Creationist abuse of 2 Peter 3

[laptoppop]

Firstly I have to say that I'm very glad to see laptoppop's clarification:

Having said that, I think my concern was valid, as not every creationist is as moderate as you:

So it is those who dispute what the Bible says about creation, the Flood, etc., who cause division. Even where such people are “antievolution”—if they teach uniformitarian doctrines, such as big bang, slow cooling of the earth over billions of years, and local flood, no matter how much they profess to be “evangelical”, they are clearly in the camp of the scoffers.
​

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0101aus_newsletter.asp

I am very very glad that I don't have to be responsible for what other people have said or written -- I have enough gaffes on my own!

In this case, one could possibly split hairs and note that the phrase "in the camp" was used -- one could argue that the point is not calling people scoffers, but noting that TE shares some characteristics/beliefs with the scoffers.

But I will not dispute that there are YECs who, in their zeal, make stupid statements about their brothers and sisters in Christ. In the same vein, there are TEs who make stupid statements about YECs being stupid, or liars, or... Neither glorifies God in their actions in my opinion.

Also, I don't think the point made by laptoppop:

was very valid. We should remember that many conservative Christians, like Louis Agassiz and Charles Hodge, in the late 1800's and early 1900's clearly accepted an old, uniformitarian geology, some even while rejecting evolution. If geology is crucial, how could Christians accept an old-earth geology while rejecting evolution, and what would motivate them to do so?

That would make them OECs. My memes are from my perspective -- YEC. Also I have to acknowledge that this difference is just one of many -- and in particular affects geological interpretation the most.

Thanks for sharing the story. There are many stories of people who have changed viewpoints in both directions.

 

[Mallon]

I went through a long process of weighing the evidence for and against a global flood in particular. At this point, I am settled that the body of evidence supports a global flood.

Out of curiosity, what evidence do you feel cannot be fully accounted for by traditional geological models? Where, specifically, do you feel the traditional models break down?

For certain deposits, given the amount of material displaced, it is difficult to envision anything but a global flood sufficing, given their extent and depth, etc.

Are you referring specifically to cratonic sequences? Because I've seen you reference terms like Kaskaskia and Tippecanoe lately. Again, what do you find so hard to believe about how geologists have traditionally explained their deposition? And why does a global flood model do a better job?

ICR has a modest supercomputer and has done some solid preliminary work investigating the expected flows in a global flood. They also have identified a number of areas for additional study. For example, I recommend the paper from the sixth international conference on Creationism, August 2008 entitled "Ocean Circulation Velocities over the Continents during Noah's Flood." (http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/ICC08_Ocean_Circ_Velocities.pdf)(Warning - it's a 5 meg download) For more modest deposits, it can be difficult to identify a localized flood versus a global one because of the extreme temporal and spatial variety to be expected in the global flood. However, given the short timeframe of the YEC model, the question often becomes more "can they be accounted for in a global flood model".

Thanks for the paper, pop. I gave it a quick read and was admittedly a little disappointed. For one, I have yet to understand the YEC take on supercontinents. They seem quite happy to accept the science that supports the existence of Pangaea, but (1) they reject the same science that purports preceding supercontinents in history (as far as I can tell), and (2) if the YEC Flood model posits the existence of Pangaea during the Flood, then it seems quite obvious that all pre-Pangaean sediments (including the entire Precambrian and Palaeozoic) would necessarily be pre-Flood deposits. That seems like a pretty simple way of solving your problem about identifying which sediments are pre-Flood. Of course, it introduces a whole slew of new ones, too.
That's not the main reason I was disappointed in the paper, though. I was mainly disappointed because the authors never actually state what their model predicts. They explain the model quite extensively, which is fine (I'm not in a position to critique it), but unless I missed it, they never actually come up with a set of predictions that follows from their model. And a model that doesn't make predictions really isn't a useful model at all since it cannot be tested (i.e., you can't do science). At this point, the model seems like nothing more than some pretty, colourful graphs with no scientific value.
You're probably a little better read than I when it comes to this Flood model stuff, though, so I'd appreciate your insight.

Of course not. Also, of course, I do not expect it to be falsified.

Great. So you admit that the Flood model could be falsified, then. So I'll ask again: how would you falsify it?

 

[shernren]

For one, I have yet to understand the YEC take on supercontinents. They seem quite happy to accept the science that supports the existence of Pangaea, but (1) they reject the same science that purports preceding supercontinents in history (as far as I can tell), and (2) if the YEC Flood model posits the existence of Pangaea during the Flood, then it seems quite obvious that all pre-Pangaean sediments (including the entire Precambrian and Palaeozoic) would necessarily be pre-Flood deposits. That seems like a pretty simple way of solving your problem about identifying which sediments are pre-Flood. Of course, it introduces a whole slew of new ones, too.

In particular: if I have read correctly, many of the sedimentary deposits that were purportedly formed rapidly during the Flood (limestone, shale, etc.) date back to the Carboniferous, while the rock layers that document the breakup of Pangaea date back to the Cretaceous. If those Carboniferous sedimentary deposits weren't formed during the Flood, when were they formed?

That's not the main reason I was disappointed in the paper, though. I was mainly disappointed because the authors never actually state what their model predicts. They explain the model quite extensively, which is fine (I'm not in a position to critique it), but unless I missed it, they never actually come up with a set of predictions that follows from their model. And a model that doesn't make predictions really isn't a useful model at all since it cannot be tested (i.e., you can't do science). At this point, the model seems like nothing more than some pretty, colourful graphs with no scientific value.
You're probably a little better read than I when it comes to this Flood model stuff, though, so I'd appreciate your insight.

I do agree that: the paper looks theoretically sound but I can't see the authors actually relating it in a falsifiable, concrete (heh heh) way to any specific real life deposits.