I received an invitation to join here

[John Bauer]

Okay, thanks for your cosmological summary. If you haven't read mine, let me know. There are procedural faults I identify that I think you may find quite interesting, if you haven't picked up on them already.

I have not read yours. I asked a couple of times for a link to what you wrote for CSR and ICC (whatever those acronyms stand for) but you still haven't provided one. When you do, I will be able to read what you wrote.

I would have to disagree on the line that "there is not a shred of conflict or even tension."

If you think some shred of conflict or tension still exists between redemptive history and natural history in my view, I invite you to demonstrate where.

When you say there was a major shift between this two-fold format and what you formerly believed, could you elaborate?

BEFORE:

As a brand new Christian who adopted young-earth creationism (2011–2015), I used to believe that redemptive history and natural history share the same starting point because Genesis was about material origins. That meant the garden of Eden was around 6,000 years ago and the origin of the universe was five days earlier.

I would eventually abandon young-earth creationism in favor of a Hugh Ross-type old-earth creationism (2015–2018), so I still believed Genesis was about material origins and, therefore, redemptive history and natural history still shared the same starting point—but much, much longer ago (though I didn't know when).

AFTER:

Then I started reading Kline, Beale, Walton, and others (e.g., Middleton on the imago Dei). I remained an old-earth creationist (2018–Present) but I no longer believed that redemptive history and natural history share the same starting point because it looked like Genesis wasn't about material origins. So, the garden of Eden was around 6,000 years ago (Ken Ham was right about that) and the origin of the universe was roughly 14 billion years earlier (Hugh Ross was right about that).

It also meant that (a) Adam and Eve lived in a world populated by millions of people, so they weren't the first humans, which meant (b) sin is not a matter of biological continuity but rather covenantal solidarity (i.e., in Adam)—which makes sense because that's true of our righteousness in Christ, too (i.e., likewise not a matter of biological continuity, for Jesus fathered no children).

And yet the furthest back that Ms. Johnson on Montana dinosaur collagen would go was 200K years, nowhere close to 65M. As I recall, she was giving the most extensive research on the subject, in her LA TIMES interview.

I have no idea who you're talking about. I am not aware of any "Ms. Johnson" with a connection to "dinosaur collagen."

I would suggest you look into two things theologically. First, that the covenant with humanity didn't start with Genesis 1. (You could say the "reporting" did.) The covenant was eternal, and the promise of eternal life (says Titus 1) was before creation. This is because there is pre-creation humanity to Christ (John 16, etc.) and the covenant was with him as a representative, so much so that one line of Isaiah has "I will make you [i.e., the Servant] a covenant for the nations."

I already have looked into these issues, and have arrived at a (somewhat) settled position on them. Early in my journey toward Reformed theology, while studying soteriology, covenant theology versus dispensationalism, and infralapsarianism versus supralapsarianism, I came to see the following: There is the covenant of redemption (Latin pactum salutis), established from all eternity among the persons of the Trinity, and there are the two covenants made with humanity in time, the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. The former was made with our federal head, the first Adam, whose fall ushered in the latter mediated by Christ, the last Adam (as appointed in the pactum salutis).

When I talk about redemptive history, I am referring to the human sphere (Greek kosmos), in which case redemptive history dawned in Eden roughly 6,000 years ago. To be sure, the covenants made with humanity in time are grounded in and flow from the eternal pactum salutis, but that covenant is intratrinitarian and thus distinct from redemptive history. (The very word "history" is a major tell, being temporal language.)

Second, if you look closely at the exchange Peter reports in 2 Peter 3, you will see that the issue with the stoicheans—not to be confused with classical Stoics—is an active, intervening God. This is true three times: creation, cataclysm, and the final judgment. The stoicheans did not want this said about the earth, harboring some sort of sacred earth belief. (I was published on the "stoicheia tou kosmou," regarding how it relates to Judaism, but not how this "sacred, uninterrupted earth" view factored outside that—except that tight parallel drawn by Paul in Galatians 4:8, the Galatian first stage as pagans.)

I think you may have failed to grasp the distinction I am making. My argument is not that God was uninvolved in the material origins of creation until Genesis. God's decree in the pactum salutis comprehends all things throughout time. The triune God is (and must be) actively involved in every stage of creation's history, from its first moment of material origin onward.

The point I am pressing is that scripture does not speak equally to both histories. Natural history, which includes the material origin and development of the cosmos, belongs to the sphere of general revelation. Redemptive history, which begins with God's covenantal dealings with Adam, belongs to special revelation. As scripture, Genesis is concerned with the latter, not the former. To conflate them is to ask Genesis to answer questions it was never given to answer.

