Question for evolutionists: “If fossils are actually young, would you find ID more believable?”

_{Salvador Cordova

August 21, 2013

Evolution, Geology}

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

The question of the fossil ages is comparable to a central problem in forensic crime investigation, namely establishing the time of death. Did the creatures in the fossil record die tens of millions of years ago or did they die recently (say less than 50,000 years ago). It is mildly unfortunate that criticism of accepted mainstream fossil ages are conflated with YEC, because strictly speaking the age of the fossils is a formally distinct question from the question of Young Earth Creation (YEC) and the age of the Earth.

One reason that criticism of the geological record has been resisted (even within ID circles) is the affiliation of such criticism with YEC. But this does not have to be the case. For example, Richard Milton, who is not a creationist and is an agnostic, believes the accepted mainstream geological ages are false.

And it’s not even all geological ages, but the relatively “small” section of geological timescales known as the Phanerozoic (back 541 million years to the present).

[To see the graphic below more clearly, you might be able to zoom into it here:
Geological Timescales]

geological timescales

Now, a question for defenders of mainstream evolutionary theory, “suppose for the sake of argument the fossils are young (say 50,000 years max). Would you still believe in naturalistic evolution or would you accept ID or (gasp) even special creation?”

I’m asking because critics of ID have demanded more evidence. The irony is that some of the most unsavory and scandalous players in the ID big tent (the YECs) might be delivering a death blow to evolutionism in the minds of those willing to deal fairly with the facts at hand.

NOTES
1. HT Mike Gene for the idea of asking this question in 2005:
A nagging question about MN

According to the Decree, MN “is the foundation of the natural sciences.” But let’s do a thought experiment.

MN is used to determine the age of the Earth. What if MN determined that the Earth was 6000 years old?

MN is used to explore the relationships between living things. What if MN determined that living things can be neatly fitted into discrete, discontinuous groups, such that it would be impossible for them to be related by common descent?

MN is used to study the surface of the Earth. What if MN determined that there once was a global flood?

If MN determined that the Earth was 6000 years old, that evolution could not occur and all living things were fitted into discrete, discontinuous groups, and a global flood once covered the Earth, does MN then mean we must explain this all “without reference to supernatural beings or events?”

2. Here are a few empirical considerations in favor of revising the ages of the fossils (revising the time of death estimates)

Cocktails! C14, DNA, Collagen in dinosaurs indicates geological timescales are false

Cocktails! ICC 2013 C14 dates conflict with Carboniferous Era dates 300 million years ago

Cocktails! Falsifying Darwinism via falsifying the geological column

Cocktails! Astrophysics vs. Darwinist Paleontology

ICC 2013 Creationist Bob Enyart attempts to bribe Darwinist Jack Horner

Expelled Microscopist Mark Armitage responds to his critics

Mark Armitage possibly the latest victim of Darwinists Inquisition

Distant starlight the thorn in the side of YEC — can there be a middle ground?

The price of cherry picking for addicted gamblers and believers in Darwinism

These links are pretty much all the pro-YEC stuff at UD out of the nearly 11,000 threads at UD. But given the possible payoff for ID if indeed the Phanerozoic is younger than thought, and in addition that the YEC community constitutes about 30% at least of the ID community, the discussion of these topics have to be explored, especially now that the Darwinist Inquisition is now possibly affecting YECs not just the general ID community.

3. My usage of “unsavory and scandlalous players” was a reference to Dembski’s essay referenced here:

Scoundrel Scoundrel, I like the sound of that

supporters of my work constantly pointed to my unsavory associates. I was treated like a political figure who is unwilling to renounce ties to organized crime. It was often put to me: “Dembski, you’ve done some respectable work, but look at the disreputable company you keep.” Repeatedly I’ve been asked to distance myself not only from the obstreperous likes of Phillip Johnson but especially from the even more scandalous young earth creationists.

Bill Dembski

4. photo credits
http://www.iupui.edu/~geol110/assets/02_geotime/EOG_11e_Figure_18_21.jpg

5. It might be interesting to explore the Ediacaran (635-541 million years back) where there were some life forms in evidence.

