Questions about/problems with YEC

UncleRicky · Feb 24, 2006

RightWingGirl said:
Wouldn't God create in a state of full functioning maturity? It wouldn't make sense that he would create a seed instead of a flower, or a fetus instead of a full-frown man. By the same token He created the stars in a state of full functioning maturity--so we could see them.

THere is an interesting theory which, while I am still not sure about it, might interest you on this matter. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/cosmology.asp

I have a question for you. When God told the Hebrews, in Exodus 20:11 "For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is]," What do you think the Hebrews, who believed in Genesis 1 literally, thought God meant by that? And God, all knowing, knew that this verse would "deceived" them (if evolution is correct) even before He said it, and yet He said it. Why?

Very good points indeed RWG,

God always has His reasone for doing things the way He does, even if we don't understand the reasons. Your question regarding Ex. 20 is excellent, but doesn't prove that God necessarily created the earth in 144 hours. You May be right, but this passage doesn't clinch it.

No matter how God did it, I will still have questions for Him as to why we as His followers were allowed to be so divided in our conclusions - and not just about this particular subject.
So for me, I'm happy to wait for God to 'splain it to me in good time.

Until then, I'm enjoying the journey.

Cheers,
Rick

http://unclerickysperigrinations.blogspot.com/

OldWiseGuy · Feb 24, 2006

RWG,

I live in Wisconsin, where we can average 50 inches of snowfall each winter. If a scientist visited Wisconsin in the summer, after all snow had melted, he could not, and would not, conclude that snow had ever fallen, as there is absolutely no evidence. Reports of such snowfall would be discarded as folk tale or hearsay. No evidence, no snowfall.

Same with a bare beach, swept clean by a tsumani of all evidence of human habitation. The large piles of debris a mile or more away are not evidence of habitation on the beach, regardless of what the displaced people say. No evidence, no tsunami.

Several have stated that there must be a uniform layer of flood sediment worldwide, or no worldwide flood. The scientific fact that floods can wash away as much evidence as they deposit doesn't enter the discussion. The flood of Noah could not possibly have laid down any uniform evidence of any kind. (And they know that!)

So this is what you're facing when argueing with those who believe science over the bible account.

KerrMetric · Feb 24, 2006

oldwiseguy said:
Several have stated that there must be a uniform layer of flood sediment worldwide, or no worldwide flood. The scientific fact that floods can wash away as much evidence as they deposit doesn't enter the discussion. The flood of Noah could not possibly have laid down any uniform evidence of any kind. (And they know that!)

So this is what you're facing when argueing with those who believe science over the bible account.

You are joking I hope. Where did the debris go?

Willtor · Feb 24, 2006

oldwiseguy said:
RWG,

I live in Wisconsin, where we can average 50 inches of snowfall each winter. If a scientist visited Wisconsin in the summer, after all snow had melted, he could not, and would not, conclude that snow had ever fallen, as there is absolutely no evidence. Reports of such snowfall would be discarded as folk tale or hearsay. No evidence, no snowfall.

Same with a bare beach, swept clean by a tsumani of all evidence of human habitation. The large piles of debris a mile or more away are not evidence of habitation on the beach, regardless of what the displaced people say. No evidence, no tsunami.

Several have stated that there must be a uniform layer of flood sediment worldwide, or no worldwide flood. The scientific fact that floods can wash away as much evidence as they deposit doesn't enter the discussion. The flood of Noah could not possibly have laid down any uniform evidence of any kind. (And they know that!)

Where did the flood wash the evidence? Your Tsunami washed the evidence a mile or so away. Where did the flood wash it? The simple fact is that floods leave evidence. A universal flood would leave universal evidence. It's the way of things.

oldwiseguy said:
So this is what you're facing when argueing with those who believe science over the bible account.

This is the frustrating part of your post. Each of us disagrees with the other's interpretation, therefore you are correct and I don't believe the Bible.

RightWingGirl · Feb 24, 2006

KerrMetric said:
Hate to tell you - that isn't a theory. It admits that solar system objects are much younger but then states if you don't see that then God created things appearing old as a way out of the real evidence. It also introduces the different clock rates in an entirely ad hoc manner with no physical mechanism except a supernatural changing of clock rates. Complete garbage - as are some of the so called evidences cited as showing the earth is near the centre of the universe or the sun is young.

In other words it is not a scientific theory.

What are your scientific objections to this theory?

