BarryA Interviews Dr. David DeWitt

_{Barry Arrington

June 2, 2008

Creationism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Dr. DeWitt will appear on my radio talk show tomorrow to discuss his book, “Unraveling the Origins Controversy.” The show begins at 6:00 Eastern and will stream live on KRKS.com.

Dr. DeWitt is the Director of the Center for Creation Studies and a professor of Biology at Liberty University. He is a young earth creationist. While I respect YEC’s, I do not count myself among them, so the give and take should be interesting.

Comments

jpark320, I respectfully agree to disagree with your opinion. Bevets, Re Barr: If you insist on splitting hairs with scripture: Seems that God has a very different perspective on time than we humans do from this following passage; 2Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. So I ask you how could the bible be any more clear that God has a different perspective on time than we mere humans do? For crying out loud Bevets, God created time!!!bornagain77_{June 4, 2008
June
06
Jun
4
04
2008
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

@ bornagain77 FYI: I don't believe all evil can be traced back to human sin, I believe the Devil and his angels had some part in it to :P Good convojpark320_{June 4, 2008
June
06
Jun
4
04
2008
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

@ bornagain77 I'm glad we agree on a lot and yes I have read Dr. Dembski's article and respectfully disagree. I think that the fundamental flaw in your argument is that your interpretation of Scripture depends on external facts. Why YEC's theology (should I say hermeunetics) is superior is that it takes the clear meaning of Scripture and does not change it b/c of supposed external facts, if anything Scripture should be the one to interpret external facts. Of course the outside facts have to agree, but I think that much of the OEC argument, twists Scripture into what you want it to read. Instead of saying Genesis 1 could be symbolic, now it MUST BE. Instead of Romans 5 meaning that sin affected the whole world, now it MUST BE just the human race. Instead of the Flood could possibly have been local, but not it MUST BE. ALL BASED ON EXTERNAL FACTS I think YEC is superior b/c when the Bible says 6 days, sin came through death, and the flood was global we can make a decision either way from what the Scripture says and are not forced by external facts to make it mean something God did not intend. Seriously, do we really need better science, more sophisticated dating techniques in order to determine meanings in a book that has been around for thousands of years? Was Genesis 1, Romans 5, and the Flood's true meaning not found until the 19th century?jpark320_{June 4, 2008
June
06
Jun
4
04
2008
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it passes by, Or a watch in the night. How could Dr Barr miss this? If you were trying to convey 'six literal days', how would you have been more clear?bevets_{June 4, 2008
June
06
Jun
4
04
2008
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

bevets: "Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience" "Lord, You have been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were born Or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God. You turn man back into dust And say, "Return, O children of men." For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it passes by, Or a watch in the night. You have swept them away like a flood, they fall asleep; In the morning they are like grass which sprouts anew. In the morning it flourishes and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades and withers away." Psalms 90:1-6 And guess who wrote that - Moses, the purported writer of Genesis. And he likens "a thousand years" to a day in the same passage in which he also mentions creation and the flood. At the end of the above passage, he equates one day to a human life span (and men to grass), so in the same passage the length of time a day signifies is not even the same. (Actually "the morning", could also be alluding to the resurrection of the dead.)JunkyardTornado_{June 4, 2008
June
06
Jun
4
04
2008
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 The Bible NEVER says that the earth must be young and NEVER says that God created the earth in six literal, 24 hr days. Read again for yourself. A belief in 24-hr. six days creation period is not believing the Bible but, in fact, it is believing a one’s faulty interpretation of the Bible. Please respond to Barr (40)bevets_{June 4, 2008
June
06
Jun
4
04
2008
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

