Raised in the Gereformeerde Kerken and in the Christian Reformed Church. Educated at Calvin College and the Pennsylvania State University. Currently a member of the Presbyterian "wing" of a multi-denominational congregation.
Or, what keeps the CRC together, theology, history, worship? Seems to me that, with the welcome diversity of the CRC, history and worship no longer form the bonds they once did.
Driving past the Evangelical Free Church in Winnipeg today, I saw a sign reading "The keys to heaven are hanging on the cross" or words to that effect. I liked it!
John, I apologize for my delay in responding to your last two posts. I've been preoccupied with a number of other projects but I have not forgotten our dialog! I will try to get back to your penultimate post but I have a few comments on your post of December 05, about a possible timeline for a Biblical Flood, be it local or global. If we can assume that the Genesis record is sequential (i.e., at least what is recorded in Genesis 2 happened before what happened in Genesis 3, and so on), the Euphrates and Tigris are mentioned in Genesis 2. Unless one argues that these two rivers were not the same as the current rivers of those names in present-day Iraq, the events described in Genesis 2 - 6 must have occurred in that part of the world that we now call Iraq. To then postulate that continent drifter apart after these events require that the geology of the Iraqi region has not changed even though continents drifted and mountains were created (as a result of the continental movement). There is ample geological evidence that continental movement led to orogenesis (mountain building) but to postulate that continental drift preserved the - rather delicate - geology of the Tigris-Euphrates basin is a bit of a stretch.
But, never mind all these problems, we are still faced with putting Noah in-time-and-place. I will grant you that it is conceivable that Noah's immediate family was "of mixed race" and that his daughters-in-law were non-Semitic or whatever Noah and his wife were. Note that this still requires some time between Adam and Noah for the Adamites (for lack of a better word) to evolve into groups with different skin colour and facial features.
As to the tree trunks in the high arctic, this can also be explained by continental drift and old tree trunks do not have to become fossilized if they are isolated from the environment. Some clays are very impervious to water and can seal biological material. For example, wood from tree trunks recovered from Dunnarobba in Italy retained its structure and can be carved (I've handled a piece; it looked like a piece from an old barn).
But I digress and must get back to other, more onerous, tasks. As usual, with these discussions, one topic leads to another and we can go around the mulberry bush for a long time. So, I end with rephrasing my earlier question: when did the Biblical Flood take place? For example, xxxx BC or, if you want to put it into perspective, how long before the building of the pyramids in Egypt?
John, now that Christmas and Boxing Day are rapidly fading into memory, it's time for me to get back into the discussion. First, the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Yes, it's possible that these rivers have been reshaped but, again, I find this argument a bit of a stretch, because they would still be in approximately the same location. As I mentioned earlier, to hold that the drifting of the various tectonic plates would have allowed that valley retain its current form (OK, the form it had during the Biblical Flood) is a bit difficult, considering that the collisions of the tectonic plates led to orogenesis (formation of mountains).
I did look at one of the websites that deals with Walter Brown's hydroplate theory. I must admit that his theory of the formation of the mid-Atlantic ridge is clever but there are just too many problems for me. In the first place, Brown would have to explain how a layer of water (density = 1) would end up underneath a layer of geological material (density = ~2.65). True, an intact layer of geological material could, in principle, remain separated from the layer underneath that layer of water, but the question remains how water got there in the first place. I don't know if Water Brown has an answer for that.
Next, if a hairline crack appeared in this geological layer and caused the geological layer to split, sending all that water to the surface, why would those edges of that layer spread? The surface of a sphere is finite and it's clever to argue that the release of water caused the astenosphere to bulge upwards and let the geological layer "slide downhill" but where would that layer slide to? There's no room, unless one postulates that subduction occurs but subduction requires different tectonic plates. Then there is also the temperature of the water to consider (the geothermal gradient is about 25 C/km).
Then there is the question of the age of the basement rock of the Atlantic Ocean. The rock is younger towards the mid-Atlantic ridge, consistent with a slow process of the movement of the tectonic plates away from each other, caused by magma welling up.
It should also be noted that rock is brittle and rapid deformation of most geological material wil cause fracturing. If the deformation is slow, the geological material can accommodate the stresses and can deform without fracturing. Thus, a rapid movement of the geological layer would have created a lot of fracturing.
Finally (for now), I'm a bit surprised at your statement about time lines, that "[a]s 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." If they only differ by "a few hundred years" one has to explain how "the family Noah" was able to spread that quickly from eight people to the large number of people that managed to stick together until the Babel episode and, from which, one group moved to Egypt to set up shop, develop a technology that allowed them to build pyramids and develop a society that could marshall enough workers to get these things built.
