Spiritual Truths from Genesis One (and thoughts about the age of the earth); and Dr. Brown Interviews Young Earth Creationist Scholar Jonathan Sarfati

1. Virtually every discipline of science was started by men that accepted the straight forward meaning of Genesis. The foundation of real science is truth. Experimental and practical science has never had a problem with any statement in the Bible. Theoretical and social science is at odds with scripture because the proponents of such do not want a moral creator to dictate to them what is right and wrong. Adam and Eve went wrong when they rejected the moral dictate of their loving Creator. Unredeemed mankind follows in their footsteps. Redeemed mankind follows in the Second Adam’s footsteps. He accepted a young earth and a literal understanding of Genesis.

   The problem with modern theoretical science is a moral one. Believing in a literal Genesis account poses no problems in practicing real science. Rejecting any part of the Bible poses great moral problems in the application of every scientific discovery. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the main diet of modern science. “Scientific man” wants to make the rules for himself instead of subjecting himself to the righteous dictates of YHWH. He will never be able to eat from the tree of life, and will continue to produce sin and death instead of life. What a shame that there are so many believers that will accept the ideas of such men over the truth of YHWH.

   Revelation 22
   12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
   13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
   14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
   15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

   Romans 1
   18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
   19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed 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:
   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.
   22 Professing themselves to be wise, 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.
   24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
   25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

   Please note that the above passages are also speaking to believers. “When they knew God, they glorified him not as God…” is a perfect description of those that profess faith but do not believe in a literal Genesis. They have been deceived by the lie and are actually and practically worshiping the created rather than the Creator when the accept the evolutionary ideas of man. They are honoring and glorifying men instead of YHWH.

   As for me, I want to be counted worthy to eat from the tree of life and thus will endeavor to uphold every word that has proceeded from the mouth of YHWH. I will love YHWH’s word instead of the lie that puts man and his ideas in the place of our Creator. If, for some reason, this gives me a failing grade in science, which I doubt it will, so be it. Let YHWH be true and EVERY man liar.

   Shalom

2. Bo and Bob

   You need to tell me WHY there should be any carbon 14 inside a diamond, whatever its age. Rather than just repeat yourself and cite Bible doctrine.

   Please also tell me whether any of the ‘findings’ in Bo’s latest links have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals. The findings that support an ancient Earth (and universe) and point towards evolution have been – which is why students are ‘indoctrinated’ with them in science classes. Though of course in the US (I’m in the UK) home educated students are frequently indoctrinated with the view that the 2,000 year old Bible is ‘scientifically accurate in every detail’.

   Your history of science is a little suspect. What about the ancient Chinese or Arab civilisations, for instance? And if past scientists believed in the God of the Bible (a god who created order thus making science possible – uniformitarian science one presumes) there was no real alternative in their day.

   Post 51 is just preaching. What sort of god would allow the natural science gained from his own creation to be a source of deception? Only a deceitful one.

3. Ashley Haworth-Roberts (Mr),

   Yes, post 51 is just preaching. Just as your posts are just preaching. You are making an appeal to peer reviewed science and the status quo of your religion. What is it when those that believe the same as yourself submit a finding for peer review? It is indoctrinated peers agreeing with indoctrinated ideas. Not much true review involved. What if the scientific journals will not publish findings that are in contradiction to their peers?

   The Arab and Chinese civilizations, not to leave out India the Aztecs, have contributed to science, but the western Bible believers (or those influenced by western Bible believing civilizations), set the foundation. Before that there are isolated instances of experimental scientific breakthroughs, as far as I have studied. Men like Newton (Physics, calculus, laws of motion) , Mendel (genetics), Pasteur (germ theory) Bacon (scientific method) and Copernicus (astronomy), etc. set the stage for modern science. The foundation of absolute truth, moral and otherwise, was the impetus for true science.

   There is no deception in the science discovered in the natural phenomenon. There are deceived men that think that they find things contrary to the truth of the scripture. They interpret their findings according to their biases.

   You wrote, “You need to tell me WHY there should be any carbon 14 inside a diamond, whatever its age.”

   Actually you need to tell us why there was 14C found in diamonds. How could this be, if they are really millions of years old? Real experimental science does not explain away the facts because they do not fit the evolutionary theory…it accepts the facts and looks for a better theory. Theory is the servant of the facts and not vice versa.

   Shalom

4. Ashley Haworth-Roberts (Mr) has long been known as an embittered apostate, and not very scientific either. If he was, he would realize this question is irrelevant: “however, I must pose this question: why should natural diamonds contain any 14C, ever?” I.e. they do, as has been shown, therefore they can’t have existed for millions of years.

5. (1) I am writing this before closely reading Bo’s message 53 (it’s some thoughts that I had overnight). I would imagine that Bo considers the Bible – written 2,000 years’ ago in a pre-scientific age – to be historically infallible and also scientifically (as far as the latter goes) infallible – because there is a NT verse which states that all scripture is ‘inspired by God’. That would be the main reason why he considers any areas of modern scientific understanding which contradict Genesis to be simply wrong – because scientists who do not take the Bible as their starting position on origins are ‘suppressing the truth’ according to Romans 1 verses 18-19 (even if they are religious rather than atheists) and they are therefore both victims and unwitting perpetrators of a ‘hoax’.

   It seems rather unfair of God to allow the material scientific evidence in his world and universe to lead to a widespread hoax that prevents some people from believing the gospel – especially if he sends unbelievers to hell (even if they were not wicked people). Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians appear not to have an answer to this question and appear just to ‘accept’ it in faith. I have no wish to undermine Christian faith in others, but I consider the apologetics-motivated ‘science’ of young Earth creationists often to be highly questionable. I do not for a moment question the sincerity of their beliefs however.

