Correction: in the second paragraph, I meant to say that a moist finger will stick to a bone fossil but not to stones in the same layer as the fossils. In that way you can distinguish a bone fossil from the stone around it.
Bill, maybe it would not be wrong to say that your power saw still works.... even though you know that it takes someone to operate it, and that it needs power to make it work. Just that analogy work for you?
Ken, wow. Good response. I’ll try to respond to both of your posts in this one response.
You said: "I'm not at all uncertain. Are you? Your comment about reef growth, "At...approx one-half metre per year, it might have taken about 300 years to form", is a case in point. You can plug in any number you want, realistic or not, and get the result you want, but that doesn't prove or disprove anythiing. You need to consider all of the data."
My response is that yes, I am uncertain about many things. That is what makes learning interesting. I realize that plugging in .4 m per year does prove or disprove anything; it merely indicates a possibility. This number is possible, based on some present day data, but that does not mean that it actually happened that way. But even if it took twice as long or four times as long, then the reefs could have formed in 1200 years.
You said: " our material on the growth of the Andes is confusing to me because it is unclear what is a quotation and what is your commentary" I try to put quotation marks around quotes – I believe I did that there
You said: "So the Andes may have had a growth spurt, and geologists have discovered something we didn't know before. This doesn't significantly change the plate tectonics model, and is a much more complicated situation than reef growth or evaporite deposition." The article indicated some significant changes to the plate tectonics model would be required. But my point was only that the amount of time for something to happen in geological history still appears to be relatively fluid.
You asked: "In answer to your final question, let me ask how much sea water would have to evaporate in order to precipitate the amount of salt in the Salina Group in Michigan. " I think I already gave a number for the amount of normal sea water to evaporate, something between 1500 and 6000 feet of water. For highly saline water, slightly more than a tenth of that amount would be required.
You said: "The deepest crustal rocks in Michigan are granites and metamorphic rocks, the kinds of rocks that we find in the depths of mountain belts, and the surface of this basement rock is rather flat, which suggests that there were mountains here at one time, and those mountains were eroded away."
My reply is that your reasoning could go both ways based on what you are saying here. In other words, in this location, the granites and metamorphic rocks remained in place, rather than being uplifted into mountains. The Canadian Shield is full of this type of rock as well, which is near the surface. The literature indicates a belief that this used to be many large mountains at one time. The reasoning is that rocks found under mountains are similar. Other evidence is lacking, apparently, since as mountains erode, the roots of mountains rise up. So in this case of the Shield, any mountain roots would be much smaller than they were originally, but then how would we know really? The article I saw also indicated that there used to be hundreds of volcanic belts in this area, each one with several hundreds of volcanos and numerous vents.
You said: [quote]"John, I have an entire shelf of books by Christians on the issue of origins, and covering the entire spectrum of views from young-Earth creationism to evolutionary creation, and many of them misquote or quote out of context what scientists have written, distort or misrepresent the data (either deliberately or unwittingly), and show vast ignorance of the subject. Judging from the reviews of these two books on Amazon, they are probably more of the same. Usually the more "orthodox" such books are, the worse the science is. Some Christian writers even simply recycle material gleaned from other writers, and use "mined quotes" from books that have lifted quotes out of context. Often authors have minimal education in the field they write about, such as engineers writing on geology, paleontology, etc. This is embarrassing to many Christian scientists."[/quote]
My response: Yes, probably, some material is recycled from other writers. But the evolutionary theory proponents do this all the time. Continually. Many evolutionary geologists do nothing else than recycle the thoughts of others. And many of those thoughts are already recycled. Generalizations about "orthodoxy" and "worse science" is also a recycled thought, and the judgement about "worse science" is often based on whether it fits with the prevailing paradigm or not. From my point of view, the absolutely worst science has been the evolutionary science around the assumed evolution of man. Distorted and misrepresented data, fossils, fraud, unscientific assumptions, etc. When some words by some evolutionary scientists are quoted out of context, it is simply to highlight the fact of what they have said, and not to sugar-coat it. Many evolutionists ignore those statements because they are too difficult to deal with.
You said, "On the subject of radiometric dating, many are "expert" on the subject who have never done anything with it."
My reply is that the experts should be able to use radiometric dating objectively. But it is not as simply as a chemical test for chlorine, or for acidity, or for aluminum or arsenic in water. Radiometric dating requires a tremendous number of assumptions. The actual testing of chemical content of material, including the evaluation of proportions of various isotopes, is not the problem. That can be done objectively. What cannot be done objectively is the assumption of what that proportion should have been originally, which is what the whole radiometric dating process relies on.
