Just for the record, I think YEC has it right on a global flood, but not for the right reason. Gen 6-9 is a polemic against ANE flood mythology, not a historical account of a regional or global flood.
Atrahasis, for example, tells of the gods creating humanity from clay for the purpose of doing labor on the earth to feed the gods (sacrifices in their temples). The flood is sent to destroy all humanity because they became too numerous and noisy, disturbing the gods’ rest. The story extends from the creation to the flood, which Atrahasis (wise one) survives.
Gen 2-3 tells how YHWH God created ha’adam (the man) from ha’adamah (the earth/ground) and why he was sentenced to hard labor until he returned to ha’adamah. This applies to all humanity, doesn’t it? In Gen 4, right after the first appearance of the word “sin,” YHWH says to Cain, Your brother’s blood cries out to me from ha’adamah!
Finally, look at the reasons for the flood and the universal judgment on “all flesh” in Genesis 6.
“Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of humanity (ha’adam) was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually.”
I don’t think you’ll find any theologian who applies Gen 6:5 only to a regional population and not to every human being and culture. Specifically, what was the evil? “The earth was filled with violence” because of humanity. In contrast to ANE mythology, which attributes the flood to the capriciousness of the gods, the Genesis version attributes the flood to human violence. Gen 1-11 is a subversive polemic against ANE culture using its own mythology against it. Call it a vaccine, if you will. haha
Absolutely right. Science is for the most part self-correcting, but YEC cite old mistakes and invent current controversies about questions long since resolved. The same goes for the Laetoli footprints. It blows my mind that they’re so frozen in time. So to speak.
4 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
65
Aye. The God of Genesis is more evolved than any up until the Exile it seems. But Greek and Indian and Chinese philosophical ideas of the same disputed Axial Age are at least as advanced. All correlated, fascinatingly, with money.
Reading these comments led me to think about the technical aspects of any global flood that would destroy all animal life. We have just returned from a cross-continental flight that actually was on schedule and observed those high Rocky Mountains. To cover the whole earth up to, say, the tops of at least the Rocky Mountains where mountain goats live would require a LOT of water. Is there a calculation of how much water would be required beyond what is currently present in the oceans and in glacial ice? Where did all of that water come from? And, after the flood, where did it go? Sea levels dropped by 400 or so feet during the last ice age and the water went into ice. But, 4000 feet…40,000 feet to cover Everest???
I think some young earth proponents propose that the pre-flood earth was quite flat, and the mountains we see are due to post flood uplifts. Obviously, that leads to lots of other problems as well.
see there we go. First you make a statement that the credibility of flat earths is means to justify their claims not being published in mainstream journals…that is a silly comparison btw as there is no evidence to support flat earth philosophy in the first place which is completely different from YEC science…
then you come out with the statement I quoted above. Do you not see the double standard in that?
the problem here is that I can show quite comprehensively, as have large numbers of world expert scholars repeatedly over the years, that TEism simply cannot reconcile its scientific beliefs with very self evident scriptures, bible themes, and theology.
The problems you face biblically are huge…your only answer to the issues are to claim errancy and fairytales. Some examples below:
the books of Moses are an allegory (despite Exodus chapter 17:14 which is very clearly not possible to read as an allegory btw)
14Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write this on a scroll as a reminder and recite it to Joshua, because I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.”
New Testament apostolic references to creation are discounted as individuals who haven’t a clue about science and therefore are simply wrong in their referencing (that in itself denies the inspiration of scripture BTW…a huge problem for TEists)
4th Commandment. This is a major problem for the allegory claim, it very obviously leaves TEists with but one option…to call into doubt the entire idea of a single day of worship in the weekly cycle. In both Old and New Testaments, they all worshipped weekly and have done for the 1900 years since the last books of the bible were written. Can you show me an example of Patriarchal, apostolic father, or Christian church since that time who have not worshipped weekly? Of those in the group who do actually worship at all, are there any in the leadership of Biologos who don’t worship weekly? If there are I think you have a bit of a problem amigo!)
8Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God, on which you must not do any work—neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant or livestock, nor the foreigner within your gates. 11For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.
that is of no consequence. you cannot show from any historical writings any scientific evidence that tells us exactly how much tectonic plate movement has occurred that denies the flood model. My understanding is that there is good evidence being presented by research now that shows that plate movement has slowed over the last few thousand years. This would mean that it quite reasonable to hypothesize that at the time of the flood it was a catastrophic event that caused a lot of uplift. Earthquakes and ground tremours after the flood were significant and ongoing for some time after.
There is evidence of this that has been presented by Dr Andrew Snelling on the topic…although in order to further his research he almost ended up in court citing discrimination against National Parks (a win for YEC as it turns out)
Anyway, the point is, pre-flood, the highest mountains of the world did not need to be 28,000 feet. I don’t think too many creationists really believe that probably in any case (I’ve certainly never been taught that idea myself in our churches).
In the time of the flood the people and beasts also gathered to the highest points of land, and as the waters returned from off the earth, dead bodies were left upon high mountains, and upon the hills as well as upon the plains. Upon the surface of the earth were the bodies of men and beasts. But God would not have these to remain upon the face of the earth to decompose and pollute the atmosphere, therefore He made of the earth a vast burying ground. He caused a powerful wind to pass over the earth for the purpose of drying up the waters, which moved them with great force — in some instances carrying away the tops of mountains like mighty avalanches, forming huge hills and high mountains where there were none to be seen before, and burying the dead bodies with trees, stones, and earth. These mountains and hills increased in size and became more irregular in shape by collection of stones, ledges, trees, and earth which were driven upon and around them. The precious wood, stone, silver and gold that had made rich, and adorned the world before the flood, which the inhabitants had idolized, was sunk beneath the surface of the earth. The waters which had broken forth with such great power, had moved earth and rocks, and heaped them upon earth’s treasures, and in many instances formed mountains above them to hide them from the sight and search of men
BTW might I add that am not aware of Snelling’s religious background, I do not know what denomination he was raised under. Despite this, his research seems to align with what Ellen White writes above so he may have roots in Adventism that could have triggered his interest in this kind of research but may not. This doesn’t necessarily invalidate his research however, just presupposes a personal bias (that is nothing new here on this forum)
I disagree with the entirety of the uplift being post-flood. Having said that, I agree that one couldn’t argue every single high mountain in the world today is post-flood. I haven’t personally subscribed to it myself, but is there any reason why ALL of the high mountains we see today must be uplifted post-flood? What about during the event itself? What height realistically must the biggest mountain have been prior to the flood and yet still be covered by water? What amount of water seen above ground today could have been under ground pre flood?
(I haven’t thought deeply about the idea, just asking for the sake of the exercise as it would be good to see some evolutionists crunch the numbers to try to make the flood model fit…rather than simply not bother and have YECers doing it all the time)
Kurt Wise argues that coal deposits he has studied show evidence of trees that were clearly supported by floating bog…vast areas of this type of vegetation. This would suggest enormous regions of the preflood world were floating forests (we still see evidence of many of these types of forests today…so they arent a fairytale). This is interesting because the idea of floating forests is referenced in the Genesis account in that dry land appeared out of the waters of the deep. It also explains at least one mechanism for how the earth could have been watered without rain pre-flood(dew being another of course).
But they aren’t different. Flat Earthers will insist that they have evidence that proves a flat earth just like YEC.
To prove my point, I am asking you to describe the features a geologic formation would need in order to disprove a recent global flood. If you are unable to describe how a recent global flood could be falsified then YEC is like Flat Earth.
Huge swaths of North America were covered by an inland sea for millions of years. This doesn’t require a global flood nor a recent flood.
Similar rock layering only requires similar conditions, not the same event. It does not require a global flood, nor a recent flood.
The mega tsunami was created by a comet impact, and it was a local event.
Coal and oil deposits are being created right now as microorganisms fall to the bottom of oceans and seas and peat accumulates in bogs and grasslands. No global flooding needed, nor recent flooding.
What you need is a dating method for these deposits to demonstrate that they occurred at the same time and recently. Just insisting that they did isn’t enough. This is not evidence for a recent global flood because none of it requires one.
The discussion has certainly moved on from the OP. Since the original topic appears to have been dealt with, I’ll put a timer on this thread for “closing arguments” and anyone who wants to can start a spin-off.
There is little difference. What flat earthism is to the spacial, young earthism is to the temporal. In common, both are based on ulterior beliefs incorporating ancient cosmologies and devoid of any evidence - that includes the stomach content of predators, an argument is typical of the rigor of YEC, which does not stand up common sense, let alone detailed scientific analysis. When the flaws are pointed out, all that remains is assertion and deflection.
2 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
78
…that They are bound by the prevenient laws of nature which They sempiternally instantiate.
The book of Genesis couldn’t make it more clear that that the flood was worldwide. You are correct.
Yes, evolutionary research is funded by tax dollars (yours and mine), and YEC research is privately funded. So there is no way that YEC organizations can compete with comparable research facilities. So on this forum, any research YEC scientist do can be disregarded because not enough money was spent. So the contention is that the only way that YEC research can be adequate is if the funding is much more than it is. Which is of course absurd. Good research is good research, regardless of how much was spent doing it.
Adam, here are some takeaways for you:
On this forum, “Let every evolutionist be true, and every young earth creationist or even every intelligent design proponent be a liar.”
On this forum, there is no evidence for a young earth that cannot be discounted or ignored. ICR is dishonest, AIG is dishonest, CMI is dishonest. Or the alternative, ignorant.
The ghost of Mary Baker Eddy. Andrew Snelling must be SDA. Of course he is not, but that is irrelevant either way. What about the ghost of Charles Darwin? He was wrong about a lot of stuff, including the complexity of the cell. Does that discount all evolutionary research? Of course not, and it shouldn’t. But of course, the incredible complexity of the cell and the information basis of life is a serious problem for Darwinian evolution. But that is an argument from ID, so again will be summarily dismissed.
Now I ignore my own advice and present some evidence:
Some of the best evidence of a recent worldwide flood is the preservation of intact soft tissues. Now the claims are:
These are biofilms, not original tissue
Oh yes, isn’t it amazing that soft tissue, previously thought to last only a few thousand years at most can actually last 65 million years.
The soft tissue is preserved by the iron in the blood.
I’m sure there are more arguments. Actually it is true that soft tissue can be preserved by iron from blood. It was shown through recent experimentation in a laboratory where the blood was put into a high speed centrifuge twice to concentrate the iron, and then the soft tissue was soaked in this. And presto, sure enough, the soft tissue was preserved. But Dr.Mark Armitage, microscopist, has done extensive research using thin sections and staining the intact tissues, and there is evidence of no iron in the preserved tissues. There is also evidence in these tissues from several specimens that they all drowned. But who is Armitage and what of his research? And is it validated by mainstream science. Of course not, so he can also be dismissed. After all, he was fired by Cal State (was it Fresno?) when his initial report of soft tissue in dinosaur bones was published. So doesn’t that discredit him? Of course not. He was not fired for poor research or poor teaching, because he was guilty of neither, but for his YEC position. (He won a considerable financial settlement in court.)
And if I am right, BioLogos does no research, and spends its resources in sponsoring lectureships at Christian colleges and seminaries. Is that a problem? Not in and of itself. Yet YEC is “bad” for spending time and money on conferences and education. Apparently so.
So the big takeaway is that BioLogos is a forum for evolutionists, and they are not going to change their minds. They are firm in their convictions, as are YEC. So why spend your time here?
Any research that has ever been brought to light here has been weighed for its merits. That it has been found wanting is not the fault of the weighers. Money, as you say, has nothing to do with that.
This is a forum for truth-seekers and finders. Our convictions here (those of us who are believers) include that God is a God of truth.
Because here God’s creation and its truths and all that we do or don’t know about it - what confidences we may or may not have about various things, can be discussed openly in the presence of knowledgeable people, many of them faithful believers. While not everyone here is always a truth-teller, it is nonetheless a site that is organized around and led by people who are committed to that and who allow dissenting voices to have their say, even here in their own forum. What they won’t allow is for known falsehood to stand unchallenged.
In contrast to that when one gives their heart over to the keeping of those who prize their own ideologies and allegiances over truth, those venues become witnesses against Christ by showing that truth and integrity have no part among their highest priorities. This web site, in contrast to so many is at least one precious bright spot where convictions, in whatever forms or mouths it may be found can be brought up to the light and be shaken and poked so that the strong may stand and the shaky or even deceitful be revealed for what it is.
We happen to be of the conviction here that the believer should have nothing to fear from truth, because it is God’s creation that we have to study. That is why it is worthwhile to spend time here.
That may have been a plausible argument in the 1970s and 1980s but it has not had a shred of merit since the YEC organisations spent $1.25 million on the RATE project, and it has become even less credible since Answers in Genesis spent $100 million on the Ark Encounter.
What YECs need to produce in terms of evidence is not quantity but quality, and you don’t need billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money for that. Nobody expects you to come up with thousands of studies a year supporting a young earth. But we do expect the studies that you do come up with to be as least as rigorously executed and at least as tightly constrained as conventional old-earth science. $1.25 million should easily have been enough to come up with something better than tiny samples with huge error bars in support of levels of accelerated nuclear decay that would have vaporised the earth if they had any basis in reality.
It’s as simple as this, Craig. Science has rules and honesty has rules. If YECs don’t want to be called liars, they need to stick to them.
Similarly, if you don’t want your evidence to be discounted or ignored, it needs to meet the same standards of rigour, precision and quality control as mainstream science. YECs are yet to provide any evidence that comes anywhere close to that standard.
What you’re doing here is effectively asking for a free pass to claim anything you like. We might as well just accept that mermaids are evidence for a young earth, because treknobabble.
The difference between biofilms and original tissue is observable, testable and repeatable, even if you must insist that “were you there?” is a legitimate argument (which it isn’t, but that’s a discussion for another time).
The same thing can be said about the difference between haemoglobin and heme breakdown products, between intact blood cells and fragments of blood cells, between skin and fossilised skin, between DNA and DNA breakdown products, and so on and so forth.
The bottom line is that YECs repeatedly make claims about what the soft tissue remnants prove on the basis of demonstrably untrue statements about what the soft tissue remnants actually consist of.
This is a perfectly legitimate argument. The preservative properties of iron on collagen have been demonstrated in the laboratory.
No YEC is not “bad” for spending time and money on conferences and education. YEC is bad for spending time and money on conferences and education that teach falsehood, misinformation, and antagonistic attitudes towards science.
No, BioLogos is a forum for people who believe that claims about science made by Christians should be based on honest reporting and honest interpretation of accurate information. Anyone who agrees with this will find it worthwhile to spend time here, but you should expect to have it explained to you what honest reporting and honest interpretation of accurate information actually looks like, and to be held accountable for making sure that the claims that you are making actually meet that standard.
I would propose that there is no such thing as evolutionary research or YEC research. It is just research. (Yes, some is more directed than others…) Evolution is just an explanatory overlay used to explain the results. If YEC hypotheses could explain it better, they would be accepted. But they don’t.
YEC’s can apply for public funding the same way other scientists do. There’s nothing stopping them.
One problem YEC’s might have is that they would have to create testable hypotheses that include criteria for falsification. That’s an issue for YEC. This is probably why they don’t write research grants and submit them to funding agencies like all other research scientists do.
Not at all. The contention is that YEC is not science. It starts with the conclusion and then misrepresents facts in order to serve that conclusion. YEC also lacks falsifiability. As we have seen in many threads, no matter what we observe it will be twisted to fit YEC.
For example, what features would a fossil need in order for YEC’s to accept it as transitional between humans and a common ancestor shared with chimps?
What features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify the claim that the Earth is young and that there was a recent global flood?
I have yet to find a YEC who can answer these questions. That’s because YEC is not science. It is a dogmatic religious belief.
YEC’s assert that soft tissue can not be preserved over millions of years, and yet they have no evidence to back this claim. There is no evidence that they would accept as a falsification for this claim.
