Objections to vast ages of earth


#1

One of the major problems that YEC have in refuting evolution is the apparent or supposed indicators of age of the earth. Obviously, if earth was only thousand of years old, then grand evolution of microbes to man under any scenario would not be possible. So it is a thorn in the side. Evolutionary doctrine takes ancient age as a matter of fact, even whether it allows for evolution to take place under the postulated parameters of random mutations at a relatively constant rate, along with the expected impacts of natural selection on the relatively few beneficial major mutations causing dramatic morphological changes over time.

So the question I have is, do evolutionists seriously consider the naturalistic objections to older age of earth and solar system that have been itemized by skeptics such as creation.com? They have produced a list of 101 objections to evolutionary “old age”. Does it make a difference or is it a waste of time for those wrapped up in the evolutionary paradigm?

A few examples follow:

1. Evidence of recent volcanic activity on Earth’s moon is inconsistent with its supposed vast age because it should have long since cooled if it were billions of years old. See: Transient lunar phenomena: a permanent problem for evolutionary models of Moon formation and Walker, T., and Catchpoole, D., Lunar volcanoes rock long-age timeframe, Creation 31(3):18, 2009. See further corroboration: “At Long Last, Moon’s Core ‘Seen’”; http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/01/at-long-last-moons-core-seen.html
2. Recession of the moon from the earth. Tidal friction causes the moon to recede from the earth at 4 cm per year. It would have been greater in the past when the moon and earth were closer together. The moon and earth would have been in catastrophic proximity (Roche limit) at less than a quarter of their supposed age.

3. Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
> 4. Amount of salt in the sea. Even ignoring the effect of the biblical Flood and assuming zero starting salinity and all rates of input and removal so as to maximize the time taken to accumulate all the salt, the maximum age of the oceans, 62 million years, is less than 1/50 of the age evolutionists claim for the oceans. This suggests that the age of the earth is radically less also.
> 5. Limited extent of unconformities (unconformity: a surface of erosion that separates younger strata from older rocks). Surfaces erode quickly (e.g. Badlands, South Dakota), but there are very limited unconformities. There is the ‘great unconformity’ at the base of the Grand Canyon, but otherwise there are supposedly ~300 million years of strata deposited on top without any significant unconformity. This is again consistent with a much shorter time of deposition of these strata. See Para(pseudo)conformities.
> 6. Dna found in ancient fossils.

These are only six examples, and I am not sure they are the best ones, but even though evolutionists have sometimes vigorously objected to the objections, they seem to me to use similar reasoning to the assumptions behind dating methods that maintain “old age”, ie. that present day rates should give an indication of rates in the past.

Even if a few of the 101 evidences for a younger age are found untenable, yet it seems to me that this is a lot of comparative evidence that there is something wrong with the dating methods that are most often used for “very old” ages.


(George Brooks) #2

Considering the eccentricities of the “101 Objections to Old Earth/Old Universe”, I would say it is a complete waste of time.

The list is for the homies … not for serious scientists. There is an OVERWHELMING collection of evidence supporting a very old Universe and Earth. Karl Giberson’s writings are frequently sprinkled with his personal history - - a Henry Morris devotee right out of high school… he spent his entire 4 years of undergraduate work engaged in zealous debate (some would replace the word zealous with fierce) amongst science-oriented skeptics.

By the time he had his PhD in physics (which he then taught) - - he realized that the preponderance of the evidence was completely against an Earth that was less than 6,000 years old. The only way to harmonize this age with the plain evidence of the natural world was to believe God was intentionally trying to fool scientists.

George


(Christy Hemphill) #3

It’s a waste of time because we don’t trust those people.

And why do you insist on using the term “evolutionists” to refer to people here on BioLogos? Evolutionary creationists have specifically distanced themselves from that term. If you want to know what “evolutionists” think, then go on one of their websites and ask some of them.

Even before I was “wrapped up in the evolutionary paradigm” it became obvious to me that creationist propaganda websites were run by people who were not very qualified and who lied a lot.