You said:[quote] "Incidentally, I know the former manager of a large lab that does radiometric dating, who was asked by a geologist affiliated with the Institute for Creation Research to date a recent basalt sample from Hawaii. The manager pointed out what this geologist probably already knew, that relatively young volcanic samples give very old radiometric dates by the K-40/Ar-40 method, because a lot of non-radiogenic argon in the magma is trapped in the resulting volcanic rock, noting that it is not their practice to date such material. He was told to go ahead and do the dating, and the lab was paid for the work. The ridiculous result has since been published as an example of the unreliability of radiometric dating." [/quote]
This illustrates my point. Is the dating method determining the age, or is the assumption about age made already before the dating method is used? If the method is ridiculous for this known- to- be- relatively- young basalt, then how can the same method be used to indicate that some other basalt is very old? Maybe it is also young?
Quote: " Science makes predictions, uses evidence, and adapts as our understanding grows." Science is a discipline, a way of observing things and drawing conclusions. It is not science that makes predictions; it is human beings who are called scientists that make the predictions. This is a very important distinction. Science does not adapt. It is people who revise scientific procedures who adapt. Early scientists used their eyes to observe. Modern scientists use microscopes and telescopes to aid their eyes in their observations. Early scientists used simple math; modern scientists use complicated algorithms and integrated models.
Most scientists use correlations to attempt to draw conclusions. But establishing cause and effect through correlations can be faulty.
The reason that Steve and others use the statements of scientists to counter their own conclusions, is that their own statements do not always logically require the deductions and position conclusions that they make. This is a legitimate form of argumentation; nothing wrong with it. Evidence often does not only lead to one conclusion; often it leads to several possibilities. Having your mind closed to other possibilities is not the fault of science; it is a failing of the scientists who practice science.
You seem to assume certain conclusions without examining them, such as "why we find fossils from billions of years ago". The whole point is whether those fossils really were from billions of years ago, or whether the reasoning behind the age-verification of these fossils is faulty. You seem to be accepting this age-verification on blind faith, without understanding the sampling process or the assumptions behind the measurements of mineral half-lifes, and the fact that fossils age is determined based on where they are "supposed" to fit in the geological history, based on where other fossils are found. Ian Juby in one of his you-tube videos gives a good example of the inaccuracy of measuring ages of some fossil layers, and how circular reasoning resulted in a final age determination. This is not a good scientific practice, but it happens very often in this branch of science. Objective measurements of age are not really that objective at all.
I suggest that you visit Ian Juby's You-tube videos, and that you check out Walt Brown's book, both of which are available on the internet. Walt Brown's book will take you awhile, since it is over 400 pages of heavy reading.
Lubbert, I will try to respond to your question about Barna survey and how we relate or respond. It would be interesting to combine the six categories you mention, or see how they interrelate. For example, one fourth say faith is irrelevant. Are they the same that say that church demonizes everything? Are they the same that say church is too exclusive, or too judgemental? Or are they all different groups? Does one dissatisfaction lead to another?
Isn't it interesting that bible teaching is unclear and God is absent from church for about 20% of the people of 18-29 years old.
One fifth say that abstinence is insufficient.... or they don't want to abbstain (in clearer language), and they feel judged for being sexually active outside of marriage. Hmmnn. They feel judged, rather than being re-born and forgiven. Why is that?
So what have we missed? I think we have not presented the gospel to our children. We have not witnessed. We have not put christian living into the context of Christ's redeeming love. We have performed all the heresies that the reformers so vigorously fought against. So we have some people emphasizing works righteousness. We have other people sinning so that grace may abound. We have as Jude says, turned the grace of God into a license for immorality. We have substituted environment or social "goodness" for the Christ. And many other things. The youth are people and human like everyone else. They are not some pariah from another planet. They should be engaged as people, and not estranged as aliens. They have the ability and heart to be soldiers of Christ.
How is it even possible that God is absent from their church experience? Any elder, preacher, deacon, evangelist should be crying tears at hearing such a sad thing. And ashamed that they say that Bible teaching is unclear (making faith irrelevant).
The youth say that "just say no" is insufficient in a techno-porn world. That's their judgement. They are willing to judge, but not to be judged. It is their own actions that judge themselves. If we as Christians apologize for saying that, then it is no wonder that they feel that faith is irrelevant.
Make Christ first in your life, and your children will be blessed.
John
Isolationism. One-fourth of 18- to 29-year-olds say church demonizes everything outside church, including the music, movies, culture, and technology that define their generation.