Here is another good book that I feel does a good job of resolving the conflict between Science and a Literal interpretation of Genesis: A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy (Dr. Hugh Ross) http://www.amazon.com/Matter-Days-Resolving-Creation-Controversy/dp/1576833755 I particularly liked this following review of Dr. Ross's book: Best Creation Defending Book Ever True to science and also true to the Bible! I am amazed how some of these negative women reviewers can be so illiterate, both biblically and scientifically. They should go and color Pooh coloring books instead. Honestly! I am a born again believer in Christ, a pastor, a theologian (graduate school in theology) and also a scientist (graduate school in progress in astronomy). I fully agree with Dr. Ross. His science is sound, and his theology is correct. As to the negative reviewers of this book all I can say is: GO and STUDY before you criticize! Get some Bible interpretation (hermeneutics) courses and read some science. Some OT Hebrew language and NT Greek will also help. But before you do this, first discard your biases and religious paradigms. Be open to the facts. Pray as you do this! The Bible NEVER says that the earth must be young and NEVER says that God created the earth in six literal, 24 hr days. Read again for yourself. A belief in 24-hr. six days creation period is not believing the Bible but, in fact, it is believing a one's faulty interpretation of the Bible. I praise Dr. Ross not only for his scientific and Biblical accuracy but also for his Christian attitude, civility, kindness, truthfulness and meekness. I have read his books and articles for the past 15 years. I was always impressed how his scientific predictions came to be true and accurate. Christianity needs more men and women like him. Yes. More books please Dr. Ross.bornagain77_{June 4, 2008
June
06
Jun
4
04
2008
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

re Moreland: Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr Regius Professor of Hebrew at Christ Church, Oxford Please let me know how I can be more charitible toward my brothers in Christ and still present arguments for YEC.bevets_{June 4, 2008
June
06
Jun
4
04
2008
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

scordova, Your post seems to imply that a solution to Maxwell’s equations would usher in a revival. YEC (or ID) science is no replacement for the resurrection in apologetics.
I make no such claims, it would make the case for YEC believable by those in the relevant sciences (people like Guillermo Gonzalez, Walter Bradely, and a host of others in the ID community who are not YECs.)
However, Christians preumably have an allegiance to the Truth of the Word of God and should not be bothered by apparent problems reconciling it with the Work of God.
I have a keen distrust of people who present themselves as having an infallible understainding of what the Bible says. The current YEC culture presents their interpretation of the Bible as God's truth. If its God's truth I'm willing to belieive it, but why don't you put forward some credible answers? By the way, I will exercise my right and duty a Christian to test the claims of people who claim to speak for God and who put foward their interpretation of Genesis as equal to God's word. Part of that means I will test your claims with respect to physics. God's work will help decide how to interpret God's word.. If we relied on theologians to teach us math and physics, we'd have the wrong values of PI and we'd be geocentrists if not even flat earthers....
This fool [Copernicus] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.” Martin Luther
and
The argument is that if you take the days of Genesis as not being six days and take them as maybe longer periods of time, then where do you draw the line…why wouldn’t the same reasoning imply that we’ll eventually have to reinterpret the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus. Let me give you a counter-example. I doubt, sir, that you or anybody else in the room takes the biblical passages that say that ‘Jesus will call his angels from the four corners of the earth’ to teach a flat Earth. I also doubt that anyone in here says that when the sun rises and sets it literally means an earth-centered universe. But you must understand that…there were times when the church interpreted the text that taught that God-Christ will call his angels from the four corners of the world to teach very obviously that the world has four corners. The text says that. There is absolutely no evidence in that text that it means anything other than four corners. You can read it until you’re blue in the face, and it says that the Earth has four corners. Similarly, the Bible says the sun rises and sets. Now, that’s what it says. You can dance around it all you want. That’s what the text says. But there’s nobody in here that believes that. No one in here believes the earth has four corners. And so, what we’ve done is taken that language and interpreted it metaphorically. Similarly, with the rising and the setting of the sun, we treat that…phenomenologically-we say that’s the language of description; it is not meant to be taken literally. JP Moreland
Perhaps God won't give the YECs an evidential victory until they behave a bit more charitably toward their brethren.scordova_{June 4, 2008
June
06
Jun
4
04
2008
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

