YECists don't believe their own "scientists"

[jereth]

From another thread:

Mind you, creation scientists disagree with each other all the time, too.

Perhaps more significantly, even the YECist general public can't agree with each other about the "science" taught to them by creation scientists. Here are the results of a poll on the creationism forum, after 1 week of voting:

a. "No animal death or predation pre-fall" - 62.5%
b. "Nephesh vs. non-nephesh animals" - 25%
c. "Catastrophic plate tectonics during flood" - 62.5%
d. "Dinosaurs went on ark; became extinct after" - 75%
e. " Ice Age 4500 years ago, after flood" - 62.5%
f. " Homo erectus were humans, descended from Adam" - 62.5%
g. " Gravitational time dilation in creation week/white hole cosmology" - 0% (!!!)

These figures are based on the people who actually voted... goodness knows how many people didn't vote at all because they disagreed with all of the propositions...

I take it this means that the layman YECist doesn't trust creation science? If yes, this begs the question -- what on earth is the point of creation science? If die-hard creationists can't even be convinced on scientific grounds that the earth is 6000 years old, why do they even bother trying?

Perhaps creation scientists should just pack up shop, close down their "journals", leave their "conferences" and go home.

 

[Adalbert]

I abide by a simple solution to the problem of 'how old is the earth', and let the Bible speak for me.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep. God's Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.

It says 'in the beginning', but does NOT say who's beginning. Then it describes the appearance of the earth -- it was dark and full of water. Then it describes what God does with the water and the darkness, and so on.

Then God gives us dominion over his creation.

28 God blessed them. God said to them, "Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

He has filled it with immeasurable amounts of information for us to discover and enjoy.

Job 12
7 "But ask the animals, now, and they shall teach you; the birds of the sky, and they shall tell you.

8 Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach you. The fish of the sea shall declare to you.

And that is exactly how it works.

We have all kinds of measuring devices to measure all kinds of things. But I do not believe we have yet discovered the device that will accurately measure the age of the earth, nor will we ever.

 

[FreezBee]

I abide by a simple solution to the problem of 'how old is the earth', and let the Bible speak for me.

...

We have all kinds of measuring devices to measure all kinds of things. But I do not believe we have yet discovered the device that will accurately measure the age of the earth, nor will we ever.

Well, we should never be too sure about anything; but usually a part cannot be younger than the whole, and the oldest rocks on earth are measured to an age of around 4.55 billion years. Maybe there's something wrong with the measuring method; that's a possibility, everything is a possibility, isn't it?

We should ask the earth, says God to Job, and we have asked the earth. It answered 4.55 billion years. But maybe we don't understand the language of the earth


- FreezBee

 

[Willtor]

Well, we should never be too sure about anything; but usually a part cannot be younger than the whole, and the oldest rocks on earth are measured to an age of around 4.55 billion years. Maybe there's something wrong with the measuring method; that's a possibility, everything is a possibility, isn't it?

We should ask the earth, says God to Job, and we have asked the earth. It answered 4.55 billion years. But maybe we don't understand the language of the earth


- FreezBee

You mean a part cannot be older than the whole. My beard is far younger than I, but it would be strange to think of a person whose beard is older than him. Thus, a rock dated at 4.5 billion years is probably not older than the rest of the Earth.

 

[jereth]

You mean a part cannot be older than the whole.

You're both wrong
It goes: "The whole cannot be younger than a part"

[chuckle]

Now I'm confused!

 

[Willtor]

You're both wrong
It goes: "The whole cannot be younger than a part"

[chuckle]

Now I'm confused!

I figured it was an idiom, but I hadn't heard it, so I tried to "fix it."

 

[Adalbert]

Well, we should never be too sure about anything; but usually a part cannot be younger than the whole, and the oldest rocks on earth are measured to an age of around 4.55 billion years. Maybe there's something wrong with the measuring method; that's a possibility, everything is a possibility, isn't it?

We should ask the earth, says God to Job, and we have asked the earth. It answered 4.55 billion years. But maybe we don't understand the language of the earth


- FreezBee

Not being exactly sure is the best fun of all. We have discovered many of the earth's secrets, many more to find.
As for the measuring? We use what we have and what we understand. It is correct for our purposes, and it is flexible.
We understand the language of the earth, because it tells us loud and clear that we have been poor husbandmen and utterly irresponsible with the task we were given. And in a small way, the opposite is true -- like, when I plant flowers and dispose of garbage properly.

 

[jereth]

I figured it was an idiom, but I hadn't heard it, so I tried to "fix it."

Actually, now I come to think of it, we're both right.

"A part cannot be older than the whole"
"The whole cannot be younger than a part"

Both say the same thing

 

[jereth]

c. "Catastrophic plate tectonics during flood" - 62.5%
d. "Dinosaurs went on ark; became extinct after" - 75%
e. " Ice Age 4500 years ago, after flood" - 62.5%
f. " Homo erectus were humans, descended from Adam" - 62.5%
g. " Gravitational time dilation in creation week/white hole cosmology" - 0% (!!!)

You know, it really bothers me that YECs do not vote unanimously about these things. I'd like someone to explain the follownig please

- if plate tectonics didn't occur during the flood, how do you account for the water covering mount Everest in your global flood? How do you explain plate tectonics?
- If dinosaurs weren't alive at the time of the flood (i.e. they weren't killed and fossilised by the flood), how do you explain all the dinosaur fossils?
- If the ice age didn't occur after the flood, when did it occur?? How can you explain all the geological evidence for an ice age?
- If homo erectus wasn't a descendant of Adam, what exactly are these fossil hominids? Creations of the devil to confuse us and make us believe in evolution?
- If you don't accept white hole cosmology, how did the light from billions of light years away galaxies get to earth in 6000 years?

 

[GeorgeE]

If it was not for science we would all be in the dark ages.

Nothing happens without God’s will. God used scientist to bring us out of a long dark age of religion.

God wants us to think; yes spiritually; but darkness be it worldly or spiritually is still darkness.

1st the Natural; then the spiritual.

 

[ChetSinger]

You know, it really bothers me that YECs do not vote unanimously about these things.

I think you're demanding a conformity of thought that isn't seen in other areas of Christianity. Consider Calvinists vs. Arminians, or end time issues, or papal authority, among other things.

Also, secular scientists disagree on origins issues, such as cosmology and paleontology. Why would you expect lockstep beliefs among creationist Christians?

Regarding Dr. Humphrey's white hole cosmology in particular, I find it intriguing. I bought his book, and I think that perhaps he's on the right track. But I didn't check it off because I don't have the background to understand it, much less critique it. So I'm in a wait-and-see mood about it.

 

[jereth]

I think you're demanding a conformity of thought that isn't seen in other areas of Christianity.

It's not "conformity of thought" that I'm "demanding". I just think that YECism really lacks credibility because its scientific "theories" are so vague, and it is telling that YEC scientists can have such wildly divergent and inconsistent ideas. When these scientists can't even win the confidence of those to whom they are supposed to be "ministering", what does this say about their veracity (or lack thereof)? How can they possibly expect to convince those of us in the evolutionary camp?

Also, secular scientists disagree on origins issues, such as cosmology and paleontology.

The "disagreement" among evolutionary scientists is miniature by comparison. Let's look at some examples:

Cosmology
Evolutionism -- whether its traditional big bang theory, inflationary universe, dark-energy driven universe, or whatever, all these ideas are built upon a single basic theory of the big bang. The disagreement is only about details (about which the average layperson wouldn't even understand).

YECism -- from "light created in transit", to wormholes, to C-decay, to White Hole Cosmology -- all these "theories" are completely independent of and inconsistent with each other. There is no common basis.

Planetary science
Evolutionism -- all theories of the solar system's formation are ultimately based upon basic "nebular" theory. Differences of opinion again are only over tiny details.

Creationism -- There is absolutely no agreement. OECs think the solar system preceded the Earth, YECs think the earth preceded the solar system. Some YECs believe the solar system was bombarded by meteorites during creation week, others think the bombardment happened during the flood. Of those who think the bombardment happened during the flood, some think it was a comet, some think it was a "cloud" of interloping asteroids, some think it was the destruction of a planet between Mars and Jupiter, etc. etc. etc. All radically different ideas.

Geology
Evolutionism -- all evolutionists agree the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that the theory of plate tectonics is basically correct. All agree to the basic principles of geology (superposition, intrusion, uniformitarianism, faunal succession etc.). All agree to the basic cycle of ice ages and interglacial periods. All agree to the methods of dating. Areas of disagreement are relatively trivial.

Creationism -- Every theory of the flood is wildly different: catastrophic plate tectonics, hydroplate theory, comet impact, vapour canopy, miracle, ... with absolutely no common ground. When it comes to explaining the effects of the flood, ideas multiply.


I could go on and on, but you get the picture.