Shallowness. One-third call church boring, about one-fourth say faith is irrelevant and Bible teaching is unclear. One-fifth say God is absent from their church experience.
Anti-science. Up to one-third say the church is out of step on scientific developments and debate.
Sex. The church is perceived as simplistic and judgmental. For a fifth or more, a "just say no" philosophy is insufficient in a techno-porno world. Young Christian singles are as sexually active as their non-churched friends, and many say they feel judged.
Exclusivity. Three in 10 young people feel the church is too exclusive in this pluralistic and multi-cultural age. And the same number feel forced to choose between their faith and their friends.
Doubters. The church is not a safe place to express doubts say over one-third of young people, and one-fourth have serious doubts they'd like to discuss.
What have we missed in both discipleship and the great commission?
Check out Ian Juby's you-tubes. He describes how the age of some fossils changed due to circular reasoning. The age of some fossils originally based on "objective" radio-isotope measurements was assessed at 269 million years and then dramatically reduced to something like 20 million years when they realized it would not fit into the preconceived paleontological hierarchy.
The age of fossils is based on a model. The model postulates how long it takes for certain animals to evolve, and works backwards from what we have today. It also correlates fossils to rock layers. If the radio-isotope dating does not match the perceptions about the age of the fossils, then it will be revised and redone until they match, usually in favor of the perceived age of the fossils. This appears to be so regardless of whether the rock layer appears to be too old, or whether it appears to be too young. For example, instances of layer inversion, where younger fossils are found in layers underneath the older layers. The whole model hangs on the theory, and then the model is used to prove and demonstrate the theory. Circular reasoning.
Radio-isotope dating depends on uniformity and consistency. If things have changed over time, such as atmospheric concentrations, radio-activity bursts and stimulations, it would be difficult if not impossible to measure the impacts of anything beyond human history. We suspect things have greatly changed over time, and that is why the age of people dramatically declined since the days of Noah, indicating a lack of uniformity. The decrease in the age of people also fits with the genetic changes and even with elements of genetic deterioration, mutations, etc, which have a huge tendency towards degradation, even though genetically we would postulate under the assumptions of the evolutionary theory that people who live longer have a genetic advantage to pass on those genes.
That was quick, Ken. (for someone who thinks everything must happen slowly...) :o)
You said, [quote]" As they say in the computer industry, garbage in garbage out. I question
the
source of your "present day data"."[/quote] My response is that the documented rates of growth of coral ranges from one to 250 mm of growth per annum, and using a different measurement technique, up to 400mm per annum. This is very optimistic true, but perhaps questioning it without examining it is not fair.
You said [quote]"Regardless, other evidence mitigates
against anything that rapid in the Silurian, one of which is the rate of
subsidence."[/quote] How would you measure or determine the rate of subsidence in the past?
You said, [quote] If this research is correct, conditions changed making
the rate of growth change. That's like saying if we have heavy rain the creek
will flood. What is more likely to occur, the "normal" situation or the
anomalous situation?"[/quote] My response is that both the unflooded and the flooded situations are normal. The question is how often the creek floods, how long it stays flooded, and how high it floods. How often do we have the heavy rain. Yes, conditions changed making the rate of growth change. But this is only based on present knowledge assumptions compared to knowledge assumptions of yesteryear. What will tomorrow's knowledge assumptions do to the rate of growth? The actual rate of growth was what is was. It was only our perception of this rate of growth that was mistaken, according to this research. And I maintain that our perception may still be mistaken.
You said, [quote]"... he believed that science developed to the extent it
did in the western world because Christians believe in a God of order."[/quote] I think that is true, to some extent. But God's order is not always our order. Our perception of God's order is not automatically correct. His statement:" He
does what He says, and we can count on it." is in fact what we disagree on since God said he spoke and it was so, and he created in six days. Yet you disagree. So you cannot really count on it.
You also seem to be assuming that just because a Christian disagrees with evolution that he must not be interested in science, in studying plants and rocks and physics and chemistry. That is an unfair and unscientific assumption.
You said: " My friend, this is not reasoning, it is fact. ..... The conclusion is that mountains once existed there, and have been eroded down to their foundations." What is fact is that metamorphic rock is there. What is reasoning is that metamorphic rock is caused by high pressure and heat and therefore must have occurred deep underground at a slow pace. However, lack of evidence is not proof. Lack of sedimentary rock, lack of surface silt and clay, or lack of mountain foundations is not proof that it once was there.
An automobile crawling along at 20 km/hr is not proof that it once was going faster (just because most automobiles can and do travel faster most of the time). Nor is it proof that it has always travelled at 20 km/hr.