DLH, Since you keep asking, These are the solid objections brought up by Moore in the previously linked site: Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science? Greg Moore Greg addresses: 1) High rates of Carbon 14 found in “ancient” fossils, carbonate rocks and coal. 2) High residual helium in zircons 3) Radiohalos from uranium and from polonium 210, 214 and 218. 4) Discrepancies between potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium, samarium-neodymium lead-lead dating measurements, and discordant isochron age results. 5) Differences in apparent age from alpha decay vs beta decay. DLH, From such a honest and penetrating critique, I find Moore's stated conclusion on RATE's work very truthful: "This RATE study poses no serious challenge to mainstream science. " Greg Moore {DLH removed copy of article per reasonstobelieve.org copyright policy: " No content from this site may be physically kept on any other Web site without the express written permission of Reasons To Believe." See links to article.}bornagain77_{June 4, 2008
June
06
Jun
4
04
2008
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 at 36 etc. You have been focusing on the RATE's model of varying decay rates. You do not appear to have addressed the numerous new radioisotopic results that the RATE study measured. My understanding of their study is that the accumulated radioisotope dating data cannot be explained by any conventional scientific models. Thus their rate varying model to fit the data. Please read and address their accumulated radioisotopic data. e.g. 1) High rates of Carbon 14 found in "ancient" fossils, carbonate rocks and coal. 2) High residual helium in zircons . 3) Radiohalos from uranium and from polonium 210, 214 and 218. 4) Discrepancies between potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium, samarium-neodymium lead-lead dating measurements, and discordant isochron age results. 5) Differences in apparent age from alpha decay vs beta decay. The foundational issue is whether ID methods can provide better objective models to empirical data, (regardless of theological beliefs.) PS Thanks for the More reference which I will review.DLH_{June 4, 2008
June
06
Jun
4
04
2008
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Paul Glem , I take issue with a number of your objections, 1. For a YEC to maintain "certain" types of decay occur "pre-fall" is to pick and choose the evidence that will best reflect their preconcieved position they want to arrive at. (Bad science to say the least) As well, RATE has had a number of valid objections brought up that have not been addressed: Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science? Greg Moore http://www.reasons.org/resources/in_the_news/Rating_Article.shtml After many solid and valid objections Moore concludes by saying : This RATE study poses no serious challenge to mainstream science. As well, Though I am not intimately familar with the exact constant decay rates of protons and neutrons, I maintain that these constant decay rates are foundational to our physical reality (Hugh Ross) and thus intimately connected to the decay rates RATE is trying to undermine for its cherry picked tests and to the other constants and ratios in the anthropic principle...i.e. gravity, speed of light, electromagnetic force, strong and weak force etc..etc.. As I stated earlier and you did not address, you can not pick and choose which constants in the Anthropic Principle you want to mess with, when you require one to change the others will be affected and must be accounted for in your nacent hypothesis, As far as I know this glaring problem is totally ignored by RATE. Objection 2 that you made I stand by, for in the fact that the sun was not created until the third day should give the reader of Genesis a solid clue that we are in fact dealing with God's perception of Time not ours. (I believe Dr. Gerald Schroeder brings this one particular fact out in more detail, although I don't completely agree with His specific timing for day's) Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible (Gerald Schroeder ) http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Big-Bang-Discovery-Harmony/dp/0553354132/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212595161&sr=1-1 Like Dr. Dembski, Dr.Shroeder thinks it completely reasonable to seek the adequate frame of reference for time to reconcile the differences between Thelogy and Science. (IMHO Dr. Dembski is successful) In fact I maintain that it is the unbending adherance to a 6-24 hour day that has brought YEC's so much grief in science. Why should this be so when scripture itself refers to the "Eternal" timeless nature of God many many times? Not to mention the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. The hoops YECs go though to maintain their unwarranted adherance to the anthropo-centric view of exactly 24 hour days is unwarranted by science, scripture and God's eternal nature. Objection 3. Again the anthropic priciple is being overlooked by you and thus your comment that it "non-sensical" is without merit (Funny the last time I heard that statement was from PZ Myers) objection 4, I hate to split hairs on that scripture, but that scripture is meant for the unsaved. "Ever learning but never acknowleging the truth" As well, So too can I quote scripture to support my position, Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Does not sound like the deception God would allow would be as deep as you pretend it to be, Do you want to split hairs on that scripture? Objection 5; Your calling my assertion "just plain stupid" when YEC's deny the integrity the fossil record itself? Go figure, Oh well, as I mentioned at the outset, I am glad that YECs and OECs share a common salvation in Christ and that is the main and important thing but as far as hard science I am Glad God left plenty of room for disagreement, for If believing YEC was necesary for my salvation, I wouldn't make it to heaven, at least not as the science stands now.bornagain77_{June 4, 2008
June
06
Jun
4
04
2008
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

