Shaun Doyle has written an interesting article on how christian evolutionists are sometimes simply erring brothers, rather than raging heretics or Christ deniers. The article is found on creation.com. Some others disagree with him, but he makes the point well, especially in his responses to some outside commenters. Following is one quote: "Shaun Doyle responds http://creation.com/genesis-gospel
Please also see Common ground with old-earth creationists?, which provides a counterbalancing perspective to the one offered in this article. I agree that the secular view of origins is the opposite of what the Bible says, but this does not mean that everyone who believes it has rejected the gospel. Please also see the related articles section, which expands on the issues briefly discussed in this article.
Let me also add that I empathize with you. I came from a non-Christian home, and the major stumbling block stopping me from becoming a Christian was Genesis 1–11. Basically, I thought that the Bible was so obviously wrong on basic history that anything else it had to say was utterly irrelevant. So, God made me a biblical creationist before He made me a Christian because that's the way it had to be for me. As such, I have always been perplexed at why Christians would bother trying to marry the Bible with deep time; it seems so obviously fruitless to me that it would be a waste of time. Nevertheless, I can see that many genuine Christians do just that."
While your comments are accurate, that is, not all deposits need be catastrophic, and while it is true that certain particles of different sizes and densities settle out in water at different rates, often at vastly different rates, we need to be aware that basically this says nothing about how slowly or how quickly the various laminae, as well as other earth layers, were laid down. The different rates of settlement for particles of various sizes deposited simultaneously in water, tend to range from seconds to days, not to years or decades, even though this will vary a bit depending on the depth of the water.
The suggestion to read "The Greatest show on Earth" should be followed by a suggestion to read some of Jonathan Sarfati's books, including a refutation of the above book, in "Evolution, the Greatest Hoax on Earth", or "Refuting Compromise", or "Refuting Evolution". Jonathan is a PhD in Chemistry and an international chess master, and has done an impressive job of revealing the inconsistencies in Dawkins' book.
For an example of what impact evolutionary theory had on Charles Templeton, a preacher and friend of Billy Graham, and an argument about the age of the Grande Canyon, you could check this link: christianima.com/wazooloo and look at episode 13.
The lack of evidence of turbulence or rapid flow of water would not mean that mud could not be deposited rapidly (within a day or two). If mud enters the surface of a relatively deep water body which then becomes murky with silt and clay particles, these particles could begin to deposit fairly quickly without leaving evidence of turbulence. It depends on how deep the water is. With shallow water one would expect to see some horizontal differentiation, but not necessarily with deeper water over a relatively flat surface.
With replenishment of the mud particles, the deposition of these layers could reoccur fairly frequently in a relatively short period of time.
The other thing that one would expect to see in soil formations laid down over long periods of time, is evidence of erosion, and evidence of plant growth (roots, root channels). Erosion would tend to break up sediment layers, leaving very few continuities. Plant growth would distort and mix sediment layers, leaving organic residues between layers as well as mixed within layers. Calculations of organic matter production over a thousand years, or over a million years, would give some clue as to how much material ought to be there. If these things are not evident, then it would be more reasonable to suppose that neither erosion nor plant growth occurred between layers, which would in most cases lead to the conclusion that there was not time for these things to happen.
Ken, don't worry about being slow to respond. No problem.
You said the silurian reefs "may be" 140 metres tall. That sounds uncertain. They either are, or they aren't. Or we don't know.
I didn't say that they formed during the flood, just quicker perhaps than we think. At 400mm per year, or approx one-half metre per year, it might have taken about 300 years to form.
As far as some mountains growing at about one inch per year, apparently due to glaciers receding in some cases and resulting in decompression or a change in subsurface equilibrium, this is not normally visually observed. It must be precisely measured because it is such a slow small growth. But perhaps growth has not always been constant, and not always at such a slow rate. The following comment suggests that at times the growth rates have been twenty times as fast. And maybe the assumptions for this change in growth rate are still flawed, and maybe growth rates have been even faster.
