Evolutionists do not understand OOL

[Roy]

And it gets much worse than that. The Moon is COVERED with massive craters. Now he has to allow those to form yet have the Earth, a mere 250,000 miles hence, be mostly missed! And also not be affected by the debris which leaves lunar orbit post the collision.

Not if the moon had its own fountains of the deep. And Mercury. And Mars. And Ceres. And Vesta. And...

Roy

[Truthseeker]

I may not have responded as you would like me to - or with something that you would agree - but I did make some comment in a past post and I did look into Whitefield's writings (as per links you provided). The bottom line is that Whitefield makes the same multiple errors as those before him; i.e., I saw nothing new and everything he presents has been refuted multiple times at sites such as AiG, CMI and ICR. I see no need for me to waste my time re-inventing the wheel. Before you ask me (or any other person) to waste time, you ought to do your homework by examining what the aforementioned sites have written on the subject. That will keep you occupied for months (due to the volume of material). One example to illustrate:

On the link it says, "Repeatedly he clarifies that the Hebrew word yom does not refer to twenty-four hours regarding the length of the six creation days." There are several hundred articles, papers, books and video presentations by AiG, CMI and ICR (and others) on this topic that soundly refutes that claim regarding yom. Again, why would you ask me (or expect me) to re-invent the wheel for the 300th time?



I ignore NOTHING and it is an act of rank dishonesty to claim that I do when you (should) know better.

On the Barringer Crater: I also provided my explanation on that (some time ago - when the "old" TWeb was up) but it was summarily dismissed (no surprise there). Regardless, the same sites that I've referred to earlier contain material on craters. The ultra-condensed version is that Barringer could have been formed sometime after the Fall OR during or shortly after the worldwide Flood. Bottom line: I don't see Barringer as presenting any serious challenge to Biblical Creationism so it's curious why you people are obsessed with it.

EDITED TO ADD:

Couldn't get back to sleep so I spent a bit more time on this. Went here: http://www.creationingenesis.com/Gen..._the_Earth.pdf

Whitefield is even worse than I imagined. He is basically a guy that has bought the Old Age story and is now seeking to justify his beliefs. He commits blunder after blunder. Hopefully they are honest mistakes, not knowingly-deliberate lies.

One example: I'm no expert in Hebrew but I am fully bilingual and so I easily spotted a serious "mistake" that is key in his argument. He writes:

"...Nevertheless, there are people who contest the issue and assert that the Bible says that the Earth and universe are about 6,000 to 10,000 years old. The argument is typically made by quoting the first part of Exodus 20:11 which is shown below.

KJV Exodus 20:11 For in six days (yoms) the LORD made (asah) heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: . . .

The advocate then notes that both heaven and Earth are mentioned and said to have been made
“in six days.” The “in” is interpreted as placing all the making of heaven and Earth within the
six creative times. Subsequently, it is asserted that the “asah”of Exodus 20:11 includes the
“bara” creation of Genesis 1:1. This assertion is based on a claimed full equivalence of “bara”
(the word used in Genesis 1:1) and “asah,” making these different Hebrew words interchangeable. In fact, both of these argumentative steps fail for reasons (1) and (2) as explained below.
(1) The assertion based on the word “ in” fails. The word “ in” does not appear in the Hebrew text of Exodus 20:11 (or Exodus 31:17). The word “in” is a word added by the KJV translators. The KJV writes the word “in” in italics indicating that this word does not exist in the Hebrew text. But, the “in” is not italicized in most other English translations or in some recent printings of the KJV. Typically, the reader of Exodus 20:11 is unaware that the “in” is not in the Hebrew text. The insertion of the word “in” into the translation of Exodus 20:11 significantly distorts the meaning. The absence of the “in” removes the interpretation that all making must take place within the six creative times and voids the asserted inclusion of the “bara” of Genesis 1:1......"

That is what Whitefield says. Obviously he makes a very big deal of this. Well, he is w-r-o-n-g and while I find it hard to believe that he doesn't know this, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and grant that it is an "innocent, honest" mistake. Here's why...

