Refuting Compromise: The Troubling Tone of Creationism


I’m sorry. Much of the work you put into your response could’ve been saved if I’d used the :slight_smile: emoji earlier.

FWIW - It’s not sarcasm. It’s better classified as ‘droll humor’.


This article says the changes are very small and would not change the dates generated by C14 dating. The changes are also small back and forths so even if they are real they would cancel out over time.

Actually what is in the article is

But no where do I see any equations in this article and in all the places I have seen radiometric dating equations “c” is never included. Such as the first article you provided.

And then Setterfield says

Down the page I did see this:

Setterfield seems to have neglected the tremendous amounts of heat released if decay rates are increased the amount needed to fit the radiometric dates to 6,000 years. The RATE group realized that the only way to get around this was to appeal to a miracle.

@Steve_Buckley you want to try again?

(Steve Buckley) #65

HI Bill.
Nope. As stated, I’m working from 13-18 yr old memories.
Moreover, I’m not trying to win an argument.
I’m stating that I don’t have a problem with God’s having spoken the cosmos into existence, and done so in the Yom time cycles of 6 yom.
I further prvoided information which may not have definitively proven anything, it does give rise to the question of whether evolution is reliable. I think it’s a lie. Something that makes people doubt God’s truthfulness.
Which is quite evident here.

(Chris Falter) #66

Hi Steve,

In a post way earlier in this thread, I explained how Moffat’s VSL hypothesis still leads to the conclusion that the universe is 13.78 billion years old. After I brought my analysis to your attention a second time, you said you would take a look.

You still have not responded. Instead, you claim that you have already won the debate.

Your behavior is quite curious, Steve. You completely ignore the other side of the argument, yet you claim to have won a debate. Truly curious.

(Chris Falter) #67

The “nursery” creates blue stars, but our sun is a yellow star which was formed by different processes.

Also, do you know how many stars are in the universe?



In looking over your posts the information your provided is basically your interpretation of Scripture which does not address evolution. You are certainly free to believe evolution is a lie, but what God’s creation tells us is it is most likely true. I totally disagree that evolution makes people doubt God’s truthfulness. To me it shows His immense creative efforts and shows His glory in the natural world.


Surely such a view allows for evolution, an old Earth, and a lack of a recent global flood, does it not?[quote=“Steve_Buckley, post:58, topic:36755”]
I find this rather amusing that you are using an hypothesis to base your opinions of the bible on.

The age of the Earth, the geologic history of the Earth, and the natural history of biology are not hypotheses. This is knowledge backed by mountains of evidence.[quote=“Steve_Buckley, post:58, topic:36755”]
Moses spent 40 days with God, came down, broke up an orgy, and bachanal-style party, only to go up, and spend another 40 days with God. And while the narrative is scant, it’s pretty clear that he spent a lot of time talking about a whole lot more than just God’s carving up 2 tablets with 10 commands.
I do think that Moses cleared up the issue of this though near the end of Deuteronomy, chapter 29, vs 29.
God has kept plenty of things secret, but has given us what we need to live a life honorable towards him— for us, and our descendants throughout all generations.

Does that require a rejection of evolution and science as a whole?[quote=“Steve_Buckley, post:58, topic:36755”]
I see no reason to believe that the narrative in the bible is anything other than literal records of literal events.

The mountains of evidence found in the sciences are not a reason?[quote=“Steve_Buckley, post:58, topic:36755”]
So to claim that just because the bible leaves us with more questions than answers, it cannot be taken literally, is foolish, and hubristic to the nth degree.

The universe around us has answered lots of questions, so why ignore them? If your interpretation of the Bible conflicts with the facts found in the Creation, what then?[quote=“Steve_Buckley, post:58, topic:36755”]
Just because you trust what you call science does not make it accurate. It simply means that there are some people out there with incredible imaginations, and they’ve conflated their imaginings with legitimate scientific investigation, and findings.

What imaginings? The nested hierarchy is very real. The correlation of phylogenies based on morphology and genetics is very real. The 200,000+ orthologous endogenous retroviruses shared by humans and chimps is very real. The fossils with a combination of ape and human features are very real. None of this is imagined, and it all points to evolution and shared ancestry.[quote=“Steve_Buckley, post:58, topic:36755”]
Did it ever occur to you that if evolution is real, and death originates prior to some creative event, that this statement (John 3:16-17) is based on a false premise?

So the reason you reject the findings of science is because they contradict your interpretation of the Bible?

