PDA

View Full Version : Biblical longevity sf. would like to know people's age



Adamski
17-08-2008, 10:07 PM
I ran 25miles non stop in charity run when 18, did not even train but was playing ping pong, am a natural long distance runner, backed up of course by that mini marathon swim I did a few months ago also when completely unfit.

But the ages I am interested in are those of the Bible, moses and Abraham etc living to about 900 years and having kids when about 700 years old, all without modern medicine, must have been something in the water.One theory I have heard is that after the fall (Genesis 3, when Adam and Eve ate that infamous fruit) the effects of degenerative process increasingly took effect. So ages of people who lived after the patriarchs became less. But I have not studied this and this might be completely up a creek without a paddle (or oar, at the Olympics rowing). What say you, Jono, on this one?

eclectic
17-08-2008, 10:20 PM
One theory I have heard is that after the fall (Genesis 3, when Adam and Eve ate that infamous fruit) the effects of degenerative process increasingly took effect. So ages of people who lived after the patriarchs became less. But I have not studied this and this might be completely up a creek without a paddle (or oar, at the Olympics rowing). What say you, Jono, on this one?

stop tempting this thread with creationist drift!! :evil:

Adamski
17-08-2008, 10:23 PM
AC started it!

Capablanca-Fan
17-08-2008, 10:38 PM
One theory I have heard is that after the fall (Genesis 3, when Adam and Eve ate that infamous fruit) the effects of degenerative process increasingly took effect. So ages of people who lived after the patriarchs became less. But I have not studied this and this might be completely up a creek without a paddle (or oar, at the Olympics rowing). What say you, Jono, on this one?
About right: see Living for 900 years (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/805/).

Does AC like stirring?

Space_Dude
17-08-2008, 10:42 PM
the thing is that i am a christian...

Basil
17-08-2008, 10:45 PM
the thing is that i am a christian...
Well do I have have job for you! You can vote in this thread and even the scores! Go Tony!

http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6159

Space_Dude
17-08-2008, 10:47 PM
not many people in this froum seems religius...

Basil
17-08-2008, 10:49 PM
not many people in this froum seems religius...
Well visit the thread I just posted. By the way, if you click on the blue numbers in the poll results, you can see exactly who is and who isn't religious! Less chat and more action lad! :lol:

Space_Dude
17-08-2008, 10:50 PM
Well visit the thread I just posted. By the way, if you click on the blue numbers in the poll results, you can see exactly who is and who isn't religious! Less chat and more action lad! :lol:

thanks!

CameronD
17-08-2008, 10:56 PM
About right: see Living for 900 years (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/805/).

Does AC like stirring?

This is how I see it in regards to DNA degeneration.

That is why in Lzeviticus 18


'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations.

As before the fall, Adams and Eve DNA were perfect. After the fall the DNA degenerated generation after generation. By the time before Leviticus, the DNA tree became so damaged that relations must occur outside the tree.

Rincewind
17-08-2008, 11:00 PM
Funny, I missed the reference to DNA in Leviticus.

CameronD
17-08-2008, 11:14 PM
Funny, I missed the reference to DNA in Leviticus.

How I see it is the key words you missed.

I hate meaningless theology. It achieves nothing and helps no one. Being a christian is about the spirit of God and faith, that is the only way people will know God, not by continous religious arguments. Fervent pray is way more powerful.

1 Corinthians 1:21

For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

ps- I'm not responding to any reply concerning this as I'm not concerned with theology.

Rincewind
17-08-2008, 11:15 PM
I hate meaningless theology. It achieves nothing and helps no one.

On this we agree. :D

Capablanca-Fan
18-08-2008, 12:06 AM
Funny, I missed the reference to DNA in Leviticus.
So what? Leviticus is consistent with what we now know about genome decay. No one said that the Bible was exhaustive.

I don't like meaningless theology either. Mine is meaningful :P

Rincewind
18-08-2008, 12:22 AM
Mine is meaningful.

Only if you assume the entire field of Geology to be completely wrong.

I don't see how you can can say that your interpretation of scripture is superior to reality. Maybe the problem is not with reality, it is your interpretation.

Capablanca-Fan
18-08-2008, 01:18 AM
Only if you assume the entire field of Geology to be completely wrong.
I don't. Just the uniformitarian assumptions.


I don't see how you can can say that your interpretation of scripture is superior to reality. Maybe the problem is not with reality, it is your interpretation.
You know perfectly well that my "interpretation" is just what the Scripture actually says; you just don't believe what it says, and resort to the postmodernist nonsense that we should expect from lefty academics.

Rincewind
18-08-2008, 08:51 AM
I don't. Just the uniformitarian assumptions.

The unformitarian premise of Geology bears little resemblance to your caricature. But my point is you disagree with mainstream Geology which based on good science has determined the earth to be billions of years old and nothing like your belief of 6-10 thousand years that your very literal reading of the scriptures has lead you to. Geology discovered this fact around 200 years ago and no viable alternative hypothesis has come to light to contradict it.

Adamski
20-08-2008, 01:09 AM
The unformitarian premise of Geology bears little resemblance to your caricature. But my point is you disagree with mainstream Geology which based on good science has determined the earth to be billions of years old and nothing like your belief of 6-10 thousand years that your very literal reading of the scriptures has lead you to. Geology discovered this fact around 200 years ago and no viable alternative hypothesis has come to light to contradict it.Well on behalf of the YECs, what is the reliable measurement basis for this billions of years age of the earth? There are well-known problems with carbon dating etc. (You and Jono have probably already debated this in DGE but I am curious anyway, and its hard to find stuff there.:)

Rincewind
21-08-2008, 10:22 AM
Well on behalf of the YECs, what is the reliable measurement basis for this billions of years age of the earth? There are well-known problems with carbon dating etc. (You and Jono have probably already debated this in DGE but I am curious anyway, and its hard to find stuff there.:)

You don't even have to go to radioactive dating methods (and carbon isn't the best choice for dating things billions of years old). Just get any good undergraduate text on Geology and start reading. It is 100% pure mainstream science and has been for around 200 years.

Capablanca-Fan
21-08-2008, 12:15 PM
You don't even have to go to radioactive dating methods (and carbon isn't the best choice for dating things billions of years old).
But its presense in coal and diamonds is strong evidence that they are NOT billions of years old.


Just get any good undergraduate text on Geology and start reading. It is 100% pure mainstream science and has been for around 200 years.
Already done. The actual measurements of isotope quantities and current decay rates are not in doubt, just the interpretation.

Rincewind
21-08-2008, 11:12 PM
But its presense in coal and diamonds is strong evidence that they are NOT billions of years old.

:lol: Only if you have that as your assumption and assume the overwhelming evidence to the contrary must be wrong due to your preconceived figure of <10,000 years.


Already done. The actual measurements of isotope quantities and current decay rates are not in doubt, just the interpretation.

What is not in doubt is whether you think science or faith takes precedence. You think science is secondary to science and therefore you are hardly an impartial judge of the balance of evidence.

I went to the E de C Clarke Museum (http://www.earthmuseum.segs.uwa.edu.au/) today. It's a fantastic collection and completely free. Plenty of evidence there for a earth which is billions of years old, none of which is prejudiced by a preconception of having a particular figure in mind before even looking at the evidence.

Adamski
21-08-2008, 11:38 PM
I went to the E de C Clarke Museum (http://www.earthmuseum.segs.uwa.edu.au/) today. It's a fantastic collection and completely free. Plenty of evidence there for a earth which is billions of years old, none of which is prejudiced by a preconception of having a particular figure in mind before even looking at the evidence.Ok, RW, you went to a museum. I attended a lecture by Prof John Lennox yesterday. He is at Oxford and holds 3 doctorates in areas of science and maths and is a Fellow in Maths and Philosophy of Science at Green College, Oxford Uni. An entertaining and courteous speaker, I really enjoyed his talk. He is a strong creationist. John is much in demand as a lecturer and public advocate for intellectual theism, debating (and demolishing the arguments of) Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and other prominent atheists. The lecture was entitled: :Is Science on God's Side?" and in it he referred to his book God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? and also to his famous debate with Dawkins. For the latter see www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com or order the DVD from CMI via http://creationontheweb.com/store_redirect.php?sku=30-9-540.

Rincewind
22-08-2008, 12:02 AM
Ok, RW, you went to a museum. I attended a lecture by Prof John Lennox yesterday. He is at Oxford and holds 3 doctorates in areas of science and maths and is a Fellow in Maths and Philosophy of Science at Green College, Oxford Uni. An entertaining and courteous speaker, I really enjoyed his talk. He is a strong creationist. John is much in demand as a lecturer and public advocate for intellectual theism, debating (and demolishing the arguments of) Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and other prominent atheists. The lecture was entitled: :Is Science on God's Side?" and in it he referred to his book God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? and also to his famous debate with Dawkins. For the latter see www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com or order the DVD from CMI via http://creationontheweb.com/store_redirect.php?sku=30-9-540.

Sounds interesting. As he is a mathematician I wonder how Jono sees his arguments. Probably positively since as he admits, he just ignores any evidence which is contrary to his preconceptions.

Out of interest, where does Lennox stand on the geological age issue? Is he a young earth or old earth guy?

Capablanca-Fan
22-08-2008, 12:18 AM
Sounds interesting. As he is a mathematician I wonder how Jono sees his arguments. Probably positively since as he admits, he just ignores any evidence which is contrary to his preconceptions.
Of course, RW doesn't have any preconceptions; his dogmatic misotheism is perfectly natural.

Lennox demolished Dawko, who looked quite red-faced.

Adamski
22-08-2008, 12:20 AM
Listening to the debate now from the web site I cited first. to answer your question. If YEC/ OEC not mentioned, I'll try to get hold of Lennox's book. Jono may know of course. He just mentioned your favorite word, RW, multiverse....Have a listen!

Adamski
22-08-2008, 12:38 AM
RW, I know you are in Perth now but if you are back in NSW by Sat you could come to Sydney and hear this famous mathematician!
it just so happens that Lennox is debating Dr Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine from 7 Pm in the city. 220 Pitt St. and free. I just might go.

Lennox has been in Sydney since Tuesday and this is the last meeting he speaks at. Guess what the debate is called - DGE!

Bookings can be made through www.publicchristianity.org and proceed to the online store, or call (02) 9955 0077, or email info@publicchristianity.org.

Debate is still going on my PC...

Rincewind
22-08-2008, 12:50 AM
RW, I know you are in Perth now but if you are back in NSW by Sat you could come to Sydney and hear this famous mathematician!
it just so happens that Lennox is debating Dr Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine from 7 Pm in the city. 220 Pitt St. and free. I just might go.

Lennox has been in Sydney since Tuesday and this is the last meeting he speaks at. Guess what the debate is called - DGE!

