Bill Dembski on young vs. old Earth creationists, and where he stands

Gregory, OLD earth began to be slowly accepted by even Christians over the past 200 years since Lyell and Hutton introduced their uniformitarianism which is now understood to be wrong. Comparing YEC to flat earth is a bit insulting. The flat earth idea is almost completely a myth. There is evidence for a young earth while there is no evidence for a flat earth. If you think the proper interpretation of Genesis 1 is long age days, fine. It is not the normal interpretation though. It is a recent interpretation made to accommodate science. Jesus, the Jews, the NT saints, and almost all the early Church Fathers, etc. all believed in a young earth and a literal Genesis.(A few took an allegorical approach to Genesis in addition to the historical view, but they still believed in a young earth.) I have trouble believing that God couldn't have done a better job of communicating an old earth to us if indeed that is the message of Genesis. Just doesn't make sense to me and it causes havoc with Scripture interpretation in the rest of the Bible in order to maintain that view. ie local flood, etc. Ken Ham does not equal YEC. Dembski does not equal OEC. You want to censor YECers? Fine. But respectfully speaking, this particular thread is about Dembski's OEC interpretation of Genesis and the fall. So I think this is an appropriate dialog. I don't appreciate the word "hyper-literalism" being used to describe YEC interpretation. It is hyper-literal to you simply because you don't want to interpret it literally. If reading the word day as a 24 hour day is hyper-literalism, then Scripture interpretation is hopeless. I don't see how it could be any clearer. Exodus 20 even confirms this interpretation. To read long ages into the Bible in the length of the days of creation means the burden of proof is on you because it is not the natural interpretation neither has it been the prevalent interpretation throughout history. If Dembski wants to promote his view of the Fall being retroactive, then we should be able to interact with that. Gregory, how do you fit in a global flood with the old earth interpretation of Genesis 1? tjguy

Yes, because 'more traditional view' here is meant pejoratively. YEC today is indeed flat-earth-like. It gives the religion of those who promote it a bad name. In the past 200+ years, OLD earth is commonplace among Christians, Jews and Muslims (except in hyper-literalistic USAmerica & Yahya-ist Turkey). So, defending the 'traditional' in this case means being old-fashioned and out-dated. There *are* great traditions (cf. T.S. Eliot), of course. YEC, however, is clearly not one of them. The more Christians who rise to educate themselves & who move beyond the YECism of their mothers, fathers, cousins and other relatives, the better. Dembski is an OLD EARTH believer and so is the vast majority of the IDM, e.g. DI Fellows (Paul Nelson's micro-/macro- hiccup perhaps the lone dissent). Deal with it. Gregory

I’m an old-earth creationist, so I accept that the earth and universe are billions of years old. Young-earth creationism, which is the more traditional view, holds that the earth is only thousands of years old... What’s at stake is a harsh, wooden-headed attitude that not only involves knowing one is right, but refuses to listen to, learn from, or understand other Christians, to say nothing of outsiders to the faith. Fundamentalism in this sense is a brain-dead, soul-stifling attitude. I see it as a huge danger for evangelicals. bevets 1 The paragraph I quoted above could EASILY be descriptive of an attitude that is FREQUENTLY directed toward the Young Earth position by many (most?) Christians who do not subscribe to YEC. One of the virtues of ID is that it enables us to put aside OEC/YEC bickering and unite against a common foe — a wise strategy for BOTH sides to embrace. Ted Davis 118 “creationism in a cheap tuxedo.” I’ve defended ID against that charge elsewhere, but Gregory 124 Speaking up to Ted Davis & expecting him to climb down to a 21st c. flat-earth-like ideology based on biblical hyper-literalism is a strange & unrealistic suggestion... Why not respectfully get rid of the YEC-ists for behaviour like this? For defending the "more traditional view" in a thread that specifically addresses the age of the earth? bevets

That Bill Dembski has openly and clearly confirmed he is *not* a YEC (iow, he rejects YEC!) should be enough for the YECs who are here supporting (big tent) ID to check their backwards bases. Speaking up to Ted Davis & expecting him to climb down to a 21st c. flat-earth-like ideology based on biblical hyper-literalism is a strange & unrealistic suggestion. Name-dropping is one side of the coin; insider-information is another more respectable one. That bevets & tjguy don't know the major players personally is a common feature of internet blog discussion vs. 'classical' academic life. My support is with Ted's rigorous history (though I disagree with his TE/EC), & a professor who time and again demonstrates a 'higher' view of scripture than he is given credit for by YEC-IDists in this thread. Here is an example of the 'ID big tent' misfiring. Why not respectfully get rid of the YEC-ists for behaviour like this? YEC is 'Low' (e.g. Ham) - OEC (e.g. Dembski) is 'High' by the example given here. Gregory

Ted Davis I know Terry Mortenson personally... That pretty much sums it up: the historical sciences are, in the opinion of Mortenson and other leading YEC proponents, simply not legitimate. They are examples of "science falsely so-called." To some extent (as I've pointed out here before), ID has bought this as well-especially when language and conceptions from John Calvert's circle is embedded into other web sites, including this one. Whenever that happens, critics of ID have legitimate reasons to wonder whether ID is simply "creationism in a cheap tuxedo." I've defended ID against that charge elsewhere, but when attitudes such as these are embraced in places like this, I am led to wonder... I have nothing more to add on this thread. tjguy Ted, you certainly realize that all creationists fit in the ID camp, but not all IDers fit in the creationist camp, do you not? I don't think YEC says that secular science is not legitimate, but it does say that when we deal with origins where we can't repeat, validate, test, etc. that we are all at a disadvantage. Ted has nothing more to add on this thread. bevets

Thanks Ted for that account of Mortensen's approach.

In a splendid article many years ago (“Nineteenth Century Christian Geologists and the Doctrine of Scripture.” Christian Scholar’s Review 11 (1982): 212-29), Davis Young shows how several influential Christian geologists of the early 19th century accepted, promoted, and even help to advance an old-earth understanding of natural history. Names such as John Fleming, John Playfair, Hugh Miller (a leading Scottish evangelical writer), and others did this while holding a high view of scripture.

Personally,it is hard to see how you can have a high view of Scripture while doing this. Because here you are giving science done from a naturalistic worldview, authority to interpret Scripture. Holding to an old earth means rejecting what the Bible has to say about a global flood. The two just don't mesh.

That pretty much sums it up: the historical sciences are, in the opinion of Mortenson and other leading YEC proponents, simply not legitimate. They are examples of “science falsely so-called.” To some extent (as I’ve pointed out here before), ID has bought this as well–especially when language and conceptions from John Calvert’s circle is embedded into other web sites, including this one. Whenever that happens, critics of ID have legitimate reasons to wonder whether ID is simply “creationism in a cheap tuxedo.” I’ve defended ID against that charge elsewhere, but when attitudes such as these are embraced in places like this, I am led to wonder…

Ted, you certainly realize that all creationists fit in the ID camp, but not all IDers fit in the creationist camp, do you not? I don't think YEC says that secular science is not legitimate, but it does say that when we deal with origins where we can't repeat, validate, test, etc. that we are all at a disadvantage. So eyewitness testimony can give us a huge help in interpreting what we see in the natural world. The flood an excellent example of this. The Bible is clear on a global flood and if you don't accept this testimony, then you will be way off in your interpretations of the geological record. tjguy

lastyearon 19 What’s that about Intelligent Design having nothing to do with Creationism? bevets 61 Speaking as a YEC, I find it hard to believe that you are not aware of the distinction — ESPECIALLY if you have been around this blog for more than a couple days. bevets 77 All Creationists accept ID — as far as it goes. Only some IDers accept Creationism (which is most commonly associated with YEC). bevets 75 I appeal to the authority of Scripture. It is the verbal plenary inerrant Word of God. It trumps the ‘Book of Nature’ every day that ends with ‘y’. Our view of nature can only be primitive. I am confident that God has it all figured out — and my best resource for God’s thoughts is God’s Word. And I will ALWAYS prefer the interpretation (of Genesis) of an accomplished Hebraist over an accomplished Astrophysicist. bevets 86 So you are moving on from your appeal to the authority of one physicist to an appeal to authority of ANOTHER physicist on the topic of HEBREW interpretation? I am not interested in possible interpretations. I want to know the best interpretation. The best interpretation of special revelation trumps the ‘best interpretation’ of general revelation. Ted Davis 118 His own approach is precisely the opposite to that Galileo advocated with his two-book model. “The Bible is the propositional verbal revelation of God, but the creation is the more-difficult-to-interpret, non-verbal revelation about God. Therefore, it is methodologically mistaken to use fallen men’s interpretations of the cursed creation to reinterpret God’s plain inerrant Word to make it fit sinful men’s fallible theories about the unobserved past.” That pretty much sums it up: the historical sciences are, in the opinion of Mortenson and other leading YEC proponents, simply not legitimate. They are examples of “science falsely so-called.” To some extent (as I’ve pointed out here before), ID has bought this as well–especially when language and conceptions from John Calvert’s circle is embedded into other web sites, including this one. Whenever that happens, critics of ID have legitimate reasons to wonder whether ID is simply “creationism in a cheap tuxedo.” I’ve defended ID against that charge elsewhere, but when attitudes such as these are embraced in places like this, I am led to wonder… Scientists sometimes deceive themselves into thinking that philosophical ideas are only, at best, decorations or parasitic commentaries on the hard, objective triumphs of science, and that they themselves are immune to the confusions that philosophers devote their lives to dissolving. But there is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination. ~ Daniel Dennett YECs do not reject historical science, however we do insist on examining assumptions. bevets

Sorry - included my comment in the blockquote! Jon Garvey

I have nothing more to add on this thread. Nevertheless an excellent and helpful summary, Ted - thanks. My reply to that position would be that, indeed, an eyewitness account is worth more than a good deal of forensics - but it's still possible to mistake an eye-witness account of something else for one of the event you happen to be interested in.

Jon Garvey

I know Terry Mortenson personally, I've heard him speak, I've read his book, "The Great Turning Point," and I have corresponded with him on occasion. I see his work as very similar to that of the late Byron Nelson, "The Deluge Story in Stone." (Byron was the grandfather of pro-ID philosopher Paul Nelson.) Nelson believed that the acceptance of an old earth and the abandonment of flood geology in the late and 18th & early 19th century resulted not from examining geological evidence, but from the work of ungodly thinkers who replaced the Bible with false science (as he saw it). As far as I can tell, this is also Mortenson's view. History (as usual) is a lot more complicated than this. For example, as Jitse van der Meer has shown (“Georges Cuvier and the Use of Scripture in Geology,” in: Van der Meer, J.M., Mandelbrote, S. (Eds.) Nature and Scripture: History of a Dialogue. Vol. 2. Brill Academic Publishers. 2008, pp. 115-144), there is (often overlooked) evidence that Cuvier was very active in French Protestant circles, that he regarded the Bible as having divine authority, and that he applied the principle of accommodation to his understanding of the creation and flood narratives. Ironically, Mortenson seems (IMO) to have taken a bit too uncritically the traditional "warfare" view of the history of science & religion, which pitted uniformitarianism vs Christianity in ways that many historians today would find untenable. The "warfare" narrative suited A D White in the 1890s, it suits Dawkins and company today, and it also (apparently) suits the YEC agenda as well. I've seen many YEC people promote the new, anti-warfare history of science and religion (to which I have also tried to make contributions) as a good thing, yet they seem to want it quite badly when writing the history of natural history. In a splendid article many years ago ("Nineteenth Century Christian Geologists and the Doctrine of Scripture." Christian Scholar's Review 11 (1982): 212-29), Davis Young shows how several influential Christian geologists of the early 19th century accepted, promoted, and even help to advance an old-earth understanding of natural history. Names such as John Fleming, John Playfair, Hugh Miller (a leading Scottish evangelical writer), and others did this while holding a high view of scripture. (I realize that the sources I am citing here are not available on the internet, but books are not obsolete, contrary to what some would like us to believe, and public libraries still have inter-library loan, the last time I checked. So much of the best scholarship on science and religion is simply not available for free download. You simply have to wait a week or so to read it.) IMO, the underlying issue is the principle of accommodation--especially the way in which Galileo used it to argue for the acceptance of Copernican astronomy. (For some reason, the deeply pious Kepler, who used in identical ways prior to Galileo, never seems to come up in these conversations. It's always Galileo, whose relatively impious attitude is often connected with his attitude toward science and the Bible in creationist writings.) I'll cut to the chase. Mortenson simply rejects the overall approach of Galileo, Kepler, Hitchcock, Silliman, Dembski, and anyone else who thinks that the Bible is accommodated to the ordinary understanding, when it comes to matters of science. Here is what Mortenson told me, relative to this (in an email that I published with his permission in an article a few years ago): His own approach is precisely the opposite to that Galileo advocated with his two-book model. “The Bible is the propositional verbal revelation of God, but the creation is the more-difficult-to-interpret, non-verbal revelation about God. Therefore, it is methodologically mistaken to use fallen men’s interpretations of the cursed creation to reinterpret God’s plain inerrant Word to make it fit sinful men’s fallible theories about the unobserved past.” That pretty much sums it up: the historical sciences are, in the opinion of Mortenson and other leading YEC proponents, simply not legitimate. They are examples of "science falsely so-called." To some extent (as I've pointed out here before), ID has bought this as well--especially when language and conceptions from John Calvert's circle is embedded into other web sites, including this one. Whenever that happens, critics of ID have legitimate reasons to wonder whether ID is simply "creationism in a cheap tuxedo." I've defended ID against that charge elsewhere, but when attitudes such as these are embraced in places like this, I am led to wonder... I have nothing more to add on this thread. Ted Davis

Ted Davis Second, your view that an old earth is a secular interpretation belies the fact that many Christian geologists themselves were among those who helped to establish an old earth in the first place. The scriptural geologists were not opposed to geological facts, but to the old-earth interpretations of those facts. And they argued that old-earth interpretations were based on anti-biblical philosophical assumptions, and in this they were correct. Buffon was a deist or secret atheist, as were Lamarck and Hutton. Laplace was an open atheist. Werner, Cuvier, Smith and Lyell were probably deists or some sort of vague theists. These developers of old-earth theory were hardly objective, unbiased, let-the-facts-speak-for-themselves observers of the physical evidence, as is so often supposed. They were in fact just as biased as the scriptural geologists. While these old-earth proponents had varied opinions about the existence of God, they all rejected the God who is revealed in Scripture and operated with the assumptions of philosophical naturalism in their interpretation of the astronomical and geological evidence. ~ Terry Mortenson bevets

Creationist view summarized: (taken from this article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v6/n1/yec-view-summary)

Young-earth creationists believe that the creation days of Genesis 1 were six literal (24-hour) days which occurred 6,000–12,000 years ago. They believe that about 2,300–3,300 years before Christ, the surface of the earth was radically rearranged by Noah’s Flood. All land animals and birds not in Noah’s Ark (along with many sea creatures) perished; many of which were subsequently buried in the Flood sediments. Therefore, creationists believe that the global, catastrophic Flood was responsible for most (but not all) of the rock layers and fossils. In other words, some rock layers and possibly some fossils were deposited before the Flood, while other layers and fossils were produced in postdiluvian localized catastrophic sedimentation events or processes).

Also, here is an explanation of this:

9. The global catastrophic Flood of Noah was responsible for producing most (but not all) of the geological record of rock layers and fossils (Barrick 2008). Careful exegesis has shown that this was not a local flood in Mesopotamia (Sarfati 2004, pp. 241–286; Whitcomb and Morris pp. 1–88). It is most unreasonable to believe in a global, year-long Flood that left no geological evidence (or that it only left evidence in the low lands of the Fertile Crescent, as some suppose) (Hallo and Simpson 1998, pp. 32–33). The global evidence of sedimentary rock layers filled with land and marine fossils is exactly the kind of evidence we would expect from Noah’s Flood. If most of the rock record is the evidence of the Flood, then there really is no geological evidence for millions of years. But the secular geologists deny the global Flood of Noah’s day because they deny that there is any geological evidence for such a flood. So, the fossiliferous rock record is either the evidence of Noah’s Flood or the evidence of millions of years of geological change. It cannot be evidence of both. If we do not accept the geological establishment’s view of Noah’s Flood, then we cannot accept their view of the age of the earth. So, it is logically inconsistent to believe in both a global Noachian Flood and millions of years.

tjguy

Ted, agreed. The old earth idea was worked out before Darwin published his book. Of course, Lyell had a huge influence on Darwin. Darwin had Lyell's book with him on the Beagle and he was absorbing his ideas at that time already. My point was though that the idea today that the earth could be young is categorically dismissed by most scientists(I guess I should say evolutionists to be more accurate) because it is an impossibility in light of the "FACT" of evolution. That is what I was trying to say.

Ted said: "every geologist worth his salt would have accepted an old earth long before 1859."

Well, that is an opinion statement. That is how you see it. No doubt there were many Christian geologists back then who accepted an old earth. There were also a group of scriptural geologists who did not and they had very good arguments. That is the way it is today. Many Christians hold to an old earth, but that doesn't make their views true and neither does it invalidate their faith.

Second, your view that an old earth is a secular interpretation belies the fact that many Christian geologists themselves were among those who helped to establish an old earth in the first place.

That may be true, but I think it would be helpful to read a scholarly work on the history of this paradigm change in geology. Below I have included one quote from the paper and the url. Hutton and Lyell were the main instigators of the old earth idea and they based it on the idea that the present was the key to the past. These guys were thoroughly secular. However, sometimes, the past is the key to the past. If a flood occurred, then they would surely come up with a false interpretation of the geological record. Here is a quote from this paper written about how the interpretation of the rocks changed from biblical to non-biblical. www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v18/n1/old-earth-geology This is an excellent scholarly work on this issue and worth a read.

"The scriptural geologists (of the 19th century) were not opposed to geological facts, but to the old-earth interpretations of those facts. And they argued that old-earth interpretations were based on anti-biblical philosophical assumptions, and in this they were correct. Buffon was a deist or secret atheist,12 as were Lamarck13 and Hutton.14 Laplace was an open atheist.15 Werner,16 Cuvier,17 Smith18 and Lyell19 were probably deists or some sort of vague theists. These developers of old-earth theory were hardly objective, unbiased, let-the-facts-speak-for-themselves observers of the physical evidence, as is so often supposed. They were in fact just as biased as the scriptural geologists. While these old-earth proponents had varied opinions about the existence of God, they all rejected the God who is revealed in Scripture and operated with the assumptions of philosophical naturalism in their interpretation of the astronomical and geological evidence."