Summarizing my comments, then, I find arguments for a global flood weak in the face of geological and other evidence. Maybe, in time, some scientifically defendable interpretation of the currently available information may shed more light on this topic. In the meantime, we'll just have to agree to disagree. There are, after all, bigger fish to fry.
John, You're getting me "hooked" on this forum but I can't resist (well, I could, if I wanted to) commenting on your Boxing Day post. As far as ecumenism is concerned, would an "acid test" not be the Apostles' Creed? If a denomination or a congregation subscribes to this Creed, my guess is that we could see their members as "brothers and sisters in Christ" no matter how we feel about their interpretation of Scripture ([harrumpf], "another believer in consubstantiation. Where do they get those ideas!"). I am a member of a multidenominational congregation that is recognized by four denominations. I don't agree with some of the tenets of some of the denominations but that does not prevent me to worship with them or work with them. "We park our denominational differences at the door." If there were a CRC congregation within reasonably driving distance, we would probably join it.
As to the interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis, is not the main point of the Fall that mankind has sinned and falls short of the glory of God? I must admit that I have had considerable discomfort with the transmitting of original sin from Adam to subsequent generations. I suppose it is possible that, by eating of the forbidden fruit, Adam's and Eve's DNA was altered miraculously so that the "sin gene" would be propagated though the human race but it does seem a bit odd, humanly speaking, that "one slip by Eve and then Adam" led us into a predicament from which only the death of Jesus can save (some of) us. No chance for a "do over". But, no matter how one slices it, it's obvious that mankind sins and needs redemption. (And let's not get onto the road leading to supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism!)
Finally, it's not so much as "conforming to the world" as it is to confront the evidence in the geological record (Calvin's General Revelation) faithfully. There are some Christians who believe that scientists do their utmost best to find evidence that can be used to discredit the Bible. Unless one believes in a conspiracy cooked up by "atheistic scientists", I can't see scientists fudging their results to make a point. They would be found out sooner or later with unpleasant results as to the future of their scientific career.
John, you raised an important point that I had overlooked, and that is the Heidelberg Catechism [HC]. You are quite correct (of course) that the HC is quite specific as to the origin of sin. Whether or not those Q&As are as defendable as they were in 1563 may be debatable but, until the CRC changes them (not an easy task, considering Q&A 80!), one is bound to have to agree to them to remain within the CRC. In reality, I wonder how many CRC members wrestle with some of the HC Q&As and if this is not becoming a stumbling block for potential members or a reason for CRC members to drift away.
As far as scientific fudging is concerned, experimentalists who "fudge" results tend to be found out when it is clear that the experimental results cannot be duplicated. "Fudging" my be a strong word, as sometimes the materials are not as "clean" as they should be. I tried to duplicate an experiment that was reported in Science, using the same geological sample and was unable to get the same results. I determined that the geological material was contaminated and that observation led me some interesting conclusions. I cannot comment on the "same codons in DNA codes" because that's not my are of expertise.
John, a few comments: If you date the flood a few hundred years before the Egyptians built their pyramids, the larger mountains must have formed in a very short time and that presents problems with the deforming of the geological layers. If you look at Mount Rundle, you see that those particular geological layers resisted bending and remain roughly parallel to one side of the mountain. On the other hand, exposed rock layers along the Juniata River in Central Pennsylvania show foliation in the form of synclines and anticlines. As to stating that "water ends up under rock all time", yes, of course, there is groundwater and there are aquifers but the porosity of intact igneous rock is relatively low (0.3% for granite) and caves and caverns do not extend over large areas. If I recall, Walter Brown has a whole layer of water, apparently devoid of any geological material and with sufficient permeability to be expelled at a great rate. That layer of water served as a "lubricant" allowing the continents to move very rapidly without creation large amounts of heat due to friction. My understanding of "water under the earth" is that the conventional wisdom was that the Earth floated on water and that there was a "firmament" above the water and the Earth along which the sun, moon, and stars traveled on a sort of track. As to the expanding population after the Flood and the preservation of technology, minds better than mine have pondered this and have come to the conclusion that preserving technology by a family of eight is no simple matter. The common understanding is that Noah built the ark by himself, maybe with the help of his sons but he most likely had access to available technological resources. If he felled the trees himself, he must have had an axe of some sort and that assumed that there was some type of metallurgy (Tubal-Cain). Noah used pitch to seal the ark and must have had a source of this pitch and equipment to smear the pitch on the ark. Genesis 4 suggests a reasonably well developed society (tentmaking, enough leisure time to make and use instruments). By the time the flood waters had receded, the metallurgists would have died. If Noah did not know how to make an axe, he and his descendants would have had to reinvent metallurgy (I don't think that Noah would have used a flint axe but, if he had, he would have had to know where to find this flint). In short, a literal reading of the Flood story raises too many questions to an increasingly sceptical generation and, as I have mentioned before, may in fact hinder our attempts to bring the Good News of salvation in Christ. I just hope I'm wrong. Maybe I'm not relying on the Holy Spirit enough.
