by Steve Risner
I contend the first young earth creationist, apart from the Creator Himself, was Adam. Some suggest young earth creationism (Biblical creationism) is a new construct only held by radical anti-science Christians who don’t understand the Bible, history, or science. This is a laughable notion as we will see in a moment. But let me just say here that a belief in an extremely old earth and/or universe was not brought about by Christian thought or by God-fearing philosophy. It was first thought of by pagan societies and later dressed in scientific garb by atheists (or, more accurately I suppose, non-Christians) who refused to allow for the supernatural. I’ll have more to say on that next week. Does it seem wise to take the counsel of those who have little to no regard for the things of God and incorporate their philosophies into our worldview?
Let’s start with Jewish history on this topic since some claim the idea of a younger earth is a new one.
The Jewish calendar states it is now the year 5775—that is it is 5775 years since Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden. If you ask Ohr Somayach, the Jews have been using this form of dating for thousands of years. The credit for the final development of the calendar is given to Hillel II who lived in the 4th century AD, but many contend the calendar for the Jews was a development over a very long time period. The Jews count the year similarly to the way Ussher dated the creation—by using the lineages in Genesis. This is not a new thing. The Hebrews considered the calendar very important, organizing their holy days by it. To do so without strict adherence to the days given by God in the Torah would be a serious violation. But when did the Church adopt such an idea—the idea that Genesis was a literal history and that the earth was fashioned about 6000 years ago in 6 literal 24 hour days?
Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus was a very early Christian writer. He wrote on a variety of topics in the very early 3rd century AD after his conversion. It’s true he had issues with some Church teachings, but the point of addressing him is that as early as the 3rd century, less than 200 years after the establishment of the Church, Christians believed that the days of the creation account were literal and that the earth was formed 4000 years before them. Flood geology, the belief in the so-called geologic column, is claimed by some to be a recent development. However, Tertullian said that the global Flood explained why marine conches and tritons’ horns were found high in the mountains. This particular man is regarded as the father of Western theology. A little later we have John Chrysostom, a legendarily eloquent speaker and apologist who wrote in the late 4th century, who was also a literalist when it came to the creation week. At nearly the same time, we have the well-known Christian philosopher Saint Augustine. Some claim Augustine of Hippo believed in an allegorical creation story and, therefore, that he believed the earth to be much older than the Bible tells us through genealogy. This is a mistake. Although Augustine did believe the creation story was symbolic, he actually believed the opposite of the creation week when compared to old earth creationists, gap theorists, or theistic evolutionists. His contention was that the creation of the universe was instantaneous and that the 6 days of creation were allegorical to describe the single instantaneous act of creation for us. These 3 philosophers in Christian thought, which are only a sample of those we can pull from, show us that it was only just over 100 years after the Apostle John’s death that Christian writers were fully convinced of the natural interpretation of Genesis. The Apostle Peter also seemed to believe in a literal Genesis and the global Flood when he wrote of it in 2 Peter 3:3-7. This was likely written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 AD, thus placing Christian writings on the literal interpretation of Genesis within 30 or 40 years of the Church’s birth. Couple that with the obvious beliefs of the Old Testament prophets and writers and the case for a natural reading of the creation history is pretty clear. So is “flood geology” a new construct? Let’s look…
Ellen White, the founder of the Seventh Day Adventist movement, is erroneously claimed to have given flood geology its start. That denomination was founded in 1863. Keep that date in mind and, using your exceptional cognitive powers and your skills with arithmetic and sequential numbers, you should be able to see how this is not possible.
We’ve already seen that Christian writers from the 3rd century AD wrote that marine fossils were the result of the Flood. That sort of is a slam-dunk against the idea of a mid-1800’s birth to flood geology. But who is given credit for the founding of modern geology as a science? Nicolas Steno is the man most frequently given this honor. He wrote in 1669 in Forerunner that he believed the earth was roughly 6000 years old and that the geologic column and its fossils were the result of Noah’s flood. That is correct! The founder of modern geology was a young earth creationist and believed in Noah’s flood complete with “flood geology.” Over the next several decades other geologists wrote similar things, including German geologist Johann Lehmann and English geologist John Woodward. Both of these famed geologists were dead and gone by the mid-18th century and a full century before the founding of the Seventh Day Adventist church. It’s plain to see that Biblical creation and the so called “flood geology” are nothing new. In fact, they’re thousands of years old. So why do atheists and some Christians believe that geology is evidence for billions of years of earth history?
Next week I will cover Charles Lyell. He is not the first to believe in an old earth but is given credit for the final push in common thought that ushered in the age of uniformitarian doctrine. Uniformitarianism is the belief that “the present is the key to the past” which basically means the rates of current geologic processes are the only means by which past geologic formations were created. This idea has been rejected since the 1970’s but is still taught and held on to by many who refuse to admit the creationists have been right all along. We will also look in more detail at the belief in a global flood and other people in history who contributed to the shaping of the current belief in an old earth and in evolution over long time periods.
In conclusion, Church history is fairly clear. The fathers of our faith from the earliest Christian writings believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11. That is to say, the Apostles, Tertullian, Augustine, and Chrysostom can easily be cited as “flood geology” believers and in a literal six 24 hour day creation event about 6000 years ago. We can also reference Ephraim the Syrian, Basil of Caesarea or Ambrose of Milan, Augustine’s mentor, in the early belief in the global Flood and recent 6 day creation. All of these men are pillars in Church history and wrote on these topics in the 4th century—hardly the mid-1800’s. It is very clearly an error to say that young earth creation (Biblically based creation) and identifying fossils in the geologic column to the Flood is new or a remotely recent idea. This notion should not be pushed by any honest seeker of truth as the historical record doesn’t agree even a little. As the Word says in Romans 3:4, “Let God be found true though every human being is a liar, as it is written, that You may shown to be upright in what You say, and prevail when You are judged [by sinful men].”
59 comments:
I have demonstrated in other places seven ways from sundown that Hateworth is not only impervious to logic, but a pathological liar and a troll, so I don't need to point out more of his "reasoning" now. Really, this site should enable comment moderation.
Back to the topic, Martin Luther was dealing with the opposite problem: People didn't want a six-day creation because it was too long. His reply to them also fits Augustine: "When Moses writes that God created Heaven and Earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are. "For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God Himself says what deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God Himself says what is written.."
Flood geology is not biblical. Current YEC belief is that the geology and geography of the earth were completely transformed by the flood. I just read through the story of Noah in the Bible, and I can find no support for this idea. Am I missing a reference to the flood somewhere else in the Bible?
Anonymous, have you ever seen the effects of a lot of water showing up somewhere over a short period of time? Have you ever seen the aftermath of a flood? Our ministry is based out of Findlay, Ohio. IN 2007 a flood happened in this city. It left a horrible mess and yes, much moved and things were transformed because of the flood.. This was a very small flood compared to the worldwide flood spoken of in the Bible.
