Just as God conveniently left elements of Greek philosophical vocabulary for the early church fathers to appropriate and to discern carefully (so they don't slide into Platonism), God conveniently left these older stuff not discovered until 1800. God maybe wants humans to mature in their thinking alongside progress in science. In 4th century it was philosophy, in 19th-20th century it is science, in 20th century dead sea scrolls and ANE and archeological discoveries.

@GratefulDisciple What "clues"?

God keeps us in our toes to use the best faculties that God gives us to create more and more mature theologies that take into account all truths harmonized together. God knew we weren't ready for the post-1800 discoveries, so early church fathers were left to construct theology based on their assumption of historical Adam, Noah, etc.

@curiousdannii Clues to dig deep in the ground, and findings using telescope, microscope, etc.

@GratefulDisciple I think that's incredibly insulting to the peoples of the past. We've invested technologies, but we haven't progressed.

@curiousdannii Did I imply we are making progress morally?

@GratefulDisciple Just like the wine and fish and bread can all be investigated. Good wine would taste like it had come from good grapes, aged in a barrel made of a certain species of wood, no cork taint etc.

I'm talking about more and more of the material universe being integrated into theology. AGAIN, please understand me correctly. I'm not saying we do natural theology, but all those things in the grounds need to be explained harmoniously with theology.

@GratefulDisciple I didn't mean morally, but intellectually etc. The ancient peoples didn't know much that we've discovered, but how can you say they wouldn't be ready for it if the information was available to them.

@curiousdannii As I said, it's a hunch. I have great respect of ancient people, who made the best use of what they had. I once listened to a course of pre-socratic philosophers. They are really amazing and underappreciated. Also, the quality of ancient Hebrew literature (like in the Psalms) is on par with Shakespeare.

"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the honor of kings is to search out a matter." Prov 25.2

I was quite blown away by the literary analysis of Genesis by Gary Rendsburg, really shows how Genesis is underappreciated.

It's my favourite book of the Bible.

@curiousdannii I think James has to be my favorite

Highly convicting

@curiousdannii Then you should check out his 2019 book How the Bible is Written which despite the title is really about Genesis.

For me, my favorite is the Psalms. Until a few years ago, I had a hard time understanding why theologians use Psalm verses to support doctrines. When I learned about plenary verbal inspiration, it makes sense.

Rendsburg needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I read him to be more sensitive of embedded meaning inside a Bible book. It's like approaching Genesis like a Shakespeare drama.

@GratefulDisciple One of my old Bible teachers said that the Psalms is the Bible's commentary on itself. There's a lot of depth in them.

@curiousdannii Yes. It's no surprise that every Jewish kid (under 10 or earlier) needs to memorize the entire Psalm 119.

@curiousdannii Wow, they started at 6 and by 10 they have memorized the Torah! Awana on steroids! Do you have Awana in Australia?

@GratefulDisciple awana.org.au Aparently, though I've never heard of it before

@curiousdannii Great program for kids. Bible memorization is one key aspects, besides games, sharing, mini preaching, and working out their guide books (with badges and awana bucks for reward). Started at kindergarten to middle school. Very well structured. When you have kids one day, I highly recommend.

@GratefulDisciple Is it a program churches can use? Or for outside churches?

@curiousdannii Usually an Awana club is using a church as a host, and usually members of that church is the organizer. They will get training, materials, supplies from the regional center. It's like a franchise. Then the church advertise the weekly 3 hour meeting to the community so parents who are interested can drop their kids there after paying a minimal yearly fee.

@GratefulDisciple Maybe kinda similar to Boys Brigade and Girls Brigade then.

The church core Awana staff usually recruits high schooler or local college students to serve as volunteers. During the "handbook time", each volunteer with be assigned to the same 3-4 club members for them to show their "homework" and recite Bible verses. Then the club member will be given prizes / tokens / awards.

@curiousdannii I'm not familiar with that one, the name sounds Australian :-).

