License

I have written an e-book, Does the Bible Really Say That?, which is free to anyone. To download that book, in several formats, go here.
Creative Commons License
The posts in this blog are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Saturday, February 28, 2009

What's wrong with Young-Earth Creationism?

This started out as a response to an anonymous comment, asking the question of the title.

My problems with Young-Earth Creationism (YEC) are six-fold.

1) The Bible tells us, in Psalm 19:1-4, and Romans 1:20, that God has revealed Himself to us through nature. (That's not the only way!) To ignore that evidence, or distort it, is a serious mistake, just as it would be an even more serious mistake to ignore God's revelation in Jesus Christ. I'm not sure that we understand any of God's types of revelation fully and correctly, but we shouldn't ignore them, and should seek compatibility between them.

The post to which the comment was made illustrates this problem with YEC. Kurt Wise is one of the most prominent Young-Earth Creationists, a paleontologist with impeccable academic credentials, and he cannot find good scientific evidence for the young-earth position in the fossil record. There is abundant evidence that the earth is older than a few thousand years in that record. How does Wise get around this? He says, honestly, that he has a prior commitment to believing in YEC. In other words, he discards evidence that argues against that position.

A similar situation exists with a YEC study of radioactive dating, called the RATE project. A group of YEC scientists concluded that the evidence from radioactive dating seems to indicate that the earth is a lot older than a few thousand years old. But then they went further. They proposed that it really isn't so old, because there have been periods when the radioactive decay rate was a great deal faster than it seems to be now. In other words, they rejected the evidence they discovered. (See here for one of my posts on this subject, which gives documentation.) There have been several criticisms of the RATE project's proposal that the rate of decay changed greatly, such as in the latest issue of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (which is not yet available on the Internet). The critic in that article, J. Brian Pitts, cites arguments** that way too much heat would have been produced by so much radioactivity, and that a mechanism proposed by the scientists who worked on the RATE project would not have worked. ("Nonexistence of Humphreys' 'Volume Cooling' for Terrestrial Heat Disposal by Cosmic Expansion," PSCF 61:23-28, March, 2009.)

Unfortunately, unlike Wise or the RATE project scientists, many YEC advocates just dismiss all evidence that there is good scientific evidence for an old earth.

2) The Bible does not necessarily teach Young-Earth Creationism. For example, Genesis 2:5 poses what I believe to be serious problems for the Young-Earth interpretation of scripture. (See this post, or my posts on David Snoke's excellent book, A Biblical Case for an Old Earth, for more criticisms of the YEC interpretation. In particular, here and here are posts pointing out problems with the belief that the days of Genesis 1 were literal 24-hour days.) Many God-fearing, Bible-believing scholars are not convinced that the Bible definitely teaches that the earth is only a few thousand years old, that the days of Genesis 1 were literal, or that the flood of Genesis was world-wide. The Young-Earth view, in its present form, is comparatively recent, becoming prominent only in the late nineteenth or early twentieth century, although many Christian scholars, well before that time, did believe that the earth was not very old. See the history section of the Wikipedia article on Young Earth Creationism.***

3) There are well-informed YEC scientists, like Wise, or the people who worked on the RATE project, who are scientifically qualified, fair and reasonably objective in their discussion of the evidence for and against Young-Earth Creationism. But they are few and far between. There are charlatans, tax dodgers (see here), and demagogues out there, many with little or no scientific training, with web sites, radio programs, books to sell, and seminars to present in churches. It is much easier to get a following, including financial support, if you scream that anyone who doesn't believe in YEC is anti-God, and that there is abundant scientific evidence that YEC is true, than if you are fair and reasonably objective. Christians who don't agree with the screamers are seldom heard in the non-scientific media, or in conservative churches. As a result, conservative Christians, as individuals, in congregations, and in Christian schools, including home schools, colleges, and others, are being cut off from fair and honest examination of alternative Christian views of origins. They are providing ammunition for atheists who are anti-God. Further, they are cutting themselves, and their children, off from being able to reach well-educated sinners in need of a savior.

There may be a few people who have been won to Christ by a presentation of YEC. There are likely more than a few who have been driven away from Christ by such a presentation -- "If the Bible is so wrong about geology*, how can it be right about what it says about sin and redemption?" Glenn Morton, who had a career as a geologist with YEC training, describes how he "was almost through with Christianity," after he found that the Young-Earth geology he had been taught did not work, and discovered that other professional geologists with YEC training had found the same thing -- YEC geology doesn't describe the way things really are.

It is also true that there are screamers on the other side, people who say that Christian belief is incompatible with science, or that all Christians are willingly ignorant. That's just as bad, but this post is about what's wrong with YEC, not what's wrong with Richard Dawkins.

4) YEC advocates usually portray themselves as defending the Bible. That isn't really true. What they are doing is defending their interpretation of the Bible.

5) YEC and Intelligent Design (ID) are often presented as if they were one and the same. They are not. See here for documentation.

