Tjalle, we are getting a lot of snow here, already more so far than we normally get all winter. Beautiful, but roads are tough to get thru sometimes. Your question about mountain formation relative to the Tigris is a good one. There apparently were small mountains before the flood, while the larger ones formed at the time of the flood, but I will have to research that issue further.
Water ends up under rock all the time, regardless of bulk densities, so I don't think that is a big deal. Porosity and volume are some of the details, but in principle it would seem to be possible. As far as how the water got there in the first place, of course scripture says that there was water under the earth, and God created it. It becomes circular or never ending to ask how something got there in the first place, because in our human limited understanding, it would always have to come from somewhere, regardless of where it came from, so the question would never end.
Yes plates would have to subduct. Creation Ministries has a different theory that the subduction we now see is simply the tail end of a very rapid subduction at the time of the flood. Are you saying that Brown denies subduction, or simply doesn't consider it? I would think he is well aware of subduction. I think he also indicates that the crust stretched upward, and some of it disappeared or exploded upwards.
I believe Walt Brown talks about superheated water which is well above the normal boiling point temperature, under pressure, and considerably warmer than the 25C per km you mention. In fact he suggests the water temp was too high to boil, since it was supercritical.
It may be true that rock bending slowly enough can bend without fracturing, but that thought goes against common observation. Or perhaps some rocks and not others. Much rock fractures even without bending, simply due to contraction and expansion. In any case, whether it fractures when it moves depends on what surface it is moving on, and whether it can move all at once. If this surface has moderate resistance on a level surface, and if the friction causes a melting of rock then presumably the layer could move without significant fracturing. The bending of present sedimentary rock layers in the mountains is also thought to have happened when the layers were yet soft enough not to fracture significantly, either from heat or from lack of hardening.
The story of Babel does not seem to exactly fit into a chronology in scripture as far as I can see, but regardless, the population growth could be the same whether the tower happened later or earlier. Noah and his descendants lived long and could have had many children, causing a quick and great increase in population. From four couples, there could easily have been millions of people in two hundred years, especially if they were still having children when two hundred years old (and consider how long they lived). Some rough calculations show an exponential possibility of 1.2 million people after only 80 yrs. Perhaps not likely by our standards, but we know they began having children at 35 years old or younger and didn't even Abraham live to 175 years?
And the same people or technology that built the ark may have found a way to build pyramids, don't you think?
Interesting that statement, "we'll have to agree to disagree". Do I have to agree with that? Couldn't I also disagree on that one, hoping that we might some day agree on a few more things?
And I also hope you have a fruitful and enlightening 2014. God bless.
Tjalle, would the apostle's creed be an acid test? Yes, for ecumenism perhaps. But perhaps not sufficient for our promise to uphold the confessions, right? So while we have a type of variety and divergence within the denomination, we also have promised a basic confessional perspective, which includes the Heidelberg. Everyone who professed their faith and became a member, agreed to that, right? The Heidleberg:
Q & A 5 Q. Can you live up to all this perfectly? A. No.1 I have a natural tendency to hate God and my neighbor.2
Q & A 6: Q. Did God create people so wicked and perverse? A. No. God created them good1 and in his own image,2 that is, in true righteousness and holiness,3 so that they might truly know God their creator,4 love him with all their heart, and live with God in eternal happiness, to praise and glorify him.5
Q & A 7: Q. Then where does this corrupt human nature come from? A. The fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise.1 This fall has so poisoned our nature2 that we are all conceived and born in a sinful condition.3
Q 9. But doesn’t God do us an injustice by requiring in his law what we are unable to do?
A. No, God created human beings with the ability to keep the law.1They, however, provoked by the devil,
in willful disobedience,3 robbed themselves and all their descendants of these gifts.Are not some things in evolutionary theory outside of the boundaries of the confession of promise?
I don't think the human sinful nature is a biological inheritance. It is a spiritual inheritance. But it is sure isn't it, that we do not see any perfect people without sin. This apparently is not part of the natural variability of the human race.
As far as scientists fudging evidence, well they are not perfect either, and there is clear evidence of scientists fudging things from time to time, while we assume most do not. However, in this case we are not talking about fudging evidence so much as interpreting evidence. A big difference. The bias of the interpretation looms huge. Did you know that the same codons in DNA codes for at least two different processes simultaneously, as if it could be read in two different programs at the same time? Fascinating, and some would say more clear evidence of an intelligent creator, rather than mere random mutations coupled with selection. Both evolutionists and creationists see the same evidence, but the creationist says this could not have happened by the proposed evolutionary mechanisms. It is too improbable, too absurdly unlikely. The evolutionist says it doesn't matter how extremely unlikely, it must have happened this way. So who is being more scientific in this case?
Tjalle, thanks for your response. I suppose we are all prejudiced on this topic to some extent, aren't we? I would suggest the primary issue is not age of the earth, but rather whether evolution is possible or actually happened. However, there are some problems with polystrate fossils, inability to date new volcanic rock with ancient methods, lack of serious erosion between supposedly ancient layers, and that absence of fossils does not mean absence of animals.
