Doy:
Is this some kind of initiation? Before you will stoop to answer my simple
questions, I must answer again
questions from you that I have already answered in these posts. It is probably
my impenetrable style—too
many facts cluttering those responses—so I will try again. Maybe I can
make it clear enough this time. (By
the way, I’m almost enjoying this—you are a good-humored intellectual adversary
whose position on AOE is
not very far from mine. When someone asks me how old the earth is, I always
say, “I have no idea.” But
don’t let the word get back to Allan; he’d be devastated if he knew how
close HE and I are!)
“…philosophy … touches every part of our lives, including the science (and
it's bad facts, bad facts) you
hold dear. This is what we've been trying to get you to admit. I haven't
been able to understand why it is
so vehemently denied.”
I agree—LOOK AT THIS STATEMENT, DOY, I AGREE!—that we must use a philosophical
framework to make
sense of reality. I merely assert that (1) the marriage of one’s philosophical
framework with reality must be
harmonious; (2) there are “irreconcilable differences” between some philosophical
frameworks and
reality—materialism would be one of those philosophical frameworks which
fails the marriage with reality;
and, (3) the weakness of “classical YEC-ism” has not been philosophical
but trying to connect with reality.
“…you have appeared to cringe at the very mention of the possibility that
you have such presuppositions
that affect the outcome (i.e., uniformitarianism). Now I don't mind that
I'm charged with having such
presuppositions; I have them precisely because I think that they are the
correct presuppositions to begin
the discussion with. But if you are going to make such charges, why then,
my friend, will you not admit to
the same?”
I admit—LOOK AT THIS STATEMENT, DOY, I ADMIT!—that I have presuppositions.
But concerning your own
admitted presuppositions, you say, “I have them precisely because I think
they are the correct
presuppositions …” What makes you think your presuppositions are correct?
Isn’t it that you try to “marry”
your philosophy to reality and see what kind of a match you get? Aren’t
you an age-agnostic because you
think that presuppositional approach best fits the facts? I have denied
being a “classic uniformitarian”
because I honestly don’t think I am: as I said in a previous post, I insist
that catastrophism is in principle
capable of explaining many of the facts in nature—which I don’t think a
“classic uniformitarian” would admit.
My bleat against YEC-ism is not that it clashes with my presuppositions,
it’s that it has failed the marriage
with reality. It has not explained the facts. Let me repeat a previous
post: I’m not saying it CANNOT (as a
classic uniformitarian would), I’m saying it HAS NOT.
“Further, you said, ‘no one who does not completely accept its underlying
philosophical assumptions is
admitted to participate in the examination.’ Hmm. That sounds like kind
of what I feel in such a discussion
as this. Since I have not bowed the underlying philsophy (!) of OECism,
then I am not permitted to discuss
it (I've already been accused of not being suited to the discussion).”
I insist—LOOK AT THIS STATEMENT, DOY, I INSIST!—that you are well-suited to this discussion.
“I spent other previous posts trying to argue that it was not the ‘Facts’
themselves in dispute, but the
interpretation of said facts. You guys have phooeied the available interpretations,
and thus concluded that
we can't honestly deal with facts. Again, I need only refer you to what
a Darwinist would charge you with:
same song second verse. From the start, I have simply tried to point out
the philosophical underpinnings.
That, too, is ‘reality’ to which your view must be married. I just wish
you would admit it. In my mind, it
would make your position more tenable.”
I admit—LOOK AT THIS STATEMENT, DOY, I ADMIT!—that one’s philosophical
worldview is a part of reality,
but only when properly “married” to reality—“irreconcilable differences”
between philosophy and reality
don’t make for a productive marriage. The YEC interpretations of the facts
which have been presented to
date have—with a few exceptions—irreconcilable differences with those facts.
“What I cringe at is the dogmatism that sounds so much like some of the
OECs have it all figured out and
can't possibly be wrong. I get the uneasy picture of those who have set
themselves next to God and know
reality like no one else does, as if God through nature has so completely
explained all the facts that now
there cannot be any question or doubt. Now, brother, I think you are a
reasonable man. Is it possible, just
possible, that there are ‘facts’ undetectable to modern science, things
too wonderful for us to know, that
would swing this issue?”
If at any point in this discussion I have seemed to imply that I had it
all figured out, I apologize sincerely.
That has not been my intent. It is certainly possible that new facts will
come to light, and when my
“provisional” OEC philosophy encounters those facts the facts will smash
my OEC philosophy to bits, and I
will happily adopt a YEC philosophy. That, by the way, is what Hill Roberts
says in his online book on this
subject. But you said the key word: “facts.”
“ … I still have not received, in the many posts, answers to the questions
of the miraculous. Why do I get
the uneasy feeling that such a discussion (miraculous affecting nature)
is to be shunned among OECs? …
But again, we are believers in the God of Scripture. This is a God who
miraculously created. Why is it
incredible to you that He could create a mature universe, ready for life
(and all the ‘unavoidable’ matters
that go with it)?”
