Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate

Yes, Dave Z, you are correct.

It is found under Behar in the Torah and often called “The Theory of the Seven Sabbaths.”

Here’s the link if you want to read up on it:

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehardeah/behar.html

Seems everyone has a different theory on how old the earth is!

I am including another link below from the Christian prophetic camp, which also has the earth as 7000 years old.

@ Richard,

Here’s the link I mentioned in my comment above, which refers to the day as a thousand years teaching, as you requested. There are others if you want to google search it.

http://www.thepropheticyears.com/reasons/The age is almost over.htm

mbaker writes:

“And, please could we stick to the specific issues here? This is the second time you’ve defended YEC by making comments which would suggest those of us who don’t agree with your opinions are going outside of the Bible.”

First of all, I’m not in any way trying to defend YEC with the statements I made about the flood. I am defending God’s ability to clearly convey that the flood was a worldwide event which killed all people and land animals which were not aboard the ark. I simply take God at His word on this, and it bothers me that others are finding it so hard to do that.

You say, “those of us who don’t agree with your opinion are going outside of the Bible”

I’m not talking about my opinion. Who cares about my opinion. I don’t even care about my opinion. I DO however care about God’s word. I am talking about God’s telling of what He did. I looked at your website and read some of it. I would like it if you would read Genesis 6:5-8:22. I’m sure you’ve read it before, but a fresh read would be fair, since I’ve read some articles at your site. Personally, I’d rather read the Genesis passage than read what others say explaining why they believe that the flood was only local. God’s word always matters more than man’s word. It’s always more reliable. It’s always true. It’s always inspired.

Also, I didn’t suggest that you or anyone else was “going outside the Bible”. I would suggest that if you deny the straightforward reading of the flood account, you are denying that God communicated accurately….how He ended the lives of everyone but Noah’s family…and all the animals which weren’t on the ark.

Then you said:
” I absolutely don’t mind valid and factual disagreement but such snide personal comments turn me off entirely.”

I didn’t make a snide personal comment, but I guess you are offended because you don’t believe God’s account of the flood is truly accurate (?). Your complaint is not with me, it is with God…..no matter what any other theologian says. The fact of the matter is, that you can find a theologian to support most any view of a Biblical passage, that doesn’t make it right.

Furthermore, when you accuse me of making “snide personal comments” YOU are attacking ME, personally. If you reread what I wrote, you will note that I didn’t personally attack anyone. I didn’t even have anyone specific in mind. I was speaking in general to anyone who dismisses the literal reading of the flood account.

And, you find me undesirable to have around in this discussion…

“….they end any desire for anyone to carry on a reasonable discussion with you, especially since you’ve indicated in a comment above that you really haven’t studied much up on anything much outside the YEC camp”.

Actually, I haven’t studied the YEC position either! I just lean heavily toward the literal reading of God’s word where the language…

….. indicates that a literal reading is in order.

So, when it comes to discussing these matters with a nonbeliever, I would feel perfectly comfortable with reading to them, the text of scripture which pertains to the creation, or the flood, and simply saying that that is what God has told us about those events. One man I was sharing the gospel with told me that the teaching of his church was that Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman, and that Eve’s sin was adultery (that was a new one!). I opened my Bible and read to him the account in Genesis of how Adam was formed from the dust, by God, and Eve was formed from Adam’s rib. Then I told him that all humans thereafter were born. I don’t have time to study all six of those positions. Have you made a study of any of those positions….outside of this blog discussion?

Clearly people’s background knowledge and reading and church exposure is quite variable. I am a YEC and have never heard Peter being used as a reason for the earth being 6000 years old from the pulpit, or in any creationist writings.

Because creationists think the world is otherwise ~6000 years, and there is speculation that it may last 7000 years, Jew writings and Peter’s words may be used to suggest this. But this is not a proof and the argument is back to front.

The age of the earth from the Bible is OT. Specifically the chronologies in Genesis 5 and 11 that takes us from creation to Adam.

YEC get the 6 24 hour days from Genesis 1 and Exodus 20. They get creation to Christ from the Old Testament.

While the NT has some chronological information, it is minimal. There are inferences in the NT about the relationship of Adam to the creation of the universe made by Paul and Jesus.

What I also find interesting is that many of the comments made here about YEC by people who do no hold this position are not the same as my YEC beliefs. I think it beneficial that if one is to refute his opponent he represents his beliefs accurately and refute them. In fact one should refute the best positions of one’s opponent.

And if one thinks his opponents views imply something, he needs to show how this implication derives from other beliefs that are held.

Despite verbose commenting, several basic issues have not been adequately dealt with.

Say we know an age of an object (in that we were there at the event and measured the time since) and we have a theory that calculates the age of an object. If the theory consistently fails to get the age correct, why should we trust it when we don’t know the age? The theory may have good science behind it, and we may have reasons why it gives the wrong age, but these matter little. The point is the theory has not been validated and cannot be trusted to be accurate.

If 2 theories predict a conclusion and the same data refutes both theories, why is it legitimate to point to such data to refute one’s opponent? Both theories need modification; if you can modify yours he can modify his.

Why should an idea be rejected because it is a stumbling block, or appears foolish, or is not agreed to by the masses, or is not held by non-believers? If it is true it should be defended, if it is false it should be refuted.

And for those still reading, a recent article showing multiple evidences that the earth is much less than 4 billion years old. 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe

Further to tree fossilsprojecting through several layers of sedimentary rock (polystrate fossil).

First, any YEC who states that only broken root balls (i.e., only partial roots; no full root system) have been found has not kept up with the research into fossilized trees.

Second, fossilized trees have been found with their fossilized roots in paleosols, that is in fossilized soils. Fossilized soils are not depositions of waterborne or windblown sediment, but give evidence of having sat in place, with plant growth (roots), animal burrowing (worms, nemotodes, etc.), and exposure to air. They are not at all like what would have been deposited during a flood of any size.

Third, the YEC procedure of forcing data to fit a preconceived answer, of only using part of the datea available, of misrepresenting the data, and of using data in a misleading way, is in evidence whenever they refer to a specific area of fossilized trees, such as the fossilized trees near Joggins, Nova Scotia (a province on the east coast), Canada. Joggins lies within a tecttonically active basin subject to periodic fault-subsidence (“tectonically” refers to the large pieces of the earth’s crust, or “plates” which “float” on the molten core of the earth). The data one obtains from observing the phenomena (rocks, sediments, trees, etc.) can be explained in terms of sediment accumulating within a coastal plain experiencing cycles of fault-induced subsidence (dropping) and sea level rising. Episodes of faulting (of the type observed eslewhere) would cause rapid flooding of the coastal plain with marine waters and consequent filling up with sediment. The sea levels would also have been affected by the presence or absence of glaciation (massive glaciers). Once sea level had stabilized, beds of marine sediments would have accumulated until the shallow nearshore zone was filled in by sediments. Similar cyclic interplay of marine, deltaic, and river deposits are observed within the Mississippi Delta and Louisiana coastal plain and continental shelf. In addition to a cyclic repetition of sediments, one also observes a cyclic repetition of very different fossil plants associated with fresh or brackish (salty, i.e., affected by sea water) water environment. In fact, each of the distinctive sedimentary deposits is consistently associated with a specific and distinctive assemblage of fossil plants and shells. As individual rock layers repeat themselves the collection of fossil plants also repeat themselves.