Also, I encourage you to read the text again. "Fountains of the deep" (this is biblical) bursting forth from the earth and it raining for 40 days and night continually would be like some thing we have never seen since. Do some research on the eruption of Mount Saint Helen's in Washington state and read about the aftermath of that situation and you might get a glimpse of what took place in the worldwide flood of Noah's time and after.
Well, I must say I was a bit taken to come upon my blog to find it with over 20 comments in just a few days. I appreciate your time and your comments. I'll get to them in an orderly fashion as work allows. Ashley has made some interesting statements--some of which have merit and others were simply a misreading of my material which I accept responsibility for. I do not appreciate character attacks accompanying comments. They aren't welcome, needed, or productive in any fashion from either side.
I would like to say that simply posting a slew of links to other places for me to read is likely a waste of time. Reference the link and paste what you are specifically addressing, please. I'd love to read countless pages of material to fine the sentence or paragraph you want me to discuss, but I don't have that sort of time. I hope you understand that. This also helps me trust you know what you're talking about rather than just vomiting up a bunch of links that may or may not be related to the topic. Again, thank you all for contributing.
I will start by saying a geologist who claims to be a believer but does not accept the Word of God gives me pause, at the least. I also will note for you that the Church of England is about as liberal as they come and I can't put much faith in their position on just about anything. I'm not concerned with "churches" and their positions. If they disagree with a clear reading of Scripture, they are in error.
Add to this the fact that I can produce Biblical creationists who are geologists by trade who disagree with this man Roberts (who I believe I have interacted with and find abrasive, arrogant, and unkind). So the point is impotent.
Ashley: You seem to be stating that I am saying uniformitarian principles are strictly adhered to in today's geologic or even in the scientific world. That is not what I stated. You mentioned it more than once. I said that, although this was a crucial piece in Lyell's attempts to take our Creator out of the natural sciences, it was basically tossed out in the 1970's by the scientific community. However, much like Haeckel's embryos, you'll still find these ideas taught and even incorporated in the literature.
No one with any education on this believes there were no catastrophes. In fact, most will agree that the vast majority of layers in the geologic column were laid down under water. Oddly, we see these layers all over the entire planet. However, no secular scientist will admit to a global catastrophe. They will only say there were multiple small (to use the term loosely) catastrophes. I say "small" because some extend over more than one continent and can even be connected across huge bodies of water--like the ocean or large seas. We find marine fossils on the tops of our tallest mountains. It's clear the planet was covered in water at one point. We disagree on when or how but we do agree on this point.
Do we think that a "refutation" has merit when it's a paper written by a layperson? A theologian with an interest in geology is less than a credible source unless he's referencing other sources that are credible. And again, he's from a liberal institution that has lost the fundamentals of Christianity a long time ago.
"Typical YEC bigotry. See here (my latest two comments) if you dare..."
I have no idea why you would say something like this. Can we try to have a civil conversation and not resort to name calling. Unless, of course, you're conceding the point which is what you must be doing if you need to attack someone in such a manner. Please, let's all be adults.
Ashley said: Adam (assuming he really existed) had plenty of excuses for being wrong about matters geological (though he never believed in'Flood Geology' for obvious reasons). Today's young earth creationists do not.
Ashley, I first need to ask if you are a believer or not. Are you a Christian? This will help me determine how to proceed. Adam actually was likely significantly more intelligent than you or I. In fact, he was the first biologist. In terms of geology, I don't feel there is any reason to believe geology was a study in a world that was only days or weeks old since I believe most of the geologic column was laid down in the Flood. Adam also had direct access to God. He had a relationship with God you or I could only dream of as they met together in the Garden. One day we'll see Him face to face, but until then...we wait. But the point is that Adam had little excuse for not knowing anything. He could ask the Creator of all any question he liked.
Ashley said: Bob cannot refute ANYTHING I have written here.
Ashley, forgive me, but I don't find much of anything to refute unless you feel the handful of links you've presented are your evidence that require refutation. Again, specifically reference something in them and give us your comments. This helps me 1)not waste time reading pages of material when you're only interested in a small piece and 2) by showing me that you know what is actually in the link and that you understand it.
But, sadly, I have to say after looking into the Michael Roberts you've referenced, I'm afraid I have no respect for him at all. He's treated me and several other Christian brothers and sisters with such vitriol I cannot count him among the brethren. I truly hate to say something like that in a public place, but he bears no fruit of the Spirit that I can tell. He is, by many accounts, a wolf. Please tell me what his qualifications in geology are. Lyell wasn't a geologist but has been heralded as one of the greats in the field. Why is Roberts "qualified?"
You also said: I also refuted Steve's false claim that anti-creationists still say all geological formations were caused by very slow and gradual 'uniformitarian' processes ones sometimes seen today though intermittently
As I stated earlier, I did not say that anti-creationists say all geology is due to uniformitarian processes. I said it was tossed out a long time ago but you'd hardly know it by reading the literature. Most of what we discuss in these blogs is based on uniformitarian dogma because, although, as you say, it's clearly not correct, it's still used in the thought processes.
You also said, quite ironically: The YECs are still wrong but some formations are formed by catastrophical rapid events
So the creationists are still wrong even though they've been right since the beginning? That's not a revealing statement at all :) Thanks for that.
Ashley wrote: Steve wrote that "Uniformitarianism [as he defined it which I would accept] has been rejected since the 1970’s but is still taught and held on to by many who refuse to admit the creationists have been right all along". So Steve did not insist that ALL anti-creationists still refuse to admit that some natural geological events took place in the distant past that were more catastrophic or rapid in nature than what we had observed in the recent decades leading up to the 1970s.
Thanks. I've been trying to say that for a little bit now. Glad you caught on. Then you go on to say I'm still wrong. Perhaps you feel this discussion is about one being right and the other wrong. It's not. It's about finding the truth. Are radiometric dating methods based on uniformitarian principles? Is Darwinism based on these same ideas? My son was just told erosion takes millions of years to give us the features we see today in his science class. I know. I know. It's not the fault of science that the textbook manufacturers are out of date.
You continue: But the truth is that virtually 100% of anti-YEC scientists would no longer adhere to the past version of strict uniformitarianism.
So in essence you're saying the YEC have been right all along and the secularists have finally caught up---which is exactly what I stated in my blog which you chastised me for.
You then stated: Steve should research such matters more thoroughly before making dogmatic statements.
Which is contrary to your other statements. You're saying I'm right and wrong at the same time which is fallacious. Please choose one.
BSF said: It is humorous to see that "creation science" dilettantes are still lying about modern geology and its understanding of uniformitarian methodologies. Newsflash: some geologic processes involve very slow changes over millions of years and some geologic processes bring major changes in minutes. That's Geology 101 at any university on the planet for as long as I can remember...and longer.
yes. yes. we've demonstrated this and you're essentially saying that while this is what was said in the blog, the blog is incorrect. Again, Biblical creationists have talked of catastrophism since day one while secularists did whatever they could to remove it from the story line. Lyell even admitted his goal was to secularize science. He did so by stating uniformitarian principles. They were accepted. They are now known to be false. But they're still used in much of the thought processes involved. I won't waste space repeating what I said to Ashley on this topic. You can read it yourself.
