Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and The Young Earth.

[Hieronymus]

And, indeed, I explained that science works within its limitations based on human frailty. BUT that being said science is the best way to eliminate as much personal bias as is humanly possible.

That's how it SHOULD work.
Now the bias / consensus in main stream / popular(ized) science is naturalism, so there is no room for a creator, so everything has to be explained by natural phenomena, even the origins of our fine tuned universe and the mindbogglingly complex and genius thing called living nature.
So there's no search for an explanation, the explanation is already embraced, and it has to be naturalistic.

In fact it is the only tool that is fit to do that.

That's not the point.

Look at your desire to use God as an "explanatory variable" when assessing the origins or history of the earth.

Desire? No, it's a conviction. Logic and reason based on our common reality.
The evidence points to creation, there is a reason everything exists.
Maybe it's your desire that everything exists without a purpose or reason.
Most people nowadays don't like the idea of a superior being owning everything.

Which God? The creation stories of countless different societies can't all be right.

That's a theological question.

So why is your preferred version in Genesis correct and their incorrect?

Because it has the strongest case. It's not my preference.
I had no idea before i went on a search.

Stratigraphy does not support a young earth age.

Yes it does. You should look into it some time. You'll see.

Just look at the varves in the Green River formation. Or how about shale layers that are many, many feet thick interbedded with thick limestones. Those things don't form "quickly". They require a LONG time to accumulate in very calm waters.

That's the naturalistic model you have been taught.
Strata form rapidly in reality.

And the fact that you can find many of these stacked on top of each other amounting to hundreds and hundreds of feet of accumulated sediment indicates anything but a young earth.

It indicates there was a short period with loads of mud streams. This was probably the great flood.
Look at what happened with Mount St Helens.
There's a mini grand canyon there now, it was formed in days.

Some of us have, however spent years and years studying geology.

Yeah, but you're bound to the naturalistic models usually.
But there are people who have spent years studying geology on both sides.

 

[Ophiolite]

Strata form rapidly in reality. It indicates there was a short period with loads of mud streams. This was probably the great flood.

It is little wonder I am bald.

 

[Obliquinaut]

That's how it SHOULD work.
Now the bias / consensus in main stream / popular(ized) science is naturalism, so there is no room for a creator, so everything has to be explained by natural phenomena, even the origins of our fine tuned universe and the mindbogglingly complex and genius thing called living nature.

Did you not read my earlier posts? The ones in which I explained why it is problematic to propose a "supernatural" explanation? I thought I made a rather clear and cogent explanation but it seems you choose to simply ignore it.

The evidence points to creation, there is a reason everything exists.
Maybe it's your desire that everything exists without a purpose or reason.

What about those people who, following their conception of God, feel their purpose is to destroy the infidel and kill him and his family utterly?

Therein lies the problem. OBVIOUSLY you will say "God would never command that!" But indeed someone's god has done so to the utter conviction of the follower.

One need only read the Bible itself for that! 1Sam 15:3.

Yes it does. You should look into it some time.

I have a PhD in geology. I'm willing to bet I've done more stratigraphy and studied more sedimentology than you have by a very long shot.

Strata form rapidly in reality

Do you know what a shale is? Let me help you: it is a fine grained rock made up largely of what are called CLAY MINERALS. Clay minerals are often very tiny flat plates that easily stay suspended in water for a long time. If there is any turbulence in that water at all it will be almost impossible for the clay sized minerals to settle out of the water. And when they do settle it is very slowly to accumulate into a layer of any thickness.

This is easily shown. I used to work in an X-Ray lab that did XRD on clays. They had to put the clays suspended in water in a very calm setting in order to get the clays to settle out on the slides that were used in the XRD. It took a LONG time and it was only to get a layer less than a few microns thick!

Now tell me exactly how quickly a layer of shale that is 100feet thick (rather common on earth) took to form.

. It indicates there was a short period with loads of mud streams. This was probably the great flood.

Again, any turbulence and well-bedded shales will NOT form. Let alone hundreds of feet of thickness.

Oh, yeah, and one other key point: geologists know what kind of deposits flooding creates. And there is no global flood layer.

Look at what happened with Mount St Helens.
There's a mini grand canyon there now, it was formed in days.