Comments

Noah's Flood - Where did the water come from? Where did the water go? enjoy...Joe_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

My answer comes from AiG, Walter Brown and other YECs. And it is very telling that you are totally ignorant of your opponents' position.Joe_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

It’s now in the oceans, which were NOT as deep then as they are now, and it came from subterranean deposits.
All OK with Joe's "answer" YEC folks?Alan Fox_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

As for the age of the Earth, well the only way to determine taht is to determine HOW the Earth was formed. As far as anyone knows the Earth could be made up of old material OR material that underwent rapid rad decay when it was being put together.Joe_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
Sal, if there was a global flood, where did the water come from and where is it now?
It's now in the oceans, which were NOT as deep then as they are now, and it came from subterranean deposits. Geez Alan, where did all of the water for a snowball earth come from?Joe_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
The problems with ID are deeper than that.
Only in the minds of the anti-IDists
There cannot be evidence for ID without a ID hypothesis.
We have both- positive evidence and a testable hypothesis. OTOH unguided evolution doesn't have either.
As it stands ID is like offering “chance” as an explanation with no further detail.
Your position is totally devoid of details.Joe_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

Why not simply utilize another method of dating, such as potassium-argon dating? If you know that you may be in error because of the methodology, then shouldn’t your next step be switching methodologies in order to be more accurate?
Or even use both to compare their agreement. Oh wait! They do that already.Alan Fox_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

Oops Land topographyAlan Fox_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

Alan @ 51 Not speaking for Sal. But those answers are easy to find in creation literature. Water came [probably mostly] from within the earth and some from in and/or around the earths atmosphere. Where is the water now? It’s mostly what you see in the ocean. BTW: Keep in mind when considering the flood, that the pre-flood land terrain (surface profile) was not the same as what you see today (for obvious reasons).
Let's see if I understand you. You suggest that lad topography changed so much that prior to the global flood there was dry land, then it sank enough to allow seawater to wash over everything, then the mountain ranges that we know today popped up? Why did it need to rain, then? Though of course this would only recycle the water already on Earth. Unless... There's water deep underground? Would that be above or below the magma?Alan Fox_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT}

Oops non-functionalAlan Fox_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Would you suggest that it is impossible that c could have changed (even by one meter per second)?
Any variation in the speed of light renders GPS and the like non-funtional. But that doesn't rule out variation in the past, I guess. But the argument is that light speed was so much higher in the past that it makes the universe older than it is. 14 billion instead of 6 thousand. Making it easier to calculate, lets say 10 billion and 10 thousand. The average speed of light to cover the actual distance in the shorter time is a million times faster. You may have heard of Einstein's equation relating matter conversion to energy E=mc^2. So now we have energy from matter at aconversion rate a million million times greater. Energy conversion by nuclear fusion in stars would be a million million times higher in output. Yes, I think there is a problem.Alan Fox_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth B Liddle @ 47
There is no evidence that stands up for a moment outside that document, and not even any reason to think that the writers of it thought they were writing anything but a parable... Regard Genesis as two parables and the problem of trying to reconcile literalism with facts simply goes away.
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 1978-1989) So far as the days of Genesis 1 are concerned, I am sure that Professor Barr was correct... I have not met any Hebrew professors who had the slightest doubt about this. ~ Hugh Williamson (Regius Professor of Hebrew at Christ Church, Oxford 1992-Present)bevets_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

"Problems With Tree Ring Dating and Carbon-14 Calibration": http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html#Tree Other: http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html#CalibrationJGuy_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT}

Alan @ 50. I'm not talking about a webpage. Would you suggest that it is impossible that c could have changed (even by one meter per second)? Alan @ 51 Not speaking for Sal. But those answers are easy to find in creation literature. Water came [probably mostly] from within the earth and some from in and/or around the earths atmosphere. Where is the water now? It's mostly what you see in the ocean. BTW: Keep in mind when considering the flood, that the pre-flood land terrain (surface profile) was not the same as what you see today (for obvious reasons).JGuy_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT}

Dr. Liddle @ 34:
This means that carbon-dating can be calibrated in order to take into account these known fluctuations.
Why not simply utilize another method of dating, such as potassium-argon dating? If you know that you may be in error because of the methodology, then shouldn't your next step be switching methodologies in order to be more accurate?Barb_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT}

Sal, if there was a global flood, where did the water come from and where is it now?Alan Fox_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PDT}

@ JGuy Is this what we are talking about? Barry Setterfield and his c-decay?Alan Fox_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth @ 47
If by “decay of c” you mean change in the value of c over time, then no, it does not “neutralize the argument”. Interestingly, it makes no difference, which is why I cited it. From that link (and you can work this out for yourself):
Yes, I mean a change in the value of c -- a decaying value to be more specific. And actually it does neutralize the argument against YEC (I had already worked it out). What you're arguing about - but may not realize it - is that the distance to the SN is what it appears to be by trigonometric means regardless of c value. However, that get's you nowhere in refuting YEC. Why? If c decayed, the light could arrive here in any amount of shorter time than 168,000 years, to include times consistent with YEC. Again, all you are actually proving is that the distance to the SN is about 168k light years away... where one light year is the distance c travel in one year at present speed. The key question is how long did it take. But the light could have left the SN about 5000 years ago if c was just a couple orders of magnitude higher without violating any trigonometric observations. You're only option is to completely reject c decay for some other reason. With that and here noting that the "hotspot" hypothesis is debated even among secular scientists (http://www.mantleplumes.org/), your case is not an actual consilience of evidences.JGuy_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT}