KerrMetric · Feb 24, 2006

RightWingGirl said:
What are your scientific objections to this theory?

I just told you some of them. (Oh - and it isn't a theory anyway).

It postulates some fantastical clock rate difference in a totally ad hoc manner with no physical reasoning even though we know what determines clock rates. It doesn't use these it just states IF in an ad hoc manner.

It then admits that this leaves the solar system young and the outside universe old BUT then this garbage covers it's own backside by stating well maybe God made it appear old anyway. In other words it is unfalsifiable and untestable. But just in case it throws in a couple of known pieces of nonsense about the Sun appearing young (which is pure garbage) or evidence for the Earth being near the centre of the universe.

In other words it wants the penny and the cake.

It states an ad hoc hypothesis and then states it predicts something BUT if we don't see that something then God made it appear that way to prevent the evidence being seen. Complete utter garbage a 7 year old could come up with. There is no science in it or to be had from it.

Do people really fall for this as science?

Of course what do you expect from Answers in Goofyness.

RightWingGirl · Feb 24, 2006

PaladinValer said:
If stars were created "in full maturity," then there should be proof of that. However, the proof shows that these stars began young. That implies that YECism doesn't hold up.

Assume for a momnet I am correct. What proof would ther be? What would you look for?

This was already soundly defeated as above.

Hmm...Maybe I missed something. I was told

I admits that solar system objects are much younger but then states if you don't see that then God created things appearing old as a way out of the real evidence.

which frankly doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe he was trying to type fast--I can end up with some fabulous jargel when I type too fast.
and

It also introduces the different clock rates in an entirely ad hoc manner with no physical mechanism except a supernatural changing of clock rates.

If you read throught the whole article they expain why the clock rates change, and it's not supernatural. If you want more information, you can also look here

This is an assumption that they took it literally. And quite frankly, they thought that the Earth was a flat, circular disk with the abode of the dead literally beneath the Earth (as well as beneath a great subterranian sea) with four pillars holding up the sky, with the sun going around the Earth. Does that mean we should believe all that too? Because that's a literal taking of the Bible and ancient Hebrew cosmology?

Do you have any sources to confirm this?
THe only basis for the "flat earth, geocentic" Hebrew consomolgy I have ever found was odd interpretations of various verses of the Bible that have sometimes been thought to mean this. However the Bible nowhere implies that the world is flat. If you are interested in the subject, Christian Answers has a short article about it here.

When great calamities like a flood occur, they leave behind evidence that they occur. Take a look at the nile river; each year it flows, depositing a layer of rich silt that is phenominal for farming and cultivation. Now suppse it isn't farmed for a few years...when you do finally farm, there's a rather large layer of silt. Each new year atop an older year.

With floods, sediment is mixed up and carried. It is destinct; we can tell if there was a massive flood in an area depending on the earth in the layer. So if there really was a world-wide Deluge, there would be a layer of such sediment around the world. No layer, then no flood.

1. This isn't even Biblical.
2. This isn't physically possible. Previous geological record would have been layed down through the years beforehand.

If the pre-flood world was very stable, and lasted only 2,000 years, what kind of a record would you expect it to leave?

1. Fossilization is actually a rare process that requires special and right conditions of it to occur. Not all ancient bones get fossilized...it truly is a special and unique event.
2. Fossiles are discovered all the time. We probably haven't discovered even 5% of the fossils that are buried (or even found right on the surface of the Earth) around the world. New fossils are discovered all the time.

I am aware that few fossils are ever found, and that is why (if for some reason more modern animals tended to end up fossilized raher than animals that lived a longer time ago) I only expect 50%, not 75%. Of those 5% we have found, at very least 40% would be missing links.

The orginial number I came up with was 70%. I would not be as sceptical if I could at least be shown that 10% of the fossils we find are "missing links" or "in-betweens". Only 10% from 70%!

KerrMetric · Feb 24, 2006

RightWingGirl said:
I admits that solar system objects are much younger but then states if you don't see that then God created things appearing old as a way out of the real evidence.

which frankly doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe he was trying to type fast--I can end up with some fabulous jargel when I type too fast.
and

NO - it was written and posted on Answers In Goofyness because they couldn't do science if there life depended upon it. It isn't a message board post but an article which therefore cannot be explained by typing fast.

It doesn't make sense because it doesn't make sense. That simple really.