Joy, no, I have not had the time to look at the links you sent me. Some of the YouTube videos are an hour long! But, if you can give me that link again that provides "nuclear evidence supporting a young earth", I'll make it a point in looking at it and then get back with a response.
Can I explain how the Red Sea was parted? I accept Exodus 14:21 that God "drove the sea back with a strong east wind. However, I have some difficulty with the traditional visualization of Moses and the Israelites walking on a narrow path between two vertical walls of water (and sometimes showing surprised fish in the water). Yes, Exodus 14:22 mentions "a wall of water" but we don't know if a "wall of water" meant the same to the readers of Exodus as it does to us. Still, it's no "biggy" to me and I won't lie awake at night wondering about those walls of water. Likewise, can I explain the manna and the quail (Exodus 16)? No, but I don't have to because there is no geological record to counter these miraculous events. You see, Joy, it's all well and good if there is no physical evidence to conflict with Scriptures; it's when geological evidence overwhelmingly is at odds with a literal interpretation of - to me - less important events, we have a problem. What puzzles me is that many Christians cast doubt on some of the scientific methods and conclusions and yet would accept the same scientific methods used in forensic studies that would help convict or exonerate a defendant.
As to your last paragraph, I have no doubt that Jesus is God, that He died for our sins, and that He rose from the death. I fully subscribe to the Apostles' Creed.
I had a quick look at that item on Youtube but, as soon as I saw a picture of the Grand Canyon when "The Flood" was mentioned, I could guess where this video was going. Call me prejudiced, if you will. To answer John Zylstra, we must differentiate between YEC and OEC on the one hand, and the extent of a Flood on the other. You can have an "old Earth" and a more recent global Flood and you can have a "young Earth" and a global Flood, or either an old or young Earth and a global flood (or localized flood). I think there is sufficient evidence to accept an old Earth with a history of at least 1 billion years (to me, a nuclear scientist, the "clincher" is the Oklo phenomenon).
Perhaps John can give us some indication when the Biblical Flood occurred. If it was a global Flood that indeed wiped out all surface creatures, there must have been a fair bit of time for the creatures from the Ark to repopulate the Earth, all the way from Turkey to Australia. The kangaroos must have hopped all the way and drifted on logs to get to Australia. If there was a land bridge at the time, there should be some geological evidence. Again, John should be able to cite an accepted reference. There must also have been enough time for the descendants of Noah to move to the "four corners" of the Earth and undergo sufficient changes into the different races (Caucasian, Black, Oriental, Native American, etc). Does this differentiation into the current races take 1000 years, 3000 years, 10,000 years, 30,000 years, 100,000, 300,000 years? A biologist should be able to answer that question.
Of course, it is always possible that, after a global Flood, God created new creatures and that the platypus is part of that second creation but there is no mentioning of a "second creation" in the Bible.
Finally, I find it a bit odd that CRC folk are willing to consider arguments from people with dubious scientific credentials and reject the writings of recognized scientists in its circles such as Davis Young, Howard van Til, Clarence Menninga,Terry Gray and Loren and Deborah Haarsma. May I suggest the excellent book "Perspectives of an Evolving Creation" edited by Keith Miller and published by Eerdmans?
Not having watched the PBS program, I don't know what Keith Miller said but, in his chapter "Common Descent, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record" in the book I cited, he presents a lot of evidence of transitional forms: the chapter has 55 footnotes! As to his claim of being an "ardent evangelical Christian", I am not about to judge him! From what I have heard him say, I doubt if he would have any difficulties in reciting the Apostles' Creed and that would make him a Christian in my book (note that this Creed is silent on the Flood!). He certainly comes across as being "ardent" so we are left with the question if he is "evangelical". If you accept Merriam-Webster's definition that includes the "authority of the Bible" we can quibble about which parts of the Bible need to interpreted literally and which parts figuratively (and where common sense comes in). In any case, proponents of a global Flood need to address the wide variety and distribution of land-based life forms and I am still waiting for this explanation.
