Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Scientific Method: Do You Use It?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Doug Brents View Post

    Genesis 1-11 do in fact give facts for the age of the Earth. Consider the genealogies given between Gen 5 and Gen 11. If you count the years from each man's birth to the birth of the son through which the line runs (which I have), you can count the number of years the Earth has been around from Creation to the Flood. Then there are additional years given all the way up to Abraham. The total of those years, from Creation up to Abraham's death is 2128 years (actually you can track it all the way to Joseph's death in the year 2314 after Creation). When Abraham died, Shem (the last living person (that is recorded in Scripture) from before the Flood) was 572 years old, and Shem died at the age of 602 (30 years after Abraham died). When Abraham was 48, every generation was still alive all the way back to Noah (11 generations). Meaning that, provided geographical proximity, Abraham could have talked with two people who lived before the Flood. When he left Ur he was 75, and at that time, Shem, Arphaxad, Salah, Eber, Reu, Serug, and Terah were still alive. Now, the last few sentences are purely anecdotal to this discussion, but the point for this discussion is that the age of the Earth can be accurately calculated to within a few hundred years.

    Because from Joseph in Egypt, historical data can be tracked to date Jesus birth at between year 4000 and 5000. And we are currently in year 2020 after Jesus' birth which puts us at between year 6000 and 7000 since Creation.
    Yes, Bishop Ussher's dating methodology. Well aware of it. Regardless, nowhere is the date of the earth's creation internally referenced within Genesis. You are relying on Egyptian dating, and events dating from the Babylonian time. These are reasonably established, but you can't claim that it is purely Scriptural method.

    As far as what pi is, I don't see how that has anything to do with this conversation. Please explain.
    1 Kings 7:23.
    Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
    Ecc 7:10

    John777 exists to me only in quoted form.


    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by John Helpher View Post
      Can you provide the reference for this thing about Jesus boiling a search for the truth all down to a heart issue?
      Sure. Jesus is I AM. Here's some things I AM has said in the OT and the NT.

      1. Jeremiah 29:13 'You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart.

      2. Deut 4:29 "But from there you will seek the Lord your God, and you will find Him if you search for Him with all your heart and all your soul.

      3. Mark 4:3-20. this is the parable of the sower and the seed. The seed only bears fruit in one soil. Each soil is reveals the condition of the heart of a person that the seed is being planted in.

      4. Luke 16:31 "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"

      Note what Jesus said right there in #4. This was in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Abraham responded (according to Jesus) that even if someone rose from the dead, they would not believe. Use all the scientific meathods you want to use. Even if you proved to them that someone rose from the dead, would they believe? Not unless they wanted the truth, which is a heart issue.

      5. Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. NASU

      Men here, knew the truth. But they chose to suppress that truth. God made Himself evident to Him, but they rejected it.

      There are more, but that is enough.

      I'm not sure why some people seem to have such a problem with the scientific method, but I'm guessing it's more of a cultural conditioning than a genuine concern about how to search for truth. In the past few decades there's been so much animosity between Atheistic scientists and blind-faith Christians that it's easy to assume anything with the word "science" in it is some kind of dig at real faith.
      Real faith isn't blind. It sees in the unseen world. Apologetics can be useful. We can see that with people like Josh McDowell who wrote "Evidence that demands a verdict" and got saved while trying to disprove the bible. Or Lee Strobel who wrote the book "The Case for Christ". He became a Christian while researching the resurrection to prove it did not happen. But here's the thing, these men were honest enough that they did not suppress the truth. When the truth came to light, they surrendered to it.

      I do agree that Atheists have tried their hardest to give the impression that God and science are conflicting ideas but that is not the case at all. The scientific method (as the name suggests) is a method for organizing and processing information. That's it. You ask a question, formulate a hypothesis, test and experiment, analyze results, adjust testing if necessary, analyze data again, and process the data into a conclusion.