However, the various observable periods of sediment deposition related to fault subsidence, the many fossil soils (paleosols), subaerially / pedogenically weathered sediments, and entrenched valleys, etc. are impossible to explain using deposition by a single catastrophic Noachian Flood. Furthermore, A YEC cannot explain how the Noachian Flood can precisely sort plants according to type that they always match each other and the specific sedimentary facies, in…

[cont. from my post 460]

However, the various observable periods of sediment deposition related to fault subsidence, the many fossil soils (paleosols), subaerially / pedogenically weathered sediments, and entrenched valleys, etc. are impossible to explain using deposition by a single catastrophic Noachian Flood. Furthermore, A YEC cannot explain how the Noachian Flood can precisely sort plants according to type that they always match each other and the specific sedimentary facies, in which they are found, and repeat the sorting many times to create the cycles found throughout the outcrop at Joggins. The YEC catastrophic flood model also cannot explain the layering of brackish and freshwater and terrestial plants; a model of successive different environments does, however.

I will not bore you with the many citations, but provide two representative examples: Davies, S. J. and Gibling, M. R., 2003, Architecture of coastal and alluvial deposits in an extensional basin: the Carboniferous Joggins Formation of Eastern Canada. Sedimentology, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 415-439; and Falcon-Lang, H. J., 2003, Response of Late Carboniferous tropical vegetation to transgessive-regressive rhythms, Joggins, Nova Scotia. Journal of the Geological Society of London. vol. 160, no. 4, pp. 643-648.

Regards,
#John

Re post 448: “Richard, those who are reluctant to believe that the flood was worldwide are reluctant to believe what God has said. Would they call God a liar?”

I agree with mbaker that such a comment is offensive. Evangelical inerrantists who believe that the flood is local, would not call God a liar. The issue is, “what did God say?” The YEC reading of scripture is typically a naive reading (i.e., without taking into account the difference between an ancient Hebrews reading their own language and 21st century Americans reading American English), though there are also more sophisticated YEC interpretations that come to the same result (6,000 years). Evangelical inerrantists have alternate, also reasonably supported, interpretations.

re post 458: dating

? Radiometric dating has been shown to be reliable, and we have been over that ground in this thread. There is also the dating available from sedimentary layering that provides dating far in excess of 6,000 years.

It appears that we are moving into the area of interpretation, which is both interesting and appropriate.

Regards,
#John

Radiometric dating has been shown to be reliable, and we have been over that ground in this thread.

Only if my posts which document the frequent errors are simply ignored….which is what has occurred so far. What I’ve posted has not been responded to.

Anyone actually interested in this subject should read my post about the dating of the lava dome at Mt St Helens and the articles linked as a starting point.

I’ll not comment further on John’s assertions in this matter.

Susan,

I am not going to join you further in discussion on this particular topic since your mind is apparently closed to any discussion other than a literal reading, which seems at least in your mind allows no room at all for valid questions. That’s fine, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

I will however remind you of something CMP said above in the original post, to answer your remark that I was quote: ‘arguing with God.’

“I believe that one can be a legitimate Christian and hold to any one of these views. While I lean in the direction of number 3, that is the best I think anyone can do—lean. Being overly dogmatic about these issues expresses, in my opinion, more ignorance than knowledge. Each position has many apparent difficulties and many virtues.”

Well said. I agree with him.

You asked if I had done a study of all six positions outside this blog. Actually, there are more than six if you have been reading the last few comments, so yes, indeed I have. in fact, I am compiling all the information on all of them I can find to aid in answering questions from both Christians and non-believers. I believe it is important to be able to answer questions from people who do not accept the biblical account of creation and the flood in an intelligent and calm manner. I do not believe God is threatened by that.

What started me researching if there were valid biblical alternative views was when an scientific friend (a non-believer) and I got into a discussion a few years back about the age of the earth, the flood etc; It was the one thing holding Chuck back from accepting Jesus. And now I have enough information to give him from the theological side as well, on all the positions so that his valid questions about the differences can hopefully be resolved to some extent. Which one of them he chooses to believe will then be up to him to decide.

However, whatever differences you and I have on the issue, I believe you will find that CMP is right When he said:

“It is not enough to fracture Christian fellowship over.”

Rather, at least in my mind, it should be a valuable learning experience for all involved.

OEs misunderstand what the Flood did because the realities of what it was like are typically ignored and a simplified strawman is argued against instead. Here’s an example — John wrote:

The problem for YEC flood geology is that a single flood event produces only a single sedimentary deposit one that is recognizably connected to that flood event. A flood, even of the size and kind proposed by YECs, would not deposit hundreds of distinguishable and unrelated layers of sediment that is then turned into rock in that same year, or in the 4.5 thousand years since then.

Here is part of a response to this statement from a YEC member of the Geological Society of America.

So the Flood of Noah could only have deposited one big, uniformly mixed and unsorted layer of sediment?

Remember the finely laminated layers that are exposed in the canyon of the Toutle River, laid down during the eruption of Mount St. Helens in a matter of hours. Modern geologists only have today’s floods as examples for comparison, with their limited areal extent on flat floodplains. Yes it’s true that each flood will deposit its own layer of boulders, sand, and mud. The difference between local/regional floods, and a global flood is one of scale. A global flood is occurring on a globe as a spherical shell of water, deep water with currents moving in many different directions simultaneously, and with perhaps thousands of immense pulses depositing thousands of individually distinguishable layers in a three-dimensional framework of hundreds of thousands of cubic miles. The kinematic equations of such a large-scale, spherical shell of moving water, are different compared to what is pretty much just channeled flow within a local flood event. The only boundaries for such a spherical shell are its top surface and its floor.

… there are many sedimentary rock layers that are folded, which show no brittle failure/cracking, and no metamorphic mineral development that would indicate they were plastically deformed. They were folded while still soft.

… a multitude of vertebrate land fossils show what looks like burial in a position that shows asphyxiation. This even in shales that secular geologists say were deposited in deep, quiet waters.

… many sedimentary rock layers are massive (no internal bedding) and very thick, extending over hundreds and even thousands of square miles, indicating huge amounts of mud and/or sand deposited in short order (at least on the secular geologic time scale).