It also introduces the different clock rates in an entirely ad hoc manner with no physical mechanism except a supernatural changing of clock rates.

Click to expand...

If you read throught the whole article they expain why the clock rates change, and it's not supernatural.

From the article:

Answers in Goofyness article said:
I propose a new model of type 3. During Creation Week, all clocks on Earth, at least up to Day 4, ran at about 1013 times the rate of astronomical clocks. Actually the rate is a parameter of the model. All astronomical clocks in the cosmos run at the same rate that we would measure any normal clock today. They have always done so except under special circumstances where they might have been affected by gravity. During this time the rotation speed of the newly created Earth was about 1013 times the current rotation speed as measured by astronomical clocks, but normal by Earth clocks. By the close of Day 4 the clock rates on Earth rapidly speeded up to the same rate as the astronomical clocks. All of this was maintained under Gods creative power before He allowed the laws of physics to operate on their own at the end of Creation Week.

See it is ad hoc. See the last sentence. This is NOT science it is supernatural pandering. The reason it is ad hoc of course is because it is pure nonsense from non-scientists who are paid shills.

Willtor · Feb 24, 2006

RightWingGirl said:
...

I am aware that few fossils are ever found, and that is why (if for some reason more modern animals tended to end up fossilized raher than animals that lived a longer time ago) I only expect 50%, not 75%. Of those 5% we have found, at very least 40% would be missing links.

The orginial number I came up with was 70%. I would not be as sceptical if I could at least be shown that 10% of the fossils we find are "missing links" or "in-betweens". Only 10% from 70%!

But why would you expect this? This is what I'm not understanding in what you're saying? The 70% was arbitrary to begin with, as far as I can tell. If I tell you I should win the lottery about 70% of the time, and when you object I tell you I should win at least 10% of the time, it doesn't make my new number any better. Why? Why should we expect 10%? Does the theory of Evolution require that at least 10% of fossils should be transitional? Can you cite an Evolutionist who writes such a thing?

It just isn't the case that 10% of creatures that ever lived were what we would consider transitional. The whole argument for thriving species is that they are not transitional, but have fit well in their respective niches. Again, I have to ask: where did you get these numbers?

RightWingGirl · Feb 24, 2006

Willtor said:
But floods only lay down certain types of geological layers. For example, we would expect a layer of ash to come from a volcano eruption, not a flood. We expect it because when we look at volcanoes erupting, a layer of ash is what we get. When we look at floods, a layer of sediment is what we get. If there was a world-wide flood, it laid down a flood layer, not a volcanic layer. However, we don't have a universal flood layer.

If, as is thought, the continents split during the flood we would expect to find huge amounts of ash and volcanic debris in the geological column.

Is it 50%, 70%, or 80%? Why should half of the fossils we dig up be missing links? Wouldn't it make more sense if almost no fossils are missing links? What makes you think we're "missing" fossils? What makes you think Paleontologists have stopped digging for more? Where did you get your numbers?

My caculations are as follows. Please check my math, I might have mixed something up.

If Evolution were true, and we have been evolving for roughly the last 3,500 million years. Only in the past 1.6 million years we have had humans (erect), and modern animals in somthing like 250-300 million, which accounts for 300 million years. The "missing links" would be fossilized during the rest of the time, a 3,100 million year period.

Can you explain Evolution in a way that a TE would agree? I ask because I don't think you know what Evolution says.

This is going to be a bit short, but it's a large topic.
According to the theory of Evolution--- all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point some 10-20 billion years ago, and then it exploded in the "Big bang" The universe was then very hot, and animatter and matter colided with each other creating pure energy. Around 4.5 billion years ago the sun (and other parts of our solar sytem) formed. Our earth came along as a hot, molten sphere. The earth gradually cooled, and throught some unknown process, simple, single-celled organisms called "prokaryotes" appeared around 3.7 billion years ago. real "Evolution" which is supposed to center on biology began then. Land masses began shifting and seperateing. Throught millions of generations small changes built up and were favored by natural selection to prodcue more complex forms of life. Through the various eons and eras of the geological column life became more and more diverse and varied--Dinos evolved from primitive archosaurs, and were suddenly and mysteriously destroyed during the Cretaceous period. From dinos evloved birds; leaping from trees & odd "hair like follocules" evolved into feathers. "Genus Australopithecus" appeared from the monkey, 4 - 2.75 million years ago, and evolved, etc, thought various Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons etc. Ice ages came and went, and we arrive at ancient history. Or at least you do if you belive all of the above. I do not.