"...Who knew mountains, like awkward teens, could have sudden growth spurts? According to a new study published in Science (sub. required), the Andes mountains may have doubled their height in as few as 2 - 4 million years -- suggesting that the latest plate tectonics science may need some revision.
Conventional thinking had it that mountain ranges tended to rise gradually over a period of several million years. Indeed, most geologists had pegged the Andes mountain range's "age" at roughly 40 million years and had attributed its formation to plate tectonics.
Carmala Garzione's research, however, seemed to indicate otherwise. Garzione, a professor of geology at the University of Rochester, and her colleagues examined the sediment record and found that the Andes had slowly grown for tens of millions of years before suddenly spiking between 10 and 6 million years ago -- a process they call "delamination":..."
Sea water entering the basin would indeed have the effect of adding salt, and thin layers of calcium anhydrite as well as the thin layers of silt. My question is whether it required the length of time to do all this that the present theory suggests, or could it have happened much quicker.
Another example of the problems with basing evolutionary theory on the geologic column. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. The geologic column does not provide absolute proof of absence of particular life forms, even though it does provide evidence that certain species existed in the past. Therefore the geologic column does not provide proof of common descent. Evolution is the faith that does not fit the facts, says this video ... youtube.com/watch?v=lTWZJBXAZJA
While I appreciate your comments Hedzer, i think you miss the boat when suggesting that christians are afraid of scientific explanations. Whether God chose a method to heal the blind that was supernatural or natural but unknown is not the primary issue. When we fully understand what we call the supernatural, perhaps it will seem natural to us. But we do not need to suppose that God can only work by methods that man in his sinful condition ought to be able to understand. God is not limited to our parameters. God is not limited by our capacity or by our knowledge, nor by our arrogance. And our scientific explanations today are sometimes just as arrogant as the opinions of the 'scientists' of copernicus and galileo's day, or the doctors and healers of Jesus day.
Yesterday, I was at a pachyrhinosaurus bone bed at Pipestone Creek, in Northern Alberta, about 500 km northwest of Edmonton. This bone bed is buried quite deep, under about 500 or 600 feet of clay or more, but exposed along the edge of a creek. It is estimated to be at least the size of two football fields, and I was informed that thirty-two animals have already been excavated from a small area, about 10 feet by 40 feet. Interesting that these bones are found just under a shallow layer of shale, about 6 inches to 18 inches in thickness. This horizontal shale/sandstone layer is found below hundreds of feet of clay, which is similar to the clay found underneath the stone. Some kind of catastrophic event is concluded to have happened, which involved flooding and drowning. These pachyrhinosaurus animals were about 6 meters in length from nose to tail, with the head of adult animals being more than a metre in size. A plaster covered skull fossil weighs about 1200 pounds. Juvenile and baby pachys were also found in this bone bed.
Interesting thing about bone fossils is that if you have a moist finger, it will stick to the fossil, and will not stick to other bones. Also, in general, it is thought that herbivore animals have porous centers to the big bones, while carnivores have hollow centers to the big bones, but that might not be absolutely true in every case. I don't know yet exactly how this is relevant to "Genesis Again", but thought you might find it interesting.
It moves us forward in this way: Those we are to disciple will see that there is passion and devotion and sacrifice which signifies how real God is to us. Those who are strangers may see that something new has happened and that God is real. Those who are aliens and spectators, who are somewhat attracted by hype or friendliness, will begin to see the passion behind the friendliness. People are people, and they need other people, passion and cause and purpose. Entertainment will also attract them, but it will not bring commitment. The love of God as reflected in us.... such is obedience and such also is the glue that binds hearts to Christ.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
I find it very sad that the one who started this discussion thread is still missing. I hope he will be found, and pray that he may find hope again.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Shaun Doyle has written an interesting article on how christian evolutionists are sometimes simply erring brothers, rather than raging heretics or Christ deniers. The article is found on creation.com. Some others disagree with him, but he makes the point well, especially in his responses to some outside commenters. Following is one quote: "Shaun Doyle responds http://creation.com/genesis-gospel
Please also see Common ground with old-earth creationists?, which provides a counterbalancing perspective to the one offered in this article. I agree that the secular view of origins is the opposite of what the Bible says, but this does not mean that everyone who believes it has rejected the gospel. Please also see the related articles section, which expands on the issues briefly discussed in this article.