      God gives us the spirit of a sound mind and even Jesus referred to this process when he said that if anyone wants to know if his teachings really are from God, then he should try them and he will see. So, following the steps, one could ask, "Is Jesus worth following"? and then formulate a hypothesis "If Jesus really is a representative of God, then following his teachings will lead to a better understanding of God". The next step is to test the hypothesis by practicing the teachings of Jesus. After that, you analyze the results and form a conclusion (i.e. after stepping out in faith to work for Love vs working for money, as Jesus said to do, I found that God did meet my needs and in conclusion the teachings of Jesus really are from God and worth following).
      And what you have described is a works based salvation. "Let me try Jesus and see if this works." That's not what scripture teaches. When you experience Jesus, you are changed. The woman at the well didn't "try Jesus", she took Him in, hook, line and sinker. She left her water pot and went and told Samaria about Him and they were saved too. Paul didn't "try to follow Jesus". He was born again, radically changed, and with his new heart, followed Jesus completely. When Peter preached at Pentecost, he did not tell them to "test Jesus" or to "try him out and see if he works". He told them to repent, believe and be baptized. They were born again. A new born baby doesn't try milk. He drinks it in. One doesn't get saved by "trying". He gets saved when he experiences God and believes Him. God touches that man and he is changed forever.

      We can apply this process to any number of spiritual-based issues. Practicing this kind of methodical search for truth will be a demonstration of what is in the heart more powerfully than flowery speech about how much we love and worship God.
      I will just quote the Apostle Paul:

      1 Cor 2:1 And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, 4 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

      and

      1 Cor 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

      People are saved through the foolishness of preaching. God is the first preacher and He preaches to them inwardly. Some suppress what God says, others believe and are saved. Some investigate (i.e. Lee Strobel, and Josh McDowell) until they see it is the truth, then they believe through what was preached to them from their investigation. No where are we ever told to "try this out and see if it works" when it comes to salvation.

      No one can logic another person into heaven. That's not how we are saved. We can use logic, but in the end, salvation is a miracle to be experienced rather than an argument to be won. And the miracle occurs, when we believe from the heart. Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell came to the conclusion the God of the bible is the one true God. Then, they believed from the heart. They did not get saved by "trying to follow Jesus". They got saved because after hearing the evidence, they believed. God preached to them through the evidence and many other believers preached to them while they were researching. Here is what scripture says about the heart and salvation:

      Romans 10:8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART" — that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

      God bless,

      Mark
      Matt 9:13
      13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
      NASU

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by teddyv View Post
        Yes, Bishop Ussher's dating methodology. Well aware of it. Regardless, nowhere is the date of the earth's creation internally referenced within Genesis. You are relying on Egyptian dating, and events dating from the Babylonian time. These are reasonably established, but you can't claim that it is purely Scriptural method.
        We have recorded human history from the time of Egypt and Babylon that give us fairly accurate record of how long ago some things happened, like the drought that made Egypt the strongest nation in the world at that time (Joseph having interpreted Pharaoh's dream and prepared Egypt to withstand the drought). Because human recorded history does not go much past this period, we can then rely on Biblical history which details (even more clearly than human history is recorded) the years from Joseph back to Adam (Creation). Thus, while it is not "purely" Biblical, it can be relied upon to be accurate in calculation of the age of the Earth. We know that the Earth was created only 5 days before Adam was "born" (created), and thus with his age being 930 at his death, the Earth was only 5 days older than Adam when Adam died (a statistically insignificant amount of time).

        Originally posted by teddyv View Post
        Genesis is not meant to be a calendar for accurately calculating the "day" an event happened, although it can be used to find the "year" that an event happened since Creation. Similarly, 1 Kings is not meant to be an engineer's guide to recreating the structures depicted therein. Nowhere in all of Scripture are any measurements given or intended to be specific enough to recreate the things depicted. Yes, if we were to calculate pi based on 1 Kings we would get 3, whereas if we calculate it based on measurements we find it to be 3.14159265359....... These are close enough from a non-technical perspective that it does not pose a problem in understanding or believing the Scripture. Similarly, the ages of the men in the genealogy of Noah are not given to the day. Adam was 130 when Seth was born. It could have been on his 130th birthday, or it could have been 130 plus 364 days. But it was during his 130th year. This again poses no theological problem with understanding the Scripture. But it is significant that Adam was 130 when Seth was born, because this, along with all the other ages given, tell us that Joseph was born in the year 2204 from Creation. From this we can calculate through secular human history the total age of the Earth.

