I have debated many agnostics and atheists over the years, over a myriad of issues, and against both hostile and kind opponents. I appreciate each one, because more often than not it highlights areas of apologetics that I need to brush up on, or better teaches me how to present biblical truth with love, rather than some misguided sense of superiority. Let us never forget as apologists that our sole purpose is to guide others lovingly to the cross. Not to berate or belittle those who lack a relationship with Christ.
But often a discussion will beat around the bush in regards to specifics of the creation model, or not address it at all if it isn’t within the scope of a contested topic, leaving sometimes months of ambiguity about certain positions. This may leave the opponent, or those following along, with unanswered queries that usually are dismissed, no doubt forsaken for a more comfortable choice. When smacked in the face with a glaring challenge to a long understood paradigm, the reaction towards me can be intense. Perhaps I seem dense, ignorant, or even stupid to the debater, and the inevitable response is to pretend it wasn’t said, or to forever think slightly less of me. I have had people throw my bible across a room, I have been told to shut up, and that I know nothing about science, and am met with dumbfounded questions like, “Have you ever even been to a natural history museum?”
So to boldly state it, so there is no room for dismissal or confusion, we will address the elephant in the room. I am a biblicist, young earth creationist who believes the earth, and for that matter the universe, is only about 6 or 7 thousand years old. I have seen science agree with the bible time and time again, and consider deep time science to be filled with assumption, circular reasoning, and un-testable hypothesis. This means dinosaurs and man have always lived together, which concurs with the book of Job. This means languages were confused at Babel, which fits with the science of linguistics, and current understanding of population growth charts. It means archaeology attests consistently to old testament historicity, regarding geography, ancient kings, unearthed cities, and numerous artifacts such as cuniform and bulae. It means we observe limiting factors in cosmology such as volcanic moons on Jupiter which should have long since cooled off, the moon pulling away from the earth in its orbit limiting its age, the impossibility of comets being older than 10,000 years due to the loss of material as it moves, the drifting out of Saturn’s rings and much more. It means we look to a literal world wide deluge about 4500 years ago to explain not only the fossil record, but also the unique and extraordinary geological features we find world wide. This includes explanation of biomass becoming fossil fuels, the Grand Canyon, the ice age, millions of tons of sediment burying pre-flood animals all over the world, like sharks teeth in a South Dakota farmer’s field, petrified clams on Mount Everest, and fossil graveyards that collected thousands of carcasses from varied species in post-flood eddies. It explains how we find man-made objects in coal seems, signs of civilization near the edges of the continental shelf, and evidence of malnourished, nomadic man with primitive tools during a post-flood world. It means we can account for the over 300 flood legends from almost every ancient civilization. It corroborates taxonomy and genetics, and allows for the splendor of natural variety within animal kinds without assuming un-demonstrable macro-evolution. It embraces the natural laws of physics, and does not assume a constant, yet un-observable, violation of these laws in order to add complexity to a closed system.
The creation does not claim to answer every mystery, but it does begin with a basic pre-supposition that the bible, in all of its uniqueness, is an eye-witness account of the history of our world, and so far is the only text proven to consistently get it right.
Without even discussing the over 1800 prophecies fulfilled without error as a mode of proof, let us consider that the bible discussed the cities of Nineveh, Ur, Jericho, and the City of David before they were unearthed in modern times; that it clued us into pathways/currents in the ocean as well as fountains from under the sea floor before man knew they were there; that it told us the earth hung in space on nothing back when men still fought over whether it rested on the shoulders of a god or on the shell of a large turtle.
In the simple telling of truthful history over a 4000 year period of writing from over 40 authors, the bible as a simple matter-of-fact revealed concise details that only later could be verified, and its accuracy continues to astound, causing skeptics to blare from a position of argumentum ad ignorantiam, or “absence of evidence”. At every turn, and within every field of scientific study, a logical position can be taken and defended that stands on the authority of scripture. I encourage questions and curiosities as always, but let us not be scared to proclaim the truth without compromise. And let us not remain ignorant of the fact that evolution is purely faith based. The only difference is the bible offers us veracity as well as hope, where as evolution offers only conjecture and insignificance.
5 thoughts on “Let’s Be Clear… It’s a Young Earth”
Make no mistake, the Oort cloud is a fiction. A purely, utterly made up idea. From the worlds of your own reference, “The Oort Cloud is a theoretical spherical cloud”, made up of whole cloth in order to save face from yet another embarrassing failure of evolution. Please, I would beg you to see that it is simply an offered solution to an unanswerable conundrum, and touting a made-up idea as a fact that simply can’t be observed (because it is so far away) in order to dispel the real issue is not science, and I dare say if one cannot see this, then like our friend Dr. Wald, it may be the philosophy, rather than the science that compels him.
Yes, both sides agree on how fossil fuels were formed, except for in regard to time, as I stated. It does not take millions of years. Oil can be made in ten minutes, coal in 6 hours. This is referenced in a prior article I wrote: https://jrcooper.org/2016/01/27/diamonds-have-carbon-14-why-is-this-important/ .
Not sure I understand your request for more accuracy, regarding spillways, so I would just encourage you to study the features of them while they are created. A good point of reference is the mini-grand canyon formed during the eruption of Mount St. Helen’s, where they watched identical features as the Grand Canyon form in a matter of days, i.e. steep cliffs.
Pasteur concluded, as have many others, abiogenesis couldn’t happen, a process that has never happened, has never been demonstrated, or observed. You simply stating Pasteur didn’t prove that it couldn’t happen 3 billion years ago isn’t science either. The burden of proof that it could happen still lies with evolutionists, another point they are hopelessly stuck on. The point isn’t can I refute abiogenesis, it is whether or not you’d look at the possibility of abiogenesis occuring 3 billion years ago as fact or not. Since it is neither observable, nor demonstrable, logic dictates we classify it as, at best, a theory, certainly not a fact, especially since we have never witnessed it to occur. (To discuss the mathematical impossibility of it happening would take another article twice as long as this response).
