.

Dear Helen,

.

Alain de Botton seems to have a few good, what I should call "common sense" ideas.

If they were stated simply I suppose he would have difficulty finding someone to publish them. It is a pity he has to employ such provocative language and bold characters in order to be published.

It is this "mise en scène" which renders his vocabulary somewhat repellent to me. I have to make a conscious effort to avoid committing the mistake of throwing out the baby with the bath water as it were. Just getting past the title is already an achievement.

Botton's humanistic ideas are quite honourable and worthy of interest. However, I think he has missed the point in directing his comments specifically to "atheists". They are just as valid for "theists", perhaps, in many cases, even more so (I have often observed that some of the most ardent religious practitioners have a lot to be forgiven).

In any event, irrespective of our philosophical or psychological orientation, superstition or what have you, whether we like it or not, we are all subject to so-called "religious values" which have been constantly and systematically integrated into the laws and regulations of society in all its forms, from the family unit to the community of nations, ever since mankind descended from his common ancestor with the chimpanzee about five to seven million years ago.

The distinction generally operated among countries in terms of civil law, common law and religious law is actually quite superficial and somewhat misleading. The laws and regulations of all countries and all societies are founded on so-called "religious values", without exception.

.

.

Dame Helen Mirren: " I would describe myself as a Christian who doesn't believe in God "

.

I sympathise with Dame Helen Mirren.

According to the latest count, almost one third of the world population is said to be Christian. Though they have been branded Christian, judging by their behavioral patterns, not many take the existence of god seriously, though they may not admit it, even to themselves.

Whereas arranged marriages are no longer the norm in the Christian world, choice of religion largely remains the privilege of parents.

Like the rest of us, Dame Helen Mirren probably had no say in the matter.

I guess that is the cross we all have to bear.

.

Alain de Botton's main project is the promotion of Alain de Botton by whatever means possible. Whether it's a 'kinder, gentler' pornography or a 'temple for atheists', his megadaft ideas are invariably put forward with the aim of getting him further coverage in the media. He is a self-help guru for the would-be intelligentsia.

Alain is said to promote the idea that: we might 'coalesce the scattered efforts of individuals interested in the care of souls and organise them under the aegis of institutions'.

It's when 'institutions' appear that most of the problems for humanity develop. Psychopaths usually end up in charge of them.

Teaching people to think for themselves and to search for truth does away with any need for institutions.

I sympathise with some of the thoughts expressed above, if from the other side of the fence.

This article doesn’t seem to be suggesting anything particularly new, but rather a rehash of other efforts to systemise the good life while ignoring God; perhaps some new blend of epicureanism and existentialism.

For the idea that we can incorporate Christian values without Christian theology, I’ll put in a quote from Margaret Thatcher, from 1988,
“I think back to many discussions in my early life when we all agreed that if you try to take the fruits of Christianity without its roots, the fruits will wither. And they will not come again unless you nurture the roots.
“But we must not profess the Christian faith and go to Church simply because we want social reforms and benefits or a better standard of behaviour; but because we accept the sanctity of life, the responsibility that comes with freedom and the supreme sacrifice of Christ expressed so well in the hymn:
“‘When I survey the wondrous Cross, On which the Prince of glory died, My richest gain I count but loss, And pour contempt on all my pride.’”

This article says that, as an atheist, de Bolton assumes a set of beliefs that makes church attendance untenable. He needs to flesh out this statement. On its own, it’s tautological at best, but isn’t really saying anything. Of course you must believe in God to think you’re going to get anything deeper out of church attendance. An atheist, by definition, is not likely to attend church. Atheism must be recognised for what it is: a distinct position that sets itself outside of belief in God. It cannot relax in some pretence of being gloriously neutral.

It's been too long, Dan S de Merengue. Far too long. I trust you had a great holiday.

>>This article doesn’t seem to be suggesting anything particularly new, but rather a rehash of other efforts...<<

That's a very polite way of saying that it is a load of old tosh, so props for your good manners.

And a quote from the Blessed Margaret too. My cup runneth over. Such a beautifully illustrative quote it is too, capturing the essence of a staunch Methodist provincial grocer's daughter, as she addresses a load of Scottish Presbyterians.

To be fair, the Sermon on the Mound, as it became known, did not receive universal acclaim from its audience, as she used her views of Christianity to justify her approach to capitalism and the market economy. One stout fellow was heard to mutter it was "a great travesty of the gospel".

By 'eck, she were a smart gal.

>>Atheism must be recognised for what it is: a distinct position that sets itself outside of belief in God. It cannot relax in some pretence of being gloriously neutral<<

I didn't get any sense of a rush to neutrality here. In fact parts of it suggested almost the opposite, trying it would appear to identify atheism as some kind of parallel religion. But maybe I missed something. Most atheists that I know simply call themselves atheists, have no interest in churchgoing, and - unlike de Botton - are perfectly happy to remain "unwilling to consider secular culture religiously enough, in other words, as a source of guidance". Atheism, being a non-belief, has no business to pretend to "guide" at all.

And certainly, we have no desire for "secular angels devoted to the care of our souls", a concept that sounds positively creepy.

Mr de Botton is either just a very confused boy, or an exceptionally astute marketer.

.

Margaret Thatcher: “ ... we all agreed that if you try to take the fruits of Christianity without its roots, the fruits will wither. And they will not come again unless you nurture the roots ”.

.

Historians tell us that Christianity has its roots not only in Judaism, Hellinistic religion, Greco-Roman paganism and Neoplatonism, but also in Egyptian and Indian religion and mythology.

Myths of virgin born gods, for example, existed prior to the birth of Jesus:

Krishna the Saviour (similar to Christ) was said to have been born of the virgin Devaki

Dionysus was said to have been born of the virgin Semele

Buddha was said to have been born of his virgin mother, Queen Mayadevi.

The old Teutonic goddess Hertha was said to have been a virgin impregnated by the heavenly Spirit and bore a son.

The Scandinavian Frigga was impregnated by the All-Father Odin and bore Balder, the healer and savior of mankind.

The pagan gods Danae, Melanippe, Auge and Antiope were all said to have been born of virgins.

The Roman emperor, Augustus, was said to have been conceived in 63 BC by the god Appolo in the womb of his earthly mother Atia.

Plato, born in Athens in 429 B.C., was said to have been the divine son of a pure virgin, Perictione.

Myths of divine resurrection were equally abundant prior to Jesus, for example:

the Egyptian gods Horus and Osiris, the Greek gods Dionysus and Attis of Phrygia, Krishna of India and Mythra of Persia ... just to name a few.

Also, it appears that while there is no historical proof of the existence of Moses, if he did exist, he may not have been a Jew at all, but an Egyptian who, it has been suggested, may have transmitted the religion of Ikhnaton (an Egyptian pharaoh), the monotheistic Aton religion, to the Jewish people. If so, the roots of Christianity in Egypt may be even stronger than generally thought.

I guess nurturing all those roots must be keeping Margaret Thatcher pretty busy since she retired from public office in 2001.

.

Pericles,
Well known atheist, Philip Adams, was once asked what he believed? He responded, "Nothing." In your view atheists have no business in being a source of guidance. Considering this is article was spawned on the question of "the art of living", can I ask what is your base ethical position on how to lead a good or proper life?

Is that so, Dan S de Merengue?

>>Pericles, Well known atheist, Philip Adams, was once asked what he believed? He responded, "Nothing."<<

That may well be his position, although from hearing his dronings over many years, I would imagine that Mr Adams would have had far more than a one-word answer to the question. Care to share the rest of it?

It does however provide the perfect example of how atheists have widely differing views. The fact that this one atheist - allegedly - believes in nothing, places him at one end of a very broad spectrum. I know a ton of atheists who believe a ton of stuff, which puts them diametrically opposite to the "nothing" believers.

These beliefs, you would be pleased to hear - can contain a load of stuff that Christians also believe in. Which makes it pretty obvious that it cannot be atheism that informs their views on, say killing people, since this is something that Christians say they believe in too. Except in Belfast, of course, where for many decades Catholics/Protestants gave themselves dispensation to whack any Protestants/Catholics who upset them.

>>In your view atheists have no business in being a source of guidance.<<

Now, don't go twisting my words, y'hear...

I said that atheism itself has no role in the guidance business. Individual atheists, on the other hand, can of course provide guidance, being living, breathing, thinking, compassionate human beings like everyone else.

>>Considering this is article was spawned on the question of "the art of living", can I ask what is your base ethical position on how to lead a good or proper life?<<

Yep.

Just be good.

And please, resist the temptation to ask "how do you know what 'good' is, unless you believe in Jesus". Apart from being terribly trite and significantly beneath your fine intellect, it always comes across as vaguely insulting.

As if the only people who understand "good" are Christians.

Like the "good" kneecappers of Belfast, for example.

Pericles,

"Nothing."

I heard Philip Adams give this answer once on radio to the question of what he believes. Such a short answer may just have been an off the cuff comment reflective of the mood he was in. I know he's an intelligent man and capable of being eloquent if he so chose. And I know he believes in certain things. For example I know he believes in the value of supporting the Australian film industry. I would agree with him on this but neither of us can prove this as any kind of objective fact.

I'm used to barely ever being able to post on these pages without you giving a response like a shadow. That's fine by me. I'm happy to be critiqued. But I was wondering if you had anything more substantial to say on the issue.

I asked you a fairly open question, wondering about your base ethics in relation to "the art of living." You say to be good. I suppose that answers the question. And how you should define good is up to you.

"Be good." 

I suppose it's better than being bad. But I think many would find even de Botton more inspiring.

There's probably a reason for this, Dan S de Merengue.

>>I'm used to barely ever being able to post on these pages without you giving a response like a shadow<<

I have been a total fan of yours ever since our first exchange, which was (most probably) on the topic of young-earth creationism. Discussing stuff with someone who could write so articulately, but at the same time be in the thrall of a notion so absurd, was instantly attractive. And it has to be said, you have never been a disappointment to me, not once.

So for that alone, many thanks.

>>But I was wondering if you had anything more substantial to say on the issue. I asked you a fairly open question, wondering about your base ethics in relation to "the art of living." You say to be good. I suppose that answers the question.<<

Well, I thought so. It has been the foundation stone of every civilization since man became aware (yes, I know we have differing views on that, but bear with me for a moment), that co-operation was a better long-term bet than beating everyone else over the head with a club.

As these groupings became more widespread and started building villages, towns and cities, it became increasingly necessary to formalize and codify "goodness" into something more easily referenceable, hence laws. Sure, not everything that was "good' needed to be codified, hence we have uncodified bits such as kindness and charity. And sure, we don't always agree, in legal terms, what should be designated "bad", but that's where personal ethics kick in, allowing choice in such matters as abortion. And, of course, such issues as kneecapping Protestants in the backstreets of Belfast.

>>I suppose [being good is] better than being bad. But I think many would find even de Botton more inspiring<<

I'm sure they do, which is why he is mega-rich and I am not. But I still believe he talks a load of shite. But heck, that's what makes the world go round, just like the discussions we enjoy.

Well, that I do, anyway.

Pericles,
On the subject of creationism (since you have raised it here), my experience is that most of those who write off the subject as 'absurd' or something similar have never seriously looked into it. Have you ever read anything written by creationists (beyond website blogs)?

Seriously, Dan S de Merengue?

>>Pericles, On the subject of creationism (since you have raised it here), my experience is that most of those who write off the subject as 'absurd' or something similar have never seriously looked into it. Have you ever read anything written by creationists (beyond website blogs)?<<

I have not the faintest idea how I could ever bring myself to look into it "seriously".

I am aware that some people believe that they have been abducted by aliens, and in the process were subjected to intimate examinations on hovering flying saucers. (What is the fascination with anal probes anyway - what do they believe the aliens were looking for?). I am also aware that they have recorded their experiences in books, that they wish others to believe.

However, as with creationism, their underlying premise is such that I find myself completely unable to take any of it "seriously", and tend not to spend time on it.

Perhaps that is my loss.

But on the other hand, I expect you find the quite extensive body of literature that describes the cosmos, its age, and some of the theories of how it was physically formed, equally bizarre. Why on earth, I can hear you muse, would anyone expend so much energy on unravelling the mysteries of dwarf stars, billions of light years away, when the answer is so simple, and so obvious? It must seem such a pointless, fruitless exercise to you. Yet quite often, these people seem outwardly to be sane.

There's nowt so queer as folk, as my Yorkshire granny used to say

Pericles,
Helen has put forward one view of an atheist's attempt to systemise or codify a set of values or a proper path to life. Someone investigating a view of life's origins may be attempting the previous step. We'll better know the way forward if we know where we've come from, they might think. 

For mine, initially, there must be two views of origins worth investigating, the atheist view or the theist view. Either this universe can be explained by natural forces (i.e. matter, time, and energy), or it cannot (implying the supernatural or higher intelligence).

One thing I've come to learn over time, is that when engaging with another of a different view, you must grant them their due respect, whatever that may be. To truly encounter or learn from another's view, you must desire to meet with its best examples, on it's strongest terms, to properly hear what they have to say.

If you've already decided a view is absurd, there's little point in discussion. 

There's just a touch of sleight-of-hand here, Dan S de Merengue.

>>For mine, initially, there must be two views of origins worth investigating, the atheist view or the theist view. Either this universe can be explained by natural forces (i.e. matter, time, and energy), or it cannot (implying the supernatural or higher intelligence)<<

Very worthy and all that, but you have unilaterally re-framed the question, haven't you.

I have absolutely no problem with theists who believe that, somewhere in the distant past, their particular god was responsible for bringing the universe into being. That is an entirely different position, however, to that of carrying the belief that our world is a mere six thousand-odd years old.

>>One thing I've come to learn over time, is that when engaging with another of a different view, you must grant them their due respect, whatever that may be.<<

Also, very worthy. But there is a limit to the amount of time and energy one can expend on stories of, say, UFOs abducting folk from deserted highways in the southern US states. To actually connect with these people at the level where their story can be told requires such a radical suspension of disbelief that it rapidly becomes counterproductive. That "respect" of which you speak has finite limits, otherwise you would eventually become as disconnected as they.

>>To truly encounter or learn from another's view, you must desire to meet with its best examples, on it's strongest terms, to properly hear what they have to say.<<

Ok, I'll bite.

Point me to your "best example", and I'll promise to open my mind to it.

But please, no UFOs.

Pericles,
I read the results of one survey that said Bible believing Christians were far less likely than the general population to believe aliens had arrived from distant stars. So your association is false.

I said that If you've already decided a view is absurd, there's little point in discussion. You're still saying this view is absurd. 

But if you are serious about looking a bit deeper, one quite quick introductory book I'd recommend is The Creation Answers Book by Dr Don Batten (contributing editor), Dr David Catchpoole, Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Carl Wieland. It can be downloaded from creation.com in PDF form.

Heaven forfend, Dan S de Merengue, that I was suggesting such a connection.

>>Pericles, I read the results of one survey that said Bible believing Christians were far less likely than the general population to believe aliens had arrived from distant stars. So your association is false.<<

Although you do raise an interesting question: how do those (few) Christians who believe that aliens have arrived from distant stars, fit those folk into their Christian worldview?

>>I said that If you've already decided a view is absurd, there's little point in discussion. You're still saying this view is absurd<<

Yes, I have hitherto allocated to creationism the same mental effort as to UFOs, fairies etc. But since you a) appear intelligent and b) appear to sincerely hold this absurd view, I am curious to find out what it might be that has persuaded you.

Exactly as I would do if I came across someone who a) appeared intelligent yet b) sincerely believed in the existence of the Easter Bunny, and pointed me to their research on the topic.

Incidentally, I hope you are not faking all this, and are sitting there having a good laugh at my expense, now that I am taking you seriously enough to download your recommended reading. That would be disappointing indeed.

Incidentally, my previous visits to the creation.com site have been overwhelmingly unedifying, but then, I haven't actually got around to downloading anything before.

Having already "been there and done that", Pericles… Whilst you're there see if you can find anything that sets aside the presupposition of Biblical inerrancy.

I have been totally unsuccessful in finding any creationist arguments not based on this precondition.

As, no doubt, Dan would understand any attempt at logic or scientific argument from this basis is entirely circular.

Will do, Wm Trevor.

>>Having already "been there and done that", Pericles… Whilst you're there see if you can find anything that sets aside the presupposition of Biblical inerrancy.<<

No luck so far, unfortunately.

I'm only about halfway through, so there may be some excitement yet to come.

I have to admit to a slight feeling of disappointment though, having been motivated on this particular mission by this line:

>>To truly encounter or learn from another's view, you must desire to meet with its best examples, on it's strongest terms, to properly hear what they have to say.<<

I hope that this is not intended to be one of creationism's "best examples".

It seems more of an introductory document for people who are already theists - and Christian theists, at that - and who want some ammunition to fortify their own beliefs. As a document that steps back to look at the bigger picture, of evolution over creationism, it seems horribly light-on.

