Is defending a 'young' earth necessary?

[klaus54]

Honest post by Ox, dishonest response by Jor.

So far Chico hasn't provided one fact in defense of his indefensible position.

Too funny!

K54

[birdan]

You are, of course, at liberty to "stand" by anything you wish.
But don't try to shift the goalposts, okay?

You had made the general statement that :

"I strongly disagree that answers have been provided by YEC organizations"

To which I responded:

"Supposed I asked you 500 questions, you totally answered 400, kind-of answered 75 and not-at-all answered 25. Would I be honest if I told people that you ("birdan") provided to me no answers?

Go to their sites and you will find many hundreds of answers. Yes, sometimes there is "no answer" or there is an "answer" that does not satisfy or there is "answer" that is inconclusive or ambiguous --- yes, all of those do occur. What I read from Faulkner and Snelling falls into the latter two categories. I myself have asked them questions and, after getting feedback from them, my questions remained (unanswered).

But to make the shotgun statement that, "I strongly disagree that answers have been provided by YEC organizations" is to be either unfair to those organizations or less than honest."

Now, you can either refute the above or you cannot.
If yes then let's see it; if no then you CANNOT "stand by your statement".

I am not saying that the answer to your question about heat generated was provided. I am saying that your statement is not true.

Don't try to deny what is patently obvious. On the other hand, you'll get plenty of help from certain TWebbers if you wish to be less than forthright. They're Masters at it, as has been my unfortunate experience to learn first-hand.

Jorge

Apparently my post was not clear enough for you. I had a very basic (high school level) question about a geologic process. An AIG physicist and an AIG geologist could provide NO answer to a simple, basic question. Further, in all the literature on AIG, ICR, etc. there are NO articles that address this simple question.

For very simple questions such as the one I provided, YEC organizations have no answers. IF YECs cannot answer questions that a high school student could pose, what credibility do you think "creation science" deserves?

[Kbertsche]

I just came across this posting at Creation Ministries International (CMI) that was so to the point that I had to post it here. It was written by Carl Wieland in response to a letter from an evangelist. This evangelist is doing what many Evolutionist TWebbers do (most notably O-Mudd (Jim) and Rogue06) with their "the age issue is not salvational" schtick.

One thing that I'd like to point out is that the essence of Wieland's response, including the four related articles linked at the end, is exactly what I have tried to communicate to the "unbelievers and compromisers" here at TWeb. I sincerely hope that this inspires you to do better.


Here are the letter and response ...

A New Zealand correspondent who supports our [CMI] ministry has expressed doubts about whether the Bible teaches a young earth and Dr Carl Wieland responds.

http://creation.com/defending-young-earth-not-biblical



[theological] implications from the evidence of the real world. [my emphasis]http://creation.com/6000-years
http://creation.com/jesus-age-earth
http://creation.com/the-fall-a-cosmic-catastrophe

Also see here: http://creation.com/old-earth-or-young-earth-belief

Kind regards in Christ,

Dr Carl Wieland


Again, I sincerely hope that this inspires you to try harder. If not, oh well, I can only try.

Jorge

[Boxing Pythagoras]

The above is preposterous and less-than-honest.

Just because that's the way that YOU wish to interpret it does not make it so.

If I ask you a question, and you refer me to a source that provides me with an answer, would I be honest if I told others, "Boxing Pythagoras has dismissed and ignored my question to him"?

You didn't refer him to a source that provides him with an answer. You told him to submit his question to other people, and promised that an answer existed, somewhere. Referring a person to a source which provides an answer requires actually referencing some documentation which addresses the question at hand; it is not enough to nebulously pass the buck onto others while simply declaring that an answer exists.

[oxmixmudd]

Before ending my day, I thought I'd leave a brief reply to the above infantile and less-than-honest rant. The ending, in particular, illustrates the lack of integrity.

O-Mudd ends with "... as to what Jorge deems 'adequate' scientific support for YEC."

It was no such thing and so, once again, O-Mudd gets caught misrepresenting someone's work (an act of which I have often been a target of his). That article was never meant as an "adequate scientific support for YEC" but rather as merely an alternate explanation for what is observed.

The fact that the O-Mudds of the world cannot/will not see any other view that doesn't agree with their Religious Ideology is something that blinds such individuals.

I stand by that article to this day (I just re-read it and it's pretty good). Am I saying that the view expressed therein is correct? No, not necessarily correct. But neither is the view that O-Mudd et al. cling to "necessarily correct". But don't even suggest that to these people - they will not / cannot hear of it.

Jorge

The formations we recognize as impact craters have no other scientifically supportable origin. You proposed 'answer' within the YEC paradigm that they 'might' be the result of stream explosions is contradicted strongly by the evidence that has resulted in them being classed as impact craters.

A) the indicators of an impact event result from temperatures and pressures that can't be produced by your 'solution'
B) the heat problem remains, as previously pointed out
C) the implied complete devastation of human civilization remains (it doesn't matter how you instantly produce a 100km wide and miles deep whole in the ground with shatter cones and shocked quartz - the temperatures and devastation of evacuating and pulverizing that much rock precludes an occurrence during modern times)

How you can 'stand by' your work - which serves to answer a scientific objection to YEC - and at the same time say is was 'never meant as a 'adequate' scientific support for YEC' is beyond me. Except that perhaps you are playing some bizarre definition game where you are interpreting my words to mean you offer your paper as SUFFICIENT support for YEC - which anyone with half a brain would realize is not my intended meaning.

Nevertheless, you ARE intelligent enough to know your paper on this topic offers no real answer to the problem of meteor impacts. It is flawed scientifically - steam explosions do NOT fit the evidence. It is inadequate in that it does not address the heat problem or the catestrophic elimination of human civilization problem. It is all the way around NOT an answer. And yet, you stand by it.

And this is why I continue to claim 'Scientific' support for YEC is a con game foisted on those that simply don't understand why it is not a reality. Whatever theological problems force you to defend a YE interpretation of Genesis 1, all clarity of conscience is lost when you defile yourself claiming this kind of argumentation is valid from a scientific perspective. It simply is not. If a person sees YE as correct, they must do so without the support of science. That is the ONLY honest YE position.

Jim

[klaus54]

...
The fact that the O-Mudds of the world cannot/will not see any other view that doesn't agree with their Religious Ideology is something that blinds such individuals.
...

[rogue06]

I have been to these sites, and on the topic of the heat produced by impact craters, there are no answers provided. Which is why I contacted Faulkner and Sneling directly (they both had authored articles on impact craters but hadn't addressed the issue of the generated heat).

Further, I can assure you that there are no young earth creationist answers for any of the heat issues surrounding impact craters, tectonic movement, limestone formation, lava flows, etc.

If you would care to provide answers to the above, or cite some young earth creationist articles that provide answers, then please do so. Otherwise I'll stand by my statement.

Jorge has his own rather unique take on meteor impacts. They aren't meteor impacts. Of course even if was correct it still doesn't explain how anything could survive the heat being released in the time allotted in the YEC model.

[rogue06]

What you are omitting from the readers (no mystery there!) is that I referred you to Kent Hovind's website where the question had been asked of him and he gave a comprehensive reply. I do not know if it is still there as I myself haven't been to that website in years. But give it a try and report back.

Speaking of Kent, I think that he's due out this year. Yay!
I love the way he rattles the cages of Evolutionists.

Jorge

I love the way that his nonsensical babblings so upset and embarrassed other YECs like AnswersinGenesis (AiG) and Creation Ministries International (CMI) that they found it necessary to put up a page that covered many of his claims telling their minions do not use these arguments.

[rogue06]

This implies that Carl Wieland and Jorge would accuse C.H. Spurgeon, C. I. Scofield, B.B. Warfield, Charles Hodge, Merrill Unger, et al of being "compromisers", who are "on the side of the scoffers in 2 Peter 3:3–5, even if only partly"! Such self-righteous, judgmental hubris!

Keep in mind that AnswersinGenesis recently posted many of the sermons of C.H. Spurgeon in what they said was a "modernized" form on their website. What is truly telling is that during their "translating" process they removed references from Spurgeon to the earth being millions of years old! This resulted in an enormous backlash including from some of their fellow YECs resulting in them having to put the parts that they censored back into the sermons.

If AiG cannot be trusted with something that is as easily checked as Spurgeon's sermons how can they be trusted with accurately representing scientific research?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I love the way that his nonsensical babblings so upset and embarrassed other YECs like AnswersinGenesis (AiG) and Creation Ministries International (CMI) that they found it necessary to put up a page that covered many of his claims telling their minions do not use these arguments.

I love the way he bought his doctorate from a degree mill, went to jail for cheating on his taxes, and yet is still considered to be a shining example of honest Christianity by his adherents.

[rogue06]

I love the way he bought his doctorate from a degree mill, went to jail for cheating on his taxes, and yet is still considered to be a shining example of honest Christianity by his adherents.

Unfortunately for some (by no means a majority) of YECs all that really matters is that he opposes evolution. As long as he does that everything else he does will be ignored by them.

[miked570]

First, it is not "MY" interpretation. Every time I hear that thrust at me I have to restrain myself (as I am now doing) from thinking the worst.

Right.

This reminds me of the time I had a discussion with a YEC on another forum on this subject - I was told that a "straight forward reading" of the bible indicated a YEC position, and that "no interpretation" was needed. In fact, this person claimed that no interpretation of the bible was needed at all, since God's word didn't need to be interpreted by fallible men.

Then, of course, one brings up the troubling bible verse. And this 'no interpretation needed' YEC declares that I am not 'interpreting it the right way.'

Funny how it takes the "right" interpretation to be a TRUE christian.

[klaus54]

Jorge has his own rather unique take on meteor impacts. They aren't meteor impacts. Of course even if was correct it still doesn't explain how anything could survive the heat being released in the time allotted in the YEC model.

Doesn't the YEC reconciliation of heat issue boil down to (pun intended) "God took the excess heat away miraculously."

You can't argue with that, but it tosses the "Scientific" part of "Biblical Scientific Creation" into the circular file.

K54

[klaus54]

Unfortunately for some (by no means a majority) of YECs all that really matters is that he opposes evolution. As long as he does that everything else he does will be ignored by them.

Kinda like the U.S. supporting Stalin in WWII.

[rogue06]

Doesn't the YEC reconciliation of heat issue boil down to (pun intended) "God took the excess heat away miraculously."

You can't argue with that, but it tosses the "Scientific" part of "Biblical Scientific Creation" into the circular file.

K54

IIRC, John Baumgardner invoked at least one miracle to explain away the massive heat problem that runaway subduction would have caused. Baumgardner does have a history of invoking miracles to explain problems in his models (something that fellow YECs David Plaisted, and IIRC, Walt Brown have frequently noted) which can hardly be considered a scientific approach.

One instance that I do remember is how he claimed in an article called "The Imperative of Non-Stationary Natural Law in Relation to Noah’s Flood" (published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, back in December 1990) that "the physical laws were somehow altered by God to cause the [flood] catastrophe to unfold within the time frame of the Biblical record."

"physical laws were somehow altered by God" as an explanation is not exactly precise much less scientific and should not be presented as such.