The History of Air?

[Volbrigade]

Lists of “fun facts� can be entertaining. Those focused on natural phenomena are a good way to promote an interest in science, and what it reveals to us about God’s creation, by drawing our attention to items that awaken our wonder and awe. Clearly, God has equipped us with curiosity regarding the workings of the natural world; as well as the capacity to explore and understand how He has designed it (which is the proper function of science).

However, “fun� facts are not fun, if they are not facts.

But that is what uniformitarian (“the present is the key to the past�; slow, gradual changes over vast expanses of time), evolutionist presuppositions are consistently presented as: unarguable facts -- which they categorically are not.

Case in point: a recent online infographic presenting “50 Unbelievable Facts About the Earth�.

While many of the facts are grounded in operational science, which involves direct observation and measurement – for instance, the hottest and coldest surface temperatures ever recorded; or the number of times that lightning strikes the earth each day, on average; several “facts� involve speculation as to events and conditions that occurred “millions of years� ago. For instance, this one:

“Dinosaurs could only exist because… the earth’s atmosphere once contained far more oxygen. Reptiles and amphibians can no longer grow to such large sizes.� ( http://mightymega.com/2013/04/18/infogr ... out-earth/ )

A Young Earth Creationist (YEC) is tempted to embrace this claim -- although with stipulations. On the face of it, it appears to support models of a dramatically different pre-Flood global environment. Our current post-Flood environment has been altered by the cataclysmic events associated with the release of the “Fountains of the Deep� (Genesis 8:2); the subsequent submersion of the earth’s entire surface under water; and the massive climatic changes that those events triggered, including an Ice Age that lasted several centuries.

The disappearance of the giant dinosaurs and arthropods in the altered post-Flood environment suggests that their inability to thrive in its lower-oxygen atmosphere may have been a cause. It would seem that conceding the “fact� of higher oxygen levels in the past, makes it possible to win the argument on this point when discussing origins and history. Changing the paradigm of those higher oxygen levels to a pre-Flood environment reinterprets the existing data in terms of a Biblical “lens�, or worldview. This kind of paradigm change applies to such pivotal factors as the fossil record and radiometric dating, as well.

But caution is advised. The eagerness to accept a theory in order to score a point with regard to Biblical truth must be tempered with careful scientific analysis of the existing theory. This kind of testing is needed to determine the theory’s validity under “real world� conditions.

This speaks to the non-negotiable framework that must be adhered to in terms of Scripture’s magisterial role over science. It is within that framework that normal scientific operational procedures can be used to arrive at the best explanations to describe past phenomena (for which direct observation and measurement is not possible), based on the forensic evidence those phenomena have left for us to study.

Sometimes this process involves acknowledging the slaying of a “beautiful hypothesis� by an “ugly fact� (per T. Huxley). An unyielding, uncompromising approach to analyzing evidence has produced a revision of several arguments once cherished by YECs. In this way, science – in its proper ministerial (subordinate) role to Scripture, can arrive at the best possible explanation for the evidence as presented.

In the case of higher oxygen levels in the pre-Flood atmosphere as an explanation for the large size attained by reptiles, amphibians, and arthropods in that environment (and their disappearance in the post-Flood environment), the evidence is not just inconclusive: it is questionable (some of the factors which have been reassessed include the presence of higher oxygen levels in amber air bubbles; higher air pressure being necessary for pterosaur flight; giant insects proving higher oxygen levels; et. al.).

Facts arrived at through scientific analysis that illuminate the design and order God imposed on His creation – even the fallen version of it that we inhabit – are fascinating, and they’re fun. But erroneous presuppositions (such as “matter is all that exists�) lead to false conclusions; and when those false conclusions are presented as “facts�, it’s not fun – but rather leads to confusion, and what The Bible refers to as “false knowledge� (1 Timothy 6:20).

Scientific analysis of the evidence must be viewed in the context of Scripture as “propositional truth� in order to arrive at the legitimate facts of nature, which is God’s creation.

[micatala]

[Replying to post 170 by Volbrigade]


I agree, one can reasonably make the case that Matthew and Mark take different approaches in relating the same events, topical versus chronological.

However, that does not change the fact that the narratives cannot both be factually true as stated. The second quote says the timelines in Matthew are 'indefinite' suggesting this takes care of the problem. It does not. In Matthew the tree visually withers while the disciples are there. In Mark it does not show visual withering until the next day.


