Why YEC leaders should not be believed without checking sources

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
74
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟16,783.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Recently someone on some list threw the Lake Walensee 'varves' at me as evidence that geological estimates of the age of the earth are wrong. The basic concept comes from places like this:

"However, Lambert and Hsu have presented evidence from a Swiss lake that these varve-layers form rapidly by catastrophic, turbid water underflows. At one location five couplets of these 'varves' formed during a single year." Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling and Carl Wieland, The Answers Book, (El Cajon: Master Books, 1990), p. 51.





“A lake in Switzerland, which was thought to accumulate one lamina pair each year, was shown to accumulate up to five laminae pairs per year, by a rapid, turbid-water, underflow process. One layer within the Swiss lake dates from the year 1811, but was observed in 1971 to be buried beneath 300 to 360 varvelike silt laminae." Steven A. Austin, "Interpreting Strata of Grand Canyon," in Steven A. Austin, editor, Grand Canyon: A Monument to Catastrophe, (Santee: Inst. for Creation Research, 1994), p. 38.





Attached is a photo from that paper showing the VAST difference between the Lake Walensee layers (which are storm layers) compared to actual VARVE layers. Anyone, even a YEC leader like Ham or Austin ought to be able to see the difference, but, they report to their followers that Walensee is identical to varve deposits. This simply isn't so. and this is why one should not trust what the YEC leaders tell you about geology. They won't tell you the truth, but pictures will.



The picture is from Lambert and Hsu, "Non-Annual cycles of varve-like Sedimentation in Lake Walensee, Switzerland," Sedimentology, 26(1979): 460



One would think Austin and Ham only read the title of the article and didn't actually look at the pictures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr.GH
J

Jet Black

Guest
This reminds me of the AIG article "A Whale of a Tail" or something like that, in which they claim that the atavistic hind legs are nothing but shards of bone, and show a picture of a whale spine with a bony disease. Quite why they show that I don't know, and it does not address at all the actual pictures of whale atavistic hind limbs. It's on a par with your pucture there that they imply that two things are the same, when they are and look nothing like one another.
 
Upvote 0

AnEmpiricalAgnostic

Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany
May 25, 2005
2,734
186
49
South Florida
Visit site
✟11,486.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
grmorton said:
YEC leaders should not be believed without checking sources
Once the flood gates of faith are open aren’t they just supposed to believe everything they are told? I mean c’mon, once someone starts asking for sources and evidence and such they’ll become prone to critically examining everything. The whole fabric of YECism will unravel. ;)


 
Upvote 0

llDayo

Senior Member
Sep 27, 2004
848
30
45
Lebanon, PA
✟1,162.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Could someone explain the left photograph to me? I'm not doubting anything on river varves here but I don't know enough about them to understand what I'm looking at in the left one. The right photograph is quite clear on the sedimentation but the left one isn't (at least to me).
 
Upvote 0

Chuck_Darwin

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
651
39
53
Holland, Michigan
Visit site
✟1,023.00
Faith
Atheist
Of course it is ok to lie if you are serving the higher good. Just ask St. Paul:

For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more
And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them under the Law, that I might gain them that are under the Law;
To them that are without the law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ) that I might gain them that are under the law.
To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
I CORINTHIANS 9:19-22

 
Upvote 0

LittleNipper

Contributor
Mar 9, 2005
9,011
173
MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
✟10,349.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
grmorton said:
Recently someone on some list threw the Lake Walensee 'varves' at me as evidence that geological estimates of the age of the earth are wrong. The basic concept comes from places like this:

"However, Lambert and Hsu have presented evidence from a Swiss lake that these varve-layers form rapidly by catastrophic, turbid water underflows. At one location five couplets of these 'varves' formed during a single year." Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling and Carl Wieland, The Answers Book, (El Cajon: Master Books, 1990), p. 51.





“A lake in Switzerland, which was thought to accumulate one lamina pair each year, was shown to accumulate up to five laminae pairs per year, by a rapid, turbid-water, underflow process. One layer within the Swiss lake dates from the year 1811, but was observed in 1971 to be buried beneath 300 to 360 varvelike silt laminae." Steven A. Austin, "Interpreting Strata of Grand Canyon," in Steven A. Austin, editor, Grand Canyon: A Monument to Catastrophe, (Santee: Inst. for Creation Research, 1994), p. 38.





