Young Earth Creationist dynamics.

[CabVet]

Your long winded criticisms of creationism seem to ring of the same old vague intolerance of creation science. By the way there are very learned individuals in creation science who posses high levels of scholastic achievement and are simply not published by peer review because of scientific community biases.

They don't get published because "creation" is not a science. You cannot start a scientific experiment with a conclusion that won't change. Perhaps you could use some advice from our friend AV:

Science ≠ God ... despite what some think.

 

[SkyWriting]

But I hold the 6 days of creation in a very literal sense. Some creation scientists use th.....

So did lava cool on day 7 when God was resting?
If molten lava was cooling on day seven, only then we can expect that dating methods will give us a date of "zero" for creation week.
According to what I read.....the earth was not literally cooling lava on day 7.
I read that there were fruiting trees and animals.
So the earth and the shining stars were not literally one week old.
They were literally older than 7 days at the end of a 7 day Creation week.

I don't pretend to know exactly how this came to be or where this added "age" came from. But for my "Creation Scientist" friends to claim that lava was cooling on day 7 and the age of the earth was at "zero" on day 7 is dumb. The Bible doesn't read that way. Don't get me wrong. It was Henry Morris who said to read the scriptures normally and naturally and that would give us the best understanding of God's word. I embraced that after my association with one of the most fringe liberal churches there are. I am grateful to "Christian Scientist" teachings. But when he said that all of science was reading all their data wrong and that the data actually showed that the earth was 10,000 years old or so....I said, Wait a minute! Does he mean that the earth was 7 days old on day 7 of creation week? The earths crust was lifted up on day 3. And plants were added. I can only imagine that the plants were set in soil. Soil? Soil is aged decaying organic matter and sand. How did we get sand and soil from lava in 1 day?

You get the idea. The scriptures are very clear that Creation week was 7 literal days. People with no written language at all even understand " And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day."
But the scriptures are also clear that scientists measuring the age of rocks this afternoon will not come up with an age of 4004 years. I don't have the details. But the Earth did not have the properties of a cooling lava ball on day 7. It doesn't read that way. Literally.

 

[Zaius137]

So did lava cool on day 7 when God was resting?

What you are trying to reconcile here is a common materialist argument. What if the creation of the universe was the consequence of a two brane intersection… or that the heavens and earth cooled in a time gap; then came the 6 days of creation or my argument that the earth did not form from an accretion disk around a proto-star. Remember my argument was that the earth was brought up from around absolute zero (2.7 deg Kelvin) by rapid decay of radioactive isotopes (appearance of old age). Look up the RATE group’s findings.

A molten earth is from that old universe dogma.

Extreme earth temperature was a consequence of the accretion of the earth around a proto-star (by the way science has failed to explain that postulate).

One interpretation of Genesis discounts that possibility.

 

[Zaius137]

They don't get published because "creation" is not a science. You cannot start a scientific experiment with a conclusion that won't change. Perhaps you could use some advice from our friend AV:

Where does it say Science is an object? Creation is then not Science but uses scientific principles. Same old CabVet….

 

[CabVet]

Where does it say Science is an object? Creation is then not Science but uses scientific principles. Same old CabVet….

Creation is a story told by the Bible. It uses no scientific principles what so ever.

 

[Zaius137]

Which scientific principles might those be?
Creationism is a belief and that's all it is and it can never be anything else, that's why creationism is called a faith.

There are Creation scientists who posses degrees in almost all scientific disciplines. Carmeli’s creationist cosmology uses a 5d approach in a general relativity solution. Information theory forms the foundation to Intelligent Design. All Creation Science I know of uses the Genesis account as a guide in those disciplines.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

There are Creation scientists who posses degrees in almost all scientific disciplines.

So? Obama has a law degree but he's not a lawyer right now.

All Creation Science I know of uses the Genesis account as a guide in those disciplines.

This is why it fails. Knowing the conclusion before experiments are done is antithetical to science.

 

[SkyWriting]

What you are trying to reconcile here is a common materialist argument. What if the creation of the universe was the consequence of a two brane intersection… or that the heavens and earth cooled in a time gap; then came the 6 days of creation or my argument that the earth did not form from an accretion disk around a proto-star. Remember my argument was that the earth was brought up from around absolute zero (2.7 deg Kelvin) by rapid decay of radioactive isotopes (appearance of old age). Look up the RATE group’s findings. A molten earth is from that old universe dogma. Extreme earth temperature was a consequence of the accretion of the earth around a proto-star (by the way science has failed to explain that postulate). One interpretation of Genesis discounts that possibility.