You suggest Jesus might be accompanied by a larger crowd then just the twelve, which is a fair point. But note that the Twelve specifically go with him to Bethany after the entry into Jerusalem and visiting the temple. "They", which clearly refers to the same group, are those mentioned in the next verse who are traveling past the fig tree. To suggest that the twelve did not hear the cursing or did not see the withering that occurred in Matthew is to make the text say something which it does not.


And note, you have focused on the one example I brought up that is probably the easiest to try and reconcile.


Consider Judas' kiss. I would agree that John portrays Jesus as more divine, partly because he is writing at a later time. I would agree with the general notion that absence of comment on event does not by itself mean the event did not happen. However, you have to have a reasonable place to put the events described in Matthew, Mark, and Luke if you are going to say they are reconcilable with John, and those insertions have to make sense within the narrative not containing mention of the event.

Again, where in the sequence of events in John could you possible put Judas' kiss and have it make any sense?

How can Jesus be arrested both before and after use of the sword?

Where did Jesus step forward and say "I am he" resulting in the soldiers all falling down in Matthew or Mark?

Did Jesus really say all the different things he is quoted as saying after his arrest in the four gospels? Would that make any sense? Is it at all believable or reasonable?



And this highlights one of my objections to inerrancy. In the quest to reconcile narratives, the suggested solutions often become so ridiculous as to destroy the sensible meaning of the independent narratives, which arguably destroys the rationale for the enterprise. You argue for inerrancy because you think that quality is what something called Word of God should possess. This is really an Appeal to Consequences argument. Your solution is to replace the plain meaning of the individual texts with 'reconciled narratives' that make God look more ridiculous than simply accepting that the human authors intentionally or unintentionally got some details wrong.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 171 by micatala]

I honestly don't have the problems with the details of narrative that you seem to suffer from. I accept that the Gospel accounts are written by four different men, operating within the guidelines of a culture and historical period that is foreign to me, and from different perspectives, and with different emphases, and at different intervals of time after the events recounted.

I also accept that that accounts for some variation in detail. I also accept that in each case, they agree on the main points; that there is no doctrinal differences expressed, and that the variations are not only insignificant in relation to the overwhelming agreement, most importantly in regard to what happened, and WHO JESUS IS -- the only reason for their being set forth -- but would be, under the circumstances, "suspicious by their absence" -- that four accounts that were pristine in every aspect of correspondence with each other would either be suspiciously colluded; or such evidence of divine guidance as to make the decision for faith less of a choice, and more of a foregone conclusion.

In short, I believe the Holy Spirit guided the accounts to accomplish His purpose: to present us a complete picture of Our Savior in the harmonization of them. And I believe He accomplished this objective perfectly, and without error.

I understand that you don't: and if I was determined to undermine either the validity of the accounts, and faith in their message; or, at any rate, their inerrancy; then I too would hammer away at the fact that they don't contain the sort of journalistic integrity that did not appear until many centuries after they were set forth.

However, I think there is a more important consideration here than where Judas' kiss would fit in John's account. And that is this: I believe in inerrancy. And the global flood of Noah. You believe in neither. And yet, assuming your faith in Jesus Christ is genuine, we are both members of the same Body of Christ; dead to sin, eternal beings with the same destiny.

That, too, in my epistemological view, is by design. We both believe in the same Truth; but not in every detail of its interpretation and application. There is room for differences in "non-essential things". Praise God.

Speaking of truth, let me try this analogy (it just came to me; if it has holes, forgive me ).

Let's take an inarguable truth: for instance, let's say a bomb has exploded. I, from my perspective, say that there was a huge flash, and a deafening blast -- both at the same time.

You, who experienced the blast from a mile away, say "no -- there was a flash, followed within seconds by a blast."

Are not both accounts "true", and "inerrant"?

One last thing:

Let's remember that the Gospels, for the most part, and to the best of our current understanding, were set forth after (at least most of) the Epistles of Paul.

What I'm saying is that it is in the Epistles of Paul (and the others) that we get the clearest expression of who Jesus IS; and what His birth, ministry, death and resurrection MEAN. The Gospels are primarily to tell us what happened.

And, in my mind, the manner and content of their transmission is perfect, and without error.

If you don't agree -- so be it.

[micatala]

[Replying to post 171 by micatala]

I honestly don't have the problems with the details of narrative that you seem to suffer from.

