gdp's Comments

The Aristophrenium : Revisiting old-earth presuppositions

Mon, 30 May 2011 00:50:00 +0000

Noah’s wife or Ham’s wife my point still stands. Its question begging anyway to assume soulless hominids when there is no evidence for people without souls. Yes, if God declares something good then it is good. How is this relevant? Foods like crayfish are not specifically mentioned until Moses either and then again by Jesus. Was God just whimsically back flipping on the food issue? Of course not. There are specific reasons for why God permits some things and outlaws others. The whole Bible lends credence to atheistic conclusions on truth. That is because they do not have the Spirit, without which the truth of Bible is foolishness to them (1 Cor 2:14). If you want to make up stories about races of soulless people in order to escape any possible connotations of incest, then I think you are walking on shaky ground given the examples of the Patriarchs I mentioned and that Cain had sisters and probably nieces available for marriage.

The Aristophrenium : May 21st: The Day Nothing Happened

Sun, 29 May 2011 05:07:21 +0000

Oops. Chapter 4 it should have been.

The Aristophrenium : May 21st: The Day Nothing Happened

Thu, 26 May 2011 04:20:51 +0000

Eschatology is one of those areas that I don’t think we can be too confident in our views. Revelation is a very confusing book. I think though that there are a few things we can know. One is that we will not know the time at which these things will occur as Fisher mentioned above. Another I think is the pre/post-tribulation Rapture question answered in 1 Thess 3 16-17. There seems to be a general consensus that the tribulation is described in Rev 8-9 and each judgment is heralded by a trumpet. Note the word “after” in 1 Thess 3:17. So this seems to indicate a post-tribulation Rapture. There are other things I think that herald the end of days like a one world leader and the mark of the beast but I don’t really have any scriptural proof of timing for those events at hand, just speculation that they will happen before the Rapture.

The Aristophrenium : Revisiting old-earth presuppositions

Wed, 25 May 2011 23:43:00 +0000

How is Noah’s wife relevant? What do you think the resulting child of a father with a soul and a soulless mother would be? A child with only half a soul? The kind of reasoning that comes to the conclusion that there are/was races of people who did not have souls, opens the door for the kinds of racial abuse that our history is famous for (Eugenics, slavery, Ota Benga etc). If Adam was the first human (among many humanoids) to get a soul, then all those other races not descended from Adam are not sinners, were not cursed and have no afterlife to look forward to? What would be the point of sending missionaries to the pygmy tribes, Native Americans or Australian Aborigines? The “science” you hold in such high esteem tells us those races date back 10’s even 100’s of thousands of years at least, well before Adam. They also show evidence of ceremonial burial, jewelery and musical instruments. Do you think the soulless capable of that? Incest: Sarah was Abrahams half-sister (Gen 20:12), Nahor married his niece Milcah (Gen 11:29), Isaac married his cousin Rebekah, Esau married his cousin Mahalah and Jacob marries his cousins Leah and Rachel. The point is that incest was not outlawed until Moses. Why? Well, for starters we know that incest results in a high chance of genetic defects being copied to the children of incestuous relationships. A YEC worldview of a perfect creation holds that Adam and Eve were genetically perfect (good) and the curse resulted in a kind of genetic degradation that built up in the years since. We can see this in the ages that the patriarchs lived to in the time after creation (up to 1000 years), which gradually reduced to about 100 at the time of Moses. We also see some evidence of this degradation as modern science, looking at the genetic code, has identified some abilities we have lost like lactose intolerance and a sharp sense of smell. Not to mention the far too numerous examples of genetic problems and disease present in society today. I believe God instituted the law against incest at this time to stem the flow of genetic defects being copied amongst the population. People seem to look at incest through the eyes of a modern viewer rather than that of the patriarchs and fail to see how incest was culturally and morally acceptable in the days of Genesis.

