Jorge's opportunity to debate specific data

[rogue06]

I'm not saying that you have refuted this item but, just for the sake of argument, let's say that your "explanation" has refuted it. Okay, that means that from the list you only have 100 more to go. Get hopping, Hop-Along Cassidy!

Jorge

Jorge, why don't you present what you think is the strongest cases from that list instead of trying a Gish Gallop?

[Jorge]

You are a first rate hypocrite Jorge. You engage in just the sort of behavior that you so gleefully seek to condemn others for.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, R06. Don't forget to check out the exchange between TheLurch and myself - that shows you how I behave with a person that doesn't demonstrate your level of intellectual dishonesty. Maybe if you try really hard you can climb out of your hole and reach TheLurch's level. Hope springs eternal.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Jorge, why don't you present what you think is the strongest cases from that list instead of trying a Gish Gallop?

Strongest cases? That would be something I'd have to think about. Just keep in mind what I wrote in that post (the post where I linked to the list) - no single or even group of 'evidences' seals the case for a young OR and old Earth/universe. Also, and most important of all, God's Word trumps ALL of these 'evidences'. Sadly, that's a lesson that you et al. just do not seem able to grasp.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

I'm not saying that you have refuted this item but, just for the sake of argument, let's say that your "explanation" has refuted it. Okay, that means that from the list you only have 100 more to go. Get hopping, Hop-Along Cassidy!

Jorge

Captain Clucky, once we refute any one of them we disprove your 10K year old Earth nonsense.

[Jorge]

Captain Clucky, once we refute any one of them we disprove your 10K year old Earth nonsense.

I see that, as always, your logic is 'impeccable'. That's 'impeccable' as in stoooooooopid!

Jorge

[Omega Red]

At what point does knowledge of the universe around us begin to influence exegetical methods and/or their conclusions?

... Yes, IF the days of Genesis are metaphors then there is no denial of that miracle. BUT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE FROM SCHOLARS (as well as from my own studies) INDICATES THAT THOSE DAYS ARE not, Not, NOT METAPHORS.

...

https://answersingenesis.org/astrono...-a-solid-dome/

[oxmixmudd]

I tried to answer this yesterday, but the post got lost. Considering the conversation has moved on a bit, hopefully this little bit can remain somewhat connected. BTW thank you Jorge for providing a post that is simply a discussion of concepts.

It's hard - if not impossible - for me to reply to such a request without making it sound like I'm "attacking" your intellect. I know that many, many times in the past I have stated that the age issue begins with BELIEFS, not with physical data. The physical data - what you call "science" - serves a secondary support role for those beliefs, not the other way around (as you may have convinced yourself or others). Yet here you make a request that totally and completely ignores those statements - you want to discuss physical, scientific data that makes the case for YEC.

I don't ignore them. I disagree with them on many fronts. I know that for myself, I began more or less with the standard view, but later shifted to YEC in response to understanding the truth of scripture and the reality of Christ in my life. And later shifted back, not out of preference (by no means is it my preference), but rather simply because the evidence, both Biblical and Scientific, pointed that way. I know you don't agree with that, but please at least allow for the fact that my life experience can reflect something different from your own. For me it is not because there is some fundamental desire for evolution to be true, or because of some fundamental world view contrary to Christian teaching, it is simply a position I've arrived at after much prayer and study.

In the past many times I have presented data that supports YEC's position. Not long ago Santa Klaus posted a list which, although inaccurate and incomplete, contained several of those arguments. None of those arguments (or data, if you like) make the case for YEC. Just as there is no argument or data that seals the case for gigayears.

I think one of the more difficult things for you to understand and certainly to accept is that, simply from a logical basis, arguments for YEC and arguments for great age are fundamentally different. They can not be made in a symmetric fashion. And for the most part you tend to approach the situation as if it can be dealt with in a symmetric fashion.