It is not a 'problem' for me. I am simply observing where there are inconsistencies within the texts that indicate the Bible is not "inerrant" in the sense often taken by fundamentalists, that the texts make "no statements contrary to fact in the originals." You seem to be saying nothing more here than you are not bothered by the facts, and will continue to believe in inerrancy regardless. That is certainly your choice.

I accept that the Gospel accounts are written by four different men, operating within the guidelines of a culture and historical period that is foreign to me, and from different perspectives, and with different emphases, and at different intervals of time after the events recounted.

I accept this as well.

I also accept that that accounts for some variation in detail.

Again, I agree.

I also accept that in each case, they agree on the main points; that there is no doctrinal differences expressed, and that the variations are not only insignificant in relation to the overwhelming agreement, most importantly in regard to what happened, and WHO JESUS IS -- the only reason for their being set forth -- but would be, under the circumstances, "suspicious by their absence" -- that four accounts that were pristine in every aspect of correspondence with each other would either be suspiciously colluded; or such evidence of divine guidance as to make the decision for faith less of a choice, and more of a foregone conclusion.

I agree with most of this. But, as I commented before, the fact that the gospels are not likely to have been the product of a conscious collusion does not equate to evidence that there are no errors in fact. To me, the gospels seem to be consistent with a process that included a variety of oral traditions reaching different authors in different locations who then produced their distinctive narratives for their own particular audiences with their own particular agendas. You have already highlighted some examples of how their different viewpoints have produced somewhat different narratives of the same events. I accept that. I just don’t see how you square all of that with the notion that there are no errors, and I further don’t see any good reason to make the attempt, futile as it is.

I would agree that in most cases the discrepancies do not result in any major doctrinal differences, although I think there are some cases that do present substantive problems, especially if you consider the whole Bible and not just the gospels.

In short, I believe the Holy Spirit guided the accounts to accomplish His purpose: to present us a complete picture of Our Savior in the harmonization of them. And I believe He accomplished this objective perfectly, and without error.

And here is where I do not agree, at least with the notion of the gospels being entirely harmonious or without error. There manifestly are statements that are inconsistent with each other, and this by any usual definition of the term means we have factual errors. Again, these discrepancies are entirely explainable in a very reasonable way, and most of them are, as you say, not of significance. But that does not mean they do not exist.

I understand that you don't: and if I was determined to undermine either the validity of the accounts, and faith in their message; or, at any rate, their inerrancy; then I too would hammer away at the fact that they don't contain the sort of journalistic integrity that did not appear until many centuries after they were set forth.

I am not trying to undermine the accounts, I am trying to accept them as they exist without imposing unjustified assumptions upon them. I understand you believe that suggesting the accounts are not inerrant might call them into question, and thus, call into question the faith. I do not agree. I think your approach actually does more to undermine the faith in the sense that you promote a view that many will find unacceptable, and will lead them not to accept the faith. Now, I freely grant this is not a black and white issue. There are those within the faith who might lose faith if they suddenly realized the doctrine they had been taught and held dearly was full of holes. I was once one of these people. On the other hand, there are those who might be glad to come into the faith but cannot in good conscience accept a faith which expects them to deny reality.

You might be aware that St. Augustine wrote on this very issue in his day, as some in the church were promoting a literalistic view of Genesis that, even in that day, was seen to be problematical. He spoke plainly of the futility of promoting views that the pagans could clearly see were ridiculous.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, . . . the cycles of the years and the seasons . . . Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics. . . The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.
If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Here is a quote from a modern evangelical on an article considering whether Adam and Eve were historical, considering recent genetic evidence that this could not possibly have been the case, but that there may be separate common male and female ancestors for all humanity, but as part of separate populations living at different times.
See http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/201 ... ladam.html

“Waltke is open to the new thinking. In an interview, the former president of the Evangelical Theological Society affirmed the "inerrancy of the Bible, but not of interpretations." He sees Adam and Eve as historical individuals. But if genetics produces the conclusion that "Scripture has collectivity represented as an individual, that doesn't bother me," he said. "We have to go with the scientific evidence. I don't think we can ignore it. I have full confidence in Scripture, but it does not represent what science represents." Waltke insists, however, that if a collective interpretation of Adam is established eventually, then fidelity to the Bible still requires "an origination point" with “a historical reality of man rebelling against God.� �

Here is another relevant quote, from Roberto Bellarmine, who figured in the early stages of the Galileo controversy, although he had died by the time Galileo was put on trial.