Bookings can be made through www.publicchristianity.org and proceed to the online store, or call (02) 9955 0077, or email info@publicchristianity.org.

Debate is still going on my PC...

Thanks Adamski but my flight comes in at 6:30 and I'll be keen to get home anyway even if I got in 60 minutes earlier.

Regarding Lennox, he is certainly a well known person who is also a mathematician. Not so sure he is a "famous mathematician," per se. With more time I would have been interested. In fact, I'm already missing out on Madame Butterfly on Saturday night. :(

Regarding the earth age thing. I'd be surprised if he was a geology denialist but you never know. BTW the E de C museum really is a good place. I've seen a few unengaging geological collections in my time but this is the sort of place you could bring kids or people with very little knowledge of minerals or geology. It has been done really well.

Adamski
22-08-2008, 01:20 AM
Never mind. Can confirm YEC issue not directly discussed in debate. But score was Lennox 2 (at least), Dawlins nil!

Rincewind
22-08-2008, 01:30 AM
Never mind. Can confirm YEC issue not directly discussed in debate. But score was Lennox 2 (at least), Dawlins nil!

You know what they say about a "good scorer"... ;)

Adamski
22-08-2008, 07:01 AM
You know what they say about a "good scorer"... ;)Yeah. Gotta admit that it would never have done when keeping score in club cricket on Saturdays in my single days to have written down that a batsman scored "at least 2". But have a listen to the debate and give us your verdict of whose arguments were the more convincing and not demolished/ refuted by his opponent. www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com (http://www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com) goes straight into it.

Tony Dowden
22-08-2008, 08:38 AM
Originally Posted by Jono
Already done. The actual measurements of isotope quantities and current decay rates are not in doubt, just the interpretation.

Jono, would you please explain the different (presumably creationist and evolutionist) 'interpretations' - as you put it - of, say, potassium-argon dating. (It would also be handy if you would describe the basic methodology of thsi kind of dating in a way the layperson can understand). Thanks :)

Capablanca-Fan
22-08-2008, 10:22 AM
Jono, would you please explain the different (presumably creationist and evolutionist) 'interpretations' — as you put it — of, say, potassium-argon dating. (It would also be handy if you would describe the basic methodology of this kind of dating in a way the layperson can understand). Thanks :)
Hey Tony
I thought you had my first book, which explains this. You're of course more than a layperson.

Desmond
22-08-2008, 11:07 AM
Q. Why do married men live longer than single men?

A. They don't; it just seems like longer

Spiny Norman
22-08-2008, 11:18 AM
Q. Why do married men live longer than single men?
A. They don't; it just seems like longer
Perception is reality ... ;)

Rincewind
23-08-2008, 12:45 AM
He just mentioned your favorite word, RW, multiverse....Have a listen!

I have heard the first part of it. But will have to leave the rest until I'm back home. I will comment though that my usage of "multiverse" is not inspired by a belief in the hypothesis, it has more to do with my user name. EE can explain it to you if you're still in any doubt.

Adamski
23-08-2008, 09:33 AM
I have heard the first part of it. But will have to leave the rest until I'm back home. I will comment though that my usage of "multiverse" is not inspired by a belief in the hypothesis, it has more to do with my user name. EE can explain it to you if you're still in any doubt.Ta. Terry Pratchett's novels I see. One interesting quote from Wiki on the life philosophy of Rincewind (the Wizzard, not you): "By The Last Hero he's started describing running away as a religion in the valid belief that no one will take it seriously; it might not give you eternal life, exactly, but it certainly gives you more life." Maybe one day I'll read the novels or watch some Discworld. It all does sound interesting. I also note that lots of bad things happen to him and with his pessimism he expects it and: "Rincewind has theorized that in order to balance out the universe, there must be, somewhere, someone to whom nothing but good happens. Someone who saunters from one comfortable place to the next. Rincewind still hopes to meet him some day, hopefully while carrying a weapon." :lol: The entry doesn't say if he believes in multiple universes. That last quote leaves me to suspect that he does not?

Rincewind
23-08-2008, 10:56 AM
The following quote appears in Reaper Man but similar ideas are expressed in other novels...


Wizards don't believe in gods in the same way that most people don't find it necessary to believe in, say, tables. They know they're there, they know they're there for a purpose, they'd probably agree that they have a place in a well-organised universe, but they wouldn't see the point of believing, of going around saying, 'O great table, without whom we are as naught'. Anyway, either the gods are there whether you believe or not, or exist only as a function of the belief, so either way you might as well ignore the whole business and, as it were, eat off your knees.

Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man, pp.26-27

Tony Dowden
24-08-2008, 09:26 AM
Hey Tony
I thought you had my first book, which explains this. You're of course more than a layperson.

Yes, I thought I had your (first) book too. But it doesn't appear to be where I expected it to be.

:hmm: I had forgotten that you had discussed K-Ar dating in your book. It would be useful for this thread if different interpretations of K-Ar datings were explained properly (if you have the time). Cheers, Tony

Rincewind
24-08-2008, 01:27 PM
It would be useful for this thread if different interpretations of K-Ar datings were explained properly (if you have the time).

Personally I think there is more to be gained by having a factual account than any number of "different interpretations". After all, it is science not literature. Jono may disbelieve the entire science of geology if he likes but it is incorrect to call it a different interpretation. It is just a denial of reality in favour of a superstition.

Tony Dowden
25-08-2008, 09:01 PM
Personally I think there is more to be gained by having a factual account than any number of "different interpretations". After all, it is science not literature. Jono may disbelieve the entire science of geology if he likes but it is incorrect to call it a different interpretation. It is just a denial of reality in favour of a superstition.

This would be very nice if we could accept all scientific facts at face value or as immutable truths but, with respect, this approach is somewhat naive (some scientific facts are 'more true' than other scientific facts. Think of Galileo's tribulations). The problem with having a 'factual' account is that scientists (and philosophers of science for that matter) arrive at a socially constructed understandings for what they call facts.

If you would like to know more try reading ' This thing called science' by Alan Chalmers.

Aaron Guthrie
25-08-2008, 09:39 PM
This would be very nice if we could accept all scientific facts at face value or as immutable truths but, with respect, this approach is somewhat naive (some scientific facts are 'more true' than other scientific facts. Think of Galileo's tribulations).I don't know what this has to do with what you wrote following it. Science is sometimes (or even always) in error by some degree. This doesn't entail rejecting science as getting stuff right (or just about right). It might mean that we could be careful and rather say something like "geology is most likely mostly true; so winging on about interpretations isn't going to help".
The problem with having a 'factual' account is that scientists (and philosophers of science for that matter) arrive at a socially constructed understandings for what they call facts.If you are simply saying that our understanding of facts is socially constructed, but facts themselves aren't, this is probably fine. But if you are saying that the facts themselves are socially constructed, then I reject this. (And I reject that my rejection has anything to do with socially constructing a fact. But if it did, that would be enough to refute social construction!)
If you would like to know more try reading ' This thing called science' by Alan Chalmers.Are you suggesting he puts a social constructivist view in that book?

Rincewind
25-08-2008, 10:51 PM
This would be very nice if we could accept all scientific facts at face value or as immutable truths but, with respect, this approach is somewhat naive (some scientific facts are 'more true' than other scientific facts. Think of Galileo's tribulations). The problem with having a 'factual' account is that scientists (and philosophers of science for that matter) arrive at a socially constructed understandings for what they call facts.

If you would like to know more try reading ' This thing called science' by Alan Chalmers.

That is all very trendy and postmodern Tony, however, it is not really a very accurate way of how science (and scientists) interpret observation. The problem with denying the geological age of the earth is that it is not a socially constructed understanding of what they call facts. The scientific fact that the earth is more than 4 billion years old is something which was arrived at slowly with a growing understanding that the prevailing occidental theory (of several 1,000 years but not much more with a big flood at some point in the past) was patently unable to explain the geological observations which were being made up to that time.

The new theory met with some resistance but the biblical account lost on scientific grounds because there was simply no evidence to support it. This all happened 200 years ago and since then 99.9% of geologists have accepted the 4+ billion years old and continue to do so. This all happened before radioactivity was discovered, before tectonics were theorised upon and before postmodernism entered the vocabulary and people started to describe truth like it is a relative term.

All subsequent scientific discovery has affirmed that 4+ billion years is the correct age and no evidence for a sub-10,000 year history has come to light. You can deny the field of geology if you like but to do so is to claim that 99.9% of earth scientists are completely wrong. We are talking about 10,000s of scientists working in academia and industry, 100s of full professors. Highly intelligent men and women of all faiths who have dedicated their lives to science. All of them, completely wrong.

This might sound like the ultimate appeal to the majority, however we are talking about the world experts on matters of geology. It is in fact the strongest and most valid form of an appeal to authority. It doesn't make the 4+ billion years a certainty but it shows that the infinitesimally small number of self-deluded creationists to be at the very tip of the lunatic fringe.

Kevin Bonham
25-08-2008, 11:30 PM
Ax's post re origin of life, evolution etc and replies to it moved to "Origins" thread.

antichrist
28-08-2008, 06:55 PM
once we reject science than all religious claims have equality - living in a Christianish society we are only questioning Christian claims - but Zulu and New Guinea claims deserve equal attention. And how can we dismiss them if we don't study them, and as it is impossible to study all non scientific claims we may as well give up and accept science!

MichaelBaron
29-08-2008, 02:07 PM
Q. Why do married men live longer than single men?

A. They don't; it just seems like longer

To Marry or not to Marry?

If you would like to have long life
You need to find a caring wife.
But I would rather have short life
That isn’t spoiled by a wife.

2007

Rincewind
29-08-2008, 02:18 PM
To Marry or not to Marry?

If you would like to have long life
You need to find a caring wife.
But I would rather have short life
That isn’t spoiled by a wife.

2007

Here's to a short life and a merry one!

- Steve Hart (1859 - 1880)

Tony Dowden
29-08-2008, 10:04 PM
I don't know what this has to do with what you wrote following it. Science is sometimes (or even always) in error by some degree. This doesn't entail rejecting science as getting stuff right (or just about right). It might mean that we could be careful and rather say something like "geology is most likely mostly true; so winging on about interpretations isn't going to help".If you are simply saying that our understanding of facts is socially constructed, but facts themselves aren't, this is probably fine. But if you are saying that the facts themselves are socially constructed, then I reject this. (And I reject that my rejection has anything to do with socially constructing a fact. But if it did, that would be enough to refute social construction!)Are you suggesting he puts a social constructivist view in that book?

You lost me, sorry. Maybe read Chalmers' book?

Tony Dowden
29-08-2008, 10:27 PM
That is all very trendy and postmodern Tony, however, it is not really a very accurate way of how science (and scientists) interpret observation.
:confused: But I didn't say anything about how scientist interpret observation. What do you mean?