bornagain77, (33) It looks like our comments crossed. I agree with you that it is incumbent on YEC's to show that at least some scientific problems are tractable from their perspective, as the claim made by the Biblical record is that YHWH is not simply a local religious deity but the God who made the physical universe and still has control over it. What you do not appear to recognize is that this is precisely what the RATE group has done. To quote you (4) quoting Greg Moore,
The RATE team has raised some interesting issues and perhaps the accelerated decay hypothesis holds promise. However, it is not only premature, but irresponsible, for young-earth creationists to claim RATE proves anything.
To take the ideas in the reverse order, I will agree that YEC's should not use the RATE data to beat people over the head, arguing that we have now solved all our problems and the only reason why you don't accept our position is because you are stupid (or ignorant, insane, or wicked, as someone famously put it). But note that "The RATE team has raised some interesting issues and perhaps the accelerated decay hypothesis holds promise." It would be helpful for you also to acknowledge that they have made apparent progress on what was previously a very difficult problem for YEC's. Furthermore, their carbon-14 data is, IMO, difficult to account for using standard geological assumptions. It is possible that, with more research, YEC may be the easier way to explain things scientifically. It may be wise to make your words against fellow Christians as sweet as possible. That way, if you ever have to eat them, they taste better. ;) It also does seem to display more of the spirit of Christ. The theological problems of OEC are not limited to that of death before sin. They also include the authority of straightforward Biblical prose in Genesis 1-3, the reliability of the account of the Fall, the reliability of the Flood account, the reliability of the 10 commandments, the reliability of Jesus' teaching on divorce, and Paul's parallel between Adam and Christ. I'm not saying that these problems are insoluble, but for you not to recognize that they are problems represents the same triumphalist thinking that you accuse (in some cases rightly) YEC's of in science. We all, you included, see through a glass darkly. Recognizing this, let us practice charity as the highest virtue. :)Paul Giem_{June 4, 2008
June
06
Jun
4
04
2008
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 You have now made at least 5 significant errors. 1. Contrary to your statment (4), quoting Greg Moore (I gather approvingly), that
Young-earth creationists have consistently maintained decay was not part of the original creation, but something God instituted at the Fall (i.e., at Adam and Eve’s sin)
there has been a substantial portion of YEC's that believe that certain kinds of decay did in fact happen before the Fall. For you (or Greg Moore) to make your assertion suggests that you are not really well acquainted with YEC thought, and are criticizing something based on a caricature. Perhaps you should talk to YEC's in more depth. 2. Atom (21) has answered your question (4)
How in the world can there be 24 hour days without a sun?
If you had thought about it, you could have given Atom's answer. I'm not saying that I know Atom is right, but it is a reasonable answer, yet you seemed totally oblivious to the possibility. Whenever you evaluate a theory, you have a duty to avoid strawmen, and it looks like you failed in this case. BTW, note that this canard goes back to Augustine, who couldn't understand why a light source before the sun should go around the world. Nowadays, Augustine's problem is no longer a problem. The earth turns. 3. You state, (25)
According to Dr Hugh Ross, decay rates of the fundamental atomic particles have had to remain constant throughout the history of the universe in order to enable life to be possible.
This is a nonsensical objection. For at least some YUC's, the universe isn't that old, so the fact that the decay of, for example, beryllium-8 appears to be constant now, and may have been constant throughout the entire time of the universe, is irrelevant to dating the universe. In fact, if beryllium-8 were to decay more rapidly for a whole year across the solar system, it would have no noticeable effect, and one serious proposal being considered by the RATE group is that nuclides with an atomic weight less than 30 were unaffected by the acceleration of decay. This is because the heavier elements seem to have decayed more rapidly from a YEC perspective (thus giving an older "age" than YEC's would otherwise predict), while carbon-14 appears to still be present in, according to the standard geologic timescale, 350 million year old coal (for details, see the RATE book, or here and here for web-based material). 4. Your assertion (10) that
I firmly believe that overwhelming illusions are definitely not part of God’s foundational Character. i.e. (No deceit is found in Him)
has already been alluded to by alan (11). To quote 2 Thess 2:10-12,
. . . because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Apparently God does sometimes allow (cause?) deception for those who really don't want to know, at least if 2 Thessalonians is a good guide. And DLH's (27) example is valid. So is the example of the apparently deceived master of ceremonies at the wedding in Cana who thought that the groom had had the best wine around for at least 3 days. Your theological point is weak, to say the least. 5. Finally, you state (13) that
Thus we are back to square one on Theological problems for YEC as to why de^ath precceded the fall of man, . . .
This is just plain stupid. One of the strong points of YEC is that they don't have animal death before sin, whereas OEC is required to have it. The theological problem in this area belongs to the position you are arguing. You have it precisely backwards. You appear to be throwing the arguments of others at us and expecting all the YEC's to fall over when they see them. Many of us have seen these arguments before, expressed more clearly than you have, and still have significant questions about OEC. Your approach seems sophomoric at best, akin to some of the Panda's Thumb arguers, or some of the YEC's i have run into who tried to use my data to "prove" a short age for life on earth and then got snowed, not because the arguments aren't strong but because they really didn't understand them. You are in danger of adjuring spirits by the Jesus whom Paul preaches, and we know how that story ended. You need to strive to understand before you criticize, and then be careful of your criticism. I understand your frustration when, as you note in (28), mechanistic evolutionists change the subject and attack YEC's who are not careful with their arguments. But do not worry. After the YEC's are gone, and you have disavowed them, the mechanistic evolutionists will turn and attack your beliefs theologically. I have seen this happen a number of times, including when Kenneth Miller sequentially attacked Paul Nelson and William Dembski at a debate in Burbank, CA. The one plea I would make for you, echoing, among others, jpark320 (30), that we all spend less time "proving" that the other side is obviously wrong, and therefore idiotic and should just shut up, and more time exploring the problems humbly and carefully. Assertions from either side without backup are not helpful, and questions are often more effective than answers in persuasion. It will be evidence, not my forceful presentation of it, that will convince the honest in heart in the end.Paul Giem_{June 4, 2008
June
06
Jun
4
04
2008
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