   (2) Jonathan Sarfati has never acknowledged, nor admitted to reading, my very detailed review of his book at http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Earth-Refuting-Dawkins-Evolution/product-reviews/1921643064/ref=cm_cr_pr_btm_link_2?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&pageNumber=2&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending (which a small majority of the 80 plus readers at Amazon.com who read it considered helpful despite it being rather long; I had read the Dawkins book before reading Sarfati’s book). Yet he DID respond on the site to other reviews that were posted ahead of mine. If my review wasn’t very ‘scientific’ (yes my only relevant qualification is a basic Open University one) surely he should challenge its scientific inaccuracies? On Amazon.com professional scientist (and critic) David Levin also challenged Sarfati to a public(?) debate, but he didn’t appear keen.

   Sarfati’s empty pronouncement that my question about carbon 14 ‘in’ diamonds – first raised by Christian and scientist Jon Baker as shown in my ‘Questioning Answers in Genesis’ link above – is merely ‘irrelevant’ suggests to me that he has NO convincing answer. Why should there be any atmospherically produced carbon 14 deep within Earth’s mantle where diamonds are created?
   I’ve also referred to this thread at Levin’s review at Amazon.com and at the community forum of the British Centre for Science Education community forum (David Anderson recently wrote a highly critical and rather inaccurate article about the BCSE at the CMI website: http://creation.com/bcse-and-ncse-in-atheist-spat).

6. In reply to message 53 – which is more largely unsupported assertions (sincerely held) – scientists who, unlike me, have studied this matter appear to consider that the carbon 14 came from contamination as the diamonds were carefully examined using appropriate laboratory equipment. I have seen at least two commentators who have cited this academic paper from 2007: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007NIMPB.259..282T

7. I’m not a plumber, so I don’t do plumbing. I’m not a surgeon, so I don’t cut people open to try to fix them.

   Why people with no practical knowledge of evolution suddenly seem to think they’re experts enough to dismiss the vast quantities of evidence is beyond me. I’d consult with Jonathan Sarfati about chemistry, sure, even chess, but evolution? I’m sorry, he’s not a biologist. I wouldn’t ask an electrician on how I should get my gall-stones out either.

   Why doesn’t it strike anyone as odd that there is a direct correlation between the level of education someone holds in the relevant subjects and their rate of belief in YEC?

8. Dr. Sarfati, I must contend that the question about 14C in diamonds is in fact relevant. How can 14C-bearing material be recycled that deeply into the crust within thousands of years? The challenge is perfectly valid.

   Secondly, you are mistaken that diamonds have been shown to contain any intrinsic 14C. Yes, radiocarbon analysis of diamonds yields a 14C activity, but this does not come from the diamond itself, and it’s easy to prove. Radiocarbon lab technicians are perfectly aware that it is impossible to prepare any sample (especially diamonds) without some atmospheric carbon contaminating the sample.

   If the 14C were intrinsic, it should covary with the 13C values of the sample, but it doesn’t. The 14C activity remains ~constant while 13C of diamonds varies widely. This is the best proof that 14C in diamond analyses is a product of contamination.

   JB

9. Ashley Haworth-Roberts (Mr),

   I wonder how Isaac Newton and the like got so many things right (practically revelations). I wonder if they would have if they would have discarded Biblical truth or the Biblical Creator or Biblical morality.

   You assume a lot about me. Very simplistic things at that. There is much more depth to my belief in scripture being perfect and accurate and truth than you would probably like to listen to. Suffice it to say that, if the gospel records are even close approximations of the teachings of Messiah, then there can be no question as to the truth of the statements of Genesis. To disbelieve this is to call Messiah a liar or to believe in a Messiah that is not historical.

   Shalom

10. I came onto this discussion thread mainly to discuss the science issues raised in the radio programme.

    On diamonds, I have been looking for an article on the Creation Ministries International website that might explain WHERE YECs believe diamonds are formed – as one would assume they would have to be formed within Earth’s crust in order for them to contain any intrinsic carbon 14.

    I found a CMI article by Andrew Snelling (now with Answers in Genesis I think) dating from 1993 – but still ‘current’ I think – which stated: “Laboratory studies of the minerals in these rock fragments* suggest that they formed at temperatures of 900–1400°C (approximately 1630–2500°F) and pressures of 50–80 kilobars (approximately 370–600 tons force per square inch). Such conditions evidently exist in the earth’s upper mantle at a depth of 150–250km (approximately 90–155 miles), and are also the conditions under which diamond is known to be stable. At shallower depths, where temperatures and pressures are lower, diamonds are not stable and any carbon present will occur as graphite. This implies that diamonds had to form at depths of more than 150km (about 90 miles) below the earth’s surface in the upper mantle”.
    * Kimberlites and lamproites

    At the website of AiG (also YEC Christians) on 30 July I read “Diamond formation requires certain conditions of temperature and pressure. The largest diamonds are formed below cratons (the stable ancient cores of the continents) in the upper mantle or in the cratons themselves at a depth of “more than 125 miles (200 km) where pressures are sufficiently high, but temperatures sufficiently low.” The diamond-hosting kimberlite and lamproite magmas must then be rapidly extruded to the surface in the pipe-like structures found in diamond mines.”

