[TUT317]

It seems I'm catching this when it's still a day or so fresh. Obviously, take what anyone says (regardless of credentials, though those do matter) with a grain of salt. Ken Ham or Richard Dawkins, neither is God, both are humans like you and me. To discuss things like dating techniques and the age of the earth, frankly it's not about the evidence.





While Ken Ham is not an authority of science (even he admits that) he does have Ivy-league educated Ph.D. scientists like Dr. Jason Lisle supporting what he says on matters of science. Anyway, Ham is just the "face" of the Answers in Genesis Ministry. If you want a real scientist's opinion, go to Dr. Lisle. He speaks a lot on the topics too.

I would argue that it is all about the evidence and nothing to do with credentials. It does not matter if someone is an Ivy-League Professor or cleans windows for a living. All that matters is,'weight of argument'. In other words, how consistent and logical is their position?


I had a look at two of Lisle's papers, 'Critique of Origins : Part 1 and 2.

As a scientist Lisle knows that earth science has many gaps and there are things that seem contradictory. This is not surprising when we are dealing with massive time spans.

From the two Leslie papers it seems pretty obvious that his arguments suffer from the fallacy of, SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF .

In any argument which negative claims are made it is the responsibility of the positive protagonist to support their case and not to insert default positions.

In other words, Leslie knows that science cannot fill in all the gaps and in some cases this leads to contradictions. The fallacy is that Leslie tries to insert his position as a default for the apparent gaps.

What makes his position more untenable is that on one hand he is talking about scientific inadequacies and then inserts religion as a default position. What he needs to do in order to avoid this fallacy is to insert a positive scientific theory to explain away the inadequate theory.

As I stated in an earlier post I have no problem with people believing the world is 6,500 years old. Good on them I say. What I am critical of are people who say that science is wrong BECAUSE Genesis says the world is 6,500 years old.

[Triund]

I would argue that it is all about the evidence ...
.....What I am critical of are people who say that science is wrong BECAUSE Genesis says the world is 6,500 years old.

Science is not always right. If it was so new studies and researches would not had refuted the old studies and researches. What is absolutely right is existence of God and science is trying to prove it wrong.

Even if we take one day for God is 1000 years as in 2 Peter, still earth is much older than 6,500 years because under that God took 6000 human years to create the earth and any one can do the rest of the calculation.

[classyT]

Triund,

I don't know that anyone can answer the question with certainty. There are lots of Christians who believe in the Gap therory.

Genesis 1.. verses 1-2

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.

They basically believe there could have been millions of years between those verses and then verse 3...

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.

When we get to verse three it is obvious to me the Bible is speaking about literally 24 hours.

I believe when Peter states that 1 day is but a thousand years to God he means that God is timeless. Or he isn't bound by time... I could be wrong but those are my thoughts.

The Bible also lets us know that man was created about 6000 years ago. I believe the Bible completely concerning the age of man and I don't care what science says... I believe GOD.

[TUT317]

Science is not always right. If it was so new studies and researches would not had refuted the old studies and researches. What is absolutely right is existance of God and science is trying to prove it wrong.

Even if we take one day for God is 1000 years as in 2 Peter, still earth is much older than 6,500 years because under that God took 6000 human years to create the earth and any one can do the rest of the calculation.

Hi Triund,

I agree science is not always right and quite often scientists get it wrong.
But that is what the scientific method is for. It is not up to one scientist.

Also, I agree that the existence of God is certain. I am not disputing any of this.

My dispute is with people who criticize the physical evidence with non-physical evidence. I know Genesis is correct but it is not to be taken in terms of days. I believe that it would have been a pointless exercise for God to tell the scribes of the days that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. It was put in a language and a sequence of events that was understandable to the people of the time.

As I stated earlier someone asked for my opinion of Genesis and I gave it to them. I am not saying it is correct or that anyone should believe it. IT IS JUST MY OPINION. The rest is not opinion.

As far as science trying to prove religion wrong. I know at least two scientists who do not use science to prove religion wrong.

Regards

Tut

[cdad]

Hi Triund,

I agree science is not always right and quite often scientists get it wrong.
But that is what the scientific method is for. It is not up to one scientist.

Also, I agree that the existence of God is certain. I am not disputing any of this.

My dispute is with people who criticize the physical evidence with non-physical evidence. I know Genesis is correct but it is not to be taken in terms of days. I believe that it would have been a pointless exercise for God to tell the scribes of the days that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. It was put in a language and a sequence of events that was understandable to the people of the time.

As I stated earlier someone asked for my opinion of Genesis and I gave it to them. I am not saying it is correct or that anyone should believe it. IT IS JUST MY OPINION. The rest is not opinion.

As far as science trying to prove religion wrong. I know at least two scientists who do not use science to prove religion wrong.

Regards

Tut

If anything I believe the science has been in fact proving what has been written in the bible. More and more discoveries are being made that is directly from the bible. And Im sure there are countless scientists that are christian. To me it does a disservice to say one is against the other. They are both competing and complimenting each other. And Tut thanks for your opinion. Im glad you expressed it and was happy to read it.

[Lukas Caldera]

I would argue that it is all about the evidence and nothing to do with credentials. It does not matter if someone is an Ivy-League Professor or cleans windows for a living. All that matters is,'weight of argument'. In other words, how consistent and logical is their position?

I had a look at two of Lisle's papers, 'Critique of Origins : Part 1 and 2.

As a scientist Lisle knows that earth science has many gaps and there are things that seem contradictory. This is not surprising when we are dealing with massive time spans.

From the two Leslie papers it seems pretty obvious that his arguments suffer from the fallacy of, SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF .

In any argument which negative claims are made it is the responsibility of the positive protagonist to support their case and not to insert default positions.