Then there is this correspondence from Lyell to allies:

In his private correspondence, Lyell admitted to the strongly anti-biblical (“anti-Mosaical”) nature of his ideas. In 1829, just a few months prior to the publication of the first volume of his Principles of Geology, Lyell wrote, in a letter to fellow old-earth geologist Roderick Murchison: "I trust I shall make my sketch of the progress of geology popular. Old [Rev. John] Fleming is frightened and thinks the age will not stand my anti-Mosaical conclusions and at least that the subject will for a time become unpopular and awkward for the clergy, but I am not afraid. I shall out with the whole but in as conciliatory a manner as possible." .... By the following year, we see that Charles Lyell has a clear agenda, i.e. to “free the science from Moses”. That is what Lyell wrote on 14th June 1830 in a letter to George Poulett Scrope: I am sure you may get into Q.R. [Quarterly Review] what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the [church] party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose [Bishop] Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the British Critic and Theological Review. They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems … . Probably there was a beginning—it is a metaphysical question, worthy of a theologian—probably there will be an end. Species, as you say, have begun and ended—but the analogy is faint and distant. Perhaps it is an analogy, but all I say is, there are, as Hutton said, ‘no signs of a beginning, no prospect of an end’ … . All I ask is, that at any given period of the past, don’t stop inquiry when puzzled by refuge to a ‘beginning,’ which is all one with ‘another state of nature,’ as it appears to me. But there is no harm in your attacking me, provided you point out that it is the proof I deny, not the probability of a beginning … . I was afraid to point the moral, as much as you can do in the Q.R. about Moses. Perhaps I should have been tenderer about the Koran. Don’t meddle much with that, if at all. If we don’t irritate, which I fear that we may (though mere history), we shall carry all with us. If you don’t triumph over them, but compliment the liberality and candour of the present age, the bishops and enlightened saints will join us in despising both the ancient and modern physico-theologians. It is just the time to strike, so rejoice that, sinner as you are, the Q.R. is open to you. P.S. … I conceived the idea five or six years ago [1824–25], that if ever the Mosaic geology could be set down without giving offence, it would be in an historical sketch, and you must abstract mine, in order to have as little to say as possible yourself. Let them feel it, and point the moral.”4 Lyell’s secretive scheming not only deceived the church to accept his false ideas that undermined the Gospel, but he set geology on a wrong path for over a century.

You ended with this:

I agree with you that evolution requires and old earth, but it’s not the other way around: an old earth does not require evolution, indeed many advocates of an old earth have flatly rejected evolution on various grounds (including biblical grounds).

Again I agree with what you say here. An old earth does not require evolution, but here is the point I am trying to make. An old earth view precludes a global flood. You cannot logically hold both views at the same time. BA77 tries to do this. He thinks it allows him to remain true to science and the Bible at the same time, but the two positions are in diametrical opposition to each other. Of course, Davis Young just throws the whole global flood idea and the Scriptural record about it out the window. This is my problem with him. His approach to Scriptural interpretation is definitely science first then Scripture. Here is a good review of his rewrite of Christianity and the Age of the Earth which is titled The Bible, Rocks, & Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth. http://creation.com/review-young-and-stearley-bible-rocks-and-time tjguy

Responding briefly to tjguy at 97, where he says, "I have chosen biblical truth over secular interpretations of the evidence. Most scientists do believe in an old earth, but they HAVE to have an old earth for their views of evolution to work! They have no choice but to believe in an old earth." TJ: You bring in a classic myth here, namely, the claim that secular scientists believe in an old earth because they already accept evolution, which requires it. Two big problems with this view. First, the old earth was worked out prior to Darwin historically. If Darwin had never lived, and even if no one before Darwin had ever contemplated "transmutation" (the French and English word that was used for "evolution") at that point, every geologist worth his salt would have accepted an old earth long before 1859 (the year in which Darwin's "Origin" was published). Back at #105 I give a URL where you can study two leading American examples of this, Silliman and Hitchcock, neither of whom ever accepted "transmutation." Both were strongly committed to the Bible, and both completely accpeted an old earth. Second, your view that an old earth is a secular interpretation belies the fact that many Christian geologists themselves were among those who helped to establish an old earth in the first place. Davis Young has written extensively about this (see especially his book, "Christianity and the Age of the Earth"). I agree with you that evolution requires and old earth, but it's not the other way around: an old earth does not require evolution, indeed many advocates of an old earth have flatly rejected evolution on various grounds (including biblical grounds). Ted Davis

Correction to post 111. The article was written to respond to Wayne A. Grudem, not John Grudem as I mistakenly wrote. I apologize! tjguy

Yea! I figured out how to use the quotes, block quotes, etc! Hopefully my posts will be a bit easier to read now.

Exodus 20:8-11. “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep 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. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Here is a brief apologetic for the YEC position using this verse from the same article as I quoted from in the previous post: www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/systematic-theology-age-of-earth

As noted at the beginning of this essay, Exodus 20:8–11 is a very important passage for the defense of young-earth creationism, and Grudem says that it “is hard to avoid” our conclusion. However, he attempts to neutralize these verses by saying that the passage teaches that the Jews were to work six days because God set a pattern of working six successive periods and resting on the seventh period (Grudem 1994, pp. 295–296). But if God created over six long ages of time and was only establishing a pattern of 6 + 1 for the Jewish work-week, He could have (and would have) used an indefinite time word or phrase, rather than the only Hebrew word that means a 24-hour day. Also, Grudem declares that in the very next sentence (and commandment, Exodus 20:12) “‘day’ means ‘a period of time’.” However, that verse does not use “day” singular, but “days” plural, and everywhere else “days” (Hebrew, yamim) is used in the Old Testament, the context shows that it always means literal days. Furthermore, when the commandment says that our “days may be prolonged” it does not mean that the days will be longer than 24 hours (and Grudem agrees), but that we will live a greater number of (literal) days, that is, a longer life. So, Grudem’s comments fail to refute the creationist argument from the fourth commandment.

The biblical text seems to be strongly in favor of the YEC interpretation as is confirmed by the view of the orthodox Jews up until 200 years ago or so. I think we are all concerned about proper interpretation and protecting God's truth. These arguments should be a help to us all as we seek to understand what God is trying to communicate to us in these early chapters of Genesis. Grudem himself says it is hard to avoid our conclusion and yet he gives it his best shot? Why? Because he thinks the earth is old and is trying to find a way to read that idea into the Scripture it would seem. BA77, it would be interesting for you to read the section in this paper about the flood as well. God bless! tjguy

BA77, It looks like you have bailed this conversation - but I will continue to post a few thoughts anyway. Still waiting for an answer to the questions in post 110. I also want to address a few of your arguments about a literal 24 hr day interpretation of Genesis 1. The following was taken from a YEC response to some of the OEC arguments put forth by John Grudem. Here is the url which you can read for a more thorough answer: www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/systematic-theology-age-of-earth

The fact that the seventh day of creation does not have the phrase “there was evening and there was morning, the seventh day” does not necessarily imply that it is continuing through to the present time, as Grudem suggests, and that therefore the six days of creation were not literal (Grudem 1994, p. 294). The phrase’s absence may be a literary device to reinforce the fact that God completed His creation and did not resume creation activities on the eighth day of history. The parallel of the creation week to the Jewish week in Exodus 20:8–11 confirms that the seventh day in both weeks was completed, and it was the same length as the previous six days. Also, the past tense verbs of Genesis 2:1–3 and Exodus 20:8–11 show that Moses is looking back at past completed days long before he wrote either book. Furthermore, Adam was created on the sixth day and lived on the seventh day and all the literal days of his literal life totaled 930 years of days (Genesis 5:5). So, if the seventh day is still continuing, then Adam is not yet dead. But also, if we accept that the seventh day of creation week continues to our time, then this means that God is not now creating but is resting. Consequently, the processes that scientists study today are not God’s creation activities, but rather His resting activities of providence. Therefore the old-earth theories, which rely on evolutionist geological and astronomical interpretations of and extrapolations from present-day processes to say how things came into existence and how long ago, are false."

There is some pretty interesting stuff here. Since Adam was created on the sixth day, the sixth day had to obviously have been a short day since he only lived a total of 931 years! tjguy

OK, BA77, in concluding this dialog, I have just 3 questions for you that you. 1) How do you justify an old earth position with a global flood? You have avoided this question the last 3 times I asked so I’ll try once more. I have explained why these two positions are logically contradictory. Hugh Ross himself, and most OECers reject a global flood for that very reason. Even your pal, Ross fan Rich Deems who you have been quoting and using to support your position disagrees with you. Do you know why he & Ross deny it? What would you say to Ross to help him get over his scientific problems with a worldwide flood? Secular scientists reject the biblical record therefore they look at the geological record and try and figure out how it came to be using totally natural assumptions – the main one being “The present is key to the past.” However, starting from that faulty assumption, they would end up with wrong conclusions for sure because they have rejected some important information that would help inform their interpretation of the geologic record – namely the global flood. So, I simply want to know how you integrate these two positions when most scientists see them as contradictory. I hope your solution will not be to reject the Bible's account of the global flood, but to reject Ross & Deem's interpretation of an old earth. 2) What do you think the prevalent view of the early church fathers was when it came to creation and a literal interpretation of the text? IF you think that the prevalent interpretation of the early church fathers and the Jewish people WAS the literal 24 hour view, do you really believe that God couldn’t have more accurately communicated the real truth to His people from the beginning? I mean there are other words or ways to say that the earth was old and that He took a long time to create it. Do you really think that the Jews and early church fathers and most Christians were deceived until finally Lyell & Hutton came along and so to speak “set us free from Moses”? Reading Genesis 1, do you really get the idea that the original intent of the author was to communicate that each day was a long period of time? Thanks for the Paul Copan text. Much of what he has written has already been answered by YEC theologians. For every Paul Copan there are others who have been converted the opposite way. tjguy tjguy

F/N: let's make it very specific. We come across a linear arrangement of 1,001 coins [H = 1/T = 0]:

c1 - c2 -c3 - . . . - c1001

. . . that just happen to be coded for the first 143 ASCII characters for the immediately above post [= a separately describable functional specification at a certain level of complexity]. Would be be warranted to infer that the coins just happened to fall out that way on being shaken up and dropped [ = blind chance plus mechanical necessity], or to infer to design by a designer who knows the ASCII code and the message above? Why, or why not? KF kairosfocus

Onlookers (and LYO): First, it seems much of this thread is taken up with disputes between OEC's and YEC's on scripture interpretation. Precisely one of the distinguishing features of Creationism that marks it as utterly different from design theory as a scientific project. So, LYO's "superset" talking point crashes in flames, with a live case in view. Meanwhile s/he is simply refusing to seriously address the evidence in front of us that the project of inferring design on empirically tested, reliable signs is substantive. Similarly, that there are quite specific empirical tests that could have potentially falsified the design inference principle. But instead, they are providing empirical support. Lastly, Math Girl's tired point on it can't be defined exactly has been dusted off and trotted out. LYO should at minimum respond to the points here on before being allowed to even try such a resurrection. In short the evidence in front of us is that we are seeing drumbeat repetition of ill-founded dismissive talking points, not responsible dialogue. If LYO is interested in dialogue, s/he is invited to the thread that is not running a side discussion on hermeneutics and the like. KF kairosfocus

continued

'Other than Christ, no other religious leader was foretold a thousand years before he arrived, nor was anything said about where he would be born, why he would come, how he would live, and when he would die. No other religious leader claimed to be God, or performed miracles, or rose from the dead. No other religious leader grounded his doctrine in historical facts. No other religious leader declared his person to be even more important than his teachings.' - StephenB - UD Blogger The Precisely Fulfilled Prophecy Of Israel Becoming A Nation In 1948 - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041241 Bible Prophecy Fulfilled - Israel 1948 - article Excerpt: Although July 15, 537 B.C. can not be verified by outside sources as the exact day of Cyrus's proclamation, we do know that 537 B.C. was the year in which he made it. As such, we can know for certain that the Bible, in one of the most remarkable prophecies in history, accurately foresaw the year of Israel's restoration as an independent nation some two thousand five hundred years before the event occurred. http://ezinearticles.com/?Bible-Prophecy-Fulfilled---Israel-1948&id=449317

The preceding start date, used in the prophecy calculation, is confirmed by the archaeological record:

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT Excerpt "In late years several cuneiform tablets have been discovered pertaining to the fall of Babylon which peg both Biblical and secular historic dates. The one tablet known as the "Nabunaid Chronicle" gives the date for the fall of Babylon which specialists have ascertained as being October 12-13, 539 B.C., Julian Calendar, or October 6-7, 539 B.C., according to our present Gregorian Calendar. This tablet also says that Cyrus made his triumphant entry into Babylon 16 days after its fall to his army. Thus his accession year commenced in October, 539 B.C. However, in another cuneiform tablet called "Strassmaier, Cyrus No. 11" Cyrus’ first regnal year is mentioned and was determined to have begun March 17-18, 538 B.C., and to have concluded March 4-5, 537 B.C. It was in this first regnal year of Cyrus that he issued his decree to permit the Jews to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple. (Ezra 1:1) The decree may have been made in late 538 B.C. or before March 4-5, 537 B.C. In either case this would have given sufficient time for the large party of 49,897 Jews to organize their expedition and to make their long four-month journey from Babylon to Jerusalem to get there by September 29-30, 537 B.C., the first of the seventh Jewish month, to build their altar to Jehovah as recorded at Ezra 3:1-3. Inasmuch as September 29-30, 537 B.C., officially ends the seventy years of desolation as recorded at 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21, so the beginning of the desolation of the land must have officially begun to be counted after September 21-22, 607 B.C., the first of the seventh Jewish month in 607 B.C., which is the beginning point for the counting of the 2,520 years." http://onlytruegod.org/jwstrs/537vs539.htm

The precisely fulfilled prophecy of Israel becoming a nation again is of no small importance, since the restoration of Israel clearly signifies the time immediately preceding the return of Christ.

The Signs of Israel's Rebirth: Lesson 1: The Parable of the Fig Tree Concluding Statement: Now it should also be perfectly clear what the parable of the fig tree in the Olivet Discourse means (Matt 24:32-34). As the disciples were walking into the city on Tuesday morning after Palm Sunday, they noticed that the tree which Jesus had cursed the day before had withered and dried up. Later, on Tuesday evening, when the memory of the withered fig tree was still fresh in their minds, Jesus spoke the parable in question. He said that when the church sees the fig tree leafing out again, it will know that "it is . . . at the doors." The Greek for "it is" can also be translated "he is." In prophecy, "door" is often a symbol for the passageway between heaven and earth (Rev. 4:1). What the parable means, therefore, is that when the nation of Israel revives after its coming disintegration and death in A.D. 70, the return of Christ will be imminent. http://www.themoorings.org/prophecy/Israel/Israel1.html

Even Sir Isaac Newton, who is considered one of the greatest, if not the greatest, scientist who has ever lived, was a avid student of Bible prophecy:

Israeli library uploads (Sir Isaac) Newton's theological texts - February 15, 2012 Excerpt: He's considered to be one of the greatest scientists of all time.,, However, the curator of Israel's national library's humanities collection said Newton was also a devout Christian who dealt far more in theology than he did in physics,, "He (Sir Isaac Newton) took a great interest in the Jews, and we found no negative expressions toward Jews in his writing," said Levy-Rubin. "He (years before it was remotely feasible) said the Jews would ultimately return to their land." http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-israeli-library-uploads-newton-theological.html Sir Isaac Newton's Prediction For The Return Of Christ - Sid Roth video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041154 "Prophetic Perspectives, 2008-2015" - Jim Bramlett Excerpt: For years I have been intrigued with Newton's interpretation of Daniel 9:25 and the 62 weeks and 7 weeks (62 X 7 = 434 years, and 7 X 7 = 49 years), counted "from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem." In his commentary on Daniel, a copy of which I have, Newton wrote that the interpretation of those 69 weeks is usually incorrect, violating the Hebrew language. He said the two numbers should not be added together as most scholars do, but the 434 years refer to Messiah's first coming (which he demonstrated), and the 49 years refer to His second coming, after Israel is reestablished, an idea unheard of 300 years ago but happening in our generation The start date for counting has been controversial. Many thought the 49-year-count would be the date of Israel's rebirth on May 14, 1948, but, alas, that did not work out. Other dates were tried unsuccessfully. But what if the count begins on one of the two most historical dates in Jewish history, the date in the miraculous Six-Day War when Israel captured Jerusalem and the Temple Mount: June 7, 1967? Assume the 49-year count (49 Jewish years X 360 days = 17,640 days), does start on June 7, 1967. Using a date-counter Web site at lwww.timeanddate.com/date/duration we learn that the 17,640-day count takes us exactly to September 23, 2015. September 23, 2015 is the Day of Atonement! What are the odds against that? Many have believed that the Second Coming will be on the Day of Atonement. If he knew this, old Isaac Newton would be doing cartwheels and back flips right now. http://www.prophecyforum.com/bramlett/prophetic_perspectives.html

Also of note: Besides prophecy, and even the personal witness of Christ's reality from millions of people who have experienced the presence of His spirit, many people, including myself, argue that the Bible itself is proof of God’s supernatural and personal involvement with man because, among other things, the Bible is 'alive', and I mean that in a way that specifically differentiates the Holy Bible from inanimate objects. This is because the words of the Holy Bible have literally, in a event that turned my worldview completely upsidedown, 'come alive' as I was reading them: This following testimony reveals one such time this occurred:

Strange But True - Miracle Testimony https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfNTNocmRjZGtkdg&hl=en

Verse and Music:

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. The Word - Sara Groves - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ofE-GZ8zTU

bornagain77

Perhaps to focus on where we do agree on the Bible instead of just where we disagree, I believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God:

The Nature of the Inspiration of the Bible (1 of 2) - Dr Geisler http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vub_ecXRKlA The Nature of the Inspiration of the Bible (2 of 2) - Dr Geisler - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg61Ba6_7Rk

In fact, I find that the strongest 'proof' for showing others that the Bible uniquely is the 'supernatural' word of God to man is the fulfilled prophecy of the Bible:

Isaiah 46:9-10: "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning And from ancient times which have not been done, Saying, My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure."

i.e. I feel the Bible finds a greatest level of verification for its claim for supernatural (divinely inspired) authorship from the hundreds of precisely fulfilled, and unambiguous, prophecies in it that can be verified by numerous outside sources. Unique among all books ever written, the Bible accurately foretells specific events-in detail-many years, sometimes centuries, before they occur. Approximately 2500 prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible, about 2000 of which already have been fulfilled to the letter—no errors. (The remaining 500 or so reach into the future and may be seen unfolding as days go by.) Here are a few resources showing the clarity and authenticity of Bible prophecy:

