Yes, I think you are correct. And it likely will continue to be adjusted in accordance with verifiable, non-speculative, non-presumptive scientific research. Nor do all YEC agree on all of the possible physical mechanisms associated with the phenomenon of a global flood. Like the revisions to evolutionary theory, they too make their revisions to flood theory.
Not sure if I like your assertion here, John. You seem to halfway be implying that YEC Global Flood research is “verifiable” and “non-speculative” and evolutionary research is “unverifiable” and “speculative”.
If I misinterpreted your words then I apologize. But going with what I believe you’re saying I don’t think it’s possible to put such a sharp distinction between the two — I see both sides as doing this.
From some of the articles I’ve read, many speculate that a meteor came down and hit a glacier, causing the Flood. Other people speculate a meteor came down causing the Flood, and a subsequent Ice Age that lasted a few centuries.
Meteorite causation for the Flood is rather speculative wouldn’t you say? There’s only two causes attributed to the waters of the Flood: fountains of the deep and rainwater. No meteorite mentioned. And I would add that the Bible isn’t shy about mentioning celestial phenomenon.
Fire and brimstone rain from heaven, destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. Bread rains from heaven feeding the people of Israel during their 40 year trek. And in Revelations it says that stars will fall from heaven and the powers of heaven will be shaken.
A meteor seems like a very strange detail to go missing in the Flood.
Do you have a personal view on this or do you tend to reject the meteor hypothesis?
You say not all YEC agree on precise mechanisms so I’m just curious what your take on it is.
-Tim
Not at all. Both are speculative. But all I mean is that the speculation will be adjusted based on verifiable, non-speculative, non-presumptive research. YEC are not going to say that mutations do not exist, for example.
Yes, its speculative, like the meteor that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. But the fact that scripture doesn’t mention a meteor, doesn’t mean that a meteor couldn’t have been used by God as the cause for the fountains of the deep to open, so to speak. There is a difference between saying that scripture is reliable and trustworthy, and saying that it must contain all the details that there are to know.
Maybe there wasn’t a meteor… I have no iron in this fire. I’m curious about the potential processes and mechanisms, and I am curious about how the writers and theorists have worked out the math and physical processes and biological processes. Walt Brown proposed a different mechanism than creation.com and different than Henry Morris et al. In the process of discussing these mechanisms I find I learn a lot about things like supercritical temperatures, greenhouse gasses, the earth’s mantle, etc.
The extinction of the dinosaurs is not speculative, it is a fact. The cause of the mass extinction 66 million years ago is well established. K-T boundary, Iridium layer, Chicxulub crater.
It’s not upsetting. I just don’t see the wisdom or educational value in it. I think it’s a bad idea to get kids in the habit of answering questions that have perfectly explainable answers in terms of physics with “Because God made it that way.” That kind of answer demonstrates zero knowledge of the purported lesson objectives. To me, that would be like answering the question, “Why did the Civil War break out between the States?” with an answer like “Because it was God’s will.”
1 Like
I think some of the issues John, is that sometimes people view evidence for a Global Flood as evidence against Evolutionary Theory (or vica versa). When the two are mutually exclusive. Evolutionary Theory could still not have been proposed and we’d still have the geologic column to deal with. There are thousands of Old Earth Creationists who don’t believe in either theories — a Global Flood or Evolution. There are some that even believe in Global Flood, but didn’t fossilize any creatures. So it might be more accurate to say Global Flood vs. Geology.
In any case I’d like to peel back the statement you made about “a meteor wiping out the dinosaurs”…
I’ll separate the most detailed claim to the simplest one.
Biggest Claim “A meteor came down 65 million years ago and wiped out the dinosaurs.”
Big Claim “A meteor came down 65 million years ago.”
Claim “A meteor came down sometime in the past.”
Before we even get to millions-of-years and dinosaurs we have to discuss the broadest claim. Did a meteor come down on earth in the past? What sort of evidence would indicate a meteor strike?
On a road trip I took awhile back, my family and I came really close to actually seeing a meteor crater in Arizona. It was about a mile wide. Would you think a crater in the ground is evidence of meteor activity, or just God’s creativity? What about the craters on the moon… Are they just depressions articulated by God or do they display evidence of a history of meteor activity?
I don’t have Patrick’s confidence in saying things are straight-up facts, but to me, meteor activity is the more rational conclusion.
In regards to the K-T boundary, what Patrick is referring too is a peculiar layer that’s found in many places on earth that’s distinct from other layers. It contains a very rare mineral called Iridium, which is prevalent in meteors. They did a lab test on the layer and it turned out that it had 30x the amount of Iridium than the surrounding layers. It’s also a dividing layer that separates the dinosaur bones from the mammal bones.
So what do you think of the discovery? What I think is speculative is anything that refers to the past (perhaps something else other than a meteor is responsible for the peculiar layer). But from where I stand, I can see where they got their conclusion.
-
The peculiar layer that’s found everywhere on earth.
-
The fact that it contains a rare mineral that’s prevalent in meteorites.
-
The fact it separates dinosaur bones from mammal bones.
It’s not a fact, because one could always speculate about a different reason for the layer… But the current conclusion is compelling enough, that until someone else comes up with a better explanation, then it’s regarded with a high truth-status.
(Also the meteor-theory wasn’t readily accepted by the scientific community, but took some convincing. It threw a curveball to the “slow and gradual” picture that geolists in that time liked to hold onto.)
-Tim
This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.