Let me also add that I empathize with you. I came from a non-Christian home, and the major stumbling block stopping me from becoming a Christian was Genesis 1–11. Basically, I thought that the Bible was so obviously wrong on basic history that anything else it had to say was utterly irrelevant. So, God made me a biblical creationist before He made me a Christian because that's the way it had to be for me. As such, I have always been perplexed at why Christians would bother trying to marry the Bible with deep time; it seems so obviously fruitless to me that it would be a waste of time. Nevertheless, I can see that many genuine Christians do just that."
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
While your comments are accurate, that is, not all deposits need be catastrophic, and while it is true that certain particles of different sizes and densities settle out in water at different rates, often at vastly different rates, we need to be aware that basically this says nothing about how slowly or how quickly the various laminae, as well as other earth layers, were laid down. The different rates of settlement for particles of various sizes deposited simultaneously in water, tend to range from seconds to days, not to years or decades, even though this will vary a bit depending on the depth of the water.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
The suggestion to read "The Greatest show on Earth" should be followed by a suggestion to read some of Jonathan Sarfati's books, including a refutation of the above book, in "Evolution, the Greatest Hoax on Earth", or "Refuting Compromise", or "Refuting Evolution". Jonathan is a PhD in Chemistry and an international chess master, and has done an impressive job of revealing the inconsistencies in Dawkins' book.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
For an example of what impact evolutionary theory had on Charles Templeton, a preacher and friend of Billy Graham, and an argument about the age of the Grande Canyon, you could check this link: christianima.com/wazooloo and look at episode 13.
Posted in: When Churches Lose Members
Always bring the gospel. The emphasis should not be on the worship service itself, but on Christ.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
The lack of evidence of turbulence or rapid flow of water would not mean that mud could not be deposited rapidly (within a day or two). If mud enters the surface of a relatively deep water body which then becomes murky with silt and clay particles, these particles could begin to deposit fairly quickly without leaving evidence of turbulence. It depends on how deep the water is. With shallow water one would expect to see some horizontal differentiation, but not necessarily with deeper water over a relatively flat surface.
With replenishment of the mud particles, the deposition of these layers could reoccur fairly frequently in a relatively short period of time.
The other thing that one would expect to see in soil formations laid down over long periods of time, is evidence of erosion, and evidence of plant growth (roots, root channels). Erosion would tend to break up sediment layers, leaving very few continuities. Plant growth would distort and mix sediment layers, leaving organic residues between layers as well as mixed within layers. Calculations of organic matter production over a thousand years, or over a million years, would give some clue as to how much material ought to be there. If these things are not evident, then it would be more reasonable to suppose that neither erosion nor plant growth occurred between layers, which would in most cases lead to the conclusion that there was not time for these things to happen.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Ken, don't worry about being slow to respond. No problem.
You said the silurian reefs "may be" 140 metres tall. That sounds uncertain. They either are, or they aren't. Or we don't know.
I didn't say that they formed during the flood, just quicker perhaps than we think. At 400mm per year, or approx one-half metre per year, it might have taken about 300 years to form.
As far as some mountains growing at about one inch per year, apparently due to glaciers receding in some cases and resulting in decompression or a change in subsurface equilibrium, this is not normally visually observed. It must be precisely measured because it is such a slow small growth. But perhaps growth has not always been constant, and not always at such a slow rate. The following comment suggests that at times the growth rates have been twenty times as fast. And maybe the assumptions for this change in growth rate are still flawed, and maybe growth rates have been even faster.
