc. to make earth what it is, ask Him. Simply put, God is not limited by anything, so I do not espouse theories that place Him in a box.
So why is it that YEC'ists seek evidence to verify what you claim is absolute truth? By the way, I fully accept that faith such as yours requires no scientific testing. My question is aimed at the Christians who must find scientific evidence to support their 'faith'. It just seems so strange to me.
Cheers
Joe Meert
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Meteorite Impacts - 11/17/2006 11:26:35 AM
|
|
|
secondtimearound
Posts: 9
Joined: 8/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Quasar6,
I suppose I see it this way. If God does exists and the Bible is true, then He claims to be Truth...the only Truth. This would mean that all other "ways" that claim to be a "way" or the only "way" would have to be false. God says that there is no middle ground...either you are for Him or against Him. To consider that He might be there is still a position against Him because He says He exists. This would be true of any position that claims to be the only truth.
In terms of making a reasonable argument, however, there is no prejudice attached to the taking of an extreme position, even the opposite to what one believes to be factual. Or in the case of someone who is unaware of even rock solid truth, a sound means to eventually arrive at that rock solid truth, a very reasonable means of verification is to take a variety of positions, for example, extremely positive, extremely negative and something presumed to be in the middle and then work out the consequences of each position in the hopes of coming up with either proofs, preponderance of evidence, irrational and/or nonsensical conclusions from the positions in order to simplify the target area.
Again, using the existence of God as a case in point:
one starts with the 3 positions: Christian Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism and then works out the ramifications of each. (I used Christian Theism although a Jehovah's Witness, a Hasidic Jew, a Sunni Muslim or a Buddhist would have used some other end point. As you and I, CCCdnt, are Christians, it only makes sense to include our "extreme view" as one of the end points.)
There is no reason why even the most radical disciple of Christ could not use this method without dishonoring or "denying" his faith.
For a non believer, give him/her the chance to be convicted by the truth, starting from wherever he/she might be most comfortable/confident.
The fact that the Bible states (from God's [and our]) perspective that: "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God." means then that there is a chance that the non believer has already made up his/her mind and will not open his/her eyes to the evidence. You know, the caricature "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts!" which is what I believe the Creator is referencing in that last verse I cited. For the non believer who is going to allow him/herself to be swayed by truth, then God accepts that openness and works to reveal Himself to him/her.
Now, on the Meteorite Impact/old earth geology, and other "facts" of science, I think that we as believers need to be aware of that same caricature "My mind is made up" and not fall into that same trap.
For example, my own position on evolution. As someone who starts from the primacy of Scripture, believing it to be divine revelation whose source is God Himself, even though written down by human authors, I have always held to the literal truth of Genesis AND therefore, have rejected evolution as my starting point. The fact that "when you plant corn, you don't get a crop of tomatos" is pretty strong evidence against the idea that a monkey became a man/ a virus became a bacteria/ Eohippus became modern horse/ etc. For the 1000's of years of recorded human history, this is the common experience of man, no matter what Darwin's disciples say.
However, how do we explain the facts of millions of years of geologic history? How do we explain the nested hierarchy of all living beings? How do we explain the various strata? How do we explain the genetic code in all of life? If the universe is God's creation (fact), how do we reconcile what we know about His nature with the data that we can collect from that same universe?
I am not a scientist and so cannot use the tools that they use. I am not against doing this, I just don't have the opportunity to go that route. So, let me go the route that is available to me: using logic, experience and the study of and experience that I have of God's nature/revelation. Let me use the abilities that I do have: I love to read in order to understand or to let myself escape into fantasy... "what if this were how life worked"... in order once again to understand and see what reality actually is like.
So from that perspective, I have to also be willing to acknowledge one possibility that challenges my faith; that is, what if my understanding of nature has led me to believe something false about God and has twisted my understanding of Scripture?
I, personally, have to admit the possibility that evolution is right in the big picture and my theology has been wrong.
Why do I have to admit that? Very simply, I have had to adjust my theology in the past due to a deeper understanding of His Word. If I was wrong about certain things in my theology before, what hinders me from being wrong here about my current understanding of the Creation? The answer: Nothing.
So, if I was wrong before (or even, I was right before and have now been convinced to change my opinion to be wrong now) about things that I have studied and thought long and hard about, there is no reason why my "faith" position about evolution might not be wrong now. You see, CCCdnt, my faith is not ultimately based on my ability to reason everything out AND GET IT RIGHT; it is based on the grace of God and a relationship with Him through His Son. I put 100% of my confidence in His work of justification on the Cross and in His Love for His Creation.
In that relationship, I strive to honor Him by Loving Him with all my heart, strength, soul and mind and by loving others as myself. Fortunately, we are not saved by our 100% accuracy of understanding, but by faith in Him. Fortunately because only He is God and only He can know fully the unknowable...only He was there through all of time...only He is omniscient and omnipresent. To God, the all-Wise the Omnipotent be all glory honor and praise...
I'll end here and come back later with a hypothesis for how I might begin to reconcile the data. Obviously, it will only be some of the data and just as obviously, it will be a first draft to be adjusted and perhaps completely rejected if I come across a better hypothesis.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Meteorite Impacts - 11/17/2006 2:41:00 PM
|
|
|
CCCdnt
Posts: 359
Joined: 3/10/2006
Status: offline
|
I want to be clear that I do not take the stance that one must hold to the YEC view to be a Christian. I have said before that all that is required to be saved is having Christ as your Savior and has nothing to do with how long you think the days in Genesis were, etc. You may not have thought I meant something like that, but I wanted to be sure.
quote:
ORIGINAL: secondtimearound
The fact that "when you plant corn, you don't get a crop of tomatos" is pretty strong evidence against the idea that a monkey became a man/ a virus became a bacteria/ Eohippus became modern horse/ etc. For the 1000's of years of recorded human history, this is the common experience of man, no matter what Darwin's disciples say.
Be very careful here. You probably do not literally mean that you think that evolution teaches that a monkey evolved into a human or that corn seeds could grow tomatos. You are probably just giving generalized statements where you assume that what you mean will be understood - that you do not believe that monkeys and humans "evolved" from a common ancestor, etc. I have seen statements like you said made by others before and usually those that believe in evolution are quick to attack those statements.
Also, I accept that I may not fully understand all of Scripture. However, my understanding comes from studying how different parts of the Bible were meant to be understood, and this comes from studying context, the original languages, etc. and does not come from seeing what secular science says about origins and then trying to make the Bible fit with those ideas.
_____________________________
http://www.abort73.com
See for Yourself
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Meteorite Impacts - 11/17/2006 2:59:43 PM
|
|
< | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