So, when I say Genesis marks the dawn of redemptive history, I am not excluding God's sovereign involvement in natural history. I am only saying Genesis is not narrating that story.

 

[EarlyActs]

I have not read yours. I asked a couple of times for a link to what you wrote for CSR and ICC (whatever those acronyms stand for) but you still haven't provided one. When you do, I will be able to read what you wrote.




If you think some shred of conflict or tension still exists between redemptive history and natural history in my view, I invite you to demonstrate where.




BEFORE:

As a brand new Christian who adopted young-earth creationism (2011–2015), I used to believe that redemptive history and natural history share the same starting point because Genesis was about material origins. That meant the garden of Eden was around 6,000 years ago and the origin of the universe was five days earlier.

I would eventually abandon young-earth creationism in favor of a Hugh Ross-type old-earth creationism (2015–2018), so I still believed Genesis was about material origins and, therefore, redemptive history and natural history still shared the same starting point—but much, much longer ago (though I didn't know when).

AFTER:

Then I started reading Kline, Beale, Walton, and others (e.g., Middleton on the imago Dei). I remained an old-earth creationist (2018–Present) but I no longer believed that redemptive history and natural history share the same starting point because it looked like Genesis wasn't about material origins. So, the garden of Eden was around 6,000 years ago (Ken Ham was right about that) and the origin of the universe was roughly 14 billion years earlier (Hugh Ross was right about that).

It also meant that (a) Adam and Eve lived in a world populated by millions of people, so they weren't the first humans, which meant (b) sin is not a matter of biological continuity but rather covenantal solidarity (i.e., in Adam)—which makes sense because that's true of our righteousness in Christ, too (i.e., likewise not a matter of biological continuity, for Jesus fathered no children).




I have no idea who you're talking about. I am not aware of any "Ms. Johnson" with a connection to "dinosaur collagen."




I already have looked into these issues, and have arrived at a (somewhat) settled position on them. Early in my journey toward Reformed theology, while studying soteriology, covenant theology versus dispensationalism, and infralapsarianism versus supralapsarianism, I came to see the following: There is the covenant of redemption (Latin pactum salutis), established from all eternity among the persons of the Trinity, and there are the two covenants made with humanity in time, the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. The former was made with our federal head, the first Adam, whose fall ushered in the latter mediated by Christ, the last Adam (as appointed in the pactum salutis).

When I talk about redemptive history, I am referring to the human sphere (Greek kosmos), in which case redemptive history dawned in Eden roughly 6,000 years ago. To be sure, the covenants made with humanity in time are grounded in and flow from the eternal pactum salutis, but that covenant is intratrinitarian and thus distinct from redemptive history. (The very word "history" is a major tell, being temporal language.)




I think you may have failed to grasp the distinction I am making. My argument is not that God was uninvolved in the material origins of creation until Genesis. God's decree in the pactum salutis comprehends all things throughout time. The triune God is (and must be) actively involved in every stage of creation's history, from its first moment of material origin onward.

The point I am pressing is that scripture does not speak equally to both histories. Natural history, which includes the material origin and development of the cosmos, belongs to the sphere of general revelation. Redemptive history, which begins with God's covenantal dealings with Adam, belongs to special revelation. As scripture, Genesis is concerned with the latter, not the former. To conflate them is to ask Genesis to answer questions it was never given to answer.

So, when I say Genesis marks the dawn of redemptive history, I am not excluding God's sovereign involvement in natural history. I am only saying Genesis is not narrating that story.

Thanks for all the notes.

The acronyms are about two major creation science societies whose approval will allow a project I'm on to have the recognition for it that I want, but which I'm not allowed to mention here at CCCF. Might be a typo above: CRS is correct.

 

[EarlyActs]

Here's the summary paragraph sent to the two societies:


Summary Statement of

the Young, Local, Creation-Week

for New Scholars Conference



The YLCW view has steps to it which the abrupt YEC does not. The ‘spreading out’ of the lifeless distant stars (kavov) was shortly prior to earth’s local creation week (relative to conventional naturalism).



This view seeks distinction from YEC by showing how the text and field findings distinguish between lifeless distant objects and the local system, which was set in place in the 6 Days of creation week. The range of this prior period depends on objective features of carbon-14 and subjective definition of enough light to be named on Day 1. The duration of prior features is clear from the text by literary comparison.



