"I chose YEC because..."

[Jase]

As for the geological column, it is telling to me that the very Christians who set out to establish the discoverability of a global flood from nature disproved it. Beyond that, there are all of the posts (with very simple math) that argue that a global flood would have sterilized the Earth. Why do you think that the YEC explanation for the fossil record is more sound?

Correct regarding the flood. I started a thread on the problem of the heat generated from the catastrophism of the flood down in Creation & Evolution.

Laptop - do you think the evidence supports a global noahic flood?

 

[laptoppop]

Correct regarding the flood. I started a thread on the problem of the heat generated from the catastrophism of the flood down in Creation & Evolution.

Laptop - do you think the evidence supports a global noahic flood?

I'll have to read the thread later - thanks for pointing it out. One key thing that aids in the heat problem is to include the change in reflectivity that would occur from an above the atmosphere layer, esp. of ice. This also avoids the atmospheric compression issue.

Yes, I believe the evidence supports a global noahic flood.

 

[Jase]

I'll have to read the thread later - thanks for pointing it out. One key thing that aids in the heat problem is to include the change in reflectivity that would occur from an above the atmosphere layer, esp. of ice. This also avoids the atmospheric compression issue.

Yes, I believe the evidence supports a global noahic flood.

I'm not sure what you mean by change in reflectivity above the atmosphere. Do you mean due to there being a solid dome above the Earth holding water, it would reflect more sun light?

The heat problem has nothing to do with the sun, it has to do with heat generated between the Earth and Atmosphere.

 

[Assyrian]

I've seen the Morton article before. It has some good information, and is nicely written. However, it does not address the core issue in this particular case. The catfish fossils transverse a large number of "annual" layers -- way more layers than can be described as "cold water" aiding preservation. The bulk of the fossils are found in a layer 18" thick with about 4,000 layers. Either the layers are not annual, or the fish did not decompose for over a hundred years.

One thing that puzzles me about these polystrate fish, I haven't seen any images that show they really are polystrate.
=

==============================
===fishfishfishfishfish=======
==fishfishfishfishfishfish====
===fishfishfishfishfish=======
==============================
=

Nor can I see how a fish would become a true polystrate fossil apart from burying itself in the silt when it fell to the bottom.

Say we have a fish that lands on the bottom and partly sinks into the ooze. What happens when the next layer of silt falls?
=

===fishfishfishfishfish=====
==fishfishfishfishfishfish====
===fishfishfishfishfish=======
==============================
=

It is going to land on top of the fish too, isn't it?
=

===.....................
....fishfishfishfishfish........
==fishfishfishfishfishfish======
===fishfishfishfishfish=========
================================
=

===---------------------
__/ -------------------- \_____
___/fishfishfishfishfish\_____=
==fishfishfishfishfishfish====
===fishfishfishfishfish=======
==============================
==============================
=
=
=============================
===---------------------
__/ -------------------- \_____
___/fishfishfishfishfish\_____=
==fishfishfishfishfishfish====
===fishfishfishfishfish=======
==============================


Although the layers might be thinner over the fossil, the fish would be buried by the next layer and over a number of layers any mound disappear. Certainly we are not talking about a dead fish being exposed for a hundred years.

"science tells us"..... this is a very broad statement, and overlooks competing evidence such as the RATE project by ICR which challenges many of the basic presuppositions. It also ignores problem areas for old earth interpretation, such as the salinity of the ocean or the earth's magnetic field, which at best require secondary modifications to a uniformtarian interpretation.

You really do need to take all the details into account, including evidence of the magnetic field reversing numerous times while the ocean crust was being formed, and the rate at which salt is removed from the ocean as well as rate it is going in.

 

[KerrMetric]

I'll have to read the thread later - thanks for pointing it out. One key thing that aids in the heat problem is to include the change in reflectivity that would occur from an above the atmosphere layer, esp. of ice. This also avoids the atmospheric compression issue.

