Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate

Joshua,

I appreciate your post. Your example of “sun rise” and “sun set” language is an example often used when challenging the “literal” interpretation of scripture.

The statements about the movement of the sun and earth are literal in a phenomenological sense. In other words, a phenomenon is described from the viewpoint of the observer. We do the same thing today as we (even evolutionists) speak in everyday discourse about the sun rising and setting, even though we know much more about how the solar system works. From the observer’s position, that is exactly what happens.

This is not the case for the flood account.

I borrowed this answer from an article addressing this point (and related others) raised by J.P. Moreland in some detail here, it’s well worth reading: http://creation.com/are-biblical-creationists-cornered-a-response-to-dr-jp-moreland

you wrote:

The cultural context of the question is just as important as the cultural context of the answer and it seems impossible to think that ANE people thought in the categories that you are demanding since they are of modern inventions.

I absolutely agree with you about the importance of context. Please read my post 141 and let me know why that couldn’t have communicated the basic outline of the big bang and evolution to the audience of Genesis. What categories of “modern invention” are required?

Also, the distinction between a global or local flood, all people outside the ark dying, etc don’t require any modern concepts to be understood.

mbaker,

God defined what a “day” is in the text itself, the first time it was used. “And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. ” It’s a period of dark and light.

See post 204 to see that Barr admits this is what the text communicates (even though he does not believe it). There are many good discussions of this from a YEC perspective. A couple of links:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c011.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i3/day.asp

a book chapter on this:
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter2.pdf

plus info on Genesis (not just days) can be found:
http://creation.com/genesis-questions-and-answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/genesis

Furthermore the creation week is not only in Genesis. It’s the reason we have a 7 day week. In defining the sabbath in the 10 commands Ex 20:11 says:

“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”

Now to the accepted age of the earth itself.
From http://creation.com/flaws-in-dating-the-earth-as-ancient

Flaws in dating the earth as ancient

by Alexander R. Williams

In 1986 the world’s leading science journal, Nature, announced that the most ancient rock crystals on earth, according to isotope dating methods, are 4.3 billion years old and come from Jack Hills in Western Australia.

W. Compston and R.T. Pidgeon (Nature 321:766–769, 1986) obtained 140 zircon crystals from a single rock unit and subjected them to uranium/uranium concordia (U/U)1 and uranium/thorium concordia (U/Th)2 dating methods. One crystal showed a U/U date of 4.3 billion years, and the authors therefore claimed it to be the oldest rock crystal yet discovered.

A serious problem here is that all 140 crystals from the same rock unit gave statistically valid information about that rock unit.3 No statistician could ever condone a method which selected one value and discarded all the other 139. In fact, the other 139 crystals show such a confusion of information that a statistician could only conclude that no sensible dates could be extracted from the data.

A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be undatable. An unbiased observer would be forced to admit that this contradiction prevents any conclusion as to the age of the crystal. But these authors reached their conclusion by ignoring the contradictory data! If a scientist in any other field did this he would never be allowed to publish it. Yet here we have it condoned by the top scientific journal in the world.

This is not an isolated case. I selected it because it was identified by the journal editors as a significant advance in knowledge. Another example is the work of F.A. Podosek, J. Pier, O. Nitoh, S. Zashu, and M. Ozima (Nature 334:607–609, 1988). They found what might have been the world’s oldest rock crystals, but unfortunately they were too old!

They extracted diamonds from rocks in Zaire and found by the potassium-argon method that they (the diamonds) were six billion years old. But the earth is supposed to be only 4.5 billion years old. So Podosek and friends decided they must be wrong. They admitted, however, that if the date had not been contradicted by the ‘known’ age of the earth, they would have accepted it as valid.

(cont.)

[continued]

This clearly shows two fundamental flaws in long-age isotope dating.

First, the dates are readily discarded if they do not fit the preconceived notions of the experimenter. Such a practice is not acceptable in any other field of science because it destroys the objectivity upon which science has built its reputation. Isotope dating is therefore not the objective, absolute dating method it is often claimed to be.

Second, it is impossible to tell, from the isotope information alone, when the dates are right and when they are wrong.

When I presented this and similar criticisms of isotope dating to a gathering of the Lucas Heights Scientific Society (Sydney, Australia) in 1989, the only response that came from the chief of the division responsible for isotope dating at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization was the question, ‘Do you have a better dating method?’

I said ‘No’, and he appeared to be satisfied that if there are no better methods of dating, then these are good enough. But can you ride a bicycle into the past simply because no one else has a better time-machine? Of course not. In the same way it is absurd to argue that an inadequate method is adequate because nothing better is available.4

References and notes

1. Uranium/uranium concordia—this method involves graphically comparing the 238U/206Pb ratio with the 235U/207Pb ratio.
2. Uranium/thorium concordia—in this method the 238U/206Pb ratio is graphically compared with the 232Th/203Pb ratio.
3. The rock unit involved is a metamorphosed sandstone (quartzite) in which the zircon crystals represent grains eroded from source rocks (e.g. granites) and deposited with the sand. Thus the ‘ages’ of the zircon crystals represent the ‘age’ of the source rock(s) and not the ‘age’ of the quartzite.
4. Further details of these examples can be found in my fuller technical article on this subject in the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 6(1):2–5, 1992.

Interesting, related reading. Well known astronomer Halton Arp has been publishing observations which cause problems for the Big Bang since the 60’s. He has experienced several decades of what it’s like to do science when you don’t “toe the line” with the consensus establishment. His book “Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science” is quite interesting if you have an interest in cosmology. Chapter 10 is titled “Academia” and is an expose on how academia and refereed journals stifle new ideas. I know this is contrary to what we generally think (at least it was for me). He comments on the role money plays…

Arp does a good job of explaining and exposing what really goes on. Anyone with an interest in science should read it.

BTW, Arp is no creationist (in fact he’s antagonistic) so you needn’t worry about bias 🙂

“If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.” -Halton Arp

John

The objective reality I was referring to was the extent of the Genesis Flood (worldwide or local), not the age of the earth … and the point was that IN REALITY it either was worldwide or it wasn”t, regardless of how the pertinent Scripture verses are interpreted.

The same is true of the age of the earth, of course … IN REALITY, it is a certain # of years old. Again, this reality is not dependent on the culture of those investigating it, or their interpretation of related evidence.