Attached is a photo from that paper showing the VAST difference between the Lake Walensee layers (which are storm layers) compared to actual VARVE layers. Anyone, even a YEC leader like Ham or Austin ought to be able to see the difference, but, they report to their followers that Walensee is identical to varve deposits. This simply isn't so. and this is why one should not trust what the YEC leaders tell you about geology. They won't tell you the truth, but pictures will.



The picture is from Lambert and Hsu, "Non-Annual cycles of varve-like Sedimentation in Lake Walensee, Switzerland," Sedimentology, 26(1979): 460



One would think Austin and Ham only read the title of the article and didn't actually look at the pictures.

It seems to me that the entire thing is up to interpretation. One will see what one wishes to see or exactly one has been taught to see; however, what is there is logically without real eye witness support either way.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AnEmpiricalAgnostic

Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany
May 25, 2005
2,734
186
49
South Florida
Visit site
✟11,486.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
LittleNipper said:
It seems to me that the entire thing is up to interpretation. One will see what one wishes to see or exactly one has been taught to see; however, what is there is logically without real eye witness support either way.
Eye witness isn’t all it’s cracked up to be and really has nothing to do with what this thread is about. What we are dealing with here is tangible, material, empirical evidence. Sure, if there are no “eye witnesses” and no evidence of any kind then all there would be is interpretation and conjecture. In this case however we have something tangible and (what should be) pretty apparent but has been misrepresented by the YEC to further their agenda. The issue being that although one sample was made of layers that accumulated at a faster than annual rate, the difference between them and the regular annual sample is blatantly apparent. The YECers would like everyone to believe that they are the same and since one developed faster than the other then we can’t use any of them as a measuring stick of sorts to tell the age of the earth. The reality is that we can tell which one is an annual deposit and which is not so there is no need to discredit using it for dating purposes. No interpretation, just YEC deception.
 
Upvote 0

Frumious Bandersnatch

Contributor
Mar 4, 2003
6,390
334
77
Visit site
✟15,931.00
Faith
Unitarian
AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:
Eye witness isn’t all it’s cracked up to be and really has nothing to do with what this thread is about. What we are dealing with here is tangible, material, empirical evidence. Sure, if there are no “eye witnesses” and no evidence of any kind then all there would be is interpretation and conjecture. In this case however we have something tangible and (what should be) pretty apparent but has been misrepresented by the YEC to further their agenda. The issue being that although one sample was made of layers that accumulated at a faster than annual rate, the difference between them and the regular annual sample is blatantly apparent. The YECers would like everyone to believe that they are the same and since one developed faster than the other then we can’t use any of them as a measuring stick of sorts to tell the age of the earth. The reality is that we can tell which one is an annual deposit and which is not so there is no need to discredit using it for dating purposes. No interpretation, just YEC deception.

Of course we can witness the annual varves that are laid down today and geologists can tell the differences between lamina that are varves and those that aren't. YECs have been playing this some lamina are not annual varves so no lamina that indicate ages beyond the YEC timeframe are annual varves for a long time. It is easy to see that their logic is totally false. It is logically equivalent to saying that some dogs are not black so no black animal can be a dog. The YEC claim in question is then like showing a picture of a black cat to prove that black animals can't be dogs. To someone who had never seen a dog or cat and desperately needed to believe that there were no black dogs this might be a convincing approach.

F.B.
 
Upvote 0

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
74
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟16,783.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
LittleNipper said:
It seems to me that the entire thing is up to interpretation. One will see what one wishes to see or exactly one has been taught to see; however, what is there is logically without real eye witness support either way.

First off, you can't live consistently that way. Most murders are done without any eyewitnesses and we have little problem confining someone for life under such circumstances. Most infidelities are rather private and generally one doesn't have a problem figuring out if one's spouse is playing around, even if one doesn't actually see it. Most thefts are done when no one is looking but we likewise will take away a guy's freedom for years for something no one saw. When one sees a footprint in mud, we have no doubt that an animal made that footprint even though we didn't see it. Likewise why should we have doubt that an animal made a track we see fossilised in solid rock? But no one saw the animal move his leg. Please tell me why it is ok to conclude that a cow made a footprint on a muddy creek bank when you didn't see it and it is not right to conclude that a varve formed in the year 20AD was actually a varve when we see varves forming today like we see cowprints being made today?