Yes, I believe the evidence supports a global noahic flood.

I take it then that Newtonian dynamics was suspended whilst this "ice canopy" existed. Floating by divine fiat no doubt.

Let's call this for what it really is (which as I said in a prior post explains 99% or more of all this nonsense) - you as an example don't know any real geology or physics and thus complete codswallop can seem credible especially in light of the said codswallop meshed with what you want to be the case.

How exactly do layers of ice "float" above the atmosphere - and please don't say orbit because that leads me straight to the 99% reason I mentioned above.

 

[Willtor]

I am not using "conservative" in a socio-political sense, but rather to indicate the school of Scriptural interpretation that tends to accept plain language interpretation over other methodologies. For example, as such I reject the JEDP theory of Genesis authorship, in favor of a Mosaic authorship.

I don't have any more problems with Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch than I have with JEPD.

However, are you saying that you advocate your plain language interpretation over my plain language interpretation? The plain sense, to me, is to take the creation account as a myth. Just as I treat the Psalms as poetry because I know what a poem looks like, so I treat the creation story as a myth because I know what a myth looks like. It couldn't be any more plain to me. However, I don't take it strictly as a myth because there are people (who I respect as having better understanding about such things than I do) who make a compelling case that it is not a myth (in the strictest sense). Should I ignore them and treat it as my plain sense advocates, anyway?

People change opinions often. Others have gone from believing evolution to being YEC. When we all get home to be with the Lord, I'll buy a round of soda and we can laugh about how wrong I was on some points, and you on others. <grin>

I don't like soda, but I'll take fruit juice.

"Why do you think that the YEC explanation for the fossil record is more sound?" --- Indeed, that is one of the crucial questions. We've talked about some of the issues -- but we all have day jobs and we're trading posts, not books. Some of the stronger points of evidence for me (off the top of my head) are the actual mechanisms proposed for the pysical formation of the column, the lack of transitionary forms (we need to discuss this in more detail -- one thing at a time), the size, scope and scale of certain deposits, the problems with mutations as source for the variation in natural selection, and others.

1. What's wrong with the mechanism accepted by geologists?

2. If we had no fossils whatsoever, the molecular evidence would still support evolution. That said, I'm aware of particularly large gaps in the phylogenic tree, but I'm also aware of smooth paths of development. Which gap(s) are you talking about, and what do you make of the smooth paths?

3. What deposits have unreasonable size, scope, and scale?

4. Even when I was a YEC, I had no problems with mutation and selection. I couldn't. I used the combination in my own field and the results were difficult to argue with. What do you dispute in the ability of mutation and natural selection?

 

[humbledbyhim]

Belief in God and belief in YEC are not the same thing.

And why do people get offended by me stating the biggest single reason by FAR in this entire debate which is lay people not knowing any better when it comes to a primarily scientific issue. I'd say that reason is at least 99% of the cause.

It's a fact, it might be unpalatable to some, but it is still a fact.

thanks for not honoring my request.

 

[humbledbyhim]

This is the problem. People won't be humble and stop typing long enough for a question to be answered anymore. I'll take this question to the YEC thread.

 

[KerrMetric]

Two points:

I honestly don't remember your wait for 15 responses comment.

It's a public forum. Though if I had have read it I would have held off. But then again - you need the "don't know any better" option in the poll to be accurate.

 

[jckstraw72]

i choose YEC bc Christianity has ALWAYS taught YEC until Darwin came along. The ancient Christian calendars had the year since creation on them, and conservative Orthodox calendars still do, and the year is somehwere in the 7000s right now. many Russians thought the world was going to end in the early 1500s bc it was the 7000th year since creation. The Church Fathers unanimously taught of an earth less than 10,000 yrs old today. There is no theological reason to think otherwise--and im not about to let a scientist do my exegesis for me. unless the Holy Spirit has led ppl astray for 2000 yrs then YEC is the truth.