In other words, Leslie knows that science cannot fill in all the gaps and in some cases this leads to contradictions. The fallacy is that Leslie tries to insert his position as a default for the apparent gaps.

What makes his position more untenable is that on one hand he is talking about scientific inadequacies and then inserts religion as a default position. What he needs to do in order to avoid this fallacy is to insert a positive scientific theory to explain away the inadequate theory.

As I stated in an earlier post I have no problem with people believing the world is 6,500 years old. Good on them I say. What I am critical of are people who say that science is wrong BECAUSE Genesis says the world is 6,500 years old.

There were a lot of responses to your post here, so I think I'll join them and reply to you, and then perhaps some comments on the others.

To you:

Above you stated an argument that it's all about the evidence, and the quality (logic, etc) of the argument made.

We agree on what credentials ultimately mean to this argument.

My counter-argument in regards to the evidence is that the evidence doesn't speak for itself. A rock will not talk and say "I'm 40 million years old." or "I'm 4000 years old."

People interpret evidence to say what they believe it points to or proves. And more often than not, eventually something new comes to light that proves their interpretation wrong. Or in some cases the evidence is proven to be a hoax (it happens). There have been logically sound arguments (or seemed so at the time) that were later proven false.

As for Dr. Lisle, I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on logic or his perspective of it. I recommended him because he put a book out there "The Ultimate Proof of Creation" that is basically about logic and logical fallacies. He has been looking for someone to point out how it might not be a reasonable/logical argument. Mind you, he’s looking for a respectful, intelligent conversation and not insults/personal attacks. From my experience here so far, you (everyone here) is respectful and that’s awesome, so I don’t see it being an issue.

Use the feedback on their website and explain what you have told us here, to them. Dr. Lisle's remarks on it so far have been that nobody has been able to refute it. They don't necessarily agree to it, but they haven't been able to provide a logical argument against it. So if that's what you have, please submit it. I'd love to read their response. If you want, write your argument and I’ll help proof-read it for grammar, etc.

I have used their feedback before and although they didn't post it on their site (you can request they don't) they did give me a detailed response.

To others:

In regards to the Gap Theory, Day-Age Theories, etc... I'll refer to them as Compromise Theories, and I'll explain why I use that term.

Each of these theories/ideas has something in common: millions of years. They accept that idea that the earth and/or universe are millions of years old and thus have an argument that the Bible allows for this, perhaps it even requires it.

So the first chapters of Genesis aren't meant to be taken literally because the majority of scientists say the earth's history tells a different story... the majority of scientists would also say that human children aren't virgin born, miracles like walking on water can't happen, and people don't get resurrected after being dead for three days.

If you're going to say Genesis isn't meant to be taken literally, and it does appear to be written in historical narrative, then I submit that Jesus's birth, life, death, and resurrection are not meant to be taken literally either. They also appear to be written in historical narrative. This is what many claiming Christianity out there believe.

There are parables and metaphors, poetic things, etc as well. That's why I'm pointing out the apparent historical narrative that Genesis and the Gospel letters have in common. They don't appear to be written in that poetic or symbolic format.

And should the mainstream of scientists one day decide that the earth is much younger... does that change the Compromise Theories? I call them "compromise" because they exist to re-interpret Genesis beyond the written historical narrative. They attempt to fit in our alleged evolutionary past.

And just to clarify: no where in the Bible does it say you have to believe in a literal Genesis to get to Heaven. You are “saved” by grace through faith in Christ ONLY. My arguments above are in regard to the authority of the Bible, not in how you can be “saved.” Although some it appears contradictory to the whole of Scripture (examples above with Jesus), it is very possible for people to believe in Christ without believing in a literal Genesis.

[TUT317]

QUOTE FROM LUKAS

Above you stated an argument that it's all about the evidence, and the quality (logic, etc) of the argument made.

We agree on what credentials ultimately mean to this argument.

My counter-argument in regards to the evidence is that the evidence doesn't speak for itself. A rock will not talk and say "I'm 40 million years old." or "I'm 4000 years old.

People interpret evidence to say what they believe it points to or proves. And more often than not, eventually something new comes to light that proves their interpretation wrong. Or in some cases the evidence is proven to be a hoax (it happens).




Hello Lukas,

What you have said above is basically correct. However, it would be incredulous that available evidence is inaccurate by billions of years. If we were to put the earth on trial in a court of law we would end up with a positive verdict. That is to say, the earth is 4.5 billion years old give or take a certain percentage. It is of course important to add, BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. As you point out there is always uncertainty.



QUOTE FROM LUKAS
There have been logically sound arguments (or seemed so at the time) that were later proven false.


I think what you are suggesting above is that the premises have been proven false, not the logic. Logic remains constant and has done so for thousands of years. For example, Aristotelian Logic is still valid. What has happened is reasoning techniques have improved during modern times.



QUOTE FROM LUKAS
As for Dr. Lisle, I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on logic or his perspective of it. I recommended him because he put a book out there "The Ultimate Proof of Creation" that is basically about logic and logical fallacies. He has been looking for someone to point out how it might not be a reasonable/logical argument.



As for, "The Ultimate Proof of Creation" I have not read it. The paper I suggested suffered from a fallacy was, "Critique of Origins". I still stand by this. I cannot and have not made any comment regarding, "The Ultimate Proof of Creation", simply because I have not read it. Nonetheless, I would be happy to read it and post a comment to Dr. Lisle.


QUOTE FROM LUKAS
Mind you, he’s looking for a respectful, intelligent conversation and not insults/personal attacks. From my experience here so far, you (everyone here) is respectful and that’s awesome, so I don’t see it being an issue.


ALWAYS


QUOTE FROM LUKAS

So the first chapters of Genesis aren't meant to be taken literally because the majority of scientists say the earth's history tells a different story... the majority of scientists would also say that human children aren't virgin born, miracles like walking on water can't happen.