Secondly, the varves are being seen to form today, so they are not without an eyewitness to their formation. Thus, your approach is inconsistent and wrong.

And I must ask, like others, why are you ignoring the fact that YEC leaders have spoken as if there is no difference between Lake Walensee and Varves, when surely even you can see that the pictures are different? Is such behavior, representing those two sediments as being identical actually the morally correct thing to do?
 
Upvote 0

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
74
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟16,783.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Matthew777 said:
Hey, did the members of ICR really call you a heretic? That's pretty lame if they are that low.

Peace.

No, AiG and Russ Humphreys called me an apostate. I sent a stern note to Russ and he quickly changed the web page (for which I am grateful. I go to church regularly so I don't think I am an apostate) With AiG they insisted on continuing to call me an apostate. I had to threaten to sue (and I was in the process of contacting a lawyer) when I got an email from Mr. Ham saying that they would change it but then he asked me why I would (unbiblically) want to sue a Christian brother in secular courts. I thought the cheek was wonderful. They call me an apostate and then when threatened they pull out the 'we're christian brothers routine'. I still have copies of that email, but, Ken put a note on it that I couldn't show it to anyone. (I haven't)

Other individual YECs have over the years called me a heretic. John Woodmorappe has a whole list of names he has applied to me.

Henry Morris called me a compromiser, so I guess that is ICR's official position on me
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
grmorton said:
No, AiG and Russ Humphreys called me an apostate. I sent a stern note to Russ and he quickly changed the web page (for which I am grateful. I go to church regularly so I don't think I am an apostate) With AiG they insisted on continuing to call me an apostate. I had to threaten to sue (and I was in the process of contacting a lawyer) when I got an email from Mr. Ham saying that they would change it but then he asked me why I would (unbiblically) want to sue a Christian brother in secular courts. I thought the cheek was wonderful. They call me an apostate and then when threatened they pull out the 'we're christian brothers routine'. I still have copies of that email, but, Ken put a note on it that I couldn't show it to anyone. (I haven't)

Other individual YECs have over the years called me a heretic. John Woodmorappe has a whole list of names he has applied to me.

Henry Morris called me a compromiser, so I guess that is ICR's official position on me

I thought Humphreys was on staff with ICR.

Regardless, I find the gossip you are sharing about Ken Ham interesting. Unfortunately Ken is not here to give the context of his statements. It's easy to slander someone when they are not hear to defend themselves.

I'm also curious why you would want to sue someone over calling you a heretic. There are some that think I'm a heretic for some theological views I hold. It never dawned on me to sue them. Isn't that just a little silly?

Anyway, in the title of the thread you single out YECs. Shouldn't everyone be checked out before they are believed. The Acts 17:11 berean test shouldn't just be limited to YECs now should it?

Whether you are a heretic I don't know. That would depend on what you believe about the essentials of the christian faith. Compromiser is a fair title I believe. Are you going to sue me over that one? One can believe in evolution yet still believe the gospel. It would be illogical, but God's not going to judge you for being illogical.

What about self described christians the don't believe the resurrection is literal? Should they be labeled heretics and should the sue their labelers as well?

This whole litigation attitude seems very immature to me. Perhaps you could explain.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Frumious Bandersnatch said:
Of course we can witness the annual varves that are laid down today and geologists can tell the differences between lamina that are varves and those that aren't.
Yes, so we can add being able to recognize the way a varve usually is laid down now, in the present to their taleants. So, if the question comes up about how varves presently are usually laid down, they are qualified to reply.
YECs have been playing this some lamina are not annual varves so no lamina that indicate ages beyond the YEC timeframe are annual varves for a long time. It is easy to see that their logic is totally false.
Seems like they do have a point. There are exceptions to the general rule of how present varves are laid down.
It is logically equivalent to saying that some dogs are not black so no black animal can be a dog. The YEC claim in question is then like showing a picture of a black cat to prove that black animals can't be dogs. To someone who had never seen a dog or cat and desperately needed to believe that there were no black dogs this might be a convincing approach.

Now, this doesn't mean all presently laid varves are an exception, or a cat. But it simply means that there are both cats and dogs.
If we try and apply all this to the past, however, where there were dinos, and all kinds of things, just these dogs and cats don't give us a clear full picture at all. For the present, fine, for the past, not fine.
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Grengor said:
It's not illogical to trust in the Gospel but accept Evolution, it's illogical to assume there's only one correct interpretation.

