Exposing the lies in Jorge's Flood "evidence".

[logician bones]

Those are from Earth's reference frame, Kb. You must have been skimming... Rogue clearly said "any part".

[Kbertsche]

Those are from Earth's reference frame, Kb. You must have been skimming... Rogue clearly said "any part".

I was not responding to Rogue, but to psstein.

Yes, some YEC authors appeal to different reference frames. But by no means all, or even most, do so.

But you are avoiding the question. I will ask you again. Can you support your claim [that all major YECs admit that parts of creation are billions of years old] with references to and quotes from some of these "major YECs"? Can you even present evidence that any "major YECs" believe the stars are older than the earth?

[Kbertsche]

Those are from Earth's reference frame, Kb. You must have been skimming... Rogue clearly said "any part".

Here's an even clearer quote by Ken Ham, where he does not restrict the validity of his statement to any particular reference frame:

Source: Ken Ham

https://answersingenesis.org/days-of...g-in-six-days/

Thus, there is no scriptural warrant for restricting Exodus 20:11 to earth and its atmosphere or the solar system alone. So Exodus 20:11 does show that the whole universe was created in six ordinary days.

Implication
As the days of creation are ordinary days in length, then by adding up the years in Scripture (assuming no gaps in the genealogies), the age of the universe is only about six thousand years.

© Copyright Original Source

[rogue06]

Seriously, rogue?? All the major YECs that I'm aware of accept that. No offense, but this admission... explains some things...

Then you should have no difficulties providing a list of the names of those who do.

[rogue06]

I was not responding to Rogue, but to psstein.

Yes, some YEC authors appeal to different reference frames. But by no means all, or even most, do so.

But you are avoiding the question. I will ask you again. Can you support your claim [that all major YECs admit that parts of creation are billions of years old] with references to and quotes from some of these "major YECs"? Can you even present evidence that any "major YECs" believe the stars are older than the earth?

They do but the differences are in thousands not billions of years. While most seem to dogmatically hold to a roughly 6000 year time frame I know of a few who will allow 10,000 or 12,000 years and one or two who even will go as far as 20,000 years. And yes I'm familiar with those who hold to a young earth in an ancient universe but they reject being considered YECs.

[hansgeorg]

It appears to be distinct that God promised a flood to destroy the "land or earth" however Noah, from the region of which Noah was familiar with. Now Noah would have LIKELY been from near the "cradle of civilization which is of course the middle east. Its not far from the records that a large flood occured in the last 10,000 years in the middle east but where and when we can't be sure, and I'm quite positive that this was the "earth" Noah knew. I highly doubt the flood was Global.

On a purely physical level, if all the high mountains (elative does not automatically mean "highest" in a comparative sense, it could be "very high" in an absolute sense) were covered with 15 cubits of water, how could the Flood be local or regional?

A local or regional flood would have been bounded by non-Flooded mountains. These would be some of the mountains Noah was aware of and higher than the ones flooded over with 15 cubits of water.

So, how does your scheme work out physically?

[hansgeorg]

Keep in mind not just what is expected to be seen, but what one would NOT expect to see. The YEC/AIG theory is that ALL these layers would laid down in a single massive flood. But what Beagle is bringing to light is that within these layers (not at the bottom, not at the top) are riverbeds that flowed and eroded ROCK, and that took on meanders (the river would around like most slow moving rivers do). Then later, it dried up and was filled in with other sediments. Then those apparently were worn down again forming a uniform flat surface which then had even more layers laid on top of it.

This is NOT something one would expect to see in a single year long flood event. In fact, for it to be there, it basically shows us these layers were NOT layers associated with a global flood.

Sorry, but what is taken as riverbeds can be erosive events within the Flood. Every time a stream underwater changed direction, there were new erosive events (sometimes of recent sediment) and new sedimentary events. And streams would have changed direction a lot during that one year.

[hansgeorg]

And again, when one looks at all the evidence and how it all fits together across the planet, there is no evidence for a single global flood that covered all the mountains.

In other words, you don't accept the eyewitness account of Noah or his sons via Moses as evidence?

[hansgeorg]

In fairness, there have been YECs who've argued that the Universe is 14 billion years old, but the Earth only 6000. I don't really think you can reconcile the two, but it's been tried.

Not by the Catholic Church.

Christ was born, "Anno a creatione mundi, quando in principio Deus creavit caelum et terram, quinquies millesimo centesimo nonagesimo nono", 5199 after Creation of Heaven and Earth, not just after Creation of Earth.

[hansgeorg]

But most YECs claim to be "biblical literalists" and insist on taking the Days of Genesis 1 as contiguous 24-hour periods. In this reading of the text, the heavenly bodies were created on Day 4, after the earth. Hence the universe cannot be older than the earth.

Well, Empyrean Heaven could perhaps be a nanosecond older than Earth and also the space inside Empyrean and around Earth could be half a nano-second older than Earth.

Or not. Beginning meaning beginning and allowing no splits of nano-seconds.

But point taken, as a literalist, I think the Celestial Bodies were created 4 days later than Earth. If they are at most 1 light day above us, their light (even that of fix stars, not just "solar system objects other than Earth") would have been seen on the evening after day five by the birds created then and on the evening after day six by Adam and Eve.

[hansgeorg]

Here is what I found from "major YECs" after a brief search of the ICR website:

Source: David Coppedge

http://www.icr.org/article/3343/245
Perhaps the question most often asked of Biblical creationists is how light from distant stars could get to the earth in a few thousand years.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Richard Niessen

http://www.icr.org/article/starlight-age-universe/
There are galaxies that are alleged to be billions of light-years distant from us in space. ... In other words, if the stars were only 6 - 10,000 years old, the light from these distant galaxies would not have even reached us yet.
...
There are three "secular" or non-Biblical possibilities to the problem of harmonizing a young universe with the allegedly-great distances of the outer galaxies.

© Copyright Original Source

I took precisely this argument as a cue to become geocentric, which disposes very well with the distant starlight paradox. I am proudly Geocentric since the night to August 24th 2001.

[Roy]

In other words, you don't accept the eyewitness account of Noah or his sons via Moses as evidence?

It's not an eyewitness account.

[Roy]

Roy:

-Re: demand for full details of an example of tilting -- well, have you read what creationists have already written on the subjects within that scenario?

Yes. I've read a lot of what creationists have written on that and other subjects, and found their writings to be without exception full of errors, distortions, omissions, deception, fallacies and outright lies.

Based on what I've read and cases I've seen discussed, I see no reason to think adding footprints on the layers tilted matters a hill of beans, and I asked your side to explain why it would, and none of you have.

Because when you examine the number, nature, extent and timescale of the successive events required to form many of the rock formations that exist, especially those with multiple superimposed layers of trace fossils, it becomes impossible to fit those events into the time period demanded by flood geology.

This is best seen by analysing real world examples in detail - which neither your YEC authorities nor you personally have ever done.

And like I said, there are more of you than us, so using "I've seen more specific cases discussed from our point of view" is useless. Few the workers.

I didn't say that YECs had produced fewer detailed scenarios of rock strata formation, I said I have seen none. Not one. It is not the case that YECs produce fewer detailed geological event analyses, it's the case that they never produce any. Reduced numbers doesn't excuse that.

-Re: particles sinking -- Yes, well aware finer particles sink slower. But you didn't present any evidence that this is a problem in reality or that creationists have vetted whatever your specific argument about it would be.

It's trivial. Fine particles sink so slowly, and are carried away so easily by moving water, that they would not be able to settle to the bottom of the floodwater nor remain there in the scenario you propose. Therefore the presence of fine particle deposits in the rocks you claim were laid down by the flood - especially in the bottom layers - refutes your ideas.

Like the tilting, I have not seen this as a common OE argument in my investigations so far, though there's a vast sea of sites out there that could be gone through. It's especially puzzling that you offer such a vague response while simultaneously demanding a highly specific argument above...

You wouldn't see this argument on YEC sites, because they never address it.

-Re: supposedly quoting out of context -- I don't see what's out of context about it.

You quoted my claim that there would not be footprints in some flood deposits, but removed the reasons I gave for why that would be the case, and are now asking what those reasons are:

You're denying blindly that the footprints could be there. All I know for sure is they are, and the Flood model predicts them. Do you have a substantive argument to the contrary?

Yes. Material eroded and redeposited by the oceans being pushed onto land would not contain footprints of animals running from the floodwaters because (I) the massive amount of material deposited would require water so deep that animals could not survive at the bottom of it, and (ii) animals cannot create footprints in sediment deposited after the animals have been obliterated.

[Roy]

But most YECs claim to be "biblical literalists" and insist on taking the Days of Genesis 1 as contiguous 24-hour periods. In this reading of the text, the heavenly bodies were created on Day 4, after the earth. Hence the universe cannot be older than the earth.

Don't forget Russ Humphreys' white hole 'cosmology' which has the Earth experiencing stasis within the event horizon of a white hole (which leaves it unaffected!) while the rest of the universe ages.

[Roy]

Seriously, rogue?? All the major YECs that I'm aware of accept that. No offense, but this admission... explains some things...

It certainly suggests that you are unaware of the views of the major YECs.