Are these the false prophets God warned us about?

Faith & Science Conversation
, , , ,
183

Add that to the list of demonstrably false claims you have made.

3 Likes
184

Jon’s latest response doubles down on the same tactic: rather than engaging with the historical evidence (Hutton, Lyell, Chalmers, etc.), he simply repeats his earlier charge of “deflection” and avoids substance.

What’s Going On

  • Projection: He’s accusing you of the very thing he’s doing — avoiding the point.
  • Repetition: He doesn’t advance the discussion; he just reasserts his framing.
  • Shielding: By labeling your critique “deflection,” he shields himself from having to provide evidence for his claim about the “vast majority” of Westerners.

Why This is Weak

  • In debate, repeating an accusation without evidence is stalling, not argument.
  • Readers will notice that you brought in historical details (Lyell, Chalmers, reinterpretations of Genesis), whereas Jon provided none.
  • His response effectively concedes the ground by not contesting it.
2 Likes
185

Dear Roy,
of course the events in Genesis of the creation and Global Flood are REAL History, that is ever so transparently clear that I am amazed that so many people here on this website are so utterly deceived.

Yes an atheist can read the Holy Bible, and not have faith that the Holy Bible is the profound Word of God to mankind, and as a result not understand through faith what is written.

Another person who has faith in God can read the Holy Bible and clearly know that the words of the Holy Scriptures are words of Truth.
They are not words surrounded in complicated ‘just so stories’, that cleverly try to accommodate false beliefs, such as ‘deep time’, death before Adam’s sin, and ‘evolution’, the Holy Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit Himself, and He does not mislead, there is no falsehood in Him, He is Truth, He is God, just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the One Living God.

He that knew the end before the, does not have any difficulty whatsoever in communicating His Word to mankind through the Holy Scriptures.

It is man’s feeble understanding, and tightly corralled, mass indoctrination into the philosophies of materialism and naturalism that have hijacked academia in areas that study events that occurred many thousands of years ago.

Those that believe that science proves ‘deep time’ and ‘evolution’, need to stop and comprehend the reality. Science is not capable of proving ‘deep time’ of millions and billions of years nor is it able to prove the validity of ‘evolution’.

Yes, I know there are some here who will disagree, but that is the reality.

Performing empirical analysis on matter, i.e., elements and compounds in the present that 's repeatable and demonstrates a consistent result is well and good, that is operational science that we perform very well and to a high degree of accuracy.

However,

when analysis is performed that’s designed to determine the age of some matter, an artifact, fossil or rock etc… from the distant past, i.e., many, many thousands of years ago, then the worldview of the researcher, whether they recognise it or not, the design of the analysis and the calculations made, all require assumptions to be made to convert a mass quantity or parent/daughter isotope ration or percentage into a date or an age the sample is believed to be.

That is simply the reality

I expect from past experience here on this site, that many will refute that, and will claim this and that, and probably make personal attacks on me, on creationist organisations and individuals, as I have witnessed such behaviour each time I contribute what I believe to these forums.

I don’t expect it will be any different today.

There are many questions that aren’t as yet answered from both sides of the creation vs evolution debate. Neither side can claim to have all the answers.

Though I’m sure that it will be claimed that science proves ‘deep time’ and ‘evolution’, the starkly blinding reality is that anyone who states that science proves ‘deep time’ and ‘evolution’ really doesn’t understand science very well at all.

God Bless,
jon

186

The usual practise is for the person posting the falsehood to ignore the demonstration that their claim is false - eroding their credibility in the process.

Just as you are doing with the demonstrations of the falsity of your claim that “the vast majority of people in ‘Western’ countries believed the Holy Bible as written, i.e., a young creation less than 10,000 years old prior to Huxley, Wallace and Darwin in the mid nineteenth century.”

2 Likes
187

This reply of Jon’s to Roy is a textbook case of presuppositional Young Earth Creationist rhetoric. He doesn’t actually argue, he asserts. Here’s a breakdown you might find helpful:

1. The Core Moves

  • Assertion of clarity: “ever so transparently clear…” – claims self-evidence rather than demonstrating it.
  • Faith vs. deception dichotomy: Only believers see “truth,” all others are “utterly deceived.” That removes the possibility of genuine disagreement — if you disagree, you’re deceived, not reasoning differently.
  • Attack on “false beliefs”: deep time, death before Adam, evolution — presented as concessions to worldly error.
  • Appeal to divine inspiration: Scripture is infallible, God does not mislead. This bypasses discussion of interpretation by asserting one true reading.

