Most preachers get understandably ticked off when people use science to “prove” that faith, God, religion, and all that is bunkum, delusion, biochemical tricks and psychological folderol. What makes them think, then, that using religion (for example, the Bible) to “prove” anything about science is going to be any more welcome, fitting, accurate, or accepted?
Especially when it’s so darned silly.
Meet the Answers Research Journal, a very scientific-sounding publication … produced by a group called “Answers in Genesis,” which basically says that …
… well …
… the Bible is literally true, and not only is it the answer (in unmistakable black and white! (except for Red Letter editions)) to every moral question, but to every scientific question, too. Or, as they put it:
Answers Research Journal (ARJ) is a professional, peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.
It’s professional! (As opposed to amateur.) It’s peer-reviewed! (Other people who believe the same thing read it.) It’s technical! (They use long words.) It’s interdisciplinary! (They apply the Bible to every subject.) It’s scientific! (They talk about science.) It’s relevant! (They relate the Bible to every subject.) It has a framework! (And everything is neatly framed within it.)
The relevant part here, of course, is “the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood.” Everything the ARJ publishes is based on the idea that (a) the world was created about 6000 years ago, and a few thousand years after that, there was a big Flood. With Noah. And an Ark.
And, today’s topic of interdisciplinary Young Earth / Old Testament interdisciplinary science? A Proposed Bible-Science Perspective on Global Warming by Rod J. Martin, an “Independent Researcher” who lives in Santa Clarita, CA (ironically, a damned hot place) — wherein we learn how Al Gore makes Baby Jesus cry.
Official citation: Answers Research Journal 3 (2010): 91-106, ISSN: 1937-9056 (darned professional-looking that, ain’t it?)
(Yeah, I know I shouldn’t devote this much time to something this trivial, but … these guys just irk the bloody hell out of me.)So, of course, we need to start with an abstract:
Media coverage of global warming has been increasing for over twenty years.
It’s all the media’s doing, you know.
Major proponents include the United Nations, politicians, environmentalists, and celebrities.
Um … Scientists? Climatologists? Lots, and lots, and lots of, um, Scientists from various disciplines? Nah, obviously not — it’s all about the kookie celebrities and tree-hugging environmentalists and power-mad politicians and … of course … the Black-Helicoptered One-World-Ordered Godless Anti-American United Nations.
Oddly, the church has had little to say on the issue and has made scant use of Scripture to evaluate the alleged problem.
Actually, a fair number of church folks, including some evangelicals, have talked about climate change in Biblical terms. Just not … the way the ARJ chooses to.
This paper will identify the major goals of global warming advocates, …
Because it’s all about Nefarious Purposes and Plots.
… propose a biblical (young-earth creationist) framework for evaluating the issue, …
After that, they’ll discuss how the Council of Elrond would have evaluated the issue.
… and highlight basic scientific data related to the alleged claims.
At least the basic data that matches the ARJ’s Biblical pre-conclusions.
It will be shown that the Bible provides sufficient counsel to enable Christians to evaluate the claims of global warming and arrive at a confident position that is in accord with real science.
How about Numbers 14:32? Oh, wait, I’m getting ahead of myself …
The contention that man’s activities are causing global warming, as described in the media and by its advocates, is a myth. There is no reason either biblically or scientifically to fear the exaggerated and misguided claims of catastrophe as a result of increasing levels of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2).
You can believe it, because it’s Biblical!
I could write for pages and pages on this article because it’s … just … so zany. Let me see if I can boil it down to some particularly egregious examples.
Proposed secular solutions to the alleged claims of global warming will directly impact everyone who depends on fossil fuels for their current life style. The issue of global warming presents biblical creationists with an opportunity to demonstrate not only the efficacy of Scripture in addressing life’s issues, but also to show how ignoring Scripture leads to unnecessary, expensive, and harmful actions. Global warming is an arena where the battle between biblical truth and evolutionary untruths is currently raging,
Are Christians supposed to prove that Scripture is right because it … saves everyone money?
Exactly why are global warming advocates so concerned about burning fossil fuels and the harvesting of forests? It must be kept in mind that global warming advocates are predominantly evolutionists. Al Gore readily admits that he is an evolutionist (Gore 2006, p. 160). Accordingly, they believe that there was a time in the distant past when earth’s atmosphere contained a much higher percentage of CO2 (over 21%) and no oxygen (O2). They believe the earth’s atmosphere developed O2 only as a result of photosynthesis by plants or bacteria (Bergman and Renwick 2003, p. 137). Advocates believe that forests, especially tropical rain forests, are the largest reservoir for storing carbon and generating oxygen on land. This helps explain their strong desire to protect rain forests. From an evolutionary perspective it is easy to see why preserving forests and reducing CO2 is important, even if the projected catastrophes are unfounded or exaggerated.
Does this actually make any sense? Al Gore is an “admitted” evolutionist … and that makes it easy to see why he wants to reduce CO2? It certainly sounds damning, but … huh?
The Bible provides frank and absolutely reliable direction for every moral issue experienced by mankind. The biblical position on moral issues like abortion and homosexuality are clear to those who accept the inspiration of Scripture and who understand the straightforward implications of Scripture on these issues, but other issues require thoughtful study of Scripture.
Wait — why is it that it’s “frank” and “absolutely reliable” and “straightforward” on, say, homosexuality (or the moral implications thereof) (and, frankly, not so much so depending on with whom one discusses the matter), but other issues like global warming require “thoughtful study”?
This paper accepts the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible (all of the words in the original manuscripts are inspired), and follows a literary interpretation protocol. Passages dealing with the Creation, the Flood and the tower of Babel are treated as narrative in keeping with the historical-grammatical approach to Scripture.
This is a very verbose (but professional / scientific-sounding) way of saying, “We believe all the words and stories in the Bible are literally true, happened just as described, and therefore can serve as premises for any conclusions we care to draw.”
I will be honest in saying I am not a Biblical literalist. I do, in fact, believe that the Bible was put together through blending of various oral traditions, clerical editing, political propaganda, and, perhaps, some divine inspiration (the Old Testament in particular, though we know much more about the formation of the New Testament and how it was anything but divine dictation). To suggest that it is the actual, literal, scientific truth in how it describes various events, in particular the creation of the world, not only is unsustainable based on the evidence, but therefore requires one to selectively ignore, distort, or dismiss the evidence. That’s not in keeping with the truth (which ought to be the foundation of any science, as well as of respect for the Creator).
The Bible-science movement is keenly interested in determining the original intent of biblical passages. A joint study by the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research called Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) illustrates this point. The study team included a Hebrew scholar, Dr. Steven Boyd, whose task was to determine if the Genesis creation verses are narrative or poetry, a critical question. If the passages are poetry then they merely illustrate a spiritual truth, but if they are narrative then they describe real events and real people. Dr. Boyd determined that Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 is narrative with a 99.996% probability at a 99.5% confidence level (Vardiman et al. 2005, p. 690).
Why are “spiritual truths” so downplayed here? I suspect because they are open to interpretation and the dictates of the conscience, whereas if it’s asserted to be all Literally Real and Granite-Clad Truth of What Actually Happened, then the ARJ can feel scientifically justified in imposing their moral beliefs.
I will confess that I have not read Dr. Boyd’s work, but it seems … improbable, despite all the 9s (though, can one actually get into Heaven with only a 99.5% confidence level?). I will try to look it up some day, I promise. (I’m not quite sure why a Hebrew scholar was part of a joint study on radioisotopes, but …)
The Bible does not speak directly about what we call global warming.
But … but … I thought it offered “frank and absolutely reliable direction” for all moral topics!
In Genesis 1:1 we are told that “God created the heavens and the earth.” Creation obviously includes the atmosphere. In fact, if the atmosphere was not created on Day One, it certainly was in place by Day Two when God “separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse” (Genesis 1:6–8). This “expanse” was the atmosphere in which the birds flew on Day Five. Regardless of the exact day, …
Yes, let’s not quibble over which day the atmosphere was created. Though one wonders, again, why some Bible Science truths are self-evident and others are not.
… the central biblical point is that the atmosphere was created, it did not evolve. The atmosphere was intentionally designed and created by God to support life, including plants, animals, and mankind, which He subsequently created. Contrary to evolution theory, the atmosphere is not a constantly changing mixture of gases, which billions of years ago were poisonous to life but now has evolved to the point where it can support a precarious array of life. The original created atmosphere contained the right amount of CO2 for the plants that would be created on day three and sufficient O2 for the soon to be created animals and mankind. This is a far different atmospheric history than the evolution story. A created atmosphere has purpose, stability, and is more robust than a randomly evolved atmosphere.
So the atmosphere can’t be heating up due to human interference because it was Created by God with “purpose” and “stability.” QED. Thus endeth the lesson. Assume Genesis is real, and (assuming also that one understands God’s purpose and plan, hubrists that they are) you can dismiss anything that doesn’t fit with it.
Aside from all the other reasons for which God may have created plants, the Bible specifically states that He made them for human and animal food, and this is largely being ignored by global warming advocates (Genesis 1:29–30). Since all animals and mankind were vegetarians originally, plants were created as a reliable and sustainable source of food. As people began eating meat, they became even more dependent on vegetation as a source of food because the animals we eat all must consume multiple pounds of vegetation for each pound of meat produced.
This passage (and the paragraphs that follow it) establish the idea that, since God (a) created plants to be eaten, and (b) God made humans rulers of the world, it is therefore (c) okay (not a moral issue) to cut down forests to plant crops (“As the human population increases then it is reasonable to convert forests to the production of food and building material”). We shouldn’t be “wanton” and wasteful about it, but worries about forests and carbon sinks and all are pish-tosh — God never told Adam to preserve the Amazon, after all.