Although if the prerequisite is to picture oneself in the other's shoes - that is, put yourself in the frame of mind of a young-earth creationist Christian - then I have to say, it is quite a polished work.

Dan S de Merengue, any thoughts?

Any thoughts on what in particular? 

This thread was started by Helen, who was reviewing de Botton's book. Yet if you consider 'The Answers' book worthy of discussion, I'd be willing to discuss its contents. I appreciate you having taken the effort to read it. 

Sorry, I wasn't very specific, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Any thoughts on what in particular?<<

I meant, any thoughts on the suggestion that it is necessary first to put oneself in the shoes of a creationist, in order to accept anything in the "Answers" book. It seems - to me, at any rate - to lack the sort of objectivity that tends to be applied to other studies of the universe and its beginnings.

For example, it is not necessary to be an atheist in order to explore the point at which the universe as we presently know it, came into being. It is however necessary to believe explicitly in the words of the Bible, in order to make any sense of the arguments put forward in "Answers".

I still haven't made it to the end, I'm afraid, what with the weekend and so on. But a word or two from you on how I should address my initial concerns might be helpful.

Pericles,
I agree with your observation regarding presuppositions (similar to WmTrevor's), but I don't see it as a problem. For it's normal for any view to be examined within its own terms. 

'The Answers' book is designed as something like an FAQ sheet, attempting to broadly answer the most commonly asked questions on origins from a creationist perspective. So they're obliged to answer from that perspective. How could one expect otherwise? By analogy, if you approached a particular doctor for his opinion on a diagnosis, you're expecting him to give you a view from his perspective.

So you are correct in speaking of the need to put yourself 'in their shoes' if only momentarily, for the sake of argument. Only then can you assess whether that view (with its preconditions) is consistent and adequate in accounting for the evidence at hand.

So it's not necessary to believe it, only that you try and see it from that perspective. But make no mistake, all views are coming with certain presuppositions and preconditions, implicit or explicit, conscious or unconscious. It's good to try and recognise them. The authors of this book are just being rather open and explicit about theirs.

I am completely at a loss to know how to respond to this, Dan S de Merengue.

>>I don't see it as a problem. For it's normal for any view to be examined within its own terms<<

This indicates that you would feel entirely comfortable with an analysis of "The conduct of Nazism between 1933 and 1945", presented by, say, Heinrich Himmler.

He would clearly be able to - and did - justify every atrocity he perpetrated, within the context of his political and social beliefs. They would all have made internal sense, and they would all have had a specific objective entirely congruent with the requirements of the thousand-year Reich.

To an external observer who did not share these views, the activities he undertook and supervised in order to rid Germany of its Untermenschen might appear controversial, even unsound. Even though they did have the unequivocal virtue of internal consistency.

>>So it's not necessary to believe it, only that you try and see it from that perspective.<<

Well, yes.

But at some point you surely have to ask what value such an analysis might have. If the starting-point (Christianity; Untermensch) is a necessary precondition for the explanation, your conclusions will necessarily be confined and restricted by that premise. Whereas if you start from a more open proposition, such as "the universe exists, and is all around us", or "Germany between 1933 and 1945", your research, and your findings, could take you - literally - anywhere.

But I guess if you don't see it as a problem then, well... you don't see it as a problem.

Which certainly helps explain "Answers".

DSM says, "....all views are coming with certain presuppositions and preconditions, implicit or explicit, conscious or unconscious."

The presupposition evolutionist come with is that any inference drawn from observations made by the five senses must take into account ALL the observations.

To observe that life on earth is complex then to draw the inference that it must be intelligently designed/created by a higher being, does not take into account all observations.

To simply write off evolution as a concoction without recognizing all the observations supporting it, including the biological mechanism (mutation and enviroment) by which it proceeds, and to cling to an alternative having none these features is not good enough.

ID/creationism concocts the asolute existence of a higher being, not just its possible existence which can be weighed against the probabilities, time-scale, and mechanism underlying evolution. This leads it outside the purvey of science and into the realm of untestable faith/belief/hypothesis.

Luciferous,
If you're alleging that intelligent design proponents wish to infer a higher intelligence simply because they observe complexity in the universe, then you haven't really heard what they're saying. That's a parody and oversimplification of what they actually say.

Pericles,
I would agree that the actions of the Nazis were perhaps consistent with their stated philosophy. But they were out of step with reality when it comes to moral justification. Their atrocities and genocide were abhorrent in face of the commandment not to murder, and the principle of all men being created equal; all are made in God's image. 

So you are correct that internal consistency is not enough. Just as I already said above, we would also want to assess whether a particular idea or model is consistent with and adequate to account for the evidence at hand.

Luciferous says we need to take into account all the evidence. While this may be the goal, the reality is that science is always adjusting and reassessing its theories as new evidence comes to light. Researchers are gathering new data continually and also opening new avenues of investigation. And I doubt we'll soon reach the end of all mysteries.

Of course creationists are concerned with their theories matching the greatest amount of available data. If you or Luciferous think that creationists are not concerned with currently observed data, then you're not reading enough of what they're saying. A cursory look at 'The Answers' book will demonstrate that creationist are quite intent on investigating and assessing the latest evidence, as well as explaining how it fits with their models.

You are right to say, "While this may be the goal, the reality is that science is always adjusting and reassessing its theories as new evidence comes to light." Dan S de Merengue... but I don't agree with this:

"Of course creationists are concerned with their theories matching the greatest amount of available data."

I say that having read, not cursorily glanced at, 'The Answers'.

Creationists are concerned with theorising about ways to explain evidence which doen't match their 'theory' of literalism.

BTW you are not correct to simply say "all are made in God's image" since (apparently) according to 'The Answers' (p.36) this is one of "The rare pieces of poetry (e.g. Genesis 1:27 and 2:23) [even though it is a] comment on real events anyway,..."

This is in the same paragraph — as what I can only describe (in the sense of “vendre des canard à moitié”) — as the canard of "Even if
Genesis were poetic, it would not necessarily make it non-historical."

So everything's 'real' whether it is or not — by assertion.

Which is one way of "explaining how it fits with their models."

But that is not the point, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, I would agree that the actions of the Nazis were perhaps consistent with their stated philosophy. But they were out of step with reality when it comes to moral justification.<<

You have chosen to apply an external moral judgement on Himmler's activities, which is of course your right. As it is for everyone else, to make their own assessment of those actions in the light of their own worldview.

What you cannot do, of course, is to avoid the reality that Himmler acted according to his own set of beliefs, abhorrent as they may be. Similarly, the authors of the Creation Answers Book remain true to their specific belief system. You asked me to address their "arguments" within the framework of that system...

>>So you are correct in speaking of the need to put yourself 'in their shoes' if only momentarily, for the sake of argument. Only then can you assess whether that view (with its preconditions) is consistent and adequate in accounting for the evidence at hand.<<

In putting yourself in Himmler's shoes, if only momentarily, you are forced to accept that his actions were both consistent and adequate with his views, "with its preconditions".

Unsavoury as the example may be, it does highlight the futility of ignoring reality (or morality) when assessing the value of one particular view of life, the universe and everything. While I admire the Answers as being a carefully-thought-through apologia for creationism, it is highly selective in the "evidence" that it chooses to refute.

And also lacks the dimension of the rational, external judgement that you - quite correctly, in my view - applied to my Himmler example. But you cannot have it both ways, I'm afraid, choosing to apply the measurement to only one and not to the other.

Pericles,
Himmler may have been self consistent, yet he was out of step with (moral) reality, we both agree.

Yet I understand your criticism as saying that if a view is judged entirely by its own terms and preconditions then as such it can never be wrong. Put like this I would agree. But such is the nature of arguments and philosophical frameworks, which all carry numerous assumptions and presuppositions, and so lend themselves to the criticism of some degree of circularity and self fulfilment. So I think we agree, there does need to be a reality check.

Creationists recognise and openly state their (biblical) presuppositions, which are reasonable in the circumstances. It is unfair to accuse them of avoiding reality. As 'The Answers" book shows, they submit their ideas to the test by measuring them against the reality of the evidence.

If they're not applying themselves to the objective evidence, then you're welcome to say which part of it.

Thanks you for the invitation, Dan S de Merengue.

>>If they're not applying themselves to the objective evidence, then you're welcome to say which part of it.<<

If it is ok with you, I'll start with Chapter 1, and work forwards.

"Atheistic evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith acknowledged of Hitler:‘The German Führer … is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to
make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Many millions have suffered terribly and lost their lives because of
this atheistic way of thinking." The Creation Answers Book Ch 1 p.9

If I read this correctly, it draws the conclusion - "millions have suffered terribly and lost their lives" from the objective evidence that Hitler believed in evolution.

Perhaps you can fill in the detail that the authors missed: the logic that murdering millions of Jews was the result of a belief in evolution.

The way I see it, there are quite a number of people who a) accept evolution theory and b) have not killed a single person in their entire lives. But perhaps you see it differently.

There are of course many assertions that are not supported by any form of evidence, objective or otherwise:

"And it is true that, if there is no God, no Creator who sets the rules, then we are set adrift morally" The Creation Answers Book Ch 1 p.7

Given the history of Christianity, what objective evidence do you think the authors could have provided, to justify the phrase "it is true that..."

There are quite a few similar assertions in Chapter 1 that I could pick up on, but let's see how we go with this one first.

Pericles,
 - You ask what objective evidence do you think the authors of the Creation Answers Book could have provided to justify the phrase 'it is true that if there is no God, no Creator who sets the rules, then we are set adrift morally'?

The authors have given various evidences from history, including some graphs on page 10,
"Some social statistics for Australia, showing a relationship between decline of church involvement of children and increased social problems. Other statistics, such as divorce, rape, etc., show similar trends. Church influence declined dramatically with the introduction of evolution into schools in the 1950s and 60s. Statistics for other ‘Christian’ countries show similar relationships.3
3. Sources of data: Childhood church contact from Why don’t people go to church? National Church Life Survey (2002). Social stats from State of the Nation: a century of change, The Centre for Independent Studies, St Leonards, NSW (2001) <www.cis.org.au>"

 - You ask to show the link between the murder of millions of Jews and belief in evolution.

The connection was evident in "his [Hitler's] desire for the ‘Aryan race’ to win the battle for ‘the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life’ (the subtitle to Darwin's Origin)." p.11. That there was much time and distance between Darwin and Hitler means that the link is not immediately obvious. But others do see the connection. It's not just the creationists that are pointing to it. A book this size has not room to explore the details in depth, so it references other material, as you have already noted.
1. Keith, A., 1947. Evolution and Ethics, Putman, New York, p. 230.

Hmmm.

I was trying, Dan S de Merengue, probably far too subtly, to draw your attention to the generally accepted definitions of causality.

"Some social statistics for Australia, showing a relationship between decline of church involvement of children and increased social problems" do not fit neatly under this heading, as there have been numerous other changes - economic, political, demographic etc. - over the same period. Unless you are able to test for the influence of these variables and remove them from your calculation, there can be no direct connection between the two events.

Or, to put it another way, objective evidence of causality. What you have is, at best, anecdotal.

>>That there was much time and distance between Darwin and Hitler means that the link is not immediately obvious. But others do see the connection<<

Again, what I was searching for was not the opinion of others as to the possibility of a "connection", but objective evidence that an acceptance of evolution theory causes mass murder.

May I say first that it clearly doesn't, otherwise there would be far fewer people on this planet. But more relevant to our present discussion is that once again we have a wealth of additional variables that contributed to the rise of the Third Reich, Hitler's use of power to implement race-supremacy policies, and the destruction of millions of lives. Most historians start with the Treaty of Versailles, in fact, rather than from Hitler's Darwinism.

So, no causality can be deduced from our base-point of objective evidence, I'm afraid. Your logic can be summarized as:

Hitler was Darwinist
Hitler killed six million Jews
Therefore Darwinists kill Jews.

I hope that I don't need to remind you, that my dog is not, in fact, a cat.

Pericles,
You can debate the strength of the causal connection and statistical correlation. Yet you can't say that the 'Answers' book doesn't give logical and evidence based argument, clear and concise. 

So do you think these things are totally unrelated, just a big coincidence? (e.g. the German intelligentsia's acceptance of evolution, and its consequences). 

And I think you're asking the impossible if you don't accept opinions as evidence, especially on matters of history. Without informed opinions, our courts and legal system would come to nothing overnight.

I wouldn't go down that path if I were you, Dan S de Merengue.

>>I think you're asking the impossible if you don't accept opinions as evidence<<

You are suggesting that "opinions are a form of evidence, whether or not they are based in reality". You thereby undermine the entire process of learning, appreciating and understanding, that forms the foundation of knowledge itself.

Can the opinion of a four-year-old on the benefits of ice-cream be accepted as evidence of its health-giving properties? Is the opinion of the Unabomber on the benefits of technology acceptable as evidence of the social value of urban terrorism?

Surely, opinions are formed *from* evidence, not in order to provide it?

Which brings us back to Answers.

>>...you can't say that the 'Answers' book doesn't give logical and evidence based argument, clear and concise<<

I can, and do.

Answers provides an elongated sequence of opinions, based upon the single premise that the universe was created, in one fell swoop, by a deity, around six thousand years ago. Not one single element of its argumentation would be of any unique and intrinsic value without the backcloth of that opinion.

>>So do you think these things are totally unrelated, just a big coincidence? (e.g. the German intelligentsia's acceptance of evolution, and its consequences)<<

Absolutely, there is no specific linkage between evolution and the attempt by Nazis to exterminate Jews. Throughout history, various power groups have taken it upon themselves to erase other peoples of whom they disapprove, for one reason or another. Some historians view the action of Rome against Carthage to be the first of these:

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-117922504/first-genocide-carthage-146.html

Predating Darwin by a couple of millennia, you will note.

Try re-visiting Answers with an educated, but unbiased eye. You will see that the "evidence" that is presented relies totally upon the existence of your first premise - God created the heaven and the earth, around six thousand years ago. Without this, every single one of the arguments remains in the realm of "so, what?", in that there is no independent need for them to be put forward at all.

Dear Pericles,
You've put quotation marks around something that I didn't say, which is quite misleading. I was clearly referring to informed opinion, not any random opinion, nor the opinion of a four-year-old.

I said I was happy to discuss the contents of the '"Creation Answers Book", which contains much evidence and reasoned argument. Your summary doesn't convince me that you've read a great deal of it.

DSdM, "informed" opinion? Informed by what? Science has moved on. Find out about Francis Bacon’s Novum Organum (1620). Creation "science" is informed by the presumption of creation by your "God" and all accounting for observations flows uninterrogated therefrom.

If you start from scratch and take into account all the modern evidence based knowledge available to you you will find it unnecessary to conjure up a god to account for earth's existence and for the life on it.

If you want to believe in a god then go right ahead but please don't pretend one must be concocted for scientific purposes. Remember too that science never proves hypotheses like mathematics does, it only supports or falsifies them. Your 6000 year old earth was falsified by science long long ago.

Luciferase, really? Who falsified that and when did they do it? What experiment was it?

Informed by what, you ask? We are informed by documented history, the body of empirical evidence, and reason.

But I'm quite interested in what you mean when you say "starting from scratch". Who has done this? Who could  possibly do this? Do you mean starting with no thoughts, nothing? I don't think the history of science has developed in such manner. Rather we do but build upon the gains of those who came before.

Adding up the genealogies from Adam to Jesus gives ~4,000 years. Adding 2,000 years since the time of Christ gives you your 6000 years. The presupposition is that nothing preceded your Adam and Eve. As for fossils,easy. Up until A&E disobey God neither people nor animals died, hence no fossils precede this. QED?

Rather than me providing a particular set of observations that falsify your claim, DSdM let me refer you to a starting place for your enquiry, http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

My point about "starting from scratch" is that if today we began to wonder about the nature of light and worked backwards through the progression of our knowledge of it, we wouldn't rationally arrive at the need for the concoction of Huygen's luminiferous aether for light's passage. In the same way, we would not rationally arrive at the need for the concoction of a creator. That is a belief that some people wish to cling to, however, and so be it.

The "God of the gaps" brigade struggles harder year by year to plug the dyke as man's knowledge grows through Bacon's form of science. Then there are the creationists, who eschew science and reason for a literal interpretation of the Bible. Believe away, DSdM, but your Aristotelian form of science was superseded in 1620.

That's pretty weak, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Dear Pericles, You've put quotation marks around something that I didn't say, which is quite misleading. I was clearly referring to informed opinion, not any random opinion, nor the opinion of a four-year-old.<<

The inverted commas were to indicate a paraphrase, as announced by the preceding phrase "You are suggesting that..."

The opinion of a four-year-old is entirely relevant, when it comes to ice-cream. It is of course limited by their experience, which is precisely the point I was making.

>>I said I was happy to discuss the contents of the '"Creation Answers Book", which contains much evidence and reasoned argument. Your summary doesn't convince me that you've read a great deal of it.<<

I have read all nineteen chapters. Most of them address esoterica such as who was Cain's wife, which while relevant to the true-believer, is hardly "objective evidence".