This applies also to mountain building. The paradigm of uniformity ignores the possibility of dramatic, unexpected, violent, cataclysmic conditions and happenings. I know that a possibility of something is not proof that it happened. But observing present conditions is also not proof that uniformity is the only possibility.
You said: [quote]" I think this is
different than a professional paper citing the research that others have
done and the evidence they have obtained with respect to, say, the rocks and
fossils of a particular locality."[/quote] I agree that professional papers cite sources differently. No problem. But many scientific textbooks have regurgitated evolutionary theory far beyond what the science proves, and continue to do so even when evidence has discredited the conclusions, particularly on the evolution of man. Some of those textbooks have cartoons of man's evolutionary ancestors which have absolutely no basis in fact or evidence. Yet they feel the liberty to draw or conceptualize based on their feelings and assumptions, and do not withdraw the book when it rapidly becomes out of date, inaccurate, and proven to be wrong on this point. As far as the Paluxey footprints are concerned, many of these Christian geologists are not convinced they are discredited.
As far as turning an unbeliever more strongly against christianity, as you suggested Henry Morris had done, it reminds me of God hardening Pharaoh's heart. Would we blame God for that? or was pharaoh already determined to be god unto himself? How about the evolutionists who are determined to destroy the faith of christians? to laugh at scripture? to deride a God who spoke things into existence? to mock the possibility of six days? to scoff at man from dust? to hold in derision the concept of sin?
You said: "Of course, radiogenic isotopes are, by definition, the result of radioactive
decay, so it is reasonable to assume, yes, that the radiogenic atoms in a
sample began to accumulate when the mineral they are in crystallized." My response is yes, of course. But you would still need to know the original ratio at that place and time.
You said:[quote] " Nice talking with you, John."[/quote]
Taking this quote out of context, I will say thankyou. Have fun with writing your book. h
A quote from your link: "Unfortunately, Behe doesn't mention the Krebs in his book. A pity. Here is a complex biochemical system, clearly an excellent hook on which to hang his thesis. Right? However, closer inspection of the literature reveals problems with such a "Krebs cycle is irreducibly complex" hypothesis..."
Why would you try to refute a comment that Behe never made, as you acknowledge yourself? Seems a bit like bait and switch?
Irreducibly complex does not mean that you could not have a smaller eye, or a different eye. It means you need more than half the parts to make it work. If you take 90% of it away, you do not have something useful, and usually if you take one small part away, it is also not very useful. This reduces the chances based on random mutations, to get a combination of simultaneous mutations that would produce something useful, and this must be combined with a larger organism in which there are other parts that are also complex, and need to be there for the whole organism to function. It is not only that you need all the parts, but they must also be there at the same time, in the right position, of the right size, and fitted together properly, and then hooked up to the larger organism properly. A perfect eye without a brain behind it would also be useless.
The eye of the ragworm is useful to the ragworm, but not to the human; it would be like walking around with your eyes closed.
The beefalo tends to revert back to the bison. This appears to be more of a selection than a mutation. There is an assumption by evolutionists that recessive genes must have originated from a mutation, but how is that proved?
Episode 35 of Season 2 on "Genesis Week" (found on youtube or Wazoolo.com) discusses how a recent fossil find of a supposedly 70 million year old dinosaur had unfossilized dinosaur skin attached. It also discusses the large number of fossil human footprints found around the world, in particular in Laetoli, South Africa, and in Mungo Park, Australia, as well as the Paluxy tracks in the USA. Also Mexico (Sylvia Gonzales found those). They are using CT scans and ground penetrating radar to analyze them, and some of them are in layers that supposedly pre-date the dinosaur periods of time. Interesting.
Elder Lubbert, the statement I made was not made to capture the attitude of the socio-cultural worldview we live beside. It was meant to speak to christians who would like to understand their own place in the evangelizing, discipling. I would not speak to non-christians this way; they are not the problem. It is christians who are the problem. The words I used are easy enough to understand, unless christians have already stopped attending church. In that case, those would not be reading this.
The socio-cultural worldview beside us is much the same as always, outside of Christ. I mean that it focusses on pleasure, money, self, education, nature, security, sex, sport, pensions, entertainment, as alternatives to God. And when those things become too important to Christians then it chokes the word of God in their lives as well.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Correction: in the second paragraph, I meant to say that a moist finger will stick to a bone fossil but not to stones in the same layer as the fossils. In that way you can distinguish a bone fossil from the stone around it.