I think most churches here are a little suspicious of things like that. They'll use external resources in their own programs, but wouldn't want a franchise to distract from their own things.

It's designed with lots of personal contact to provide lots of opportunity for the club members to grow not only their Bible knowledge, but their faith too. Because plenty of times for them to ask questions, to share concern, pray together, as well as hearing mini preaching that is fun (lots of props, etc.)

@GratefulDisciple en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys%27_Brigade originally founded in scotland. USA and Canada both have chapters. But it may not be common, it's not very common here either.

The upside is that they don't have to develop the curriculum, and because it's been around for long, it's a recognizable brand, and easier to recruit volunteer. At the church where I bring my kid to Awana, the leader (already in his 50s) was once Awana kid himself.

@curiousdannii It does take some commitment, but like a franchise, the regional Awana organization gives the church everything they need EXCEPT the staff & volunteer. So most churches run it like a children ministry.

If a church doesn't want to run their own club, they can send their kids to another church in the area that does. Their members can also serve as volunteers in the other church to experience the club activities for themselves while deciding whether they want to open their own club.

I have been in a very large club where kids are in the 300-400 to smaller one where kids are in the 40-50.

@GratefulDisciple Whoa that's huge.

AWANA = Approved Workmen Are Not Ashamed (2 Tim 2:15)

@curiousdannii Yup, so lots of volunteers to keep a low volunteer to club member ratio.

@curiousdannii It's also not an all or nothing. A club can offer only 1 or more levels: Puggles (2-3 year old), Cubbies (3-5 year old), Sparks (K-2nd), T&T (3rd-6th), Trek (middle school), and Journey (high school). At the smaller club, we only have Cubbies, Sparks and T&T

It starts with an assembly with flag ceremony: national anthem, Awana song (with hand movement), and Bible verse reciting with body movement.

When I was in the USA, I sang "Star Spangled Banner", when in Canada I sang "O Canada" :-)

Heh. I think churches in Australia generally don't like the anthem being sung in them either.

@curiousdannii I see. Maybe it's optional.

OK, gotta go. Talk to you later.

@curiousdannii To be fair, that's sort of what science is... trying to figure out how God's Creation works instead of just saying "well, God did it".

@GratefulDisciple ...but that's the YEC point; those alleged "old age" things are misinterpreted. Radiometric dating is, frankly, a joke... and everything else builds on those assumptions. So everything has dates that are just plain wrong and are based entirely on circular reasoning. In fact, the genetic data does not support an "old" Earth timeline.

@GratefulDisciple ...and this is the current state of affairs. That's the problem. And most Christians are buying into "science" (which is really Methodological Materialism) and allowing it to take over their theology. Science and theology don't stay separate; that's not human nature.

@Matthew Don't we need to differentiate "science" from "scientism"? It's "scientism" that is "methodological materialism". Measuring date is not only using radiometric dating. They try to combine multiple methods to check one another. How about tree ring, ice cores, stratigraphy, typology, etc? (see Dating in Archeology).

@GratefulDisciple Trees can grow more than one ring per year. Ice can lay down multiple layers in a day. Combining multiple methods to check each other doesn't work when your entire system of assumptions is out of whack; basically, it's just circular reasoning. What about decaying magnetic fields? What about increasing ocean salinity? What about the recession of the moon? What about genetic evidence that humans aren't nearly as old as Materialists claim?

I would hope we don't need to differentiate "science" from "scientism", but unfortunately mainstream "science" has indeed hijacked that word with exactly that meaning. Just consider how anything that even hints at Creationism, or even ID, is automatically labeled "not science", "pseudosience", or other such disparaging terms, and how anyone entertaining such ideas is blackballed.

Heretic is a great reference for that, although it's hardly unique. If you don't believe me, though, believe history; origins debates aren't the first time this sort of thing has happened.

(What about "50kyo" trees found in "500kyo" rock? I might have that second "date" wrong, but it was at least an order of magnitude more than the ¹⁴C "date".)