Translating from one language to another very often requires the insertion of a word (or more) to compensate for the different language structures. If done properly there is NO DISTORTION to the original intended meaning - as Whitefield claims happens in the KJV.

Example:
?Cuando vienes aqui?
Word-for-word Translation: When coming here?
'Proper' Translation : When ARE YOU coming here?

Note the insertion of the words (ARE YOU). This is necessary because of the language structure differences between Spanish and English. Whitefield makes his argument based on a commonly-encountered event when translating between languages. Specifically, while "in" does not explicitly appear in the Hebrew, the translation into English demands its insertion.

That's just one of the legion of errors that Whitefield makes. Case closed!

Jorge

Thank you for your response.

After discussing in some detail what you alleged to be an error, you then write, "That's just one of the legion of errors that Whitefield makes. Case closed!" What a logic jump! One error discussed in detail, then an assertion, then that ringing declaration.

The passage that you qouted comes from page 18 of the document that you linked to. A question is whether Hebrew has any word that means something like "in." I think so. If such a word does exist, then its omission must be significant indeed. A rule of translation is to treat the source text as though it is inerrant (written as the author intented). Therefore, there is no warrant to insert "in." A possibly good check is to use this English-to-Hebrew translation webpage http://www.stars21.com/translator/en...to_hebrew.html First, I entered "For in six days the lord created the world." The result: כי שישה ימים עשה ה 'בראה את העולם. Then again with "in" deleted: במשך שישה ימים עשה ה 'בראה את העולם. Obviously different! To be sure, that should not be regarded as decisive. We need a scholar such as Whitefield.

Possibly Whitefield made a few errors throughout his work, but I don't see any here.

[rwatts]

... why do you suppose it's called Barringer Meteor Crater?

A guy named Mr Barringer Meteor discovered it I guess.

Well Jorge could try that one. It's as sensible as anything else he says.

[Jorge]

Your argument on translation by analogy to your own bilingual facility fails for the following reason: the missing words are clarifiers. All languages have ambiguous elements. These ambiguous elements may be filled in by convention or colloquial understanding, but they may also simply leave open the precise meaning of the text. IF the context of the text strongly implies 'in' based on culture and convention, then the argument is weak because it depends on an obscure rendering - UNLESS Jewish tradition OFTEN takes advantage of such ambiguities in interpreting the heberw text (which is does). Thus the text may well be regarded (in culture) as purposefully ambiguous, and then the alternate rendering he relies on is just as valid as the typical rendering (which is based on English conventions which do not leave the relationship ambiguous). So you can't just grab what you know as a bilingual Spanish/English speaker and conclude he 'must' be wrong. You must apply the conventions of the ancient Hebrew AND the cultural approach to this specific text to evaluate the argument.

Jim

I would have been FLOORED had you accepted my substantive argument because you never have - not ever. In a post a while back I wrote to Terror that one of the trademarks of dishonesty amongst ideological rivals is when one of them never, ever concedes a point from the other. Terror practices this and so do you (as well as many others here on TWeb and elsewhere). That is an unmistakable sign of intellectual dishonesty and you've got it plastered all over your face.

As for my argument, I know what you're saying and it may be true in certain cases. But in the case that Whitefield uses it is not. While "in" wasn't explicitly present in the Hebrew, it was an appropriate addition in the translation. He's grasping at imaginary straws and people like you buy it because ... well ... because it serves your agenda - period! Case closed (again).

Jorge

[Jorge]

Thank you for your response.

After discussing in some detail what you alleged to be an error, you then write, "That's just one of the legion of errors that Whitefield makes. Case closed!" What a logic jump! One error discussed in detail, then an assertion, then that ringing declaration.

You mean like YOUR declaration?

All I meant is that I haven't the time to address the "legion" of errors that I found as I read through Whitefield's work (link provided previously). Frankly, I considered it a waste of my valuable time to have read his material. I say this because there was nothing new - same old material that I've been seeing since the 1980's-1990's.

I'll have to get back ... need to go do something.

Jorge

[Truthseeker]

Readers, do you think my case and Whitefield's are OK that if the Hebrew text is such that "in" is not explicitly called for in the English translation, then "in" should NOT be added to "clarify" the meaning of the text like in Exodus 20:11?

[klaus54]

There are hundreds of them. 20 with diameters >= 40km (~25 miles). Anything that large or larger would have created havoc on a budding human civilization. Jorge is just hiding his head in the sand. He has no (non - ridiculously absurd) way to explain them in a YEC paradigm. There are two problems:

A) what mechanism can produce them and their identification criteria (e.g. shocked quartz, shatter cones) that is NOT an asteroid impact
B) No matter what made them, humanity still has to survive the fallout of that much energy released in so short a time!

And it gets much worse than that. The Moon is COVERED with massive craters. Now he has to allow those to form yet have the Earth, a mere 250,000 miles hence, be mostly missed! And also not be affected by the debris which leaves lunar orbit post the collision.

Asteroid impacts undo YEC utterly and completely.

He is sunk, but just doesn't know it yet.

Jim

The lunar craters resulted from the war between the loyal and fallen angels.

Don't ask for details.

Even the Ancient Greeks (who weren't Christians) knew this.

The Heavens have perfection. The Moon has blemishes 'cuz it's close to the Earth.

Now - Don't ask about craters on Mars.

'Twould be too confusing.

K54

[Jorge]

Aren't there a couple dozen other impact structures in various states of erosion?

Also impact structures have certain geological signatures, namely shocked quartz and shatter cones.

It's interesting that Jorge says the Barringer crater poses no serious problem for "Biblical Creationism". Why? Because NOTHING does. I surmise if Jesus Christ returned today and told Jorge that YEC was wrong, he would think it's a trick.

K54

I wrote about that in an article posted at True.Origin.
Try doing homework before blathering.

Jorge

[klaus54]

I wrote about that in an article posted at True.Origin.
Try doing homework before blathering.

Jorge

Did you address the numerous impact structure in various erosion states?

How about shocked quartz and shatter cones? Did you do calculations to demonstrate they could form in a steam explosion?

And how lunar and Martian craters. Did the "fountains of the deep" opening cause them as well?

I would suggest learning some geology and physics, but it would matter to you anyway since you can blow out a few verses to extra-Biblical untestable phenomena that can explain ANYTHING.

You do understand the phrase "lying hypocrite", do you not?

K54

[rogue06]

The lunar craters resulted from the war between the loyal and fallen angels.

Even the Ancient Greeks (who weren't Christians) knew this.

The Heavens have perfection. The Moon has blemishes 'cuz it's close to the Earth.

Going from pure, fallible memory here but IIRC one of the first controversies that the invention of the telescope started was that it revealed that the Moon wasn't perfectly smooth as Aristotle declared it was.

[rogue06]

I wrote about that in an article posted at True.Origin.
Try doing homework before blathering.

Jorge

For those interested who haven't already read it: Impact Craters: Alleged Creation Challenge to Biblical Creation


For me at least the largest of the many holes in this hypothesis is that it still doesn't account for all of the energy release, whether by volcanic blast or cosmic impact, that would have taken place in such a short space of time.

[rogue06]

There are hundreds of them. 20 with diameters >= 40km (~25 miles). Anything that large or larger would have created havoc on a budding human civilization. Jorge is just hiding his head in the sand. He has no (non - ridiculously absurd) way to explain them in a YEC paradigm. There are two problems:

A) what mechanism can produce them and their identification criteria (e.g. shocked quartz, shatter cones) that is NOT an asteroid impact
B) No matter what made them, humanity still has to survive the fallout of that much energy released in so short a time!

And it gets much worse than that. The Moon is COVERED with massive craters. Now he has to allow those to form yet have the Earth, a mere 250,000 miles hence, be mostly missed! And also not be affected by the debris which leaves lunar orbit post the collision.

Asteroid impacts undo YEC utterly and completely.

He is sunk, but just doesn't know it yet.

Jim

And you have the energy release from actual massive lava flows like the ones responsible for the Siberian and Deccan traps to figure into that equation.

For instance, the basalt from the Siberian Traps which lasted for nearly a million years approximately 250 to 251 mya, spanning the Permian–Triassic boundary. The lava extruded covers about 2 million square kilometers – roughly equal to Western Europe in land area – and estimates of the original coverage are as high as 7 million square kilometers. The original volume of lava is estimated to range from 1 to 4 million cubic kilometers. To place this in contrast the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens produced 1 cubic kilometer of volcanic material. It has been calculated that the Siberian Traps would alone have increased temperatures by 1261 degrees Kelvin (1810º Fahrenheit) in the YEC 6000 year model.

Then there are the Deccan Traps in India dating from 60 to 65 myo consist of more than 6500’ of flat-lying basalt lava flows and cover 500,000 square kilometers (over 200,000 square miles). The volume of basalt is estimated to be 512,000 cubic kilometers (12,275 cubic miles). The Deccan Traps released about 5x1017 moles of carbon dioxide (CO₂, which is about 9 times the total of the modern atmosphere^[1].

Another is the Columbia River basalts which erupted over a period of 3.5 million years during the Middle Miocene and cover huge portions of Oregon, Idaho and Washington. It consists of over 170,000 cubic kilometers of basaltic lava, and are 2500 meters deep in places.

What's more, the Deccan and Siberian traps and Columbia River basalt do not contain pillow lava (except for a tiny amount on the fringes in some areas) so they didn't flow out underwater. How can we observe layers of volcanic rock within the strata if there was a flood at the time? The lava would have mushroomed up, forming "pillow lava," just like what we see on the ocean floor today. So, how can we have flat layers of volcanic rock, compressed between other layers, occurring during an ultra-massive flood?

Further, they lie on top of supposed flood deposited sedimentary rock and beneath flood deposited sedimentary rock. If they are post-Flood, could lava 6000-6500’ thick in India cool off enough by 200BC to allow the carving of temples into them? If, as some YEC global flood advocates assert, these flood basalts are "recent," one wonders why those immigrants from the Tower of Babel dispersion didn't burn their feet on this stuff as they made their way into India and North America.

Additionally, these are not the only massive eruptions like this. There are others in Ethiopia, the Snake River Plain in the western U.S., Parana Plateau in Brazil and the Karoo basalts in southern Africa (the latter of which rivals the Siberian Traps in size).








1. If you combine the total output of all the great magma traps (Siberian, Deccan, Columbia River, Ethiopian…) and other substantial volcanic flood basalt flows (Snake River Plain, Parana Plateau Brazil, Karoo basalts), and release it all in a single year (the flood year – only some 4000 years ago), IIRC, calculations reveal that 3.47 x 10¹⁷ kilograms of CO₂ would be released. Since the mass of the atmosphere is 5.2 x 10²¹ grams or 5.2 x 10¹⁸ kilograms, the amount of CO₂ released ONLY by the volcanic traps during the YEC global flood, is equal to 6.6% of the entire atmosphere.

Currently, we are approaching 400 parts per million (ppm) CO₂ in the atmosphere, yet the YEC scenario would produce an atmosphere that had as a minimum CO₂ level of 58,615 ppm (over 146 times the current level). Such concentrations would create a post-flood world with a climate so hot that all life would be destroyed. Ironically, YEC advocates claim that the post-flood world was glacially cold.

And this doesn't even get into all the other toxic elements released such as sulfur.

[HMS_Beagle]

I wrote about that in an article posted at True.Origin.
Try doing homework before blathering.

We know Clucky. Why do you think we're making fun of your amazing ignorance and stupidity? You sure can't defend any of it.

[Kbertsche]

Readers, do you think my case and Whitefield's are OK that if the Hebrew text is such that "in" is not explicitly called for in the English translation, then "in" should NOT be added to "clarify" the meaning of the text like in Exodus 20:11?

Rodney is correct that the word "in" is absent in the Hebrew text of Ex. 20:11. The Hebrew language certainly contains the proposition "in" (b'); it is the first character of the entire Hebrew Bible in Gen. 1:1, as Rodney explains in his book.

Note that the Septuagint and nearly all English translations (including the Jewish Tanakh) have added the word "in" to Ex 20:11.

[Duragizer]

The lunar craters resulted from the war between the loyal and fallen angels.

You're treading awfully close to Gap Creationism with this statement, you compromising heretic you.