the age of the earth for the enlightenment of YEC's

[Cerebrum123]

They can see if they left any evidence

Considering their nature, what exactly would you expect to find? And remember that they are miracles, things that might have been different in the pre-flood world(for instance the Bible says that no rain was falling at least up until after the Fall, maybe not even up until Noah's Flood).

[headheart]

Well, I repeated what you ignored, and you ignored it again. I guess you win the discussion.

Sure, this is what you wrote:

I raised the issue of multiple godly personalities. You ignored it.
I raised the issue of cultural change altering religious views over centuries. You ignored it.
I mentioned multiple purposes for gods - you ignored them all.

Now each of these could work well as titles too posts, but until you present more than titles how am I supposed to respond to them.

Peace,
Eric

[magellan004]

They can see if they left any evidence

I suspect that you are begging the question raised by Firstfloor. Phank certainly is.

In Post 11 Firstfloor said ’ Two things are clearly incompatible. Earth geological history as determined scientifically and earth creationist history as determined from Bible analysis. First, one has to be interested in resolving the issue – it is a matter of honesty. Let’s tentatively assume that statement is correct –

1. Scientific age of the Earth and Creationist age of Earth are contradictory.
2. The honest person has to resolve that contradiction.

Two ways of resolving it have been mentioned:
A. Use an ad-hoc rule which suggests go with science or
B. Use logic and go with Creationism.

Which is the better method?
You and Phank suggest that if we go with Method B – the logical method, we can’t use scientific evidence (you didn’t say ‘scientific evidence’, just ‘evidence’ but I think it’s what you meant.)

But that is begging the question. It’s like saying – Method B is better because Method A doesn’t acknowledge miracles.

Either you agree that logic trumps ad-hoc rules or you don’t.


Magellan

[phank]

Sure, this is what you wrote:

I raised the issue of multiple godly personalities. You ignored it.
I raised the issue of cultural change altering religious views over centuries. You ignored it.
I mentioned multiple purposes for gods - you ignored them all.

Now each of these could work well as titles too posts, but until you present more than titles how am I supposed to respond to them.

Probably with your informed opinions about such things. I readily admit I am not a biblical scholar. However, I've read quite a good deal about various cultures, and how they derive value systems, and how a culture's values change over time both normally, and in response to outside influences. The point that at the very least the OT and NT gods are quite drastically different has been raised enough times in enough places so most people have encountered it even if they haven't learned aramaic,hebrew and greek to read the (closest thing we have to) the original material.

The notion of multiple reasons for gods has been raised in many secular contexts, from anthropology to psychology.

I understand that in each of these cases, there are a good many books written from a good many different perspectives, available out there. Probably years of reading. I've read only a small fraction of these, and even then I'm extrapolating from common trends. For example, a book on how American and European attitudes towards sex differ, why they differ, and how and when both have changed over the last couple of centuries, can be extrapolated to gods or religion as well as sex. Why are so many Americans so highly religious, while religion is largely a matter of indifference in Europe? These are interesting questions, and I would have expected you to have encountered them and related materials and wondered about them.

And I will admit I must approach religion from an anthropological direction, because from where I stand there is no One True Faith, there are many religions and many gods and many cultural histories, none of which are particularly privileged over any other.

[phank]

I Two ways of resolving it have been mentioned:
A. Use an ad-hoc rule which suggests go with science or
B. Use logic and go with Creationism.

Which is the better method?

If you regard scientific evidence as ad-hoc (by which I guess you mean, worthless), then of course we must discard reality. It's too ad-hoc, don't you know.

As for logic, well, Creationism is certainly logical:
1) Assume your conclusions
2) Draw your conclusions from your assumptions
3) Deduce that your conclusions must be correct.

Airtight. No doubt about it. Where evidence is meaningless, the "logical" approach has none of that messy reality stuff to get in the way.

[Wally]

The point that at the very least the OT and NT gods are quite drastically different has been raised enough times in enough places so most people have encountered it even if they haven't learned aramaic,hebrew and greek to read the (closest thing we have to) the original material.

Prior to the victory of what we consider orthodox Christianity, there was even a sizeable movement called Marcionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism

[rogue06]

Considering their nature, what exactly would you expect to find? And remember that they are miracles, things that might have been different in the pre-flood world(for instance the Bible says that no rain was falling at least up until after the Fall, maybe not even up until Noah's Flood).