(Steve Buckley) #70

I don’t see/view God as some distant, uninterested, throw-a-clock-together-and-let-it-unwind kind of God.
The God I read about in the bible— very interested, very personal, very motivated to engage his creation, on a personal level. So much so-- that he willingly offered his own son as a sacrifice for our sin.
So… I have to wonder— why would so much personality, and character of himself give so much, and then just throw the proverbial clock out there, and let it unwind? The two ideas strike me as completely incongruous, and incompatible.

No. the evidence doesn’t say billions of years old. The evidence simply is. It’s a philosophical world view which interprets the evidence to be billions of years old.

Rejection of evolution? Absolutely.
Rejection of science? Not even remotely.
I don’t reject science. Science is simply the observation of events unfolding, and then testing the ideas we formulate to see if they match the events we observe.
So, I have to wonder— what is your idea of what science is?
It’s starting to sound to me that to you, science is some kind of a god, and anyone who rejects it is rejecting god. I have only one God. His name is YHVH. He plainly states in the book he’s inspired to be written by humans who’ve dedicated their lives to him that he created the cosmos. He breathed the stars, and planets into existence. Psalm 33.
He plainly states that he holds it all together by the word of his power- Hebrews 1:2-4.
I get that there are tens of thousands of unanswered questions about such matters in the bible.
But this does not mean that you throw out the bible, and then make up some cock-n-bull cockamamie set of ideas to fit what you think happened, because you don’t understand what really happened.
Whence I come from— you investigate, and learn.

Curious… isn’t it?
I never said I did not believe the evidence. I said that I see the evidence telling a completely different story. Please… read this clearly.
I see the evidence declaring that God himself actually created it— from nothing.

I don’t ignore them. I’ve simply found that unless I can get a hold of, or manufacture a time machine— I will not know, and will have to wait until such a time as when God said he’d make all this known to me, and everyone who follows Jesus. I.e., 1 Corinthians 13:12.
But, as I’ve said to dozens of atheists over the past 14 years— let me know when you get a time machine. I’ll join you, and we can travel back in time to observe either creation, or evolution unfold. Until then— I’m learning to follow Jesus, because THAT’s what I’ll be held accountable for.

Curious again… isn’t it!
Unless evolution happened, no matter what, under any circumstances whatsoever— these things could not possibly have come about by direct creation, for a designed purpose…
Why is that I wonder?
Why did evolution HAVE to be responsible for all of these things?
I actually think there’s purpose, and design in everything that exists. I used to be bothered that I could not explain it. Not so much any more. Everyone who follows Jesus has been promised that one day, God will make it known to us, just as we are known. 1 Cor. 13:12, Hebrews 4:13-15. So, yeah… my focus is on learning what following Jesus actually means, instead of what others tell me it means. We are after all told to— test all things. Abhor that which is evil, and cling to what is good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22.

I reject what I cannot demonstrate for myself, and am forced to take the claims of others (by faith), with whom I have no familiarity of either their person, or their integrity.
And in all honesty— as someone who’s lived through some pretty bothersome experiences with people— I’ve learned through a lot of pain, grief, heartache, and sadness-- not to just blithely give my trust to others.
As I have neither the time (strange what 65-95 years of life can direct a man to choose), nor the financial resources to test all the claims, I’ve decided that I’m just going to continue to learn what it means to follow Jesus.

Please don’t think that I’ve rejected science. I studied math and physics, and did pretty well at it. I found in my studies that I could actually test everything my professors taught me.
I learned to code in 3 languages, and could test all the things I’ve learned in them.
Each and everything I’ve undertaken in life, I’ve found that during my instruction phases, I had to take by faith what I initially learned, and believe, so as to apply those things. As I applied them, I found them to be true, and reliable. There were also many things I’ve tested, tried applying, and could not verify. Those things I’ve found to be lies.

You know something else— no where, have I ever found ongoing evolution of species. Oh… except in the movies. I really love the X-men series. Great evolutionary plots. but none of them actually exist.
I presently work in the construction industry. Every day, 5-6 days a week, I meet men and women who say how much they’d like to have a 3rd hand, or a second set of arms and hands. Or be able to stretch their existing arms to reach farther than just less half their height.
No nubs, or bumps on their sides, where future arms would grow. And yet, in spite of all this, you know what I do see---- humanity’s ability to create and design new tools and technology to overcome the limitations imposed by having only two arms/hands. And I have to say— I’ve seen, and used some seriously impressive tech. Tech that did not exist 10-20 years ago.
With the code that I’ve either created, or had assistance creating, I’ve done repetitive tasks in less than 1/10,000 the time I’d previously accomplished those tasks. Daily, I am amazed at how the creative ingenuity of man has done so much.
So… you go right ahead and believe what others tell you. I’m busy proving, verifying, and demonstrating what I’m learning.
To be an evolutionist is to have faith far beyond anything a Jesus follower ever has to possess. I simply don’t have that much faith.