Bible Prophecy - Verify History http://www.allabouttruth.org/bible-prophecy.htm Bible Prophecy - podcast http://www.allaboutgod.com/stream/think-again-10.m3u The Bible: The Word of God? Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Evidence - video http://vimeo.com/22684022 The Prophesied Second Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Yyhb0EH6KaMTeX5bYuLD2fRFgEYJC2RKsjiTcqgEbII Probability Of Just Eight Prophecies Being Fulfilled - Jesus - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041170 The Case for Jesus the Messiah — Incredible Prophecies that Prove God Exists By Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon, and Dr. Walter Kaiser, Jr. Excerpt: But, of course, there are many more than eight prophecies. In another calculation Stoner used 48 prophecies (even though he could have used 456) and arrived at the extremely conservative estimate that the probability of 48 prophecies being fulfilled in one person is one in 10^157. How large is the number 10^157? 10^157 contains 157 zeros! Let us try to illustrate this number using electrons. Electrons are very small objects. They are smaller than atoms. It would take 2.5 times 10^15 of them, laid side by side, to make one inch. Even if we counted four electrons every second and counted day and night, it would still take us 19 million years just to count a line of electrons one inch long. But how many electrons would it take if we were dealing with 10^157 electrons? Imagine building a solid ball of electrons that would extend in all directions from the earth a length of 6 billion light years. The distance in miles of just one light year is 6.4 trillion miles. That would be a big ball! But not big enough to measure 10^157 electrons. In order to do that, you must take that big ball of electrons reaching the length of 6 billion light years long in all directions and multiply it by 6 x 10^28! How big is that? It’s the length of the space required to store trillions and trillions and trillions of the same gigantic balls and more. In fact, the space required to store all of these balls combined together would just start to “scratch the surface” of the number of electrons we would need to really accurately speak about 10^157. But assuming you have some idea of the number of electrons we are talking about, now imagine marking just one of those electrons in that huge number. Stir them all up. Then appoint one person to travel in a rocket for as long as he wants, anywhere he wants to go. Tell him to stop and segment a part of space, then take a high-powered microscope and find that one marked electron in that segment. What do you think his chances of being successful would be? It would be one in 10^157. Remember, this number represents the chance of only 48 prophecies coming true in one person (there are 456 total prophecies concerning Jesus). http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/ATRJ/proof/ATRJ1103PDF/ATRJ1103-3.pdf The King Jesus (A Precise Mathematical Prediction) http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/kjesenpr.htm

bornagain77

I read Bill's book ("The End of Christianity") with great interest. Indeed, Bill sent me a prepublication version b/c he knew I'd relate to parts of it very strongly. Edward Hitchcock, the American geologist from whom Bill takes the idea of God planning in advance of the fall for death in the animal kingdom, is someone I've taught for about a quarter century. Many years ago I put a number of important American texts about science & religion onto a part of my web site (see below), not only for my own students to read but also for anyone else who wants to see the sources for themselves. The information on Hitchcock I have there hasn't been updated in quite some time, and it's not entirely correct (he didn't discover dinosaur tracks, e.g., although he did publish the first images of them). This part needs no updating, however: "Some of his most interesting points involve natural theology, a subject dear to his heart. His careful treatment of theological questions suggested by the presence of death in the animal kingdom prior to the fall of Adam and Eve, an issue that remains central to contemporary debates on creation/evolution, is especially important. His comments in the 8th edition (1847) are even more interesting on this point than those in the later (1863) edition. In the earlier text, Hitchcock explicitly links death before the fall with God's foreknowledge of the fall: 'God, in view of the certainty of man's transgressions, adapted the world beforehand to a fallen creature, who must die.'" You can read the text for yourself at http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/texts.htm Bill also uses Newcomb's problem to help develop his argument. Since my first published academic paper was on "Newcomb's Problem and Divine Foreknowledge," I was also fascinated by that aspect of the book. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1984/JASA3-84Davis.html All told, responses to this aspect of Bill's book have been fascinating. I can understand how he feels about "fundamentalist" attitudes. I fully agree with what he says about fundamentalism being an attitude more than a specific set of beliefs. I always use George Marsden's definition of "fundamentalism" as "militant anti-modernism," b/c of how it neatly combines both aspects of it in such an accurate way. Reactions within the Southern Baptist (Bill teaches at a SB seminary) fold have been especially interesting, but it's easy to find those various opinions and I'll pass over them here. Suffice it to say, that Bill's experiences (and those of many others in similar situations) remind me of Bernard Ramm (another conservative scholar who was castigated by fundamentalists), who spoke of certain "hyper-orthodox expositors" and then went on to argue for an overall view of science and the Bible that seems (to me) pretty close to Bill's. It was Ramm's book that motivated Whitcomb & Morris to write "The Genesis Flood," advancing George McCready Price's flood geology over Rammm's concordism. What goes around comes around, apparently. Ted Davis

bornagain77, "Oh goody, another appeal to authority, all the while denying the appeal to authority!" I am reading your other posts with interest and appreciate your contribution to this blog. So, I think you should know better. Notwithstanding your somewhat sarcastic response, I have not argued against your OEC nor did I argue for YEC position. And most definitely did not appeal to authority. It is now obvious to me that you, Paul Copan and possibly Dr. Whitefield are not familiar with mainstream Hebraic scholarship. Now I repeat again, just because their view is majority does not mean it is correct. But in order to show scholars like von Rad, Wenham, Barr, Stek, Gunkel, etc. are mistaken one would need to engage their arguments in a similar fashion ID offers challenge to Neo-Darwinism. Now the fact that days [yôm] in Genesis 1-2 are literal days (that this is not so is a real beating of the dead horse) in no way confirms YEC position. That is clear from the writings of above mentioned scholars and Paul Copan's reference to Sailhamer's position. It seams to me this little detail escapes you. And as you pointed out in the second part of your post, there are other arguments vs YEC. Finally I will also join you with no more responses regarding this issue. Cheers. inunison

Oh goody, another appeal to authority, all the while denying the appeal to authority! :) Okie Dokie one more round in the 'my authority is bigger than your authority' game, and then, no more responses from me on this 'beating a dead horse' subject;

The Days of Genesis: An Old-Earth View - Paul Copan (Written in dialogue with Dr. John MacArthur, who takes the young-earth view) Areopagus Journal 5/2 (March-April 2005): Hermeneutics and Authority For much of my life, I’d believed in a recent universe, being suspicious of any “billions of years” talk. But after reading scientifically-trained authors—Christian and non-Christian with no apparent axe to grind—who repeatedly spoke of an ancient cosmos, I investigated further. To my surprise, not only did many young-earth “evidences” in which I had taken scientific refuge come crashing down, I found that most such “evidences” were highly selective, skewed, outdated, or otherwise problematic. I would have been happy to find solid support for a young universe (and I’m still open to persuasion), but I regularly found it to be shaky at best. The more I have studied the Scriptures and the relevant, wide-ranging scientific data, the more reasonably I can conclude that (1) the universe is billions of years old and (2) Scripture accords nicely with this evidence. The breathtaking splendor of God’s creation isn’t diminished if the process took billions of years rather than six 24-hour days. The heavens still declare God’s glory. I am firmly committed to Scripture’s authority, but the difference between John MacArthur and me is hermeneutical. One must distinguish between Scripture’s authority and our interpretations of Scripture. As Francis Schaeffer (incidentally an old-earther) wrote, “We must not claim, on the one hand, that science is unnecessary or meaningless, nor on the other hand, that the extensions [i.e., interpretations] we make from Scripture are absolutely accurate or that these extensions have the same validity as the statements of Scripture itself.”i John Calvin astutely observed that students of Scripture can make the Bible appear silly to the scientifically-minded by insisting on pressing certain aspects of biblical language as literal. For example, Genesis 1:16’s observational language refers to the sun and the moon as “the two great lights.” Some of Calvin’s contemporaries had interpreted this to mean that the moon must be bigger than Saturn, which is false. However, Calvin asserts that Moses simply addresses the common man—without need for scientific exactness (as with our use of “sunrise” and “sunset”).ii The two “books” of God’s self-revelation—His Word and His world—aren’t ultimately contradictory. On the one hand, Scripture should not be held hostage to certain scientists’ pontifications (e.g., Christians across the centuries have held to creation out of nothing even when the empirical 2 evidence wasn’t as clear as it is today).iii On the other, scientific discoveries have at times demanded that humans adjust their interpretations of Scripture (regarding the earth’s immovability, its being on foundations, its spatial centrality in the cosmos, etc.). Theologians and scientists can learn from each other. Clearly, Genesis 1-3 is historical (e.g., Adam and Eve as the first couple who were tempted and sinned: Lk. 3:38; Ac. 17:26; Rom. 5:12-19; 1Tim. 2:13-14; 1 Cor. 11:8-9; 15:21-2; 2 Cor. 11:3); however, it has a number of non-literal/metaphorical elements as well (some evangelical exegetes consider the early chapters of Genesis “poetical-historical”). Thus we must not over-literalize Genesis 1-3 given important theological/literary motifs: God’s “dividing,” which foreshadows priestly responsibilities in the tabernacle (Lev. 10:10; 11:46), metaphor (God “breathed” and “walked”), poetic parallelism (1:27; 2:2), poetically arranged strophes with “echo” and “re-echo (“God said”/“and there was”), etc. Unfortunately, many young-earthers have accused old-earthers of not taking the biblical text “literally” (an often ill-defined, inconsistently-used term that fails to take genres and important literary features into consideration)—or of compromising with naturalistic evolutionists. But many careful evangelical exegetes such as Gleason Archer, Craig Blomberg, Walter Kaiser, Craig Keener, Derek Kidner, Kenneth Mathews, Vern Poythress, Bruce Waltke (to name a few) have observed from the text itself that the word “day [yôm]” in Genesis 1-2 hardly entails a 24-hour time-period; the text is more generous than this. Furthermore, another view to consider is the “literary framework” view, in which the author isn’t interested in a specific chronological or scientific account, but speaks literarily/theologically, underscoring the fact of God’s creation.iv First, God forms (days 1-3—light separating from darkness; water above and below separated; earth’s vegetation) and then fills His creation (days 4- 6: lights in the heavens, birds/fish, and animals/humans). At any rate, the biblical text does allow for greater flexibility regarding the “days” of Genesis. ,,,, The Days of Genesis 1-2 Before arguing for a greater flexibility of interpretation regarding the word “day” in Genesis 1-2, I point out that even if one takes Genesis 1’s days as 24-hour periods, one can still believe in an ancient universe, including ice ages, animal death, and dinosaur extinction (e.g., Old Testament scholar John Sailhamer holds just such a view—“textual creationism”).viii As for the meaning of “day” in Gen. 1, Beeson Divinity School’s Kenneth Mathews correctly observes: “there are many indications that ‘day’ in its customary sense may not be intended.”ix Here are some: (1) Those who take a young-earth view typically claim that the ordinal (e.g., second, third) with yôm (day) is always a literal 24-hour day. But this isn’t so. Take the restoration passage of Hosea 6:2: “[The LORD] will raise us up on the third day”—a phrase identical to Gen 1:13; this case presents a clear exception. Interestingly, Luke 13:32 reads,x “Go and tell [Herod], ‘Behold, I [Jesus] cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third [day] I reach my goal.” Clearly something other than a 24-hour day is in mind here (see also Ps. 90:4, where human life is like a “day [yôm]”; 2 Pet. 3:8). (2) The phrase “day one [yôm echad]” in Gen. 1:5 is also found in Zech. 14:7, referring to “the day of the LORD”—clearly not a 24-hour day. (3) Genesis 2:4 reads “in the day [yôm] the LORD God made earth and heaven”—referring to the entire act of creation. So within the text of Genesis 1-2 itself, we have clear indication that “day” can mean more than 24 hours. (4) “Evening” is mentioned before “morning” throughout Gen. 1; this is an unusual rendering and suggests a sacramental and symbolic usage that points forward to Israel’s celebration of holy “days and months and years” (Gen. 1:14; Sabbath and Passover began the evening before). (5) If the sun was not made until the fourth day, as young-earthers claim, then why think that the preceding days were 24-hours in length? (6) “Evening”/“morning” isn’t mentioned on the seventh day, suggesting God’s complete rest from this initial creation is still continuing to this day (cp. Heb. 4:4: “God rested on the seventh day from all His works”)—a very long “day” of rest! If this final day can be more flexibly understood, then why can’t the others? (7) Some say that Exodus 20:9-11 (“in six days the LORD made heaven and earth . . . and rested the seventh day”) demonstrates a literal 24-hour view of “day” in Gen. 1. However, the focus is on a divine pattern being set for humans to follow, but this doesn’t mean that all comparisons are equal. Consider 1 Jn. 3:16: Christ’s (unique atoning) laying-down-of-life sets a pattern for our (repeated, non-atoning) laying-down-of life for our brethren. Also, note that the fourth commandment is repeated in Ex. 31:12-17, which adds that God “was refreshed”—which isn’t to be taken literally (cp. Isa. 40:28). Why insist that “day” be taken as such? (8) The third day calls for a lengthy process of plants to grow, produce seeds, and yield fruit (Gen. 1:11-12); a 24-hour interpretation would require extremely rapid plant development, as in time-lapse photography in which a seed grows to full flower in seconds! (9) The sixth day also requires more than 24-hours: Adam names thousands of animals, gets acquainted with their mating habits, realizes he’s alone, etc., suggesting more than just 24 hours. And Adam’s cry at Eve’s arrival suggests significant passage of time—“At last! [happa`am]” (2:23). Note the same phrase used at Leah’s 4 “vindication” in childbearing “at last” (29:34-5); Jacob’s finally leaving Laban after fourteen years (30:20); Jacob’s finally departing this life having seen Joseph (46:30). (10) If Gen. 1-2 is a historico-poetic genre, then it is unfair to make unwarranted literary demands upon it (such as the ordinal + yôm configuration = 24 hours). Think of how wrong-headed it would be to insist that Revelation’s numbers be literalized for similar reasons, when this genre (apocalyptic-prophetic) is highly symbolic. For these and other reasons, a high view of Scripture does not require holding to 24-hour days in Gen. 1; there is greater flexibility, which leaves wide open the possibility of an old-earth view. Furthermore, other plausible approaches—such as Sailhamer’s “textual creationism” (“day” as 24 hours) or the literary framework hypothesis—allow for an ancient universe as well. Paul Copan Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics Palm Beach Atlantic University i Genesis in Space and Time (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1972), 36. ii John Calvin, Genesis, repr., trans. John King (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 86-87. iii Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, Creation Out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration (Grand Rapids/Leicester: Apollos, 2004). iv This is briefly described in Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy, Across the Spectrum (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 67-73. v I draw upon various astronomers, astrophysicists, geologists, etc. such as J. Gribbin, In the Beginning (Boston: Little, Brown, 1993); John D. Barrow and Joseph Silk, The Left Hand of Creation (New York: Oxford, 1993, 2nd ed.); Davis A. Young, Christianity and the Age of the Earth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982; repr. Artisan Pub.)—to name a few. vi Light from distant stars becomes visible to humans (Tycho Brahe’s 1572 starburst; Ian Shelton’s [Feb. 1987] observing a supernova 160-170,000 light years away), which goes against “appearance of age” idea. vii Creation’s goodness doesn’t imply perfection or completion. On animal death, see Paul Copan, “That’s Just Your Interpretation” (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), chaps. 16-17 and “How Do You Know You’re Not Wrong?” (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), chap. 9. viii Genesis Unbound (Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah, 1996). ix Genesis 1-11:26 NAC (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1996), 149. x Though the Gospels were written in Greek, Jesus’ originally spoke in Aramaic http://paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/revised-genesis-science.pdf

bornagain77

bornagain77, "I therefore referenced a exhaustive study of the Hebrew text itself of Genesis 1 in post 82, as well I referenced a study of the specific Hebrew text in question in post 78." Come again? You accept 3 page article and single self-published book, both by same author, against entire opus of scholars that argue differently including most respected OT Commentaries, Hebrew Lexicons and Hebrew Dictionaries? Not to mention the fact that scholarly affirmation of Hebrew "yom" meaning a literal day comes from number of authors who cannot be classified as recent-creationists or young-earth proponents. And no I am not "Appealing to Authority", Dr. Whitefield might be the lone reed of truth in the sea of Hebraic deception for all I know. However for one who first and foremost erects the straw-man "Genesis One does not say that the Earth is “young,” i.e., about 10,000 years old" I do not hold much hopes. Because I haven't read the book and you apparently did, maybe you can enlighten me how transliteration from Hebrew to English establishes that "yom" (day) does not mean a literal day. On the other hand maybe you shouldn't bother because, as you implied earlier, there must be no conflict between Scriptures and OEC position, so whatever author you quoted claimed must be truth. inunison

bevets I'm an old-earth creationist, so I accept that the earth and universe are billions of years old. Young-earth creationism, which is the more traditional view, holds that the earth is only thousands of years old. ~ William Dembski no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers ~ James Barr Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University James Barr was a liberal and, of course, did not accept young earth. But he agreed that the Hebrew is as clear as the English. It is hard for me to believe anyone would come away with old earth from the text if they did not bring (external) old earth assumptions to the text. I dont know how normal days could have been made more explicit. I am not aware of any early sources that explicitly state 'longer periods of time' - OECs generally exploit ambiguity. James Barr was: 1) An acknowledged expert 2) Referencing consensus in his field of expertise 3) Not predisposed to accept the position he was affirming Hugh Ross has: 1) No expertise in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Early Church, or Antiquities 2) A predisposition to accept Old Earth I appeal to the authority of Scripture. It is the verbal plenary inerrant Word of God. It trumps the 'Book of Nature' every day that ends with 'y'. Our view of nature can only be primitive. I am confident that God has it all figured out - and my best resource for God's thoughts is God's Word. And I will ALWAYS prefer the interpretation (of Genesis) of an accomplished Hebraist over an accomplished Astrophysicist. So you are moving on from your appeal to the authority of one physicist to an appeal to authority of ANOTHER physicist on the topic of HEBREW interpretation? I am not interested in possible interpretations. I want to know the best interpretation. The best interpretation of special revelation trumps the 'best interpretation' of general revelation. You have mentioned a book written by a physicist. I could also list books written by people who actually read Hebrew. bornagain77 Bevets, I love it when this happens. This podcast just 'serendipitously' came up on ENV; "Dr. Daniel Shechtman: The Nobel Prize Winner Who Dared to Question the Consensus" Challenging consensus in science is a virtue. Challenging consensus in theology is not (heretics question consensus (I am not suggesting ANYONE is a heretic)) Since you and bevets have chosen this route of playing the whose authority is bigger game, I therefore referenced a exhaustive study of the Hebrew text itself of Genesis 1 ... the Hebrew text itself does not warrant a strict YEC 24 hours per day interpretation. In fact, unwarranted assumptions have to be made about the meaning of the Hebrew text itself in question in order to make the text fit a YEC view. Your foundation in textual integrity, which you are absolutely dependent on for your view, is simply not nearly as strong as you imagine it to be (No matter how many YEC experts you stack Neither of us are experts in Hebrew. I could repeat YEC arguments I have read, but neither of us are qualified to judge the merit of those arguments. That is why I consult the experts AND the consensus of experts INCLUDING experts who do not share my view. You come back with opinions from people who are speaking OUTSIDE their field of expertise to support assumptions they bring to the text. If Albert Mohler contradicted Hugh Ross on the finer points of physics, neither of us would give Mohler's opinion much weight, but when Ross contradicts the consensus of experts you find this convincing. I do not. bevets