Chapter five discusses the difference between the scale of the universe together with the speed that light travels in order to inform us of the existence of distant galaxies, and the biblical description of heaven and earth.

After much irrelevant discourse, it prefaces the "solution" with:

"The basic biblical framework, because it comes from the Creator, is nonnegotiable, as opposed to the changing views and models of fallible people seeking to understand the data within that framework."

This puts the cart firmly before the horse. In order to arrive at the conclusion, you need to start with the premise that you are attempting to prove. "Answers", in fact, states this with some clarity.

"By basing our scientific research on the assumption that His Word is true (instead of the assumption that it is wrong or irrelevant) our scientific theories are much more likely, in the long run, to come to accurately represent reality."

This is hardly objective. Nor can it be described as a "reasoned argument". It clearly and unequivocally states that their conclusions only have relevance if you assume the Answer, before you ask the Question.

While we are discussing objective evidence, Dan S de Merengue.

Here is a precis of Answers' "How can we see distant stars in a young universe?" exposition:

"The equations of [General Relativity] GR show that at the invisible boundary surrounding such a concentration of matter (called the event horizon, the point at which light rays trying to escape the enormous pull of gravity bend back on themselves), time literally stands still, as observed by a distant observer... Dr Humphreys’ new creationist cosmology ‘falls out’ of the equations of GR, so long as one assumes that the universe is bounded with a unique centre. In other words, that it has a centre and an edge... If the universe is not much bigger than we can observe, and if it was only 50 times smaller in the past than it is now, then scientific deduction based on GR means it has to have expanded out of a previous state in which it was surrounded by an event horizon... As matter passed out of this event horizon, according to Humphreys’ theory, the horizon itself had to shrink—eventually to nothing. Therefore at one point this horizon would have been touching the Earth. In that instant, time on the Earth (relative to a point far away from it) would have been virtually frozen. An observer on Earth would not in any way ‘feel different’. In principle ‘billions of years’ would be available for light to reach the Earth (in the frame of reference within which it is travelling in deep space), for stars to age, etc.—while less than an ordinary day passes on Earth."

Until Dr. Humphreys is able to address the assumptions required to reach this conclusion - eliminating, or at least providing some boundaries for, all those "ifs" - this cannot in any way be described as objective evidence.

If my aunt had etc...

And you did allow, did you not, that:

>>If they're not applying themselves to the objective evidence, then you're welcome to say which part of it.<<

This bit.

Even non-atheists (or more precisely non-Young Earth Creationist Christians) have issues with Dr. Humphreys...

http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-unraveling-of-starlight-and-time
http://www.reasons.org/articles/comments-on-the-rate-project

and scientists, with his cosmology, claims of comet ages, helium diffusion and radioisotopes and the age of the earth:

http://paleo.cc/ce/humphrey.htm
http://www.nmsr.org/humphrey.htm

We may have been too direct for Dan, WmTrevor.

I suspect he is in hibernation again.

Which would be a pity since I wanted to hear his comments about this on page 64 of 'Answers':

"After all, if we can’t trust the first chapter of Genesis to mean what it so plainly says, why should we trust the rest of the Bible? ... Or if we should ‘reinterpret’ Genesis to fit secular science, why not do the same with the other miracles, and the passages that offend secular morality?"

Mostly I don't understand why the first chapter (amongst others) can't be regarded as metaphorical in structure which then 'magically' makes most of the need for scientific conflation instantly disappear.

Those then interested in pursuing the godliness stuff can do so less impeded -- or conflicted.

Pericles, WmTrevor,
I appreciate your comments on "The Creation Answers Book", and the fact that you've taken the trouble to read it. (That thinking persons would devote such time to reading it is a comment in itself.) 

To those comments making specific reference to the book, I would like to make a proper response. But excuse me for being very busy at work this week. (One often can be distracted by the need to put bread on the table.)

But quickly, to WmTrevor's last question, I think he goes far towards towards answering it himself within his post. For this Scripture isn't there to twist however we like. It says specific things using understandable language. It's clarity is part of its beauty. When we come to a red light or a STOP sign in the street, we don't wonder about what it means. It's clear because the language conventions are clear. So too with the Scripture. It's overall message is clear and consistent.

And also quickly, in regard to what you say about 'conflict', I don't see any great conflict between the Scripture and any direct observations of the real world and empirical data. The conflict that exists is between Scripture and the interpretations and philosophies of those who hold opposing world views. But such is to be expected and normal in the common exchange of ideas.

DSdM states "if we should ‘reinterpret’ Genesis to fit secular science, why not do the same with the other miracles, and the passages that offend secular morality?"

Secular morality (whatever that is c.f. non-secular morality) has nothing to do with matters other than a requirement upon ID/Creationists that they stick to Bacon's science (est. 1620) in prosecuting their case. This means accepting when the evidence is overwhelmingly against them and that other theories that do not require the concoction of a creator fit the evidence.

To simply claim that, apart from this clash of moralities, any scientific misunderstanding is a clash of opposing world views shows a complete misunderstanding of Bacon's science.

Luciferace,
I think I should point out that what you have me quoted as saying in your post here isn't from me. It is a quote from WmTrevor, who I think was quoting "The Answers" book.

It would help if quotes were appropriated to the right person, along with some context surrounding the quote.

Dan S de Merengue wrote: “It would help if quotes were appropriated to the right person, along with some context surrounding the quote.”

Oh, the irony!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context#Quote_mining_and_the_creation-evolution_controversy
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/Quoting-Out-Of-Context-Fallacy.htm

Oops. My apologies, Dan, so I did. An opportunity well seized upon by AJP does not excuse my carelessness so, again, sorry.

Do you support the statement on page 64 of "Answers"? I don't believe you addressed this satisfactorily in your last post, again walking the line between literal and non-literal interpretations of the bible.

No worries, Luciferace. The words weren't mine, but I was recommending the book. Here's the whole paragraph from near the end of chapter 3.

"Compromise on the first chapter of Genesis, as explained in this Chapter and Chapter 2, has caused enormous damage to the church. After all, if we can’t trust the first chapter of Genesis to mean what it so plainly says, why should we trust the rest of the Bible? And if the first Adam didn’t really bring physical death to a previously deathless world, then why did the Last Adam have to die physically? (See 1 Corinthians 15:21–22.) Or if we should ‘reinterpret’ Genesis to fit secular science, why not do the same with the other miracles, and the passages that offend secular morality?"

The Creation Answers Book takes the position that Genesis is description of historical characters and events. That is the traditional interpretation. That is how the other Bible writers understood it. The Bible's theology is integrated with its history. If the history is wrong, what then the theology? They will fall (or stand) together like dominoes.  The paragraph above is saying that the meaning of the text is plain, and cannot be 'reinterpreted' without doing damage to the text itself and undermine the integrity of the faith.  To this I agree.

Ah, good old argumentum ad consequentiam.

This is why the creationists have already lost, despite a few 'brave' rallying attempts to stem the tide.

Reality will always be there.

In other words, Dan, you are too hopelessly compromised by your faith not to be forced into defending it with false science.

That's OK, but why didn't you just say that in the first place?

Luciferace, where is there a compromise?

I said I'm quite happy to try and address specific questions on the text of that book. You asked me to say whether I agreed with a particular sentence within a given section. So I gave you my understanding of it.

If you see some 'falsity' somewhere, then you're quite welcome to explain what and where that is.

=

Creationists have already lost? You wish, Bugsy.

=

Pericles,
The Creation Answers Book is like a large FAQ sheet in that it tries to answer the most commonly asked questions on the topic of Creation/evolution. If it deals with something rather ‘esoteric’ such as who was Cain's wife, it’s because many people are asking that question. And it’s not necessarily the faithful, it’s moreso the Bible sceptics who are asking how did Cain find a wife if he wasn’t able.

Pericles, last Monday you quoted the Creation Answers Book, page 92, but omitted the bracketed part at the end:

“The basic biblical framework, because it comes from the Creator, is nonnegotiable, as opposed to the changing views and models of fallible people seeking to understand the data within that framework (evolutionists also often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did).”

Creationists here are being candid and specific about their philosophical commitments (as Christians, they’re committed to the Scriptures.) Similarly, they point out the materialists’ (evolutionists) commitment to materialism. It’s inescapable that we each look at the world through our own philosophical framework, our own prejudices and biases. For example, a fossil hunter who thinks there ought to be links between groups will go out looking for missing links, believing they are there to be found. Any fossil found will then be appropriated somewhere into that preconceived framework. This is an example of what you described above as assuming the answer before you ask the question.

Especially for non repeatable events, people governed by different biases will look at the same data and come to completely different conclusions on what happened.

We observe the same data, in the case above: light from stars, red shift in the spectrum, measures of time and light speed, etc. (Creationists apply the same maths and physics generally accepted by all cosmologists i.e. general relativity). Our cosmology is then informed by our assumptions. Some are arbitrary (such as including a bounded universe or unbounded) if they can only be decided upon by philosophical considerations. Some may gain commendation for their ability to account for more of the evidence.

Humphries is claiming p.94 that “Galaxies tend to be grouped in concentric spherical shells around our home galaxy. … Such a pattern would not be observable if Earth was not near the centre of the Universe.”

p.97 “Indeed, the observed anomalous acceleration (towards the sun) of distant Pioneer spacecraft is consistent with the essentials of several creationist cosmologies—a cosmic centre of mass, expansion of space, and recent time dilation.”

Luciferace,
All events must have a sufficient cause. Creationists are not concocting God for scientific purposes. They are proposing the only adequate cause that can account for the evidence. The more evidence we upturn (in the spirit of Bacon), the more the materialist explanation wears thinner with holes.

‘Daily, new discoveries add to our knowledge of the breathtaking complexity of life, making the idea of the spontaneous origin of life more and more untenable. Antony Flew, famous hard-nosed English atheistic philosopher, abandoned atheism because of the weight of evidence from these modern discoveries. He said, “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” This research, “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved”.’

As I said to Pericles, we choose our own parameters often on philosophical or historical considerations. Yet you are mistaken if you say that Creationists then are ignoring the evidence or not accepting when the evidence is against them. This is clear from the ‘Answers’ book, p.97, “All theories of fallible people, no matter how well they seem to fit the data, are subject to revision or abandonment in the light of future discoveries. The white hole cosmology discussed above does not provide the correct amount of time dilation, but it is certainly headed in the right direction with encouraging theoretical and observational support.”

We appear once again to be going round in pointless circles, Dan S de Merengue.

You say that you are happy to engage in a discussion on the content of Answers, but when I attempt to do so, you simply fall back on the defence "It’s inescapable that we each look at the world through our own philosophical framework".

This does not take the discussion forward. It does not attempt to analyse the relative strengths of one position against another, for the simple reason that you insist on separate measurements for each.

>>The Creation Answers Book is like a large FAQ sheet in that it tries to answer the most commonly asked questions on the topic of Creation/evolution.<<

Not really. It simply selects a few bits of data here and there, in order to build its alternate view.

In exactly the same manner that the 9/11 fantasist has concocted an entire alternate theory that the destruction of the WTC was a CIA plot, from the supposed existence of "nanothermite", Answers builds an alternate theory of the universe based upon marginally-relevant science.

>>If it deals with something rather ‘esoteric’ such as who was Cain's wife, it’s because many people are asking that question<<

Maybe. But the logic with which it approaches the topic is entirely (biblically) self-referential, hence entirely meaningless to anyone seriously interested in young-earth creationism. It is merely a tacked-on apologia, relevant only to those with a need to believe in Adam and Eve. To anyone else, it substantiates the story in much the same way as the folk around Loch Ness insist that it is quite possible for a monster to exist in its depths.

The fact that it is possible, does not constitute evidence that Nessie exists. The fact that it is also possible to contort the theory of relativity in a particular way so that it fits your picture of the universe, does not constitute "much evidence and reasoned argument".

Disappointing.

I think I'll leave it at that, unless you have something new and illuminating to add.

Pericles,
I've tried to engage and answer your specific questions as best I can. I'm sorry if you weren't able to get that much out of The Creation Answers Book. It's value is in its breadth, answering a wide range of questions succinctly. So it's perhaps better for giving an overview than for its depth of detail. (And it's good you can download it free off the Net.) But I would disagree with your contention that the authors are focussing on minor or peripheral pieces of evidence. I would say they're attempting to account for the full gamut of relevant information related to the topic..

The sum of these questions (as well as others) is to ask which framework, creation or evolution, can best account for and explain the evidence. I still believe that you could make more effort to try and see the issue from the other's point of view. Without this, trying to analyse the relative strengths of one position against another is rather difficult. Although I would like to give you credit for reading the book and at least making that effort to go part of the way.

Leading creationists, such as the authors of the Answers book, have earned their doctorates in science from secular universities. They were raised and educated in an environment that taught naturalistic evolution as the only option. So they are very aware of what is going on on that side of the fence before being persuaded by a different view of the evidence (the creationist view). From their experience, they are more capable than most of seeing the issue from more than one perspective.

That's interesting, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, I've tried to engage and answer your specific questions as best I can.<<

I've had a quick look over the "Answers" exchanges, and to be completely frank, I can see not one single instance where you have actively engaged with the question. Instead, you have chosen first to obfuscate, then to generalize the question out of existence.

You suggested that the authors of Answers applied themselves to "objective evidence". When challenged on this, you retreat to the position that it answers "a wide range of questions succinctly", which is the most blatant sidestep since JPR Williams terrorized England in the seventies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGkEK3F1COU

>>I would say they're attempting to account for the full gamut of relevant information related to the topic.<<

Not really. On the topic of the speed of light alone, they felt the need to rely upon a new cosmology, that even according to the earnest Christians at Reasons to Believe, was "irremediably flawed". They then proceeded to ignore all other relevant data, the residual inference being that, because they can imagine it - and it fits with their beliefs - it must therefore be true.

Which as far as I am concerned is not a valid approach to problem-solving.

>>Leading Creationists... are very aware of what is going on on that side of the fence before being persuaded by a different view of the evidence (the creationist view).<<

Thing is, though, on their new side of the fence, they become big fish in a tiny pool, which might have influenced their conversion.

Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that any intelligent individual actually believes this Creationist malarkey. More likely, they have discovered that it is much more amusing to find new ways to annoy people, with ever-more-outlandish ideas on how the universe is only 6,000 years old.

Hey, it's an explanation. And it fits the facts.

Using the logic available to us in Answers, that's enough to make it true.

Pericles,
As I read it, your main query involves the cosmology put forward by Russell Humphreys. In this, they were attempting to answer the question of how light had sufficient time to travel such grand distances across an allegedly young universe. His model of white hole cosmology accounts for the evidence, and is based on reasonable underlying assumptions.

The age of the earth is what's at issue, as the Biblical age of roughly 6000 years is incompatible with evolutionary theories, while a solar system older than 4 billion years is clearly out of sync with the Bible. So given the big gap between the two, one of these estimates must be very wrong. So perhaps the Answers book could have focused on the more basic question of what evidence is there clearly supporting a young universe.

While preferring to focus on the former (more commonly asked) question about distant starlight, the Answers book does offer a link which addresses this other question. Some of these points (in the realm of astronomy) include :

-Steady retraction of the moon implying a calculation of its distance from earth closer than the Roche Limit less than one billion years ago;
-evidence of recent volcanic activity on the moon suggests it's not billions of years old as that long should have cooled down;
-the existence of magnetic fields found for various planets in our solar system which defy long age theories as they should be long since "dead";
-Saturn's rings increasingly recognized as being relatively short-lived. Like Jupiter’s and Uranus’s, they appear to be decaying in a millennial time-frame.

So while the age of the earth is impossible to prove, there are many indicators that the solar system is much younger than is often generally asserted.

Not "main", Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, As I read it, your main query involves the cosmology put forward by Russell Humphreys.<<

Just one of many. This merely stood out, as a blatant application of pseudo-science, the invention of a theory that at a cursory glance would seem to have validity, but on inspection requires the reader to focus on one insignificant factor, and ignore the important stuff.

A bit like pointing out the winding road that is apparent over Mona Lisa's right shoulder, and asserting that because it was clearly big enough to take un camion pesante, it proves that they had HGVs in Leonardo da Vinci's day.

Only if you had set out to prove the existence of heavy goods vehicles in the sixteenth century, would you even bother to come up with such a theory. Particularly when all the other evidence favours the diesel engine being a nineteenth-century invention.

But I'm not sure what you mean by this:

>>So while the age of the earth is impossible to prove, there are many indicators that the solar system is much younger than is often generally asserted.<<

The difference between the generally accepted science and the bible story is six orders of magnitude. A factor of two million.

Which renders this calculation fairly meaningless:

>>Steady retraction of the moon implying a calculation of its distance from earth closer than the Roche Limit less than one billion years ago<<

Is that two million times closer, or two million times further away?? Either would appear impossible.