jpark320, First and foremost, I am glad that YECs and OECs share a common salvation in Christ even though they can disagree on certain interpretations of scripture and scientific facts. i.e. the resurrection is not disputed but is foundational to both Christian positions. With that being said, I really have to question your claim that YECs have a stronger theological position when they ignore so many scientific facts. Does not your Theological basis need to mesh with what we observe in the real wotrd at some point? If not, of what worth is your Theological basis if it cannot be used as a persuasive apologetic tool? For me your claim to a superior Theological coherency comes at a cost of ignoring all contrary scientific facts. To me this is not acceptable nor a successful Theology, for though you have brought peace to your mind in your interpretation of scripture, it has come at the severe cost of disengaging or even the denying of controversial scientific facts. IMO you have lost integrity towards a valid Theology in the "real" world. I know that I am not nearly as clear in this important matter as I would like to be, that is why I highly recommend reading Dr. Dembski's paper: Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science http://cache.search.yahoo-ht2.akadns.net/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=Christian+Theodicy+In+Light+of+Genesis+and+Modern+Science&fr=yfp-t-313&u=www.designinference.com/documents/2006.05.christian_theodicy.pdf&w=christian+theodicy+light+lights+genesis+modern+science&d=BDoD5JzfQzF9&icp=1&.intl=us of special interest: a Christian theodicy needs to go further. It needs additionally to make peace with three claims: (1) God by wisdom created the world. (2) God exercises particular providence in the world (e.g., miracles, answers to prayer, and prophecies). (3) All evil in the world ultimately traces back to human sin. Mainstream theology regards the first of these as plausible, the second as problematic, and the third as, frankly, preposterous. I’m going to argue that all three claims are true and can be situated within a coherent Christian theodicy. Claim (3) is the most difficult to square with our current noetic environment. It is also the key to resolving the problem of a specifically Christian theodicy. Once it is shown to be plausible, claims (1) and (2) become plausible as well. 11 I want, therefore, in the sequel to focus principally on claim (3) IMHO, Dr. Dembski is successful in his goal and has developed a valid Theodicy. With this Theodicy being established by Dr. Dembski, I think in all fairness, that now OEC's can claim a solid Theological foundation and framework that extends into the sciences. i.e. Dr. Dembski's work makes it possible to have a fairly coherent understanding of both science and Theology at the same time. Whereas YECs are divorced from the former. For me this makes your claim of a superior theological basis for YECs a bit hollow in its bite.bornagain77_{June 4, 2008
June
06
Jun
4
04
2008
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