That "mini-grand canyon" is not cutting down through hundreds and hundreds of feet of solid rock, some near the bottom of the Grand Canyon are actually metamorphic so very hard.

And trust me as a PhD geologist: geologists could tell you the difference between the erosional aspects after Mt St Helens and the Grand Canyon quite easily.

But there are people who have spent years studying geology on both sides.

Not as many on your side as you might think. Yeah there are some YEC geologists. Usually their work is of relatively questionable value. As an example of a geologist who was a YEC take Glenn Morton. He's a pretty nasty person generally (he used to post on CF and he was really just a rather unpleasant person). He was a YEC and then finally realized that his work as a geologist couldn't support the YEC position. BUT he never gave up his firmly held Christian faith. Last I understood he was still very much a Christian but no longer a YEC because of the science he was working with.

(And believe me, I am loathe to mention him. I really did not like him very much. The sad part was that he ultimately took down a lot of his webpages because he felt that atheists were using his disavowal of YEC as a means to attack Christianity. That was, of course, wrong of them to do, but the disavowal of YEC still stood as far as I could tell).

 

[Hieronymus]

Did you not read my earlier posts? The ones in which I explained why it is problematic to propose a "supernatural" explanation? I thought I made a rather clear and cogent explanation but it seems you choose to simply ignore it.

Apparently i forgot to quote that post along with the other ones.
It seems you choose to think i choose a lot though..
But when the evidence shows us complexity and genius, something that dead unconscious forces with no purpose can hardly be considered to be able to bring forth, there is no need to 'propose' a Creator, because it has always been assumed, believed, revealed and claimed even, that a Creator is responsible for it.
So if the naturalistic view doesn't add up, because they have no answers to too many questions, what alternative to naturalism is left?
What has more explanatory power?
Intention or no intention?
Intelligence or no intelligence?
A conscious origin or an unconscious origin?

What about those people who, following their conception of God, feel their purpose is to destroy the infidel and kill him and his family utterly?

Many people are told lies and are brainwashed by people with the power and ambition to do so.
It's all enormously controversial.
But institutionalized religion is not the same as investigating if God exists.

Therein lies the problem. OBVIOUSLY you will say "God would never command that!" But indeed someone's god has done so to the utter conviction of the follower.

Yes, this is the sad truth...
But as i just said, this also has to do with how people behave, especially people who assume power over other people.
None the less, yes, the 'pagan gods' are usually not about "Love thy neighbour" and "bless your enemies" and things like that.

One need only read the Bible itself for that! 1Sam 15:3.

The context should explain that.
The Amalek were apparently one of the giant (Nephilim) tribes, and they were an abomination (wickedness and bloodshed) in God's territory.
The Nephilim were not considered human, they were half human, not creatures of God but hybrids resulting from what Genesis 6 describes.
And before you dismiss this immediately, consider the fact that there are many ancient tellings from all over the world about giants who were 'not nice' to humanity.
The last giant clan was apparently eradicated in David's time.
Apparently Goliath of Gad and his brothers were the last ones.

I have a PhD in geology. I'm willing to bet I've done more stratigraphy and studied more sedimentology than you have by a very long shot.

You have probably been taught the naturalistic version, and you have subscribed to that.
I say "naturalistic version" because it's part of the collection of models that naturalism upholds.
Everything needs a lot of time in that model, as you may well know.
I don't blame you either, it's how it is in the world of science.
If you're interested, i have some video's you may want to watch, to get an idea of where i'm coming from:

Do you know what a shale is? Let me help you: it is a fine grained rock made up largely of what are called CLAY MINERALS. Clay minerals are often very tiny flat plates that easily stay suspended in water for a long time. If there is any turbulence in that water at all it will be almost impossible for the clay sized minerals to settle out of the water. And when they do settle it is very slowly to accumulate into a layer of any thickness.

This is easily shown. I used to work in an X-Ray lab that did XRD on clays. They had to put the clays suspended in water in a very calm setting in order to get the clays to settle out on the slides that were used in the XRD. It took a LONG time and it was only to get a layer less than a few microns thick!

Now tell me exactly how quickly a layer of shale that is 100feet thick (rather common on earth) took to form.