BornAgain77, I apologize for my last post. I wrote it hastily and there were lots of mistakes in it. It was sloppy. Anyway, I was thinking a bit more about your post and I will add a few comments. BA: "Moreover it seems clear to me that you have chosen philosophy (even though it is the Bible) over what the evidence says." tj: I understand this is how you see it. You think the earth has been proven to be old by science. You think the evidence for an old earth scientifically speaking is overwhelming, therefore anyone who does not accept that fact is choosing philosophy as you call it over the evidence. Like I said in my last post, the so-called evidence has been arrived at based on the philosophical assumptions of naturalism. So, if you start out with the wrong assumptions, you will obviously end up with an answer that disagrees with the Bible. You however seem to accept those conclusions and then go back to the Bible and try and find a way to interpret it to fit with the "evidence". And it seems that you look down on YECers because, according to your view, they “give a philosophy overriding authority in empirical science”. Let me give you an example of why I believe your approach to science and Scripture is wrong or could potentially be lead to problems and wrong conclusions. The flood is a good example. No one observed the flood, so if we didn’t have a historical eyewitness account of the flood, we would NEVER even come close to guessing that a worldwide flood took place. There might be difficult things to explain without knowledge of the flood, but we would find some way to explain it without assuming a flood. No global flood - this is the starting assumption of most scientists. The flood did not take place. That is an impossibility to them. So they look at the geological record and try and figure out how it came to be using totally natural assumptions – the main one being “The present is key to the past.” However, starting from that faulty assumption, they would end up with wrong conclusions for sure. They would be way off in their interpretation of the geological record because they were missing some key knowledge – namely that of a worldwide flood. So a believing scientist would start with this very important knowledge and use it as a lens through which to look at the geological record and it will aid him in making a more accurate interpretation. So, the biblical record, (you call it a philosophy, but not sure why. You have a philosophy too, right?) is the proper starting point. This is the foundation of creation science. I understand why ID cannot/does not do that, but in rejecting the knowledge that God has given us in His Word, we put ourselves at a disadvantage when trying to figure out what happened in the past. Nature can be interpreted in any number of ways – just look at all the ideas about the big bang. I think there must be a hundred different versions out there. Why? None of them work. None of them cover all the bases. Why? The Big Bang is based on secular/naturalistic assumptions about the universe – namely that it all happened naturally. So they try and come up with an idea to explain how this might be feasible using totally natural means. The result? Nothing explodes and everything is created! You have all kinds of fudge factors to try and save the theory. For example, first inflation was called upon to solve the horizon problem. Then it was realized that, if inflation was true, there was only a few percent of the necessary mass of the universe in existence. So then, to save inflation, the missing mass was called into existence in the form of dark matter. But nucleo-synthesis can’t produce much more normal matter than is observed. So to save dark matter, esoteric new forms of matter are postulated, none of which has yet been observed. The jury is still out, but you would never know that. I don’t know whether dark energy or dark matter exist or not, but right now, it seems this stuff is mostly a matter faith made necessary to temporarily fill the huge paradigm sinking holes in the Big Bang, until the next fix pokes another hole somewhere else in the paradigm. If you think about it, anybody can construct a model with almost any given feature if you make enough drastic changes elsewhere in the model. Anyway, the point is, this kind of storytelling is very difficult to be accurate with. So we start with God’s Word, which we know is true and trustworthy. It gives us a head start on other scientists. We are told that it all happened in 7 days. The genealogies point to a young earth. We are told that an earth covering flood took place which affects our interpretation of the geologic record and fossil record. We’re told that languages were created at babel which affects our understanding of sociology. The Bible influences our understanding of archeology and anthropology as well. Jesus himself said that he created them male and female at the beginning of creation, not after 99.99% of history has passed. And, from ancient times, both Jews and the early Christians almost without exception believed in a literal 24 hour interpretation of this passage. (I don’t know how you could read it otherwise really.) This to me is very strong evidence that this is the right interpretation of the passage. I find it hard to believe that God would have given us His Word in such a way that would mislead us for so long. And then, thanks to Charles Lyell, who wanted to free geology from Moses,(This was Lyell's stated goal so obviously he saw Genesis as teaching a young earth) we finally came to realize that our interpretation of Genesis 1 has been wrong all these years. Hmm. Maybe that doesn’t bother you at all, but this just doesn’t make sense to me at all. If the Bible is wrong about the age of the earth, perhaps Darwin was right too. Perhaps the cosmologists are right too. Perhaps the views of secular historians, psychologists, and anthropologists should trump the Bible. Perhaps the miracles in the Bible, which of course we cannot verify, never happened either. Perhaps the patriarchs didn’t really live to be hundreds of years old. Perhaps there was no flood. Perhaps the Bible is wrong about other things too. There is no end to this. But the funny thing is, when you begin to look at this universe through the small earth lens, you find a lot of things that make sense. It is not as anti-scientific as you may think. I doubt young earth scientists have answers for all the old earth evidences, but the same thing can be said for old earthers as well. We are both dealing with the past and neither of us has enough information to solve all the problems. But God’s Word holds true no matter if all the scientists in the world unite against it. Wrong assumptions, missing information, biases, etc make accurately piecing together the past difficult, if not impossible. So, science is not the arbiter of truth, not when it comes to evolution and not when it comes to the age of the earth either. I’m also wondering if you have ever considered why Dr. Hugh Ross does not believe in a global flood. He sees the need to make the flood a local flood in order to preserve the long ages for the earth. What would you say to someone like Dr. Ross who sees belief in a global flood and an old earth as contradictory, to convince him that these two positions are not contradictory? BA: In empirical science, as it is ideally supposed to be practiced, evidence has final say as to which hypothesis is more plausible. TJ: So here we see our biggest difference. You take the “evidence” arrived at from assumptions based on naturalism and accept the conclusions of these scientists about the evidence as the final authority and YECers take God’s Word as the final authority. BA: It is simply forbidden to give a philosophy, no matter how appealing, overriding authority in empirical science as you seem very prone to do! TJ: Again, for you ultimate and final authority rests in empirical science as opposed to God’s Word. You call the Bible a philosophy – I call it God’s truth and yes, it trumps science where the two interact because we accept God’s Word a priori as the standard for truth. This is how all the great Christian scientists of the past worked and thought and things went just fine for them. tjguy

tjguy, You are repeating the same mistakes you and bevets made yesterday, i.e. appealing to authority. Since you and bevets have chosen this route of playing the whose authority is bigger game, I therefore referenced a exhaustive study of the Hebrew text itself of Genesis 1 in post 82, as well I referenced a study of the specific Hebrew text in question in post 78. The point is that the Hebrew text itself does not warrant a strict YEC 24 hours per day interpretation. In fact, unwarranted assumptions have to be made about the meaning of the Hebrew text itself in question in order to make the text fit a YEC view. Your foundation in textual integrity, which you are absolutely dependent on for your view, is simply not nearly as strong as you imagine it to be (No matter how many YEC experts you stack on top of that pea under the mattress). tjguy, The evidence for dating stands on its own merits of empirical evidence, and is not built from 'naturalistic' assumptions. This is especially true of the Speed of Light constant I find particular fault with. You simply cannot get any more basic to dating than the speed of light constant itself.

Albert Einstein – Special Relativity – Insight Into Eternity – ‘thought experiment’ video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/

Like I said yesterday, we must agree to disagree. Your mind is made up and thus I will respond no more. bornagain77

LYO: FYI: your ID is a superset of creationism talking point is answered here, and it would be well worth your while to read EA's post just above that comment, here, as well. At least if you are responsive to your duties of care to truth and fairness. I trust that enough has been said here and there to show that your suggestion that the design inference is not subject to empirical test is unwarranted and reflects a failure of duties of care before objecting. You would also be well advised to reflect very carefully on BarryA's new post here. GEM of TKI kairosfocus

BA, Wow! I lot has been written since my last post. I'll never catch up. But I want to respond to post 60 where you said: tjguy, well we are just going to have to agree to disagree. True. I think we have more in common than not in common, but I would appreciate if you would response to my points about the flood and why that doesn't fit with an Old Earth position. You just ignored it. I would like to here scientifically how you think a worldwide flood could take place without messing up the Old Earth interpretation of geology. How can you believe in two contradictory things at once? BA: It is clear I’m not going to swing you around, and I can assure you that you are not going to bring me to your position, especially since I see no problem at all with scripture meaning long eras, and especially when read consistently. TJ: Yes, I read that one web page that Rich Deems wrote about evidence for long days in Genesis and I was a bit shocked that you actually believe everything he wrote. It wasn't in the least bit convincing to me and he didn't deal with YEC reasons for a young earth interpretation at all. I was extremely disappointed with the way he dealt with the early church fathers. He is TOTALLY wrong on that and spouting falsehoods here. To be able to say what he says about these men, he must pick and choose certain small snippets of their works as opposed to accurately presenting their views. I don't know how he comes to that conclusion, but I have a feeling it is because he just assumes Dr. Ross's work is accurate in this matter when it is not. http://creation.com/false-claims-hugh-ross http://creation.com/genesis-questions-and-answers (Especially see the section on the early church fathers which Ross and Deems falsely claim support their view.) gotta run! BA: Moreover it seems clear to me that you have chosen philosophy (even though it is the Bible) over what the evidence says. TJ: OK, I take issue with this statement! I have chosen biblical truth over secular interpretations of the evidence. Most scientists do believe in an old earth, but they HAVE to have an old earth for their views of evolution to work! They have no choice but to believe in an old earth. There are plenty of evidences that the earth is young. But you have to realize that the assumptions used to date rock that was formed in the flood are way off because of the dates they come up with. Even you believe in the flood. You accept their dates, but fail to realize they arrive at these dates because they have used naturalistic assumptions to get them. Here is an article that explains what I am talking about: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/oect/defense-scientific-arguments BA: So how does this make your position any better than the neo-Darwinists position??? In empirical science, as it is ideally supposed to be practiced, evidence has final say as to which hypothesis is more plausible. It is simply forbidden to give a philosophy, no matter how appealing, overriding authority in empirical science as you seem very prone to do! TJ: Sir, you fail to realize that all evidence has to be interpreted and when it comes to the age of the earth, we are dealing with origins science just like when we deal with evolution. It is the unobserved past. This Deems guy who you seem to be a fan of is himself a big fan of Hugh Ross. I have huge problems with Ross's hermeneutics and the way he reads so much into the Bible. I guess if you are a Deems fan, you are a Ross fan too. Have you ever read Dr. Jonathan Sarfati's book entitled Refuting Compromise? If you ever have time or the chance I highly recommend it, although you already said your mind is already made up so perhaps it would be a waste of time. But Sarfati thoroughly dismantles Ross's views and if you can handle a challenge, I suggest you read it. For one example as to why I don't give much credence to what Ross has to say, here is one review of one of his more recent books. It is only one review, but it is typical of all of his books. http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j24_1/j24_1_35-38.pdf I could give you a whole list of urls to check out as well, but like you said, your mind is already made up and I will never convince you to change, but I will list one of two here just for fun: tjguy

Bevets, I love it when this happens. This podcast just 'serendipitously' came up on ENV;

"Dr. Daniel Shechtman: The Nobel Prize Winner Who Dared to Question the Consensus" http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-02-24T16_14_25-08_00

bornagain77

lastyearon:

I don’t consider “Demonstrate that blind and undirected chemical processes can produce a living organism from non-living matter” to be a practical test for falsification.

Nobody cares what you consider. Your position doesn't have any practical tests- it has nothing. Well sorry it has "Some time in the past some things happened, then more things happened and here we are". Oh and you don't have to tell me that your position's terms are poorly defined and virtually meaningless. That is the whole point... Joe

lastyearon, It looks like discussion has moved to the new thread, so I have commented there. I apologize for the length of my post, but wanted to lay it out in some detail. I don't have a lot more to say on the subject as I have pretty well covered the analysis, but am willing to discuss sincere follow-up questions. Thanks, https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/id-foundations/q-lyo-challenges-give-me-a-fact-real-or-hypothetical-any-fact-at-all-about-the-world-which-would-falsify-id-a-if-csi-were-to-demonstrable-come-from-blind-chance-and-necessity-it-would-but-w/#comment-421370 Eric Anderson

Bevets, Whitefield actually reads Hebrew and references other top scholars who 'read' Hebrew! The Hebrew text itself is what is important! Here is another scholar who is Jewish who not only reads but speaks Hebrew.

The Science of God - Dr. Gerald Schroeder - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRxEeHFHc-Y

Moreover earlier I referenced Church Fathers who not only read Hebrew but spoke it!!!

Jewish scholars include Philo and Josephus, while Christian fathers include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus (through writings of Ambrose), Clement, Origen, Lactantius, Victorinus, Methodius, Augustine, Eusebius, Basil, and Ambrose. Among this group, nearly all acknowledged the likelihood that the creation days were longer than 24 hours.

Thus Bevets, it clearly is a game of whose authority is bigger mine or yours??? Like I said before, I am not impressed one iota with your appeal to authority, in fact I consider such a tactic to be very shallow! And moreover I consider your resolution to never be corrected by what the scientific evidence says about physical reality to be on par with dogmatic neo-Darwinism. In the last particularly twisted sentence you wrote you accused me of denying science because I deny scientific consensus. Yet I am consistent in that I only deny consensus (whether Biblical or scientific) when the empirical evidence sufficiently warrants such departure from consensus. Thus I am thoroughly consistent in my method of maintaining integrity to reality, and you are merely playing word games trying to score rhetorical points! Go Figure! Well I will respond no more to you since you have clearly revealed yourself to be more interested in winning a argument no matter what than in ever really knowing the truth about reality! bornagain77

---lastyearon: "I never said that all Iders were Creationists, and again, I never said ID equals Creationism." You defined creationism as a belief system. Since ID science has no belief system, that is a false statement. Your attempt to put it forward as "the" definition of creationism, therefore, is irrational, even if you did lift of from a creation science website. The only way that creationism and ID can be compared is by analyzing the methodology of each. They are completely different. --"But I would add that it also specifically denies that all living things share a common ancestor." That is a false statement borne of ignorance. ---"I would add that most IDers also start with a dedication to a sacred text." That is another false statement. ID science starts with observation of data and makes no reference to a sacred text. StephenB

Lastyear, The existence of recorded information places requirements on physical matter which can be observed to exist within a system. This includes the recorded information that is driving the living systems found on Earth. It is a contention of ID that inanimate matter cannot establish the relationships which are absolutely required for such recorded information to exist; in other words, life in not reducible to matter being acted upon by unguided physical processes. To falsify ID one would need to show that inanimate matter (being acted upon by unguided processes) can indeed establish these required relationships – like those demonstrated to exist in DNA for instance. This is an extremely tall order, given the fact that to record and transfer information requires two coordinated arrangements of matter which do not interact. Both of these arrangements of matter have an immaterial quality which exist beyond their mere materiality; one is an immaterial abstraction of something else (acting within a system to actualize that abstraction) and the other establishes an immaterial relationship (which otherwise would not exist). So what you have is two physical objects with immaterial qualities which cannot physically interact – yet one must end with each of them coordinated to one another within a system, resulting in a functional effect which indicates their presence. (Again, it is easily granted the sheer conundrum involved in bringing about such a falsification, but then again, it is the material evidence itself which is setting the bar to falsification, and besides, no one was forcing materialist ideologues to intimate to the greater public that they could rationalize with evidence what they clearly cannot rationalize with evidence). From your interactions here, I realize that you couldn’t care less about material evidence as it is actually observed (and coherently understood) to exist, it is just as clear that the culture war is far more to your liking. But you asked the question, and I gave you an answer. Why is it that you now do not wish to talk about it? Or have I simply provoked you to lash out? Upright BiPed

bornagain77 I have referenced the Hebrew text itself in post 78, and a exhaustive book studying the Hebrew text in post 82 You have mentioned a book written by a physicist. I could also list books written by people who actually read Hebrew. you have said that you refuse to let what science says about physical reality to ever counter your YEC position. Thus I have compromised your appeal to authority by referring to a exhaustive study the Hebrew text itself, which finds no conflict to a OEC position, and I have maintained integrity to what science tells us about physical reality!!! And yet you reject 'scientific' consensus on the global flood, Intelligent Design, and Origin of Life. Why would you deny 'science'?!? bevets

Joe, Well I was going off the definition of ID from this blog. I can't watch the video for a while, so can you provide me with another definition of ID, which makes specific testable statements about the world? I don't consider "Demonstrate that blind and undirected chemical processes can produce a living organism from non-living matter" to be a practical test for falsification. First of all, none of your terms are rigorously defined, and second, how would we go about demonstrating that, since a demonstration, by definition would be intelligently designed. lastyearon

Bevets, Actually I have referenced the Hebrew text itself in post 78, and a exhaustive book studying the Hebrew text in post 82, and you have merely reasserted your appeal to authority. I am impressed not one iota by throwing big names around!!! (neo-Darwinists do the same thing all the time!!!) Moreover, to repeat myself, you have said that you refuse to let what science says about physical reality to ever counter your YEC position. Thus I have compromised your appeal to authority by referring to a exhaustive study the Hebrew text itself, which finds no conflict to a OEC position, and I have maintained integrity to what science tells us about physical reality!!! Further note:

General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy, and The Shroud Of Turin – updated video http://vimeo.com/34084462

Music and Quote:

Natalie Grant – Alive (Resurrection video) http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KPYWPGNX “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” William Shakespeare – Hamlet

bornagain77

Stephen, I never said that all Iders were Creationists, and again, I never said ID equals Creationism. lastyearon

bevets no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university ~ James Barr Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University I dont know how normal days could have been made more explicit. James Barr was: 1) An acknowledged expert 2) Referencing consensus in his field of expertise 3) Not predisposed to accept the position he was affirming Hugh Ross has: 1) No expertise in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Early Church, or Antiquities 2) A predisposition to accept Old Earth I will ALWAYS prefer the interpretation (of Genesis) of an accomplished Hebraist over an accomplished Astrophysicist. bornagain77 Perhaps a interpretation of Scripture that does not rely on appeal to authority, but on the exact meaning of the text itself? Reading Genesis One – Book – Whitefield PhD. So you are moving on from your appeal to the authority of one physicist to an appeal to authority of ANOTHER physicist on the topic of HEBREW interpretation? I am not interested in possible interpretations. I want to know the best interpretation. The best interpretation of special revelation trumps the 'best interpretation' of general revelation. bevets

Demonstrate that blind and undirected chemical processes can produce a living organism from non-living matter

How does that falsify ID?

Because ID says that the OoL required a designer and is NOT reducible to blind and undirected processes.

Where in the Definition of ID does it claim that all life was designed, or that it’s impossible for life to arise from non-living matter?

You just have to read Behe, Dembski, Wells, Meyers, Johnson- they all say that living organisms cannot and did not arise from non-living matter via blind and undirected processes. What is Intelligent Design and What is it Challenging?- a short video featuring Stephen C. Meyer on Intelligent Design. The whole point of the explanatory filter is if something can arise via necessity and chance the design inference isn't considered. And that is also the whole point behind Newton's First Rule. Then we have Darwinism, Design and Public Education page 92: 1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems. Joe

--lastyearon: "All Creationists believe that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection”, right? Then all Creationists are IDers." Clearly, this anti-ID critic cannot reason in the abstract. First, he presents a false definition of "creationism" (lifted from a Creation Science Website) that ignores methodology, which is the defining difference between Creationism and ID. Second, even if we granted is false definition of creationism, his analysis from that point is still hopelessly confused. If, as he falsely claims, all Creationists were IDers, it wouldn't follow that all IDers are Creationists. Just because all astronomers are scientists, it doesn't follow that all scientists are astronomers. So lastyearon fails both by [a] assuming a false premise (wrong definition because it ignores methodology) and [b] failing to reason properly (If A, then B does not translate into If B, then A). StephenB

bevets,

All Creationists accept ID — as far as it goes. Only some IDers accept Creationism (which is most commonly associated with YEC)

We agree then! lastyearon

Bevets you state:

You have not stated what evidence from scripture will ever persuade you otherwise.

Perhaps a interpretation of Scripture that does not rely on appeal to authority, but on the exact meaning of the text itself?