Genesis 2:11–12 identifies the location of gold, resin, and onyx. According to Genesis chapter 4, later generations raised livestock, developed musical instruments and worked with bronze and iron. God never rebuked mankind for mining, farming, ranching, or cutting trees for building projects. All of these activities are part of man’s God-given rule over the earth. Throughout Scripture, however, God has repeatedly rebuked man for disobedience to His moral commands. Eating the forbidden fruit resulted in God’s curse on both man and creation. Man’s wickedness in the days of Noah resulted in God destroying all air breathing creatures and men, except for the few saved on the ark. The Flood also entirely reworked the surface of the earth. Following the Flood, God confused man’s languages because, among other things, mankind lingered in Mesopotamia rather than filling the earth as commanded. This resulted in various language groups slowly migrating around the earth. When Israel disobeyed God’s moral commands he sent them into exile and allowed their land to grow over with thorns. Using earth resources for the benefit of mankind has never been a moral issue. Ignoring God and disobeying His commands is a moral issue.
Conclusion: environmental concerns (including climate change) have no moral component. Gay marriage? An abomination. Cutting down the California Redwoods to farm okra? Biblically sanctioned dominion of the planet. Got that?
See, this is where a heathen like me would say, “The Bible doesn’t address environmental care because it wasn’t a priority for the writers or inhabitants of the areas described; for the most part, their agricultural practices were sustainable because people who did otherwise died out (as we can see in various archaeological studies).”
The Bible Science Literalists just say, “God doesn’t mention it in the Bible, so it must not exist (or, conversely, must be okay, depending on whether it’s something they approve of or not).
And that, of course, is the even bigger trap. Because their Biblical literalism is both inspired by and colored by what they want to be true. This lets them come up with an interpretation of what the Bible is actually saying that meets their emotional desires and justifies them — which then lets them go on and apply those desires to the rest of science, having “established” that the Bible is the literal truth that matches them.
The year-long Genesis Flood (Genesis 7:17–8:9) buried great volumes of plants and animals. During the Flood there were 40 days and nights of heavy rain, and the fountains of the deep were open for 150 days. These flows added significant volumes of water to the existing ocean. It is reasonable to assume that more water was added to the ocean from the fountains of the deep (150 days) than from rain (40 days). Water from the earth is warm. The average geothermal gradient is 1° F (0.6° C) for each 60 ft (18.3 m) of depth (Landes 1959, p. 169). The deeper this water originated, the warmer it would be. The Flood likely increased the temperature of the ocean. As we will see later, a warm sea following the Flood helps explain another important post-Flood phenomena, the ice age.
Note the copious use of of numbers (with a citation or two) to make things look Scientific and Professional. Bottom line, “See, God already warmed up the climate during the Flood, and humanity survived (well, a few of them did, but the rest were all bad), so even if temps are rising a bit, it’s no worry.”
It is important to recall that during the Flood all land plants were destroyed, yet there was sufficient oxygen in the atmosphere for all life on the ark to breath. After the Flood plants again began growing and covering the earth, just as they did at Creation. At Creation and immediately after the Flood, plants were just beginning to cover the earth yet there was no shortage of oxygen in the atmosphere. God established enough oxygen in the original atmosphere to sustain life throughout the duration of the earth. This highlights the fact that plants are not necessary for generating oxygen.
Of course, if you take the Bible story of the Flood as literally true, there were only a handful of humans (and an ark’s worth of animals) to use up the oxygen still in the global atmosphere, so that’s hardly a test that “plants are not necessary for generating oxygen.”
Plants buried in sedimentary rocks during the Flood now exist as fossil fuels (Groombridge and Jenkins 2002, p. 10). Coal, oil, gas, tarsand, and oilshale are all partially decomposed plant material. When fossil fuels are used today in furnaces and engines we are burning plants that lived and grew prior to the Flood. The CO2 released during burning was taken from the pre-Flood atmosphere and ocean. Even secular scientists acknowledge that fossil fuels are remains of past plants and burning them releases energy stored long ago (Northen 1968, p. 71). The argument over burning fossil fuels versus ethanol can be reduced to a question of whether it is best to burn old plants or new plants. Burning old plants (fossil fuels) is much more efficient, and therefore “green.”
What? What? We’re not adding CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels because it was once already in the atmosphere before those plants died in the Flood? What? Therefore burning fossil fuels is, by definition, “green”? What?
Crikey, that paragraph is too crazy to parse.
Following the Flood, God assured Noah that there would be no other worldwide water catastrophe as long as the earth remains (Genesis 8:22). According to this promise, “seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” Along the same line, Peter mentions that in the last days people will say that “all continues just as it was from the beginning” (2 Peter 3:3–7). Christ also mentioned that in the days prior to His second coming all would continue routinely, “just like in the days of Noah” (Matthew 24:37–39). From these verses it appears that until the tribulation occurs no worldwide catastrophe will affect the earth.
Oh, well, that’s a relief. Though, of course, the Matthew passage mentions that people will be “giving and taking in marriage” just like in the days of Noah, and I’m sure most of the folks at the ARJ are appalled at the widespread changes in marriage law (gay marriage, divorce, heck, maybe even interracial marriage) that have come about in the last half-century. (Or they might suggest that since all the folks in the days of Noah were evil enough to be destroyed, we’re just returning to that status quo. Gah! Can’t win when they keep changing the ground rules!)
But what about the “tribulation”?
Global warming is described as a worldwide catastrophe by the radical environmentalists and the media.
See, it’s all just the “radical environmentalists” (who are, by definition, amoral) and the media.
The tribulation of Revelation certainly contains events that sound like some of the dire predictions associated with global warming. Unlike global warming, the tribulation is initiated directly by God, as judgment on sinful mankind, and is a sudden, not a gradual change. People undergoing the tribulation realize that it is from God, as a result of their sinful behavior, but they intentionally refuse to repent. We should not confuse the claims of global warming with tribulation events.
I defy any two people to come up with the same coherent and consistent literal reading of the end times in Revelation, sufficient to be able to clearly state what what it would or wouldn’t be like. Go ahead. I dare you.
God is in absolute control of His creation. He is the Creator (Genesis 1 and 2). God destroyed His creation in the days of Noah with a worldwide flood (Genesis 7–9). God sets the boundary for the seas (Job 38:8–11, Psalm 104:9, Jeremiah 5:22) and controls the weather: lightning (Job 28:26, 37:3), hail (Job 38:22, Psalm 147:17, Haggai 2:17), rain (Job 28:26, 37:6, Psalm 147:8), and snow (Job 37:6, 38:22, Psalm 147:16). Someday God will destroy this earth and establish a new heaven and a new earth (Revelation 21:1). Man is not in control of the weather and this present earth is temporary.
So, again, disastrous climate change is impossible because “man is not in control of the weather.”
Of course, natural disasters have occurred in the past that affected wide populations. And populations have caused ecological collapses and been wiped out. One can handwave these away and say that they were all “God’s will” and not man’s doing, or that they were cause by those populations’ sinfulness … but that just changes the perspective. The ARJ article wants to establish that the earth is static and under God’s control, but not only do they point out places where it is not static (the Flood) and that God can choose to do whatever He wants with the world — including, one would assume, anthropogenic climate change.
In summary:
As you can see, the Bible has quite a bit to say regarding atmospheric gases and plants. This biblical framework relates directly to our understanding of global warming and climate change. The atmospheric gases were created, they did not evolve. We should not expect the types of atmospheric gases to have been substantially different at creation than now. It is unlikely that the creation atmosphere contained any gases not present in the current atmosphere. Oxygen has obviously been present since creation and likely has increased as CO2 decreased. The contribution to atmospheric gases by volcanoes from creation to the present is unknown. What is known, of course, is that CO2 stored in plants and shelled animals that existed prior to the Flood is now stored in sedimentary rocks worldwide. The pre-Flood plants currently exist as fossil fuels and the shelled animals are contained in carbonate deposits. We also know that currently living plants and shelled animals have taken additional CO2 from the environment. Consequently, in view of the massive volume of fossil fuels and carbonate rocks, it is highly probable that today’s atmosphere contains measurably less CO2 than the Creation atmosphere and a correspondingly higher O2 concentration. Polar seas are quite cold today. In the years since the Flood, the warm worldwide ocean has gradually cooled at the poles. God created the earth for man’s use. Man received a commission from God to manage the earth, including the plants and animals. This includes old plants and new plants. Man has the right to use earth resources for the benefit of mankind, but in a reasonable manner that honors God.
So, if you ignore all the other evidence, and simply extrapolate from a particular literalist view of the Bible (7 days, ribs, floods, Babel), then your conclusion from the Bible will show that the Bible lets you conclude some stuff. Whether that stuff is, in fact, real is not open to debate, given the premises assumed. That it represents science, though, is dubious.
So the ARJ article then moves on to “science.” First off: “Glaciers aren’t actually retreating, because there’s no such thing as an ice age, so don’t worry!” I have to quote a lot because the argument is nearly impossible to summarize:
As evidence that the earth is experiencing global warming, advocates point to melting glaciers around the world. Since this is the first and strongest argument offered by Al Gore, the United Nations, and other global warming advocates, it is appropriate to spend some time discussing glaciers. The glaciers remaining around the world are remnants of the once extensive ice age. Ice ages are poorly understood (Oberlander and Muller 1987, p. 479). Although numerous evolution-based theories have been advanced to explain how an ice age is initiated, none of them are satisfactory. The most popular theory at the moment is the astronomical theory. According to this theory, small changes in the earth’s orbit, tilt and wobble combine approximately every 100,000 years to create a colder winter, especially at the poles (Dott and Batten 1988, p. 596). Proponents of this theory believe that if winters are colder then glaciers will grow and advance. Such conditions, if they actually occurred, would not start an ice age, but merely a cold-age.