I understand that there are many stories of ancient land bridge or ice bridge (most likely ice) between the continents, and people crossing. Interesting also that orientals and native americans are so similar in appearance. You wonder how long it would take for populations to differentiate and homogenize; I would suggest it would not take long, given the right circumstances. In the end, as Joy said, they are still all people. We are beginning to see many examples of people today who cannot be placed into a particular so-called "race" or ethnicity.
I have recently read a book by JC Sanford, PhD in genetic biology, who writes about the unlikelihood an impossibility of upward evolution. The sheer number of deleterious mutations, and the impossibility of "natural selection" to select for beneficial mutations at a genome or organism level, is explained in great detail. The book is called, "Genetic Entropy, and the Mystery of the Genome". It is highly technical, but understandable with a bit of background understanding of DNA.
How do we talk about these things as Christians? Is it justifiable for evolutionists to ignore the problems with evolution just because YEC do not have an immediate answer for kangaroos in Australia? Is it justifiable for YEC to ignore the concerns of evolutionary nuclear scientists because evolutionists ignore the problems with genetics or polystrate fossils, or lack of intermediate and transitional fossils? We seem to be able to agree on the technology of computers, nuclear power, space ships. On history of sociology, impact of faith, and geological and athropological history there is less agreement. On God himself, and on scripture, there is less agreement. What do we use as a basis for commonality on this?
I wonder if your comment on "bishop Usher has had his day" is one reason why discussions like this are difficult. While I agreed that age of the earth is not the primary issue, that doesn't mean it isn't important. It neither means that I agree or disagree with YEC on that point.
Not to put too fine a point on it about K-Ar method, but measuring a grain of rice with a yardstick which is well marked, still ought to give a reasonable size, even while it might lack precision. We would not expect a yardstick to indicate a grain of rice is four inches in size. An error bar of 400,000 years in a dating method is significant. Any new rock should measure less than 100,000 years old at max. A better reply would have been to counter with the abilities of the Ar40-Ar39 method.
If kangaroos started from two animals, then they could have started anywhere they could have go to presumably, and extinctions on other land areas would not have been necessary....
You are right, the term evolution for separation of people's, is misleading. There is no new species, and selection of types is merely selection, not evolution. People are still people. Selected wheat varities are still wheat, no matter how they look.
I agree the bible is not a "science" book. But that is no reason to suppose that it is not essentially accurate. The bible is not a book about the probable, but about the possible, or even about the impossible becoming possible. (Thus Lazarus raised from the dead). Evolution is also entirely improbable; some would say impossible.
The truth that God sent His son to die for us; highly improbable, yet it happened. Eternal life, highly improbable, yet God's promise for us. Did sin enter the world through man, or did God plant it into his creation? Did God create us to disobey, or did he make us obedient originally? Did God ask man to reject the way he was created? Or to return to the way he was created? Is that the choice?
Tjalle, slowing down a conversation is sometimes a very good thing, so a bit of a delay in answering a question is okay. In response to your question about the Tigris and Euphrates, yes, it is possible that they are either different or reshaped. I am aware for example that there appears to be a former river channel about five or six hundred feet underground in my area, next to the Peace River, which could have served the same function as the Peace, maybe, or maybe not, and if people had been living there, might have received the same name (although in Cree or Beaver tongue, not English). I don't think this is an issue of vast importance.
Your second point about evolution of groups: I simply think the terminology is wrong, scientifically. The people did not change into something different, no more than a cross between black labs and yellow labs might result in differentiation of offspring, which eventually could be relatively consistent strains of black, chocolate and yellow labs. It's just selection or differentiation, not evolution.
Re your statements about the tree trunks. It was quite obvious the trees did not grow exactly where they were found. It is difficult to say where they grew, other than that they definately grew in tropical non-winter environments. So while continental drift is a possible cause, it must have been associated with flooding and mass movement of tree trunks prior to some formation of ice and snow sheets, wouldnt you agree?
As far as the timeline for the flood or the pyramids are concerned, they differ from each other possibly by only a few hundred years, and there is debate on the timelines. The biblical timeline for the judges, for example, seems to indicate overlap of various judges, and apparently the same is possible for some of the egyptian monarchs. Josephus seems also to indicate that the Israelite slaves were building pyramids, most likely out of mud bricks, rather than cut stone. Some work with carbon dating seems to indicate up to a 400 year variability on some of the C14 tests on the older pyramids, and of course, dating the wood does not give an absolute on the pyramids, since the wood would of necessity be older. Depending on conditions, the pyramid could potentially be hundreds of years younger than the carbon-dated wood.
I can't say whether this format is better than the old one. It will take awhile to figure that out, since no matter the deficiencies of a system, we find ways to work around it if we are used to it, while a new system or format still holds many mysteries until we get used to it. It would be a shame if this is not better than the previous format. I miss the top ten, and listing of new posts and comments. Also, are we missing the ability to italicize or bold certain parts of the comments or posts?