But stating that someone is "lying about modern geology" is disingenuous. You're exposing yourself as a dolt and unwilling to converse on the topic. Perhaps you are not a dolt and I hope you're not. But try not acting like one in the comment sections of my blogs. No one is lying about anything and I feel it's likely that you understand that perfectly.
"Modern" geology was founded by men who believe in Biblical creation and a young earth. This is a fact. Much like modern biology was founded by a creationist as well.
BSF said: Pretending that modern geology doesn't accept rapid changes is mind-numbingly stupid as well as dishonest.
correct. That's why no one here has stated this.
You further stated: staying about 200 years behind is common in "creation science" circles.
so Russel Humphreys is 200 years behind? Weird, because I thought he was out in front in a few things related to physics and planetary magnetic fields. In terms of being 200 years behind--how's abiogenesis? Or uniformitarianism? How does it feel to have to admit that the creationists have been right all along--that catastrophes do play a major role in geology? It'll probably heal up faster if you don't pick at it :)
Then: In other words, both the CS nonsense and the dishonesty is still status quo among many Young Earth Creationists.
it is of no use to cry "liar" in a discussion where you simply disagree with the opposing party. That's childish. Can we refrain? You gave a list of things that allegedly support this statement yet there was nothing in your statements that resembled this assertion. In fact, you actually made strawman arguments within these comments. Can you comment on something that is actually of substance in this blog? It was intended to show that it is a terrible error to attribute "Flood geology" to something new since it's been around for at least 2000 years and was widely accepted by mainstream science as late as the 1700's.
BSF said: If Bob actually cared about a literal reading of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1, he would have noticed that God's creation commands are described in a six day outline--but the fulfillment of those commands are described as processes taking place over long periods of time. God command that the land would bring forth life. There was no instant "poofing" of forests and ecosystems.
This is a misreading of Scripture. The Hebrew teacher I use to explain nuances of such passages tells me there is no reason to read it as you have here. In fact, she assures me the intent behind the word usage was that God was the manufacturer of the living things mentioned here. It was not the ground. Especially since we know that sterile earth doesn't make life at all. Your statement here is a terrific example of twisting Scripture to make it fit another predetermined shape. In this case, the shape is that believed in the religion of humanism (which you seem to hold to).
Then: "Embedded age" and "appearance of age" are simply more unbiblical creationist traditions which have no basis in the Biblical text. Young Earth Creationists only interpret the Biblical text literally when it happens to fit their traditions. Otherwise, they simply ignore the Bible.
I don't use either of these terms and I'm not sure why you've brought it up. Your statements on literal interpretation are a strawman. It's surprising since you claim to be formerly in this crowd that you actually do not understand their position. It would be wise to learn it before you 1) reject it and 2) mount an attack against it. Please don't waste my time by telling me you know this stuff. You obviously don't or you wouldn't say things that are not in line with what we believe.
And the unhappy truth is TEs and OEC cannot make any sense out of anything in Scripture. You distort the text to fit with something birthed by atheists and humanists. You have accepted man's word over the Lord's and then distorted His Word to fit your preconceived notions. Sure, you'll say this is what YEC do but the simple truth is we look at the Word and we have our foundation for our beliefs. It's a natural reading of the text that creates the basic outline of what we believe and that is just because God said it this way. You disregard many portions of Scripture so it will fit some secularist version of reality that you and I both know will be different in 50 years and much different in 150 years. The Truth doesn't change over time but man's understanding of it will. That's why we rest in God's unfailing Word and use it as a filter by which we view all things. Why are their PhD's in relevant fields that reject your basic beliefs in science? It's because your beliefs are not scientific. They are infused with scientific jargon to give it credibility but it is not scientific at all. This concept is so simple it's amazing intelligent people will glance over it without giving it any attention. Humanism/naturalism/secularism are what you're putting up here that we should accept WITH Christianity. That doesn't work at all. Read my blog from last week:
You are claiming the essence of the "God did it" anti-science crowd. That's disappointing. The text does not indicate abiogenesis. In fact, it tells us the Ultimate Source of Life, God, created all living things and He specifically breathed into Adam life. Again, lifeless dust cannot create life. I'm surprised here, truly. How was Adam created if not a man? Why did God command Him to be fruitful and multiply if he was not a man? Why did Adam need a woman if he was not a man? Your ramblings here are truly marvelous and I appreciate you exposing me to these statements. I've learned something today. Thanks for that.
Anon said: Flood geology is not biblical. Current YEC belief is that the geology and geography of the earth were completely transformed by the flood. I just read through the story of Noah in the Bible, and I can find no support for this idea. Am I missing a reference to the flood somewhere else in the Bible?
You must not have read the blog. You can define Flood geology however you like, I suppose. But the fact is attributing the fossil record and geologic column to the Flood is at least a 2000 year old practice.
JD70 nailed it. Water is a powerful force. And the fountains of the great deep bursting seems like a fairly catastrophic thing that might include changing topography. Don't you think?
Ashely said: Not enough water to cover all of today's highest mountains, even briefly, I think.
This is a terrible error and no creationist would allow this to stand. You must first understand what you're arguing against. You clearly do not.
Like any theory worth its salt, creation theory is ever evolving. You would criticize it for doing that and you would criticize it for not doing that I'm afraid. Let's be honest, Ashley. You're not interested in dialogue. You're interested in berating and stroking an ego. Go learn a bit about Flood geology, Flood models, and creation theory and get back to me. You seem to have a lot to learn on the subject. I'm sorry to be like that. Really. But you don't understand this stuff at all, it appears. If you do, you're not representing it well at all.
BSF: why do "flood geology" dodge the question whenever they are asked to identify which rock strata represents the flood? And if the flood aftermath was so "different", why don't we find any evidence of a global flood, especially when it was quite recent (just a few thousand years ago)?
Well, I'm happy to say you can't say this any longer. I'm about to answer the question: most of them are the result of the Flood. There obviously isn't one layer from an event that submerged the planet. If you honestly don't believe there is ANY evidence for a global flood, I can't help you. It's all around. This blog has discussed some of it. The comments do as well. The planet is full of evidence of it. I'm actually a little shocked by your comment here. What would you accept as evidence for a global Flood?
You then said: Isn't it interesting that none of the reputed "flood geologists" have actual significant training in geology?
This is easily shown to be false. Look them up.
Then: the Creator would not lie and fill the earth with evidence for billions of years
I don't believe there is any evidence that must be interpreted to say the earth is billions of years old. Your premise here is 100% unscientific. How can you get by with this stuff? Evidence doesn't tell us the age of the earth. Our interpretation of that evidence leads to one conclusion or another. There is nothing you have as an old earthism supporter that a Biblical creationist hasn't addressed. But even if there were apparent issues, I would hope no one in this discussion thinks anyone has all the answers save God Himself.