Have you ever seen the rational wiki investigation of the signers of the Dissent from Darwinism? Granted they are atheists with an agenda, but they didn’t make all that stuff up. Reading through that list was significant for me in confirming that creation scientists shouldn’t be given the credibility they are given. They aren’t the cream of the crop. They aren’t a significant percentage of the population of scientists. It’s just irrational to think the so many intelligent scientists are completely and utterly wrong or willfully deceptive and a handful of scientists with dubious credentials are the only ones who see things correctly. That just doesn’t make sense. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_from_Darwinism


#4

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


(George Brooks) #5

Eddie, Giberson’s degree in physics is what convinced him that the Universe is extremely old. This IS a related field. He found he was more interested in being an “interpreter” of science for non-scientists (hence he wrote books for the masses instead of peer-related articles to specialists). Frankly, I think we spend just a little too much time on the biological side-shows here at BioLogos… because there is plenty in biology that we don’t know enough about.

But like the Geologists of generations past who actually LAUNCHED the extensive preludes to BioLogos, physicists know an AWFUL LOT about the age of the Earth and the Universe. If more Americans understood the clarity of the science on the age of the universe, there would be less to argue about in the biologically-oriented Evolutionary arena.

George


(Christy Hemphill) #6

Points taken. I was not clear, but I wasn’t trying to hold that website up as decisive evidence for an ancient earth, so much as giving it as an example of one of the things that personally led me to distrust things I read on creation.com. John was wondering why I didn’t take those 101 evidences seriously. I was trying to give an example (not the entire basis for) why I wouldn’t even bother looking at them because I have zero confidence in the people who published them.

The people in my life who confidently point me to creation.com also happen to be people who hold up the Dissent from Darwinism as this airtight thing that proves the lack of scientific consensus on the age of the earth and the reason it is legitimate to distrust everything coming out of the mainstream scientific community. They claim this large contingent of “real scientists” who are being oppressed. So when it becomes obvious with a little google searching, that some of those real scientists have degrees in pharmacy management, or are AIDS deniers, or work for organizations trying to prove that aliens landed, or have been retried since the lunar landing, it gives a person a certain perspective into the amount of credibility such a document should be given. Obviously the compilers of it didn’t care who signed it, they just wanted signatures. I was not trying to imply that everyone on the list was an automatic yahoo, so I apologize if that’s how it came across. My issue is more with people who get a bunch of unvetted people to be spokespeople and assume that the mere fact that some people agree should be convincing to the average Christian. I think that is an example of the kind of shenanigans I association with creationist propaganda groups, which causes me to distrust everything they say. Ken Ham once said on AIG, I wish I could find the link, that "over ninety scientists agreed with the AIG position. In other words, not even 100. Out of the millions of scientists in the world. And why are Christians presumed to be so dumb that they can’t do the math on that one and realize what a pathetic claim it is?

A major and very important detail in my mind is the fact that they are agreeing with and deferring to the people in relevant fields when it comes to what they present as fact or the typical view. It is a different matter when you are making outlandish statements that hardly anyone in the relevant field agrees with and asserting that people should take your dissent seriously because you are “a scientist.” The real issue is claiming to know better than people in the relevant field and pointing to your degree as the reason. And they are held to the same standard. I know someone who takes huge issue with BioLogos scientists who say anything about theology that does not properly interact with “established theological consensus,” it not being their field and all. :smile:


#7

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#8

You are entitled to make any response you like, George. But you have not done yourself any favors with your answer. Instead of even looking at one objection, you revert immediately to useless generalities and ad hominem, to persons rather than objections, bringing up Karl Giberson, while the list I was referring to was written in a Don Batten article (http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth), which did not mention Karl Giberson, whoever he is. Vague or even specific generalities exactly do NOT meet the objections, and so have no effect except possibly on those who have never read the objections.

What I have said to George also applies to you, christy. As far as evolutionists term goes, theistic evolution is still evolution, is it not? But Eddie has done a much better and more legitimate job in the field of attacking personal credentials or balancing the playing field. Yet, in terms of my question, I guess I am getting an answer of sorts, since the impression is leading to my conclusion that the discussion on the evolutionist side is really not about science at all, but about personalities, generalities, past animosities, and “trust”. Trust generally implies a type of lack of knowledge or an inability to go beyond the person to the actual evidence.