    I also found this link: http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/diamonds/kimberlite.html

    However, I do now understand that eclogitic diamonds are thought to contain some organic carbon from organic detritus that has been pushed down from the surface of the Earth’s crust through subduction. I don’t know how long this process takes, but most diamonds that have been formed in the upper mantle and have then arrived at or near Earth’s surface are thought to be one or more billion years’ old (note that radiocarbon dating can only be used on organic material up to around 60,000 years’ old as after that point there is no longer any detectable – unstable – carbon 14 left). Here’s an interesting recent news story about diamonds: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110721142402.htm

11. Bo,

    Just wanted to point out that Isaac Newton was no stickler to Biblical truth: he was a deist who denied the doctrine of the Trinity.

    But regardless, this is one area where you and I stand shoulder to shoulder, my friend. A literal 6 day creation taking place approximately 6000 years ago is a hill I will die on with you, and completely agree with your assessment here:

    Suffice it to say that, if the gospel records are even close approximations of the teachings of Messiah, then there can be no question as to the truth of the statements of Genesis. To disbelieve this is to call Messiah a liar or to believe in a Messiah that is not historical.

    I have an entire bookshelf full of Answers in Genesis materials and have definitely found them a HUGE blessing; their exposure of the secular scientific method undergirding the “millions of years” approach is first-rate. On that note, you might find this debate affirming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwA7bvco7ow

12. Tom,

    Deist though he was, Newtons Bible based cultural and moral foundation was undoubtedly foundational in his pursuit of truth and produced intellectual honesty. The modern scientific community sacrifices intellectual honesty on the alter of their evolutionary theories.

    The only honest way to deal with data is to adjust the theory to take the anomalous data into account, not vice versa. And yes, we should stand shoulder to shoulder on this topic. I too have much YEC material from different sources. It is a good hill to die on. The view has the New Jerusalem not too far off and the river of life flows at its base. But please know, that my view of Torah observance is directly tied to my literal view of Genesis. YHWH did rest on the seventh day and only blessed and sanctified it. For us to attempt to undo what He made perpetual is along the same lines as the OEC compromise of direct scriptural statements.

    Shalom

13. “I have an entire bookshelf full of Answers in Genesis materials and have definitely found them a HUGE blessing; their exposure of the secular scientific method undergirding the “millions of years” approach is first rate”.

    “The modern scientific community sacrifices intellectual honesty on the alter [sic] of their evolutionary theories.”

    In my view, AiG recently COMPLETELY contradicted themselves on their website.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … e-05212011 (Dr Elizabeth Mitchell):
    Item 1: “Radiometric dating methods are based on uniformitarian assumptions which cannot be confirmed… Whenever the last Neanderthal died, we can be confident that it was much more recent than 28,500 years ago.” (Having checked this, I saw that the artefacts in question were dated specifically by radiocarbon dating, a method known to be generally accurate.)

    Other people have also slammed ‘uniformitarian presuppositions’ on the AiG website eg http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/terry-mortenson/2011/01/27/dr-mohler-biologos-and-respect-from-evolutionists/

    Well, I’ve got some NEWS for ‘Answers in Genesis’. News which I have in fact already pointed out to them repeatedly (yet they have never responded to me on this point).

    SOMEBODY at AiG – I suspect it was Jason Lisle – has ALREADY confirmed uniformitarianism, and the (otherwise) propaganda piece which did so was flagged prominently on their homepage for WEEKS and WEEKS.
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans … everAssume

    At Assumption 3: “It is ironic that evolutionists often poke fun of ‘dark age creation science’ when they could not even practice [sic] science apart from the biblical God. Scientific study is based on the uniformity of nature: the laws of nature do not arbitrarily change with time and space. Otherwise, how could scientists experiment and make predictions if physical laws didn’t operate consistently? Uniformity makes no sense in a random chance world of evolution. How can the evolutionist assume that the future will reflect the past in a mindless world begun with a big bang? While evolutionists have proposed other reasons, only the biblical worldview gives an adequate basis for the uniformity of nature.”

    ANSWERS IN GENESIS ALREADY BELIEVE IN THE UNIFORMITY OF NATURE. IT SAYS SO ON THE WEBSITE!

    Unless Lisle was unaccountably lying when he said that – which I doubt – I suggest that AiG should now ‘recant’ and ACCEPT uniformitarian assumptions in radiometric dating, in the absence of ANY material or physical evidence that suggests that they are wrong. Otherwise, they will inevitably sound rather like atheists. Because the ‘Never Assume!’ article claimed “God sustaining the universe through physical laws is the only reason science is possible” and that it is the absence of a biblical God that would make it impossible to practise science.

    Incidentally I’ve brought this thread to the attention of Jon Baker.

14. AHR,

    Just quickly, the critique of a “uniformitarian assumption” and Dr. Lisle’s content affirming the uniformity of nature are in no way contradictory. This is because there are two different types of uniformity being addressed.

    Dr. Lisle is simply pointing out that without a creator God we have no reason to believe that the laws of nature will be constant from one moment to the next, nor that they have been constant since the beginning. In so doing he (as a Christian) affirms the concept of uniformity in the laws of nature past, present, and future.

    This as opposed to the uniformitarian assumption of evolutionists, which not only assumes uniformity in the laws of nature (which, again, Christians also affirm), but also uniformity in the conditions.

    That is to say, the assumption of the laws of nature being constant is only reasonable in light of a Creator God, but atheistic evolutionists unthinkingly assume it anyway, and ADD to that the further assumption of uniformity in the conditions of nature (which simply cannot be assumed, as in the case of a global flood or other catastrophic event).

    So the uniformitarianism Lisle is addressing as Biblical is uniformitarianism in the laws of nature. Whereas the uniformitarian assumptions that AiG attacks are the assumptions of uniform conditions (that is: that the conditions of the earth have always been the same). These are two completely different types of uniformity, and so to accuse AiG of contradiction is patently ignorant (or dishonest, I leave you to decide).