The problem with denying the geological age of the earth is that it is not a socially constructed understanding of what they call facts ...

I think you are missing my point. I don't think anybody is denying that the Earth has a geological age. Scientists are people and people have long known to be biased. Using sociological methodology it is relatively straightfoward to show that scientific observations are (1) perceived differently, and then (2) interpreted differently.

Climbing onto the bandwagon under discussion here, for example, its not too hard to see that those wanting to make a religion out of science tend to come up with a different Earth age than those wanting to make a science out of religion. I've probably offended all concerned with this example but it nicely illustrates my point - that is the scope of science is somewhat more limited than most people (especially non-scientists) think.

I am a passable scientist (specialising in biology and the education of science) and it I think it is fair to say that the time of the super-confident positivist scientist has had its day and, if we listen in on the current philosophical discourse, is no longer credible.

Basil
29-08-2008, 10:41 PM
Hi Tony

I have limited opinion on this and check the thread in passing. I think I made my position as to credence of argument about 5,000 posts ago in another 'religion' thread.

I thought your post was excellent except for the part where you said "Scientists are people and people have long been known to be biased." It's clear that being capable of bias does not necessarily follow that bias exists. In that statement's defence however, I would invoke the laws of large samples! :lol:)

Great post.

Rincewind
30-08-2008, 03:19 PM
:confused: But I didn't say anything about how scientist interpret observation. What do you mean?

At the most basic level a fact and an observation is the same thing. Scientists make observations and then hypothesis a explanatory framework which accounts for those observations. As far as geology goes, the observations relate rock, soil and other geological features. Mainstream geology is then a coherent framework which explains the observations and can be used to predict as yet, unobserved features. For example, geology can be used to predict worthwhile locales for mining exploration.


I think you are missing my point. I don't think anybody is denying that the Earth has a geological age. Scientists are people and people have long known to be biased. Using sociological methodology it is relatively straightfoward to show that scientific observations are (1) perceived differently, and then (2) interpreted differently.

Well a good part of my point is that this point is largely irrelevant because there is no scientific bias against the christian position. Historically most scientists are christian and there is no scientific agenda to disprove the biblical position. All there is is a desire to explain the observation seen in nature. 200 years ago it because clear that a 10,000 year old earth did not do that and with some resistence the science of geology moved on. In the last 200 years no new evidence has come to light to alter that fact. In fact all the new evidence ni the last 200 years has affirmed a age between 4-5 billion years.


Climbing onto the bandwagon under discussion here, for example, its not too hard to see that those wanting to make a religion out of science tend to come up with a different Earth age than those wanting to make a science out of religion. I've probably offended all concerned with this example but it nicely illustrates my point - that is the scope of science is somewhat more limited than most people (especially non-scientists) think.

Science is limited to the the observable. If religion was restricted to the unobservable then perhaps we would have a case of Non Overlapping Magisteria. However this is not the case. There are religiously motivated organisations who are trying to dress up their creed as science and sell it as fact.

I have nothing against religions which have a handle on reality and interpret their religious convictions with what we know about the material world. But I have very little time for people who deny reality because it doesn't fit in with how they interpret they religious book. They are just using faith to trump observation which can only mean they don;t trust their sensory faculties or else they believe reality is inherently untrustworthy.


I am a passable scientist (specialising in biology and the education of science) and it I think it is fair to say that the time of the super-confident positivist scientist has had its day and, if we listen in on the current philosophical discourse, is no longer credible.

Only if you limit yourself to a very restricted discourse. As I said before 99.9% of geologists agree that the world is between 4-5 billion years old. This is not disputed and not even considered new. It is a very solid scientific theory which has been accepted for 200 years and all evidence which has come to light since then has affirmed this to be correct. As I said, 10,000s of geologists worldwide of all faiths, use their framework daily and there is no growing consensus that there is anything wrong with it.

There are a small number of religiously inspired apologists putting up a front but that is all there is. It is not mainstream religion and it is not mainstream science it is just religious fundamentalism, thumbing its nose at reality and choosing to believe a fairytale instead of a coherent explanation of geological history.

Tony Dowden
30-08-2008, 08:35 PM
Your point about understandings of geology not changing seems reasonable - I have studied a little geology and the assumptions supporting the framework doo not appear to be especially contestable - but, as history tells us, every so often branches of science have undergone major paradigem shifts.

Take the example of physics: everything seemed to be sorted according to Newton and those who added to his understandings for around a couple of hunderd years but then Einstein came along and gave everything a massive shake ...

Whether we like it or not, scientific facts - no matter how accurately they are measured and so forth - are socially constructed by the a working majority of the community of scientists who assert that facts exist. Facts are therefore not the same as truths.

This reality need not be uncomfortable to geologists and need not decrease the utility of geology.

Tony Dowden
30-08-2008, 08:37 PM
Hi Tony

I have limited opinion on this and check the thread in passing. I think I made my position as to credence of argument about 5,000 posts ago in another 'religion' thread.

I thought your post was excellent except for the part where you said "Scientists are people and people have long been known to be biased." It's clear that being capable of bias does not necessarily follow that bias exists. In that statement's defence however, I would invoke the laws of large samples! :lol:)

Great post.

"Scientists are people and people have long been known to be biased."

Show me an unbiased person then ;)

Basil
30-08-2008, 09:12 PM
"Scientists are people and people have long been known to be biased."

Show me an unbiased person then ;)
My point being the delineation between being biased as a person (human frailty) and professional ability to avoid human frailty when work calls for it. Of course this is impossible as human frailty nobbles us all. It's just we 'know' this as opposed to deduct it, as you did.

Hey, I'm on your side!

Rincewind
31-08-2008, 11:04 AM
Your point about understandings of geology not changing seems reasonable - I have studied a little geology and the assumptions supporting the framework doo not appear to be especially contestable - but, as history tells us, every so often branches of science have undergone major paradigem shifts.

Yes this is true but generally they do not go back to the accepted framework of 200 years previous. At least, I cannot think of an example of this. If you can think of one let me know.


Take the example of physics: everything seemed to be sorted according to Newton and those who added to his understandings for around a couple of hunderd years but then Einstein came along and gave everything a massive shake ...

Physics is a much trotted out example but, in reality, relativity and quantum mechanics are just more precise models than Newtonian mechanics and only differ from Newtonian theory is very specialised realms of observation which were not available to Newton. Newtonian mechanics still gives correct enough answers for most everyday phenomena and are used in all sorts of scientific and engineering endeavours.


Whether we like it or not, scientific facts - no matter how accurately they are measured and so forth - are socially constructed by the a working majority of the community of scientists who assert that facts exist. Facts are therefore not the same as truths.

You are just making a semantic point on your use of the word fact. Science is contingent and nothing by way of scientific theory is 100% immutable. This is the primary reason why science progresses and fundamentalism does not.


This reality need not be uncomfortable to geologists and need not decrease the utility of geology.

Indeed not. However we have amassed a huge amount of evidence via observation and the theory that makes sense is that the world is 4-5 billion years old. There are mountains of evidence which indicate this and it became clear 200 years ago that a sub 10,000 year old earth is just not supportable by the evidence available then and all subsequent evidence has affirmed this.

So all science is contingent but some is more disputable than others. The geological age of the earth is based on a very solid evidential basis and completely undisputed in scientific realm. The only people with an alternative theory are those who openly profess that science is secondary to the gospel and any observation which contradicts the scriptures must be incorrect. This is just living in denial of reality, and why such claims cannot be taken with any seriousness.

Capablanca-Fan
31-08-2008, 11:37 AM
Well a good part of my point is that this point is largely irrelevant because there is no scientific bias against the christian position.
No scientific bias, certainly; just a uniformitarian/evolutionary bias against this, since the Christian position is that God not only upholds the universe but miraculously created it.


Historically most scientists are christian and there is no scientific agenda to disprove the biblical position.
Yes there is: Dawko (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4900/), Dennett (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/594), and various other neo-misotheists, like the mendacious Hitchens (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5924/). And historically, uniformitarian ideas were a consequence of the christophobic Endarkenment, with new presuppositions. In 1785, before examining the evidence, the deist Scotsman James Hutton, ‘the Founder of Modern Geology’, proclaimed:

‘the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle’ (emphasis added)


This philosophy was expounded and popularized by the influential lawyer-geologist Charles Lyell in his book Principles of Geology (3 volumes, 1830–33), which greatly influenced Darwin. The historian and philosopher of science, William Whewell, coined the term uniformitarianism for this philosophy in an (anonymous) review of Lyell’s second volume (Quarterly Review XLVII(93):126, March 1832). Uniformitarianism is a not a refutation of Biblical teaching on Creation and the Flood, but a dogmatic refusal to consider them as even possible explanations for the rocks and fossils we observe.

[‘Theory of the Earth’, a paper (with the same title of his 1795 book) communicated to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and published in Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1785; cited with approval in Holmes, A., Principles of Physical Geology, 2nd edition, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pp. 43–44, 1965.]

I.e. he rejected special acts of creation and the Flood in advance, then tried to explain geological formations by processes (and in his case, rates) he could observe today. Yet his own favourite Siccar Point (http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/siccar_printres.pdf)evidences:


Jagged grains and poor sorting, showing rapid transport (no time to sort or round the grains)
Flat strata (i.e. one layer was deposited on top of another with little time for erosion in between)
Very wide strata, 400 km from Siccar Point to Northern Ireland in the west, and 100 km from the Southern Uplands to the Grampian Mountains in the north (huge amount of water depositing them over a large area)
Cross-bedding (underwater sand dunes indicating deep fast-flowing water)
Bending of layers without cracking (they had not time to harden).



I have nothing against religions which have a handle on reality and interpret their religious convictions with what we know about the material world.
Translation: “I, a rabidly miostheistic and dogmatic christophobe, have nothing against theists who have basically surrendered the real world to atheistic presuppositions.” I warned of the foolishness of such churchian appeasement in Chamberlain and the Church (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5905/).


But I have very little time for people who deny reality because it doesn't fit in with how they interpret they religious book. They are just using faith to trump observation which can only mean they don;t trust their sensory faculties or else they believe reality is inherently untrustworthy.
No, just the uniformitarian interpretations of reality. Creationists deny no observation made by evolutionists.

MichaelBaron
31-08-2008, 11:39 AM
Yes this is true but generally they do not go back to the accepted framework of 200 years previous. At least, I cannot think of an example of this. If you can think of one let me know.



Physics is a much trotted out example but, in reality, relativity and quantum mechanics are just more precise models than Newtonian mechanics and only differ from Newtonian theory is very specialised realms of observation which were not available to Newton. Newtonian mechanics still gives correct enough answers for most everyday phenomena and are used in all sorts of scientific and engineering endeavours.



You are just making a semantic point on your use of the word fact. Science is contingent and nothing by way of scientific theory is 100% immutable. This is the primary reason why science progresses and fundamentalism does not.



Indeed not. However we have amassed a huge amount of evidence via observation and the theory that makes sense is that the world is 4-5 billion years old. There are mountains of evidence which indicate this and it became clear 200 years ago that a sub 10,000 year old earth is just not supportable by the evidence available then and all subsequent evidence has affirmed this.

So all science is contingent but some is more disputable than others. The geological age of the earth is based on a very solid evidential basis and completely undisputed in scientific realm. The only people with an alternative theory are those who openly profess that science is secondary to the gospel and any observation which contradicts the scriptures must be incorrect. This is just living in denial of reality, and why such claims cannot be taken with any seriousness.


What a way to explain things to a 12 year old :). Sounds like an academic research paper to me.

Scientific theories are adjusted and corrected all the time. As time goes by, academic views change like weather. Whatever is regarded as solid evidence today..may be refuted tomorrow. As for me - I can see no proof that God exists nore i can see any proof that he does not exist. Therefore, when asked about creation of the universe - my standard response would be "God knows" :)

Rincewind
31-08-2008, 12:14 PM
What a way to explain things to a 12 year old :). Sounds like an academic research paper to me.

I wasn't aware that TonyD was a 12 year old. He professes to have a tertiary qualification a few post ago.


Scientific theories are adjusted and corrected all the time. As time goes by, academic views change like weather. Whatever is regarded as solid evidence today..may be refuted tomorrow.

Yes science is refined all the time. What I specifically asked for is an example of science going back to a theory which was discarded 200 years previous. If you have one, let me know. By science here I am talking about the physical sciences.


As for me - I can see no proof that God exists nore i can see any proof that he does not exist. Therefore, when asked about creation of the universe - my standard response would be "God knows" :)

... and that doesn't sound circular to you?

Also please note that we are not talking about the existence of god here, just the geological age of the earth. Science has a evidential basis for a roughly 4.6 billion year age. This is very widely accepted by scientists and theologian. A small number of biblical literalists have a problem with it but they are very much in the minority and must be taken with vast quantities of salt when they profess:


By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

- CMI Statement of faith

That is just a creed that denies reality.

Capablanca-Fan
31-08-2008, 12:30 PM
I wasn't aware that TonyD was a 12 year old. He professes to have a tertiary qualification a few post ago.
Probably a confusion with Tony K who said he was 13. Tony D taught high school biology for a while, becoming a head of science, then gained his doctorate in education — see his Uni profile (http://fcms.its.utas.edu.au/educ/educ/pagedetails.asp?lpersonId=3542).


A small number of biblical literalists have a problem with it
I wouldn't know, since I don't know any "biblical literalists" as opposed to biblical originalists who use grammatical-historical hermeneutics (see for example The Bible and hermeneutics (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4880/)).


but they are very much in the minority and must be taken with vast quantities of salt when they profess:


By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

- CMI Statement of faith
Answered ages ago (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2829/).

Rincewind
31-08-2008, 02:10 PM
I wouldn't know,

That much is certainly true.

So your position is Jono is that 99.9% of the geologist today are wrong when it comes to the age of the earth. And not just a little bit wrong, you claim that the evidence supports an age which is six orders of magnitude different from the mainstream theory. 10,000s of geologist, 100s of professors, worldwide.

Men and women of all faiths and backgrounds whose unifying attribute is that they are specialists in earth science. All these people are somehow blinded from your scientifically supported position that 10,000 years makes sense and 4.6 billion years doesn't.

Rincewind
31-08-2008, 02:21 PM
Answered ages ago (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2829/).

Regarding this "answered ages ago" one liner. I would point out that I was stating that you deny reality, which is the import of that article of faith. Therefore, the genetic fallacy is not applicable as I am not discrediting your idea but rather using the article as evidence of your denial. Secondly, the axiomatic concern is a non-issue as it is your axiom that I am pointing out. Yes every formal system is based on axioms, yours and mine.

However, my axiom is that what all observations are equally valid and must be accommodated. Your axiom is that anything which contradicts (your interpretation of) the scriptural record must be wrong.

Working from my axioms we could conclude that the world is 10,000 years old if that was supported by the evidence. Working from your axioms you could never conclude a 4.6 billion year old earth since you deny that position axiomatically. So working from my axioms if we did conclude that the world is 10,000 years old then we have achieved something. However, all you have done is repeated your axiom.

Capablanca-Fan
31-08-2008, 02:29 PM
Regarding this "answered ages ago" one liner. I would point out that I was stating that you deny reality, which is the import of that article of faith.
I deny no reality, just materialistic interpretations of some data (and ignoring other data like C-14 in diamonds (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4650/)).


Your axiom is that anything which contradicts (your interpretation of) the scriptural record must be wrong.
Not "my interpretation" but what the text says as determined by the grammatical-historical hermeneutic, as opposed to your postmodernist nonsense.


Working from my axioms we could conclude that the world is 10,000 years old if that was supported by the evidence.
No, because your real axiom is like Lewontin's: unshakeable materialism (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/703/).

Working from your axioms you could never conclude a 4.6 billion year old earth since you deny that position axiomatically. So working from my axioms if we did conclude that the world is 10,000 years old then we have achieved something. However, all you have done is repeated your axiom.

Rincewind
31-08-2008, 05:25 PM
I deny no reality

Then how do you account for

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

You are saying perceived evidence which contradicts your interpretation of scripture cannot be valid. Therefore is any perception which is contrary to your a priori position is denied out of hand.

Can you envisage some evidence which would make you accept the mainstream geological age of the earth? If so, give an example as to what form this evidence might take.

Kevin Bonham
31-08-2008, 09:03 PM
Not "my interpretation" but what the text says as determined by the grammatical-historical hermeneutic, as opposed to your postmodernist nonsense.

How on earth is Rincewind's position "postmodernist"?

Capablanca-Fan
31-08-2008, 11:21 PM
How on earth is Rincewind's position "postmodernist"?
It's obvious with his idea that a certain text doesn't have an objective meaning. But if the Bible isn't really teaching 6-day creation, then your statement might equally well be "interpreted" as "Rincewind likes Morris dancing with carrots stuck up his nose."

Capablanca-Fan
31-08-2008, 11:27 PM
Lying in the Name of Indoctrination (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/lying_in_the_name_of_indoctrin.html)
Anika Smith
27 August 2008

Dogmatists committed to a dying paradigm will argue with falsehoods to convince the public of their claims ... especially when they're targeting children.

As we've covered here this week (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/new_york_times_rehashes_darwin.html), Haeckel's faked embryo drawings (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/747/)are still used in science textbooks because, according to some Darwinists, "it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students."

That's right. According to Darwinist biology professor Bora Zivkovic, who blogs as Coturnix at A Blog Around The Clock and is Online Community Manager at PLoS-ONE, sometimes you have to lie to students in order to get them to accept evolution. Why? Because:


Education is a subversive activity that is implicitly in place in order to counter the prevailing culture. And the prevailing culture in ... many other schools in the country, is a deeply conservative religious culture.

In order to combat that "deeply conservative religious culture," Darwinists like Zivkovic push the "non-overlapping magisteria" model, or NOMA (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3855/#noma), which claims that science is about facts and religion is about values, and when we keep them in these nice separate realms, nobody gets hurt.

In reality, this scheme was designed by Darwinists in order to convince religious people that evolution is not threatening to their beliefs ... the first step towards dismantling their belief system:


You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust. You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students. (emphasis added)

You see, teaching isn't about actually instructing children to think critically or giving them factual knowledge about a subject like biology. It's about getting young minds to accept evolution, even if that means they're mistaken about the facts of biology for the rest of their lives. Zivkovic admits that teaching bogus examples to kids, like Mickey Mouse's changing appearance over the years is an example of evolution in action, may be factually incorrect, but it's not morally wrong. Zivkovic explains it all (http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2008/08/why_teaching_evolution_is_dang.php) for us:


If a student, like Natalie Wright who I quoted above, goes on to study biology, then he or she will unlearn the inaccuracies in time. If most of the students do not, but those cutesy examples help them accept evolution, then it is OK if they keep some of those little inaccuracies for the rest of their lives. It is perfectly fine if they keep thinking that Mickey Mouse evolved as long as they think evolution is fine and dandy overall. Without Mickey, they may have become Creationist activists instead. Without belief in NOMA they would have never accepted anything, and well, so be it. Better NOMA-believers than Creationists, don't you think?

This isn't about minor mistakes in textbooks — this is about the willful use of inaccurate information in order to convince students that evolution is a fact. Mistaken believers are better than skeptical students for Darwinist biology teachers.

Capablanca-Fan
31-08-2008, 11:28 PM
Then how do you account for

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
Simple: apparent, perceived or claimed evidence can be mistaken.


You are saying perceived evidence which contradicts your interpretation of scripture cannot be valid. Therefore is any perception which is contrary to your a priori position is denied out of hand.
Of course. Perception doesn't always correspond to reality.

Kevin Bonham
01-09-2008, 12:24 AM
Of course. Perception doesn't always correspond to reality.

Nor do c.2000-year-old religious texts, which makes it all the more strange that anyone would even claim to consider one axiomatic.


It's obvious with his idea that a certain text doesn't have an objective meaning.

Where was that idea stated? Did I miss something? Can't see it or anything all that closely resembling it on any recent post on this thread. Do you mean the bit where he said:


I have nothing against religions which have a handle on reality and interpret their religious convictions with what we know about the material world. But I have very little time for people who deny reality because it doesn't fit in with how they interpret they religious book.

If so that alludes to multiple interpretations but does not deny the possibility of an objectively "correct" (or incorrect) interpretation.


Dogmatists committed to a dying paradigm will argue with falsehoods to convince the public of their claims ... especially when they're targeting children.

They certainly will, but that doesn't mean any paradigm for which some adherents support going soft on opposing views to avoid uproar is "dying".

However on that point I don't agree with Zivkovic. I don't think it is ever desirable to teach a child an untrue thing about the debate (such as that NOMA is valid, or some simplification of the process) for the sake of keeping them onside. Unlearning mistakes is sometimes more difficult than Zivkovic gives credit for, and they can sometimes lead a young scientist down blind alleys in unrelated areas.

But no doubt if teachers were instead telling children who enquired about contradiction with biblicist accounts that according to mainstream science the biblicist accounts are simply wrong on certain matters, there would be an enormous outcry from religious believers of those accounts. So I understand the pressure that causes some (like Zivkovic) to support these kinds of compromises.

Nonetheless my own preference is that students be told the truth, and if some students are "lost" to science as a result then so be it. Also I think Zivkovic is of the view (as with many locked in this sort of battle) that it is all about numbers - how many there are of your side, how many there are of theirs. It isn't at all, and even if you "lose" some students but assist those you keep to be clearer in their thinking rather than going down blind alleys then in the long term that is probably better for the success of your views in the debate.

Note that this is an ongoing practical debate among evolutionists and Zivkovic links to some others, like PZ Myers, who totally disagree with watering down the message for the sake of pacifying religious objections and keeping doubting children onside.

Capablanca-Fan
01-09-2008, 06:23 AM
If so that alludes to multiple interpretations but does not deny the possibility of an objectively "correct" (or incorrect) interpretation.
But two mutually contradictions cannot both be correct.


Note that this is an ongoing practical debate among evolutionists and Zivkovic links to some others, like PZ Myers, who totally disagree with watering down the message for the sake of pacifying religious objections and keeping doubting children onside.
Yet the likes of Rincewind are always going on, with approval, about the theologians who accept evolution, who are the Zivkovices of the other side in a way. I prefer to tell people honestly what the Bible teaches, and if this leads people to reject it, then so be it.

Rincewind
01-09-2008, 08:25 AM
Of course. Perception doesn't always correspond to reality.

No but perception is our only link to reality. If a certain perception continues we assume it is not a mistaken perception and corresponds to an objective reality.

Is it not true that you only know of the scripture through perception?

Capablanca-Fan
01-09-2008, 12:22 PM
Is it not true that you only know of the scripture through perception?
The propositions of Scripture can be taken as an axiomatic system, which entails that our preceptions are likely to be largely reliable.

Aaron Guthrie
01-09-2008, 01:10 PM
You lost me, sorry. Maybe read Chalmers' book?Maybe you should re-read it! :P

Aaron Guthrie
01-09-2008, 01:26 PM
Some error in science does not entail all science is in error.
Some bias in science does not entail all science is simply bias.
Some interpretation in science does not entail all science is interpretation.

Rincewind
01-09-2008, 02:07 PM
The propositions of Scripture can be taken as an axiomatic system, which entails that our preceptions are likely to be largely reliable.

However you contend that the perceptions of 99.9% of the world's geologists are wholly mistaken, by six orders of magnitude.

Spiny Norman
01-09-2008, 02:35 PM
However you contend that the perceptions of 99.9% of the world's geologists are wholly mistaken, by six orders of magnitude.
It wouldn't be the first time ...

Rincewind
01-09-2008, 02:48 PM
It wouldn't be the first time ...

Your evidence for the previous time (in light of the evidence available to them at that time) is...

Spiny Norman
01-09-2008, 03:20 PM
They used to think that the world was much younger, roughly in line with modern creationism. Thinking that it is billions of years old is a relatively recent thing. If you're arguing that, in fact, the earth is indeed billions of years old, then the vast majority of geologists during history were wholly mistaken about the earth's age.

Rincewind
01-09-2008, 04:44 PM
They used to think that the world was much younger, roughly in line with modern creationism. Thinking that it is billions of years old is a relatively recent thing. If you're arguing that, in fact, the earth is indeed billions of years old, then the vast majority of geologists during history were wholly mistaken about the earth's age.

...in light of the evidence available to them at that time...

Capablanca-Fan
01-09-2008, 07:16 PM
...in light of the evidence available to them at that time...
The evidence at the time of lawyer-turned-uniformitarian-geologist, Charles Lyell (1797–1875), was that the Niagara Falls were receding by more than one metre a year. At that rate the gorge would be less than 12,000 years old. No matter, Lyell just ignored the observation that went against his belief that the earth was much older (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/276/#box), and instead substituted a "conjectured" erosion rate 10 times slower.

Rincewind
01-09-2008, 09:05 PM
The evidence at the time of lawyer-turned-uniformitarian-geologist, Charles Lyell (1797–1875), was that the Niagara Falls were receding by more than one metre a year. At that rate the gorge would be less than 12,000 years old. No matter, Lyell just ignored the observation that went against his belief that the earth was much older (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/276/#box), and instead substituted a "conjectured" erosion rate 10 times slower.

Spiny's whole point is rather ill posed anyway as it is not clear that geology at that time was generally considered as a science. It certainly wasn't a mature science at the time and it is also highly unlikely that 99.9% of those people calling themselves geologists considered the biblical account as the scientific position.

Certainly prior to Lyell's Opus Magnus in 1830 there were many geologists theorising on an ancient age for the earth. Hutton, and others and there were several schools of thought which debated the topic and I mentioned it was a debate which was decided in favour of the very old school and over time the figure has been refined with current thought being somewhere in the 4.6 billion year ballpark.

So the fact remains that today there are 10,000s of geologists working daily in a very mature science, of whom 99.9% agree that the geological evidence indicates that the earth is 4-5 billion years old.

So either practically all of the worlds leading experts on geology are mistaken (by six orders of magnitude) on this central part of their area of expertise or you are. Which is it?

Capablanca-Fan
01-09-2008, 09:51 PM
Certainly prior to Lyell's Opus Magnus in 1830 there were many geologists theorising on an ancient age for the earth. Hutton, and others and there were several schools of thought which debated the topic and I mentioned it was a debate which was decided in favour of the very old school and over time the figure has been refined with current thought being somewhere in the 4.6 billion year ballpark.
Mainly by ignoring the dissenters from uniformitarian dogma such as George Fairholme (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1577/), George Young (http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_3/j18_3_121-127.pdf), Andrew Ure (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1858), and John Murray (http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_2/j18_2_74-82.pdf).


So either practically all of the worlds leading experts on geology are mistaken (by six orders of magnitude) on this central part of their area of expertise or you are. Which is it?
Is it really? They are good at observing the rocks as they are, but they didn't observe them being formed. Much evidence militates against the uniformitarian dogma, such as multistrate fossils (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5894/) (i.e. fossils that penetrate many layers) and paraconformities (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1952/) (flat planes between layers that show no evidence of being exposed to the surface for millions of years).

Rincewind
01-09-2008, 10:21 PM
Mainly by ignoring the dissenters from uniformitarian dogma

No, mainly be considering the positions on their scientific credibility. If 10,000 years could explain all the geological features it would have won the debate. It couldn't and therefore it didn't.


Is it really? They are good at observing the rocks as they are, but they didn't observe them being formed.

Yes they are very good at observing things as they are and recognising that such features require much more than 10,000 years to form. And the fact remains that 99.9% of geologist agree that the world is roughly 4.6 billion years old and nothing like the 10,000 years your religion requires you to believe.

Kevin Bonham
02-09-2008, 12:48 AM
But two mutually contradictions cannot both be correct.

Of course not, but I don't see Rincewind arguing that they are.


Yet the likes of Rincewind are always going on, with approval, about the theologians who accept evolution, who are the Zivkovices of the other side in a way.

But theology does not necessitate belief in the inerrancy of all scripture, and while I agree with you that those who try too hard to make evolution and scripture compatible are wrong, are they dishonest or simply mistaken?


I prefer to tell people honestly what the Bible teaches, and if this leads people to reject it, then so be it.

I prefer also that the views of the Bible be represented accurately, and if this leads people to reject several of those views, then I consider this a bonus. :D

Rincewind
02-09-2008, 01:04 AM
But theology does not necessitate belief in the inerrancy of all scripture, and while I agree with you that those who try too hard to make evolution and scripture compatible are wrong, are they dishonest or simply mistaken?

I wouldn't argue that someone who accepts scripture and evolution is necessarily wrong. It is not my view, but it is the view as I understand it of mainstream christian theology. I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "try too hard" for compatibility. Or maybe it is just too late for me to think properly.

Capablanca-Fan
02-09-2008, 01:53 PM
I wouldn't argue that someone who accepts scripture and evolution is necessarily wrong.
Some logical gymnastics required though.


It is not my view, but it is the view as I understand it of mainstream christian theology.
Liberal theology is always about climbing on the latest bandwagons as the wheels are about to fall off; aka those who seek to keep up with the times tend to be forever out of date. The first liberals were in Germany, and supported the Kaiser, much to Karl Barth's disgust. The next generation replaced the Bible with Nazism, and the current lot adopt leftist talking points of university radicals.

Rincewind
02-09-2008, 02:09 PM
Some logical gymnastics required though.

You have to believe some concepts on face-value which I find very unusual but each to their own, provided no one is getting hurt.


Liberal theology is always about climbing on the latest bandwagons as the wheels are about to fall off; aka those who seek to keep up with the times tend to be forever out of date. The first liberals were in Germany, and supported the Kaiser, much to Karl Barth's disgust. The next generation replaced the Bible with Nazism, and the current lot adopt leftist talking points of university radicals.

That's the most vacuous codswallop I've ever read.

As has been pointed out numerous times before. Mainstream theology (not liberal theology) accept reality and the scripture. You have trouble reconciling the two and have opted that scripture is the trumping suit but the mainstream position is the message of god must be consistent with the natural universe. To it to be otherwise would require a capricious deity. Hence the scientific mainstream position on the age of the earth and the paleontological history of life on earth is entirely consistent with the scripture, as it must be.

Kevin Bonham
02-09-2008, 10:33 PM
I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "try too hard" for compatibility.

I'm thinking of the sort of person who tries to argue that evolution is true and also that every single word of scripture is "true" (even if some are more metaphorical than others) and comes up with contorted explanations to try to keep the two compatible instead of just admitting they are not.

Rincewind
02-09-2008, 10:56 PM
I'm thinking of the sort of person who tries to argue that evolution is true and also that every single word of scripture is "true" (even if some are more metaphorical than others) and comes up with contorted explanations to try to keep the two compatible instead of just admitting they are not.

Ok. Thanks for the clarification.This seems not to be the mainstream position nowadays though.

Spiny Norman
03-09-2008, 06:51 AM
I'm thinking of the sort of person who tries to argue that evolution is true and also that every single word of scripture is "true" (even if some are more metaphorical than others) and comes up with contorted explanations to try to keep the two compatible instead of just admitting they are not.
There's a huge number of Christians in that category. I was myself, until maybe 3-4 years ago ...

Capablanca-Fan
03-09-2008, 01:57 PM
If Biblical Headlines were written by today's liberal media

On Red Sea crossing:
WETLANDS TRAMPLED IN LABOR STRIKE
Pursuing Environmentalists Killed

On David vs. Goliath:
HATE CRIME KILLS BELOVED CHAMPION
Psychologist Questions Influence of Rock

On Elijah on Mt. Carmel:
FIRE SENDS RELIGIOUS RIGHT EXTREMIST INTO FRENZY
400 Killed

On the birth of Christ:
HOTELS FULL, ANIMALS LEFT HOMELESS
Animal Rights Activists Enraged by Insensitive Couple

On feeding the 5,000:
PREACHER STEALS CHILD'S LUNCH
Disciples Mystified Over Behavior

On healing the 10 lepers:
LOCAL DOCTOR'S PRACTICE RUINED
"Faith Healer" Causes Bankruptcy

On healing of the Gadarene demoniac:
MADMAN'S FRIEND CAUSES STAMPEDE
Local Farmer's Investment Lost

On raising Lazarus from the dead:
FUNDAMENTALIST PREACHER RAISES A STINK
Will Reading to be Delayed

Sodom and Gomorrah
GAY PRIDE PARADE ENDS WITH A BLAST
Environmentalists blame big business for brimstone presence in the air.

Spiny Norman
03-09-2008, 02:51 PM
On raising Lazarus from the dead:
FUNDAMENTALIST PREACHER RAISES A STINK
Will Reading to be Delayed
:clap: That one made me laugh out loud. "But LORD, he stinketh!". :clap:

Spiny Norman
03-09-2008, 02:57 PM
Mainstream theology (not liberal theology) accept reality and the scripture.
Thinking further about this ... I'm not quite sure what you mean by "accept reality" ... do you mean accepting rational realism (a.k.a. scientific realism)?

If so, why shouldn't I occasionally decide that, concerning a particular subject or theory, that rational nonrealism or nonrational nonrealism mightn't be more appropriate in that specific case?

Rincewind
03-09-2008, 02:59 PM
On healing of the Gadarene demoniac:
MADMAN'S FRIEND CAUSES STAMPEDE
Local Farmer's Investment Lost

In all seriousness though, that is a very queer story and to me (a non believer anyway) has the feel of an apocrypha about it more than most of the stories about Jesus. I mean seen from the pig's perspective, they seem to have been dealt a very harsh hand. Why wouldn't Jesus just banish the demons and leave the hapless pigs alone? Sure the demons didn't want to go back to the abyss but did the lives of the pigs and the farmers whose livelihood depended on them have to be sacrificed to achieve this end?

Rincewind
03-09-2008, 03:08 PM
Thinking further about this ... I'm not quite sure what you mean by "accept reality" ... do you mean accepting rational realism (a.k.a. scientific realism)?

Nothing to do with any -ism. But when 99.9% of the world's geologists of all faiths and -isms are in agreement that the planet is close to celebrating its 4.6 billionth birthday, then there must be something to it. At the very least the almighty did a good job at making the earth appear that old to all the world's leading authorities on the matter.

Spiny Norman
03-09-2008, 04:10 PM
Its got a lot to do with it. If you hold to scientific realism (like Popper), then you'll think that scientific theories are making true (or at least approximately true) statments and that facts and data are 'neutral'. If you hold to nonrational nonrealism (like Kuhn) then you'll think that scientific theories are all tied up in paradigms and that there is no such thing as neutral facts or data. There's plenty of other -isms to pick from. So why couldn't I regard modern geology's view of "billions of years" from a Kuhn-ian (or some other antirealist) perspective?

Aaron Guthrie
03-09-2008, 04:31 PM
Its got a lot to do with it. If you hold to scientific realism (like Popper), then you'll think that scientific theories are making true (or at least approximately true) statments and that facts and data are 'neutral'.I'd say you are wrong that Popper thought data was 'neutral'. And I am sure you are wrong that all scientific realists hold such. Also note typically (though terminology is not consistent) scientific realism is the belief that the entities that science posits, or something very much like them, exist.
If you hold to nonrational nonrealism (like Kuhn) then you'll think that scientific theories are all tied up in paradigms and that there is no such thing as neutral facts or data.Emphasis mine.
There's plenty of other -isms to pick from.In this context one could be not a scientific realist, but still hold that science has shown that the earth is heaps old. Reason being that one could be an instrumentalist about science, i.e. not hold that the entities of science exist, but still hold the results are in some sense roughly right.
So why couldn't I regard modern geology's view of "billions of years" from a Kuhn-ian (or some other antirealist) perspective?You can do whatever you want, of course. I guess you mean why shouldn't you. Well firstly, it is ad hoc, what reason do you have for adopting it aside from that it patches up your theory. Secondly, are you going to dismiss all of science along with it, because you probably should if you are following Kuhn. Actually you might have to dismiss religion along with it, or at least start to view your religion through anti-realist eyes. Thirdly, non-rational is a pretty good description of it.

Rincewind
03-09-2008, 04:46 PM
Its got a lot to do with it. If you hold to scientific realism (like Popper), then you'll think that scientific theories are making true (or at least approximately true) statments and that facts and data are 'neutral'. If you hold to nonrational nonrealism (like Kuhn) then you'll think that scientific theories are all tied up in paradigms and that there is no such thing as neutral facts or data. There's plenty of other -isms to pick from.

My point is that the global community of geologist is quite a wide cross-section when it comes to putting them into boxes with the names of various -isms on the lids.

If you accept that we all share in a common reality you would have to say that it is very odd for so many of the worlds leading experts in this field to be so completely wrong.


So why couldn't I regard modern geology's view of "billions of years" from a Kuhn-ian (or some other antirealist) perspective?

If you are saying your position is unrealistic, I'd agree.

Spiny Norman
03-09-2008, 04:55 PM
'Neutral' in the sense that the data is just the data, observations are theory-neutral. Is there are branch of scientific realism that thinks otherwise?

If one had good reasons for thinking that science was mistaken in a particular area (e.g. the sun revolves around the earth), then one could reasonably invoke an alternative explanation (e.g. the earth revolves around the sun) and conclude that the mainstream science was stuck in an old paradigm.

Aaron Guthrie
03-09-2008, 05:09 PM
'Neutral' in the sense that the data is just the data, observations are theory-neutral. Is there are branch of scientific realism that thinks otherwise?Yes, Popper's. I'd also say it is the dominant view amongst scientific realists nowadays.

Spiny Norman
04-09-2008, 08:34 AM
Interesting ... thanks for the info.

Earlier you said:


Well firstly, it is ad hoc, what reason do you have for adopting it aside from that it patches up your theory. Secondly, are you going to dismiss all of science along with it, because you probably should if you are following Kuhn. Actually you might have to dismiss religion along with it, or at least start to view your religion through anti-realist eyes. Thirdly, non-rational is a pretty good description of it.
If one thinks one has good reasons for thinking a certain thing to be true, despite science's concensus view, then one's view of what science is (I'm a mild scientific realist) may be in doubt in this specific case (i.e. geology/age of the earth). There may be multiple ways to resolve dissonance.

So a further question: is it necessary to think that science is a homogenous field, that one's scientific realist view of science must apply equally across all fields of scientific enquiry? I can't see any reason why that would be so.

Rincewind
04-09-2008, 09:16 AM
If one had good reasons for thinking that science was mistaken in a particular area (e.g. the sun revolves around the earth), then one could reasonably invoke an alternative explanation (e.g. the earth revolves around the sun) and conclude that the mainstream science was stuck in an old paradigm.

I think to adopt a new paradigm you would need to be aware of the impact that the paradigm shift. For example, are your aware of epicycles, are they a part of the new paradigm but you are willing to live with them because the heliocentric system is mistaken due to these "good reasons" you have.

I think science is a very effective tool for accumulating observation based knowledge. If the overwhelming scientific view on something is X then that is most likely to be the best answer based purely on observation. I assume therefore your "good reasons" are not based on observation but rather a conviction you have in a particular belief system.

This also relates to your point on the monolithic (or not) view of science. I certainly don't view all of science as a monolith where you can either accept it all or else live in la-la land. However, geology is not a fringe science. It is a large, mature and highly practical science with (conservatively) 10,000s practitioners worldwide in industry and academia. The overwhelming consensus is the world is not 10,000 years old. In fact it is older than 10,000 x 10,000 years.

To be a YEC is to say that the entire field of geology is working in a paradigm which is completely, utterly and profoundly mistaken. 10,000s of geological experts working in almost every university, mining and drilling company, and advising almost every government in the world. They all just have it wrong.

Spiny Norman
04-09-2008, 09:56 AM
To be a YEC is to say that the entire field of geology is working in a paradigm which is completely, utterly and profoundly mistaken. 10,000s of geological experts working in almost every university, mining and drilling company, and advising almost every government in the world. They all just have it wrong.
But then Jono's point about origins vs operational comes into play. One's view about the supposed age of a particular set of rock strata presumably plays little (or no?) role in how one approaches the data from an oil or gas drilling perspective, or mining perspective, or whatever. The drilling, or mining, is straight operational science.

I have relatives in the mining/drilling field, who are Ph.D level and who advise very large companies concerning where to invest in mines, how/where to build smelters, and so on. Perhaps I will discuss it with them when I next get a chance, to see whether their views on 'age of the earth' play any practical role in their day-to-day work. Unfortunately they're all working overseas, in places like Nigeria and so on, so it might take me a good deal of time to have that conversation with them.

Capablanca-Fan
04-09-2008, 11:58 AM
But then Jono's point about origins vs operational comes into play. One's view about the supposed age of a particular set of rock strata presumably plays little (or no?) role in how one approaches the data from an oil or gas drilling perspective, or mining perspective, or whatever. The drilling, or mining, is straight operational science.

I have relatives in the mining/drilling field, who are Ph.D level and who advise very large companies concerning where to invest in mines, how/where to build smelters, and so on. Perhaps I will discuss it with them when I next get a chance, to see whether their views on 'age of the earth' play any practical role in their day-to-day work. Unfortunately they're all working overseas, in places like Nigeria and so on, so it might take me a good deal of time to have that conversation with them.
Yes, there are YEC geologists, including in the oil industry. It is one thing to associate different rock formations with oil, and quite another to claim that they are millions of years old.

Capablanca-Fan
04-09-2008, 12:00 PM
In all seriousness though, that is a very queer story and to me (a non believer anyway) has the feel of an apocrypha about it more than most of the stories about Jesus. I mean seen from the pig's perspective, they seem to have been dealt a very harsh hand. Why wouldn't Jesus just banish the demons and leave the hapless pigs alone? Sure the demons didn't want to go back to the abyss but did the lives of the pigs and the farmers whose livelihood depended on them have to be sacrificed to achieve this end?
A farmer raising pigs in Jewish territory was hardly being culturally sensitive, and may have been breaking the law. There was probably also a need for tangible evidence that the demon of legions had left the man.

Aaron Guthrie
04-09-2008, 02:13 PM
So a further question: is it necessary to think that science is a homogenous field, that one's scientific realist view of science must apply equally across all fields of scientific enquiry? I can't see any reason why that would be so.I am going to take "scientific realism" by you to mean just the contention that science gets things roughly right, and will use the word myself this way in this post. I would say in principle it is possible to say one thinks some sciences gets things right, others don't, and do so in a rational way. However I would also say that it would not be easy to do so.

If you have a theory as to why sciences gets things right, that theory of science should be applied across fields of science. In that sense being a scientific realist about one area of science may lead you to be committed to being a realist about others.

Another problem is that it ain't so easy to separate off certain sciences from others. I expect geology is a case in point, whereby A) it isn't a stand alone science, in that it uses information from, biology, chemistry and so on, and B) denying one aspect of geology, say the age of the earth, means you have to deny another result from physics, say the age of the universe.

Capablanca-Fan
04-09-2008, 02:46 PM
“Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice?
“Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?”
—C.S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry? in The Weight of Glory, p. 136, New York: HarperCollins, 1980.

Rincewind
04-09-2008, 02:59 PM
Yes, there are YEC geologists, including in the oil industry. It is one thing to associate different rock formations with oil, and quite another to claim that they are millions of years old.

99.9% of all geologists are not YECs though.

Rincewind
04-09-2008, 03:10 PM
“Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice?
“Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?”
—C.S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry? in The Weight of Glory, p. 136, New York: HarperCollins, 1980.

One should note that Is Theology Poetry? was originally penned in 1944 and so the usage of "modern naturalism" needs to be read in that context, rather than 1980 the date of publication of the collection. (Of course people familiar with C.S. Lewis would not be surprised by this as he died in 1963 but just in case it is better to give the date something was originally written rather than the date of a reproduction in a collection decades later).

As far as the quotes themselves go, I find a couple of unsubstantiated loaded questions not very exciting.

Science (and not 1940's naturalism) depends on positive evidence as it must because that is all anyone has to go on when it comes to describing the shared experience we call reality. God, whether he exists or not, is not at issue at all.

Rincewind
04-09-2008, 03:29 PM
A farmer raising pigs in Jewish territory was hardly being culturally sensitive, and may have been breaking the law.

The biblical account doesn't mention any shadiness to the enterprise. While the pigs were not considered clean for the Jewish palate I assume they could be raised and consumed by gentiles without persecution. Wasn't the area described as "the land of the gentiles" so it is more likely that gentile customs were acceptable.


There was probably also a need for tangible evidence that the demon of legions had left the man.

Surely the lucid man sitting a listening to Jesus is more than enough proof for that. Since when is a herd of drowned pigs been universally considered conclusive proof of a successful exorcism.

Rincewind
04-09-2008, 03:41 PM
Yes, there are YEC geologists, including in the oil industry. It is one thing to associate different rock formations with oil, and quite another to claim that they are millions of years old.

Although I note that Dr Andrew A Snelling could not dodge the issue in his paper on the Koongarra uranium deposit as documented amusingly here (http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm).

Capablanca-Fan
04-09-2008, 03:48 PM
Although I note that Dr Andrew A Snelling could not dodge the issue in his paper on the Koongarra uranium deposit as documented amusingly here (http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm).
I dealt with that silly old canard from that gutter misotheistic site (http://www.trueorigin.org/noaig.asp) ages ago in More nonsense from Professor Plimer (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2280).

Rincewind
04-09-2008, 06:31 PM
I dealt with that silly old canard from that gutter misotheistic site (http://www.trueorigin.org/noaig.asp) ages ago in More nonsense from Professor Plimer (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2280).

Is there any evidence for the claim "However, any caveats inserted by Dr Snelling to distance himself from these beliefs would certainly have been deleted by the editors"?

But regardless of whether it was Snelling's belief or not (I didn't claim that it was), it still shows that in the very limited amount of real geology that Snelling has published the antiquity of the earth was relevant and the flood description was not sustainable (for one reason or another).

Capablanca-Fan
04-09-2008, 06:41 PM
Is there any evidence for the claim "However, any caveats inserted by Dr Snelling to distance himself from these beliefs would certainly have been deleted by the editors"?
Ample proof from other creationists, e.g. Robert Gentry who had papers knocked back for mentioning creationist implications, then published in other journals with those implications removed.


But regardless of whether it was Snelling's belief or not (I didn't claim that it was), it still shows that in the very limited amount of real geology that Snelling has published the antiquity of the earth was relevant and the flood description was not sustainable (for one reason or another).
No it wasn't. It was merely using accepted geological terms for certain layers in stratigraphy, without accepting their ages.

Rincewind
04-09-2008, 08:42 PM
No it wasn't. It was merely using accepted geological terms for certain layers in stratigraphy, without accepting their ages.

No it wasn't. Snelling uses the phrases

"1870 to 1800 Myr"

"A 150 Myr period of weathering and erosion"

And while Myr is an accepted geological term. You can't claim he just used accepted geological terms for certain layers without accepting their ages. Myr means millions of years. :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
04-09-2008, 08:51 PM
No it wasn't. Snelling uses the phrases

"1870 to 1800 Myr"

"A 150 Myr period of weathering and erosion"

And while Myr is an accepted geological term. You can't claim he just used accepted geological terms for certain layers without accepting their ages. Myr means millions of years. :lol:
We all know that. But this was the uniformitarian dogma about the ages of the formation he was researching. His employer knew perfectly well what his true position was.

Sure, he could have inserted his true beliefs, got his paper rejected, then your ilk would accuse him of not being a real geologist because he couldn't get published, hypocrite.

Kevin Bonham
04-09-2008, 11:16 PM
We all know that. But this was the uniformitarian dogma about the ages of the formation he was researching. His employer knew perfectly well what his true position was.

Sure, he could have inserted his true beliefs, got his paper rejected, then your ilk would accuse him of not being a real geologist because he couldn't get published, hypocrite.

You are making excuses for Snelling publishing ages that he supposedly does not actually believe, when only days ago you were ripping into Zivkovic for supporting the telling of white lies in the classroom such as NOMA.

If there is consistency between these two stances, I don't see it.

Rincewind
05-09-2008, 12:06 AM
We all know that. But this was the uniformitarian dogma about the ages of the formation he was researching. His employer knew perfectly well what his true position was.

Sure, he could have inserted his true beliefs, got his paper rejected, then your ilk would accuse him of not being a real geologist because he couldn't get published, hypocrite.

You still don't get it?

I'm not saying Snelling was being hypocritical (although he probably was) just that even Snelling, the Australian creationism geologist, in one of only a handful of serious papers he has written could not help but make reference to the antiquity of the earth. Whether he believed the age or not, it shows that the ancient age of the earth is pertinent to "operational" geology.

If you follow the thread back you should have been able to work this out for yourself.

Capablanca-Fan
05-09-2008, 07:37 AM
You still don't get it?
No, you don't: the censorship machine is out in force, and Snelling dared not question the uniformitarian dogma if he wanted to be published. It has no bearing on the actual research. Stop whinging.

Capablanca-Fan
05-09-2008, 07:56 AM
If there is consistency between these two stances, I don't see it.
Snelling's actions were to get through the censorship, Zivkovic's were to indoctrinate students into an ideology.

Snelling was explaining certain stratigraphic layers which are associated with certain uniformitarian ages. No one associated with him had any doubt about what he really thought, unlike Zivkovic's students.

Rincewind
05-09-2008, 08:00 AM
No, you don't: the censorship machine is out in force, and Snelling dared not question the uniformitarian dogma if he wanted to be published. It has no bearing on the actual research. Stop whinging.

I can't believe you still don;t get it. Read the last 10 posts or so very slowly, and try to engage your brain this time.

Kevin Bonham
05-09-2008, 05:45 PM
Snelling's actions were to get through the censorship, Zivkovic's were to indoctrinate students into an ideology.

Another way of looking at it is that Snelling's actions were a blatant abandonment of creationist principles for the purposes of making money, while Zivkovic's actions were not to "indoctrinate" anyone, but to prevent someone who had essentially already accepted an idea from rejecting it when they noticed a clash between it and an upbringing they were not yet ready to discard. (This is not to defend Zivkovic's actions nor to attack Snelling's but simply to point out that both positive and negative views are possible of either.)

After all if Snelling's only concern was getting round the so-called censorship, couldn't he have published his papers in a creationist journal?

Capablanca-Fan
06-09-2008, 01:44 AM
Another way of looking at it is that Snelling's actions were a blatant abandonment of creationist principles for the purposes of making money,
What money?


After all if Snelling's only concern was getting round the so-called censorship, couldn't he have published his papers in a creationist journal?
But then you'd whinge that he hadn't published in a real journal.

Rincewind
06-09-2008, 09:22 AM
What money?

For his paper, Dr Snelling was asked by the mining corporation for which he consults part-time to review all the published information on Koongarra, summarising the work of other people.

One assumes this part-time consultancy was not pro bono.


But then you'd whinge that he hadn't published in a real journal.

True but at least his integrity would have been intact.

Regardless of the duplicity issue there is still the issue that in one of the very few papers Snelling has published in scholarly literature, he could not avoid the issue that the earth is much more than 10,000 years old. This undermines your assertion that "It is one thing to associate different rock formations with oil, and quite another to claim that they are millions of years old."

From Snelling's work on uranium deposits it is cleat that the association of various geological features with resources is intrinsically related to the mainstream interpretation of the geological ages involved in the formation of those features.

Capablanca-Fan
06-09-2008, 10:00 AM
True but at least his integrity would have been intact.
Then blame the censors!


Regardless of the duplicity issue there is still the issue that in one of the very few papers Snelling has published in scholarly literature, he could not avoid the issue that the earth is much more than 10,000 years old. This undermines your assertion that "It is one thing to associate different rock formations with oil, and quite another to claim that they are millions of years old."
No, a certain formation is "dated" according to uniformitarian assumptions at so many million years old. One might wish that he had inserted a subtle caveat like "dated at X Ma" but it's still a storm in a shot glass.


From Snelling's work on uranium deposits it is cleat that the association of various geological features with resources is intrinsically related to the mainstream interpretation of the geological ages involved in the formation of those features.
Come off it! The paper shows that the radiometric "ages" can't be valid. Note that even his critic Ritchie admitted that the paper was an excellent piece of work.

Rincewind
06-09-2008, 12:01 PM
Then blame the censors!

I fail to see the logic here. It is the supposed censors fault that Snelling sold out his principles for consultancy dollars? Surely either Snelling is either principled or not. If principled, he would not have sold out and put his name to a work which he was opposed to on a fundamental level.


No, a certain formation is "dated" according to uniformitarian assumptions at so many million years old. One might wish that he had inserted a subtle caveat like "dated at X Ma" but it's still a storm in a shot glass.

It shows that the mainstream geological age of the earth is pervasive in operational geology when even Snelling could not avoid referring to ages of rocks and time scales of weathering an erosion well in excess of the 10,000 year upper limit of YEC.


Come off it! The paper shows that the radiometric "ages" can't be valid. Note that even his critic Ritchie admitted that the paper was an excellent piece of work.

I will defer to Richie's assessment of the work, but Snelling in no way shows that radiometric ages can't be validated. That is just wishful thinking on your part. Snelling does show that Koongarra deposit is in no way exceptional to mainstream geology and that the mainstream aging of geological features is pervasive in operational practice in the discipline.