I would have to look into that specifically.
I have no answer.
But i know that clay on the bottom of a lake is a thick sludge that could easily wash along with brutal floods and be deposited, with stuff suspended in it.
Let's not forget the flood was a cataclysmic event that never before or after has occurred.
It included (as the story goes) waters from the deep, and i don't know what was dissolved / suspended in those waters.
I think i understand that from your point of view it is a problem for my convictions / beliefs.

Again, any turbulence and well-bedded shales will NOT form. Let alone hundreds of feet of thickness.

Oh, yeah, and one other key point: geologists know what kind of deposits flooding creates. And there is no global flood layer.

The idea is that most of the layers were formed by the flood event.
Mud and stuff washes this way, settles, gets flushed from another direction, settles, gets eroded rapidly by subsequent streams, a big mess of disaster.
We can see around Mount St Helens what can be done in a matter of days.

That "mini-grand canyon" is not cutting down through hundreds and hundreds of feet of solid rock, some near the bottom of the Grand Canyon are actually metamorphic so very hard.

Well, that is to expected with all that weight on top, isn't it?
No liquids can stay in there for too long, obviously.

And trust me as a PhD geologist: geologists could tell you the difference between the erosional aspects after Mt St Helens and the Grand Canyon quite easily.

I bet they can.

Not as many on your side as you might think.

I know.
It's rather unconformistic.

Yeah there are some YEC geologists.

There are also geologists who become YECs.

Usually their work is of relatively questionable value.

To the conformists, obviously it is questionable.

As an example of a geologist who was a YEC take Glenn Morton. He's a pretty nasty person generally (he used to post on CF and he was really just a rather unpleasant person). He was a YEC and then finally realized that his work as a geologist couldn't support the YEC position. BUT he never gave up his firmly held Christian faith. Last I understood he was still very much a Christian but no longer a YEC because of the science he was working with.

I guess both sides have their nasty persons.
But let me say this.
I know i come across as very very convinced, but i'm not as convinced as i may sound.
I sometimes suffer from information overload and i'm not specialized in anything.
But what i have found out about mainstream science is that they just as creationists have beliefs they try to prove.
The best example is the evolution fantasy we're having shoved down our throats form every direction.
The whole idea is preposterous, knowing what we know now about living nature.
This makes me doubt just about everything else mainstream science brainwashes us with.
I'm of course referring to their answers to the questions about the origins of things, not about natural sciences regarding our present day reality, like physics and biology.
But even in quantum physics there is a lobby pushing ideas, which most people take for granted "because it is science".
So to me, mainstream science has ruined their own credibility.
I mean, if you need guys like Bill Nye, Krauss or Dawkins (and others) to convince people, you must have some deficits in your actual content.

 

[Steve Petersen]

 

[Hieronymus]

I think it's safe to say that a shill puppet like Nye will not change Ham's mind.

 

[Obliquinaut]

You have probably been taught the naturalistic version, and you have subscribed to that.

But you see, I have studied geology. Extensively. What about you? If you wish to critique the shortcomings of geology...how much have you studied it and how much do you know of it?

I would have to look into that specifically.

You don't know about shale and you want to tell me about stratigraphy???

Wow! That's like saying you don't know the alphabet but you want to critique a book for me.

But i know that clay on the bottom of a lake is a thick sludge that could easily wash along with brutal floods and be deposited, with stuff suspended in it.

Honestly you need to take at least a geology 101 class. Just one would be a start.

Let's not forget the flood was a cataclysmic event that never before or after has occurred.

Here's thing that people who have never taken even one geology class don't know: stratigraphy utilizes something called correlation. Meaning we can "correlate" one strata with others across wide geographic extents. A global flood would leave TWO VERY MASSIVE BITS OF EVIDENCE that could not be explained otherwise:

1. GLOBALLY EXTENSIVE deposition (meaning there would be no areas in this global layer that showed "subaerial exposure", like dunes or stream meanders etc.) It would be global in extent and correlate to the same point in time.

2. A MASSIVE globally extensive extinction event in which animals across all ecosystems were simultaneously killed off followed by layers with no life until it all propogated back out from wherever Noah's ark landed (Arrarat).