Nope. The idea is that one can date rock based on the time that it formed.
Creation Scientists would like rocks to date to fit their time frame. So they would have to be cooling on day 7. So what age do you give to the plants, animals, fruits, rocks, Adan, Eve, rivers, mountains, or mole hills? How "old" were all these items on Literal Day 7?
7 days old? Or some other number.

We can assume some of these rocks are still lying around. If I find one, how old will it be? How old will it test out to be?

 

[Zaius137]

Nope. The idea is that one can date rock based on the time that it formed.
Creation Scientists would like rocks to date to fit their time frame. So they would have to be cooling on day 7. So what age do you give to the plants, animals, fruits, rocks, Adan, Eve, rivers, mountains, or mole hills? How "old" were all these items on Literal Day 7?
7 days old? Or some other number.

We can assume some of these rocks are still lying around. If I find one, how old will it be? How old will it test out to be?

I want you read an article before we go any further. I want to be perfectly clear on all the points of contention.


Nuclear Decay: Evidence For A Young World

New RATE Data Support a Young World



One misconception I would like to address is the dating by parent daughter ratios; this is probably what you re thinking of when you say “time of formation”. Potassium Argon is the star of the dating method you are probably referring to and it is by no means entirely reliable.
Assumption one is that radio active decay occurs at a constant exponential or geometric rate. This idea has been the bedrock of old earth dogma since day one and has been found to be incorrect. Radioactive decay varies under different conditions. One surprising finding is that it varies with earth sun distance. If it is variable then no one can claim that accelerated rates in the past are not possible.



Also the earth is and has never been in a stasis condition in which initial concentrations of parent or daughter are entirely predictable. Isochrons used to offset this problem have in themselves assumptions that can cause poor results in dating.



There is vast speculation in dating and the Christian has every right to think outside the box on this. Don’t believe for on minute that there is any objectivity in the old earth paradigm just because they claim that we are hung up on the Bible. Christians have every reason to trust God’s Word.

 

[verysincere]

Christians have every reason to trust God’s Word.

Yes we do.

And that's why when all of the evidence which God has provided in his BIBLE and all of the evidence God has provided in his CREATION tell me that the earth is old, I have no reason to call God a liar.

God does not deceive. He doesn't describe a "young earth" in the Bible and then confuse us with contrary evidence in his universe.

The RATE PROJECT was debunked years ago. (Indeed, by their own admission they started with their CONCLUSION FIRST and then tried to find evidence to prop up their cherished church traditions about what the Bible said. That is not science. Science allows one to follow the evidence where it leads.)

The RATE Project paper and the ICR material have been extensively reviewed and critiqued online. I suggest you read the science before you swallow what they are delivering. I was part of the Young Earth Creationist and "creation science" camp for many years [as a speaker and debater] and I know the arguments and the tactics. It eventually became a matter of conscience for me because I could not simply ignore the evidence and the distorted evidence forever. And the strawman arguments were contrary to the teachings of Christ because they were not honest.

Simply citing a "creation science" website is not going to get you very far. At least expose yourself to the evidence which SCIENCE can provide.

If you are truly convinced that the earth is relatively young, then I can't wait to read your explanation for the 15,000 layers of alternating sandstone and shale with intervening burrows of the Haymond Formation. "Creation science" claims all of it formed in a little over a year in a Global Flood. If you can make sense out of that, you will have my attention.

But you will dodge it, just as young earth proponents always dodge the Haymond Formation (or try to focus on some of the secondary issues and ignore the 15000 layers.)

 

[verysincere]

There are Creation scientists who posses degrees in almost all scientific disciplines.

Wow! It took me years to get my four degrees. How did they possibly manage to get degrees in ALL of the scientific disciplines? They must have some incredible geniuses in their ranks if they can earn that many grad degrees in a lifetime.

But my question would be how somebody with so many degrees could manage to be unaware (or pretend to be unaware) of so much of the evidence for an old earth and evolutionary processes?