Finally, there is abundant evidence, both physical and otherwise, that the Flood was indeed worldwide (I can guess what response this comment is going to generate!).

Steve

Evidence of young earth:

Just want to mention on specific topic. Russ Humphreys (creationist PhD physicist and cosmologist) created a YEC model for the formation of planetary magnetic fields. He made specific predictions from this model that contrasted with the standard evolutionary model of the solar system. The predictions from Russ’s model differed measurably from the standard one thus making it a good test for distinguishing between them. These predictions were published prior to the Voyager 2 fly by which gathered the measurements needed to test the model.

Predictions made:
The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields (http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html)

Predictions fulfilled:
Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=329

Other related articles about the YEC model of magnetic fields matching observations:

Mercury’s Magnetic Field is Young! http://creation.com/mercury-s-magnetic-field-is-young

Magnetic Message from Mercury http://creation.com/magnetic-message-from-mercury

The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young
http://creation.com/the-earth-s-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young

Sedimentary rock creation is a mechanical or formulaic process, by which I mean deterministic. Take particles, add pressure to remove spaces between the particles and to create heat and facilitate chemical reactions, and add chemical reactions to create the bonds between the particles and “voila”, one gets sedimentary rock. The specific processes, and the amount of pressure, heat, time and chemical reactions are all known and can be tested. It’s a deterministic process like creating steel from iron, or creating porcelein from clay, etc. Depending on the type of sedimentary rock, that process takes from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. In fact, we can observe particles (clay, etc., whatever the starting material) in the various stages of rock formation, and relate those stages to different ages.

The science of fluid dynamics and the actions of suspended solids are also well known and not in dispute. The process of sedimentary lithification (rock creation) cannot be speeded up by flooding, even (especially) on a global scale so as to result in rock formation in a few thousand years (I don’t believe there is any research at all that indicates that flooding speeds up rock formation). There is no combination of water and flooding etc. that can cause lithification and produce sedimentary rock within the one year time frame of the Noahic flood, nor would deposited sediments have lithified (turned to stone) in the next 4,200 years.

Furthermore, there is no process that would turn the sediments into stone and then cause the various rock formations that can be observed, including bending, shears, overthrusts, etc. in the space of a only a few thousand years. It is pure speculation, not within the realm of possibility, to suggest otherwise. We can and do understand these basic physical mechanical processes and they do not and cannot produce what we observe in only a few thousand years, nor as the result of solids suspended and deposited in a flood.

In addition it is not physically possible for a flood to deposit the layers of rock observed, and especially not the thousands of thin layers of fine material found in various locations, such as the Green River Formation in the U.S. (up to 2,600 feet of layers averaging only 0.18 millimeters in thickness (.007 of an inch). YECs also cannot explain why these finely layered deposits do not occur even over the entire world, but only in localized areas that are structured the same as active lake beds that we can observe today.

***

As indicated in an above post, I’m not addressing the issue of whether the flood is local or global. I only discussed ANE worldview because Greg’s last post implied a break in his posting on that topic, and because it pertained in part to the interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2.

Regards,
#John

Richard states that he and I “differ in our approach of what we accept as compelling evidence.” That does not even begin to describe what is going on here.

It is not possible for Richard to accept as valid any data or analysis of data that contradicts his YE (young earth) beliefs. He starts with the premise that God has stated that the earth is young, and is committed to that premise above all else. Sort of a “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” approach to the physical sciences. That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a scientific approach to anything.

Because of the commitment to a belief that cannot be changed regardless of what YE (young earther) or others observe, any evidence or analysis that suggests otherwise is immediately and permanently rejected by YEs. It is not even possible for it to be true.

So the YEs always, immediately and without ceasing try to discredit any observation or analysis that suggests YE is wrong and that OE (old earth) is correct. It MUST be wrong according to their committed belief, so there is no point in trying to determine if it is correct, or to think of why it might be explainable as correct. If the YEs cannot find some mud to throw on the wall, they retreat to “we haven’t determined the error yet, but we will”, or “it is an example of the miraculous power and intervention of God”.

Their entire so-called system of YE dating consists of nothing but alleging that unexplained observations invalidate all of, and entirely, the various methodologies of dating. The YEs have no methodology (or methodologies (plural) appropriate to the various types of rock) for consistently and reliably dating rocks to either 4004 B.C. (creation date) or to 2250 B.C. (date of the flood). None.

The result of the YE beliefs is that an entire area of knowledge that God has set before us is ruled out of play and completely inaccessible to us.

In all other areas of the physical world / universe we can use our God given gifts of observation and analysis to describe and understand the universe that God has created. We can understand combustion, nuclear fusion, the growth of plants and animals, friction, gravity, fluid behaviour, the formation of dew, etc. But the YEs hold that we cannot use observation and analysis to study rocks and determine their age. When we study rocks using the same scientific methods and understandings that we apply to all other areas of knowledge, we come up with an ancient earth (over 4.5 billion years) and an even more ancient universe. But the YEs have an unchanging and irrevocable commitment to a 6,000 year old earth and so therefore what we learn from observation and analysis must be wrong and completely rejected.

Christian, evangelical, inerrantist Non-YE scientists do not have this commitment. They follow the evidence and analysis that normal science, the science everyone else uses to investigate other physical phenomena, and follow it wherever it goes…

#John,

I’m wondering about something. Maybe you have told us elsewhere and I don’t remember. I wonder what profession you are in–it seems you said something about teaching?? You have so much info available I’m just wondering if you are maybe a science teacher or professor? (If that is information you don’t want to give out in a blog, I certainly understand. Thanks.)

My preference is for the YEC’s and the OEC’s to lay down their swords and instead team up to fight against the far more deadlier enemy of neo-Darwinian evolution and abiogenesis and their compromising enablers known as theistic evolutionists.

re post 261

I have 4 university level degrees: 3 year B.A. in theology/biblical studies. 4 year degree in linguistics. law degree. master of environmental studies.

I am a lawyer who helps people build things. Everything from houses to hospitals to power plants (I’m currently working on both, in fact).

I deal with heritage issues, preparing and responding to requests for proposals, environmental assessments, building permits, zoning, lobbying, signage, municipal infrastructure, roads, etc. anything necessary to go from idea to shovel in the ground.