I find it rather interesting the only thing commented on in this blog is my statements on uniformitarian principles. Nothing else was referenced. So, I'll take that to mean Flood geology stands as an at least 2000 year old interpretation of the geologic column and fossil record.
//Uniformitarianism is the belief that “the present is the key to the past” which basically means the rates of current geologic processes are the only means by which past geologic formations were created. This idea has been rejected since the 1970’s but is still taught and held on to by many who refuse to admit the creationists have been right all along.//
Parts of uniformitarianism have been rejected (not sure where you get the 1970's date from). The idea that earthquakes, floods, volcanism, etc. occurred at the same rate in the past as they do now has been rejected.
What hasn't been rejected is the idea that the laws of nature are consistent across time and space. For science to be meaningful, this idea can't be rejected.
Maybe a supernatural being really did speed up the rate of radioactive decay by a factor of several hundred million while also supernaturally dissipating the excess heat generated, but there is no way to scientifically come to that conclusion.
Check out the wikipedia article on uniformitarianism, especially the comparison between "Methodological assumptions" and "Substantive hypotheses"
Can you point to some evidence, besides biblical genealogies, that dates the flood to ~4400 years ago? (or however long ago you believe the flood took place. I'm using Ussher's estimate)
I am honestly still waiting for a critic of our position to actually get it right. It sure is easy to say you've refuted everything we say when all you've really refuted is a figment of your imagination, what you THINK we are saying.
Ashley, in all your comments directed at Steve's post, you did not get one point right. He already pointed them out and you even admitted you might have "misread" him. Unfortunately, this is the norm for you, not the exception. And it is really difficult for anyone reading this to take you seriously when it is difficult to find any point you are making that is not surrounded by "Liar" or "Bigot". It certainly does not give you any credibility for anyone trying to see if you have anything worth saying. Even if all you say is true, filling each of your posts with numerous forms of "Liar" and "Bigot" does you no good whatsoever. If what you say is true, the facts will support themselves. They don't need your excessive name-calling to help them out. If they do need that help, I question the validity of such claims.
David, you clearly don't know much about YEC if you are going to suggest we reject science. Creationists helped build the space shuttle just as much as the secularists. What we reject are the deep time assumptions into the INTERPRETATIONS of the evidence.
Is there evidence outside the Bible for the Bible's timeframe? Absolutely. World history. All written records are in agreement with the Biblical account. Even Ashley's own nation traces it's royal heritage straight back to Adam. He will have to find pre-Darwin resources to find that because history has been re-written to favor an Evolutionary time-line. The majority of the world's nations can be readily traced to one location and one time frame and very specific names. Names listed in Genesis 10. The evidence is there. Will you look at it or look for it?
Here is one of the sources on the genealogy of English Royalty. The one here goes from Adam to Edward VI. Many other records trace directly back to names listed in Genesis 10 from all over the world. And each of these cultures has a Flood legend. Why did the Bible have the only one that remained fully intact? Simply, the Hebrews were among the few people that 1) stayed loyal to believing in God and his Word, and 2). They remained closed enough to still speak with Noah and Shem directly about the Flood. It does not take much to figure out that Shem was a contemporary of Abraham and Isaac. The other culture's account faded into myth because they did not have access to the original sources: those who lived it. But here is the link to the British genealogical path from Adam to Edward VI.
http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/record.asp?MSID=3014&CollID=19&NStart=395
First of all, gentlemen (or ladies), let me say that insinuating that any of these discussions are a disagreement between creationists (the religious) and science is unacceptable and disingenuous. Please refrain from making such arrogant statements. That's nonsense. Contesting the validity of an old earth, neo-Darwinism/evolutionism, and the like is not contesting science in any way, period. This discussion is completely between two religious or even philosophical viewpoints. Equivocating such inaccuracies makes it difficult for anyone to take you seriously or give credit to any statements you make. I don't have time to wade through a huge amount of long posts that make ignorant or intentionally deceptive statements.
I've noted earlier that the only challenge to my blog thus far was to the statements on uniformitarian doctrine. That's odd because it was a minor point. But if that's all there is to say, that is fine. You misunderstood what was written and I take at least partial responsibility for that. Ashley conceded he/she may have misinterpreted my statements and although it was said that I was correct, I was still incorrect. Strange, I know.
That Lyell (and many other people--I won't say scientists since Lyell was not a scientist but an attorney) believed the present was the key to the past and that he rejected any notion of a Flood of Noah is fairly common knowledge. Hence, the basis for the foundation of building the age of the earth to (now) 4.5 billion years is something we know is false. Though some believed in multiple catastrophes separated by long periods of time, the uniformitarian concept became the ruling dogma in geology. We all understand this is hogwash. The geologic column was laid down under water almost exclusively. Fossilization takes place after rapid burial under water/mud almost exclusively. We find fossils and rock layers over the entire surface of the earth. The difference? You say multiple smaller catastrophes. We say one large one with smaller ones taking place as well.
Then you raise objections over models, subduction, heat, decay rates and a slew of other things that mostly have been handled in the various models. You can tell me you're all up on Flood models and creation theory and all that, but you say things that tell me that's not true at all. In fact, I don't think you get most of this stuff at all. I wish you did because we could have a good discussion. But, since you aren't interested in studying this stuff (you likely feel it's a waste of time and I can appreciate that) we have to run around in circles go over basics and discussing strawman arguments over and over and over. Go ahead. Tell me you know all about creationist theories. You don't. It's obvious by your statements, so please don't try to convince me otherwise any longer. Can we move on?
Ashley, I'm not sure what your strategy here is. You keep claiming you've refuted something or actually everything I guess but I'm not seeing where that took place. Dropping links isn't helpful. I'm not looking at them unless you specifically tell me what I'm looking for and make your own comments on them. Next you'll give me a link to "the Origin of Species" so I can educate myself on it and act like my points are refuted. I'm in the process of reading Darwin's work, by the way. It's interesting....but anyway....
You also dropped a ton of junk on here for me to read about someone I have no knowledge on and have no idea why it's being brought up. Your conversations with someone else don't interest me. I'm sorry to put it that way. I'm sure you've both very interesting people, but I don't have time to read your discussion with someone else.
I have made numerous statements you seem to have ignored or conceded. I can't say which. I await your response to them.