KerrMetric · Feb 24, 2006

RightWingGirl said:
According to the theory of Evolution--- all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point some 10-20 billion years ago, and then it exploded in the "Big bang" The universe was then very hot, and animatter and matter colided with each other creating pure energy. Around 4.5 billion years ago the sun (and other parts of our solar sytem) formed. Our earth came along as a hot, molten sphere. The earth gradually cooled, and throught some unknown process, simple, single-celled organisms called "prokaryotes" appeared around 3.7 billion years ago. real "Evolution" which is supposed to center on biology began then. Land masses began shifting and seperateing. Throught millions of generations small changes built up and were favored by natural selection to prodcue more complex forms of life. Through the various eons and eras of the geological column life became more and more diverse and varied--Dinos evolved from primitive archosaurs, and were suddenly and mysteriously destroyed during the Cretaceous period. From dinos evloved birds; leaping from trees & odd "hair like follocules" evolved into feathers. "Genus Australopithecus" appeared from the monkey, 4 - 2.75 million years ago, and evolved, etc, thought various Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons etc. Ice ages came and went, and we arrive at ancient history. Or at least you do if you belive all of the above. I do not.

Not only is a lot of that superfluous to evolution (and some of it just plain wrong) this entire thread is disingenuous.

You start off asking why to change your opinion but then just regurgitate your opinion - the opinion of a 16 year old child (speaking of which how does a child get to Moderate a primarily adult forum?) who doesn't know any science.

What is the point.

Dannager · Feb 24, 2006

RightWingGirl said:
According to the theory of Evolution--- all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point some 10-20 billion years ago, and then it exploded in the "Big bang"

Well, here's your first problem - this isn't the theory of evolution. This is the Big Bang and has nothing (absolutely nothing) to do with biological evolution. The theory of evolution doesn't start until life already existed.

The universe was then very hot, and animatter and matter colided with each other creating pure energy. Around 4.5 billion years ago the sun (and other parts of our solar sytem) formed. Our earth came along as a hot, molten sphere. The earth gradually cooled, and throught some unknown process, simple, single-celled organisms called "prokaryotes" appeared around 3.7 billion years ago.

This, right here, is the point where evolutionary theory begins. The everything before this point in your post has nothing to do with evolutionary theory and should have been left out.

real "Evolution" which is supposed to center on biology began then. Land masses began shifting and seperateing. Throught millions of generations small changes built up and were favored by natural selection to prodcue more complex forms of life. Through the various eons and eras of the geological column life became more and more diverse and varied--Dinos evolved from primitive archosaurs, and were suddenly and mysteriously destroyed during the Cretaceous period. From dinos evloved birds; leaping from trees & odd "hair like follocules" evolved into feathers. "Genus Australopithecus" appeared from the monkey, 4 - 2.75 million years ago, and evolved, etc, thought various Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons etc. Ice ages came and went, and we arrive at ancient history. Or at least you do if you belive all of the above. I do not.

The rest of this are events that evolutionary theory deals with and predicts (although the geological events are only tangentially related). But this isn't what you were asked for. This is a history run-down, not the definition of a theory. Could you please tell us what you think evolutionary theory says?

random_guy · Feb 24, 2006

KerrMetric said:
Not only is a lot of that superfluous to evolution (and some of it just plain wrong) this entire thread is disingenuous.

You start off asking why to change your opinion but then just regurgitate your opinion - the opinion of a 16 year old child (speaking of which how does a child get to Moderate a primarily adult forum?) who doesn't know any science.

What is the point.

Like I said, this thread is pointless. RWG can't even define evolution, conflates science that disagrees with a literal interpretation of the Bible as evolution, and doesn't use scientific accepted sources. There's really no way this can end well.

The problem is either you fight with science or you don't. If you're not using science, the deck is stacked against you in a scientific argument.

OldWiseGuy · Feb 24, 2006

KerrMetric said:
You are joking I hope. Where did the debris go?

It's all here, but not in the tidy layer that science demands.

In fact the flood left quite a mess.

OldWiseGuy · Feb 24, 2006

Willtor said:
Where did the flood wash the evidence? Your Tsunami washed the evidence a mile or so away. Where did the flood wash it? The simple fact is that floods leave evidence. A universal flood would leave universal evidence. It's the way of things.