Reading Genesis One - Book - Whitefield PhD. Excerpt: The first 35 verses of the Bible describe the history of planet Earth from its beginning through the appearance of Adam (mankind). These 35 verses employ less than 100 different Hebrew words augmented by the prepositional prefixes and the suffixes representing pronouns. As a consequence, the description must omit much detail. Based on the substantiated verb and word use, this book establishes and explains that: 1. Genesis One does not say that the Earth is "young," i.e., about 10,000 years old. This fact is established independent of any interpretation about the length of the six "days" of creation. 2. The translation chosen for the Hebrew word "yom" is shown to not determine the age of the Earth, or the age of the universe. It is also shown that the time between the first "And God said" of Genesis 1:3 and the completion stated in Genesis 2:1 is not limited to 144 hours. An interval of 144 hours (six 24-hour days) is not a required consequence of interpreting the creative "yom" as six 24-hour days. When this fact is understood, many of the often encountered arguments are found to be pointless exercises. 3. Genesis One and the established physical history of planet Earth are not in conflict. There remains a conflict with the interpretations of Darwinism. 4. READING GENESIS ONE explains and critiques the typical arguments by which advocates of the "Young Earth" position arrive at their conclusion. This is a book about God's creation. This book is a powerful tool for resolving creation issues in Christian witness. Why? Because its readers can study and understand the first 35 Hebrew verses of the Bible directly, for themselves. They can free themselves from dependence on asserted "expert" opinion. http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Genesis-One-Rodney-Whitefield/dp/0972878203

Thus Bevets, clearly, after exhaustive study, it is found that Genesis 1 does not demand a YEC viewpoint. Thus, other than your shallow appeal to authority (which is what neo-Darwinists continually appeal to), you have nothing but you your preference for a YEC position! Moreover you have brought extreme conflict between scripture and to what science is telling us. ,,, You can call it a good 'day' for your YEC if you want, but I will be more blunt to your line of thought and call it what it truly is, living in denial of reality! bornagain77

You have not stated what evidence from scripture will ever persuade you otherwise. Thus I am satisfied. Your ‘authority’ is compromised of integrity by my reference in post 79, and 'science' is fallible I would call that a pretty good ‘day’ for my YEC viewpoint bevets

Well Bevets you are free to be wrong if you want,,, I have given more than enough evidence to bring doubt to your appeal to authority in the interpretation of Genesis 1, and besides you yourself have proclaimed that no amount of evidence from nature will ever persuade you otherwise. Thus I am satisfied. Your 'authority' is compromised of integrity by my reference in post 78, and I am uncontested by you in my appeal to the evidence of science.,, I would call that a pretty good 'day' for my OEC viewpoint! :) bornagain77

bevets Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the “days” of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England James Barr was a liberal and, of course, did not accept young earth. But he agreed that the Hebrew is as clear as the English. It is hard for me to believe anyone would come away with old earth from the text if they did not bring (external) old earth assumptions to the text. I dont know how normal days could have been made more explicit. James Barr was: 1) An acknowledged expert 2) Referencing consensus in his field of expertise 3) Not predisposed to accept the position he was affirming Hugh Ross has: 1) No expertise in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Early Church, or Antiquities 2) A predisposition to accept Old Earth I appeal to the authority of Scripture. It is the verbal plenary inerrant Word of God. It trumps the ‘Book of Nature’ every day that ends with ‘y’. Our view of nature can only be primitive. I am confident that God has it all figured out — and my best resource for God’s thoughts is God’s Word. And I will ALWAYS prefer the interpretation (of Genesis) of an accomplished Hebraist over an accomplished Astrophysicist. bornagain77 Bevets, since I don’t buy your authority’s interpretation of scripture, and you don’t accept science, let’s go to the concordance translation of the Hebrew word Yom (Day): Now please tell me exactly why your authority has the sole right to declare what Yom means other than the fact that you prefer to be dogmatic in your beliefs? There is a vast gulf between 'accepting science' and 'accepting the assertions of scientists OVER the clear teaching of Scripture'. Strongs concordance contains a general survey of Hebraists on 'Yom'. I have given you a general survey of Hebraists on the use of 'Yom' as it is used in Genesis 1. bevets

Bevets: This document goes in depth on the exact meaning of Yom in Genesis:

What does “yom” mean in Genesis 1 ? by Rodney Whitefield, Ph.D. Excerpt: Conclusion: What does all the foregoing mean for understanding Genesis 1? 1) The uniqueness of the Hebrew numbering of the creative “yom” actually supports the view that the creative “yom” are not ordinary (24-hour) days. 2) The numbering of the creative “yom” does not exclude the “extended period” or “age” meaning of the Hebrew word “yom” when referring to the six creative times. The unique numbering of the creative times adds support for the “extended period” or “age” meaning. 3) There are no other applicable examples of the numbering of a sequence that is equivalent to thenumbering of the creative “yom.” Assertions which attempt to interpret numberings which read“yom” “second” using numberings which read “in yom” “the second” are flawed. http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yom_with_number.pdf

bornagain77

bevets Once again — speaking as a proud to be YEC/Creationist — you are using a loaded term that seriously inhibits productive discussion. Trying to win an argument by defining terms is sophomoric. If you have a problem with ID, please state your problem clearly. lastyearon All Creationists believe that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection”, right? Then all Creationists are IDers. All Creationists accept ID -- as far as it goes. Only some IDers accept Creationism (which is most commonly associated with YEC). bevets

Bevets, since I don't buy your authority's interpretation of scripture, and you don't accept science, let's go to the concordance translation of the Hebrew word Yom (Day):

yom: day Definition day NASB Word Usage afternoon* (1), age (8), age* (1), all (1), always* (14), amount* (2), battle (1), birthday* (1), Chronicles* (38), completely* (1), continually* (14), course* (1), daily (22), daily the days (1), day (1115), day of the days (1), day that the period (1), day's (6), day's every day (1), daylight* (1), days (635), days on the day (1), days to day (1), days you shall daily (1), days ago (1), days' (11), each (1), each day (4), entire (2), eternity (1), evening* (1), ever in your life* (1), every day (2), fate (1), first (5), forever* (11), forevermore* (1), full (5), full year (1), future* (1), holiday* (3), later* (2), length (1), life (12), life* (1), lifetime (2), lifetime* (1), live (1), long (2), long as i live (1), long* (11), midday* (1), now (5), older* (1), once (2), period (3), perpetually* (2), present (1), recently (1), reigns (1), ripe* (1), short-lived* (1), so long* (1), some time (1), survived* (2), time (45), time* (1), times* (2), today (172), today* (1), usual (1), very old* (1), when (10), when the days (1), whenever (1), while (3), whole (2), year (10), yearly (5), years (13), yesterday* (1). Strong's exhaustive concordance: age, always, continually, daily, birth, each, today, From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverb) -- age, + always, + chronicals, continually(-ance), daily, ((birth-), each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever(-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (... Live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year(-ly), + younger. http://concordances.org/hebrew/3117.htm

Now please tell me exactly why your authority has the sole right to declare what Yom means other than the fact that you prefer to be dogmatic in your beliefs? bornagain77

bornagain77 Bevets, you simply cannot appeal to authority. If I relied on appeal to authority to establish the validity of a position I would be a neo-Darwinists (or a psychotic Theistic Evolutionist with a extremely warped, disconnected, view of reality :) )! I appeal to the authority of Scripture. It is the verbal plenary inerrant Word of God. It trumps the 'Book of Nature' every day that ends with 'y'. Our view of nature can only be primitive. I am confident that God has it all figured out -- and my best resource for God's thoughts is God's Word. And I will ALWAYS prefer the interpretation (of Genesis) of an accomplished Hebraist over an accomplished Astrophysicist. bevets

bevets, All Creationists believe that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection", right? Then all Creationists are IDers. lastyearon

lol 1) First he says "I challenge you to give me a fact, real or hypothetical, any fact at all about the world which would falsify ID" 2) Then he entirely ignores my falsification example. 3) Then simply restates "There is no one fact that contradicts ID." - - - - - He (like every other critic ideologue I've come across) hears the argument, then simply ignores it. They ignore it because it cuts all the chaff away and goes to the very heart of the issue - exactly what they wish to avoid. 'Forget the physical artifacts... can't we just argue over probabilities and stuff?' ;) Upright BiPed

And once again this man is ‘swimming in an ocean of light’ finding from science finds corroboration from NDE testimonies;

Coast to Coast – Vicki’s Near Death Experience (Blind From Birth) part 1 of 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e65KhcCS5-Y Quote from preceding video: ‘I was in a body and the only way that I can describe it was a body of energy, or of light. And this body had a form. It had a head. It had arms and it had legs. And it was like it was made out of light. And ‘it’ was everything that was me. All of my memories, my consciousness, everything.’ - Vicky Noratuk “Miracles do not happen in contradiction to nature, but only in contradiction to that which is known to us of nature.” - St. Augustine

Moreover, the finding of quantum entanglement/information, on a massive scale in molecular biology, has falsified the reductive materialistic (atheistic) theory of neo-Darwinism;

Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US

Moreover, recent breakthroughs into ‘Quantum Biology’ easily, even ;naturally’, supports the contention of a ‘Quantum Soul’ to man that lives past the death of our temporal bodies;

Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff – video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/29895068

Moreover, the quantum entanglement/information that is shown to be, in fact, ‘holding us together’ (constraining molecular biology to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium) at the base molecular scale is, in fact, of a ‘higher quality’ of higher dimensionality than 4-D space-time itself is:

3D to 4D shift – Carl Sagan – video with notes Excerpt from Notes: The state-space of quantum mechanics is an infinite-dimensional function space. Some physical theories are also by nature high-dimensional, such as the 4-dimensional general relativity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VS1mwEV9wA

,,,but to continue on with the main topic,,, hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in this universe would be instantaneous travel for the observer going at the speed of light. This is because time, as we understand it, does not pass for them, yet, and this is a very big ‘yet’ to take note of; this ‘timeless’ travel is still not instantaneous and transcendent to our temporal framework of time, i.e. Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference, is still not completely transcendent of our framework since light appears to take time to travel from our perspective. Yet, in quantum teleportation of information, the ‘time not passing’, i.e. ‘eternal’, framework is not only achieved in the speed of light framework/dimension, but is also ‘instantaneously’ achieved in our temporal framework. That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of information is instantaneous to both the temporal and speed of light frameworks, not just the speed of light framework. Information teleportation/travel is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us. Thus ‘pure transcendent information’ is shown to be timeless (eternal) and completely transcendent of all material frameworks. Moreover, concluding from all lines of evidence we have now examined; transcendent, eternal, infinite information is indeed real and the framework in which ‘It’ resides is the primary reality (highest dimension) that can exist, (in so far as our limited perception of a primary reality, highest dimension, can be discerned).

“An illusion can never go faster than the speed limit of reality” Akiane Kramarik – Child Prodigy – Music video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4204586

Logic also dictates ‘a decision’ must have been made, by the ‘transcendent, eternal, infinite information’ from the primary timeless (eternal) reality ‘It’ inhabits, in order to purposely create a temporal reality with highly specified, irreducible complex, parameters from a infinite set of possibilities in the proper sequential order. Thus this infinite transcendent information, which is the primary reality of our reality, is shown to be alive by yet another line of evidence besides the necessity for a ‘first mover’ to explain quantum wave collapse.

The First Cause Must Be A Personal Being – William Lane Craig – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4813914

etc.. etc.. etc.. I simply see no conflict between what science has revealed to us about the nature of time and my overall Christian Theistic view of reality and I especially see no need to invent a epicyclic model to accommodate YEC philosophical desires that would wish to rob the beauty that science presents to us for a Theistic view of reality! Further note:

General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy, and The Shroud Of Turin - updated video http://vimeo.com/34084462

Quote and music:

Natalie Grant – Alive (Resurrection video) http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KPYWPGNX “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” William Shakespeare – Hamlet

bornagain77

It is also very interesting to note that this strange higher dimensional, eternal, framework for time, found in special relativity, and general relativity, finds corroboration by multiple ‘eye witness accounts’ in Near Death Experience testimonies:

‘In the ‘spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it’s going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.’ Mickey Robinson – Near Death Experience (NDE) testimony In The Presence Of Almighty God – The NDE of Mickey Robinson – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045544 ‘When you die, you enter eternity. It feels like you were always there, and you will always be there. You realize that existence on Earth is only just a brief instant.’ Dr. Ken Ring – has extensively studied Near Death Experiences ‘Earthly time has no meaning in the spirit realm. There is no concept of before or after. Everything – past, present, future – exists simultaneously.’ – Kimberly Clark Sharp – NDE Experiencer ‘There is no way to tell whether minutes, hours or years go by. Existence is the only reality and it is inseparable from the eternal now.’ – John Star – NDE Experiencer

It is also very interesting to point out that the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’, reported in very many Near Death Experiences(NDEs), is also corroborated by Special Relativity when considering the optical effects for traveling at the speed of light. Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as a ‘hypothetical’ observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, with the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ reported in very many Near Death Experiences: (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.)

Approaching The Speed Of Light – Optical Effects – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/

Here is the interactive website, with link to the relativistic math at the bottom of the page, related to the preceding video;

Seeing Relativity http://www.anu.edu.au/Physics/Searle/

Here is corroboration of the tunnel from Near Death testimonies,,,

The NDE and the Tunnel – Kevin Williams’ research conclusions Excerpt: I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn’t walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn’t really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different – the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.(Barbara Springer) Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/

As well, as with the ‘scientifically/mathematically’ verified tunnel for special relativity, we also have scientific/mathematical confirmation of ‘tunnel curvature’ within space-time, even ‘extreme tunnel curvature’ within space-time to a ‘eternal event horizon’ at black holes;

The curvature of Space-Time – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoaOHvy5AcA

Even light is bent by this ‘fabric’ of space-time;

Einstein – General Relativity – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyVUbUrB2YY Space-Time of a Black hole http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0VOn9r4dq8

Once again, these consistent findings from science/math, that just so happen to corroborate a consistent characteristic mentioned in NDE testimonies, ‘should’ be fairly disturbing for those of us of a spiritual persuasion,,,, Moreover, severely contrary to what many atheists would prefer for us to believe, there actually is solid empirical evidence for a ‘soul’ to man that provides a coherent mechanism for traversing to these higher space-time dimensions revealed by our science:

Cellular Communication through Light Excerpt: Information transfer is a life principle. On a cellular level we generally assume that molecules are carriers of information, yet there is evidence for non-molecular information transfer due to endogenous coherent light. This light is ultra-weak, is emitted by many organisms, including humans and is conventionally described as biophoton emission. Biophotons – The Light In Our Cells – Marco Bischof – March 2005 Excerpt page 2: The Coherence of Biophotons: ,,, Biophotons consist of light with a high degree of order, in other words, biological laser light. Such light is very quiet and shows an extremely stable intensity, without the fluctuations normally observed in light. Because of their stable field strength, its waves can superimpose, and by virtue of this, interference effects become possible that do not occur in ordinary light. Because of the high degree of order, the biological laser light is able to generate and keep order and to transmit information in the organism. Are humans really beings of light? Excerpt: “We now know, today, that man is essentially a being of light.”,,, “There are about 100,000 chemical reactions happening in every cell each second. The chemical reaction can only happen if the molecule which is reacting is excited by a photon… Once the photon has excited a reaction it returns to the field and is available for more reactions… We are swimming in an ocean of light.”

bornagain77

Bevets, you simply cannot appeal to authority. If I relied on appeal to authority to establish the validity of a position I would be a neo-Darwinists (or a psychotic Theistic Evolutionist with a extremely warped, disconnected, view of reality :) )! The sites I referenced go through the scriptures themselves and shows why the YEC position doesn't work for a consistent reading of scripture. Thus the impasse and your subsequent appeal to authority. Whereas, I appealed to science, which you did not touch. A appeal in which I referenced the crushing problem that the speed of light constant presents to the YEC view. But before you go and reference one of the 'epicyclic' models that YEC's have invented to 'explain away' the speed of light constant (much like neo-Darwinists invent epicyclic models to explain away everything that doesn't fit their underlying materialistic philosophy), let's just dig a little deeper and see how well the speed of light constant fits our Theistic view of reality: The weight of mass becomes infinite at the speed of light, thus mass will never go the speed of light. Yet, mass would disappear from our sight if it could go the speed of light, because, from our non-speed of light perspective, distance in direction of travel will shrink to zero for the mass going the speed of light. Whereas conversely, if mass could travel at the speed of light, its size will stay the same while all other frames of reference not traveling the speed of light will disappear from its sight.

Special Relativity – Time Dilation and Length Contraction – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY

Moreover time, as we understand it temporally, would come to a complete stop at the speed of light. To grasp the whole ‘time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light’ concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2.

Albert Einstein – Special Relativity – Insight Into Eternity – ‘thought experiment’ video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/

,,,Yet, even though light has this ‘eternal’ attribute in regards to our temporal framework of time, for us to hypothetically travel at the speed of light, in this universe, will still only get us to first base as far as quantum entanglement, or teleportation, is concerned.

Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182

That is to say, traveling at the speed of light will only get us to the place where time, as we understand it temporally, comes to complete stop for light, i.e. gets us to the eternal, ‘past and future folding into now’, framework of time. This higher dimension, ‘eternal’, inference for the time framework of light is warranted because light is not ‘frozen within time’ yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light.

“I’ve just developed a new theory of eternity.” Albert Einstein – The Einstein Factor – Reader’s Digest “The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass.” Richard Swenson – More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12

It is also very interesting to note that we have two very different qualities of ‘eternality of time’ revealed by our time dilation experiments;

Time Dilation – General and Special Relativity – Chuck Missler – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/7013215/ Time dilation Excerpt: Time dilation: special vs. general theories of relativity: In Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity, time dilation in these two circumstances can be summarized: 1. –In special relativity (or, hypothetically far from all gravitational mass), clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation are measured to be running slower. (i.e. For any observer accelerating, hypothetically, to the speed of light, time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop). 2.–In general relativity, clocks at lower potentials in a gravitational field—such as in closer proximity to a planet—are found to be running slower. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation

i.e. As with any observer accelerating to the speed of light, it is found that for any observer falling into the event horizon of a black hole, that time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop for them. — But of particular interest to the ‘eternal framework’ found for General Relativity at black holes;… It is interesting to note that entropic decay (disorderly randomness), which is the primary reason why things grow old and eventually die in this universe, is found to be greatest at black holes. Thus the ‘eternality of time’ at black holes can rightly be called ‘eternalities of decay and/or eternalities of disorder’.

Entropy of the Universe – Hugh Ross – May 2010 Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated. http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe Roger Penrose – How Special Was The Big Bang? “But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space.”

i.e. The event horizons of Black Holes are found to be ‘timeless’ singularities of randomness, chaos, and disorder rather than singularities of creation and order such as the extreme (1 in 10^10^123) low entropic order we see at the creation event of the Big Bang. Needless to say, the implications of this ‘eternality of chaos’ should be fairly disturbing for those of us who are of a ‘spiritually minded’ persuasion!