If at any point in this discussion I have seemed to shun a discussion of
the miraculous, I apologize
sincerely. I do not doubt that God could have created a mature universe,
ready for life. I defer the
question of the “unavoidable” to the end of this post.
“So how about it? Could God have miraculously created a mature universe,
with all the necessary and
unavoidable corollary matters? If you want answers, please answer me these
things also.”
I answer—LOOK AT THIS STATEMENT, DOY, I ANSWER—“In terms of His power,
yes, emphatically yes!”
One caution, though … God’s power is under the perfect control of His moral
will (that’s a philosophical
presupposition), so that God never does anything un-Godly. That presupposition
that God would never do
anything un-Godly goes to the heart of the “appearance of age” discussion.
“When Jesus healed the lame man instantaneously, were there any vestiges
in that man that upon
examination would reveal that he was at one time lame? Or would the miracle
be such that all those
vestiges of ‘lameness’ would be gone, so that upon examination it would
appear as though he always had
perfect health in his legs? I opt for the latter.”
I concede—LOOK AT THIS STATEMENT, DOY, I CONCEDE—that you may be right.
I don’t know, but I have
no reason to disagree. I would add that Jesus did not miraculously erase
from the mind of the lame man and
everybody who knew him the memory of his being lame; it other words, there
were other facts which could
be adduced to show that he had previously been lame, and that a miracle
had occurred. But that miracle
which He did not do is certainly not beyond the power of Jesus, either.
“What I'm getting at, and I think this is absolutely key, is that God's
miraculous power is just as ‘real’ as
any physical science we may study. If I must marry my philosophy with reality,
so must eveyone else,
including that pagan. If God is ‘real,’ and miracles are ‘real,’ then a
philosophy that does not factor that into
‘reality’ is itself groping in darkness, unwilling to wed reality. If our
study of science must be without such
factors (as God's miraculous power), then a Christian better rethink his
worldview. If by ‘real’ you mean only
that which science can discover with the five senses, then I have to question
your view of reality. …
Surely you would not suggest that miracles were not real or factual.”
If at any point in this discussion I have seemed to question the reality
of the miraculous, or to imply that
the only “reality” is what is empirically verifiable, I apologize sincerely.
“Now, tell me, good man, what arguments am I making here that you would
bless the hearts of dogmatic
YECs for ‘not’ making?”
I’m not sure I know how to answer that question. I hope it’s not a necessary
prerequisite for getting an
answer from you on the following questions, so that this philosophical
discussion can continue (even as I
gasp for air in this rarified atmosphere).
1. Is any and all appearance of age in a created object by definition “unavoidable.”
(HINT: If you answer
“yes,” your definition of “unavoidable appearance of age” is a tautology.)
2. If not, what is the difference (in principle or by example) between
an “avoidable” and an “unavoidable”
appearance of age?
3. If God created an artifact with “avoidable” appearance of age, would that act of creation be deceptive?
Thanks for your good humor and kindred spirit.
Your brother,
Tom
Tom Couchman
Global user
(3/1/00 5:58:23 pm)
Reply
apologies to Allan
I want to apologize to Allan and to others who read my initial post for
stating in that format that he was in
error and for raising a question about his motives in re-opening this thread.
I have sent a private
communication to Allan which also contains this apology. The way that I
dealt with this issue was not
correct.
Your brother,
Tom
dmathews
Global user
(3/1/00 10:30:47 pm)
Reply
Well Said
<p>Tom,
<p>I commend your apology.
<p>Thanks,
<pavid Mathews
allanita
Administrator
(3/2/00 12:18:17 am)
Reply
Reply to David Mathews
David,
If all the evidence you are alluding to involves "events since the origin
of the ground and the sky," how do
you tell the difference between the ground and sky resulting from creation
ex nihilo and that which you're
alluding to?
As Gentry's work exists in the scientific literature, you are, like anyone
else, free to examine and, if you
can, falsify his findings. If Gentry is right, he may have discovered the
beginning of a test to demonstrate
the difference between the supernaturally created rocks and those which
are the results of natural
processes. Of course, I think you've already got your mind made up that
there aren't any supernaturally
created rocks. Am I right?
I find it interesting that you challenge me to make the scientific arguments
defending Gentry's findings, and
then reprove me for failing to engage in a metaphysical discussion, claiming
that my "constant references
to scientific evidence and scientific arguments are hindering [me] from
achieving that goal." I don't think
I'm the one hindering this discussion. In fact, I've just about concluded
that you wouldn't know a
metaphysical argument if you saw, read, or heard one. I think that part
of your problem is that you just
can't, or won't, understand that the clear-cut dichotomy you make between
science and philosophy exists
no place except the books designed as propaganda for Scientism and your
own mind (and, please, don't go
into another spiel about what I can, and cannot, possibly know about what,
or how, you're thinking, et
cetera, et cetera).
You say you are sympathetic to my appeal to Scripture for support of a
6,000 to 10,000 year old Earth, but
then immediately throw me to the wolves for not having any "empirical evidence"
that supports my position.