The ‘spreading out’s energy dissipated rapidly and the forms created were random. One of those was the earthen material which was covered with water. Locally, there was not even starlight reflecting on earth, but it arrived on Day 1; a star, likely of Orion, marked the 1st day-period.



The narrative of Genesis 1 is concerned with the shama or local objects which is soon fused with raqia, the whole ensemble from earth’s sky containing birds to a few moving stars which communicate to mankind, not the distant worlds. Gen 1’s narrative only mentions the distant kavov as an aside; and this matches 2 Peter 3: the universe was there ‘of old,’ but the earth was formed like pottery into the pre-cataclysm object, through water and out of it.





Here are the original essentials from (my original book):



Mastheads:

Creation week of local things was recent! Gen 1 was not about the lifeless, static, distant universe.

>The earth may have been here for a while before day 1 for various reasons.



>Evolution is unknown to the universe.



>The text’s local POV is retained.



>The distant lifeless objects simply provided day 1 light (either naturally or speeded), not God’s designed messages like through the local objects. If Day 1 light was natural, the distant lifeless universe was ‘stretched out by God’ at some earlier time (the light-years math). God still created all the others, but for a different purpose not very explicit to earth.



>2 Peter 3’s finalization about cosmology intended a time disconnection between the distant universe and earth, and did not put the distant universe in “creation”, neither when thinking about Genesis nor when reporting the skeptics delusion (the ‘stoicheians’).

 

[EarlyActs]

re Ross
The Hebrew butcher. A ridiculous reference. Not that YEC's are much better about Hebrew, but really, all he had to do was spend a day in transliteration. He would have seen all kinds of word choices to avoid the embarrassing conclusions he reached.

 

[EarlyActs]

re tension:
To answer 2 birds with one stone, I will cover the dino-collagen expert.

I don't mindlessly trust internet research because it can easily be changed. I did find that the issue is an active a volatile one by entering collagen and soft tissue in Creationwiki. But the only link about LA Times went to a female Brighton professor and the 200K year remark was not found. And it actually made the range go further back, which was not the 'issue' of the article I read; the researcher was clearly trying to recognize how recent some samples were, while establishing an upper time limit that would be more sensible to the public.

On the question of tension itself:
Do you actually think you can dismiss the materiality of Gen 1? The only departure in the text that I'm aware of is the raqia. All it says is that the ancient POV was that the local moving objects appeared to be in another kind of water than was on earth. Given that many objects are named/described in their normal material sense, and this 'raqia' is the only exception, I cannot dismiss the materiality elsewhere. Does a psalm that refers to the sun rising dismiss materiality even if it is an archaic way of putting things?

Three quick facts about the text could help support the actual materiality:
1, that it was so dark before Day 1 that there was not even a glint of reflection off of water from starlight, but on Day 1 there was general light that could mark a day, but not be photosynthesis-quality. What intriguing detail! This timestamps the arrival of starlight, from which we can work backward.
2, Day 1 light, like photos we now enjoy from the back side of the moon, show us a glowing universe, even cloudy, but it does not grow things.
3, The recitation was not interested in the distant worlds, the 'kavov.' They were there, yes, v16, but they did not have the function of the local objects placed later. Again, I find the actual distinctions made to be too detailed, too intriguing to dismiss materiality; instead it is an eyewitness report of the materiality of it, though not Adam's eye of course. He learned it verbally.

 

[EarlyActs]

I have not read yours. I asked a couple of times for a link to what you wrote for CSR and ICC (whatever those acronyms stand for) but you still haven't provided one. When you do, I will be able to read what you wrote.




If you think some shred of conflict or tension still exists between redemptive history and natural history in my view, I invite you to demonstrate where.




BEFORE:

As a brand new Christian who adopted young-earth creationism (2011–2015), I used to believe that redemptive history and natural history share the same starting point because Genesis was about material origins. That meant the garden of Eden was around 6,000 years ago and the origin of the universe was five days earlier.

I would eventually abandon young-earth creationism in favor of a Hugh Ross-type old-earth creationism (2015–2018), so I still believed Genesis was about material origins and, therefore, redemptive history and natural history still shared the same starting point—but much, much longer ago (though I didn't know when).

AFTER:

Then I started reading Kline, Beale, Walton, and others (e.g., Middleton on the imago Dei). I remained an old-earth creationist (2018–Present) but I no longer believed that redemptive history and natural history share the same starting point because it looked like Genesis wasn't about material origins. So, the garden of Eden was around 6,000 years ago (Ken Ham was right about that) and the origin of the universe was roughly 14 billion years earlier (Hugh Ross was right about that).