“A sun-centered universe is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false.�

But he goes on to say.

Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me.�

Inerrantists would do well to consider these words, as many of them are making exactly these same mistakes in the present age, just as, for example, Luther did in the past.

“Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters ... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night.� From Martin Luther, Luther's Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis.

Luther's view was certainly similar to the inerrantists of today. The scripture clearly affirms in several passages that the earth does not move and the sun does, at least if you take the most obvious meaning. In his case, his understanding of scripture was not inconsistent with other passages of scripture per se, but with physical reality. However, this should serve as a cautionary tale for those of us living today.

However, I think there is a more important consideration here than where Judas' kiss would fit in John's account. And that is this: I believe in inerrancy. And the global flood of Noah. You believe in neither. And yet, assuming your faith in Jesus Christ is genuine, we are both members of the same Body of Christ; dead to sin, eternal beings with the same destiny.

Yes, although we disagree on doctrinal points, we are a part of the same faith. I would certainly not argue that a person who has different views on such matters is in any way ‘un-Christian,’ and in fact, would allow it may be better for some people to maintain views like yours for their own sakes, even though I think some of these views are objectively wrong or in many ways unproductive.

That, too, in my epistemological view, is by design. We both believe in the same Truth; but not in every detail of its interpretation and application. There is room for differences in "non-essential things". Praise God.

And I would certainly agree with this. In fact, such a view is well-supported Biblically, for example, in Romans Chapter 14.

Speaking of truth, let me try this analogy (it just came to me; if it has holes, forgive me ).

Let's take an inarguable truth: for instance, let's say a bomb has exploded. I, from my perspective, say that there was a huge flash, and a deafening blast -- both at the same time.

You, who experienced the blast from a mile away, say "no -- there was a flash, followed within seconds by a blast."

Are not both accounts "true", and "inerrant"?

Well, the problem with the analogy in the present case is that the gospel accounts are not just different with respect to their viewpoint, they are different with respect to details that can’t be reconciled in any reasonable way. What we have is more like one person saying the bomb blew up three houses and five cars, and another saying it only blew up one house and no cars. Now, you could argue one person did not see the other two houses and the cars because of their ‘viewpoint,’ but that doesn’t change the fact that one of the two accounts has to be factually incorrect.

In later posts, as I have time, I will attempt to get to the scientific issues with Noah’s flood.



As a final passage to consider, I will point to John chapter six.

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?�

29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.�

30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’[c]�

32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.�

34 “Sir,� they said, “always give us this bread.�

35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.�

41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.� 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?�

43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,� Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.�

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?�

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.� 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Jesus spoke to them of giving his flesh and blood for consumption. The crowd took him at his word. They never understood the metaphorical meaning, the spiritual meaning, was the important one, rather than the literal factual meaning.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 171 by micatala]

I truly appreciate the amount of thought and effort contained in your last post, micatala. I will be somewhat brief in response (at least, as I can be, in comparison to what I could be ), as I think it is clear that will have to simply "agree to disagree" on this topic.

First -- in regard to "fundamentalism": that word has taken on an odd negativity in recent decades. It need not be so. I want my football coach to be a sound "fundamentalist" in regard to the game; and his team to reflect that. And I certainly pray that the pilot of the 737 I'm flying on is a stout "fundamentalist" regarding the reality of flight.

Of course, fundamentalism, like faith itself, takes its value from its object. I will merely mention, without further discussion, what fundamentalism in regard to Islam, Hinduism, or atheism entails.

But in Christianity we encounter God's revealed, written truth. To be "fundamental' in regard to its understanding and application is an honor -- despite the pejorative nature of the word, applied by enemies of the faith (I am not including you in that assignment).

One of those fundamentals is that the Bible is an "integrated message system from outside our time domain". That it is "God-breathed"; inspired; guided by His Holy Spirit.

If this is so -- and I am satisfied it is, for countless reasons -- then, if we encounter something that lies beyond our understanding (e.g., "where is Judas' kiss in John? What is the order of the events in Gethsemane, at the tomb?"), it us up to us to seek the deeper truth that the Holy Spirit is calling us to; with the understanding that whatever that truth is, it is the intention of the Holy Spirit. That is a hermeneutic that is derived from an epistemological position. There are others; I have no quarrel with them, as long as they do not seek to undermine the Truth of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.