        Comment


        • #34
          John Helpher, Please forgive me if this conversation has hijacked your thread. Tell us to take it to another thread if it is not contributing to your original intent.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Doug Brents View Post

            We have recorded human history from the time of Egypt and Babylon that give us fairly accurate record of how long ago some things happened, like the drought that made Egypt the strongest nation in the world at that time (Joseph having interpreted Pharaoh's dream and prepared Egypt to withstand the drought). Because human recorded history does not go much past this period, we can then rely on Biblical history which details (even more clearly than human history is recorded) the years from Joseph back to Adam (Creation). Thus, while it is not "purely" Biblical, it can be relied upon to be accurate in calculation of the age of the Earth. We know that the Earth was created only 5 days before Adam was "born" (created), and thus with his age being 930 at his death, the Earth was only 5 days older than Adam when Adam died (a statistically insignificant amount of time).
            And what about the testament of Creation itself? Because as a professional geologist and a Christian, there is only one possible way that the world is only 6000 years old - it was created appearance of age. A possibility no doubt. If that is your belief, then I'm dropping the whole discussion because there is no point going further.


            Genesis is not meant to be a calendar for accurately calculating the "day" an event happened, although it can be used to find the "year" that an event happened since Creation. Similarly, 1 Kings is not meant to be an engineer's guide to recreating the structures depicted therein. Nowhere in all of Scripture are any measurements given or intended to be specific enough to recreate the things depicted. Yes, if we were to calculate pi based on 1 Kings we would get 3, whereas if we calculate it based on measurements we find it to be 3.14159265359....... These are close enough from a non-technical perspective that it does not pose a problem in understanding or believing the Scripture. Similarly, the ages of the men in the genealogy of Noah are not given to the day. Adam was 130 when Seth was born. It could have been on his 130th birthday, or it could have been 130 plus 364 days. But it was during his 130th year. This again poses no theological problem with understanding the Scripture. But it is significant that Adam was 130 when Seth was born, because this, along with all the other ages given, tell us that Joseph was born in the year 2204 from Creation. From this we can calculate through secular human history the total age of the Earth.
            How do you know thath Gensis is not meant to be that accurate. Are you making assumptions now?

            The pi=3 is a bit of a joke in itself. But it does point to the danger of hyper-literalism. Anyway, I know I'm in good company as to the matter. Maybe not on this forum, though.

            Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
            Ecc 7:10

            John777 exists to me only in quoted form.


            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by teddyv View Post
              And what about the testament of Creation itself? Because as a professional geologist and a Christian, there is only one possible way that the world is only 6000 years old - it was created appearance of age. A possibility no doubt. If that is your belief, then I'm dropping the whole discussion because there is no point going further.
              As a professional geologist, you know what the "Great Unconformity" is, yes? This is evidence of the Flood. Everything above that line is between 4500 and 5500 years old (the Flood taking place in the year 1657 from Creation, and the Earth being between 6000 and 7000 years old total. Looking at the Grand Canyon, you can see thousands of feet of sediment laid down very quickly (as evidenced by the Mt. St. Helen's eruption and aftermath), and then eroded away catastrophically (in a matter of weeks (months at the most, (again as evidenced by the Mt. St. Helen's eruption and aftermath). You can see all the way down to the Great Unconformity which is evidence of the massive erosion of the Flood followed by the catastrophic deposition of all those layers of sediment in rapid succession over less than a year.