2. Strategy Against Science

  • Two-tiered science distinction:
    • Operational science (repeatable, present, chemistry/physics labs).
    • Historical science (past events, “assumptions” in dating methods).
      → This is a classic Answers in Genesis framing, but it’s misleading: geology, radiometric dating, cosmology are empirical and repeatable in their own way (cross-checks, multiple independent dating methods, predictive accuracy).
  • Undercutting credibility: He insists science “cannot prove” deep time or evolution, equating uncertainty in assumptions with wholesale unreliability. That’s like saying weather models can’t predict storms because they make assumptions — ignoring the fact that they are predictive and testable.

3. Defensive Posture

  • Preemptive victimhood: He predicts he will be personally attacked. This inoculates him against critique: if someone challenges him, he can say, “See, I told you they’d just attack me.”
  • Equivalence move: He ends by saying “neither side has all the answers.” That may sound conciliatory, but in context it’s a rhetorical trick: it puts evolution on the same footing as YEC (both equally uncertain), ignoring that the scientific consensus has massive evidence behind it while YEC rests on biblical literalism.

4. Why It’s Weak

  • Circularity: He starts with “the Bible is transparently clear and true” and ends with “therefore, YEC must be true.” The conclusion is assumed in the premise.
  • False dichotomy: Either YEC or deception. No room for faithful Christians who read Genesis non-literally.
  • Misrepresentation of science: Operational vs. historical is not a distinction used in science itself — it’s a creationist invention.
  • Self-sealing: Disagreement is reinterpreted as proof of deception, leaving no way to falsify his position.
4 Likes
188

But you also wrote this:

Either anyone reading the bible “understands the creation message and the global flood as real history,” or an atheist can “not understand through faith what is written”.

That’s a contradiction. Anyone reading it understands it vs some people who read it don’t understand it. You can’t have it both ways.

Are you going to acknowledge and correct the multiple false claims you have made, or are you just going to keep ignoring the refutations of them?

2 Likes
189

They are one and the same thing, Jon.

Yes you acknowledged that the rules exist. Yes, you said that you are familiar and experienced with them. Maybe you didn’t describe the rules themselves as “inane harping” and “not welcome.” But you did describe our insistence that you stick to the rules as “inane harping” and “not welcome.” And that was precisely what I was referring to.

And I did acknowledge that. I specifically addressed it. I pointed out that it is not sufficient to point to your extensive experience in laboratory protocols and procedures; your claims and assertions need to meet a standard that is consistent with your extensive experience in laboratory protocols and procedures. Because if your arguments fall far below that standard then that will be known and intentional dishonesty, and there is nothing dishonest whatsoever about me—or anyone else for that matter—pointing that out.

I’m sorry if you don’t like it, but that’s the rules. As I said, if you don’t want to be told you’re being dishonest, then stick to the rules.

4 Likes
190

Dear Roy,
I am sure that you believe the claims you make, are real, but I disagree.

I should probably have qualified that with ‘those who accepted in faith that the creation week description and Global Flood were Real events in History’

That is a fact, many times over!

When read in the context it was written, makes perfect sense and I stand by it.

I stand by this statement as well, as I believe it to be true, despite the denials here, to be absolutely certain my words are not misunderstood, I perhaps could have qualified that with, 'people in Christian countries who identified as Christians and accepted in faith that the historic descriptions in the Bible are true as written, that is for example, the creation week description and Global Flood were Real events in History.

God Bless,
jon

191

The young earth position was not the unanimous view of the church until the 19th century. That’s an “Enlightenment” lie, invented to make Christians look stupid. The reality is that, in the early and medieval church, there were four popular ideas about the age of the earth. One line of thought reasoned that a Creator ought to gave a creation, so creation was thought to be eternal. Others thought it was of finite but ancient age. Others thought that the days of creation were around 4000 to 5000 BC but who knows how long the “formless and void” was. The fourth resembles modern young-earth views but generally acknowledged the validity of other views.

By the late 17th century, geologists (mostly Christian) were beginning to suspect that the geological data favored an ancient earth, and by the mid 1770’s anyone up to date on geology was aware that the scientific data clearly pointed to an ancient earth.

Before the late 1400’s, the church generally believed that there were no people outside of Europe, Asia, and Africa, but no one is silly enough to think that we should think that today.