Blackholes – The neo-Darwinian ‘god of entropic randomness’ which can create all things (at least according to them) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fxhJEGNeEQ_sn4ngQWmeBt1YuyOs8AQcUrzBRo7wISw/edit?hl=en_US Matthew 10:28 “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell

bornagain77

bevets Speaking as a YEC, I find it hard to believe that you are not aware of the distinction — ESPECIALLY if you have been around this blog for more than a couple days. lastyearon Based on the definition of ID from this blog, and what I’m hearing from ID proponents here, all Creationists are also IDers. Once again -- speaking as a proud to be YEC/Creationist -- you are using a loaded term that seriously inhibits productive discussion. Trying to win an argument by defining terms is sophomoric. If you have a problem with ID, please state your problem clearly. bevets

Eric Anderson, I don't think anyone is trying to trick me. Honestly I think you have tricked yourself. Again, I didn't say ID = Creationism. Creationism makes claims about the world. It can be empirically evaluated. ID does not. ID says nothing about any particular aspect of the world. There is no one fact that contradicts ID. I'll give you an example of ID's lack of substance in the form of a question: How much Junk DNA is compatible with the theory of ID? lastyearon

In response to Joe:

Demonstrate that blind and undirected chemical processes can produce a living organism from non-living matter

How does that falsify ID? Where in the Definition of ID does it claim that all life was designed, or that it's impossible for life to arise from non-living matter? lastyearon

First of all, I didn't say ID equals Creationism. I said that the claim that ID has nothing to do with Creationism is inaccurate. I agree that they are different. But the distinctions are solely based on the claims that Creationism makes. For instance: 1 - God created the universe. 2 - God deliberately created life. 3 - Species (or kinds, whatever) were specially created, and do not share a common ancestor. 4 - YEC-The universe is around 6,000 years old. 5 - OEC-The universe is about 14 Billion years old. Based on the definition of ID from this blog, and what I'm hearing from ID proponents here, all Creationists are also IDers. ID is a superset of Creationism. lastyearon

I’m an old-earth creationist, so I accept that the earth and universe are billions of years old. Young-earth creationism, which is the more traditional view, holds that the earth is only thousands of years old. ~ William Dembski Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the “days” of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England bornagain77 The belief that creation days are long periods of time is not just a recent interpretation of the scriptures, but was prevalent since the first century. Dr. Ross has published a book... Among this group, nearly all acknowledged the likelihood that the creation days were longer than 24 hours. I am not aware of any early sources that explicitly state 'longer periods of time' -- OECs generally exploit ambiguity. James Barr was: 1) An acknowledged expert 2) Referencing consensus in his field of expertise 3) Not predisposed to accept the position he was affirming Hugh Ross has: 1) No expertise in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Early Church, or Antiquities 2) A predisposition to accept Old Earth bevets

tjguy and Bevets; It seems Rich Deem has done some fairly extensive homework defending long creation days:

Is the Young-Earth Interpretation Biblically Sound? Excerpt: Warning! It is not with much joy that I have created this page. It was created in response to attacks and complaints about my position on the age of the Earth by fellow Christians. My purpose in writing this page is not to create controversy or division within the Christian community or even convert you to an Old-Earth viewpoint if you take a Young-Earth stance. I do feel it is important that those who are adamant that the young-earth position is the only biblical interpretation of Genesis look at the rather formidable scriptural problems in their interpretation before judging others on their "non-scriptural" views. http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.html Biblical Defense of Long Creation Days http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dayagedefense.html Biblical Evidence for Long Creation Days http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html Trouble in Paradise: Why the Young Earth Paradigm Fails the Test of the Biblical Worldview http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/paradise.html The Literal Interpretation of the Genesis One Creation Account http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html Genesis Clearly Teaches that the Days Were Not 24 Hours http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis.html

etc.. etc.. etc.. Music:

Jeremy Camp ?†THERE WILL BE A DAY†? (((ChristianRock))) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le-TG4sRRiQ

bornagain77

#47 How to falsify ID: Demonstrate that a system whose behaviour depends on a choice between states in order to move towards a goal (improved utility), can be generated without choice. Eugene S

Appeal to authority Bevets? Okie Dokie:

The belief that creation days are long periods of time is not just a recent interpretation of the scriptures, but was prevalent since the first century. Dr. Ross has published a book entitled Creation and Time, which documents in detail what first century Jewish scholars and the early Christian church fathers said regarding their interpretation of creation chronology (5). Jewish scholars include Philo and Josephus, while Christian fathers include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus (through writings of Ambrose), Clement, Origen, Lactantius, Victorinus, Methodius, Augustine, Eusebius, Basil, and Ambrose. Among this group, nearly all acknowledged the likelihood that the creation days were longer than 24 hours.

Want to play the 'My authorities are bigger than your authorities' game? If so, what does it prove? We both will not make headway to convincing anyone. Thus, I will appeal to science to make my case. Namely, the contortion that must be visited upon the speed of light constant for YEC's to make their case plausible, scientifically, is simply completely unwarranted. Regardless of convoluted protestations to the contrary by YEC's, the speed of light constant is doing just fine, even as it being severely tested at this moment by the neutrino anomaly. Of course you will protest this with the 'epicyclic' models that have been hatched that conform to your YEC view, but why should I even care? It is YEC's that are following in the neo-Darwinian footsteps of putting philosophy before scientific evidence! bornagain77

lastyearon What’s that about Intelligent Design having nothing to do with Creationism? Speaking as a YEC, I find it hard to believe that you are not aware of the distinction -- ESPECIALLY if you have been around this blog for more than a couple days. bornagain77 I completely disagree with the 24 hour per day interpretation that you have. I find it simply is ‘forced’ upon scripture. Moreover I find the YEC interpretation is certainly not ‘clear and easy to read’ as you maintain.,,, You ask if I believe in a global flood. Well as unpopular as that position is, Yes I do! Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England James Barr was a liberal and, of course, did not accept young earth. But he agreed that the Hebrew is as clear as the English. It is hard for me to believe anyone would come away with old earth from the text if they did not bring (external) old earth assumptions to the text. I dont know how normal days could have been made more explicit. I was surprised that you accept the global flood. I dont think I have come across any OECs that accept the global flood. bevets

tjguy, well we are just going to have to agree to disagree. It is clear I'm not going to swing you around, and I can assure you that you are not going to bring me to your position, especially since I see no problem at all with scripture meaning long eras, and especially when read consistently. Moreover it seems clear to me that you have chosen philosophy (even though it is the Bible) over what the evidence says. So how does this make your position any better than the neo-Darwinists position??? In empirical science, as it is ideally supposed to be practiced, evidence has final say as to which hypothesis is more plausible. It is simply forbidden to give a philosophy, no matter how appealing, overriding authority in empirical science as you seem very prone to do!,,, Yet in saying that, I should like to point out that Theism, as far as empirical science is concerned, is, by far, the more plausible hypothesis over materialism as to what can be rigorously established by scientific evidence:

Predictions of Materialism compared to Predictions of Theism within the scientific method: http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9

bornagain77

BA, Wow, I'm encouraged that you believe these things. I guess I'm surprised then why you don't go all the way and believe in a young earth as that seems to me to be the clear teaching of the whole Bible. I'm not sure how God could have made it any clearer if He had wanted to except to spell it out and say that the word day in this chapter refers to a 24 hour day. He basically did that though in Exodus where He tells us the creation week corresponds to our 7 day week. Anyway, in this post, I want to respond to this one point that you made: BA: "Yet the dating of rocks is not effected by water or else every time it rained, or we tested rocks on the ocean floor, we would get discordant dates. Thus your objection that the rocks would be ‘thousands of years old’ simply does not follow." Sorry, I didn't mean it that way, but think about it. The flood would have loosed tons and tons of sediment and deposited them in layers as the current flowed along. These sediments would eventually harden and turn into sedimentary rocks. So the top layers of rocks all around the globe and actually quite far down in the geological record would all have been laid down at the time of the flood. The flood would account for the vast majority of fossils. It is for this very reason that most Old Earth Creationists do NOT believe in a worldwide flood. Hugh Ross is one good example, but almost any OECer, recognizes this problem which forces them to twist the clear meaning of Genesis 6-9 to mean a local flood. Here is a section of text I copied from Answers in Genesis site from their new book entitled "Old Earth Creationism on Trial". "The old-earth creation model accepts secular dating estimates of fossils and rock layers. Hence, old-earth creationists believe that most of the fossils and sedimentary rock layers on earth were laid down over millions of years. However, young-earth geologists have pointed out that a worldwide flood could also account for these features—without the need for millions of years. Certainly, a global flood would kill billions of organisms and trap them in layers of sediment, accounting for the sedimentary rock layers and fossils we see today. So, a global flood means the fossils and rocks are not millions of years old; they are powerful evidence for a young earth. Conversely, if the rocks and fossils really were millions of years old, then there cannot have been a worldwide flood—since such a violent Flood would destroy any previous fossil record. Old-earth creationists therefore must deny a global flood in order for their position to make any sense." http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/oect/prosecution-extent-flood Thanks for all the good info supporting a worldwide flood. There really is a lot of evidence if you look at it through a biblical worldview. I will find some time to look at your OEC site that you gave me and respond at a later time. For me, I find Dr. Jonathan Sarfati's book entitled No Compromise to be a very thorough explanation of the YEC interpretation of Scripture. I'm sure you have heard some of it before - you know how the word day when used with numbers or the words "morning" or "evening" in Scripture always refer to a literal day. How there are other words God could have used in the Hebrew language to communicate long periods of time, how Jesus believed in a literal Genesis, etc. Anyway, thanks for the post. tjguy

tjguy, I was a bit short with you on your 24 hours per day interpretation. This following site is fairly good in addressing your scriptures you cited for a 24 hours per day interpretation, and showing why your interpretation doesn't work:

Biblical Evidence for Long Creation Days http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html

Music and verse:

Jars Of Clay - Flood http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfAhpX_wIBk Luke 17:26-27 “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

bornagain77

Further notes: The following video and article outline some surprisingly strong geological evidence for a global flood that will make any honest person scratch their head and wonder:

Startling Evidence That Noah's Flood Really Happened - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGeULHljDn8 Geological Evidences for a Flood http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/flood.html

The following video is very interesting for it shows a geological formation that is now known to have been formed by a catastrophic flood, yet Charles Darwin himself had 'predicted' the geological formation was formed 'gradually':

Where Darwin Went Wrong - geology video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3darzVqzV2o

This following secular article 'honestly' admits that 'some big canyons' were formed by catastrophic floods: Secular Geology Admits to Rapid Canyon Formation by Megafloods - June 21 2010 Excerpt: “Our traditional view of deep river canyons, such as the Grand Canyon, is that they are carved slowly, as the regular flow and occasionally moderate rushing of rivers erodes rock over periods of millions of years.” Quoting Michael Lamb of Caltech, co-author of a paper in Nature Geoscience, the article said that such is not always the case: “We know that some big canyons have been cut by large catastrophic flood events during Earth’s history.” http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201006.htm#20100621a bornagain77

tjguy, I completely disagree with the 24 hour per day interpretation that you have. I find it simply is 'forced' upon scripture. Moreover I find the YEC interpretation is certainly not 'clear and easy to read' as you maintain.,,, You ask if I believe in a global flood. Well as unpopular as that position is, Yes I do! Moreover I find fairly strong geologic evidence in support; Worldwide 'planation' points to a global disaster from water:

Planation surface Excerpt: planation surface, any low-relief plain cutting across varied rocks and structures. Among the most common landscapes on Earth, planation surfaces include pediments, pediplains, etchplains, and peneplains. There has been much scientific controversy over the origins of such surfaces. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/462878/planation-surface It’s plain to see - Flat land surfaces are strong evidence for the Genesis Flood Excerpt: A planation surface is a large, level, or nearly level, land surface that has been ‘planed’ flat by running water. Scientists believe that running water cut these surfaces because they are covered by rounded rocks. Water is the only agent we know that can produce rounded rocks, by tumbling them against each other as it transports them along.,,, Planation surfaces sometimes cut across tilted sedimentary rocks. They are especially easy to recognize. The layered sedimentary rocks are often a combination of hard and soft rocks. Only a gigantic, fast-running water flow could have cut both the hard and soft rocks evenly.,,, Geomorphologist Lester King has documented that planation surfaces are abundant on all continents and found at different elevations. He noted about 60% of Africa is a series of planation surfaces. Some planation surfaces are located on the top of mountains. http://creation.com/its-plain-to-see

This ‘global anomaly’ of planation, is exactly what we would expect to see from a global flood perspective, yet the dating of the global catastrophe(s) from water, as far as I know, is not yet known to accurate detail. Indeed I know of no secular reference of any known ‘mass extinction’ that mentions any ancient global disaster for water covering the face earth, to form this worldwide planation. And yet, there the worldwide anomaly sits. An anomaly that certainly would seem to require a global deluge to explain!: This following article also points to a global anomaly in sediment layers. A anomaly that would be expected from a global flood perspective:

Ancient Earth Smackdown at Santa Fe Tells Global Story - August 2010 Excerpt: “Geologist John Wesley Powell called this major gap in the geologic record, which is also seen in other parts of the world, the Great Unconformity.” Clicking on the link elaborates further: “The Great Unconformity is a geologic feature that exists across the world at a relatively consistent rock strata (or depth relative to sea-level).” Any unconformity worldwide in its extent would seem to require to a global catastrophe. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201008.htm#20100810a

You object that:

The result being that the rocks we now see would not be millions of years old, but rather thousands of years old, dating back to the time of the flood.

Yet the dating of rocks is not effected by water or else every time it rained, or we tested rocks on the ocean floor, we would get discordant dates. Thus your objection that the rocks would be 'thousands of years old' simply does not follow. ,,, As well, there is actually very strong archaeological evidence tracing all human races to the three sons of Noah:

TABLE OF NATIONS (GENEALOGY OF MANKIND) by Tim Osterholm Excerpt: The fact is, that wherever its statements can be sufficiently tested, Genesis 10 of the Bible has been found completely accurate; resulting partly from linguistic studies, partly from archaeology, and, more recently still, from the findings of physical anthropologists, who are, to this day, recovering important clues to lines of migration in ancient historic times. As implied in verse 32 of Genesis 10, this Table includes everybody; meaning that so-called fossil man, primitive peoples (ancient and modern) and modern man are all derived from Noah's three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. http://www.soundchristian.com/man/ Tracing your Ancestors through History - Paul James-Griffiths http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/1

This following video, and article, are very interesting for they talk about the scientific evidence for a 'genetic Adam' and a 'genetic Eve', and how the evidence relates to Noah's flood:

Does human genetic evidence support Noah's flood? - Fazale Rana - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4116168 Book Review; Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man: Excerpt: The Bible claims that there was a genetic bottleneck at the Genesis flood. Whereas all females can trace their ancestry back to Eve (through the three wives of Noah's sons), all males trace their Y-chromosomes through Noah (through his three sons). This predicted discrepancy for molecular dates of mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome data is actually seen in the scientific literature. http://www.godandscience.org/newsletters/2005-09.html The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve! - Refuting errors by Francis Collins and BioLogos - August 2011 http://creation.com/historical-adam-biologos

CMI has a excellent video of the preceding paper by Dr. Carter, that makes the technical aspects of the paper much easier to understand;

The Non Mythical Adam and Eve (Dr Robert Carter) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ftwf0owpzQ

bornagain77

LYO: Have you ever taken time to skim either my note linked through my handle or the IOSE course [start here on], or even the definition of ID or the weak argument correctives in the resources tab in this and every UD page? Or, have you ever read the NWE article on ID -- the Wiki one is a blatant hatchet job. You ask (studiously avoiding a fairly direct answer here at 35 above, yesterday afternoon addressed to you):

I challenge you to give me a fact, real or hypothetical, any fact at all about the world which would falsify ID.

Let's outline a simple, easily done test that would blow up the whole design theory edifice if a single credible positive result would emerge: random generation of functionally specific text beyond 500 - 1,000 bits, through the infinite monkeys experiment. This would break the inference to design as best empirically grounded explanation; on observing complex, specified information. Or using the log reduced Chi expression (cf here at UD for how it can be deduced -- a thread with some 400 comments), Chi_500 = Ip*S - 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold. If a known random source were to produce a clear case of FSCI, it would break the design inference as an inductive generalisation backed up by analysis of configuration spaces and the "needle in a haystack" limitations of blind search. Here is Wiki, testifying against general ideological interest on the actual results of such to date:

The theorem concerns a thought experiment which cannot be fully carried out in practice, since it is predicted to require prohibitive amounts of time and resources. Nonetheless, it has inspired efforts in finite random text generation. One computer program run by Dan Oliver of Scottsdale, Arizona, according to an article in The New Yorker, came up with a result on August 4, 2004: After the group had worked for 42,162,500,000 billion billion monkey-years, one of the "monkeys" typed, “VALENTINE. Cease toIdor:eFLP0FRjWK78aXzVOwm)-‘;8.t" The first 19 letters of this sequence can be found in "The Two Gentlemen of Verona". Other teams have reproduced 18 characters from "Timon of Athens", 17 from "Troilus and Cressida", and 16 from "Richard II".[25] A website entitled The Monkey Shakespeare Simulator, launched on July 1, 2003, contained a Java applet that simulates a large population of monkeys typing randomly, with the stated intention of seeing how long it takes the virtual monkeys to produce a complete Shakespearean play from beginning to end. For example, it produced this partial line from Henry IV, Part 2, reporting that it took "2,737,850 million billion billion billion monkey-years" to reach 24 matching characters: RUMOUR. Open your ears; 9r"5j5&?OWTY Z0d...