The Aristophrenium : Revisiting old-earth presuppositions

Tue, 24 May 2011 22:20:27 +0000

My bad on using the term cousin. It was a sister or niece of some sort at least. As to the incest question, I’ll begin by returning serve. When did God command against it? And why do you think He did it? As to your “end times” questions, I think Harold Camping would be better suited to answer them for you. Jokes aside, the issue of soulless humans is removed from your “end times” scenario when we realise that Noah was a direct descendant of Adam and it was only his family that survived the flood. So everyone from Noah onwards (at least) is a descendant of Adam. Anything more specific on “end times” would be getting into the realm of speculation. We can be more assured of what happened in the past than what will happen in the future.

The Aristophrenium : Revisiting old-earth presuppositions

Tue, 24 May 2011 05:31:54 +0000

[3] The answer to almost all your questions here can be found in Genesis 5:4 “After Seth was born; Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters”. Note the start of chapter 5 is also a recount of the creation of man (Adam), and not another creation like you seem to be thinking Genesis 2 is. Anyhow, we are not told when Cain killed Abel, so the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve could have easily populated the area with many offspring at that time. These would be the people whom God had to prevent from say, taking revenge on Cain for killing their brother Abel. And this is also the pool of people where Cain got his wife from. His wife was either a sister, cousin or niece etc. The big problem with thinking otherwise (say a pre-Adamic hominid) is that we learn from other texts that through Adam sin came to all his offspring, 1 Cor 15:22, Romans 5:12-21. Other created men would not have this link to Adam and would have to be considered sinless or soulless, right?

The Aristophrenium : Answering questions and objections

Tue, 17 May 2011 05:03:48 +0000

Ryft will be able to reply specifically as to Walton’s evolutionary leanings but I have come across a bit of his book where he seems to indicate that he is a theistic evolutionist. “In promoting the theological position of the Bible and the interpretation of Genesis 1 presented here, there is no reason to believe that biological evolution teaches something contradictory to the Bible (though some evolutionists are proponents of metaphysical conclusions that contradict the Bible). Believing in the Bible does not require us to reject the findings of biological evolution, though neither does it give us reason to promote biological evolution. Biological evolution is not the enemy of the Bible and theology; it is superfluous to the Bible and theology. The same could be said for the big bang and for the fossil record. (p. 166)” Definitely doesn't sound like the opinion of a "staunch anti-evolutionist"?

The Aristophrenium : Revisiting old-earth presuppositions

Tue, 17 May 2011 04:59:23 +0000

I’m feeling your pain JoE. I’ve done that myself a few times. And you can never seem to recapture the original while your rehash always feels weaker than your original. Duane seems to have done a good job in response. On some of the other issues… You might have to expand on your “soft tissue” point because the links did not provide much meat (pun intended). Your term “Soft tissue mineralisation” is confusing. If the soft tissue mineralises then it is no longer soft tissue but has become mineral. Yes this is an understood process. And it is understood that this process does not take up to 65 million years to occur. These Ice Core articles provide the YEC interpretation of this data. Included in the first one is, in my opinion, a reasonable rationale for multiple dust layering during the ice age. http://creation.com/ice-cores-vs-the-flood http://creation.com/do-greenland-ice-cores-show-o... What are the discrepancies you find for a Gen 2 is day 6 view? One of the connecting dots for me is that in Gen1:27 we have God saying he created them male and female and in Gen 2 we find the creation Adam and Eve expanded upon i.e. Adam from dust (beginning of chapter 2)and Eve from Adams rib (end of chapter 2).