Joy, the first video was fascinating. Tjalle, there are a number of explanations for how animals got to different places, partly because of movement of continents, and partly the likelihood of huge floating matts of trees and organic debris to carry them. As far as time to repopulate, 4000, 6000 years was plenty of time for repopulation. If Noah's individual descendants (each son and daughter pair) were unique to start with, ie., contained unique sets of genetics, then it would not have taken long for different group types to develop from single pairs, or even somewhat small but similar groups after the tower of Babel. Interesting how the African Americans or Indo-Chinese remain distinctive when they have lived in USA for many generations, simply because they mate with similar types. It is much easier for this to happen from small similar groups than from large variable groups. None of these issues seem like big issues to me.
It would seem much harder to explain geology, petrified trees, historic erosion, ripple effects, carbonate layers, separation of bark and tree trunks, and many other features, without an enormous global flood. Grand Canyon is used as a reference because it is huge, exposed, available. But features such as the Dover cliffs, the Rocky Mountains, Mount St. Helens, mammoths with camels in Artic ice, Iceland flooding due to glacier melted by volcano, and huge coal mines around the globe help to explain the catastrophic nature of most geological features.
Yes, sin entering the world is another topic, related but yet somewhat separate. It is related in the sense of how an OEE might explain the difference between murder, and simple survival of the fittest. It is related in how we distinguish between what is an animal instinct, and what is human disobedience to how God made us and wants us to be. Tough one.
Tjalle, I appreciate the tenor of your comments. I think you are expressing your understandings in good way. It seems that you are expressing much of the traditional understandings of sedimentation, but in a somewhat simplistic way. For example, a global catastrophic flood would exhibit some principles similar to local floods, but given that the flood lasted a year and 17 days, it had to be much more serious and catastrophic than a mere typhoon, tsunami, or rapid glacier melt (such as Iceland has had). Mt. St. Helens demonstrates the rapidity with which canyons can be carved and tree trunks deposited in soil in an upright position. While you are right that various particles separate out from water at different rates, it is difficult for us to imagine what type of particles might have been in the water, and whether they were all there at the same time. For example, some particles may have been in the water at the beginning of the flood, while others showed up a month or two later. Particles of sand would tend to settle out within hours, while silt might take hours, and clay might take days or weeks to settle. But limestone is likely the result of billions of shells settling and turning into calcium carbonate, and that would likely depend on when these snails and shell fish died. Many clam fossils give evidence that they drowned (unnatural death). The first video Joy pointed out, gives some potential clues to how these layers settled. A book by Walt Brown "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood" gives some possibilities as well, which are consistent with the evidence.
In Walt Brown's model, the movement of the continents was relatively quick, and happened at the time of the flood. The flood and continental drift were part of the same event. This does not really solve the problem of animal movement, since during most of the drift, the continents would have been inundated. This is also true for the Creation Ministries model of the flood. Some of the physics and engineering principles involved in movement, energy, and flow are described. The video that Joy highlighted, shows Walter Veith (on Amazing Discoveries program) describing the directions of water flow across the continents at different geological layers, and gives his explanation for that in relation to the elevations and uplifts of these layers at different times. He also explains how similar geochemical conditions are across a geological profile, which indicates that hundreds of feet must have been laid down within 30 days or less, and not over eons of time.
It seems that sandstone, shale and limestone found in the grand canyon must have been laid down by water, based on the characteristics and flatness of the layers. Since sediment in water tends to descend relatively rapidly, it does not give evidence of long periods of time. If long time existed, then long time would have had to exist between layers, but it is difficult to demonstrate time from an absence of something. That would primarily be a speculation. Polystrate fossils would indicate that there was not a long period of time between layers.
What about people? If we assume that all the genetics existed before the flood, so that Noah and his wife were quite different, perhaps like a Greek marrying a Kenyan native, and their sons also married varied wives, perhaps the three wives were like a Nordic type, an Asian type, and a Fulani type, then you could see the potential variation already existed. All that would be required would be for a type of segregation to occur, which would be natural when the languages were confused at Babel, since people would tend to associate with those who would be most like them. We know that human nature in groups tends to isolate or shun those who are significantly different, and this likely led to the distinction of people's more than any other cause such as environmental adaptation. Thus we have Dene, a somewhat darker skinned type in the far north in Canada, and Nordic types in the far north in Europe. Very dark natives in central Africa and Australia, and mildly dark skinned natives in South America and Asia.
Your hypothesis about original sin is interesting, but inconsistent with scripture since the command to obey came before their apparent knowledge of good and evil, not after. It seems their knowledge came about because of their disobedience, so that they knew how to disobey. Our confessions also say that even infants are part of the sinful nature, even though they do not really understand it; that would be somewhat different than what you are suggesting.
