While I am not a YEC, I have listened to this apologist for a long time and would love to hear some pushback against these claims from other science-minded Christians
Kyle
- I believe in the crucifixion, death, entombment, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus of Nazareth, and his divinely appointed mission and purpose on this earth.
-
My own story is hardly as well told as Iâm sure Bob Dutkoâs Story is, and I am certain that neither my story nor my science knowledge has earned me the following and/or profit that Dutkoâs has, but betwixt thee and meâif I do say so myselfâIâm pretty sure that I could keep you entertained, now at my age of 75 years, with my story.
-
Not that that should or would impress you, IMO, the first person I would recommend you study is Dr. Michael Heiser, not found among Dutkoâs list of names who have appeared on his show.
-
Since youâre the one asking, the second person Iâd recommend you listen to is Gutsick Gibbon. Her language can get a little raw, but sheâs worth, IMO, listening to for non-Christian push back, if you have the time and interest in separating YEC âchaffâ from non-YEC âwheatâ.
-
Equal or better than Gutsick Gibbon, Iâd say, is Joel Duff
-
Those three folks alone should begin to keep you busy in your studies for a while, I suspect.
4 Likes
I agree with @Terry_Sampson regarding Gutsick and Duff. Both are excellent.
I am not familiar with Heiser.
Thanks, Terry. Canât really âlikeâ such news.
2 Likes
- Being a devout Christian, he had some things to say in his last days: The 5 SHOCKING LAST WORDS Of Christian Leader Michael Heiser
1 Like
Well, given that the product description includes
âyou need to remember that the Evolutionary scientists control the majority of peer-review publications, science journals, laboratories and museums. Consequently, the scientific information accepted for print in school textbooks and media news reports comes from these sources.â
Which is basically accusing all geologists, paleontologists, and biologists of fraud.
âthe very same Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) radiometric dating method used to date the Earth at billions of years oldâŚâŚalso dates the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption to have occurred 2.8 million years ago.â
Which is well within the error bar for K-Ar dating: itâs the equivalent of claiming that C14 dating doesnât work because a sample of a leaf that died 1.5 hours ago gave an age of 12 years.
âYou will learn that just because something is a fossil, that doesnât make it âoldâ. You will learn of completely fossilized items left out of science journals, like hats, sausage links, bags of flourâŚeven a skeletal foot inside a cowboy boot.â
No, they are not left out of journals. Fossilization that rapid requires conditions that are incredibly rare.
" Some of the fascinating evidence youâll learn is:
- How the Geologic Column actually supports a recent worldwide flood.
I have yet to see any of it that does. - Geologic evidence proving the Grand Canyon was carved rapidly by a massive flood
Itâs meandering. How does that fit with rapid carving? - How radiometric dating methods just donât work
Why do oil companies use them then? - According to âradiometric datingâ, the Grand Canyon is upside down
Based on what study? - The top Evolutionary Radiometric Dating Laboratories have now Carbon Dated dozens of dinosaur bones, and 100% of them only date as thousands of years old (we document it)
That is 100% contamination. - Oil and coal can form in a matter of weeks (and is forming today)
It doesnât look the same as if it were old. - Multiple discoveries of modern human footprints in âmillions of years oldâ rock
All that Iâm aware of are from other animals slipping in the mud, or are frauds. - Recent DNA Research Studies that confirm all humans genetically go back to one man, about 6000 years ago
Where did this come from? - Recent NASA discoveries proving the planets are âyoungâ
On what grounds?
Given the track record so far, I am not inclined to look at the videos themselves.
4 Likes
I had to laugh when they said (roughly) âDarwinians need millions of years for evolutionâ and yet YEC expect the same amount of evolution in just a few hundred years after the flood.
For âthe appearance of ageâ argument, yes feeding the 5,000 did require a miracle with fully formed fish. However, there were no traces left behind so God wouldnât appear deceitful. Creating the universe with the appearance of age does leave evidence behind that we can see with our own eyes and yes it does make God deceitful. And much of the appearance of age evidence is not required for any function, galaxies colliding for example.