… it does not require great amounts of time to harden a sediment into rock. Concrete is a good example. It is basically sand and lime, and can have gravel mixed into it. Plaster of Paris is another; it is gypsum, and it can solidify very quickly from a water paste. Coal can be produced from wood in a laboratory in a matter of hours

mbaker,

Thanks for the link to http://www.thepropheticyears.com/reasons/The age is almost over.htm

This is Don Koenig’s site. His teachings on this are not reflected in any mainstream YEC material that I’ve ever seen (or heard).

re post 459 on 101 evidences

That entire listing is an example of how YECs do not practice sound science because of their ideological commitment to a 6,000 year old earth. Note how the YECs are using the findings and the methodologies of the very science they are rejecting. For example, they accept the scientific findings regarding the breakdown of methane in the presence of ultraviolet light because it supports their preconceived answer. However, they reject any science that does not support their answers, on the basis that they will eventually find something that supports their preset conclusion, or that God performed a miracle.

But one can’t suck and blow at the same time. If one accepts science when it supports one’s position, then one has to accept it when it doesn’t. That’s what non-YEC scientists do and that’s part of what constitutes sound science.

Re post 453 on radiometric dating.

The allegedly frequent and so-called errors (and I discussed above in an earlier post why it is incorrect to refer to different dates as “errors”: 206, 212, 220, 221, 241) are not “rejected” by geologists and geophysicists. As I have shown, the disparate phenomena require explanation under the requirements of sound science. Non-YEC scientists proceded to examine the various dates, and for example, one explanation is the mixing of old an new materials together in the formation of rock which will give different dates depending on which material is in the sample tested.

The YECs ignore the development of these explanations, and continue to claim, incorrectly, that radiometric dating has been refuted (not sound science). YECs also ignore, or direct attention away from, the fact that radiometric dating provides repeatable dating results within an experimentally acceptable narrow range of years for many types of rocks all over the world (again, not sound science). There are certain types of rocks that are known to be difficult to date, but difficulties in dating one type of rock do not invalidate the dating in other types. What is required is an explanation, not a rejection. The YECs have no explanation for why our understanding of basic nuclear science of radioactivity cannot be used to date rocks. What we learn from our basic investigation of the fundamentals of radioactivity indicates that we should be able to apply that basic science to date rocks. So, scientists can, and do.

[Note: to keep track of the discussion, I’ve started an index of the posts. I’ll post it when it is a bit more developed]

Re post 457 on various YEC beliefs.

Because Answers in Genesis (AIG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) are the senior YEC organizations, I’ve taken them as representing the YEC mainsteam. I note that bethyada references Creation Ministries International. If any bloggers here have different views from them, by all means let us know.

Regards
#John

Yes, Richard, and I certainly appreciate that AIG and a few other YEC’s have specifically addressed this issue by pointing such teaching takes “the day is like a thousand years” folks to task in dating the earth who take those verses entirely out of context. However, because it has been preached in so many areas, lots of folks take it for granted that it’s true, unfortunately.

The Ice Age Floods Institute here in eastern Washington has some great research also on some of the things that you and John have been discussing. You both might be interested in reading that as well.

We have gone on several tours through the scab lands here in this part of our state with one of their geologists, which have shown some very varied results in sediments and rock formations and within a few miles of each other, due to a huge flood which covered a great deal of eastern Washington when a glacier dam broke and flooded this part of the state and literally covered most of it.

Very fascinating stuff, and since this is one of your interests I think you would find it very informative as well.. It was no ordinary flood, but one of epic proportions, which altered the landscape drastically, and killed everything in its path as well, and is in some ways similar to the biblical account of the flood of Noah’s time.

re post 448 and credentials

As I indicated in my post 346, the indication of my background was given as a response to a request by another blogger. I have not, and don’t, expect anyone to believe me because of my background (see my post 438 on fallacious appeal to authority). As Dave Z, Greg, and mbaker have pointed out, what counts is the data and the soundness of the reasoning used to account for and explaing the data.

Re offense and apologies.

I accept that blogging is done more quickly than other types of writing and that once written and posted (and the edit time is past), a blog post cannot be undone. In addition, aside from written indications and the use of emoticons it’s more difficult to communicate paralinguistic information—especially significant is the lack of body language or tone of voice. Hence, it’s a bit more rough and tumble of an environment, and one should not be quick to take offence. I try to live with a thick skin and have not asked for apologies (apologies also divert from the topic of the thread), despite some references to what “lawyers” should stereotypically know (implying a negative in respect of my alleged nonperformance of the act in question), or to what “christians” should do (implying that I’m not doing that either). I’d prefer straight ahead criticism and response; if you think something is wrong, point it out and leave it at that without making implications about other bloggers’ motivations, intent, character or spiritual life (and I’m not pointing fingers here, we would all do well to operate thusly). We know very little about each other beyond what we blog. I have also, where I felt it warranted, made an apology for one of my own comments (which I’ll leave for dead). I would also point out that all of our posts cover a lot of ground and it is not possible to respond to every point raised in each others’ posts, nor should it be expected. Nothing negative should be assumed from the lack of a response.

That being said, I feel I must respond to post 443 by Richard as it’s the second time he’s requested an apology.

In respect of my posting that Richard and I agree on the Shroud of Turin, he is correct. He did’t indicate anything about the Shroud of Turin. It was Steve Bartholomew that indicated that he “too [is] quite convinced that the Shroud of Turin is the actual burial clothof Jesus!” (his post 339). I misattributed Steve’s comment to Richard. Richard from your denial of agreement, can we correctly assume that you do not believe that the Shrould of Turin is Jesus’ burial cloth?

The use of “now” in “now agree” can be interpreted either as “we disagreed before but agree now”, or as “our area of agreement always existed but was not revealed before and has now been revealed”. Richard interpreted my use of “now” in the former way, I meant it in the later. Now that my intention has been clarified, my use of “now” should be a…

The YEC reading of scripture is typically a naive reading (i.e., without taking into account the difference between an ancient Hebrews reading their own language and 21st century Americans reading American English)

I’ve only been discussing the flood account.
So, the “naive reading” is to consider the flood to be a worldwide flood.

I will consider the logic of that perspective: It assumes that an ANE person could not have understood if God had said, “The flood covered part of the earth, and many of the people inhabiting the world died, as well as a large number of animals, but not all died. There were parts of the earth which were not covered by water.”

Why don’t you think an ANE person could understand that? If that is what happened, don’t you think that God would have said that? Why would God say “all living things that moved on the earth died” if only some died ? If all of the mountains of the earth were not covered completely with water, why would God say “The waters completely inundated the earth so that even all the high mountains under the entire sky were covered. The waters rose more than twenty feet above the mountains.”? Why wouldn’t God have said that the waters didn’t completely cover the top of every mountain…if it didn’t. Why couldn’t an ANE person understand that, but they could understand it if God said that the mountains were covered?