You say this like no evidence has been presented, which is not true. In
truth, none has been presented
that you haven't rejected. However, it is just here that one can see the
chips in your metaphysical armor.
Just as you think science and philosophy are two different disciplines,
you also think religion and science
are also two distinct, impenetrable disciplines with no doors in between.
Here, David, and I hope you can
understand this, is where I think you fail. Whether you are a scientist
or not, you think of yourself as one,
and in doing so, you have bought into the lie that there are no doors between
religion and science.
Consequently, you, unlike Tom Couchman, who has described himself as a
reluctant OECer, feel perfectly
comfortable ruling out the "God factor." Unlike religionists, who you think
deal in metaphysical assumptions
and faith, you, as a scientist, think of yourself as dealing only with
"empirical evidence." This, David, is
perceptual blindness, and the fact that you can't see this makes you the
living, breathing personification of
that only-the-facts, I-only-go-by-what-I-see fellow I mentioned in my first
post.
Further, it sounds to me like you're pontificating again, when you write:
I must disagree with your reference to a "Biblical-based philosophy" as
there does not exist any
Biblically based philosophy. Philosophy and Theology are two separate disciplines.
Western
philosophy (both religious and secular) is derived directly and indirectly
from Greece, not Israel.
David, a lot has happened in the last 2,000 years, and I suggest you get
yourself up to speed, brother.
"Christianity" has had a tremendous impact on Western philosophy. So, unlike
you seem to think, philosophy
didn't just transport itself here right out of Greek culture. No knowledgable
person would argue that
Western philosophy doesn't have a Greek taproot, but there has been quite
a bit of grafting going on since
then, and a few more branches have appeared on the vine that were not there
at the beginning, and most
people would agree that at least one of these can be described as biblical-based
philosophy. David, your
perceptual blindness is showing once again.
Okay, so you don't believe that "true science and true religion are mutually
beneficial and function,
ultimately, to glorify God." That's interesting! And yes, it is true that
too often "true science" and "true
religion" have been co-opted, and in such form serve only the machinations
of the devious and ungodly, but
does this mean there are no such things?
You ask, "What physics are you making reference to?," as if you didn't
already know. Come on, David, quit
playing these silly games of yours. I'm talking modern physics, which is
still principally Newtonian.
Further, I'm not buying your compartmentalized worldview, and I do not
think it serves you well. It puts you
in the ballpark, but leaves you without any rules or equipment to effectively
play the game. You can
continue to complain that you, and a few others, are the only ones who
know how to really play the game,
but I'm sure that most who read here will think you're way off base.
Finally, and I think very tellingly, you argue:
I do not believe that the Scriptures, taken at face value, contain any
claim regarding the Age
of the Earth and the Universe. In support of that opinion I need only draw
your attention to the
ambiguity of the Biblical chronology and the lack of any certain age for
the Universe derived
from the Scriptures. Where no claim exist, no contradiction exist [sic].
For that reason, the
empirical evidence of the Universe's age does not directly contradict any
Biblical teaching. In
any case where an apparent contradiction may exist, Christians may reasonably
doubt their
interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures.
David, it is clear from the above statement that you are using the ploy
of equivocation in connection with
the age of the Earth, and I mentioned this technique in one of my previous
posts. No one, YEC or OEC, is
arguing a "certain age" (i.e., a specific date) for the Universe. However,
the fact that the Bible does not
give a specific year, month, day, hour for the Creation does not mean,
when "taken at face value," that
the Bible makes "no claim" for the age of the Earth, and the very fact
that you believe the Bible makes no
such claim serves to demonstrate why I think you actually try to make empirical
science the 67th book of
the Bible. In conclusion, I'm also interested in hearing more about what
you mean by the "ambiguity of the
Biblical chronology."
Patiently,
Allan
re:thinking
dmathews
Global user
(3/2/00 8:04:30 am)
Reply
Metaphysical Discussion of the Age of the Earth
Allan,
There are no supernaturally created rocks present on the Earth's surface.
The rocks of the Earth's surface
display every evidence necessary to demonstrate natural origin and modification.
There are no
supernaturally created continents: The continents display every evidence
of a history of growth and
development which involves the origin, modification, erosion, transportation,
deposition, and lithification of
rocks over a time span of billions of years.
Science and Philosophy are two separate and distinct disciplines.
When you say, "In fact, I've just about concluded that you wouldn't know
a metaphysical argument if you
saw, read, or heard one." I do not have the least idea what you are talking
about. Since you originated the
present discussion it is your duty to present a Metaphysical proposition
for dispute. You have not done so.
Science and Religion are two separate and distinct disciplines.
There exist no such thing as a Biblically-Based Philosophy.
I do not know of any such thing as True Science and True Religion. "True
Science" is, and always has been,
an imaginary concept. Since "True Science" does not exist, it cannot function
in any mutually beneficial
way with True Religion. About "True Religion" ... (well, that is another
conversation altogether).
Allan, what physics are you talking about? You answer, "Modern Physics."
Well that is a terribly vague
statement. You also say that "Modern Physics" is "still principally Newtonian."
