tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post862375186644214824..comments2023-12-28T17:14:24.356-08:00Comments on Monkey Trials: BTC #2a: BEYOND THE BOUNDS?Scott Hatfield . . . .http://www.blogger.com/profile/00363885800131794994noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-5879674018357601332007-09-25T06:33:00.000-07:002007-09-25T06:33:00.000-07:00superninja:You can pick and choose as you will, bu...<B>superninja:</B><BR/><BR/><I>You can pick and choose as you will, but there have been fossils found in layers where they should not be.<BR/><BR/>It is simply not as reliable as you are making it out to be.</I><BR/><BR/>I think this will come as news to my friends in geology who are employed in the petroleum industry and who use the geological time scale and indicator fossils to locate coal, oilScott Hatfield . . . .https://www.blogger.com/profile/00363885800131794994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-80700423011980410722007-09-25T06:18:00.000-07:002007-09-25T06:18:00.000-07:00Starwind:I don't have a problem with the scenario ...<B>Starwind:</B><BR/><BR/>I don't have a problem with the scenario you've painted. Like Hugh Ross, you're taking great pains to square it with the known details from astronomy and current thinking in cosmology, and I admire the effort.<BR/><BR/>I just don't see the necessity of it, myself, as a personal matter. You ask a very good question about what God should've told Moses in the first place Scott Hatfield . . . .https://www.blogger.com/profile/00363885800131794994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-29593797442147228292007-09-24T14:13:00.000-07:002007-09-24T14:13:00.000-07:00"I would suggest you check your sources for this a..."I would suggest you check your sources for this as it appears to be hearsay. Anyone familiar with radiocarbon dating recognizes that C-14 dating is only valid to about 50-60,000 years."<BR/><BR/>That's correct, peak bagger, I misspoke - I should have said radiometric dating. DNA should not be intact if the specimens are actually as old as they are claimed to be (65 million years).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-78947817081149717682007-09-24T13:44:00.000-07:002007-09-24T13:44:00.000-07:00Scott, you seemed to have missed part of my post:"...Scott, you seemed to have missed part of my post:<BR/><BR/>"They've found fossils in strata they should not be in if the layering is based primarily on time and not other factors." <BR/><BR/>You can pick and choose as you will, but there have been fossils found in layers where they should not be.<BR/><BR/>It is simply not as reliable as you are making it out to be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-69801364092099018162007-09-24T07:32:00.000-07:002007-09-24T07:32:00.000-07:00Scott Hatfield:A final point, lest you waste your ...Scott Hatfield:<BR/><BR/>A final point, lest you waste your time...<BR/><BR/><I>To say that the earth was without form and void is not, strictly speaking, the same thing as saying that space did not exist prior to the Big Bang. </I><BR/><BR/>That is not the correlation I was drawing. The "earth" was without form and void <I>after</I> its creation ex-nihilo. Neither space nor matter existed prior Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-78110548816897486752007-09-23T22:17:00.000-07:002007-09-23T22:17:00.000-07:00Starwind:Fair enough. It's probably not edifying f...Starwind:<BR/><BR/>Fair enough. It's probably not edifying for either of us to attempt to 'prove' certain things within the context of this discussion. I am certainly predisposed to regard your comments as sincere and scholarly. You have my respect, even if we do not agree on every jot or tittle.<BR/><BR/>I do want to give your brief the response it deserves. You write: " And if there is an Scott Hatfield . . . .https://www.blogger.com/profile/00363885800131794994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-25556744334670886742007-09-23T18:54:00.000-07:002007-09-23T18:54:00.000-07:00Scott Hatfield:True or false interpretations of Ge...Scott Hatfield:<BR/><BR/>True or false interpretations of Genesis are not salvific, only a genuine belief in and obedience to Jesus Christ is salvific. To the extent any of our professions is sincere is between each of us and Jesus Himself. He knows our hearts, better than we do.<BR/><BR/>The pearls remark was in reference to the Christ rejectors and the lukewarm remark was a reference to your Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-83342897830012082912007-09-23T15:08:00.000-07:002007-09-23T15:08:00.000-07:00Without excuse, huh? I kind of feel as if you're ...Without excuse, huh? I kind of feel as if you're subtly questioning my intellectual integrity here. Should I take it that means you've concluded that I, personally, am 'lukewarm' and so you are going to 'spew me out of your mouth'? I'd be sad if that was the case.