It also meant that (a) Adam and Eve lived in a world populated by millions of people, so they weren't the first humans, which meant (b) sin is not a matter of biological continuity but rather covenantal solidarity (i.e., in Adam)—which makes sense because that's true of our righteousness in Christ, too (i.e., likewise not a matter of biological continuity, for Jesus fathered no children).




I have no idea who you're talking about. I am not aware of any "Ms. Johnson" with a connection to "dinosaur collagen."




I already have looked into these issues, and have arrived at a (somewhat) settled position on them. Early in my journey toward Reformed theology, while studying soteriology, covenant theology versus dispensationalism, and infralapsarianism versus supralapsarianism, I came to see the following: There is the covenant of redemption (Latin pactum salutis), established from all eternity among the persons of the Trinity, and there are the two covenants made with humanity in time, the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. The former was made with our federal head, the first Adam, whose fall ushered in the latter mediated by Christ, the last Adam (as appointed in the pactum salutis).

When I talk about redemptive history, I am referring to the human sphere (Greek kosmos), in which case redemptive history dawned in Eden roughly 6,000 years ago. To be sure, the covenants made with humanity in time are grounded in and flow from the eternal pactum salutis, but that covenant is intratrinitarian and thus distinct from redemptive history. (The very word "history" is a major tell, being temporal language.)




I think you may have failed to grasp the distinction I am making. My argument is not that God was uninvolved in the material origins of creation until Genesis. God's decree in the pactum salutis comprehends all things throughout time. The triune God is (and must be) actively involved in every stage of creation's history, from its first moment of material origin onward.

The point I am pressing is that scripture does not speak equally to both histories. Natural history, which includes the material origin and development of the cosmos, belongs to the sphere of general revelation. Redemptive history, which begins with God's covenantal dealings with Adam, belongs to special revelation. As scripture, Genesis is concerned with the latter, not the former. To conflate them is to ask Genesis to answer questions it was never given to answer.

So, when I say Genesis marks the dawn of redemptive history, I am not excluding God's sovereign involvement in natural history. I am only saying Genesis is not narrating that story.

re the populated world
I think I have a point of agreement there, but for a different reason. The reason is the sudden creation of life that 'swarmed with swarms.' I can't think how you would do that without creating many to start with, pregnancies being the length they are. So again, I find material detail that matters, but not the way the YEC's do it. I do not find them very dialed in when working with the clues in front of them.

As usual, the recitation narrative is quite interested in one thing, without denying another, but only gives cursory notice (the kavov, the other humans, the other 'sons and daughters' in genealogies, etc).

 

[EarlyActs]

I have not read yours. I asked a couple of times for a link to what you wrote for CSR and ICC (whatever those acronyms stand for) but you still haven't provided one. When you do, I will be able to read what you wrote.




If you think some shred of conflict or tension still exists between redemptive history and natural history in my view, I invite you to demonstrate where.




BEFORE:

As a brand new Christian who adopted young-earth creationism (2011–2015), I used to believe that redemptive history and natural history share the same starting point because Genesis was about material origins. That meant the garden of Eden was around 6,000 years ago and the origin of the universe was five days earlier.

I would eventually abandon young-earth creationism in favor of a Hugh Ross-type old-earth creationism (2015–2018), so I still believed Genesis was about material origins and, therefore, redemptive history and natural history still shared the same starting point—but much, much longer ago (though I didn't know when).

AFTER:

Then I started reading Kline, Beale, Walton, and others (e.g., Middleton on the imago Dei). I remained an old-earth creationist (2018–Present) but I no longer believed that redemptive history and natural history share the same starting point because it looked like Genesis wasn't about material origins. So, the garden of Eden was around 6,000 years ago (Ken Ham was right about that) and the origin of the universe was roughly 14 billion years earlier (Hugh Ross was right about that).

It also meant that (a) Adam and Eve lived in a world populated by millions of people, so they weren't the first humans, which meant (b) sin is not a matter of biological continuity but rather covenantal solidarity (i.e., in Adam)—which makes sense because that's true of our righteousness in Christ, too (i.e., likewise not a matter of biological continuity, for Jesus fathered no children).




I have no idea who you're talking about. I am not aware of any "Ms. Johnson" with a connection to "dinosaur collagen."