(Christy Hemphill) #9

We have already agreed to disagree on the issue of whether organizations who promote ID propaganda like evolutionnews.org should be lumped in with the creationist websites who promote creationist propaganda. I know you object, but I put them in the same category. The point of a lot of what they publish is to foment distrust among Evangelicals and other Christians in any claims of fact coming from the scientific community. I don’t find them at all trustworthy because they routinely twist facts, decontextualize quotes and present them as if they mean something they never meant in their original context, and take advantage of the overall ignorance and scientific illiteracy of the general public.


#11

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


(Christy Hemphill) #14

@johnZ All of the evidences on the 101 list are themselves “interpretations,” and many of them are demonstrably wrong. It’s not fair to pretend that the Creationists cite raw facts and the evolutionists just point to misguided interpretations. All interpretations can be refuted with an opposing interpretation, it’s just that some interpretations make better sense of the observations and available data and do less ignoring of inconvenient counter-examples. Though, I realize if you are committed to the Creationist paradigm, you won’t believe things that contradict it. That’s why it really is usually more about who you trust, than who is presenting the best evidence. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe


(Mervin Bitikofer) #20

@johnZ

One of the suggested differences somebody recently pointed out to me between so-called “pseudo scientists” and so-called “real scientists” is this: that real scientists very actively (as in really) consider alternative hypotheses. I think that is probably a fair assessment as long as one realizes that any such line does not neatly cut between groups of people or even individuals, but instead cuts through each one of us to varying degrees at varying times. The most professionally respected scientists in the world will at times entertain their pet theories that they cling to just a bit too stubbornly. But the criterion is still valuable. Looking at these polarized groups of people who advance particular sets of theories … how actively do they consider (which does not mean: “I’ll only ‘consider’ this long enough to find what I know must be wrong with it”) the theories that others put forward to explain things. After seeing who has been doing this more, and who hasn’t, most of us will draw our conclusions accordingly regarding general trustworthiness.

You will reply, and rightly so, that it should be about the actual arguments presented and not about who is trustworthy. Even a charlatan can be right once-in-a-while, and no less so despite any defect of character he may have. But given that none of us has time to go checking everything ourselves that everyone says, we will eventually choose some bodies of interpreters as our “go-to” sources for information/interpretation that we hope is of higher quality. And on that consideration, the charlatan who becomes known as such shouldn’t expect to compete well.


#21

Thanks for your reply. Even though it uses a type of wiki as “authority”, and your simple link does not require you to understand what you have linked to, nevertheless, I appreciate your response. It is a long article, so I don’t know how much I can respond to, but I will make a few attempts.

From the article: > creationist theories on the constancy of the rate of radioactive decay over time, which if valid would mean that the entire planet had been bathed for quite a while in far more radiation than would have been required to kill off all life - problematic because life does, in fact, still exist on earth; or

Before I respond directly to this, I just want to say that rather than defending the proposition, or addressing the actual objection, this article rather begins to attack various creationist options. While it is legitimate to attack these options, this does not mean that the actual objection is refuted. It just means that “if I am bad, then so are you”.

The reasoning in this above statement is fallacious. The point is true that far more radiation would have killed off life, but the fact that life exists on earth does not disprove that life could not have been created later, after this radiation had killed off existing life, or if no life yet existed. The whole response in this article does not really address the objection in a substantive way; it is legitimate to counter that we decide to choose certain assumptions, but not legitimate and it is self-defeating to counter that because we do not like some alternate assumptions therefore we have decided to use ones we prefer, while ignoring that we cannot really prove our assumptions.

The author misunderstands crater counting. It is not used to obtain absolute dates, but to compare the age of one region to another, whose age is known through radiometric dating. Its only assumption is that the bombardment of the moon was uniform over its surface (not necessarily over time).
We assume an approximately constant rate of meteor impacts on the moon, with variations depending on the stage of development of the solar system

Can you see the contradiction in this statement? I can. It says, Its only assumption is that the bombardment of the moon was uniform over its surface (not necessarily over time).* This implies not uniform over time. But the next sentence "We assume an approximately constant rate of meteor impacts on the moon". So now there is a constant rate after all. But, an exception… as stated, “with variations depending on the stage of development of the solar system”. which is exactly what the objection was stating. So in essence, no substantial reply to the objection was given. Way more craters on the moon than on earth. So the reply concentrates on their assumption of misunderstanding of crater counting, and ignores the real objection, and also ignores the most obvious explanation for different levels of craters, which is that it was unlikely that the moon had a global flood, that it has no water erosion, no plants, no wind, and has no glaciers.