Why do I say the two approaches can't be made symmetric? Because in an Old Universe, there can be many, many young things. But in a Young Universe, there can't be ANY old things. And so, if a person brings a bit of data that shows that something is only a few thousand years old, that is not proof the universe is only a few thousand years old. It may well be that thing is only a few thousand years old, but the universe is billions of years old. But, if a person brings a bit of data that shows something is 10 million years old, then either the universe is old OR that date is wrong. There is no possibility of both being true assessments of the state of the universe on the YE side. It might seem unfair, but it is just the way the logic works out.

So to show the universe is older than 10,000 years, we only need to show there are things in the universe that are without reasonable doubt older than 10,000 years. But OTOH, the YE side must show that EVERYTHING in the universe is no more than 10,000 years old.

Now if in fact most things looked <10,000 years old. It would not be so hard for a YEC to make his case. But that just isn't the way things are. If we look at the physical state of the Universe, no matter if we allow for miracles or not, most things show the ravages of a great deal of time, WAY more than 10,000 years. These 'marks' must have an explanation. In the OE view, the explanation is simply time. In the YE view the explanations are generally many, diverse, inconsilient, OR they are a God how deceives in how He creates.

What you have to once and for all understand is that in this matter it must begin with your metaphysical beliefs. For whatever reason, sometime in your past you decided/chose to embrace the assumptions and presuppositions under which Materialism is founded. That embrace has determined the rest of your views, interpretations and overall attitude in this controversy.

No Jorge. That is not the case. What is different between you and I is not 'embracing Materialism', which I do not, it is that I do not see in Genesis 1 any kind of hard implication that it MUST be fixed, human, 24 hours days. I also see that in Genesis 1, the conceptualization of the cosmos is primitive, unscientific, just like we see in the Psalms and in Job. We have a separator, a dome, a firmament that has above it great quantities of water and that has windows or sluices that let the water out for the flood in Genesis 7. This points very strongly away from this text being technical as you take it, just like the descriptions found in Psalms, just like the prose in Job. So I can't find any hard reason to hold to the idea God was communicating technical data here. He certainly wasn't communicating technical truth about the structure, why should I assume technical truth about the time? Further, the Psalms and Peter both speak of time for God in terms that correlate with Genesis, yet let us know we can't treat a day as God describes it as a day as we experience it, especially in that text.

So for me, how Genesis 1 correlates with physical reality is not a given, it is a mystery (inspired, God breathed nevertheless) which must be unlocked. And the ONLY other direct witness we have to help unlock that mystery is creation itself.

My reluctance (if you want to call it that) in discussing "data" is that I have read the final chapter, page and paragraph of that book - I know exactly where and how it ends.

Just to illustrate, I'll spend a few minutes on one: comets. Here's a ultra-brief write-up on that subject by Dr. Faulkner (PhD astronomer):

That maximum age is only a few million years. Obviously, their prevalence makes sense if the entire solar system was created just a few thousand years ago, but not if it arose billions of years ago.

And here we have a classic mistake in arguing for a young Earth/Universe. Yes, comets have a limited lifetime. But before you draw a conclusion about how old that implies the universe must be, one needs to determine IF the data we have on comets allows them to function as some kind of clock. And when we do that, the first thing we have to ask is this: Is the set of comets we can observe represent a closed or open set? And the answer to that is: it is open. That is, we observe, year after year, comets which enter the solar system from 'out there'. From somewhere else that we can't observe directly - at least not yet. So we know NEW comets enter the system every year. So we have a system were comets die after a while, but we also have a system where new comets enter the system too. And they often enter 'fresh' as if they had never been here before. Which is consistent with 'out there', in that out past the orbit of pluto, a comet can last forever. There is nothing to boil away its volatile's.

So what does that mean if we try to use comets as clocks? It means that unless we have an accurate accounting of the influx of comets coupled with the death of comets, they can't function as a clock of any reliable sort. So we really don't have any sort of reliable upper bound for the age of the Universe that is a consequence of the fact comets exist in the solar system today.