There are many Bible-believing, God-fearing, soul-winning, heaven-bound people who believe that Young Earth Creationism is the only option for Christians. I love them, and appreciate their sincerity and zeal. But most of them have been cut off from evidence, both scientific and Biblical, that argues against their position. There is such evidence, and it is part of God's revelation to us. YEC may or may not be right, but there are other views held by Bible-believing, God-fearing, soul-winning, heaven-bound Christians. Christians who haven't much background in origins, or science, should be told that such views other than YEC exist among believers. (There are problems with all of these views. In this post, I explain why I have problems with Intelligent Design. I'm not alone.)

6) (This point added on August 20, 2012) The genre of Genesis 1 is peculiar, and probably was meant to be largely symbolic. See here for some of the evidence for why I say that. This point is closely related to the second one, but since I'm adding it so long after the original post, I'm entering it as a new item.

What do I personally believe about origins? See here.

Thanks for reading!

*The Bible says little about geology, and I believe that what it says is correct. YEC advocates claim that the Bible says that the earth was covered by a world-wide flood, which is responsible for most of the earth's rock layers, and that this flood took place a few thousand years ago. That's one interpretation of what the Bible tells us. It's not the only one, and it is inconsistent with the evidence from geology. Some YEC advocates also claim that the Bible teaches that dinosaurs co-existed with humans, and other such nonsense. Here is some additional material about geology and YEC.

**This sentence was clarified on June 6, 2009. The article by Pitts is in this issue of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith.

***This sentence was added, and the previous sentence corrected, on June 6, 2009. I thank Brian Pitts for a communication which led to these changes.

54 comments:

bobxxxx said...

YEC and Intelligent Design (ID) are often presented as if they were one and the same. They are not.

Both ideas, creationism (young earth or old earth) and intelligent design, are equally stupid. Both ideas invoke magic. There's nothing more insane and childish than a belief in magic.

superrustyfly said...

Here is a little ammo for your argument. Many Archaeologist, even a professor of mine, have stated that the earth was already ancient by the time of Abraham. Just food for thought.

Martin LaBar said...

Thanks, gentlemen.

Perhaps they are equally stupid, bobxxxx. They are both subsets of the larger set that believes that the way things currently are is not simply a product of purposeless chance. If that's "insane and childish," so be it. But it is also insane and childish to rule the very possibility of miracles -- a possibility that science can neither prove or disprove.

You have illustrated my point, superrustyfly, namely that God-fearing, Bible-believing people are not all convinced that the earth is merely a few thousand years old.

Martin LaBar said...

Brian Pitts, the author of the article referred to above, e-mailed me, and says, correctly, that he didn't, himself, argue that too much heat would be produced. He "cited others who argue the point and YECs who concede the point." Sorry.

Brandon Tingley said...

There is ample evidence in astronomy for a truly ancient Universe. So unless you believe the Earth was created much later than the rest of the Universe...

Martin LaBar said...

Thanks, Brandon Tingley.

Or, unless you believe that the light coming from other galaxies was created to show an appearance of age.

Brandon Tingley said...

True enough. YEC basically requires that God went to EXTREME lengths to test the Faithful, creating a Universe that LOOKS billions of years old in every way imaginable...

Martin LaBar said...

Or ignoring a lot of evidence, or both.

Thanks, Brandon Tingley.

youngearthcreation said...

I'm sorry I posted my comments on the wrong post.

I read psalm 19 v 1-4? I bet the same verse was given to Galileo when he tried to convince the catholic church that the moon was not smooth. They told him his telescope was possessed by demons. The heavens shows me the glory of God that he created things to look waxed of old. Just like Paul said. It shows to me that He has Great power.
Romans 1 verse 20? Did you read verse 1-32? Even if you read from verse 18 to 23 you get a clearer picture than just one verse 20 presented out of context. It seems to me at least that God are judging someone, through the words of Paul.

"I'm not sure that we understand any of God's types of revelation fully and correctly, but we shouldn't ignore them, and should seek compatibility between them"
So God is hiding? And He is a deceiver? But still believe a revelation that you don't understand? Isn't the story of Jesus just a metaphor? To live a good life? Filled with love? He shoulda said just become a budhist! We all would live in a virtual paradise if we convert to that religion?

Paul:
1 Thessalonians 2:13 we read, “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”
2 Thessalonians 3:6 says, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”
Paul was also mistaken then when he said?
2 timothy 3 verse 16" All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
He should have added accept genesis? Especially the meaningless descendant records tracing adam to noah!
Maybe noah and the flood was poetic too? Would explain the rainbow nicely, very poetic. Given as a sign to noah! Wow? Pretty meaningless sign then? But its just poetic right? God made a guy build an boat load two of each animal he could find? And floated around where? In a single valley somewhere between a load of mountains? Must be poetic coz an intelligent God would have told noah to move. Moses also wrote the first 5 books in the bible! Am I to believe a man is inspired by God yet get the creation account so wrong?
Maybe paul should have added except
Psalms and proverbs? What else whould he have added? Revelations? Maybe I just shouldn't listen to paul at all?
Then again maybe the whole old testament is a poem?
To be continued

youngearthcreation said...