I regularly work with all kinds of consultants and scientists: hydrologists, geologists, biologists, zoologists, heritage consultants, traffic engineers, civil engineers, land use planners, noise specialists, architects, odor, vibration, light and shadows, electrical engineers, etc. I set terms of references for their work and review their reports at various stages of investigation and drafting. In addition to working with these specialists and these topics on an individual basis, I often manage teams of consultants as I guide projects through the development process or when I litigate approvals (planning approvals, environmental approvals, by-law infractions, etc.). Consequently I prepare them as witnesses and prepare cross-examinations of the other sides’ witnesses (often more than one party is involved in the litigation). For cross-examinations, I have to understand their science, their observations, their math, their analysis, their methodology and expose their errors. The cross examination of experts is one of the most fun parts of my practice.

I don’t settle for poor reasoning, poor math, poor science in my experts, or in the experts of the other side(s).

I go to a non-denominational independent evangelical church that’s been around for almost 100 years. It’s not cessationist, as far as I know, but not charismatic or pentecostal either. My mother took me to church as a kid, but my father was not a believer until I was 16. I didn’t believe in God from the time I was in grade 8 until some point during my Bible college degree, but even that wasn’t fixed until some point during my linguistics degree. Evolution, the flood, and old v. young earth, were never issues for me, though I have been aware of them. I’ve read more on those topics since leaving university, and the more I’ve learned, the more I’ve become convinced that Darwinian evolution is not true and that the earth is old.

Regards,
#John

Re post 262: YEs are like the crazy old uncle that comes to the Backyard BBQ one is throwing for the neighbourhood. Sure he’s family, and sure you love him, but he’s still embarrasing.

It is not possible to work with YEs because they practice junk science and completely lack credibility. They would be of no use in dealing with the scientific establishment. Intelligent design advocates have made more headway in the last decade against random unguided evolution than YECs have made in 100 years (well, that’s not saying much since YEs have made no headway at all, but rather been a negative). Intelligent design has actually forced the scientific establishment to respond to their critiques of evolutionary theory and to their scientific work on probability, astronomy and cell level biology).

Regards
#John

Regarding John’s recent posts:

It’s critical to acknowledge the difference between observational laboratory science, and extrapolations back millions or billions of years into the unobserved past.

[sedimentary rock formation] takes from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.

Fact is that observational data constantly shows up that contradicts that statement. Rocks are observed forming quickly, but OE believers are content to place these data points on the shelf as somehow inapplicable to the unobserved formation of other rocks.

——————————-
from Creation 17(2):7–9 March 1995
http://creation.com/focus-172

Rocks forming in months

Stones measuring up to a foot across are forming in a Norfolk (UK) marsh in a process which is happening in a few months or years.

Small (and not so small) black lumps of rock are forming, as bacteria thriving on rotting vegetation produce ‘an iron-rich form of limestone, which acts as a mineral cement, binding the sand and mud together.’

Geologists have dug up similar stones before, which ‘often contain beautifully formed fossils.’ These fossils show a lot of detail of the soft flesh, ‘as it had no time to rot before the rock formed around it.’

Geology Professor Max Coleman, who works for BP, is keen to study the marsh. The rock is ‘forming faster than anyone had ever believed possible, with one stone creating itself in just six months.’

Eastern Daily Press (UK), October 5, 1994.

Creationists have long pointed out that hardening of sediments into rock is mainly a matter of the right cementing substances being present, and doesn’t require millions of years.
–end quote–

and from Creation 21(3):7–9 June 1999
http://creation.com/focus-213

We previously reported (Creation 17(2):8, 1995) that mud was turning into solid rock in Norfolk salt marshes in a matter of months.

Now Max Coleman of the University of Reading has found out that this happens due to the co-operative action of two types of bacteria that live in seawater. The resultant stony deposits are of iron sulphide and iron carbonate.

Coleman believes that such deposits, because they happen so quickly, could easily preserve fossils ‘before they can rot.’

New Scientist, p. 25, 19 September 1998.

At the time of the Genesis Flood, many of the creatures buried rapidly would have been covered in (often salty) mud.

The action of such bacteria might help explain the rapid hardening needed for beautifully preserved fossils, which are plentiful (and are impossible to reconcile with slow hardening over long time-spans).
–end quote–

So not only are rocks forming fast than they “believed possible”, but now they’ve figured out how it’s occurring. This single example is sufficient to show that John’s assertions are false. However, there are MANY such examples.

(cont.)

[continued]
What John described is the textbook statements of uniformitarian geology. This proposes that only current processes and only operating at the currently observed rates are to be used to explain how geological structures formed. Of course, this approach is completely falsified IF there really was a global flood.

One good example of how the OE logic works by looking at polystrate fossil trees. These are fossil trees that extend through many of the layers usually considered to have been slowly laid down over a long period. They exist in many places.

Examples with photos may be seen here:
http://creation.com/polystrate-fossils-evidence-for-a-young-earth
http://ianjuby.org/jogginsb.html

The problem is to explain how the tree remained there long enough for the sediment to pile up around it. Here is how this is explained by non-creationist OE geologist Derek Ager:

‘If one estimates the total thickness of the British Coal Measures as about 1000 m, laid down in about 10 million years, then, assuming a constant rate of sedimentation, it would have taken 100000 years to bury a tree 10 m high, which is ridiculous.

‘Alternatively, if a 10 m tree were buried in 10 years, that would mean 1000 km in a million years or 10000 km in 10 million years (i.e. the duration of the coal measures). This is equally ridiculous and we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid indeed and at other times there were long breaks in sedimentation, though it looks both uniform and continuous’ [emphasis added].

Note he says “we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid indeed and at other times there were long breaks in sedimentation, though it looks both uniform and continuous” The formation looks like it was uniformly and continuously deposited, but where the polystrate trees are it MUST have been “very rapid indeed”. A YEC geologist would go with the observation and say since it looks uniform and continuous, it really is and the entire deposit occurred rapidly. An OE geologist has to just state, without observational data, that there were “long breaks in sedimentation” implying that the appearance of uniformity and continuity is false. Now which interpretation actually consistent with the observations?

This falsifies uniformitarianism, and thus the basic required assumption upon which John’s entire argument for sedimentary rocks stands.

The OE simply cannot allow for a global flood as it completely undercuts his belief in an old earth. Now consider the nature of the arguments presented in this forum for not accepting the Genesis account as global…
(cont.)