 

[KerrMetric]

Actually it hasn't always taught that. And never ever ever let a theologian do your science, engineering, medicine or technology for you. If you did you would lucky to have the wheel and fire never mind a laptop.

 

[jckstraw72]

when has Christianity NOT taught a young earth?

 

[KerrMetric]

Justin Martyr in the 2nd century argued against a literal Genesis. Clement of Alexandria also was troubled by a young earth position.

 

[steen]

The problem is twofold. One, we are dealing with fossils that transverse a large number of layers. If the layers are truly annual, then they laid there for a Looooong time. Even bones would have a problem with that -- although one could possibly postulate fossilation in place, but then you have a problem with an environment inhospitable to the plants. Of course, if the layers are not annual, there are no problems, but then the old earth chronological interpretation is challenged.

You never actually looked at the post I put together. did you? The organic material was not plants, it was algae that died during the wintertime and settled. The water was to deep, cold , lacking in gasses and acidic for plants to grow. It also was to cold, oxygen-poor and acidic for bacteria to thrive.

The second problem is that these fossils have a high degree of soft tissue (such as fins) preserved as well - not just bones.

Huh? Fins are not soft tissue. Please link to the evidence of soft tissue. I remember you had a similar claim in the past, where your link didn't show anything about soft tissue. Several of us asked for clarification, but you never answered.

 

[steen]

I've seen the Morton article before. It has some good information, and is nicely written. However, it does not address the core issue in this particular case. The catfish fossils transverse a large number of "annual" layers -- way more layers than can be described as "cold water" aiding preservation. The bulk of the fossils are found in a layer 18" thick with about 4,000 layers. Either the layers are not annual, or the fish did not decompose for over a hundred years.

But it DOES tell us 8-10 other very solid points supporting the varves as annual.

 

[Melethiel]

Justin Martyr in the 2nd century argued against a literal Genesis. Clement of Alexandria also was troubled by a young earth position.

And St. Augustine

 

[KerrMetric]

Augustine was caught betwixt the two. He argued the YEC position at times (since he didn't know any better) but he also said that if science and God given reason are at odds with the literal interpretation of Scripture then junk the literal interpretation.

 

[Jase]

Justin Martyr in the 2nd century argued against a literal Genesis. Clement of Alexandria also was troubled by a young earth position.

And lets not forget that Aquinas and Augustine specifically say not to argue for a literal Genesis among unbelievers as it makes Christianity look foolish to those who understand science. If science disagrees with a literal interpretation, the interpretation is most likely wrong.

But after going back and finishing the thread after i typed this, I see Augustine has already been taken care of

 

[LewisWildermuth]

When I was a YEC it was because that was the first group that snagged me after my conversion.

I'll give credit to the YEC's for being quick to grab onto the young Christians. They are all over events that draw young Christians, TE's could learn something from that.

 

[Assyrian]

Uh oh! A point of agreement? Can we do that here? <grin>
In Ps. 90, Moses is referring to God's perspective of time. I don't see how that affects Gen 1-- written for man.

Because there were no people around in the the time Gen 1 is talking about. It is giving us God's perspective, so Moses' comment on God's view of time, of what he sees as a day, especially in a psalm talking about the creation, should play an important part of any attempt to comprehend God's timescale, future or past.

Of course, another support for a more literal reading of Genesis is Jesus' geneaology in Luke 3. It goes all the way back to Adam, implying Adam was a real person, and the events were as described. There's a thread in the TE area (where I am careful about posting) that gives a more spiritualized interpretation, but to me the list is pretty compelling.

I am not sure the relevance here, as many TEs believe in a literal Adam. I don't, I think he was as figurative as the snake. But there is no conflict between evolution and believing in a literal Adam, as long as you don't take the picture of God making a clay idol of himself literally. God as a potter is a theme that come up throughout the bible, but it is a metaphor.

But anyway, Luke tells us this was only what people supposed was Jesus' genealogy.