Rescuing Devices

Evolutionary astronomers have answered this problem by claiming that comets must come from two sources. They propose that a Kuiper belt beyond the orbit of Neptune hosts short-period comets (comets with orbits under 200 years), and a much larger, distant Oort cloud hosts long-period comets (comets with orbits over 200 years).

Yet there is no evidence for the supposed Oort cloud, and there likely never will be. In the past twenty years astronomers have found thousands of asteroids orbiting beyond Neptune, and they are assumed to be the Kuiper belt. However, the large size of these asteroids (Pluto is one of the larger ones) and the difference in composition between these asteroids and comets argue against this conclusion."

Now, all you'd have to do to prolong that topic, thereby allowing you to retain your beliefs, is to either introduce a new auxiliary hypothesis or to doggedly maintain your stance regarding the Kuiper Belt and/or the Oort Cloud (remember, there is NO observable evidence that an Oort Cloud is there). Round and round we'd go with no end to it. That's not science - not in my book - that's an ideological debate.

And here we have the classic second mistake made when arguing for a young Earth. The attempt to project some sense of panic or deception onto the scientists doing the work. The Oort cloud and the Kuiper belt are not "Rescuing Devices". They are hypothesis' based on observation. Specifically for the Oort cloud:

Source: wikipedia

Oort noted that there was a peak in numbers of long-period comets with aphelia (their farthest distance from the Sun) of roughly 20,000 AU, which suggested a reservoir at that distance with a spherical, isotropic distribution

© Copyright Original Source

So to correctly characterize the 'process' from a scientific perspective: The overwhelming evidence is that the solar system and universe are very ,very old. Comets can't survive that long without replenishment. We observe new comets entering the solar system all the time. These new comets tend to come from about 20,000 AU away. This points to a cloud of frozen objects out at 20,000 AU. Simple density calculations based on the periodic influx of comets from this region suggest a quantity of objects far beyond that needed to keep the set of inner comets at the level observed. Questions remain as to what perturbs them to cause them to fall in, and whether the current set of comets represents an equilibrium or some sort of statistical fluctuation above or below 'normal'.

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

Try this (relevant to my point) ... TRUE OR FALSE :

1. Human beings, as they now exist, developed from an earlier species of non-human animals.
2. According to the theory of Evolution, human beings, as they now exist, developed from an earlier species of non-human animals.

1, 2 or both - are they true or false?

It so happens that a researcher at YALE concluded, after examining over 2,000 people, that how an individual responds to that question has much more to do with a person's religious position than with the person's knowledge/ability in science. This has been my position for at least the last 20-25 years. As you may have guessed, my answers are 1 - false ... 2 - true.

Keep trying, Jim... do keep trying.

Jorge

Neither of these questions addresses the issue of what the scientific evidence and method implies. #1 is summary opinion. And of course it correlates better to religious belief than knowledge. Most people don't know enough to evaluate the science (sadly enough) and so they go with what their world view accepts as true without having evaluated it. Others, like Kurt Wise, make a choice to belief one way or the other independent of what they see the science implies. #2 is just a statement of fact. That is what ToE says happened.

There needs to be a #3; What does the scientific evidence itself imply is true about human origins. And it needs to be asked only of those with technical degrees who likely have a basic understanding of the sicence itself. Then it shifts substantially.

Here we are talking about what the science and data imply about the age of the universe and the Earth.

I do not and refuse to answer #1 yes or no/true or false. I say God created mankind, but I think the evidence points to evolution as His method. And the reason is simple, too many people are conditioned to see evolution as implying a lack of belief in God as Creator. And so I can't in good conscience allow that false implication to be derived from my answer.

#2 is the same as yours of course

My question to you as regards the data: How do you account for the craters on the moon and other solar system objects? The evidence indicates they are very old, and that sometime Early in the 4.5 billion year history the solar system was inundated with debris which created this scarring on most objects in the solar sytem. How do you compensate for the violence and destructivness of such a barrage in a <10,000 year old Earth Moon System. And a follow on to that: How did the Earth escape what the Moon endured.