> Creationism is unanimously rejected by the scientific community. Deep time and the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth are not pet hypotheses of “evolutionists”, a postulated faction of godless maverick scientists — they are uncontroversial and widely accepted facts, with consistent evidence from multiple disciplines.

This is false of course. Unanimity is quite different from a large majority. Being widely accepted is not synonymous with unanimous or uncontroversial. Not understanding this distinction calls into question both the capability and the bias of the one who wrote it. In addition, is misses the point of the objections. To me it is like answering the question… “Is it right to bribe someone?” with the answer, “well, everyone is doing it.”

> So, while accepting that DNA sequencing is probably impossible for remains that are a million years or more in age, it has been established that sequencing is reliable for DNA far older than the claimed 6,000 years. Consequently this is not evidence for young earth creationism.

Part of the problem with this response, is that just because something is not evidence for young earth creation, does not mean that it is not a serious problem for evolution. That is a common fallacy, ie. “it is not evidence for young earth creationism, therefore old earth evolution must be true.” This is the fallacy that evolutionists often accuse creationists of as well, and of course, this is a legitimate point. But it is not legitimate to make the same mistake. More pertinent is the point that dino dna is not expected to survive for millions of years, and yet it was found. Furthermore, the quoted reference for possible lab contamination is 12 years old, and more discoveries have been made since. And there is no doubt, that soft tissue and dna have been found since, using all the normal lab techniques with all the normal safeguards and controls and comparisons. Whether this does not provide evidence for young earth creation is entirely beside the point. It simply does not match the expectation of scientific evidence for old age of the type evolution theory postulates, which is why no scientists were looking for this kind of thing for so many years. The reply to this objection is simply out of date, wrong, and invalid. Based on the real scientific evidence.

The tendency to reject scientific evidence that does not meet expectations, could not be more clear than in the reply to this objection, as given in your link.

> This argument relates to the claimed Fall of Man, in which it is posited that humans were cut off from God’s life force and their genomes thus started “decaying”. This is completely factually inaccurate. Not only is there no evidence of a general genetic decay, but there are known recent beneficial mutations in humans. e.g. lactase persistence,

So the objection to evolution is that there are too many harmful mutations, and that this would lead to human genome deterioration in the time span allotted. The reply given (as above) says there is no evidence of a general genetic decay. Impasse. So which is true? genetic decay or not? Well, if we assume that the human genome is appropriate and necessary for human reproduction and maintenance, then we could assume that in general, a change to this would be harmful. But it seems many mutations are apparently neutral, providing neither harm nor benefit. Yet, Kondrashov indicates that at least 10% of mutations are harmful, but that they can easily be selected against. So the reply seems to me to be false. Yes there is evidence of general genetic decay, even if it is not as quick and obvious, and if selection does not sort out the deleterious and apparently neutral mutations, then this decay will not be selected against. Furthermore, the more mutations there are, the more difficult it is to select against them, especially if the selection does not occur until after the person has reproduced and achieved maturity.

But it is also ironic that the reply on rationalwiki mentions that there is not evidence there is general genetic decay. While this is untrue, nevertheless it hints at the fact that genetic decay is not as great as it should be, based on present mutation rates and the ratio of harmful to beneficial mutations. Which is exactly the point that the objection to evolution old age raises. Once again, the reply to the objection does not work, and in this case is woefully incomplete.

One more: The key point, however, is that the “living fossils” didn’t change much because they were well-adapted to a stable environment. This argument also presumes that the only changes are morphological — evolution also includes biochemical changes, behavioral changes, and others that are not preserved in the fossil record.
Evolution does not give creatures an expiration date. The only thing that dictates whether a species will survive is its ability to produce offspring in its environment, not some arbitrary amount of years.

But the “only thing” is not the only thing. It is the result… producing viable offspring is the result of many things, but includes the stability of genomes not disabled by mutations over a long period of time, or altered by mutations, as is the claim for changing one species into several different species. It rather implies that the unaltered species did not undergo the normal number of mutations to be expected. Over a shorter period of time we would not expect the dramatic changes, but over a long period of time, the theory and modern observations would not lead us to expect any form of stability, due to the number and frequency of genetic mutations which are the foundation of the opportunity for change.