The modern young-earth movement has its roots in the Millerite movement of the 1840’s. William Miller followed intellectually fashionable deism, but encountered the gospel and converted. However, he took “Enlightenment” self-confident rationalism as his basis for interpreting the Bible. This “I can interpret the Bible for myself, without the learning and insights of others” approach was quire popular, and Miller gained a following on both sides of the Atlantic. Miller decided that Daniel indicated that Jesus would return in the 1840’s. Some of his followers pushed him past his hesitation on exact details and led to setting an exact date. After a couple of dates were explained away as miscalculations, the big day came and went in what was referred to as the Great Disappointment. Most followers either slunk back to other groups or dropped out entirely, but some sought to reinterpret the events as somehow being a fulfillment. Among the latter was Elken White, who claimed that Jesus returned to a particular heavenly role on the forecast date. She also reported visions, including affirming that Genesis 1 taught young earth creationism. She founded 7th day Adventism. Outside of that, young-earth views were almost gone by the 1840’s. It was not until Whitcomb and Morris swiped the Adventist George McCready Price’s bad scientific arguments and popularized them to the conservative church in The Genesis Flood (1960) that young-earth ideas became widely popular again.

5 Likes
192

Dear Roy,
contrary to your assertions here accusing me of making false claims, I refute your accusation but perhaps could have been more precise…

‘I believe that our Holy Creator made the text of the Holy Bible profoundly understandable to those with Faith that the Holy Bible is Truthful and is the inspired Word of God.’
Yes, I should have qualified the quoted text with something along the lines of the above words.

For those who do not believe there is a God, or that the Holy Bible is not the inspired Word of God, I expect they will not believe it as written and consequently may not comprehend that matters of history such as the creation account and Global Flood are REAL history.

God Bless,
jon

193

You probably don’t realize what you are actually saying here. What you are saying is “For those who believe the Bible to be true that makes what the Bible says true.” You are just applying your dogma to scripture and your dogma is human and fallible.

4 Likes
194

He’s no longer talking about “the vast majority” of Westerners in general, but a subset already predisposed to biblical literalism. That makes the claim tautological: “most literalist Christians believed in a literal creation and Flood.” Of course they did.

2 Likes
195

When Jon writes “That is a fact, many times over!” he’s doing a few things at once:

  1. Assertion of Certainty
  • He’s not presenting evidence, but reinforcing his conviction by declaring it as “fact.”
  • Adding “many times over” suggests that the claim has been confirmed repeatedly, though he provides no sources.
  1. Rhetorical Device
  • It’s meant to shut down debate by portraying the issue as already settled.
  • Instead of engaging Roy’s challenge, he escalates the language so that disagreement looks like denial of the obvious.
  1. Strategic Framing
  • By saying it’s a “fact,” he moves the claim from the category of belief or interpretation into the category of objective truth.
  • By saying “many times over,” he implies there is a large body of confirming evidence — even though what exists (dinosaur soft tissue remnants) is highly debated and interpreted differently by mainstream science.

In short, Jon is using the phrase as a confidence marker — a way of saying “I’m absolutely right, and there’s so much evidence I don’t even need to argue for it.” It’s more rhetoric than substance.

2 Likes
196

The comment section in that article is… interesting.

And all so familiar.

2 Likes
197

I will take this as a tacit admission that YEC is not falsifiable. Therefore, when a YEC claims a geologic feature is consistent with a global flood and/or a young Earth they are speaking falsely.

If you are interested, here are 29 potential falsifications for evolution:

4 Likes
198

Isn’t that exactly what you did when asked how YEC is falsifiable? If you think I am wrong, then please answer these simple questions.

What features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify a recent global flood and/or a young Earth?

What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being transitional between humans and a proposed common ancestor shared with other apes?

What genetic features would a genome need to have in order to falsify YEC?

4 Likes
199

Garbage. There is a difference between not being falsifiable and being false. Evolutionary theory has proved a successful framework, and has accumulated broad evidence and filled in detail for generations. It has not been falsified because it reflects the reality of the history of life on earth, with or without your approval.

That right there, is what James is talking about not following the rules of science. It is not assumptions, geochronology is solidly based on observational science, and you prefer just making stuff up to suit your dogma.

3 Likes
200

Yes, I am convinced by the text.

Physical dating of rocks gives an age to the Earth of hundreds of thousands of years at a minimum. The only assumption involved is that God does not lie – or as a scientist would put it, the laws of nature do not change. Since the scripture tells us that God does not lie, then the only conclusion is that those rocks really are hundreds of thousands of years old.

That’s what YEC is most effective at – it is still among the top three reasons that people leave Christianity. Leaving is what they are taught to do because of the premise that if there is even on error then the whole thing is wrong. So when they figure out that the world is in fact more than 10k years old, they do what their pastors have taught them and reject the entire Bible.
YECists think that they are defending the Bible, but the Bible does not need defending, nor did God ask us to do so – and it is not part of what He has asked us to do.