(Chris Falter) #71

I agree with you 100%. So do Christian scientists who accept the theory of evolution. What you have stated gives me reason to reject the atheists who use science as an excuse to avoid God, but it does not give me reason to reject any scientific theory.

I should hasten to add that atheists come in many stripes, and many if not most do not believe that you have to reject God to accept scientific theories such as evolution.

Nope, it’s actually a matter of simple math. One example: Light is reaching us today from galaxies that are about 13 billion light years away. How long has the light been travelling? That’s not a trick question.

(Chris Falter) #72

I also agree 100% with this.

(Chris Falter) #73

This is interesting. What kind of testing have you applied to the 200,000 orthologous endogenous retroviruses shared by the genomes of Pan and Homo Sapiens?

(Lynn Munter) #74

Sorry for my delay in replying to you, the past week has been pretty busy, and I wanted to refamiliarize myself with the details of Exodus in order to properly respond.

I think it’s silly to try and put a timetable on how long it takes for God to convey anything to any given human. Inspiration is a funny business that way.

Otherwise, how could it have taken 40 years for Moses to get the complete set of Laws from God, right up to the end of his life?

I found this article pretty interesting about how the documentary hypothesis sorts out the four separate versions of the Law contained in the Pentateuch. You may not think much of the documentary hypothesis, I don’t know. But there’s a lot of detail about all the laws and commandments God gave Moses, and if God also gave Moses an eyewitness synopsis of the history of the world, it’s very strange that the Pentateuch doesn’t say so.

(Andrew M. Wolfe) #75

Hi, Steve.

As I read this exchange, I appreciate that you’re a man who knows whom you trust (Jesus) and what you have time for in this life (not figuring every last thing out). I totally respect that, and I know I’m not going to convince you otherwise. That’s ok by me.

I hope you’ll understand, though, that you don’t even appear to understand evolution well enough to know what it is that you’re rejecting.

Take your comments I’ve quoted here. Do you realize how stable the basic tetrapod body plan is?

Just to explain briefly: From the first amphibians, 370,000,000 years ago, till today, every single tetrapod that’s ever lived has had only basic tweaks on the same four-limbed body plan. They’ve sometimes lost limbs here and there (e.g., snakes, caecilians, whales), but in over a third of a billion years, no matter how many animals have wanted extra limbs, not one of them has gained them. And that holds for an extremely diverse grab bag of creatures: amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, pterosaurs (“pterodactyls”), various aquatic reptiles (ichthyosaurs, mosasaurs, plesiosaurs), birds, marsupials, placental mammals, bats, manatees, seals, and much more. Evolution doesn’t happen just because a new trait would be convenient.

So I agree, it would take an awful lot of faith to believe in your parody of evolution, with real life X-Men developing superpowers in moments! That’s comic book evolution. Nobody here believes that!

But to believe instead that God provided for his creatures by gradually helping them adapt to feed themselves in new environments over many millions of years, and that in this way over millions of generations, arms sometimes evolved into wings or feet into flippers, in tiny changes that added up over eons… honestly, to me that just takes a clear-eyed look at the evidence.

Look, I know I won’t convince you. That’s not my goal. The main thing I hope you might see is, first, that you don’t actually understand evolution all that well, and second, that there are folks out there — Christians like you whose primary trust is in Jesus — who have studied the evidence in quite a bit of detail, and who feel that the evidence has led them to accepting evolution. You don’t need to agree with us, but it would be nice if you recognized that we’re acting in good faith.

With folks like you who are quite comfortable in their YEC beliefs, my goal is never to convince you of the truth of common descent or what have you. But if we can get to a place where we can fellowship together at the Lord’s table without someone considering me a second-class citizen in the Kingdom, then we’ve come a long way, and I’d claim that as a victory for the Church that my science-educated kids are growing up in.

Have a blessed week —

(Lynn Munter) #76

Really? Do you have a source for this?

Discoveries made due to chance events make good stories, and we can all think of anecdotal examples from our history books without much difficulty. But if you looked closer, you’d find that lifetimes of painstaking attention to detail play more of a role than you think.

You’re selling science short, and that means ultimately you don’t think much of God’s creation: the world He made, the laws it follows, or the human capacity for understanding.

(James McKay) #77

Hi Steve,

There’s something you need to realise here. The age of the earth, and the ages of rock strata, are determined first and foremost by measuring things. You also need to realise that measurements do not give different results depending on your worldview, and certainly not results that differ by six orders of magnitude.

These measurements give a very specific age of the earth of 4.54±0.05 billion years — that’s an uncertainty of just one percent. You can’t get very specific results like that, pinned down to within ±1%, out of vague and non-specific starting points, and “philosophical world views” are about as vague and non-specific as you can get.

Trying to make measurements fit your worldview just descends into absurdity. You can see this with the RATE project, which resorted to outlandish science fiction claims of accelerated nuclear decay on a scale that (by their own admission) would have released enough heat to raise the temperature of the earth to 22,000°C — four times hotter than the surface of the sun — if it had actually had any basis in reality. It simply doesn’t work.

That being the case, I’m sorry, but the evidence does say billions of years old. Overwhelmingly, insistently, and unambiguously.

(Steve Buckley) #78

Here’s a list of 24.
Do your own Google search.
I used accidental scientific discovery

(Lynn Munter) #79

This is anecdotal evidence. You’d need some sort of randomized trial or very broad survey to justify the statement “most of our scientific discoveries.”

But I also fail to see how you can argue this case and still maintain that random mutations couldn’t create an incredible variety of life.


Do you think God controls every raincloud, or are natural forces producing and guiding each raincloud?

How is the evidence inconsistent with billion of years? What philosophical worldview are you talking about?

We observe that newly formed igneous rocks have little to no argon (Ar) in them. However, they do contain an isotope of potassium (40K) that decays into argon. We observe that igneous rocks found lower in the geologic column have argon in them, and it is the isotope of argon produced by the decay of radioactive potassium. We observe that the half life of 40K is 1.25 billion years. We observe that the amount of potassium and argon found in these rocks would take millions to billions of years to produce. We then conclude that the rocks solidified millions to billions of years ago.

How is that not science? If you reject this scientific conclusion, how are you not rejecting science as a whole?

We understand rock formation and radioactive decay just fine.

And yet you aren’t able to show how the evidence backs this story.

Why can’t we use the evidence in the present to reconstruct what happened in the past?

Wrong question. Why is all the evidence we have consistent with evolution?

I highly doubt this is true. I think you will accept anything found on YEC websites without the same caveats.

Then show us how the physics of radiometric dating is faulty.

How did you determine this? What criteria did you use?

We are talking about science, not science fiction. I can understand why you reject science if you are learning it from fictional movies.

Do you learn your physics from Star Trek movies?

(George Brooks) #81


You should read some of these articles some time. Here’s one:

This one is published by “”, instead of “”:

“The fluctuations we’re seeing are fractions of a percent and are not likely to radically alter any major anthropological findings,” Fischbach said.

“One of our next steps is to look into the isotopes used medically to see if there are any variations that would lead to overdosing or underdosing in radiation treatments, but there is no cause for alarm at this point. What is key here is that what was thought to be a constant actually varies and we’ve discovered a periodic oscillation where there shouldn’t be one.”

“Jenkins and Fischbach suggest that the changes in the decay rates are due to interactions with solar neutrinos, nearly weightless particles created by nuclear reactions within the sun’s core that travel almost at the speed of light. It is estimated that about 60 billion solar neutrinos pass through a person’s fingernail every second, but they are so weakly reactive that they pass right through the body without disturbing or changing anything, Jenkins said.”

“We haven’t known the solar neutrino to interact significantly with anything, but it fits with the evidence we’ve gathered as the likely source of these fluctuations,” he said."

But most importantly is this sentence: “The team reported in the journal Astroparticle Physics that the decay rate for both isotopes varies in a 33-day recurring pattern, which they attribute to the rotation rate of the sun’s core.”

The one thing about a nice 33-day recurring pattern is that a million of these patterns averages out to a nice constant number…


Those results have been called into question as newer measurements with more reliable methods have not seen fluctuations in decay rates:

Scientists of the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt have now carried out new measurements and have published their results in the journal “Astroparticle Physics”. For three years, they checked the activity of samples with 36Cl in order to detect possible seasonal dependencies. Whereas the US-Americans had determined the count rates with gas detectors, PTB used the so-called TDCR liquid scintillation method which largely compensates disturbing influences on the measurements. The result: The measurement results of PTB clearly show fewer variations and do not indicate any seasonal dependence or the influence of solar neutrinos.