In 1 Corinthians 2:12 we read, “Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that freely given to us of God.” Furthermore in verse 13 says, “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” Seems this guy is YEC! Don't believe man! Believe God!? He certainly didn't believe man and then adapt Gods word? One of the founding fathers of the church said exactly what I'm telling you now! You don't believe me and you don't believe him? But you believe all the rest that he did say? Which parts should I believe? Or just take the bible in the whole as a kind of not to be taken literal guideline?
I'm not going to quote Galatians 1:6-8! That just makes Paul seem like a fundamentalist! Galatians 1:11-12!!!! Ok let's leave Paul alone he seems to be getting angry?!

Peter says in 2 peter 3 verse 5 "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:" peter mistaken too? He must not have been an apostle? So no need do read the whole 2 peter 3?
Peter 3:14-16, ok peter is in league with Paul!

John said this John 3:12, “if I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?”

Luke 1:3-4 said, “It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.”

Deuteronomy 4:8 said, “And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law,
Deuteronomy 4:2 said, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” Oooooh that's that Moses guy again? The poet?
Can we believe him Martin?
If not who can we believe?

Ok let's assume everyone is mistaken, what does Jesus say?
Please read the whole john 7.
Matthew 5:17 through 5:21,

I can carry on bringing you scripture pertaining to the truthful correctness of scripture?

Except for the word of man. From scripture you give me
psalm 19 v 1-4 and Romans 1 verse 20 as evidence?

I am busy answering your fossil record and will continue to answer all the statements you have made. I do ask you to please search for the fossil record in the mean time so that we will be on the same page when I next post. By fossil record I do mean the scientific record of fossils found, I hope you didn't mean the fossil record proposed in those beautiful pictures. Till next time Martin

youngearthcreation said...

livescience.com gives this as the oldest known fossils. The website states "Ancient rock deposits, laid down between two massive ice ages, reveal the oldest known fossils for two types of single-celled creatures: Tube-shelled foraminifera and hairy, vase-shape ciliates."these ciliates where "recently identified in a deposit in Mongolia" and the " foraminifera including this one were recently identified in rocks from Namibia." they then state "Both closely resemble microbes living today. But the climate they lived in may have been quite different. The fossils appear in limestone deposited on the ocean floor between 635 million and 715 million years ago. go read the site there is no proof??? Assumption! They do not say how it was dated because it wasn't! Other than to call it more that 100 million years ago. More than a 100 million ? The limestone was deposited 635-715 million years ago?
They must be a bit confused
Found in limestone?
Wikipedia says about limestone deposits"They were formed between 363 and 325 million years ago."
I don't quite understand the contradictions but let's believe them. Or them? Or who again? Oh yeah the fossil record... Still looking...

please read this
They state "Mt Everest and its neighboring peaks are capped by sedimentary limestone which is composed largely of calcite, the primary source of which is commonly marine organisms." They also make this statement
"In an article about Mt. Everest on earthobservatory.nasa.gov it says this:
"When this land mass came close to Asia, it started to push up the land ahead of it, forming a large shallow ocean with rich ocean life. The bones and shells of the plants and animals in this shallow ocean formed limestone and left fossils. As the land mass continued to plow north and collide with Asia, the ocean was slowly raised up and drained, eventually being lifted up to form the Himalayan Mountains."

his explanation is inadequate because taphonomy requires rapid burial and removal from oxygen. Everest was not uplifted slowly over millions of years but quickly. The question is not whether the Himalayas are still rising but what effect did the rain, sleet, hail and strong winds at 29,000 feet, and lower levels, have on limestone and fossils on Mt. Everest over 45 million years? Even with reduced oxygen it still would inhibit fossilization. If Everest was raised slowly and its summit was at a few thousand feet for hundreds of thousands, or millions, of years the sea creatures wouldn't have been fossilized and there are ammonite fossils at 12,000 feet above sea level."
Ever heard of polystrate fossils? Please click for source website
polystrate fossils
Are you also going to give darwins explination for these?

youngearthcreation said...

ankylosaur found in oil sand
"They thought it was a marine reptile which is what is normally found in the oilsands and it turns out it's an actual dinosaur,". This woman states it was washed out to sea?
Whatever you assume then I guess?

Hadrosaur lived 70–65 million years ago according to
http://museumvictoria.com.au/melbournemuseum/discoverycentre/dinosaur-walk/meet-the-skeletons/hadrosaur/
Tyrannosaurs truly came into their own during the late Cretaceous period (90 to 65 million years ago), according to
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/typesofdinosaurs/a/tyrannosaurs.htm
Ankylosaurus lived Late Cretaceous period, about 70-65 million years ago according to http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/facts/Ankylosaurus/


There, the bones of hadrosaurs, tyrannosaurs, ankylosaurs, and several other species were found together in a sandstone formation that dates to the Paleocene epoch—the time period after the so-called Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) extinction event, which is thought to have killed off the dinosaurs.