I hesitate to bring up more replies to examine their validity, because so far, this is only the beginning. Here and there, the response to the objections has a glimmer of reasonability. However, it also seems that there is a different standard for evaluating hypotheses. For example, the fact that there were no coelacanth fossils for 60 million years is passed off as reasonable because fossilization is rare. The fact that there were no elephant fossils for millions of years is positive proof that they did not exist.

It is often difficult to get beyond the motivation and worldview to examine the actual evidence objectively.

… . . . . .
One more… (I couldn’t resist). Objection to old age -> Erosion at Niagara Falls and other such places is consistent with just a few thousand years since the biblical Flood. However, much of the Niagara Gorge likely formed very rapidly with the catastrophic drainage of glacial Lake Agassiz; see: Climate change, Niagara and catastropheimg.
Response to objection -> Waterfalls are sites of rapid erosion and therefore highly dynamic. There is absolutely no reason to suppose any waterfall is as old as the Earth. Furthermore, we might ask that, if under a creationist scenario the Grand Canyon and Niagara Gorge supposedly both came into being after the global flood, why aren’t they of similar sizes? After all, they would supposedly be cutting through similar soft flood sediments; but the more energetic Niagara River (200,000 ft3/s) has incised a much smaller canyon than the Colorado River (30,000 ft3/s) in a supposedly equal period of time. This highlights the absence of coherency in the flood geology paradigm where the apparent aim is only to try to undermine the old-Earth model rather than give a consistent alternative.

The question in the response to objection is why are the canyons of different sizes? Which in this case reveals the level of assumptions, first that the rivers were always the same size they are now. Second that the sediments are the same, third that the level of drop is the same. All these assumptions are wrong. The Niagara Falls only drop 170 feet to the water below, which cushions its erosive impact and limits its erosive potential, although the water itself below the falls is also 170 feet deep. The Grand Canyon drops about 1800 metres, 30 times more drop. For a number of years, apparently the Niagara was a smaller 1/10 size river than today. Although the rock is sedimentary rock, it is a much harder rock than what is found in the grand canyon, and the river was fed by glacier ice which followed the flood, compared to the Grand Canyon which formed from a disappearance of a lake, a much quicker and more violent event. But even today, Niagara Falls recession rate is estimated at one foot per year, compared to one and a half metre per year for the last 500 years. New evidence suggests the western Grand Canyon was cut to within 70 percent of its current depth long before the Colorado River existed. Credit: National Park Service


#22

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


(Christy Hemphill) #23

You’re right. Both atheist naturalists and biblical literalist creationist are biased. I personally don’t have time to research every claim and track down every study and evaluate it. I don’t have the technical knowledge to do a good job of that anyway. So I am going to pick who I trust and just go with their evaluation. It has been pointed out over and over again to me where creationist writers are misrepresenting other people’s quotes and research, where they are repeating long-discredited information, and where they grossly misrepresent aspects of something (like how radioactive dating works, for example). So I just no longer think they are trustworthy at all, and I’d rather get my information elsewhere.

People that I do trust because I’ve never caught them lying to me, like my brother who is a physicist and my sister-in-law who is has an MD and an MA in nuerological psychology, don’t have any problem with mainstream science and have assured me its reliable and YEC science is not. They are way more qualified than I am to evaluate scientific arguments, and both of them grew up being taught YEC, so it’s not that they are just unaware of the other side.

I’m not going to try to convince you of anything, because I don’t know enough to even begin evaluating who is right between the two lists we are talking about. My point in linking to the other one was to show that for every assertion, there is a counter-assertion, not to say that I had personally vetted and approved of every argument made. I realize the limitations of wiki-sites. But I think they can be very helpful summaries to give you an idea of what people think and point you in a direction if you want to learn more about something.

I was just trying to offer an example of why it doesn’t rock my world that creation.com has 101 objections to an old earth, not convince you to change your mind.


#24

I can see how personal relationships and experience have the dominant influence, Christy. It is a shame that Christians have made mistakes and/or taken their approach and points too far, beyond either their capability or beyond what they should be claiming. In most cases they are reacting to " the other side", and in their weakness (our weakness), want to make their point, sometimes at all costs. Its a tough thing. So you fully understand that I have found too many inconsistencies, frauds, and falsehoods, and general antipathy towards christians in the evolutionary approach, having attended a secular university for five years, both in liberal arts and in science, and that adds to my general distrust of evolutionary generalizations. It is similar to your experience, except on the other side. Knowing this, I constantly try to put aside the human element in all this, and put my trust in human beings into context, and use my distrust to not take any assertions for granted, on either side. Not because I particularly mistrust the intentions or integrity of any individual, but because I recognize human frailty and susceptibilities.

One more example from the site you linked:

Objection to old age -> Erosion at Niagara Falls and other such places is consistent with just a few thousand years since the biblical Flood. However, much of the Niagara Gorge likely formed very rapidly with the catastrophic drainage of glacial Lake Agassiz; see: Climate change, Niagara and catastropheimg. Response to objection -> Waterfalls are sites of rapid erosion and therefore highly dynamic. There is absolutely no reason to suppose any waterfall is as old as the Earth. Furthermore, we might ask that, if under a creationist scenario the Grand Canyon and Niagara Gorge supposedly both came into being after the global flood, why aren’t they of similar sizes? After all, they would supposedly be cutting through similar soft flood sediments; but the more energetic Niagara River (200,000 ft3/s) has incised a much smaller canyon than the Colorado River (30,000 ft3/s) in a supposedly equal period of time. This highlights the absence of coherency in the flood geology paradigm where the apparent aim is only to try to undermine the old-Earth model rather than give a consistent alternative.
[/quote]

The question in the response to objection is why are the canyons of different sizes? Which in this case reveals the level of assumptions, first that the rivers were always the same size they are now. Second that the sediments are the same, third that the level of drop is the same. All these assumptions are wrong. The Niagara Falls only drop 170 feet to the water below, which cushions its erosive impact and limits its erosive potential, although the water itself below the falls is also 170 feet deep. The Grand Canyon drops about 1800 metres, 30 times more drop. For a number of years, apparently the Niagara was a smaller 1/10 size river than today. Although the rock is sedimentary rock, it is a much harder rock than what is found in the grand canyon, and the river was fed by glacier ice which followed the flood, compared to the Grand Canyon which formed from a disappearance of a lake, a much quicker and more violent event. But even today, Niagara Falls recession rate is estimated at one foot per year, compared to one and a half metre per year for the last 500 years. New evidence suggests the western Grand Canyon was cut to within 70 percent of its current depth long before the Colorado River existed. Credit: National Park Service

So, for me, this response to the objection again reveals the immediate bias and assumptions, and so removes my trust from the responses in general. Yet, it would not be fair for me to unilaterally judge all responses as inadequate, based on one or two, or even on six or ten responses. So I try not to.

I should point out also, that in general, a degree in physics or neural psychology have very little if anything to do with the issues at hand, such as geology, genetic changes, fossils, and zoological classification. It does indicate the ability to learn and discern.

And possibly theistic evolutionists are also biased?


#25

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


(George Brooks) #26

I will use up one of my “posting coins” to say this analysis by Eddie is probably the best thing of his I’ve ever read. Bravo. I’m in COMPLETE agreement. Awfully well said.

George


#27

I appreciate your question. My bias is towards a simple reading of scripture. I am predisposed to a non-allegorical reading of genesis. Everytime I hear people using this approach, it seems to be in a context of denying things like original sin, denying God’s original relationship with Adam and Eve, denying the original prophecy of Christ, and denying God’s punishment on the people of the world through the flood. So yes, this is my bias.

But, and this is a big but. I have at one time thought it was entirely possible within the confines of scripture to imagine that the universe is older than 6000 years, inspite of the references in the New Testament to what God did in “the beginning”. I have no difficulty with literary symbolism, etc. It is used often in the bible, almost on every page of scripture. I don’t agree that Genesis one to eleven can simply in totality be relegated to literary symbolism, allegory and the like. It is not written as allegory, nor is it referenced as allegory by Jesus and the prophets.