>>evidence of recent volcanic activity on the moon suggests it's not billions of years old as that long should have cooled down<<

The question that immediately occurred to me was, "so what age does the 'recent volcanic activity' suggest?

Oh.

This:

"scientists noticed that volcanic gas has been released from the lunar surface within the last 1 million to 10 million years.""

http://www.space.com/3090-moon-burps-reveal-volcanic-activity.html

I'm really not sure how that supports a case for a six thousand year-old universe.

But as always, I'm very happy to hear your side of the story.

I was hoping you would engage with some of the evidence. Perhaps I put each too briefly. I'll try and clarify the points made. For the purposes of this post, 'young' refers to an age in the order of 6000 years, and 'old' as several billion.

I chose four examples (just four of many possibilities) which show prima facie evidence consistent with a young solar system. I kept to astronomy, as astronomy/cosmology seemed to be the main, perhaps the only, part of the Answers Book that you have been considering.

1) The moon is steadily retracting from the earth at a measurable rate of a few centimetres per year. Extrapolating this back in time, the moon would have been closer than it is now. There is a limit to how close realistically the moon could get before gravitational forces destroy it, called the Roche Limit. Such calculations would put it a lot less than a billion years. This evidence is consistent with a young, recently created earth and moon, but not compatible with old earth theories.

2)  Evidence from magma flows of more recent volcanic activity on Earth’s moon is inconsistent with its supposed old age because it should have long since cooled if it were billions of years old, and our moon should not have been volcanically active so long. Yet more recent volcanic activity may be consistent with a young age.

3) Similarly, the existence of magnetic fields found for various planets in our solar system and their moons defy long age theories. For instance, a planet as small as mercury should have cooled down by now to have a solid core if so old, and therefore should not have such a magnetic field.

4) The rate of change / disappearance of Saturn’s rings is inconsistent with their supposed old age. Observations over recent centuries imply rapid ring spreading and dissipation. They appear to be decaying in a millennial time-frame.

I also would add that Humphreys' white hole cosmology accounts for all general and relevant evidence (speed of light, red shifts, etc). Therefore your Mona Lisa analogy is out of place.

My response seems to have become lost in the ether, Dan S de Merengue, but I'll give it another shot.

But first of all, this is a little puzzling.

>>For the purposes of this post, 'young' refers to an age in the order of 6000 years, and 'old' as several billion.<<

Would your young-earth creationism theories not fall apart, if "old" was anything greater than six thousand years? If you are prepared to accept a version of "young" that allows the moon's volcanic activity to have taken place "within the last 1 million to 10 million years", surely the same logic will accept thirteen billion for the universe as a whole?

I'm puzzled. Help me out here.

I agree that the creationist view is that of a world roughly in the order of 6,000 years old. Anything much greater than that is at odds with the biblical chronology.

While that might seem restrictive, evolutionists have their own restrictions at the other end of the scale. Evolution theory demands many hundreds of millions of years for slow and gradual evolution to occur. So about a century ago, when Kelvin and some of his contemporaries, from the cooling rates of a presumed previously molten earth, argued for a maximum age as low at 10 or 20 million years, it is not difficult to see why these values were distastefully low for both evolutionists in biology as well as uniformitarians in geology.

Creationists feel compelled to favour a relatively young age, evolutionists favour an extremely old age. There's a big gap in the middle.

All so called ages are always somewhat theoretical, as they result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about past events. There is no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested. The only sure way to measure elapsed time is while time is elapsing.

Creationists point out many indicators (a few I've mentioned above) which suggest the vast ages to be impossible. For example, if the moon's retraction appears to suggest an upper limit less than a billion years, that excludes the old earth theories but includes the young.

That is still requires some serious tap-dancing, Dan S de Merengue.

>>For example, if the moon's retraction appears to suggest an upper limit less than a billion years, that excludes the old earth theories but includes the young.<<

The movement of the moon might easily turn out to be cyclic, if we keep measuring for another million years. Our observed universe is chock-full of elliptical orbits, for example, where the distance of planetary bodies from earth differs every single day. The fact that the moon presently exhibits a movement away from us does not in any way prove a constant increase in distance, extrapolated backwards. Once again, you are clutching at the thinnest of straws.

While a theoretical age of a billion years, using the same perceived movement as evidence, surely cannot possibly encompass a six thousand year-old earth.

Or can it? I'm open to suggestions.

>>...evolutionists have their own restrictions at the other end of the scale<<

Not to anywhere near the same degree.

>>...about a century ago, when Kelvin and some of his contemporaries, from the cooling rates of a presumed previously molten earth, argued for a maximum age as low at 10 or 20 million years<<

Since when, we have learned that the assumptions upon which his estimate was based were fundamentally flawed.

"Once it was discovered that radioactive isotopes are abundant in rocks and that radioactive decay releases tremendous amounts of heat, Kelvin's assumption of a closed system and dwindling initial heat proved to be demonstrably false".

http://orgs.usd.edu/esci/age/content/failed_scientific_clocks/kelvin_cooling.html

Which is what happens in science. The more we look, the more we learn.

Sadly, this is exactly what cannot possibly happen in the creationist's universe, since the answer is assumed even before the question is asked.

The rest of your arguments are just as flimsy, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Yet more recent volcanic activity [on the moon] may be consistent with a young age<<

Not so. It only means that the conclusions that were arrived at concerning lunar volcanic activity were incorrect, not that the moon is necessarily younger than previously estimated. As the scientists themselves concluded...

"The discovery – if supported by further studies in future – has the potential to change the commonly held belief on geological history of moon, the team claimed".

>>For instance, a planet as small as mercury should have cooled down by now to have a solid core if so old, and therefore should not have such a magnetic field.<<

The magnetic field is weak (100th of earth's) and fluctuates, as Messenger found on its second trip in 2008. As and when we are able to bring instruments with greater accuracy to bear, nothing much is settled, wouldn't you agree? Certainly not enough to conclude a six thousand year-old earth.

Once again, the problem is that you have prepared your answer before even asking the question.

>>The rate of change / disappearance of Saturn’s rings is inconsistent with their supposed old age.<<

Sez who? The composition of the rings is changing all the time, cosmically speaking. We have only been looking at them for four hundred years, and our understanding of their composition, the gaps between them, and their inherent eccentricity is still in its infancy. To draw from such tenuous ideas that the universe is six thousand years old seems almost perverse.

But I guess if these are sort of postulations that you find convincing, then who am I to argue. It doesn't hang together in a logical fashion, however, unless you ignore the tons of other data that contradict them.

"The answer is assumed even before the question is asked." Sounds a lot like evolution theory. 

I wonder who is 'clutching at straws', 'drawing tenuous links', engaging in 'perversity', Pericles. The emotion in your comments suggests that something is getting under your skin. I suppose when you initially describe something as absurd, there's not a lot of room to manoeuvre. 

Yet there might have been some value in our little discussion. You seem to be understanding some of what I'm saying. You say that, "the movement of the moon might easily turn out to be cyclic." Well, it might, or it might not. But I see how much you're willing to dance into the realm of the hypothetical. If the prima facie evidence as we currently observe it doesn't suit our current theory, we can always adjust our parameters or assumptions to make things fit. You've just demonstrated what creationists (and philosophers of science) have been saying for a long time, that it's the paradigm that drives the interpretation of the evidence and not the other way around. The essential problem with such research on distance past events is, as I said before, that there is ultimately no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested. 

So I wonder where we bother to go next. We've barely touched on a minimal few areas of interest. There's a universe of data to analyse. And people far more qualified than me or you are debating its significance elsewhere.

Maybe I'm happy that you've at least said you're willing to read some literature from another perspective. We can definitely agree about this one thing: "The more we look, the more we learn."

"The more we look, the more we learn."

Fun, isn't it? For me one of the most amusing aspects is the attempt to use – or is it misuse – 'science' in support of young Earth creationism whilst ignoring that the very same science does not support it.

But the core issue that is never addressed is reflected in:

"The age of the earth is what's at issue, as the Biblical age of roughly 6000 years is incompatible with evolutionary theories, while a solar system older than 4 billion years is clearly out of sync with the Bible."

Which would be more accurately rendered as, "… is clearly out of sync with one interpretation of the Bible."

'Answers' is very inconsistent in what it decides is literal, allegorical or poetic in the Bible and ignores the historical selection and rejection of writings from which it is constituted.

Maybe a better line of enquiry would be to discuss why old earth creationists are wrong?

Afterthought...

Does famed scholar, theologian and Vatican Library custodian Leo Allatius' "De Praeputio Domine Nostri Jesu Christi Diatriba" answer the issues about the rings of Saturn?

Though it would place their age at approximately 2016-17 years.

Entirely a figment of your imagination, Dan S de Merengue.

>>The emotion in your comments suggests that something is getting under your skin.<<

Unless you count curiosity as an emotion, of course, in which case I confess to having plenty. But there's nothing getting under my skin, as you suggest. In fact, I'm quite enjoying your tap-dancing and arm-waving, somewhat akin to watching Fred and Ginger with the sound off.

Talking of dancing...

>>But I see how much you're willing to dance into the realm of the hypothetical.<<

Yep. But I am far more comfortable with my hypotheses, which stand a considerable amount of scrutiny, than the vague pick-and-mix offerings of Answers.

This is however a perfect description of the creationist's approach.

>>If the prima facie evidence as we currently observe it doesn't suit our current theory, we can always adjust our parameters or assumptions to make things fit<<

In science, what we do is re-test those assumptions using the new information, and - possibly - arrive at new conclusions. This is a completely different approach than that of working out how the new information can be squeezed into the answer that you have previously selected.

That's the difference. With new information, we who discard young-earth creationism as simply an intellectually perverse quirk of a tiny minority of Christians, can change our understanding. You, on the other hand, simply massage the new information into your preselected conclusion.

Sadly, this gives the lie to your claim that...

>>We can definitely agree about this one thing: "The more we look, the more we learn."<<

On present evidence, the more you look, the more you tap-dance.

The gap is largest, I'm afraid, when you decline to address simple questions such as this, which I posed earlier:

How does the discovery that there may have been volcanic activity on the moon as recently as a million years ago, support the concept of a six thousand year-old earth?

In case you are worried about my blood pressure, be assured that I'm curious, rather than emotionally exercised.

Dan,

<<"The answer is assumed even before the question is asked." Sounds a lot like evolution theory.>>

If that’s the case, then how would you explain the hundreds of accurate predictions that evolutionary theory has managed to make, aside from ‘amazing co-incidence’? Based on what we currently know about evolution, scientists are often able to determine the precise location of where they need to look in order to find certain transitional fossils and common ancestors.

Certainly not consistent with the chaotic jumble of remains we’d expect to see if fossils were the result of the Noah’s flood.

<<Well, [the movement of the moon] might, or it might not [easily turn out to be cyclic].>>

And even if it doesn’t, the moon is 38,400,000,000 cm from Earth while the earth-moon Roche limit is 949,600,000 cm. This means that, at a rate of 3.85 cm per year, the moon would have been in Earth’s Roche limit 9.73 billion years ago - long before either was around. To add to this, the shift in the earth’s continents has sped-up the recession of the moon.

So, as you can see, there isn’t even any *prima facie* evidence for a young earth in the earth-moon relationship and even if there is elsewhere, it doesn’t matter, because we have around 15 different methods of radiometric dating that all work on different clocks and different principals (safeguarding us against incorrect assumptions) and all of which point to the same magnitude of age.

These methods of dating are the “natural clock” that you presume doesn’t exist and prevent us from “adjusting our parameters or assumptions to make things fit”, as you have put it.

Pericles,
As I said earlier, if you've decided the other's view is absurd, there's no point continuing discussion. I've already given an answer to that specific question. If you're genuinely interested in a more detailed answer from a creationist perspective, then I invite you to research some of the creationist literature.

AJ,
It's more than possible to make accurate predictions with a theory that's a long way from perfect. Ancient astronomers, even those who accepted geocentricism were making some pretty good predictions of the movements of the celestial bodies, and when the planets would reappear, etc.

The issue is not whether evolutionists, or creationists (or whatever theorists) are able to make some accurate predictions. Both are quite capable of doing so. The issue is which theory makes the most accurate predictions and accounts most astutely for the most amount of evidence.

The sorting action of water, as has been theorised and modelled by a worldwide flood, accounts well for the world's geology and sedimentary deposits.

There are many inconsistencies associated with the different methods of radiometric dating. That they can appear to agree so consistently is largely due to careful selection of the results, that is itself driven by philosophical or predetermined expectations. Even radiometric dating methods themselves are a form of philosophical selectiveness, as they tend to give the long geological ages, whereas other available dating methods are not preferred as they give results contrary to current popular thinking.

With regard to calculating the moon's possible recession time from the Roche limit, (while the maths is beyond my abilities to calculate) you should realise that it is not a simple linear equation as you seem to have displayed it above. It would be a differential equation. And it remains a genuine problem for those claiming the earth and moon are in the region of 4.6 billion years old.

Dan,

<<It's more than possible to make accurate predictions with a theory that's a long way from perfect.>>

So consistently though? No.

Actually, it would be harder too, come the think of it. The less one knows, the less one has to go by; and the more there is left to know, the greater the margin of error.

<<Ancient astronomers, even those who accepted geocentricism were making some pretty good predictions of the movements of the celestial bodies, and when the planets would reappear, etc.>>

Well, yes. The earth’s rotation is pretty consistent. Pin-pointing the location of where certain fossils should be found, however, is something else!

<<The issue is not whether evolutionists, or creationists (or whatever theorists) are able to make some accurate predictions. Both are quite capable of doing so.>>

Creationism to a far lesser extent, and not in any useful way. I guess it makes predictions in the sense that the flood story tells us how things should be if it were true, but it fails on every front there anyway.

<<The sorting action of water, as has been theorised and modelled by a worldwide flood, accounts well for the world's geology and sedimentary deposits.>>

So then why are most sediments on high ground? Sedimentary layers average 2.6 km’s deep in oceans, while they only average 0.6 km’s deep on high ground. Given that sediments are carried until water slows down or stops, you’d think we’d see most of them in the ocean. Instead, we see the opposite.

<<There are many inconsistencies associated with the different methods of radiometric dating.>>

There are no inconsistencies, and the only “inconsistencies” creationists have ever been able to point to are examples of where the dating method was used in inappropriate circumstances.

<<That they can appear to agree so consistently is largely due to careful selection of the results, that is itself driven by philosophical or predetermined expectations.>>

At the cost of hundreds of dollars per sample? I don’t think so, Tim. This would be quite the conspiracy if it were true too. Can you cite any examples?

Continued…

…Continued

<<Even radiometric dating methods themselves are a form of philosophical selectiveness … whereas other available dating methods are not preferred as they give results contrary to current popular thinking.>>

Could you give an example of any? I’m not aware of them and even the prima facie evidences you gave before were all shown to be wrong.

<<With regard to calculating the moon's possible recession time from the Roche limit … you should realise that it is not a simple linear equation as you seem to have displayed it above. It would be a differential equation.>>

Oh, absolutely.

That’s why I added that the moon’s recession is speeding up. Over the millennia, the arrangement of the continents was such that tidal friction would have been less. But at no point in the past has the moon’s recession slowed down or been faster than it is now. So my calculations are still apt.

Not so, Dan S de Merengue.

>>I've already given an answer to that specific question.<<

The question, once again.

"How does the discovery that there may have been volcanic activity on the moon as recently as a million years ago, support the concept of a six thousand year-old earth?"

The closest you managed to get was this offering:

>>Creationists point out many indicators (a few I've mentioned above) which suggest the vast ages to be impossible.<<

That does absolutely nothing to support the theory of a six thousand year-old earth. Particularly when you are comfortable to use million year-old volcanoes on the moon as evidence.

Surely, even you must see that as somewhat incongruous?

>>Pericles, As I said earlier, if you've decided the other's view is absurd, there's no point continuing discussion.<<

You are not making it any easier by failing to offer anything that bears more than the most cursory scrutiny. If you find something that may fit the bill, by all means let us all know.

Incidentally, I'd be interested to hear what exactly it is about a thirteen billion year-old galaxy that you find absurd, given the wealth of evidence that is available to support it.

Genuinely interested.

Pericles,
You have genuine interest? I think not. 
Who were you saying is intellectually perverse? 

Cheap shot, Dan S de Merengue. And off target.

>>Pericles, You have genuine interest? I think not. Who were you saying is intellectually perverse?<<

Let me see if I can simplify it a little for you.

I have a genuine, unfreighted interest in understanding how you, as an intelligent individual, can offer evidence that craters on the moon were formed "within the last 1 million to 10 million years", while simultaneously insisting that the universe is a mere six thousand-odd years old.

That, to me, is intellectually perverse.

Surely, you must at least have an argument that is convincing to yourself, so why not share it?

Pericles,
You've misread me. I never said the craters on the moon were formed a million or more years ago. (I know they don't have little labels on them saying how old each is.) 

In your opinion, the creationist position is 'intellectually perverse'. Yet you still seek to understand this position. Why would you bother asking for information you consider perverse? 