[continued]
John wrote:

When we study rocks using the same scientific methods and understandings that we apply to all other areas of knowledge, we come up with an ancient earth (over 4.5 billion years) and an even more ancient universe.

and

Christian, evangelical, inerrantist Non-YE scientists … follow the evidence and analysis that normal science, the science everyone else uses to investigate other physical phenomena, and follow it wherever it goes…

Not quite correct, in no area other than “origins science” is it assumed that we can extrapolate current observations billions of years into the unobserved past. This extrapolation *assumes* condition & processes have remained unchanged for this period, so it rules out any notion of a global flood or recent creation. Since these are ruled out by the starting *assumption* it is illogical to conclude that they have then been *proven* to be ruled out. This is the logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion, and John would never allow a legal opponent to get away with this. In fact, this assumption is methodological naturalism which assumes there is no supernatural (Greg, for example explicitly states this in his post 117). I’m not saying John, Greg (or anyone) disbelieves in the supernatural. I am saying that this approach to science is invalid if there is a God who actually intervened in His creation. (see my interaction with Dr. Polkinghorne in post 140) Since I believe that God has intervened as documented in the creation and flood accounts, I don’t accept these extrapolations.

I don’t think it can be stated more clearly than by evolutionist Dr. Richard Lewontin, who wrote:

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’

The conflict between OE and YEC scientists is that YEC’s do not restrict science to methodological naturalism. It is completely illogical to believe that naturalistic science is capable of determining correct conclusions about a reality in which God exists and acts. In precisely those areas in which God acted, naturalist science will get it wrong.

# John,

Thanks for your reply. It sounds like you have a fascinating profession and career!

Everyone,

It seems to me from what has been said by both sides here that all involved in this question are operating from some presupposed assumptions to one degree or another. Not just the young earth folks and not just the old earth folks either.

And I am still finding the poll results here fascinating.

I’ve greatly enjoyed this forum, and thank all who’ve participated.

John believes he can read my mind:

It is not possible for Richard to accept as valid any data or analysis of data that contradicts his YE (young earth) beliefs. He starts with the premise that God has stated that the earth is young, and is committed to that premise above all else. Sort of a “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” approach to the physical sciences. That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a scientific approach to anything.

Because of the commitment to a belief that cannot be changed regardless of what YE (young earther) or others observe, any evidence or analysis that suggests otherwise is immediately and permanently rejected by YEs. It is not even possible for it to be true.

This is another straw-man. FWIW let me provide a bit of my background. I have a degree in abstract math with an interest in mathematical foundations and logic, and a life long interest in science. I spent a couple of decades as a software/system engineer designing and implementing military software driven systems (becoming the Software Technical Director), involving secure communications, autonomous weapon systems, ship board control networks, etc. My career involved analysing and understanding complex systems and their interactions. I’m extremely aware of what happens when one works with incorrect starting assumptions, or ignores observational data because it does not fit ones model.

I entered college as an atheistic evolutionist. In abstract math, the name of the game is analysing proofs for correctness. After I became a Christian, I was made aware of scientific evidence inconsistent with the standard evolutionary interpretation. I happened to be taking a class in stellar evolution, and I noticed that all of the information was moving forward from an assumed initial condition. I simply asked my physics prof to explain what preceded that condition and quickly found that he could not justify his start point. In fact, upon analysis, his earlier starting assumptions led quickly to contradictions, and so were not logically valid to build his model upon. Two things shocked me; 1 – how shallow the basis was for stellar evolution; 2 – the fact that I had failed to apply the critical thinking that I used every day in math classes to evolutionary science material. This caused me to have a great deal of interest in the subject of origins and I’ve been studying it pretty much continuously now for 33 years. I’ve consistently found that serious analysis of the models that support OE positions show fundamental problems with these models. This is not to say that the YEC models are perfect by any means. Please note that I’ve said earlier, science can not prove what happened in the unobserved past. One can only analyse the various models for reasonableness.

Thus I’ve yet to see any reason to not believe the straight forward meaning of Genesis.

It’s been implied, if not outright stated that YEC scientists are blinded by their bias, but OE scientists are objective. I agree with what Stephen J. Gould said:

‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.’

Following up on Richard’s refutation of John’s claims re: the great lengths of time required for the formation of sedimentary rocks (“tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years” – post #259) is this article from a British magazine, New Civil Engineer (Web site: http://www.nce.co.uk) from Feb. 1, 2002:

“A ground improvement technique that creates natural calcite cement in soil and rock has been developed by two Australian scientists. [This] process … in effect creates rock from sediment in days rather than aeons. The calcite in-situ precipitation system (CIPS) involves combining two water-based, non-particulate and non-toxic solutions and injecting or permeating the mixture into a porous material such as sand, soil, or rock.

The solutions react on mixing to produce calcite or calcium carbonate crystals that precipitate on grains, forming a rind and creating bridges between adjacent grains, cementing the material together and increasing mechanical strength and stiffness. And because pore spaces and throats essentially remain open, porosity and permeability, and hence the material’s drainage characteristics, are maintained.

This allows repeated applications of CIPS to achieve the required strength.

The technique is now being marketed worldwide by Edward Kucharski and Graham Price, and another researcher, Bob Middleton, working as Lithic Technology.”

(cont.)

Richard,

I want to thank you for providing us with some background info too. It really does help to know where people are coming from when they are strongly arguing for or against a case! I think everyone reading here will benefit from the statements both of you have made.

Richard, # John and Greg,

It is obvious that all of you have put a considerable amount of time into this subject. I would like to thank all three of you for your contributions so far.

Greg,

If you are still here, I would really like to hear some background from you too. Like I said above, it does help to give perspective to a discussion to have that info from the main contributers.

Again, I would really like to thank all of you.

In defining the 6 different positions for the poll. I’d like to suggest a couple of points.

3. Time Relative Creationism – This is actually a subset of YEC as it encompasses one class of YEC origin models.

4. Old Earth Creationists – generally do not believe in a global flood as that would undercut the very methods used to reach the OE interpretation of geological data.

RE: John’s post #264, in which he states:

“YEs are like the crazy old uncle that comes to the Backyard BBQ one is throwing for the neighbourhood. Sure he’s family, and sure you love him, but he’s still embarrasing.

It is not possible to work with YEs because they practice junk science and completely lack credibility. They would be of no use in dealing with the scientific establishment.”

Such arrogant, ad hominem attacks are a common weapon in opponents of YEC, and are an indication of the character of the people who employ them. Not very Christian, to say the least.

Just in case anyone actually thinks John’s assessment of YEC scientists has any relationship to reality. Here’s a partial list of a couple hundred or so PhD listed here (some overlap):

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp

http://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation

Just to hilight the type of nut cases John is talking about:

Dr. John Sanford,

Sanford’s Bio: Cornell Professor of 25 years (being semi-retired since 1998). He received his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin in the area of plant breeding and genetics.

He founded 2 successful biotech firms, Biolistics and Sanford Scientific. Most of the transgenic crops grown in the world today were genetically engineered using the gene gun technology developed by Sanford.

He still holds a position of Courtesy Associate Professor at Cornell.

Dr. Sanford was an evolutionist until late in his career, when he began challenging “the primary axiom”. His account of becoming a creationist is here:

http://www.benabraham.com/html/respected_cornell_geneticist_r.html

BTW, he is also a very humble, polite Christian man.

“YEs are like the crazy old uncle that comes to the Backyard BBQ one is throwing for the neighbourhood. Sure he’s family, and sure you love him, but he’s still embarrasing.”

I wonder how the 44% of the poll’s participants that have now been likened to a crazy old embarrassing uncle feel about that statement!

You know, if a person has someone they consider to be a crazy old uncle, you may think that to yourself and maybe even say it to other family members, but you don’t usually say so to the uncle involved, unless you plan on creating a large amount of hard feelings.

Before moving on to the issue of light, I would like to further address the issue of bias address the issue of so-called “errors”, the so-called proofs of YEs, and some additional matters arising in recent posts.

Further thoughts on bias:

Even atheist scientists are open in regard to the dates obtained from rocks; unlike YEs they don’t immediately and absolutelly reject a date as impossible but rather investigate it and try to determine the causes for the date that resulted with the data obtained from the sample are put into the model. Because geology and dating of rocks has a pedigree that predates evolution, and because geology has long indicated older dates, and because a database and model of rock dates has been build up, there are expectations regarding dates to be obtained. (And remember, the belief in an ancient earth has an even longer pedigree). The dates are not rejected; they are investigated. The results of the investigation are increases in knowledge regarding rocks and the formation of rocks and the ability to incorporate ever more data into the old earth model.

Reading minds:

It is not a matter of reading minds; it is a matter of what YEs say they are committed to and what they believe in. YEs are committed to a belief in a young earth because they believe that God has said that the earth is young. Since God cannot lie, any data or methodology that results in an old earth date must be rejected. For a YE, it is not possible for the earth to be old.

Any so-called investigation by the YEs is directed only at discrediting the old earth result. If the YEs cannot discredit (I use that term loosely) the dating with existing science, they claim that they will be able to discredit it in the future, or that God has intervened in some way.

Science quotes and world views and the impossibility of knowledge:

The Richard Lewontin quote was made specifically in relation to evolution. That field is rife with competing models, unexplained data, etc. and is facing significant challenges from intelligent design researchers. That field of science is very much UNLIKE the field of geography and geophysics, and his quote is not applicable to those fields. The science of geology is like the science of internal combustion engines, nuclear fission (and reactors), or bridge building. It works, it produces good results, and the explanatory models are extremely robust and capable of explaining a large range of phenomena and of incorporating new phenomena.

To say that a geologist’s world view so affects their work that correct knowledge is impossible is like stating that sicentists would come up with icompatible theories of combustion and how car engines work, or incompatible theories of nuclear fission and how nuclear reactors work. When dealing with the hard sicences and currently observable processes (i.e., including rock formation) one does not arrive at incompatible theories and models. Using the same methods used in other hard sciences (experiments, field work, falsification, mathematical modelling, testing predictions, etc.) scientists consistently come up with old earth dates and are continually able to explain new phenomena and incorporate new phenomena into their models. By claiming that this entire field is wrong because of something they believe God said, YEs make knowledge in this area impossible to obtain.

[cont]

Alleged assumptions

Neither I, nor the geologists I know, start with an assumption that all processes of rock formation have been uniformitarian since the world began. Geologists acknowledge that there are different processes that create rock, and that the formation of rock is affected by a number of factors. However, the fact that some processes are quicker or uneven does not mean that it is impossible for other processes to take a long time and to occur at a more even rate. And there is excellent, overwhelming evidencde that some processes did take a very long time. Because of their own investigations, and the previous investigations and work of others, it has been demonstrated that some rock has formed over millions of years. But that is a conclusion derived from field data, experiments, mathematical modelling, and the testing of predictions. It is, now, a conclusion so well supported for such a long time that it is not open fundamental challenge (i.e., it would be like saying our understanding of nuclear fission is open to fundamental challenge).

So-called proofs

YEs point to phenomena not yet explained,or to one end of a range of phenomena, or to phenomena that is only partially understood as if that undermines the entire field of knowledge. For example, they point to rocks that form quickly as if that proves that all rocks form quickly. There are a great number of types of rocks, some form much more quickly than others, some form much more slowly. The existence of quick forming rocks does not disprove the existence of slow forming rocks. The formation of quick forming rocks is not a common phenomena, and is not well understood, but that has no bearing on the well understood processes behind the formation of shale from mud, etc. And whatever is the relevance of rock formation in a marsh? YEs claim that all rocks were either instantly formed in their present state on the first day of creation, or formed by a massive flood.

YEs also point to some rock samples that have produce significantly varying date estimates as if that invalidates all dating (I’d call it pot shot science). However, the vast majority of rock samples do not produce a wide range of dates; they produce dates within a narrow range. Rocks with widely varying dates are in the minority of samples, and as they are investigated it is found that there are explanations for the range–such as the rock being composed of young and old material, or the rock being affected by particular geological processes. The issue of varying dates leads to the next topic, below.

[cont]

So-called “errors”.

YEs misdescribe and mischaracterize variations in rock dates as “errors”. A date variation is only an error when it results from experimental error (broad definition, including mistakes in sample collection, sample preparation, running of experiments, noting of observations, use of math in analysis, etc.). If the variation is not a result of experimental error, then it is merely an anomaly that appears not to be explained by the current dating paradigm. Closer observation and analysis may show that the data is explainable in the current paradigm. Or there might be a phenomena not previously observed and explained (which expands the paradigm). Or the paradigm / model may need to be adjusted.