In any event, I think the hermeneutic of inerrancy infallibly leads to the most accurate understanding. But it may be a long road there.

In addition to being a fundamentalist in regard to Christian doctrine, I am also one in regard to science, which is the study of the "book" of God's creation (as I try to explain in my essay ("Grace and Truth"). In both cases, what we seek is Truth, in all of its manifestation; which requires a ruthless lack of compromise with any preference of ours in regard to it.

Re St. Augustine: you may want to review his chapter from "The City of God", "Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousands of Years to the World's Past".

Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. ... They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousands of years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed.

It is apparent that whoever he is addressing in your quoted comments, it is not those who took a literalist approach to Genesis.

In regard to the "errors of the past" -- agreed, let us learn from them and not repeat them. And the main lesson we learn is that where the Bible makes plain an historical fact, it is inerrant. That does not mean it provides a blow-by-blow of the events of creation week; nor a position paper on the global dynamics involved with Noah's Flood.

But is does mean that in order to arrive scientific truth -- not conjecture, based on preferred presuppositions -- we must use as our guide the ultimate source of Truth available to us in concrete from -- His inerrant Scriptures.

Re the passage from John: what a sublimely lovely, and powerfully profound, passage that is.

As with the rest of John's account, you cannot plumb the depths of its meaning (I especially, love chapter 17; where, in the most simple language, Our Lord expresses the deepest truths imaginable).

In addition to metaphysical applications involved with His body and blood being expressed by bread and wine, which are (literally ) unfathomable; there is the more prosaic application involved with viewing them as the products of the Nature that He created: both are the products of the information He conceived, and instilled in their DNA; both are dependent on the soil and chemicals and molecules that He designed; and the light and warmth from the Sun that He hung in the sky. And of the processes that occur to wheat and grapes when they are harvested and processed for consumption, which He ordered.

We are, in a poetic and almost literal sense, partaking of His "body" when we ingest them.

[micatala]

[Replying to post 171 by micatala]

I truly appreciate the amount of thought and effort contained in your last post, micatala. I will be somewhat brief in response (at least, as I can be, in comparison to what I could be ), as I think it is clear that will have to simply "agree to disagree" on this topic.

I appreciate the kindness, and I think it is fair we will continue to disagree. We are proceeding from somewhat, although not entirely, different premises.

First -- in regard to "fundamentalism": that word has taken on an odd negativity in recent decades. It need not be so. I want my football coach to be a sound "fundamentalist" in regard to the game; and his team to reflect that. And I certainly pray that the pilot of the 737 I'm flying on is a stout "fundamentalist" regarding the reality of flight.

I agree that the negative connotations that the term "fundamentalism" has taken on are not inherent in the features that actually define that belief or its history. I believe the term began to be applied early in the 20th century. I will note as a side comment that early on, not all fundamentalists were strictly against the notion of evolution and an old earth. The sharper and more strident anti-evolutionary aspects of fundamentalism came to the fore after WWI.

One of those fundamentals is that the Bible is an "integrated message system from outside our time domain". That it is "God-breathed"; inspired; guided by His Holy Spirit.

Again, I don't see inerrancy as 'fundamental,' or necessary, nor is it unambiguously supported Biblically.

If this is so -- and I am satisfied it is, for countless reasons -- then, if we encounter something that lies beyond our understanding (e.g., "where is Judas' kiss in John? What is the order of the events in Gethsemane, at the tomb?"), it us up to us to seek the deeper truth that the Holy Spirit is calling us to; with the understanding that whatever that truth is, it is the intention of the Holy Spirit. That is a hermeneutic that is derived from an epistemological position.

Again, to my mind none of what you say here really necessitates the promotion of inerrancy. The idea that there are things beyond our understanding at the present time does not mean the Bible is inerrant. It is also hard to see how any future revelation or scholarship could possibly 'fix' the discrepancies that are manifestly there.

In any event, I think the hermeneutic of inerrancy infallibly leads to the most accurate understanding. But it may be a long road there.

As you say, we will have to disagree on this. To me, inerrancy makes it more difficult to focus on the deeper and most important meanings of the Bible. Again, see John Chapter six and the history of the Galileo affair.



