Adam_777 wrote:B. W. wrote:Adam, you have much to say and contribute to this forum and we welcome your ideas. All I can ask is for you to humbly ask yourself how could there be a 24 hour day when none existed prior to Genesis 1:14?
Well I don't know but God said it was a day. Exodus says it took six days. I reckon God knew what a day was going to be on the fourth day and planned ahead. It's not that far-fetched to me. I know a day isn't always a day but when they're qualified with evening and morning and this translates right over to the days that the sun is around then I feel like letting God tell the story.
So even though He had not made up the structures that decide a day, it's still a day.
THis seems so limiting to God and forcing a meaning that isn't there
adam wrote:
I guess the starting point of the conversation for me is how certain can we be about the information we glean from the amount of radioactive material in mineral samples? I think the coolest part of YEC teachings starts by recognizing that our interpretations of the evidence aren't always rock solid because of a consensus view.
First, the evidence isn't rock solid because of a consensus view. It's not the "popular" theory. Its a consensus view because we get multiple data showing the same thing that means it is rock solid. Different methods showing old data. It's as if there is this idea that all of the scientists are sitting around gleefully sharing stories and developing conspiracies. And then this grand "consensus" gangs up on the minority.
It's like a crime scene where the fingerprints, DNA, blood spatter, gunpowder residue, testimonies, time of death, AND motive all fits. Each tells their own story and point to the same criminal. In a court of law, this ensures a rock solid prosecution.
Well there are plenty of CHristian scientists who have no ulterior motive (but of course, there the ones who have given in to the consesus
) to skew the data.
And the scientific community is veyr competitive. Do you really think that somebody who fudges data will last long?
adam wrote:
The science that shows the earth is round (photos and a good fly around) and that the earth orbits the sun is much more vigorous and testable then trying to use naturalistic tells to be conclusive about what happened a 1000 years ago, let alone 4500 to 6000 years ago. The best information that we ever have about the past is always the records kept by men or better yet by God through men. We know more about Jesus time because of good records. We know very little about the dark ages because men didn't keep records as well. All the naturalistic science in the world can't make up for that.
Se, to me, this seems like a cop-out. "We just can't really know for sure".
But if you really examine the methods, they are trustworthy.
And, btw, if you are wanting a Hebrew word that means a long periods of time? Guess which one you would choose....yep, Yom.
adam wrote:
There is lots of good science we do all the time on this planet. We get to use all kinds of cool mathematical repeating science with a bunch of neat instrumentation. We get to figure out how things work and name what their made of. We can blow things up, melt them down, all kinds of fun science stuff. I would hasten to say that origins talk is stuck in the hypothetical speculation end because we can't repeat it.
I know this will make you mad, but yes, we CAN know a lot. What method would you like to know about? Read my article I posted about radiometric dating. So far all I hear is "we can't really know for sure" and "inconclusive" and "hypothetical".
Well, I did...
adam wrote:The documentation that many companies require is staggering as well. Just like good scientists, good managers know that quality control and troubleshooting requires precise documentation to see were the problems are and how to solve them in a responsible methodological manner.
Good, then you realize that scientist are diligent, hard-working, and scrupoulous people who know they will be scrutinized by their peers (who are all too willing to criticize)
adam wrote:
I have worked with my fair share of people who would theorize why a process or set up had to be done a certain way. As a young machinist/draftsman I regularly had good and bad theories for how to do things…“The best way” (or before I was humbled…“The only way”). The nature of my ideas became quickly evident with a success or a crash or someone simply coming in with a competing idea that shortened cycle times and/or improved the quality of the end product.
Yep, exactly like scientists. Each ecperiment is scrutinized and critiqued , each method refined and when someone thinks that they have "the best way" someone comes along and either adds or refines the method and then tests it and repeats it to see if the results is valid.
adam wrote:
After a while I started realizing something. Even experienced people didn't necessarily have things “all figured out”. They had found something that worked and whether they understood what was happening or not, they unwittingly adopted bad ideas, here and there, because their processes…well…worked. Basically, a bad idea or theory would lurk in the background unchallenged while a successful process continued. This “bad idea” only becomes a hindrance when an improvement wouldn't be realized thanks to some experienced person's insistence that they “know” why it wouldn't work, thanks to the bad idea or bad theory they have. (This is often when new companies are birthed. A handful of people are confident in a new process that the orthodoxy of an established company rejects as unfeasible because of some faulty understanding.)
Again, exactly like the scientific community. Sure, there are exceptions. But the MANY many scientists out there are extremely critical (in a good way) of the methods of their own and others experiments. YOu pride yourself and other machinists on the care that you take in your process of development. You take great pride in your instruments being exactly right. Have you ever thought that the scientists out there are pretty meticulous? YOu obviously understand the process invovled and yet somehow scientists are painted with a broad brush. The scientists suddenly become conspiracist who stick with a bad idea.
adam wrote:
By the way, I don't think this is some mutually exclusive problem for one particular group of people. If we're honest, we are all guilty of being the person with the stubborn “bad idea” from time to time, scientist and layman alike.