bornagain at 28
Yet I allude to what we odserve to make my point of a old earth and you allude to what can not be observed to make your point that God can willingly mislead us, thus you have gone beyond the scope of science into assumptions.
I did not say "God can willingly mislead us". The appearance of age in something freshly made is inherent in the very fact of making objects that obviously age over time such as humans, trees and stars. That is a foundational issue of logic not an effort to mislead. There may be other evidence helping to distinguish ID from materialism. You assert that: "you allude to what can not be observed" Not being present at the origin of humans does not equate to there being no evidence for such an event. e.g., both human and primate genomes are now observable. The growing number of measurements of these genomes may soon provide the basis for quantitative testing of ID vs materialistic models for the origin of humans vs primates and when that occurred. By the way, the origin of humans vs primates is separate from the question of the origin of life, and from that of the origin of the universe. It is important to recognize these differences and that evidence for/against one does not equate to evidence for/against one or both of the others.DLH_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT}

Edit" I do no think the OEC's theological arguments are as strong as the YEC's... oops!jpark320_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

@ bornagain77 YECers would indeed say death did not start before the fall of man. I hope you are not referring to plant "life" b/c clearly what constituted "life" did not include plants. In all honesty, I think the OECers have a stronger scientific case, but the YECers have the much stronger Biblical and theological case. The death issue before the fall is a huge prb for OECErs and the attempts i heard of explaning it (ie equating vegetation with animal and human life) fall abysmally short. The Bible clearly indicates death came from - the Fall. The OECers interpretation of Romans 5 is just completely wrong and a belief in an old earth is controls the interpretation of this verse. But I agree, in the face of materialists, why kick each other in the shins when we agree on so much? I'm just striving for clearer Biblical understanding and at this time, I do not think the OEC's theological arguments are not as strong as the YEC's and though their science is better, I'll go with the Word every time.jpark320_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

borneagain, May I suggest that you read Kuhn's _Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions_, Feyerabend's "Against Method," and about "theory-ladenness" and "data selection bias." (This would also apply to most other readers here.) The dating game is not neat and tidy like you think it is. Look under the rug. Regarding various assertions that God would be a trickster--don't blame God if you put a stick in your own eye.thogan_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