In short, spaces of 10^50 configs have been successfully searched for islands of function based on random walks. Such spaces, however, are 1 in 10^100 of the scope at the 500 bit solar system threshold identified. The scope of the observed cosmos level threshold of 1000 bits is 10^150 beyond that threshold. The blind search challenge issue should be clear enough. Save of course to those blinded by the sort of polarising talking points and question-begging materialist a prioris we have been highlighting and correcting all along. Now, the funny thing is, none of what was just pointed out again should be news to you, it has been on the table over and over for the past year or so. So, you are speaking that which is false, in the teeth of easily accessible correction. You need to pause and ask yourself seriously: why. I will give you my impression on trying -- again -- to dialogue with you: I get the very strong impression that you have swallowed whole the characterisation of ID made by agenda-driven enemies with a track record of disrespect for truth and fairness. So you seem to be deaf and blind to corrective evidence. On fair comment, as at now, you come across as one here to push talking points, not to actually seriously interact in light of evidence. Indeed, some of the strawman caricatures you have pushed in the teeth of evident correction (which you give no signs of seriously interacting with) come across as willfully slanderous to the point where you may be guilty of propagating lies you should know are falsehoods put in wanton disregard for truth and fairness, in the hope that they will be seen as true. Do you really want to be like that? Please, think again. KF kairosfocus

lastyearon @47: What UprightBiped and Joe said. ----- Your comment about "no substance" doesn't make any sense. What is non-substantive about asking whether design exists and whether it can be reliably detected? That is a perfectly reasonable, objective, scientific question. It is done all the time in archaeology, forensics, IP litigation, etc. Are you seriously claiming that detection of design in these areas is lacking all substance? You are still hung up on this ID=creationism meme that you can't seem to get free of. It is very simple. No-one is trying to trick you. Think about it. I let you use your own definition of creationism and I've clearly responded to your definition of creationism and conclusively shown that ID does not equal creationism, so stop repeating the old business that it does. Eric Anderson

I wonder how Lastyearon will respond to #47? PeterJ

Thanks BA for your response. I'm not sure ID is real happy about this conversation, but it does fit with the title of the thread, so I will respond to your comments. BA: tjguy, I simply do not see the problems you see. First and foremost let me reiterate this fact that perhaps we both can completely agree on. BA: God created the temporal physical realm from His transcendent eternal spiritual realm. OK, sounds right to me. BA: The transcendent eternal spiritual realm is of a ‘higher dimensionality’ that the lower temporal physical realm. Agreed. BA: For man to sin against God is to commit a ‘higher dimensional’ spiritual transgression that of logical necessity must somehow negatively effect the entirety of ‘lower dimensional’ physical reality. Maybe, but I’m not sure on this one. Our sin invited God’s punishment and a side effect of that was that the ground was cursed and death entered the world. Normally it would effect it after the sin takes place I would think. BA: But to continue on, You object that the Bible does not say teach this, but this scripture comes immediately to mind which strongly suggests otherwise: The Scriptures you listed say nothing about the penalty for man’s sin being exacted on the world before that sin took place. It does say that Jesus’ death was planned/decided on before the world was even made. Most of it relates to Jesus’ death or the foreordination or predestination of people. BA: OK, please ‘clearly’ explain to me how 24 hours per day works with God’s seventh day of rest which we are still in? The Bible never explicitly states that we are still in God’s seventh day of rest. That is an assumption that you are making because it fits your views. I assume the opposite because I think it best fits the overall message of Scripture. Here are two reasons why I think it is right to view the 7th day as a 24 hour day just like the rest. 1) First, the Hebrew grammar indicates this because the verb “rested” is in the past perfect tense referring to an action that is completed. (perfected action) hebrew4christians.com is the source of this information. They encourage us to “think of the perfect conjugation as the past tense in the active voice.” In this sense, the text is telling us that God’s action of resting on the 7th day is completed. The fact that He continues to choose to rest on the 8th day and forward, does not negate the fact. Besides, if his creation work is completed, how could He not continue to rest? But it is put in the context of the 7th day and spoken of in the perfect tense for a reason. 2)We are told in Ex. 20:9-11 that the 7 days of creation were just that – 24 hour days. Here Scripture gives us the answer we are looking for. Letting Scripture interpret Scripture is always the first choice when interpreting a passage. Changing the meaning of the word “day” midstream in the verse would not make good hermeneutic sense. The six days of creation and day of rest are exactly the same as those of the command to work six ordinary days and rest on the seventh. As someone has said, the passage is certainly not teaching an eternal weekend. BA: Moreover the Global flood figures strongly in your thinking of Biblical inerrency, Yes, it does, because the Bible teaches a global flood. The Tower of Babel where all the languages were born also figures in to it. I think OECers are hard pressed to explain a local flood. BA: “…but I have personally never defended a local flood account here on UD, nor have I subscribed to a strictly uniformatarian view of the earth for several years now here on UD, and thus I don’t see how the flood issue would relate to the primary day age issue at hand. You simply assumed I held a position for the flood that I didn’t hold and tried to justify your YEC interpretation from that.” OK, I understand that you have not argued for a local flood here on this board. Still, my question for you is this: “Do believe in a global flood or a local flood or no flood at all?” I wasn’t really accusing you per se of holding on to a local flood view, but rather speaking to the general position of OEC. Let me explain my reasoning. The global flood is a big problem for OECers because it messes with the rock and fossil evidence for an old earth. Lyell convinced most people that a flood did not occur, but rather the rocks and geological formations that we see were laid down by the processes that we see taking place today. If so, then yes, millions of years become necessary. The Grand Canyon is one good example that is often touted as proof for an old earth. (These days, catastrophism is coming back into vogue because of the evidence, but only catastrophes in between long periods of stasis.) Anyway, a global flood would have ripped up lots of stuff – rocks, trees, soil, - everything in fact and transported the stuff very long distances and re-deposited it. The result being that the rocks we now see would not be millions of years old, but rather thousands of years old, dating back to the time of the flood. I doubt you believe this. The fossils too would have mostly been laid down by the flood, (probably would not believe that either)so they cannot be millions of years old – which shows us that we have problems in our dating methods, but I digress. So, logically you can’t have the rock layers being evidence for millions of years of ancient history while at the same time viewing them as mostly having been laid down by the flood. It is difficult to see how one can hold on to belief in a global flood which would have radically transformed the surface of the earth and ruined the uniformitarian’s theory. Belief in a global flood and and old earth seem to be logically contradictory positions. That is why I mentioned the flood. If you believe in a global flood, I applaud you from a biblical standpoint, but from a scientific standpoint, I would say it contradicts mainstream geology and paleontology. tjguy

tjguy- Special Creation- just as in Genesis 1, with the diversity evolving from those originally created kinds- no universal common ancestry. Joe

tjguy, I simply do not see the problems you see. First and foremost let me reiterate this fact that perhaps we both can completely agree on.

God created the temporal physical realm from His transcendent eternal spiritual realm. The transcendent eternal spiritual realm is of a 'higher dimensionality' that the lower temporal physical realm. For man to sin against God is to commit a 'higher dimensional' spiritual transgression that of logical necessity must somehow negatively effect the entirety of 'lower dimensional' physical reality.

Perhaps my efforts to understand the dynamics of 4-D space-time, in relation to quantum mechanics, helps me see this logical necessity more clearly. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/science/peter-woit-on-the-multiverse-as-a-weapon-against-religion-a-lousy-one-and-not-going-to-convince-anyone/#comment-421125 But to continue on, You object that the Bible does not say teach this, but this scripture comes immediately to mind which strongly suggests otherwise:

Revelation 13:8 ",,,the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

These scriptures also speak to this issue

1st Peter 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world,,, Ephesians 1:3-7 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,,, 2nd Timothy 1:9 which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,,,

Moreover you state that

'If this is the proper interpretation, then the Bible is not written very clearly.'

OK, please 'clearly' explain to me how 24 hours per day works with God's seventh day of rest which we are still in? Moreover the Global flood figures strongly in your thinking of Biblical inerrency, but I have personally never defended a local flood account here on UD, nor have I subscribed to a strictly uniformatarian view of the earth for several years now here on UD, and thus I don't see how the flood issue would relate to the primary day age issue at hand. You simply assumed I held a position for the flood that I didn't hold and tried to justify your YEC interpretation from that. bornagain77

I challenge you to give me a fact, real or hypothetical, any fact at all about the world which would falsify ID.

Demonstrate that blind and undirected chemical processes can produce a living organism from non-living matter- ie demonstrate that a living organism is reducible to matter, energy, necessity and chance. Joe

#47 A demonstration that inanimate matter can physically establish the relationships required for information to be recorded and transferred. Upright BiPed

Eric, You've given me three things ID is not, and three questions ID asks. I stand by my earlier statement that it has no substance. And the only thing that distinguishes it from creationism is the positive statements that creationism makes. I challenge you to give me a fact, real or hypothetical, any fact at all about the world which would falsify ID. lastyearon

BA77, First I appreciate your posts here on this board and accept you as a brother in Christ. Please don't take this personally. We all want to know the truth and we may have to agree to disagree, but let me respond a bit to what you wrote in post #13. Apologies that this is a tad long. You said: “…then I find nothing problematic with the ‘higher dimensional’ spiritual ramifications of sin extending backwards in space-time, ‘retroactively’.” Sure, in and of itself, it is possible, but the point is that the Bible does not teach that. It is something you have to read into the Bible in order to hold that position. You gave some reasons why to you it is not an unreasonable assumption, but given that the Bible does not clearly say that,(in fact it seems to imply the opposite), and given the other interpretational problems that this brings with it, I highly doubt it is accurate. You just can’t compare it to the cross covering all sin and use that as support for this interpretation. The Bible clearly tells us that the cross covers all sin – it is a once and done sacrifice. Dembski's idea is a new and very recent interpretation. I find it difficult to believe that this is really how God intends us to understand Genesis 1-3. If this is the proper interpretation, then the Bible is not written very clearly. It would mean that the Jews and Christians of the past have all misunderstood the text. While that cannot be said to be an impossibility, I think God could have done a better job communicating this truth to us if this is how He intended us to understand it. Another problem with this interpretation is that it forces one to re-interpret the Flood account and twist it so that you can read it as a local flood. A global flood would affect how we look at the rocks and fossils in those rocks. So, to preserve the old earth paradigm, the flood cannot have been a global one. That then forces you to try and figure out why Noah would have been instructed to build such a huge boat, why God didn’t just tell him to flee the area at the proper time, why He had to take one animal of every kind on the boat with him when they could easily have escaped the flood if it was local(and some would never have been in danger since it was only a local flood), why we are told that every mountain under the high heavens was covered, why the flood lasted half a year, why they were in the boat for over a year, etc etc. It just doesn’t make sense. Then you also have to go into the NT and reinterpret the passages that refer to a global flood. And like I said before, you have to figure out what Jesus mean when He said that He created them male and female at the beginning of creation(Mark 10:6) Your view of creation influences how you interpret other passages all through the Bible. Dembski's view forces you into some very strange positions that seriously twist the text. If you take this approach to Scripture here, then that opens you up to a whole host of other possible interpretations of the Bible as science disagrees with Scripture in lots of other areas as well, not the least of which are miracles, virgin birth, Jesus' return, Jesus' resurrection(you could just say it was a spiritual resurrection), etc. So while Dembski's idea is not philosophically impossible, I do not believe the Bible allows for that interpretation. What God could have done and what He told us He did do are two different things in my view. As a YECer, I start with the text as authoritative and then use that revelation as a means to interpret the world that we see. ID theorists do not do this. They start with science. However, since we did not see what happened in the past, we are a bit limited as to how to interpret it(as you well know in dealing with atheistic interpretations of the past.) ID has the same problem. The science that ID begins with is more established than Darwinian evolution, but still, if you reject the global flood, then that will seriously impact how you interpret the rocks. Plus, not all science really supports an old earth. Believing in an old earth explains why some IDers are able to maintain belief in common descent. Since the flood is not accepted as fact, old earth uniformitarian assumptions are used to interpret the data. True, Dr. Craig is not a young earth creationist. That would give his opponents too much fodder to deal with and he would be laughed out of the arena. He would have to spend too much time trying to defend those views and would never get to the other matters. I respect him as a philosopher and cheer for him in debates, but I believe his hermeneutical approach to Scripture is not accurate for the above reasons. YECers are not so much concerned about the literal age of the earth as they are in preserving the authority of God’s Word. A young earth just happens to be one area where this authority is being challenged so it is an issue, but the deeper issue, the real goal of YECers, is the preservation of the authority of God’s Word. Perhaps a better term for YECers would be inerrantists or something of that nature to show what the real issue is. tjguy

Would someone please delete my double post? And this one too? Thanks. Sorry! tjguy

Joe, when you refer to Special Creation, what do you mean by that? Would Dembski be a special creationist since he doesn't believe in common descent? tjguy

Joe, when you refer to Special Creation, what do you mean by that? Would Dem ski be a special creationist since he doesn't believe in common descent? tjguy

lastyearon @38 and 39: Thanks for the definition of creationism you are using. We could quibble with the definition a bit, but it will serve for our purposes since that is the definition you are using. So let's compare it with ID: ID: - Does not postulate that anything was created by God, or even that God exists. (Note that ID is *compatible with* the idea of God. Further, there is no question that many people who do believe in God find ID interesting because of this compatability. But the question of God is not part of ID.) - ID does not dispute the possibility of all living things on earth sharing a common ancestor. (This is an interesting open question for ID proponents, with some leaning one way and others another way, but ID does not speak specifically to ancestry.) - ID does not start with a dedication to a sacred text. Id does not refer to sacred text as a source for its arguments or understanding and does not stand or fall on the veracity of the Bible or any other sacred text. (Again, some people who believe in sacred texts find ID to be compatible with sacred texts and are no doubt interested in ID as a result, but ID is not based on sacred text.) ------ ID is extremely simple: 1. Are some things intelligently designed (as opposed to being the result of purely natural and material processes)? 2. If so, is it possible to identify whether something was designed if we don't know the actual historical account of its origin? 3. And finally, (if we are applying ID to life): Are there living systems that exhibit such characteristics of design. That's it. Period. Simple. No sacred text; no bearded men in the sky; no affirmation or rejection of descent; in fact not even an argument against evolution in most senses of that ever-slippery word. Just a simple, objective, scientific, straight-forward inquiry about whether design is real in the world and whether we can reliably detect it. Eric Anderson

F/N: LYO, have you taken time to work through say ICR's site or AiG? If you do so, you will see that Barry is right. BTW, you may find the worldviews discussion here on helpful. kairosfocus

LYO: Why do you insist on making up strawmen? I happen to do design thought, and most certainly, design thought stares with empirical investigations. (Perhaps you would care to look at the discussion just above on that subject before coming back to me.) I also happen to do worldview thinking and even theological thinking. These are sufficiently independent lines that they are not in any way forced into the same mould. Perhaps the foundational line of thought is on worldviews, and as you can see, e.g. here, my thought there starts with common sense and issues like: what happens when you draw a conclusion A? That leads back to the "turtles all the way down" worldview roots question. Similarly, it looks at things like, what happens when we observe a distinct thing A, say a bright red ball on a table. Or even, what about the notion: error exists, what happens if you try to deny it? yet again: what does it mean to claim: I know? In common sense, in science, in law or history, etc? What does it mean to know a person? Similarly, in science, I am looking at empirical evidence and the best explanations that have to be empirically well warranted, and the like; often with an eye to useful applications. For instance, energy and development or mechatronics and development. It is in that context that -- as you seem to have studiously ignored -- I have had good reason to see that there is such a thing as evidence that points to design as best explanation, just as there is evidence that points to gravitation as best explanation, or quantum photo effects, or molecular agitation etc. I also happen to be a Christian. That is not because I read some book and arbitrarily decided to pin my hopes on it or based on cultural and social forces. (Could anyone out there seriously believe that anyone could intimidate or induce me into going along with any system and/or toeing any partyline blindly?) I take the book seriously because I met the author, who has transformed my life, starting with miraculously saving it. (I am supposed to be dead forty years since.) I take the book seriously because I know the author. I know, I know, any number of the supposedly learned will say that's impossible. But, in the end that is why I am and will remain a Christian: I know the Author of the book, and he has changed my life. For the better. And that I find the different strands of my thought coming together in different ways in many respects, may just be telling me something about the in the end coherence of truth in a common world. But it sure didn't start out that way, and there are still many things that I don't have firm conclusions on. So, please stop projecting unto me and people like me preconceived notions as to what we are like and have to be like. Especially, about how we "must" look at science. The name of that game is strawman. KF PS: If you want to know how I actually think about science -- which BTW is NOT a scientific matter but a phil one [and that is part of why I have had to think about such things, asking questions), why not start here? kairosfocus

According to Barry,

Creationism starts with an a priori dedication to a sacred text and seeks to reconcile the data with the text.

While this may be true creationists, it isn't part of the definition of creationism. I would add that most IDers also start with a dedication to a sacred text. lastyearon

Eric, I accept this definition from Creation Wiki: Creationism is a belief system which postulates that the universe, Earth, and life were deliberately created by God. But I would add that it also specifically denies that all living things share a common ancestor. lastyearon

lastyearon, I get the sense you are just tossing out comments to get a rist out of people. However, in the spirit of taking your questions seriously, I will attempt to continue the discussion. Before we continue, let's be sure we are talking about the same thing. It is important to have defined terms before we discuss the underlying substance, so please: define for us what you mean by the word "creationism." Then I'd be happy to compare/contrast it with ID for you. Eric Anderson

PS: Forgive me, I left off something above: I am speaking of a survey on the gamut of resources in our solar system [10^57 atoms] across 10 - 20 BY. kairosfocus

LYO: There are certain features of the post that appears over tour handle that, even without meeting you and seeing that you posted, on observing them, I can tell that some designer acted, with extremely high confidence. That tweredun. Now, in fact I cannot tell from the features that it is you whodunit. Maybe it is BarryA in drag drumming up a controversy on UD since controversy sells. You can easily enough see that once we have 500+ bits [72 ASCII characters] of text in English, that is contextually responsive, we have a fairly tight specification relative to the possibilities for 500 bits. And a blind sample of the space ofr 500 would at most detect 1 in 10^48 of the possibilites, i.e comparable to a one straw sized sample at random from a cubical hay bale 3 1/2 light days across.the whole solar system out to Pluto could be lurking therein, and with maximal likelihood, a single straw sized sample will reliably only detect the bulk of the distribution, straw. Why is not that hard to figure out. Now, given that, why is it that you cannot see this line of reasoning? What is blocking you from understanding so simple an analysis? What is it that would be needed for you to help clear your head so you can see it? haven't you seen the million monkeys type analysis that shows that the above makes a lot of sense? The actual attempts that show we can search 10^50 possibilities successfully, but that is less than 1 in 10^100 of the scope we need to be able to search. Not all "lotteries" are winnable on the gamut of our solar system or observed cosmos. So, if what is just above makes no sense to you, why? Let us understand, because if you do understand and have no clear answer that can show us we are wrong, you MUST be lying -- at minimum by wanton disregard for duties of care to truth and fairness -- when you make the sort of statements you seem to have made above. Please, help us to see a way to avoid so stringent a conclusion. KF kairosfocus

lastyearon writes: “There’s nothing in ID that can be said to be distinct from creationism.” This sentence demonstrates that you do not understand either ID or creationism even at a very basic level. Arguing with you is probably pointless, but for the sake of the lurkers I will explain at least one very basic difference. Creationism starts with an a priori dedication to a sacred text and seeks to reconcile the data with the text. ID starts with the data and seeks to interpret it on its own terms without any preconceived notions about were the data “should” lead. lastyearon stamps his feet and says ID is a religious claim dressed in secular language (the “creationism in a cheap tuxedo” chestnut). We have refuted that claim so many times that we have grown bored with refuting it. That’s why we placed the refutation as item 5 in the “weak arguments refuted” section of the blog. I direct those interested there. See: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/faq/#chptux Finally, lastyearon asks: “What prevents us from scientifically investigating the designer?” How about “lack of data upon which to base a scientific investigation”? Barry Arrington

The ID part of Dembski’s Creationism (certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection) is scientifically meaningless.

That is false because one of te three basic questions science asks is "How did it come to be this way?" and design is one possibility. IOW you don't appear to understand science. Joe

lastyearon:

What prevents us from scientifically investigating the designer?

Nothing. However it is a tad bit difficult to investigate something that isn't around- as in we can't investigate the designer(s) of te Antikythera mechanism because we haven't determined who that was. However we can determine it was designed by some designer. Joe

lastyearon, ID is not about the designer whereas creation is all about God of the Bible being the designer. What part of that don't you understand? Joe

Joe, Those are not positive beliefs of ID. They are what IDers don't necessarily have to hold. I'm looking for some belief within ID that isn't also a Creationist belief. lastyearon

Barry, The distinction doesn't hold up under even the slightest bit of scrutiny. The ID part of Dembski's Creationism (certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection) is scientifically meaningless. It's just a rephrasing of the religious claim so as to sound secular. Why else would this be the case...

the identity of the designer cannot be discerned from a scientific investigation of the data.

Why not? What prevents us from scientifically investigating the designer? lastyearon

Other people have also weighed in on this- including John Morris, the president of the Institute for Creation Research:

"The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."