Capablanca-Fan
06-09-2008, 06:12 PM
I fail to see the logic here. It is the supposed censors fault that Snelling sold out his principles for consultancy dollars?
Of course: if it wasn't for them, Snelling wouldn't have even had to defer to these ages, with or without caveats.


Surely either Snelling is either principled or not. If principled, he would not have sold out and put his name to a work which he was opposed to on a fundamental level.
Nice for your ilk, who could then rant that Snelling couldn't get published in a "real" journal.


It shows that the mainstream geological age of the earth is pervasive in operational geology when even Snelling could not avoid referring to ages of rocks and time scales of weathering an erosion well in excess of the 10,000 year upper limit of YEC.
No, he probably couldn't avoid mentioning the ages according to the ruling paradigm, even though his work undermined one major "proof" for them.


I will defer to Richie's assessment of the work, but Snelling in no way shows that radiometric ages can't be validated. That is just wishful thinking on your part. Snelling does show that Koongarra deposit is in no way exceptional to mainstream geology and that the mainstream aging of geological features is pervasive in operational practice in the discipline.
You have no clue. His research, explained more fully in The failure of U-Th-Pb ‘dating’ at Koongarra, Australia (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1780), argues:


As with other radiometric ‘dating’ methods, the U-Pb and Pb-Pb isochron methods have been questioned in the open literature, because often an excellent line of best fit between ratios obtained from a set of good cogenetic samples gives a resultant ‘isochron’ and yields a derived ‘age’ that has no geological meaning. At the Koongarra uranium deposit, Australia, there is ample evidence of open system behaviour, or repeated migration, of U and Pb — ore textures, mineral chemistry, supergene alteration, uranium/daughter disequilibrium, and groundwater and soil geochemistry. Yet U-Th-Pb isotopic studies of the uranium ore, host rocks and soils have produced an array of false ‘isochrons’ that yield ‘ages’ which are geologically meaningless. Even a claimed near-concordant U- Pb ‘age’ of 862 Ma (million years) on one uraninite grain is identical to a false Pb-Pb isochron ‘age’ but neither can be connected to any geological event. The open system behaviour of the U-Th-Pb system is clearly the norm, as is the resultant mixing of radiogenic Pb with ‘common’ or background Pb, even in soils in the surrounding region, apparently even up to 17 km away! Because no geologically meaningful results can be interpreted from the U-Th-Pb data at Koongarra (three uraninite grains even yield a 232Th/208Pb ‘age’ of 0 Ma), serious questions must be asked about the validity of the fundamental/foundational basis of the U-Th-Pb ‘dating’ method. This makes the task of creationists building their model for the geological record much easier, since claims of U-Th-Pb radiometric ‘dating’ having ‘proven’ the claimed great antiquity of the earth, its strata and fossils can be justifiably ignored.

Rincewind
06-09-2008, 06:25 PM
Of course: if it wasn't for them, Snelling wouldn't have even had to defer to these ages, with or without caveats.

I'm glad you you are not disputing his lack of principles. :)


Nice for your ilk, who could then rant that Snelling couldn't get published in a "real" journal.

Well either you believe what you publish or you are playing a game with words. In Snellings case it is the latter. For all we know this may continue to be the case with his unscientific writing in your church newsletter too.


No, he probably couldn't avoid mentioning the ages according to the ruling paradigm, even though his work undermined one major "proof" for them.

:lol: By asserting the antiquity of the earth he undermined the paradigm. That's a new tack.


You have no clue. His research, explained more fully in The failure of U-Th-Pb ‘dating’ at Koongarra, Australia (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1780), argues:

Translation: Pet theory of an unprincipled geologist which was not open to the scrutiny of 99.9% of the worlds geologist, all of whom dispute it.

Capablanca-Fan
08-09-2008, 12:44 PM
I'm glad you you are not disputing his lack of principles. :)
I am disputing exactly that.


Well either you believe what you publish or you are playing a game with words. In Snellings case it is the latter.
Blame the censors. It's not much different from some female authors in bygone days using male pseudonyms to get past the sexist barriers.


:lol: By asserting the antiquity of the earth he undermined the paradigm. That's a new tack.
Nope, his actual research undermined one of the major proofs of it.


Translation: Pet theory of an unprincipled geologist which was not open to the scrutiny of 99.9% of the worlds geologist, all of whom dispute it.
My heart bleeds for your new-found scruples. You could try dealing with the actual evidence.

Rincewind
08-09-2008, 05:47 PM
I am disputing exactly that.

That's not the way it read.


Blame the censors. It's not much different from some female authors in bygone days using male pseudonyms to get past the sexist barriers.

Actually it is completely different. Snelling's hypothetical caveats never really existed and you are assuming they would have been removed by the editor. No doubt anything which is not supported by evidence would have been removed so it is not censorship just peer-review ensuring science is published and religious dogma is not.


Nope, his actual research undermined one of the major proofs of it.

Actually the exact opposite of that sentence is true.

Snelling's actual research (that is the limited collection of work he has published in scholarly journals) make no mention of this undermining and indeed makes regular use of standard geological aging of geological features.

The stuff which has not been peer-reviewed and supports his a priori belief in a literal interpretation of genesis may or may not support it but that is not scientific research.


You could try dealing with the actual evidence.

No need until it is published in geological literature where the experts on geology can review it. Life's too short for me to waste time on every crackpot geologist that publishes their "research" in a church newsletter.

TheJoker
29-09-2008, 04:00 PM
"Scientists are people and people have long been known to be biased."

Show me an unbiased person then ;)


My point being the delineation between being biased
as a person (human frailty) and professional ability to avoid human frailty when work calls for it. Of course this is impossible as human frailty nobbles us all. It's just we 'know' this as opposed to deduct it, as you did.

Hey, I'm on your side!

I would have to argue that without bias we would be incapable of making sense of the facts, we need some sort of framework (bias) with which analyse the facts.

upldiscovered
08-05-2009, 12:37 AM
While the evolutionary atheist laugh and scorn at the Bibles saying man used to live longer( Methuselah-969 years) They contradict themselves by saying that a fish laid on land long enough to evolve into "higher forms". That a single celled organism traversed the "organic soup" so as to become land dwelling then "gradually( many years) evolved to "higher life forms." The time and circumstances that these two scenarios would have taken eclipses any inferred "time" that man formally lived. You are correct that their are many things which gradually led to mans ability to live long becoming less and less. The main factor was the global flood that released the expanse formally enveloping the earth before the deluge( The implications as to UV light formally diffused now "earth exposed" weighs heavily upon these issues of debate). In actuality another significant factor is one defined by the bible, namely: "man keeps dominating man to his own injury." as well man is "ruining the earth." The facts are there( stats for the scientists) that over 35 billion humans have lived on the earth since records of history have been recorded. over 100 million of them were slaughtered in warfare just over the past 100 years. If you factor in mans insatiable thirst for blood over the past 5000 years how many have died prematurely due to war and crime.

Desmond
08-05-2009, 08:24 AM
While the evolutionary atheist laugh and scorn at the Bibles saying man used to live longer( Methuselah-969 years) They contradict themselves by saying that a fish laid on land long enough to evolve into "higher forms". That a single celled organism traversed the "organic soup" so as to become land dwelling then "gradually( many years) evolved to "higher life forms." The time and circumstances that these two scenarios would have taken eclipses any inferred "time" that man formally lived. You are correct that their are many things which gradually led to mans ability to live long becoming less and less. The main factor was the global flood that released the expanse formally enveloping the earth before the deluge( The implications as to UV light formally diffused now "earth exposed" weighs heavily upon these issues of debate). In actuality another significant factor is one defined by the bible, namely: "man keeps dominating man to his own injury." as well man is "ruining the earth." The facts are there( stats for the scientists) that over 35 billion humans have lived on the earth since records of history have been recorded. over 100 million of them were slaughtered in warfare just over the past 100 years. If you factor in mans insatiable thirst for blood over the past 5000 years how many have died prematurely due to war and crime.If I'm not mistaken the theory is that the "fish" would have evolved before moving onto land.

Rincewind
08-05-2009, 09:48 AM
While the evolutionary atheist laugh and scorn at the Bibles saying man used to live longer( Methuselah-969 years) They contradict themselves by saying that a fish laid on land long enough to evolve into "higher forms".

Methuselah is supposed to have been the one person. The process of evolution is one of accumulation of small differences over generations. A single fish didn't suddenly find itself on land and decide to evolve legs. Thus your claim that people who deny Methuselah's age but accept evolution are contradictory is false. The two are entirely consistent.

Kevin Bonham
08-05-2009, 10:37 PM
Yes, this is another instance of upldiscovered having absolutely no clue about the scientific claims he opposes. upldiscovered's claims about scientific issues in the religion/creation debate consist of the unthinking repetition of propaganda for the creation side, notable only for (i) the eccentricity of style with which the claims are expressed and (ii) upldiscovered apparently being a day/age type rather than a YEC.

upldiscovered
08-05-2009, 11:24 PM
kevein claims about religious issues in the creation/religion debate consist of the unthinking repetition of propaganda for the evolutionist side, notable only for (i) the eccentricity of style with which the claims are expressed and (ii) Kevin apparently being a day/age type rather than a YEC.

Propaganda: the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause. I.e scientism.the religion of psuedo-scientists.

Kevin Bonham
08-05-2009, 11:52 PM
Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause. I.e scientism.the religion of psuedo-scientists.

Let's talk about this so-called "scientism" then.

What are its basic principles, in your view?

Who are some leading adherents of these principles who you consider to be pseudo-scientists?

Your own comments on science thus far have been so hopeless that they don't even pass muster as pseudo-science (jargonised babble would be a more accurate description) so I think you should get your own house in order before attacking others as "pseudo-scientists" anyway.

antichrist
09-05-2009, 04:37 PM
Let's talk about this so-called "scientism" then.

What are its basic principles, in your view?

Who are some leading adherents of these principles who you consider to be pseudo-scientists?

Your own comments on science thus far have been so hopeless that they don't even pass muster as pseudo-science (jargonised babble would be a more accurate description) so I think you should get your own house in order before attacking others as "pseudo-scientists" anyway.

KB, is this guy in competition with me? who is winning? Is it close?

Basil
09-05-2009, 05:17 PM
KB, is this guy in competition with me? who is winning? Is it close?
This guy is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out in front. However you score far better on breadth of dribble ;)

BTW I've noticed you've been posting a few cogent offerings recently and catching everyone off guard!

Kevin Bonham
09-05-2009, 07:51 PM
KB, is this guy in competition with me? who is winning? Is it close?

It's not close. If we could combine your more eccentric features as a poster with those of Axiom and HappyFriend we might get something close.