Based on the bullet list most of these arguments are old and have been debunked before. It is a guess, since I donât have the actual details, but the âGeologic evidence proving the Grand Canyon was carved rapidly by a massive floodâ argument is normally based on the amount of time needed for the creation of channels around Mt. St. Helens. Which is like comparing slicing soft butter (the deposits around Mt. St. Helens were soft ash) with slicing hard granite (which is what you find in the Grand Canyon).
3 Likes
Yeah, thatâs total nonsense.
4 Likes
As written it is simply a lie. I canât believe all recent studies show we all have one common ancestor just a few thousand years ago. To deny the truth of studies which do not support YEC is bad enough but to deny that any contradict YEC is a naked lie.
2 Likes
Nonsense in the way it is presented, as it implies only one man existed 6000 years ago, but actually probably correct in that there was could be a man who lived 6000 years ago who was a common ancestor of everyone, as argued in the genealogical Adam debate.
1 Like
Still nonsense, since the existence of a recent genealogical ancestor has just about nothing to do with DNA research studies, and since the claim is phrased specifically in terms of genetic rather than genealogical ancestry.
3 Likes
I think that 6000 years may be about the absolute lower bound on most recent common ancestor of living humans, as an âitâs definitely more than thisâ date.
2 Likes
The point being is that the studies are being misrepresented in a deceptive way to make a point they do not make, often stated in such a way that while technically correct, does not mean what the young earth writer implies.
4 Likes
In addition to the misrepresentation of unusual dinosaur footprints as giant human prints (although slightly understandable as a mistake initially, by now itâs lying to claim them as human) and carvings or paintings billed as actual footprints, there are also quite a few âfootprintsâ that are based on imaginative interpretation of something that isnât a print at all. There are also footprints reasonably similar to those of modern humans from pre-modern hominids, some of which are a few million years old.
Most of the major young-earth groups do not promote the human footprint errors any more; itâs now primarily coming from fringe sources like Carl Baugh. So the fact that the video includes that as a top 10 âproofâ suggests that this is coming from someone who doesnât even pay attention to the major young-earth groups.
The list does not overlap much which Answers in Genesisâ list of top proofs for a young earth, but in both cases, if those are the top proofs for a young earth, the case for a young earth is absolutely terrible and nobody should take it seriously.
5 Likes
In the realm of âtop tenâ proofs, @jammycakes, who participates here, had a blog series a while back debunking Answers in Genesisâs top ten best âevidencesâ of a young earth. It is probably not exactly the same as this âtop tenâ list, but YEC talking points tend to be pretty similar from one organization to the next, so it would likely be helpful for someone as a starting point:
3 Likes
- Hmmm, Kyle, youâre a no-show in this thread too. Once is an âincidentâ. The second time is a âcoincidenceâ. The third time is a pattern, IMO.
Thanks! I was trying to remember who it was that had done that. We used to have a post on interesting blogs and podcasts we enjoy in the faith/science realm. May be time to do that again to have a reference.
3 Likes
Yeah â Iâll echo Philâs thanks.
In fact - (Iâm a bit embarrassed to admit this) - but as long as Iâve been a regular around here, youâd think Iâd be all over recommended resources, books, and âresource-notableâ posts like others of you around here and @Christy always are. But for some reason my organizational skills have lagged, and my memory certainly doesnât fill the gap. So everytime I want to refer somebody to, for example, Glenn Mortonâs awesome list of well-explained geological answers and rebuttals to all the nonsense, I can never seem to find it - or not quickly. So Iâm glad you popped in with one of Jamesâ excellent posts.
Didnât we have some sort of thread or collection somewhere where we thought to consolidate valuable links, book referrals and such? I should probably just head over and look at the main biologos site again - as Iâm sure thereâs a resources or bibliography page there I should be staying current with.
4 Likes
It can be tricky when there is just so much that needs responding to, and so many different resources that speak to slightly different aspects of it for slightly different audiences and purposes. In the process of trying to find that one, I went to Age of Rocks, but they actually did 100 reasons the earth is old instead, which has more pieces of information, but may not be quite as focused as a âtop 10â listâŚ
This thread that Kendel started is very thorough as far as giving information about resources, so maybe could be opened up again if people have things they want to add.
4 Likes