Really, Dan S de Merengue?

>>Pericles, You've misread me. I never said the craters on the moon were formed a million or more years ago.<<

Forgive me for suggesting that your protestation is a touch disingenuous.

May I quote you?

>>...the Answers book does offer a link which addresses this other question. Some of these points (in the realm of astronomy) include... evidence of recent volcanic activity on the moon suggests it's not billions of years old as that long should have cooled down<<

I discovered that the justification for "not billions" was as follows:

"...scientists noticed that volcanic gas has been released from the lunar surface within the last 1 million to 10 million years."

I took this to mean that you were aligned with the Answers... um, answer, since you used it to defend the position of young-earth creationism. Surely it would have been more sensible to explain that while Answers had such an... answer, you yourself believed something entirely different.

Since it appears you believe neither astrophysicists nor Answers, why did you not instantly agree with me, when I questioned the relevance of those volcanoes to a six thousand year-old universe? We had, after all, agreed that...

>>...if you consider 'The Answers' book worthy of discussion, I'd be willing to discuss its contents.<<

Which you followed up with...

>>If they're not applying themselves to the objective evidence, then you're welcome to say which part of it.<<

I think I have lived up to my side of the bargain, but I'm not sure you have. And please, try for a little more accuracy in your accusations:

>>In your opinion, the creationist position is 'intellectually perverse'. Yet you still seek to understand this position. Why would you bother asking for information you consider perverse?<<

I was quite specific, not questioning the "creationist position" per se, only the juxtaposition of a six thousand year-old universe, and a moon that appears to have hosted active volcanoes at least a million years ago.

A position that, it would be fair to say, you still have not explained.

Pericles,
The OLO theme for January was to discuss books that have made an impact. I said I was happy to discuss The Creation Answers Book. It discusses numerous questions and evidences for the creationist view of origins. It has been influential in bringing people to Christ, especially in regard to eliminating doubts some have over what the sciences have revealed in relation to the Bible. Regarding this book, I said to you,

“If they [the authors] are not applying themselves to the objective evidence, then you're welcome to say which part of it.”

Some of our discussion has been valuable, some of it not. Accusing creationists of being “intellectually perverse” (as you did, Thursday, 28 Feb.) displays lack of genuine openness or willingness to discuss matters in good faith, and I was willing to end my part in discussion at that point.

I didn’t say that I thought the moon had craters older than a million years old, neither did the authors of the book. I suspect you are putting words in my mouth. If you’d like to give a reference to the alleged quote you are welcome, but I suspect that it was someone else that said this, not us. The authors of the Creation Answers Book accept the Biblical time frame for world history, which goes back roughly 6000 years.

I sense a reluctance to pursue the discussion, Dan S de Merengue. But "genuine openness" needs two to play

>>Accusing creationists of being “intellectually perverse” (as you did, Thursday, 28 Feb.) displays lack of genuine openness or willingness to discuss matters in good faith<<

That "accusation" came after several valiant attempts on my part to gain some insight into how you are able to reconcile the irreconcilable. Since you declined to respond to a single, simple question, I began to suspect that your "willingness to discuss" had deserted you. If that is not the case, then we might profitably try again.

This seems to be the current sticking point...

>>I didn’t say that I thought the moon had craters older than a million years old, neither did the authors of the book. I suspect you are putting words in my mouth.<<

Hardly.

Let's recap:

>>...evidence of recent volcanic activity on the moon suggests it's not billions of years old as that long should have cooled down<<

I did not put those words into your mouth.

What I did ask, however, was what age does that evidence (of recent volcanic activity) in fact suggest? And the answer turns out to be in a recent study that argues that volcanoes on the moon have been active "within the last 1 million to 10 million years."

http://www.space.com/3090-moon-burps-reveal-volcanic-activity.html

If this is the evidence you were relying upon to demonstrate a six thousand year-old universe, what adjective, other than perverse, would you use to describe that conclusion?

It could be that I have misunderstood entirely. In which case, please feel free to fill in the gaps. When you said "evidence of recent volcanic activity on the moon suggests it's not billions of years old", what was the evidence on which you rely for this statement?

It would be good to clear this up. There are a few more statements in Answers on which I would appreciate some clarification.

Pericles,
I trust you appreciate that a sincere discussion should entail certain levels of respect. The label 'perverse' is name calling and not befitting any worthy attempt at discussion. 

You've brought up evidence of 'recent' volcanic activity on the moon, allegedly 1 million or more years ago. As said earlier, these so called ages are always somewhat theoretical, as they result from calculations that necessarily involve making (philosophically based) assumptions at some level about what has happened in the past. 

There will be different explanations for the moon's composition and how the surface features came to be. Yet all agree that some cratering or lava flows appear to be more recent than others. 

'Researchers studying recent images of the far side of the moon, taken from the Japanese SELENE (Kaguya) lunar satellite, report dark “seas” of volcanic rock they say are “only” 2.5 billion years old, “much younger” than formerly presumed. That’s because there are fewer craters (blasted by meteors) on the smooth dark surfaces than expected—assuming the rate of cratering has been constant through time. Fewer craters means that the volcanic lava flows can’t be so old. Given this volcanic activity lasted (supposedly) 500 million years later than previously thought, evolutionists now have the challenge of explaining how lunar volcanism was able to persist for so long. The moon is only about one-quarter the diameter of Earth, and only about one-eightieth of its mass, so it should have long ago cooled, and long been geologically dead.'

The moon should not have been volcanically active so long. Yet such evidence of more recent volcanic activity favours young age explanations. 

I couldn't think of a better word, Dan S de Merengue. But it's hardly "name calling".

>>Pericles, I trust you appreciate that a sincere discussion should entail certain levels of respect. The label 'perverse' is name calling and not befitting any worthy attempt at discussion.<<

Can you suggest a word that is less offensive to you, but still means "a conclusion that contradicts all accepted norms"? Because that was what I was aiming for.

Let's try again.

>>You've brought up evidence of 'recent' volcanic activity on the moon, allegedly 1 million or more years ago.<<

Sorry, I was under the impression that it was you who raised the subject of the moon's volcanic activity. Ah yes, here it is:

>>...evidence of recent volcanic activity on the moon suggests it's not billions of years old as that long should have cooled down<<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14560#253786

And lo, here is the evidence that you (not me) have provided in support:

"Researchers studying recent images of the far side of the moon, taken from the Japanese SELENE (Kaguya) lunar satellite, report dark 'seas' of volcanic rock they say are 'only' 2.5 billion years old, 'much younger' than formerly presumed."

So, a question: do you accept that if the volcanic rock is 'only' 2.5 billion years old, it precludes the supposition that the universe is six thousand years old?

If you don't accept the information as presented, on what basis do you present it as evidence? That is the part that I find to be "a conclusion that contradicts all accepted norms"

And I shouldn't rely on this kind of logic, if I were you:

"Given this volcanic activity lasted (supposedly) 500 million years later than previously thought, evolutionists now have the challenge of explaining how lunar volcanism was able to persist for so long."

Because you and I both know that this is exactly what will happen, just as it always has. The more scientists look, the more they find, and the closer they get to an accurate picture.

Thing is, now they know where to dig, which will help fill in the blanks.

Pericles,
Your question, do I accept that if the volcanic rock is 2.5 billion years old, it precludes the supposition that the universe is six thousand years old?

Of course. The second part of the sentence follows from the first. But I obviously disagree with the first part. These particular researchers said the rock was 2.5 billion years old. Yet I am discerning and don't necessarily accept everything that others say or the conclusions they arrive at.  At risk of repeating myself, such ages are somewhat theoretical, as they result from calculations that necessarily involve making (philosophically based) assumptions at some level about what has happened in the past. 

You need to understand the distinction between the meanings of such words: evidence, observation, supposition, allegation, fact, theory and conclusion. For example, the Japanese probe was making observations of the far side of the moon. That there are 'seas' of volcanic rock as a result of lava flows is a fact generally accepted by everyone. One important fact is that the probe was not there billions of years ago to measure the elapsed time, so their allegation of the '2.5 billion year' age of the maria is theory based upon supposition. The evidence that I was putting forward was the lesser rate of cratering observed in that part of the maria compared to other parts. 

As we make observations and use all the evidences to piece together a possible scenario of what happened in the past and how long it has existed for, it is this different rate of cratering for various parts of the moon surface that doesn't fit easily with long age theories but comes in favour of the young age theories for the history of the solar system. 

Your logic is discontinuous, Dan S de Merengue.

>>...it is this different rate of cratering for various parts of the moon surface that doesn't fit easily with long age theories but comes in favour of the young age theories for the history of the solar system<<

There is no discernible connection between the lack of fit with the previous determinations of the craters' ages, and "young age theories for the history of the solar system". It therefore sheds no light on a young earth at all, but merely suggests that we need more information to inform our conclusions.

Since you already have reached your conclusion, this additional material - which will undoubtedly be forthcoming, now that the anomaly has attracted some attention - is irrelevant. You will, I am sure, simply repeat your mantra that because scientists cannot ever be entirely certain exactly how the universe came into being, the Bible must perforce be true.

This is, if you hadn't noticed, a form of capitulation on my part, since you and I will continue to disagree on the simplest of issues, which you frame as follows.

>>...such ages are somewhat theoretical, as they result from calculations that necessarily involve making (philosophically based) assumptions at some level about what has happened in the past<<

The only "philosophical" assumption here is the one you propose, which is that the answer is in Genesis. Scientists and astrophysicists confine themselves to observation. Which is, of course, how the divergence from accepting Genesis as fact, and arriving at a different conclusion, first arose. Science did not suddenly say "hey, I think the universe is 13.5 billion years old, let's find some evidence". They said "what we see differs from what we have been told. Let's find out more".

So let's explore your philosophy a little further for a moment. You believe completely in Genesis, I have to accept that. Do you have the same commitment to Revelations? Or Leviticus?

Using your logic, if there are anomalies present anywhere in these, the entire story - Genesis and all - must be based on an untenable philosophy.

Just a thought on behalf of all of us who are still clicking on the "Show discussions for articles published one quarter back" display button… and consistent with my assumed role of being 'an helpmeet', is this an additional possible line of enquiry?

If we set aside the book of Genesis – assume for the sake of philosophically based argument it doesn't exist – what are the evidences for the age of the universe, the earth and everything in and on it being 6000 years?

As I said, just an idea, since internal contradictions in the Bible aren't going to disappear any time soon and could wait.

Are you truly sure about this, WmTrevor?

>>...consistent with my assumed role of being 'an helpmeet'<<

I mean, I appreciate the intent, but as John Gill (1697-1771) explained the term in his Bible Commentary...

"I will made him an help meet for him; one to help him in all the affairs of life, not only for the propagation of his species, but to provide things useful and comfortable for him; to dress his food, and take care of the affairs of the family; one 'like himself' in nature, temper, and disposition, in form and shape; or one 'as before him', that would be pleasing to his sight, and with whom he might delightfully converse, and be in all respects agreeable to him, and entirely answerable to his case and circumstances, his wants and wishes."

That's quite a workload, even for Online Opinion.

But I would like to call you on a glaring inconsistency.

>>If we set aside the book of Genesis – assume for the sake of philosophically based argument it doesn't exist...<<

If we did that, we wouldn't have the word helpmeet anyway, so you'd disappear in a puff of logic.

Not necessarily, Pericles…

"If we did that, we wouldn't have the word helpmeet anyway, so you'd disappear in a puff of logic."

Surely it is possible to invent a philosophical position in an argument that would permit me to ignore totally such a contradiction?

It wouldn't take much Planck time (tP) to think of some examples.

But whilst I had in mind the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary concept of "To make him sensible of his wants", Gill's is much more appropriate to the extent – to me at least – that I am especially pleasing to look at and delightfully conversational.

Wants and wishes? Yes you're right, that is a big (t)ask.

(Before settling on 'helpmeet' I'd looked for an appropriate noun in 'The Meaning of Liff' – found myself distracted with laughter – before deciding I risked being a ferfer)

Maybe, WmTrevor

>>Surely it is possible to invent a philosophical position in an argument that would permit me to ignore totally such a contradiction?<<

But I think that has already been achieved, right here in this barn.

>>It wouldn't take much Planck time (tP) to think of some examples.<<

Only, I suspect, if we could approach the topic with sufficient gravity.

>>... before deciding I risked being a ferfer<<

I wouldn't want to sound at all ungracious, but do you not bear the greater risk of being outed as an ozark?

Pericles,
I can understand you not quite following my explanations for a young earth from moon cratering, as I've only given the barest of sketches in a few brief sentences. I don't actually believe that any of us here will solve the world's mysteries in 350 words. What I am saying is that if you're truly open to or interested (and I doubt you are) in creationists' theories, then I'm encouraging you to go and read their literature.

I've never been under the misapprehension that I'll convince you of my position in short posts, 350 words or less. Yet your comment, "you have already reached your conclusion," brought a smile. It suggests that I am stubborn or close minded while you are open to persuasion. Having got to know you through this forum, I know some of your quite entrenched philosophical positions.

So to say that only creationists are making philosophical assumptions is ridiculous. Creationists are more explicit in declaring their particular philosophy. But evolutionists are quite beholden to their strictly materialist explanations and the required vast time periods, which then allow for evolution to occur. Careful examination of the development of history will show that your "divergence from accepting Genesis as fact" was more philosophically than evidentially driven.

But WmTrevor's comment is quite insightful in giving an understanding of the presuppositional approach. He says, why don't we presume that Genesis doesn't exist, just for the sake of argument. This is exactly the approach that creationists often take, but from that side of the fence. They say let's presume that Genesis is what it claims, an historical account of earth's creation, and let's examine the evidence in that light; what evidence seems in favour (and what is against.) 

Others, taking a line from WmTrevor's advice will presume that Genesis is not true or doesn't exist. They say let's exclude God from the picture. In this light, some kind of materialist explanation like evolutionary theory inevitably becomes the only one imaginable, regardless of the evidence.

You're mistaken to think that I'm the only one making philosophical assumptions.

"I don't actually believe that any of us here will solve the world's mysteries in 350 words" -Dan S de Merengue

No, you think you can do it in three:

God did it.

Heaven forefend I'd ever think you would "...want to sound at all ungracious," when I'm just pleased not to have also been outed as a sconser.

To quote Ronnie C, "I know my place."

But this is at the heart of the issues, Dan S de Merengue...

"They say let's presume that Genesis is what it claims, an historical account of earth's creation, and let's examine the evidence in that light; what evidence seems in favour (and what is against.)"

Because the evidence is always; unjustifiably beaten out of shape to fit (all the physics based arguments for a start) or, sorry for the pun, created as an explanation for what is not mentioned (dinosaur eggs on the ark for example), or ignored (older and other cultural writings, demographics, etc.)

I am unaware of any line of reasoning which supports young earth creationism except that which is claimed by people who already believe it.

Is there anyone who makes a case that the earth is 6000 years old who does not accept a literalist account of Genesis or belief in the Bible?

Their arguments would be extraordinary and really interesting.

WmTrevor,
You say you're unaware of any line of reasoning which supports young earth creationism except that which is claimed by people who already believe it. Do you know of any line of reasoning which supports evolution theory except that which is claimed by people who believe that?

You ask, "Is there anyone who makes a case that the earth is 6000 years old who does not accept a literalist account of Genesis or belief in the Bible? Their arguments would be extraordinary and really interesting." 

Similarly could I ask you, is there anyone who makes a case that the earth is 4 billion years old who does not accept evolutionary theory? I would esteem their arguments beyond extraordinary.

That's very thoughtful of you, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, I can understand you not quite following my explanations for a young earth from moon cratering<<

Being a bear of such little brain, I do find it enormously challenging to discard scientific theories and observations developed by highly intelligent and well-educated scientists, in favour of a narrative developed two and a half thousand years ago by a bunch of priests in exile from Judah.

Or perhaps you believe that Genesis was in fact an eye-witness account, written by Adam himself?

http://www.british-israel.ca/Genesis.htm#.UT1kbDCno_4

"Wiseman suggests that it was God himself, who wrote as he wrote the Ten Commandments, on clay tablets. According to the Text it was written after creation itself, then he must of [sic] taught Adam to write."

But I notice that you carefully sidestepped the issue of selective belief, did you not? Given that you are committed to the concept that Genesis is the last word on the creation of the universe, are you equally committed to the description of its demise in Revelations?

And give that you might be committed to both, where do you stand on Leviticus?

>>What I am saying is that if you're truly open to or interested (and I doubt you are) in creationists' theories, then I'm encouraging you to go and read their literature.<<

You do me a grave injustice if you believe that I have not given "Answers", and much literature along the same lines, my most earnest and open-minded scrutiny.

It may be the quality of the writing, in that it fails to convey a convincing enough story, or maybe it is just that the quality of the ideas themselves lacks rigour, but none has yet made any impact.

But please don't blame yourself.

