Consilient YEC evidence

[shunyadragon]

¿Dónde está Jorge?

I was really hoping to hear an unambiguous reading of the Genesis stories that is also concordant with the existing scientific knowledge of the history of Earth and the cosmos.Since Jorge is so strident that my view (whatever he believes that is) is wrong I was sure he'd be able to regale us with his view of science and Scripture.

Post #9.

[klaus54]

Post #9.

Post #9 was a content-less rant that with nary jot nor tittle addressed my questions.

[klaus54]

Where Jorge be???

[Roy]

Post #9 was a content-less rant that with nary jot nor tittle addressed my questions.

Yup. The contentlessness matches Jorge's views perfectly.

Roy

[klaus54]

Yup. The contentlessness matches Jorge's views perfectly.

Roy

We can all hope beyond hope.

All I've ever seen from Creation "Science" is a bunch of spitwads blown through the empty shell of a Bic pen at the King Tiger tank of the huge collection of consilient evidence for an ancient Cosmos and Earth and biological evolution. I was hoping to find a more substantial rebuttal with an alternate internally consistent YEC theory.

Also it would be kewl to see a consistent unambiguous reading of the Genesis stories that are so obviously plain and simply "literal" to a YEC.

Bad science and bad theology are compatible so it seemeth.

Oh, well...

[Truthseeker]

Moderator, my vote is that Klaus54 be kicked off.

[Cerebrum123]

Moderator, my vote is that Klaus54 be kicked off.

This is his thread, and I haven't seen him break any rules. If you have seen him violate the rules, report him. If you simply don't like him, then perhaps make a thread in the Padded Room. This isn't an official moderator notice. I just thought I would let you know this.

[klaus54]

This is his thread, and I haven't seen him break any rules. If you have seen him violate the rules, report him. If you simply don't like him, then perhaps make a thread in the Padded Room. This isn't an official moderator notice. I just thought I would let you know this.

Thank you, Cerebrum123. I'm glad that trying to get questions answered is not breaking the rules.

It's a curiosity that someone with the screen name "Truthseeker" would not be interested in seeking the truth. ???

My questions are quite understandable, and I will focus them more: 1) If Creation Science is to be truly a science it needs a consistent (consilient is the fancy-schmancy word that's popular) theory that explains not only deep time but many many episodes in the history of the Cosmos and Earth. If you want to use an "Omphalos" type argument where God created with the appearance of age and history, that's fine. ... 2) YEC needs to provide an unambiguous reading (I hesitate now to say "interpretation" since they bristle at that word) of the Genesis stories to which all (or the vast majority of) YECs agree. I've heard again and again, how a "plain obvious simple-even-to-a-child" narrative it is. But, e.g., I've heard various explanations of what "evening" and "morning" mean as delineators of a "day" even though these are not global markers of time on a spherical rotating Earth.

Thanks again!

Santa Klaus

[Roy]

It's a curiosity that someone with the screen name "Truthseeker" would not be interested in seeking the truth. ???

Not really. Had he chosen the name "truthseeker" instead, you might have a point.

Roy

[Jorge]

Thank you, Cerebrum123. I'm glad that trying to get questions answered is not breaking the rules.

It's a curiosity that someone with the screen name "Truthseeker" would not be interested in seeking the truth. ???

First my thanks to Truthseeker for the support. The balance of my reply here is in gratitude for Truthseeker, otherwise I had been clear enough in post # 9 (namely, SantaKlaus's obviously ignorant and prejudiced views merit no engagement).

My questions are quite understandable, and I will focus them more: 1) If Creation Science is to be truly a science it needs a consistent (consilient is the fancy-schmancy word that's popular) theory that explains not only deep time but many many episodes in the history of the Cosmos and Earth. If you want to use an "Omphalos" type argument where God created with the appearance of age and history, that's fine. ...

Biblical Christianity (BC) is indeed a consistent worldview. Does it lack certain answers? Yes, of course. Finite beings that we are, every area of epistemology has and will have missing answers. This is true for BC as well as for any other belief system (including Materialism/Atheism/Humanism). That aside, there is more than enough evidence to support BC - this includes evidence in the natural sciences.

There are many reasons for my saying that SantaKlaus is both ignorant and prejudiced and I have no desire (nor the time) to enter into a lengthy discussion as to why this is so. I will, however, simply state one of the most important reasons: failure to recognize that the 'origins and age' issues are first and foremost metaphysical/ideological issues. IOW, natural science serves a secondary, supportive role in matters pertaining to absolute origins and age. A person not knowing and accepting this from the start has no chance of finding the truth.

2) YEC needs to provide an unambiguous reading (I hesitate now to say "interpretation" since they bristle at that word) of the Genesis stories to which all (or the vast majority of) YECs agree. I've heard again and again, how a "plain obvious simple-even-to-a-child" narrative it is. But, e.g., I've heard various explanations of what "evening" and "morning" mean as delineators of a "day" even though these are not global markers of time on a spherical rotating Earth.