Jim

[Jorge]

At what point does knowledge of the universe around us begin to influence exegetical methods and/or their conclusions?

"Knowledge" of the universe is always suspect - we see as through a dark glass.
Interpretation with context and a proper, time-tested exegesis-hermeneutic
should reign whenever there is conflict between the two (which isn't very often).



Uhmmm ... hey, Bozo, I gave them WHAT THEY ASKED FOR and what they loudly claimed did not exist. One of these days you may want to try some integrity - it won't hurt.

Yup. If God says it then you had better maintain that belief. Consider the time that God told Noah to prepare for the Flood. Imagine building a huge boat on dry land based solely on a "Word" given to you. Methinks that folk like you would have perished thinking to yourself, "This is nuts! Building a huge boat far away from any body of water is crazy!" Yup, that sounds just like you.

Here it comes - time to bring in the PRATTs!

https://answersingenesis.org/astrono...-a-solid-dome/

The "solid dome" and "geocentric views" has been asked and answered countless times - why bring them up yet again? Go to the CSR, AiG, CMI websites and you'll find scores of articles that address and answer those objections - that's not even counting the books and presentations that have been given on those topics.

You ask, "Or are we still discovering?" Of course we are! So? God's Word remains (should remain) through it all. It's not that we "bolt the doors", it's that there are events that transcend Naturalistic science - period! But, as I know well, for people like you that's not necessarily true. That's why you people are constantly seeking for Naturalistic explanations for events that the Bible reports but that upset your Materialistically-inclined thinking. So, for example, we read stuff like what O-Mudd posted recently - Naturalistic explanations for how thousands can be fed with just a few loaves and fishes. Exactly the same (Naturalistic "explanations") have been sought and proposed for all of the other Scriptural miracles.

Let me share something that I first wrote way back - around 1982: People that place too much weight on the physical 'evidence' that they observe and measure are to be pitied. These people simply haven't grasped the sheer power and wonder of the God that some of them profess to believe in and follow. They remind of the Egyptian in the the movie The Ten Commandments who said (paraphrasing): "Their God is a poor general, he gives them no retreat." [This was at the part of the movie when the Egyptian army was chasing down the Israelis and had cornered them at the Red Sea]. That Egyptian, just as those that place physical 'evidence' on too high a pedestal, was clueless as to the Majestic, infinite power that he was dealing with. I envision God smiling at that poor slob's remark and then opening up the Red Sea for Israel to cross it - how's that for being a "good general"? Yes, that was just a movie but my point remains - try to stick to it.

The lesson is obvious: STOP TRYING TO LIMIT OR TO DICTATE what God has done / can do because your feeble intellect (just like that of the Egyptian) is incapable of grasping a Being that transcends anything that you (or any of us) can even imagine. I mean, do you think it even crossed the mind of that Egyptian that the Red Sea would open up to allow transit? Of course not. So stop trying to make God fit what the 'physical evidence' appears to indicate. Otherwise, I guarantee you that, like the Egyptian, you will lose - God will laugh at your vain imaginations.

Jorge

[Omniskeptical]

But you're not a man, you're a chicken, Jorge.

[phank]

If only one tribe of bronze-age goat herders had not been so anal about writing down their opinions and preserving them (except for a fairly steady process of rewriting and redaction), a good chunk of the modern world would be far less ignorant, and common understanding of the world we live in would be far more nearly correct.

We are constantly refighting the same battle Kurt Wise fought -- and lost. He was both intelligent and educated enough to recognize that physical reality and biblical speculations of millennia ago cannot be reconciled EXCEPT in two ways. Either reality must be discarded (or nearly everything we have ever learned must be horribly wrong), or else these ancient writings must be placed into rational context, AS the speculations, preferences, and misunderstandings of a primitive people. Kurt Wise chose the first option, and apparently Jorge does as well.