The Aristophrenium : Revisiting old-earth presuppositions

Mon, 16 May 2011 04:41:49 +0000

JoE, All your questions can be answered on the CMI (Creation Ministries International) Website so I shall only briefly touch on your queries. For more thorough explanations please check out the answers from those who do this for a living. Where does the Bible say the age of the Earth? Just like the trinity, the Bible does not say explicitly “the Earth is 6000 years old”. It is an inferred position. The genealogies get you so far then you add on the creation account. The creation account, you’ll no doubt be aware, is being debated on another thread so I’ll leave that up to you to come to your own conclusion with regards to that part of the equation. Adam names the animals? Before you ask how long did it take, the first things you need to know is how many he had to name? The Bible says only the “beasts of the field” not the “beasts of the earth” along with the “birds of the air” were paraded in front of Adam for naming. Note that God also created “kinds” not individual species. So the YEC answer is that Adam could have easily names all he was required to name in the time allotted. Adam and Eve? Genesis 2 is an expanded account of day 6. So Adam was around for less than a day before Eve and they were “sin free” for only a short period of time. This time is not specified but considering they had been given a command (and most likely urges) to be fruitful and multiply…I don’t think they would have waited long. The fall would have happened before Eve got pregnant or else there would have been someone who would not have inherited the “sin gene” from his father. As for mortality being an indicator of age…. I think rather time is an indicator of age. Time starts ticking and can measure how long Adam has been round…mortal or not. Petrified trees? Probably the same time as it takes for bones to fossilise (organic matter and all that)…..so is the answer is 65 million years? My recent T-Rex example would seem to indicate otherwise? Organic material just doesn’t appear to be able to survive that long. Some experimentation in Japan has shown petrification can occur in less than 10 years. Dinosaurs? Job mentions a behemoth and a leviathan. Many people believe the behemoth to be an elephant or hippo but it is described as having a tail like a cedar. Hardly a description of an elephant’s tail now is it. There are numerous example evidences of human - dinosaur cohabitation. There is a petroglyph in Natural Bridges National Monument that bears a startling resemblance to a dinosaur, specifically a Brontosaurus, with a long tail and neck, small head and all. It was drawn by North American Anasazi Indians that lived in the area that has now become Utah approximately 150 B.C. - 1200 A.D. A brass inlay of the tomb of the Bishop of Carlisle, Richard Bell, 1496 in Carlisle Cathedral in the U.K. has an engraving of a dinosaur on it. Both, well before the first dinosaur fossil was dug up. These are just two examples of many too numerous to mention, perhaps worthy of a post of its own. Cavemen? There are still people living in caves today. Babel? God just confused their language. The people separated themselves and migrated on their own. And considering how quickly England colonised around the world, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch of the imagination to believe tribes of people are capable of migrating around the place. There is evidence to the effect of an ice age occurring after the flood which could have connected most land masses so people could travel from one place to another. Ice Cores? This I believe is along the same lines as radiometric dating. Assumptions about the past have been made as to how many layers are laid down each year. But CMI can shed more light on this topic than I can…this one starts to get heavily scientific. What affect did all the geological activity associated with the flood have? What about the ice age? The flood showed how sedimentary layers can be laid down rapidly. Why not snow and ice as well? Is it not possible to have multiple dust storms and snow storms in a season/year? Why, after a hundred years of ice and snow study, where those WWII fighters only expected to be found under a few feet of snow? Seems like they didn’t know much about the topic because they were surprised at how deep in the snow and ice they actually were. Hopefully these help, but see CMI for more detail from the professionals on these topics.

The Aristophrenium : Answering questions and objections

Mon, 16 May 2011 03:25:42 +0000

Is it eisegesis on my part or eisegesis on the part of the Bible translators who translated those Hebrew words into all those English translations of the Bible (KJV, NIV, NASB etc)? After all it was they who selected the English words in order to convey the meaning of the original Hebrew text as the author intended. I am interested in the people, time and place when Moses wrote and taught Genesis 1 to the Israelites. Can you go into any more depth on how they recognised Genesis 1 as a temple text? The Israelites were slaves coming out of Egypt right? As slaves, what did they know of the inauguration of temples and the recognition of a temple text? Is it not question begging to say that once they saw the tabernacle inauguration of Exodus 40 that they then recognised Genesis 1 as being the same thing? There is no reference to Genesis here like in the Ten Commandments. I can see a vague similarity in the pattern of the text but is that all we are going on? This text has a specific description of the material phase of the tabernacles creation in the preceding chapters. Would this not be part of the temple text? And would not the other temple texts in the OT have a material component or precursor? Solomon’s did. Why not Genesis 1?