Also, if there was still dry land….higher ground, why wouldn’t God have told Noah and the animals to head for that higher ground, rather than having them board an Ark?

Another thing to consider: Why would God promise never to flood the entire earth again….if it was only a local flood? He has allowed a lot of devastating “local” floods since then….including the one in Washington mentioned by mbaker. It would seem the that the promise didn’t mean anything, and the rainbow isn’t much of a sign. God’s words were, “Never again will all living things be wiped out by the waters of a flood; never again will a flood destroy the earth.”

The rainbow was/is a sign of that promise for us today, just as it was for the ANE people.

I write: “I’ve never mentioned the Shroud of Turin”, and John (in an apology for misquoting, no less) makes the following two statements:

He did’t indicate anything about the Shroud of Turin

and

Richard from your denial of agreement, can we correctly assume that you do not believe that the Shrould of Turin is Jesus’ burial cloth?

John, what “denial of agreement” are you imagining that I made?

Your first quote above shows that you understood that I stated absolutely no position whatsoever about the shroud. However, a few seconds later you wrote the second quote above… I’m truly bewildered by your seeming inability to read plain sentences and restrain yourself from inferring statements that ARE NOT THERE.

This is what I meant earlier when I asked you to stop “making things up”. You’ve not only continued the practice, but did so in an apology for misquoting…utterly amazing 🙂

This is a great example of reaching an unwarranted conclusion, which has been typical of your statements about the Flood and YEC understandings in general.

If anyone can help me understand what’s happening here, let me know….

mbaker, I too agree with statements of Michael’s which you quoted. I already mentioned that my own father, who is a Christian, holds to the Big Bang Theory. You suggest by your comments that I don’t think that a true Christian can hold to anything but a YEC position. I already stated that my mind is open to the possibility that the earth might be much older than 6000 years.

You are correct that I believe that the flood was indeed a worldwide flood, and that I see no reason to consider another option on the flood account.
I’m guessing that you are open to the literal reading of the flood, or the other (ANE) approach….but are undecided?

I commend your commitment to sharing the gospel with your friend, and I think that it’s great that you would study these various theories and positions to show him that it’s not imperative that one be a YEC in order to come into a relationship with Jesus (that could well prove to be a stumbling block to him).

I fully agree that these issues should not divide Christians from fellowship with one another, and I’m not at all offended that you don’t see eye-to-eye with me on the flood account. I am not, nor have I ever been, a defender of the YEC position, nor any other. The gospel is what I consider to be worth defending. THAT I will defend!

Thanks, Susan, I very much appreciate your clarification.

God bless.

Re post #471 and helping Richard to understand what’s going on.

1. In your (Richard’s) post #444 you state, “If you’re trying to claim that YECs claim the earth is exactly 6000 yrs old, then I would indeed be learning new info about the YEC teaching that I’ve been studying for 3 decades.” In post #445 I provide a quote from the AIG website (a leading YEC group) that indicates a YEC belief in a 6,000 year old earth: “from the creation of the first man Adam to the present day is only about 6,000 years.” So mbaker and I have been right and Richard was not. Richard does acknowledge that, though an appropriate response might have been, “Yes, you are correct, but I do not agree with AIG’s dating of 6,000 years”, or something like that.

2. Richard continues to go back to his post #292. ). In post #279 I indicated that the YECs have only two major events to account for the formation of nearly all the rock in the earth’s crust: creation and flood (I used the words “. . . all (well nearly all, . . .”). There are some other processes that would form rock, but either they would not form much rock in 6,000 years (e.g., stalactites, marsh rock, etc.), or 6,000 years would be too little time (sedimentary rock from pre or post flood erosion). In post #288, Richard wants to know if I believe the Noachian flood was local or global. In post #290 I supplemented my claims in #279 claim and responded to Richard’s post #288. In post #292 Richard demanded to know “where it is claimed [by YECs] that ALL sedimentary rock was formed during the flood.” Richard then goes on to state, “I’d guess from your posts that you simply can’t bring yourself to waste time reading what YECs write. If this is so, then you’re not qualified to comment on it. If it’s not so, then you need to read much more carefully.”

As one would surmise by now, I try to provide sources for what I write. [cont.]

[cont. from post #474]

As one would surmise by now, I try to provide sources for what I write. AIG appears to pretty much claim that all types of rock result from the YEC catastrophic flood geology.

In http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/chalk.asp AIG claims that the world’s chalk sedimentary rocks are explained by the YEC flood.

AIG claims the world’s coal beds were formed by the YEC flood: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v8/i3/noah.asp.

AIG claims that the YEC flood deposited the world’s limestones and then formed limestone caves and stalactites out of it: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=161.

AIG claims that granites were formed in the YEC flood: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/rocks.asp.

AIG claims that metamorphic rock was formed during the YEC flood: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2603.

AIG claims the formation of basaltic rocks during the YEC flood: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=510.

AIG has numerous articles in which it claims a YEC flood origin for sedimentary rock: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i2/nature.asp, also http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/42/42_2/tertiary_stratigraphy.htm, and also http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.asp (etc.).

If Richard’s views differ from AIG, that’s fine, there’s more than one YEC flood geology organization out there. Perhaps he could point us to one that is more in line with his apparent view that YEC flood geology does not account for most of the earth’s sedimentary and other non-creational crustal rock.

I wrote (to mbaker):

If you’re trying to claim that YECs claim the earth is exactly 6000 yrs old, then I would indeed be learning new info about the YEC teaching that I’ve been studying for 3 decades.

John non-responds with:

The AIG position: “Furthermore, as history, the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 provide an accurate chronology, so that from the creation of the first man Adam to the present day is only about 6,000 years. Since the earth was only created five literal days before Adam, then on the authority of God’s Word the earth is only about 6,000 years old.” from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/12/how-old-does-earth-look

Guess Richard does not depend on AIG materials.

Since I know that John is aware of the difference between “exactly 6000” and “about 6000”, it’s obvious that this is yet again a deliberate implied misquote. As all readers of the blog know, I’ve called John on the carpet several times for this practice and he clearly intends to continue.

That was yesterday. John has just now ignored the context of the original statement by mbaker that I was replying to. Ie, that YECs use 2Pet3 to claim 6 days x 1000 yrs = 6000 yr old earth. Note this would be exactly 6000. Hence my original statement above (“if you’re trying to say …exactly 6000 yrs…”). John now says:

So mbaker and I have been right and Richard was not. Richard does acknowledge that, though an appropriate response might have been, “Yes, you are correct, but I do not agree with AIG’s dating of 6,000 years”, or something like that.