Well, for instance, a worldwide flood would leave deposits in accordance with Stokes Law (largest particles settle first with the lightest ones on top). But that isn't even remotely like what we find. It isn't uncommon to find shale (made up of clay particles less than 1/256mm in diameter) underneath a deposit of conglomerates (gravel over 2mm on up to boulders) for instance. And such sequences can be repeated. Take a look at the Grand Canyon for instance.

All the shale should be on top of the sandstone for one thing.

Of course God could have concealed all the evidence for a global deluge and even planted evidence making it look like it didn't take place but that seems to contradict making the rainbow a symbol as well as turning God into a deceptive trickster. The Bible has several passages instructing us to look at the creation in order to gain insight into God's might and majesty which would be odd if it presents a false picture.


Further, as even AnswersinGenesis (AiG) notes in their "Arguments Creationists Should Avoid" page:

Arguments that should be avoided

10. There was no rain before the Flood. (Genesis 2:4–6, a passage commonly used to support this, is speaking of Creation Week, prior to the creation of man. It may not be wise to assume this projects into the future until the Flood.)

© source where applicable

Creation Ministries International (CMI) also lists it on their Arguments we think creationists should NOT use page:

‘There was no rain before the Flood.’

This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so again there should be no dogmatism. Genesis 2:5–6 at face value teaches only that there was no rain at the time Adam was created. But it doesn’t rule out rain at any later time before the Flood, as great pre-uniformitarian commentators such as John Calvin pointed out. A related fallacy is that the rainbow covenant of Genesis 9:12–17 proves that there were no rainbows before the Flood. As Calvin pointed out, God frequently invested existing things with new meanings, e.g. the bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper.

© source where applicable

Even the more strident Creationwiki includes it in their Arguments creationists should not use page as well:

There was no rain before the Flood

Not directly taught by Scripture and not required by Scripture.

© source where applicable

[headheart]

Holy Smokes rogue66 where do you get such cool pictures. Amazing!

[headheart]

< excuse my snip, it was done in the name of Space - what you said is very reasonable >

And I will admit I must approach religion from an anthropological direction, because from where I stand there is no One True Faith, there are many religions and many gods and many cultural histories, none of which are particularly privileged over any other.

That's exactly my point. That's where I'm coming from, or rather going to. If you've ever read anything by Dr. David Lahti then you'll know where my mind is and that I really do not have a high-view of the CST but that does not mean that I do not think that the writings of the NT have value for how we live in this world. I recall a conversation with Prof. Richard Dawkins and Prof. Stephen Weinberg where near the end they began talking about 1 Corinthians 13 (the Love chapter) and if you're listen or read anything by Prof. Jeffery Schloss you'll know that I'm on a very different wavelength to most fundamentalists who tote the Bible-gun. I'd also point out that my primary interests are in the field of Psychology ( I'm currently enjoying Revd. Dr. Watts ) mixed in with studies in Hinduism and Buddhism ( Dr. J Glenn Friesen) though I am far from fluent in these matters and yes, I am studying Hebrew (but I'm way behind) and currently studying some really heavy Theology.

I find Dr. Lahti a fresh breeze!!!!
Eric.

[Cerebrum123]

Well, for instance, a worldwide flood would leave deposits in accordance with Stokes Law (largest particles settle first with the lightest ones on top). But that isn't even remotely like what we find. It isn't uncommon to find shale (made up of clay particles less than 1/256mm in diameter) underneath a deposit of conglomerates (gravel over 2mm on up to boulders) for instance. And such sequences can be repeated. Take a look at the Grand Canyon for instance.

All the shale should be on top of the sandstone for one thing.

Of course God could have concealed all the evidence for a global deluge and even planted evidence making it look like it didn't take place but that seems to contradict making the rainbow a symbol as well as turning God into a deceptive trickster. The Bible has several passages instructing us to look at the creation in order to gain insight into God's might and majesty which would be odd if it presents a false picture.


Further, as even AnswersinGenesis (AiG) notes in their "Arguments Creationists Should Avoid" page:

Arguments that should be avoided

10. There was no rain before the Flood. (Genesis 2:4–6, a passage commonly used to support this, is speaking of Creation Week, prior to the creation of man. It may not be wise to assume this projects into the future until the Flood.)