 

[verysincere]

Personally I have always been uncomfortable as a Christian receiving support from the atheist camp… apparently you welcome it.

Yes I do. Most heartily.

Truth is truth. You apparently define it and determine it based on a personal evaluation of who happens to cheer you on. Do you reject the Newton's Laws of Motion because virtually every educated atheist affirms them?

So personally I have NEVER been uncomfortable learning that someone else recognizes the same truths that I do. If you read the Gospels, you will find that Jesus had much to say about TRUTH, even in identifying himself under that term.

But I can certainly understand why you are often uncomfortable.

I have gotten to know a number of atheists on this forum. Several have graciously introduced themselves via private emails. We have enjoyed informative dialogue. Our differing viewpoints don't seem to be a barrier to congenial discussion, even if we enjoy spirited debate and probing one another's ideas. I know enough of the teachings of Jesus to know that he advocated mutual respect and understanding.

Personally I have always been uncomfortable observing some self-described Christians who are continually cultivating strife with the atheist camp... apparently you welcome it.

 

[Jazer]

Wow! It took me years to get my four degrees. How did they possibly manage to get degrees in ALL of the scientific disciplines?

Let me take a guess at this. Perhaps that is the difference between singular and plural.

 

[Jazer]

Personally I have always been uncomfortable as a Christian receiving support from the atheist camp… apparently you welcome it.

What I am uncomfortable with is people that reject science when it supports the Bible. It is a lot more easy to understand when they reject what we can not provide any evidence for. Talking snakes and things like that. Although still it is hard for me to believe that people do not have a dog or a cat or some sort of animal that they communicate with to some degree. Although I think it is safe to assume that if you did have a theological conversation with a snake, that the snake most likely will not get it right.

 

[SkyWriting]

I want you read an article before we go any further. I want to be perfectly clear on all the points of contention....

Great. Now lets use your link to point to my question:

which strongly uphold the 6,000-year timescale of Scripture.

Now, The article is telling me that the data is confirming that what they are testing was cooling or formed 6000 ya.
I have a handful of that "Stuff" we read about in the scriptures. I grabbed a hold of this "stuff" on day 7. Some of this stuff looks like green plants, some like soil (decaying organic matter), there are some bugs in it, some bug eggs, and some "rock".

The article you linked to says this stuff (fresh from 6 thousand years ago) is at age zero.
You examine it with your Creationist, Child of God, follower of Jesus glasses on.
Tell me. (Without knowledge of seeing it created in the last 7 days)
Tell me, what age is the stuff I am giving you to examine?

Do you examine it and conclude ZERO? This plant is zero, this rock is zero, these bugs are 1 day old ( OK, that could be)
This tree is zero age, This animal is zero age.
Or do you have some other number for me.
Your link just told me it was ZERO.
DO you look at it and agree that it is zero age?

One misconception I would like to address is the dating by parent daughter ratios; this is probably what you re thinking of when you say “time of formation”.

I don't care if your counting Helium balloon Atoms, measuring father daughter dance ratios, or the halos on a Zircon Angel.
I don't care what number you are getting. What number would you be getting on DAY 7.
Or day eight, I don't care. WOULD your pet measuring system give us the number ZERO?
Because that is what your articles are saying. On day 7 everything would measure ZERO AGE.
Trees, dirt, helium amounts, rocks, CO2, zircons, the amount of dust on the moon would be zero, everything would be scientifically ZERO. Is that correct, or DO YOU HAVE SOME OTHER NUMBER to give me?
Or is everything "Zero" at week two? Plus or minus a few days.
If I hold a rock in my hand aged ZERO.......what does it look like? Mud, lava, ....what?

 

[SkyWriting]

What I am uncomfortable with is people that reject science when it supports the Bible. It is a lot more easy to understand when they reject what we can not provide any evidence for.

Science can only deal with reproducible events so that we can double-check the work of the original researcher. If God is the original Creator or instigator of some event, it's not a reproducible event so is not in the realm of science.

 

[Jazer]

Science can only deal with reproducible events so that we can double-check the work of the original researcher. If God is the original Creator or instigator of some event, it's not a reproducible event so is not in the realm of science.