Posted in: Alpha Still Works!
Bill, maybe it would not be wrong to say that your power saw still works.... even though you know that it takes someone to operate it, and that it needs power to make it work. Just that analogy work for you?
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Good posts, Neil, I appreciate your views. and Steve, too.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Ken, wow. Good response. I’ll try to respond to both of your posts in this one response.
You said: "I'm not at all uncertain. Are you? Your comment about reef growth, "At...approx one-half metre per year, it might have taken about 300 years to form", is a case in point. You can plug in any number you want, realistic or not, and get the result you want, but that doesn't prove or disprove anythiing. You need to consider all of the data."
My response is that yes, I am uncertain about many things. That is what makes learning interesting. I realize that plugging in .4 m per year does prove or disprove anything; it merely indicates a possibility. This number is possible, based on some present day data, but that does not mean that it actually happened that way. But even if it took twice as long or four times as long, then the reefs could have formed in 1200 years.
You said: " our material on the growth of the Andes is confusing to me because it is unclear what is a quotation and what is your commentary" I try to put quotation marks around quotes – I believe I did that there
You said: "So the Andes may have had a growth spurt, and geologists have discovered something we didn't know before. This doesn't significantly change the plate tectonics model, and is a much more complicated situation than reef growth or evaporite deposition." The article indicated some significant changes to the plate tectonics model would be required. But my point was only that the amount of time for something to happen in geological history still appears to be relatively fluid.
You asked: "In answer to your final question, let me ask how much sea water would have to evaporate in order to precipitate the amount of salt in the Salina Group in Michigan. " I think I already gave a number for the amount of normal sea water to evaporate, something between 1500 and 6000 feet of water. For highly saline water, slightly more than a tenth of that amount would be required.
You said: "The deepest crustal rocks in Michigan are granites and metamorphic rocks, the kinds of rocks that we find in the depths of mountain belts, and the surface of this basement rock is rather flat, which suggests that there were mountains here at one time, and those mountains were eroded away."
My reply is that your reasoning could go both ways based on what you are saying here. In other words, in this location, the granites and metamorphic rocks remained in place, rather than being uplifted into mountains. The Canadian Shield is full of this type of rock as well, which is near the surface. The literature indicates a belief that this used to be many large mountains at one time. The reasoning is that rocks found under mountains are similar. Other evidence is lacking, apparently, since as mountains erode, the roots of mountains rise up. So in this case of the Shield, any mountain roots would be much smaller than they were originally, but then how would we know really? The article I saw also indicated that there used to be hundreds of volcanic belts in this area, each one with several hundreds of volcanos and numerous vents.
You said: [quote]"John, I have an entire shelf of books by Christians on the issue of origins, and covering the entire spectrum of views from young-Earth creationism to evolutionary creation, and many of them misquote or quote out of context what scientists have written, distort or misrepresent the data (either deliberately or unwittingly), and show vast ignorance of the subject. Judging from the reviews of these two books on Amazon, they are probably more of the same. Usually the more "orthodox" such books are, the worse the science is. Some Christian writers even simply recycle material gleaned from other writers, and use "mined quotes" from books that have lifted quotes out of context. Often authors have minimal education in the field they write about, such as engineers writing on geology, paleontology, etc. This is embarrassing to many Christian scientists."[/quote]
My response: Yes, probably, some material is recycled from other writers. But the evolutionary theory proponents do this all the time. Continually. Many evolutionary geologists do nothing else than recycle the thoughts of others. And many of those thoughts are already recycled. Generalizations about "orthodoxy" and "worse science" is also a recycled thought, and the judgement about "worse science" is often based on whether it fits with the prevailing paradigm or not. From my point of view, the absolutely worst science has been the evolutionary science around the assumed evolution of man. Distorted and misrepresented data, fossils, fraud, unscientific assumptions, etc. When some words by some evolutionary scientists are quoted out of context, it is simply to highlight the fact of what they have said, and not to sugar-coat it. Many evolutionists ignore those statements because they are too difficult to deal with.
You said, "On the subject of radiometric dating, many are "expert" on the subject who have never done anything with it."
My reply is that the experts should be able to use radiometric dating objectively. But it is not as simply as a chemical test for chlorine, or for acidity, or for aluminum or arsenic in water. Radiometric dating requires a tremendous number of assumptions. The actual testing of chemical content of material, including the evaluation of proportions of various isotopes, is not the problem. That can be done objectively. What cannot be done objectively is the assumption of what that proportion should have been originally, which is what the whole radiometric dating process relies on.