The evidence of the Flood is everywhere, just not in the places and forms that science demands. Floods don't do what evolutionary science demands, they do what they do.

There is no evidence of flooding on the beach, just as there is no evidence in many places after a large flood. It has been washed away to another location. That means that one place has evidence, and another doesn't. Therefore, no flood, eh?

This is the frustrating part of your post. Each of us disagrees with the other's interpretation, therefore you are correct and I don't believe the Bible.

If science doesn't agree with the bible, it is wrong. Why is this frustrating for you?

random_guy · Feb 24, 2006

oldwiseguy said:
If science doesn't agree with the bible, it is wrong. Why is this frustrating for you?

That's the Creationist method of research. The scientific method is if the evidence does not support the theory, than the theory is wrong or needs to be revised. Rather than throw out evidence (again, Creationist method), you need to examine the evidence and incorporate it into the model.

That's why Creationists need to ad-hoc away radioactive dating since it doesn't agree with the literal interpretation of the Bible. They need things like speed up decay due to the Fall.

OldWiseGuy · Feb 24, 2006

random_guy said:
That's the Creationist method of research. The scientific method is if the evidence does not support the theory, than the theory is wrong or needs to be revised. Rather than throw out evidence (again, Creationist method), you need to examine the evidence and incorporate it into the model.

That's why Creationists need to ad-hoc away radioactive dating since it doesn't agree with the literal interpretation of the Bible. They need things like speed up decay due to the Fall.

I quite agree. The 'Creationist' model is wrong, as it doesn't agree with the bible.

OldWiseGuy · Feb 24, 2006

Does this warning include evolutionary science?

2 Corinthians 10:

4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds

5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Mmmmmm.

mark kennedy · Feb 24, 2006

KerrMetric said:
Not only is a lot of that superfluous to evolution (and some of it just plain wrong) this entire thread is disingenuous.

You start off asking why to change your opinion but then just regurgitate your opinion - the opinion of a 16 year old child (speaking of which how does a child get to Moderate a primarily adult forum?) who doesn't know any science.

What is the point.

The point is that the scenerio is not making sense. The earth forms around 4.5 billion years ago and then for whatever reason, live emerges about a billion years later. everything remains stable for about 2 billion years and then all of the sudden half a billion years ago all the major phylum appear without precursors.

What do you need to know about science to see the leaps in evolutionary transition here? Homo habilis jumps from having a brain the size of a grapefruit to double the size. Then after 1.5 million years of relative stasis it nearly doubles again. Did you honestly think no one would ever notice these leaps in the supposedly gradual transitition?

Leaps in transition, leaps in adaptation and tremendous leaps in logic are the mark of evolution as a theory of natural history. I think it takes a lot of assumptions to not be supprised that someone would ask why this is supposed to make sense.

KerrMetric · Feb 24, 2006

mark kennedy said:
The point is that the scenerio is not making sense. The earth forms around 4.5 billion years ago and then for whatever reason, live emerges about a billion years later. everything remains stable for about 2 billion years and then all of the sudden half a billion years ago all the major phylum appear without precursors.

Well I was technically commenting upon the thread purpose itself which was set up in a disingenuous manner by a Moderator (child) no less.

Well the latest results I believe put life at 3.8 Gyr ago. And the major phyla without precursors is almost undoubtedly a selection effect. It is known that many of the phyla had Pre-Cambrian precursors. Also the radiation in the PreCambrian also has to correlated with the reducing atmosphere slowly changing over to an oxidising one.

Leaps in transition, leaps in adaptation and tremendous leaps in logic are the mark of evolution as a theory of natural history. I think it takes a lot of assumptions to not be supprised that someone would ask why this is supposed to make sense.

Why do Creationists expect a perfect fossil record? What makes them believe that evolution should be cranking away at the same rate throughout geologic history?

What do you expect? It seems every Creationist demands every i dotting and t crossed OR they toss out the entire theory. Yet they apply this logic to nothing else. The fact is the evidence from so many sources that evolution occurs and has occurred in the past is overwhelming. Whether it be the fossil record, molecular biology or developmental biology.

I agree with the asking questions but the all around silliness of the questions on here sometimes is embarrassing.

By the way your comments about H. Habilis brain size changes are wrong from what I remember.

Questions about/problems with YEC

Regular Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Back in Town

Senior Veteran

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Senior Veteran

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency