as always, comprehension of statements requires context…you quoted out of context. I did not say i support this view or that AIG supports it. Neither of those two is true.
She didn’t say you did, speaking of comprehension. But it’s novel to me too, and was she was just expressing curiosity.
you are forgetting a simple fact… the false claim by secular scientists that a world wide flood cannot create/be responsible for sedimentary deposits of the nature described…oh hang on, did i just say sedimentary deposits? Sheesh how do they form…almost always in water isn’t it???
The fossilized burrows through the many layers of the cliffs of Dover belie YECism too, if I recall correctly, and might be simpler to understand?
how might one come to this conclusion?
And you are forgetting a simple fact: it’s not their sedimentary nature that is the problem.
Yes, floods can and do deposit sedimentary rock layers. But they don’t create burrows in them, and they don’t neatly stratify them into distinct layers, let alone not distinct layers with a clear progression of fossil types, and they certainly don’t create arbitrary correlations between the layers and their radiometrically measured ages.
You can’t just point to one high-level factoid and claim that it solves everything, Adam. Your explanation has to account for all the fine details, right down to the precise measurements, with at least as much accuracy and precision as the theory that you’re challenging.
And no, a requirement such as this is NOT “secular science.” Secularism has nothing whatsoever to do with it. It’s simply the standard that everyone has to meet when doing science, Christian and secularist alike.
The starting point for conventional science, leading as it does to a conclusion of billions of years of biological evolution, is NOT “there is no God.” It is, “you must have accurate and honest weights and measurements.”
5 Likes
AiG adheres closely to the Bishop Ussher chronology and literal week of creation. They are as hardline YEC as they come. Only flat-earthers are a significant group more anti-science.
The fossil record reflects segregated ecologic successions over a geological history of hundreds of millions of years. AiG rejects the fossil record.
You participated in this recent thread on Behemoth and Leviathan. They are clearly not dinosaurs. There are no multi-headed, fire breathing, dinosaurs.
Then what is the harm in kids learning science?
Waaaay off topic. Beware the off topic flag.
It is not consistent with the evidence. The flood model is not even consistent with itself.
Geocentrism is no more a theological and no less a physical description in the Old Testament than the creation or flood covering the Earth. The firmament, foundations and four corners of the Earth are part and parcel of this.
Was the recent flood covering Pakistan Noah’s flood? Was the flooding in western Canada Noah’s flood? Japan? Germany? There are floods all over the place, and nobody calls them Noah’s flood. Yet, the slightest evidence of water in geology, and YEC always pounces with “Noah’s flood”. Do you think there was never any regular flooding in the past? Anyways, sedimentary rock does not require flooding; just go to the beach and you will find water eroded sediment.
3 Likes
I never said that you support the view or that AiG supports. But I’d like to know more about the “sinful breeding program” of dinosaurs that you mentioned. Where do you get the idea of a sinful breeding program of dinosaurs?
One approach that has worked in my interactions with people that lean towards young earth creationism is to talk about the origins of the young earth creationist movement and how it is not the only Christian view over the course of Church history. I think once you convince them that six-day-young-earth creationism it is not “The Christian view,” but one among several orthodox Christian views, people are more willing to listen. They may not agree with you, but they will agree to respectfully disagree. It could then be argued that although YEC does not contradict special revelation it does contradict what we see from general revelation and is therefore not the best approach to take in interpreting Genesis. If YEC parents came to me asking about how to answer doubts that their child had due to learning about evolution, I would probably start with addressing the belief that young earth creationism is the only or main view of Genesis 1-11 throughout Church history.
2 Likes
I am stating that the deposits which I, and those whom I have personal contact with, have personally observed are incompatible with deposition during a global flood, because
-
They ocellate between terrestrial or freshwater and marine multiple times, each layer lasting long enough for animals to arrive, live, die, and have others live on or in their shells (>40 years each).
-
Extinction rates increase with age.
-
Species and genera have consistent and well-defined temporal and geographic ranges.
-
Sediment particle size varies unpredictably through a section.
-
They look exactly like (at a broad level) modern subfossil to recent deposits, i.e., recognizable ecosystems, depth ranges, habitats, etc.
4 Likes
don’t you mean extinction rates “decrease with age” https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ele.13441
I think you may be confusing this with age and mortality?
The royal society states that…
“The main direct causes of extinction are loss and degradation of habitats due to human use of land and sea; overexploitation of wild populations; and the impacts on populations and ecological communities of invasive alien species, pollution, and climate change”
I do not see any conflict between this and the biblical model. God did not say the flood would be a natural process…it was purposeful and direct. The change in environment, climate, and human population interaction with them, in the aftermath of the flood, is consistent with the royal society definition. It is also consistent with the statement made in Daniel chapter 12.
What happens when kids find out that what Wise, Myer, and Hacket told them aren’t true? Is there some Christian theology that supports the teaching of falsities and misinformation?
How are kids going to react to someone telling them that in order to be a Christian they have to believe in things that are demonstrably false?
The problem is that it isn’t consistent with observable facts.
4 Likes
This is it, isn’t it?
They increase with deposit age. That is what I was referring to.
Timothy cleared up your concerns about his item number 2 in post 67, I think.
I’m curious how you would address all five of these items now that item 2 has been clarified.
And regarding your recent reply to T_aquaticus,
Adam, your are mistaken in this view. A great many Christians claim millions of years as well.
We have physical evidence that is much, much older than any written documents, any language, any storage medium for symbolic language, beyond human memory or existence. The stuff was here, it still is, and we can study it to understand the past.
YEC suggests that this young families belief in the literal Genesis narrative also assumes their cosmology is aligned with that of authors of antiquity. Personally, I am unable and unwilling to view the sacred Biblical writings as scientific text. I do see them as a beautiful collection of narratives, history, poetry, and prose that point us to Gods relationship and love with his creation. I pray that God opens their hearts to what the creation narrative is teaching them about the nature of God and his unique covenant relationship with us, rather than trying to read it as a scientific document.
2 Likes
Sure.
Carbon dating agrees with the Biblical account of Hezekiah’s building of the Siloam Tunnel around 700 BC. Of course, you might think that both the Bible and carbon dating are in error.
One, you do not speak for all Christians, period. Two, practicing science is not humanistic. Three, there is written evidence of dynastic Egyptian history dating back past 3000 BC, half a millennium prior to AiG’s date for Noah’s flood, so you are not in a position to lecture concerning written history.
1 Like
Does anyone besides me think that love for God should at least at times positively include filial affection? Or is that implicit. The reason I’m mentioning it was that I discovered a link today to another shorter piece by @Joel_Duff about the girdled rocks of the Atacama, and as I was reflecting on it I had a definite warm wave of affection and delight in God for such a remarkable and fun piece of evidence.
1 Like