I already have looked into these issues, and have arrived at a (somewhat) settled position on them. Early in my journey toward Reformed theology, while studying soteriology, covenant theology versus dispensationalism, and infralapsarianism versus supralapsarianism, I came to see the following: There is the covenant of redemption (Latin pactum salutis), established from all eternity among the persons of the Trinity, and there are the two covenants made with humanity in time, the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. The former was made with our federal head, the first Adam, whose fall ushered in the latter mediated by Christ, the last Adam (as appointed in the pactum salutis).

When I talk about redemptive history, I am referring to the human sphere (Greek kosmos), in which case redemptive history dawned in Eden roughly 6,000 years ago. To be sure, the covenants made with humanity in time are grounded in and flow from the eternal pactum salutis, but that covenant is intratrinitarian and thus distinct from redemptive history. (The very word "history" is a major tell, being temporal language.)




I think you may have failed to grasp the distinction I am making. My argument is not that God was uninvolved in the material origins of creation until Genesis. God's decree in the pactum salutis comprehends all things throughout time. The triune God is (and must be) actively involved in every stage of creation's history, from its first moment of material origin onward.

The point I am pressing is that scripture does not speak equally to both histories. Natural history, which includes the material origin and development of the cosmos, belongs to the sphere of general revelation. Redemptive history, which begins with God's covenantal dealings with Adam, belongs to special revelation. As scripture, Genesis is concerned with the latter, not the former. To conflate them is to ask Genesis to answer questions it was never given to answer.

So, when I say Genesis marks the dawn of redemptive history, I am not excluding God's sovereign involvement in natural history. I am only saying Genesis is not narrating that story.

re never given to answer general revelation and redemptive history
I'm not sure Genesis fails to do so. I have mentioned two celestial clues so far: that the earth is sitting there in utter dark until starlight arrives, and 2, that the distant lifeless objects from the spreading out (of which the planet earth is one) hardly matter to the POV of local things in Genesis 1 but are perfunctorily mentioned. I don't see how that is the same as "not given to answer."

But I'm also not sure you noticed an issue taken up by Peter about creation. Each of the three things God does with earth are rather abrupt, and we get clues from Ps 104 about this. (That's the psalm where it is quite difficult to tell whether he has creation or cataclysm in mind). The 'stoichean' view there was that uniformity has been the rule. By using the expressions 'out of water and through water' we see this, whether it compares to birth or to baptism, or not, and that uniformity cannot describe these events.

 

[John Bauer]

The acronyms are about two major creation science societies whose approval will allow a project I'm on to have the recognition for it that I want, but which I'm not allowed to mention here.

Thanks for clarifying. Just so I understand you correctly: When you mention the CRS (Creation Research Society) and ICC (International Conference on Creationism), are you saying your YLCW proposal has been accepted for publication, or that you have submitted it for consideration and are waiting on review? I only ask because both CRS and ICC have fairly formal processes (peer review, editorial approval), and I would be interested to see your work once it's actually published in CRS Quarterly or included in the ICC proceedings. That would also give everyone here a chance to engage your ideas in their final, vetted form.

 

[John Bauer]

I don't mindlessly trust internet research because it can easily be changed. I did find that the issue is an active a volatile one by entering "collagen" and "soft tissue" in Creationwiki. But the only link about LA Times went to a female Brighton professor and the 200 ka remark was not found. And it actually made the range go further back, which was not the 'issue' of the article I read; the researcher was clearly trying to recognize how recent some samples were, while establishing an upper time limit that would be more sensible to the public.

That confirms my suspicion that you were talking about Mary H. Schweitzer (not "Ms. Johnson"), a paleontologist who in 2005 reported soft tissue structures—collagen, blood vessels, and even cell-like structures—in a Tyrannosaurus rex fossil (later also in hadrosaurs).

As for the 200,000 years, I suspect you meant Schweitzer at some point estimated the upper stability window for collagen under certain lab assumptions to be in the hundreds of thousands of years, not tens of millions. Creationists seize on that number to say, "See? Collagen can't last 65 milliopn years." But Schweitzer herself never concluded that. The 200 ka figure comes from earlier lab decay models, not her actual T. rex work.

Tim C. Stafford had an excellent chapter on Schweitzer in his book, The Adam Quest (Nelson Books, 2013), which explores the history and impact of her landmark discovery.

 

[John Bauer]

On the question of tension itself: Do you actually think you can dismiss the materiality of Genesis 1?

Two things:

1. Asking clarifying questions about my view doesn't show conflict or tension between redemptive history and natural history therein. It does signal that you're still trying to understand it, though.