Well that is altogether
incorrect.
The "compartmentalized worldview" which you complain about is a necessary
component of a philosophical
discussion.
When I said that the Bible does not give any certain age for the Universe,
I was not speaking about "a
specific year, month, day, hour." My comment was an observation regarding
the extraordinary ambiguity of
the Young Earth position as it is displayed by its proponents. It is this
extraordinary ambiguity which
prevents Young Earth advocates from presenting or accepting any proposition
regarding the Universe's age.
Supposing that you are a proponent of the Young Earth position, I only
ask that you present an age for the
Universe consistent with the Scriptures and accurate to within 100,000
years. For example, you can defend
the proposition: "The Earth is at most 100,000 years old."
I do not ask that you provide an age for the Universe which is accurate
to within year, month, date and
hour. I am requesting that you provide an age for the Universe which is
accurate to within 100,000 years.
The Biblical chronology is ambiguous. For example, in 2 Chronicles 13:1:
"In the eighteenth year of King
Jeroboam..." and other examples throughout the Old Testament. When was
the eighteenth year of King
Jeroboam? We cannot know with much certainty exactly what year that was.
This contrast greatly with
the modern emphasis upon having exact, universal and consistent means of
dating the occurrence of an
event. For example, this post was written on "March 2, 2000." Modern chronology
is specific, ancient
chronologies were ambiguous.
Thanks,
David Mathews
dmathews
Global user
(3/2/00 8:13:18 am)
Reply
Metaphysical Proposition for Discussion
Everyone,
In order to facilitate a Metaphysical discussion, I present these prositions for dispute:
1. Every object and entity in the Universe has actual age.
2. No object or entity in the Universe has apparent age.
I encourage those wishing to have a Metaphysical discussion to challenge these propositions.
Thanks,
David Mathews
dmathews
Global user
(3/2/00 8:19:48 am)
Reply
More Metaphysical Propositions
Everyone,
Here are some more metaphysical propositions submitted for disputation:
1. Age is an accidental quality of an object or entity, not an inherent quality.
2. Accidental qualities are, by definition, not necessary.
Those wishing to have a Metaphysical discussion may challenge these propositions.
Thanks,
David Mathews
dmathews
Global user
(3/2/00 8:28:41 am)
Reply
Metaphysical Propositions
Everyone,
In order to encourage a Metaphysical discussion, I present the following propositions for dispute:
1. Necessary and unavoidable qualities of an object or entity are those
qualities which define the
identity of that object or entity, the lack thereof which would prevent
the object or entity from
possessing that identity.
2. Accidental or incidental qualities of an object or entity are those
qualities which that object or
entity may or may not possess, the lack thereof not affecting in any way
the identity of that object
or entity.
3. Necessary and unavoidable qualities define the identity of an object
or entity, while accidental
or incidental qualities distinguish objects or entities which possess the
same identity.
Those wishing to have a Metaphysical discussion may challenge these propositions.
Thanks,
David Mathews
dmathews
Global user
(3/2/00 8:32:39 am)
Reply
Metaphysical Propositions
Everybody,
More metaphysical propositions presented for discussion:
1. Modification of objects and entities, as well as interactions between
objects and entities, are
always actual, never apparent.
2. Any system that displays evidence of modification and interaction possesses actual age.
I encourage those who wish to dispute these propositions to do so.
Thanks,
David Mathews
dmathews
Global user
(3/2/00 8:42:05 am)
Reply
Metaphysical Propositions, continued
Everyone,
Here is another Metaphysical proposition submitted for dispute:
1. Supposing apparent age existed, an object or entity ten minutes old
could display apparent age
just as an object or entity a billion years old.
2. Supposing actual age existed, an object or entity ten minutes old could
display actual age just
as an object or entity a billion years old.
Those wishing to dispute these propositions may do so.
Thanks,
David Mathews
Tom Couchman
Global user
(3/2/00 9:30:45 am)
Reply
Re: Age of the Earth, Part One-too-many, I fear
Jim:
I thank you sincerely for your kind post, and for the spirit of brotherliness
which is so evident in it. I hope
that I will be able to give you a satisfactory response in the same spirit.
First I want to answer the specific questions you have asked.
“Tom, do you believe that God could preserve the ark from a tidal wave that was hundreds of feet high?”
I certainly do.
“Do you believe that Jesus upholds the universe, ‘all things,’ by the word
of His power? What do you think
this passage means?”
I do indeed believe that Jesus upholds the universe by the word of His
power. I think this text means that
the continual existence of the universe is dependent on the constant exercise
of the upholding power of
the divine word. Incidentally, Mortimer Adler’s book How To Think About
God arrives at this conclusion from
the point of view of a pagan philosopher (which is what Adler was when
he wrote the book). Adler’s
argument for the existence of God is one which I would recommend to anyone
who is interested in such
things. I don’t know that any plausible attempt to refute it has been made,
but David might, since he is the
resident OEC metaphysician in this space.
“What model can the scientific community use to test God creating a mature
earth, the earth that has an
appearance of great age, which He created to sustain life (which I think
is implied in Genesis)?”