Hmmm... Joe

And if ID doesn't have any content then it is strange that some scientists are wasting quite a bit of time trying to refute it. Joe

ID is not about the designer whereas creation is all about God of the Bible being the designer. That's one. Joe

Eric, Yes, obviously there can be membership overlap between two distinct groups. But there have to be some defining characteristics of each group in order to distinguish them. As I said to Joe, ID doesn't have any content. There's nothing in ID that can be said to be distinct from creationism. Please give me one property of ID that isn't also a property of creationism. lastyearon

lastyearon, I am trying to interpret your comments here charitably, but you make it very hard. The fact that Bill Dembski is an old earth creationist is not news. It has been known for years, perhaps decades. Surely you know this. So why are you are trying to score rhetorical points by pretending it is a revelation? Also, you seem to be intellectually unable to make very simple distinctions. Bill Dembski is a Christian. He believes God created the universe. Duh. At the same time Bill Dembski is an ID theorist. His review of the data leads him to conclude that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. He disagrees with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. He personally believes the designer is God, but many times he has explained that is a personal belief and cannot be proved through the methods of science. Thus, as a theist, Dembski concludes that God designed the universe. As an ID theorist Dembski says that while design almost certainly occurred, the identity of the designer cannot be discerned from a scientific investigation of the data. This simple distinction has been explained over and over again on this site and you have been commenting on this site for a long time. From these two observations I am compelled to conclude that you are unable to grasp the distinction or you have in fact grasped the distinction and mendaciously pretend you have not. In other words, you are either an idiot or a liar. It wold be uncharitable for me to simply assume that you are being intentionally evil. Therefore, charity compels me provisionally to conclude that you are an idiot. Barry Arrington

LYO, you seem to be turning 'scientific' on us? :) Since you are turning over a new leaf and are now concerned with predictions and falsification criteria of hypothesis of science, please tell me the rigid falsification criteria for neo-Darwinism;

Science and Pseudoscience - Imre Lakatos - exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerate science program’, as a pseudoscience, using Lakatos's rigid criteria for falsification https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LpGd3smTV1RwmEXC25IAEKMjiypBl5VJq9ssfv4JgeM/edit

As well please tell me the exact presuppositional justification that atheistic materialists have in even 'doing science' in the first place;

Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? - referenced article https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit

i.e. exactly what is the atheists purpose in trying to prove 'scientifically' that the universe has no purpose??? :) OT:

Jeb Corliss get bits hard in a BASE jump but vows to jump again - video included http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/injured-jumper-jeb-corliss-vows-keep-flying-144004768--abc-news.html

bornagain77

Right Joe, That's because Creationism actually means something. It makes testable predictions. It can be evaluated empirically. ID cannot. It has no substance, no meaning. It is immune to facts. When Dembski says "I'm an old-earth creationist" we know what that means. We know what he believes about the history of life on earth. Saying that you are an IDer says nothing about what you actually believe about biological history. lastyearon

lastyearon, C'mon. Your continued juvenile attempts try and demonstrate that ID is nothing but creationism (you must have read the NCSE talking-point memos or something) are failed. Time to drop it and talk about something substantive. Think about it a bit before asking the silly question over and over and over again. Get out a piece of paper. Draw some Venn diagrams. Consider whether it is possible for someone to be in multiple circles. Eric Anderson

No, it is obvious that all Creationists are also IDists but not all IDists have to be Creationists. Special Creation is a specific subset of the superset of Intelligent Design. It's like this- if somehow the Bible were to be totally refuted Special Creation would be ruined but ID would be unfazed. OTOH if it were somehow proven that God did it just as the Bible says the non-Creation IDists would say "well that explains it then and we may never know how and we hope it doesn't piss Her off if we try to figure it out anyway". Joe

William Dembski: "I’m an old-earth creationist" Hmm... So William Dembski, the creator of this blog, and one of the leading Intelligent Design Theorists, is a Creationist. What's that about Intelligent Design having nothing to do with Creationism? lastyearon

Joe: "The part that strikes me is how different people read stuff into the Bible that is not there." Amen. Eric Anderson

"...it is the partial and uneducated survival of a theology which was once universally held by all Christians."

An interesting and useful quote at a time when history is soon forgotten (or rewritten). The "uneducated" bit is useful, too, and should not be taken merely as it would be used by a Gnu nowadays. The Fundamentals took a much less nuanced view of literalism and so on than their illustrious forbears like Calvin would have done. See the criticisms in Jim Packer's now very old book Fundamentalism and the Word of God. They clearly defended the historic core beliefs of Protestant Christianity when it was under deadly attack from liberalism, but their views on science in retrospect owed too much to Enlightenment ways of thought. This sowed the seeds for the Y E Creationist conflict which, in my view, would have been a better-directed assault on the main enemy, naturalism, if it had been historically better informed. Jon Garvey

tjguyFebruary Then you have the whole issue of the worldwide flood that is mentioned by other biblical writers as well. This would have laid down tons of sediment and created lots of fossils. But if the fossils and much of the sedimentary rocks we see today are the result of the flood, then much of the reasoning for billions of years is removed. A worldwide flood just is not consistent with an old earth. I agree that the flood is an oft overlooked and fatal problem for the fancy footwork many impose on the first chapter of Genesis. I think Dr Dembski's book is an interesting approach, but I don't remember him addressing the flood. bevets

Dr. Dembski, I'm sorry for the harsh treatment you've experienced, and doubly so since it comes as a result of a simply theoretical exploration. I am YEC and would have to say quite "fundy", at least in some senses, but I really enjoy trying to understand things from a non-traditional perspective since I've seen from within fundamentalist circles just how small those circles are (thinking of Chesterton a little here). Some of the astounding doctrines that are squeezed out of a single verse of scripture to justify some notions of piety, all the while ignoring "again, it is written", where contradictions are to be found (not to the scriptures, but one's interpretation). Well, I've found that there are a lot of ideas out there and, even while I strongly disagree with many of them, there are often very good things to be discovered within a person's reasoning for those ideas. And even when there aren't, we can still be benefited just by seeing how others think or, at least from our current perspective, how they "don't think". But, I guess life's easier when you are right about everything ;) Brent

The part that strikes me is how different people read stuff into the Bible that is not there. Joe

Well considering the nature of space-time, our position in space-time, and God's position in it, which I discussed briefly yesterday here,,,

https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/science/peter-woit-on-the-multiverse-as-a-weapon-against-religion-a-lousy-one-and-not-going-to-convince-anyone/#comment-421125

,,,and considering God's complete independence of time, (indeed He created space-time), then I find nothing problematic with the 'higher dimensional' spiritual ramifications of sin extending backwards in space-time, 'retroactively'. In fact considering the fact that God himself had to deal with sin on our behalf on the cross, then it would actually be very surprising to find any point in 'lower dimensional', temporal, space-time that had not been impacted by the 'decay of sin'. To insist on a YEC interpretation is simply narrow, and unwarranted, not to mention extremely problematic scientifically. A few note to which I referenced here yesterday:

https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/science/peter-woit-on-the-multiverse-as-a-weapon-against-religion-a-lousy-one-and-not-going-to-convince-anyone/#comment-421122

As to the oft repeated claim that the 'natural reading' of the Bible itself supports YEC, my reply to that is that Dr. Craig, perhaps the foremost Christian apologists in the world today giving atheists severe headaches, certainly does not find this YEC reading to be so:

Age of the universe - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyOZRMIe768

bornagain77

"The book is a piece of speculative theology, and I’m not convinced of all of its details. It’s been interesting, however, to see the reaction in some Christian circles, especially the fundamentalist ones." I'm happy to see this. It is by his own admission speculative. Perhaps it has elicited a strong reaction from some circles in that it seems to do violence to the text of Scripture in many places. I'm not sure how helpful speculative theology is. In some senses, all theology is a tad speculative, but theology should be based on Scripture, not the views of modern science. Throwing it out there for discussion is fine I guess, but if real biblical problems are brought up with it, he needs to be willing to let it go. Personally, I think it has some real interpretational problems. tjguy

I agree with ba77 about the use of the term "fundamentalist." Fundamentalism is simply historic, orthodox Christianity, not ultra-right wing reactionaries. The media use this word to make it seem like orthodox believers are dangerous radicals. But the Christian fundamentalist simply believes that the Bible is the infallible Word of God and accepts its teachings without reservation. By this definition, I am happy to be known as a fundamentalist. Dr. Kirsopp Lake was a well known Modernist professor of Harvard University in the 1920's. He was NOT a fundamentalist and did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. In His book entitled The Religion of Yesterday and Tomorrow, he wrote this: "It is a mistake, often made by educated persons who happen to have but little knowledge of historical theology, to suppose that Fundamentalism is a new and strange form of thought. It is nothing of the kind: it is the partial and uneducated survival of a theology which was once universally held by all Christians. How many were there, for instance, in Christian churches in the eighteenth century who doubted the infallible inspiration of all Scripture? A few, perhaps, but very few. No, the Fundamentalist may be wrong. I think that he is. But it is we who have departed from the tradition, not he, . . . The Bible and the corpus theologicum [body of theology] of the Church is on the Fundamentalist side." [The Religion of Yesterday and Tomorrow, 1925, by Kirsopp Lake, pp. 61, 62]. tjguy

why is the problem of evil a problem? -God hates evil...He has destroyed it through the blood of Christ. Considered in the scope of an absolute(infinite) eternity no argument can be made that God allowed Sin...Evil...Suffering. He extinguished it as soon as it arose...on Calvary... Plus he never created the possibility of evil...read up on your medieval philosophy (duns scotus, aquinas)sin, evil, is corruption, the lack of being. cecil.wiese

The idea of the effects of the fall being retroactive is interesting, but it seems to me that it misses on a number of points. First of all, it is not the natural reading of the text. It is clearly a way to read billions of years into the Bible when the text doesn't naturally read that way. Also we can see that there was no death in the garden of Eden because all animals were originally created to be vegetarian so this seems consistent with the no death before the fall even in the animal kingdom idea. Another problem with this idea is that there are fossils of thorns in the fossil record and the text clearly says that thorns were a result of the curse on the earth that happened as a result of Adam's sin. Perhaps he sees this as retroactive as well. Then you have the whole issue of the worldwide flood that is mentioned by other biblical writers as well. This would have laid down tons of sediment and created lots of fossils. But if the fossils and much of the sedimentary rocks we see today are the result of the flood, then much of the reasoning for billions of years is removed. A worldwide flood just is not consistent with an old earth. Then there is the passage where Jesus says that God created the first man and woman at the beginning of creation. But with Dembski's timeframe, I'm assuming Adam and Eve were not created at the beginning of creation. And then there is the problem that the true meaning of Genesis was hidden from the Jews and the Church for all these thousands of years. It was not until Lyell opened our eyes to the old earth by which he intended to discredit the Bible that we actually found the right interpretation of Genesis. Just doesn't make sense to me. If God had truly intended that meaning, He certainly could have done a much better job communicating that to us. This idea violates the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture. I'm sure there are other problems as well, but it seems that all the biblical writers who did reference creation and the flood took it literally. The only reason we do not do that today is that we feel that science is more accurate and trustworthy than the historical eyewitness account of God's Word. Yes, the cross is retroactive in scope, but the Bible clearly teaches this. There is no need to read this into Scripture. The whole OT sacrificial system points ahead to the true sacrifice of Jesus. There is no such biblical evidence for Dembski's idea, while I believe there is biblical evidence for a young earth. I respect Dembski and appreciate his work as a scientist. I'm glad he takes a stand as a believer in a godless world. It takes guts to do that and you open yourself up to tons of abuse and ridicule from supposedly moral people, but biblically speaking, the hermeneutics of that interpretation don'w work very well. It is clearly just another effort to stick long ages into the Bible to get it to agree with evolutionary geology & evolutionary cosmology. The positive part is that at least Dembski does take a stand against biological evolution even if he misses the boat when it comes to evolutionary geology and evolutionary cosmology. tjguy

bornagain77 The trouble in all this is that the majority of people in America do not equate foundation Christian beliefs with a ‘Fundamentalist belief’. There is much in the fundamentalist culture that I reject, however I will not cede a useful historical/theological term to those who seek to dismiss it with prejudice. bevets

Well, to hear Bevets proclaim 'I am a Fundamentalist' was a bit of a surprise for me, until I clicked on his link and found that he means foundational Christian belief,,, The trouble in all this is that the majority of people in America do not equate foundation Christian beliefs with a 'Fundamentalist belief'. Every time I have ever heard the word fundamentalist before it has been purposely used in a derogatory sense with the inherent negative stereotype purposely attached to it. Much like the infamous Church Lady stereotype of Saturday Night Live, i.e. strict, mean spirited stereotype;

Church Chat with the Church Lady - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ncu02ODfxHE

My view of being a Christian is very different than this popular view of being a 'fundamentalist', in that the spirit of Christ was literally, and miraculously, there for me at a very low point in my life. A point when I had really messed up, realized it, and I turned to Him for help. i.e. Rather than me having a view of God as a vengeful all powerful being who is mad at me for all the times that I have screwed up in life (which are very many), God has revealed Himself to me as caring for me, pulling for me, wanting the absolute best for me, indeed loving me, in spite of my many flaws that keep holding me back from that perfect life God would have for me; Of note; here is another excellent Philip Yancey talk in which he draws out the ingredient of 'grace' which is so often overlooked in 'fundamentalist belief';

Rumors of Another World - Philip Yancey - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT9BGHcbqDc

bornagain77

Mr Dembski is a major intellectual force in our times on conclusions in science and presumptions behind these great issues. i find him tempered in his nature and words despite historic hostility from many sides. I am YEC. no problem for me to see dearth as only coming after Adam and only 6000 years or so ago. nO death before or earth. I don't accept the geological ideas anymore then the biological ones behind conclusions on these things. it is impossible to have a good or kind God and yet have evil including dying children right before you. i would heal every human being, I guess, and give eternal life. so either there is no God or he's not a good guy or there is a serious problem stopping him from his love. The latter is explained by the bible and why this God himself had to come and get executed. Such a damn problem here. god doesn't do evil and Satan does all the evil except where people do it. The book of Job explained about evil. Remember its a equation. WE only live today because of a special extra love from God to allow us time to save ourselves for eternity. another issue if there is an eternity. Robert Byers

I also think it worth remarking (although I'm not being deliberately confrontational here but I have never hid the fact that I'm not a Christian) that YECers are at least consistent with respect to a literal belief in a seven day creation and a literal belief in Adam and Eve (it's the same first myth of Genesis. I mean myth here in the same positive way that Joseph Campbell meant it. Not in a pejorative sense at all). I happen to think they are dead wrong on both counts (taking all this literally that is). I am an Old Earth Creationist/IDist myself. Yet Dembski appears to contradict himself, that is he takes the Creation myth itself figuratively (as do I), yet he takes the Adam and Eve story literally. Yet it's all the same source material (not only the same book of Genesis, but more to the point the same broad Creation tale that opens the book itself). I just don't see how you can have it both ways. Heck there is a considerable exegesis on this, so I am not going to add to it here. I'll just say this - to me it is screamingly obvious that Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel and the expulsion from Eden is metaphorical and symbolic. I happen to think the symbolism very profound (and it touches on the central problem of evil and suffering as we all know). It is also pre-Judaic, it is rooted (in part) in ancient Sumerian mythology as a matter of interest. This is why I have always been bemused by people arguing over what the fruit was from the Tree of Knowledge. 'Was it really an apple, maybe it was a fig?' It's like arguing in dead earnest over who would win a sprint race - a unicorn or a centaur? As a matter of interest, in Genesis there is no talk of any apple ('tapuach' in Hebrew), just fruit 'pri/perot' (singular/plural) in Hebrew. zephyr

This may be a little tangential.. The problem of evil and more generally theodicy is a vast one and fills whole books. Personally I don't think that anything quite surpasses the Book of Job on this front (a book that is predictably misunderstood by many as ultimately a 'might is right' argument, which it isn't). I think with the problem of evil (as with everything else) it is best to follow one's own thoughts and ideas here and take them as far as one can, and not revere any authority (religious or secular). I do think it worth remarking on a logical flaw though wrt the dubious notion of 'necessary evil', rather than necessary suffering. Some suffering may be necessary but there is also needless suffering as well. And real extreme evil (say something indisputably and terribly evil like slavery and genocide) is not necessary, that would be saying that slavery and genocide are necessary. Which is not only illogical (if evil is necessary then how can it be evil?), it is also a sinister thing to say. It is a sinister (anti)philosophy since it justifies and rationalizes evil, which itself is a kind of evil, or it can tend in that direction at the least. Speaking of 'necessary evil' is illogical by definition. It's a contradiction at the semantic level. Let me stress that doesn't mean some suffering or hardships are not necessary, hardly as hardship and suffering (to a degree) can potentially improve our character (well it's up to us). However real evil is about as necessary as Alzheimers or Parkinsons. zephyr

Thanks for the post and the quotes. No-one is perfect, and I've gently criticized Bill in the past for an item or two, but I find that his thinking generally resonates with me on so many points. Incidentally, Bill says: "So, how could their suffering be a consequence of human sin and the Fall? My solution is to argue that the Fall had retroactive effects in history (much as the salvation of Christ on the Cross acts not only forward in time to save people now, but also backward in time to save the Old Testament saints)." For any who are interested, there is a very interesting talk Bill posted on his site, titled (if memory serves) "The Reach of the Cross," which focuses on this issue. Well worth the read. -------- Sheesh, I usually try to avoid the discussions on UD that delve into religious or philosophical realms, as I much prefer to discuss the science. But we've had two interesting threads today on similar topics. /Now back to our regularly-scheduled science programming . . . Eric Anderson

Dr Dembski It is sad to see the reality -- on all sides -- of harsh (and sometimes uncivil) militancy. I do not think it does any of us much good, nor does it bode well for our civilisation. I don't know if a lesson I learned from my school days of studying the pendulum as a classic school experiment will help:

extremes provoke opposite ("mirror image") extremes, but the point of balance is the true opposite to all extremes.

For decades, that thought has dwelt in the back of my mind, and I have tried to live by it as a key steering word for life. Of course, such a challenge is always a struggle, in which we will stumble. The key, therefore, is to get up, clean up, bind up bruised knees etc, and keep going. (Years ago, I saw a book title that says it well: a long obedience in the same direction.) My concern right now is that this challenge of balance is facing Christians who seek to be faithful to the historic, apostolic deposit, and that as we confront our own issues and debates, we should not allow a spirit of harshness to cloud our judgement and response to those with whom we disagree. This also extends to those with whom we have the most profound differences, starting with what reason and logic are. (Yes, the debates have now been pushed that far back.) So, we have to walk a tightrope, given that ever so many are disruptive and uncivil, which poisons the atmosphere that we must all share if we are to have productive discussions. I think we need to distinguish disagreement from incivility or outright bad manners driven by hostility, scapegoating and militancy; and, I think we need to firmly but fairly discipline the insistently disruptive while trying to maintain an atmosphere in which serious, productive and even therapeutic discussion may proceed. For, only such can lead the way to renewal and reformation. Which we so desperately need if our civilisation is to again find its way in a very dangerous world. GEM of TKI kairosfocus

What’s at stake is a harsh, wooden-headed attitude that not only involves knowing one is right, but refuses to listen to, learn from, or understand other Christians, to say nothing of outsiders to the faith. Fundamentalism in this sense is a brain-dead, soul-stifling attitude. I see it as a huge danger for evangelicals. I am a fundamentalist and I agree that this is a problem within fundamentalist culture, however you are painting with a broad brush. I have some respect for Ken Ham, however he does not hold any advanced degrees and there are plenty of fundamentalists who do (from Kurt Wise to Albert Mohler) -- it is not fair to ignore them (or lump them with Ham). The paragraph I quoted above could EASILY be descriptive of an attitude that is FREQUENTLY directed toward the Young Earth position by many (most?) Christians who do not subscribe to YEC. One of the virtues of ID is that it enables us to put aside OEC/YEC bickering and unite against a common foe -- a wise strategy for BOTH sides to embrace. bevets