An ice age is characterized by thick, extensive, ice-sheet glaciers and advancing mountain glaciers. The indispensable ingredient for a glacier is lots of snow. Massive precipitation of snow requires massive evaporation of sea water. Massive evaporation only occurs from warm water. Water evaporation increases exponentially with temperature (Oard 1990, p. 5) (see Fig.1 ). So, an ice age requires warm seas in close proximity to the poles. The only viable explanation for an ice age has been clearly and thoroughly explained by Oard (1990). Warm seas worldwide following the Flood would provide optimum conditions for initiating the ice age. It would have been like lake-effect storms greatly enhanced. Oard, a meteorologist, estimated that 500 to 700 years would have been required for the ice age to reach its maximum (1990, p. 97). During this time, more snow would have been precipitated in the winter than would have melted in the summer. Consequently, the snow cover would have increased in thickness and lateral extent. As the polar seas cooled, less evaporation would have translated into less snow and eventually snowfall would equal melting, stabilizing the extent of glaciation. Further cooling of the seas would have resulted in more melting than snow accumulation and the glaciers would have retreated. Naturally, the glacial advance and retreat would have been somewhat erratic as yearly storm events varied in intensity. Today, the polar areas are deserts due to the cold seas. The high ice plateau of Antarctica receives only about one inch (2.5 cm) of precipitation each year. Even Gore acknowledged this fact (2006, p. 176). Today’s precipitation rate does not allow sufficient time to accumulate the nearly two-mile (3.2 km) glacier thickness from a biblical time frame.
See! Even Gore admits that you can’t have an ice age if the world was created only 6000 years ago! The Bible Wins! The Bible Wins!
Oh, and all those glaciers?
As corroboration that huge volumes of glacial ice melted in the past, there is strong geologic evidence that ocean levels have risen several hundred feet (61+ m) (Groombridge and Jenkins 2002, p. 35). Obviously, all this melting occurred long before mankind began burning fossil fuels on a large scale. In other words, glacial melting has been going on for thousands of years and mankind was not the cause. Most of the melting, and subsequent sea level rise, occurred long before the recent increase in atmospheric CO2.
See? Since there’s no such thing as “ice ages,” then glacial retreats are just a natural occurrence, the last gasp of excessive “lake effect” snowfalls after the Flood.
I’ll skip over the parts of how CO2 cannot be a “pollutant” because levels in the atmosphere are far lower than mine safety regulations in the 1940s, and, besides which, it’s great for plants, which helps mankind! I’ll skip over the discussion of photosynthesis, too, since it’s only there to make more scientific diagrams … except to demonstrate that Planting Trees is Silly.
During respiration O2 is combined with sugar to fuel the plant’s metabolism and CO2 and H2O are emitted (Northen 1968, p. 83). When a plant dies the equation runs in reverse (respiration) during the entire decay process until all the O2 previously emitted is recaptured and all the CO2 is returned to the atmosphere (Northen 1968, p. 435). Over their life-cycle plants generate neither excess O2 nor excess CO2. This is a zero-sum game, but with a lag-time measured in years.
The implications of a plant’s life-cycle are noteworthy. If over their life-cycle plants generate neither excess CO2 nor excess O2 then two conclusions follow: 1) plants did not generate the large volume of O2 in our atmosphere, and 2) planting trees will not provide permanent carbon offsets. This, of course, agrees with Scripture. The atmosphere was created (it did not evolve) and plants were created as food (not a source of O2).
Remember that — we don’t need plants for oxygen! God will provide!
Some global warming advocates claim that climates were relatively fixed over the last 10,000 years until man started burning fossil fuels and affecting the world’s climate. Is this really true?
Having set up the straw man, the article knocks it down.
Climate has been dynamic since the ice age requiring plants, animals, and man to adapt. From a biblical time frame (Ussher 2003), the flood occurred about 2349 BC and the glaciers began retreating approximately 1850 BC (earliest estimate of ice age peak according to Oard, and also the time of the patriarchs).
I’m sure we all remember the tales of Abraham and the fur-lined parka he wore.
Many geologists believe that past ages were much warmer than historical times. Geological textbooks estimate some ages were as much as 25° F (13.9° C) warmer (Dott and Batten 1988, p. 593). This is evident when viewing museum dioramas, park displays and National Geographic shows. Past ages are shown as tropical or subtropical. This is because most fossil plants are tropical or subtropical. It should also be noted that the divisions between the geologic periods were initially based on mass extinctions. Many evolutionist geologists still support this theory. Creationists realize that most of the sedimentary rocks, and their included fossils, were deposited during the Flood, not over millions of years. Consequently, there really was only one mass extinction, the Flood. The tropical and subtropical plants assigned to the evolutionary geological ages were all living at the time of the Flood.
It’s not clear if the argument here is (a) things used to be warmer, so, see, global warming is harmless, (b) geologists disagree with climatologists, so teach the controversy, or (c) those wacky “evolutionists” who don’t realize all those fossils are from the Flood sure are zany!
Note, by the way, that nobody’s suggesting (or certainly mainstream science isn’t) that climate change will increase warming beyond the ability for life on earth to survive. But rising sea levels, changed weather and current patterns, plant / fish / animal die-offs due to ecological shifts, and changes in agricultural capabilities, will all cascade together to majorly impact the global economy, as well as civilization (and will likely cost a lot more than efforts to combat it if taken soon enough). Sure, the Earth has been much warmer (and much colder) in the past; that doesn’t make it a good thing.
We are told that global warming will increase both the frequency and severity of storms. Storms, however, are driven by the temperature difference between a warm equator and cold poles. This temperature difference sends cold fronts down from the north and warm fronts up from the south. Since northern and polar regions are the areas expected to warm the most from global warming, the temperature difference will decrease. Thus warming, if it actually occurred, would result in fewer and less severe storms.
Is there a Bible citation for that crazy up-ending of climactic models?
We are warned by Al Gore, and on the news, that global surface temperatures have warmed 1° F (0.6° C) over the past 100 years, and that it is now warmer than it has ever been in the history of the earth.
Of course, Al Gore has never said that “it is now warmer than it has ever been in the history of the earth.”
The article then goes on to claim we can’t even measure the average temperature of the planet because we don’t have enough thermometers:
The earth is huge. We simply do not have a sufficient number of collection points (weather stations) to accurately determine earth’s average surface temperature. The problem is complicated by the seas. When approximately 71% of the earth is covered by ocean, but most of the weather stations are on land how can we truly know the temperature of the entire earth? The National Weather Service (N. W. S.) establishes standards for official weather stations (Leffler and Redmond 2004, p. 11). According to these standards, if a weather station is moved five miles (8 km), or 100 ft (30.5 m) in elevation, then it must be designated as a new station. In other words, the N. W. S. believes that an accurate determination of temperature over a large area requires a temperature measuring station at least every five miles (8 km).
Plus, of course, thermometers are faulty, cities get hot, weather reports are unreliable, tree rings are deceptive, you can only average temps to a single degree anyway, and since you can’t simultaneously measure the temperature everywhere around the globe, you simply might as well just throw up your hands and stone Al Gore.
Given that reliable temperature records are a relatively recent event, and climates are constantly changing, we should expect temperature extremes to be regularly broken. Broken temperature records do not prove either global warming or climate change. They merely indicate that we have a small sampling of earth’s temperature history. It is safe to say that even if we had accurate temperature records for the past 100 years it is impossible to know with confidence either the historical range of earth’s surface temperature or if we have exceeded a safe level and are heading towards a disaster.
And, y’know, statistics are actually THE DEVIL’S MATH, which is why you should ignore them.
What really is the significance of average surface temperature? People, plants, and animals live in areas where the average surface temperature is very cold and also very hot. Even if the surface temperature was accurately known it would have little real significance for global warming since the atmospheric layer in which heat is constantly being transported around the earth is six to ten miles thick (troposphere). Isn’t the temperature of the rest of the troposphere important?
Because it doesn’t make any difference if it’s 95F on the ground where people and plants and animals live if it’s only 40F 20,000 feet up.
And so we come to the wrap-up. Climate change is bunkum, rejected by “basic science” as well as Scripture. Go ahead and buy that Hummer and cut down another thousand-acre swathe of the Amazon rain forest — God’s got your back.
Not to say that there aren’t changes afoot …
It can be expected that several trends evident since the Flood, however, will continue: sea level will rise as polar glaciers continue to melt, and deserts will expand. These trends, as we have shown, have little to do with CO2, they are a consequence of a God-ordained event, the Flood. Governments with either ocean boundaries or deserts should consider how to efficiently and economically address these trends.
Just build higher sea walls and stock up on bottled water. Oh, and, of course, pray.
And in the “postscript,” we learn what “global warming advocates” have to prove:
- Global warming actually exists (which is hard to do when you ignore the science, dismiss the statistics and supporting evidence, and start with premises about geology, climate, history, paleontology, and pretty much every field of study that are based on Scripture, not on, y’know, anything else.)
- Global warming is causing climate change (Does that make any sense? If the world is warming, that is, in fact, climate change.)
- Global warming is caused mainly by CO2 (Actually, there are a number of greenhouse gasses, but CO2 is a significant one, and one which we can control.)
- Burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of CO2 increasing (We can observe the human activities that produce it, and that they are increasing, and we don’t have much in the way of alternate explanations.)
- Global warming will absolutely cause serious harm (Gee, rising seas and expanding deserts don’t count for starters?)
- Proposed solutions are effective, fair and economic (Effective is certainly a worthwhile discussion. Fair is a bit more open-ended — on what basis, compared to what, what are the alternatives. Economic is certainly a concern, but … well, go back to the previous item.)
Whoosh.
Okay, well, that was 6,000 words I’ll never get back. Let me summarize by saying, the ARJ folks in general, and the author in particular are what were once called “crackpots,” which is as charitable as I can make it. They have taken a moral and religious belief — the literalism and inerrancy of the Bible — and established it as the premise for all other science and the conclusions they draw. Evidence and statistics, even if understood, can be dismissed or found flaw with if they violate that premise. It’s difficult to develop a rational climactic model, if you assume the entire world was inundated with water for a year 5,000 years ago, that the air was created as currently constituted 6,000 years ago, and that nothing will change at Man’s hand because God has dominion over everything.
It would be like grounding medical models based on (a) Jesus’ ability to heal, by prayer, as well as raise from the dead, and (b) the lack of mention of germs or bacteria in the Bible, and thus their lack of reality. And, yes, some people do just that. And, generally, the story doesn’t end very well.
Bear that in mind for the whole world when considering the story of judging climate change based on Scriptural Science.
Sadly, this post will not change a single person’s preconceived notions about climate change. Your loyal readers probably already agree with you, and if any Creationist stumble across this post, they will likely simply say that you don’t understand their points, are that you aren’t “Christian enough” to have a truly informed opinion. I do hope that it helped you to blow off some steam; the pressure looks to have been building.
Have you ever consider writing rebuttals to pseudo-science for one of the widely-read online journals? While you may not have a string of letters after your name to give you instant super-credibility, your writing would lead thoughtful readers to realize that your views are quite credible. You analyze individual points carefully, pointing out flaws in reasoning (sometimes quite humorously). I would think that Slate or somebody would be fortunate to have you freelancing for them.
By the way, your “official citation” looked weird to me. It’s not APA format, which I am required to use in my papers. 🙂
That’s very kind of you, Avo. I don’t know that I have the intestinal fortitude to do regular fiskings of such things, but now and then the pressure builds such that I can’t just dismiss it with a pithy snark in a GReader share.
The ARJ has its own style guides and citation format. It’s how, I’m sure, God wants it cited.
“Al Gore readily admits that he is an evolutionist ”
Well there you go – proof he must be wrong. Unfortunately they are able to partition their minds so the phrase “Evolutionist Al Gore says he loves the USA” doesn’t make their heads explode.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MindScrew
Yeah, the whole “X readily admits to Z” always carries the rhetorical sense of “and we all know that Z is despicable” about it.
And no partitioning would be needed for that phrase — obviously an “evolutionist” is incapable of real love, real patriotism, or a real understanding of what America really means, so it’s not a cognitively dissonant, it’s a reminder of what a sneaky, deluded bastard he is.
I’ve now skimmed the entire thing, because there is only so much stoopid I can take to read too deeply. You must have been a man possessed to type so much- some sort of intellectual adrelanine rush equivalent that keeps fighters going when by all rights they should keel over.
Its full of “Because A=B, Z=squink.”
The bit that caught my eye was trees as a zero sum game. Is this true- they emit as much CO2 on death as the took in? Thats the first problem- a hall full of willing believers will take that without asking. I’m wondering if it is as easy as this. The thinks that break down the tree are using it as a source of energy- those peas I had tonight certainly won’t be putting any CO2 out, except in as much as I continue to live.
Secondly It took me a moment to realise the falacy. Dead trees are replaced by new trees. I only got this because I was looking for it- again the hall of true believers won’t be.
I can only imagine it’s a variant on the First Law of Thermodynamics. No significant release of radiant energy is taking place, therefore it’s a static equation of matter.
Except, of course, it’s not — no biological system is 100% efficient, and the plants in question are growing, too (so building up various hydrocarbons). These take time to break down in the soil, even if replaced by successor plants, locking up various materials.
I was something of a man possessed (“Even Mr Hill admits that the Devil was possessing him during the writing of this clearly anti-Christian attack”). It just ticked me off awfullly.
As this is a blog for saddos that read the weird mixed-up world of AiG, let me try to grab the title of chief saddo.
This AiG article is not even consistent with creation science, let alone real science.
Consider the following:
Plants buried in sedimentary rocks during the Flood now exist as fossil fuels (Groombridge and Jenkins 2002, p. 10). Coal, oil, gas, tarsand, and oilshale are all partially decomposed plant material. When fossil fuels are used today in furnaces and engines we are burning plants that lived and grew prior to the Flood. The CO2 released during burning was taken from the pre-Flood atmosphere and ocean.
and
What is known, of course, is that CO2 stored in plants and shelled animals that existed prior to the Flood is now stored in sedimentary rocks worldwide. The pre-Flood plants currently exist as fossil fuels and the shelled animals are contained in carbonate deposits. We also know that currently living plants and shelled animals have taken additional CO2 from the environment. Consequently, in view of the massive volume of fossil fuels and carbonate rocks, it is highly probable that today’s atmosphere contains measurably less CO2 than the Creation atmosphere and a correspondingly higher O2 concentration.
Now, avid readers of the Answers Journal, would realise that the assertion that oil and gas are formed from decomposed plant material is evolutionary thinking. The creationist answer to the origin of oil is that it was created by God.
Those readers would also know that the earth was created with vast floating forests. So the carbon in those coal deposits wasn’t in the creation atmosphere either.
And what about those carbonate deposits. Actually they don’t come from pre-flood animals. They were generated during the flood itself. And those deposits are so great that they could only have been produced if prodigious quantities of CO2 were emitted by volcanoes during the flood. Don’t take my word for it; take it from Andrew Snelling. Oh, he’s the Editor-in-Chief for the Answers journal.
So much for peer review!
Yes, well, it’s easy to come up with diametrically opposed Biblical Science opinions when you have “then a miracle occurs” in the middle of your equations.
And, if I follow your first paragraph correctly, I have to correct you — I am by no means a regular AiG reader, let alone a True Believer in AiG’s incoherent party line.
Is there a link to the original article, or are you satisfied with misquoting an idiot? In the same way as I judge evolutionists by Darwin, Dawkins, Hawking etc, you would do well to debate Ken Ham and other main proponents for creationism. Admittedly, this article gets it wrong from both a scientific and biblical prospective.
You continually reference creationists pre-conceived conclusions. However, you cannot deny that it is impossible to analyse any type of evidence without prior bias. For example, many evolutionists find fossils of apelike creatures and determine them to be ‘the missing link’ as this is what they hope to find. Meanwhile, a creationist looking at the same evidence (fossil) sees a separate species of monkey, either extinct or undiscovered.
If one attempts to debate the topic, as you have, they must take a neutral stand. ‘Especially when it’s so darned silly.’ This does not help your argument, and makes you appear foolish and bigoted to those you are attempting to correct.
For those reading this already having decided I’m a nut job who believes whatever I’m told, and agree with these concepts concerning global warming, I will expand my own opinion. For those who are uninterested in the other side of the debate, you may stop reading now.
While biblical basis can be used to determine all moral concepts, this centres mainly around the verse concerning God having written his Word in man’s heart (conscience). If the Bible mentions something specifically and literally, such as the creation account in Genisis, I believe no true science will ever be able to prove it wrong. This is not unreasonable, in the same way as I will never believe a scientific theory that claims I do not exist or other concepts I know to be false. It is impossible to scientifically disprove the truth. To support this, no scientific theory that contradicts the Bible has ever been proven and continually accepted over significant time periods. Evolution appears to be one, but once the media loses it’s bias towards it, people will lose their indoctrinated feeling that long periods of time allow something to come from nothing and order from disorder.
As far as global warming is concerned, I remain neutral on the science, as it is not my field. I have heard evolutionist claims that the earth heats up and cools of it’s own accord, much like elongated seasons. However, that the bible somehow states it to be impossible appears to be clutching at straws. Several arguments on plant life and CO2 emissions have already been discussed, and are simple primary school science. I do feel, however, that where the bible appears silent, and science makes a claim, then true science is likely to be correct. Backing this up with the aforementioned verse, God’s word is written on our hearts. He expects us to think for ourselves and use our conscience. No biblical prophecy states that rising water levels cannot happen, or that they could not prove fatal for catastrophic below certain elevations. If anything, man was ordered to take care of the world and all living creatures. Whether plants are living is another argument (a modern scientific definition cannot be used for ancient texts), but the animals are, and so the animals living in these trees should be protected, due to both biblical and conscientious morals.
From above: Agreed on a large portion, but
“Those readers would also know that the earth was created with vast floating forests. So the carbon in those coal deposits wasn’t in the creation atmosphere either.)”
What? The land and sea was separated prior to plant creation. I have heard and read no such argument.
Dave, you confess to be no regular AiG reader. I know you despise that statement, as with ‘Al Gore is a self confessed evolutionist’ or whatever, so i will elaborate. I have taken the time to research my standing, through reading and studying both points of view. I would appreciate anyone who tries to write articles on a topic doing the same. This way, you would point out the flaws in this article by this writer, rather than basing an entire organisation on it. It must be noted that it is common for an evolutionist to do research and choose creationism, but the other way is rare indeed.
On the other hand, you show understanding of biblical principles at several points, but use them to attempt to prove your own point. Matthew was referencing that the world would return to it’s sinful ways, as in the day of Noah. God would hardly destroy the world because everybody was fine with heterosexual marriages etc.
To summarise, this entire article is a strawman, taking a single misled, and probably misquoted, article and using it to attack an entire branch of scientific and religious thought. Contradictions between it and what other creationists claim is not evidence for contradiction, rather evidence for carefully selected quotes from an otherwise sound logical debate.
‘Sadly, this post will not change a single person’s preconceived notions about climate change. Your loyal readers probably already agree with you, and if any Creationist stumble across this post, they will likely simply say that you don’t understand their points, are that you aren’t “Christian enough” to have a truly informed opinion.’
This clearly attempts to guise ignorance of the theory and being misinformed as a problem that wouldn’t undermine the article, but would be merely a Christian attempt to continue their own delusion. Great, that’s logical debate out the window then. Not ‘Christian enough’ is a phrase only ever used by atheists.
Oh, and John, should you wish to debate in detail, I’m sure my email address is available to you. If not, I understand. You merely wanted to make your voice heard, and are uninterested in what a reasoned debate would result in.
There a link to the article above. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/bible-science-perspective-on-global-warming
Well, this was the article I ran across.
I agree.
I suggest that good scientists try to control for their biases, and test against them.
I think you’ll find very few scientists that deal with evolutionary matters use the term “missing link” in any seriousness. And when new samples are found, there’s usually a vigorous debate, lasting years or decades, over where they fit into the evolutionary picture. While popular science or media magazines might gin up exciting stories, the scientific discussions over these matters are rarely so clear-cut or assertive, without explaining the basis for it. More speculative assertions are usually labeled just that, and, if not, are criticized on that basis.
Such deductions, though, tend to be based more on ideology than on actual science. “Since we know, from the Bible, that all life was created in 4004 BC, it can’t be an evolutionary predecessor to homo sapiens because there’s not been enough time for that matter.”
I’ll confess my intent was not so much to debate the topic or attempt to correct the folks already bought into the idea.