I can’t think of any way for the scientific community alone to create and
test such a model. If the
scientific community is willing to concede the possibility that a Creator
initiated and sustains the existence
of the universe, and if the scientific community is willing to use the
Bible to understand the character of
that Creator, then a model may be constructed. In fact, it is the nature
of that model which is the issue
YECs and OECs have been arguing in this space for months (more near the
end of this post).
“Tom, do you believe that God could have completed creation within a 144-hour period (six literal days)?
I certainly do.
“I believe He could have created everything within a nanosecond, if He
desired to do so. Science says, ‘No
possible way!” But, Tom, what do you say?”
I agree that God’s power is sufficient to create everything in a nanosecond.
Science has no ability and no
right to say “No possible way” on this or any other aspect of miracle.
Now let me explain why it is the Bible which defeats Baumgardner’s hypothesis.
(I realize you were not
defending Baumgardner with your questions, but I am going to use his hypothesis
as an exemplar.)
God could have saved Noah and his family and a handful of animals in any
of a number of ways: with a
spaceship, with a force-field, by doing “something else” which the scripture
does not describe to us;
Genesis could simply have said, “God preserved Noah, his family, and two
of every kind of animal from the
Flood.” For that matter, there is no reason God needed a flood to destroy
every other human being. He
could have afflicted them all with a disease, or simply struck them dead,
Ananias-and-Sapphira-style. Do
we have any right to say that God might not have done any of these things?
We don’t; but the Holy Spirit does. Through the inspired word the Holy
Spirit tells us what God did, and
what God commanded Noah to do. And it is interesting how specific He was
in His instructions to Noah.
Since God could do it, He simply created for Noah the means of salvation,
right? Oh, wait! God gave Noah
the job of building the ark. Since God could save Noah, it probably didn’t
matter how the ark was built, did
it? Oh, wait! God gave Noah specific dimensions for the ark, dimensions
which shipbuilders in the last two
centuries have come to realize are optimum for nautical stability. Since
God could save Noah, it probably
didn’t matter whether the ark was watertight, did it? Oh, wait! God told
Noah to pitch the ark inside and
outside. Since God could save the animals any of a number of ways, it probably
didn’t matter whether the
ark was actually big enough to hold them, did it; God could have made the
animals hover around the ark,
right? Oh, wait! God had Noah build an ark with two and one-quarter acres
of floor space, enough for
thousands of animals. But it probably didn’t matter which animals got into
the ark, did it, since God could
just have miraculously saved the ones Noah overlooked? Oh, wait! God told
Noah specifically what kinds of
animals to take, and evidently sent the animals to Noah to be put into
the ark. But since God could save
the animals any way He wanted, it probably didn’t matter whether there
was any food on board, did it? Oh,
wait! God told Noah specifically to take on board the ark every kind of
food which had to be eaten. If God
intended to save Noah and the animals miraculously, He sure went into a
lot of detail to make sure that
Noah took care of things, didn’t He? In fact, every indication from scripture
is that God’s contributions to
the salvation of Noah and his menagerie were entirely providential (except
perhaps for bringing the animals
to Noah). It was Noah’s job—by building the ark, putting the animals and
his family on board, feeding all the
living forms for a year and even making sure there was dry land abroad
before leaving—to save his family
and his faunal charges!
John Woodmorappe has recently published a book of several hundred pages
entitled Noah’s Ark: A
Feasibility Study which addresses all these issues from the perspective
of the believability and reliability of
the Bible account. Woodmorappe spent several years researching and compiling
this book to show why God
didn’t have to do any miracles at all: Noah just had to follow God’s instructions.
Most publishing YECs, in
fact, go to great lengths to argue how “believable” it is that Noah’s preparations,
apart from miraculous
intervention, would have accomplished their purpose. Why be concerned about
such things when God was
right there, ready and able to save the day? Because what strikes them
about the story of the Flood is
what strikes everybody who reads it: how intensely practical and evidently
important Noah’s work was.
Jim, do you believe that if Noah had used a dimension of 20:1 instead of
6:1 for the length to the breadth
of the ark, the ark would still have been seaworthy? Do you believe that
if Noah had not put a roof on the
ark the inside would have been dry? Do you believe that if Noah had not
taken food into the ark the animals
would have thrived? Do you believe that if Noah had neglected the pitch
the ark would have floated? If you
answered “no” to these questions, does that mean you lack faith in the
power of God?
Now, can’t you see that if Baumgardner is correct building an ark meant
absolutely nothing? It didn’t matter
what the length vs. breadth dimensions were, didn’t matter what material
was used, didn’t matter whether
there was pitch inside or outside or neither, didn’t matter if there was
food on board or whether there were
two of every kind of animal; none of that mattered, because the ark and
its cargo would have been boiled,
swamped and smashed to bits without the continuous miraculous intervention
of God. If the waves were
hundreds of feet high the ark would have accomplished exactly nothing.
If the ocean were continuously
boiling God would have had to transport these people into outer space!