You said:[quote] "Incidentally, I know the former manager of a large lab that does radiometric dating, who was asked by a geologist affiliated with the Institute for Creation Research to date a recent basalt sample from Hawaii. The manager pointed out what this geologist probably already knew, that relatively young volcanic samples give very old radiometric dates by the K-40/Ar-40 method, because a lot of non-radiogenic argon in the magma is trapped in the resulting volcanic rock, noting that it is not their practice to date such material. He was told to go ahead and do the dating, and the lab was paid for the work. The ridiculous result has since been published as an example of the unreliability of radiometric dating." [/quote]
This illustrates my point. Is the dating method determining the age, or is the assumption about age made already before the dating method is used? If the method is ridiculous for this known- to- be- relatively- young basalt, then how can the same method be used to indicate that some other basalt is very old? Maybe it is also young?
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Quote: " Science makes predictions, uses evidence, and adapts as our understanding grows." Science is a discipline, a way of observing things and drawing conclusions. It is not science that makes predictions; it is human beings who are called scientists that make the predictions. This is a very important distinction. Science does not adapt. It is people who revise scientific procedures who adapt. Early scientists used their eyes to observe. Modern scientists use microscopes and telescopes to aid their eyes in their observations. Early scientists used simple math; modern scientists use complicated algorithms and integrated models.
Most scientists use correlations to attempt to draw conclusions. But establishing cause and effect through correlations can be faulty.
The reason that Steve and others use the statements of scientists to counter their own conclusions, is that their own statements do not always logically require the deductions and position conclusions that they make. This is a legitimate form of argumentation; nothing wrong with it. Evidence often does not only lead to one conclusion; often it leads to several possibilities. Having your mind closed to other possibilities is not the fault of science; it is a failing of the scientists who practice science.
You seem to assume certain conclusions without examining them, such as "why we find fossils from billions of years ago". The whole point is whether those fossils really were from billions of years ago, or whether the reasoning behind the age-verification of these fossils is faulty. You seem to be accepting this age-verification on blind faith, without understanding the sampling process or the assumptions behind the measurements of mineral half-lifes, and the fact that fossils age is determined based on where they are "supposed" to fit in the geological history, based on where other fossils are found. Ian Juby in one of his you-tube videos gives a good example of the inaccuracy of measuring ages of some fossil layers, and how circular reasoning resulted in a final age determination. This is not a good scientific practice, but it happens very often in this branch of science. Objective measurements of age are not really that objective at all.
I suggest that you visit Ian Juby's You-tube videos, and that you check out Walt Brown's book, both of which are available on the internet. Walt Brown's book will take you awhile, since it is over 400 pages of heavy reading.
Posted in: When Churches Lose Members
Lubbert, I will try to respond to your question about Barna survey and how we relate or respond. It would be interesting to combine the six categories you mention, or see how they interrelate. For example, one fourth say faith is irrelevant. Are they the same that say that church demonizes everything? Are they the same that say church is too exclusive, or too judgemental? Or are they all different groups? Does one dissatisfaction lead to another?
Isn't it interesting that bible teaching is unclear and God is absent from church for about 20% of the people of 18-29 years old.
One fifth say that abstinence is insufficient.... or they don't want to abbstain (in clearer language), and they feel judged for being sexually active outside of marriage. Hmmnn. They feel judged, rather than being re-born and forgiven. Why is that?
So what have we missed? I think we have not presented the gospel to our children. We have not witnessed. We have not put christian living into the context of Christ's redeeming love. We have performed all the heresies that the reformers so vigorously fought against. So we have some people emphasizing works righteousness. We have other people sinning so that grace may abound. We have as Jude says, turned the grace of God into a license for immorality. We have substituted environment or social "goodness" for the Christ. And many other things. The youth are people and human like everyone else. They are not some pariah from another planet. They should be engaged as people, and not estranged as aliens. They have the ability and heart to be soldiers of Christ.
How is it even possible that God is absent from their church experience? Any elder, preacher, deacon, evangelist should be crying tears at hearing such a sad thing. And ashamed that they say that Bible teaching is unclear (making faith irrelevant).
The youth say that "just say no" is insufficient in a techno-porn world. That's their judgement. They are willing to judge, but not to be judged. It is their own actions that judge themselves. If we as Christians apologize for saying that, then it is no wonder that they feel that faith is irrelevant.
Make Christ first in your life, and your children will be blessed.
John
Isolationism. One-fourth of 18- to 29-year-olds say church demonizes everything outside church, including the music, movies, culture, and technology that define their generation.