And so we have an endless procession of ships in the night, where one side is shouting " data, evidence, logic, observation, test" and the other side is shouting "bible, bible, god, god, bible." And both sides regard the other as unwilling to come to their senses! After a while, this gets really old.

[Cerebrum123]

If only one tribe of bronze-age goat herders had not been so anal about writing down their opinions and preserving them (except for a fairly steady process of rewriting and redaction), a good chunk of the modern world would be far less ignorant, and common understanding of the world we live in would be far more nearly correct.

We are constantly refighting the same battle Kurt Wise fought -- and lost. He was both intelligent and educated enough to recognize that physical reality and biblical speculations of millennia ago cannot be reconciled EXCEPT in two ways. Either reality must be discarded (or nearly everything we have ever learned must be horribly wrong), or else these ancient writings must be placed into rational context, AS the speculations, preferences, and misunderstandings of a primitive people. Kurt Wise chose the first option, and apparently Jorge does as well.

And so we have an endless procession of ships in the night, where one side is shouting " data, evidence, logic, observation, test" and the other side is shouting "bible, bible, god, god, bible." And both sides regard the other as unwilling to come to their senses! After a while, this gets really old.

Do you always have to display such bigorty?

[klaus54]

Do you always have to display such bigorty?

Phank and Jorge are wonderful examples of thesis and antithesis but without hope of synthesis.

At least I hope they don't come to the synthesis I have in mind.

Poor Hegel.

K54

[oxmixmudd]

If only one tribe of bronze-age goat herders had not been so anal about writing down their opinions and preserving them (except for a fairly steady process of rewriting and redaction), a good chunk of the modern world would be far less ignorant, and common understanding of the world we live in would be far more nearly correct.

It is just as likely that had they not done this you would be living in a much, much harsher and difficult world. A great deal of what we take for granted in terms of the civilization we enjoy derives in some part from the concepts and ideals which derive directly from what those 'goat herders' wrote down. And your bigotry will keep you from acknowledging the source of so much you enjoy. This is not to say all is good. (As I'm sure your response to this will include some recounting of various ills done in the name of Christ). But you need to go back and look at the good that has come from people who believe in Christ. As your knowledge of that is woefully lacking and your view of this is horribly imbalanced. You forget I think people like Mother Theresa, or organizations like the red CROSS, or Florence Nightengale, The Salvation Army, the thousands of people that came from churches around the world to help those in the massive Tsunami, those who give their lives to help the poor and hungry all across the world because of their faith in Christ. You need to look at the whole picture Phank, not just feed whatever bitterness you have towards some subset of the Christian faith.



Jim

[klaus54]

Jorge,

1) How would aeolian deposits form during the Mabbul?

2) Wouldn't you expect plant material among the fleeing paws of terrified animals trying to escape Ye Fludde?

K54

[oxmixmudd]

The "solid dome" and "geocentric views" has been asked and answered countless times - why bring them up yet again? Go to the CSR, AiG, CMI websites and you'll find scores of articles that address and answer those objections - that's not even counting the books and presentations that have been given on those topics.

I must interject. Denying something is true is not refuting it. It is well known what the ancient conceptions of the cosmos were, and there is not one text in the scripture that is contrary to it. That the raqia refers to a dome one need only look at its use in Ezekiel as it describes a crystal dome in a vision. Further, one need only ask what its function was - to separate the waters above from the waters below - or ask what these windows or sluices where and which were translated into the Greek as 'waterfalls' from the Hebrew BY the Hebrews! The history of the understanding of this text as far back as we can go is that the sky was viewed as a dome. This is what the text is clearly referring to. And there was not one doubt in the church as to that it referred to some sort of fixed dome until after Galileo pointed his telescope at the stars. Indeed, we have records of Luther and Calvin taking exception to the then new ideas regarding the orbit of the Earth and the openness of the heavens.

I understand that for the YEC interpretation to persist, these texts can't be referring to what they are referring to and so it will be impossible to persuade you otherwise. Nevertheless, the text and its interpretation are obvious outside that set of blinders.

Jim