The only reason to believe in a young earth, and young life is commitment to the literal truth of the book of Genesis. There is no evidence that stands up for a moment outside that document, and not even any reason to think that the writers of it thought they were writing anything but a parable.
Exactly. It seems very counter-productive to draw lines in the sand like the age of the Earth merely to comply with a "literal' interpretation of a part of an ancient collection of manuscripts. What has the Old Testament to do with the teachings of Jesus? This is why you lose young people from a dogmatic faith. We can all be our own scientist and look at reality. If you make dogma that is obviously wrong an issue, a requirement to join the club, you will lose members when they begin to look at facts for themselves.Alan Fox_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT}

jguy
No. Decay of c neutralizes that argument. However, the article does start out by disregarding c deay. Even though c decay is not impossible. This is why there are still non-creationist physicists that entertain c variable models. Even if i am not mistaken, Einstein did not find it as unthinkable as many forever c fans. Regardless, even if c decay were impossible (which it was not shown to be), there are other possibilities to explain light traveling vast distances. Humphrey and Hartnet for example.
If by "decay of c" you mean change in the value of c over time, then no, it does not "neutralize the argument". Interestingly, it makes no difference, which is why I cited it. From that link (and you can work this out for yourself):
As shown above, the delayed illumination of SN1987A's ring allows a direct trigonometric calculation of the distance to that supernova. But what if the speed of light changed over the travel time? Oddly enough, if we use the older Newtonian physics we find that a change in the speed of light does not affect our calculations of the distance to SN1987A! The distance is based on triangulation. The line from Earth to the supernova is one side of the triangle and the line from Earth to the edge of the ring is another leg. The third leg of this right triangle is the relatively short distance from the supernova to the edge of its ring. Since the ring lit up about a year after the supernova exploded, that means that a beam of light coming directly from the supernova reached us a year before the beam of light which was detoured via the ring. Let us assume that the distance of the ring from the supernova is really 1 unit and that light presently travels 1 unit per year. If there had been no change in the speed of light since the supernova exploded, then the third leg of the triangle would be 1 unit in length, thus allowing the calculation of the distance by elementary trigonometry (three angles and one side are known). On the other hand, if the two light beams were originally traveling, say three units per year, the second beam would initially lag 1/3 of a year behind the first as that's how long it would take to do the ring detour. However, the distance that the second beam lags behind the first beam is the same as before. As both beams were traveling the same speed, the second beam fell behind the first by the length of the detour. Thus, by measuring the distance that the second beam lags behind the first, a distance which will not change when both light beams slow down together, we get the true distance from the supernova to its ring. The lag distance between the two beams, of course, is just their present velocity multiplied by the difference in their arrival times. With the true distance of the third leg of our triangle in hand, trigonometry gives us the correct distance from Earth to the supernova. Consequently, supernova SN1987A is about 170,000 light-years from us (i.e. 997,800,000,000,000,000 miles) whether or not the speed of light has slowed down.
And that is only ONE piece of independent evidence that the universe is old. Arguments that any one piece might be measurement error have to contend with all the others, including evidence that locks tightly together, like the independently corroborating answers given by varves, ice cores, coral, and tree rings, for instance over the fluctuation of C14 levels, plus their corroboration with known events. To argue that the fossils at the bottom of the varve layers in Lake Baikal are not 5 million years old you'd have to argue that the are not annual layers below 50,000 (which C14 as well as the fact that they can be observed today tells us), despite the fact that they are identical in form. In other words you have to do separate special pleading for every single piece of evidence that together point to an old earth. Here's another example - the ages of the Hawaiian islands can be dated by both radiometric dating of the volcanic material and by the distance they are from the current hotspot, given the speed of tectonic movement. Two independent dating systems, and they both give the same dates. Why? The obvious answer is because the islands are that age, so independent dating methods will give the same answer. It is also independent corroboration of radiometric dating accuracy, giving us yet more reason to believe that radiometric dating of volcanic rock is accurate, and therefore confidence in the age of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock between volcanic layers. The only reason to believe in a young earth, and young life is commitment to the literal truth of the book of Genesis. There is no evidence that stands up for a moment outside that document, and not even any reason to think that the writers of it thought they were writing anything but a parable. The accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 don't even match, without nifty apologetics. They are quite clearly two different creation stories, set down together because they each contain a powerful message. Nobody minds that Jesus' parables don't match nor thinks that they were literally true. Regard Genesis as two parables and the problem of trying to reconcile literalism with facts simply goes away. You don't need a story about someone eating an apple to know that people are capable both of knowledge and of doing what they know to be wrong. But, like the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan, it's a good and useful story.Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT}

Faded Glory Ok cool the rocks and fossils are millions of years old, but how do you explain the fact that there is still soft tissue in some of these fossils? By every account its not possible and a recent finding has vindicated that its not contamination of any sort. Don't get me wrong I am OEC all the way but the data on the soft tissue makes a compelling case for YEC in my opinion and no matter what it cannot be under rug swept!Andre_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT}

#44 FG Nicely done.Mark Frank_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT}

Sal, You simply have no idea what you're up against. What you should do is go to your nearest university geological department library, and spend a few days going through the literature and journals. You will find literally thousands of papers on radiocarbon (mostly not C14) dating of igneous and metamorphic rocks. Papers by hundreds or thousands of independent researchers who worked all over the planet to sample rocks from every place imaginable. They have used dozens of different dating techniques in dozens of different independent labs. Out if this huge body of research comes a very consistent and very loud signal: these rocks are millions of years old. Yes, there will be a noise component to the data, but the signal is very clear and is not going to go away. The crucial thing is, these dated rocks are not floating in space.They are interbedded in, and closely related to, the sedimentary strata that contain the fossils. Fossil ages are bracketed by volcanic and metamorphic rocks of known, old age. There is zero, as in no, possibility that all of the fossils we find in layers below old volcanic rocks have ended up there by accident at a later date. Instead of gratuitous musing on the internet, do as I suggest and spend a couple of weeks in a real university to look at the actual facts and body of knowledge that has been gathered in the last couple of hundred years by thousands of independent geologists. Use the original sources and stay away from amateur and apologetic websites. read the dating reports and understand the signal to noise ratio in the data. Then, if you really think you found a fatal flaw in the academic consensus, write it down, get it reviewed and publish it. I will be among the first to read it, I promise. Until then, you might as well ask: if pigs could fly...? If they could, there would be pork in the trees tomorrow. fGfaded_Glory_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT}

Bulls eye and the other eye too. Good shooting. If the geology is wrong its IMPOSSIBLE for the evolution model to have created anything or improved on anything!! There's not enough time for the mutationism to have done its glory. They need time and worse. The evidence for evolution is not based on observation of evolution but upon fossil data points in strata presumed to be segregated by great deposition events in great expanse of time. Process or descent is not in evidence. Only fossils snapshots. They TRUST the snapshots were separated by great time. If they were not PUT a fork in evolution. ( I say the forks in for evolution as a biological theory because of no biology behind it). The Evolutionist posters here are striving to change the subject. If the geology is wrong the biology conclusions are wrong. I think they really are embarrassed evolution is based on geology or genetics and not on measurable biological evidence. What can they say? 50,000 0r 6,000 years can't turn a fish into a summer vacation fisherman. Darwin said famously PUT down his book if one rejects the geological presumptions of long ages. AMEN. If a biological theory is based on a foreign subject then its not a scientific theory of biology. Its just a huch with secondary evidences. Darwin didn't understand what a scientific theory was. He wasn't a scientist but a rich guy bringing a welcome relief to a Protestant Christian civilization to not be protestant anymore without a good reason.Robert Byers_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth B Liddle @ 28:
But perhaps the simplest single piece of evidence that the universe is old is the evidence from the supernova SN1987A. But that’s only one. There are so many, and it’s the consilience between so many independent sources that is so striking.
No. Decay of c neutralizes that argument. However, the article does start out by disregarding c deay. Even though c decay is not impossible. This is why there are still non-creationist physicists that entertain c variable models. Even if i am not mistaken, Einstein did not find it as unthinkable as many forever c fans. Regardless, even if c decay were impossible (which it was not shown to be), there are other possibilities to explain light traveling vast distances. Humphrey and Hartnet for example.JGuy_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT}