>>I don't actually believe that any of us here will solve the world's mysteries in 350 words.<<

Your arguments are at least as cogent and well-presented as anything in "Answers".

Dan S de Merengue asks: “…is there anyone who makes a case that the earth is 4 billion years old who does not accept evolutionary theory?”

Yes, there is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism

So am I correct, Dan S de Merengue, in taking it that your answer to my question is "No"?

You keep reversing the horse and cart in the questions... the phrase 'already believe it' used by me was missing in your comparison question, "Do you know of any line of reasoning which supports evolution theory except that which is claimed by people who [already] believe that?"

The answer to which is multiples of "Yes."

Philosophically science is pessimistic and assumes what we think is wrong and keeps testing until it looks like it might be right whereas YEC says it knows what is right and ignores all the test results.

"Similarly could I ask you, is there anyone who makes a case that the earth is 4 billion years old who does not accept evolutionary theory? I would esteem their arguments beyond extraordinary."

Heaps of various strands of old earth creationists, though I don't know any individuals personally...

Plus, of course, Hindu's. Which I accept could be seen as a special case since they regard us as devolving.

Followers of Jainism complicate the question with their concept of the karma of embodied beings, so the jury's out on them.

Pericles,
I said I was willing to discuss the contents of The Creation Answers Book, which deals with commonly asked questions regarding theories of Biblical creation. You’re right that I deliberately avoided your question about Leviticus and Revelation. I don’t think they are mentioned in the ‘Answers’ book, and aren’t so relevant to theories of creation. It would be good to try and focus the discussion somehow, or otherwise it could potentially digress into any or every possible direction.

Bugsy,
It’s clear you don’t like me, but at least you still notice me.

WmTrevor,
When you’re inclined to answer your own questions, I suspect that they were mainly of rhetorical nature. And so I merely turned your questioned around in rhetoric form to try and make a point, that it is merely axiomatic to see that those supporting a particular view are the advocates of that view.

Your idea of the scientific method, that it, “assumes what we think is wrong and keeps testing until it looks like it might be right,” I think needs some more development. Described as such, I don’t think that makes a lot of sense.

But I am prepared to revisit your earlier comment, when you said you were “unaware of any line of reasoning which supports young earth creationism except that which is claimed by people who already believe it.”

Perhaps you should have asked Pericles. He claims to have given the Answers book and other creationist literature much scrutiny. He could have pointed out some of the many evidences for a young earth contained therein, gathered from a variety of sources. An example might be the dinosaur fossils discovered by Mary Schweitzer to have not completely mineralised, even showing bones with blood cells, hemoglobin and other soft tissue. The evidence (taken outside of the long age, millions of years, evolutionary paradigm) would naturally suggest a recent age for such creatures.

Well, you say that Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, I said I was willing to discuss the contents of The Creation Answers Book<<

But you don't actually do that, do you?

I ask one question, which was how does the presence of million-year-old volcanic rock on the moon support the theory of a six thousand year-old earth. And get no response. Except to suggest that because it is only a million (or ten, or whatever) years, that must perforce disprove all theories to do with the age of volcanic rock.

Now we have the same problem with dinosaur blood. Based entirely on the fact that someone found blood where no-one had found blood before, you reason that the earth is six thousand years old. Even though the reason the whole thing was considered amazing, was that the fossil was in fact 68 million years old. Where's the logic in that?

"Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was 'powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.'

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. 'They treat you really bad,' she says. 'They twist your words and they manipulate your data.'"

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html

Incidentally, the reason for introducing Revelations and Leviticus was to try to understand why you put so much faith in the literal interpretation in Genesis. We don't need to discuss them at all, just tell us whether you have the same conviction that they represent reality.

Pericles,
I've answered your question regarding volcanic rock on the moon several times. And I never said the rock was a million years old or more. 

The argument from dinosaur tissue is quite straight forward. I'm surprised if you're saying you don't follow its logic. The blood cells, hemoglobin and other soft tissue found by Schweitzer is inconsistent with the alleged long ages, as such matter should not survive intact for so long. Therefore the bones are unlikely to be 68 million years old, neither the rock that they were found in.

Thanks for showing the link to the smithsonianmag. It helps to throw some light on the situation. (You'll notice from the article that the palaeontologist was claiming her authority for the long age from the geologist. This is an example of an authority based argument. As I have been saying above, it's the 'authority', the ruling paradigm, the assumptions, or the undergirding philosophies that often govern the interpretation of the evidence rather than the other way around. Perhaps the doesn't fit with some people's pristine or idealistic view of science, but it's the way things work in reality.)

Genesis is not anything if it is not clear. So I'm not sure what you're asking about interpreting Genesis beyond what I've already explained (see, for example, my comment on Friday, 8 February.)

"Your idea of the scientific method, that it, “assumes what we think is wrong and keeps testing until it looks like it might be right,” I think needs some more development. Described as such, I don’t think that makes a lot of sense."

We'll just have to put that down to a poor attempt on my part to make a brief paraphrase of Prof Steve Jones' comments about science. I'm sure the full explanation in his new book "The Serpent's Promise: the Bible As Science" to be published on 2 May will be more sensical.

Thanks for the redirection to Pericles, always an enlightening experience on my part… But my statements were made having already read the Answers book completely through once and about eight of the chapters two or three times. When I found footnotes of sufficient interest to follow up – and was able to do so online – the result was of something uncontentious (eg. dinosaurs ate each other), even if I found the conclusions, as presented in Answers, to be so (eg. "Did this dinosaur die such a terrible death in the ‘very good’ world before Adam sinned, or after he sinned?’).

Having previous experience of Safarti and Weiland's writings and claims, I didn't bother this time around, and regarded the redirections to 'Creation' as self-referential and not independent of the claims being made.

We are stuck on an impasse with you regarding Genesis as the evidence – whilst I regard it as the unsubstantiated allegation – because of a presumed god who could create a universe but not an autobiography.

Still looking forward to your Revelations revelations...

As you say, "Genesis is not anything if it is not clear", which is why I think it is not anything.

Maybe you have, in your own mind, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, I've answered your question regarding volcanic rock on the moon several times.<<

But if you really think about it, you have done no such thing. As you kindly remind us...

>>And I never said the rock was a million years old or more<<

Maybe this is true, in the absolutely literal sense.

But what puzzles me is that you can on the one hand accept a discovery that points to volcanic activity "within the last 1 million to 10 million years" as evidence for a six-thousand year-old earth, yet on the other continue to assert that you don't actually believe the evidence you are putting forward.

Until you can explain this apparent discrepancy, I feel comfortable in suggesting that you have failed to answer the "question regarding volcanic rock on the moon" even the once, let alone the several times that you claim.

And this is a little hard to swallow, too.

>>The blood cells, hemoglobin and other soft tissue found by Schweitzer is inconsistent with the alleged long ages<<

On what basis do you assert that? Where is the inconsistency? Unless you happen to have on your bookshelf the definitive work on the decay of blood cells, haemoglobin and other soft tissues, all you are left with is conjecture, that its survival over a long period is impossible.

I'm still keen to hear, by the way, on what basis you find the Book of Genesis so persuasive. It would be helpful, as I said before, if you could reassure us that you hold Revelations and Leviticus in equally high regard.

Or, if you happen not to like them for some reason, let us know why you believe Genesis is in some way special, compared to the other Books of the Old and New Testament.

WmTrevor,
I was critical of the wording of that sentence you gave, seemingly concerning the practise of falsification. Yet I can appreciate the concept. One may forward a falsifiable hypothesis and then attempt to test it. The problem is that this ultimately doesn't work for statements of history. I'll give an example:

'There's a glass of water on the table.' Such a proposition can be tested and verified.

However the statement, 'I drank from that glass of water last Thursday,' cannot ultimately be falsified. It is a statement of history. It can be checked through records, perhaps video evidence, witness testimony, or  corroborated evidence. (But witnesses may be corrupt or mistaken. The date on the video camera may have been incorrectly set. You can imagine the problems.) Ultimately,"last Thursday" will never be repeated. Therefore, within an experiment it is unrepeatable, and hence unfalsifiable.

Historical statements such as: Napoleon signed a concordat with the Pope in 1825; Hannibal crossed the alps with elephants in 200 BC; dinosaurs evolved into birds around x million years ago; birds were made on the fifth day of creation; are all alleged statements of history. They can be debated but are all ultimately unverifiable in the sense of being falsifiable, as the events and dates cannot be repeated.

Similarly, Genesis, as a book making historical claims, cannot be falsified but can only be corroborated. Are you claiming that the historical propositions within Genesis have been falsified at some point?

Yet you do now suggest that Genesis is not clear. What part of Genesis would you say is not clear?

As for saying that I regard Genesis as evidence, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting we should somehow investigate Biblical creation without making any reference to Genesis (even for the sake of argument)?

Pericles,
I have answered your questions above (or at least tried). I could cut and paste the answers I've already given again, if you'd prefer. But I suspect that you're not listening.

I think the problem we're having may be word definitions. You are perhaps confusing such words as evidence, allegation, theory, or observation. Rock that is allegedly 1 to 10 million years old is perhaps somebody's inference, estimation or conclusion (no one was there to observe it and record the dates a million years ago). Evidence is observation, usually observation which is verifiable or uncontested. 

You're also asking me for some kind of comparison with Genesis and Revelation. The Bible was canonised as holy scripture by the church at various church councils in the early centuries of church history, that is, all books of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and all else in between. This is standard Christian belief. The Bible contains various genre, including history, law, instruction, poetry, love letters, visions, etc., all for the edification of the church. I accept that the historical writings (including Genesis) are accurate (though hardly exhaustive) accounts of historical events. Revelation is a grand visionary image, occasionally making allusion to persons or places, but was never thought to be an account of history.

There's nothing wrong with a little cut'n'paste now and then, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, I have answered your questions above (or at least tried). I could cut and paste the answers I've already given again, if you'd prefer. But I suspect that you're not listening.<<

In turn, I suspect that you cannot find one that is in the least bit convincing. But since you clearly are embarrassed about it, I shan't push it any further.

This seems to be your perennial fallback:

>>...no one was there to observe it and record the dates a million years ago<<

That is indisputable. But it also means that you can use the same argument "I wasn't there to see it personally" to deny that anything happened, any time in history. The only alternative is to carefully select those people you decide are reliable and truthful, and accept everything they say as being utterly factual.

As you yourself say:

>>Historical statements... can be debated but are all ultimately unverifiable<<

This also includes your Bible, unfortunately.

>>The Bible was canonised as holy scripture by the church at various church councils in the early centuries of church history<<

But... why do you choose to believe this, when it is itself "ultimately unverifiable"?

You have chosen to take the word of a bunch of people, whom you have never met, whose motives for are hidden from you, whose writings could easily be either faulty or falsified, as the basis for your belief that the world is six thousand years old.

Does that not seem to you a little too... trusting? Has it never occurred to you that these worthy folk might have had more worldly aims in mind, in making their determinations? They are only people, after all. As of course are scientists.

And why the omission here?

>>the historical writings (including Genesis) are accurate... Revelation is a grand visionary image<<

Leviticus, on the other hand, provides instructions. Are you equally as convinced by them, as you are by the history in Genesis, and the visions of Revelations?

I'm certainly not embarrassed by anything I've said. I'm happy that it's up there on the record for anyone to read.

Why would I or anyone else believe the Bible to be true? What an enormous question! Libraries have been filled attempting to answer that question. That is why I was attempting to limit the discussion to just one aspect of that; to the Biblical description of creation and the current observations and evidences in support of that view of our origins.

That wasn't what I asked, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Why would I or anyone else believe the Bible to be true?<<

The questions I posed are as follows, seriatim:

"You believe completely in Genesis, I have to accept that. Do you have the same commitment to Revelations? Or Leviticus?"

"Or perhaps you believe that Genesis was in fact an eye-witness account, written by Adam himself?" [I accept that you may have supposed that one to be a rhetorical question. It wasn't]

"Given that you are committed to the concept that Genesis is the last word on the creation of the universe, are you equally committed to the description of its demise in Revelations?"

"And give[n] that you might be committed to both, where do you stand on Leviticus?"

"I'm still keen to hear, by the way, on what basis you find the Book of Genesis so persuasive. It would be helpful, as I said before, if you could reassure us that you hold Revelations and Leviticus in equally high regard."

"Are you equally as convinced by [the instructions in Leviticus], as you are by the history in Genesis, and the visions of Revelations?"

As you can see - courtesy of my ability to cut'n'paste, rather than ask you to find the quotes yourself - the words "true" and "truth" appear nowhere. Fact is, I don't give a fig whether or not they represent a "truth" of some kind - or any kind, for that matter - only what it is in them that you find so persuasive.

>>What an enormous question! Libraries have been filled attempting to answer that question.<<

Not the question I asked, they haven't. The kind of response I am looking for from you should not even exhaust the allocated 350 words. Five sentences should do it. Six, max.

Your reply may well shed some light on the approach taken by "Answers", which is presently something of a mystery.

I appreciate the examples, Dan S de Merengue. Has anyone ever tried claiming Popper's repudiation of induction is not historical because it is unfalsifiable, I wonder?

But I'm not the one claiming that Genesis is an historical statement… even in my days as a church elder I would only have claimed it was Mystic at worst and allegorical at best.

A consequence of my family's dour Bible Christian Church branch of Methodism, no doubt. That, or their having originated in Cornwall.

But my intent was (and historically still is) to contrast lines of reasoning which allow for the possibility the conclusion is false, with those of young earth creationists whose methods and lines of reasoning do not.

"Yet you do now suggest that Genesis is not clear. What part of Genesis would you say is not clear?"

The short response is, all the bits of it that require 'The Creation Answers Book'.

"As for saying that I regard Genesis as evidence, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting we should somehow investigate Biblical creation without making any reference to Genesis (even for the sake of argument)?"

What I was suggesting was that we should (even for the sake of argument) investigate creation without making any reference to Genesis and see if there's any corroboration of the biblical version.

This would be consistent with your statement: "That is why I was attempting to limit the discussion to just one aspect of that; to the Biblical description of creation and the current observations and evidences in support of that view of our origins."

If that isn't also the view you hold, let us know.

I believe it's true to say we are still waiting for "the current observations and evidences in support of that view".

WmTrevor,
I'm having difficulty following you. Surely you would need to refer to Genesis to see if your investigation of creation corroborates with Genesis?

Pericles,
I can try and answer some of your questions as they relate to the theme of the Creation Answers Book.

Am I committed to the books of Revelation and Leviticus? I said above that it is standard Christian belief that they form part of the canon of Scripture. I accept the standard Christian beliefs. But I don't see how these books closely relate to the biblical accounts of creation. I'm no expert on Levitical law. I don't know what you mean by the 'demise' in Revelation. Yet these books each serve their individual purposes within the wider scope of Christian teaching. But it is Genesis that gives the historical background for understanding the beginnings of the universe, the human race, the concept of sin, the origins of language, the origins of the nations, the origin and purpose of Israel, and much else besides. It's a foundational book, necessary for understanding and incorporating much Christian doctrine.

So why do I find Genesis so persuasive? I think it was C S Lewis who said something like he appreciates the sun, not because he understands its light, but because its light helps him to understand everything else. Likewise, I appreciate Genesis for the understanding it gives. It gives a clear account of our history [I still don't follow why WmTrevor says otherwise.] I don't know of any facts or evidences being unearthed that would challenge its historicity.

Adam could not have been an eye witness to chapter 1. But there is sometimes discussion suggesting certain patriarchs such as Adam or Noah and others did write some records which were then included by the author/compiler of Genesis.

That is quite illuminating, Dan S de Merengue.

>>... it is standard Christian belief that they form part of the canon of Scripture. I accept the standard Christian beliefs. But I don't see how these books closely relate to the biblical accounts of creation.<<

They don't, of course. They are different books, explaining different aspects. Creation: Genesis. Endtimes: Revelation. Lifestyle rules: Leviticus. But as you say, they each form part of a whole.

In reality, I cannot see that you conduct your daily life along the lines recommended by Leviticus. Which confirms my assessment that you are quite happy to be selective in your choice of what parts of the Bible to believe, accept, follow, question or reject. Not an unusual state of mind amongst Christians, to be fair, and one that their intellect must wrestle with every time they catch themselves indulging in it.

But that still doesn't take us to the next step. What is it that encourages you to believe implicitly in the Creation story that you find in Genesis? Very few Christians follow your path, so it cannot simply be "I am a Christian, therefore I believe that Genesis is a factual narrative". I know a number of highly intelligent Christians who simultaneously believe that God made the heavens and the earth, but that he did this thirteen billion years ago. And further, that evolution has occurred, but has been guided by God's superior intelligence.

I am not trying to persuade you away from your beliefs, merely to understand more clearly what mental processes you undertake in order to rationalize your approach.

It has to be more than being wilfully blind:

>>I don't know of any facts or evidences being unearthed that would challenge its historicity.<<

Oh, come on, of course you do. In exactly the same way that I am aware of Answers, you are aware of the wealth of geological, cosmological etc. evidence that has accumulated over hundreds of years.

