For purpose of self-defense, knowing that many words bring greater judgement by those who read, I have paraphrased some questions/comments below with my responses to them:
- "Aren't you losing sight of the big picture?" (regarding Scripture interpretation)
- You cannot have a "big picture" without all the many small brushstrokes that compose it.
- Alternately, to understand the theme(s) of a book, you need to understand it page by page.
- "You take things too literally. You're trapped in a scientist mindset."
- Well, I think of it this way--What reason is there to trust a fairy tale, even if it teaches noble values?
- Yet, I agree that one shouldn't just read all Scripture at face value. Christ's parables are a great example.
- "Scripture is about the theology, not scientific facts."
- I would agree that the focus of Scripture is theological.
- But I would add that the theology is applied to reality--we serve a real God, Who made a real world, requires that we abide by His real rules, and has offered us real salvation following our failure to abide by His rules.
- "It's kind of presumptuous to think you understand what someone wrote over 2000 years ago--particularly if you do not have the scholarly background."
- I think an omniscient God had the wisdom to inspire Scripture in such a way that it would be understandable, not confusing, throughout the years to come.
- In short, I believe Scripture was made available to all. (although some will reject it)
- "So, when you say you believe in a real Adam and Eve (as the only original ancestors of humanity) you're saying you believe in incest?"
- This is a very blunt question (especially when asked in a public setting), but a real one.
- First, bringing up the incest question implies that you really have a problem with the idea of incest. This must be either a scientific, cultural, or religious/moral problem on the inquirer's part:
- Biologically, I would say that a narrow gene pool appears unlikely (this obviously cannot be tested in duplicate scenario) to be a problem for people who are managing to live for hundreds of years like Adam and Seth without dying from mortal disease or debilitating conditions. However, we know we would definitely have genetic problems today.
- Culturally, there wouldn't have been a cultural problem in Adam and Eve's day. They are said in Scripture to be the first people alive (no cultural precedent here).
- Morally, I will say that Scripture definitely agrees that incest was/is taboo from at least as far back as Moses onward through today. To my knowledge, Scripture is silent regarding Adam and Eve's day, outside of the actual story of Adam, Eve, and their sons. My general answer is that the moral side of the law (there is also the cultural and genetic side to apply today) against incest in Scripture and in society aims to protect a functional family structure (against problems such as rivalry, abuse, and disrespect--which were not mentioned as real problems between close bloodline relatives in the first couple generations recorded in Genesis, outside of the Cain and Abel story).
- "What about the well-established scientific research such as radioisotope dating?"
- Any scientific research, following the scientific method, must
follow-up hypotheses with testing before the hypotheses reach the
fact/theory stage.
- Any quantitative analysis and many (if not all) qualitative analyses
must be calibrated and account for the baseline/background noise, of
which examples are:
- Taring a mass scale - Zeros baseline mass.
- Subtracting reference pan heat-flow in differential scanning
calorimetry (DSC) from that of the sample pan, analyzed on the same day
and under the same conditions - Zeros baseline heat-flow.
- Quantifying
elemental atomic%s in spectra of unknown samples against absolutely known standard
material spectra gathered under the same, or very similar, conditions (Electron Dispersive Spectroscopy in SEM analysis) - Calibrates the signal/noise ratios for each elemental characteristic x-ray.
- Subtracting an infrared (IR) transparent CsI (or similar material) IR scan from that of the sample diluted with CsI - Zeros baseline IR absorbance.
- Standardized marking of pipettes, beakers, flasks, and other laboratory glassware - Calibrates measurement precision with these glassware.
- Subtracting the emply sample holder scan from sample x-ray diffraction (XRD) spectra - Removes any background noise hiding characteristic diffraction peaks.
- Reviewing weather variation when counting tree growth rings - Calibrates for extra rings formed by seasonal drought.
- "Measurements" of millions/billions of years are not calibrated or baselined against observational knowledge.
- For one example, the geological radioactive decay equation is: D = D0 + N(t) (eλt − 1)
- D, referring to current number of "daughter" isotope atoms in sample, can be measured by current-day scientists.
- D0, referring to number of "daughter" isotope atoms in original-condition sample, cannot be measured by current-day scientists for millions of years ago.
- N(t), referring to current number of "parent" isotope atoms in sample, can be measured.
- Lambda (upside down y), referring to the decay constant of the "parent" isotope, has only been measured over a much shorter time-span than millions of years.
- t, referring to the decay time, is the dependent variable being solved for to date things.
- Since radioactive isotope dating relies on intrinsically uncertain values (at least for millions of years time-spans) for D0, the baseline isotope level, and lambda, the calibrated decay rate, one must find certain extrinsic confirmation for those values. I would be interested to learn of any such extrinsic confirmation of the D0
and lambda values going back millions of years--as a B.S. Chemist
(turned Materials Science & Engineering grad student) I say that I
do not know of any such confirmation.
- Well-established scientific research has been shown to be erroneous in the past.
- "Belief in a young earth is an invention of American Young Earth Creationists. Do you know of any other people who believe in a young earth?"
- Yes, except the person I point to is no longer alive, as he was a historian living during 37-100 A.D. As a historian, he also reflected the views of his ancestors.
- Josephus counts a mere ~3000 years from the origin of mankind to the death of Moses.
- The earliest, post-exilic Jewish chronicle, "Seder Olam" later titled "Seder Olam Rabbah", dates world history similarly.
- Even modern Jews recognize that Jewish tradition counts <6000 years back to Creation:
- Reform Judaism - Scroll to bottom of page. The year 1948, when modern Israel declared independence, was considered year 5708 from Creation.
- Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Scroll to bottom of page. Modern Israel's Declaration of Independence was dated to year 5708 (followed by 1948 in parentheses).