I had thought at one time that longer periods of time prior to the fourth day, when the sun and moon became created or relevant to the earth, might be possible. I was trying to be as generous as possible to all options. But over time I began to realize that this would never be enough. Evolutionary theory wanted God to hide, to be hidden, to be irrelevant entirely. Of course, theoretically, God could hide and be hidden. He hid (so to speak), from the Israelites for four hundred years before Jesus was born.

So, examine the claims was the next step. Examine the options. How certain, how indisputable were the claims for evolution. How certain the claims for old age (although this was less important). Even if the world was old would not indisputably determine that evolution had occurred in the grand way.

The discussions and disagreements have shaped the YEC position over the years, so people are listening to each other to some extent. For example, they give a bunch of arguments that YEC should no longer use to defend their position. They recognize a potential speciation forming even while they leave “kinds” definition a bit more tenuous.

So for me, the generalizations and the personal attacks are disappointing. I suppose I personally could be as good as anyone as casting slurs and aspersions on people, and once in awhile I feel forced to do so to balance things out, but for me it is disappointing, and I feel satan’s tool just to keep us from really trying to come to grips with both scripture and creation.

When I see evidence by creation.com or other scientists simply dismissed because Ham is arrogant, or some other person made an error, or because the wide consensus says this or that, then I am disappointed in the uselessness of the discussion. To me if a creationist makes an error in calculations or assumptions, or reasoning, then this should be pointed out without ridicule, without generalizations, especially by theistic evolutionists.

In another column, Gary Fugle had said that evolutionary discussions made him giddy with joy. I asked him why? Instead of answering or explaining, he became emotionally entangled with the question. Of course his “giddly with joy” was emotional anyway, but why is he joyful, what makes him so in response to this? And does it really meet my feeling that I experience a great joy thinking that God spoke everything into existence, including the various natural laws, light, heat, energy, motion, gravity, life, etc. Joy is nice, but it really doesn’t meet the needs of discussing this topic, in my opinion. One of us then has joy in a false proposition.

So I am interested in addressing the scientific objections primarily. When someone says that the amount of salt in the ocean indicates an ocean not more than 62 million years old… I am thinking, did the ocean only start then, or what? How is this explained? When I read the answers, I try to decide if they make sense, or if they are only prevarications. If all answers are merely determined by the assumptions of the already assumed theory of evolution, then the answers are less credible to me, because I do not assume that the theory is proved.

I did wonder last night however, why God allowed so many people to believe in evolution if it was not true, even though it has led so many people away from God (due to philosophy, more than theology). And I don’t have an answer, although God does sometimes allow God’s people to be persecuted and oppressed even by atheists and pagans who do not believe in the true God.

So, I am just back to examining the evidence, looking at the claims, and not making premature conclusions, and enjoying the challenges posed to the consensus position.


#28

Eddie et.al.
So, for example in the link Christy provided. What speaks to me? This example:

> Objection: Amount of salt in the sea. Even ignoring the effect of the biblical Flood and assuming zero starting salinity and all rates of input and removal so as to maximize the time taken to accumulate all the salt, the maximum age of the oceans, 62 million years, is less than 1/50 of the age evolutionists claim for the oceans. This suggests that the age of the earth is radically less also.
> Response to Objection: The rate of increase — and decrease — in salinity of the oceans has varied over time.[47] When seawater is separated from the ocean itself, and subsequently evaporates, the salts (“evaporite”) left behind are no longer in the ocean, and the evaporated fresh water eventually returns through rain. The author of the linked article here tries to model salt accumulation in the ocean with a simplistic linear equation, which is grossly inadequate and based on an incorrect uniformitarian assumption.

The response in my opinion is deficient. The objection has already considered all the known removal mechanisms and rates of salt, including the one mentioned, and mentioning the water cycle just seems stupid in the context. He accuses the objection of being simplistic, while his own response is much more simplistic. What he also does not seem to realize is that this 62 million years does not fit into a YEC context, and so should give him pause to examine the claim more closely, than the superficial way he did. It’s not just about getting rid of half of the salt in the ocean, but its about reducing the salt in the ocean by 50 times. Much of the fresh water coming back into the ocean will contain salt - this is the point. This type of response leads me to accepting the YEC position, and it was not really what the YEC said, but what the evolutionist said that convinced me. It seemed a prevarication, rather than an analysis.

This is just one example, and one example does not make the whole case for one position or the other. But perhaps it illustrates how I approach things.