On November 29, Tjalle asked about a timeline for the flood. I recently read an article by Dr. Carl Wieland which tells of Manetho, an Egyptian historian of 270 BC. This historian has a chronology which adds centuries to the Biblical account. However, it is now realized that some of the kings he put consecutively actually reigned simultaneously. That aside, Manetho writes that after the flood, Ham the son of Noah begat Aegyptus or Mestraim, who established in the area of egypt. He wrote that the dispersion of the tribes was five years after Noah's descendant Peleg was born. This agrees with Genesis 10:25. It seems that Manetho pretty well corroborates scripture in Genesis. (CMI, Creation magazine, vol 35, no.4, 2013.)
Okay, yes, sometimes we just can't help ourselves.... that's okay. I did not miss your point about John Calvin; I just did not like it, nor did I like the implications that he would allow materialism to determine his theology. I did not see you irrefutably making that point based on evidence; that's why I asked the questions I did.
I loath lynch mobs as much as you do. But if you are going to call church discipline merely a matter of lynching mobs, then how would you suggest that this discipline occurs? What Are you suggesting here?
I do agree that there are different points of view that should be possible in various things. But obviously we don't agree with churches who think you can buy your way, or earn your way to heaven; that is the basis for the reformation. We also don't agree with those who think that water baptism gives you a ticket to heaven, or that the bread and wine turn into Jesus actual physical body in the holy communion. A pastor who taught this would not be permitted to preach in the crc, and this would be contrary to a crc profession of faith, right?
On the other hand, two services or one service, female office bearers or not female office bearers, short service or long service, hymns or chorus songs, organ or guitar, all seem to be issues that allow for variation. So where does this issue fit in to disputability? When someone says that some evolutionary mechanisms seem to be observable, and that maybe some days were longer, perhaps we can live with that difference. But when someone says that Adam and Eve did not really exist, or that God did not really create everything good (every day), or that death and sin occurred before Adam ate from the tree of knowledge of evil and good, or that Jesus was not really the second Adam, etc., then we are in a different area of difference. We are then in the same ball game as deciding whether we are eating Jesus biceps or not. We are in the same ball game as deciding whether we can earn our own way to heaven or not.
So yes, attacking one another for frivolous reasons does not serve our risen Lord well. But, remember the story of Annanias and Sapphira; they died for merely lying. Remember how apostle Paul himself confronted Peter to his face; it was for the building of Christ's church. Remember how Paul indicated that some people who followed worldly principles and desires would not enter the kingdom of heaven. And I'm sure you agree that a church that does not contend for the faith as the book of Jude encourages us to do, will eventually wither and die from complacency and ignorance. In this case, I do not think this is frivolous. It is serious, and needs to be addressed.
I have just finished watching a video about a talk by Dr. Jobe Martin, called the evolution of a creationist. It is fascinating! The evidence against evolution of specific animals and birds is amazing.
I must admit, I am amused by John Ks suggestion that one person could be judge jury and executioner in a case such as this. I think that is simply unreasonable hyperbole. In what way could one person in this case actually realistically be an executioner (even noting the word executioner is used as a metaphor)? I would suggest rather that an appropriate analogy would be "prosecutor". On the other hand, I agree that admonition is also a part of discipline, which it seems that Lubbert is attempting to administer to myself.... Is Lubbert also judge, jury and executioner then?
Then, supposing that the assumptions that an individual has advocated for doctrines that contradict the CRC confessions is upheld, and supposing that his supervising church does not administer discipline of any kind, what would be the solution for a denomination which is being subjected to such anti-crc doctrines? Particularly in regard to an individual leader who has formally subscribed to upholding the doctrines of the crc, as well as upholding scripture.
I think Lubbert has summarized rather well the panorama of perspectives on creation/evolution, except that #4 and #5 are virtually identical other than a nominal distinction between deism and atheism, and that #3 is not discernably different from #4 and #5 without an explanation of where God has intervened. However, he has put me into a YEC position which I have not categorically upheld, since I have maintained a possibility for a different concept of time prior to the fourth day, a fact which upsets some of my YEC friends.
The issue is not that evolution could not be compatible in some degree with scripture. The issue is that 95% of the scientific literature assumes evolution as an apriori assumption to the exclusion of the significance of God, So if Christians talk about evolution without qualifying what they mean, as far as the world is concerned, they are simply buying into the atheistic version of evolution. This leads to the conclusion that the seven mentions in the New Testament of the first Adam, are simply nonsense. Is Lubbert happy with that?
Age segregation for youth can be beneficial or harmful Joy, depending on how it fits into the overall picture within the church. It is absolutely necessary for youth and adults to worship together in order to discover the commonalities, to provide a point of communication of the gospel between generations, and to recognize that the faith of the child and the knowledge of the olders fit together to bring glory to God. But there is also a need for a type of segregation of classes in order for various ages, knowledge levels, and people types to more fully explore the gospel within their own context. For adults to go over and over the elementary milk of the gospel will not lead to their becoming more mature. For children to be immersed in Calvin's institutes or the finer points of the geological or anthropology of the history of Israel may be simply too overwhelming. So spiritual sense and common sense would indicate that there ought to be a place for both?
