There are no YEC affiliated spokespeople who are influential outside the creationist speaking circuit. There are a few old earth ID PhD’s who have some legitimacy, but none there either who are pre-eminent in their field.
At least two of the posters on this thread, who have disputed your evidence, are working PhD research scientists.
Fanatical YECists are living proof of evolution if any were needed. That it operates blindly. Non-teleologically. That whatever advantages human nature has comes at nearly the same price in disadvantage; the opportunity cost of unenlightened human passion based ‘morality’ has begun to tilt that balance. As a National Guardsman says in Cloverfield, "I don’t know what it is, but it’s winning’, especially when a presidential candidate endorses it.
250 by now.
I am aware of 4, if my memory serves me correctly on two of those.
This is not how science works. Scientists don’t search for and put out research to support anything.
They hypothesize and test and test and submit their work to scrutiny and test and test and test. And if the tests keep coming back: “No. This doesn’t work,” the hypothesis was just wrong. It’s not “secular” or “humanistic.”
But you just pointed out that they are basing their work on assumptions: that scientific research can support a literal reading of Scripture.
Adam, can we get something clear here.
Accepting that creation was 13.8 billion years ago and not six thousand is NOT “denying creation.” By accusing us of “denying creation” or “denying our maker” you are ascribing positions to many of us that we do not hold. That is something that is contrary to this forum’s guidelines:
Focus on discussing other people’s ideas, not on evaluating their character, faith, communication style, or perceived “tone.” Please avoid attributing beliefs, motivations, or attitudes to others.
Assume legitimate Christian faith on the part of other people, unless they identify otherwise. The purpose of discussions here is not to judge the legitimacy or efficacy of anyone’s faith or lack of faith.
Adam, if you’re going to try to engage with us, please make sure that you pay attention to what we actually believe and not just jump to unwarranted conclusions and leaps of logic like that. Many of us take the Bible every bit as seriously as you do, but at the same time we have to recognise that there is such a thing as objective reality, that science and basic honesty has rules, and that we are not at liberty to interpret the evidence that God has sent us from earth and sky in any old way we like just so that we can read certain passages of Scripture as if they were a computer program, for the simple reason that to do so would be lying. We all have to do a bit of work to understand how best to relate what we read in the Word of God with what we see in the works of God, and just because we do not reject the evidence of our eyes and ears as your final, most essential command in order to do so, that does not mean that we are rejecting Scripture or the Gospel message altogether.
What have Jewish abominations got to do with Christianity?
Like
Whelks.
Proverbs 11:1 A false balance is abomination to the Lord: but a just weight is his delight.
Being froward.
Proverbs 20:10 Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the Lord.
Lying.
Proverbs 20:23 Divers weights are an abomination unto the Lord; and a false balance is not good.
Pride (especially Gay).
Proverbs 24:9 The thought of foolishness is sin: and the scorner is an abomination to men.
Incense.
Proverbs 28:9 He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination
Cross dressing.
?
So, you are a strict seventh day Sabbatarian. I was one of those. And you only eat kosher. I trust you aren’t wearing any mixed plant and animal fibres.
And what’s this sin business? That required the PSA of God incarnate? Or what?
“So you think scoffers back then missed the physical evidence for a global flood, but believers picked up on it? Was anybody studying hydrology, geology, sedimentation, and the like back then? I would love to know more.”
I’ll do better than this–I’ll quote the Holy Spirit (guiding the Apostle Peter) in 2 Peter 3:5,6:
“For when they (i.e., mockers, verse 3) maintain this (i.e…, that ‘all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation’, verse 4), it escapes their notice that…through (water) the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.”
In other words, evidence of this Flood “escapes their notice”–evidence “hides” itself from these scoffers. Isn’t this what Peter is saying here?
You’re referring to Ecclesiastes 1:4–“A generation goes and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever.” This whole chapter makes the point that earthly processes and earthlife, considered in themselves, do not seem to be going anywhere. A generation is born, then dies…another generation is born, then dies…etc. etc. All the while, the earth just keeps on spinning.
So, don’t you see that the writer is speaking relatively as he speaks of the earth remaining forever–that is, “forever” in contrast to coming and going generations.
On the other hand, 2 Peter 3:10 speaks in an absolute sense about the earth’s duration as it says that, when Christ returns, “the earth and its works will be burned up”–to be replaced by “a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.” By the way, “new” here is the Greek word “kainos,” which means “new and improved.”
You overlooked an important word here: “catastrophic.” The fossil record is the record of the catastrophic death of both marine and terrestrial life. It is not the record of organisms just calmly living out their natural lives.
“In every single case? How can you know this?”
I don’t know. But we do know there is certainly a significant difference between what happens to whale carcasses in present-day seas and what happened to them in the fossil record.
For example, over 40 fossilized–almost complete–whale skeletons are found together in the Atacama desert in Chile.
