Is there evidence for a young earth? (An experiment)

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
My statement was expressly clear and I did not realize till now that you did not understand it.

Expressly clear? First, you said that you and "many if not most" Baptist Old Testament scholars hold Genesis is a redacted account; then that you did not have any scholars in mind; then that you didn't have time to add them all up; and finally stating that you made no such claim.

God NEVER violates His laws and he did not do so by allowing Peter to walk on water.

Then just what law of nature is in place that allows man to walk on water without God changing something?

 

[Craigbythesea]

Rlvaughn,

I have been a gentleman and courteously answered all of your questions, but you have not shown me the courtesy of answering my question, “Where in Genesis 6 - 8 do you find Moses describing any miracles?” Neither have you addressed any of the facts that prove that the story of Noah’s Ark is NOT a literal account of an historic event. Therefore it would be inappropriate for me to continue our dialog.

 

[rlvaughn]

Thanks for the dialog, even though you didn't directly answer my questions. Neither did you cause me to have any confidence in your ability to post facts regarding the flood. I did give my belief on Genesis 6-8. Perhaps you missed it. See you around the board.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Thanks for clearing that up. I understood from your second post on page 7 with the use of the words "Peter’s understanding" and "his [Peter's] readers" that you believed that this was the Apostle Peter's writing. But if you do not regard II Peter as inspired scripture, it obviously doesn't matter what it says.

I did not say that I do not regard II Peter as inspired scripture. However, whether it is inspired or it isn’t inspired is irrelevant to the fact that the story of Noah’s Ark is not a literal account of an historic event. My reason for dismissing those verses in 2 Peter was simply that they are irrelevant to the issue in Genesis because no amount of inspiration in the New Testament can make the story of Noah’s Ark a literal account of an historic event.

</font>[/QUOTE]In other words: "If Craig don't believe it then it ain't so no matter what biblical proofs you provide".

No amount of your higher criticism, abuse of scripture, and lack of proof that Noah's flood did not occur will make the account anything less than a narrative of a historical event.

 

[PlainSense Bible believer]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Salty seas: Evidence for a young earth"

This is a good example of the kind of fraud we find on the YE side.

The first mistake is that there are at least 17 known sodium removal processes that are not mentioned or considered.

Another mistake is that he mistates the removal of sodium by alteration of basalt by hydrothermal activity by a factor of 35! When you consider the actual number removes 23% of the sodium that enters the ocean by itself, this is a huge mistake. It is difficult to even call it a mistake since the number comes from one of his sources.

If you fix all of the mistaken nnumbers and overlooked proceses, you find that the input of sodium is estimated to be 35.6 x 10^10 kg/yr while the output is estimated at 38.1 x 10^10 kg/yr. That appears to be a larger number out than in. Of course the error bars are large enough that what it really means is that the level of sodium is at equilibrium. If they are at equilibrium, then you cannot tell for how long this has been the case.

Another interesting thing is that the is a letter written to the authors about 9 years ago detailing the mistakes. The erroneous data has never been removed. Here is a link to the last of a series of letters between the authors and a scientists. They replied so they got the message. They just choose to continue the lie.

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
I am still quite interested in what you think of the responses to your first two claims. Especially the first claim. The author changed numbers by large amounts from his sources, left out other numbers from his sources, and has not updated the results even though the mistakes were pointed out to him in a series of written exchanges nearly nine years ago. IMHO, this is not a good sign for either the author or the host web site.

UTEOTW,

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you on this. I can see the things you are referring to - missing sodium removal processes, difference in the removal of sodium by alteration of basalt by hydrothermal activity by a factor of 35, and the effect this has on the maths.

I don't feel that I am in a position to judge this one way or the other, but I will contact AiG about this and post back the response if there is one. That is what this topic is for, after all. Thanks for supplying the information.

PlainSense

 

[PlainSense Bible believer]

UTEOTW,

This is the letter I propose to send to AiG via the contact form they provide for "Scientific Questions". Since it was one of your posts that prompted me to start this topic, I thought you might like to see this before I send it. Please let me know if you are happy with this or if you would like changes made.