Thanks again!

Santa Klaus

There are rules for reading / interpreting Scripture that have stood the test of time again and again. Scripture does indeed use literal language, figurative language, poetic language and so on - we all know that. Context is a key aspect for proper interpretation under any accepted exegesis / hermeneutic.

The (day) issue that SantaKlaus brings up here is very old news - it's been addressed and answered hundreds of times in many ways. One for-instance: The word yom ('day') is used in the OT well over two thousand times and the ONLY place that people such as SantaKlaus question its meaning is in Genesis 1 and 2. And what are they based on for this questioning? They base themselves on extra-biblical "evidence" that is itself founded upon a number of presuppositions and theories. That by itself tells the whole story; i.e., these people choose what they wish to believe. It's not hard, irrefutable "evidence" that leads them to reject BC, it's a personal choice of what they wish to believe and what to discard.

In short, the objections to BC are primarily and ultimately ideological, not founded primarily on natural science. This is true for all BC-deniers be they Atheists, Theistic Evolutionists or any other belief system.

Okay, enough ... I have to get back to work.

Jorge

[klaus54]

First my thanks to Truthseeker for the support. The balance of my reply here is in gratitude for Truthseeker, otherwise I had been clear enough in post # 9 (namely, SantaKlaus's obviously ignorant and prejudiced views merit no engagement).





Biblical Christianity (BC) is indeed a consistent worldview. Does it lack certain answers? Yes, of course. Finite beings that we are, every area of epistemology has and will have missing answers. This is true for BC as well as for any other belief system (including Materialism/Atheism/Humanism). That aside, there is more than enough evidence to support BC - this includes evidence in the natural sciences.

There are many reasons for my saying that SantaKlaus is both ignorant and prejudiced and I have no desire (nor the time) to enter into a lengthy discussion as to why this is so. I will, however, simply state one of the most important reasons: failure to recognize that the 'origins and age' issues are first and foremost metaphysical/ideological issues. IOW, natural science serves a secondary, supportive role in matters pertaining to absolute origins and age. A person not knowing and accepting this from the start has no chance of finding the truth.





There are rules for reading / interpreting Scripture that have stood the test of time again and again. Scripture does indeed use literal language, figurative language, poetic language and so on - we all know that. Context is a key aspect for proper interpretation under any accepted exegesis / hermeneutic.

The (day) issue that SantaKlaus brings up here is very old news - it's been addressed and answered hundreds of times in many ways. One for-instance: The word yom ('day') is used in the OT well over two thousand times and the ONLY place that people such as SantaKlaus question its meaning is in Genesis 1 and 2. And what are they based on for this questioning? They base themselves on extra-biblical "evidence" that is itself founded upon a number of presuppositions and theories. That by itself tells the whole story; i.e., these people choose what they wish to believe. It's not hard, irrefutable "evidence" that leads them to reject BC, it's a personal choice of what they wish to believe and what to discard.

In short, the objections to BC are primarily and ultimately ideological, not founded primarily on natural science. This is true for all BC-deniers be they Atheists, Theistic Evolutionists or any other belief system.

Okay, enough ... I have to get back to work.

Jorge

Gracias, Jorge for another rant that did nothing to answer my questions and instead was suitable for a Wiki on epistemic nihilism.

"Evening" and "Morning" occur simultaneously at different places on the globe continually. Now how about "raqia"? I heard numerous "literal" translations of that word, and since there are numerous readings of that word, the reading is ambiguous and not plain-simple-obvious-even-to-a-child.

Now to the science. There is a tremendous volume of evidence of cosmic history -- billions of light-years of distance, stars in formation, stars of differing metallicities, stars that have run out of fuel for fusion, supernova, planetary nebulae. In geology there are many many multiple events that could not have occurred in a few thousand years; transgression/regression sequences (cyclothems are a good example), mountain ranges with similar internal structure but in different degrees of erosional age (including shields which have been worn down to the roots), multiple glaciations, multiple mass extinctions, consistency of the fossil record, etc,, etc., etc. Then there's genetics --- whoo boy!

I didn't see an attempt at an explanation -- just an appeal to some form of Gnosticism where Jorge "knows the Truth but I can't" (Hylic that I apparently am). If you want to be that way then you are not using science in any way, shape, or form. If you want to be that way, please don't use the word "science" and don't pretend any of your ranting and avoidance in any way constitute a rebuttal of astrophysics, geology, and genetics (and paleo-anthropology!).

Let's see some explanations, Jorge. Stand and deliver!

And while you're at it -- and even more importantly for the "Biblical Creationist" (a very arrogant title to say the least) --an unambiguous reading of the Genesis stories. Let's start with Ge 1:1 - 1:8.

" In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And 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.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."

Plain, simple, unambiguous, right? What is "Light" here? EM radiation? How about the "Firmament"? In what sense is Elohim "saying" these things? Now let's seen your reading of these verses mapping them to present day English consistent with our knowledge of Earth and Cosmos. AND please be unambiguous and in agreement with all other "Biblical Creationists."

This should be a simple task. It's all Biblical -- your specialty, correct. We can forget about the science for now, since I wager you're WAY out of your league there.

C'mom -- you can do it. It's easy!!! And you can get your hypocritical fine example of Christianity buddy "Truth" seeker to cheer you on.

Santa Klaus

[phank]

Moderator, my vote is that Klaus54 be kicked off.

This is how those of Sound Faith seek Truth.

[rogue06]

The word yom ('day') is used in the OT well over two thousand times and the ONLY place that people such as SantaKlaus question its meaning is in Genesis 1 and 2. And what are they based on for this questioning? They base themselves on extra-biblical "evidence" that is itself founded upon a number of presuppositions and theories. That by itself tells the whole story; i.e., these people choose what they wish to believe. It's not hard, irrefutable "evidence" that leads them to reject BC, it's a personal choice of what they wish to believe and what to discard.

Could that be due to the fact that, well, it is the one area that some insist it must be read in a certain fashion in direct contradiction to all the evidence provided to us in God's creation?

[Jorge]

Could that be due to the fact that, well, it is the one area that some insist it must be read in a certain fashion in direct contradiction to all the evidence provided to us in God's creation?

I've been down this road with you before (several times, actually) ... you didn't listen/learn then and I have no reason to believe that you will listen/learn now. But I will spare you a minute or two, just so that you don't go off on another one of your accusations that "Jorge never answers".

Of those several-thousand-plus times when 'yom' appears in the OT, every time that 'yom' is associated with a number and/or with morning and evening, it refers to a literal day ("24 hours"). Did you get that? EVERY TIME! And people like you NEVER question that fact. Yet, in Genesis 1-2, you cannot accept that rule. Why is that? Hebrew contains other words for measures of times to indicate periods or something other than a literal day. If it were true that the days in Genesis 1-2 were 'not' literal days then why weren't any of these other time-measure words used? Answer that (with honesty!) before proceeding.
.
.
.
Next, let's look at your post: "Could that be due to the fact that, well, it is the one area that some insist it must be read in a certain fashion in direct contradiction to all the evidence provided to us in God's creation?"

Here's what you're saying: You are saying that God gave us His Holy Word saying X, and that God also gave us evidence in His creation, Y, and that Y contradicts X. You are saying that God contradicts Himself in His Special Revelation (His Word) versus His General Revelation (nature).

No, wait ... you will respond to that by saying that it's not God that contradicts Himself, it is our interpretation of God's Word that creates the "contradiction". WRONG YOU ARE - here's why.

First, refer to the earlier part of my post regarding the word 'yom'. God created language and 'yom' was explicitly used - not some other word pertaining to a measure of time. Therefore you seem to be implying that God is incapable of expressing clearly what He meant to say. Golly-gee-wiz, if only God had been clearer!

Second, you refer to the "evidence in God's creation". You are forgetting that our observations of the natural universe are INTERPRETED according to whatever reigning paradigm exists at the time. There was a time when combustion was interpreted under the phlogiston theory - oops! There was a time when illness was interpreted under the blood humors theory - oops! The planets were once thought to have perfectly circular orbits - oops! Many today interpret life under "Evolution Theory" - oops! And if you were/are a "highly learned person" while those paradigms reigned, then you would have been promoting them or you would have been laughed out of business.

My point is that you are confusing actual evidence in God's creation with what men THINK is going on in the natural universe based on whatever the Theory-Of-The-Day tells them.

I'll leave you with a question (which I am sure you will evade) : ask the top 10,000 scientists in the world -- including winners of the Medal of Science, Nobel laureates, etc. -- if a body that has been dead for three days will be able to get up and have lunch and conversation with His friends ... or if three individuals can be tossed into a super-hot oven fire and come out without even a hair singed ... or if a Man is able to walk unassisted on water in the middle of a storm ... or if a few scraps of food can feed thousands of hungry men, women and children. What do you think these 10,000 scientists will unanimously answer?

Nonetheless, if you think of yourself as a Christian I trust that you believe that these things happened - JUST AS GOD SAID THEY DID. You wouldn't be calling God a liar, would you? Okay, so now apply that reasoning to the 'yom' situation in Genesis 1-2. What do man's theories and interpretations say and what does God say? Who are you choosing to believe? It is a choice, you know.

Hey, you got more than just a few minutes. The bill will be in the mail.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

My point is that you are confusing actual evidence in God's creation with what men THINK is going on in the natural universe based on whatever the Theory-Of-The-Day tells them.

Or you are. But everyone knows Jorge is right because Jorge says he is right and Jorge is infallible.

In the meanwhile K54's questions go unanswered. There's still zero physical evidence that establishes an age of the Earth of less than 10,000 years and millions of pieces that show it's much much older.