The impossibilities of YEC

No. I am going to say what even honest secular geologists would say. The measurements are fact. The compositions are fact. The existence of the craters is undeniable fact... but the origin, history, and dating of those craters are conjecture. AND, when that conjecture is followed all the way back up its course of reasoning, we will arrive at scientific theories that were derived denying a direct Creator and adopting some manner of uniformitarian view of geological history when we know for a fact that this view is very improbable.

 

No. I am going to deny the limits imposed by your presuppositions.

Options I can think of very quickly:
1) God created them in the same way He created the forbidden fruit- to give man a choice to believe God or to believe his own senses.

2) As God created the earth in the first day, natural forces beyond anything that have occurred since came into place to form the earth. One of these forces was a deluge of meteors. When God separated the firmament below from the firmament above, the dust you are so worried about was cleared from the air and became sediment.

3) The meteors occurred to trigger the flood and Noah's Ark was preserved in a miraculous way or was already afloat in a distant location from the impact areas when the meteors hit the earth and broke up the fountains of the deep. Again, the heavy rainfall prevented the dust from remaining airborne.

No. I am saying that their conclusions are subject to their philosophical presuppositions just as a creationists is. You and they may not be wrong. The ideas are plausible. I choose to limit their probability by what the Bible says... which makes them highly improbable forcing extraordinary stretches and contortions of the Bible to make them agree.

I gave some possibilities

I didn't say they were wrong. Although I believe that they are because their theory does not fit the biblical model. (Which by the way is just as valid and no more philosophical than saying you disbelieve the Bible because of the theory of evolution) I said you were wrong for using their biased and inconclusive explainations of these natural phenomenon as an ironclad proof that YEC is impossible.

Either you don't know what an ad-hom attack is or you are being intentionally evasive. I didn't say one thing about the geologists that contrive or believe these theories. They are plausible theories. I reject the philosophical world view that limits plausible explainations to the purely naturalistic ones or even further limits the naturalistic explainations to the ones that assume a very old earth.

 

I have answered this straw man with more consideration than it deserves already but here is one more analogy to demonstrate the fallacy of your contention: If I gave you directions to my home that gave just the essentials without detailing everything you might see or encounter on the way and you chose to interpret some of those details in a way that caused you to get off the route I gave thus causing you to arrive at a wrong house... would that mean that I was being deceptive? Not at all. But I do find it interesting that someone who suggest that Genesis is fictional without any scriptural proof while ignoring the affirmations within the Bible that it was considered literal by the inspired writers (who were not corrected by the Holy Spirit or Jesus Himself) would accuse those of us who accept a literal Genesis of making God a liar.

If the NT writers were deceived about creation, how can we trust their authority or inspiration on any other matter?

[/qb] We can't. We can adopt as a theory and interpret the data accordingly, modifying the theory as necessary... just as the scientists you linked to undoubtedly did while developing their explainations.

We aren't talking about measurements or testing. We are talking about explainations. If you want to run a test you can use the same ones employed by your preferred geologists and modify them until they point to the desired outcome... which is what scientist do when trying to support their naturalistic theories.

Not if the rain began first lifting his boat but leaving significant land masses to absorb some of the impacts and block the waves.

In what way? And what problem do presume the volcano's present. One of the links you gave showed the distribution of the larger meteors. These are positioned to easily allow Noah to be out of harms way.

Yes. Although I suspect that when you consider how many are Bible believing, born again Christians, the number would be reduced significantly.

Which, although I disagree with, I do appreciate.</font>[/QUOTE] Likewise. My main thrust was simply that possibilities do exist that can explain these events with YEC remaining intact... as long as philosophical presuppositions do not get in the way.

No. Please don't attempt to put words in my mouth. What I am saying is that neither human senses nor human discrenment nor human reasoning are infallible. No sensible person believes that they are. Therefore, if someone is thinking in a completely logical way but limited by their philosophical presuppositions, they might deny reasonable explainations or even the truth.

I disagree. The Bible says what it says precisely like the measured data from a crater does. Interpretations, on the other hand, are fallible and subject to man's carnal limitations. The best interpretations are those that are prayerfully guided by the Holy Spirit, consistent with the whole of scripture, and derived by those greatly submitted to God's authority.

 

Thanks again Scott for your insightful and well reasoned arguments.

Keep up the good work!

 

That's fine because I do not reject evolution because of Genesis.

I find a long first day of creation to be a credible alternative. I really don't consider it all that much since God was the only one active and He can't be measured by our sense of time. When He says first "day", we have no means of determining what that might have meant. On the other hand, since God is not limited to our sense of time, space, and matter, He could have easily compressed all of the activities that created the evidence in question in what we would consider a moment of time.

To consider whether the first day or two were what we would sense as a 24 hour day is largely rhetorical... other than the fact that God inspired the word "day" and there is no reason to believe that He meant anything other than what we consider a day.

 

Ditto Scott

 

Why is it a credible alternative??</font>[/QUOTE] Thanks for once again illustrating my point. I left the two sentences Immediately following this acknowledgement that explain my reasons for accepting it as credible. You weren't looking for it. So you didn't see it.

I am not aware that I ever denied that I was interpretting things... we all do.

First, I think the two sentences above answer the question about God and "day." If you don't understand what I mean then please let me know.

I didn't say that there weren't possible interpretations that allow for an old earth.
There are and I have considered some of them... but rejected them.

 

No. I am arguing just what I said. Our senses, discernment, and reasoning are not infallible.

Are you saying that anyone approaches evidence with a completely objective, open mind? The fact that the links you gave accept the geologic column as a reliable source of dating proves this to be false. Likewise, your decision to relegate Genesis to the strata of an Aesop's fable is a demonstration that you do not approach these issues with a completely open mind. You have predetermined that some answers that do not violate the intergrity of the observed evidence are none the less unreasonable because they do not fit into your paradigm.

Yes I have. You once again demonstrate that the answers you are willing to consider as possibilities are determined not by their viability but by whether they agree with your philosophical predisposition.

Each time I begin to point it out, you repeat that we aren't talking about evolution but about craters. The one obvious reason these interpretations might be incorrect is that they assume a great deal about the earth's history- in particular, a uniformitarian model, the geologic column, and an old earth. For instance, the assumption is that these craters must have a purely naturalistic explaination and since they assume an old earth, their theories are colored by what they assume to be true but can never prove.

I have been about as specific as this dialogue has demanded or allowed. I am in no great hurry to quibble over details since I reject what appears to be your major premises and their ancillary presuppositions. Namely that there must be a purely naturalistic explaination for everything and that the earth must be very old to accommodate any reasonable theory.

Is God true? How do you know? Is the resurrection true? How do you know?

I accept the evidence while rejecting your artificial, unreasonable limitations to how it might be explained.

No dice. The impact from the vrederfort alone would destroy his ship. </font>[/QUOTE] That's funny. One of the links you gave suggested that a notable group of secular scientists disagree that a meteor caused this crater. If there is no certainty among the sources you cite as more authoritative than Genesis then why should I accept a less than universal opinion as definitive proof?

No. Again, I do not care to quibble over details while you maintain that your biases must be respected as truth. However, if you want to point out some specifics on this issue I will ponder an alternative.

Assuming that meteors are in fact the source of the craters and assuming that there were no other unknown factors that limited the effects and assuming we know the composition and condition of the atmosphere at the time and assuming that we know the nature and condition of the impact areas and assuming we know the composition and nature of these particular meteors... and assuming I have contended that (which I have not)... you might have a ... nah, too many assumptions.

No. I have just questioned your fallible reasoning in interpretting the evidence.

You can suspect that, but I bet you would be wrong. </font>[/QUOTE]Show me your polling data.

Perhaps not. But a very small group gets to decide the operational philosophy for those in academia who are dependent on grants, tenure, being published, etc. To say that evolution has not impacted what is considered "acceptable" in academic circles is more than a little unrealistic.

 

Thanks for making my point yet again. You ignore what I tell you and keep making accusations like this because I refuse to operate under your assumptions since I do not recognize adequate proof for them.

BTW, I say it is not true because it does not agree with the Bible as adequately as what I do believe. I have read interpretations of similar data that appear just as reasonable but agree with the biblical record. Also, what is proposed while possible was not observed. Test can be designed to show that the theory is viable but not to demonstrate with absolute certainty what truly occurred.

No I don't. A good many interpretations of the Bible are up for dispute. This is in perfect agreement with what I said before. Our senses, discernment, and reasoning are not infallible. In addition, no one is so completely submitted to the guidance of the Holy Spirit that they have a lock on Bible interpretation.

If you believe this, where does God tell us that Genesis is not literal?

Fallible man operating under the burden of his severely limiting sin nature... which applies to secular scientists as well.

So? You accept the opinions of scientists that are at best educated speculation and at worst imagined scenarios looking for tangible proof. Science speculates all of its explainations of prehistoric events and does so based on some very weak, tenuous assumptions.

Why is it that you seem compelled to limit what others can assume? It isn't a matter of who the Holy Spirit will help interpret but rather who is submitted to accept His help. Notably, you ignored the rest of the response. Not all theories equally agree with the whole of scripture nor are all people equally submitted to God on specific issues.

BTW, I am not praying that God will change your mind. I am praying that God will show me the truth.

I believe you are wrong, not stupid. All smart people are wrong about something.

No. I oppose experential, feeling based religion. I told you above how I believe someone arrives at the correct interpretation. I am convinced of my beliefs and will continue to be until someone proves that some other interpretation agrees more with scripture or that what I believe can be catagorically, empirically disproven.

Since I am not driven by feelings, your point is moot except to say that I agree with your premise that much of man's errors in thinking/discerning are caused by Satan, the flesh, or the world through "feelings." I would add that those deceptive feelings take many forms and are frequently very subtle and well below the concious level.

Why I would say that scientists operating under a modernistic philosophical paradigm might even be subject to allowing feelings like fear of rejection or embarassment or castigation to cloud their reasoning at a very basic level.

 

Jesus had an opinion on that:

Mark 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

God cannot be proven or disproven. That is the way he wants it. And all your cleverness will not be worth a drop of faith.

 

If you read through the thread, you will notice that I am not the one arguing that everything must have a naturalistic explaination. Meatros asked how we could know something was true without testing or measuring it.

I agree with you. We can know God is true without a scientific experiment. Working from this point, I reject Meatros premise that everything in nature must be explained by purely naturalistic means. Admittedly, I presuppose an active, direct Creator. For whatever reason, he appears to reject that same presupposition.

 

From Meatros:

Meatros, I've wondered a lot about your attitude, scientific knowledge, and "professed" openess to logic since you've been posting. This comment just clarifies my suspicions!!