PlainSense

-------------------------

Dear Sirs,

I am a Christian who believes that the account of the creation in Genesis should be taken literally, that is, that God created everything in six-consecutive-twenty-four-hour-days and then rested on the seventh day. Based on the chronology of the Bible, I believe this happened approximately 6000 years ago.

I have recently been discussing the young earth position with fellow-believers on an Internet forum. Many of those that I have been in discussion with are Christians who believe that God created everything using evolution, which of course means that they accept the usual evolutionary position about the earth being several billion years old. During the course of these discussions, I provided some links to articles on your website in which you (AiG) present evidence for the earth being young. The articles I provided links to are shown below:

Salty seas: Evidence for a young earth
&lt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3910.asp&gt;

The earth's magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young
&lt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/magnetic.asp&gt;

We also got onto the subject of Noah's Ark, and I provided the following links:

Safety investigation of Noah's Ark in a seaway
&lt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/noah.asp&gt;

Modelling the size of Noah's Ark
&lt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/ark.asp&gt;

In each of the above cases, secular evidence has been presented which appears to show that your research is wanting, and it has been said that AiG research is poor scholarship and misrepresents the facts. I would really appreciate it if you would take the trouble to reply to this evidence and these accusations. I started a topic on the forum with the aim of discussing and investigating this. I will post a copy of this letter to the forum, and will also post your reply(s) to the forum (unless, of course, you prefer to reply directly to the forum yourself). There are many Christians of both creationist and evolutionist persuasions who will see this letter and your reply(s).

I would like to feel that I can continue to trust AiG material. I hope you will reply and I look forward to your response.

The link to the overall forum topic is:
&lt;http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3087.html&gt;

Specific responses to your articles can be found at:

Salty seas: Evidence for a young earth
&lt;http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3087.html&gt;

The earth's magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young
&lt;http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3087.html&gt;

Safety investigation of Noah's Ark in a seaway / Modelling the size of Noah's Ark
&lt;http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3087/4.html&gt;

Yours, in Christ,
------------------------

 

[Scott J]

This is a good example of the kind of fraud we find on the YE side.

The first mistake is that there are at least 17 known sodium removal processes that are not mentioned or considered.

This is the kind of poorly founded accusations we see from evolutionists whose kneejerk reaction to every seeming discrepancy is to accuse creationists of being ignorant, stupid, or dishonest.

Of course when discrepancies are found in evolutionists arguments, they are given wide latitude and total benefit of the doubt.

Did you even take the time to follow the link in the footnotes? The original document from 1990 did not consider 17 removal processes but did consider 7 and appears to be thorough.

http://tccsa.tc/articles/ocean_sodium.html

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This is a good example of the kind of fraud we find on the YE side.

The first mistake is that there are at least 17 known sodium removal processes that are not mentioned or considered.

This is the kind of poorly founded accusations we see from evolutionists whose kneejerk reaction to every seeming discrepancy is to accuse creationists of being ignorant, stupid, or dishonest.

Of course when discrepancies are found in evolutionists arguments, they are given wide latitude and total benefit of the doubt.

Did you even take the time to follow the link in the footnotes? The original document from 1990 did not consider 17 removal processes but did consider 7 and appears to be thorough.

http://tccsa.tc/articles/ocean_sodium.html </font>[/QUOTE]Well let's see here. They did consider seven of the removal processes. For one of these seven, they changed the number from their reference by a factor of 35! That one mistake by itself accounts for 23% of the total sodium entering the ocean all by itself. This process it the removal by alteration of basalt by hydrothermal activity. The reference is Holland, H.D., 1984. The Chemical Evolution of the Atmosphere and the
Oceans, (Princeton: Princeton University Press), pg. 199. You you really thing that it is a "poorly founded accusation" to call this dishonest?!? Go read the stupid paper again, you will see that it is one of their references. They changed the number. They lied!

 

[UTEOTW]

Got interrepted there. Let's continue.

When it was pointed out that several methods of removal were left out (plus the methods whose numbers were changed), including removal by several biological processes and by formation of halite, you hand waved that away by intimating that it should be good enough that they included the seven that they did. I find it hard to believe that you could find a work that leaves out more methods of removal than it includes and that changes numbers by large degrees to be "thorough."