This is simply wrong again. mbaker said YECs teach an exactly 6000 yr old earth, and I disagreed. John is again making false and misleading statements in saying that I acknowledge that mbaker and John are right about this and I am wrong.

So I’ll ask the readers to simply consider any future statements from John about what I believe (or have said, etc.) as likely false. If any of you want my response, just ask. Otherwise, I’ll simply ignore him and not play John’s game.

On the issue of interpretation of Genesis, which has been raised.

Dr. John Sailhammer was educated at Dallas Theological Seminary and UCLA. He has taught at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, but now teaches at Northwestern College. He has written several well-respected books on the first five books of the Bible (including the Genesis commentary in Zondervan’s Expositor’s Bible Commentary). He is considered an excellent conservative Old Testament scholar.
Sailhammer does not believe that Genesis 1 & 2 are poetry. However, Sailhammer does question several very common assumptions about Genesis and asks whether some of them are unnecessary baggage.

For example, in his book “Genesis Unbound”, Sailhammer looks again at the Hebrew word for “In the beginning” and finds that it often describes a period of indeterminate time. Genesis 10:10 says “And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel and Erech and Accad and Calneh.” Jeremiah 28:1 describes “The beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the fourth year.” Sailhammer therefore suggests that we picture God creating the whole universe, “the heavens and the earth,” over some unspecified time in the past. Sailhammer interprets Genesis 1:1 as describing the creation of the whole universe taking place in the first verse, over some unstated period of time in the past. Sailhammer does not, however, believe that Genesis 1:1 refers to the so-called ‘big bang’.

Sailhammer also looks again at the phrase at the beginning of verse two, “And the earth was formless and void,” Sailhammer says it is not talking about the whole of planet earth, but rather about the lands that are the focus of the Pentateuch and His plans for the nation of Israel. Sailhammer suggest that the whole theme of the Pentateuch is how God chooses a people and takes them to the promised land He has made for them. Consequently he suggest that we give “earth” in verse two the meaning of “land” that it has throughout the rest of the Five Books: the promised land. Thus in Genesis 1 & 2 God is describing us how He prepared the Promised Land for the people He would choose; the people who were the recipients of Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch.

Sailhammer also looks at the phrase, “formless and void” and observes how that translation is based on first Greek translation of the Bible, the Septuagint and on the assumptions of the Greeks at that time (of translation). The Septuagint translates the Hebrew into Greek words that mean “unseen and unformed”. That translation harmonizes the Bible with the view of the Greeks, who believed the world was formed out of chaos. Sailhammer, however, contends that it would be better to translate the Hebrew phrase as “an uninhabitable wasteland.” Thus it refers to the Promised Land as not yet ready for his chosen people, and then God describes how he makes it ready and fit for them—a veritable garden.

Regards,
#John

Here’s a little food for thought before I retire for the evening …

A worldwide Flood provides a far superior explanation for, among other things, the earth’s sedimentary layers and the fossil record – especially fossil graveyards – than the theory of evolution. Since the fossil record is foundational to the TOE, if the Genesis Flood really was global, it would invalidate the TOE. A global flood, in other words would be the death knell of the TOE. That is, in order for the TOE to survive, this Flood – if it occurred – MUST have been local.

Therefore … the real purpose of the local flood theory, it’s raison d’etre, is to prop up the theory of evolution.

I could also suggest who I believe is the inspiration for the local flood theory, but I’ll save that for another day.

Thank you , and good night

Steve

So, Richard, how old do you believe the earth is, and are we talking about the difference in an exact amount of time such as 6000 years, or 6000 years plus a small amount, or a difference in perhaps several thousand years?

I don’t have time to go back and read all the comments so if I have missed something, please forgive me. I thought you were a staunch defender of the literal 6000 year old position.

This is not a loaded question because I have heard from some YEC’s that they believe it could go as high as 10,000 to 12,000 years.

Agree or disagree?

Re post 470 and interpretation

Susan writes, “So, the “naive reading” is to consider the flood to be a worldwide flood.”

No, as has been discussed several times (see, for example posts #301, 368 and 462), a naive reading is one that reads the text in one’s own language from one’s own cultural context with one’s 21st century assumptions and ignores the fact that the text was written in a different language to a different people in a different cultural context in a different time with different assumptions about the world. As I wrote in post 462, which is the post you appear to be responding to, it is possible to take some of those factors into account, thereby interpreting scripture in a less naive way, and still come to an interpretation of a global flood. So “naive” does NOT refer to one’s conclusion (global or local), BUT rather to one’s method for interpreting scripture.

Re post 478 and sedimentary rock layers

The inability of YEC to explain sedimentary rock layers has been dealt with several times in this thread, most recently in posts #460 & 461. In those posts I discussed the layers in the Joggins cliffs in Nova Scotia. Those cliffs have repeated cyclical layers of sediment and vegetation associated with a submerged marine environment, layers not associated with such an environment (i.e., freshwater or dry land), and then layers associated with a marine environment, etc. (i.e., repeated again and again). A global flood could not sort and deposit multiple layers of marine and non-marine sediment and vegetation. On the other hand, nonYEC geology does have an explanation. The area is in a tectonically active basin (subject to earthquakes and the movement of land up and down), and repeated subsidence of the land underwater from movement of the land (with accompanying earthquakes) combined with varying sea levels resulting from glaciers / no glaciers creates the layers.

Richard’s post #465 is a further example of the YEC misuse of geology. One cannot simply equate layers to layers as they do when they point to the multiple layers deposited by Mount St. Helens. That is, multiple layers at St. Helens is NOT the same as layers at the Joggins Cliffs. One has examine the characteristics of the layers. The Joggins Cliff layers, as described above, show repeated depositions of marine sediments and vegetation separated by intervening layers of nonmarine sediments and vegetation. Those layers could not be deposited by a volcano, volcanic related flooding, or by a global catastrophic flood. I’ll state it again: the fact that Mt. St. Helens explains some multiple depositions by a single event (but not that this “event” occurred over several days and weeks) DOES NOT explain all incidences of multiple depositions. Furthermore, there are many sediment layers that clearly could NOT have been deposited by a single event (e.g., the Joggins Cliffs), and certainly not by a single global [cont.]

[cont. from post #480] Furthermore, there are many sediment layers that clearly could NOT have been deposited by a single event (e.g., the Joggins Cliffs), and certainly not by a single global catastrophic YEC flood event. Yet YECs are forced to grasp at such fanciful straws (multiple volcanic layers means a global flood could create multiple layers means a global flood could sort out and deposit multiple repeating layers), because they already have their conclusion and force the data and explanations to fit it.