2. To allege that I am dismissing "the materiality of Genesis 1" is to prove that you haven't understood my criticism. I am not dismissing "the materiality of Genesis 1," but rather the idea that creation in Genesis 1 is about material origins because that assumes without a shred of historical-grammatical evidence that the ancient Hebrews had a material ontology—which ends up begging the very question. I agree that many objects are named or described in a material sense, but is it describing their material origin? Those who think so must demonstrate that through historical-grammatical exegesis. Until they do, I am afforded no reason to believe it.

Regarding the populated world:

I think I have a point of agreement there, but for a different reason. The reason is the sudden creation of life that 'swarmed with swarms.' I can't think how you would do that without creating many to start with, pregnancies being the length they are. So, again, I find material detail that matters, but not the way the YEC's do it. I do not find them very dialed-in when working with the clues in front of them.

As usual, the recitation narrative is quite interested in one thing, without denying another, but only gives cursory notice (the kavov, the other humans, the other 'sons and daughters' in genealogies, etc).

Just to add to your point: Genesis 1 also doesn't say that God created a man and a woman (i.e., a single couple). It says he created mankind, and that he created them male and female. I am not aware of any textual evidence that precludes this being lots of people—which would be consistent with your idiolect for the instantaneous origin of teeming life, en masse, by divine fiat ("swarmed with swarms").

I don't agree with your view, but I do understand it (which is why I disagree with it).

 

[EarlyActs]

Thanks for clarifying. Just so I understand you correctly: When you mention the CRS (Creation Research Society) and ICC (International Conference on Creationism), are you saying your YLCW proposal has been accepted for publication, or that you have submitted it for consideration and are waiting on review? I only ask because both CRS and ICC have fairly formal processes (peer review, editorial approval), and I would be interested to see your work once it's actually published in CRS Quarterly or included in the ICC proceedings. That would also give everyone here a chance to engage your ideas in their final, vetted form.

CRS misplaced my piece, and ICC has a New Scholar's 'chapter' or something, and had not reviewed it. The NS wanted the paragraph version. I sent the paragraph and a copy to each again.

Dr. T Clarey wrote back this time from CRS and said he had it, and we shared notes on another of his items on the cataclysm and how it shows in Ps 104.

 

[prism]

Dr. T Clarey wrote back this time from CRS and said he had it, and we shared notes on another of his items on the cataclysm and how it shows in Ps 104.

I never seen the Flood in that Psalm before, especially vss.6-9.

 

[EarlyActs]

That confirms my suspicion that you were talking about Mary H. Schweitzer (not "Ms. Johnson"), a paleontologist who in 2005 reported soft tissue structures—collagen, blood vessels, and even cell-like structures—in a Tyrannosaurus rex fossil (later also in hadrosaurs).

As for the 200,000 years, I suspect you meant Schweitzer at some point estimated the upper stability window for collagen under certain lab assumptions to be in the hundreds of thousands of years, not tens of millions. Creationists seize on that number to say, "See? Collagen can't last 65 milliopn years." But Schweitzer herself never concluded that. The 200 ka figure comes from earlier lab decay models, not her actual T. rex work.

Tim C. Stafford had an excellent chapter on Schweitzer in his book, The Adam Quest (Nelson Books, 2013), which explores the history and impact of her landmark discovery.

Why would they test things with assumptions that were so dissimilar as to be 100,000x off? And then call it a research model? Aren’t models supposed to be reasonably close to the reality?

Those samples are not the only source that puts dinosaurs much closer in time. For ex., glyphs, texts, and even the conventional dates for post ice age cataclysms.

 

[EarlyActs]

I never seen the Flood in that Psalm before, especially vss.6-9.

And? Please continue.

 

[EarlyActs]

Why would they test things with assumptions that were so dissimilar as to be 100,000x off? And then call it a research model? Aren’t models supposed to be reasonably close to the reality?

Those samples are not the only source that puts dinosaurs much closer in time. For ex., glyphs, texts, and even the conventional dates for post ice age cataclysms.

Further: why isn't Schweitzer mentioned in the LA Times article anymore? As I mentioned before there isn't even reference to the 200 ka.

 

[EarlyActs]

Two things:

1. Asking clarifying questions about my view doesn't show conflict or tension between redemptive history and natural history therein. It does signal that you're still trying to understand it, though.