We see NEITHER of these things. This doesn't even begin to get into the kind of stratigraphy we would expect to see in such a massive disaster. It would scream out like a sore thumb. But no such thing has been found.

If you would like an analogue that has been found look at what is called the K-T Boundary. This is the time when the DINOSAURS were killed off, likely by an asteroid strike off the coast of Mexico 65 million years ago. Interestingly enough there is a layer that shows up all over the earth that is enriched in the element Iridium. It is strange and marks the layer below which we find dinosaurs and above which we don't.

It couldn't be the NOachian Flood (because it is 65 million years old and there are NO signs of humans let alone any sort of real mammals apart from small shrew like creatures. AND because not all life was wiped out across the boundary)

I think i understand that from your point of view it is a problem for my convictions / beliefs.The idea is that most of the layers were formed by the flood event.

No, my point of view is formed by YEARS OF STUDY and actually going out to look at the rocks as well as understanding them in the laboratory as well. I've crawled across more rock formations than you have likely had hot meals.

Mud and stuff washes this way, settles, gets flushed from another direction, settles, gets eroded rapidly by subsequent streams, a big mess of disaster.

See, this is what you see because you have no training in geology. There is SO MUCH DETAIL you miss. It isn't just a big mess. People spend entire lives looking at these things in the tiniest details you can't even imagine.

What kind of hubris and pride does it take to critique a field you know next to nothing about?

We can see around Mount St Helens what can be done in a matter of days.Well, that is to expected with all that weight on top, isn't it?

Have you actually BEEN to Mt. St. Helens? Are you even marginally familiar with the structures we are talking about?

I know i come across as very very convinced, but i'm not as convinced as i may sound.

By all means stay convinced of your religious beliefs. But don't confuse your ignorance of geology with "wisdom" related to geology.

I sometimes suffer from information overload and i'm not specialized in anything.

Surely there is something you have studied and do for a living. Whatever that is, imagine if someone who didn't even have a single introductory class in it came up to you to tell you how it is all a big lie and you learned it all wrong.

But what i have found out about mainstream science is that they just as creationists have beliefs they try to prove.

You might do well to learn the history of geology.

The best example is the evolution fantasy we're having shoved down our throats form every direction.

And so we begin with a "Gish Gallop". Again, what do you know of paleontology or biology or genetics?

This makes me doubt just about everything else mainstream science brainwashes us with.

Yet here you are using a computer. And electricity. etc.

I'm of course referring to their answers to the questions about the origins of things, not about natural sciences regarding our present day reality, like physics and biology.

And, of course, you don't actually understand those enough to realize that things like PHYSICS tell us your hypotheses on how the rocks formed isn't the way it works.

But even in quantum physics there is a lobby pushing ideas, which most people take for granted "because it is science".

If you are having trouble with basic geology, I don't think you want to try to get into quantum. It isn't accepted "because it is science", it is accepted because it mathematically explains the data.

So to me, mainstream science has ruined their own credibility.

Yet you use the products of it every day. It is lucky for you that you don't need to understand much of it.

I mean, if you need guys like Bill Nye, Krauss or Dawkins (and others) to convince people, you must have some deficits in your actual content.

I have spent my life studying and working in the physical sciences. And what are you bringing me?

 

[Hieronymus]

But you see, I have studied geology. Extensively. What about you? If you wish to critique the shortcomings of geology...how much have you studied it and how much do you know of it?

You assume infallibility now?
Should this impress me?

You don't know about shale and you want to tell me about stratigraphy???

I don't tell anyone anything, other than try to explain i have a different point of view.
I linked some videos that will show you where i'm coming from.

Wow! That's like saying you don't know the alphabet but you want to critique a book for me.



Honestly you need to take at least a geology 101 class. Just one would be a start.



Here's thing that people who have never taken even one geology class don't know: stratigraphy utilizes something called correlation. Meaning we can "correlate" one strata with others across wide geographic extents. A global flood would leave TWO VERY MASSIVE BITS OF EVIDENCE that could not be explained otherwise:

1. GLOBALLY EXTENSIVE deposition (meaning there would be no areas in this global layer that showed "subaerial exposure", like dunes or stream meanders etc.) It would be global in extent and correlate to the same point in time.