DLH, I don't think this is in the scope of science when you ask: Do you think God would create a man with all the appearances of an adult, when in fact such age did not exist?”(i.e. he was made only a few seconds previously.) Yet I allude to what we odserve to make my point of a old earth and you allude to what can not be observed to make your point that God can willingly mislead us, thus you have gone beyond the scope of science into assumptions. then you state: By the way, I an addressing your arguments vs YECs, not mine. Your not a YEC?!? What the hubbub then? Then you ask: If the Intelligent Designer has the capabilities to form and fine tune the universe, would he be able to provide a rapid “inflation”? If so, would he not be able to vary the radioactive decay rates? Yes He can (all things are possible with God) but we can also ask is if it in His basic character to do as such and the answer to that is that it is not in His basic nature to alter a decree that He has set forth. (I am the Lord, I change not etc..etc..). Then you mention this: Back to the evidence. What alternative models are there for the radioactive data that the YEC RATE group measured? Please find and address that data and those models, or develop such alternative models in an ID perspective (rather than emotionally letting loose with accusations of theodicy or worse.) I quoted Moore and Dembski both of whom are unimpressed with the radioactive dates that the RATE group measured. I'm pretty sure I can find critiques from Dr. Ross as well as other OEC's. Yet the entire point of my critique of the varying decay rates is that they are intimately tied to the anthropic principle. Though you try to claim they are minor, (and in a big player sense I guess they are) The decay rates are still not a stand alone proposition that can vary without affecting the other constants. You have to deny this line of evidence in order to make your YEC case work and that is just plain wrong to what is known of the precise balance of the anthropic principle. Though you claim that decay rates are a minor piece of the anthropic principle puzzle they are still VERY integral to the overall principle and as such will effect the other constants with their variance. You simply cannot sweep this crushing problem for YEC under the rug. I feel your other remarks need clarity, thus will refrain from commenting. As a side note, I've debated evolutionists for quite a while now and whenever a YEC comes into the discussion, evolutionists love to change topics and pick on the YEC and thus avoid talking about the glaring problems of evolution that are being brought up. They know that they can much more readily bring out heavy scientific artillary against the YEC than they can defend themselves against a OEC who wants to talk about THEIR evidence.bornagain77_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 at 10
Do you think God would create a world with all the appearances of old age, when in fact the old age does not actually exist?
Applying your argument, "Do you think God would create a man with all the appearances of an adult, when in fact such age did not exist?"(i.e. he was made only a few seconds previously.) Would you then be "in effect saying that God willingly misled us by creating an overwhelming illusion of an adult man"? I would be reticent about attributing evil motives or actions to an Intelligent Designer over what we have little understanding of, and especially when we have so little thought it through. By the way, I an addressing your arguments vs YECs, not mine. Here it would be much better to take a "big tent" approach and promote each groups part in how to demonstrate ID in contrast to materialism etc. If the Intelligent Designer has the capabilities to form and fine tune the universe, would he be able to provide a rapid "inflation"? If so, would he not be able to vary the radioactive decay rates? Back to the evidence. What alternative models are there for the radioactive data that the YEC RATE group measured? Please find and address that data and those models, or develop such alternative models in an ID perspective (rather than emotionally letting loose with accusations of theodicy or worse.) Thanks for referring to Ross' fine tuning arguments. Does he have any explanation for the radioisotopic data reported by the RATE group? At 24, you quote Ross on a number of parameters that appear finely tuned. Some of those fit in the NIST's category of: " Atomic and nuclear constants " However, those do not appear to be "universal constants" in the technical sense. If we are addressing ID and "fine tuning", then they are "constants" in the sense of parameters that have a constant value. From an origins ID perspective, they would be parameters whose value had been set. By being able to set such parameters, would not an Intelligent Designer be able to adjust those parameters for a period of time and reset them? If he can set the parameters but not adjust them, that appears to be equivalent to the arguments of deism with someone to wind up the clock and then hands off. The difficulty with that is how do you have any basis for identifying intelligent design compared to an anonymous big bang materialism? The issue goes back to assumptions and capabilities of the Intelligent Designer. PS on your question: "How in the world can there be 24 hour days without a sun?" Do you recognize evidence of a start to the universe? e.g., the background microwave radiation from a "big bang"? If so, do you see that as evidence for an original intense level of light - before there were any suns? If there were spatial variations in that light around the earth, with a rotating earth, could there be "evening and morning" without a "sun"? Have you read CS Lewis' "The Magician's Nephew"? If so, how do you compare/contrast the time frame of Aslan "singing" Narnia into being compared with the Genesis account, and a "young" or "old" earth? How old is a tree when it is formed? Or can trees only be formed as seeds?DLH_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

Chipping in, from what we, from what I know of God (i.e. what's in the Bible), He never comes across as wasteful, or a trickster, right? It seems like an incredible waste to set up an extravagant universe/creation like the one we have, yet falsify rocks, decay, etc for a little reason like wanting a 6000yr old (currently) world. Creating only the 'appearance' of a 4000BC world (that's the date YECs give, right?)... is that something God does, or has been known to do? Is 'creating/altering things for appearance' something God does?Avonwatches_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