Is that what you get out of reading
the Flood account: that all the preparations Noah made were for nothing?
Did God sometimes tell people to
do something to demonstrate their faith, so that He could do the work and
they would understand that the
saving power was His? Certainly, but what God commanded in those cases—like
marching around Jericho or
being baptized—had nothing at all to do with obtaining the intended result:
the result was a sheer gift from
God. In this case, Noah’s taking care of all the details connected with
the ark, its zoo and its keepers
are—as far as we can tell from the Bible—the reason the whole endeavor
succeeded. God supplied
providential, not miraculous, help.
And that, my brother, is why Baumgardner is wrong. Not because “atheistic
science” says so, and not
because I just don’t have enough faith in God. He’s wrong because the Bible
says he’s wrong! And that is
why any alleged explanation for what happened during the Flood-era which
starts as “scientific” and winds
up accusing those who object to lacking faith in God is—in David Mathews’
inimitable phrase, “dead in the
water.”
There’s a larger point here that I’d like to make, which goes beyond the
question you ask, and I beg your
indulgence to make it briefly. YECs have, since the publication of The
Genesis Flood in 1961, become
addicted to supposing all sorts of fanciful changes in cosmic constants,
geo-topography and weather
associated with the Flood-era. If any such speculation is supported by
sound scientific observation, all is
well; otherwise it is very dangerous, because it causes one to put his
faith in something the Bible does not
teach. The Genesis account does not say that there was a water vapor canopy
which collapsed to cause
the rain, or that Pangea separated into the continents during the Flood-year,
or that the speed of light
slowed by a factor of eleven million, or that radioactive decay slowed
to a millionth of what it used to be.
Genesis says that God caused a flood, and that the Flood wiped every human
being except the eight
people in the ark off the face of the earth. That I believe. The other
stuff I will consider, but I don’t have
to believe it, and you shouldn’t feel that you have to believe it either.
The Bible doesn’t teach it.
If Baumgardner (or any of the others) can support his speculation scientifically,
and if Flood-sediments can
be identified and Baumgardner’s theory connected temporally with them so
that the geological and/or
anthropological records indicate that “runaway subduction” actually took
place at the time of the Flood,
then you can put me on that bandwagon. But it ain’t happened. There is
in fact nearly zero scientific
support for Baumgardner’s hypothesis.
But look at the “bait-and-switch” that’s being practiced here. Baumgardner
weighs in with what he claims is
a scientific theory that will allow YECs to believe the earth is very young.
Okay, he might be right; let’s
check the science. When the science is checked the theory completely fails.
“Science” is the bait, but now
the switch: “If you don’t accept Baumgardner’s theory, you don’t have faith
in the power of God.” I know
that’s not what YOU were saying, but it is the message you’ll get if you
read some of the leading YEC
“contenders” (none of the people posting to this board falls into this
category, and certainly not the
administrator of this board). Where does the Bible say I have to believe
in runaway subduction? Nowhere!
In fact, as I have shown, the Bible says “No possible way.” So how is it
that when I reject this theory it is
implied that I just don’t have enough faith in the power of God?
One last point: the “God factor.” God’s power is not the only component
of the “God factor”; His perfect
holiness is the other component. Since God is the standard by which holiness
is measured, saying that God
is perfectly holy can only mean that God always acts in a Godly way. Is
it within the scope of God’s power
for Him to create a universe which appears to be ten billion years old
but is in fact only ten thousand years
old? I do not doubt that it is. Is it consistent with God’s holiness for
Him to do so? I would not immediately
say that it is not, but here is where we have to attempt to marry our presupposition—that
all of the
presumably false evidence of great age is in fact unavoidable and therefore
not deceptive—with the facts,
to see if there is avoidable appearance of age, and therefore has been
actual deception. And that
requirement is why I have said that we cannot make a judgment about “appearance
of age” until the YECs
are willing to answer questions about specific phenomena. Talking in the
abstract about this subject
accomplishes nothing.
I thank you again for your post and for your kind indulgence in considering these thoughts.
Your brother,
Tom
Tom Couchman
Global user
(3/2/00 9:51:40 am)
Reply
Re: Metaphysical Propositions, continued
David:
Thanks for your efforts to move this discussion into more productive territory.
Have you noticed, my
brother, that while the purpose of this thread is supposedly to talk about
philosophy, what has actually
happened is that others are talking about talking about philosophy. It
reminds me of my eleven-year-old
son: he claims to be very fond of green beans, but when they are put on
his plate he never eats them.
Very few actual philosophical issues have been addressed (Doy has been
willing to confront a legitimate
issue--unavoidable vs. avoidable appearance of age, but he is the exception).
So now we have your
propositions on the table, plus the three questions I have asked twice
in my posts. We shall see what
appetite others actually have for metaphysics.
Your brother,
Tom
Tom Couchman
Global user
(3/2/00 10:59:17 am)
Reply
Re: A reply for Tom
Allan:
Concerning:
1. THE SUN AND THE EARTH, FROM THE SCRIPTURE
Your statement was
“We are discussing an Old Earth or Young Earth interpretation of the Bible,
particularly as it relates to
Genesis 1. YECs believe the Bible teaches, beginning in Genesis 1, that
the earth is relatively young.”