Wikipedia says The Paleocene (symbol Pε[1]) or Palaeocene, the "early recent", is a geologic epoch that lasted from about 65.5 to 56 million years ago ?
Ok so dinosaurs that died 65million years ago by mass extinction found in sandstone after that 65 million?

Note we have now found ankylosaur in two places it should not have been and I'm not done yet.

For example, coelacanth fish exist in the fossil record for what are thought to have been 400 million years.  Then they suddenly disappear from the fossil record some 80 million years ago only to reappear alive an well swimming around in oceans today." this website also has a very interesting view on your fossil record.

When confronted with
"Dinosaur and humanlike footprints were found together in Turkmenistan and Arizona. Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock."
The web site
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2007-12/msg05289.html
States
"So what?"
Note the author is busy debunking claims by creationists go read it very poor evolution representative.

Did You Know? http://www.havasupaitribe.com/facts.html
No one has ever found a fossilized reptile skeleton or bone within the Grand Canyon. Fossil footprints were left by more than 20 species of reptiles and amphibians, but no teeth or bones!

Wikipedia however says this "The geology of the Grand Canyon area exposes one of the most complete and studied sequences of rock on Earth. The nearly 40 major sedimentary rock layers exposed in the Grand Canyon and in the Grand Canyon National Park area range in age from about 200 million to nearly 2 billion years old. Most were deposited in warm, shallow seas and near ancient, long-gone sea shores in western North America. Both marine and terrestrial sediments are represented,"
More water?

youngearthcreation said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
youngearthcreation said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
youngearthcreation said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
youngearthcreation said...

I decided to delete my fossil record posts as firstly all 5 pages of evidence didn't post though by my email acount I do think you would have found all the posts in your inbox. I noticed though that you have great trouble to answer questions posed to you so let's stick to the bible for now! If you could please respond to my two bible posts for now thanx martin

Martin LaBar said...

I'm not sure why you are spending so much time here, since you say that I "have great trouble" answering what you are saying.

I have no idea why "5 pages of evidence" didn't post.

God is not a deceiver, but He is infinite and all-powerful, and we don't understand all that He does.

It is well-known that the genealogies of the Old Testament and Matthew are not complete. See here for an example of why they aren't: http://sunandshield.blogspot.com/2006/06/from-perez-to-solomon-how-many-years.html

Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:20 indicate that God is revealed to us through nature. That being the case, we should pay careful attention to scientific evidence. Since all truth is God's truth, we should try to reconcile what we find in nature with what the Bible says.

I have never said, and don't believe, that scripture is untrue. I don't believe that the young-earth interpretation of scripture is correct. It is possible that I am wrong, of course.

That's my response to your first paragraph.

Peter doesn't say that God created things 10,000 (or some such date) years ago. He does say that people are willingly ignorant of God as creator, and that's certainly true.

Adding specific dates for creation, or claiming that the Bible indicates that the Flood explains all geology (which it doesn't) may also be considered as adding to scripture.

I think I've indicated some very strong reasons, from young-earth scientists, as to why radioactive dating is evidence for an old earth.

Thanks for your responses.

youngearthcreation said...

Martin let's not discuss the reasons I am here, let's just know that I am.

"Romans 1:20 indicate that God is revealed to us through nature. That being the case, we should pay careful attention to scientific evidence."

Romans was Paul writing a letter to Rome. Note what romed believed at this time in history
Gaius Plinius Secundus (23 AD – August 25, 79 AD), better known as Pliny the Elder, was a Roman author, naturalist, and natural philosopher, as well as naval and army commander of the early Roman Empire, and personal friend of the emperor Vespasian. Spending most of his spare time studying, writing or investigating natural and geographic phenomena in the field, he wrote an encyclopedic work, Naturalis Historia, which became a model for all such works written subsequently. He was seen as a brilliant scientist

Thales of Miletus is regarded by many as the father of science; he was the first Greek philosopher to seek to explain the physical world in terms of natural rather than supernatural causes.

Lucretius, who lived about 50 AD in Rome, believed that evolution was based on chance combinations; heredity and sexual reproduction entered only after earth itself had developed. Then with the organism developing characteristics that might make for survival in the environment, the organisms that don't have favorable characteristics are incapable of survival and disappear

The Mithraic cult is steeped in mystery. It is said to have originated from Persia and its doctrine was strongly influenced by astronomy/astrology. More recent studies suggest that it was based on the discovery of the precession of the equinoxes (due to the slow rotation of the earth's axis) made by the astronomer Ptolemy around the first century BC.

I must add the mithraic cult was accepted in Rome for their cult did not stand aposing the science of the time. Christians were at this time heavily persecuted for their cultish beliefs that was against science, so the churches at the time tried to change the interpretations as to assure their church's survival

Continues on next post

youngearthcreation said...

Continued...
Romans verse 16-17 is called "The Power of the Gospel"
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Romans verse 18 to 32 is called "The Guilt of Mankind"
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

The wrath of God is against men who hold the truth in unrighteousness . The truth being the word! These men hold the word as unrighteouse!