2. A MASSIVE globally extensive extinction event in which animals across all ecosystems were simultaneously killed off followed by layers with no life until it all propogated back out from wherever Noah's ark landed (Arrarat).

We see NEITHER of these things. This doesn't even begin to get into the kind of stratigraphy we would expect to see in such a massive disaster. It would scream out like a sore thumb. But no such thing has been found.

We would expect many rock layers with millions of dead animals in them.
With rapid stratification comes rapid burial, which is needed for fossils like we can find them.

If you would like an analogue that has been found look at what is called the K-T Boundary. This is the time when the DINOSAURS were killed off, likely by an asteroid strike off the coast of Mexico 65 million years ago. Interestingly enough there is a layer that shows up all over the earth that is enriched in the element Iridium. It is strange and marks the layer below which we find dinosaurs and above which we don't.

It couldn't be the NOachian Flood (because it is 65 million years old and there are NO signs of humans let alone any sort of real mammals apart from small shrew like creatures. AND because not all life was wiped out across the boundary)

I'm not convinced.
What's your proof for the ages of the layers?
Why would i believe your assumptions?

No, my point of view is formed by YEARS OF STUDY and actually going out to look at the rocks as well as understanding them in the laboratory as well. I've crawled across more rock formations than you have likely had hot meals.

So, your interpretations can't be wrong, you can't have been taught models based on naturalistic philosophy, naturalism can not be the consensus in mainstream science?

See, this is what you see because you have no training in geology. There is SO MUCH DETAIL you miss. It isn't just a big mess. People spend entire lives looking at these things in the tiniest details you can't even imagine.

What kind of hubris and pride does it take to critique a field you know next to nothing about?

You probably know nothing about the flood models.
You probably only know the main stream interpretation.

Have you actually BEEN to Mt. St. Helens? Are you even marginally familiar with the structures we are talking about?



By all means stay convinced of your religious beliefs. But don't confuse your ignorance of geology with "wisdom" related to geology.

Look, you're a little angry, it seems.
I can understand that, because i can imagine it's frustrating to have a non expert like me dismiss your "YEARS OF STUDY".
But i think you 'refuse' to appreciate that there are different viewpoints on the matter.
YEARS OF STUDY doesn't change the fact that mainstream science tends to simply ignore the other viewpoint, because it means a TOTAL change of viewpoint to appreciate what they have to offer.
OF COURSE it is very different from what mainstream science has decided to be true.
This is difficult for the human mind on either side.

Surely there is something you have studied and do for a living. Whatever that is, imagine if someone who didn't even have a single introductory class in it came up to you to tell you how it is all a big lie and you learned it all wrong.

I understand that.

You might do well to learn the history of geology.



And so we begin with a "Gish Gallop". Again, what do you know of paleontology or biology or genetics?



Yet here you are using a computer. And electricity. etc.

I assume your irritation made you say that.
Well, it's a dumb remark, and i have already explained to you why it is dumb.
I even explained it in the post you are replying to now...
Here it is:

I'm of course referring to their answers to the questions about the origins of things, not about natural sciences regarding our present day reality, like physics and biology.

And, of course, you don't actually understand those enough to realize that things like PHYSICS tell us your hypotheses on how the rocks formed isn't the way it works.



If you are having trouble with basic geology, I don't think you want to try to get into quantum. It isn't accepted "because it is science", it is accepted because it mathematically explains the data.

Opinions vary.
There are a few great minds out there that have different views on quantum physics than what mainstream science subscribes too.

Yet you use the products of it every day. It is lucky for you that you don't need to understand much of it.

Again that strawman??

I have spent my life studying and working in the physical sciences. And what are you bringing me?

Videos.
Did you watch them?

 

[Obliquinaut]

You assume infallibility now?

Not at all. Just 3 university degrees in geology.

Should this impress me?

The fact that I have a degree in something you don't have? Well, perhaps. It certainly shows that I have more understanding of the topic than you do. You admitted you didn't even know anything about SHALE!

You don't have to believe a word I say. But you can't expect that your lack of background in this topic which I have dedicated years of study to would carry any weight with me, right?

I don't tell anyone anything, other than try to explain i have a different point of view.

You told me explicitly in an earlier post that stratigrapy supports a young earth. Sorry if you forgot your posts.

