Reforming Young Earth Creationism

[Patrick]

@Greg

I propose that we build new universities with state of the art science curriculums. I know if a couple of Christian billionaires. Whether the earth is billions or thousands of yrs old does not inhibit science.

Yes, the University of Kentucky at Ark Encounter

[Greg]

@AllenWitmerMiller

such universities reject evolutionary processes, that certainly does inhibit their graduates “finding a cure for cancer” (unless they start accepting the overwhelming evidence for evolutionary processes.) Moreover, you speak as if cancer is a single disease. It isn’t. There are a great many cancers—requiring many different treatments and “cures”. When you speak of “finding a cure for cancer”, you are reinforcing a popular myth about cancer.

That is absolutely wrong. Even Answers in Genesis abides by a view of adaptation (micro evolution) of kinds. Studying cancer as an evolving mutation has nothing to do with God creating kinds as He clearly stated in His Word that have since rapidly changed, adapted and speciated the planet.

[AllenWitmerMiller (Retired Professor & Minister.)]

@Greg

Studying cancer as an evolving mutation has nothing to do with God creating kinds

One more time: There are many many cancers and nobody claims that cancer is just one “evolving mutation”.

Yes, Answers in Genesis teaches hyper-speed evolution, a kind of evolution where speciation and super-speed evolution takes place far faster than anything actually observed and described in the peer-reviewed literature. Of course, the Bible itself clearly refutes such a hyper-speed evolution within a few thousand year old young earth creationist timeline. Indeed, even just a relatively few years after AIG’s Noahic Flood date estimate, a great many modern day species of animals are described. Or do you believe that all of that hyper-speed evolution occurred in the first century after the Flood, as some of the Ark Encounter exhibit posters claim? (Yes, Ken Ham teaches a macro-macro-evolution that far outpaces anything scientists have ever described in the peer-reviewed literature. If you don’t believe me, check out Ham’s view of “cat family” evolution or even “finch family” evolution.)

[John_Harshman]

@Greg

Scripture never gives license to allow scientific observations to trump what Scripture seems to say.

So clearly you believe that the world is flat, surrounded by water, and on top is a roof in which the moon, sun, and stars are embedded. Right?

[Timothy_Horton]

@Greg

I propose that we build new universities with state of the art science curriculums. I know if a couple of Christian billionaires. Whether the earth is billions or thousands of yrs old does not inhibit science

Will your new university teach the geology behind angular unconformities?

@Greg

Kurt wise was a yec going into harvard under Gould into a geology field!

Yet even Wise was caught telling lies to prop up his YEC claims.

[Greg]

@Timothy_Horton

Will your new university teach the geology behind angular unconformities?

Greg:

I emailed Dr. Wise about angular unconfirmaties a few mins ago. I feel like i impose to try to reach him with questions as i am just a plain dude of no significance. If i hear back, will forward his response with his permission. Swamidass knows him personally, so i was hoping he would reach out to Wise on this.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Greg

Swamidass knows him personally, so i was hoping he would reach out to Wise on this.

Don’t know him actually. I’d love to see his response.

[Jordan (Jordan Mantha)]

@AllenWitmerMiller

I propose that we build new universities with state of the art science curriculums.

How do you define “state of the art” science curriculums? And why do you assume that the many well-funded Christian universities need to be replaced by “new universities” funded by Christian billionaires? The existing Christian universities already accept many Christian young people who study science, including those from home-schooled backgrounds.

Thanks @AllenWitmerMiller, I’m one of those science professors from a Christian university. We have students from all kinds of backgrounds including quite a few YEC/OEC/ID and quite a few were homeschooled. Many of our students go on to medical or graduate school.

[Greg]

@Jordan

How do you define “state of the art” science curriculums? And why do you assume that the many well-funded Christian universities need to be replaced by “new universities” funded by Christian billionaires? The existing Christian universities already accept many Christian young who study science, including those from home-schooled backgrounds.

Good point. Ivy leagues were established as Christian institutions. And many Christian universities today are loosening grip on Scripture. There are a handful that are superb and would it not be great to infuse them w millions for the best science curiculums on the planet! Im gonna make some calls.

[AllenWitmerMiller (Retired Professor & Minister.)]

@Greg

And many Christian universities today . . . . There are a handful that are superb . . . .

Only a “handful” of Christian universities are superb? Is Notre Dame University one of those “superb” universities? How about Pepperdine University? How about Baylor University? I’m curious how you have gone about determining which handful of Christian universities are superb.

@Jordan

Thanks @AllenWitmerMiller, I’m one of those science professors from a Christian university.

A very long time ago, I too was a science professor at a Christian university. My students were from diverse backgrounds as well. (However, my hunch is that Greg probably wouldn’t classify any of my academic employers as “superb” universities. Would I be remiss to assume that Greg defines “superb” as agreeing with his particular brand of hermeneutics?)

[Greg]

@AllenWitmerMiller

superb

@AllenWitmerMiller

Only a “handful” of Christian universities are superb? Is Notre Dame University one of those “superb” universities? How about Pepperdine University? How about Baylor University? I’m curious how you have gone about determining which handful of Christian universities are superb

Superb in the sense of adherence to scriptural truth. Do you believe that the goal at many of the schools listed is to embody and encourage a literal reverence of the literal God who literally created the universe and literally wrote the Bible as a our lifesource for information to do w salvation and everything good for life under the sun? Or are they schools that have customs that pay lipservice to God to give facade honor to their founders who may have instituted them as educational vehicles to honor and revere God at His Word?