              Originally posted by teddyv View Post
              How do you know thath Gensis is not meant to be that accurate. Are you making assumptions now?
              I can read that the most accurate that the genealogy gets is to the year, not to the day, or even month, as it does in other places (the Flood story tells us on what day of the month some things happened, and counts the days that passed between some events. If God wanted the genealogy to be that accurate, He could have, but He leaves it at the years). By following the chronology in Genesis, we know that Methuselah died in the year of the Flood, but we do not know that he died "IN" the Flood. He could have died months, weeks, or days before the Flood, or he could have died in the Flood, we just can't tell.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Doug Brents View Post

                As a professional geologist, you know what the "Great Unconformity" is, yes? This is evidence of the Flood. Everything above that line is between 4500 and 5500 years old (the Flood taking place in the year 1657 from Creation, and the Earth being between 6000 and 7000 years old total. Looking at the Grand Canyon, you can see thousands of feet of sediment laid down very quickly (as evidenced by the Mt. St. Helen's eruption and aftermath), and then eroded away catastrophically (in a matter of weeks (months at the most, (again as evidenced by the Mt. St. Helen's eruption and aftermath). You can see all the way down to the Great Unconformity which is evidence of the massive erosion of the Flood followed by the catastrophic deposition of all those layers of sediment in rapid succession over less than a year.
                I've certainly heard of it although it has not been a major component of any work I do, so my detailed knowledge is basically limited to the wikipedia or text book level. Your hypothesis is basically that of AiG (unless they've changed that recently). No geologist, except for those employed by AiG or ICR accept that as a legitimate explanation. The sediments you see were not laid down quickly (they'd all have to be settled out in a year or less). They are sorted, not a jumble of rock types. A certain sandstone formation in the Grand Canyon (can't recall the name) is derived from wind-borne sediments meaning that it was not underwater.

                By the way, you did not answer, but may have missed it. Would you believe that the earth was created with the appearance of age? That would be required to manage everything that happened below the Great Unconformity. That's helpful for me to know.

                For background, I'm a mineral exploration geologist so I deal with tectonics and their relation to mineral deposits and associated alteration and structure. Mineral deposits take time to form as the hydrothermal fluids leach rocks from the parent material and then deposit and concentrate it elsewhere. Unless we alter the laws of physics and chemistry, these processes cannot be sped up to the point of fitting into the YEC timeframe. Especially when dealing with all the deposits all over the world that occur in different stratigraphies. I know YEC count on the Flood as a sort of Swiss Army knife multi-tool to get everything done at once.

                AiG does not have much info on mineral deposits and their relation to their model. They have one article on gold deposits that is an embarrassment and am shocked that a geologist wrote it.
                Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
                Ecc 7:10

                John777 exists to me only in quoted form.


                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by teddyv View Post

                  I've certainly heard of it although it has not been a major component of any work I do, so my detailed knowledge is basically limited to the wikipedia or text book level. Your hypothesis is basically that of AiG (unless they've changed that recently). No geologist, except for those employed by AiG or ICR accept that as a legitimate explanation. The sediments you see were not laid down quickly (they'd all have to be settled out in a year or less). They are sorted, not a jumble of rock types. A certain sandstone formation in the Grand Canyon (can't recall the name) is derived from wind-borne sediments meaning that it was not underwater.

                  By the way, you did not answer, but may have missed it. Would you believe that the earth was created with the appearance of age? That would be required to manage everything that happened below the Great Unconformity. That's helpful for me to know.

                  For background, I'm a mineral exploration geologist so I deal with tectonics and their relation to mineral deposits and associated alteration and structure. Mineral deposits take time to form as the hydrothermal fluids leach rocks from the parent material and then deposit and concentrate it elsewhere. Unless we alter the laws of physics and chemistry, these processes cannot be sped up to the point of fitting into the YEC timeframe. Especially when dealing with all the deposits all over the world that occur in different stratigraphies. I know YEC count on the Flood as a sort of Swiss Army knife multi-tool to get everything done at once.

                  AiG does not have much info on mineral deposits and their relation to their model. They have one article on gold deposits that is an embarrassment and am shocked that a geologist wrote it.
                  I am not a geologist, so I am not that familiar with AiG, ICR, or YEC.

                  Yes, I believe that God may have created the Universe "with a history" as it were. I don't believe that God created the Earth with one kind of rock that was then worn away, changed, deposited, and manipulated by geologic processes into what we see today. I think that a lot of what we see below the Great Unconformity, was created that way, or resulted from geologic processes in the 1657 years before the Flood. Everything we see above the GU happened in the last 4500 to 5500 years.