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
Tjalle, we are getting a lot of snow here, already more so far than we normally get all winter. Beautiful, but roads are tough to get thru sometimes. Your question about mountain formation relative to the Tigris is a good one. There apparently were small mountains before the flood, while the larger ones formed at the time of the flood, but I will have to research that issue further.
Water ends up under rock all the time, regardless of bulk densities, so I don't think that is a big deal. Porosity and volume are some of the details, but in principle it would seem to be possible. As far as how the water got there in the first place, of course scripture says that there was water under the earth, and God created it. It becomes circular or never ending to ask how something got there in the first place, because in our human limited understanding, it would always have to come from somewhere, regardless of where it came from, so the question would never end.
Yes plates would have to subduct. Creation Ministries has a different theory that the subduction we now see is simply the tail end of a very rapid subduction at the time of the flood. Are you saying that Brown denies subduction, or simply doesn't consider it? I would think he is well aware of subduction. I think he also indicates that the crust stretched upward, and some of it disappeared or exploded upwards.
I believe Walt Brown talks about superheated water which is well above the normal boiling point temperature, under pressure, and considerably warmer than the 25C per km you mention. In fact he suggests the water temp was too high to boil, since it was supercritical.
It may be true that rock bending slowly enough can bend without fracturing, but that thought goes against common observation. Or perhaps some rocks and not others. Much rock fractures even without bending, simply due to contraction and expansion. In any case, whether it fractures when it moves depends on what surface it is moving on, and whether it can move all at once. If this surface has moderate resistance on a level surface, and if the friction causes a melting of rock then presumably the layer could move without significant fracturing. The bending of present sedimentary rock layers in the mountains is also thought to have happened when the layers were yet soft enough not to fracture significantly, either from heat or from lack of hardening.
The story of Babel does not seem to exactly fit into a chronology in scripture as far as I can see, but regardless, the population growth could be the same whether the tower happened later or earlier. Noah and his descendants lived long and could have had many children, causing a quick and great increase in population. From four couples, there could easily have been millions of people in two hundred years, especially if they were still having children when two hundred years old (and consider how long they lived). Some rough calculations show an exponential possibility of 1.2 million people after only 80 yrs. Perhaps not likely by our standards, but we know they began having children at 35 years old or younger and didn't even Abraham live to 175 years?
And the same people or technology that built the ark may have found a way to build pyramids, don't you think?
Interesting that statement, "we'll have to agree to disagree". Do I have to agree with that? Couldn't I also disagree on that one, hoping that we might some day agree on a few more things?
And I also hope you have a fruitful and enlightening 2014. God bless.
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
Tjalle, would the apostle's creed be an acid test? Yes, for ecumenism perhaps. But perhaps not sufficient for our promise to uphold the confessions, right? So while we have a type of variety and divergence within the denomination, we also have promised a basic confessional perspective, which includes the Heidelberg. Everyone who professed their faith and became a member, agreed to that, right? The Heidleberg:
Q & A 5 Q. Can you live up to all this perfectly? A. No.1 I have a natural tendency
to hate God and my neighbor.2
Q & A 6: Q. Did God create people so wicked and perverse? A. No. God created them good1 and in his own image,2 that is, in true righteousness and holiness,3 so that they might truly know God their creator,4 love him with all their heart,
and live with God in eternal happiness, to praise and glorify him.5
Q & A 7: Q. Then where does this corrupt human nature come from? A. The fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise.1 This fall has so poisoned our nature2 that we are all conceived and born in a sinful condition.3
Q 9. But doesn’t God do us an injustice by requiring in his law what we are unable to do?
A. No, God created human beings with the ability to keep the law.1They, however, provoked by the devil,
in willful disobedience,3 robbed themselves and all their descendants of these gifts.Are not some things in evolutionary theory outside of the boundaries of the confession of promise?
I don't think the human sinful nature is a biological inheritance. It is a spiritual inheritance. But it is sure isn't it, that we do not see any perfect people without sin. This apparently is not part of the natural variability of the human race.
As far as scientists fudging evidence, well they are not perfect either, and there is clear evidence of scientists fudging things from time to time, while we assume most do not. However, in this case we are not talking about fudging evidence so much as interpreting evidence. A big difference. The bias of the interpretation looms huge. Did you know that the same codons in DNA codes for at least two different processes simultaneously, as if it could be read in two different programs at the same time? Fascinating, and some would say more clear evidence of an intelligent creator, rather than mere random mutations coupled with selection. Both evolutionists and creationists see the same evidence, but the creationist says this could not have happened by the proposed evolutionary mechanisms. It is too improbable, too absurdly unlikely. The evolutionist says it doesn't matter how extremely unlikely, it must have happened this way. So who is being more scientific in this case?
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
Tjalle, thanks for your response. I suppose we are all prejudiced on this topic to some extent, aren't we? I would suggest the primary issue is not age of the earth, but rather whether evolution is possible or actually happened. However, there are some problems with polystrate fossils, inability to date new volcanic rock with ancient methods, lack of serious erosion between supposedly ancient layers, and that absence of fossils does not mean absence of animals.
