Posted on 02/05/2009 5:00:13 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Books claiming that science disproves ‘young-earth’ creationism are very common, and books that claim the Bible itself does not mandate a literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis are not in short supply either. David Snoke’s book A Biblical Case for an Old Earth ostensibly falls in the latter group, though his main reason for rejecting biblical creation is really uniformitarian ‘science’. Books like these generally don’t pose a threat to informed creationists, and this one is no exception. In fact, Snoke could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he had actually taken the time to read more creationist literature; most of the things he cites as problems for creationists have been answered years ago.
First, some clear flaws in the book must be pointed out. It takes an amazing amount of arrogance to think that someone can refute young-earth creationism in any kind of detail in a book less than 200 pages long, and with just over 4 pages of endnotes which cite only half a dozen actual creationist works. The only creationist book he cites is The Genesis Flood, which is over 45 years old. No mention of Refuting Compromise for example that refutes almost all his arguments.1 And the most up-to-date creationist article cited is from 1993. Clearly this is a man at the cutting edge!
Incompetent arrogance...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
Paul says there are some predestined from before the foundation of the world, so some do not have 'free will'. But you are correct that young earth creationists do have the free will to believe, as do the darwinists... Looks like the Heavenly Father stepped out of the picture and is allowing the free willers to do their thing.
> The author’s use of the phrase “informed creationist” really made me laugh.
Why is that? The [Judo/Christian/Islamic] creation-myth {in that it is an explanatory story, not in that it is untrue} doesn’t suffer from the three things that evolution fails to adequately explain. (And, so far, nobody has replicated.)
1: That life should arise from non-life. Yes, there are structured inorganic compounds, but these are at least several orders of magnitude simpler than what is required for even the simplest of life.
2: The arising of multi-celled organisms. There is no [intuitive] reason why life should need more than one cell. In fact, organs are particularly difficult to find any good explanation for.
3: This is a more specialized sub-problem of the second case, but sexual reproduction itself is something of a challenge. Think about it, if you have an organism which can satisfy the reproduction singularly, why would you want to add the extra complexity of sex? Not only that, but “half evolved” sexual organs are worthless, it’s really an all-or-nothing approach. (Yes, there are some hermaphroditic spices, but that’s an exception not the rule among sexual reproduction.) And, as an added inconvenience from the continuation-of-the-species goal of life, by going with a sexual reproduction you do not only limit yourself to two organisms, but two organisms of the differing sexes!
(IE, it’s the question of reaching into a pot of red and white marbles and pulling out one of each color rather than two of one color.)
==Still on the subject of morons, why do you suppose so many who lack the education in advanced physics, molecular biology, and mathematics fear it like primitive peoples feared their first exposure to firearms?
Because Darwinists fear the truth.
im a very happy YEC, college educated with a b.s. in communications.
im a pc helpdesk analyst for a major healthcare provider....
im well read and dont happen to believe the propaganda of OEC, or, secular humanism, the official religion of the church of darwin, sorry, the bible says six days.....nothing limiting to God at all by a normal reading and straightforward meaning of the text....
During the seventeenth century, Archbishop James Ussher of the Church of Ireland determined that the earth was created on October 23, 4004 BC at 9:00 AM—and I assume that was Pacific Daylight Time.
Old-Earth theories are based on evidence that is not related to or reliant on the thoery of evolution.
No, I am 100% right and you should seek counseling.
Einstein' papers of 1905, announcing special relativity and the photoelectric effect (quantum physics) were only a few pages long. Watson and Crick announced the structure of DNA in one page.
A page or two of Potassium-argon data are sufficient to establish a minimum age for the earth.
“A page or two of Potassium-argon data WITH UNPROVABLE STARTING ASSUMPTIONS THAT GUARANTEE OLD AGES, are sufficient to establish a minimum age for the earth.”
that’s better...
A casual reading of scripture leads one to believe that Satan and his angels lived before the 6 day creation. I wonder why they don't consider that as a prior age?
>>the three things that evolution fails to adequately explain
>
>Old-Earth theories are based on evidence that is not related to or reliant on the thoery of evolution.
Ah, I see your distinction. I haven’t thought that the age of the Earth / Universe was that big a deal. As some have pointed out, God starts off by creating, and yet how many of the ‘days’ that are laid out in the creation story occur BEFORE the creation of the sun? {Problematic, linguistically speaking, because a ‘day’ is one revolution of the Earth in respect to the sun... unless the word was translated from a generalized “time period” as in the phrase “back in my day”.}
Then it appears to be a case of provable data with unprovable starting assumptions, vs unprovable data with unprovable starting assumptions.
Earth age theory seems to be the topic of the article, so I assumed that would be on topic.
In practical terms the science behind Earth age estimates seems to have more of a potential to have public policy considerations. For instance, that nuclear waste storage facility we're building at Yucca mountain was put there based on estimates that that site has been geologically stable for millions of years.
>For instance, that nuclear waste storage facility we’re building at Yucca mountain was put there based on estimates that that site has been geologically stable for millions of years.
I see. Though the past is not necessarily an indication of the future, all it would take is one [unexpected] catastrophic event as in Mt St Helen’s.
Young-earth creationism is impossible. We have evidence from Egypt of continual cultural development from 7,000 B.C. to the present. If there were a flood c.2400 B.C. there would be a break in the archaeological record with one older predominant culture, a deep layer of sediment, and then a totally different culture over the sediment layer. Moses was totally aware of this when he wrote the book of Genesis, so he had another reason for including the 7-day creation account in scripture. That purpose was to show the Israelites that YHWH-Elohim was Creator and that neither the earth, heavenly bodies, waters, nor the briny deep were divine.
Yes, it would. Yucca Mountain was formed by a supervolcano. According to the (old Earth theory) scientists, that volcano has been extinct for, I believe, about 12 million years. If the YEC theories are correct, that volcano would have been active within the last 6 thousand years.
> The earth is old, and so is the universe.
Sincere question for you. Before the curse, there was no death, and I’d conclude also no physical decay of any kind. The creation was perfect. So, how do you see behind that event? I’d posit that there was no decay of any kind before sin and the consequent curse on all creation. Creation went from perfection without decay, to something ridden with entropy, decay and death.
After reading the Bible, it is the last place I would look for understanding the natural sciences. And speaking or arrogance, how is it the Creationists hold their view as true over other creation myths.
==No, I am 100% right and you should seek counseling.
LOL...Looks like the inmates have taken over the asylum :o)
Personally I’m going for the Young Mirth Theory based upon the Possum Organ Test as opposed to the Bold Mirth Theory based up TeaTonics since there are no old and bold Mirths.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.