We're getting off topic here, from the Flood to evolution but I'm glad to note that you agree that the age of the earth is not the primary issue. I guess that Bishop Ussher has had his day (a good example why clergy should stick to their trade and, to me, a good example of sphere sovereignty!).
Concerning your comment, "inability to date new volcanic rock with ancient methods", you may be referring to the attempt to date new volcanic rock using the Kr/Ar dating technique. No self-respecting geochronologist would use this technique; it's like trying to measure the length of a grain of rice with a yardstick.
As to land bridges and ice bridges, the presence of either would explain the movement of indigenous people from Asia across the Bering Strait to North America and the somewhat similar appearance between Oriental and North American First Nations. And, certainly, these people could have taken livestock with them. But it's a bit of a stretch to invoke a land bridge or an ice bridge between Asia and Australia! To postulate a global Flood would mean that the kangaroos on the Ark would have had to migrate in sufficient number to Australia and then become extinct anywhere except Australia (kangaroos are not native to New Zealand).
I don't want to get into an argument about the definition of "race". I accept that we all belong to the human race but we certainly look different. My question is then one of how long did it take for the descendants of Noah and Mrs Noah to "evolve" (if you'll accept this term) into the Caucasian, Oriental, and Black groups? Your suggestion that "it would not take long" doesn't cut it for me; I'd like an substantiated, semi-quantitative answer. I realize that we don't have any photographic evidence but would an indigenous African have been as "black" 1000 or 3000 years ago as she is now? It would seem plausible to me that, in isolation, groups may "evolve" in different directions and that their features start to differentiate more and more, leading from [probably] similar siblings to the wide range in human features we see now. These differences start to disappear when these groups come into contact with each other.
How do we talk about these things as Christians? Tough question, John. As a scientist, I prefer to have a self-consistent explanation and, to my regret, a literal interpretation of the Bible creates problems. That's why people have said that "the Bible is not a science book". To me, the question is not so much as trying to arrive at a 100% concordance between the Bible and the created world but to accept the fundamental truth of the Bible, distilled in the Apostles' Creed and conveying the truth that God sent his only begotten Son into the world to die for our sins so that we will have eternal life. To me, everything else pales by comparison. Does it then really matter how sin entered into the world, either by an act of disobedience by a single woman and man or because God, in His wisdom created mankind with the freedom to choose? Or is it more important to accept the fact than mankind is sinful and in need of a Saviour? Will we be judged if we have trouble with the extent of the Flood? Will we be judged if we cause a stumbling block to unbelievers by insisting on a global Flood?
My aside about Bishop Ussher was intended to point out the danger of clergy (as well as other disciplines) going outside their expertise.
This is not the forum to debate the various geochronological techniques. I am well aware of the pitfalls of various methodologies and the error bars associated with them.
What I am still waiting for from you, is some sense of when, in time, the Biblical Flood occurred. From the Bible, it happened quite some time after Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. If we assume that the Biblical record of the Flood indeed was intended to state that it was a global Flood that obliterated all land-based animals, the entire world must then had to be repopulated with people and animals. Kangaroos must have hopped all the way to Australia. Other than a land bridge, the only (to me) plausible way is that some descendants of Noah and Mrs Noah domesticated the kangaroos and took a pair (or more) with them on a raft to Australia where they multiplied and spread out over that continent. You must admit that this is a bit far-fetched because these descendants must have taken some koala bears as well. But even then, the other part of the question is the time required for the descendants of Noah and Mrs Noah to spread over the entire world and "evolve" into different groups (trying to avoid "races") with their individual characteristics (colour of skin, amounts of facial hair, etc.). I'm no biologist or geneticist and have no "feel" of the time required for these changes to occur but it would seem to me that, if one supports a global Flood, one has to come up with some sort of explanation.
On the other hand, if we accept a regional Flood that was limited to the Tigris-Euphrates valley, and "the whole world" is intended to describe only that region, we can explain the diversity in the global distribution of animals and people but, I admit, does not square with a literal interpretation of Genesis 6. That leaves us with a non-literal interpretation.
Just because I have problems with a global Flood does not mean that I have problems with the raising of Lazarus or with the Resurrection. I do have a problem with proponents of a global Flood continue to cite the Grand Cayon as proof of a global Flood.
As to sin entering the world, again, this is a "whole other topic".