I'm not convinced.

Good. Study some geology and come back to me when you have some background in this topic.

What's your proof for the ages of the layers?

Absolute age can be measured by bounding ash layer radiometric dating, intrusion radiometric dating etc. Relative age can be inferred by standard sedimentology as well as correlation stratigraphy.

Why would i believe your assumptions?

You shouldn't.

That's the thing. If you don't believe what I say, study geology. Get a degree. Get 3 degrees in it!

NOTHING is stopping you. What you can't really support is coming up against a geologist and telling them they are likely wrong and your junior high school level understanding is more likely true.

You probably only know the main stream interpretation.

And likely you don't even know that. Unfortunately as I clearly laid out there are certain aspects to a global flood that should show up. None of which do.

You said earlier you believe in physics. Well physics kind of tells you what you should see. And you don't see anything like that.

Look, you're a little angry, it seems.

Let's try this: whatever it is you do for a living it is largely made up of idiots who are brainwashed into believing a lie. That includes you.

Does that sound good to you? Because that is what you are telling me.

If you read your Bible perhaps you will stumble across Luke 6:31 some time.

Tell me when you get to that part of the Bible.

But i think you 'refuse' to appreciate that there are different viewpoints on the matter.

But shouldn't you understand at least a modicum of what you are debating against????

I at least understand what you are saying and I can see the flaws in it clear as day.

And I'm not saying a THING about God's existence or anything theological. Your science doesn't work the way you think it does. If you think the rocks show young earth you are doing so without reference to any science.

Opinions vary.

Your opinions of physics? Because I've seen your opinions of geology and it doesn't strike me you know enough to have an opinion.

There are a few great minds out there that have different views on quantum physics than what mainstream science subscribes too.

Do you really want to talk about Quantum now??? Honestly? You don't even understand how rocks form and you think you have some insight into quantum???

I'll level with you: my PhD in geology was in geochemistry and I've spent the majority of my career as a research chemist. I use quantum concepts implicitly pretty much every day...and the deeper end of quantum flummoxes me! It's exceedingly difficult. And I've spent 20 years working in chemistry. IT doesn't get much more quantum than that!

Videos.
Did you watch them?

I don't have an hour to listen to the stuff that impresses you. I have 11 years of geology education and years of teaching geology. Honestly, if you think some creationist videos culled from YouTube are going to impress anyone, you have another think coming.

Absurd.

And remember: whatever it is you do for a living is a field made up largely of idiots who have been brainwashed into believing lies. They are all so incredibly stupid. I don't have any experience in what it is you do...I don't even KNOW what it is. But I do know that much.

Again: how does that make you feel?

 

[Hieronymus]

I don't have an hour to listen to the stuff that impresses you.

Earlier you asked for evidence for rapid stratification but now you choose to ignore it?
I guess you've grown attached to your beliefs too then..

 

[Ophiolite]

Earlier you asked for evidence for rapid stratification but now you choose to ignore it?
I guess you've grown attached to your beliefs too then..

The proper medium for communicating scientific evidence is via peer reviewed research articles in reputable journals, or textbooks produced by recognised experts.

I don't believe quatona is rejecting rapid stratification. (Certainly he shouldn't be.) He is rejecting the notion that rapid stratification can produces thousands of feet of sediment bearing multiple features demonstrably produced through slow, or mixed sedimentation.

Frankly suggestions that there is meaningful evidence of a global flood are ludicrous. Anyone who has spent as little as a couple of weeks field mapping, supplemented by observation of current depostional environments would be unable to claim there was a global flood without breaking into hysterical laughter.

To repeat, the complexity of the stratigraphic record is such that the only way to produce with a global flood is to miraculously make it look as if it all occurred over hundreds of millions of years. I have no problem if you wish to make that claim a miracle, but don't argue that the actual geology supports that nonsense. It doesn't.

 

[Juvenal]

As an example of a geologist who was a YEC take Glenn Morton. He's a pretty nasty person generally (he used to post on CF and he was really just a rather unpleasant person). He was a YEC and then finally realized that his work as a geologist couldn't support the YEC position. BUT he never gave up his firmly held Christian faith. Last I understood he was still very much a Christian but no longer a YEC because of the science he was working with.

(And believe me, I am loathe to mention him. I really did not like him very much. The sad part was that he ultimately took down a lot of his webpages because he felt that atheists were using his disavowal of YEC as a means to attack Christianity. That was, of course, wrong of them to do, but the disavowal of YEC still stood as far as I could tell).

Dear Ob,

Thank you for your posts. About Glenn ...

He was still alive a year ago, and I would have heard if he'd died. Cancer issues, though. Yes, he's still a Christian, and more, he's still a Biblical literalist, albeit both a creationary evolutionist and an old earther. That needs explaining.

He subscribes to a command reading of Genesis 1, supported by an author whose name I can't recall. The days, in his reading, are essentially simultaneous, consisting of commands for these things to be completed in their own time. The command for the "earth to bring forth" is a call for evolutionary processes to begin, leading to the origin of all species, including ours ... which he identifies as all organisms which could breed with modern humans if alive today.

This, because his geological dating is entirely conventional. He believes in a literal flood, universal only in the sense that it involved all of nascent humanity, in the Mediterranean basin following the Messinian event about 5 million years ago. (The flood waters washed the ark into Turkey.) Those Mediterranean creatures of 5 million years ago consisted of all of our biological ancestors, and were entirely human in his view, by his definition, supported by a general inter-fertility in mammalian species across species which have diverged for longer than that.

He's freely admitted to me that he never conquered his eponymous demon.

After his exit from publishing for YEC outlets, and later battling them, he took to tilting at climate science. I stopped interacting with him on that topic a few years back for a couple of reasons. Because it didn't feel right to argue with someone with his health issues, and because of how loud he yelled when I told him that's why I was disengaging.

Okay, so maybe enjoying that last one is a bit evil. But well deserved, I'd say, as you're quite right about his behavior. I've seen more pleasant skin infections.

As ever, Jesse

ps. His YEC-debunking articles are still available online, captured by one of his secular correspondents and published with a caution that they're not to be used to argue against Christianity, per his wishes. Interested parties should google, because I won't supply a link. I'm not quite that evil.

 

[Hieronymus]

Absolute age can be measured by bounding ash layer radiometric dating, intrusion radiometric dating etc. Relative age can be inferred by standard sedimentology as well as correlation stratigraphy.

It fails though.
The last of the 3 videos you refuse to watch points that out quite clearly in the first half.
And this is the main point.
Naturalistic models need lots and lots of time, otherwise it can't work.
But even with lots and lots of time the naturalistic beliefs are quite ambiguous.

 

[Juvenal]

Using secular science, Christians must make the hypothesis that the universe and the earth are billions of years old because of what secular scientists have surmised about other theories pertaining to the origin of life on earth.

Without the presupposition that humans evolved from single-celled organism over hundreds of millions of years, there is no reason to suppose that the universe is billions of years old.

... world that suddenly spawned life from nothing and requires billions of years of unknowable history to support that?

Dear LS,

As you've stressed this a number of times, you might wish to know this position runs contrary to the historical development and acceptance of an old earth chronology. Darwin's view of deep time in On the Origin of Species was informed by Lyell's Principles of Geology. He brought Volume 1 with him on the Beagle, and received a shipped copy of Volume 2 during the voyage.

Evolution: Library: Charles Lyell: Principles of Geology

Lyell himself never accepted Darwin's theory, and indeed there has never been any absolute, rather than relative, dating method proposed that uses biology to inform geological dating, to the best of my knowledge. Deep time in geology is measured using an investigation of decay rates of long-lived radioisotopes, with no input from organisms. When biologists wish to date a fossil that's millions of years old, they always defer to the geologists, and never the other way around.

You may wish to revise this argument.

As ever, Jesse

 

[Hieronymus]

Dear LS,

As you've stressed this a number of times, you might wish to know this position runs contrary to the historical development and acceptance of an old earth chronology.

So?

Darwin's view of deep time in On the Origin of Species was informed by Lyell's Principles of Geology. He brought Volume 1 with him on the Beagle, and received a shipped copy of Volume 2 during the voyage.

Evolution: Library: Charles Lyell: Principles of Geology

Lyell himself never accepted Darwin's theory, and indeed there has never been any absolute, rather than relative, dating method proposed that uses biology to inform geological dating, to the best of my knowledge. Deep time in geology is measured using an investigation of decay rates of long-lived radioisotopes, with no input from organisms. When biologists wish to date a fossil that's millions of years old, they always defer to the geologists, and never the other way around.

But what if the dating methods are not reliable?

You may wish to revise this argument.

or maybe not.
You're fully depending on dating methods that have huge problems of their own.
So then how can you date a fossil when you have ambiguous datings from geology?
How can someone even date a fossil that is millions of years old when they don't know if it's millions of years old?
The labs even refuse to carbon 14 date fossils that are supposedly millions of years old, but those who do anyway come back with finding Carbon 14 in it anyway, even in diamonds.
Did you know the radiometric labs dismiss the bulk of the results because it's not in line with what is expected?
So why should i believe in millions or even billions of years?
Why should anybody believe that?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Earlier you asked for evidence for rapid stratification but now you choose to ignore it?
I guess you've grown attached to your beliefs too then..

Here's a challenge for you: summarize the key points.

You see, most of the YEC's I've met can't actually do that. All they can do is point at a video because it sounded all sciencey and everything and in their world that's all that matters. Of course they don't understand one point about it, let alone how to summarize it.

If it matters to you that it seems legit summarize it for me..

If you can't then I'll assume it isn't worth my while. I can summarize geology all the live long day for you (as I already have).

So do me a favor and summarize what it was that impressed you the most.

 

[Obliquinaut]

It fails though.

Tell me how exactly. I can tell you have radiometric dating works if you like. Let's see if you can tell me why your favorite beliefs work.

Naturalistic models need lots and lots of time, otherwise it can't work.
But even with lots and lots of time the naturalistic beliefs are quite ambiguous.

I don't think you will be able to explain any of the criticism to me. I will be surprised if you can.

Most YEC's can't. All they can do is point at their favorite videos. Because they don't understand what is being said to them, they just know they like it.

 

[Hieronymus]

Here's a challenge for you: summarize the key points.

Dating methods are unreliable, strata formed rapidly.

You see, most of the YEC's I've met can't actually do that. All they can do is point at a video because it sounded all sciencey and everything and in their world that's all that matters. Of course they don't understand one point about it, let alone how to summarize it.

How about yourself?
You didn't even watch the videos.
You asked for evidence but now you want me to try to summarize it.
Then i choose to refer you to the source (videos) because you think i don't understand it anyway.

If it matters to you that it seems legit summarize it for me..

As if you would believe me.
You're just classically copping out.
Fine by me, cop out if that's what you want.

 

[Hieronymus]

Tell me how exactly. I can tell you have radiometric dating works if you like. Let's see if you can tell me why your favorite beliefs work.

I know how it works, i know how it's supposed to work, i know that it's unreliable in reality. VERY unreliable even.

I don't think you will be able to explain any of the criticism to me. I will be surprised if you can.

I don't care.
It's not about me, is it?

Most YEC's can't. All they can do is point at their favorite videos. Because they don't understand what is being said to them, they just know they like it.

This is basically your only point all the time. You are smart and creationists are dumb.
Well, so what?
Does that say ANYTHING AT ALL about the actual evidence and the case that can be made?
No, it only shows your academic arrogance, which happens to fully blind you from anything that may be a danger to your beliefs that you have meticulously built up with "YEARS OF STUDYING" your chosen point of view.

SO THEN, how about we skip the ad hominems and arguing from ignorance and assuming authority?
You think we can do that? Let's try it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm curious as to how Christians in general feel about young earth creationism and groups like Answers in Genesis. I know their views are among the minority of Christian thought but I don't know how they're regarded by mainstream Christians. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the idea of a young earth creation and of the proponents of that view.

YEC:

My pastor is a YEC, and YECs believe that there are some 80 different ways to date the earth, and that evolutionists pick only the few (about four) that return deep time and make excuses for why the other seventy-six are wrong. I have a deep amount of respect for YECs, but I can't bring myself to subscribe to their mindset. In fact, I'm so close to being a YEC that most people can't tell the difference.

Answers in Genesis:

In my opinion, their passion for force-fitting science into a YEC timeframe ruins their credibility. But I do feel they are more right than wrong.