I am very familiar with talkorigins, and it is an anti-creationist site, so yes, I am quite sure that despite the many examples proving evolution is at best a theory, they like much of the scientific community bound by uniformitarianism, would not concede to it being a faith. My hope for those I debate is that they can eventually see past it to the undeniable truth, that it is simply one interpretation of facts that does not allow for intelligent design.
And lastly, and most certainly least, we can recognize the flying spaghetti monster following for what it is, satire, however also an indictment on a growing attitude of mockery towards God. But as I am a large proponent of freedom, I would not stand in the way of one who worshiped a false idol. However, death is a reality lost souls face daily, and one day so shall you, regardless of what you believe, and I guarantee on that day you will have taken your immortal soul more seriously than this. Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment. God bless, my friend, and I wish you fruitful research.
Luckily orbital resonance does not have to do anything with Sun because it is the resonance of three Jupiter’s moons and Jupiter himself.
Actually the same thing about flood and fossils could be said too.
Check out this page about Oort cloud: http://phys.org/news/2015-08-oort-cloud.html
Yes Oort cloud was not yet directly observed because it is very far away.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v424/n6949/abs/nature01725.html#close — This is abstract from Nature, and as they say – storage of comets.
https://scholar.google.cz/scholar?start=10&q=oort+cloud&hl=cs&as_sdt=0,5 Here you can check for other sources about Oort cloud.
Both sides agree on formation of fossil fuels? Fossil fuels are created over millions of years.
Commonly understood feature of post flood activity in geology? Could you be please more accurate?
Well petrificated hats? It was calcium carbohydrate that made it stony not some silica which takes much longer to crystallize, so petrified wood is actually whole different story.
You should probably share with me some resources about your issue with thermodynamics because I do not think you have actually measured how much the entropy increased/decreased with evolution.
Louis Pasteur did not prove that 4 billions ago in sea that was struck with lighting life could not be created.
Check out this page about evolution as a fact: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Also you cite the quote of two options for life to be created, but I think that there are more, what about Flying Spaghetti Monster?
I just want to clarify some of your arguments because they do not prove young Earth:
If man and dinosaurs lived together there would be fossils found of them on same places and same levels.
If languages confused at Bable why would so many languages appear somehow in Papua New Guinea and now elsewhere (except Georgia and around)?
The reason for Jupiter’s moons not to cool is orbital resonance.
Yes comets disappear but new are created too.
How do you create fossil fuels from biomass using Flood? If Flood washed over region around Grand Canyon, why would it make such a steep edges?
The reason for petrified stuff on mountains is that those mountains rose by continental drift.
(How do you explain petrification anyway?)
Your argument with adding complexity is wrong, Earth is not a closed system and evolution does not need to mean adding more complexity.
Your last two sentences: And let us not remain ignorant of the fact that evolution is purely faith based. The only difference is the bible offers us veracity as well as hope, where as evolution offers only conjecture and insignificance.
Evolution is not faith based, how did you actually came up with this.
Bible efforts us veracity and hope? So is that a reason to make it true? Yes evolution may show us that we are insignificant, does it actually change your life in any way?
Have a great day!
LikeLiked by 1 person
First I thank you for your comment, and your perspective. I certainly don’t expect everyone to agree with my position in its entirety, but nevertheless, I will continue to be bold about the veracity of a creation model, but certainly respect other viewpoints. To answer some of your questions, I would start by first saying I never claimed young earth was “proven” by my position, only that these observations fit into the creation model, that it is consistent, and it is reasonable. The article was more interested in a general stating of the position, not an overall attempt to prove. Your point about finding fossils together is, as the article stated, a position of argumentum ad ignorantiam, which was the position of skeptics before many cities, scrolls and geographical features were discovered, and is not a viable position to argue from. You can’t say I am wrong because of evidence that doesn’t exist. We must interpret what we observe. Regarding jupiter’s moons, it is a theory, but on proven, and not peer reviewed. I would have a hard time believing that at 500 million miles from the sun, gravitational pull could account for the internal heat of molten rock, and volcanic activity. Also, as this is not an all encompassing article, you’d also have to account for young features on pluto, Mercury, Venus, and others. Comets are not created, the Oort cloud was a theory of pure imagination to deal with this thorn in evolution’s side, and the problem remains an embarrassment to evolutionists. Both sides agree that’s how fossil fuels were created, just vary on time, and the Canyon is a spill way, commonly understood feature of post flood activity in geology.
We could dissect each item, petrification could be defined easily as something that can take place quickly (museums currently hold petrified hats, cowboy boots, pallets etc), and the universe itself is a closed system, while the earth is relatively closed, certainly to a degree enough to watch the second law of thermodynamics unfold consistently. But in regards to your last question, it was not me who “came up with” evolution being faith based. That has been whispered through the annals of acedemia for awhile now, and is commonly known among creationists. Of course evolutionists disagree, but when pressed on the issue, can never offer evidence that is observable, demonstrable, or repeatable, to point to evolution being fact. It is as though repeating it over and over will make it so, but it does not. So I would offer that reasonable question to you, as a person who fully admits his side is faith based, and depends upon historical unobservable data, where can you point to show me that you do not need faith to believe in evolution? Whether it be stellar, chemical, or genetic, no observable proof of evolution exists to this day. Do you think scientists aren’t aware of the dilemma? Consider this quote, one of many: “There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” – (Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)
LikeLiked by 1 person