"...Who knew mountains, like awkward teens, could have sudden growth spurts? According to a new study published in Science (sub. required), the Andes mountains may have doubled their height in as few as 2 - 4 million years -- suggesting that the latest plate tectonics science may need some revision.
Conventional thinking had it that mountain ranges tended to rise gradually over a period of several million years. Indeed, most geologists had pegged the Andes mountain range's "age" at roughly 40 million years and had attributed its formation to plate tectonics.
Carmala Garzione's research, however, seemed to indicate otherwise. Garzione, a professor of geology at the University of Rochester, and her colleagues examined the sediment record and found that the Andes had slowly grown for tens of millions of years before suddenly spiking between 10 and 6 million years ago -- a process they call "delamination":..."
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/growing-mountains.php
Sea water entering the basin would indeed have the effect of adding salt, and thin layers of calcium anhydrite as well as the thin layers of silt. My question is whether it required the length of time to do all this that the present theory suggests, or could it have happened much quicker.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Another example of the problems with basing evolutionary theory on the geologic column. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. The geologic column does not provide absolute proof of absence of particular life forms, even though it does provide evidence that certain species existed in the past. Therefore the geologic column does not provide proof of common descent. Evolution is the faith that does not fit the facts, says this video ... youtube.com/watch?v=lTWZJBXAZJA
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
While I appreciate your comments Hedzer, i think you miss the boat when suggesting that christians are afraid of scientific explanations. Whether God chose a method to heal the blind that was supernatural or natural but unknown is not the primary issue. When we fully understand what we call the supernatural, perhaps it will seem natural to us. But we do not need to suppose that God can only work by methods that man in his sinful condition ought to be able to understand. God is not limited to our parameters. God is not limited by our capacity or by our knowledge, nor by our arrogance. And our scientific explanations today are sometimes just as arrogant as the opinions of the 'scientists' of copernicus and galileo's day, or the doctors and healers of Jesus day.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Yesterday, I was at a pachyrhinosaurus bone bed at Pipestone Creek, in Northern Alberta, about 500 km northwest of Edmonton. This bone bed is buried quite deep, under about 500 or 600 feet of clay or more, but exposed along the edge of a creek. It is estimated to be at least the size of two football fields, and I was informed that thirty-two animals have already been excavated from a small area, about 10 feet by 40 feet. Interesting that these bones are found just under a shallow layer of shale, about 6 inches to 18 inches in thickness. This horizontal shale/sandstone layer is found below hundreds of feet of clay, which is similar to the clay found underneath the stone. Some kind of catastrophic event is concluded to have happened, which involved flooding and drowning. These pachyrhinosaurus animals were about 6 meters in length from nose to tail, with the head of adult animals being more than a metre in size. A plaster covered skull fossil weighs about 1200 pounds. Juvenile and baby pachys were also found in this bone bed.
Interesting thing about bone fossils is that if you have a moist finger, it will stick to the fossil, and will not stick to other bones. Also, in general, it is thought that herbivore animals have porous centers to the big bones, while carnivores have hollow centers to the big bones, but that might not be absolutely true in every case. I don't know yet exactly how this is relevant to "Genesis Again", but thought you might find it interesting.
Posted in: When Churches Lose Members
It moves us forward in this way: Those we are to disciple will see that there is passion and devotion and sacrifice which signifies how real God is to us. Those who are strangers may see that something new has happened and that God is real. Those who are aliens and spectators, who are somewhat attracted by hype or friendliness, will begin to see the passion behind the friendliness. People are people, and they need other people, passion and cause and purpose. Entertainment will also attract them, but it will not bring commitment. The love of God as reflected in us.... such is obedience and such also is the glue that binds hearts to Christ.