Richard’s quote is unhelpful and unpersuasive because it is nothing but unwarranted speculation. It is speculation that there would be “perhaps thousands of immense pulses”, and it is speculation that there exist kinematic equations related to such a flood. No such equations have ever been developed or provided by YECs. YECs have never provided a model of the type, number, speed, direction etc. of currents of water on a semi-spherical globe (the earth is not a perfect sphere, it is somewhat pear shaped). There is NO testable model and never has been.

All of the listed statements (i.e., preceded by “-”) are examples of an invalid and fallacious extension of “some” to “all”. Just because some sedimentary rock does not metamorphic mineral development from plastic deformation does not mean that all do. Some rock does show such development, and the statement ignores alternate explanations for such bending.

The fact that some fossil deposition shows what looks like asphyxiation does not mean that all do (and not all do). Moreover, “looks like” does not mean “is”. “Looks like” means gives the “appearance of” and means that it also looks like other things and could also be the result of other processes. Furthermore, “looks like” does not mean identity but rather means there are only some points of similarity together with some points of dissimilarity.

So what if many sedimentary rock layers are massive? Many are not; what’s the YEC explanation for those that are not massive (hint: no explanation). Moreover, the quote implies that massive sedimentary rock layers are the result of a global YEC flood. HOLD IT! Wait a second there pardner, I though that a global flood was depositing not a single massive layer but many multiple layers like the Mt. St. Helens volcano. Hmmm. And what about those massive layers. How come they aren’t GLOBAL? If a global flood deposits a massive layer of sediment why didn’t it deposit one massive layer around the globe? Oh yes, now I remember, YECs do not have a testable model for a global flood and so can speculate anything they want, even if the speculations are contradictory or unprovable.

Human made concrete is primary YEC model for sedimentary rock hardening? First, YECs have not demonstrated that any, let alone all, of the sedimentary rock types harden in the same fasion as concrete. Hmmm, seems rather obvious that the exposed [cont.]

[cont. from post 481] Human made concrete is the primary YEC model for sedimentary rock hardening? First, YECs have not demonstrated that any, let alone all, of the sedimentary rock types harden in the same fasion as concrete. Hmmm, seems rather obvious that the exposed rock layers at, say the Joggins Cliffs for example, are not layers of concrete. And, of course, once again the YECs are illegitimately extending “some” to “all” (some types of materials harden quickly under certain conditions, therefore all rock hardened quickly).

Regards,
#John

John mentions the Joggins Fossil Cliffs, in Nova Scotia, in post #480 (etc.?). One thing that is quite common at this site is polystrate trees (fossilized trees that extend through multiple layers of sediments). These fossilized trees provide sufficient evidence BY THEMSELVES to completely debunk the theory of evolution – and the local flood theory.

I know that John has attempted to debunk the creationist perspective on these trees. The following article answers this attempt. It is long, but very worthwhile (of course, of all people, John should not be critical of a long post!).

So, here goes! …

Polystrate Trees

http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/polystrate.shtml
Polystrate trees are trees that are found in multiple layers of strata. Creationists observe these trees as evidence for a global catastrophe such as the biblical global flood. We believe these trees are consistent with what should be expected from silt and sediment as it settled after the flood. When you observe residue in water, it settles in layers consistent with the geological column found throughout the world. As this residue settled around the tree and hardened, these trees fossilized. This poses a problem to the evolution model. A rapid deposit is not consistent with evolution because fossils are throughout the layers and supposedly represent millions of years. How can a tree stand erect for millions or even hundreds of millions of years without decay in order to be embedded in these layers? Evolution, on the other hand, claims that these trees do not hinder evolution and attempt to explain away what is observed by science.
It is important for Christians to recognize the method of debate most evolutionists and atheist use. It is also important to recognize that they are not going to win the debate in the eyes of an atheist. Because atheism is a religion of pride – or self worship, to admit defeat is to deny self-identity. An atheist is not on a quest for truth, but on a quest for intellectual identity. They draw self-identity and self-worth from their claims of intellectualism. That is why evidence against evolution is always called religious. If they classify it as non-science, then they can justify not answering the evidence.
When debating, you will recognize a few key methods almost all evolutionists use. They begin by intimidating critics; avoiding hard questions by machinegun fire questions to smoke screen the issue they are attempting to avoid; and establishing themselves as authoritative by declaring their position to be evolutionary. Once they have declared themselves to be ‘inside the box’ of evolution, they can then use their own quotes as facts. The reasoning is if evolution is the only authoritative position and they stand inside that box, others can then assume their opinions are fact because of that authority.

(cont.)

(cont.)

We often see the claims of evidence without having to provide the evidence. While an evolutionist requires irrefutable proof, they avoid having to prove evolution by bombarding critics with accusations and attempting to create rabbit trails for others to chase. When a creationist calls a bluff, they are either ignored or accused of misquoting evolutionists. To avoid answering opposition or explaining how evolutions leaders contradict themselves and the facts, they accuse others of dishonesty and ignorance.
I was recently given a link to an article as ‘proof’ that polystrate trees have been debunked by evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html . This article on talkorigins.org uses the typical evasive tactics found in almost every defense evolution attempts to establish. The prized tactic of evolution is to put critics on the defensive so that they will not bring the issues to light. Instead of cowering or being manipulated into chasing rabbits, Christians need to recognize these tactics and force the focus to remain on the issue at hand. Rabbit trails can be explored once the primary issue has been addressed. This article uses intimidation and evasion to avoid answering the objections that they fear. They also confirm creation claims and then try to twist them into evolutionary evidence.
The article begins with the typical insult to (hopefully) put creationists on the defensive. If I feel intimidated by my position, I will be less likely to challenge the facts or lack thereof.
The reason I am using Dawson (1868) rather than a more recent reference is to emphasize that many supposed “problems” with conventional geology were solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people suggesting these “problems” exist are so out of date that even 19th-century literature refutes their presentations.

(cont.)

Also in the 1800s evolutionist didn’t have a problem with spontaneous generation. They believed fruit flies evolved in closed jars. Right off the bat, the intended impression is that if you don’t believe in evolution, you are not even as intellectual as they were in the 1800s. Perhaps the reason he used an argument from the 1800s is because evolution still can’t come up with a reasonable explanation. However, the intent of the comment was to intimidate critics into compliance.
The most common criticism I get from atheists is that I take the quotes that show evolutionists in a bad light. I am frequently called a liar, but I provide references that are completely verifiable. Obviously, I will not quote the whole article, but at the risk of being called dishonest, I will only quote the points relevant to the argument. Anyone who wishes can read the article for themselves to verify my quotes. Dawson goes on to explain that polystrate trees begin by a rapid deposit of sediment (from a flood) and continue to build up over thousands of years. The article analyses the argument this way:
…he is simply interpolating the average depositional rates for an entire formation down to the scale of metres. This is not the correct way to do it, because individual beds can be deposited rapidly (say, sands and mud during a levee breach), and then little deposition can occur for a long time (e.g., a soil horizon),

(cont.)