Ah, but for some reason, you are willing to laud your own professions ability to curb your excesses and then blithely throw the professional integrity and intelligence of the scientifc community away life *that*. Wow....
adam wrote:
Especially after success in some area, and some form of professional acknowledgement, we feel insulted when someone less experienced then us challenges our methods or pronouncements. As a professional, and a person who enjoys talking with young machinists, it is a constant battle to check my pride and be objective when they are telling me why they're doing something a certain way, especially when it conflicts with the way I would choose to view something or do something. I'll only correct them if I see a glaring problem in their methodology even if their aproach is different then mine. I'm sure many people here think I'm the one riddled with bad ideas and vice versa. Let's save this for later. I want to first know if my presentation is found to be coherent
Oh boy, you should sit in on a presentation made by a scientist within the circle of other scientists. scientists are quick to critique an experiment. They have to be. If you think it is embarassing to be called out by someone younger in a presentation, you can imagine the embarassment if you are called out after being published. Now don't get me wrong, I agree with you that we are all sinful and scientists are just as prone to favor their own hypothesis, but most hypothesis are wrong and an experienced scientist knows to expect failure. It's disappointing but not unexpected. And discoveries are made by the young and old alike. IF you can fight your pride, then so can sicentists, especially when their statements will be publicly viewed by others.
adam wrote:
I admire you zeal for the word of God but this debate of YEC and OEC is not an essential doctrine.
I completely agree. I'm not sneaking up on anyone here and I have good reasons for believing this to be true (just like you have reasons for believing what you believe to be true.) and some of those reasons do step on toes because I see that interpretations get… well confusing to stay respectful.
I'm glad we had this talk and I'm not mad at Zoegirl. I just felt like I was being held responsible for Ham and Hovind's social ills.
I said over and over again that I wasn't angry at you!
adam wrote:
I don't find them dangerous and I do enjoy their presentations.
ummm, this may have something to do with the fact that you agree with them and that they aren't calling *you* a heretic or the cause of the problem in the church today.
adam wrote:
Their problem is the same as most Christian's problem. They are passionate. Passionate people step on toes. Jesus stepped on toes. Paul stepped on toes. Zoegirl steps on toes.
Theirobnoxious behavior and being a jerk makes me angry of course, and being called a heretic would make anybody angry. But what makes me passionate is their lack of arguments and lack of evidence AND their manipulation of date. Carl Weiland and the dinosaur bones (btw, a bit of silence on your part there...) is just the tip of the iceberg. It has taken the YEC camp over 50 years to stop using the moon dust example (and we STILL see some of them using it) and to stop using the Paluxi footprints example (again, some still do!). And then they have the audacity to claim that scientists are stubborn!??!?
adam wrote:
I have watched many YEC'er's puff there chest out in pride and declare their loyalty to the strict interpretation of scripture, as though this in itself pleases God to have such warriors as they themselves are. That is pride, spiritual pride.
You are too good a Christian to fall into that trap James wrote about so long ago!
I appreciate that and the glory belongs to Christ. Honestly, where Hovind and Ham drop the ball I pray God gives me the tools to communicate the way Christ and the Apostles did even if it's only in a small sphere of influence. If I felt like I had nothing to learn from Christians not like me do you think I'd be here? I just hope people don't write YECs healthy contributions off because they aren't always nice enough.
No I write them off becuase their interpretation of data stinks.
That they make me angry is the icing on the cake. Please understand me....you are very, very nice....I still disagree with you. Your niceness means I still like talking with you
And hope that we continue in the discussion.
adam wrote:
YECs have valid concerns that shouldn't be ignored because they're in a perceived minority. I think Hovind and Ham developed some thick skin because of all the flack they've received throughout their own ministries which translated into some unwanted callousness, I'm sure.
well, I'll be honest here....I think you are being too generous with them.
They are big boys and Christian to boot. That they have essentially caused division in the church over a topic that does not deserve this division earns no points in my book. Poor babies....
Paul may have had a major disagreement in the New Testament but he was very clear in scripture that Christ was all. I think one of the churches that has done it Very well has been the Presbyterian Church of America. They have declared that both are valid views and that this will not be an issue that will divide them....(and we had a church member leave church becuase of our church would not come down on the side of YEc....sad, isn't it?)
adam wrote:
I'm not here to pick fights. I'm just transparent so that everyone knows where I'm coming from.
and I appreciate that. I hope you can examine what we present and weigh the evidence.
aDAM, I read the rest of your article and the crux of your article is whether we can examine things in the past. You used your example exming a part when you didn't see it being made.
But that's exactly why we study the creation. God's creation IS testable and we can examine it. Please read the section of the article about the radiometric dating methods. It is very well written and it clearly examines the common critcisms from YEC. There ARE ways to examine creation. To say otherwise is just not correct.
I have been readin ght ecomments on your essay and most have addressed what ever I would say. Saw Himatolophus there...he used to post here. His commets were good.
Peace
Zg
Where is the outcry, the disapproval against them?