    But I’m curious… what is your dog in this fight? Bo and I would have a literal reading of Genesis preserved because (among other reasons) we believe that anything else would be contrary to Scripture, and contrary to Christ – thus it is a matter of vital doctrine. But you argue vehemently against a literal reading, so enlighten us, what are your motives?

    Said another way, if Bo and I lose a literal reading of Genesis, we believe we lose our very foundation of faith. What would you stand to lose, one way or the other? Why is this important to you, and why do you argue the way you do/take the side you do?

15. Tom

    You make an interesting comment. You may care to take a look at this: http://bcseweb.blogspot.com/2011/05/crisis-creationism-in-schools-isnt.html

    Specific radioactive decay rates do not alter because of changed environmental conditions eg great heat. “Radioactive decay rates depend on things like Planck’s constant, the mass of the electron, and the relative strengths of electrostatic and nuclear forces”.

    When AiG posted an article that claimed otherwise Professor Braterman (his email was copied to me) pointed out the mistake. AiG then stated by email to myself on 24 June, two weeks after the article first appeared, that an ‘editorial mistake’ had occurred – and corrected the article. Here is the corrected version:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/06/11/news-to-note-06112011 (see the fourth para at Item 2 and footnote 9 in particular)

    From memory, the original version wrongly linked footnote 7 to the comment “if uniformitarian assumptions can fail dramatically in the face of heat, acid, and impact…”. The email from AiG then stated “Dr. Mitchell had some footnotes and explanatory notes that were inadvertently dropped. I have included the main explanatory note text below, and if you wish to look at the article, it has also been updated with the appropriate footnotes in their proper place…
    Woodmorappe’s article cites actual decay rate alteration due to extreme heat (footnote 6). The other reference articles (footnote 8 added June 24 2011) refer to alterations in the ratios of the elements involved by means other than decay (recrystallization, impact heating, chemical reactions) thereby making the calculations inconsistent and uninterpretable. As stated in this article, the problem with the hafnium-tungsten system was thought to be in the latter group.” My reply to AiG included this sentence: “This point I make about decay rates ‘altering’, and who is claiming this can happen, is borne out by the new footnote 9 – which makes clear that ONLY an article written by a young Earth creationist (Woodmorappe) suggests this – not anything in mainstream scientific literature.”

    Many YECs propose greatly ‘accelerated radioactive decay’ upon Earth in the recent past – and that’s what the original version of the article appeared to be suggesting had probably occurred. Such a thing has only been produced under artificial conditions in a laboratory as I understand it.

    If I can locate an email address for Michael Brown I will forward the email exchange in question to him/the lineoffireradio website.

    I have pretty well lost my former evangelical Christian faith, because of personal and work crises seven years’ ago (I’m not saying I know there’s no God but I don’t ‘know’ there is a God). Then I also discovered the sincere delusion of young Earth creationist ‘alternative science’.

    I think I’d say I am defending (and learning more about) science when scientific knowledge appears – to me – to be threatened by literal interpretations of Bible verses (and the creationist theorising often associated with them which occasionally even seems to twist the meaning of scripture eg they theorise that part of Genesis 7 verse 11 is NOT referring to deep fountains of water but to deep fountains of lava from UNDERSEA VOLCANOES): see footnote 3 at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/08/13/news-to-note-08132011). Literal and historical readings/interpretations of scripture do not concern me if the Christians concerned are not also simultaneously claiming that the particular verse in question shows that “scientists are deluded” or “scientists are lying”.

16. PS
    I’m really no chemist, and I suppose that “alterations in the ratios of the elements involved by means other than decay (recrystallization, impact heating, chemical reactions) could occur in Earth’s distant past – or on Mars – making age calculations ‘inconsistent and uninterpretable’.

    Though YECs invoke a recent worldwide ‘Flood’ around 2,500 BC, for which there’s no worldwide evidence, as the reason/mechanism for such altered conditions (on Earth).

17. Ashley Haworth-Roberts (Mr)

    You wrote, “Though YECs invoke a recent worldwide ‘Flood’ around 2,500 BC, for which there’s no worldwide evidence…”

    Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth…seems like evidence to me.

    Shalom

18. AHR,

    If young earth creationists were the only ones insisting that decay rates are not constant but are subject to outside influence then I would agree with you that there would be a potential for conflict-of-interest. However, this is not the case. See this article (with accompanying links) for just one example, which deals with the findings of physicists from Stanford and Purdue (surely not YEC sympathizers): http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/05/03/radioactive-decay-rates-may-not-be-constant-after-all/

    This would line up perfectly with my above assertion that old-earth/evolutionists assume a constant uniformity for the conditions of the universe (conditions which affect decay rates as has been demonstrated, whether we know exactly how yet or not) that cannot simply be presupposed.

    Further, to deal with your objection that accelerated radioactive decay “has only been produced under artificial conditions in a laboratory” – so what? It proves that it’s possible, for one thing, even if those conditions don’t exist outside of the laboratory in our day, it doesn’t outright exclude the possibility that they did “in the wild” at some point in time.
    Further, if you are willing to throw out this evidence on the basis that it can be/is only done presently in a lab, you then have to reject all data on any sort of prebiotic soup concocted in the lab as a precursor to the origins of life. I’m not sure what your position would be on the origin of life, but if it follows the molecules-to-man approach of the present academic establishment then this would pose a problem for you, would it not?

    ___

    As to your worldview, I really do appreciate your honesty. I don’t know what your personal and work crises were, but they must have been traumatic for you to have lost your faith. I won’t say any more at present on that since it will probably sound like vain platitudes to your ears – but know that my heart goes out to you.