Science does not actually say the above things can't happen. Science makes no comment on the above because these things are not part of the scientific methodology. Some scientists might say these things cannot happen but they are only expressing an opinion. They are not expressing any type of scientific claim.



QUOTE FROM LUKAS
And just to clarify: no where in the Bible does it say you have to believe in a literal Genesis to get to Heaven. You are “saved” by grace through faith in Christ ONLY. My arguments above are in regard to the authority of the Bible, not in how you can be “saved.” Although some it appears contradictory to the whole of Scripture (examples above with Jesus), it is very possible for people to believe in Christ without believing in a literal Genesis.



COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THIS



Regards

Tut

[Lukas Caldera]

Tut,

Responding to the book first, perhaps this will help: Logical Fallacies: Introduction - Answers in Genesis

A series of online articles summarizing the book, by Dr. Lisle. The ultimate conclusion he comes to is that only a biblical worldview (including literal Genesis) can account for laws of logic and absolute morality.

Now when I initially read that (I did read the actual book later), I was shaking my head "I don't see how you can reasonably say this." Even though I ultimately agree to it, to make a reasonable argument "proving" it logically seems nearly impossible to do. Then again, naming any one thing as an argument like this seems difficult, but that's just my opinion. But ultimately he makes some good points. I look forward to someone (perhaps you) demonstrating how he may have missed a critical factor, because his argument seems on the surface at least to be pretty concrete. I'm also referring to that article you're specifically talking about. I'd be happy to help you write something to give Dr. Lisle via AiG's feedback, and I'd love to read their response.

Hopefully this helps some in understanding where Dr. Lisle is coming from.

On science:

Science doesn't actually say anything. Science is knowledge, we study it. People speak using it, correctly or incorrectly. Scientists, some of them at least, have quite a bit to say on the subject. An example I will point out is Dr. Richard Dawkins. An outspoken atheist and promoter of the public education of atheistic evolution, Dr. Dawkins has used his science background repeatedly and consistently to state that things like Jesus' resurrection are scientifically impossible.

On dating techniques and the age of the Earth/Universe:

Indeed, if the theory of millions of years is in error, it has some dramatic effects on public education and mainstream origins (historical)science (it shouldn't affect the operational science we get modern medicine and technology from). Will that ever happen? Not in the foreseeable future. To many it has become their religion of atheism/humanism while justified as science. Dr. Dawkins is an example of that, I've seen other evolution-believing scientists state that he's become too much of a preacher. Anyway, because it's so ingrained in public education and believed, I doubt it will change in the foreseeable future. If any change is to occur, it is in families, in the education of children. This is why church ministries and public science education alike are teaching their origin beliefs to younger and younger ages.

There is some documentation (for example Ben Stein's "Expelled: Not Intelligence Allowed") that claims scientists even questioning the theory of evolution end up discredited and fired. The news responded to Stein's film with attempts to justify a couple of the cases it pointed out.

Aside from that...

Consider the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in the early 1980's. We watched many of the rocks there form, and yet when they are dated the results are in millions of years. That eruptions also caused a small "grand canyon" (small relative to the "grand" one) with the same layering that allegedly took millions of years to form. The media then quoted a scientist saying "It's amazing how it formed all those layers, just like the Grand Canyon." but then continued to hold to the millions of years story as a background on the Grand Canyon. It's their belief system, so it would be a surprise if they didn't.

This might turn into a discussion on whether dating techniques are reliable, and I don't think either of us is truly educated on them. I've taken basic Biology and Geology in college, so I understand the basics of how the systems work. Other than that, the best I could do is find a paper from a scientist and point you to that.

Then again, I've already done that with Dr. Lisle's articles... though that's more logic than Biology/Geology stuff.

Would you like to go deeper on dating techniques? Since the origin of this discussion was on how dinosaurs went with the Bible, the age of the Earth is a pretty big part of it.

One additional note I'd like to add: soft tissue and red blood cells of dinosaurs have been found. It seems incredulous that that particular dinosaur, at least, existed millions of years ago.

This was on the news last year I think, if you would like a reference just ask. I have it (somewhere in my collection of data on all these subjects).

Looking forward to your response.

[cdad]

Where in the biblical text is it written that a day is 24 hrs? To my knowlage it is not. You quote a statement by Dr. Dawkins. " An example I will point out is Dr. Richard Dawkins. An outspoken atheist and promoter of the public education of atheistic evolution, Dr. Dawkins has used his science background repeatedly and consistantly to state that things like Jesus' resurrection are scientifically impossible." (end quote)

I don't quite understand the tie in your trying to make. I too believe that it is scientifically impossible. I would even state it as fact. What's wrong with that? In order to have miricals happen it takes divine intervention. That is where the glory of god shines. So why would you point to something that is science fact and then try to refute it through logic? It can't be done. This argument on age of the earth and the existence of dinosaurs seems to be a never ending battle. The only guide we have to go by is that the sun came up and the sun set. There is no reference as to how much time had elapsed. Lets not forget that even in the bible it is written that god had stopped the sun. Thereby extending the traditional 24hr day. So why is it so hard to believe that the "days" referred to in genesis took longer and within that is the mystery and glory of god ?

[TUT317]

Quote from Lukas
Responding to the book first, perhaps this will help: Logical Fallacies: Introduction - Answers in Genesis

My Response

I would disagree that the laws of logic are universal. That is, they must be given to us through an external source. I am just wondering how we can gain inductive knowledge from an external source which is not physical. To put this another way how can thought which lacks any experience give rise to any empirical knowledge?

Consider the inductive statement,"All swans are white". This is not universally true because it can be proven wrong in a variety of ways, including observation of swans. Inductive statement can be proven false therefore they are not universal.