But this is the danger of YE pseudoscience. It looks good from a difference. They use big words and provide all sorts of scientific sounding stuff. Enough that you think it sounds good. But when you look under the hood, it is simply wrong. Things are left out and numbers changed. It is simply dishonest.

Now, back to the questions I had for you in our last exchange a few pages back.

Tell me some predictions that you theory should make. I have already started a list for you, you should at least accept or reject those. Preferrably add a few of your own. And then broaden that into a predictive, testable, falsifiable theory that we can examine. I have already shown you how evolution fits that bill. (There is a link in the previous post a few pages back.)

 

[UTEOTW]

Plainsense

The one problem I have is that we really are not delving deep enough into all this. Most notably, I have only barely skimmed the surface of the problems with the magnetic field page and would prefer not to use such an incomplete answer. For the other two, I don't mind you sending it provided that you also include the response to Scott above that specifies the citation on which they changed the numbers. Links are provided that should be able to fill out the details.

 

[PlainSense Bible believer]

UTEOTW,

Shall I wait for more information from you, and then re-draft the letter?

 

[UTEOTW]

No. All i'd ask if you send it is to drop the magnetic field stuff (they will see it anyway if they follow your links) and include a link to where I note the actual work where they change the number on the sodium removal. The magnetic field stuff would require pages and pages to properly refute. I am not sure I have the time nor the expertice to do so adequately. Others have done so and a little work with Google or the search function at TalkOrigins should lead you directly to excellent discussions of the shortcomings of the magnetic field information. I think I mention a few problems, enough to cast doubt, but not in enough detail to be very useful for your purpose. For the sodium, however, changing numbers and leaving out removal methods are easy to see. I'll predict that they went fishing for numbers. The inputs were the highest estimates they could find and the outputs were the lowest estimates they could find. They will phrase it as sources disagred so they tried to pick the best numbers, nevermind that they were cherrypicking numbers.

 

[PlainSense Bible believer]

This is the letter I now intend to send to AiG via the contact form for "Scientific Questions". I tried sending this just now and got a "server error" message when submitting it. I'll try again later. If I still get an error using their form, I can probably find an email address to send it to.

PlainSense

--------------------------
Dear Sirs,

I am a Christian who believes that the account of the creation in Genesis should be taken literally, that is, that God created everything in six-consecutive-twenty-four-hour-days and then rested on the seventh day. Based on the chronology of the Bible, I believe this happened approximately 6000 years ago.

I have recently been discussing the young earth position with fellow-believers on an Internet forum. Many of those that I have been in discussion with are Christians who believe that God created everything using evolution, which of course means that they accept the usual evolutionary position about the earth being several billion years old. During the course of these discussions, I provided a link to an article on your website in which you (AiG) present evidence for the earth being young based on the level of salt in the sea. The article I provided a link to is shown below:

Salty seas: Evidence for a young earth
&lt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3910.asp&gt;

We also got onto the subject of Noah's Ark, and I provided the following links:

Safety investigation of Noah's Ark in a seaway
&lt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/noah.asp&gt;

Modelling the size of Noah's Ark
&lt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/ark.asp&gt;

In each of the above cases, secular evidence has been presented which appears to show that your research is wanting, and it has been said that AiG research is poor scholarship and misrepresents the facts. I would really appreciate it if you would take the trouble to reply to this evidence and these accusations. I started a topic on the forum with the aim of discussing and investigating this. I will post a copy of this letter to the forum, and will also post your reply(s) to the forum (unless, of course, you prefer to reply directly to the forum yourself). There are many Christians of both creationist and evolutionist persuasions who will see this letter and your reply(s).

I would like to feel that I can continue to trust AiG material. I hope you will reply and look forward to your response.

The link to the overall forum topic is:
&lt;http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3087.html&gt;

Specific responses to your articles, and related links can be found at:

Salty seas: Evidence for a young earth
&lt;http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3087.html&gt;

Links related to “Salty Seas evidence”
&lt;http://tccsa.tc/articles/ocean_sodium.html&gt;
&lt;http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html&gt;

Safety investigation of Noah's Ark in a seaway / Modelling the size of Noah's Ark
&lt;http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3087/4.html&gt;
&lt;http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/3087/8.html?&gt;

Yours, in Christ,
--------------------------

 

[billwald]

"Then just what law of nature is in place that allows man to walk on water without God changing something?"