Atom let's just agree to disagree with your 6-24 hour day interpretation of scripture. But in so far as YECs requiring changing decay rates alluded to earlier in this post, I found this tidbit: According to Dr Hugh Ross, decay rates of the fundamental atomic particles have had to remain constant throughout the history of the universe in order to enable life to be possible. http://www.leaderu.com/science/ross-justright.html A "Just Right" Universe: Chapter Fourteen, The Creator and the Cosmos such as: 17. decay rate of the proton: if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life 20. decay rate of 8Beryllium (8Be): if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible 21. mass excess of the neutron over the proton: if greater: neutron decay would leave too few neutrons to form the heavy elements essential for life if smaller: proton decay would cause all stars to collapse rapidly into neutron stars or black holes. To me this seems to tie decay rates directly to the anthropic principle thus exponentially increasing the problems for YECs for requiring variance.bornagain77_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

@ bevets Without an adequate epistemology, the resurrection will not help anyone believe (Christ told a parable along those lines, I believe). Without an adequate epistemology, people think that pseudo-science is science. If there's no technology to support a claim that a field of study is science, that field of study isn't science, no matter how many equations someone throws at you. Unfortunately, most people's epistemology is very poor and that results in people swallowing pseudo-science hook, line, and sinker. People accept local derivations of physical entities as universal "constants" when they haven't been derived from measurements anywhere but earth. We should be skeptical about such things. Generally, pseudo-science asserts knowledge about the far away in space or time where no man can refute their assertions about processes or conditions using empirical evidence. "An appeal to ignorance," I call it.thogan_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT}

Dr. DeWitt elicited some good questions. The first question was about a specific bacterial resistance gene. Here is an opportunity for an ID hypothesis, even though ID can't, or isn't permitted to make hypotheses. If the selective pressure of the antibiotic mentioned is removed, the organism will return to its original state and the resistance gene will be lost. In the absence of the selective pressure, the mutated organism is less fit than the original. I can't remember exactly which one was mentioned. BarryA can you get that info? Maybe we can find the study that is being referenced.tragicmishap_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

scordova, Your post seems to imply that a solution to Maxwell's equations would usher in a revival. YEC (or ID) science is no replacement for the resurrection in apologetics. However, Christians preumably have an allegiance to the Truth of the Word of God and should not be bothered by apparent problems reconciling it with the Work of God.bevets_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 wrote:
How in the world can there be 24 hour days without a sun?
Sorry to jump into the middle of a conversation late, just that line caught my eye because I've seen others make similar arguments. A 24 hour day is based on the rotation of the earth, not its revolution around the sun. So a 24 hour day would be the result of the rotation of the earth around its axis. The better question is how can you have evening and morning without the sun? If there were a source of light shining on the earth (a Shekinah, if you will), then this too is possible without a sun. Hopefully people will stop using that argument as a "fatal flaw" of any Six Day, biblically-based theory.Atom_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

Or what about Russell Humphrey's argument about the "white hole"? I'd be interested to see what you guys have to say about that.tragicmishap_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

I've heard of the radioactive decay constants changing, but I was under the assumption there better explanations YECs resort to to explain the conflated dates from mainstream dating methods. What about the fact that all radiometric dating assumes that all radioactive decay starts at the beginning of the chain? Is it so unbelievable or "deceitful" that during the creation of the universe, the ultimate occurrence of heat and pressure, unstable intermediates in the radioactive decay chain were creatbriefly existed and decayed? There is evidence for this. Anyone know anything about radio halos? I don't know a lot about this, but I always thought there were better arguments than changing constants.tragicmishap_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

The disagreement is over final authority: When there is apparent conflict do we compromise the ‘Works’ or the ‘Word’? This is the heart of the matter.
Frankly many have rejected the Bible because the YECs have argued their evidential case so poorly...so appeals to Biblical authority don't help much when one is already doubting the Bible... One can make a more believable case that the Bible is God's word by coming forward with evidence. Short of that, for many, the Bible will appear as if its just another fabrication by people claiming to speak for God. Offer a plausible and experimentally confirmed re-formulation of Maxwell's equations, and much of these debates will be moot... Until then, this will remain a fruitless theological argument, not a serious exploration of physical reality... Mortensen's attitude of encouraging intolerance only suggests to the outside world that he doesn't have a convincing evidential case... The way to win the case for creation is put forward facts and a lot less theology and and a lot demands for belief and conformity...scordova_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply