If then the premises from which the geological periods have been deduced are of such a nature that not one of them is firmly established, the different theories as to the formation of the earth also rest upon two questionable assumptions, viz., (1) that the immediate working of God in the creation was restricted to the production of the chaotic matter, and that the formation of this primary matter into a world peopled by innumerable organisms and living beings proceeded according to the laws of nature, which have been discovered by science as in force in the existing world; and (2) that all the changes, which the world and its inhabitants have undergone since the creation was finished, may be measured by the standard of changes observed in modern times, and still occurring from time to time.
But the Bible actually mentions two events of the primeval age, whose effect upon the form of the earth and the animal and vegetable world no natural science can explain. We refer to the curse pronounced upon the earth in consequence of the fall of the progenitors of our race, by which even the animal world was made subject to fthora' (NT:5356) (Ge 3:17, and Ro 8:20); and the flood, by which the earth was submerged even to the tops of the highest mountains, and all the living beings on the dry land perished, with the exception of those preserved by Noah in the ark. Hence, even if geological doctrines do contradict the account of the creation contained in Genesis, they cannot shake the credibility of the Scriptures.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
31 comments:
Basically you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that the conclusions reached by modern geology are wrong because the bible says so. And the bible is right because the bible says so.
Of course, it makes sense to trust an eye-witness account than the stories of people who were not there and reject global catastrophe a priori, as per James Hutton.
It is not circular to use Matthew to prove Genesis (Mt. 19:3–6, cf. Gen. 1:27, 2:4), Paul to prove Luke (1 Tim 5:18, cf. Lk. 10:7) or Peter to prove Paul (2 Pet. 3:15–16). It is also hardly circular to argue that there is ample historical evidence that Christ affirmed Scripture, then show that He proved His credentials by rising from the dead.
So you're saying it's not circular to prove one part of the bible by reading another part of the bible?
Also the conclusions reached by your James Hutton link are completely without merit - calling something written in 1785 blind and dogmatic because it didn't consider the possibility of creationism? In what way are you and every one of your creationist friends not being dogmatic in rejecting every single thing modern science says if it in any way conflicts with a completely literal interpretation of the bible? And how is it possible that creationontheweb finds it in any way relevant that a geologist rejected creationism more than 200 years ago?
As a final question though Kti - are you claiming to have proof or at least evidence that suggests there exists a copy of the creation story written by adam, and a copy of the flood story written by Noah?
Of course it's not circular to use Luke to support Genesis.
I never claimed there was an extant copy of anything written by Adam or Noah. But I think it's likely that Moses used much older documents to write the Creation and Flood stories, that retain eye-witness accounts by Adam and Noah.
Healy, old pal; you've missed the point: no problems with science, after all, modern science stands on the intellectual foundation of ...wait for it... creation'ism' as you call it.
The evolutionary ideas of ancient Greece left 'science' still born and dogmatically idealistic. My fear is that as science cuts itself from a worldview that permits its success, it will eventually crumble.
What you've failed to do is separate science from the materialism that I suspect you unconsciously, and therefore uncritcally embrace.
It's a bit of a stretch saying all modern science stands on a foundation of creationism, as if to say if you removed creationism all science in the world would crumble. Although I suspect you believe just that.
And I have no problem with materialism - I'm an atheist, not a spiritualist.
Besides what you've failed to do is separate science from mysticism and superstition.
Heaky you just don't or rather wont get it!
Let me try to illustrate:
Some years ago I played a part in the development of chemical medical products.
It went this way.
1) Need was recognized.
2) Research commenced-possible solution discovered.
3) Product produced-lab tested-don't want to kill anyone do we.
4) When considered effective and safe along came clinical trials.
Field tests upon willing subjects suggested minor adjustments necessary-adjustments done and voila product was ready for sale and lots of money was made for the company. Bosses so happy I got a BMW to drive.
Now Healy the point: Those wotking upon the product were John, atheist of Czech origin. Gabr, Muslim of Egyptian origin, Steve, Ausralian born Jew.
And of course little ol BMW driving me-then somewhere between atheist and agnostic. Where between-dunno, didn't care, didn't matter, had another religion.
Surprize, surprize, to you the individuals religious beliefs did not come into it AT ALL! Why because real operational science, as opposed to origins science, is about research and testing not about beliefs. That is why in universities and scientific organizations world-wide people of many faiths work side by side producing technological wonders. Belief about the past just doesn't come into it.
Nonetheless as the quote from Eisley (the atheistic historian of science) acknowledged that is was Christians who developed the scientific method. He said they had faith in a rational God who made a world which could be investigated and so modern scientific investigation and the scientific method was born.
Now you will most likely reject this because you know better than him. Better than anyone, no matter how qualified, if they disagree with you.
Again you keep missing what I'm saying: what relevance does that have for today?
Healy you see a disfunction between 'science' and Christianity where in fact there is none, the scientific method having come from a Christian world-view (as Eisley says)and in its application does not depend upon faith as it progresses via the reality of the observable, testable repeatable, scientific method. This is what I carefully explained in regard to my involvement in medical products.
It matters not one bit what world-view a person has.
But you see 'evolution' as science which is partly true, it being 'origins science', which is based upon evidence from the past, not upon the scientific method and is therefore in the same category as creationist belief. Both are views about the past, based upon different interpretations of the same evidence.
If I have indeed missed your point then maybe you need to explain what you mean (as I do), giving the necessary details.
As discussed before, here is a link Healyman to a discussion about the rise of modern science according to the Duhem-Jaki thesis.
http://www.rae.org/jaki.html
Evolution isn't stuck in the past Warwick - it didn't just stop as soon as people started studying it, it continues on.
A (few) examples.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2892,A-Natural-Selection,Olivia-Judson---New-York-TImes
Healy now you are inventing things. I did not say that evolution was stuck in the past but that it is not investigable by the scientific method.
Evolution is a belief about the past. The story goes that dead chemicals arranged themselves into self-replicating life. Then over countless eons this first life evolved by naturalistic processes until totally new kinds of creatures arrived on the scene. None of this belief is testable by the scientific method, therefore cannot be proved.
You ridicule Scripture but swallow this fairy-story!
As to Richard Dawkins I have a copy of the 'Frog to Prince' video where he was asked what evidence exists for microbe to man evolution and he was stumped! He asked for time to think ( cut from the finished version of the tape)then came back with a nonsense philosophical answer about his belief that fish crawled out of the sea! He looked so foolish.
Believe the microbe to man evolutionary story if you will but don't insult my intelligence by equating it to hard science.
Isn't it interesting! I have noticed that over the time I have been bloging here various people have bobbed up to tell us how our view is wrong. The battle wages, ebbing to and fro until one of us asks question and insists on an answer. Then they hit the road!
We had Nathan who scarpered when I pushed him for an answer. Then we had anonymous who also scarpered refusing to answer my very straight-forward questions.
Then up sped Healy who considered we were scientifically illiterate morons. Then off he scarpered when I refused to answer his questions until he answered mine.
Anyone with a little experience would answer most of his questions easily. We have had most if not all of them before.
But he scarpered without endeavouring to critique my radiometric dating information. I suggested he should either show me where my reasoning is wrong or accept that I am right. But it looks like he has gone as well.
I am a bad boy, asking questions which appear to frighten them all away. I will be a better boy in future.
I haven't scarpered anywhere Warwick I'm still here I just haven't had time to read your blog and look for the post you're gabbing about.
warwick said...
Then we had anonymous who also scarpered refusing to answer my very straight-forward questions.
Actually, warwick, I've been waiting for john, who's scarpered. I said I'd be happy to answer your questions when we finished dealing with the issue at hand. There's no value in succumbing to your tactic of continually trying to change the topic so that you don't have to address real difficulties.
Anonymous whatever discussions you were having with John have nothing to do with my questions to you.
The connection is in your mind!
This is not a tactic but curiosity. In my experience those who use tactics look for that trait in others. Very revealing.
You made statements and I asked you to explain. But you won't. That's scarpered to me, an excuse. Just like Healy who is too busy now! How often have I heard that claim.
Healy purports to be a scientist and in his view much more rational and scientifically knowledgeable than we creationist morons but when asked to do a critique becomes too busy! He, like many is good at posing questions but slack in the answering.
Hmmm strange, I don't remember claiming to be an actual scientist. Either I've forgotten or you're quote mining.
Speaking of avoiding questions, there are many of mine you simply said "I've answered that many times" and changed subject. Also, childish as it is, albedo of the moon?
I really haven't had time to go on your blog warwick and your near-constant moaning about that fact is not making it happen any faster. I haven't forgotten (how could I ever forget with the amount of times you carry on about it?) so have a little patience.
Oh and by the way...
You ridicule Scripture but swallow this fairy-story!
I find it immensely humorous, to a degree I am quite sure you never knew existed, that you denigrate MY belief as a fairy-tale whilst holding on high your bible.
You don't claim to be a scientist? Strange someone claiming to be Healyhatman wrote:
'Yes because I am a geophysicist. I'll have a look at it anyway.'
Must be an imposter!
I purposely didn't answer the albeda question so as to see how far you would pursue it. It isn't relevant to the topic anyway is it?
When I wrote that I had answered the other questions many times that was probably because I had already answered them, many times.
Don't fret Healy I am patient but enjoy teasing someone who avoids answering questions. It's a sport.
You wrote:
'....that you denigrate MY belief as a fairy-tale whilst holding on high your bible.'
No Healy once again you miss the point. You ridicule our belief while insisting that yours is the rational, scientific view.
I do believe that the idea of life appearing from non-life is a fairy tale, as it just doesn't happen. Further your belief that this first life, left to itself evolved in to all the life forms we see on our planet, is also a fairy-tale, being a belief for which no proof exists.
I have many times said that I hold my belief in Biblical creation by faith, but not blind faith as the available evidence better suits the Biblical account than the naturalistic view. Both are beliefs about the past which cannot be proved.
As regards 'fairy tale' wasn't it you who denigrated our faith as coming from a bronze age book? I think fairy tale is quite fair.
Cheers, Warwick!
Gwen
'Yes because I am a geophysicist. I'll have a look at it anyway.'
Have you never even heard of sarcasm Warwick? Or is it something that happened in the past that can't be proven?
Gee Healy I must be slow, it just looks like a lie to me!
I tested it-obsereved it, went back again- still there. In reality it occurred in the observable present.
Sarcasm just ain't what it usta be.
Warwick,
"We had Nathan who scarpered when I pushed him for an answer."
I think, once again, your logic is flawed. You presume to know why I stopped posting without understanding the mechanics of the forum in which you are expressing your view.
All your years of experience in science, and your 13 years full time ministry, mean that no doubt you're quite aged, and learned.
The internet is an ever evolving thing - I have no desire to see the post count on that last discussion increase. I maintain it was a ridiculous post, on a fairly ridiculous blog.
No doubt people have been and gone - as they stumble upon here courtesy of links around the web, see your poisonous rantings for what they are, and leave. I doubt I'll be around here much more, I will probably drop by from time to time if the temptation gets to much - I pretty much equate visiting here as sinning - so my presence will be an indicator of my Godliness at the time.
The fact that you are a part of the fabric of this forum means you will always have the advantage (numerically and in the control of the topic being discussed etc) over visiting posters.
I didn't answer your questions because they were largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You and your buddies here constantly throw up straw men, distractions and insults - and then whine and complain when anybody fails to address every point raised.
If you're going to use the internet, and particularly a blog, as the basis of your protest please understand the medium before picking on those stupid enough to engage in discussion with you.
Nathan you wrote:
'as they stumble upon here courtesy of links around the web, see your poisonous rantings for what they are, and leave.'
Please explain your insulting comments by quoting what 'poisonous rantings' I have made. Otherwise an apology is in store!
You wrote:
'The fact that you are a part of the fabric of this forum means you will always have the advantage (numerically and in the control of the topic being discussed etc) over visiting posters.'
In reality I am a 'visiting poster.' You may notice I have never writen a topic, nor do I have any control, or even any input into the choice of topics.
No I would not describe myself as aged, being a reasonable athlete, and car racing driver. Just mature and experienced.
I don't think I pick on people who blog here just ask, and answer questions.
It is your privilege to choose to answer or not answer questions however it has been a general observation of mine that many people leave when they are cornered. I think you left because you didn't want to answer questions. I think you considered my questions would expose your reasoning. I could even be right. But Nathan I am even allowed to be wrong.
Could you provide all the questions in one post that you would like me to answer - in a numeric list, rather than burying them amidst ramble
Very simple:
'as they stumble upon here courtesy of links around the web, see your poisonous rantings for what they are, and leave.'
Please give an example of my poisonous rantings or apologize.
It is obvious you only come here when feeling sinful, as you say, because such a false accusation is indeed a sin.
"your" was a non specific reference to the contributors to this site (mostly John) and the failure of others to condemn their poisonous, unloving, ungodly ranting.
John 13:35 - "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."
I just don't see that love being extended to anyone but the contributors on this site.
If a poster comes in claiming to be a Christian - there's no greeting like a brother in Christ - only suspicion and derision.
Nathan then maybe you need to be a little more careful in future. Don't be ambiguous.
Someone here remonstrated with an Anglican bloger for the rude way some speak about creationists on the Anglican site and he quite fairly replied that he was a individual and therefore to be judged upon what he had written. Likewise I am an individual and would like to be judged upon my own 'ramble.'
sure - you are an individual - but until you distance yourself from the authors of this blog, I'll lump you with them for the sake of crass (and easy) generalisation.
Nathan that's very unreasonable, and unthinking of you.
I blog on a few sites and thereupon come into contact with all sorts. Some rude, some coarse, some pleasant, some confused, some informative, all par for the course, no pun intended.
On this site we have had blogers who have written obscenities and abusive ridiculing comments, some directed at me. But I am a big boy Nathan and care more for the facts not the delivery. And feel no need to distance myself from anyone.
Post a Comment