You also are now rejecting the so called Flood geology as centuries old because something was added to it. This line of reasoning is beyond crazy (pardon the word usage but I'm not sure how else to describe it without really sounding harsh). Any theory changes over time, right? As new information is acquired, new problems seem to arise, or whatever, there are adjustments made. In some cases, the adjustments are so large the theory is essentially thrown out and replaced. Not so with Darwinism or the Big Bang. They can accommodate literally anything we find. But these ideas aren't chastised for evolving. It's said they're scientific for it (which is obviously not necessarily the case). It's one of their strengths. Yet creationists are mocked and ridiculed for adjusting their ideas. You will, of course, refuse to acknowledge this is the case---you honest, unbiased scientifically minded people with such high ethical standards would never have a double standard. You say this makes Flood geology a recent thing. How so? I described in my blog (which you seem to have at least glanced at) that geology was ascribed to the results of the Flood for centuries and I gave Tertullian as an example from 200 AD. Did the ideas advance as more discoveries were made? uh...yeah! Of course. It's really cool stuff! We thought about a canopy. Then we ditched the idea. Then we thought maybe it could be possible. Who knows? We look at the fountains of the deep bursting and consider, then, plate tectonics and other huge geographically manipulative things. We consider volcanoes and earthquakes and tsunamis and so many other things. Does this mean it's not an idea based on the Biblical teachings of the Flood? Of course not. It's the foundation of the idea. But the details aren't included for a bunch of reasons. If we talk about genetics, does that mean we're no long talking about creationism because genes aren't mentioned in the Bible?
Your whole line of reasoning is so marred and distorted it's hard to figure out if you've thought this stuff out or if you're just messing around or what.
If you cannot refrain from using the terms liar and bigot no one will respond to you any further. That's totally a lack of respect, maturity, and manners. You need to get over yourself. Your opinion of your posts is much higher than anyone's opinion of them. Calm down and mingle with us common folk.
And I am excited that you have tagged Roberts here. I would love for him to comment so everyone can see what a godly, kind, humble and upright man he is. I'm on pins and needles.
How do any of you know for certain what the earth would look like if there was a global flood that lasted a year? It seems to make sense it would leave a mark. We see that all over the place. We also see lots of rock layers and have confirmed this, indeed, could or would happen in such an event. And we know that fossils are buried in sediment quickly and fossilize. We see enormous mass graves of organisms. We have oil and coal pockets. There are many features that a huge flood could easily account for. These statements of "no evidence" and the like are nothing more than a refusal to accept clear evidence.
There are also stories of the Flood all over the globe. There are also Chinese characters that indicate a connection to the Flood. There are also histories of peoples all over the world that trace their lineages back to Noah or Shem Ham or Japheth.
I am confused, though, at how any of you can say " literally worldwide and mountain covering flood as in Genesis certainly did not occur during the last 5,000 years." Sounds like you're saying it could have happened but not 5000 years ago. That's a start.
Can I also point out, again, that you are majoring on minor point in the blog? This has happened to me before where something said as a side note or minor point is inflated to gargantuan proportions and beat to death. Get over it. You've magnified my statements and, I believe in an attempt to take away from the actual point of the blog, refuse to move on. If you need to act like because you disagree with me that I'm a liar, we're done here. I will no longer acknowledge your comments. Only a child would think if someone says something they disagree with that the person must be lying. I'm more used to chatting with adults. Can any adults join the conversation, please? If you feel that's not true, you have no need to get angry. But if it is true, you can tone it down and discuss these points like an adult. I realize saying that name calling is immature means, in your mind, that I'm a bigot. But no one with any sense thinks this. Pump the brakes.
Ashley said: But when YECs like Charlie or Bob or Tony Breeden feel threatened they either censor people (if they can) or they start throwing mud and trying to smear their critics as attacking 'strawmen' etc
The irony in this statement totally is making me laugh uncontrollably. This is good stuff.
You went on to say: I am frankly rather tired of YECs whinging "you don't properly understand us" or "you misrepresented us"
To which I would suggest you stop doing these things. Then no one will call you out for it. It's that simple. You don't get anything about this stuff and want to make an argument against something no one says. You're wasting my time.
You then quoted someone else not in this discussion saying: "Is there evidence outside the Bible for the Bible's timeframe? Absolutely. World history. All written records are in agreement with the Biblical account...". Absolute nonsense.
This is actually factual. I did a blog just a month ago or so on Egypt and am planning to write more on Chinese history and other civilizations later. It's amazing the continuity between world histories and the Biblical timeline.
But thank you for your kind words. I appreciate that you feel I'm down to earth...at least a little. Hopefully that means you'll tone it down a little.
You asked: Who on Earth is Steve addressing and WHAT is he trying to say?
my comments are towards whoever makes comments. Read the comments. You're not the only one here...although you're primarily the prolific poster.
Glad to know you're male. I can use the proper pronouns now. I have researched quite a lot actually. The funny thing is you think "science" tells you the age of the earth. I think facts in today's world cannot do such a thing. We can extrapolate, equivocate, expand, and all sorts of neat things with the facts. But the facts don't lead us to an age. Our worldview does. How we interpret the evidence does that. It's really quite simple. I've been engaged in this topic since 1993 where I heard Phillip Johnson speak on it (an attorney much like Charles Lyell). Again, thank you for being part of this discussion. I'm not seeing the big knock-out punches you keep bragging about. But I'll keep looking.
Ashley continued: If I call someone a Liar or a Bigot I FIRST back up my allegation
Sir, I am afraid I do not find any "back up" of these allegations. I only see name calling which has no place at all in this discussion and I really don't appreciate it.
You then said: We came out of Africa.not Ararat.
How do you know this? Be as specific as you can, please. And thank you in advance. Actually, to further that, if I may, can you specifically address what of my points you have countered and a brief summary of how you countered them? I would really appreciate it--as brief as you can so it's not too burdensome. I'm not seeing what you are talking about.
I count 8 times you used the term "bigot" in this thread. Does that seem unreasonable to you?
How about 16 uses of the word liar (I didn't look up lying)? Come on.
Hello is all right. I have posted at Wordview Warriors before. Ashley Hayworth-Roberts has repeatedly demonstrated that he is an intolerant troll who seeks to destroy creationists. He has been banned from many sites but continues to believe in his own self importance but he is largely ignored by the BCSE Forum members. He has been told that he is boring there.
I believe if he had the capability, he would kill them because his hatred is deep. He is irrational and has repeatedly demnostrated an inability to comprehend basic concepts of logic. His bullying is evident in many places as well as here where he picks on women who have probably never heard of him and are not a part of the posting here (Laurie and Elaine). Then he lashes out at other people who are not involved here.
Some people suspect that he uses false identities. He is only an annoyance and should be eliminated from having posting privileges but this blog does not have comment moderations, which is unfortunate as you can see.
Mr. Gordons,
I appreciate your post very much.
I do not like what Ashleyhr has to say, nor do I like his attitude any more than you do. Be assured that we keep an eye on what is going on here and even discuss, sometimes at great length, how to deal with people that disagree with us and we with them. Even with those who spew venom. Please keep in mind, like it or not, that Ashleyhr is a human being and has a soul. I once struggled not only with my faith but with what to believe in and what to let go as well. I do not know you at all Mr. Gordons but I encourage you to examine your own spirit in matters like these. Why? Because people who are lost, need a Savior. Why is Ashleyhr, still allowed to be here even though we do not know him? Because he needs a Savior. We love him and even for as difficult as he can be at times, we can hope that someday after much prayer, discussions in truth and love, he will finally accept Jesus Christ as not only Savior but as Lord of his life.