By contrast, whale falls studies reveal stages of consumption, first by scavengers then by bacteria, of the entire skeletons. In fact, studies are being made of ecosystems–or “communities”–springing up around these skeletons as their bones are completely consumed.
In other words, what we are not finding are seabeds today containing over 40 nearly complete whale skeletons. Is this not instructive to us about the way organisms died and were fossilized in the fossil record?
In fact, the series of supposed ancient inland seas were called “shallow seas.” Scientists who have studied whale falls explain that in shallow seas, whale carcasses would be consumed–completely–even more rapidly than in deep seas.
“We have deposits that are 2,000 feet thick made up of crinoid plates. You don’t get 2,000 feet of dead crinoids with a single, fast event. You get these deposits from a sea that sits in place for millions of years.”
So, do you know of 2,000 feet thick limestone formations–packed with dead crinoids–on any present-day ocean or sea bottoms–like the Atlantic, Pacific, or Indian oceans?
That is, do ancient oceans today produce such thick limestone formations–formations full of marine fossils?
This is incorrect. There are many terrestrial fossil beds full of land animals with the occasional freshwater fish. Dinosaur National Park in Alberta is such an example.
There is no global synchronization of fossil beds. All fossil rich formations are local.
So, you have actually observed the formation of the fossils in the fossil record? And you saw that catastrophic flooding of bones successfully fossilized them?
“Now, where on that map could plants and animals have survived??? The mind boggles.”
Yes, this is one of five supposed ancient inland seas–here, during the mid-Cretaceous (or Zuni megasequence, in sequence stratigraphy). The interesting and significant thing about these “seas” is that they were all very mobile. Each one “transgressed” across certain extents of the continents, then “regressed” back off the continent. Strange “sea.”
The first megasequence (Cambrian, Ordovician) saw the Sauk “sea” transgress and regress, in fact, over 75% of North America. The fourth megasequence, the Absaroka (Pennsylvanian–Triassic), also covered much of North America–in fact, for about 75 million years! Again, it “transgressed” and “regressed.” Lots of movement as it transported ocean sediments across the continent.
You consider movement over tens of millions of years to be very mobile?
Sediment in the inland sea was predominantly produced in the same way as sediment elsewhere, by terrestrial erosion carried by rivers and stream, and within the sea itself by water, weathering, and sea life. The same way as sand and mud in lakes. The same way that the sediment accumulated in the ocean basins over great expanse of time. There is no need of Noah’s flood or tsunami’s or massive transport at all. There would still be sediment with zero transport. It is just common observation by anyone who gets outdoors that lakes and seas come with sediment.
You persist in the erroneous assertion that marine deposits are everywhere due to waves washing over the entire continent, but blithely ignore that the colossal force required to accomplish such a thing would so turbulent as to pulverize everything it carries, shredding shells and carcasses. This has repeatedly been pointed out.
So a Christian can see different geology than an atheist?
Did the Holy Ghost inspire the provincial fisherman Apostle to know that Jesus visited the imprisoned demons while the Ark was being built? Thereby ‘proving’ The Flood too? The same Ghost that inspired Peter to say that They assassinated Ananias and Sapphira?
And did They guide every atrocity in the TaNaKh?
As the Sauk transgression took five million years that means it transgressed at 6 cm per year, which is geologically impressive, that’s 50% faster than the Atlantic is spreading!
No. Evidence does not “hide itself” from anyone. Such an idea is contradicted by Romans 1:20, which tells us that the evidence that we see in creation presents us with an accurate portrayal of how God created all things and how He interacts with all things, and that that portrayal is obvious even to unbelievers. Besides, 2 Peter talks about people who are wilfully ignoring things, not about people who are blind to the evidence.
If you think that mainstream scientists are wilfully ignoring things, you are more than welcome to point out what it is that you think they are ignoring. But you first need to make sure that they really are ignoring it. You also need to make sure that there are not other things that you are ignoring yourself.
This is a lesson that I learned myself when I was at university. I’ve mentioned before the Bible study on Romans 1 where my Bible study group leader introduced me to isochron dating. I had gone up to university convinced myself that “secular” geologists were wilfully ignoring the Three Basic Assumptions of radiometric dating and the fatal flaws that they presented to the whole edifice. My Bible study group leader made the point to me that his professors were doing nothing of the sort. They were fully aware of the Three Basic Assumptions – and they had come up with ways to test them and work around them. So no, nobody was wilfully ignoring anything in that respect.
As I’ve said before, you need to understand that once you start talking about what evidence does or does not exist, and what it does or does not support, there are rules that you have to stick to. It’s one thing to be mocked and scoffed at for preaching Christ and Him crucified. It’s a completely different matter to complain about being “mocked” and “scoffed at” for preaching scientific misinformation and falsehood. The former is persecution; the latter is just petulance.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.