To Shuny and other geologically literate folks here. Pennsylvanian cyclothems.

[Teallaura]

YEC argument number 73 -- it's not important.

Presuppositionalist apologists... Gotta love 'em.

K54

P.S. And if you present a difficult issue for creationists, it's "trolling".

Translation: Doesn't fit with my preconceived notions and I prefer burning straw, anyway.

[Teallaura]

Creating the world to appear old is the fideist approach, basically to hold to an uncompromising literal Biblical theology at the rejection of reason and evidence. Also the presuppositional view holds to a similar position. The concept of Creating the world to be old, and without evidence for Noah's flood, has problems philosophically. My main problem is; 'Why would God create a lie?' I believe there are other references in the Bible that clearly conflict with this where the hills and mountains are described as ancient and eternal. God in scripture appeals to reason, and this view rejects it.

Note: Contemporary 20th century fideism is not the same as the 'fideism' proposed by Tertullian in about 3rd century AD. His fideism related to precedence of scripture that the truth of Christianity could be disclosed only by revelation, and that it must necessarily remain hidden to philosophical reason.



By reason and evidence there is great deal more to the world then 'sola scriptora,'





This reflects a serious problem for ALL of science, society and our culture. ALL the knowledge of science is intimately interrelated, and the science of evolution and a universe billions of years old is based on the same reasoning and methods as the other disciplines of science that result in our medicine, and technology of our world. One of the results of this negative view of reason and science is that the graduate programs of the Universities of the USA are now dominated by foreign students who do not make these presuppositions concerning the presidence of scripture over reason and science.

Nope, because stratification is not at issue - the time frame is. YEC assumes a short time frame and OE a long one. You assume millions of years = X where YEC would argue X is extremely short. Debate the time frame with them all you like - but don't make an idiotic a priori fallacy by assuming the time frame when it is the point at issue.

It's a stupid argument when it's based on a fallacy. If you're gonna argue the point then you have to allow for the sake of argument that the time frame can be any period and then set about proving that it is the period you think it is. Klaus pulls these crappy 'gotcha' arguments and you amen it having not bothered to consider that the argument itself might be flawed. You're arguing fallaciously when means you'd lose the argument even if you turned out to be factually correct.

[Pentecost]

Creating the world to appear old is the fideist approach, basically to hold to an uncompromising literal Biblical theology at the rejection of reason and evidence.

I believe the Scriptures are true because they reflect truths I have observed in my life, including a God who is as far as I can tell all powerful, and all knowing. To try to keep Scripture generally literal as is my preferred method of reading, I accept the idea that an odd creation took place. I have reasons for my belief, I do not know what fideism really means except the obvious that it's a belief of faith due to Latin.

Also the presuppositional view holds to a similar position. The concept of Creating the world to be old, and without evidence for Noah's flood, has problems philosophically. My main problem is; 'Why would God create a lie?' I believe there are other references in the Bible that clearly conflict with this where the hills and mountains are described as ancient and eternal. God in scripture appeals to reason, and this view rejects it.

I do not think it would be a lie, so much as a work of art using natural forces that are now the natural cycle of things, so for example K54 mentioned Cyclothems which are observed to be "alternating stratigraphic sequences of marine and non-marine sediments" which scientists seem to think has something to do with glacial ice. Presumably because we know marine sediment is made in water because it was observed? I confess to not being a geologist. But if it is what we observe now it makes sense to try to figure out what caused it on land, however it comes back to, it could be where no one expected it, not because of a glacier of the gaps, but because God made things old.

Note: Contemporary 20th century fideism is not the same as the 'fideism' proposed by Tertullian in about 3rd century AD. His fideism related to precedence of scripture that the truth of Christianity could be disclosed only by revelation, and that it must necessarily remain hidden to philosophical reason.

You mean Tertullian was teaching against the Neo-Platonists being Christians? Shocking from him.

By reason and evidence there is great deal more to the world then 'sola scriptora,'

Indeed. Scripture alone didn't make the phone I'm replying to you on.

This reflects a serious problem for ALL of science, society and our culture. ALL the knowledge of science is intimately interrelated, and the science of evolution and a universe billions of years old is based on the same reasoning and methods as the other disciplines of science that result in our medicine, and technology of our world. One of the results of this negative view of reason and science is that the graduate programs of the Universities of the USA are now dominated by foreign students who do not make these presuppositions concerning the presidence of scripture over reason and science.

No, I rather blame our greedy and stupid politicians on both sides of the aisle for our failing education. I greatly value reason, but I think some fields of science are more important than others, which is not, I think a controversial statement.

So you're not an adherent of "Biblical Scientific Creationism" a la Answers in Genesis or ICR?

I suppose they could be right and there are scientific reasons to accept the tradition YEC dating, but it's such a non-issue to me that I've never looked into what they claim as science. Honestly, I accept it because I have reasons to trust the Bible as a historical source and I consider the way to study each book based off what it contains, poetry, prophecy, history, biography, etc. Genesis has historical components and poetic components. I lean more towards the literal reading where it is poetry, but if my paradigm was proven wrong I would have to reevaluate all relevant parts of the "break" in it.[/quote]

There's a tipping point where you can no longer ignore evidence without a wild dose of cognitive dissonance.

Only if you have an overly simplistic view of the world like, "science is a lie" and then have it shoved in your face. It seems to me that believers in scientism think it all comes down to data, because they have a shared assumed philosophy, and so when people interpret the same data according to their own belief system they are proclaimed to be "in denial." Seems arrogant to me to assume someone else can't improve your understanding. I'm not a relativist, but I think I can come to you and try to learn and vice versa.

Personally I have no use for a trickster god who creates with the appearance of age and HISTORY -- we see both of these in a dramatic manner in the Appalachian Cyclothems.

Did I miss the part where we agreed to make fun of each other's beliefs? If you want to talk cool, but I didn't come visit to get mocked. Also, in the way we've been using "age" "history" was already associated. Did you just realize that and that's why you're SHOUTING? I don't get it. But I did already address the idea of a lying god to Shunyadragon... Unless you have more examples of Him "lying" from Scripture?

Oh, and there's a myriad of other examples. Available upon request...

K54

My OP made clear that "other examples" won't convince me.

P.S. Merry Christmas!

I do not know if you celebrate it culturally, and if you do merry Christmas, otherwise I hope your season is going well.

Rogue does make a good argument against YEC, and I should consider it.

[phank]

God has shown himself to all men through His creation so that men are without excuse in rejecting God. Had an artificially dated planet been palmed off on us by a clever bit of sleight-of-hand, we would not be "without excuse" – instead we’d have a great excuse! How ironic it would have been for God to have commanded us, "Thou shalt not bear false witness," and then have expected us to adhere to a criterion that He would have violated from the very beginning.

How does understanding of an actual history over billions of years necessarily imply a god to the point that ordinary natural historical processes don't count as an "excuse" for rejecting one? Seems to me that IF we could show that the appearance of history is itself completely artificial, this would be MUCH more compelling evidence of a god, than ordinary natural processes which are the same whether they happened naturally with a god, or naturally without one.

The argument that the most compelling evidence of a god is that the universe would look exactly as it does without any gods, always baffles me. But I'm not baffled by the "logic" of assuming a god, seeing no evidence of any gods, and concluding that lack of evidence of a god demonstrates the foregone conclusion that there is one.

[37818]

Creating the world to appear old is the fideist approach, basically to hold to an uncompromising literal Biblical theology at the rejection of reason and evidence. Also the presuppositional view holds to a similar position. The concept of Creating the world to be old, and without evidence for Noah's flood, has problems philosophically. My main problem is; 'Why would God create a lie?' I believe there are other references in the Bible that clearly conflict with this where the hills and mountains are described as ancient and eternal. God in scripture appeals to reason, and this view rejects it. . . .

The geological evidence does show world wide catastrophism. The Biblical world wide flood is disallowed. Yet modern geology lists what is believed to be a number of major mass extinction events based on the fossil record.

My main problem is; 'Why would God create a lie?'

I agree with this sentiment. While we may not agree. And so while I do believe in the Biblical accounts. I, in believing them, see no reason, for example, not to believe in an old universe.

[37818]

How does understanding of an actual history over billions of years necessarily imply a god to the point that ordinary natural historical processes don't count as an "excuse" for rejecting one? Seems to me that IF we could show that the appearance of history is itself completely artificial, this would be MUCH more compelling evidence of a god, than ordinary natural processes which are the same whether they happened naturally with a god, or naturally without one.

The argument that the most compelling evidence of a god is that the universe would look exactly as it does without any gods, always baffles me. But I'm not baffled by the "logic" of assuming a god, seeing no evidence of any gods, and concluding that lack of evidence of a god demonstrates the foregone conclusion that there is one.

God has a real identity. The identity of God is not being recognized. Effectively God is not seen as God. Our universe with its apparent beginnings is one piece of the evidence. But the universe is not God or even a part of God. Even what we call random chance is a matter of some fundamental order of things. Order precedes chaos. Not the other way around. The famous atheist Antony Flew upon seeing the underling intelligence behind our physical existence converted to deism.

[klaus54]

Translation: Doesn't fit with my preconceived notions and I prefer burning straw, anyway.

Can you dig up, as it were, some YEC explanation, or do you just wanna project?

K54

P.S. I see coal beds and sandstone but no straw. Where is it?

[klaus54]

God has a real identity. The identity of God is not being recognized. Effectively God is not seen as God. Our universe with its apparent beginnings is one piece of the evidence. But the universe is not God or even a part of God. Even what we call random chance is a matter of some fundamental order of things. Order precedes chaos. Not the other way around. The famous atheist Antony Flew upon seeing the underling intelligence behind our physical existence converted to deism.

So do YOU have a YEC explanation for the Pennsylvania Cyclothems?

Your post completely avoided the question.

K54

[klaus54]

... Feel free to scoff but I take philosophy seriously, it doesn't ask "practical" questions like "How old is the Earth?" Philosophy asks, "Should we care how old the Earth is?"

But then, I usually ignore the NatSci section.

But should Christians care why Earth has a apparent HISTORY?

Probably a good idea.

K54

[phank]

God has a real identity. The identity of God is not being recognized.

This is an odd claim, considering how many thousands of gods people have invented, each one with a separate identity, all of course recognized.

Effectively God is not seen as God.

Which god is that? Every god I've ever heard of (at least hundreds) has been not only seen as a god, but invented to BE one.

Our universe with its apparent beginnings is one piece of the evidence.

Evidence of what? Are you repeating the claim that lack of evidence of any gods is part of the evidence of gods? Seriously?

But the universe is not God or even a part of God. Even what we call random chance is a matter of some fundamental order of things.

What we call random chance is simply a lack of correlation with some specified pattern. But it could (and often is) well correlated with some other pattern. Randomness is not a simple concept.

Order precedes chaos. Not the other way around.

Again, depending on the circumstances. Self-organization proceeds from lack of self-organization, but eventually returns to disorganization.

The famous atheist Antony Flew upon seeing the underling intelligence behind our physical existence converted to deism.

But of course, Flew didn't understand what he was looking at. He fell for the "intelligent design" canard. Several intelligent people did, but some didn't die before realizing they'd been hoaxed.

[shunyadragon]

Nope, because stratification is not at issue -

Did not say stratification was the issue. It is the physical nature of the stratification for thousands of feet as described.

the time frame is. YEC assumes a short time frame and OE a long one. You assume millions of years = X where YEC would argue X is extremely short. Debate the time frame with them all you like - but don't make an idiotic a priori fallacy by assuming the time frame when it is the point at issue.

Science does not assume a time frame of millions of years, it measures the time frame directly. Given the evidence, on what basis does the YEC argue for a short time frame?

When the strata contains a repeated detailed sequence strata including varved lake deposits that show annual deposition. The detailed evidence of river and streams systems that occur in each of many layers with each coal seam. Buried forests of fossil tree casts in many different layers and other detailed evidence is not grounds of mere assumptions of age. This direct measurement of the 'nature' of the strata does not rely on radiometric data to confirm the millions of age involved.

All the environments of the observed layers in the cyclotherms have parallel observable environments in the sedimentary layers in today's environments around the world. This represents a direct parallel measurement of time.

Another interesting geologic feature that is direct measurable evidence of millions of years are the limestone deposits atoll reefs on extinct volcanic islands in the Pacific. These atoll reefs represent continuous growth of coral from coral reefs hundreds of feet thick over extinct eroded volcanoes. The growth rate of coral is a known range in time.

It's a stupid argument when it's based on a fallacy. If you're gonna argue the point then you have to allow for the sake of argument that the time frame can be any period and then set about proving that it is the period you think it is. Klaus pulls these crappy 'gotcha' arguments and you amen it having not bothered to consider that the argument itself might be flawed. You're arguing fallaciously when means you'd lose the argument even if you turned out to be factually correct.

The time frame of varved lake deposits and coral reef growth are known direct measurable features of geologic deposits worldwide.

[shunyadragon]

God has a real identity. The identity of God is not being recognized. Effectively God is not seen as God. Our universe with its apparent beginnings is one piece of the evidence. But the universe is not God or even a part of God. Even what we call random chance is a matter of some fundamental order of things. Order precedes chaos. Not the other way around. The famous atheist Antony Flew upon seeing the underling intelligence behind our physical existence converted to deism.

I do not believe that this is a very relevant post to the thread in some ways a bit confusing. (1) Nothing that is known in our physical existence is a product 'random chance.' Randomness is actually an illusive process only observed in Quantum behavior. Even that it is an observed behavior not well understood as random. (2) I am not sure why you are describing the nature of our physical existence as chaos in this thread, but in the present view of 'Chaos theory' it is one of the determining features of our physical existence. (3) Anthony Flew's conversion is questionable at his age and reasons, and not a subject of the thread.

[klaus54]

I still don't see why Teal and 37818 and Pentecost don't get it.

Oh, there are thousands of "gotcha" arguments contra YEC, the one in discussion being one of the simplest.

I'm curious as to what "fallacy" Teal thinks on which the topic of this thread is based?

Coal forms in anoxic swamps (terrestrial), sandstone, shale, and siltstone form in shallow marine environments. That there's an alternating sequence 1000s of feet thick screams of transgression-regression. Of course there's stratification -- duh...

K54

[Pentecost]

But should Christians care why Earth has a apparent HISTORY?

Probably a good idea.

K54

Rogue thinks the apparent history would make a YEC God a liar; and he may have a point, because he is right God does say we can learn of Him from nature, but it seems more obvious to me that you can see him as creative with not only the vast array of odd creatures, but also the unique geologies each showing how impressive his craftmanship is. I will have to contemplate this issue and adjust accordingly if I am convinced by Rogue. If observable evidence indicates that the Earth is older than ~6,000 years old, does that prove to within a reasonable doubt that God is a liar? The answer depends on whether or not the science is an accurate reflection of reality. The majority opinion seems to be that the science is, but there is a vocal minority that I agree with upon many points that says the science is inaccurate and provides a substitution. I think for me to have an informed view I would have to either study the subject matter, or find someone I trust within the field of geology, or perhaps an astronomer, even a biologist. Until then I tentatively hold to YEC.

[klaus54]

Rogue thinks the apparent history would make a YEC God a liar; and he may have a point, because he is right God does say we can learn of Him from nature, but it seems more obvious to me that you can see him as creative with not only the vast array of odd creatures, but also the unique geologies each showing how impressive his craftmanship is. I will have to contemplate this issue and adjust accordingly if I am convinced by Rogue. If observable evidence indicates that the Earth is older than ~6,000 years old, does that prove to within a reasonable doubt that God is a liar? The answer depends on whether or not the science is an accurate reflection of reality. The majority opinion seems to be that the science is, but there is a vocal minority that I agree with upon many points that says the science is inaccurate and provides a substitution. I think for me to have an informed view I would have to either study the subject matter, or find someone I trust within the field of geology, or perhaps an astronomer, even a biologist. Until then I tentatively hold to YEC.

How do you justify creation with apparent history? What productive purpose does it serve else to mislead the intelligent? Do you understand the issue?

K54

P.S. Again you miss the point. It's the appearance of AGE that's the issue (although that too is a deal-breaker when done unnecessarily), but it's apparent HISTORY that's the lead pipe to the noggin of a god we can trust.