It's illogical to believe there's only one correct interpretation? :confused: :scratch: :eek: I acknowledge there's a few interpretations out there, but I can guarantee either one is right or they're all wrong.

Regardless of who's right I just don't think lawsuits have any place in the debate. In a sense gmorton is an apostate if he once was a YEC. An apostate is simply somebody who renounces a belief or allegiance (in my dictionary). I know AiG has articles posted on their site saying they believe OECs are still christians.

This debate is important and can be challenging and beneficial, but if we're getting to the point where we're calling lawyers I think it's time to take a break. I can only speculate this is what Ken Ham was trying to explain to gmorton. And now we have this gossip thread going. Just the name calling in this thread alone far exceeds what gmorton is complaining about. I wonder if he's going to be consistent and rebuke some of the guys on his side.
 
Upvote 0

Nooj

Senior Veteran
Jan 9, 2005
3,229
156
Sydney
✟19,215.00
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
AU-Greens
llDayo said:
Could someone explain the left photograph to me? I'm not doubting anything on river varves here but I don't know enough about them to understand what I'm looking at in the left one. The right photograph is quite clear on the sedimentation but the left one isn't (at least to me).

I'll take a wild stab at it. The left one shows a varve-like structure. The right picture actually shows real varves.

The left is all muddled up while the right photograph has clear, distinctive lines. That's the point I think. That the creationists have tried to say that the left photograph is an example of varves being layed down en masse (therefore proving varve-dating is wrong), when they're not even varves in the first place.

I think.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
74
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟16,783.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Calminian said:
I thought Humphreys was on staff with ICR.

He makes his real money at Sandia.

Regardless, I find the gossip you are sharing about Ken Ham interesting. Unfortunately Ken is not here to give the context of his statements. It's easy to slander someone when they are not hear to defend themselves.

All Ken has to do is allow me to publish all our email correspondence.

I'm also curious why you would want to sue someone over calling you a heretic. There are some that think I'm a heretic for some theological views I hold. It never dawned on me to sue them. Isn't that just a little silly?

Not in my opinion. I really want to change the apologetical approach Christians have taken from the dead-end YEC view and by their lie, they were hindering me from talking to YECs. Several YECs said they didn't want to talk to me because AiG said I had lost my faith. I hadn't.

Why would they want to call me an apostate, when I wasn't one? Did you ask yourself that question?

Anyway, in the title of the thread you single out YECs. Shouldn't everyone be checked out before they are believed. The Acts 17:11 berean test shouldn't just be limited to YECs now should it?

Absolutely, check everyone, everything. But YECs generally just believe what is written in their books. Most scientists I know are quite skeptical of nearly everything. They already check things out.

Whether you are a heretic I don't know.

I believe God created the world, I believe in a real Adam a real Eve, a talking snake, Jesus Christ dead, buried and resurrected in the body. I am saved by faith in him. What is heretical about that?


That would depend on what you believe about the essentials of the christian faith. Compromiser is a fair title I believe.

Go back and look at the picture I posted in the OP. Is it compromising to ask that my fellow Christians tell the truth about data they get from the sceintific literature? Why is that a compromise? I won't compromise on the truth as they seem to have.


Are you going to sue me over that one? One can believe in evolution yet still believe the gospel. It would be illogical, but God's not going to judge you for being illogical.

No, I won't sue you. But then I figure you are more reasonable than Ken Ham.

What about self described christians the don't believe the resurrection is literal? Should they be labeled heretics and should the sue their labelers as well?

I figure it is up to God to sort us out. Our job on earth is sales, not management of other Christians. Remember, Jesus said that the wheat and the tares would grow together and be sorted out later. That is why I don't try to figure out who is and isn't a heretic.

This whole litigation attitude seems very immature to me. Perhaps you could explain.

Because after several emails asking them to remove the slander, they refused saying that it was an apt description of me. I chose to force the issue with them. I figured that a letter from a lawyer would stop them, but if not, I would have gone through with it. Fortunately, just a couple of days after I called the lawyer they gave up that error.

Do you think it is right for people to call people names like heretic? Are you smarter than God and can figure out who is saved and who isn't? Are you even supposed to be doing that? So maybe you could explain your arrogance at thinking you can do God's job after that, I will explain my immaturity.
 
Upvote 0