Lack of model

Because of their claim that all (well nearly all, there are the small amounts of new rock created in a few marshes) rock that came into existence since creation was formed in a global flood, YEs are committed to the flood being the explanation for rock creation (especially sedimentary rock). But they have no idea how the flood could do that. YEs do not have a model of fluid dynamics, suspension of solids, chemical reactions, action of minerals under pressure, etc. for rock creation during a flood; they only have a variety of vague and untestable speculations full of large and unwarranted assumptions. Furthermore, our understanding of these physical processes excludes the possibility of forming during a global flood the types of rocks and rock formations we observe.

Regards,
#John

Unfortunately John’s latest series of posts simply contain more false statements about YEC beliefs such as:

YEs claim that all rocks were either instantly formed in their present state on the first day of creation, or formed by a massive flood.

along with more blatant assertions that the OE interpretation is an essentially proven fact. Notice the predicted inclination to take actual observations such as the rock formation that I documented, and try to minimize it as if it doesn’t matter. Recall the geologist who wrote it up stated

The rock is ‘forming faster than anyone had ever believed possible, with one stone creating itself in just six months.’

so the real geologist admits the observation violated their models (that why it would be thought impossible). John just asserts it doesn’t matter and has no implications related to the validity of the models. — nuff said.

My comments re the crazy old uncle and junk science should be read in the context of my earlier remarks about the varied reasons that people hold YEC beliefs, the responsibility of Christian leaders (including pastors and teachers and scholars), and the nature of science.

Many people hold beliefs not because they have personally investigated them but because they were taught them or because they were held by people they trust, etc. So, for example, I’ve never done nuclear research or conducted experiments with nuclear fission but I believe in nuclear fission (and fusion) and in the explanations given for how these phenomena and processes work. Many people hold YE beliefs for these reasons, or because it is the default belief of their church or denomination, etc. Of course, these are not the only reasons, but are illustrative of the many reasons for holding beliefs apart from personal investigation.

So many people hold YEC beliefs that are valid when personal investigation is not undertaken, and no one can investigate all their beliefs, nor does everyone have the time, energy or desire to investigate YEC closely). That is one significant reason why it is important for Christian leaders not teach or advise in relation to YEC until they have made a proper investigation of it.

YEC is junk science, it is not a legitimate available option, and it should be heavily criticized for being junk, and it should be rejected by Christian leaders. I make no bones for saying so.

I have tried to remain conscious in my postings of the fact that not all YECs hold their beliefs because they are involved in the YEC movement, but for other, and valid, reasons (see above). I do not intend to make fun of such people and I therefore apologize for not properly framing the crazy uncle line and retract it. At the time I was writing it, I was still mentally responding to the comment about YECs and other Christian scientists working together to oppose evolution. I meant it to refer to, and only to, the YECs that hold science degrees and work for organizations like ICR or AIG (i.e., one could not invite them to work in legitimate geological societies because of their lack of credibility).

I did not mean for that phrase to describe those who read this site and hold YEC beliefs for valid reasons, however, I will completely withdraw and apologize for that statement even in regard to the YECs who work for AIC and AIG.

I will continue on my previous path of opposing YECs for reasons related to science, facts, rationality, and the nature of the universe and world that God created, and the manner in which God relates to the world he created. I will also continue to emphasize the harm done to God’s kingdom by YEC beliefs and to support Saint Augustines comment:

“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their

[cont]

St. Augustine: ““Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although ‘they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.’”

And, in case anybody read quickly and missed it: I apologize for the crazy uncle statement.

Regards,
#John

Why is the infighting between YEC’s and OEC’s fiercer than the fighting they do against neo-Darwinian evolution? Why not team up against neo-Darwinian evolution and their compromising enablers, the theistic evolutionists?

It reminds me of the fierce squabbling between Calvinists and Arminians. Why don’t they just both team up against unbelieving philosophies and religions?

John,

Apology accepted.

John, thanks for the apology.

It’s unfortunately that John has not read creationist geology literature (or has completely discounted it) and so just continues to state that there are no models. There is much ongoing research into flood models being documented within the literature, including such major concepts as catastrophic plate techtonics pioneered by Dr. John Baumgartner, whose bio is below – he is well qualified in the appropriate areas of science. I don’t know about you, but I’m not willing to let John’s assertions, or the current opinion of consensus science, cause me to completely ignore ongoing scientific investigations.

Upon realizing that Noah’s Flood involved a planetary-scale tectonic catastrophe, he left Campus Crusade to begin a Ph.D. program in geophysics at UCLA in order to obtain the expertise and credentials to address the problem of the mechanism of the Genesis Flood at a professional scientific level. His Ph.D. thesis research involved the development of a 3-D spherical-shell finite-element model for the earth’s mantle, a program now known as TERRA.

Upon completing his Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics, he accepted a position as a staff scientist in the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he continued his research in planetary mantle dynamics, including the potential for catastrophic mantle overturn. He presented his work describing this mechanism for the Genesis Flood, now known as ‘catastrophic plate tectonics,’ at six International Conferences on Creationism held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Dr Baumgardner’s technical work at Los Alamos included development of a new global ocean model for investigating climate change. He served as a member of the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) team and led the RATE research effort on carbon-14. He retired from Los Alamos in 2004 and joined the Institute for Creation Research in 2005 where he helped develop a state-of-the-art computer program named Mendel’s Accountant for modeling of the processes of mutation and natural selection. In 2008 he joined Logos Research Associates, a collaborative network of Christian research scientists whose focus is origins and earth history issues from a Biblical perspective.
Education

* B.S., Texas Tech University, Lubbock, 1968
* M.S., Electrical Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 1970
* M.S., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1981
* Ph.D., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1983

Unless someone indicates an interest, I’ll stop bothering to respond to John’s bald assertions.

BTW, I hope John addresses what Derek Ager had to say…and what it means for the geological models…

TU&D, I wouldn’t call this fighting. Furthermore, it’s odd that you keep making such remarks as this, given the rude and disrespectful…and accusatory way you addressed Dr. Daniel B. Wallace on his last thread. I know him personally, and all I can say is that you have grossly misjudged him…and his heart. OK, so that was another thread. I think that this (current thread)) has been a pretty decent and interesting discussion, personally.

John, if you don’t mind my asking, I would be interested to know what you believe about Jesus. Do you believe that He is God in human flesh, born of a virgin? Do you believe that He died and subsequently rose (bodily) from the dead?

If we want to bring in “church fathers” opinions; in Luther’s time, there was a belief that the creation must have occurred in a single day. He wrote the following;

‘I have often said that whoever would study Holy Scripture should be sure to see to it that he stays with the simple words as long as he can and by no means departs from them unless an article of faith compels him to understand them differently. For of this we must be certain: no simpler speech has been heard on earth than what God has spoken.’

Commenting on the days of creation, Luther stated:

‘When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are. For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God Himself says what is written. But since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you wantonly to turn His Word in the direction you wish to go.’

BTW, this does not mean I agree with everything Luther said…that is certainly not the case. But I appreciate his attitude toward scripture.

John, do you believe that the flood was global in extent? If not, why not?

Susan,

Dr. Wallace was being rude, accusatory, disrespectful, and insulting in his strawman caricatures of Christians who affirm inerrancy.

I was calling him on it. I firmly stand by every single comment I made on that thread.

BTW, Dr. Wallace’s work is very good. Usually. And I’ve given him positive feedback oftentimes. However, he was grossly and badly mistaken in his strawman remarks on that thread. Further, I’m sure that he can handle the feedback that he was inappropriately caricaturing fellow Christians with his potshots.

And with regards to this thread, yes, I regard the comments being exchanged as infighting.

So there’s two points of firm disagreement between us.

I particularly apologize to cherylu if she is a YEC, because I respect her contributions to CMP’s blog.

***

re post 282: It is not possible to work with YECs on issues of the creation of life, evolution, rock formation and dating, other dating of the age of the earth and universe, and (global) flooding because they do not practice good science (as I have described), they reject the possibility of natural knowledge with respect to some areas of God’s creation (as I discussed in previous posts), and they lack credibility. YECs have not published anything of recognizable significance in the relevant fields of science that has had any impact on the course of those fields. In fact, they are viewed very negatively.

In contrast, and in relation to the issue of evolution, intelligent design theorists have been able to influence the agenda of evolutionists, force the dropping of some (formerly) alleged evidences of evolution, force a significant number and range of responses from evolutionists, and get published in industry standard and very well respected journals.

Unfortunately, the reality is that the taint is so heavy that any significant association with them causes their taint to rub off on the non-YEC scientist and to bring the non-YEC scientist’s work under that pall of suspician.

***

How is “YEs claim that all rocks were either instantly formed in their present state on the first day of creation, or formed by a massive flood” not a true statement? I did qualify my statment to acknowledge that small amounts of rock appear to be created in marshes, and of course volcanoes do produce some rock also. But the ICR and AIG materials claim that earth as a whole (including all its rocks) were instantly (with a word) created 6,000 years ago and that the sedimentary rock we observe (which is by far the greater amount of crustal rock we observe) was all laid down during the flood. There is very little rock formation leftover that is not accounted for by these two processes. Furthermore, the additional rock formation processes (i.e., the ones that have been observed as occurring quickly) are not ones that could have occurred during the flood, and, in any event, have only produced an extremely small portion of all the rock that exists today. Steve’s post #171 describes a human way of forming cement and not a natural rock formation process and is not relevant. That is, the resulting cement is similar to a form of cement found in nature, but the process by which it is created is not (injection of chemicals, etc.).

***

Richard fails to note that I have drawn attention to the fact that geologists have a number of rock formation models, depending on the type of rock created. So it is not that there is a single overall rock formation ediface that topples when faced with the phenomena of rapid rock creation. The rapid rock creation phenomena is investigated, and a natural (i.e., not miraculous) explanation is arrived at. [cont.]

John claims that the Lewontin quote is applicable only to biology. Read it for yourselves and see if it does not deal with the nature of science itself.

He then goes on to say:

The science of geology is like the science of internal combustion engines, nuclear fission (and reactors), or bridge building. It works, it produces good results, and the explanatory models are extremely robust and capable of explaining a large range of phenomena and of incorporating new phenomena.

I’ve shown examples in which the observations were contradictory to the geological model (rapid rocks, for example). When was the last time anyone we had an observation that contradicted the model of internal combustion?

Notice that John never answered this question I asked him:

If I gave you a rock, and the K-Ar results from a lab showing a calculated age of, say 3.5 ± .25 Myr, would you know how old it really is?

John wrote:

But the ICR and AIG materials claim that earth as a whole (including all its rocks) were instantly (with a word) created 6,000 years ago and that the sedimentary rock we observe (which is by far the greater amount of crustal rock we observe) was all laid down during the flood.

Please show us where it is claimed that ALL sedimentary rock was formed during the flood.

Also, reread Genesis 1. The earth was created on day one, dry ground does not appear until day 3, so “rocks” may not have been created until day 3 as the creation was being molded into shape.

You are continuing to make false claims about YEC beliefs. 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.

TUaD:

Why not team up against neo-Darwinian evolution and their compromising enablers, the theistic evolutionists?

John explains that, with Augustine’s comments to back him up. YEC teachings harm the gospel by making Christians, in the eyes of anyone accepting an OE theory (almost everyone), appear to be fools. So the teaching should be discouraged.

This is not a discussion to have in front of unbelievers, but it often ends up that way and discredits all of us.

And I’m reminded of Paul’s several warnings to Timothy and Titus about avoiding arguments and controversies. But is that possible in a search for truth?

That said, John seems to have a more open mind about the whole thing (though I’m sure Richard disagrees) while Richard does seem to be in a position where he cannot seriously consider and must reject any evidence for an old earth. It really is no different than an atheistic scientist rejecting any possibility of the supernatural. When realistic possibilities are ruled out, the only option left is to grasp at any available straw and call it truth.

Is the term “eisegesis” applicable to the interpretation of physical data?

Dave Z: “Is the term “eisegesis” applicable to the interpretation of physical data?”

The conceptual idea behind your question is applicable. I see “eisegesis” at work and on display by those neo-Darwinian evolutionists who are guided by philosophical and methodological naturalism.

