I’d say that Flood geology is “the least bad” option for YECs - and for many years it has been complete nonsense. There is no agreement on which rocks were formed by the Flood, no viable explanation for the order of the fossil record and numerous other problems (angular unconformities and large evaporite deposits, for instance). Obviously it was far worse than the scientific hypotheses for the origins of the solar system and the moon. If you are going to call agreement with science disagreement then you certainly ought to consider the state of Flood geology - at least until your supposed developments to be a thing of shame,
Now you say that you think the Flood geology may be better than mainstream geology - when even solving one of those problems would be a major advance. Are you really sure that you are in a position to judge? Where can we see these developments?
It doesn’t get interesting because there are no applications to discuss. “Goddidits” aside, Creation Science isn’t answering and How/Why/When/Where/Who questions in the way that science can and does. Science gives us new inventions, patents, new medical treatments, and fruitful new areas of discovery. Creation “Science” does not do any of that - and to be clear I am not expecting it to do any of that - it cannot because apologetics is not science. This is a polite and fair criticism.
OK, now it’s getting hard to continue without the appearance of snarkiness, which I hope to avoid. Simply put, if Flood Geology had any practical application it would be used in oil field exploration. That doesn’t happen (go read about Creationist and old field geologist Glen Morton). It’s simply not worth arguing about when Flood Geology has no practical application to discuss. The same applies to Creation Science in general.
I could go on. Flood Geology generally violates the laws of physics (This is even acknowledged by Creation Scientist, ie: the RATE conference). There is no way to reconcile that to reality without relying entirely on goddidits. Again, that’s fine for apologetics, but useless as science.
When you say “He was already untestable” that’s a belief-statement about God. A claim about God’s nature. You are the one saying God is, by definition(the definition you buy into), untestable. So when you find that the way you elect to define God conflicts with the scientific method the responsibility is all on you.
I can’t find how that’s anything but a tacit concession of the point. You’re welcome to start taking drugs who’s potential efficacy or side-effects haven’t been tested and then you can get to call it “science” too.
Ironic indeed.
Jeff why are you here? You seem to refuse to defend any of your views and, in my experience, you can’t. You’re just here to declare stuff you believe, get reassurances and the respect you feel you’re owed from some fellow Christians who can play the quote-a-bible-verse-game as if nothing else has value to you, and then that’s it? On the one hand you want the appearance of legitimacy of science, but only in the service of your particular brand of faith. There’s something oddly defeatist about the whole thing. Like you somehow know the game is lost so it’s become entirely about appearances.
For anyone wanting further details, I quoted an article summarizing some of their conclusions in a previous post. The original article, however, no longer seems to be available.
This is the part where heat from radioactive decay turns the Earth into a ball of boiling magma which would still be cooling off ~4000 years later. Also, changes in the Fine Structure constant make the chemistry of life as we know if impossible - or maybe atoms don’t even form. This requires a deep dive into Omphalism to resolve, and everybody agrees that is bad apologetics.
Ok, I think I see the disconnect. (It helps to re-read someone’s posts before replying!)
When I read:
I thought you meant applications within their worldview (in other words Flood models). You meant things more along of operational science (oil field exploration).
True, that’s not their primary objective. My mistake. And yes, that was “a polite and fair criticism”
To be honest John, I question the sincerity of that request. I say that based on past conversations I’ve had with you (I see a cycle ), as well as something someone else here shared about you in private.
Unless something has changed, I don’t see this as a fruitful dialog.
Good day John
Which is likely insufficient. Reading arguments does not in itself give you the knowledge to evaluate them correctly.
The fact that you refer to books rather than answering my points is not encouraging. If the books had answers it would surely be possible for you to give them, at least in outline.
I did “look inside” the second book but all it did was pretend that the evidence against a young Earth did not exist. At least in those sections available that way. It would be a waste of money - if you think it “excellent” I can only suggest looking at more geology,
As for the second I really am not inclined to give money to the ICR and I would require evidence that the book really was worth the money and the time reading it. Based on this review I do not think that likely. Certainly Clarey does not seem to have a viable explanation of the order of the fossil record - which would mean that his ideas are worse than the scientific proposals for the origins of the planets and the moon - which you claim are certainly false.
Regarding my reply to the ‘destroy all of science’ comment:
I’m sure you’ve been around enough creationists to know that they believe the following (regardless of what others think):
Creationists contributed to bringing about modern scientific methods
Creationists have a better foundation for trusting science (consistent laws of the universe)
Creationists know how to compartmentalize operational science and origins narratives
Creationists believe we have a number of scientific evidences on our side (again, regardless of what others think)
So if the ‘destruction of all of science’ is something you worried about, worry not, creationists would help in the revolt against it, not cause it!
And that’s what made your statement amusing. But if my “amusement” statement offended you, I do apologize.
Well original it was 1) To learn, 2) challenge my beliefs by people who both oppose mine and are smarter than me, 3) share what I’ve learned about YEC in an environment that obviously greatly misunderstands it.
BUT, your reasons sound intriguing. I’ll go with those…
Why not be here?
Endless dialog over the phrase “not scientific”
If I recall, it’s against the rules of this site to say that sort of thing. But it was a sincere request. I don’t think any such thing as I asked for exists, but it’s certainly possible that you believe it does. I’d like to know exactly what you were talking about, but you seem unwilling to say. Why?
The only things you’ve cited contain no “exciting results”, just ancient PRATTs. If that’s what you were talking about, my expectations are confirmed.
This is progress, I think. I don’t see how it benefits any worldview, but then it’s not my worldview. There are obvious disconnects with reality, as in how oil field exploration makes use of science rather than Flood Geology. More fundamentally there are disconnects with the laws of physics, which is fundamental to all science.
Do you understand now why I say the “Creation Science” is apologetics?
It may not be their primary objective. It usually isn’t for most research.
However, can you explain why no practical applications of “creation science” even exist? There are many for evolutionary science, as I am sure you are aware.
Genesis records the history of a worldwide watery cataclysm that destroyed almost all land-dwelling creatures and completely reshaped Earth’s surface. Cultures around the world retain the memory of this great deluge, but secular geologists insist it’s a myth - there never was a global flood. But they’ve never looked at the rock record across multiple continents simultaneously.
Do you believe that?
Here are twoexamples of what ICR claim was never done, and an extract from one of them:
Gondwana shows a remarkably similar stratigraphy on all of the major southern continents, grading from Devonian tillite (glacial gravels), through Carboniferous and Permian coal, Triassic red beds (sandstone and conglomerate), and Jurassic through Cretaceous volcanic rocks. The Devonian glacial til-lites are remarkable rocks, found on all five southern continents. These were deposited unconformably on older rocks, and in many places the unconformity surface preserves scratches made by glaciers hundreds of millions of years ago.
If ICR are correctly characterising the book’s claims, the book isn’t worth reading.
Is this why you were reluctant to share the exciting new results of creationist research? Because you knew how quickly and easily the accompanying dishonesty might be exposed?
), as well as something someone else here shared about you in private.