The Aristophrenium : Revisiting old-earth presuppositions

Wed, 11 May 2011 04:31:45 +0000

JoE, You may not have used the word flawless but you did say that it was “substantially more accurate than even I had imagined”. This is hardly the opposite of flawless (completely flawed). It’s not the atom counting ability of scientists that is in doubt here. There is nothing wrong with operational science. It’s the field of historical science that I challenge. The evidence is not being questioned (atoms), but rather the interpretation of that evidence. The problem with your binocular analogy is that it assumes that there is a distant object it can focus on. Radiometric dating assumes that the rock is in that range (greater than 100,000 years) and thus it becomes a valid method for aging rocks; rocks that may in fact be only thousands of years old. Let’s say that we have two rocks to date by the radiometric method. And let’s say that one atom of argon equates to one year of radioactive decay (for the sake of argument). One of our two samples came from Mt St Helens which we know to be 30 years old. Our second sample is an unknown aged rock. Both are tested. The first sample returns 100,000 atoms of argon and in the second sample, 4 billion atoms of argon are counted. Now, knowing that only 30 atoms in sample one account for radioactive decay, we can safely conclude that the remaining 99,970 atoms (99.97%) are NOT the result of radioactive decay over time. So what about the second sample? Can we apply the same principle? If 99.97% of those 4 billion atoms are not attributed to radioactive decay over time, can we then presume that only 12 million atoms are the result of radioactive decay in dating the rock? Well, how would you know what percentage to use, because you don’t know how old the rock is in the first place? Yet, in order that the age agrees with expectations, a majority (or all) of the atoms in the sample may be counted so as to arrive at the expected date. So yes, I think radiometric dating is about as useful as screen doors on submarines. And this is not so much that it goes against my view, but because it fails to consistently handle the data. An unwanted age can be explained away via any range of ad-hoc means, such as open systems or Argon loss. Couple this with the discovery of red blood cells and soft tissue in dinosaur bones supposedly 65 million years old (determined by radiometric dating of the rock in which it was found) and we have even more reason not to dogmatically hold to a position which is supposedly backed by good science. These examples show it is not good science but rather poor science. Btw, I think we are having a coherent congenial discussion on this topic even though we hold different views. Don’t you?

The Aristophrenium : Revisiting old-earth presuppositions

Mon, 9 May 2011 23:10:47 +0000

A rock of known age (10 years) is dated at say 100,000 years. An order of magnitude 10,000 times out. Hardy a "substantially more accurate than even I had imagined!" result. And where does that "FOUR BILLION years" come from? Answer : dating methods such as this one. If you can't trust a dating method to date a rock of known age then why are you trusting it for a rock of unknown age? To get "less than a single percentage point of the overall range" you have to front load the question with Four billion years. What if I were to front load the YEC age? My percentage is going to be much different. The point of the above articles is that enough argon was found in the rock samples to be detected by the dating method. Proving that argon was present when these rocks were "newly created" that was NOT the result of radioactive decay. The quantities of parent and daughter isotopes in radiometric dated rock are ASSUMED as these results prove. And yet radiometric dating is still proclaimed as an accurate flawless method to date rocks as you yourself have demonstrated.