Shallowness. One-third call church boring, about one-fourth say faith is irrelevant and Bible teaching is unclear. One-fifth say God is absent from their church experience.
Anti-science. Up to one-third say the church is out of step on scientific developments and debate.
Sex. The church is perceived as simplistic and judgmental. For a fifth or more, a "just say no" philosophy is insufficient in a techno-porno world. Young Christian singles are as sexually active as their non-churched friends, and many say they feel judged.
Exclusivity. Three in 10 young people feel the church is too exclusive in this pluralistic and multi-cultural age. And the same number feel forced to choose between their faith and their friends.
Doubters. The church is not a safe place to express doubts say over one-third of young people, and one-fourth have serious doubts they'd like to discuss.
What have we missed in both discipleship and the great commission?
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Check out Ian Juby's you-tubes. He describes how the age of some fossils changed due to circular reasoning. The age of some fossils originally based on "objective" radio-isotope measurements was assessed at 269 million years and then dramatically reduced to something like 20 million years when they realized it would not fit into the preconceived paleontological hierarchy.
The age of fossils is based on a model. The model postulates how long it takes for certain animals to evolve, and works backwards from what we have today. It also correlates fossils to rock layers. If the radio-isotope dating does not match the perceptions about the age of the fossils, then it will be revised and redone until they match, usually in favor of the perceived age of the fossils. This appears to be so regardless of whether the rock layer appears to be too old, or whether it appears to be too young. For example, instances of layer inversion, where younger fossils are found in layers underneath the older layers. The whole model hangs on the theory, and then the model is used to prove and demonstrate the theory. Circular reasoning.
Radio-isotope dating depends on uniformity and consistency. If things have changed over time, such as atmospheric concentrations, radio-activity bursts and stimulations, it would be difficult if not impossible to measure the impacts of anything beyond human history. We suspect things have greatly changed over time, and that is why the age of people dramatically declined since the days of Noah, indicating a lack of uniformity. The decrease in the age of people also fits with the genetic changes and even with elements of genetic deterioration, mutations, etc, which have a huge tendency towards degradation, even though genetically we would postulate under the assumptions of the evolutionary theory that people who live longer have a genetic advantage to pass on those genes.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
That was quick, Ken. (for someone who thinks everything must happen slowly...) :o)
You said, [quote]" As they say in the computer industry, garbage in garbage out. I question
the
source of your "present day data"."[/quote] My response is that the documented rates of growth of coral ranges from one to 250 mm of growth per annum, and using a different measurement technique, up to 400mm per annum. This is very optimistic true, but perhaps questioning it without examining it is not fair.
You said [quote]"Regardless, other evidence mitigates
against anything that rapid in the Silurian, one of which is the rate of
subsidence."[/quote] How would you measure or determine the rate of subsidence in the past?
You said, [quote] If this research is correct, conditions changed making
the rate of growth change. That's like saying if we have heavy rain the creek
will flood. What is more likely to occur, the "normal" situation or the
anomalous situation?"[/quote] My response is that both the unflooded and the flooded situations are normal. The question is how often the creek floods, how long it stays flooded, and how high it floods. How often do we have the heavy rain. Yes, conditions changed making the rate of growth change. But this is only based on present knowledge assumptions compared to knowledge assumptions of yesteryear. What will tomorrow's knowledge assumptions do to the rate of growth? The actual rate of growth was what is was. It was only our perception of this rate of growth that was mistaken, according to this research. And I maintain that our perception may still be mistaken.
You said, [quote]"... he believed that science developed to the extent it
did in the western world because Christians believe in a God of order."[/quote] I think that is true, to some extent. But God's order is not always our order. Our perception of God's order is not automatically correct. His statement:" He
does what He says, and we can count on it." is in fact what we disagree on since God said he spoke and it was so, and he created in six days. Yet you disagree. So you cannot really count on it.
You also seem to be assuming that just because a Christian disagrees with evolution that he must not be interested in science, in studying plants and rocks and physics and chemistry. That is an unfair and unscientific assumption.
You said: " My friend, this is not reasoning, it is fact. ..... The conclusion is that mountains once existed there, and have been eroded down to their foundations." What is fact is that metamorphic rock is there. What is reasoning is that metamorphic rock is caused by high pressure and heat and therefore must have occurred deep underground at a slow pace. However, lack of evidence is not proof. Lack of sedimentary rock, lack of surface silt and clay, or lack of mountain foundations is not proof that it once was there.
An automobile crawling along at 20 km/hr is not proof that it once was going faster (just because most automobiles can and do travel faster most of the time). Nor is it proof that it has always travelled at 20 km/hr.