I understand that there are many stories of ancient land bridge or ice bridge (most likely ice) between the continents, and people crossing. Interesting also that orientals and native americans are so similar in appearance. You wonder how long it would take for populations to differentiate and homogenize; I would suggest it would not take long, given the right circumstances. In the end, as Joy said, they are still all people. We are beginning to see many examples of people today who cannot be placed into a particular so-called "race" or ethnicity.
I have recently read a book by JC Sanford, PhD in genetic biology, who writes about the unlikelihood an impossibility of upward evolution. The sheer number of deleterious mutations, and the impossibility of "natural selection" to select for beneficial mutations at a genome or organism level, is explained in great detail. The book is called, "Genetic Entropy, and the Mystery of the Genome". It is highly technical, but understandable with a bit of background understanding of DNA.
How do we talk about these things as Christians? Is it justifiable for evolutionists to ignore the problems with evolution just because YEC do not have an immediate answer for kangaroos in Australia? Is it justifiable for YEC to ignore the concerns of evolutionary nuclear scientists because evolutionists ignore the problems with genetics or polystrate fossils, or lack of intermediate and transitional fossils? We seem to be able to agree on the technology of computers, nuclear power, space ships. On history of sociology, impact of faith, and geological and athropological history there is less agreement. On God himself, and on scripture, there is less agreement. What do we use as a basis for commonality on this?
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
I wonder if your comment on "bishop Usher has had his day" is one reason why discussions like this are difficult. While I agreed that age of the earth is not the primary issue, that doesn't mean it isn't important. It neither means that I agree or disagree with YEC on that point.
Not to put too fine a point on it about K-Ar method, but measuring a grain of rice with a yardstick which is well marked, still ought to give a reasonable size, even while it might lack precision. We would not expect a yardstick to indicate a grain of rice is four inches in size. An error bar of 400,000 years in a dating method is significant. Any new rock should measure less than 100,000 years old at max. A better reply would have been to counter with the abilities of the Ar40-Ar39 method.
If kangaroos started from two animals, then they could have started anywhere they could have go to presumably, and extinctions on other land areas would not have been necessary....
You are right, the term evolution for separation of people's, is misleading. There is no new species, and selection of types is merely selection, not evolution. People are still people. Selected wheat varities are still wheat, no matter how they look.
I agree the bible is not a "science" book. But that is no reason to suppose that it is not essentially accurate. The bible is not a book about the probable, but about the possible, or even about the impossible becoming possible. (Thus Lazarus raised from the dead). Evolution is also entirely improbable; some would say impossible.
The truth that God sent His son to die for us; highly improbable, yet it happened. Eternal life, highly improbable, yet God's promise for us. Did sin enter the world through man, or did God plant it into his creation? Did God create us to disobey, or did he make us obedient originally? Did God ask man to reject the way he was created? Or to return to the way he was created? Is that the choice?
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
Tjalle, slowing down a conversation is sometimes a very good thing, so a bit of a delay in answering a question is okay. In response to your question about the Tigris and Euphrates, yes, it is possible that they are either different or reshaped. I am aware for example that there appears to be a former river channel about five or six hundred feet underground in my area, next to the Peace River, which could have served the same function as the Peace, maybe, or maybe not, and if people had been living there, might have received the same name (although in Cree or Beaver tongue, not English). I don't think this is an issue of vast importance.
Your second point about evolution of groups: I simply think the terminology is wrong, scientifically. The people did not change into something different, no more than a cross between black labs and yellow labs might result in differentiation of offspring, which eventually could be relatively consistent strains of black, chocolate and yellow labs. It's just selection or differentiation, not evolution.
Re your statements about the tree trunks. It was quite obvious the trees did not grow exactly where they were found. It is difficult to say where they grew, other than that they definately grew in tropical non-winter environments. So while continental drift is a possible cause, it must have been associated with flooding and mass movement of tree trunks prior to some formation of ice and snow sheets, wouldnt you agree?
As far as the timeline for the flood or the pyramids are concerned, they differ from each other possibly by only a few hundred years, and there is debate on the timelines. The biblical timeline for the judges, for example, seems to indicate overlap of various judges, and apparently the same is possible for some of the egyptian monarchs. Josephus seems also to indicate that the Israelite slaves were building pyramids, most likely out of mud bricks, rather than cut stone. Some work with carbon dating seems to indicate up to a 400 year variability on some of the C14 tests on the older pyramids, and of course, dating the wood does not give an absolute on the pyramids, since the wood would of necessity be older. Depending on conditions, the pyramid could potentially be hundreds of years younger than the carbon-dated wood.
I hope this answers your questions.
Posted in: A New Network Site
I can't say whether this format is better than the old one. It will take awhile to figure that out, since no matter the deficiencies of a system, we find ways to work around it if we are used to it, while a new system or format still holds many mysteries until we get used to it. It would be a shame if this is not better than the previous format. I miss the top ten, and listing of new posts and comments. Also, are we missing the ability to italicize or bold certain parts of the comments or posts?