I am talking about the Bible as History. For example there are people who say that Solomon's temple never existed. Yet the foundation is still there today. Science does not deny that there was a temple there. It use to be that people did not believe that there was a city of Troy from Homer's book the Odyssey. Believed to be written about 200 years after Solomon wrote his 1000 books in 1000 BC. I would be interested to know who thinks that Helen of Troy was a real person. Compared to who thinks that Bathsheba and her son Solomon were real people.

Real or not there is no reason to hold ancient books in derision the way so many atheists have so much contempt & disrespect for the Bible. Although we have been told to expect a time of apostasy at the end of this age. So many people believe this is just a sign of the end of times. We are told to give respect to who respect is do and honor to who honor is due. But this generation seems to have departed from all of that.

 

[SkyWriting]

I am talking about the Bible as History. For example there are people who say that Solomon's temple never existed. Yet the foundation is still there today. Science does not deny that there was a temple there. It use to be that people did not believe that there was a city of Troy from Homer's book the Odyssey. Believed to be written about 200 years after Solomon wrote his 1000 books in 1000 BC. I would be interested to know who thinks that Helen of Troy was a real person. Compared to who thinks that Bathsheba and her son Solomon were real people.

Real or not there is no reason to hold ancient books in derision the way so many atheists have so much contempt & disrespect for the Bible. Although we have been told to expect a time of apostasy at the end of this age. So many people believe this is just a sign of the end of times. We are told to give respect to who respect is do and honor to who honor is due. But this generation seems to have departed from all of that.

That's fine. The Bible is indeed a historical document, and I have come to trust it as 100% correct in its documentation of actual events and places. But scientifically speaking, it's just a historical document as is any written document.

 

[RickG]

One misconception I would like to address is the dating by parent daughter ratios; this is probably what you re thinking of when you say “time of formation”. Potassium Argon is the star of the dating method you are probably referring to and it is by no means entirely reliable.

There are many radiometric dating methods, the K/Ar is only one. What you are referring to is the possible excess of atmospheric Argon. That only happens when lava comes in contact with the atmosphere while cooling. "Breaking News!" Most igneous rocks are intrusive, not extrusive. Additionally, the Ar/Ar method and/or isochron techniques compensate for any excess argon. In the hands of experienced geochronologists/geochemists, accounting for excess argon is not a problem.

Assumption one is that radio active decay occurs at a constant exponential or geometric rate. This idea has been the bedrock of old earth dogma since day one and has been found to be incorrect.

We have already been over this many times Zaius, it is not an assumption, it is measured. Additionally, decay rates are measured in numerous different isotopes occurring in supernovae millions of light years distant. Those measured decay rates are the same as observed 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 10 years ago and today. They are the same, read for yourself. http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9912131

Radioactive decay varies under different conditions. One surprising finding is that it varies with earth sun distance. If it is variable then no one can claim that accelerated rates in the past are not possible.

We have been over this as well. What you are referring to is an extremely minor variation due to gamma-rays with some short half-life isotopes that exhibit beta decay. It is nothing more than a perturbation or oscillation, not a change in actual decay rate. Also, none of those isotopes are used in radiometric dating.

 

[verysincere]

We have already been over this many times Zaius, it is not an assumption, it is measured.
.........
We have been over this as well. What you are referring to is an extremely minor variation due to gamma-rays with some short half-life isotopes that exhibit beta decay. It is nothing more than a perturbation or oscillation, not a change in actual decay rate. Also, none of those isotopes are used in radiometric dating.

Moreover, "creation science" advocates try to focus on the chant "Decay rates can change!" without telling their fans that even under those atypical situations where perturbation is suspected, the implications for the dating calculations are tiny in magnitude. That is, even IF such perturbations impacted the dating methods which scientists actually use on a regular basis, they would barely change the numbers!

Indeed, to think that such tiny perturbations in decay rates could change a 4.54 billion years age of the earth to only 6,000 years is laughable, were it not tragic in its implications for an evaluation of the U.S. education system.

Of course, Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis is unlikely to add that very important "detail" when criticizing radiometric dating methods.

This convenient "omission" by Ham is one of the countless examples of a phenomenon which P.Z. Myers has labelled "The Ham Hightail", a description of a debating strategy which he considers just as noteworthy as The Gish Gallop:

"The objective of the Ham Hightail is not to convince the skeptics, but to reinforce the believers. The science does not have to support Young Earth Creationism, so long as people believe it does."-- P.Z. Myers