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

This is why they hold the word unrighteous and these men are unrighteous because they believe that what is known in God is shown in them, and those people say that God had showed it unto them

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

This is why these people say that the unrighteouse truth are in these things These people believe that the invisible things of creation are visible, these men say they see clearly, they understand it by the things that are made, they even in that see his power and Godhead in this, so these people say they are thus without excuse for their belief. It's the science!

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

When these people knew God they did not glorify him as the real true God. Neither where they thankful, must mean they couldn't see the real gospel so they couldn't truly be thankful for what God did for the world. They were vain in their imaginations seems they thought vainly that what they conceived in their minds were true? And their foolish heart was darkenned, because now they do not have the true light of christ in their hearts.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

They say that they are clever and so should be listened to, but in that they became fools

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

And they changed the glory of the incorruptable God into a God who's creation can be interpreted by man as if He thinks with the mind of a man. God is now made into a human and into birds and foorfooted beasts and creaping things by these peoples corrupt imaginations. Sounds like evolution trying to explain God?

We will stop there! Coz after that were politically incorrect!
And I'd hate to point out that wickedness of the world comes from this type of thought exactly what us YEC fundamentalists are saying. Because others see what you see trying to make the invisble visible. You seem to be a moral man I don't know you, but these believes are the road that leads to the thing spoken of in romans 24 and on. And you cannot deny this. Too many believe evolution and therefore morals are up to me! Stephen hawking says the universe could very easily have come into excistance without a cause by the big bang models predictions. If there is no God we can do what we want?

Please give me your verse for verse interpretation seeing as it is different to mine. Or do you wanna go back to psalms?

Martin LaBar said...

I'm sorry, but I don't want to respond at all, but I will.

I fail to see that these verses (which I believe are true, and point out the foolishness and sinfulness of the unbeliever) are proof of young-earth creationism, and I don't believe any further comments from you will convince me that they are.

Sorry.

youngearthcreation said...

Martin you give this scripture as your bible proof? But you cannot or are unwilling to defend it? Is God's word not profitable for reproof now?

Come on martin? I showed you verse for verse what paul says. Either you say I lie or paul lies. I assume you say I am the liar?

So what does paul say then verse for verse or are you going to keep hiding behind verse 20 out of context?

Oh I forget you believe a fossil record above Gods word dont you martin?
And radio active dating above God's word

Then I still ask you for the fossil record? Where can I find this?

Radio active dating ill deal with once we get the others out of the way. You effectively scrapped Gods word so please remove your Bible passage beliefs that YEC is wrong!

I'll be re posting my fossil findings tonight at a slow and steady pace. I know you received them in your email which is why you brought up radio active dating again.
I'm sure you don't have much to say on either of those subjects either, except that you believe it coz all the wise men say so and not because you yourself have found any personal truth in them. If you then also cannot answer me in your personal true findings then I'm going to ask you to please remove the fossil record as evidence too.

But I see your clinging to that radioactive dating hey martin? Ag don't worry I'll show you the truth there as well. But the believing will remain up to you, free will, vanity and pride will stop you though. But atleast then the lies on your page will have truth in response.

Your motto at this point seems to be
"I believe because they believe"

Or do you have answers? Come on Martin this is your subject isn't it? PROVE WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE! Give me the science martin

youngearthcreation said...

You must be asking "why me? Where does this kid come from?"

Shame I can imagine how you must feel.

So let me then at least answer your previous question of what am I doing here.

Martin God sent me my friend, He showed me a Hard rock where I can sharpen my sword.
Already in searching to answer you on your points I have learnt things I did not know before. The last three days was filled with so much revelations for me personally.

God said that you will refuse to believe. But this is not, it seems, meant for you martin, but for me, those who come across your blog and finally to the Glory of God

You've got so many posts where I can sharpen my sword, I wount think of leaving you now martin, for I am patient in building my foundation. Solid on a Rock!

Just Remeber, You don't have to believe God for him to believe you. Think about it.

Martin LaBar said...

I have never accused you of lying. I certainly wouldn't accuse St. Paul of lying. I do think that you have misinterpreted scripture, although that's just my opinion. That's not lying, which, as I understand it, is deliberate falsification. I am sure that I have misinterpreted scripture myself, in places that I haven't recognized.

Once more, I am relying principally on the main young-earth creationist scientific organizations (the RATE project) for my evidence about radioactive dating. They concluded that the scientific evidence DID indicate that the earth is very old. They then said that the rate of decay must have changed greatly at certain periods in the past, which is a doubtful assertion.

I would suggest that you check your spelling and grammar more carefully, if you want to be taken seriously by others. ("Just Remeber" is one example.)

I am very sorry, but this has become harassment. You have, among other things, asked me to remove posts from my own blog. What would you do if someone asked you to do that, I wonder? I have no obligation to respond to anyone's comments, but have always tried to do that, but this has gone too far.

I will probably delete any further comments by you on my blog.

God's best to you, whoever you are.

youngearthcreation said...