2. To allege that I am dismissing "the materiality of Genesis 1" is to prove that you haven't understood my criticism. I am not dismissing "the materiality of Genesis 1," but rather the idea that creation in Genesis 1 is about material origins because that assumes without a shred of historical-grammatical evidence that the ancient Hebrews had a material ontology—which ends up begging the very question. I agree that many objects are named or described in a material sense, but is it describing their material origin? Those who think so must demonstrate that through historical-grammatical exegesis. Until they do, I am afforded no reason to believe it.




Just to add to your point: Genesis 1 also doesn't say that God created a man and a woman (i.e., a single couple). It says he created mankind, and that he created them male and female. I am not aware of any textual evidence that precludes this being lots of people—which would be consistent with your idiolect for the instantaneous origin of teeming life, en masse, by divine fiat ("swarmed with swarms").

I don't agree with your view, but I do understand it (which is why I disagree with it).

re materiality
but is it describing their material origin?
In asking this did you mean to emphasize the term origin? If so, then drop the term material; they are material. In the sense of 'the spreading out' you are correct. That event was the origin. The question is how much time need elapse between the two, and whether lifeless, unless you are agreeing that I've answered that.

The director of the local public planetarium gave me the conventional view when saying that we were near the center, and by explaining that the speed of many celestial mechanics has slowed.

 

[EarlyActs]

Two things:

1. Asking clarifying questions about my view doesn't show conflict or tension between redemptive history and natural history therein. It does signal that you're still trying to understand it, though.

2. To allege that I am dismissing "the materiality of Genesis 1" is to prove that you haven't understood my criticism. I am not dismissing "the materiality of Genesis 1," but rather the idea that creation in Genesis 1 is about material origins because that assumes without a shred of historical-grammatical evidence that the ancient Hebrews had a material ontology—which ends up begging the very question. I agree that many objects are named or described in a material sense, but is it describing their material origin? Those who think so must demonstrate that through historical-grammatical exegesis. Until they do, I am afforded no reason to believe it.




Just to add to your point: Genesis 1 also doesn't say that God created a man and a woman (i.e., a single couple). It says he created mankind, and that he created them male and female. I am not aware of any textual evidence that precludes this being lots of people—which would be consistent with your idiolect for the instantaneous origin of teeming life, en masse, by divine fiat ("swarmed with swarms").

I don't agree with your view, but I do understand it (which is why I disagree with it).

re idiolect
That would be a Hebraism that is emphatic. As I recall, there are many others in Hebrew, always for the emphatic. Possibly including "lord of lords and king of kings".

btw, out of all that you added: what is my view?

 

[John Bauer]

Why would they test things with assumptions that were so dissimilar as to be [a hundred thousand times] off? And then call it a research model? Aren’t models supposed to be reasonably close to the reality?

Long before Schweitzer and her 2005 discovery, scientists for a variety of archaeological and forensic reasons were already studying collagen degradation (e.g., calculating time of death for old human remains). According to conventional experiments, which require certain assumptions (e.g., the Arrhenius equation) to scale lab results down to ambient conditions, under "normal burial" assumptions the predicted survival time of collagen was thought to be less than a million years—sometimes as little as 200,000—before no recognizable peptide sequences remain.

The discovery by Schweitzer and her team exposed some missing critical assumptions in those calculations. Conventional kinetics said that collagen shouldn't be there, so something unknown was stabilizing it. They proposed that iron released from hemoglobin can act like a preservative—catalyzing the formation of covalent cross-linking—helping form chemical bonds that make proteins more resistant to breakdown and decay. And their experiments confirmed it: tissues bathed in hemoglobin broke down more slowly than controls, which they argued could extend survival well beyond the naive Arrhenius predictions.

Schweitzer's work highlighted that collagen decay isn't just a simple hydrolytic process controlled by heat and moisture. Blood chemistry, especially the role of iron, makes a big difference. (Interestingly, it meant that archaeological and forensic models need to be calibrated for iron-mediated cross-link stabilization: unstabilized collagen does indeed degrade in just hundreds of thousands of years, but iron-stabilized collagen can persist far longer under favorable conditions.

Mary H. Schweitzer, et al. "A Role for Iron and Oxygen Chemistry in Preserving Soft Tissues, Cells, and Molecules from Deep Time." Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281, no. 1775 (2014): 20132741 (article ID). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2741.