The Aristophrenium : Clearing away some of the fog

Mon, 9 May 2011 06:39:55 +0000

Ryft, How many of those functional-oriented ontological occurrences in the Old Testament are referring to Genesis? Because this seems like circular logic to me. a)The ontology of “bara” in Genesis 1 is functional. How do we know this? b)Because “bara” elsewhere in the OT is functional. How do you know “bara” is functional in the rest of the OT? c)Because it refers to Genesis 1 which is functional. Identifying other uses of “bara” in the OT that are not material may support your view but it does not eliminate mine. Mine may still yet to be proved, but it is not eliminated due to lack of support. Essentially I’m saying that I’m unconvinced that Genesis is a strictly functional only ontology. There are too many words in the Genesis 1 account that appear to mean material works not functional works: separate, appear and produce for example. Perhaps it’s like you say, Walton’s book needs to be read to be able to answer these questions. I keep coming back to the idea that Walton (and yourself) would not have gone looking for an answer had you not already been convinced that the YEC position has been invalidated by the science that the origin of the earth is considerably older than a materialistic interpretation of Genesis 1 allows for. I am unconvinced by this science and I am unconvinced that your exegesis has eliminated the possibility of both functional and material ontology in Genesis 1. I am though, prepared to concede that my scepticism of your functional-ontology-only interpretation may be due to a lack of information in not having Walton’s book at hand.

The Aristophrenium : Revisiting old-earth presuppositions

Mon, 9 May 2011 03:41:14 +0000

JoE, A good source of information regarding this issue is “The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods” by John Woodmorappe. What further adds to the evidence that radiometric fails is the results of dating rocks with known ages. Rocks taken from Mt St Helens (1980 eruption) have returned from radiometric dating with ages ranging from 0.35 to 2.8 million years. http://creation.com/radio-dating-in-rubble Samples from Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand (1949, 1954 and 1975 eruptions) were dated and returned with dates ranging from 0.27 to 3.5 million years. http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-failure And from Dalrymple, G.B., 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6:47–55, 1969. We have Hualalai, basalt (Hawaii, AD 1800–1801) returning 1.41 and 1.6 million years. Mt Etna, basalt (Sicily, 122 BC) – 0.25 million years. Mt Etna, basalt (Sicily, AD 1792) – 0.35 million years. Mt Lassen, plagioclase (California, AD 1915) – 0.11 million years and Sunset Crater, basalt (Arizona, AD 1064–1065) – 0.25 and 0.27 million years. Your reservations about it being a perfect system are well founded. But I’ll leave it up to you to take these results on board and then decide for yourself if radiometric dating is a failure or not.

The Aristophrenium : Revisiting old-earth presuppositions

Sat, 7 May 2011 21:08:06 +0000

But will that rock land 100m away from the tower one time, 50m the next, 1mile away another time? No. But this is what is happening with radiometric dating.

The Aristophrenium : Clearing away some of the fog

Fri, 6 May 2011 01:26:50 +0000

One thing I think your post fails to deliver on is the exegesis of ‘bara’ as functional and excluding material creation. So far this has just been asserted that this is how the ancient Israelites understood the text. I realise this may be hard as you said it may required a complete reading of chapter 7 of Walton’s book, which places me at a disadvantage in critiquing this view. You do seem to indicate that Walton’s view is that a ‘bara’ that is both functional and material must be demonstrated. While this may be true, I don’t see how a failed demonstration of material creation results in an elimination of this meaning. Like you said in a previous post when we discussed vegetarianism “Every does not mean only”. ‘Bara’ may have functional meaning but that does not mean that it only has functional meaning. Does Walton’s exegesis of ‘bara’ conclude that functionality is its only meaning? “…everything in the account would indicate to the Israelites of the ancient Near East that it is a temple text, made nowhere more clear than God resting on day seven.” This is where the exegesis of ‘bara’ needs to be expanded upon in order to ensure understanding of his reasoning. Can this be done? Would this only be achievable with a copy of his book? I think ‘In the beginning’ is also a phrase that needs an exegetical explanation to further back up Duane’s request of verse by verse exegetical explanation. Does Walton exegete this phrase? Is this exegesis something you can convey on this (blog) medium?

The Aristophrenium : Clearing away some of the fog

Thu, 5 May 2011 02:59:11 +0000

“My view on material origins is not quite that ambiguous.” My point was that your (Walton’s) scriptural analysis does not disqualify a young earth/universe. “As for the duration of material origins, however (i.e., the age of the universe), that question is not answered by Scripture so I enjoy the efforts of science in finding out.” That is all I was trying to clarify about your view: Scripture is silent on the age of the universe and you use science to discover this information. This is why I, and others, have been questioning you about how you eliminate the young earth/universe view. Your answer is science because your scriptural exegesis (Walton’s) still leaves that door open. This why I would like an explanation as to how you can still claim that “my rejection of young-earth creationism is based on both Scripture and science”. Can you please provide the scriptural basis for this rejection since, as I said above, the scriptural exegesis of Walton still allows the young earth/universe possibility. “I was trying to represent four billion years of earth’s history using the 24 hours in a day that a watch reports on.” Please forgive me, I missed your illustrations intended time limits. But I think it may still be out. I also think it may commit an Analogy Fallacy (Improperly drawing parallels while ignoring pertinent differences); your time piece is much more an observational test rather than an historical test. Discrepant dates are not rare as your example tries to expound and it assumes that 4pm is in fact the actual time. If consensus somehow determines fact then the earth’s age is less than 2 billion years as this is where the majority of results lie (Bowring and Williams 1999). Radiometric dating is swimming with assumptions and guesswork and many results are rejected simply because they don’t fit the existing paradigm. This and much more information that I cannot possibly convey here can be found in “The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods” by John Woodmorappe. Is this, perhaps, one of those Creationist resources that you have come across and found unconvincing? I am interested though, in what data you have to support your example that there is a general consensus with rare discrepancies in radiometric dating? “We have? Where?” •In the 90’s, Dr Mary Schweitzer working in Dr John Horner’s research group at Montana State University uncovered ‘actual red blood cells in fossil bones from T. rex With traces of the blood protein hemoglobin’. M. Schweitzer and I. Staedter, The Real Jurassic Park, Earth, pp. 55–57, June 1997 •Later in 2005, in another T. rex specimen, not only have more blood cells been found, but also soft, fibrous tissue, and complete blood vessels. Blood vessels recovered from T. rex bone, 24 March 2005, NewScientist.com news service •A piece of fossil hadrosaur (duckbilled dinosaur) bone regarded by evolutionary assumptions as being 80 million years old has shown evidence of “the same fibrous matrix, transparent, flexible vessels, and preserved microstructures she had seen in the T. rex sample. “Proteins, Soft Tissue from 80 Million-Year-Old Hadrosaur Show that Molecules Preserve Over Time”, www.physorg.com/news160320581.html Btw, Mary was not YEC. She was an evolutionist (I don’t know what she is now). And as such her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm. She said, ‘It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone’. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: ‘The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?” It has been pointed out many times that fragile, complex molecules like proteins, even if hermetically sealed, should fall apart all by themselves from thermodynamic considerations alone in well under the 65 million years that evolutionists insist have passed since Schweitzer’s T. rex specimen was entombed.