This applies also to mountain building. The paradigm of uniformity ignores the possibility of dramatic, unexpected, violent, cataclysmic conditions and happenings. I know that a possibility of something is not proof that it happened. But observing present conditions is also not proof that uniformity is the only possibility.
You said: [quote]" I think this is
different than a professional paper citing the research that others have
done and the evidence they have obtained with respect to, say, the rocks and
fossils of a particular locality."[/quote] I agree that professional papers cite sources differently. No problem. But many scientific textbooks have regurgitated evolutionary theory far beyond what the science proves, and continue to do so even when evidence has discredited the conclusions, particularly on the evolution of man. Some of those textbooks have cartoons of man's evolutionary ancestors which have absolutely no basis in fact or evidence. Yet they feel the liberty to draw or conceptualize based on their feelings and assumptions, and do not withdraw the book when it rapidly becomes out of date, inaccurate, and proven to be wrong on this point. As far as the Paluxey footprints are concerned, many of these Christian geologists are not convinced they are discredited.
As far as turning an unbeliever more strongly against christianity, as you suggested Henry Morris had done, it reminds me of God hardening Pharaoh's heart. Would we blame God for that? or was pharaoh already determined to be god unto himself? How about the evolutionists who are determined to destroy the faith of christians? to laugh at scripture? to deride a God who spoke things into existence? to mock the possibility of six days? to scoff at man from dust? to hold in derision the concept of sin?
You said: "Of course, radiogenic isotopes are, by definition, the result of radioactive
decay, so it is reasonable to assume, yes, that the radiogenic atoms in a
sample began to accumulate when the mineral they are in crystallized." My response is yes, of course. But you would still need to know the original ratio at that place and time.
You said:[quote] " Nice talking with you, John."[/quote]
Taking this quote out of context, I will say thankyou. Have fun with writing your book. h
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
A quote from your link: "Unfortunately, Behe doesn't mention the Krebs in his book. A pity. Here is a complex biochemical system, clearly an excellent hook on which to hang his thesis. Right? However, closer inspection of the literature reveals problems with such a "Krebs cycle is irreducibly complex" hypothesis..."
Why would you try to refute a comment that Behe never made, as you acknowledge yourself? Seems a bit like bait and switch?
Irreducibly complex does not mean that you could not have a smaller eye, or a different eye. It means you need more than half the parts to make it work. If you take 90% of it away, you do not have something useful, and usually if you take one small part away, it is also not very useful. This reduces the chances based on random mutations, to get a combination of simultaneous mutations that would produce something useful, and this must be combined with a larger organism in which there are other parts that are also complex, and need to be there for the whole organism to function. It is not only that you need all the parts, but they must also be there at the same time, in the right position, of the right size, and fitted together properly, and then hooked up to the larger organism properly. A perfect eye without a brain behind it would also be useless.
The eye of the ragworm is useful to the ragworm, but not to the human; it would be like walking around with your eyes closed.
The beefalo tends to revert back to the bison. This appears to be more of a selection than a mutation. There is an assumption by evolutionists that recessive genes must have originated from a mutation, but how is that proved?
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
An interesting description of DNA, how it's replicated, stored, packaged, etc., from a Christian perspective.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLx8NnhRdC4&list=UU23yiJV4Bkagj5dkH-UyHFA&index=2
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Episode 35 of Season 2 on "Genesis Week" (found on youtube or Wazoolo.com) discusses how a recent fossil find of a supposedly 70 million year old dinosaur had unfossilized dinosaur skin attached. It also discusses the large number of fossil human footprints found around the world, in particular in Laetoli, South Africa, and in Mungo Park, Australia, as well as the Paluxy tracks in the USA. Also Mexico (Sylvia Gonzales found those). They are using CT scans and ground penetrating radar to analyze them, and some of them are in layers that supposedly pre-date the dinosaur periods of time. Interesting.
Posted in: When Churches Lose Members
Elder Lubbert, the statement I made was not made to capture the attitude of the socio-cultural worldview we live beside. It was meant to speak to christians who would like to understand their own place in the evangelizing, discipling. I would not speak to non-christians this way; they are not the problem. It is christians who are the problem. The words I used are easy enough to understand, unless christians have already stopped attending church. In that case, those would not be reading this.
The socio-cultural worldview beside us is much the same as always, outside of Christ. I mean that it focusses on pleasure, money, self, education, nature, security, sex, sport, pensions, entertainment, as alternatives to God. And when those things become too important to Christians then it chokes the word of God in their lives as well.