Quote from Lukas
A series of online articles summarizing the book, by Dr. Lisle. The ultimate conclusion he comes to is that only a biblical worldview (including literal Genesis) can account for laws of logic and absolute morality.


My Response
Absolute morality can account for the laws of logic but these laws are by no means exclusive to non-naturalistic ethics. The laws of logic apply equally well to naturalist ethics. If Dr. Lisle is trying to say that naturalistic ethics is neither valid nor logical then he is trying to do the impossible.


Quote by Lukas
Now when I initially read that (I did read the actual book later), I was shaking my head "I don't see how you can reasonably say this." Even though I ultimately agree to it, to make a reasonable argument "proving" it logically seems nearly impossible to do. Then again, naming any one thing as an argument like this seems difficult, but that's just my opinion. But ultimately he makes some good points. I look forward to someone (perhaps you) demonstrating how he may have missed a critical factor, because his argument seems on the surface at least to be pretty concrete. I'm also referring to that article you're specifically talking about. I'd be happy to help you write something to give Dr. Lisle via AiG's feedback, and I'd love to read their response.

Hopefully this helps some in understanding where Dr. Lisle is coming from.


My response

Yes, he does make some good points. I did find the feedback menu and I will post a response when I read the book. Thanks for the offer.



Quote from Lukas

Science doesn't actually say anything. Science is knowledge, we study it. People speak using it, correctly or incorrectly. Scientists, some of them at least, have quite a bit to say on the subject. An example I will point out is Dr. Richard Dawkins. An outspoken atheist and promoter of the public education of atheistic evolution, Dr. Dawkins has used his science background repeatedly and consistently to state that things like Jesus' resurrection are scientifically impossible.


My Response

If Dr. Dawkins said this then he should know that if something is conceivable then it has a probability factor. It can happen and did happen. The event was of course highly unusual, but that doesn't make it impossible. Not every second person rises from the dead, it is definitely not a general rule.


Quote from Lukas

Indeed, if the theory of millions of years is in error, it has some dramatic effects on public education and mainstream origins (historical)science (it shouldn't affect the operational science we get modern medicine and technology from). Will that ever happen? Not in the foreseeable future. To many it has become their religion of atheism/humanism while justified as science. Dr. Dawkins is an example of that, I've seen other evolution-believing scientists state that he's become too much of a preacher. Anyway, because it's so ingrained in public education and believed, I doubt it will change in the foreseeable future. If any change is to occur, it is in families, in the education of children. This is why church ministries and public science education alike are teaching their origin beliefs to younger and younger ages.

My Response

I really don't know enough about your public education system.


Quote from Lukas
Consider the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in the early 1980's. We watched many of the rocks there form, and yet when they are dated the results are in millions of years. That eruptions also caused a small "grand canyon" (small relative to the "grand" one) with the same layering that allegedly took millions of years to form. The media then quoted a scientist saying "It's amazing how it formed all those layers, just like the Grand Canyon." but then continued to hold to the millions of years story as a background on the Grand Canyon. It's their belief system, so it would be a surprise if they didn't.


My Response

The danger here is,"doing a Dr. Dawkins in reverse". In other words by observing a unusual event this somehow means similar events in the past have followed the same pattern.



Quote from Lukas
This might turn into a discussion on whether dating techniques are reliable, and I don't think either of us is truly educated on them. I've taken basic Biology and Geology in college, so I understand the basics of how the systems work. Other than that, the best I could do is find a paper from a scientist and point you to that.

Then again, I've already done that with Dr. Lisle's articles... though that's more logic than Biology/Geology stuff.

Would you like to go deeper on dating techniques? Since the origin of this discussion was on how dinosaurs went with the Bible, the age of the Earth is a pretty big part of it.

One additional note I'd like to add: soft tissue and red blood cells of dinosaurs have been found. It seems incredulous that that particular dinosaur, at least, existed millions of years ago.

This was on the news last year I think, if you would like a reference just ask. I have it (somewhere in my collection of data on all these subjects).



My response

I don't know enough about these types of sciences to make any comment.


Regards

Tut

[truck 41]

How about this food for thought, my opinion is that if there are dinosaur bones to prove they existed, and assuming that scientist method of finding the age of the bones is accurate then that in itself would tell us how long adam and eve were in the garden of eden before they fell into sin. The bible doesn't give days or years from when god created man to when they were deceived by the serpent, we only know that god created all living beast of the field and sea, and he put man in the garden of eden. So if dinosaurs really did roam the earth for 50 or 60 million years then I would take that as a hint as to how long adam and eve may have been in the garden. Being that god is eternal and man was inmortal until he fill into sin, up until that moment time was eternal. ----thanks zeke----

[Lukas Caldera]

Califdadof3

“Where in the biblical text is it written that a day is 24 hrs? To my knowlage it is not.”

My reply:

You are quote right, it doesn’t say 24 hrs anywhere.

Genesis 1:5 “…and there was EVENING and MORNING, the first day” [emphasis mine]

My reasoning is to use “evening” and “morning” as the context clues to define “yom” (day). I am not saying that is 24 hours, because due to leap years, seconds, etc even our current day isn’t exactly 24 hours. The day consisted of the amount of time it took for the Earth to rotate that evening and morning. I’m applying the same reasoning to the other six days.

“I too believe that it [miracles] is scientifically impossible. What's wrong with that?”

My reply:

There’s nothing “wrong” with it per say. Science simply means “knowledge”, if I am not mistaken? So I see no reason it needs to be restricted to only natural processes. My point of view is that when God originally finished with His Creation, that was the “default” nature He put in place. And He upholds it. Anything extra He does outside of that normal natural process is supernatural. Or extra-ordinary, divine intervention, whatever term you’d like to use.

“So why would you point to something that is science fact and then try to refute it through logic?”