This argument craftily avoids the issues while claiming to explain them. The issues in question are:
• How did the tree survive during multiple catastrophes without rotting or being knocked down?
• How can anyone reasonably believe that a tree could stand for the length of time it takes to build up the additional layers?
• How can a tree representing a short life span (on evolution’s geological time scale) stand erect through geological layers representing millions and often hundreds of millions of years?
This is not a problem for evolution? Regardless of how you slice it, the tree had to stand erect without rotting, falling or being knocked down for millions of years. The layers of strata have fossils representing different time periods according to the evolution model. It DOES pose a huge problem for evolution. If the tree was buried rapidly as Dawson hints toward and as creationists have said all along, evolution is out the window. If all layers were deposited together, then there is no such thing as millions of years. That would mean that all fossils were laid at the same time.

(cont.)

If the trees were not covered rapidly, then there is no explanation as to how a tree could have embedded itself into layers of strata that accumulated over millions of years. The article does not attempt to answer any of these questions. Yet it claims (as all evolutionists do) to have the answers.
Instead of answers, the claim to intellectual thinking is made while carefully avoiding the real issues. To avoid critical thinking, the article ends by insulting those who may question the facts. This article is nothing more than manipulation through human psychology. If you put people on the defensive, they won’t think critically and the evolutionist can avoid critical analysis against his or her argument. The article claims that we see examples of polystrate trees today. Indeed we do, but they debunk evolution. Mount Saint Helens created a lake full of sediment, which created many polystrate trees. Evolutionists don’t point to this observance but creationists do. To avoid this argument, the article says:
This argument is completely fallacious, because most “fossil forests” do not occur in volcanic deposits
Who said the flood was dependent of volcanic deposits? That is a straw man. The article ends the way it began – by attempting to intimidate critics and make people who would think critically feel ignorant for not siding with evolution. The article concludes:
…many “young Earth global flood creationists”, have no idea that even data from the 19th century, presented by a creationist geologist is enough to demolish the “polystrate fossil trees” part of their presentation. “Polystrate fossil trees” are probably one of the weakest pieces of evidence YEGF creationists can offer for their interpretation. I wish they would stop using it.
Of course he wishes we would stop using it. They cannot defend against it. The only friend to evolution is the people who blindly accept the propaganda. Critical thinking is not welcomed. While evolution clings to the 1800s, modern science continues to confirm the Bible and evolution must tap-dance around observable science.

John, Re post 480

Certainly I agree that naive readings of a text are possible.

Illogical readings are also possible.

Readings which require Exegetical Gymnastics are also possible. These arise when one is bent on finding meaning in the text which supports, rather than refutes their personal conclusions. Approaching the text with an agenda….

Dishonest readings….when one is having a hard time receiving what God has clearly stated.

Can you refute the logic of my post (470)?

Re post 488. I’m not carrying the torch for the local flood view. Athough this thread is, for me, adding weight to the local flood view over the global flood view, I remain agnostic on the issue (of local vs. global). However, I do take a stand on the issue of the description of the global flood: is the YEC description accurate, or is there a better description of the nature of the global flood? The YEC version is constructed specifically in order to provide an explanation for the physical features and phenomena of the earth that indicate a great age, such as sedimentary rock. The fact that YECs have a commitment to a young earth forces them to speculate on how these features formed and the only major physical force that they have at their disposal is the flood. Hence, they must describe it in terms that allegedly provide explanations for observable phenomena. I find the YEC version completely inaccurate, wrong, and untenable.

Re posts 433, 434, and 435 on polystrate trees

In the lengthy post, I find only 5 objections to an OE explanation for fossilized trees, and no response to my pointing out of the failures of the YEC speculation. I list them in the order they appear in the article.

YEC objection #1: A rapid deposit is not consistent with evolution because fossils are throughout the layers and supposedly represent millions of years. [response in subsequent post]

YEC objection #2: How can a tree stand erect for millions or even hundreds of millions of years without decay or being knocked down in order to be embedded in these layers? This objection is also repeated near the end of the article. [response in subsequent post]

YEC objection #3: old age beliefs result from atheism and evolutionary beliefs and their inherent pride. I’ll dismiss this one quickly: christians and christian geologists who believe that the earth is old.

YEC objection #4: OE’s use evasive or intimidating tactics to deal with the YEC explanations for the trees. This one is also easy to dismiss, as geologists do have specific support for their explanations and also have specific pointed critiques of YEC explanations for the Joggins Cliffs. I have set some of these out in previous posts, and will deal with more below.

YEC objection #5: trees cannot survive during multiple catastrophes without rotting or being knocked down (and therefore there must have been one catastrophe, i.e., the flood).

[objections 6 & 7 listed in next post]

[cont.]

YEC objection #6: trees represent a short life span (on evolution’s geological time scale) and cannot stand erect through geological layers representing millions and often hundreds of millions of years. This is also easy to respond to. If this is raising the rotting and weathering issue, then see objecting #2. If this is raising an issue of lasting for millions of years, the answer is . . . (wait for it) . . . fossilization. No reason a tree fossil can’t last as long as other fossils, given that they mineralize and become stone themselves.

YEC objection #7: the layers burying the trees give evidence of rapid deposition for the entire complex of layers.

Response to YEC objection #1 re rapid deposits. OE geologists have no problem with rapid deposits. This alleged objection is neither a defeater nor even an underminer of the OE position because OEs believe that both rapid and slow deposits happened, depending on the location, time and events occurring in that context. This issue has been discussed by me in posts 278, 295, 299, 306, 307, 380, 381, 382, 386, 396, 407, 460, 461, 480, 481, and 482. Note that post 480 discusses the fact that there were sudden floodings (plural) of the area during times of subsidence of the land (with accompanying earthquakes, etc.). The actuality of rapid local deposits creating the obseved phenomena is also discussed in the below response to objection #2.
Response to YEC objection #2 re trees remaining erect during deposition. There are numerous observed examples of buried dead trees that have not yet lithified, but will eventually, and which are in a state of preservation.