© source where applicable

Creation Ministries International (CMI) also lists it on their Arguments we think creationists should NOT use page:

‘There was no rain before the Flood.’

This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so again there should be no dogmatism. Genesis 2:5–6 at face value teaches only that there was no rain at the time Adam was created. But it doesn’t rule out rain at any later time before the Flood, as great pre-uniformitarian commentators such as John Calvin pointed out. A related fallacy is that the rainbow covenant of Genesis 9:12–17 proves that there were no rainbows before the Flood. As Calvin pointed out, God frequently invested existing things with new meanings, e.g. the bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper.

© source where applicable

Even the more strident Creationwiki includes it in their Arguments creationists should not use page as well:

There was no rain before the Flood

Not directly taught by Scripture and not required by Scripture.

© source where applicable

rogue, I wasn't making the argument that there was no rain before the flood, but that things may have been different at that time, since rain didn't start at least until after the FALL, not until after the flood. I have read those pages before, and I was specifically trying to avoid saying that there was absolutely no rain before the flood itself. My only point is that things may have been somewhat different back then( I do think that it is a possibility that there wasn't rain until the time of the flood, but that is entirely an assumption on my part, and I did use the word maybe, along with trying to be very clear that I was not 100% in support that that is how it happened). Also remember that there have been thousands of years since the flood(if we are looking at this from a YEC perspective, which I am), and there has been plenty of time for earthquakes and other activity to significantly change the global landscape). At this time we don't know with exact detail which sediment was pre-flood, during the flood, or post-flood, so that makes things a little more difficult.
Also if evolution (common descent, and a few other aspects of evolutionary theory) is true, then it also makes God out to be a deceiver, because it is explicitly taught that ALL animals were vegetarian before the fall(not the flood mind you, but the fall, just so you don't think that I believe it is impossible for carnivory to have started before the flood). The exact same words are used, and in the exact same context to describe human diet, and later God gives permission for animals to be eaten.

[Jorge]

Holy Smokes rogue66 where do you get such cool pictures. Amazing!

*****************************************************************************

Yeah ... bright lights and pretty colors are good for two things: catching children's attention
and causing the majority of folk to reject God's account of history and accept man's account.

Jorge

[headheart]

*****************************************************************************

Yeah ... bright lights and pretty colors are good for two things: catching children's attention
and causing the majority of folk to reject God's account of history and accept man's account.

Jorge

Oh, that's nice. So now you assume that because I enjoyed the cool chart I was taken in by the colours which are bland. Personally, I think that locking oneself into a room with a book is cute but it's lonely and if you want to participate in discussions where other people are, you are going to have to learn to control your urge to make unsubstantiated statements. = 'God's account of history and accept man's account.' iow. Present a full argument or stay in your room. Naughty Jorge

Goodbye,
Eric.

[phank]

headheart:

You might be quite interested in History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth . This fairly long detailed essay was written by an evangelical geologist at Calvin College, and I think it's an excellent introduction to much of this material. Let me know what you think.

At this time we don't know with exact detail which sediment was pre-flood, during the flood, or post-flood, so that makes things a little more difficult.

But nonetheless, at this time there are precious few sediments anywhere in the world which are not dated, and/or which do not fit perfectly within a solidly-supported geological history. I agree that trying to date anything relative to an event that didn't happen is unpromising.

[rogue06]

*****************************************************************************

Yeah ... bright lights and pretty colors are good for two things: catching children's attention
and causing the majority of folk to reject God's account of history and accept man's account.

Jorge

While you may quibble with the dates assigned are you claiming that it is inaccurate?

[phank]

While you may quibble with the dates assigned are you claiming that it is inaccurate?

More than that, he's claiming that entire divisions of libraries filled with massive geology texts are actually nothing but purest fiction. And when one considers the sheer detailed imagination that must have gone into not only generating all this fiction, but ensuring that it is consistent with all the OTHER fiction in all the other wings of that library, AND that ALL of the fiction in ALL of the wings remains consistent with every new discovery and measurement, only then can one begin to appreciate the sheer pernicious enormity of the Godless enemy! The unprepared mind quails at the scope of this conspiracy.