The Aristophrenium : Clearing away some of the fog

Mon, 2 May 2011 04:30:58 +0000

Thanks Ryft, for unpacking your view a bit. From this and previous posts/comments I am starting to understand the process you took in coming to your conclusion. Even if I don’t agree with your final conclusion, at this point I can’t fault you on your exegetical process. I’m not, by any means, an expert on exegesis. So I’ll leave it to the Walton’s and the Kulikovsky’s to argue the finer points of how the words ‘bara’, ‘tohu’ and ‘bohu’ were understood by the ancient Israelites. What I would like to have a closer look at is your process and its conclusion. Previously you said that you were once a YEC and that it was science that disqualified this view for you. You then looked at OEC and realised that it was scripture that disqualified this view for you. “I used to be a YEC, Adam, from 1997 to 2003. But hard scientific questions forced me to do my homework, so I spent a few years researching both sides and eventually became an OEC (q.v. Hugh Ross). Then in 2006 I began studying presuppositional apologetics and ended up rearranging my entire framework; as a result, around 2008 the scriptural argument forced me to reject OEC. Since science ruled out YEC and Scripture ruled out OEC, I was in limbo on Genesis.” Not being in either camp your search led you to Walton where you came to believe that the age of the universe is not addressed in scripture, only the functionality. Is this roughly correct? Personally, I would have preferred to see your YEC rejection come from the grounds of scripture rather than science because, as I see it, science is changing all the time, scripture does not. And I think we both consider scripture the higher authority on any and all issues. Given my lack of expertise in exegesis, I am prepared, for the sake of argument, to accept the exegesis of Walton as valid. If only the functionality of the cosmos is addressed by scripture, then the material origin could have occurred at any point prior to Genesis 1. Walton says, “If it were to turn out that the earth is young, so be it.” So in your view, material origins could have been one second or one trillion years prior to Genesis 1. This is where the rubber hits the road for me. Your determining factor in answering the material origins question seems to be science, since this is what initially dissuaded you from the YEC position. You did mention scripture, in one of your comments, as a determining factor too but I’m not sure which scripture you are referring to, since you have now outlined how Genesis is not referring to material origins. Perhaps I missed it. So this is where I feel the conversation should be heading because given Walton’s exegesis, a young earth/universe is still on the table. You briefly touched on radiometric dating (in the comments section of your previous post) as an example of a YEC disqualifier. But I did not like how you dealt with the question of problematic radiometric dates. Your illustration falls way to short because your sample group of travellers only gave close answers to your question. A more realistic comparison to problematic radiometric dating would have had your sample group give time examples such as 2pm Oct 7 1783, 1am Jan 12 1963 and some even into the BC range. One of the problematic examples I see is where, say, T-Rex bones are generally dated by radiometric dating and placed in the millions of year’s category, yet later we discover a T-Rex bone that has red blood cells contained within. This raises big questions for me as to the validity of those radiometric dates. I know you said previously that you did not want to get into the science of your view for fear it will “expand the conversation exponentially in numerous simultaneous directions” but I fear this topic will find no closure until some of these examples are explored.

The Aristophrenium : Revisiting old-earth presuppositions

Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:58:00 +0000

Ok, let’s say that Whipps (and all other young earthers) is bringing to the text (eisegesis) that it’s a material creation account. It does not follow that this then makes it wrong. And if the determining factor as to whether Genesis is a “material origins” creation account is exegesis of the text alone, then I am interested in the exegesis of the text that draws the conclusion that Genesis is not recounting material creation. Does such an exegesis exist? Is it to be found in this book of John Waltons? Or does he just throw doubt on the young earth position by pointing to a lack of exegesis there? If so, then it seems eisegesis is being done in both camps. The old earth camp seems to be bringing to the table the authority of men in white lab coats when determining when material creation occurred. It seems like you are just pointing out the flaws in the arguments of others rather than making a positive case for your own view.

The Aristophrenium : Lara Logan, Islam and Women's Rights

Fri, 18 Mar 2011 04:36:13 +0000

Thanks Ahmed for your contribution.

I mostly agree with you that no matter what religion or social / cultural group you look at, you will find evil people. Although I would qualify your comment with there are no “good” people, just differing degrees of evil people. That’s the Christian worldview. I do commend those Muslims who helped Lara in her time of need. It is always good to see people standing up for what is right.
I think though, the point being made on this post is not that of what individual people are capable of , but rather that of what is justifiable by their religions authority. When it comes to Islam, you can claim that your religion is not oppressive to women, but you then have to defend your position in light of the Qur’an, Islam’s holiest book, which condones the beating of disobedient wives: “As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful)” (surah 4:34). Note, the phrase “lightly, if it is useful” is not in the original Arabic.