The surgeon who did work to partially remove my wife’s thyroid was a fine Christian who ministered to my wife and myself by praying for us before and after surgery and was known to have volunteered free services for such work in 3rd world countries which he reportedly absolutely loved to do. He died only a couple of yrs after we got to know him doing one of those mission stints.
Is the “Christian” university about encouraging that or just giving people capability to make a lot of money to retire early to watch the golf and stock channel until they pass?
Is the “Christian” University find at the foundation of its institution the goodnews of grace and forgiveness of human sinfulness by the act of our Savior Jesus dying in our place, so that no man may boast? Does it encourage worship to such a good God as the backbone of human joy? Or has it drifted towards a paradigm where the football and basketball programs are the most exciting places of worship?

I love to watch football, i love to go boating, fishing, hunting, all sports…i am not trying to be a killjoy here. I am questioning how quickly institutions use a label with God’s name on it while in practice give God really only a backseat. They would be better off to leave God’s name out all together.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

I would say that the ratios of specific isotopes are indicating material from a very old planet. But no one is dating the fossil when they cite those ratios.

As others have mentioned, that doesn’t explain the data. The ages of fossils are determined by the RATIO of isotopes in the rocks above and below the fossil. For example, this is the equation for K/Ar dating where K decays into Ar and a known and measurable rate:

Lambda is the decay rates for 40K and electron capture and t is the age. You measure the amount of 40Ar and 40K and solve for t. That gives you the age. The age is a direct result of measuring the amount of 40Ar and 40K. No fossils needed.

What you need to explain is why there is a correlation between the tiny changes in K and Ar in rocks and the fossils found above and below those rocks. Just saying “it’s material from a very old planet” doesn’t explain it.

In further posts you claim that this data is being fudged. That is something that needs to be reformed in young Earth creationism. If your only recourse is to accuse scientists of faking the data then you have admitted that the data, as presented, supports life developing over hundreds of millions of years.

[r_speir]

@T_aquaticus

You measure the amount of 40Ar and 40K and solve for t. That gives you the age.

That gives you the age of the rock you just dated. That rock has inclusions of contamination. Good. You just dated the surrounding rock. But you have not dated the fossil.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

That rock has inclusions of contamination.

Why would that contamination give such consistent results across the globe, and why would those contaminants produce a correlation between the radioisotopes and the fossils found below and above them?

@r_speir

You just dated the surrounding rock. But you have not dated the fossil.

Would you agree that the layers below a fossil were there before the organism died, and the layers above the fossil were put there after the organism died?

[Timothy_Horton]

@r_speir

That gives you the age of the rock you just dated. That rock has inclusions of contamination. Good. You just dated the surrounding rock. But you have not dated the fossil.

Yes, we have dated the fossil as being between the dates of the upper and lower radiometric dated layers. Unless you think the fossil was beamed into its location with a Star Trek transporter.

[r_speir]

@T_aquaticus

Would you agree that the layers below a fossil were there before the organism died

Absolutely not. Those layers were laid down simultaneously during the Flood. The igneous clock you are trying to use to date the fossil is from a different location entirely - namely, from deep within the planet. The sedimentary clock and the radio isotopic clock can vary by millions of years.

You are mixing two scientific investigations trying to reach a single conclusion. In the process, you are imposing the date of the oldest clock on the young clock. You must conduct two completely different investigations to reach good, reliable conclusions.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

Absolutely not. Those layers were laid down simultaneously during the Flood. The igneous clock you are trying to use to date the fossil is from a different location entirely - namely, from deep within the planet. The sedimentary clock and the radio isotopic clock can vary by millions of years.

How would a flood sort all of this rock by its K/Ar ratios?

[Timothy_Horton]

@r_speir

Those layers were laid down simultaneously during the Flood.

If all the layers were laid simultaneously then how did the Flood manage to sort the material by isotopic ratios so the older measured rocks always appear below the younger dated ones across the whole planet?

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@r_speir

Those layers were laid down simultaneously during the Flood.

@r_speir,

How can anyone take your assertion seriously?

We, including Creationists, all know:

[1] There are virtually no dinosaurs above the K/T layer;
[2] There are no large mammals below the K/T layer;
[3] Even the largest of the marine reptiles had to have drowned before the first rhino or giraffe drowned.
[4] And not a single whale drowned along with the marine reptiles… though apparently the whales with four (or even two) limbs all drowned before modern bovines drowned… but long after the marine reptiles drowned.
[5] Primitive plants are only found below the K/T layer, and the more sophisticated flowering plants only appear in the Cretaceous period… just before the K/T layer… which means all the animals that Evolutionists say arrived per a certain sequences must have - - instead - - drowned in that specific sequence - - being sure not to take any flowering plants with them until the Cretaceous creatures started to drown!

@r_speir, your scenario is (pun intended): Dead in the Water!

[Chris_Falter]

@r_speir

The geologic column is dated a priori. If fossils are found, they already know what range of dates they need the rock to return.

You seem to be accusing tens of thousands of scientists of the egregiously dishonest practice of changing their lab reports in order to conform to their preconceived notions.

If so, this is the most toxic venom I have ever read on this forum.

Are you sure you want to stand by this inflammatory accusation, @r_speir? I am hoping that you were just clumsy in your choice of words and did not intend to imply what your statement seems to imply.

Thanks,
Chris