My reply:

Forgive me, I read your post a few times and was unable to figure out what you reference here. My best guess is the age of the Earth? Are you saying that millions of years is scientific fact? If so, I respectfully disagree. Millions of years is a theory. You can’t observe it, so it’s not scientific fact. There is a fact portion of evolution, and there is a theory. Saying that natural selection, mutations, speciation, adaptation and such occur is observable fact. Nobody argues this (that I know of). To state that these have been going on for millions of years is theory. Our best physical evidence for that comes from dating techniques, which is another subject.

“This argument on age of the earth and the existance of dinosaurs seems to be a never ending battle.”

My reply:

I agree with this statement. It does feel like a never-ending battle.

“So why is it so hard to believe that the "days" referred to in genesis took longer and within that is the mystery and glory of god ?”

My reply:

I will stick to Scripture for this reply.

Exodus 20:11 “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”

This refers to Exodus 20:8-10 “"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God….”

Unless the implication was to work for a large number of years and then rest for a number of years, that seems to refer to standard days in the Creation Week.

Mark 10:6 “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.”

John 5:45–47 “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

It seems pretty clear that Jesus Himself believed the Creation account in Genesis as straightforward reading.

“Lets not forget that even in the bible it is written that god had stopped the sun. Thereby extending the traditional 24hr day.”

My reply:

This appears to be referring to that one day only. I don’t see anything implying other days were affected after it.

“So why is it so hard to believe that the "days" referred to in genesis took longer and within that is the mystery and glory of god ?”

Please see for more information: Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days? - Answers in Genesis

Also, death entered the world by sin. Sin occurred with Adam and Eve. Yet according to evolutionary theory, there was death for millions of years, long before man came into the picture. The order of appearance between evolutionary theory (starting with the Big Bang theory still being worked on, continuing through man’s appearance) is very different from the order of appearance in Genesis.

My conclusion is that the Bible appears to say God did it exactly as He said He did it. That is indeed to His glory.

Tut:

“Yes, he does make some good points. I did find the feedback menu and I will post a response when I read the book. Thanks for the offer.”

To this and your replies before this, I’m glad we have it documented on this website. We can use the work you’ve already written to help write feedback to Dr. Lisle. When do you think you will be able to obtain the book?

“If Dr. Dawkins said this then he should know that if something is conceivable then it has a probability factor. It can happen and did happen. The event was of course highly unusual, but that doesn't make it impossible. Not every second person rises from the dead, it is definitely not a general rule.”

Dr. Dawkins is one of the world’s leading spokesmen on evolution. That’s why I used his example. I tend to agree with you that he is not correct on many areas. Unfortunately, he is one of the leaders behind modern atheist movements across the world, and makes it his business to tear down Christianity and deity-beliefs in general.

“The danger here is,"doing a Dr. Dawkins in reverse". In other words by observing a unusual event this somehow means similar events in the past have followed the same pattern.”

Evolution-believing scientists usually state that a catastrophe cannot cause the geological strata we see in, for example, the Grand Canyon. This is why Mt. St. Helens is my example, to show that “cannot” in not an accurate statement. According to the Bible there was a global flood. The Creation model holds that this is what caused the majority of the geologic strata such as the Grand Canyon. The Mt. St. Helens event adds evidence supporting this. Not proving it, for as you say it’s it’s an unusual event, a catastrophe. A good scientist on this subject is Dr. Andrew Snelling.

“I don't know enough about these types of sciences to make any comment.”

I can’t say much about them, either. I do study apologetics based on 1
Peter 3:15 “always have an answer”.

As always, good talking to you.

[TUT317]

Hi Lukas,

I will let you know when I get and read the book.

Regards
Tut

[ebaines]

Science doesn't actually say anything. Science is knowledge, we study it.

This is not correct. Science is about a process used to make sense of the natural world. From it comes theories and "knowledge" about how things work, but this knowledge can be fluid, as discoveries are made and theories are refined. Hence while in the 1800's many (most?) geologists believed that Noah's Food accounted for things like the Grand Canyon, over the past 100 years or so the consensus has changed as new evidence is discovered, and as we have gained a better understanding of things like plate tectonics and the radio-active decay of certain elements. As we gain additional knowledge as to how nature works, the theories we ascribe to today will undoubtedly evolve. If there are geologists alive today who believe the earth is only 6000 years old they would be in very, very, small minority.

Consider the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in the early 1980's. We watched many of the rocks there form, and yet when they are dated the results are in millions of years. That eruptions also caused a small "grand canyon" (small relative to the "grand" one) with the same layering that allegedly took millions of years to form. The media then quoted a scientist saying "It's amazing how it formed all those layers, just like the Grand Canyon." but then continued to hold to the millions of years story as a background on the Grand Canyon. It's their belief system, so it would be a surprise if they didn't.

Be careful here - just because "the media" reported that the strata of deposits from the Mt. St. Helens eruption "look like" the Grand Canyon doesn't mean it's the same process as what formed the Grand Canyon. Scientists hold to the "millions of years" theory because it does the best job of fitting the available natural evidence. If anyone can come up with a theory that does a better job of fitting the evidence, by all means geologists would be willing to change their thinking - it's all part of the scientific process. But theories about the Grand Canyon being only 6000 years old or so have been thoroughly vetted against the available natural evidence, and (as noted earlier) abandoned, so it would take some striking new evidence to turn the tide back.

Would you like to go deeper on dating techniques? Since the origin of this discussion was on how dinosaurs went with the Bible, the age of the Earth is a pretty big part of it.