If we get the love part wrong, what's the point?
Perhaps someday, we may need to reevaluate how to deal with him but for now we try to help him to see how confused he really is on certain issues.
I will even say the following in public, Steve and Charlie, I care for both of you very much and I think you have done a wonderful job of dealing with these attacks. It's hard to deal with someone when they will not listen because they think they have it all figured out. But I encourage you to love.
JD, you may wish to consider the fact that when unbelievers are allowed to run rampant and turn Weblogs, Facebook Pages, forums and such into a litter box, they tend to drive away people who have something to offer. I've seen it.
I have articles and screenshots of AHW's poor reasoning skills on my sites, and can offer them if you wish to seem them. Of course, he has denied what I showed (and can be shown here, but I don't have time or interest), and simply resorts to "liar!". If he had heard my indirect references to him in my recent interviews, I'm sure he would have even more to say.
I was sent a letter from Tony Breeden, who is a creationist and an ordained minister, and he did not appreciate having his comments placed here, or for that matter, being dragged into AHW's character assassination attempts.
Forgot to add that I agree about Steve and Charlie giving good responses. Atheists and anti-creationists detest being held to the subject matter at hand.
Instead of libel and further accusations, AHW needs to actually support his assertions. Better yet, he needs to address the topics of the post instead of resorting to further secualrist jihad.
Great blog!
What you are doing here is a wonderful thing, and I just wanted to send some encouragement. Don't let the anger of antitheists do anything but encourage you more. (I think you struck a nerve!)
I love how the new scientific intellectual elite have actually convinced themselves that their circles are immune to all the bias and misrepresentation they accuse everyone outside their bubble of. They have decided that one *MUST* reject creation in order to be a "real" scientist, and then claim they are being reasonable when they say they will accept it - just as soon as a "real" scientist does. The impenetrable thought bubble conundrum.
Due to what happened on this thread with all the accusing, libel, and flat out slander we will now be marking such comments as spam. This will then make comments be removed from a thread.
We are sorry for any inconvenience or lack of continuity left in this thread but something needed to take place in order for good discussion to happen.
At this time, we do not plan to ban people from this site. We do expect dialogue to happen but we also expect all parties to respect one another even in disagreement.
Name calling will not be tolerated. If you can back up your position, then do it without using libel slander or the like.
We will continue to monitor this site and train our people better as we all move forward. Thank you for your understanding in this matter.
If you are here to seek out truth, then, by all means, seek truth but it can be done without calling someone a name.
Thank you.
I was hoping to that point by point refutation that was being spoken of. Hopefully, I still receive it. Again, if Ashley is interested in posting: please give my point and then your counter point. As briefly as you like is fine. I'm not sure anyone was able to see what you thought was such a great intellectual argument for your case. We can stop with the "liar, lying, bigot" and whatever else you put in nearly every comment (which was the cause for their deletion). Thanks in advance.
We will be deleting other comments as well. this will take some time.
Let us respect each other here. thank you.
Now that all that is passed, I hope, the real argument being made here is not whether uniforitarian models are still being taught or not, or how, but that claims that a global flood concept is a recent thing has been soundly refuted. Most people throughout the world believed a global flood took place and it was not until Lyell's uniformitarian model was brought forth that it began to decline.
Now all that being said, exactly how the Flood impacted the world has often been up for debate. It is not a debate of whether the Flood happened or not. It happened. Flooding created the Geologic column and the fossils. That is universal. The secularists argue it was multiple smaller floods vs one giant flood with smaller events afterwards. But the majority of Evolutionists included Neil DeGrasse Tyson and the majority of museum display, believe in a global covering of the earth by water. That is part of the Evolutionary model when the initial life forms came about (Primordial Soup). The debate is when, not if.
But again to emphasize that this post is not about the details of the Flood or the effects of the Flood, but simply about the reality that a global flood was theorized LONG before uniforitariansim ever took root.
Ashley, I think a large part of your lack of understand of our models is an understanding of what we are calling science and what we aren't. I will make it clear: naturalism and uniformitariansm (two different things but related) are NOT scientific positions. They are philosophic. Science requires three characteristic: observeable, testable, and repeatable. This is how the scientific method works.
We can use this process to test historic events (forensics). However, forensic requires a minimum of two out of three things: the starting point, an account of what happened, and an ending point. We can figure out how someone was killed by knowing the starting point (person alive) and knowing the ending point (the body in a crime scene) and we can figure out the account of what happened. The problem Evolutionists have is that they have neither the starting point, nor the historical record. They have to assume one to find out the other. We Creationists however have a historical record. You reject it, but that doesn't mean we don't have one. Exactly how that record took place we are still working and tweaking just like any other scientific model. Walt Brown's model is a scientific model BASED off the Biblical account. That could be wrong (which I know you believe it is). But the Bible is NOT a scientific model. None of us claim it is a scientific model. So for your to attack it as though it is a scientific model, shows you really don't know our claims. You cannot use scientific criteria on a non-scientific model. It doesn't work that way.
In classic military strategy, if you want to defeat your enemy, you need to know your enemy. I will admit that Lyell and Darwin knew what they were attacking. Lyell said in personal correspondence that he was directly going after the Mosaic timeline. He exactly what he was going after. You don't. You think you do, but you don't. Because you keep getting our position wrong and your attempting to get us to scientifically prove a non-scientific position shows that you don't know our position at all. It also shows you don't know what science is or what it is not. Because you keep trying to apply to a field it does not touch. Seriously, if you think you have a point to make, make sure you actually know what we are saying first. And you can always ask a question to find out what we are actually saying instead of shooting off insults that actually only apply to your opinion of what we are saying instead of what we are actually saying.
I deleted a few of my comments that were replying to now-removed comments since they looked weird ("Who is he talking to?") and I didn't want them to look like I was criticizing the article itself.
Ashley, NONE of us have ever called the Creation model a scientific model. Not me, not AiG, not ICR, not CMI, not Bob, not Steve, NO ONE. We are also clear to point out that naturalism is not a scientific model either. By definition it is a philosophy. IF you cannot apply the scientific method to it, it is not a scientific model.
I am well aware you were not aware that you give an impression of attacking the Bible as a scientific model, but your last line demonstrates you think all of us think it is one. Yet NONE of us have ever said Biblical Creation is a scientific model. Where did you ever get this idea? This again forces me to question if you have any clue what you are arguing against.
You accuse Ken Ham of "distorting Scripture", but the issue is not with him but with you. His claim does NOT go against this verse because even in an post-flood ice-age that still does not refute Genesis 8:22. To do so, is to suggest there was no summer or winter at all which is not our claim on the ice cores at all. Again, do you know what you are arguing against?
Now for Genesis 7:1-2 and Genesis 8:16-17, you again misread it. These verses are talking about the immediate context of the Flood, not for what happened long afterwards. So you again accuse Ken Ham of misrepresenting something you don't understand. That's not Scripture twisting. That's reading in context. Do you ever read one of the Evolutionary papers this way?
There is a reason why many of us keep asking you if you know what you are talking about. Here is a tool to help you out for any further 'research' you do. This is a practice taught to every lawyer when reading a document.
1). Plain text language.
2). Four corners. Context, context, context. For the Bible, context of verse, context of chapter, context of book, context of whole Bible. For any scientific paper, four corners of that paper. This includes every definition defined in that context must be the one used when addressing said context (take very strong notice of this when you talk about 'faith').
3). Specific overrides general. This is where your accusation of Ham's comment on the ice cores fails.
4). THEN outside sources. In all honestly, I've only seen you do #4 of these steps (which must be done in order to get a proper understanding of what is being said) when you make your claims. I won't call this dishonesty, because to be dishonest you have to KNOW that you know the truth and speak against it anyway. But I will say you have a lot of work to do in order to demonstrate you actually do know what you are talking about. Because the evidence shows otherwise.
Do you understand the difference between a scientific model based off a philosophical position and calling a philosophical position science? Yes, you do go over that. You didn't get it. The term "creation science" does not mean "Creation is science". It means "science based on creation". Big difference. This is how I have always understood YEC claims and this is how I have always heard it FROM YEC orgs. Please give citation from these orgs that say "Creation is a scientific model" or anything of the sort. Because I all see from you is your opinion of what "Creation Science" means which is anything but true nor is it how any of the YEC orgs carry out their business. You DO NOT know what you are talking about. You can keep telling yourself that, but you don't. Your opinion is not fact.
Where did you suggest that you think we think Creation = science. In your previous post.
//I dealt with ALL that in a previous thread under one of your past blogs, Charlie. Have you forgotten? Why is it called 'creation science' by YECs if their model is not - as you say - meant to be 'scientific' ie based on 'knowledge'?//
You questioned why we call it creation science if it is not a scientific model. Exactly what else I am to conclude from this other than you think we think our entire philosophy is scientific? If you did not mean this, what did you mean?
What is the difference between Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory (or the Canopy Theory, it does not matter) and the Biblical account of Noah's Flood? Can you tell me? Have you learned enough about our position that you know how we distinguish between them? If not, you are free to ask questions. Again, I'm not asking AiG or ICR. I'm asking YOU.
You THINK you did not imply that. That's opinion. And what I stated was opinion. That rules out lying as an option. That is what I got from you, Ashley. You may think you were clear, but you weren't. I don't try to twist words. I look for plain meaning first. Again, since you claim you did not mean that, why do I get two completely different messages from your earlier posts to this new one? There's more factors to a missed message than the receiver. There is also the sender. And it has to do with your communication skills.
I really don't care if the models are accepted are not. I'm asking if you understand the difference between having the Bible as the foundation and building a scientific model (which CAN change) off that. It's basically the same thing as Evolution building their scientific models upon the foundation of naturalism and uniformitarianism (they MUST have that for their time frame, despite being disproven in every regard). Do you know them well enough to discern the difference? Can you tell the difference between science and naturalism? If so, show that you do.
"Can you tell the difference between science and naturalism?"
Science requires methodological naturalism.
If I'm a meteorologist, I must discount the idea that the weather varies with Thor's mood. If I'm doing a clinical trial to study the efficacy of a drug, I have to assume that a supernatural being isn't healing some of the subjects.
Perhaps Thor's mood really does have an effect on the weather. Maybe a deity is supernaturally healing most of the people that took the real drug. Maybe Yahweh did flood the earth.
Even if the results of scientific studies are incorrect because they assumed naturalism in a case where supernaturalism was involved, that doesn't mean that it wasn't science. It just means that science led to the wrong conclusion.
Science can't prove naturalism, but assuming naturalism has been very helpful.
How would science work if it is not constrained by methodological naturalism? The flood model that I've seen says that the rate of radioactive decay was sped up to be hundreds of millions of times faster than normal. Scientists have not been able to find anything that can change the rate of radioactive decay by even 1% (this only applies to the isotopes scientists commonly use for dating, I think some other isotopes may have varied by a couple percent). I propose an alternate theory: God created the earth almost exactly as it looks now, but during the flood, he supernaturally teleported all the dead animals into the rock.
Please tell me why the fast radioactive decay model is better than the teleportation model. Both require divine tweaking of the laws of physics.
//More vague waffle and about I supposedly implied (sometime). You appear to be confusing creation (Bible) with creationism or 'creation science' (Man's Bible-based origin etc theories).//
Not vague, Ashley. I know where a Creation model breaks from the Biblical account and where it doesn't. I'm asking YOU if you can tell where that happens. And can you tell where it happens in your own model? Can you tell where Evolutionary models break from science as you "eloquently" put it in the other thread? I can very quickly. Because I know it. Not just a definition. I know how to apply it. I know how to put different pieces together in regards to it. I know enough I can make quality educated statements about it. You haven't it. All you've done is quote this source or that source.
//Uniformitarianism is NOT 'disproven'. As David clearly set out. Why do you persist with expressing non-factual opinions as 'fact'?
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/naturalism
Naturalism.
"The philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted".//
I discount what claims to be scientific and has been scientifically disproven. Again, uniformitarianism is NOT the same thing as uniformity of nature. We deny the former, not the latter. The latter says the principles and the equations stay the same. The former says that the values in the equations stay the same. If you don't understand this, take a science class. Actually study what we claim and quit claiming what we are not saying. I'll address David's post about radiometric dating right now. That's been busted too.
//Science requires methodological naturalism.//
David, do you understand that this puts limits on what can be addressed and what can't? I am not against science. I am not against understanding the natural world. But I am against suggesting only the natural can demonstrate something to be true. Science often leads to wrong conclusions, but do we throw the baby out with the bath water as you and Ashley have often suggested? No. Unlike you, we know where science stops. We know when we stop talking about science and are now talking philosophy. That has been my point. Do know you where that break takes place?
//Even if the results of scientific studies are incorrect because they assumed naturalism in a case where supernaturalism was involved, that doesn't mean that it wasn't science. It just means that science led to the wrong conclusion.//
So you recognize that God might be involved in things? That's a step forward. The Bible records a lot of things that are impossible by naturalistic understandings. And that is why many discard it. But it is discarded for faulty reasons because of a faulty foundation. If naturalism cannot address the supernatural, that means naturalism is the WRONG tool to use to make a statement about the supernatural. Yet it is used all the time and wrongly so. It is the equivalent to trying to measure weight with a thermometer and then claiming weight doesn't exist. If you want to make a statement about the supernatural, such as God's existence, you cannot use naturalism as your base for doing so.
Now you make a very interesting claim about radioactive decay that is easy for me to tear apart. I don't blame you for not knowing the facts, but I will say you haven't done your homework. Radioactive decay has proven to be inconsistent. Yes there is the solar flare incident where most people have accepted but claim it does not have much of an effect. Here is the effect it does have. It proves that if you add energy, the decay rates move faster. It's just solar flares don't add much energy to it.
It is scientifically proven to have much faster decay rates when under electrical pulses. Here is a patent for a Van De Graff Generator that has proven to vastly accelerate decay rates.
http://www.google.com/patents/US5076971
What this proves is what basic science and understanding the decay process tells us but Evolutionists deny. When you have an unstable situation, nature will seek to become in a more stable situation. You have a rock on a cliff with lots of gravitational potential energy, it will seek to lower that potential energy by falling. Likewise, parent isotopes are unstable so they will seek to be in a more stable situation, hence why they decay. One thing that every chemist and physicist knows is when you add energy the object will want to be in a more stable situation. This is different than intertia so don't go that route. So when an already unstable atom has energy added that will accelerate the decay process. Both the solar flare experiment and the Van De Graff Generator proves this. Now temperate does not affect the decay rates, that has been shown. But here is one thing that has not been tested: the effect of an earthquake on the decay rates. I have been searching for some kind of paper and experiment on this for over a year and I've still come up empty. The reason you can suggest the decay rates don't change is because for the most part, they haven't been tested much. I don't know how to test an earthquake's effect but it sure is interesting how no one has suggested that (I have not even heard YEC orgs suggest this.). We had MASSIVE geologic impacts with Noah's Flood so what would that do to the decay rates? I would say they would accelerate them. This is part of understanding science. It's not just stating a definition. It's about putting many different parts together. So I have confidence that uniformitarianism has been busted in every regard. Not uniformity of nature (different thing), but uniformitarianis. I have confidence that no one can prove that things happen at the same rates consistently, especially when they have only observed them for less than 0.00000000002% of the time they have been claimed to happen. (I did not randomly come up with that number. That is how much observation we have done on some of these deep time isotopes). This is beyond any claim you can call science.
"How would science work if it is not constrained by methodological naturalism?"
Good question. Wonder if Charlie has answered it so far.
"Can you tell where Evolutionary models break from science as you "eloquently" put it in the other thread?" Will you kindly QUOTE the words of mine (and post number in the other thread) that you are asking about as I don't recall saying or suggesting what you are regurgitating. Thank you.
"quit claiming what we are not saying". I have NEVER done that. I know very WELL about that uniformity/uniformitarianism drivel - I have read thoughts of eg YEC Jason Lisle on that topic (that's what they are - thoughts).
Your attempts to show that you are oh so clever and I am your intellectual inferior do not appear to be influencing very many others in these threads, Charlie.
And the ONLY kind of uniformitarianism that has been 'disproven' is uniformitarianism that excludes ALL catastrophes (not seen routinely today) on Earth throughout geological time.
And your arrogant sounding statement that radiometric dating has been 'busted' is plain untrue. (I read your latest post; it is interesting but it does not identify a refutation of the method.)
Do you understand that not just ANY catastrophism will help a YEC? What if decay rates were slower in the distant or recent past for instance? Would you approve of such a hypothesis? Might lots of water cause a slowing down of radioactive decay somehow? I suspect you would insist that it could not possibly do that.
So you YECs decide on your conclusion first (no rock is older than 6,000 years) and then invent a hypothesis that 'leads' inevitably to it or something very close to it (so it does not look like an outright 'fix' though of course YEC papers are only reviewed by fellow YECs prior to online publication). I think you have it all backwards.
So 'Noah's Flood' took place in Van de Graaff Generator like conditions?
Recent science findings suggest that higher sea levels (as during any global flood for instance) would make it harder for undersea volcanoes to erupt (as many YECs claims happened during the flood, partly to cause an unbiblical 'ice age' afterwards). Not certain whether the same would apply to undersea earthquakes.
http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3620
YOUR BLANKET CENSORSHIP OF ALL MY REFUTATIONS OF THE YEC LIES PUT OUT ON THIS BLOG IS EVIL SICKENING DISHONEST HYPOCRISY. I WILL EXPOSE YOU AT ANY OPPORTUNITY.
Thank you for restoring my comment at 7.26 pm on 27 February US time.
I wanted to clarify something here. David made a comment about how science depends on Naturalism. This is most definitely NOT true. Because naturalism is the philosophy that only that which is "natural" can be considered in the evaluation of anything. This is an absurd proposition because naturalism if you really hold to it, excludes concepts like numbers, math, logic, morality, language, etc, all of which are not natural things. If naturalism is disprove (which it is because it is internally inconsistent and cannot account for itself) science does not change. What is actually true is that science depends on uniformity of nature, which is NOT naturalism NOR is it uniformitarianism. Uniformity of nature can only be accounted for by a Biblical Worldview. Nothing else can do it. So the very nature of science itself points back to the Bible being true. A little science turns you away from God. A lot of science brings you back. Naturalism and Evolution always fails when the holistic picture is examined. It only works in the unknown where no facts are present and the more facts we learn, the more ridiculous Evolution sounds from a pure scientific perspective. That is why Evolution can only tell partial facts and keep the real truth hidden behind the curtain. And the Evolutionists have a wonderful phrase they keep living: Ignorance is bliss. Without the order and structure that only an omniscient, omnipotent God could give, science cannot exist. Naturalism cannot account for the laws of science themselves. But the Biblical Creationist can.
How would science work if it is not constrained by methodological naturalism?
How would it work apart from naturalism? The way it always has. It never WAS under naturalism. Naturalism is a false philosophy that has nothing to do with science. If Evolution were proven 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt, here is what would change in science....
....
....
....
NOTHING.
While 99% of scientists claim to support Evolution about 0.5% of those scientists ever talk about Evolution. Because it is totally irrelevant to what they do for a career. This is why you need to KNOW this stuff. With a much deeper knowledge than mere definitions. You make the claims you make with the knowledge you display, it doesn't go as well as you'd like. Do I disagree with a lot of mainstream science? Yes, I do. I agree with the one who made the Universe. His opinion trumps every single one of them, combined.
More nonsense about science.
I may have misread "It never WAS under naturalism" as meaning the same as "It never HAS BEEN under naturalism". But perhaps you were stating that it IS under naturalism NOW? After all, Ken Ham claimed that science has been 'hijacked by secularists'. Unless you are disputing his claim?
But science, under naturalism today, works. It got us to the moon and back. Would it have been so successful if what the Bible states had formed the starting point? (Maybe, Maybe not. The Bible calls the moon a 'light' in Genesis - which strictly speaking it is not as it reflects sunlight.)
Charlie seems to be unable to differentiate between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.
Post a Comment