In addition to being a fundamentalist in regard to Christian doctrine, I am also one in regard to science, which is the study of the "book" of God's creation (as I try to explain in my essay ("Grace and Truth"). In both cases, what we seek is Truth, in all of its manifestation; which requires a ruthless lack of compromise with any preference of ours in regard to it.

Re St. Augustine: you may want to review his chapter from "The City of God", "Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousands of Years to the World's Past".

Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. ... They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousands of years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed.

You are conflating the larger point with the specific beliefs based on the knowledge of the current time. Sure, based on what they knew in Augustine's time, there was no reason to think of the earth as billions of years old. Augustine would have other problems with Genesis in mind, and there are many from a literalistic perspective. I will note that 6000 years old at that time is a fair bit older than many strict fundamentalists would say the earth is today.

In regard to the "errors of the past" -- agreed, let us learn from them and not repeat them. And the main lesson we learn is that where the Bible makes plain an historical fact, it is inerrant. That does not mean it provides a blow-by-blow of the events of creation week; nor a position paper on the global dynamics involved with Noah's Flood.

Even in this respect, this does not hold up. However, I will not digress further from the topic at this point.

But is does mean that in order to arrive scientific truth -- not conjecture, based on preferred presuppositions -- we must use as our guide the ultimate source of Truth available to us in concrete from -- His inerrant Scriptures.

Again, history shows us that using the Bible as a guide to scientific truth is a very unreliable position to take.



I will try to move more back to the OP at this point.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 175 by micatala]

Quote:
But is does mean that in order to arrive scientific truth -- not conjecture, based on preferred presuppositions -- we must use as our guide the ultimate source of Truth available to us in concrete from -- His inerrant Scriptures.

Again, history shows us that using the Bible as a guide to scientific truth is a very unreliable position to take.

I will try to move more back to the OP at this point.

That sounds good. In keeping with that, let me respond here:

What history actually shows us is that NOT "using the Bible as a guide to scientific truth is a very unreliable position to take."

It shows us that in the last 150 years, since atheistic/materialist presuppositions have become ascendent, first among scientists, and now in the popular understanding, that we have abandoned the truth in regard to origins and development.

As a result, the Great Flood has been rationalized away; and a theory that attributes the development of man from microscopic microbes by random processes, and which in turn demands that the origin of the cosmos need no cause, has gone from widespread acceptance to status as canonical.

Thank God that in our time, we have seen all the evidence that was used to support this deception turned to dust; quantum physics and the discovery of the nano-technology and gigabytes (or is it terabytes?) of coded information in the living cell rendering quaint 19th century theories and notions obsolete; and supporting the reality expressed in the Bible.

After all, both -- the reality uncovered at the frontier of science; and the Bible -- have the same Author.

And all Christians, being lovers of Truth, should strive to embrace both. Because they do not contradict each other, but rather affirm each other.

One caveat: we should be careful in terms of accepting the specific claims of current science, even when they are friendly, too eagerly. They will change -- they always do. As Dr. Jonathan Sarfati puts it: "a Christian who weds himself to today's science will be a widow tomorrow."

Science is -- or should be -- the quest for the truth in regard to the understanding of our shared reality (it manifestly is not, sadly, in many cases).

That understand WILL change over time. The Truth does not.

[The Me's]

Case in point: a recent online infographic presenting “50 Unbelievable Facts About the Earth�.

While many of the facts are grounded in operational science, which involves direct observation and measurement – for instance, the hottest and coldest surface temperatures ever recorded; or the number of times that lightning strikes the earth each day, on average; several “facts� involve speculation as to events and conditions that occurred “millions of years� ago. For instance, this one:

“Dinosaurs could only exist because… the earth’s atmosphere once contained far more oxygen. Reptiles and amphibians can no longer grow to such large sizes.� ( http://mightymega.com/2013/04/18/infogr ... out-earth/ )

I've often complained of the same thing with evolution and the fossil record.

The reality is that we have recovered only about 0.00000000000000000000001% of the potential fossil record, and we have no basis for forming any conclusions on such a small sample.

It's much safer to claim that we don't know anything of prehistory, since after all, we really don't. None of what we claim to know is a part of observation (or what you called "operational science").

***************
So how did I come up with that %?

Easy: I held down the zero until I had a sufficiently large string of zeros.

No seriously, how DID I come up with this claim?

Easy: I ran the numbers.

Assume there are 7,000,000 species.
Assume that each species has 10,000,000 members (mammals would have less, insects and plants more).
Assume that life has been on earth for 2 1/2 billion years.
Assume that there is a new generation, on average, every 2 years (mammals would have longer generations, plants and insects less, bacteria would be as low as a new generation every 30 minutes).

Questions:

1--How many life forms have existed since the first appearance of life?
2--How many of those life forms have we recovered in the fossil record?

Answer 1: 7,000,000 x 10,000,000 x (2 1/2 billion / 2) = 8,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Answer 2: Less than 1 million, and most "fossils" are fragmentary.

(By all means, please substitute your own numbers if you feel you can make any corrections. You'll likely get the same result.)

[micatala]

Case in point: a recent online infographic presenting “50 Unbelievable Facts About the Earth�.

While many of the facts are grounded in operational science, which involves direct observation and measurement – for instance, the hottest and coldest surface temperatures ever recorded; or the number of times that lightning strikes the earth each day, on average; several “facts� involve speculation as to events and conditions that occurred “millions of years� ago. For instance, this one:

“Dinosaurs could only exist because… the earth’s atmosphere once contained far more oxygen. Reptiles and amphibians can no longer grow to such large sizes.� ( http://mightymega.com/2013/04/18/infogr ... out-earth/ )

I've often complained of the same thing with evolution and the fossil record.

The reality is that we have recovered only about 0.00000000000000000000001% of the potential fossil record, and we have no basis for forming any conclusions on such a small sample.

It's much safer to claim that we don't know anything of prehistory, since after all, we really don't. None of what we claim to know is a part of observation (or what you called "operational science").

***************
So how did I come up with that %?

Easy: I held down the zero until I had a sufficiently large string of zeros.

No seriously, how DID I come up with this claim?

Easy: I ran the numbers.

Assume there are 7,000,000 species.
Assume that each species has 10,000,000 members (mammals would have less, insects and plants more).
Assume that life has been on earth for 2 1/2 billion years.
Assume that there is a new generation, on average, every 2 years (mammals would have longer generations, plants and insects less, bacteria would be as low as a new generation every 30 minutes).

Questions:

1--How many life forms have existed since the first appearance of life?
2--How many of those life forms have we recovered in the fossil record?

Answer 1: 7,000,000 x 10,000,000 x (2 1/2 billion / 2) = 8,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Answer 2: Less than 1 million, and most "fossils" are fragmentary.

(By all means, please substitute your own numbers if you feel you can make any corrections. You'll likely get the same result.)

There may be issues with your numbers, but that is less of a problem than your illogical conclusions based on those numbers.


Your argument boils down to the assertion that if your sample is only a tiny percentage of the whole population, that the sample says absolutely nothing about the population, that we can conclude zero from it.

This is entirely and utterly false, and would be seen as ridiculous if you considered applying this 'logic' in other situations.


A typical Presidential poll has a sample size of 700 to 1500. Even at the high end, this is only 1 out of 200,000 Americans, or if you want to restrict to adults, perhaps 1 out of 150,000.

And yet, such a tiny percentage can give a very accurate prediction of the election. Even a sample of 300, which would be 1 out of a million Americans, has a margin of error of under 6%. And yet, you would have us believe such a poll is entirely and utterly worthless.


Secondly, your claim that a science that is not 'operational' can make no conclusions is also fallacious. We do have observations we can make concerning evidence from the past, and we can reach reasonable conclusions based on the operation. To assert that non-operational sciences are worthless would be to throw almost all of astronomy, large parts of geology, and even large parts of biology that are not related to past events. The notion that "indirect observation" is equivalent to "no observation" is highly fallacious.

Following your logics, such as it is, we had better empty the prisons as only a small minority of convictions are valid under your criteria.

There are over 600,000 seconds in one week. A snapshot of an alleged criminal covers a fraction of a second in time. Yet, we can certainly count that as evidence in a court of law.

But not according to your logic. It is too small a fraction of the entire time within the week in which the crime occurred. It must be, following your "logic", that the photo can tell us nothing about the person or whether they committed the crime.






Now, you are correct that only a tiny fraction of organisms that have ever lived have left fossils. Figures I have seen indicate that, while we do have literally millions of fossils, we only have about 250,000 different fossil species. This is clearly a small fraction of the species currently in existence, or a small fraction of life that has existed over the whole history of the earth.


However, to claim that this mound of evidence tells us nothing about life in the past is incredibly wrong, especially using the argument you have offered here.