I'm riaan visser a 31 year old kid from south africa

If grammar and spelling is your best defense. My first language however is afrikaans, so it should be understandable that not even I am perfect. So sorry for that.

If you were to give me proof that something I have said is untrue. Here or on my blog, I would gladly remover it!
That's why my blog so far has only one page I'd rather make sure of what I say through provable, duplicative scientific experiments not THEORY, and believe through The Bible, Gods infallible Word, accurate for reproof, correction and study.

Its a shame you refuse the truth, and will always keep believing theoretical science thought up by man.

Yes I am a fundamentalist! A fundamentalist of Jesus Christ!
And I will stand before him on Judgement day and give an acount of the things I've done and the things I've said, written, and preached!

God bless Martin
You like so many never just ask please stop. They always say goodbye. Note YEC does not. Keep asking yourself about the things you believe especially the science!

RV said...

radio acticity as dating method

RV said...

can't find leaks in the rate project

Martin LaBar said...

Thanks, RV.

I am no expert on radioactive dating.

I have, however, gone to the Talk-Origins web site, and found a refutation of Dr. Humphreys' work, using at least some of the same graphs he presents. That document is here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

I also refer you and any other readers back to this post:
http://sunandshield.blogspot.com/2007/06/radioactive-decay-and-young-earth.html

So there are persons who are not convinced by Humphreys, and they sound like there are good reasons to not be convinced.

Zuma said...

Radioactive dating has been used to date the age of fossils. How accurately would this radioactive be? Nobody knows since nobody could survive so long so as to witness the precentage of accuracy that would arrive by this dating. It is difficult to arrive at the conclusion that what archeologists give pertaining to the age of fossils is correct. As there is no way to check whether radioactive dating is correct, it is irrational to quick jump into the conclusion that Young Earth Creation is wrong.

zuma said...

The radioactive dating might date a fossil to be 130ka and yet in actual date, who know it might be only a few thousands years. As nobody could survive so long so as to judge its accuracy, it would be hard to determine the method that has been adopted in the past to determine the date of fossils would be correct.

Martin LaBar said...

Thanks for your comments, zuma.

It is true that young-earth creationists doubt the accuracy of radioactive dating methods, but not, as I understand them, because no one was measuring radioactive decay back before (or during) the life of Moses. They doubt it because they believe that the Bible teaches that the earth is not old enough, and then, as in the Rate project mentioned in my post, argue, with considerably less evidence -- in fact, I don't think there is any scientific evidence for this -- than those who argue that fossils are X million years old, that the rate of radioactive decay must have changed two or three times. There are, of course, Bible-believing Christians who believe in Christ as resurrected savior for sin who are not convinced that the first part of Genesis must be interpreted so as to support a young earth.

See here
for evidence from Genesis 1 and 2 that supports the idea that those chapters cannot be taken in straightforward literal fashion.

Granted, the supposition that the rate of decay has not changed can't be proved, or disproved, for the reason you suggest.

But most scientists believe, and not because they believe in some sort of evolution, but because it makes sense to them, and God is a God of order, after all, that the forces and constants we see in the universe now, including radioactive decay rates, have changed little, or not at all, since the universe was created. (The same would hold for the attraction due to gravity, the velocity of light, etc.)

There are other ways of checking fossil and rock ages. I am not a paleontologist (not an archaeologist, as you suggested -- that's the wrong field) but I understand that such ages can be checked by more than one independent method, including their position in the geologic layers, the presence or absence of other types of fossils in surrounding rocks, and by radioactive decay measurements of more than one type.

By your argument, we can't judge the accuracy of young-earth creationist estimates of the age of the earth, either. But scientists believe, and it generally works, that it is possible to extrapolate from the present to the past, in astronomy, geology, and evolutionary biology, and perhaps other fields, even though no one was around to see that dogs and wolves had a common ancestor, or how far away the Magellanic Clouds are, or how old the rocks at the bottom of the Grand Canyon are.

Geology that assigns ages to old rock layers works. That's why the search for fossil fuel has been pretty successful.

Thanks again.

zuma said...

I have doubt in how scientist has arrived the date of fossils by means by radioactive method since nobody could actually witness physically the computation of the age of fossils to ensure its reliability.

I would be grateful if you could furnish to me how would scientist compute the age of fossils in reality.

Martin LaBar said...

See here:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page%2019

The URL should take you to page 19, which has the conclusions of the author, but there is a long article, giving considerable detail on the subject.

zuma said...

Romans 1:20, "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (ESV version)
The phrase, his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world, in Romans 1:20 does not give any implication that God has revealed his revelation to us. Instead, the phrase, his eternal power and divine nature, in this verse gives the implication of the demonstration of God's power as his direct creation of human beings.
His power and divine nature has been spelt out below as:
Matthew 19:26, "But Jesus looked at them and said, 'With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
God could create sophisticated human beings within a day.
Proves that God's capabilities to create things within a day:
a) Remember the multiplication of bread and fish that had fed 5,000 people. Before feeding these people, there were only a few fish and bread. God must have created fish and bread (surprisingly! Seems like already baked! Immediately can consume! Do you feel marvellously?) abundantly so as to feed 5,000 people. It had taken a few minuts for these to be created.
b) The multiplication of frogs in Exodus 8:6.
Exodus 8:6, "So Aaron stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt, and the frogs came up and covered the land of Egypt." (ESV version)
The phrase, frogs came up and covered the land of Egypt, in Exodus 8:6 implies the multiplication of the number of frogs on land. This has manifested God's power and divine nature since he could create many frogs within a day to cover the land of Egypt.