Hey Sal, I don’t see a “belief level” there for a global flood. I’m guessing it would have to be at least 70% for you, seeing that you have “youth of fossils” at 80%, and there has to be a reason why there would be such a massive, yet young, fossil record. But don’t let me put words in your mouth.
Oh, forgot about that. 95%. I also think there were some very rapid geological processes that lifted mountains in a matter of weeks, and some in a matter of minutes. Maybe even continents out of the water in a matter of months or weeks. For example, even the mainstream admits this one of a mountain moving 100 miles an hour:
This sheet, consisting of Ordovican through Mississippian carbonate rocks and overlying Absaroka volcanic rocks, was probably originally about 4-5 kilometers thick. Despite the slope being less than 2 degrees, the front of the landslide traveled at least 25 miles (40 km) and the slide mass ended up covering over 1,300 square miles (>3,400 km²). This is by far the largest rockslide known on land on the surface of the earth and is comparable in scale to some of the largest known submarine landslides.[2] .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_Mountain_(Wyoming)
There are sedimentary layers that blanket entire continents. And we have tropical vegetation in the North pole: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-1671911.html How did tropical areas fossilize so quickly, there must have been some unimaginable global cataclysm. Here is a photo of a Sullivan mountain that YECs believe formed in a matter of weeks. Notice the bent layers of rock. How could it bend like that? :-) And why all these marine fossils on the tops of mountains? http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/TaylorIMMdoFoldedMtnSedLayersM.jpg There could also be ancient cities now underwater. To me it suggests an ancient civilization was wiped out and had to rebuild later. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1768109.stm I think there could be lots more surprises in store!scordova_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

I think that’s the problem here, Sal, if you don’t mind my saying.
I don't mind. I don't mind admitting my biases. Besides, these are just personal opinions on my part, not some sort of professional pronouncement. So how have I come to peace with the uncertainties? I've decided I have (personally speaking) nothing to lose if I'm wrong about ID or YEC, everything to gain if my sympathies are right (despite my doubts).
And I appreciate it, Sal, truly. And I wish you well in your search. Bless you. Lizzie
Bless you too! Salscordova_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

Hey Sal, I don't see a "belief level" there for a global flood. I'm guessing it would have to be at least 70% for you, seeing that you have "youth of fossils" at 80%, and there has to be a reason why there would be such a massive, yet young, fossil record. But don't let me put words in your mouth.George E._{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

VJTorley, Thank you for the informative link. For the benefit of the readers, there is a subtlety that is missed and especially ironic in light of all the global warming alarmism. The "solution" to the faint young sun paradox assumes lots of excess C02 that enhances the greenhouse effect. The CO2 levels have to magically decline by exact amounts as the sun gets brighter over time otherwise we have: 1. the Earth going into runaway heating mode if too much CO2 2. the Earth goes into runaway cold if not enough CO2 So how does the CO2 adjust? There is a level of ad hoc in these explanations. In light of all the global warming alarmism, we "know" that the CO2 levels have to be fine tuned. That's the other thing, we really don't know if CO2 really adds to the green house effect. Yes it hinders conductive cooling, it may enhance convective cooling. That said, if I'm wrong about the Faint Young Sun paradox, I'm wrong.scordova_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

SAl:
I really don’t know. I’m convinced that we ought to be willing to occasionally drop our priors and think out of the box as to whether we’re right.
Well, I agree :) But suggest that it's importance to distinguish between clutching at straws and discerning real problems. An old earth won't make God go away :)
I’m a doubting Thomas YEC. My belief level: 1. ID, almost 100% 2. special creation of humanity 99% 3. recent creation of humanity 99% 4. special creation of the first life 100% 5. recent creation of all life 90% 5. youth of fossils 80% 6. youth of the Earth 50% 7. youth of the universe 30% Numbers subject to change. The objections both you and I put forward regarding the YEC models are my root of doubts. But I hope the YECs are right. Future discoveries may change my mind.
I think that's the problem here, Sal, if you don't mind my saying. I understand that some possible truths are more attractive, for various reasons, than others, but that doesn't make them true. If YEC is false, it's false. Theology doesn't collapse because YEC is false. You might have to think about the bible a little differently, but it is a vastly rich document and full of meaning. You might just have to discard the top layer. I suggest that the stuff at the bottom is more interesting :)
I don’t defend every aspect of the YEC model even though I hope privately is true, some parts look pretty challenging…
Yes, they are. They really are.
Critical analysis of evolutionary theories? That’s fair game for sure. I feel comfortable offering such criticisms publicly, but my defense of YEC models is limited to the considerations laid out I the links in the OP. Thanks for answering my question in the OP, I felt it was right to answer similar questions by you.
And I appreciate it, Sal, truly. And I wish you well in your search. Bless you. LizzieElizabeth B Liddle_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply