Tom Couchman et al.,

It is good to be back from Kenya/Uganda. I was disappointed that no one attempted a direct answer to your "10 facts." [see Thread 2, HR] Consequently, what follows is my attempt to do so, in the order of your original presentation. As I have previously written, I'm not arguing with the data—it is what it is. It is the interpretation of the data that is being questioned. Furthermore, and I previously admitted to this, if the assumption of classic uniformitarianism is correct (i.e., processes have always occurred at roughly constant rates—i.e., the present is the key to the past), then your "10 facts" are quite impressive.

1. THE SEDIMENTARY ROCKS

Tom, it is clear that somewhere along your journey from YECism to OECism, you were converted to classic uniformitarianism. Consequently, I believe your uniformitarian 'glasses' now keep you from giving much attention to the evidences for catastrophism in the sedimentary record. For example, you say this about the sedimentary rocks, "Furthermore, these rocks are rich in fossils, which give the appearance of being the remains of once living creatures." However, this information speaks against your interpretation, in that such fossils speak loudly of quick deposition. This does not jibe with the "inherently slow" process of lithification you describe. If you claim, as many do, that these fossils are plainly the result of localized catastrophic events, then why can't you entertain the idea that these may be the result of one catastrophic event—the Flood? The reason, of course, is your uniformitarianism glasses. Therefore, one's philosophical biases profoundly affect the way one approaches problems and weighs the evidence, be he scientist or otherwise. So it's not simply facts speaking for themselves, as you OECs claim. In the end, the framework one starts with can and does profoundly affect the conclusions that are drawn.

I have admitted my catastrophist biases, which you and other OECs see as a weakness. Why? Because such does not meet with the "facts" of your uniformitarian assumptions. However, you and other OECs do not see, or will not admit, the bias that says that present processes are the ultimate key to understanding the past. Believing, as I do, in creation ex nihilo, and a universal flood, I cannot yet bring myself to believe such classic uniformitarianism is true, although it is the most popular explanation of how things are the way they are.

Could the vast beds of sedimentary strata (covering approximately 3/4 of the earth's surface and reaching to as much as 40,000 feet in depth), with their entombed biological remains, result from the "inherently slow"—one foot per five thousand years—processes we see occurring today? Where is the example of fossilization taking place today on a scale equivalent to the magnitude seen in the many fossil graveyards around the world? Localized conditions may occur today that may result in the fossilization of a few animals. For instance, a cliff may break away and fall into water, burying a few fish, clams, insects, etc., but no cataclysm on a scale that would have been necessary in the past to account for the thousands of square miles of solid heaps of fossils in sedimentary rocks is being observed today. I'll be interested in what you have to say about this.

Finally, you assert, "A single diluvial event cannot produce thousands of sedimentary layers, because catastrophic floods would mix the sediments, and there would not be enough time for one layer to harden before the superposition of another layer." Tom, this is—after all is said and done—nothing more than an assertion, and your "cannot" makes it a bold assertion, which you YECs seem to have a penchant for doing. On the contrary, there are certain experimental data that question what you say (Makse, H. A., Havlin, S., King, P. R. and Stanley, H. E., 1997, "Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures," Nature, 386:379–382; Berthault, G., 1986, "Experiments on lamination of sediments, resulting from a periodic graded-bedding subsequent to deposition — a contribution to the explanation of lamination of various sediments and sedimentary rocks," Compte Rendus Académie des Sciences, Paris, 303, Série II, no. 17, pp. 1569–1574).

2. RIVER MOUTH SEDIMENTS

Yes, there are sediments at the mouth of all the great rivers on the earth, as you have said. Just what sediments were caused by the river and which were caused by something else is open to question. I have no reason to doubt that "sediments at the mouth of the Mississippi are seven miles thick, and full of fossils, including oil and gas." How do you, or anyone else, know all this "sediment," by which I assume you mean the sedimentary rock, is there as a result of the Mississippi dumping it there? Remember, sedimentary rock covers 3/4 of the earth's surface, whether there is a river there or not. Of course, if all your assumptions are correct, and you can conclusively demonstrate this, then this would be a very strong argument for the OEC position.

Speaking of river mouth sediments, the Mississippi River is reported to dump about 300 million cubic yards of sediment into the Gulf of Mexico each year. Measuring the current growth of the delta (about 250 feet per year), and using a uniformitarian assumption, this calculates to about 4,000 years, which certainly fits a YEC time frame.

3. CORAL REEFS

For another view, one might want to begin with How long does a coral reef take to grow? http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1224.asp

4. CLAY VARVES

A true varve, by definition, consists of a couplet of summer silt and winter clay. If the Green River Formation contains four million annual layers, as it has been reported, then the obvious conclusion would be that the lake existed for millions of years before it disappeared. Of course, it should be realized that when it comes to varves, there have been differences of opinion over the source of the organic material involved, the source and mechanism for formation of the carbonate laminae, the cause of the cyclic laminations, and which laminations geologists actually use to define a varve. Additionally, and this is very important, it seems to be very unlikely that the bands of the Green River Formation are actual annual deposits because well-preserved fish and birds are found all through the sediments. It seems improbable that these dead animals could have rested on the bottom of the lake for decades, being slowly covered by sediment. Their presence indicates catastrophic burial. So, defining a varve is one thing; identifying something as a varve is quite another thing. Are the "varves" of the Green River Formation really true varves, consisting of a couplet of summer silt and winter clay? Probably not! Furthermore, Tom, neither you, nor anyone else, has conclusively demonstrated that the Green River Formation consists of true varves.

Now, I have not written here in order to deny the capability of seasonal variations causing annual layers (varves), only that evidence does not lend itself to the bold assertions OECs frequently make.

5. EVAPORITE VARVES

What I wrote in the previous paragraph holds true for evaporites. You define something by current observation. I do not doubt what you describe occurs. However, using this definition, you then describe "an evaporite varve formation" called the Delaware Basin, 1300 feet thick, which is composed of 400,000 layers of varves. If these truly are evaporite varves, and if these layers can only be formed as defined, then this evidence argues conclusively for extremely long periods of time. This point is argued by Alan Hayward in Creation and Evolution: The Facts and Fallacies, 1985, pp. 89-91. However, the high chemical purity of the deposits shows they were not exposed to a dry, dusty climate for thousands of years, as would seem to be required by the definition. Rather, it is more likely that they formed rapidly from the interaction between hot and cold seawater during undersea volcanic activity, and are, more likely, a hydrothermal deposit (Williams, E., "Origin of bedded salt deposits," Creation Research Society Quarterly, 26[1]:15–16, 1989).

6. METAMORPHIC ROCKS

Where are these metamorphic rocks "seen occurring naturally on the earth" that you are referring to? Am I to understand that you are saying this forming/transforming process is presently being observerd and recorded? If not, what was your point? For an alternative view, one could begin with http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3970.asp.

7. YELLOWSTONE FOSSIL FORESTS

An alternative view is presented at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4109.asp

8. IGNEOUS ROCK INTRUSIONS

Alternative view found at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3970.asp.

9. SEA FLOOR SPREADING (Brother Mathews' favorite)

Yes, continental spreading is occurring and is measurable. Nevertheless, whether the present is the key to the past and, therefore, whether it is true that there have been about 100 million years since pangea is speculative. Ditto for the "varves" and a change in the magnetic field every few thousand years, which is based on an assumption of time based, in turn, on an assumed chronology, which is, of course, speculative.

 10. RADIOISOTOPIC DATING

Yes, this is, in fact, pretty impressive; but only if one ignores the problems with this kind of dating both in theory and practice. After all, in 1960, Willard F. Libby was awarded a Nobel Prize in chemistry for his development of the carbon 14 technique, wasn't he? Nevertheless, although there have been great improvements in radioisotopic dating techniques, the whole process still rests upon unproven assumptions. For example, it is merely assumed that the production of carbon 14 in the atmosphere by cosmic-ray bombardment has been constant throughout all time. If, of course, it was not constant, this would greatly affect the estimated ages of materials dated in this fashion. Similarly, all such methods assume that the rate of radioactive decay has always been constant over the million or billion of years assumed/indicated. As William R. Fix, who is not a young-earth advocate, wrote in his book, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (1984), "It is a remarkably sanguine assumption that atomic processes have behaved with absolute constancy over 4.6 billion years." In other words, it's a pretty bold assertion! In practice, there have been more than a few gaffes with such methods. For example, the two laboratories dating the famous Leakey team's Skull 1470 varied in their potassium-argon dates by a million years. Other results have been even less "absolute." The shell of a living oyster dated to 600 B.C. and a 180-year-old lava flow in Hawaii being dated by the potassium-argon method to be no less than 2.96 billion years old. Obviously the entire system of radioisotopic dating is quirksome and inexact and is built upon assumptions that may or may not be correct. For further study, one could begin by visiting http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/382.asp.

Tom, in closing, let me say that if all assumptions are correct, then these "10 facts" are impressive. But, what I have tried to demonstrate is that all of them are built upon mere assumptions. In the end, one must zero in on the interpretation of the data, which impinges the metaphysical. Frankly, and I've said this already, this is my justification for being involved in this discussion. But it is just here, as it is with my evolutionist friends, that such discussion is to be excluded in favor of the "facts." Okay, I have dealt with the "facts" and found them all to be wanting.

Maybe my faith in the accuracy of a normal/literal reading of Genesis is wrong. Maybe it is true that a right interpretation of the creation account could not really be understood effectively until rather recent discoveries of science, as you and other OECs seem to imply, but there is yet no overwhelming evidence for me to think so.

Ultimately, we are dealing with positions of faith on both sides of this issue, and whether you like it or not, this is metaphysical. Many years ago in a written discussion with an evolutionist, I asked him to tell me "one thing" he knew to be true about the General Theory of Evolution. After many months, he informed me that he knew the earth was 4.6 billion years old. Obviously, you and he would find much to agree on concerning this chronology, but I found it amusing that after all his many months of arguments for the "fact" of macroevolution, this was the only thing he knew to be true, and that he had to know that such "knowledge" was predicated on mere assumptions. When you, or my evolutionist friend, say the earth "is" 4.6 billion years old, you are both pontificating, and I think you know it. Yes, I know YECs do the same thing. This is why I have urged caution, and this is why I do not make the age of the earth a test of fellowship. However, and this ought not to be surprising, there are old-earth dogmatists who make the age of the earth a test of fellowship.

One who has posted on this discussion board is "formerly a member of the church of Christ," but left because of its domination by YECs. Although I don't know the facts of this case, I suspect this old-earth advocate was not formerly withdrawn from. Instead, it is likely that he withdrew himself from this fellowship because he could no longer tolerate the predominant YEC position held by these people. Ultimately, this individual became a skeptic, which is certainly not all that unusual. Hill Roberts, on his website, laments that he did not get to this individual sooner, thereby assuring him it was perfectly okay for him to believe the earth "is" 4.6 billion years old, and thus saving him from his current skepticism. I suspect there was more at work in this skeptic's chosen path than chronology. I mention this here only to demonstrate that brethren on both sides of this issue need to be very careful, particularly when it comes to their rather bold assumptions.

OECs are currently a minority within churches of Christ, and naturally feel themselves under the pressure of proving the soundness of their position to their brethren. Many, like Roberts, pursue the vindication of this old-earth position with evangelistic fervor, going so far as to assert that the YEC position is a reason for our failure to effectively evangelize a more scientifically sophisticated culture. What, then, will be the OECs' attitude toward YECs if, and when, they become the majority? For example, it's not hard to imagine a predominant OEC fellowship using a YEC preacher's position to eliminate him from working with them on a regular basis, is it? And upon what basis will they presume to do so? The "facts of science," of course. So, my OEC brethren, you watch yourself also, and be careful!

May God bless us all as we continue to study His Word.

Yours in service to Him,
Allan

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Mathews
1-16-00
Re: Putting the facts on the table

Hello Allan,

I would like to respond to your arguments included in the section titled "1 THE SEDIMENTARY ROCKS."

I am not under any obligation to catastrophism either from a Biblical or scientific standpoint, considering  catastrophism a failed theory which originated in recent times (since the 17th century) as an attempt to  explain geological evidences within the event of Noah's flood (initially) and eventually within a series of  catastrophes which included Noah's flood as the most recent catastrophe.

I must criticize the following statements which you have made:

"However, this information speaks against your interpretation, in that such fossils speak loudly of quick  deposition. This does not jibe with the "inherently slow" process of lithification you describe."

Deposition and lithification are two separate and distinct processes. Geological evidence is contrary to the  theory of one episode of deposition (i.e., all sedimentary strata were produced by Noah's flood) and even  the Institute for Creation Research does not claim that all sedimentary strata were produced by Noah's  Flood (there is considerable debate about what constitutes flood deposits from pre- and post-flood  deposits). Geological evidence is also contrary to the theory of recent lithification of the sedimentary  rocks, and the processes of lithification preclude any sudden or instantaneous lithification of sediments  following the flood.

The next statement that I will respond to: "If you claim, as many do, that these fossils are plainly the  result of localized catastrophic events, then why can't you entertain the idea that these may be the result  of one catastrophic event—the Flood?"

A single event cannot explain the sedimentary rocks because the sedimentary rocks record the  transformation of environments over time. That is to say that as one travels up or down the sedimentary  rocks of one location, the history of that location is discovered. The ocean may have covered that spot at  one time, and later a shallow marine environment may have existed, and later still a beach may have  existed, and later still a swamp may have existed, and then the ocean may have returned to cover this  spot. Cycles of this sort of known in the sedimentary rocks all over the world, and they very distinctly  record the slow transformation of an environment and not a sudden catastrophe such as a flood.

The sedimentary rocks do not display catastrophic features, such as one would expect and predict if they  were formed in a single event such as Noah's flood. Sedimentary rocks record the slow and nearly  imperceptible changes that happen over remarkable and sometimes immense amounts of time.

I contend that catastrophic (diluvial) strata and uniformitarian strata are so different that a scientists can  distinguish between the two, and that the sedimentary strata of the Earth are consistent only with the  uniformitarian processes of formation.

At the present moment, I am not aware of any evidence or arguments which even attempt to explain the  sedimentary evidence by Noah's flood. I form this judgment after a careful reading of material produced by  the Institute for Creation Research and other similar organizations.

Thanks,
David Mathews

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TomCouchman
1-17-00
Facts on the table--comments on Allan's Response

Allan, and all:

Thanks to Allan for his response to my previous post. I myself do not wish to get into a long-term back-and-forth debate, so I will limit my comments on Allan’s response to what I think is necessary, and that will be the end of my contributions to this debate. Others can respond further if they wish, but my goal—to get a YEC response on the table—has been achieved.

0. MY UNIFORMITARIAN ASSUMPTIONS

ALLAN’S COMMENT: “Tom, it is clear that somewhere along your journey from YECism to OECism, you were converted to classic uniformitarianism.”

I’m impressed by your clairvoyance, Allan. I thought I was a “reluctant OEC” partly because I don’t accept classic uniformitarianism. I don’t doubt that a catastrophic flood took place during the days of Noah, and I don’t doubt that there may have been many catastrophes during the history of the earth, some of which may be responsible for the geological evidence at hand. I can accept and evaluate fairly any attempt to explain the facts which begins with appeal to catastrophe and then describes scientifically exactly how the catastrophe (be it flood, volcanic eruption, runaway subduction, or any other imagined natural or biblically recorded event) produced the phenomenon observed. I can’t evaluate and therefore can’t accept an “explanation” which in effect says, “Somehow, the great deluge did this…” Even Barry Setterfield, the YEC astronomer who has proposed modifications to universal constants, has come under fire from more militant YECs, not because they find his ‘cDK’ theories objectionable, but because he has begged his fellow-YECs to abandon their blind-faith adherence to a single deluge as the explanation for all of geology.

I would urge you to reconsider your evaluation of OECs such as me. Every time I hear or read some casual reference to “billions of years” I grind my teeth. At the risk of showing disrespect to the departed, I would have paid a lot of money to have a chance, when Carl Sagan scrunched-up his face and let “billions and billions of years” roll through that grimace, to smash a banana-cream pie into his face! I think there are many people like me who are uncomfortable with the way billion-year scenarios are dragged out in a bizarre natura-ex-machina to explain the unexplainable, and we are more than willing to be lured back into the fold. But it isn’t going to happen when you preface your interpretation of the evidence by telling us that our “uniformitarian glasses” are going to keep us from seeing the truth.

1. THE SEDIMENTARY ROCKS

ALLAN’S COMMENT: “If you claim, as many do, that these fossils are plainly the result of localized catastrophic events, then why can't you entertain the idea that these may be the result of one catastrophic event—the Flood? The reason, of course, is your uniformitarianism glasses.”

No, the reason is that no YEC has been able to explain how in a single year the Genesis flood could produce the sedimentary rocks and the associated effects—fossils and erosion—which we see. If you or any other reader of this thread is prepared to propose a detailed explanation for the Grand Canyon in terms of a one-year flood, I am certainly prepared to consider it.

By the way, I am assuming you obtained your citations from a YEC source who included it in his/her presentation for the same reason you included it in yours: because it looked impressive. I looked up the citation from Nature. Here is the abstract of that article:

“Granular materials segregate according to grain size when exposed to periodic perturbations such as vibrations. Moreover, mixtures of grains of different sizes can also spontaneously segregate in the absence of external perturbations: when such a mixture is simply poured onto a pile, the large grains are more likely to be found near the base, while the small grains are more likely to be near the top. Here we report another size-separation effect, which arises when we pour a granular mixture between two vertical plates: the mixture spontaneously stratifies into alternating layers of small and large grains whenever the large grains have larger angle of repose than the small grains. We find only spontaneous segregation, without stratification, when the large grains have smaller angle of repose than the small grains. The stratification is related to the occurrence of avalanches: during each avalanche, the grains separate into a pair of static layers, with the small grains forming a sublayer underneath the layer of large grains.”

My French is probably not good enough to read the other article, but if someone wants to look it up and translate it for us, I will certainly consider it as evidence bearing upon a YEC interpretation of sedimentary rock formation.

2. RIVER MOUTH SEDIMENTS

ALLAN’S COMMENT: “Yes, there are sediments at the mouth of all the great rivers on the earth, as you have said. How do you, or anyone else, know all this ‘sediment’ … is there as a result of the Mississippi dumping it there?”

Since I didn’t see it dumped there I don’t know. There are big piles of sediment at the mouths of all the earth’s major rivers, which are being incremented measurably by these rivers, so a reasonable interpretation is that the rivers put it there. But if you are prepared to propose a detailed flood-dependent explanation for the river-mouth sediments, one which conforms both to the Genesis record and to what we know about hydrodynamics and diluvian effects, I am prepared to consider it.

3. CORAL REEFS

Allan refers to an article from Answers in Genesis, which I urge readers of this thread to review. It does not resolve all the issues—for example, coral reefs cannot grow beyond a certain size unless the lower layers are first converted into limestone. But pending other comments I am prepared to concede the possibility that at least some of these reefs may be a lot younger than classical geology holds.

4. CLAY VARVES

ALLAN’S COMMENT: “…it seems to be very unlikely that the bands of the Green River Formation are actual annual deposits because well-preserved fish and birds are found all through the sediments. It seems improbable that these dead animals could have rested on the bottom of the lake for decades, being slowly covered by sediment. Their presence indicates catastrophic burial. So, defining a varve is one thing; identifying something as a varve is quite another thing. Are the ‘varves’ of the Green River Formation really true varves, consisting of a couplet of summer silt and winter clay? Probably not!”

Contrary to what most YECs believe—and to statements found in many popular science sources written by evolutionists—rapid burial is not the only way for fossils to form. Evolutionists don’t tell this secret to the “unconverted” because they want everyone to believe that the lack of support for Darwinism in the fossil record is due to the extreme rarity of conditions conducive to fossil formation. Anoxic environments can also lead to fossilization: e.g., fish swim into very still, oxygen-depleted water, where they die and where there are no microorganisms to cause decomposition. Under such conditions dead organisms can be preserved until buried, even if burial takes years. The thin laminae characteristic of the fossiliferous portion of the Green River formation are considered the remnants of a “distal” inland lake environment, as opposed to the “proximal” or “near-shore” environment which is preserved in other sediments which do not contain so many fossils, which show evidence of water inflow and circulation. In the middle of the lake, the water at some depth below the surface had to become stagnant to allow clay particles to settle, and cold layers of stagnant water are observed to be prone to de-oxygenation. The Green River formation is generally thought to contain annual couplets because of the distinctive alternation of light and dark layers, the darker layers made so by the presence of organic materials—particularly fossilized pollen—which is absent from the lighter layers. Obviously, what I am presenting here is an old-earth interpretation. But I will take off my “classic uniformitarian glasses” and read, with a critical but sympathetic eye, any proposed interpretation which explains these four million thin shale layers in terms of the Genesis flood, some other catastrophic event, or any combination of those proposed causes.

5. EVAPORITE VARVES

ALLAN’S COMMENT: “…the high chemical purity of the deposits shows they were not exposed to a dry, dusty climate for thousands of years, as would seem to be required by the definition. Rather, it is more likely that they formed rapidly from the interaction between hot and cold seawater during undersea volcanic activity, and are, more likely, a hydrothermal deposit.”

I’m afraid I missed the part of my own “definition” which requires exposure to a dry, dusty climate for thousands of years. Evaporite varves are formed under water, as can be observed in several places today. “The interaction between hot and cold seawater during undersea volcanic activity” does not produce the distinctive layers of calcium carbonate, calcium sulfate and calcium chloride which are observed in the Delaware Basin varves, but undersea volcanic activity is associated with the deposition of igneous rocks, which would have to underlay the Delaware basin to make this interpretation plausible. Instead, the Delaware Basin is underlain by sedimentary rocks.

6. METAMORPHIC ROCKS

ALLAN’S QUESTION: “Where are these metamorphic rocks ‘seen occurring naturally on the earth’ that you are referring to? Am I to understand that you are saying this forming/transforming process is presently being observed and recorded? If not, what was your point?”

I am not aware of any place on earth where formation of metamorphic rock can be observed. I was referring to the fact that “artificial” metamorphic rocks (artificial diamonds are an example) can be produced in a laboratory, and the resulting structure looks like the metamorphic rock we see in nature. The inference is that metamorphic rocks are produced by heat and great pressure, and in nature the main way these conditions can be produced is burial under miles of overlaying rock or sediment. So far as I know no one has ever found a rock with a label on it that says, “I am a metamorphic rock, and I was laid down as a sediment in two million BC.” It’s an inference, but it seems to me a reasonable one. The web site to which Allan referred contained no reference to metamorphic rock.

7. YELLOWSTONE FOSSIL FORESTS

Allan refers to another Answers in Genesis site. I strongly urge interested readers to consider this proposed explanation and decide for themselves whether it “explains” up to forty-four layers of fossilized trees on top of thousands of feet of sedimentary rock. A different proposed YEC explanation for this phenomenon may be seen at www.cts.com/browse/icr/pubs/imp/imp-268.htm.

8. IGNEOUS ROCK INTRUSIONS

Again Allan refers to an AiG site. This YEC critique of classic old-earth conclusions is actually a pretty good one, it seems to me, so I urge consideration of the conclusions presented in the document cited. Unfortunately, the article does not discuss the granitic formation in Southern California, so I cannot know whether there is an “answer in Genesis” for that one. Furthermore, if we are forced to conclude that all the sedimentary rock and all the igneous intrusions took place in a single year, there is simply too much heat to be dissipated. However, if YECs are willing to abandon the contention that all igneous rock intrusions took place in a single year, and if they will give themselves a few thousand more years with which to work, they might be able to make a case for a younger earth than classic geology requires in this case. For those who are interested in another YEC view, I suggest Robert Gentry’s book Creation’s Tiny Mystery.

9. SEA FLOOR SPREADING

ALLAN’S COMMENT: “Yes, continental spreading is occurring and is measurable. Nevertheless, whether the present is the key to the past and, therefore, whether it is true that there have been about 100 million years since pangea is speculative.”

Very well. Then propose an alternative explanation for the very strange coincidence among changes in the earth’s magnetic field, the varves and the bands of sea floor with alternating magnetic alignment which will allow deposition of forty million square miles of Atlantic Ocean sea floor in whatever time you are willing to allow.

10. RADIOISOTOPIC DATING

ALLAN’S COMMENT: “…all such methods assume that the rate of radioactive decay has always been constant over the million or billion of years assumed/indicated.”

This assumption is strongly supported by observations of distant objects which show evidence that radioactive decay rates have been constant over at least thousands of years—when we look at distant stars we look “back in time,” and certain techniques for analyzing starlight can collect evidence of radioactive decay rates which give results in good accordance with the values we measure today at least as far back as 4000 BC. But if the earth is six thousand years old instead of three billion, the radioactive elements I cited in my original post must have decayed a half-million times faster than they do today. Radioactive elements are ubiquitous in the earth’s crust. If the radioactive decay rate in 3900 BC were a half-million times what it is today, radioactive elements would have been generating a half-million times as much heat as they do today. The earth would have been a very unpleasant place for the sons and daughters of Eve!

OTHER STUFF

ALLAN’S COMMENT: “Many years ago in a written discussion with an evolutionist, I asked him to tell me "one thing" he knew to be true about the General Theory of Evolution. After many months, he informed me that he knew the earth was 4.6 billion years old.”

Phillip Johnson tells a story in Darwin on Trial of a scientist addressing a conclave of his fellows who posed a similar question: “Tell me one thing you know to be true about evolution.” After several minutes of pained silence, one man replied, “It shouldn’t be taught in high school.” I would urge the point that an assertion that the earth is 4.6 billion years old is not a statement about evolution. If nothing else is accomplished in this discussion except that the YECs grasp that point, then all this time will have been very well spent.

ALLAN’S COMMENT: “Many [OECs], like [Hill] Roberts, pursue the vindication of this old-earth position with evangelistic fervor…”

I do not spend my life monitoring Hill Roberts, and he certainly does not need me to defend him. But I feel that, for whatever it is worth, a comment on personal experience is worthwhile. When the Lord I Believe group visited the congregation I attend last summer, the section on time was not presented by Roberts but by another member of the group who is agnostic about cosmic age. Roberts did not “pursue” any old-earth position. He did defend it, but only when pressed to do so during the question-answer session. Had someone not anonymously sent material impugning his OEC position to the elders prior to the seminar, I doubt that most people would have been aware of his position; it probably wouldn’t even have come up. You find this possibility incredible? The LIB group has been to the congregation where my father is an elder twice. If there were an OEC within a hundred miles of that congregation he/she would be turned into a pillar of salt. More to the point, if Roberts had “pursued the vindication of his old-earth position with evangelistic fervor” they would not have been invited back in 4.6 billion years.

ON THE AGE OF THE EARTH AS A TEST OF FELLOWSHIP

Of course, I cannot say that OEC Christians would never do such a thing. Tests of fellowship have been made over all sorts of issues which should not have been so used. I can only hope that such a thing will never happen, in either direction!

And that, brothers, is all I have to say and all I will have to say concerning this specific matter. I plan to make a couple more posts on related sub-threads, and then there are other issues to which I would rather give my attention.

I would like to say that I appreciate Allan Turner’s constructive attitude in this discussion, and I value his willingness to “go into all the world.” I pray that issues such as this one can always be considered in a reasonable and charitable manner.

Your brother,
Tom

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill
1-17-00
Re: Putting the facts on the table

Allan,

I sincerely appreciate the time you've spent preparing this response,  especially after what must have been a tiring, and vastly more rewarding,  journey. This effort deserves respect. I know you were hoping someone else  would deal with these ten lines of evidence presented by Tom. However,  you should not feel the least bit uncertain of your capabilities in this  regard. You have presented responses that are as good as any I usually  hear on these matters from sources you might have regarded as more capable  for this aspect of the task. I have asked since the beginning of these  exchanges for the discussion of the age to turn on analysis of the physical  data and this you have now done. Well done.  I cannot tell you how  much I appreciate this effort. I don't agree with your analysis, but I  appreciate it, your effort and your willingness to take this step.

I shall follow Tom’s original suggestion and deal with only the first  line of evidence presented by Tom and your analysis of it.  As an  attempt to help focus my comments and ensure completeness I have included  your paragraphs as I respond to them, denoted by our initials (and maybe  by color if I can get the HTML part correct).  I apologize for the  length of this post which only addresses the first of ten lines of evidence.  However, this is necessary to fully respond to each one of your objections  for this first "fact". I do not intend at this point to offer similiar  rebuttals to each of the other nine points. Tom and David have already  provided adequate comments to that end. I wanted in this post to go into  fairly excruciating detail for only one specific case. In so doing, most  of the rebuttal to the other nine points would be very similar and mostly  redundant.

AT: It is good to be back from Kenya/Uganda. I  was disappointed that no one attempted a direct answer to your "10 facts."  Consequently, what follows is my attempt to do so, in the order of your  original presentation. As I have previously written, I'm not arguing with  the data—it is what it is. It is the interpretation of the data that is  being questioned. Furthermore, and I previously admitted to this, if the  assumption of classic uniformitarianism is correct (i.e., processes have  always occurred at roughly constant rates—i.e., the present is the key  to the past), then your "10 facts" are quite impressive.

HR: Interpretations are easily conformed to presuppositions, as you  correctly note. This is especially so when one bases those suppositions  on a select knowledge of the matter, which is true for us all. I shall  show why the logic of your approach fails to move me to accept it. Each  one must make up their own mind as to what is more reasonable to them.

AT:
1. THE SEDIMENTARY ROCKS

Tom, it is clear that somewhere along your journey  from YECism to OECism, you were converted to classic uniformitarianism.  Consequently, I believe your uniformitarian 'glasses' now keep you from  giving much attention to the evidences for catastrophism in the sedimentary  record. For example, you say this about the sedimentary rocks, "Furthermore,  these rocks are rich in fossils, which give the appearance of being the  remains of once living creatures." However, this information speaks against  your interpretation, in that such fossils speak loudly of quick deposition.

HR: This catastrophic interpretation is based on presumed, but incorrect,  data. Incorrect data almost always leads to erroneous conclusions. In the  case of the fossil deposits, the vast majority of the fossiliferous sedimentary  deposits are depositions of microscopic organisms or their excretia. This  is true for the limestones, the chalks, the corals, and the silicaceous  oozes, among others. These sediments far outstrip the volumes of sediments  that contain larger fossiliferous remains. These vast microscopic deposits  do not “speak loudly of quick deposition.” Quite the opposite, they result  from inherently slow deposition processes which require slow accumulations  over time. (They are "inherently slow" due to the limitations of specific  chemical and physical processes governing the deposition process, not because  they would have to be slow to give long ages.)  These types of homogeneous  deposits do not occur rapidly. [When I use the term rapid here it is a  relative term. Yes, the deposition rates for these processes can vary by  significant amounts, but within less than an order of magnitude, i.e.,  ~100%. Now that might seem like a lot at first. However, to put this in  perspective, to get the observed thickness for these types of sediments  in only 10000 years would require the deposition rates be off, not by 100%  or 1000%, but by up to five orders of magnitude in some cases: 1,000,000%.  To get this much deposition in only one year requires an difference in  deposition rate of 100,000,000,000%. ]

HR: For an example, let us consider chalk which is calcified remains  of microscopic organisms of Foraminifera and cocolyths. Follows is a short  article for background on chalk.

[Chalk is a variety of fine-grained LIMESTONE that is porous, soft,  and composed of minute fossil fragments of unicellular organisms (Foraminifera  or algae) along with some larger organisms (bivalve shells) and crystals  of CALCITE. Because calcite and many of the fragments of the marine organisms  are composed of calcium carbonate, usually more than 50 percent of chalk  is made of this compound. Other minerals in chalk include quartz, various  types of clay, mica, iron oxides, and pyrite. Chalks were formed when marine  organisms died and settled to the bottom of shallow to moderately deep  seas, forming a mud that was cemented by precipitating calcite, and then  compacted. Chalks sometime form beds and grade into limestones harder and  denser than chalk.

Famous chalk deposits include the white cliffs of Dover, England, and  the fossil beds in western Kansas, in which preserved skeletons of extinct  animals have been found. Many of the chalk deposits were formed during  the CRETACEOUS PERIOD, 136 to 70 million years ago; in fact, the name Cretaceous  comes from the Latin word for chalk, creta. Chalk is used in the manufacture  of rubber goods, paint, putty, polishing powders, and portland cement,  and as a soil conditioner.    Burr A. Silver, Grolliers  Encylopedia

… Dover is both a center for light industry and a resort.  It is  located at the foot of the famed white-chalk cliffs, which reach 114 m  (375 ft) in height. Grolliers]

HR: You acknowledge that Tom’s data, given the accepted rates for such  depositions, would indicate impressively long ages for such depositions.  But you are suggesting that some catastrophic process can account for the  thick accumulation by using exceedingtly more rapid deposition rates. In  your next paragraph you suggest that a single flood might be a suitable  catastrophe, in particular, the Flood of Noah.

AT: This does not jibe with the "inherently slow"  process of lithification you describe. If you claim, as many do, that these  fossils are plainly the result of localized catastrophic events, then why  can't you entertain the idea that these may be the result of one catastrophic  event—the Flood?

HR: So how does that work out? Not too good.

HR: The maximum density of Foraminifera in sea water is less than 1  g/liter (<0.1% concentration, greater concentration kills the Foraminifera),  and since Foraminifera can only live in shallow seas (up to 100 m, greater  depths kill the Foraminifera), and since the deposition of all the Foraminifera  in any 100m column of water can result in at most a 0.1 meter layer of  dead Foraminifera, it is obvious that to produce 114 meters of chalk deposit  would require over a THOUSAND such floods. In each flood all the Foraminifera  would have had to have been killed, deposited and preserved as chalk. One  flood won’t do it, and it doesn’t matter how much area it covered. It is  a depth problem.

HR: What about depth? Maybe that’s it. Noah’s flood might have been  really deep. That could have resulted in more deposition, couldn’t it?  If the flood was 10000 m deep, then the same calculations would produce  – exactly the same total accummulated thickness as before! Why?  Because the flood would have only diluted the density of pre-existing Foraminifera  in the water in exact proportion to the increasing depth. As the water  gets deeper, the density of Foraminifera decreases proportionally. So when  that 10000 m of water drops its Foraminifera content (why it would do that  is another mystery for catastrophism), exactly the same thickness gets  deposited. Deep flood waters don’t help. In fact deep flood water hurts  the case. The deeper the flood water, the greater the turbulence, hence  the deposition rate is reduced due to the micro-organisms remaining suspended  in the waters until the waters returned to a more normal level. So in that  case essentially no deposition occurs, not more.

HR: However, there might be another alternative. Maybe the Foraminifera  from all the oceans got concentrated in only a few locales, such as Dover,  and then deposited there. The problem with this idea is proposing a viable  mechanism to localize sufficient Foraminifera. Concentrating them above  the levels already used as the upper bound kills them, so they can never  be sufficiently concentrated. Furthermore, these microorganisms merely  drift. They have no locomotion capability. Getting a concentration of such  fine particulates in specific oceanic regions would be akin to all the  coffee particles in your cup suddenly becoming concentrated back into coffee  grains in one small “corner” of your cup, with the rest of the water becoming  perfectly clear. While the physics that governs the motion of each individual  particle does not preclude such, the second law of thermodynamics does.  Common experience tells us not to expect all the air molecules to suddenly  concentrate in one part of the room, thereby dropping the temperature in  the rest of the room to absolute zero. Just doesn’t happen for large sample  sizes of microscopic particles. Doesn’t happen for Foraminifera either,  and for the same reasons.

HR: One flood is a catastrophe, but a thousand floods all producing  the same phenomenal result is exactly what you are trying to avoid: uniformitarianism  -- a uniform progression of a series of a thousand floods, one after  another. So in trying to avoid uniformitarian assumptions one arrives  right back in a position of needing a long series of uniform events to  account for the actual data (sediment thickness, even with rapid -- essentially  instantaneous -- deposition rates).

HR: This series of phenomenal “floods” could not have happened in a  single year. For each inundation cycle, the Foraminifera would have to  completely repopulate the water column before the next cycle would produce  any more deposition. So the philosophical appeal to a general application  of catastrophism, while appealing at some level if one has committed  a priori to YEC, becomes absurd when the physical limitations of that  idea are examined for specific physical phenomena (such as chalk deposition).

HR: This thousand “floods” idea pretty much gets back to the basic idea  of standard geology: the strata result from many cycles of rising and falling  sea levels. These cycles produce large-scale non-catastrophic inundation  separated by long periods of time, during which lithification occurs. Thousands  of cycles; ergo, thousands of strata.

HR: However, for the specific case in mind, the chalk cliffs of Dover,  there is no evidence that they were deposited by a series of many separate  depositions. It is one continuous homogeneous column of chalk deposit.  Since, as already shown, it could not have been deposited rapidly all at  once; and since it gives no physical indication of having been deposited  in a series of many separate depositions; then the only remaining option  is that it is the result of one very long continuous deposition at a very  slow rate. There is embedded in the chalk, fossil confirmation of this  conclusion. One can trace the minor adaptations of certain mollusk shells  from the bottom to the top of the deposits. Since it takes several years  as a minimum for such identifiable adaptations to become fixed in a population  and since the cliffs exhibit a sequence of many such adaptations over its  duration; this then adds weight to the conclusion that the chalk was slowly  deposited over many years and occaissionally trapped the local mollusk  of the day in its ivory tomb. As the years went by the mollusk populations  would adapt to minor environmental changes (or just "drift" about a nominal  form) so that these variations form a traceable sequence from the bottom  to the top. This is just the kind of minor, adaptive changes generally  referred to by us creationists, and many evolutionists as well, as micro-evolution.  To illustrate this point, it would be like finding a sequence of drafts  of the same book buried in a large trash bin. At the bottom one might find  drafts of chapter one along with the remains of ten days of fast-food sacks,  higher up drafts of chapter 3 with more fast food sacks intervening, near  the top drafts of chaper 7 with the more fast food sacks, and on the very  top drafts of chapter 12. One could reasonably infer the trash bin contents  represents the slow accumulation of trash over the period required to write  the book. One could get a minimum estimate for the total time by  counting up the fast-food sacks, assuming he ate one lunch per day, on  average. The chalk is the fast food garbage. The chapter drafts correspond  to the mollusk adaptations. This is only a partial analogy for illustrative  purposes. There are several other physical markers embedded in the chalk  that also indicate a long slow continuous deposition. These include magnetic  particulates entrapped by the chalk, and radioisotopic chronologues. So  four (actually many more)  independent lines of evidence conspire  to show the chalk was deposited over a long period of time.

AT: The reason, of course, is your uniformitarianism  glasses. Therefore, one's philosophical biases profoundly affect the way  one approaches problems and weighs the evidence, be he scientist or otherwise.

HR: Couldn’t have said it better.  (Except for the glasses part:  everyone has their own pair.)

AT: So it's not simply facts speaking for themselves,  as you OECs claim. In the end, the framework one starts with can and does  profoundly affect the conclusions that are drawn.

HR: Absolutely. But it doesn’t pass the “so what” test. Is that license  to reject reasonable conclusions based on real physical evidence in favor  of physically demonstrable absurdities which happen to fit one’s presuppositions?  No. Sometimes, one’s framework itself needs some serious readjustment when  faced with serious contradictory information. (Caveat: miracles are a different  ballgame. But I think you are not arguing for today’s sediments as miraculous  effects of the flood. Only what you think would have naturally resulted  from such a catastrophe. Which, by the way, is just another form of that  "myopic" uniformitarianism.)

AT: I have admitted my catastrophist biases, which  you and other OECs see as a weakness. Why? Because such does not meet with  the "facts" of your uniformitarian assumptions.

HR: It’s not  a “weakness” to believe catastrophe happens. It does.  All OECs I know of are quite aware of  that. No -- catastrophism,  as a philosophical base for interpreting the bulk of stratigraphy, is a  weakness because of the inconsistencies (such as noted above) it  leads to in specific situations, not because it leads to an unpleasant  answer (at least it’s unpleasant for Tom, though not me).

AT: However, you and other OECs do not see, or  will not admit, the bias that says that present processes are the ultimate  key to understanding the past.

HR: There are both uniform and catastrophic processes at work, as previously  noted.

AT: Believing, as I do, in creation ex nihilo,  and a universal flood, I cannot yet bring myself to believe such classic  uniformitarianism is true, although it is the most popular explanation  of how things are the way they are.

HR:

First: you are implying that you believe in creation  ex nihilo and a worldwide flood, in contrast to those you are challenging  who do not believe those things. This is incorrect and seems prejudicial.  I also believe in ex nihilo creation and a world-wide flood. (I  assume you mean worldwide, not universe-wide.)

Second: the flood of Noah was obviously a catastrophic event, but the  burden of proof lies on the flood geology paradigm to show that such a  catastrophe could have naturally produced the effects claimed for it. As  shown in the chalk example above, in this it fails. Of course, one could  invoke miraculous processes such as miraculously rapid reproductive rates  of Foraminifera to circumvent such problems. But then you have lost all  hope of accounting for the sediment deposits as simply the natural results  of the flood. However, I believe such an idea is on the right track. I  suggest that the whole event was a miracle. Miracles are neither uniformitarianism  nor catastrophism, they are miracles – outside the bounds of natural processes.  I no more expect to find remaining physical evidence of this miracle than  I do for finding the water pots of Cana. Just as the water pots surely  became lost in the noise of events after the miracle, so the effects of  a short-term flood become lost in the detritus of intervening millennia.

AT: Could the vast beds of sedimentary strata  (covering approximately 3/4 of the earth's surface and reaching to as much  as 40,000 feet in depth), with their entombed biological remains, result  from the "inherently slow"— one foot per five thousand years — processes  we see occurring today?

HR: Absolutely. It is happening at the bottom of practically all bodies  of water – REALLY SLOWLY!   Note that the 40,000 feet  cited is exceptional. The average sediment layers are only about 5000 feet  thick. Such exceptions occur in regions of high deposition, usually at  the mouths of rivers systems, which is another one of Tom’s facts, so it  is not dealt with in this post now.

AT: Where is the example of fossilization taking  place today on a scale equivalent to the magnitude seen in the many fossil  graveyards around the world? Localized conditions may occur today that  may result in the fossilization of a few animals. For instance, a cliff  may break away and fall into water, burying a few fish, clams, insects,  etc., but no cataclysm on a scale that would have been necessary in the  past to account for the thousands of square miles of solid heaps of fossils  in sedimentary rocks is being observed today. I'll be interested in what  you have to say about this.

HR: Tsunamis produce just such rapid large-scale effects at a rate of  several events per year. Undersea “land-slides” go along with tsunamis,  but also can occur independently. Volcanoes can cover large areas of both  land and sea quickly. But, none of these are the predominant mechanism  for producing the large marine fossil beds that account for the vast majority*  of the fossil record. Most such large-scale deposition is the result of  the anoxic (oxygen depleted) environment at the bottom of many deep  water systems, and frequently happens in shallow water systems as well.  This is essentially a still water phenomenon. The phenomenon is fairly  straightforward. Due to any number of factors a sea bed becomes oxygen  poor, and sometimes very suddenly. Many of the bottom dwellers die due  to lack of oxygen. Their death further depletes the oxygen. More die. Swimming  varieties that venture into the waters die and add their carcasses to the  mass. The micro-organisms die and fall out of suspension on top of the  heap. The carcasses do not rot away due to the lack of oxygen. They may  persist in this state for many years as the detritus of time buries the  mess for the rest of the fossilization process to continue. Essentially  the same type of process can occur in surface layers due to massive algae  blooms. No mystery in large fossil beds at all. This very process has been  under observation now for some thirty years in the Persian Gulf. Some fossil  beds are produced catastrophically, some are produced slowly.

HR: Allow me a personal anecdote. In 1976 I was working on a highway  project on the McFarland Bridge over the Warrior River in Tuscaloosa AL.  There was a massive algae bloom upriver about 30 miles caused by runoff  from area strip mines. The 200 yard wide river was literally covered solid  with the carcasses of dead fish, turtles, snakes, birds, the occasional  cow and deer (and many smaller land animals). This death spectacle flowed  under that bridge for over a week. At the time I computed an estimate of  the total bio-mass represented in that fish kill evident on the surface.  It was millions of tons. Clearly this was the stuff from which massive  fossil beds could result. What most amazed me was the diversity represented  in the carcasses. Not just marine dwellers, but a large number of land  animals that got caught up in this natural killing field. In addition to  all that was an incredible amount of just plain “goo” that came down river  with all these carcasses. I supposed it was related to the original algae  bloom, but was never able to confirm its origin. While I was amazed at  this spectacle, the more experienced river rats on the work crew told me  that such a sight was not at all unusual. Several had witnessed such events  at other times and places. It was however, quite spectacular to me.

*Clarification: it has been noted elsewhere in these posts that very  little of the strata are diluvial. Some might confuse this term to mean  it is not of marine origin. Nearly all the strata are of marine origin.  However, virtually none of them bears the unique characteristics of deposition  under flood conditions (high water volume/velocity transport mechanics).  Diluvial = flood, not marine. The strata are not mostly diluvial,  but are mostly marine.

AT: Finally, you assert, "A single diluvial event  cannot produce thousands of sedimentary layers, because catastrophic floods  would mix the sediments, and there would not be enough time for one layer  to harden before the superposition of another layer." Tom, this is—after  all is said and done—nothing more than an assertion, and your "cannot"  makes it a bold assertion, which you YECs seem to have a penchant for doing.

HR: No, this is not mere "assertion." Some types of layers get stratified  by turbidity currents, but most other types of stratification do not occur  from turbulent processes. The practice of geology (from which you offer  some citations below) helps us identify which layers are which. The fact  that some layers are produced in/by moving waters does not justify the  conclusion that all, or even most, layers are so produced. Turbulence is  a mixing process. Any feather duster, food blender, cement mixer, paint  can shaker, tornado or hurricane would be a good reference for the underlying  physics principles involved. But try this instead. Mix up some Jello. Pour  in a mold. Do not let set. Immediately mix up more Jello of a different  color. Pour on top of unset, warm  Jello already in mold. You get  a disgusting mess, not nice cleanly separately layers. Trivial example?  Yes, that’s why Tom’s assertion is not “bold,” rather it’s just common  sense borne of an infinitude of examples from kitchen counter to geology  site.

HR: Can stratafication result from floods? Absolutely. Another experiment.  Take a bucket of water. Add in a pint of large (1") stones. Add in a pint  of pea gravel. Add in a pint of fine sand. Add in a pint of gypsum powder.  Stir it all up vigorously. Now stop. Let it a all stand until the water  clears. (It will take a long time.) Carefully drain off the water and you  will find the large stones on the bottom, covered by peagravel, covered  by sand, covered by gypsum. Each of these will have permeated into the  lower levels somewhat to fill in accessable voids. But the general stratification  which results will be obvious. Now, on the one hand one could then say  "See, floods produce layers." Which would be correct. But on the other  hand, are the geological strata of this nature. If they resulted from the  Flood -- all one event, then the bottom layers should be just big boulders,  with the layers getting successively more finely divided the higher up  in the strata observed. Unfortunately this gravity sorting is not at all  characteristic of the overall record. There are localized places where  such can be observed and which are appropriately demarked as diluvial in  origin. However, one is just as likely to find silt and clay layers topped  by layers of boulders. Floods don't do that.

End part one of this response. See part two.  HR

Continuing Part Two of my response to Allan. HR

AT: On the contrary, there are certain experimental  data that question what you say (Makse, H. A., Havlin, S., King, P. R.  and Stanley, H. E., 1997, "Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures,"  Nature, 386:379–382; Berthault, G., 1986, "Experiments on lamination of  sediments, resulting from a periodic graded-bedding subsequent to deposition  — a contribution to the explanation of lamination of various sediments  and sedimentary rocks," Compte Rendus Académie des Sciences, Paris,  303, Série II, no. 17, pp. 1569–1574.

HR: These references do not support the contradictory views you represent  them as supporting, although I appreciate your attempt to bring information  from the literature. One lesson I have learned over the years I want to  share. Be careful of offering citations unless you have actually read and  understood the content. Frequently popular books on this topic will introduce  references from the literature that look impressive but have no true relevance  to the issue at hand. Or worse, (or better depending on how one looks at  it) will actually contradict explicitly the point being claimed for the  article.

HR: The first reference addresses vibrational segregation of particulates.  This is a simple size-sorting mechanism well understood and exploited in  various industrial processes. It has no bearing on the gross features of  geological stratification which do not exhibit vibrational segregation  of hard, dry particulates. It is irrelevant.

HR: The second article is likewise irrelevant to your case. This should  be evident to all even from the title “… resulting from periodic graded-bedding  subsequent to deposition…”  Resulting from a periodic process is exactly  what we are saying it takes, not a single event.