BTW, YECs do agree with stratiography, at least in the sense that higher layers are newer. The disagreement is just in how much time between layers (days vs. thousands/millions of years).

@Matthew You have to understand that I'm pretty new at this YEC conception of science. I'm not trying to be derogatory by calling it "pseudo-science", but just want to be able to distinguish what YEC means by practicing good science vs. what the universities says. Let's say scientists make observation based on data in the past 300 years and establish some rate. Are you saying they are not legitimate in extrapolating the rate into the past? And why is that?

Sorry by asking a very simple question, because I'm rather new at this dating methods.

@GratefulDisciple Ack! Please don't think I was implying you did such things! Many Materialists (especially atheistic ones) do, however.

Okay, to try to answer your question (if I understand it correctly)... no, it's not illegitimate. It's more that a) it's necessary to recognize that extrapolation is an unprovable assumption, and b) with respect to many Uniformitarian dating methods, there is evidence that the way in which they are applied is incorrect.

For example, trees or ice cores with more than one ring/layer per year are known; it's not as simple as just counting the things, and those self-calibration methods you (indirectly) mentioned tend to be a way of ensuring you arrive at the answer you want to arrive at.

Radiometric dating seems to be the ultimate arbiter and the method that's claimed to give the most reliable "absolute" numbers with the least cross-calibration with other methods... yet when you actually investigate it, it has all sorts of problems.

(I'm not sure if you want me to elaborate on that, or take some time to digest?)

@Matthew You're doing fine. Of course the devils are in the detail. What's helpful to me at this point is having a list of major issues. You mentioned four: 1) not careful enough doing the extrapolating such as multiple ring/year; 2) not aware of problems for a method (like the radiometric dating); 3) misapplication of method to what you want to measure; 4) tweak method to fit the answer

Assuming those 4 areas are fixed, then YEC and mainstream science practice should produce the same result, no? Are there any other major issues (we are just creating a list here)?

I'd say "yes", but YEC claims Earth is ~6,000 years old. That necessitates an intelligent designer, and "mainstream science" has excluded that possibility a priori. So... I guess I can say "yes", but only if YEC becomes mainstream science 🙂.

YECs would say that the most major issue, however, is that Materialists are dedicated a priori to rejecting God, and are basically trying to fit the evidence to that presupposition. If you hope for these to views to somehow reconcile, you're going to be hoping for a very, very long time. What's productive is to recognize the assumptions and flaws in both approaches and decide for yourself which one seems more reasonable.

The key, I would say, is having a better understanding of what's actually supportable by the evidence and what's rhetoric, and also knowing where you still have problems. For example, both sides have problems with distant starlight. YECs have a heat problem with the Flood. (Evolutionism has an insurmountable information problem, although TE can at least excuse that.)

The age of the Earth has questions on both sides... like radiometric "dating". YECs think they have an explanation (there is evidence that radioactive decay has been "accelerated" on at least one occasion). Uniformitarians tend to dismiss YEC claims out of hand, however, though not always.

@Matthew you do realize we rely on the same methods with radiometric dating that we do to produce atomic bombs and run nuclear power sites right? So it’s definitely not a complete joke.

@LukeHill ...no we don't? Fission/fusion and decay aren't the same thing (unless you're thinking of RTGs). But, anyway, decay isn't a joke. It's the claim that it's a reliable "clock" that's full of holes. Starting with the absolute requirement that decay has been constant, when there is evidence to the contrary.

The joke is that a significant portion of results must be thrown out or reinterpreted, that different methods give conflicting answers for the same sample, that "dating" of rocks of known age gives ludicrous answers... Materialists treat radiometric dating as if it is infallible, when the reality is significantly different.

Radiometric dating is like judging how long water has been dripping through a cloth from one container into another. Under perfect conditions, you can get an answer. But what if my assumptions about the initial conditions are wrong? What if I added or removed water from the top or the bottom? What if I added pressure such that the water passed through the cloth more rapidly?