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
Joy, the first video was fascinating. Tjalle, there are a number of explanations for how animals got to different places, partly because of movement of continents, and partly the likelihood of huge floating matts of trees and organic debris to carry them. As far as time to repopulate, 4000, 6000 years was plenty of time for repopulation. If Noah's individual descendants (each son and daughter pair) were unique to start with, ie., contained unique sets of genetics, then it would not have taken long for different group types to develop from single pairs, or even somewhat small but similar groups after the tower of Babel. Interesting how the African Americans or Indo-Chinese remain distinctive when they have lived in USA for many generations, simply because they mate with similar types. It is much easier for this to happen from small similar groups than from large variable groups. None of these issues seem like big issues to me.
It would seem much harder to explain geology, petrified trees, historic erosion, ripple effects, carbonate layers, separation of bark and tree trunks, and many other features, without an enormous global flood. Grand Canyon is used as a reference because it is huge, exposed, available. But features such as the Dover cliffs, the Rocky Mountains, Mount St. Helens, mammoths with camels in Artic ice, Iceland flooding due to glacier melted by volcano, and huge coal mines around the globe help to explain the catastrophic nature of most geological features.
Yes, sin entering the world is another topic, related but yet somewhat separate. It is related in the sense of how an OEE might explain the difference between murder, and simple survival of the fittest. It is related in how we distinguish between what is an animal instinct, and what is human disobedience to how God made us and wants us to be. Tough one.
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
Tjalle, I appreciate the tenor of your comments. I think you are expressing your understandings in good way. It seems that you are expressing much of the traditional understandings of sedimentation, but in a somewhat simplistic way. For example, a global catastrophic flood would exhibit some principles similar to local floods, but given that the flood lasted a year and 17 days, it had to be much more serious and catastrophic than a mere typhoon, tsunami, or rapid glacier melt (such as Iceland has had). Mt. St. Helens demonstrates the rapidity with which canyons can be carved and tree trunks deposited in soil in an upright position. While you are right that various particles separate out from water at different rates, it is difficult for us to imagine what type of particles might have been in the water, and whether they were all there at the same time. For example, some particles may have been in the water at the beginning of the flood, while others showed up a month or two later. Particles of sand would tend to settle out within hours, while silt might take hours, and clay might take days or weeks to settle. But limestone is likely the result of billions of shells settling and turning into calcium carbonate, and that would likely depend on when these snails and shell fish died. Many clam fossils give evidence that they drowned (unnatural death). The first video Joy pointed out, gives some potential clues to how these layers settled. A book by Walt Brown "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood" gives some possibilities as well, which are consistent with the evidence.
In Walt Brown's model, the movement of the continents was relatively quick, and happened at the time of the flood. The flood and continental drift were part of the same event. This does not really solve the problem of animal movement, since during most of the drift, the continents would have been inundated. This is also true for the Creation Ministries model of the flood. Some of the physics and engineering principles involved in movement, energy, and flow are described. The video that Joy highlighted, shows Walter Veith (on Amazing Discoveries program) describing the directions of water flow across the continents at different geological layers, and gives his explanation for that in relation to the elevations and uplifts of these layers at different times. He also explains how similar geochemical conditions are across a geological profile, which indicates that hundreds of feet must have been laid down within 30 days or less, and not over eons of time.
It seems that sandstone, shale and limestone found in the grand canyon must have been laid down by water, based on the characteristics and flatness of the layers. Since sediment in water tends to descend relatively rapidly, it does not give evidence of long periods of time. If long time existed, then long time would have had to exist between layers, but it is difficult to demonstrate time from an absence of something. That would primarily be a speculation. Polystrate fossils would indicate that there was not a long period of time between layers.
What about people? If we assume that all the genetics existed before the flood, so that Noah and his wife were quite different, perhaps like a Greek marrying a Kenyan native, and their sons also married varied wives, perhaps the three wives were like a Nordic type, an Asian type, and a Fulani type, then you could see the potential variation already existed. All that would be required would be for a type of segregation to occur, which would be natural when the languages were confused at Babel, since people would tend to associate with those who would be most like them. We know that human nature in groups tends to isolate or shun those who are significantly different, and this likely led to the distinction of people's more than any other cause such as environmental adaptation. Thus we have Dene, a somewhat darker skinned type in the far north in Canada, and Nordic types in the far north in Europe. Very dark natives in central Africa and Australia, and mildly dark skinned natives in South America and Asia.
Your hypothesis about original sin is interesting, but inconsistent with scripture since the command to obey came before their apparent knowledge of good and evil, not after. It seems their knowledge came about because of their disobedience, so that they knew how to disobey. Our confessions also say that even infants are part of the sinful nature, even though they do not really understand it; that would be somewhat different than what you are suggesting.
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
On November 29, Tjalle asked about a timeline for the flood. I recently read an article by Dr. Carl Wieland which tells of Manetho, an Egyptian historian of 270 BC. This historian has a chronology which adds centuries to the Biblical account. However, it is now realized that some of the kings he put consecutively actually reigned simultaneously. That aside, Manetho writes that after the flood, Ham the son of Noah begat Aegyptus or Mestraim, who established in the area of egypt. He wrote that the dispersion of the tribes was five years after Noah's descendant Peleg was born. This agrees with Genesis 10:25. It seems that Manetho pretty well corroborates scripture in Genesis. (CMI, Creation magazine, vol 35, no.4, 2013.)
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Okay, yes, sometimes we just can't help ourselves.... that's okay. I did not miss your point about John Calvin; I just did not like it, nor did I like the implications that he would allow materialism to determine his theology. I did not see you irrefutably making that point based on evidence; that's why I asked the questions I did.
I loath lynch mobs as much as you do. But if you are going to call church discipline merely a matter of lynching mobs, then how would you suggest that this discipline occurs? What Are you suggesting here?
I do agree that there are different points of view that should be possible in various things. But obviously we don't agree with churches who think you can buy your way, or earn your way to heaven; that is the basis for the reformation. We also don't agree with those who think that water baptism gives you a ticket to heaven, or that the bread and wine turn into Jesus actual physical body in the holy communion. A pastor who taught this would not be permitted to preach in the crc, and this would be contrary to a crc profession of faith, right?
On the other hand, two services or one service, female office bearers or not female office bearers, short service or long service, hymns or chorus songs, organ or guitar, all seem to be issues that allow for variation. So where does this issue fit in to disputability? When someone says that some evolutionary mechanisms seem to be observable, and that maybe some days were longer, perhaps we can live with that difference. But when someone says that Adam and Eve did not really exist, or that God did not really create everything good (every day), or that death and sin occurred before Adam ate from the tree of knowledge of evil and good, or that Jesus was not really the second Adam, etc., then we are in a different area of difference. We are then in the same ball game as deciding whether we are eating Jesus biceps or not. We are in the same ball game as deciding whether we can earn our own way to heaven or not.
So yes, attacking one another for frivolous reasons does not serve our risen Lord well. But, remember the story of Annanias and Sapphira; they died for merely lying. Remember how apostle Paul himself confronted Peter to his face; it was for the building of Christ's church. Remember how Paul indicated that some people who followed worldly principles and desires would not enter the kingdom of heaven. And I'm sure you agree that a church that does not contend for the faith as the book of Jude encourages us to do, will eventually wither and die from complacency and ignorance. In this case, I do not think this is frivolous. It is serious, and needs to be addressed.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
I have just finished watching a video about a talk by Dr. Jobe Martin, called the evolution of a creationist. It is fascinating! The evidence against evolution of specific animals and birds is amazing.
I must admit, I am amused by John Ks suggestion that one person could be judge jury and executioner in a case such as this. I think that is simply unreasonable hyperbole. In what way could one person in this case actually realistically be an executioner (even noting the word executioner is used as a metaphor)? I would suggest rather that an appropriate analogy would be "prosecutor". On the other hand, I agree that admonition is also a part of discipline, which it seems that Lubbert is attempting to administer to myself.... Is Lubbert also judge, jury and executioner then?
Then, supposing that the assumptions that an individual has advocated for doctrines that contradict the CRC confessions is upheld, and supposing that his supervising church does not administer discipline of any kind, what would be the solution for a denomination which is being subjected to such anti-crc doctrines? Particularly in regard to an individual leader who has formally subscribed to upholding the doctrines of the crc, as well as upholding scripture.
I think Lubbert has summarized rather well the panorama of perspectives on creation/evolution, except that #4 and #5 are virtually identical other than a nominal distinction between deism and atheism, and that #3 is not discernably different from #4 and #5 without an explanation of where God has intervened. However, he has put me into a YEC position which I have not categorically upheld, since I have maintained a possibility for a different concept of time prior to the fourth day, a fact which upsets some of my YEC friends.
The issue is not that evolution could not be compatible in some degree with scripture. The issue is that 95% of the scientific literature assumes evolution as an apriori assumption to the exclusion of the significance of God, So if Christians talk about evolution without qualifying what they mean, as far as the world is concerned, they are simply buying into the atheistic version of evolution. This leads to the conclusion that the seven mentions in the New Testament of the first Adam, are simply nonsense. Is Lubbert happy with that?
Posted in: Is Modern Youth Ministry Biblical
Age segregation for youth can be beneficial or harmful Joy, depending on how it fits into the overall picture within the church. It is absolutely necessary for youth and adults to worship together in order to discover the commonalities, to provide a point of communication of the gospel between generations, and to recognize that the faith of the child and the knowledge of the olders fit together to bring glory to God. But there is also a need for a type of segregation of classes in order for various ages, knowledge levels, and people types to more fully explore the gospel within their own context. For adults to go over and over the elementary milk of the gospel will not lead to their becoming more mature. For children to be immersed in Calvin's institutes or the finer points of the geological or anthropology of the history of Israel may be simply too overwhelming. So spiritual sense and common sense would indicate that there ought to be a place for both?