Excerpt from abstract (emphases mine): "The persistence of original soft tissues in Mesozoic fossil bone is not explained by current chemical degradation models. We identified iron particles (goethite-αFeO(OH)) associated with soft tissues recovered from two Mesozoic dinosaurs, using transmission electron microscopy, electron energy loss spectroscopy, micro-X-ray diffraction and Fe micro-X-ray absorption near-edge structure. Iron chelators increased fossil tissue immunoreactivity to multiple antibodies dramatically, suggesting a role for iron in both preserving and masking proteins in fossil tissues. Hemoglobin (HB) increased tissue stability more than 200-fold, from approximately 3 days to more than two years at room temperature (25°C) in an ostrich blood vessel model developed to test post-mortem "tissue fixation" by cross-linking or peroxidation.

Those samples are not the only source that puts dinosaurs much closer in time. For ex., glyphs, texts, and even the conventional dates for post ice age cataclysms.

I encourage you to argue for that in a separate thread.

Further: Why isn't Schweitzer mentioned in the LA Times article anymore? As I mentioned before there isn't even reference to the 200 ka.

Please specify the article to which you're referring.

Regarding materiality:

"... but is it describing their material origin?"
​

In asking this, did you mean to emphasize the term "origin"? If so, then drop the term "material" ...

No, I meant to emphasize the term "material"—so obviously I am not going to drop it.

Again, I am dismissing "the idea that creation in Genesis 1 is about material origins, because that assumes without a shred of historical-grammatical evidence that the ancient Hebrews had a material ontology."

 

[prism]

And? Please continue.

Psalm 104:6-9 KJV
Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. (worldwide rather than local)
[7] At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. (abatement of water).
[8] They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.
[9] Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth. (the current tides)

 

[EarlyActs]

Long before Schweitzer and her 2005 discovery, scientists for a variety of archaeological and forensic reasons were already studying collagen degradation (e.g., calculating time of death for old human remains). According to conventional experiments, which require certain assumptions (e.g., the Arrhenius equation) to scale lab results down to ambient conditions, under "normal burial" assumptions the predicted survival time of collagen was thought to be less than a million years—sometimes as little as 200,000—before no recognizable peptide sequences remain.

The discovery by Schweitzer and her team exposed some missing critical assumptions in those calculations. Conventional kinetics said that collagen shouldn't be there, so something unknown was stabilizing it. They proposed that iron released from hemoglobin can act like a preservative—catalyzing the formation of covalent cross-linking—helping form chemical bonds that make proteins more resistant to breakdown and decay. And their experiments confirmed it: tissues bathed in hemoglobin broke down more slowly than controls, which they argued could extend survival well beyond the naive Arrhenius predictions.

Schweitzer's work highlighted that collagen decay isn't just a simple hydrolytic process controlled by heat and moisture. Blood chemistry, especially the role of iron, makes a big difference. (Interestingly, it meant that archaeological and forensic models need to be calibrated for iron-mediated cross-link stabilization: unstabilized collagen does indeed degrade in just hundreds of thousands of years, but iron-stabilized collagen can persist far longer under favorable conditions.

Mary H. Schweitzer, et al. "A Role for Iron and Oxygen Chemistry in Preserving Soft Tissues, Cells, and Molecules from Deep Time." Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281, no. 1775 (2014): 20132741 (article ID). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2741.

Excerpt from abstract (emphases mine): "The persistence of original soft tissues in Mesozoic fossil bone is not explained by current chemical degradation models. We identified iron particles (goethite-αFeO(OH)) associated with soft tissues recovered from two Mesozoic dinosaurs, using transmission electron microscopy, electron energy loss spectroscopy, micro-X-ray diffraction and Fe micro-X-ray absorption near-edge structure. Iron chelators increased fossil tissue immunoreactivity to multiple antibodies dramatically, suggesting a role for iron in both preserving and masking proteins in fossil tissues. Hemoglobin (HB) increased tissue stability more than 200-fold, from approximately 3 days to more than two years at room temperature (25°C) in an ostrich blood vessel model developed to test post-mortem "tissue fixation" by cross-linking or peroxidation.

I encourage you to argue for that in a separate thread.




Please specify the article to which you're referring.




No, I meant to emphasize the term "material"—so obviously I am not going to drop it.

Again, I am dismissing "the idea that creation in Genesis 1 is about material origins, because that assumes without a shred of historical-grammatical evidence that the ancient Hebrews had a material ontology."

John B wrote:
a shred of historical-grammatical evidence
Gen 1 is that evidence about the material!. Our communication is approaching the irrational point. Either you don't think it is evidence with a chain of verbal custody that is strong enough (as I do), or you don't mean material and you do mean origins. I can't even follow what you are saying.