Posted in: Let’s Play “Banner Editor for a Day”
Or, what keeps the CRC together, theology, history, worship? Seems to me that, with the welcome diversity of the CRC, history and worship no longer form the bonds they once did.
Posted in: Church Signs: Who’s Your Audience?
Driving past the Evangelical Free Church in Winnipeg today, I saw a sign reading "The keys to heaven are hanging on the cross" or words to that effect. I liked it!
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
John, I apologize for my delay in responding to your last two posts. I've been preoccupied with a number of other projects but I have not forgotten our dialog! I will try to get back to your penultimate post but I have a few comments on your post of December 05, about a possible timeline for a Biblical Flood, be it local or global. If we can assume that the Genesis record is sequential (i.e., at least what is recorded in Genesis 2 happened before what happened in Genesis 3, and so on), the Euphrates and Tigris are mentioned in Genesis 2. Unless one argues that these two rivers were not the same as the current rivers of those names in present-day Iraq, the events described in Genesis 2 - 6 must have occurred in that part of the world that we now call Iraq. To then postulate that continent drifter apart after these events require that the geology of the Iraqi region has not changed even though continents drifted and mountains were created (as a result of the continental movement). There is ample geological evidence that continental movement led to orogenesis (mountain building) but to postulate that continental drift preserved the - rather delicate - geology of the Tigris-Euphrates basin is a bit of a stretch.
But, never mind all these problems, we are still faced with putting Noah in-time-and-place. I will grant you that it is conceivable that Noah's immediate family was "of mixed race" and that his daughters-in-law were non-Semitic or whatever Noah and his wife were. Note that this still requires some time between Adam and Noah for the Adamites (for lack of a better word) to evolve into groups with different skin colour and facial features.
As to the tree trunks in the high arctic, this can also be explained by continental drift and old tree trunks do not have to become fossilized if they are isolated from the environment. Some clays are very impervious to water and can seal biological material. For example, wood from tree trunks recovered from Dunnarobba in Italy retained its structure and can be carved (I've handled a piece; it looked like a piece from an old barn).
But I digress and must get back to other, more onerous, tasks. As usual, with these discussions, one topic leads to another and we can go around the mulberry bush for a long time. So, I end with rephrasing my earlier question: when did the Biblical Flood take place? For example, xxxx BC or, if you want to put it into perspective, how long before the building of the pyramids in Egypt?
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
John, now that Christmas and Boxing Day are rapidly fading into memory, it's time for me to get back into the discussion. First, the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Yes, it's possible that these rivers have been reshaped but, again, I find this argument a bit of a stretch, because they would still be in approximately the same location. As I mentioned earlier, to hold that the drifting of the various tectonic plates would have allowed that valley retain its current form (OK, the form it had during the Biblical Flood) is a bit difficult, considering that the collisions of the tectonic plates led to orogenesis (formation of mountains).
I did look at one of the websites that deals with Walter Brown's hydroplate theory. I must admit that his theory of the formation of the mid-Atlantic ridge is clever but there are just too many problems for me. In the first place, Brown would have to explain how a layer of water (density = 1) would end up underneath a layer of geological material (density = ~2.65). True, an intact layer of geological material could, in principle, remain separated from the layer underneath that layer of water, but the question remains how water got there in the first place. I don't know if Water Brown has an answer for that.
Next, if a hairline crack appeared in this geological layer and caused the geological layer to split, sending all that water to the surface, why would those edges of that layer spread? The surface of a sphere is finite and it's clever to argue that the release of water caused the astenosphere to bulge upwards and let the geological layer "slide downhill" but where would that layer slide to? There's no room, unless one postulates that subduction occurs but subduction requires different tectonic plates. Then there is also the temperature of the water to consider (the geothermal gradient is about 25 C/km).
Then there is the question of the age of the basement rock of the Atlantic Ocean. The rock is younger towards the mid-Atlantic ridge, consistent with a slow process of the movement of the tectonic plates away from each other, caused by magma welling up.
It should also be noted that rock is brittle and rapid deformation of most geological material wil cause fracturing. If the deformation is slow, the geological material can accommodate the stresses and can deform without fracturing. Thus, a rapid movement of the geological layer would have created a lot of fracturing.
Finally (for now), I'm a bit surprised at your statement about time lines, that "[a]s 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." If they only differ by "a few hundred years" one has to explain how "the family Noah" was able to spread that quickly from eight people to the large number of people that managed to stick together until the Babel episode and, from which, one group moved to Egypt to set up shop, develop a technology that allowed them to build pyramids and develop a society that could marshall enough workers to get these things built.
Summarizing my comments, then, I find arguments for a global flood weak in the face of geological and other evidence. Maybe, in time, some scientifically defendable interpretation of the currently available information may shed more light on this topic. In the meantime, we'll just have to agree to disagree. There are, after all, bigger fish to fry.
Peace to you and yours in 2014
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
John, You're getting me "hooked" on this forum but I can't resist (well, I could, if I wanted to) commenting on your Boxing Day post. As far as ecumenism is concerned, would an "acid test" not be the Apostles' Creed? If a denomination or a congregation subscribes to this Creed, my guess is that we could see their members as "brothers and sisters in Christ" no matter how we feel about their interpretation of Scripture ([harrumpf], "another believer in consubstantiation. Where do they get those ideas!"). I am a member of a multidenominational congregation that is recognized by four denominations. I don't agree with some of the tenets of some of the denominations but that does not prevent me to worship with them or work with them. "We park our denominational differences at the door." If there were a CRC congregation within reasonably driving distance, we would probably join it.
As to the interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis, is not the main point of the Fall that mankind has sinned and falls short of the glory of God? I must admit that I have had considerable discomfort with the transmitting of original sin from Adam to subsequent generations. I suppose it is possible that, by eating of the forbidden fruit, Adam's and Eve's DNA was altered miraculously so that the "sin gene" would be propagated though the human race but it does seem a bit odd, humanly speaking, that "one slip by Eve and then Adam" led us into a predicament from which only the death of Jesus can save (some of) us. No chance for a "do over". But, no matter how one slices it, it's obvious that mankind sins and needs redemption. (And let's not get onto the road leading to supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism!)
Finally, it's not so much as "conforming to the world" as it is to confront the evidence in the geological record (Calvin's General Revelation) faithfully. There are some Christians who believe that scientists do their utmost best to find evidence that can be used to discredit the Bible. Unless one believes in a conspiracy cooked up by "atheistic scientists", I can't see scientists fudging their results to make a point. They would be found out sooner or later with unpleasant results as to the future of their scientific career.
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
John, you raised an important point that I had overlooked, and that is the Heidelberg Catechism [HC]. You are quite correct (of course) that the HC is quite specific as to the origin of sin. Whether or not those Q&As are as defendable as they were in 1563 may be debatable but, until the CRC changes them (not an easy task, considering Q&A 80!), one is bound to have to agree to them to remain within the CRC. In reality, I wonder how many CRC members wrestle with some of the HC Q&As and if this is not becoming a stumbling block for potential members or a reason for CRC members to drift away.
As far as scientific fudging is concerned, experimentalists who "fudge" results tend to be found out when it is clear that the experimental results cannot be duplicated. "Fudging" my be a strong word, as sometimes the materials are not as "clean" as they should be. I tried to duplicate an experiment that was reported in Science, using the same geological sample and was unable to get the same results. I determined that the geological material was contaminated and that observation led me some interesting conclusions. I cannot comment on the "same codons in DNA codes" because that's not my are of expertise.
Again, thanks for your thoughtful comments.
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
John, a few comments: If you date the flood a few hundred years before the Egyptians built their pyramids, the larger mountains must have formed in a very short time and that presents problems with the deforming of the geological layers. If you look at Mount Rundle, you see that those particular geological layers resisted bending and remain roughly parallel to one side of the mountain. On the other hand, exposed rock layers along the Juniata River in Central Pennsylvania show foliation in the form of synclines and anticlines. As to stating that "water ends up under rock all time", yes, of course, there is groundwater and there are aquifers but the porosity of intact igneous rock is relatively low (0.3% for granite) and caves and caverns do not extend over large areas. If I recall, Walter Brown has a whole layer of water, apparently devoid of any geological material and with sufficient permeability to be expelled at a great rate. That layer of water served as a "lubricant" allowing the continents to move very rapidly without creation large amounts of heat due to friction. My understanding of "water under the earth" is that the conventional wisdom was that the Earth floated on water and that there was a "firmament" above the water and the Earth along which the sun, moon, and stars traveled on a sort of track. As to the expanding population after the Flood and the preservation of technology, minds better than mine have pondered this and have come to the conclusion that preserving technology by a family of eight is no simple matter. The common understanding is that Noah built the ark by himself, maybe with the help of his sons but he most likely had access to available technological resources. If he felled the trees himself, he must have had an axe of some sort and that assumed that there was some type of metallurgy (Tubal-Cain). Noah used pitch to seal the ark and must have had a source of this pitch and equipment to smear the pitch on the ark. Genesis 4 suggests a reasonably well developed society (tentmaking, enough leisure time to make and use instruments). By the time the flood waters had receded, the metallurgists would have died. If Noah did not know how to make an axe, he and his descendants would have had to reinvent metallurgy (I don't think that Noah would have used a flint axe but, if he had, he would have had to know where to find this flint). In short, a literal reading of the Flood story raises too many questions to an increasingly sceptical generation and, as I have mentioned before, may in fact hinder our attempts to bring the Good News of salvation in Christ. I just hope I'm wrong. Maybe I'm not relying on the Holy Spirit enough.
Shalom!.
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
Joy, no, I have not had the time to look at the links you sent me. Some of the YouTube videos are an hour long! But, if you can give me that link again that provides "nuclear evidence supporting a young earth", I'll make it a point in looking at it and then get back with a response.
Can I explain how the Red Sea was parted? I accept Exodus 14:21 that God "drove the sea back with a strong east wind. However, I have some difficulty with the traditional visualization of Moses and the Israelites walking on a narrow path between two vertical walls of water (and sometimes showing surprised fish in the water). Yes, Exodus 14:22 mentions "a wall of water" but we don't know if a "wall of water" meant the same to the readers of Exodus as it does to us. Still, it's no "biggy" to me and I won't lie awake at night wondering about those walls of water. Likewise, can I explain the manna and the quail (Exodus 16)? No, but I don't have to because there is no geological record to counter these miraculous events. You see, Joy, it's all well and good if there is no physical evidence to conflict with Scriptures; it's when geological evidence overwhelmingly is at odds with a literal interpretation of - to me - less important events, we have a problem. What puzzles me is that many Christians cast doubt on some of the scientific methods and conclusions and yet would accept the same scientific methods used in forensic studies that would help convict or exonerate a defendant.
As to your last paragraph, I have no doubt that Jesus is God, that He died for our sins, and that He rose from the death. I fully subscribe to the Apostles' Creed.
Shalom!
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
I had a quick look at that item on Youtube but, as soon as I saw a picture of the Grand Canyon when "The Flood" was mentioned, I could guess where this video was going. Call me prejudiced, if you will. To answer John Zylstra, we must differentiate between YEC and OEC on the one hand, and the extent of a Flood on the other. You can have an "old Earth" and a more recent global Flood and you can have a "young Earth" and a global Flood, or either an old or young Earth and a global flood (or localized flood). I think there is sufficient evidence to accept an old Earth with a history of at least 1 billion years (to me, a nuclear scientist, the "clincher" is the Oklo phenomenon).
Perhaps John can give us some indication when the Biblical Flood occurred. If it was a global Flood that indeed wiped out all surface creatures, there must have been a fair bit of time for the creatures from the Ark to repopulate the Earth, all the way from Turkey to Australia. The kangaroos must have hopped all the way and drifted on logs to get to Australia. If there was a land bridge at the time, there should be some geological evidence. Again, John should be able to cite an accepted reference. There must also have been enough time for the descendants of Noah to move to the "four corners" of the Earth and undergo sufficient changes into the different races (Caucasian, Black, Oriental, Native American, etc). Does this differentiation into the current races take 1000 years, 3000 years, 10,000 years, 30,000 years, 100,000, 300,000 years? A biologist should be able to answer that question.
Of course, it is always possible that, after a global Flood, God created new creatures and that the platypus is part of that second creation but there is no mentioning of a "second creation" in the Bible.
Finally, I find it a bit odd that CRC folk are willing to consider arguments from people with dubious scientific credentials and reject the writings of recognized scientists in its circles such as Davis Young, Howard van Til, Clarence Menninga,Terry Gray and Loren and Deborah Haarsma. May I suggest the excellent book "Perspectives of an Evolving Creation" edited by Keith Miller and published by Eerdmans?
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
Not having watched the PBS program, I don't know what Keith Miller said but, in his chapter "Common Descent, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record" in the book I cited, he presents a lot of evidence of transitional forms: the chapter has 55 footnotes! As to his claim of being an "ardent evangelical Christian", I am not about to judge him! From what I have heard him say, I doubt if he would have any difficulties in reciting the Apostles' Creed and that would make him a Christian in my book (note that this Creed is silent on the Flood!). He certainly comes across as being "ardent" so we are left with the question if he is "evangelical". If you accept Merriam-Webster's definition that includes the "authority of the Bible" we can quibble about which parts of the Bible need to interpreted literally and which parts figuratively (and where common sense comes in). In any case, proponents of a global Flood need to address the wide variety and distribution of land-based life forms and I am still waiting for this explanation.
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
We're getting off topic here, from the Flood to evolution but I'm glad to note that you agree that the age of the earth is not the primary issue. I guess that Bishop Ussher has had his day (a good example why clergy should stick to their trade and, to me, a good example of sphere sovereignty!).
Concerning your comment, "inability to date new volcanic rock with ancient methods", you may be referring to the attempt to date new volcanic rock using the Kr/Ar dating technique. No self-respecting geochronologist would use this technique; it's like trying to measure the length of a grain of rice with a yardstick.
As to land bridges and ice bridges, the presence of either would explain the movement of indigenous people from Asia across the Bering Strait to North America and the somewhat similar appearance between Oriental and North American First Nations. And, certainly, these people could have taken livestock with them. But it's a bit of a stretch to invoke a land bridge or an ice bridge between Asia and Australia! To postulate a global Flood would mean that the kangaroos on the Ark would have had to migrate in sufficient number to Australia and then become extinct anywhere except Australia (kangaroos are not native to New Zealand).
I don't want to get into an argument about the definition of "race". I accept that we all belong to the human race but we certainly look different. My question is then one of how long did it take for the descendants of Noah and Mrs Noah to "evolve" (if you'll accept this term) into the Caucasian, Oriental, and Black groups? Your suggestion that "it would not take long" doesn't cut it for me; I'd like an substantiated, semi-quantitative answer. I realize that we don't have any photographic evidence but would an indigenous African have been as "black" 1000 or 3000 years ago as she is now? It would seem plausible to me that, in isolation, groups may "evolve" in different directions and that their features start to differentiate more and more, leading from [probably] similar siblings to the wide range in human features we see now. These differences start to disappear when these groups come into contact with each other.
How do we talk about these things as Christians? Tough question, John. As a scientist, I prefer to have a self-consistent explanation and, to my regret, a literal interpretation of the Bible creates problems. That's why people have said that "the Bible is not a science book". To me, the question is not so much as trying to arrive at a 100% concordance between the Bible and the created world but to accept the fundamental truth of the Bible, distilled in the Apostles' Creed and conveying the truth that God sent his only begotten Son into the world to die for our sins so that we will have eternal life. To me, everything else pales by comparison. Does it then really matter how sin entered into the world, either by an act of disobedience by a single woman and man or because God, in His wisdom created mankind with the freedom to choose? Or is it more important to accept the fact than mankind is sinful and in need of a Saviour? Will we be judged if we have trouble with the extent of the Flood? Will we be judged if we cause a stumbling block to unbelievers by insisting on a global Flood?
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
My aside about Bishop Ussher was intended to point out the danger of clergy (as well as other disciplines) going outside their expertise.
This is not the forum to debate the various geochronological techniques. I am well aware of the pitfalls of various methodologies and the error bars associated with them.
What I am still waiting for from you, is some sense of when, in time, the Biblical Flood occurred. From the Bible, it happened quite some time after Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. If we assume that the Biblical record of the Flood indeed was intended to state that it was a global Flood that obliterated all land-based animals, the entire world must then had to be repopulated with people and animals. Kangaroos must have hopped all the way to Australia. Other than a land bridge, the only (to me) plausible way is that some descendants of Noah and Mrs Noah domesticated the kangaroos and took a pair (or more) with them on a raft to Australia where they multiplied and spread out over that continent. You must admit that this is a bit far-fetched because these descendants must have taken some koala bears as well. But even then, the other part of the question is the time required for the descendants of Noah and Mrs Noah to spread over the entire world and "evolve" into different groups (trying to avoid "races") with their individual characteristics (colour of skin, amounts of facial hair, etc.). I'm no biologist or geneticist and have no "feel" of the time required for these changes to occur but it would seem to me that, if one supports a global Flood, one has to come up with some sort of explanation.
On the other hand, if we accept a regional Flood that was limited to the Tigris-Euphrates valley, and "the whole world" is intended to describe only that region, we can explain the diversity in the global distribution of animals and people but, I admit, does not square with a literal interpretation of Genesis 6. That leaves us with a non-literal interpretation.
Just because I have problems with a global Flood does not mean that I have problems with the raising of Lazarus or with the Resurrection. I do have a problem with proponents of a global Flood continue to cite the Grand Cayon as proof of a global Flood.
As to sin entering the world, again, this is a "whole other topic".