In discussion about the age of the earth it's not just dating techniques that come into play. Yes, there are techniques that date the age of certain rocks to at least 2 billion years. [N.B. One technique looks at zircon crystals with embedded lead impurities - the age of these crystals is calculated based on the fact that zircon can not form directly with lead impurites, as lead and zircon are incompatible in crystal form. But zircon can form with uranium impurities - thus it can be shown that if you find a zircon crytal with lead in it, the crystal must be old enough for what was originally uranium atoms to have decayed all the way to lead. The oldest rocks found so far are dated this way to about 2 Billion years.] Even so, any discussion about the age of the earth must also be consistent with the formation of the solar system, and the age of the sun. Current estimates are that the sun is about 5 Billion years, based on how stars convert hydrogen to helium, helium to carbon, then oxygen, etc. So any theories about a young universe must take into account why the composition of the sun is the way it is. A "young sun" model just doesn't fit the data. Finally, any theory proposing a young universe must explain how it is that light from stars that are miilions of light years away is reaching us today. If those stars are all only 6000 years old, you couldn't see them.

Since this is a religion forum, I want to be clear that I am not in any way trying to disprove anyone's belief based on their faith and religious teachings. However, when the discussion starts to invoke "science" to prove a religious belief, I believe it is appropriate to point out fallacies in the discussion.

[TUT317]

Since this is a religion forum, I want to be clear that I am not in any way trying to disprove anyone's belief based on their faith and religous teachings. However, when the discussion starts to invoke "science" to prove a religous belief, I believe it is appropriate to point out fallacies in the discussion.

Hi ebaines,

I don't have any problem keeping the two apart. I don't see a conflict. I can think about one or the other. Works for me anyway.

Regards

Tut

[Lukas Caldera]

Ebaines:

“This is not correct. Science is about a process used to make sense of the natural world.”

My reply:

We seem to agree that science isn’t a human being and doesn’t speak. Aside from that, perhaps we should define “science” specifically so we are all on the same page. According to dictionary.com:

–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Definitions 2 and 3 apply specifically to the physical/material/natural, but 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 do not.

When stating that science is knowledge, I was pointing out “branch of knowledge” “systematic knowledge” “systematized knowledge” “knowledge, as of facts or principles”. Before continuing on what science is, I’d like to agree on the definition.

“Be careful here - just because "the media" reported that the strata of deposits from the Mt. St. Helens eruption "look like" the Grand Canyon doesn't mean it's the same process as what formed the Grand Canyon.”

My reply:

It is very true that just because the media report something, doesn’t make it true. I was pointing out that the media said it because that means it’s documented where a simple Google search will find it if anyone wished to reference what I was describing.

“Scientists hold to the "millions of years" theory because it does the best job of fitting the available natural evidence. If anyone can come up with a theory that does a better job of fitting the evidence, by all means geologists would be willing to change their thinking - it's all part of the scientific process.”

My reply:

I agree it SHOULD be part of the scientific process. However, I must disagree somewhat to your statements. A growing number of scientists have been stepping forward to disagree with the “millions of years” theory. Many hide their personal beliefs to keep their jobs. As there hasn’t been a response to this the last time I referenced it, see Ben Stein’s “Expelled: Not Intelligence Allowed” which documents a number of scientists that either refuse to admit they don’t believe “millions of years” because they like their jobs, or have admitted it and lost their jobs.
Whether it does the best job of fitting the available natural evidence is subjective. Some say yes, some say no. The majority opinion ultimately only holds so much weight…there was a time when the majority said the Earth was flat.

“But theories about the Grand Canyon being only 6000 years old or so have been thoroughly vetted against the available natural evidence, and (as noted earlier) abandoned, so it would take some striking new evidence to turn the tide back.”

My reply:

I don’t understand this argument. How could it have been thoroughly investigated when it is still under debate? I have heard that stated by many people but have yet to see documentation for the thorough investigation. The closest I’ve seen is the Scopes Trial, which didn’t accurately represent either side of the argument. What I have seen is as new fossils and such get discovered, scientists that already believe “millions of years” figure out how it fits into their current model. This includes when “living fossils” are discovered, creatures alive today that were claimed to have gone extinct millions of years ago.

The evidence does not speak for itself and must therefore be interpreted. Two equally educated/accredited scientists can come to opposite conclusions based on this. This is why I state that the whole business ultimately comes down to individual world views. Faith. The starting point is the lens through which evidence is interpreted.

Please consider this link: Creation scientists and other biographies of interest

These are some examples of scientists (modern and past) that did not and do not believe that available evidence points to millions of years.

The list has been growing, but of course it’s only one website.

Depending on what definition of religion we're going by, I will agree or disagree that science and religion should be separated. This is largely because, if the belief system covers the origin of life and how we got here, and if it is to be believed as accurate, then science should flow from that starting point and be produce accurate results. However, if religion is simply a private thing to believe/practice on private property... then yes it should be kept separate.

Consider that atheism is today a religion. Whatever their reasons for doing it (mocking deity-beliefs, tax purposes, legal rights, etc) it has become an official religion. Google the First Church of Atheism. And consider the legal case where an atheist claimed it violated his religious rights to have his daughter say "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

That wasn't a "separation of church and state" legal case, it was a violation of religious rights legal case.

Since this is the global internet, I will point out that all of the events I'm referring to happened in the United States. Except some of Ben Stein's documentary, I'd have to double check that.

[ebaines]

perhaps we should define “science” specifically so we are all on the same page. According to dictionary.com:

–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
... Before continuing on what science is, I’d like to agree on the definition.

No problem. My point was that it is incorrect to ignore definitions 2 and 3, and that the constant in science is the process, and that any so-called "science" that does not adhere to that process is not science at all. Specifically, the use of observation of the natural world to refine theories - sometimes quite radically. Agreed?

.. see Ben Stein’s “Expelled: Not Intelligence Allowed” which documents a number of scientists that either refuse to admit they don’t believe “millions of years” because they like their jobs, or have admitted it and lost their jobs.

I like Ben Stein. But note that his movie is NOT about the age of the earth, or even about evolution, but rather about the origins of life (specifially the notion of intelligent design). But this thread is about the age of the earth, not evolution. And even if this was about evolution, remember that the theory of evolution says NOTHING about the origin of life. So by raising Ben Stein's movie you're onto completely different topic.

Whether or not it does the best job of fitting the available natural evidence is subjective. Some say yes, some say no. The majority opinion ultimately only holds so much weight…there was a time when the majority said the Earth was flat.

So what would you say to someone who today insists the world is flat? Would you say - "gee, you may be right - your world view is as good as mine, it's all subjective?"

“But theories about the Grand Canyon being only 6000 years old or so have been thoroughly vetted against the available natural evidence, and (as noted earlier) abandoned, so it would take some striking new evidence to turn the tide back.”

My reply:

I don’t understand this argument. How could it have been thoroughly investigated when it is still under debate? I have heard that stated by many people but have yet to see documentation for the thorough investigation.

I think we agree that the process used in legal proceedings to determine guilt or innocence is totally inappropriate for determining the validity of competing scientific claims. The only process that has ever been shown to work is the process of peer review, which is cumbersome, takes time, and does not lend itself to resolution in a simple trial. So my comment about "thorough vetting" is in relation to the vast majority of peer-reviewed articles and journals over the last hundred years or so.

What I have seen is as new fossils and such get discovered, scientists that already believe “millions of years” figure out how it fits into their current model. This includes when “living fossils” are discovered, creatures alive today that were claimed to have gone extinct millions of years ago.

What of it? There is nothing inconsistent with the discovery of living aninals that had previously been thought to be extinct. It's a good example of how scientists are willing (and in fact eager) to change their views on things in the face of newly discovered observations of the natural world.

Please consider this link: Creation scientists and other biographies of interest
These are some examples of scientists (modern and past) that did not and do not believe that available evidence points to millions of years.

This web site is of course funded by the Institute for Creation Science, and as such has very specific goals. It is not to advance man's knowledge about the natural world based on natural oibservation, but rather (quoting from the web site):

Mission Statement
Goal: To support the church in fulfilling its commission

Vision: Answers WorldWide is the Missionary Arm of Answers in Genesis. Our purpose is to provide the “global Christian” with answers for his faith (1 Peter 3:14) and to expose the world to the Creator God of the Bible.

Mission:
We take the absolute truth and authority of the Bible to the world.
We teach the relevance of a literal Genesis to the mission fields of the world.
We obey God’s call for global evangelism for all ethnic groups in the world

As such this site is not interested in presenting the best available evidence for anything except the organization's own view as to how to interpret the Bible. They are not at all interested in using the scientific process to consider alternate theories. As such this organization is purely a faith-based group, not a science-based one. I have no argument with their faith - only with the trappings of "science" that they try to cloak it with.

Consider that atheism is today a religion. Whatever their reasons for doing it (mocking deity-beliefs, tax purposes, legal rights, etc) it has become an official religion.

Are you implying that only aethesists believe in a world that is millions of years old? I certainly hope not, because that is patently untrue.

[Lukas Caldera]

“No problem. My point was that it is incorrect to ignore definitions 2 and 3, and that the constant in science is the process, and that any so-called "science" that does not adhere to that process is not science at all. Specifically, the use of observation of the natural world to refine theories - sometimes quite radically. Agreed?”

My reply:

I agree that we shouldn't ignore that nature is a very significant part of the definition of science. I would add, though, that to say it was only on nature gives science a limit the definition does not. Science describes a process. If that process is outside of normal nature, why should that be excluded?

To state that science is specifically “the use of observation of the natural world to refine theories” means that the theory (not the fact part) of evolution does not fall under science. We can't and haven't observed one kind of animal become another. Nor have we observed enough to determine millions of years have passed in Earth's history. This is why we call it a theory, but if it's going to qualify as a scientific theory, we should give the definition more than just observation of nature. Since that is my only question, once you've replied we will hopefully be at agreement on the definition of science.

“I like Ben Stein. But note that his movie is NOT about the age of the earth, or even about evolution, but rather about the origins of life (specifially the notion of intelligent design). But this thread is about the age of the earth, not evolution. And even if this was about evolution, remember that the theory of evolution says NOTHING about the origin of life. So by raising Ben Stein's movie you're onto completely different topic.”

My reply:

I would argue that evolution, the origin of life, and the age of the Earth are ultimately inseparable. Unless the origin of life happened much more recently, and without the theory part of evolution. Or evolution is somehow irrelevant to life evolving from nonlife, and the amount of time it took doesn't matter. The basic definition of evolution is change over time, if I am not mistaken. Nonlife becoming life is quite a change. You are quite right that Ben Stein's film is not focused on the age of the earth. I simply see all three as linked.

“So what would you say to someone who today insists the world is flat? Would you say - "gee, you may be right - your world view is as good as mine, it's all subjective?" ”

My reply:

You make a good point. It isn't all subject. What is subjective are interpretations of evidence concerning the past, such as with the origin of life.

“The only process that has ever been shown to work is the process of peer review, which is cumbersome, takes time, and does not lend itself to resolution in a simple trial. So my comment about "thorough vetting" is in relation to the vast majority of peer-reviewed articles and journals over the last hundred years or so.”

My reply:

The “peer” is most often someone with the same starting beliefs. How often is it someone with different beliefs? If it's the same beliefs, then those foundational ideas continue unchallenged. They are assumed true and added upon. I'm referring to peers already believing in “millions of years”. How many millions might be questioned, but the possibility that it might be much less is ignored.

“What of it? There is nothing inconsistent with the discovery of living aninals that had previously been thought to be extinct. It's a good example of how scientists are willing (and in fact eager) to change their views on things in the face of newly discovered observations of the natural world.”

My reply:

The living fossils have been interpreted by some scientists to be evidence against millions of years. What was said about the red blood cells and soft tissue of the dinosaur? The scientist said it was amazing it had survived millions of years without fossilizing. Other scientists use it to add more evidence that “millions of years” is an inaccurate theory.

“This web site is of course funded by the Institute for Creation Science…”

My reply:

Actually I think it's Answers in Genesis, but close enough.

“As such this site is not interested in presenting the best available evidence for anything except the organization's own view as to how to interpret the Bible. They are not at all interested in using the scientific process to consider alternate theories. As such this organization is purely a faith-based group, not a science-based one. I have no argument with their faith - only with the trappings of "science" that they try to cloak it with.”

My reply:

This appears to be a strawman fallacy, posting an argument against something that may not exist. I think you misunderstand the organization. They employ full-time Ph.D. scientists from Ivy League schools. So they are very interested in presenting the best available evidence.

We all have the same evidence; we live in the same world. Any organization that does science from the “only nature exists” standpoint is an equally faith-based group. Their faith is atheism or humanism or some similar faith. Very few scientists are completely unbiased in that regard, so I would argue that they are not the mainstream. Answers in Genesis continually teaches starting points. Yes, they start with the Bible's account of the origin of life, as opposed to the usual “millions of years of evolution is fact” starting point. If the Bible is an accurate account, this is wise. You can't ultimately prove it, but neither can you ultimately prove “millions of years”. And this is also where we got into “how do you fit dinos into the Bible”.

Please read the previous posts on the topic of interpreting the Bible. If the Bible is true as it is written (without trying to add something to what it says) then we know how everything started. We are left to explore the details of it. Dr. Andrew Snelling and Dr. Georgia Purdom are two good examples that currently research that.

Please see the Answers Research Journal, which is peer-reviewed. This goes back to the definition of science, is it limited to only natural processes?

“Are you implying that only aethesists believe in a world that is millions of years old? I certainly hope not, because that is patently untrue.”

My reply:

No. I'm implying that atheists believe millions of years have passed. Last I checked, the latest theory was that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. The Geology professor that made that announcement (in high school they said 4.5 billion) said it was probably much older than that. Atheists will believe what their faith-leaders teach them. In this case that happens to be evolution-believing scientists. I've also heard arguments that Darwinism is a religion. The New York Times I think it was posted an article “Darwinism must die so that evolution may live.” Which had me wondering if it was an official religion now.

[Lukas Caldera]

The responses were daily, yet have ceased these past few days. I hope that my last post did not come off an disrespectful. That was not the intention and I apologize if it was perceived that way at all.

If the responses have stopped because I defended Answers in Genesis then that's unfortunate but I'm not going to change that position. I agree with AiG's mission and I was hoping that by participating in this forum I could clear up some misunderstandings about dinosaurs, the Bible, and the age of the Earth. My goal hasn't been to convince anyone to what I believe, though I do highly encourage all to put their faith in Christ.

[ebaines]

Lukas - I have been a bit busy the last few days so didn't respond only because of lack of time.

This topic has been beaten to death, but let me just respond to a couple of your points:

1. Regarding the definition of science: as I said before science is necessarily limited to concerns only of the natural world, and is limited to endeavors that follow the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, testing (specifically testing to see if the hypothesis might be wrong), and more observation. This is not the method employed in other scholarly work such as philosophy, religion, art, or even mathematics - these othere areas typically start with a supposition and then work it to a conclusion, and leave out the testing and observation parts. So if you start with the supposition that "the Bible is true as written and must be read in a purely literal way" then by definition you are not practicing science. Again - I am NOT trying to say that this supposition is wrong, only that it driven by faith and not science.

2. As for the process of peer review - you seem to assume that scientist "peers" are unwilling to consider alternative hypotheses to the generally-accepted wisdom, and hence alternative theories are always quashed. In other words - peers are unethical and can't be trusted. I would argue that while human nature makes individuals naturally skeptical of new theories that go against the accepted convention, if such theories are better at explaining how nature works better than the old, inevitably the better theory wins out - but ONLY if it explains the data better than the old. This process can take a long time - partly because when most new theories are first put forward they are rarely true home runs, but rather must be bolstered with supporting work by others to reinforce the new hypothesis and ultimately develop a working theory. It took 200 years for the heliocentric model of the solar system - first put forth by Copernicus - to replace the old sun-centered version, because it took that long for advancements in mathematics (Kepler and his theory of eliptical orbits, Newton and his theory of gravity) and observation techniques (Galileo and his telescope, among many others) to result in enough evidence to overwhelm the old theory. Without peer review it's impossible for the rest of us to understand whether a hypothesis is based on sound process or just so much quackery. There have been a few recent examples where individual scientists have attempted to bypass peer review and prematurely announced discoveries that turned out to be false when rigorously reviewed - "cold fusion" and NASA's microbes from Mars announcements come to mind. These examples illustrate the problem of NOT using peer review.

3. You say that anyone who investigates nature based solely on the scientific method is praticing faith in his own way. I agree - but it's a faith in the process. That's different than religion, where faith is in the conclusion.

4. Finally, you argue that modern-day science is controlled by aetheists. Perhaps - I won't argue that - but so what? If individuals employ the scientific process in pursuing science what religion they are has no bearing - they could be Christian or Buddhist or Muslim or Druid or whatever, it doesn't matter. In fact, if you want to make a scientific argument for a young earth you should start looking for and citing avowed aetheists who have reached this conclusion through the scientific process. Why doesn't "Truth in Genesis" cite any aetheists in its material? I'm being facetious here - but fundamentally it's because that organization is not about science - they've stated their mission and vision as a religious and are doing a fine job on that. On the other hand, it's easy to find and cite lots of Christians who believe in the theory of evolution and an earth that is billions of years old - Christians who trust the scientific method on which to base their understanding of nature's workings.