    On a related note, I, like you, am a very evidence-based individual in my approach to life, and religion is no exception. I do not believe that science in any way contradicts a literal 6-day creation and a young earth. Rather, the more we discover the data seems more and more to confirm the Bible’s account of our origins.

    That said, I do not start with the scientific evidence for our origins in my examination of the evidence for God. Rather, the questions I come back to are: (1) Did Jesus exist? – and if so – (2) Was He crucified – and if so – (3) Did He rise from the dead – and if so – (4) Who and what did He claim to be?

    In my paradigm, if points 1, 2, and 3 can be demonstrated to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, then the most logical option is for me to accept whatever answer is given to 4 as true. From this then flows the rest of my worldview (i.e. Jesus affirmed the Old Testament as true, etc.). For me it all boils down to a crucified Lord, and whether or not the resurrection is true – otherwise it’s just a bunch of bunk and I’ll throw my lot in with whoever has a better argument with better evidence.

    That all said, I would passionately encourage you to try reading a book by a man named Craig Parton called “Religion on Trial” (Amazon link here: http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Trial-Craig-Parton/dp/155635715X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313729110&sr=8-1).
    It’s dirt cheap, and at 97 pages you could read the entire thing in half an afternoon.

    My challenge to you: read it and let me know your thoughts.

19. As for the P.S., Bo took the words right out of my mouth, verbatim. 🙂

    There is evidence in spades for a global flood (not least of which, from a sociological/anthropological standpoint, the fact that virtually all cultures worldwide have flood accounts in their legends) – have you decided to close your eyes to it?

20. Ashley Haworth-Roberts (Mr),

    Your wrote, “Many YECs propose greatly ‘accelerated radioactive decay’ upon Earth in the recent past – and that’s what the original version of the article appeared to be suggesting had probably occurred. Such a thing has only been produced under artificial conditions in a laboratory as I understand it.”

    Well you can’t go back in time to see if it happened, now can you. And you cannot make it happen in nonartificial conditions…because it wouldn’t be natural anymore, now would it. The experimental science shows that it is possible that it could have happened. There are radio halos in in granite that would indicate that decay rate has varied in the past.

    http://www.halos.com/

    Shalom

21. Tom,

    Good points.

    Shalom

22. Ashley Haworth-Roberts (Mr),

    More on Radio halos:

    http://creation.com/radiohalosstartling-evidence-of-catastrophic-geologic-processes-on-a-young-earth

    Shalom

23. Message 67
    Rather simplistic I’m afraid. As I mentioned recently (on another forum) YECs focus on physical/measurable evidence that appears to help them, ignore other evidence, ignore the fact that the evidence appearing to help their case is minimal, and adopt a “‘I’m trusting God and his Word’ faith position”. For instance Ken Ham with his “If there really was a global flood you’d expect to find billions of dead things buried in rock layers all over the Earth” (case closed!). There are other ways apart from massive floods that animals can be, and have doubtless been, rapidly buried alive.
    But I recently saw a video where Ken Ham was whipping up a crowd of US schoolkids into reciting this Bible-affirming mantra.

    Message 68
    Your link is very interesting – though I note that the variations appear seasonal rather than across millennia eg slowing down as time goes on, and also that silicon-32 and radium-226 are apparently not used in dating meteorites or Earth rocks (radiocarbon dating is used for organic materials, though not those considered to be over 60,000 or so years’ old because carbon-14 has a rather short half life).
    I understand your point about whether chemical evolution was a real event (I can’t say I know either way) and the fact that demonstrating something in a lab does not prove a past ‘spontaneous’ undirected – or possibly directed – process.
    Thanks for your comments at the end. I neglected to say that I have recovered mentally (though you may have your doubts!).

    Messages 70 and 72
    My understanding – from what I’ve read previously online – is that the accelerated radioactive decay (in the past) required to mean that dates of 4.5 bn years become around 6,000 years are such that the human race would have died from scorching temperatures and/or radiation poisoning (see this rather excited negative review by Carl Flygare of Jonathan Sarfati’s most recent book ‘The Greatest Hoax on Earth?’: http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Earth-Refuting-Dawkins-Evolution/product-reviews/1921643064/ref=cm_cr_pr_btm_link_3?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&pageNumber=3). I also found this link (only skimmed): http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/rate/index.html#AIG.
    On the polonium haloes, there apparently is something of an unsolved mystery – though Snelling’s invoking of ‘catastrophic plate tectonics’ (not mentioned early in Genesis) to ‘explain’ rapid formation of granite looks very far-fetched. For what it’s worth, a quick google search came up with this (from 2005 and referring to Robert Gentry; I’ve only read the Summary/Conclusion): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

24. Jon Baker has told me by email that he tried yesterday to submit the following comment here – but apparently it is still awaiting moderation for whatever reason (I can see no reason at all why it should be failed by a moderator):

    “Dr. Sarfati, I must contend that the question about 14C in diamonds is in fact relevant. How can 14C-bearing material be recycled that deeply into the crust within thousands of years? The challenge is perfectly valid.

    Secondly, you are mistaken that diamonds have been shown to contain any intrinsic 14C. Yes, radiocarbon analysis of diamonds yields a 14C activity, but this does not come from the diamond itself, and it’s easy to prove. Radiocarbon lab technicians are perfectly aware that it is impossible to prepare any sample (especially diamonds) without some atmospheric carbon contaminating the sample.