My question is:
From reading the Bible texts in Joshua chapter 10 and certain of the Psalms,
what would you conclude the
Bible teaches or implies about geo- or helio-centrism?
2. WE CAN’T DISCUSS METAPHYSICS WITHOUT SOME EXAMPLES
Your statement was
“However, your statement [i.e., Couchman’s statement] that metaphysics
can’t enter the picture until
after YECs explain how the principle of ‘apparent age’ is to [be] applied
to specific phenomena is absurd.”
No, Allan, it’s not absurd. What you are doing is avoiding the issue. You
and I and Doy and maybe David
agree that created objects will have false indications of apparent age.
My question, which I have been
trying without success to get you to address, is this: “Which specific
appearances of age in the natural
world do you assert are unavoidable, and therefore not deceptive?” If you
don’t feel like answering that
question, then it’s time to close this thread.
3. MIRACLE AND MAGIC
The Bible tells us what miracles we are obliged to believe—such as a Flood
that was miraculously caused.
Magic is the technique to which too many YECs have resorted when the Bible
doesn’t give them a miracle
and science doesn’t give them a natural effect.
4. “THE FLOOD DID THIS … SOMEHOW”
Why isn’t it enough to say, “The Flood did this … somehow?” Because unless
the effects of the Flood are
natural, you can’t have “Flood geology.” The Flood was supernaturally caused,
but it has to have natural
effects; otherwise, anyone who is skeptical can argue, “The Flood miraculously
covered its tracks.” All
“Flood geology” advocates understand and admit this point. That is why
they start with allegedly scientific
explanations—nothing wrong with that. My problem with them is what they
do when it is pointed out that
floods don’t do what they claim the Flood did. Then we get the “the Flood
did this … somehow” plea. And
after that we get the, “If you don’t believe the Flood did this somehow,
you don’t have faith in God” plea.
These are illegitimate forensic tactics.
5. GOD FACTOR
The power of God is not the only issue in what God “could” have done. His
holiness also has to be taken
into account. We all agree that God created the earth, and that all natural
phenomena are ultimately the
result of God’s work. The question is whether a specific phenomenon we
now see is the (more or less)
direct result of a miraculous creative act by God, or whether it is the
result of long periods of time during
which there were both catastrophes (natural and supernatural) and stretches
of regular boring weather and
geology. We can’t answer that question unless and until you guys tell us
which apparent features of age
you consider unavoidable. Then we can discuss whether the holiness of God
is consistent with that
explanation.
6. BE PATIENT, MY BROTHER
Every morning, Allan, I pray for patience, and I want it RIGHT NOW! But
you are teaching me patience, my
brother, and I thank you.
7. DEFEND MY UNIFORMITARIANISM
Allan, I can’t think of a more boring addition to this post than an apologia
by Tom Couchman, defending his
personal brand of uniformitarianism. I hope you don’t really mean that.
But if you really want to see such an
essay (been having trouble sleeping lately?), repeat the request and I’ll
try to respond.
Your brother,
Tom
Doy Moyer
Global user
(3/2/00 10:59:28 am)
Reply
LOOK AT THIS POST, TOM, LOOK!
Tom,
If I didn't know better, I'd think there was a little bit of a patronizing
tone to that last post; but since I
know better, I won't even bring it up. I will say that I can read, so there
was no need to yell my name
(ha). As to stooping to answer your questions, maybe my philosophical logic
was so overwhelming that you
didn't notice that for the last two posts I've attempted to answer those
questions (hint: laugh here). I do
appreciate your admittance to certain "facts" of reality, even if those
facts have to do with metaphysical
reality. I won't rehash all of that, but do want to comment on one of your
answers.
You said, "I admit—LOOK AT THIS STATEMENT, DOY, I ADMIT!—that one’s philosophical
worldview is a part
of reality, but only when properly “married” to reality"
Actually, one's philosophical worldview is a part of reality no matter
what, married to physical reality or not.
In other words, a person has presuppositions, whether they are correct
or incorrect, and those
presupposition affect that person's view of "other" reality. I think you
agree with this, but it just seemed
worthy of clarification.
Ok, now to your questions again. Maybe my problem was that I didn't quote
them before commenting on
them. So here goes ... again.
1. Is any and all appearance of age in a created object by definition “unavoidable.”
(HINT: If you answer
“yes,” your definition of “unavoidable appearance of age” is a tautology.)
I don't know -- LOOK AT THIS STATEMENT, TOM, I DON'T KNOW. And the reason
I don't know is that I'm
not the Creator. This is the third post I will mention the "vestigial organ"
point to say that there may be
created things that are "unavoidable" from God's creative standpoint that
we don't understand (i.e., a
reason why God did it that way, a purpose these things serve not readily
available to our immediate
observations). To us, we may think we have it figured out, but I haven't,
Tom. Have you? Question:
exactly how do you tell the difference between something miraculously created
and something that has
"naturally" (over eons of time) developed to its present stage?
2. If not, what is the difference (in principle or by example) between
an “avoidable” and an “unavoidable”
appearance of age?
That would hinge, of course, on my absolute knowledge of question 1. However,
I cited Ross in my last two
posts in which he argued for "necessary" things in the universe (i.e.,
they must be a certain age in order
for life to exist). If these are truly necessary, then they would seem
unavoidable (contrary to Matthews
assertions). If God could create a fully mature universe ready for life,
would it not include the necessary
components? So, in practical terms, there would appear to be no difference
between "avoidable" and
"unavoidable" appearance. It would just be what it is, created for a purpose
by God.
3. If God created an artifact with “avoidable” appearance of age, would that act of creation be deceptive?
You must assume that such an artifact (as a galaxy?) is "avoidable" in
terms of its age appearance. And
that is an assumption (how exactly would you prove that something is "avoidable"?).
Maybe it's true,
maybe not, but I will argue that it is something that only a Creator could
ultimately know, for there may be
unattainable facts, from our perspective, that would handicap our conclusions
(talk about philosophical!).
As to deception, I've mentioned many times that there would be no deception
if God told us what He did.
And that gets us back to the interpretation of Genesis, does it not?
I think that we are closer now than we have been. You stated, "I do not
doubt that God could have
created a mature universe, ready for life." This is exactly what I think
must be factored into the discussion.
And if it is factored in, then I think it a necessary corollary to admit
that such a factor can indeed change
the outcome of our conclusions.
brotherly,
Doy
allanita
Administrator
(3/3/00 11:33:39 am)
Reply
Re: Metaphysical Proposition for Discussion
David,
Your eleven propositions could have easily been presented in one post.
I realize you did it for effect, but it
came dangerously close to "spamming." I'm asking you not to do that again.
As you have spent a lot of your time arguing against uniformitarian assumptions,
am I now to understand
that you are willing to admit that metaphysical assumptions may impinge
your uniformitarianism? If so,
we've made some progress. If not, I'm really not interested in playing
some silly little game. So, I'll ask the
question again: Are you now making an admission to uniformitarian assumptions?
Allan
re:thinking
Edited by allanita at: 3/3/00 11:33:39 am
Doy Moyer
Global user
(3/2/00 3:20:54 pm)
Reply
Avoidable and Unavoidable
Matthews states his propositions in such a way that all it would take is one word to refute them: Adam.
For instance:
1. Every object and entity in the Universe has actual age.
Question: was this true of Adam? No sense in arguing "avoidable" vs. "unavoidable"
here. The proposition
says "every object..." Will Matthews argue that Adam was not created a
fully grown, mature man? Not
even that is enough. He'd have to start in someone's womb, otherwise, according
to what I keep hearing,
God would be guilty of deception for creating something ex nihilo without
letting it go through all its natural
maturity processes.
2. No object or entity in the Universe has apparent age.
Question: was this true of Adam? Put a scientist on the earth one week
after Adam was created. Would he
find "real" or "apparent" age? If "apparent," was God deceiving us? No
sense arguing "unavoidable"
appearance; the proposition says "no object..."
But now what is the point of all of this? Matthews has already said he
doesn't believe God has had anything
to do with the maturity of the earth; He only got the ball rolling. So
these propositions are red herrings.
The real issue comes back to God Himself. Matthews' presupposition is that
God could have nothing to do
with the age of the earth in terms of its maturity level and process. I
believe God could have created ex
nihilo, a fully mature universe ready for life. It seems to me that this
is the deeper issue. And yes, it IS a
metaphysical issue -- just as the proposition "God created" is a metaphysical
one; nevertheless is conforms
to "reality."
Tom is right in saying that we must not only consider the power of God,
but also His holiness (which would
prevent Him from being deceptive). But let me ask this: why is it so incredible
to interpret Genesis in such a
way as to understand it to say that God created the heavens and the earth
in six days, fully functioning
and primed for life? And if this interpretion has any validity, how can
we argue that God is deceiving us,
when He told us what He did?
Now it seems two options have been placed before us:
1. Take God out of the picture in the study of science, so that we MUST
accept the old earth view
according to purely naturalistic and modern interpretations, with "nature"
being the only consideration, or:
2. Leave God in the picture (as it seems Christians would WANT to do) and
grant the possibility (at least!)
that God miraculously created the universe "in place," as it were, ready
for life.
I must conscientiously opt for the second. In other words, either we start
with God or we don't. If we
don't, what in the world are we doing here? And frankly, I think this is
where the issue really lies.
brotherly,
Doy
allanita
Administrator
(3/2/00 4:56:29 pm)
Reply
Re: Avoidable and Unavoidable
Doy,
Amen!...opps!...I mean, good job, brother!...opps!...I mean, way to go, man!
So, gentlemen, what's it going to be?
Allan
re:thinking
allanita
Administrator
(3/3/00 2:28:15 am)
Reply
Re: A reply for Tom
&n