On the other hand, arguing for a “neutral stand” regarding what is truth and what is not seems to be a bit silly in and of itself. If one person says the sun will rise tomorrow is because the Earth rotates on its axis, and another person says it will because God inflates a fiery balloon below the horizon and lets it loose, it’s not necessary to start with a neutral position as to which might be true, unless you choose to debate the issue from the beginning — which hardly seems necessary.
Science cannot prove I am wrong that my invisible rabbit is talking to me and giving advice. It might be able to come up with conclusions based on similar symptoms based on other cases, it might be able to treat me so that I no longer hear them, it may be even able to provide an alternative explanation. But it cannot prove my assertion wrong.
The difference is that science can present conclusions that can be tested, that are based on evidence other than my unfounded assertion.
But basing scientific conclusions using Biblical inerrancy of the Creation story (stories) as an axiom seems no more convincing than my trying to draw scientific conclusions from my invisible rabbit, or from using the Qur’an, or the creation legends of the Hindus, or the Greeks. A faith-based science is not a science, it is an extrapolated faith.
Define “significant.”
Evolution is not the same as either the Big Bang Theory, or the development of what we call life from what we call not life.
Similarly, certainly order can come from disorder, depending on your view of what constitutes those terms — a jar of undistinguished liquid can, as it dries, show the growth of crystals, just to use a low-grade example.
I think one can draw a distinction between accepting all Biblical statements as facts, and drawing on the Bible for moral lessons (we could also debate, though it would be a very separate discussion, of whether all moral problems can be solved clearly and unequivocally from the Bible, or whether the Bible’s moral lessons are actually written on everyone’s heart, or even what the moral lessons of the Bible are).
Accepting scientific conclusions because the Bible doesn’t contradict them is, in some ways, not much different from denying them because you think it does. What the Bible does or does not say about a scientific matter is neither proof nor disproof, any more than what Hesiod said, or Mohammed, or Buddha.
From above: Agreed on a large portion, but
“Those readers would also know that the earth was created with vast floating forests. So the carbon in those coal deposits wasn’t in the creation atmosphere either.)”
What? The land and sea was separated prior to plant creation. I have heard and read no such argument.
That statement was posted by Osborne. His links are kind of malformed — it appears he was meaning to point to the AiG article here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/floating-forest%5C
AiG, from what I have read from this, has multiple articles that seem based on bad science, derived from axiomatic acceptance of the Biblical Creation stories (the “Floating Forest” being a good example).
It must be noted that it is common for an evolutionist to do research and choose creationism, but the other way is rare indeed.
How common is that, really?
How do you define “evolutionist”?
And is it “common” because (a) there is more demonstrable truth in creationism, or because creationism is (b) more emotionally appealing and thus more likely to pull in people, or because (c) creationists tend toward bad science, and thus are less likely to recognize good science because they take as an axiom a non-scientific premise?
Thank you.
That seems perfectly in keeping with what AiG does.
Actually, the Matthew passage really is about how nobody will know the day and hour because things will seem so normal. “36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of 6heaven, but My Father only. 37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. ”
I’ve provided the link to the article (and the link was in my actual post). If I’ve misquoted, please let me know, and I will correct the article. If this is a misled article from AiG, may we expect that there will be dissenting letters to the editor?
Which I think is what one often hears used as a charge against “evolutionists”; when not portrayed as a lockstep monolith of ideology, disagreements within evolutionary biology, etc., are usually shouted out as proof that “evolution” is false.
I don’t consider disagreement within a scientific discipline as a problem. In fact, that’s a strength, that no element in science cannot be challenged with sufficient evidence. My concern with creationism in this case is that, given the
“specific and literal” statements in Genesis, one would think there might be less contradiction between different creationists.
Further, while true science allows for any premise to be challenged, if the challenger can back it up by showing how it fits the evidence, creationism does not, if it does not include the premise that Biblical creation is the literal truth.
On the contrary, I see polemicists dismiss arguments (particularly about morality) by claiming the person is not a True Christian. (I’ll also note I didn’t say that, one of my commenters did.)
John?
I’ll confess that I mostly wanted to make my voice heard, rather than engage in a debate about the matter, but if there are specifics about the above you wish to debate, feel free to have at it. I’d rather do it here than in email.
I don’t expect it to be a “reasoned debate,” though, since one of the premises (Biblical infallibility) is not a matter of reason, but of faith.
Apologies, I was using an ipod to enter the previous post and could not see the link. Actually, this disturbs me, as having read the full article I am forced to conclude AiG allowed this post, despite it being nonsensical and disagreeing with their own beliefs.
Agreed, a GOOD scientist will test against their own beliefs. Compare this concept to your own example:
On the contrary, if there are only two people involved in the debate, you will never win by dismissing the alternative as
. In order to determine truth, one must base points on truth, as agreed by both positions, rather than opinion. In the above exaggerated case, photographical, gravitational and experimental procedures can be used to prove one side.
Arguing over terminology is not worthwhile. The point still stands.
To summarise, true scientists have not found any true evidence for evolution, but the media are to blame for suggesting they had. Also, note that the debate is over where the fossils fit their pre-concieved picture, as opposed to what it is and where it came from through entirely unbiased thought processes. Is that not my initial point?
An unusual version of the invisible elephant in the room arguement. In order for something to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable. An invisible rabbit is not, as no amount of experiments will prove it doesn’t exist, merely that it can’t be found or similar. I know you believe this to be an argument in your favour, but i disagree. Which of these two hypothesis is falsifiable?
1) Bacteria evolved into fish……into apes into man. This process would be gradual, leaving many intermediate fossils between stages currently found. In fact, it is reasonable to expect the earth to be teeming with such examples, as they would outnumber the known species by incomprehensible amounts. However, as these fossils are not to be found, they must have disappeared magically, or through scientific processes not yet discovered. (yes, i just turned the ‘God of the Gaps’ theory to ‘Science of the Gaps’)
2) A worldwide flood causing fatalities to a majority of the population of the globe occured around 4000 years ago. Evidence from this would include billions of fossils, buried in rock layers laid down by water on a global scale. These fossils would have no evolutionary ancestors or decendants, appearing to exist simultaneously. Also, huge canyons and mountains formed by sedimentary rock and erosion would be left behind. Prior to this, however, the earth had been cursed, that all would tend towards its own destruction. Sounds like the more recently documented laws of thermodynamics, in which any system tends towards chaos. (Note, any exterior source of energy can be incorporated into the system. Eg, the sun can maintain order on earth. However, the Sun itself is losing energy at a rate much higher than the earth absorbs it.)
One argument has changed countless times due to being proven incorrect by scientific breakthroughs. The other has predicted such breakthroughs and remained intact.
The difference is that science can present conclusions that can be tested, that are based on evidence other than my unfounded assertion.
But basing scientific conclusions using Biblical inerrancy of the Creation story (stories) as an axiom seems no more convincing than my trying to draw scientific conclusions from my invisible rabbit, or from using the Qur’an, or the creation legends of the Hindus, or the Greeks. A faith-based science is not a science, it is an extrapolated faith.
If you can indicate a good article on AiG that is in accord with their beliefs and nonsensical, I’d be glad to read it in more detail.
I was not arguing as a scientist would. Were I writing for a scientific journal, I would not characterize an opposing viewpoint as “silly” — I might reference it as “nonsensical” by pointing out where it, in fact, made no sense.
I exaggerate the case to make a point that engaging in a scientific argument with a person whose science is founded on a faith belief is ultimately pointless and unnecessary. As you put it, unless you can agree on what is “truth” so as to base your points, you cannot determine truth by discussion. Accepting as a posit “We know the age of the world based on the Bible” or “The Bible gives the true, specific, literal process of Creation” does not provide a foundational truth for someone who does not accept, on faith, the Bible as literal and accurate.
Actually, it is worthwhile. Agreement over terms is an essential part of coming to a conclusion. Just as “Darwinists” are accused of claiming that humans are “descended from monkeys” is inaccurate on the face of it, but serves as a foundation for a number of popular attacks against evolution (“Then how do they explain that there are still monkeys around?”).
Um, no, that’s not what I said. I said the term “missing link” is usually used these days by popular media to summarize or sensationalize scientific discoveries. It also misrepresents the fossil record as being some singular chain that has a particular gap that needs to be bridged.
If by “entirely unbiased” you mean “without consideration of what has been figured out before,” then, yes. We generally draw conclusions by building upon what has been concluded before. While an “entirely unbiased” scientist (or utter skeptic) might question whether the sun will rise in the morning at predicted moment, most scientists will, based on previous observations and conclusions of how the universe works, consider it so highly probable as to not require examination.
On the other hand, if observations were made that sunrise was happening outside of the prediction, then, after reviewing the instruments to rule out measurement failure, scientists would have to theorize, then test for (or, based on theory, predict) what might be causing the discrepancy. Scientific theory allows for revision, reconsideration, and refutation based on facts that don’t fit in, or theories that better account for the observations made.
I credit Mary Chase for the inadvertent revision.
I would suggest the premise that God created the Heavens and the Earth in six days, resting on the seventh, some 6000-odd years ago, to be similarly unfalsifiable, just as is the hypothesis that I am living in “The Truman Show.”
I know you believe this to be an argument in your favour, but i disagree. Which of these two hypothesis is falsifiable?
Given the fragility of biological organisms and their remains, especially over the geological periods posited (and correlated to other non-biological time processes), and the rarity of the circumstances by which fossils would be created, would be uncovered, recognized as such, and studied — I don’t find that particularly improbable.
I have had probably 200 socks of pairs go missing over my lifetime. You would expect that I would be able to easily stumble upon the missing socks, yet, somehow I don’t. Is this a sign that those socks never existed?
Yet, somehow, over the intervening 4000 years, all of the species of the Earth, somehow crammed into that tiny ark (in twos), wandered across the globe, including spanning great ocean distances, except for the various species that died out since then for some reason (other than being sacrificed as an offering by Noah).
No, that doesn’t seem particularly plausible.
(Nor does the fossil record seem to be a mish-mosh of unrelated fossil remains all swirled together. Rather, for the most part, where not disturbed by other forces, it presents as a relatively consistent and explainable series of strata.)
“The earth had been cursed” sounds like an unfalsifiable assertion to me. Nor is it clear that a tendency toward chaos in systems is a curse. (And, of course, a “tendency” is not a clear or steady or consistent change, any more than every day gets gradually colder in a consistent fashion as we move from July to December.)
Okay, you lost me there.
One argument has been refined through further observations and refinement of theory. While there has been continued theorizing about how natural selection works, breakthroughs in genetics, etc., the fundamental concept of selection of variations through reproductive success remains largely intact.
As an example. Newton’s equations have been supplanted and changed and refined and expanded by subsequent discoveries in physics, yet nobody would say that the basic theories he presented don’t work within the confines of his ability to experiment, or that they don’t provide a useful guideline to how things work.
Sure, if you start from the premise “God created the world 6000 years ago, as described in the Bible, including a Great Flood 4000 years ago,” that faith statement need never change. There does seem to be a move away from the idea once frequently put forward that God created a misleadingly plausible fossil record as a test — but I guess that doesn’t count as part of the “intact” theory.
Given the large number of scientists, historically and even today, who consider themselves Biblical believers, I think it’s a straw man argument to claim that evolutionary theory (etc.) is based on “man’s desire to discredit the Bible and thereby God.” I’m pretty certain that’s not my motive.
God is an unfalsifiable concept. You can’t “prove there is no God” (though you can (a) develop alternate explanations for events that don’t require God, or (b) prove that particular assertions about God aren’t consistent with the evidence).
Because they are unfalsifiable concepts, and do not, of themselves, “prove” anything, any more than a Greek myth, or Shinto animism, or my invisible rabbit can prove anything.
I disagree. Theories that contradict themselves are generally observed to do so and argued against on that basis. Theories that don’t fit other theories, or (more meaningfully) don’t fit the evidence or serve to predict evidence gained through experiment, are generally rejected or judged dubious.
There are non-Christian scientists who believe in Intelligent Design. It is hardly, however, “the field of non-Christian scientists” — and ID is largely used (outside of science) as a wedge to bring Christian theology into schools.
I think there is a significant (ahem) difference between geography/genealogy (when talking about a historical narrative) and geophysics and biology. I am much more willing to accept that a particular religious-ethnic group recorded history in a biased but generally correct fashion, than that they recorded how life evolved on the planet.
Not at all (though I don’t believe that humanity is generally considered a descendant from fungi). Complexity can be built based on the success of (over time, and in some cases) of complexity.
Okay, you lost me again on that one. I indicated how order (crystals) could come, in a relatively short term, from a more chaotic form (a solution). You seem to disagree that a solution is less complex or ordered than a crystal.
I don’t get what you mean about a wolf becoming a Jack Russell due to “a loss of information.”
Morals found in a variety of other, non-Biblical, cultures (and arguably pragmatic as well).
Or been refined, or re-examined and found wanting. Biblical standards on charging interest, the role of women in churches and society, and dietary laws have been similarly re-examined.
There’s quite a bit of debate over the value of altruism (and other social virtues), or even the value of ostensibly valuing altruism, that doesn’t lend itself to a simple snippet response. I think one could argue, from a social contract basis, that banding together against killing and stealing (except as legally or societally approved, as in capital punishment or taxes) is beneficial to the tribe as a whole, and thus, also arguably, to the individual within the tribe. Especially given the demonstrable less-than-rationality of individuals.
I agree that’s the message of the Gospel (particularly as explicated by Paul). But I think there is a difference between “Man cannot live up to the Law” and “Man finds the Law wanting.” The former takes as a premise that the Law is absolute and correct; the latter does not. I do not object to a homosexual being a priest because I think what fundamentally makes one a priest, through God’s grace, is not affected by homosexuality per se. I take, from a moral perspective, the Law based on Christ’s “Greatest Commandments,” and consider the tribal/cultural prejudices (and modern interpretations thereof) of the Jews of the First Century AD and before as less than persuasive.
What kind of claims have you found lacking in evidence?
Do you have a specific one you would recommend?
Um … how common is that, really?
Or, to take a different tack, you drew a distinction between ID and Biblical Creationism (even noting it as being the realm of “non-Christians”). But why, then, claim that ID demonstrates how many “evolutionists” have turned into “creationists.”
For that matter, I believe that God created the universe, but working within the bounds of what you’d refer to as evolution and commonly accepted astrophysics. I believe there is design and purpose to the universe. I don’t find a particular contradiction there (neither do I claim that my belief should be proof to those who don’t believe).
Wait, I thought you said that you believed in science, except when it disagreed with Scripture. What do you consider to be “a scientific mindset”?
No, not a particular surprise.
I think you present a false binary choice between “Accept the Bible as the literal truth” and “Believe what you want with no consequence or responsibility.”
Further, I’d argue that the idea that the universe has been created, is quite finite in scope, and is centered around an individual’s relationship to the Creator Father and being saved by Him is, in fact, a very comforting idea, in terms of giving life and the travails within it a sense of meaning and purpose.
True. The idea that God would put someone on Earth for a day, a month, a year, or “three-score years and ten” and then condemn them to an eternity of torment because they didn’t faithfully profess the proper acknowledgment of God’s dominion, despite the evils of this world, is, in fact, offensive to many.
I believe it less likely than some in the non-believing community, but there is a certain measure of logic to it. If you are willing to accept a non-provable premise on faith (the Bible is the Word of God and inerrant in its description of the nature of the world and its scientific nature), what other non-provable and unscientific arguments will you be willing to accept?
I think you attribute a condemning tone to the passage that I don’t — the point is not that the time will be one of accepted evil, but that it will be a time that seems normal (“they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage” — none of which are particularly evil). But it’s not particularly important a point.
Or because they like the idea that a Big Cosmic Father Figure cares about them and is guiding all of creation and history toward their personal salvation.
Most of what I have to lose, I suspect, is the time involved in crafting replies. 🙂
I disagree. I think “knowing God exists” is a faith-based as well. It’s a faith I have, but not one I expect anyone else to take as a premise in their own conclusions.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/what-happened-to-the-dinosaurs
Well, I view any outlet claiming to be scientific and logical as important enough for this treatment.
My point was, as you surmised, that a foundational, agreed upon truth is needed to win an argument/debate. This is not merely for small online debates such as this, but also incorporates any scientific decision making. If truth cannot be agreed to start, how can absolute truth be claimed in a conclusion? The starting truths are evidence for and against each case. True evidence is undeniable. It is bias and viewpoints which add meaning which simply isn’t there that cause problems to arise. A biblical view on Genesis accounts for all such evidence, including fossils etc, but is admittedly based on biblical premises. However, as there is no other satisfactory hypothesis which examines all the facts, the biblical result should be seen as the most likely.
I don’t care if there are still monkeys about. The theory of evolution allows for ancestors to survive, just not to dominate. However, you lose me in your claim that man did not (according to the theory) evolve from apes, which in turn evolved from a monkey of some kind? Is the inference a ‘common ancestor’ as opposed to direct descendants?
When in fact it is more of a dot-to-dot picture, with insufficient dots to even create a basic picture. I agree there is not one gap, but instead almost infinite gaps between a few points, most of which are surviving creatures.
You are once again confusing experimental, undisputed scientific fact with propositions, hypothesis and ideas supported by minuscule evidence to the degree that there are few agreed places to start to examine new evidence. If the conclusions reached before were reliable, they wouldn’t change so much, as seen in the continually revised mechanisms required for evolution.
No idea who that is, but anyway.
Really? I listed the extraordinary claims made by the bible above, and the evidence expected to support them. Eg; If there really was a world wide flood, what would the evidence be? Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water, all over the world! And what do we find after this hypothesis is proposed? Billions of such fossils. Similarly, fulfilled biblical prophecy is, in my humble opinion, a good indication of inspiration from someone who knows the future. That person declared themselves to be God, so I’ll believe Him. Simples
I suggest that you delude yourself. Random chance, when escalated over billions of examples, should tend towards a fair representation of all factors. In other words, I don’t get why there are so many fossilised ferns, worms, then dinosaurs, etc rather than at least one intermediate example.
Fair enough. You lose alot of socks, but not enough for direct comparison. I propose that if you lost ten thousand socks in your home, and found a few hundred, all of which are black or white, you would assume all your socks were black or white. Unless you were there and remembered that some of them were entirely different colours, such as red. You would not conclude, therefore, that you also owned and lost pink socks, or grey, simply because hey all started red and through natural processes, bleaching and getting dirty/stained, they would have changed. Instead, you assume you had red, white and black socks to begin. Hope you see the parallels.
But apparently this idea is unfalsifiable.
Q1) What size was the ark
Q2) What size were the animals (including dinosaurs if you read the article supplied)
Q3) How many of them were there?
I’m guessing you have no idea for any of the three without checking Genesis for measurements? I’m sure you checked before claiming that an unknown number of objects of unknown size could not fit in an ark of unknown size? Other than childrens books which show it to be ‘tiny’. I could write hundreds of words on this topic, but I haven’t got the time. If you want it, ask.
Really? You better tell the leading evolutionists and scientists, because they had no idea this was the case! In fact, the only place this is accepted is in the media, who supply no facts or details, and by the average man on the street who believes them. The fossil record has yet to supply a single argument in favour of evolution, such as intermediate fossils. Instead, the theory always changes to accept the evidence.
Ok, the curse is unfalsifiable in that there could be many causes of such tendency towards chaos. But the bible did predict this thermodynamic law. I don’t get why you felt the need to clarify what a tendency was.
More correcting a common misconception about the second law of thermodynamics than providing an implicit point. Forget I mentioned it.
In other words, the theory 9is unfalsifiable as evidence against it merely forces it to rethink itself and become a new theory masquerading as the old one. The more complexities found in living organisms, the more evolution claims these are evidence toward itself. For example, the discovery of DNA prompted the uneducated claim that a mistake in a copy could produce a large mutation. However, this is not strictly the whole story. Such a mutation is always negative, causing a loss rather than a gain in information. The claim that, with sufficient time, the rarity of a (never observed) beneficial mutation would be insignificant, and that these would build over time. This is equivalent to me claiming I will improve a sandcastle by repeatedly kicking it. Sure, most kicks will damage the castle, but every so often one may improve it, aesthetically, structurally or similar. Unfortunately, the next kick will likely undo any improvement.
Again, mistaking experimental with historical science. Besides, give an example of a change to Newton’s laws. Many have been proven false, and some substantiated by further experiment.
Who claimed the misleading fossil record was created as a test? I also do not appreciate the unscientific claim that a global flood is unfalsifiable and entirely faith based. Similarly, any unbiased intelligent person given examples of the complexity of life will come to the conclusion of design (Intelligent Design theory). Therefore creation itself is not a faith based unscientific belief. It could yet be falsified, but predictions strengthen a hypothesis, rather than weakening it. The bible predicts dinosaurs, the fossil record, the complexity of nature, as well as hundreds of fullfilled prophecies. What did evolution predict? That the earth would be teeming with intermediate fossils and that organisms were simplistic in nature.
Not a straw man. scientists who believe the bible generally discredit evolution as bogus. Those who believe both are merely attempting to compromise between two opposite arguments. It is impossible to intelligently argue that both are correct. God cannot have used evolution, or there was death and pain before man, and therefore before sin. this argument undermines the entirety of the gospel message.
Fair enough. God is unfalsifiable to those who ignore the bountiful evidence. Also, point a) is proven through the existence of evolutionary theory, as well as several other religions. Point b) however, has never been successful. The fact that you are trying to prove something doesn’t exist and can’t does not make it unscientific. It gives a high probability that it exists, especially when evidence points that way. For example, I cannot prove the invisible rabbit does not exist. But if that rabbit does something, or gives evidence towards its own existence, it likely does exist. Conversely, I also cannot prove my laptop doesn’t exist. But I can prove it does.
Again with the unfalsifiable claims. I repeat, evolution is a falsifiable concept, many scientists are just unwilling to accept that it has been falsified.
Then explain why evolutionary theory is so popular?
Imagine a theory that fits the evidence as seen by unbiased scientists better than that currently being taught being accepted into schools. Can’t have that. It would encourage Christianity and may even let kids know it is supported by science! Nobody is attempting to get the gospel preached in schools, despite it being of far more personal and cultural significance than the likes of Shakespeare, merely the acceptance of a scientifically accepted theory.
So the belief is that these people accurately recorded their own history, and made up a few bits about their God to make things exiting? Strange, I’m sure many people would have been interested in how they actually got out of Egypt, how they actually summoned the plagues (as recorded in Egyptian history) and how so many outside witnesses recorded apparently false miracles? Not to mention fulfilled prophecy, such as the empires prophesied by Daniel, or even the prophesy that Abraham would be highly regarded all over the world?
Simple experiment to determine complexity. I shall make a simulation of a crystal, while you make a simulation of the solution. The crystal is a far simpler structure, but also less complex. As far as order is concerned, the system gains order due to the effect of an outside ‘sink’ into which the energy dissipates.
Simple statement concerning why microevolution (evolution within a species) is possible while macroevolution (species to species) is not.
Written on the hearts of all men, that none have any excuse.
You are using examples of Law changed by Christ to allow for law as changed by man. Not the same thing. On another note, the role of women in churches is still debated heavily, as it is tradition more than biblical instruction that implies that all women should be silent in church.
In honesty, we are discussing genetic mutations, as guided by no intelligent source. The fact that a tribe could logically see benefits is irrelevant, as other tribes would disagree and kill/ steal from them. This would lead to the survival of the morally unjust, rather than the moral.
By definition, a priest is a man living for God. If god clearly stated that homosexuality is a sin, then living as a homosexual is not living for God. The effect is a debate as to where the law came from. A priest must believe the law is of God, and therefore that it is correct. An atheist, however, can logically attempt to justify his own actions, using some biblical principles as good ideas, nothing more.
Big bang, evolution, spontaneous generation, alien life, gap theory, dinosaur extinction, off the top of my head this seems to be about it.
See above on dinosaurs.
There is a surprisingly large number of scientists who have accepted ID, yet governing bodies dislike evolution being questioned. It is fact that a scientist seeking a grant for research in any related field is advised to toe the party line.
Many find ID, then conduct research into it. The fact that it provides many answers is convincing enough that they abandon evolution altogether. The mystery then becomes ‘Who was the designer?’ Though many still claim alien life, or some alternative superior beings, or even time travel paradoxes, the most logical answer is the book that predicted ID in the first place, the Bible.
I don’t understand. What do you actually believe and what don’t you? Are you Jewish, Christian, Roman Catholic, Agnostic or what?
How do you define “evolutionist”?
1) not what i said. I said I believe experimentally proven science, and generally am uninterested by theories which are not, unless they effect my life, suchas contradictions with scripture.
2) A scientific mindset doesn’t mean you are right. It merely means you are interested in science, and in this case origins.
There are alternative bases for morality but the law as laid out by scripture can hardly be accused of being ’emotionally appealing’
Finite? I agree with the idea of a sense of purpose, but my own experience of witnessing is that people dislike being told their life is wrong the way they live it.
I believe we have thoroughly discussed how much of believing biblical claims is faith and how much is scientific logic. On the other hand, if you are willing to accept through faith that evidence for evolution merely got unlucky in the game of fossilisation then you are in no position to criticise.
The point is that all scripture must be examined against scripture. Using all prophesy, including that in revelation which you claimed to be unintelligible, then the meaning is clear.
Don’t act like a five year old. That is as much a summary of my beliefs as me comparing belief in evolution to being unable to let go of pokemon.
Think. In the hypothetical situation that I am indeed correct, what exactly have you to lose?
Again with the faith based arguement. Enough! Besides, I still don’t get what you actually believe?
Thanks, I’ll give that a read when I get a chance.
I disagree that the Biblical view accounts for all the evidence (or examines all the facts), except that it allows for “it’s a miracle” hand-waving to fill in any gaps or unexplained items.
The scientific approach (which encompasses not just evolutionary biology but geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics, molecular biology, developmental biology, embryology, population genetics, genome sequencing, etc.) by definition has to examine all the facts, and try to develop theories that account for them, subject to revision and reinterpretation as new facts are unearthed (literally or figuratively) or hypotheses and predictions succeed or fail.
A common ancestor (along a variety of branches, some of which have continued to evolve and diverge in different directions, some of which have died out).
By definition, evidence both experimental and discovered is always a series of dots, or data points, from which inferences are made (and then tested to see if they meet other evidence, or predict new evidence that is uncovered).
I disagree that there is insufficient fossil “dots” to “create a basic picture,” especially when one combines the fossil record with correlating information from the other sciences mentioned above — genetic comparisons between surviving species, anatomical and physiological comparisons between species, geological information, etc.
If you have a theoretical framework that fits the available evidence, then the natural thing to do is see if new evidence (fossils, etc.) fits into what’s already been established. If not, then can the framework be revised or altered to fit the new full body of evidence?
Starting from “scratch” each time makes no sense, unless you choose to propose a whole new theory that encompasses both the new evidence and the existing body of observations. That doesn’t indicate bias, any more than assuming the sun will rise tomorrow indicates bias.
But a data point — an experimental “undispluted” fact — is of very limited use,
The fundamental idea of evolution — that natural selection through reproductive success of different variations leads over time to speciation — has remained pretty consistent. The specifics of the family trees and understanding of the mechanisms involved (how variations occur, for example) has been refined over the years, but that’s quite different. Understanding and theories of how gravity works have also been changed since Sir Isaac Newton, too.
The creator of “Harvey.”
Except that the stratification of fossils doesn’t match what one would expect, geologically or physically, from such a flood (let along a single flood). Nor do the strata match such a flood — especially where you see geological uplifts crossing sedimentary lines. Nor does the necessary time for sedimentary products like petroleum, coal, pitch, etc., match such a Great Flood timeline (even ignoring that pitch is mentioned in the building of the ark itself).
The simplistic idea that a year-long flood created the masses of sediment and arrangement of fossils that we see in the geological record does not meet the extraordinary claim.
The Bible says God says the Bible is true. That’s not evidence, that’s a tautology.
There are a wide array of intermediate fossil examples between ferns, worms, and dinosaurs. It’s not complete, but it’s far more than you imply.
On the other hand, I suggest your evaluation of whether it “should tend” to a fully complete representation, is unfounded.
Further, even if there was fossil evidence of every single species of plant and animal that ever existed, the passingly small fraction of fossils globally that have been dug up, preserved, and studied, means it’s not at all unreasonable that particular forms are not found. If I surveyed a dozen people in Los Angeles, it’s quite possible I might not encounter any aunts; their existence might be inferred, though, from other familial forms found.
Well, I begin to see that I chose a bad analogy, because there are no necessary relations between green socks and black socks that would let the latter imply the former. Evolution is not just predicting forms, but the transitions between forms.
I have a general idea of the size of the ark, as well as what the size of modern animals and the size of dinosaurs are (from fossil remains). I also recall from Genesis that there were at least two of each (to establish breeding), though I seem to recall an additional number mentioned. So I don’t have “no idea.”
More specifically:
Gen. 6:14-16: So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high. Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit high all around.
[About 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high or about 135 meters long, 23 meters wide and 14 meters high.]
Gen. 6:19-21: You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.
But also Gen. 7:2-3: Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
[It’s unclear, on the face of it, why the Lord changes his mind on numbering between chapters. I had forgotten the specifics of the “sevens,” which is why Noah’s able to sacrifice “some” of them after debarcation.]
I haven’t had a chance to read the article in question. But, no, that doesn’t seem particularly plausible.
I’m sure you can point me to the leading evolutionists and scientists who cite swirled mish-moshes of dinosaur, human, and trilobite fossils.
On the contrary, we continue to find intermediate fossils (which aren’t an “argument” but “evidence”). E.g., Archaeopteryx showing the transitions between reptilles and birds, the presence on some later dinosaurs of hair and feathers, therapsids showing intermediate steps between reptiles and mammals, Tiktaalik as a fish intermediate to amphibians, a variety of transitional/intermediate forms in the evolution of whales, and some dozen or more intermediates since hominids branched off from the great apes six million years ago.
Why don’t we find more? Aside from the general scarcity of fossils described above, significant changes tend to happen over a relatively short period of time, as a result of significantly changed environments. That further narrows that window to observe.
Theory always changes (or should) to accept the evidence. But rarely is the change signficant, and the basic thesis of evolutionary speciation remains intact.
Observing that things break down, that everything “tends toward its own destruction,” that change happens, inferring that the world is cursed, or predicting the end of the world, is (a) hardly unique to the Bible, and (b) not quite the same as the laws of thermodynamics (esp. if you add a moral component to it).
.
As long as a new theory (or refinement of an older one) encompasses the evidence, that’s perfectly reasonable and legitimate. If a completely new theory is presented that fits the evidence better, or can be tested more accurately (including predicting subsequent observations more completely), it will (or should) be adopted instead.
Significant changes are almost always lethal, if not during gestation then afterward. The question is, given the numbers of generations involved, with parallel pressure toward cumulative minor changes and variations, is the rate of change in species reasonable?
We do see evolutionary processes at work, particularly in organisms that have short reproductive cycles that we can subject to extreme pressures. That’s the basis for a lot of medical research, for example.
I think you wrongly disparage observational science. Observational science (even if we leave off where it is supported and in keeping with more experimental sciences) are not so different, if, rather than experiments (“Let’s make a horse evolve!”) you are able to use it to predict future observations (empirical experiements — “Is this newly found fossil form in keeping with what we’d expect in changes from other forms?”
I think you imply that there have been such changes. In most cases, they have been adoptions to conditions and frames of reference of which Newton was unaware or not testing for — e.g., Euler’s Laws of Motion for dealing with motion of rigid and deformable bodies, or relativistic effects due to high speeds.
This has gotten long enough that I’m going to split the reply into multiple comments here (the rest may be delayed due to travel this afternoon).
Prior to the rise of creation science it was a common anti-evolutionary argument to explain away fossils (either that God set it up as a test, or Satan as a temptation).
A common sense judgment, or an aesthetic judgment, might well reasonably be true, but is hardly scientific.
I believe in a Designer, though I don’t assume that means that others should take on that belief, or that my belief is provable scientifically.
The Bible’s prediction of “dinosaurs” is vague, at best — Leviathan? Behemoth? Dragons? One could as easily assume we’re talking about, well, the mythical monsters of a thousand different mythologies.
The Bible doesn’t predict the fossil record. The fossil record is being used to prove the Bible. (Poorly.) That’s very different.
The Bible proves the complexity of nature? In what way?
Evolution predicts there will be intermediate fossils, not their frequency. Not does it predict that organisms will be simplistic.
I disagree. Unless, of course, you’re merely going to dismiss those who don’t agree with you as not being real scientists.
Ah. Unless you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, and a particular theology to go with it, then you can’t consider yourself a believer in the Bible, and thus can’t legitimately claim to be be a scientist and Bible believer. One can only be an un-Biblical and evolutionist, or Biblical and creationist.
The majority of scientists of the later 19th and early 20th Century — and, heck, I suspect, even today — would probably be surprised.
So you say.
Modern science does not attempt to prove there is no God. It simply doesn’t assume a reality of God as a premise in trying to explain natural phenomena.
The truth is unfalsifiable. But not all that is unfalsifiable is the truth.
And the “everyone would recognize God is real if they didn’t willingly ignore the truth” argument is as silly, unprovable, and insulting as the “everyone would recognize God is a myth if they didn’t willingly ignore the truth” argument used by some atheists.
Point (a) being that you can develop alternate explanations for events that don’t require God.
Point (b) was prove that particular assertions about God aren’t consistent with the evidence).
If you redefine God as you see fit. But that gets into questions about proving the existence of God, which is yet another long post somewhere.
The problem is not being sure whether the glass was originally on that end of the table, or whether an invisible rabbit moved it down there — or perhaps it was a trick, or maybe we forgot, or maybe there’s another reason.
God rarely (if ever) gives such bold, unequivocal, outward signs of His existence.
But that’s why making such mentions is scoffed. Because you can (dis)prove anything that way.
Heh.
Except that it is. You are basing the foundations of your science on the Bible.
I’m not sure I agree there, either. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1) That seems the opposite of science, to me.
First, I don’t accept that Intelligent Design fits the evidence better than the generally accepted theory of evolution.
Second, let us say that we accept the idea of an Intelligent Designer. In what way does that actually change the nature of the evidence or what is understood to be true. ID does not, when handled honestly and just as such, lead to any difference in things like evolutionary science?
Indeed, as someone who believes in God, I believe in Intelligent Design. But I don’t consider it beyond the designer to work with the mechanisms that we believe we know.
Regardless, ID itself is not what you are arguing above. ID says nothing about an ark, or the specific creation tales of the Bible.
If it was solely a matter of teaching the question of Intelligent Design (and assuming that such was not a better discussion for a philosophy or religion class), I would have much less problem. The discussion of whether complexity and determined time periods require some sort of conscious guidance is arguably open to discussion.
But there’s a wild difference between ID in terms of a deistic watchmaker or something like that and a Young Earth Biblical Literalist Great Flood tale. Which is not supported by the available evidence, and is, in fact, inappropriate (to the extent that it is faith-based) for public education.
Really? Really?
Except people haven’t been burnt at the stake (to take a moderately extreme case) for not agreeing with the conclusion of Romeo & Juliet.
Creation science and Young Earth / Great Flood geology is not accepted by the general scientific community, largely because it does not fit the evidence.
Certainly archaeology has questioned biblical information. There have been disputes over an array of Biblical history, with conflicts between minimalists and maximalists, and historical/archaeological support for anything before united monarchy of Saul is fairly questionable. That said, as a chronicle of the history of Palestine, the Bible has been, at a minimum, a valuable resource.
But, then, that’s a far cry from the Bible being a chronicle of biology, geology, and cosmology.
Well, accurately to the extent (actually, probably short of the extent) of, say, popular US history.
Can you point me to the Egyptian references to the plague? I can only find minimal references to them.
?
Given the wide array of empires and kingdoms in the world, Daniel’s prophecies are less than convincing (like Nostradamus, they are apparent more through fitting things into an historical perspective than as any sort of actual preduction).
And I’m shocked to discover that an Abrahamist religion would predict that Abraham would be famous and “highly regarded.”
But speciation is not at all uncommon to observe.
“It’s from the Bible. And it’s so powerful that even folks who don’t believe in the Bible follow it, too.” Pretty convenient, and unfalsifiable.
Breaking out to a third comment …
Only becaause you draw the distinction. Most identification of the changed Law came from Paul, not Christ, at any rate.
.
Except for, y’know, where Paul actually says that should be the case (1 Cor 14:34-45). “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”
Unless altruism creates for a stronger social structure (and individual motivation) that would balance against the opportunism of the morally unjust.
Altruism can be seen in primate species, as well.
B
That begs the question, though, whether one considers the Bible as fully and inerrantly dictated by God. If so, then you are likely correct (though even there one can make arguments over both the changes in the Law from the Old to New Testament, as well as what is referenced as homosexuality by folks like Paul).
I accept all scientific conclusions. However, disagreement with scripture raises alarm bells, so I check the evidence. Strangely, the evidence always seems to be lacking for such claims.
What kind of claims have you found lacking in evidence?
Big bang, evolution, spontaneous generation, alien life, gap theory, dinosaur extinction, off the top of my head this seems to be about it.
“Big Bang” is beyond the scope of this discussion of evolution, though I strongly suspect that anyone who has not made a professional study of astrophysics can claim that there is a lack of evidence for same; certainly the number of learned and respected professionals in the field who support the idea would indicate some evidential plausibilityy.
“Spontaneous generation” (abiogenesis) has had demonstrations of the ability for natural circumstances to create organic compounds and amino acids — short of “life”, to date, but a variety of theoretical models have been proposed and continue to be debated. Less satisfying but also less arbitrary than a deity waving their hand and simply “creating” life.
Not sure about your reference to “alien life.”
I’m not a proponent of “Gap Theory,” nor are most of those you’d deem “evolutionists” (it’s largely an Old Earth Creationist construct).
Not sure about what you mean by “dinosaur extinction” — I think we both agree that dinosaurs are extinct.
But “creationism” is a specific subset of “Intelligent Design” (“things were intelligently designed by and in the manner of the Creator described in the Old Testament of the Bible”). One can posit ID without the latter.
While granting the reality of academic politics and economics, it’s also not proof, let alone quantification, of anything. Show me a credible study that indicates that 25% of biological scientists would support ID if they were not in fear of their professional career, and I might begin to listen. Change “ID” to “Young Earth Biblical Creationism” and I’d definitely be surprised.
Many find ID, then conduct research into it. The fact that it provides many answers is convincing enough that they abandon evolution altogether. The mystery then becomes ‘Who was the designer?’ Though many still claim alien life, or some alternative superior beings, or even time travel paradoxes, the most logical answer is the book that predicted ID in the first place, the Bible.
I’d like something a bit more definite than “the most logical answer” (since the logic would seem subjective). How many non-Christian scientists decide that ID is the most reasonable answer, and then decide that Young Earth Biblical Creationism is the most logical version of ID?
Do you require a denominational label above what I described above? Why?
But the idea that there is a guiding, overseeing, caring intelligence to the universe is.
But they enjoy being told it is right, or that there is a firm, objective, rule-based system to determine that it is right.
I believe you have asserted that it is scientific, not faith-based. I do not believe that I’ve agreed.
I don’t follow.
“If you find the overall meaning clear, then the meaning is clear.” Um … not convincing, in general or in the specific question.
So it’s childlike to accuse someone of accepting a truth because they love the idea of a Big Cosmic Father, but it’s calm and rational to accuse someone of rejecting the truth because “they like their big cars or sinful ways.” Got it.
I believe I have stated what I believe. What sort of further summary do you need?