                  Now, not all of the formations we see in the Grand Canyon happened when that land was below the Flood. Most of it probably happened in the water, but some of it could have settled from the air after the water receded. The lake that was in Yellowstone was left there after the Flood, and when the "dam" that held it in broke, there was a catastrophic flash flood that carved the Grand Canyon in a matter of weeks or months. As I said, the little Grand Canyon at Mt. St. Helen's is an almost exact replica of the Grand Canyon, and it was built up and then washed out in just a few months after the eruption. The layers in the little GC are almost exactly what is seen in the GC, but it was done well within a single person's lifetime (less than a year), not millions, or even thousands of years.

                  I understand that generally geologic processes are slow, but catastrophic events can, and do, accelerate the process dramatically sometimes. And the more catastrophic, the more accelerated the process can be.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Do what quantum physics says since Einstein.
                    Eliminate from relevance the issue of time.

                    "Time and space are modes in which you think, and not conditions in which we live."

                    Our future is already a known. It's been relived to us in prophecy.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Doug Brents View Post

                      I am not a geologist, so I am not that familiar with AiG, ICR, or YEC.
                      AiG = Answers in Genesis
                      ICR = Institute for Christian Research (although I never see any serious research out of them)
                      YEC = Young Earth Creationism

                      Originally posted by Doug Brents View Post
                      Yes, I believe that God may have created the Universe "with a history" as it were. I don't believe that God created the Earth with one kind of rock that was then worn away, changed, deposited, and manipulated by geologic processes into what we see today. I think that a lot of what we see below the Great Unconformity, was created that way, or resulted from geologic processes in the 1657 years before the Flood. Everything we see above the GU happened in the last 4500 to 5500 years.
                      I was never intending to imply one rock type at creation. Just that the variety of rocks, be they igneous, metamorphic or sedimentary were created as such. Sedimentary and metamorphic necessarily imply time to be formed, and ultimately in the standard model, all rocks started as igneous. Below is metamorphic schists or gneisses which are the product of temperature and pressure of igneous and sedimentary rocks. I simply don't see a non-miraculous mechanism to make those in 1600 years. The heat would be too high.

                      Originally posted by Doug Brents View Post
                      Now, not all of the formations we see in the Grand Canyon happened when that land was below the Flood. Most of it probably happened in the water, but some of it could have settled from the air after the water receded. The lake that was in Yellowstone was left there after the Flood, and when the "dam" that held it in broke, there was a catastrophic flash flood that carved the Grand Canyon in a matter of weeks or months. As I said, the little Grand Canyon at Mt. St. Helen's is an almost exact replica of the Grand Canyon, and it was built up and then washed out in just a few months after the eruption. The layers in the little GC are almost exactly what is seen in the GC, but it was done well within a single person's lifetime (less than a year), not millions, or even thousands of years.
                      The wind-born sediments are below marine sediments indicating that there were periods of dry and periods of wet.

                      Whoever told you that the canyon at Mt. St, Helens is comparable to the Grand Canyon is grossly uninformed. That was cut through unconsolidated to weakly consolidated ashflows and other sediments. It's also only something like 20 metres deep, not 1500 metres. A better example would be the Scablands of eastern Washington State which have been demonstrated to be a result of a massive ice dam release during the last ice age. Of course, that was around 10,000 years ago.

                      Originally posted by Doug Brents View Post
                      I understand that generally geologic processes are slow, but catastrophic events can, and do, accelerate the process dramatically sometimes. And the more catastrophic, the more accelerated the process can be.
                      Modern geology certainly accepts that catastrophic events happen, but these are only punctuated throughout the regular slow but steady processes. But we can only accelerate to certain amounts before certain physical constraints will cause major problems. A popular YEC theory is catastrophic plate tectonics, which suggests that the plate broke up at the flood and rapidly moved the continents. It's an attempt to reconcile plate boundaries and motions. The problem is the energy involved. Calculations would suggest that entire crust would melt due to the necessary energy involved. If one invokes the miraculous, that solves your problem, but is completely untestable, therefore pretty useless as a scientific explanation.

                      Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
                      Ecc 7:10

                      John777 exists to me only in quoted form.


                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X