Your commitment to young-earth creationism might be a reason to disbelieve their findings, but not to deny the existence of "facts or evidences".

"WmTrevor, I'm having difficulty following you."

I should have been more explicit, Dan S de Meregue... my family missionary forebears - the Bible Christian Church Methodists - were a dour lot because of their faith OR they were dour because they were born in Cornwall.

[But don't worry. Because I have moved on from their beliefs, I feel no need to charge you with heresy]

If it was related to this, though: "Surely you would need to refer to Genesis to see if your investigation of creation corroborates with Genesis?"

Then you've got the idea... except that the emphasis is firstly all the investigation (except for all religious texts) and lastly the comparison of your results with, in your case, Genesis.

For my part, I don't follow your reasons for saying, "I don't know of any facts or evidences being unearthed that would challenge its historicity."

'Historicity' meaning the actuality of persons and events? Or do you extend the meaning to include historical narrative and myth? Or meaning the existance of the text itself?

If the former, then I'll clearly state (to save redirecting you to the last sentence of my post, above) that I don't know of any facts or evidences being unearthed that would corroborate its historicity.

Pericles,
You've started to tell me what it is I know and don't know. Perhaps you could mention specifically one or more of these facts that I supposedly know (so that I can know what you're talking about.).

You also have made mention that, as a six day creationist, I follow a minority opinion amongst believers. That's hardly my concern. So often, even within some Bible stories, or within periods of Christian history, or within other episodes of human history, a minority opinion has been later shown to be correct.

I could also point out that there were periods of time, such as around the 17th Century and thereabouts when six day creation was the accepted normal belief amongst believers (the age of Newton, Pascal, etc). That coincided with the greatest period of scientific advancement the West ever experienced (which I don't believe was merely coincidental).

Have I, Dan S de Merengue?

>>Pericles, You've started to tell me what it is I know and don't know.<<

Although I did suggest that "you are aware of the wealth of geological, cosmological etc. evidence that has accumulated over hundreds of years", which is possibly what you are referring to. If you are not familiar with this material, then I will be happy to provide you with a reading list to get you started. It won't be quite as, um, compact as your "Answers", I'm afraid. But it should keep you busy for a while.

>>So often, even within some Bible stories, or within periods of Christian history, or within other episodes of human history, a minority opinion has been later shown to be correct.<<

Well of course it has. But I'm not entirely sure this is a good approach, from your point of view...

>>...there were periods of time, such as around the 17th Century and thereabouts when six day creation was the accepted normal belief<<

At which time, it would appear, evolution and the thirteen billion year-old galaxy constituted a distinctly minority view. So, as you quite rightly point out, it was the minority opinion that was later shown to be correct. Or, more accurately, to become the majority opinion.

Do you have any examples of majority beliefs that have become minority beliefs, but then have somehow revived to become majority beliefs again? Me neither. Basically, I would imagine, because each time we learn something new about the universe - the recent volcanic eruptions on the moon, for example - it takes us one step closer to understanding how it all came about.

Nothing that we discover actually takes us backwards. Unless of course you insist that every new piece of information that differs from previous information, somehow automatically proves that the universe is six thousand years old. Oh, wait, that is exactly what you do, isn't it.

>>That coincided with the greatest period of scientific advancement the West ever experienced (which I don't believe was merely coincidental)<<

To what do you attribute it, if not coincidence?

Pericles,
That the Creation Answers Book is brief and compact is one of the reasons I recommended it. It can be a quick reference within a variety of areas.

You'd fairly guess that I'm aware of much 'evidence' accumulated over the years. I would consider I've had a pretty well rounded tertiary education, and I enjoy reading up on science. So I'm not really looking to you for a reading list. I'm reasonably aware of what's out there.  

When I say I don't know of any evidence that would challenge the Bible's account of history, I refer to observable and measurable evidence. While there's much written that alleges long ages and decent from an evolutionary tree, I find this is not derived solely from the evidence but rather from materialist based philosophy.

WmTrevor says he doesn't know of any facts or evidences that would corroborate the Genesis account of history. I said words to the effect of the opposite. I don't know facts that contradict it. Assuming that WmTrevor is at least as well read as me, I sense this points to the interpretive framework through which we might view the 'evidence'.

But if either you or WmTrevor know of any 'knock down' facts showing the Genesis account to be in error, then I welcome you to mention it. But I've noted at various points above the importance of recognising the philosophical framework through which we each view the evidence. "It's the paradigm that drives the interpretation of the evidence and not the other way around."

As I said weeks ago, it seems that especially for non repeatable events, people governed by different biases will look at the same data and come to different conclusions.

We've touched briefly on some of the hard evidence (moon cratering, dinosaur fossils, etc.). But my contention is that whatever observable evidence we note is likely to be easier and better explained within the creationist framework than the materialist framework. And I don't know of any observed evidence that flatly contradicts the Biblical account of creation. 

Yes, but...

>>Pericles, That the Creation Answers Book is brief and compact is one of the reasons I recommended it. It can be a quick reference within a variety of areas.<<

I did in fact assume that this was only a distillation of the arguments for Creationism, and followed up a number of its thought processes outside its covers for this precise reason. But none of the positions that it adopted with regard to evidence for a young earth actually stood up to any scrutiny whatsoever. I offered a couple to you, in case you had studied them in more depth, and were therefore able to explain them more clearly. Your answers were equally unsatisfactory, as I pointed out.

So we arrive at the place where we always find ourselves. You say "Genesis says so, and the story convinces me". Which is fair enough, except that you are a touch unconvincing as to why you find Genesis so persuasive, given that it is just one book amongst many in the Bible. One that you have arbitrarily selected as somehow being different from all the rest in containing irrevocable truths, when much of the rest is either mythological, inconsistent or plain anachronistic.

>>And I don't know of any observed evidence that flatly contradicts the Biblical account of creation<<

You would be fabulous on the jury at a murder trial. "I wasn't there - in fact, none of us was there - to see what happened. So the prosecution's evidence is irrelevant, since they weren't there either. Not guilty."

As we have seen in this exchange, all you have to say is "no-one was there to take photographs of the volcano, and write the date down in their diary", in order to convince yourself that it didn't occur.

You must be a hoot at dinner parties.

Pericles wrote: “You would be fabulous on the jury at a murder trial. "I wasn't there - in fact, none of us was there - to see what happened. So the prosecution's evidence is irrelevant, since they weren't there either. Not guilty."”

Not only that, but following Dan’s logic, if an eye-witness was to contradict the evidence, he would have to ignore it all in favor of what the eye-witness was claiming. And we all know how reliable eye-witness accounts are.

Dan,

There’s a reason why forensic evidence is usually held in favour of eye-witness accounts in a court of law. Countless experiments have attested to the unreliability of eye-witness accounts.

<<When I say I don't know of any evidence that would challenge the Bible's account of history, I refer to observable and measurable evidence.>>

The evidence we have for an old earth (and evolution, for that matter) is both observable and measureable.

Testable too, now that you mention it.

"But I've noted at various points above the importance of recognising the philosophical framework through which we each view the evidence. "It's the paradigm that drives the interpretation of the evidence and not the other way around.""

Doesn't seem much to disagree with in that, Dan S de Merengue… provided there is some common agreement about the meaning and application of the terms recognising, evidence and interpretation.

Nor do I disagree, provided also, that the philosophical framework doesn't encompass what could be categorised as wilful ignorance.

And whilst it's certainly true that people governed by different biases can come to different conclusions. I don't accept that in the examples you've proffered we are even looking at the same data.

Nor do you seem to have accepted my proposition of attempting to set aside as many presuppositions as possible when assessing evidence and data to test whether previous conclusions remain viable or valid.

A process we could categorise as a 'test of faith'.

A process any truth will survive.

"But if either you or WmTrevor know of any 'knock down' facts showing the Genesis account to be in error, then I welcome you to mention it."

Whilst I believe I know heaps – I am also at the stage of being confused about what you regard as 'facts'. So, taking a lead from your earlier mention of 'falsifiability' what about this:

In support of your hypothesis "if you know of any 'knock up' facts showing the Genesis account to be true, then I welcome you to mention it".

Then I'll see if I can subject them to a falsifiability check.

Pericles,
On revisiting some of the posts above, I should have addressed your question of why one would think blood cells, hemoglobin and other soft tissue are unlikely to survive intact for 68 million years.

I'd agree that we can't be definitive. Yet neither is it conjecture to say that in our experience such cells and molecular structures usually degrade long before such time. Dr Schweitzer herself expressed surprise. "If you take a blood sample, and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week,"

So various people have theorised how these unusual findings could have survived over the years or centuries. Even millennia would be stretching our capacities to explain the continuence of the various proteins according to our normal understanding of chemistry.

Dr Schweitzer said, "It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones are, after all, 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?" Perhaps rather she (& we) should be questioning the long age beliefs.

And to add to what you said about the Bible, Genesis is not a book chosen arbitrarily. As I said earlier, it's a foundational book for understanding the Christian worldview, covering the important elements of so many of the basic Christian doctrines. It's the most quoted or referenced book in the New Testament.

WmTrevor,
Firstly, for your suggestion - "that the emphasis is firstly all the investigation (except for all religious texts) and lastly the comparison of your results with, in your case, Genesis,"

To deliberately ignore the religious texts, or to ignore anything else that might be relevant within an investigation, is to demonstrate a personal or philosophical bias. It's unavoidable that we hold biases and presuppositions. It's also good that we acknowledge or declare them.

Concerning the idea of falsification, I suggested one could forward a falsifiable hypothesis and then attempt to test it. However, as I also said, historical propositions are ultimately impossible to falsify. (As with the 'fresh' looking dinosaur bone, how could we ultimately disprove it's not millions of years old, even if it doesn't appear so.)

I'm also wondering how you define the word 'fact' (whether or not they are 'knock up' or 'knock down'). Perhaps we could define a fact as an undisputed observation. In which case, how many facts would you see in this paragraph taken from the Creation Answers Book?

"[Genesis] speaks of a cataclysmic global Flood around 4,500 years ago—such was its impact that Noah and his family and animal/bird ‘cargo’ remained on board for over a year. Multiple layers of water-borne sediments, now hardened into rock, right around the world, are powerful evidence of the geography-rearranging forces at work during that Flood. These sedimentary rock layers contain billions of fossils, with many of them so well preserved that those creatures must have been buried quickly under loads of sediment—neither scavengers nor the ravages of oxygen-facilitated decay have left their mark. Among those billions of fossils, researchers have found and documented many dinosaur fossils."

The Answers book goes on to suggest that it is a fact that dinosaur fossil ‘graveyards’ have been found at many places around the world. They use this to support their hypothesis that the dinosaurs were buried quickly as if in a major cataclysm, similar to what one might expect to find if the Genesis account was true.

This sounds like you're uninterested in any tests of faith, Dan S de Merengue...

"To deliberately ignore the religious texts, or to ignore anything else that might be relevant within an investigation, is to demonstrate a personal or philosophical bias."

Doesn't invalidate the point I was making – that the truth is independent of personal or philosophical biases and will survive all manner of the most rigourous testing possible, including that of setting aside presuppositions where it can be done.

"Perhaps we could define a fact as an undisputed observation."

We can try, though it is more than likely we'll disagree about what an observation is before we dispute it.

To answer, "how many facts would you see in this paragraph taken from the Creation Answers Book?"

One: "Among those billions of fossils, researchers have found and documented many dinosaur fossils."

Continuing the theme of undisputed observation as fact… My observation is that Genesis does not claim to be the inspired Word of God, nor does it claim to be factual history.

Only one of many outstanding questions, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, On revisiting some of the posts above, I should have addressed your question of why one would think blood cells, hemoglobin and other soft tissue are unlikely to survive intact for 68 million years.<<

Ok. What's do you have for us this time.

>>Dr Schweitzer herself expressed surprise. "If you take a blood sample, and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week,"<<

You are not suggesting, I hope, that it is impossible to detect blood residue after a week? That remark has no scientific value whatsoever, as any student of forensics - or an episode of CSI - could tell you. Let's move on...

>>Even millennia would be stretching our capacities to explain the continuence of the various proteins according to our normal understanding of chemistry.<<

What might our "normal understanding of chemistry" be, do you think? Scientists are forever breaking new ground that modifies their prior understanding. It is one of the defining characteristics of science, that it welcomes new information.

To quote:

"Schweitzer’s work is 'showing us we really don’t understand decay,' [paleontologist Thomas] Holtz says. 'There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.'"

What is absolutely clear, as with the volcanic activity on the moon etc., is that none of this supports the concept of a six thousand year-old earth. All it does in reality is to open new - and extremely interesting - lines of enquiry.

>>Genesis is not a book chosen arbitrarily.<<

You cannot hide behind the passive voice, I'm afraid. Let me try again.

You clearly accept Genesis as stating facts. My question was whether you felt the same way about the entire Bible. Revelations, Leviticus and all.

(Sorry for the delay if you were expecting a quicker response. I’ve been doing a lot of travelling.)

WmTrevor,
I agree with you that truth will stand up to the most rigorous of testing.

But I don’t understand what you mean by a ‘test of faith’. Perhaps you are referring to the setting aside of presuppositions? This won’t happen if one isn’t willing or capable of acknowledging their assumed presuppositions.

To try and get your understanding of what is an ‘observation’, I asked you how many observations you thought there were in that particular paragraph. I was surprised to find myself pretty much in agreement. I agree with you about this one clear observation, “Among those billions of fossils, researchers have found and documented many dinosaur fossils.” We all agree that we can observe the fossils. We agree about their existence and classification. The rest of the paragraph is explanation and interpretation of the evidence.

I might wish to add that the first proposition is evident from a literary point of view. Genesis does speak of a cataclysmic global flood in chapters 6 to 9. I would contend that that is a plain fact that anyone can read and thus is a clear literary observation.

You say Genesis does not claim to be the inspired Word of God, nor factual history. Of course, the view that Genesis is God’s Word is part of Christian theology. The writings of Moses (including Genesis) are considered authoritative by Christians because of the way they were revered by no less than Jesus himself, as well as the New Testament authors, the church fathers, and early church councils. All of these interpreted Moses writings as factual history, as the grammar of the document and also its context within the whole Bible would plainly suggest.

Pericles,
To answer your question, our normal understanding of chemistry is that which we observe under repeated experiment. We observe that biological compounds usually break down quickly once an organism dies. The natural conclusion would be to think that the blood, tissue and bones, not having been mineralised, are quite young.

That can only be a good thing, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Sorry for the delay if you were expecting a quicker response. I’ve been doing a lot of travelling<<

After all, they do say that travel broadens the mind.

Although...

>>The natural conclusion would be to think that the blood, tissue and bones, not having been mineralised, are quite young.<<

That's somewhat narrow thinking, though, is it not.

If you insist that the evidence can only point in one direction, then nothing that you observe will ever allow you to change your view. To me, for example, it is equally possible that this new evidence may allow us to determine that our methodology is in error. Or at the very least, require some further investigation.

But you are still avoiding a key point, just as you were when confronted by "young" craters on the moon. How do these new findings indicate a universe that is a mere six thousand years old? Just saying "quite young" is hardly convincing, even by your own standards.

Part of me still believes that you are taking a contrary view just for the fun of it, and I'm finding it increasingly difficult to take anything you write at all seriously. Which is a shame, as I was genuinely hoping that you would be able to point us towards more robust evidence, and hence generate more persuasive arguments.

Pericles,
If you were hoping that more or more robust evidence would convince you of anything, then you are surely missing the thrust of what I'm saying.

While creationists are very concerned with the body of imperial evidence (the Creation Answers Book making reference to much evidence in each of its chapters), no amount of evidence will convince the person who is not able or inclined to view the evidence with another interpretation. That's the thrust of what I've been saying:

"Whatever observable evidence we note is likely to be easier and better explained within the creationist framework than the materialist framework.
I've noted at various points above the importance of recognising the philosophical framework through which we each view the evidence." (March 21.)

"which framework, creation or evolution, can best account for and explain the evidence?" (Feb 15.)

You accuse me of 'narrow' thinking. Yet your recent posts have shown a particular determination to hold to your own view, which I don't see as any less narrow.

Based on experience and observation, biological compounds deteriorate outside a living organism. So those believing dinosaurs existed millions of years ago have the challenge of explaining how these dinosaur bones and tissue survived intact and not mineralised over the vast ages (you call the need for 'further investigation').

Based on experience and observation, light travels at a certain speed, with the simple implication that light has travelled a very long time to arrive from the far reaches of space. This became a challenge for biblical creationists, which is why the Creation Answers Book devotes most of a chapter to answering this question, admitting that the problem not surprisingly requires 'further investigation'.

"There's a universe of data to analyse. It's the paradigm that drives the interpretation of the evidence and not the other way around." (Feb 28.)

That the universe is around 6000 years old is part of the biblical explanation (paradigm). It stands in distinct contrast with the materialist 'old age' paradigm. This is why the arguments categorise around whether the evidence appears to be pointing to relatively 'young' or 'vast' ages.

I guess that's the part that I find most difficult to accept, Dan S de Merengue.

>>This is why the arguments categorise around whether the evidence appears to be pointing to relatively 'young' or 'vast' ages.<<

Whereas we are routinely faced with extensions to cosmology that add another few hundred million years to our observations of our universe...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/05/most_distant_supernova_spotted/

... the most that a young-earther can claim is that something "points to" a "relatively young" earth. As you are permanently fixed in your own chosen timeline of six thousand years, your only reaction to new evidence can be "how can I make this fit into my perception of the universe". As I have tried to point out, this is vastly different from saying "how does this new evidence change my perception of the universe".

We obviously differ too on the definition of "narrow thinking".

>>You accuse me of 'narrow' thinking. Yet your recent posts have shown a particular determination to hold to your own view, which I don't see as any less narrow.<<

You have persuaded yourself that my maintaining an open mind on the origins of the universe, and welcoming every tiny piece of new information, is by definition narrow-minded. Whilst I clearly cannot entice you away from that viewpoint, it should be evident that you have adopted a fatally self-contradictory position.

As for my being unpersuaded by your arguments, or those of "Answers", this is not of itself evidence of any narrowness of thought on my part. I can assert that the Sydney Harbour Bridge was built in 1933 by Dorman & Long. You might argue that since I wasn't there, how could I possibly know - isn't it possible that it was placed there by intergalactical explorers? Defending my position would not, I feel, be illustrative of a narrow mind.

Dan,

Schweitzer et al. did not find blood cells, hemoglobin or soft tissue as you keep claiming/implying. They only found evidence of hemoglobin fragments and something that might represent altered blood remnants. And the tissue that was found was not soft when they found it; it was re-hydrated in the process of removing the mineral components surrounding the bone.

Furthermore, the “soft tissue” was not chunks of flesh as creationists may want to imply, they were fragments so small that it is still not known they if they were merely a contamination of chemicals from geological processes. It’s not like there was DNA present to assist us in knowing one way or the other. DNA has been found in remains far older than 6000 years anyway, so why is it that we don’t find it in far more dinosaur remains? And why is this one discovery is such big news for creationists? Shouldn’t this be routine?

Just how well fossils are preserved is not indicative of their age either, because their preservation depends on other factors too. The age of a fossil is determined by the age of the surrounding rock - of which the radiometric dating of agrees with the amino racemization dating technique used to determine the age of the actual bone.

What dating technique here would support a 6000 year old earth? What technique would creationists use here to get their age of only thousands of years?

As for the bone itself, it had still been mostly fossilised, it just hadn’t been affected by permineralisation.

Sorry, I had got out of the habit of checking back here regularly… But now I understand, "(Sorry for the delay if you were expecting a quicker response. I’ve been doing a lot of travelling.)"

I hope that was in this space-time continuum because it just got 80 million years older thanks to the most recent Planck observations.

Pleased to find us pretty much in agreement on one point, though "I would contend that that is a plain fact that anyone can read and thus is a clear literary observation." extends the definition of observation beyond the historically factual events I assumed we were pursuing.

If we are considering literary observations, I might observe that "In the beginning…" Is an alternate literary form of "Once upon a time…"

"All of these interpreted Moses writings as factual history, as the grammar of the document and also its context within the whole Bible would plainly suggest."

But is it that simple? Origin of Alexandria 'opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world.' (Though I acknowledge taking his own matters in hand with self castration was an over-literal interpretation of the New Testament)

And even Augustine of Hippo advised, "In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it."

I stand by my observation that Genesis does not claim to be the inspired Word of God, nor factual history. "…the church fathers, and early church councils. All of these interpreted Moses writings as factual history, as the grammar of the document and also its context within the whole Bible would plainly suggest."

But not plainly enough for either the Council of Nicaea or the Council of Constantinople to pronounce anything that supports young earth creationism.

WmTrevor,
“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.” Do you really think the great church Councils here were being led and inspired by humanistic theories rather than clear Bible teaching?

I still don’t think we’re quite seeing eye to eye regarding the definition of the word ‘observation’. I was intending it to mean something that is rather obvious, that anyone could observe, that anyone looking at could see and verify. I suggest anyone can see that Genesis chapters 6, 7, & 8 detail a worldwide flood.

‘In (or at) the beginning’ does not equate with ‘Once upon a time’. The first defines a particular point of reference in time; the second is a period that is deliberately vague. They’re quite different.

In what was hailed by the scientific community of his day as a major achievement in describing all that is knowable, Herbert Spencer (an early advocate of evolution) determined that everything that exists fits into one of five categories: time, force, action, space, matter. How this perfectly reflects Genesis 1:1, in the beginning [time], God [force], created [action], the heavens [space] and the earth [matter]!

AJ,
I just happen at the moment to be reading through Lindy Chamberlain’s biography, ‘Through My Eyes’. (I happened to meet her and she signed a copy for me.) The disappearance of her daughter Azaria was a landmark case in the history of Australia showing the problems of over reliance on forensic evidence with respect to eye witness testimony. For over thirty years, the Chamberlains determined to right the injustices that they suffered so that other Australians might not experience a similar fate within the legal system.

The testimony of all present on the night that Azaria went missing, including the park ranger, aboriginal trackers and nearby campers, despite not previously being acquainted to the family, were unanimous in verifying the testimony of the Chamberlains. Yet this testimony was smothered by dubious forensic evidence put forward by the Crown prosecution in obtaining their conviction, which was later totally discredited.

Pericles,
Your cosmological pronouncements are not based on observation alone, but on their interpretation through the paradigm of big bang cosmology. Yet not everyone accepts big bang cosmology. No evidence compels us to. It’s a philosophical preference. You’re still having difficulty dividing between what’s evidence, theory, observation, and interpretation.

You may have difficulty proving who built the Sydney Harbour Bridge relying on forensic evidence alone. Yet we have no problem discovering a reliable history for the bridge because of the amount of historical records, photos, news broadcasts, and eye witness testimony, some of whom are still alive to call upon today.

This reminds me of the curiosity that there are a few people who don’t accept that the Apollo missions really happened. They believe it was a hoax filmed in a hangar in Arizona, or something similar. Yet of the twelve men who walked on the moon, I’ve met one, Charles Duke. I’ve read his biography (he also signed it for me.) With the passing of Neil Armstrong, we have one less living testimony. Soon all Twelve will have passed on. Within decades, all those thousands who worked within the Apollo mission program will also have died. What will be left to verify this historical event will be the photos, recordings, books, newspapers and other testimony. This will weigh far more heavily than the minimal traces (footprints, etc.) left on the moon (although that won’t be contradictory.)

Such is the (Biblical) testimony of Paul with regard to the resurrection of Christ, (1 Cor. 15) “Let me now remind you of the Good news … I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins … was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by ….”

Very true, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Your cosmological pronouncements are not based on observation alone, but on their interpretation through the paradigm of big bang cosmology. Yet not everyone accepts big bang cosmology. No evidence compels us to<<

The difference between this and young-earth theory is, however, that the existence of a big bang was posited as a result of examining evidence, not as a result of narrowly interpreting the words of the Bible. While we are a long way from understanding the cosmological singularity completely - and at the same time remaining open to new, similarly compelling arguments-from-evidence - it is the most convincing account so far.

As I said before, the main difference is in the sequence of your logic: you believe the Bible, and fit the evidence accordingly, while science looks first at the evidence, then at what that evidence tells it.

And this looks remarkably like an own-goal to me:

>>...we have no problem discovering a reliable history for the bridge because of the amount of historical records, photos, news broadcasts, and eye witness testimony, some of whom are still alive to call upon today<<

Followed by:

>>He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by...<<

While I can accept the first-hand testimonies of people who recall the Harbour Bridge construction, I cannot see the same link with the Jesus stories. Much was recorded, during the bridge building, by eye-witnesses. Absolutely nothing was recorded by contemporaries of Jesus. We are left with some third-hand reporting by an evangelist with a personal stake in his story's incredibility.

Given the relative newsworthiness of the two events - the building of Sydney Harbour Bridge and the life and escapades of Jesus - does it not surprise you that there is not one single contemporary account of Jesus' miracles? Not one. Yet they were, according to all the later "recollections", far more significant that the construction of a bridge.

Showing discussions for articles published one year back… Congratulations to all of us. Few threads achieve the distinction of that requirement.

"Do you really think the great church Councils here were being led and inspired by humanistic theories rather than clear Bible teaching?"

I didn't say they were, Dan.

My observation was that the Nicene Creed makes no statement of faith supportive of young earth creationism, as in "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible 4325 years ago [Nicea]" or "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible 4385 years ago [Constantinople]"

"I still don’t think we’re quite seeing eye to eye regarding the definition of the word ‘observation’."

This has been obvious for some time, though I suspect we're both past losing any sleep over it.

"I was intending it to mean something that is rather obvious, that anyone could observe, that anyone looking at could see and verify. I suggest anyone can see that Genesis chapters 6, 7, & 8 detail a worldwide flood."

'Detail' seems to overstate it, and as for 'something that is rather obvious' such as my observation that the Genesis stories are allegorical (nothing new here, I thought so when I was six years old) we seem to have slipped past the issues of why old earth creationists are wrong.

We could also consider why other, older surviving records – ones from peoples who actually invented writing – detail a different history. But if you claim they are merely stories… well, you get the idea.

"‘In (or at) the beginning’ does not equate with ‘Once upon a time’. The first defines a particular point of reference in time; the second is a period that is deliberately vague. They’re quite different."

But what I said was, "If we are considering literary observations, I might observe that "In the beginning…" Is an alternate literary form of "Once upon a time…" in direct response to your "I would contend that that is a plain fact that anyone can read and thus is a clear literary observation."

There's that pesky word 'observation' again. But given Safarti's notions of time as referenced in Answers, to that extent you may be justified in claiming, "The first defines a particular point of reference in time"

Turning to your sidebar, "In what was hailed by the scientific community of his day as a major achievement in describing all that is knowable, Herbert Spencer (an early advocate of evolution) determined that everything that exists fits into one of five categories: time, force, action, space, matter."

Perfectly reflects Genesis?

So, into which of the five categories does Spencer's knowledge fit? Or God's will for that matter. Maybe both of them don't exist

My own sidebar, which as it is set in Earth relative time of 2087 AD and elsewhere in the galaxy I'm guessing is fictional reality.

Inspiration (and bemusement) can come from unexpected sources… yesterday I was reading this in chapter 18 of Iain M. Banks' Culture Series book, "Matter":

"War, famine, disease, genocide. Death, in a million different forms, often painful and protracted for the poor individual wretches involved. What God would so arrange the universe to predispose its creations to experience such suffering, or be the cause of it in others? What master of simulations or arbitrator of the game would set up the initial conditions to the same pitiless effect? God or programmer, the charge would be the same: that of near infinitely sadistic cruelty; deliberate, premeditated barbarism on an unspeakably horrific scale."

Hyrlis looked expectantly at them. "… Nothing able to think, nothing able to comprehend culpability, justice or morality could encompass such purposefully invoked savagery without representing the absolute definition of evil…"

[later]

Holse had been thinking about this. "Of course, sir your god could just be a bastard," he suggested. "Or the simulationeers, if it's them responsible."

"And all this pertains how, exactly?" Ferbin asked. His feet were sore and he was growing tired of what seemed to him like pointless speculation, not to mention something dangerously close to philosophy, a field of human endeavour he had encountered but fleetingly, through various exasperated tutors, though long enough to have formed the unshakeable impression that its principal purpose was to prove that one equalled zero, black was white and educated men could speak through their bottoms."

Doesn't mention bridges, though...

WmTrevor,
It's a pity these church councils didn't specifically address your concern. This was probably because the issue wasn't a pressing question at the time in those early centuries. I'd guess, if asked, they would have said something like you've said just above, but either way, we could only be making an argument from silence.

It would be good for churches today to add some clarification to in their creedal confessions.

One example of a church having done this (when the matter was more pressing) is found in the Westminster Confession of the Prebyterian Church, completed in 1646. Article 5.1 states: “It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manisfestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make out of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.”

Paul *was* a contemporary of Jesus, as were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Unlike us, they couldn't afford to waste paper, so only wrote down things of utmost importance:

- Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught.
(Luke 1:1-4)

- We saw him with our own eyes and touched him with our own hands. He is the Word of life. 
(1 John 1:1)

- This disciple is the one who testifies to these events and has recorded them here. And we know that his account of these things is accurate. Jesus also did many other things. If they were all written down, I suppose the whole world could not contain the books that would be written.
(John 21:24-25)

- "What I am saying is the sober truth. And King Agrippa knows about these things. I speak boldly, for I am sure these events are all familiar to him, for they were not done in a corner!"
(Paul, in Acts 26:25-26)

You say that, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Paul *was* a contemporary of Jesus, as were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Unlike us, they couldn't afford to waste paper, so only wrote down things of utmost importance<<

But if you apply your own standards of "proof" to this assertion, you will find that it is full of the most glaring holes. Every single aspect of dating the gospels, identifying the writers, cross-checking the events that they portray, is - using your criteria - pure speculation.

You must be aware of the political machinations that resulted in the adoption of the currently-used quartet of gospels, and the prevalence in those days of pseudopigraphy? As Peter claims in his own version of the crucifixion...

"I with the companions was sorrowful; and having been wounded in spirit, we were in hiding, for we were sought after by them as wrongdoers"

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelpeter-brown.html

What makes this "eyewitness account" more or less credible than the claims made by Paul, John etc.? We can only assess the evidence available to us, in the same objective manner as scientists investigating the boundaries of our universe.

Unfortunately, there is far more pure, unbiased scholarship invested in the exploration of time and space than in your theories. You are, at base, relying upon your belief that the words of Genesis somehow convey a literal reality. Even the most cursory examination of the origins of that document, its biblical companions, and the manipulation of those documents (and their literary coevals) must surely leave room to accept other possibilities?

Don't forget, we are not debating here whether God created the universe in the first place, which is a whole other discussion. All we are concentrating on is the validity of the "six days, six thousand years ago" theory that you hold dear.

All you need to say is "It's what I happen to believe, so sod off". I can respect that far more than watching you contend that there is real evidence that supports your theories.

Not sure of the assistance The Confession of Faith of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster yields as to the reality of young earth creationism, apart from its catechism of belief, Dan...

but if Chapter IV.1 is true then we are saved the angst of trying to understand the confusion of that Oxyrhynchus oldest written record of '616' versus '666' business in Revelations, since Chapter XXV clearly identifies the Antichrist:

"VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof: but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God."

Does this accord with your literal interpretation of Revelations?

No one is unbiased. It's only that some are more capable than others of seeing the bias within themselves. No one is totally objective. "You're mistaken to think that I'm the only one making philosophical assumptions." - March 11. (When I revert to cutting and pasting what I've already said, it's telling me the discussion is getting stale.)

That Genesis is describing real history is what the Scriptures seem to imply. It's what Jesus apparently believed, which comes through in much of the teachings of the New Testament. This is why we say it's normative for Christian belief, a faith which is set within real world history.

I never thought I was offering 'proof', yet neither is such investigation merely speculation. We offer reasons in support of the faith as described in the texts. You raise questions of textual criticism and the analyses of ancient texts, which brings in a whole other domain with respect to historical investigations apart from the creation/evolution debate.

Such question are important, but so are many other avenues of Christian apologetics. I don't have the energy or capacity to debate them all. I was preferring to focus on the one aspect, that being creation/evolution. The Creation Answers Book I believe gives succinct but thoughtful answers to the most commonly asked questions on the creation/evolution controversy. It contains much evidence which goes beyond mere speculation. I'm grateful that creation.com made it available.

That's precisely the reason I put the word "proof" in inverted commas, Dan S de Merengue.

>>I never thought I was offering 'proof', yet neither is such investigation merely speculation.<<

Yet it has to be pointed out that without evidence, all you have been able to offer must be regarded as "merely speculation". As I have previously mentioned, none of your evidence stands up to objective assessment: you need to have already reached the conclusion beforehand in order to favourably interpret your observations. Which is a fundamentally different approach to that adopted by scientists. Even committed Christian scientists, who have read exactly the same book that you have, and reached an entirely different conclusion.

>>That Genesis is describing real history is what the Scriptures seem to imply. It's what Jesus apparently believed...<<

Apparently? Are you introducing some doubt here?

Maybe you are. This kinda leaps off the page in that context, doesn't it.

>>You raise questions of textual criticism and the analyses of ancient texts, which brings in a whole other domain with respect to historical investigations apart from the creation/evolution debate.<<

Surely, these are part and parcel of the issue of belief? The warp and the woof. The very fabric from which your belief system is fashioned?

You would not, I am sure, retain the same commitment to your six day/six thousand year theory, if it could be shown that the writings upon which you rely were actually a fourth-century fabrication?

Or... would you?