Richard also fails to effectively respond to the fact that one process for rock formation does not invalidate other processes. Different processes for rock formation can and do all exist at the same time. Though Richard has support for rapid rock formation in a marsh (which I do not deny), that does not refute the fact that sedimentary rock is created (slowly) in other parts of the world.

Furthermore, the marsh rock creation process is not a process that would occur during a flood, nor one that accounts for all the observable sedimentary rock that one observes.

I have not merely made “bald assertions”, but rational arguments. If Richard cares not to respond, I’m OK with that.

***
Flood Geology

On the flood, it’s not a bag of hammers that I’m going to carry in this thread (I have my leanings, but I’m still agnostic on the point, and so I’m not going to try to convince anyone else of something I’m not even convinced of).

Baumgartner’s model does not account for the features we find in rocks around the world, so I don’t see how it’s relevant to the dating of rocks (more on this below). The fact that Baumgartner’s model has never been able to get a hearing outside of the ICR and AIG circles (unlike the ideas of intelligent design, which have had significant and wide influence) speaks volumes as to its credibility and validity.

His credentials are not relevant in so far as he is committed to a 6,000 year old earth for theological and not scientific reasons. Rather than investigation the nature of God’s created universe in respect of rock formation and age dating in the same manner as we would investigate any of the other phenomena that God established, he starts with a theological commitment to a date and to two significant periods of rock formation and then tries to imagine how a global flood would create all of the non-day-one-of-creation rock that we find.

EVEN IF one believes that the flood is global, one does not need to subscribe to a young earth. One can believe both in an old earth and a global flood. If the earth is old, then the immense volumes of sedimentary rock would have been laid down and formed during the millions of years prior to the flood. Then along comes the flood four and a half thousand years ago which laid down more deposits.

***

On Luther. I’m down with him. So are the evangelical inerrantist scholars who signed the Chicago statements on inerrancy and hermeneutics and who agree that old and young earth are both acceptable interpretations of the words in Genesis 1 & 2.

Regards,
#John

Notice also that the Pattle Pun comment in post 199 has been ignored. He makes it VERY plain that it is the beliefs about what science has proven “then hermeneutical considerations suggested by science” that forces one to interpret the creation and flood accounts differently than the traditional one (ie YEC).

Also, the James Barr quote in 204 has been ignored.

Both of these men disbelieve in the YEC position, but both are honest enough to state that this is what the bible actually says.

This is why the discussion about what science has really proven is important.

John CT!!

Do I see some (positive) movement in your disposition and attitude towards YEC’s here?

#164: “It is not possible to work with YEs because they practice junk science and completely lack credibility.”

#194: “On Luther. I’m down with him. So are the evangelical inerrantist scholars who signed the Chicago statements on inerrancy and hermeneutics and who agree that old and young earth are both acceptable interpretations of the words in Genesis 1 & 2.”

😉

One could “agree that old and young earth are both acceptable interpretations of the words in Genesis 1 & 2” and still disbelieve one or the other on the basis of some sort of evidence. To say that both are acceptable interpretations does not mandate that one or the other is true. On the other hand, YEC does say it mandates one. Matter of fact, I suspect YEC could not affirm that both are acceptable. Their whole premise lies in the thought that there is only one proper interpretation.

Richard’s comments in post #290 give the impression that he does not to understand, or is not familiar with, what a geological model of rock creation is, nor the nature and existence of multiple models of rock formation as they are discussed in geological literature.

There is no single model of how all rock is created. There is a model for creation of rocks in marshes, for creation of pumice, etc. by volcanoes, for creation of aggregates and conglomerates, for creation of limestone, and various models for fomration of various types of sedimentary rock, and for the formation of metamorphic rock. The existence of a model for the creation of volcanic rock, or marsh rock, does not invalidate the model for the creation of sedimentary rock. They are different explanations for different types of phenomena.

At one time it was theorized that the sun was combusting gases (i.e, combustion of flammable gases in the presence of oxygen). We now know that it is fusion that generates the heat and light and plasma and heavier elements, etc. (another scientific model (fusion) that is now fully confirmed and not ever to be overturned). However, the existence of a model for the oxygen combustion of hydrogen gas here on earth does not invalidate the model of fusion of hydrogen in the sun. Both models coexist and explain different phenomena.

It is therefore incorrect to describe the various models of rock formation processes as contradictory and exclusionary, i.e., either one or the other, either fast or slow. I note that this false and incorrect presentation of contradictories also relates also to Richard’s mischaracterization of “errors” in relation to geological dating, so it appears to be a faulty premise that permeates much of the reasoning he has presented here.

In so far as my claim regarding the two major periods of rock formation for YECs, Richard appears to be outside the mainstream of YECism as I understand it. Since he is more familiar with YECism, perhaps he could expand on this, or indicate how he differs from the YEC mainstream.

Quotes from the AIG website:

“How do you explain the enormous fossil record in the sedimentary rock layers around the earth’s surface? Evolutionists tell us that it took millions of years of geological processes. Creationists have shown that these fossil-bearing rock layers were produced by catastrophic events consistent with Noah’s flood. ”

“On every continent are found layers of sedimentary rocks over vast areas. Many of these sediment layers can be traced all the way across continents, and even between continents. . . . Sediment layers that spread across vast continents are evidence that water covered the continents in the past. Even more dramatic are the fossil-bearing sediment layers that were deposited rapidly right across many or most of the continents at the same time. To catastrophically deposit such extensive sediment layers implies global flooding of the continents.”

Regards,
#John

Richard,

So if I get the gist of what your saying:

1) Well over 90% of the geologists (YEC simply isn’t a very popular view in the academic fields) believe that the earth is very old

2) They believe this because they have faulty methods based upon erroness pressuppositions, so they, essentially, “made up” these huge numbers to fit with the Theory of Evolution and “fudged” the numbers when things didn’t work out right…

Is this right so far?

If so, why wouldn’t scientists (who are fairly “cut throat” when it comes to discovering new things), debunk this in an instant even if they didn’t believe in YEC? I mean if I have the ability to throw out a couple hundred years of research and propose a new theory that is actually valid; don’t you think I am going to pursue that with all my might because it will “make my name great”?

Yet no one has…

What is your reason as to why there is such a low percentage (and this is clearly in the lower single digits) of the geologists in the world who believe in a Young Earth?

Curious your thoughts.

Your brother in Christ,

-Josh