JC said...

Kurt Wise seems to allow science to compromise with the Bible.
Is science reliable? What if science is not reliable, the whole Bible would be distorted by false science.

zuma said...

Is there any verse from the Bible that goes against Young Earth Creation that I should discuss it now? If not, I would deal with the reliability of radioactive dating method with thorough examination of this method as I have gathered much information about it. It might take weeks or months. Be patient. I will be back for God's sake.
Thanks for your precious information.

Martin LaBar said...

Although it obviously doesn't convince you, I think I have summarized the evidence, Biblically and otherwise, against Young-Earth Creationism pretty well, except for considering the genre of Genesis 1-3.

I would refer you, about that, to this post:

http://biologos.org/blog/the-genesis-of-everything-part-2

Thanks.

Martin LaBar said...

Perhaps Kurt Wise is a compromiser. If so, he's a strange one -- he's definitely a Young Earth Creationist.

He believes, as I do, that the findings of science are one way that God reveals Himself to us (see the first point of my post, the one you are commenting on here). The Bible seems to say that.

Are scientists always right? No, but they are mostly correct. Are theologians always right. No, but they are mostly correct, and the main points of the Bible (as expressed the the Apostle's Creed, for example) are quite clear to any unbiased reader. Understood correctly, the two should agree, and both should be taken seriously.

Thanks.

Martin LaBar said...

I find the idea that Romans 1:20 teaches anything other that than God reveals Himself to us through nature to be bizarre, to say the least.

Of course God also reveals Himself to us in other ways, most importantly through Christ, but also through the Bible, the Holy spirit, and our consciences, to name a few.

Thanks.

Martin LaBar said...

JC and zuma:

I appreciate your willingness to participate in these discussions, and to read my blog.

However, I doubt seriously that you are going to give up Young-Earth Creationism because of anything I have said, or will say, or anything anyone else says, either. I doubt that I am going to suddenly decide that Young-Earth Creationism is the only possible way that God could have worked, based on anything you say, or will say.

Why don't we agree to disagree, and turn our efforts to praying for the lost, living for Christ in the circles we live in, and other things? In other words, let's drop this. I don't think we are getting anywhere.

Thanks.

Bart Fitzgerald said...

Radioactive dating has been used to date the age of fossils. How accurately would this radioactive be? Nobody knows since nobody could survive so long so as to witness the precentage of accuracy that would arrive by this dating. It is difficult to arrive at the conclusion that what archeologists give pertaining to the age of fossils is correct. As there is no way to check whether radioactive dating is correct, it is irrational to quick jump into the conclusion that Young Earth Creation is wrong.

Martin LaBar said...

It's true that no one was around to check the accuracy of radioactive dating thousands, or millions, of years ago.

However, there doesn't seem to be any good reason to doubt that radioactive decay, an automatic physical process, which doesn't seem to be much, or at all, influenced by external conditions, has not proceeded at the same rate throughout the history of the earth.

Thanks for your comment.

Laraba said...

Just wanted to say I just stumbled onto your blog today and have bookmarked it. Thanks so much for taking the time to write on many fascinating topics.

I am an evangelical Christian, mother of 8, PhD engineer, and we homeschool our kids. Our eldest is 13. I've spent some time studying the Old Earth/New Earth argument and have come down, a trifle unsteadily, on the Old Earth side. Our eldest child tells me she is New Earth and I'm cool with that...she's not old enough to evaluate the data. We'll keep discussing it and studying it, and if she decides later she is still New Earth, I won't be upset. As you said, Christians who love Jesus come to different conclusions on this issue. I think it is natural to want to have a firm position and cling to it like a barnacle. It is easier just to settle an issue and move on. But the whole starlight issue pushes me hard towards Old Earth. I haven't quite figured out how pain and death (of animals) figures into a world before the Fall of Man but then I've accepted there are some things I just don't understand. Most of my friends in the homeschooling community are ardent New Earthers, but we manage to get along all right when we discuss the issue.

Thanks again for your hard work on this blog.

Martin LaBar said...

Laraba, thanks so much for your encouraging comment!

God help you as a parent, and as a home-schooler. Neither job is easy, and both are important.

zuma said...

Psalms 33:6 mentions that the heavens were created after God’s speech.

Psalms 33:6, “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.”

Psalms 33:9, “For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.”

If Genesis 33:9 would be read with Genesis 33:6, it would turn up that the heavens stood fast immediately after God’s speech.

Genesis 1:1 mentions that God not only created the heaven, but also the earth.

Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

If Genesis 1:1 should be read with Psalms 33:6, it would turn up to be God created the heavens and the earth through His words.

If Genesis 1:1 should be read with Psalms 33:9, it should turn up to be the earth stood still immediately after God’s speech.

Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

If Genesis 1:2 should be read with Genesis 1:1, it should turn up to be the earth was without form and was filled with water without lands despite it stood still after God’s speech.

Genesis 1:3, “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.”

If Genesis 1:3 should be read with Psalms 33:9, it should turn up to be the light stood fast after God’s speech on the first day (Genesis 1:5).

Genesis 1:9, “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.”

If Genesis 1:9 should be read with Psalms 33:9, it should turn up to be the lands appeared after God’s speech.

Martin LaBar said...

Thanks, zuma. Those are all good verses.

As I suppose you are aware, there are serious questions about the appropriateness of taking poetry, including Old Testament poetry, in the Psalms, as strictly literal, even among Bible scholars who hold the scripture in highest regard.

zuma said...

Genesis 1:11, “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.”

If Genesis 1:11 should be read with Psalms 33:9, it should turn up to be grass and adult fruit trees should immediately stand fast immediately after God’s speech on the third day (Genesis 1:13).

Genesis 1:14, “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:”

If Genesis 1:14 should be read with Psalms 33:9, it should turn up to be seasons and nightlight immediately stood fast after God’s speech on the fourth day (Genesis 1:19).

Genesis 1:20, “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.”

If Genesis 1:20 should be read with Psalms 33:9, it should turn up to be moving creatures immediately stood fast after God’s speech on the fifth day (Genesis 1:23).

Genesis 1:24, “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature AFTER HIS KIND, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth AFTER HIS KINDS: and it was so.”

If Genesis 1:24 should be read with Psalms 33:9, it should turn up to be different kinds of animals immediately stood fast after God’s speech on the six day.

Genesis 1:26, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”

If Genesis 1:26 should be read with Psalms 33:9, it should turn up to be humans stood fast immediately after God’s speech on the sixth day.

God delivered His speech on different days for various creations. They all stood fast immediately after God’s speech.

zuma said...

2 Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"



zuma said...

Evolution supports God used other mechanisms, such as, light and space, to create the universe. The light and space had turned up to be the creators and God had turned up to be the assistant to help its formation. It contradicts Colossians 1:16 that God was the creator of all things.

Evolution supports that God’s created God’s law and used this law to create all living things. It turned up that God’s law was the creator and God had turned up to be the assistant to guide it to create all living things. It contradicts Colossians 1:16 that God was the creator of all things.

Colossians 1:16, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:”

Martin LaBar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Martin LaBar said...

Thanks again for some good scripture, zuma.

I find your suggestion that belief that light, etc., served to help God create, makes God was only an assistant rather strange. Beethoven imagined (he had lost his hearing by that time) and wrote his 9th symphony. He didn't, and doesn't, perform it. The performers, and the conductor did. But Beethoven is still the creator, and, if anything, should be honored all the more because of his splendid planning and conception of what the symphony should sound like.

If God planned, and designed, the universe so that some agents, like light, bring about His will, that doesn't diminish God's creative power. If anything, it enhances it.

Zuma, let me quote my comment of August, 2012, which, in part, was addressed to you:
I appreciate your willingness to participate in these discussions, and to read my blog.

However, I doubt seriously that you are going to give up Young-Earth Creationism because of anything I have said, or will say, or anything anyone else says, either. I doubt that I am going to suddenly decide that Young-Earth Creationism is the only possible way that God could have worked, based on anything you say, or will say.

Why don't we agree to disagree, and turn our efforts to praying for the lost, living for Christ in the circles we live in, and other things? In other words, let's drop this. I don't think we are getting anywhere.

Thanks.

zuma said...

Beethoven was a creator since he was the one that created his own music.

Evolustion supports God created physic laws. Physic laws caused all the living things to come into existence. It turned up that physic laws were the creators since they were those that caused all living things to be created.


Evolution supports that God created physic laws to cause space and time to work together in order to create this universe. God only guided space and time to cause the universe to be in existence. Who were the creators? Space and time were the creators. But not God since He was just the helper to ensure the space and time to work towards the formation of this universe.

zuma said...

This is my personal thought. No accusation.

Can a person consider a true believer if he believes only the modified version of the scripture? Should he consider himself to be a true believer if he believes on the selective part of the scripture? Should he consider himself to be a true believer if he mentions certain part of the Bible is not genuinely from God or is not applicable to him? Should he consider himself to believe in God and Jesus if he changes the God’s words to suit his own intention? If he should not be considered as truly believing in the scripture when he changes the meaning of the scripture to suit his intention, how he could be saved then. Salvation is through our faith in God and Jesus.

I hope God would save them.

What if God do not treat them to have genuine faith in Jesus, their salvation is questionable.

Martin LaBar said...

I have prayerfully attempted to answer your questions as a new post, which will be found here.

Martin LaBar said...

I have attempted to respond to your comment about Beethoven, etc., here.

Thanks again.