<BR/><BR/>Is there room for more than one interpretation of the Hebrew in Genesis 1? I can't tell from your remarks whether or not Scott Hatfield . . . .https://www.blogger.com/profile/00363885800131794994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-83535054149337162062007-09-23T12:20:00.000-07:002007-09-23T12:20:00.000-07:00Billy, Scott Hatfield;Does it ever bother you that...Billy, Scott Hatfield;<BR/><BR/><I>Does it ever bother you that in all that "scrutinizing nature", there doesn't appear to be <B>any evidence</B> that actually supports a literal reading of the Genesis creation story?</I><BR/><BR/>lol - not any? Not even the Big Bang?<BR/><BR/>In the begining God created heavens and earth, formless and void: the "big bang", a 'beginning' of the universe from 'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-91059029025898406882007-09-23T07:22:00.000-07:002007-09-23T07:22:00.000-07:00t's just that you seem to spend an awful lot of ti...<I>t's just that you seem to spend an awful lot of time shoehorning ancient Hebrew into what we actually observe about the world, when a simple application of Occam's Razor would suggest that - like all the other creation accounts around the world - it's probably not a literal description of events.</I><BR/><BR/>I concur.Scott Hatfield . . . .https://www.blogger.com/profile/00363885800131794994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-26643362468785483762007-09-23T03:26:00.000-07:002007-09-23T03:26:00.000-07:00"I don’t know, except it is a question that has oc..."I don’t know, except it is a question that has occupied mankind for millennia and therefore kept our attention focused on searching scripture, scrutinizing nature, and looking for the hand of God in both."<BR/><BR/>Does it ever bother you that in all that "scrutinizing nature", there doesn't appear to be any evidence that actually supports a literal reading of the Genesis creation story? It's Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-33365193297239134082007-09-22T18:13:00.000-07:002007-09-22T18:13:00.000-07:00Superninja wrote:there are have been stratificatio...Superninja wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>there are have been stratification experiments which show rapid layering in an hour. This has also been observed in flooding. Yes, radioactive decay occurs, but there is conflicting data as I'm sure you know.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, it makes no difference whether the layering occurred in an hour or in a million years. What matters is what fossils are found in which Scott Hatfield . . . .https://www.blogger.com/profile/00363885800131794994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-34118192080499485632007-09-22T13:52:00.000-07:002007-09-22T13:52:00.000-07:00peak_bagger:Can you comment on the "tohu" and "boh...peak_bagger:<BR/><BR/><I>Can you comment on the "tohu" and "bohu" concept as posited in the framework theory?</I><BR/><BR/>It seems a rather trivialzed and forced fit. I don't find the framework theory credible, as my prior posts on the lack of parallels would imply.<BR/><BR/>Essentially they had strip out part of "day 1" and falsely construe "heavens and earth" as meaning "atmosphere and land" Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-79173695627867942522007-09-22T13:11:00.000-07:002007-09-22T13:11:00.000-07:00peak_bagger:I'm not much of a Bible scholar but re...peak_bagger:<BR/><BR/><I>I'm not much of a Bible scholar but remind me again, why would God create plants before the Sun?</I><BR/><BR/>The following are my own thoughts, somewhat speculative, certainly not offered as "absolute truth".<BR/><BR/>(HTML formatting constraints prevent it from appearing any more cohesive.)<BR/><BR/>In Gen 1:16-19, many scholars recognize the word translated “made” (in Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-74852882292660178602007-09-22T11:35:00.000-07:002007-09-22T11:35:00.000-07:00superninja said:I think that is understimating God...superninja said:<BR/><B>I think that is understimating God's ability.</B><BR/><BR/>Crediting God for God's ability is a noble sentiment and one I can appreciate. As Creator of the universe, God is powerful to do whatever God wants. BUT, the question, "What does God choose to do?" For instance, God has the ability to ensure that the gospel narratives record the events in Jesus's ministry in theAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-31323117520442508932007-09-22T10:29:00.000-07:002007-09-22T10:29:00.000-07:00Scott,Briefly - there are have been stratification...Scott,<BR/><BR/>Briefly - there are have been stratification experiments which show rapid layering in an hour. This has also been observed in flooding. Yes, radioactive decay occurs, but there is conflicting data as I'm sure you know. I suspect that the Standard model is not really in conflict, rather how it is applied and interpreted here.