    If the 14C were intrinsic, it should covary with the 13C values of the sample, but it doesn’t. The 14C activity remains ~constant while 13C of diamonds varies widely. This is the best proof that 14C in diamond analyses is a product of contamination. Geochronologists know this, and that’s why they specifically use diamonds to judge each machines precision and correct for background noise.”

25. Ashley Haworth-Roberts (Mr)

    You wrote, “On the polonium haloes, there apparently is something of an unsolved mystery – though Snelling’s invoking of ‘catastrophic plate tectonics’ (not mentioned early in Genesis) to ‘explain’ rapid formation of granite looks very far-fetched.”

    Now obviously, plate tectonics does not have to be mentioned at all in Genesis for it to have taken place. Genesis is not a compendium of scientific facts, it is an accurate rendition of history. Being accurate in historical content, there are some statements that bear upon the physical sciences. That cataclysmic plate tectonics have taken place on our planet is obvious. The time frame of those events would not be excluded from the era during and subsequent to the world wide flood.

    For the creationist scientist to glean facts and clues from the historical account to inform his theories is a noble endeavor. That a creationist scientist applies physical scientific findings to the scriptural accounts to help understand what happened and what causes and effects interacted to produce what we see today in our geological and astronomical situation is also noble.

    As far as rapid formation of anything, it is farfetched from a evolutionary and uniformitarian view of the cosmos. So you are judging from philosophy instead of from a scientific fact finding approach. Once again, the data is not to be judged by theory, but the theory by the data.

    Shalom

26. Bo, you wrote regarding evidence for the flood: “Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth…seems like evidence to me.”

    I have been laboring hard to show others that the geological evidence does not support a recent, global flood. Not to destroy anyone’s faith, but rather to open them to the fullness of God’s glory in creation by rooting the story in fact.

    It is true, most geological layers are water lain, but a vast majority were deposited in very shallow water that wasn’t moving very fast (demonstrable by experimental science). That doesn’t sound like a global flood.

    Many layers (tens of thousands of cubic miles worth of sediment) were not deposited by water at all. How does this happen?

    Bilions of dead things—yes. But billions too many to have comfortably lived on a planet this size all at once. Moreover, 99% of fossils appear as broken down weathered fragments of small bones (teeth, vertebrae mostly). Why? When did the flood have time to rip every bone from every other, weather them down, and preserve only the most weather-resistant? Should we expect to find mostly articulated limbs or full bodies if a catastrophic flood were responsible? There is no way to explain large quantities of weathered bones in such a scenario.

    These evidences have nothing to do with a global flood, therefore, but are perfectly consistent with the conventional picture. I hope that your heart may be open to seeing God’s glorious workings in history—a history much longer than you had imagined, just as the universe was much larger in *size* than the ancients could imagine when they wrote Genesis.

    JB

27. Here’s something interesting for those interested.
    Young Earth vs Old Earth Debate:
    Ken Ham & Jason Lisle vs Hugh Ross & Walter Kaiser.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwA7bvco7ow&playnext=1&list=PL013D07601ACCCD22

28. Message 75

    “That cataclysmic plate tectonics have taken place on our planet is obvious.” (Only to some scientists who are also creationists I think! And although they often have a PhD it’s usually not in geology.)

    “For the creationist scientist to glean facts and clues from the historical account to inform his theories is a noble endeavor.” Sorry, but it’s not science. It’s empty speculation.

    “… the data is not to be judged by theory, but the theory by the data”. I’m no geologist but I would suggest that there are no data ie pieces of physical/measurable evidence supporting cataclysmic plate tectonics – or cataclysmic volcanism – within the last 4,500 years (nor scriptures alluding to such – as I believe Genesis 7 verse 11 refers only to water).

29. I believe Taylor and Southon in their paper ‘Use of natural diamonds to monitor 14C AMS instrument backgrounds’ examined Palaeozoic era diamonds from Brazil. Presumably some or all of them would have been eclogitic diamonds (where the carbon source was probably originally organic – containing some carbon 14 if it died fairly recently – and contained within subducted basalt).

    After all, YECs could not rationally claim that peridoditic diamonds could contain intrinsic carbon 14 (as the carbon source for these diamonds is within Earth’s mantle).

    And for their claims that eclogitic diamonds do contain intrinsic carbon 14 to be of any real use to them they would need to be able to show that the amounts of carbon 14 remaining (half life 5,730 years), in all nine of the diamonds, was large enough to suggest that they were subducted, formed, stored and then lifted to Earth’s surface in 6,000 years’ maximum.

30. As posted on CMI’s Facebook page today (not by me!):
    “Last night Johnathan Sarfati demolished Richard Dawkins arguments, no wonder Dawkins doesn’t want to publicly debate anyone. He knows he will loose the debate. I really appreciated Dr Sarfatis’ explanation of the design of the human eye, and the superior design of the eye as opposed to Dawkins’ assertion that the human eye is an inferior design. KUDOS Johnathan Sarfati. Dawkins should be ashamed, we need to pray that Dawkins’ eyes will be opened to the truth.”

    I don’t know what Jonathan Sarfati actually said. Nor whether he referred to or acknowledged this atheist’s blog: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/more_creationist_misconception.php

31. Jon Baker,

    After looking over your website, I can see that you are an avid student of higher criticism. I will have to fully reject the idea that the scripture is some sort of hodgepodge of corrupted manuscripts. You accept higher criticism and evolution. I accept a literal Bible and a young earth. We will be forever at odds concerning our interpretation of the Bible and scientific data.

    My contention is that the a believer must accept the scripture as YHWH’s word at face value and see the rest of life through this worldview. Yours contention is quite askew from this, having modern man’s “wisdom” as your true basis of faith.

    I believe the Bible the way it is written. You believe a man made hypothesis. At least that is the way I see the situation.

    Shalom

32. Bo
    Jon informed me on Friday that he was just about to go on holiday.
    I’m convinced that to be a young Earth creationist in the modern era you have to deny or reject (or be totally ignorant of) some perfectly good science eg about the age of the Earth. And simply because of what the Bible – written in a pre-scientific age – appears to suggest in Genesis. Though YECs frequently try either to present ‘alternative science’ for a ‘young’ Earth, or to cast doubts about mainstream science eg by complaining about ‘unproven uniformitarian assumptions’ when using radiometric dating to age Earth rocks or meteorites.
    I don’t ‘know’ for sure whether microbes to Man evolution is true, but I’m pretty sure that YEC-ism is a dogmatic denial of established science.

33. Ashley Haworth-Roberts (Mr),

    You wrote, “I don’t ‘know’ for sure whether microbes to Man evolution is true, but I’m pretty sure that YEC-ism is a dogmatic denial of established science.”

    You may be correct about YEC-ism. We all choose our authorities. We cannot do every experiment ourselves or check out every idea and theory to a full extent. We ultimately place our faith in something we have not seen, when we accept the witness of another. As far as I know, all legal systems are based on the evaluation of testimony. The judge or jury does not need to have seen the crime to pass a guilty verdict. There is no way for us on the jury to know perfectly that the testimony is accurate. There could be collusion on the part of the witnesses.

    You might see collusion among the writers of the Bible or an agenda in the canonizing of certain books and not others. I might see collusion among the modern educational system and an agenda in what is allowed to be put in text books. I choose to believe the Bible. You choose to believe modern science.

    There is nothing scientific in our choosing what we choose to believe. We are convinced because of factors in our upbringing and culture. We are convinced because someone presented an argument that “clicked” with us at the time. When we choose to believe the testimony of certain witnesses over others, we belay our prejudice and our lack of objectivity.

    If we could know all the conversations that go on in secret, like the recent climate research revelations, we might not see so much credibility in the scientific community. We might not place so much faith in man. Scientists are men. They have agendas and prejudices. They are not fully objective. They make mistakes.

    I have much more confidence in the moral character of the writers of the Bible than in modern academia. I think that the writers of the Bible at least tried to tell the truth. I do not see collusion.

    I do see collusion and prejudice in modern religion. I do see an agenda there too. I do not put my faith in modern man’s religion or science. They are really both man’s religion when it comes down to the bottom line. They both place faith in modern man’s ability to distill the truth out of their surroundings. They both acquiesce to the preachers of their respective religions.

    If I am wrong, and the earth is actually old, what have I lost? I do not think that I will loose eternal reward for having been wrong in this area. If, on the other hand, I am correct, I just might be rewarded for believing the Creator of the universe in the onslaught of false science that is a demonic attempt to destroy true faith in our Creator. It is very important for us to place our faith in what is true. As far as theories, that might or might not be true, it is not terribly important. I believe in gravity…so I do not imagine that I can float from a 20 story building. I believe in eternal judgment…so I do not imagine that I can continually spit in YHWH’s face. Dawkins obviously does not believe in eternal judgment.

    I’ve rambled long enough.

    Shalom

34. I’ve probably said enough as well – so this may be my final comment unless someone makes another comment directed towards me.
    Yes, I’ve never worked as a scientist. But I just find it hard to believe, in 2011, that vast tracts of consensus science are completely wrong (unless there is a God and he is deliberately deceiving us via his creation, in order to make us only believe the whole Bible by first rejecting those areas of science).
    You say “I just might be rewarded for believing the Creator of the universe in the onslaught of false science that is a demonic attempt to destroy true faith in our Creator” – but science does not at present destroy all belief in God or in a non-fundamentalist (but still evangelical) kind of Christianity.

35. Ashley Haworth-Roberts (Mr)

    What if it is not YHWH that is deliberately deceptive with His creation, but Satan that has deceived the minds of the human race? If we do not believe what the Bible says, what source do you expect to use to inform your beliefs about our Creator? If the Messiah believed Genesis, and He was YHWH in the flesh, we are wrong to do otherwise. If we stray from early Christian belief, we are not really Christians according to the Apostles. If we are not true believers according to them, then we probably are not believers. The Bible we have is the Bible and apostolic writings that they believed. If we effectively render parts of it false according to man’s science, we are not believers in what they believed in…we are believers in man and his limited knowledge. We are worshiping the creation instead of the creator.

    Shalom

36. Please do not be tempted to pretend that your beliefs are ‘scientific’.

37. Please do not be tempted to believe that your beliefs are Biblical.

38. Bo,

    You say: “I can see that you are an avid student of higher criticism.” That’s true, but it doesn’t mean I accept its premises and conclusions.

    Further, “I will have to fully reject the idea that the scripture is some sort of hodgepodge of corrupted manuscripts.” So do I; we’re on the same page.

    “My contention is that the a believer must accept the scripture as YHWH’s word at face value and see the rest of life through this worldview.” I don’t disagree.

    “Yours contention is quite askew from this, having modern man’s “wisdom” as your true basis of faith.” It is the wisdom of God that allows us to explore His creation. Ascribing to theories that were formulated by man—whether evolution, plate tectonics, or a certain brand of biblical hermeneutics—is not equal to having the wisdom of man as the basis of my faith. Please do not confuse the two. Otherwise, one may accuse *you* of having man’s wisdom (i.e. biblical literalism, which is a relatively novel approach to the Bible) as the basis of your faith.

    But I don’t intend to. I believe in the sincerity of your faith. I just wish you were more open to discuss where it should lead. It’s not so simple as “Bible vs. man-made hypothesis”. Viewing the world through these glasses will result in an endless, and fruitless debate that only demeans fellow believers.

    Graciously,

    JB

39. Was Bo saying that Sarfati has an IQ above 200 ?

40. Dan1el,

    No, But I was saying that I do not. As far as Sarfati is concerned, I guess he might.

    Shalom

41. Science proving the age of the earth would be like a wine connoisseur who knows nothing of the Bible and the works of Christ, determining the age of the wine Jesus made which was the beginning of his miracles in Cana of Galilee. (John 2)

    God can do in a day what men might believe would take many years. He isn’t limited by light years.
    He can put stars in the sky and do it in a moment of time by commanding it to be so.

    For someone to say that science can determine the age of the earth or the universe…..It’s beyond my comprehension. I simply can not understand it.
    I don’t think any amount of this world’s education could help me in that matter. I don’t think years of going to college would do me any good concerning this.

42. Science may – sometimes – be hard to understand but that does not make it incorrect.

    Earth is not 6,000 years old (unless creation is lying to us).

43. Mr. Roberts,
    Strange coincidence you posted on Sarfati’s link… I’ve been wanting to know what he thinks about YU-55. Maybe someone can get in contact with him about it, though, I already sent him a message, asking.

44. I assume you used the address ‘j.sarfati@ followed by creation.info.

45. I just used the contact info on the site.

46. A theological satire piece by Jonathan Sarfati:

    http://creation.com/new-compromise-bible-version-satire

    Hilarious stuff!

47. There are two facts that stand out in relation to the plain reading of Genesis re the old-earth vs young earth debate. The first is the reality that all deep-time dating methods are NOT based on testable and verifiable science. There is no possible way to scientifically test and verify UNOBSERVED distant “historical event” by the Empirical & Scientific Method, based on experimentation and observation. Nor is there any scientific instrument in existence that measure the age of any data sample or past event. As such, all “historical theories” and “dating methods” are based on the godless presuppositions of “metaphysical” naturalism and materialism. Namely, purely SUBJECTIVE assumptions, inferences, interpretations, contrived explanations, conjecture and hypothetical speculations as to what the data SUPPOSEDLY represents, and what SUPPOSEDLY happened in the unobserved distant past, and when it SUPPOSEDLY happened. With no possible way of ever empirically verifying that events happened one way, and not another way, or even whether cosmological or biological evolution happened at all.

    For such reasons the Oxford dictionary relegates all historical theories to a Theory Sense 2
    definition. Namely, “A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis,
    speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.”
    Similarly, the Nobel Prize Committee does not regard such evolutionary historical theories as being prize-worthy science, or having the same value as verifiable empirical science. As was earlier observed by Harvard’s Stephen Jay Gould, the absence of evolutionary theory from Nobel prize-worthy science ‘is another example of the traditional view that historical science isn’t the “real” thing.’ (New Scientist,Dec 11, 1986, p48). Because evolutionary theory and all deep-time dating methods are founded on assumption that are not considered prize-worthy science, they can hardly be based on “scientific fact”. There is in fact an ocean of difference.

    Scripture clearly states that God was supernaturally involved in the creation of the universe from “start to finish”, and “rested” on the seventh day, after the creation of Adam. Scripture states that every day had an “evening and morning”, and that the Jewish people were to directly equate the week with the creation account, “for in ix days”. Indeed, if any of these “evenings” were to be millions or billions of years there would be nothing alive by the following morning. Furthermore, Genesis specifically states that God formed Adam and breathed into Adam the “breath of life”. Meaning, Adam did NOT evolve from anything “already living”. Moreover, scripture tells us that from the beginning God made them male and female, with the Biblical genealogies linking Adam to Christ as the “second Adam”. It is impossible to stretch these genealogies over hundreds of thousands, million or billions of old-universe/old-earth years. The deep-time and evolution problems multiply to the point were the entire foundation of scripture becomes suspect.

    Why even go down this mainstream science highway. Particularly when mainstream science now operates on godless materialism/atheism. Where God is neither needed, nor tolerated. I state again, “Deep-time” dating assumptions are not founded on verifiable science, but on the interpretation consistent with godless naturalism/materialism.

    Thus, deep-time dating and evolution represents the greatest heresy ever foisted on Biblical revelation and Christianity. A grand delusion that Hugh Ross and others have naively embraced in the bazaar attempt to integrate theism with the atheism of mainstream science. In fact, Deep-Time dating and Darwinism have done more to undermine Genesis and the entire Christian worldview, and the cause of Christ, than any other factor. Wake up!

48. John

    We meet again. There’s NO convincing scientific evidence for a 6,000 year old Earth and universe. Thus there is no need to ‘prove’ that the date is wrong – or ‘prove’ c 4.5 bn years for the Earth.

    We all know that, without the gymnastics performed by some pro-science Christians, Bible-derived timescales for the Earth and universe are guesswork and are totally wrong. Some Christians can live with that and still be Christians.

    “Why even go down this mainstream science highway…”. Because science is about discovering new truths. Which is something all young Earth creationists HATE (unless perchance the truths happen to ‘confirm’ scripture in some way).

    Sarfati has done a new interview with Brown during the past week. Hopefully you can find the link – if I post it I suspect this post will have to ‘await moderation’.

    Ashley

49. Oh. I see I’m ‘awaiting moderation’ REGARDLESS. Here is the link:
    http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2013/10/02/dr-brown-interviews-young-earth-creation-scholar-dr-jonathan-sarfati/comment-page-1/
    I’ve also just attempted a comment there.

Comments are closed.