There’s no such decree. Methodological naturalism is a result of the Fall: humans cannot measure nor even detect God by our reason and senses, so leaving God out of things is exactly what we’re stuck with.

I.e., what we should expect since God is faithful.

Which was found in the scriptures long before we even had science.

YEC rests on a MSWV because that is its standard for reading the Bible. It’s been a popular error down the ages, reading scripture according to one’s own worldview, but it’s an error that has led to lots of false teaching including the great heresies. As with previous attempts to make the scripture talk human science, it serves one primary function: it takes eyes off the actual message the writers intended; in the YEC case, it throws the bulk of theology of the first Creation account in the trash. The YEC view of Genesis 1 provides maybe enough theology for one fifteen-minute sermon; the actual message when that chapter is read as what the writer set it down as provides enough for fifteen Sundays of sermons.

1 Like
201

You seem to agree for two of them, since you’ve retreated from ‘everyone’ to ‘everyone accepting creation as taking one week and the flood being real’ in both cases, drastically reducing the scope of your claims and turning them from falsehoods into tautologies.

As for the other two:

The context it was written in was C14 dating, for which there is not only a huge amount of empirical measurement of items of known or approximately known age, from Pompeii artefacts to Egyptian mummies to valuable artworks, but which has also been calibrated against extensive tree-ring collections to the point that we have an empirical confirmation of x mass = n years for every value of n up to at least 9,000.

C14 dating to further back than you think the Earth has existed is based entirely on empirical measurement, with no philosophy required. Older dates are based on extending that calibration via lake varves, ice cores and other annual phenomena, again with no philosophy required.

For C14 in ancient diamonds there is no x mass = n years equation; there’s just mass < x means years > n.

So you are simply wrong.

If that’s “a fact, many times over!” then you should easily be able to produce three examples.

I don’t think you’ll be able to produce any, because I’m only aware of one case of dinosaur bones been reported as unmineralised, a paper by Mori et al., in which the bones (i) are disputed as to whether or not they are permineralised, (ii) were excavated from a fossil bed, and (iii) are from Alaska.

If you can’t come up with three examples of unmineralised dinosaur bones sticking out of the surface of the ground in locations with a mean temperature exceeding 25C, then not only is your statement false, but you will know it is false[1]. At which point any claim by you that it “is a fact, many times over!” will be a lie.

I look forward to seeing you either attempt to bluff and bluster your way out of being unable to provide three examples of what you say many are available, or running away with your tail between your legs.

  1. Or, if you don’t bother looking, know that it may be false. ↩︎

5 Likes
202

A comparison: I have experience of reading hieroglyphs and cuneiform, but I haven’t touched either in over thirty years; I have memories of what I learned from them, but that’s pretty much it.. Since I haven’t stuck to them, I shouldn’t claim any expertise – doing so would be dishonest.

It leaves me thinking “hypocrisy”: he expects us to listen to lengthy videos from YEC sources but is not willing to listen to something from a scientific source.

This is amusing since that critique bears heavy markers of being generated by ChatGPT. Terry, am I right? Kick me if I’m not!

False and misleading! Both sides are Bible-believing, just as all the sides among the early church Fathers were Bible believing though they used allegorical or other methods of interpretation.

So the assertion itself is dishonest.
’

That itself is dishonest: many faithful Jews and Christians down the ages have looked at the opening of Genesis and recognized it as not being “REAL History” – so there is no “of course” about it.

But that doesn’t mean that He forced the writers to conform to a modern scientific worldview as YEC believes.
No, they don’t say they believe that, but it’s what they’re doing.

That have led to YEC. Reading the opening of Genesis as though it was a twentieth-century newspaper report qualifies as “feeble understanding”, and the insistence that only YECers qualify as “Bible believing” is definitely “tightly corralled”. On top of that, YEC overwhelmingly uses known methods of indoctrination, both mass and otherwise.

Which is exactly what gives a minimum age of hundreds of thousands of years for upthrust mountain ranges. As I’ve pointed out, the only assumption involved is that God is indeed faithful, i.e. He doesn’t change the rules along the way.
The YEC objection is like someone finding a bent metal bracket in a bin and claiming no one bent it.

The only assumption required is that God is faithful.
“Deep time” is not an assumption, it is a conclusion, first from the scriptures and later from science.

There is no such debate – that’s a false framing of the matter, which is a common propaganda technique. The debate is not whether God created but how – and BTW, Genesis 1’s declaration that the land was commanded to “Bring forth” living things leans towards a materialistic process.

Especially since most Christians reading it don’t understand it the way he wants.

4 Likes