Either an application of some kind of energy that we havn't yet discovered or magic.

 

[PlainSense Bible believer]

I couldn't get the AiG contact form to work so I sent the letter (see my last post) to AiG on 7 March via an email contact who forwarded it to the right place for me. I received this reply from AiG's Answers Department on 11 March:

-------------------------------------------

Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis Ministries. First off, I want to encourage you to see the “big picture” regarding the nature of evidence. First of all, we have historical versus operational science. Historical science deals with trying to determine things about the past while operational science involves actual experimentation, testing hypothesis etcetera. Since our “young earth evidences” are a matter of historical science, the real matter is one of interpretation of the evidence. Please review these three articles first:

&lt;Creation: Where’s the proof?&gt;
&lt;Searching for the ‘magic bullet’&gt;
&lt;A young earth—it’s not the issue!&gt;

Ultimately, the second point I need to make to you is the nature of online discussion forums and even online articles. This is our “standard response” for discussion boards, but see more comments below:

Answers in Genesis occasionally gets correspondence to request our assistance with or participation in an “online discussion forum.” Many times this request comes because someone has made accusations against AiG in the forum or when an individual has brought up a particular point that appears to need a refutation or assistance. AiG does not participate in such arenas for various reasons. Some suggestions for those involved in debate boards are:

1) Check every fact, statement, or interpretation of the facts. It may be helpful to review these introductory articles.

&lt;Creation: Where’s the proof?&gt;
&lt;Searching for the ‘magic bullet’&gt;
If it’s a Christian discussion forum and the age of the earth comes up, start with the assumption of biblical authority:
&lt;A young earth—it’s not the issue!&gt;

2) Do not trust “scientific refutations” of AiG material that appear to be well constructed. Check every fact, assumption as well as logic. Challenge topics such as this for their peer reviewed source. Remember, there is a difference between a fact and an interpretation of a fact.

3) Check &lt;Arguments creationists should NOT use&gt; to make sure you are not using poor or outdated points.

4) Review a number of the &lt;Past Feedback Archives&gt; for examples of how to respond to non-biblical postings.

5) Research topics you need help on by searching the AiG &lt;Q&A Topics&gt;. Make sure, for example, that you don’t confuse &lt;mutations&gt; and &lt;natural selection&gt; which are biblical with molecules-to-man evolution.

These points being made, before AiG would response to online refutations of statements we have made, we would have to see them posted in a peer reviewed forum such as our TJ. The peer review process is one that prevents rampant speculation and unscientific claims from being made. At least one of the articles you are referencing comes from TJ our peer reviewed source. If someone wants to take up the issue of refuting the peer reviewed TJ article they should submit their response to TJ (or other peer reviewed journal such as CRSQ) themselves. The author’s would be happy to respond to the claims if they are placed in the peer reviewed forum.

Ultimately, the accusation that “AiG research is poor scholarship and misrepresents the facts” is simply untrue. What our scholarship does do is present the interpretation of the facts that starts with the axiom that the Bible is God’s authoritative Word. I pray that this information is helpful to you. God bless!

-------------------------------------------

 

[Travelsong]

Peer review. How ironic.

 

[El_Guero]

PlainSense Bible believer

Have they shown that God was wrong, yet?

In Him

 

[UTEOTW]

Just who does AIG get to review their material. It either is not experts in the appropriate fields or they do not listen to the peer reviews.

I think I also referenced truely peer reviewed material in some of my responses.

"Have they shown that God was wrong, yet?"

No, but it was shown that AIG and the other YE materials posted were wrong.

Fortunately, you and AIG are not the arbiters of what God has said.

 

[PlainSense Bible believer]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
Have they shown that God was wrong, yet?

No

In Christ,
PlainSense

 

[just-want-peace]

God says 6 Days, morning/evening etc!

Man says 200 Billion years (or whatever) etc!

Fortunately, you and AIG are not the arbiters of what God has said.

And, thank God (literally), neither are you!