<BR/><BR/>There are fossils with intact DNA which are Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-71853552543691213162007-09-21T18:09:00.000-07:002007-09-21T18:09:00.000-07:00Starwind: I'll review the links you suggest. The...Starwind: I'll review the links you suggest. They sound intriguing. To me, as someone who has done liturgy, I don't have to be a Bible scholar to recognize the difference in tone and intent between the two creation stories. Conversely, I don't have to adopt any particular notion of 'inspiration' or the lack of same to recognize same. I don't have an ax to grind where the Bible is concerned.Scott Hatfield . . . .https://www.blogger.com/profile/00363885800131794994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-50875107696547990782007-09-21T18:00:00.000-07:002007-09-21T18:00:00.000-07:00More Superninja observations:The dating methodolog...More Superninja observations:<BR/><BR/><I>The dating methodology itself does not provide an absolute, it is dependent upon other information which can be loaded with presuppositions.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm trying to figure out how I can possibly load the Standard Model in physics with any presuppositions other than the brute facts which are consistent with that model. Radioactive decay occurs. Scott Hatfield . . . .https://www.blogger.com/profile/00363885800131794994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-41459729749004924442007-09-21T17:32:00.000-07:002007-09-21T17:32:00.000-07:00Superninja nitpicks:My question is that if you are...Superninja nitpicks:<BR/><BR/><I>My question is that if you are stating the Earth should look a particular way to scientists if the Genesis account were literal, can you please provide examples of this.</I><BR/><BR/>OK. If the Genesis account were literal, given 24-hour days, we should find <I><B>all phyla contemporaneous in the fossil record.</I></B> It should not be the case that we do not Scott Hatfield . . . .https://www.blogger.com/profile/00363885800131794994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-49185925518503330972007-09-21T10:25:00.000-07:002007-09-21T10:25:00.000-07:00peak bagger,I think that is understimating God's a...peak bagger,<BR/><BR/>I think that is understimating God's ability. We are created in his image and for the purpose of having a relationship with him. What are our customs and traditions based on in any case? Having been made in his image they are either a copy of eternal truths or perversions of that. <BR/><BR/>The Bible is filled with facts as well as truth, but I agree it's not a science Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-16183049857858950562007-09-21T06:43:00.000-07:002007-09-21T06:43:00.000-07:00superninja,I agree that God knows better than we d...superninja,<BR/><BR/>I agree that God knows better than we do and I wholeheartedly accept its plenary inspiration. Is it possible that God choose to come down to our level and communicate using our stories and traditions? And those narratives as in Genesis speak not so much to fact but rather to truth? For instance, Gen. 1 is about God as Creator of all things. And Gen. 2 is that God created Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-37515837076455141522007-09-21T06:12:00.000-07:002007-09-21T06:12:00.000-07:00Starwind:The photon transparency of the universe o...Starwind:<BR/><BR/>The photon transparency of the universe on yom 1 is an interesting take. I'm not much of a Bible scholar but remind me again, why would God create plants before the Sun?<BR/><BR/>Also, it's not difficult for me to see parallels in Genesis 1. Can you comment on the "tohu" and "bohu" concept as posited in the <A HREF="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/fw.htm" REL="Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-6401733899780946752007-09-21T01:09:00.000-07:002007-09-21T01:09:00.000-07:00There must be an emprical way that religion thinks...<I>There must be an emprical way that religion thinks it has realms, right?</I><BR/><BR/>And the answer is... they hear voices in their heads but they don't like admitting it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-79434723749470366372007-09-20T23:58:00.000-07:002007-09-20T23:58:00.000-07:00Scott Hatfield:Having read Lawson Stone's article ...Scott Hatfield:<BR/><BR/>Having read Lawson Stone's article <A HREF="http://homepage.mac.com/lawsonstone1/blog/Creation01.html" REL="nofollow">Creation 1-Starting at the Beginning?</A>, I essentially agree with what he writes, especially about the nuances of bara vs asah and creation ex-nihilo (almost identical to my own views). <BR/><BR/>I would quibble with two points he glosses over, Stone Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-11503716142077855172007-09-20T21:58:00.000-07:002007-09-20T21:58:00.000-07:00Also, I do not believe science and the Bible are i...Also, I do not believe science and the Bible are in conflict. What are in conflict are the various philosophies of the scientists pretending to be science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com