One example: Researchers at Michigan Technological University and Harvard have studied a 10,000-year-old buried forest, preserved virtually intact in sand and water at the end of the last ice age, but not yet lithified (turned to stone). forests. Dr. Kurt Pregitzer states that “It looks like a typical white-spruce forest you could find today near Hudson Bay, where the tree line is advancing north. . . . We believe that the spruce trees that grew on this site were the first trees to colonize the sediment created by the retreating glacier.” While the spruce needles had fallen to what was once the forest floor, most of the trees were upright and intact, including bark and twigs. Mosses, spruce cones, and pollen were preserved on the ground below. Trees ranged from 5 centimeters to 50 centimeters (about 2 to 19 inches) in diameter, and the tallest ones topped 9 meters, about 30 feet. The oldest trees were about 145 years old when they died. The trees are extremely well preserved and still have little limblets, only 1 millimeter in diameter. The article indicates that the trees were probably killed in standing water, and were then quickly but gently buried many yards deep in sand carried in small streams running off a nearby melting glacier.
[cont.]

[continued from my post 490]

The scientists collected 140 tree cross-sections and studied an additional 70 trees at the 5-acre site. Because the forest was discovered below the water table, researchers had to do their work in a few days’ time, while water was held back temporarily by dikes and pumps. After the scientists completed their study, the area was allowed to reflood. See: Pregitzer, K. S. et al. (2000) “A buried spruce forest provides evidence at the stand and landscape scale for the effects of environment on vegetation at the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary”. Journal of Ecology, 88, 45-53. The Journal of Ecology is one of the journals published by the British Ecological Society.

Another example is the 1993 Mississippi River flood that covered parts of Missouri, Iowa and Illinois with several feet of sediment. The trees covered by this flood will in the future be polystrate fossils. They will be rooted in one horizon and top out in the 1993 flood horizon or later horizons.

Another example is the dry burial process in the perched Sleeping Bear Dune in Sleeping Bear Dunes park, on the Lake Michigan. There are dead trees within the eroded bowl of the dune, and the dune indicates both alternating stability and change. After an initial phase of active sand accumulation, a period of stability followed when trees began to grow on the dune. Later, more sand moved in and buried the trees. Two layers of buried soil within the dune indicate that there was a second period of stability and growth followed by another period of sand build-up and then the final growth of the trees and shrubs that now cover the sheltered portions of the dunes.

Conclusion: there are a number of processes that will bury and preserve trees, and these processes can be observed happening today. There are more examples than those provided above, but even one suffices to show that this objection does not stand.

Objections 3 & 4 have already been dealt with in my post #489.

[cont.]

Response to objection #5: If this objection relates to issues of early preservation, such as rot, that has been dealt with in the above response to objection #2. If it deals with long term preservation, such as rock movement or faulting, etc., that has been dealt with in the above response to objection #6.

Response to objection #7: This is not an objection because both OEs and YECs agree that there was rapid deposition of sediment at the Joggins cliffs. The difference is in the nature and timing of the deposition. YECs posit a single deposition period (the flood), whereas the OEs point to evidences for several, successive depositions. This is discussed in my posts 480 and 481. The OEs can explain the multiple cyclical depositions of marine sediments and vegetation and no marine sediments and vegetation, but the YECs CANNOT.

Steve B.’s post was useful, however, because it did cover some of the standard YEC arguments relating to polystrate trees. There are a few other arguments not yet presented, but none of them cut the mustard either. Nevertheless, this has to be one of the better discussions of YEC and OE that I have ever come across in the blogosphere.

So, I ask again, why the difference between the fields of geology and biology with respect to creationism? In biology there are multiple conflicting theories of evolution, the field is not settled, and creationists are making headway and significant critiques of evolutionary models are getting published by leading publishing houses of books and in peer recognized journals. In geology, there are not multiple conflicting theories, there are multiple lines of evidence that point in the same direction (old age), YEC geologists are making no headway in critiquing geological theory and are not even on the radar screen and are not published in peer publications. Answer: because evolutionists and YEC geologists have the same problem: lack of science backing up their speculations (but at least in evolution, nearly everyone (even YECs) agree there is microevolution (e.g., speciation of dogs, etc.)).

Dig your hole deeper YEC ladies and gents, and continue providing a real life example of the story I told in post #136.

BTW, my index of this thread is now up to post #100.

Regards
#John

I won’t copy the info and post it here. Those interested are encouraged to take a look at these articles.

Info on petrified forests:
http://creation.com/the-yellowstone-petrified-forests
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wog/petrified-forests

Article and photos from YEC in-field researcher at Joggins. Discussespolystrate fossil trees, as well as other associated fossils. Discusses evidence for catastrophic transport and burial. Follow link at bottom of each page to continuation of article.
http://ianjuby.org/jogginsa.html

Discussion of several typical arguments against YEC:
http://creation.com/geology-and-the-young-earth

John,

The fossil record gives clear evidence of the existence of violence, disease, and death in the animal kingdom. These are things that traditionally have been attributed to living in a fallen/cursed world. According to the OE position, how do you theologically account for this?

It doesn’t make sense to me that God would curse His “very good” creation before the Fall of Adam.

Marvin,

Good question. Also, thorns are found in the fossil record, supposedly long before man existed, and yet thorns are specifically mentioned as a part of the curse. Scripture says that the ground was cursed and would produce thorns as a result of sin, so they should not exist before man’s sin occurred.

ignore – thought I’d see if an image could be posted…

Richard,

This is my biggest problem with OEC. I honestly don’t give a rip what the prevailing scientific theory says about the issue. Until I can get a theological explanation that doesn’t require hermeneutical gymnastics with Scripture, I will stick with my YEC views.

And for the record, I am not one who was raised to believe that way. I was raised by an agnostic father. I didn’t get saved until 19, after years of public school and university education (i.e. evolutionary indoctrination). For years, I held to a theistic evolutionary view INSPITE of what the plain reading of scripture was telling me.

It was actually quite liberating to discover that there were valid scientific reasons for holding to a more literal reading of Genesis.

Given the lack of response to my critique of YEC views on the Joggins Cliff, I take it that that nail has been firmly driven into the coffin of YEC views. Consquently, it appears that we can continue with discussing the interpretation of Genesis and issues of theodicy (evil and God).

Regards
#John

mbaker,

You asked what I think about the age of the earth. I accept the chronogenealogies of the Biblical account as narrative history, since that is how they are written.

Here is a very good article discussing this, including what various texts say, what critics and historians say, the issue of gaps, etc. The abstract is below. I agree with Sarfati’s conclusions.

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/v17n3_chronogenealogies.pdf

Biblical chronogenealogies, by Jonathan Sarfati

A straightforward reading of the biblical genealogies according to the reliable Masoretic text shows that Adam was created about 4,000 BC, and this was on the 6th day of creation. The existing copies of the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch are not as reliable, but at most could only stretch this date out to about 5400 BC. There is no justifiable reason to believe in gaps within the chronogenealogies of Genesis, as the arguments presented for such views are denied by contextual, linguistic and historical analysis.

FYI – Links to some pertinent YEC articles about polystrate fossil trees at Yellowstone and Joggins has been awaiting moderation for the past few hours. I expect it should be release before too long….