HR: Such literature only serves to instill confidence in the overall  results of the geological research of the past two hundred years. It is  continually learning how to differentiate the subtle results of different  processes. Some layering does occur in moving water conditions. This is  not news to the geologist.  However, by no means, does that indicate  all layering occurs in moving water conditions. The bulk of the same literature  sources cited above demonstrate that there are many layered structures  that result from long, slow depositions. The geologic literature is no  source of comfort for those seeking evidence of a young age of the earth.

HR: Well, this post is just dealing with the first of your response  to Tom’s "10 Facts". Dealing with one of them is enough for now to show  the overall fallacy of appealing to castrophism to explain the bulk of  the strategraphic data. In reality the response to the other nine "facts"  would essentially be more of the same.

HR: I notice in many of the other responses you reference the reader  to Ken Ham’s site, AnswersInGenesis. It is noteworthy that in fact  none of the answers provided concerning these matters are from Genesis.  That is my  main point concerning old-young questions. The Bible doesn’t give us the  age of the earth. We might as well be arguing over the doctrinal necessity  of belief in bacteria.

HR: By the way, if anyone hasn’t seen Tom’s excellent article dealing  with the appearance of age concept, be sure to see in on the LIB webpage  at      http://lordibelieve.org/page15    .

I believe these series of posting have gone far enough at this point  for both sides to feel good about making a fairly strong case for their  positions. I'm probably going to have to move on now. I've said this previously  and each case have come back to offer further comment. I don't know the  future, but again it seems that this is "nuff said" for those interested  to make an assessment of what is more reasonable to them to believe in  these matters. Frankly, I don't think it matters much what one believes  about such things.

Thanks to all of you who have observed from the sidelines. I pray you  have found something of value from all participants. I have. I honor all  who will speak up for their ideas in the public market of ideas.

Sincerely,
Hill

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allanita
1-20-00
Re: Putting the facts on the table

David,

Whether catastrophism is the "failed theory" you say it is, is really what this discussion is about. You simply saying it is does not make it so. The fossil record speaks loudly of quick deposition, and this does not harmonize with an inherently slow process of lithification predicted by uniformitarianism. You attempt to answer this by telling us that deposition and lithification are two separate and distinct processes, like this somehow takes care of the inconsistency. It doesn't.

In addition, I have not claimed "all sedimentary strata were produced by Noah's flood," as you assert. You and Tom have brought this up in your posts, but I have clearly stated that I don't believe this. So, give it a rest, please, or I'll be forced to believe you are just unfairly trying to prejudice others against my position.

Further, when you say, "A single event cannot explain the sedimentary rocks because the sedimentary rocks record the transformation of environments over time," and the implication of "time" is extremely long periods of time, you have assumed what is yet to be proven. Your use of "cannot" in this sentence makes it sound like you are citing an absolute fact—you are not! Perhaps you are correct in what, to me, seems like another one of your bold assertions, but for many of us, it appears the 'jury is still out.'

Moreover, for you to insist on referring to all the many processes that creationists argue could have occurred during the flood as a "single event" appears to be an effort to minimize the geological ramifications of such processes. Both you and other OECs have pointed out that a flood of one-year duration is/was insignificant in light of billions of years of earth history. However, and this is my point, assumed insignificance appears reasonable if, and only if, it is true that earth history "is" billions of years old. Again, this is the very thing that confident and bold OECs, like you, must still prove. As such, the contested issue of age reamins at the core of this discussion.

I have never argued, as you seem to think I have, that geologists, even those who adhere to uniformitarianism, are unfamiliar with catastrophism or that they do not identify some strata as being the result of a local catastrophic event. However, fairness requires us to remember that we are dealing with the general consensus in the geological community that says "sedimentary rocks do not display catastrophic features, such as one would expect and predict if they were formed in a single event such as Noah's flood." This is the argument of uniformitarianists who deal with strata according to their uniformitarian assuptions until, and unless, they discover a polystrate, or some other alleged anomaly, which they must then acknowledge is the result of some catastrophic event. But, and this is my point, unless these geologists discover a polystrate, et cetera, they assume their uniformitarian supposition about the time frame for the formation of strata is correct. If I were a geologist, I believe this would give me good reason to pause and reflect upon the accuracy of my uniformitarian assumptions.

Now, if John Baumgardner, who I've mentioned before, is correct, recent discoveries are giving geologists even more opportunities to candidly reflect on their uniformitarian presuppositions and assumptions. He argues that a viable alternative to the uniformitarian perspective is a catastrophe, driven by processes in the earth's interior, progressively but quickly resurfacing the planet. He reports that an event of this type has recently been documented to have occurred on the earth's sister planet, Venus (R. G. Strom, G. G. Schaber, and D. D. Dawson, "The Global Resurfacing of Venus," Journal of Geophysical Research, 99, 10899-10926, 1994). Baumgardner claims this startling conclusion is based on high resolution mapping performed by the Magellan spacecraft in the early 1990s which revealed that the vast majority of craters on Venus today to be in pristine condition and only 2.5% embayed by lava, while an episode of intense volcanism prior to the formation of the present craters has erased all earlier ones from the face of the planet. Since this resurfacing, Baumgardner reports, volcanic and tectonic activity has been minimal. For those interested in persuing this, I suggest you start with Baumgardner's article under the subsection entitled, "But what about the Geological/Fossil Record?," which can be found at http://www.icr.org/research/jb/debate+highlights.html.

As I've pointed out before, you, more than Tom and Hill, seem disposed to cast this whole discussion within the framework of very bold assertions. I think there is yet no reason for you to be so confident in your something-is-this and something-else-cannot-be-that expressions. You could, of course, be right, and I've admitted to that possibility in this discussion. However, I've yet to understand how you can be so sure that classical uniformitarianism is the 'only game in town.'

Allan

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Mathews
1-22-00
Re: Putting the facts on the table

Hello Allan,

In response to your comment: "The fossil record speaks loudly of quick deposition, and this does not harmonize with an inherently slow process of lithification predicted by uniformitarianism."

Quick deposition does not demand, imply or suggest Noah's flood or the origin of all sedimentary rocks in a single catastrophic event. Quick deposition does not demand, imply or suggest that sediments found in one location (such as the Grand Canyon) were deposited concurrently with sediments found in the Canadian Shield or the Himalayan mountains. Quick deposition does not contradict or weaken uniformitarianism.

In response to your comment: "In addition, I have not claimed "all sedimentary strata were produced by Noah's flood," as you assert."

I must wonder, then, what sediments are attributable to Noah's flood, and what sediments preceded the flood, and also what sediments followed the flood. Given that Noah's flood is the only catastrophe available to suddenly account for sedimentary rocks, I may also ask how much time was required to produce the pre-flood sediments.

These are the questions that I presented to the Institute for Creation Research, questions which they were not prepared to answer. At the present moment there exist no sedimentary rocks which anyone may with confidence attribute to Noah's flood. That is to say -- geological evidence for a sudden, catastrophic origin of the sedimentary rocks is lacking.

In response to your statement: "Your use of "cannot" in this sentence makes it sound like you are citing an absolute fact—you are not!"

Allan, I am citing an absolute fact about the geological evidence: A single event cannot explain the sedimentary rocks under in circumstances within any presently existing catastrophic or uniformitarian concept of geology.

A single event cannot explain the gology of the Earth. Geology is the record of many events operating concurrently and successively, interacting with one another to produce the Earth as it presently exist and also responsible for the Earth as it formerly existed.

The Grand Canyon is an excellent example of geological processes which operated successively and concurrently to produce a feature on the Earth's surface. I made a list at one time of the events occurring in the Grand Canyon which geological investigation has revealed:

1. The Continental basement rocks which existed prior to erosion and sedumentation.
2. The beginning of erosion and sedimentation.
3. The formation of the sediments below the Great Unconformity.
4. The length of time required for the formation of the Chuar and Unkar groups.
5. The tectonic event which accounts for the inclination of the Chuar and Unkar groups.
6. The erosion of the Chuar and Unkar groups.
7. The resumption of sedimentation with the Tapeat Sandstones.
8. The length of time required to accumulate the sediments between the Tapeats sandstone and the Brian Head and Wasatch formations (Bryce canyon).
9. The tectonic activity which brought an end to sedimentation in the American southwest and uplifted this region from below sea level to its present altitude of 7,000 - 10,000 feet.
10. The formation of the Grand Canyon.
11. The volcanic activity which produced the San Francisco peaks and other       peaks in Northwestern Arizona.
12. The creation of lava dams in the Grand Canyon, their failure and subsequent erosion.
13. Human habitation of the Grand Canyon beginning with the Indians.

The time required for all of the events listed is hundreds of millions, even billions of years. Noah's flood does not successfully explain the existence of the sediments of the Grand Canyon or the erosion which formed the Grand Canyon, and it cannot explain the tectonic events which tilted the sedimentary strata under the Great Unconformity, those events which uplifted the plateau to its present height of 8,000 feet, nor for the volcanic activity which produced the San Francisco peaks which are built upon the plateau and the lava dams which formerly blocked the course of the Colorado river within the canyon.

In response to your comment: "Moreover, for you to insist on referring to all the many processes that creationists argue could have occurred during the flood as a "single event" appears to be an effort to minimize the geological ramifications of such processes."

Creationists do not know, and have no way of knowing, what geological changes a flood of worldwide proportions would have. Under any circumstances, a flood of worldwide proportions could not account for the geology of the Earth.

For example, in the rocks of the Grand Canyon there are the fossilized remains of a river. The river cut a channel through its underlying sediments. The channel itself is filled with sediments transported by the river. Geologists have traced the course of the river over many miles across the canyon. The formation itself is called the "Surprise Canyon."

Needless to say, Noah's flood cannot account for the existence of the river which eroded its channel and deposited the sediments which are known today as the Surprise Canyon formation. The river is sufficient cause to doubt a diluvial origin for the sediments immediately below the Surprise Canyon formation (that is, the sediments that were eroded to form the river channel) and also cast much doubt on a diluvial origin of those strata which overlie the Surprise Canyon formation.

In response to your statement: "This is the argument of uniformitarianists who deal with strata according to their uniformitarian assuptions until, and unless, they discover a polystrate, or some other alleged anomaly, which they must then acknowledge is the result of some catastrophic event. But, and this is my point, unless these geologists discover a polystrate, et cetera, they assume their uniformitarian supposition about the time frame for the formation of strata is correct."

Uniformitarianism is not merely an assumption which geologists have imposed upon the sedimentary rocks or the geological features of the Earth. Rocks reveal their origin. Rocks which have a sudden origin are different from rocks which formed in accordance with a slow process. By studying the rocks, scientists are able to reach a conclusion about the environment in which it formed and the time requires for its formation. Geologists are not guessing, their conclusions are built upon evidence.

Christians who disagree with the conclusions of geologists must express their disagreement within the context of the evidence which scientists base their conclusions. The evidence is physical, set in stone (if you will) and therefore not subject to dispute or rejection. Those who wish to offer an alternative interpretation of the evidence must present that interpretation in a scientific manner and allow that interpretation to succeed or fail based upon its own scientific merits.

Much of the alternative explanations offered by creationists, such as the Institute for Creation Research, have failed under scientific investigation. Creationists geology is incomplete at best.

In response to your statement: "Now, if John Baumgardner, who I've mentioned before, is correct, recent discoveries are giving geologists even more opportunities to candidly reflect on their uniformitarian presuppositions and assumptions. He argues that a viable alternative to the uniformitarian perspective is a catastrophe, driven by processes in the earth's interior, progressively but quickly resurfacing the planet."

John Baumgardner is not correct. His theory is not successful and it does not coincide with geological evidence. "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics" is dead in the water -- everywhere refuted in the oceanic crust.

In response to your statement: "As I've pointed out before, you, more than Tom and Hill, seem disposed to cast this whole discussion within the framework of very bold assertions. I think there is yet no reason for you to be so confident in your something-is-this and something-else-cannot-be-that expressions."

I am prepared to speak boldly about matters which I have devoted years of study and thought. My viewpoint is supported by the ground under your feet and everywhere else on the surface of the Earth, and it receives additional confirmation from the surface of the moon and the planets. What Noah's flood does not account for on Earth it cannot account for on Mars.

Thanks,

David Mathews

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd S. Greene
1-23-00
Re: Putting the facts on the table

Greetings, all.

There are two points I would like to bring up for your consideration in the context and as part of the course of this discussion:

1.        We try to understand "less direct" information based on "more direct"  information.
2.        Geologists are not ignorant of flood effects.

Point #1 - "More Direct" Before "Less Direct"  I raise this point under the general principle that "Truth cannot contradict truth." Thus, if we have a body of extensive, and consistent information by which we "know" with relative certainty about a particular aspect of reality, then we use this in order to try to understand other aspects of reality for which our information is relatively less extensive and correspondingly less certain.

In his 11/12/99 post "Re: Putting the facts on the table," Hill Roberts discussed the particular example of SN1987a showing that the universe has been around as a "going concern" for at least about 169,000 years old. He got into some of the intimate details involved with that particular example. There are many, many other specific examples just like that regarding the fact that the universe is quite ancient (Nova Cygni; luminosity and magnitude in general; parallax, Cepheid variable stars, and the Hipparcos satellite mission, and so on; see http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/links.html#A03b).

What makes this kind of information so very direct is the fact that we literally observe events from the distant past (like SN1987a) right now, so even historical geology is less direct than astronomical considerations because of the fact that we do actually have to deal with what I shall call "secondary effects" when reconstructing historical geological events. (See my 1/7/00 post "Re: Observations and an Interesting Quote.")

No young earth advocate here has yet addressed this particular point. I reiterate this point here and now, because of the fact that it is the most direct information that we have in the context of age discussions, and then because of the fact that the relatively less direct information from historical geology is consistent with this (while freely acknowledging that the earth's age is based on empirically independent considerations). Young earth/young universe advocates clearly need to address this most direct information that the universe is ancient, even before they begin trying to deal with considerations of historical geology. (The only exception being for those young earth advocates who choose to go the unusual but not unheard of route of advocating a young earth/ancient universe approach).

Truth cannot contradict truth.

Point #2 - Geologists Have Studied Massive Floods  About 12,000 years ago an "ice dam" in what is now Idaho broke up every so often, unleashing the waters of a large lake in what is now western Montana, causing massive floods across much of what is now the state of Washington. (See http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/forge/missou.htm for a map of Lake Missoula and the "Channeled Scablands." You can do your own internet searches on "Lake Missoula" to gather relevant information. Here is an "offline" reference: Waitt, R.B., 1995, "Scores of gigantic, successively smaller Lake Missoula floods through channeled scabland and Columbia Valley," IN: Swanson, D. A. and Haugerd, R. A. (eds.), Geologic Field Trips in the Pacific Northwest, Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of America, Seattle, Washington, October 24-27, 1994, Volume 1, pp. 1K-1 to 1K-88.) Analogous meltwater floods also occured in Utah and the Snake River Canyon of Idaho (the Lake Bonneville flood), and in central Asia (some areas east of the Caspian Sea, for example), among other places.

On this topic, I have retained this email in my computer files:

The area was described mostly by J. Harlen Bretz. Bretz originally proposed a large flood theory to explain some unusual geological features in the area (i.e. streamless canyons at the top of drainage divides).

After much study it is now understood that the Cordilleran ice sheet dammed the Columbia River. This formed an immense glacial lake with an estimated volume of 500 cubic miles. When the ice dam burst the excaping water filled the waterways, then overflowed them and spilled over former drainage divides. It also created some huge mounds of streamed gravel which also contain some large boulders which were plucked from columnar basalt bedrock     by the high-velocity currents.

Later field work also found giant ripple marks which were made out of gravel. The ripple marks are so large that they are best described as small hills. Some are over 17 meters high with a wave length of about 170 meters.

At least 5 major catastrophic flood events occured in the general vicinity of the Channeled Scablands. The earliest was about the 30,000 years ago, and the last was between 18,000 and 13,000 years ago.

Overall, the Channeled Scablands are a well understood example of deposits and landforms associated with large floods. If a World Wide Flood happened then we should see features similar to those in the Scablands all over the world, but we do not. Just one more reason why the idea of a World Wide Flood is rejected by geologists.

Regards, Paul Blake [1/7/99, 22:21:27 -0500]

My point is that geologists know what massive floods look like, because truly massive floods have occurred as seen by the evidence that they have left that geologists have studied. No evidence of a global flood is found. This why people like David Mathews are so "bold" in their "assertions": They are not assertions.

Respectfully,
Todd S. Greene

The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out.  (Proverbs 18.15)

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of
the Lord is, there is freedom.  (2 Corinthians 3.17)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TomCouchman
1-17-00
What's not important, and what is

Brothers:

In itself, cosmic age is a pretty insignificant matter. However long the universe has been around, it hasn’t been here forever, but our souls are going to be somewhere forever, and on that eternal scale cosmic age by itself won’t have much weight.

What is important is how the creature-worship faith of evolutionism is being used to assault the law of God. Another example—if we needed another one—turned up this past weekend. I found a story on the subject in the Denver Post in an article written by Erica Goode of the New York Times. In a book called A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, due to be published in April, the authors contend that rape has played a positive part in human evolution; that, essentially, sexual assault is one of the characteristics that makes humans fit for survival. Their “logic,” as anyone who is familiar with the religion of evolutionism might have predicted, is the familiar selection tautology: “human males sometimes carry out rapes; human males are obviously fit to survive; therefore, rape is one of the behaviors that fits humans for survival.”

This thesis shows us where both the behavioral sciences and the way we handle criminal behavior are headed under the influence of Darwinism. If a behavior has helped us to survive, calling it “bad” or “unlawful” is not only unjustified, it may actually be dangerous to the continued survival of our race. After all, people only carry out rapes (or engage in homosexual acts, or commit whatever crimes you want to name) because these behaviors are coded in their genes. As more than one preacher in the church of evolutionism has pointed out, we don’t really make choices. All our behavior is manipulation by “the selfish gene” in its ongoing efforts to perpetuate itself.

It is almost amusing to watch the reaction by the most liberal, humanistic members of the social science community, who are, of course, appalled by this thesis. By the logic of evolutionism, however, they have nowhere to hide. As Daniel Dennett pointed out in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Darwinism is like an acid which inexorably eats away at every value, every notion of motivation, every law. “Right and wrong” cannot survive in the religion of evolutionism. And soon, very soon, we will see laws begin to be changed—either by the courts or by legislatures—to accommodate Darwinistic religion. Nothing will be “wrong” anymore; the only question will be, “will it help our genes perpetuate themselves?” And, of course, nobody knows the answer to that question. As a theory natural selection can be used to “prove” anything, but it has absolutely no predictive value. Those who survive, survive. Those who have the most offspring have the most offspring. That’s it.

For us, the challenge is to defeat this idolatry. I happen to think that the approach which has the most chance of success is to “disconnect” the age of the earth from a discussion of whether Darwinism is true, because a conclusion that the cosmos is very old—whether it ultimately turns out to be true or not—is very easy to reach when the facts are considered. Perhaps in time true science will show us that the cosmos is indeed quite young. Meanwhile, we have to keep sifting the evidence, acknowledging the facts, and challenging the evolutionistic faith. Always the task is daunting; at times it may seem overwhelming. But our Commander has conquered, and the hills are full of spirit-soldiers and chariots of fire!

Your brother,
Tom

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Couchman
1-17-00
Reply Farewell to this topic!

Brothers:

This will probably (I'm not good at making predictions) be my last post on this topic. My hopes have been met--the facts were presented, and interpretations of those facts were attempted from both YEC and OEC positions. Some good and challenging questions (at least to me!) have been raised by YECs. I have a much better appreciation of the issues with which I have to deal in order to feel that I have taken a consistent position which both honors the teaching of the Word of God and honestly handles God's creation.

Allan's original question was this:

"Is it true that a Christian, whose conscience requires him or her to take a long age position on the age of the earth, must be viewed as a theistic evolutionist or, worse, a crypto-evolutionist?"

I sincerely hope that neither the spirit with which I have presented my arguments nor the arguments themselves has led anyone to conclude that I am either a theistic evolutionist or a crypto-evolutionist. I would not take the other OEC participants in this discussion for either of those undesirable characters. Nor would I take the YECs who have posted to this thread to be "in denial" when it comes to science.

On the other hand, there is obviously a gap between us in terms of the way we handle data from the natural creation and the conclusions we draw about statements in scripture. My own suspicion is that over time both the findings of natural science and scholarship which deals with the teachings in Genesis will provide us with insights which will make that gap much narrower. I certainly hope so. I don't come out of this discussion with a conviction that either side has a monopoly on the truth.

Let us continue to contend for the faith of Jesus Christ, to be witnesses of His resurrection, and to handle our disagreements with mutual concern and with an eye towards edification.

Your brother,
Tom

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd S. Green
1-25-00
Re: What's not important, and what is

Hi, Tom.

I want to point out what I believe are significant philosophical problems with the approach that is implicit in your comments regarding "evolutionism" and Darwinism.

Please understand that I have absolutely no motivation for derogating you personally in any manner whatsoever. I preface my comments like this (again), because I do intend to be straightforward and forthright (even "passionate"!) in criticizing what I believe to be incorrect ideas, and even though I sincerely work hard to focus my comments on the ideas relevant to the context of discussion, I am occasionally taken as being antagonistic and offensive instead of thought-provoking. So I beg your indulgence to give me the benefit of the doubt that I genuinely intend to be provocative and not personally antagonistic, and thus I hope that my comments are considered in the spirit with which I write them. If you see in my comments any significant misunderstandings of your approach, please clarify my misunderstanding.

There are three points that I want to focus on from your two posts:

     1. Even if you were absolutely correct (that biological evolution implies behavioral determinism      and makes moral prescriptions), this would be irrelevant to considering whether or not biological      evolution is real or not.       2. In fact, biological evolution does not imply behavioral determinism and does not make moral      prescriptions.       3. While biological evolution is methodologically related to an ancient universe and an ancient      earth, with regard to the empirical and evidential details they are indeed &mdash; for the most      part &mdash; distinct subject areas. (I think you and I agree on this; I point it out here,      because I have had some young earth advocates try to dispute this with me and so I think it's      a relevant point to emphasize.)

(Please note that I do not at all discuss evolution per se in this post. I discuss only what I consider to be appropriate approaches to proper consideration of any topic from a truth-seeking perspective.)
 

Point #1 - Truth Does Not Depend On Our Feelings About It  Whether or not we like or dislike something about reality has absolutely no relevance to what reality is. Our personal desires are totally irrelevant to what the atomic structure of oxygen is, or to what meteorological events are as the effects of natural processes. To say, "I don't like that hurricane, and I don't want it to exist" does not change the facts of nature. Our feelings about the nature of reality are not what makes reality what it is. Reality is what it is regardless of how we feel about it. If that tornado in Kansas City has just destroyed your brother's home (a hypothetical example, though it did pass pretty close by my own brother's home there last year), your brother's personal travesty and how he feels about it (and how you feel about it) would be irrelevant to the "laws of nature."

This is a very critical point. I would think that all here would readily agree with me on this general principle &mdash; that truth does not depend on our feelings about it &mdash; and yet so often we see this particular kind of argument (for example) against biological evolution based on mere prejudice. Even if it was true that biological evolution implied things about reality that we considered to very undesirable and distasteful, so what? What would this have to do with whether it was true or not? The answer is: Absolutely nothing!

I take your reference to "theistic evolutionists" and "crypto-evolutionists" (Allan Turner's term; what's a crypto-evolutionist, anyway?) as "undesirable characters," as being "tongue in cheek" humor, but &mdash; please &mdash; let's keep in mind that we are discussing the sincerely held beliefs of people who have considered various aspects of reality and come to certain conclusions that they feel they are compelled to accept according to the dictates of intellectual honesty. (Hmmm... This reminds me of some old earthers I know about! [grin]) Such humor may not be entirely appropriate. Neal Buffaloe, a CoC congregational elder, and Archie Manis, a CoC congregational deacon, (as a couple of relevant examples) are theistic evolutionists, but this does not make them undesirable characters! Such prejudicial terminology is, in my opinion, inappropriate, both because it is incorrect and because it does not serve to promote clear-headed consideration of relevant points in the context of discussion. Indeed, how often is prejudicial terminology used by those who will not even tolerate unbiased consideration of whether or not the universe and the earth are ancient? ([grin] Not that there is anyone like that here in this discussion forum.)
 

Point #2 - "Evolutionism" Is Not Evolution  Does astronomy imply astrology? Does the general theory of relativity or quantum mechanics imply that everything is relative or up to chance so that our behavior does not have consequences and nothing we do really matters? I don't think so.

If I gather a whole lot of information regarding fossils of mammal-like reptiles, analyzing their physical similarities to fossils of the most primitive mammals, mapping out their temporal and geographic distributions, what does this have to do with whether or not I think it's okay to embezzle the company I work for? If I look at highly detailed genetic characteristics between various kinds of species and draw up charts based on hypothesized ancestral relationships based on genetic similarities and dissimilarities, what does this have to do with whether or not I beat my children? The answer is: Absolutely nothing!

To say that evolutionists (whether theistic or atheistic) are wedded to a particular kind of moral (or amoral) perspective because of their acceptance of the idea of biological evolution is totally incorrect. Where is the implication? Where is the connection? This is a complete non sequitur. This would be like saying, "Well, a hurricane is a law of nature, so if it kills my sister, it's supposed to be that way. Indeed, if the hurricane comes, we should not try to get out of its way because it is the fate that has been determined." If this seems nonsensical to you, that's because it is!

In "Good Genes: A Review of The Origins Of Virtue" (at http://reasonmag.com/9711/bk.hirshleifer.html), Jack Hirshleifer gives a pretty good overview of various relevant points when considering links between sociobiology and evolution. He points out as well that even such evolutionists as Richard Dawkins (an avowed atheist) make clear distinctions between what is in terms of scientific examination of the nature of reality (especially in the context of biological evolution) and what ought to be in the context of human values and human relationships.

I freely acknowledge that there are those who would use ideas from areas of biological evolution to develop particular kinds of moral perspectives (just as some use ideas from areas of astronomy when they develop their astrologies), but this is, again, not relevant to considerations of whether or not biological evolution is generally correct with regard to being a genuine aspect of reality. (Try travelling down the "memory lane" of history sometime by taking a look at some of the moral condemnations of the geocentrists in railing against heliocentrism!) Please recognize that you can thoroughly criticize "evolutionism" in this sense (rightly so, in my opinion), but in doing so you have said absolutely nothing about whether or not biological evolution is a factual process. "Evolutionism" and evolution are distinct, just as "the universe is ancient" is an idea that is distinct from the idea that "humans have apelike ancestors" or the idea that "mammals developed from reptiles."

Which leads me to...
 

Point #3 - Ancient Universe, Ancient Earth, & Biological Evolution Are Distinct  Tom, I completely agree with you that "digging into the details" regarding the age of the universe is separate from the age of the earth, and that both of these are in turn separate from biological evolution. Indeed, I have already made explicit comments here in the re:thinking forum about this, and that I think the ancient universe is the most direct information of all that young earth advocates really must deal with first and foremost. I have even commented that in my opinion it is quite ineffective to go on into discussing relatively less direct and more complex topics (such as evolution) when the people I am discussing things with have not demonstrated what I would call an appropriate consideration of the more direct and less complex topics. To make this a little more concrete: In my opinion, if someone can't even deal with what I think of as the relatively "simple" fact that SN1987a shows that the universe has been around for at least about 169,000 years, what hope is there for getting into the complexities of the isochron method of radiometric dating (geophysics); or for discussing the vagaries of fossilization (paleontology); or for discussing the basic concept in the context of genetics and natural selection of how a sophisticated biological structure like an eye (or bat echolocation) can evolve in the first place?

At the same time I thoroughly understand the fact that there is this prejudicial bias that exists "among the general populace" (so to speak) in the Church of Christ against anything that contradicts the tenets of young earth creationism and that considerations of an ancient earth are considered to be intimately connected with also accepting biological evolution (even though they are by nature distinct). I also understand that you, as someone who has accepted the idea that the universe and the earth are ancient but who rejects biological evolution, want to make sure that those you discuss the subject with properly understand these distinctions. These are proper distinctions, and people who discuss these topics should do so with these distinctions in mind.

Indeed, I have written elsewhere that young earth creationists in reality espouse the most extensive evolution of all &mdash; far more so than even evolutionists &mdash; when they promote the idea of "evolution within kinds" ("micro-evolution") giving the entire history of biological life on earth in only the last 6,000 years. [grin] But that's another discussion!

Sincerely and respectfully,  Todd S. Greene

The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out.  (Proverbs 18.15)

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of
the Lord is, there is freedom.  (2 Corinthians 3.17)
 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TomCouchman
1-25-00
Re: What's not important, and what is

Todd:

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I want to assure you I take absolutely no offense to anything you wrote. I am well aware of the philosophical underpinnings of my previous note. In the context of this forum, in which most of the participants are Christians, I did not think it expedient to be rigorous in my argument, taking it for granted that most of the participants and most people who would be interested in reading what I wrote would take certain philosophical assumptions as axiomatic. In a broader context, of course, those assumptions have to be argued. I do think my assertion that Darwinism leads ineluctably to the dissolution of moral consensus is absolutely correct. I will defend it briefly. I trust you will not find my defense of this proposition excessively antagonistic.

First, the peripheral matters.

1. YOUR POINT: The truth of evolution dies not depend on its moral consequences.

I agree. There are some interesting epistemological ramifications of the materialistic supposition as it relates to thought and reasoning, but I will not argue those at this point.

2. YOUR POINT: The truth of evolution does not depend on my finding it emotionally comfortable.

I agree. I simply felt no obligation to hide my personal distaste for Darwinism in this forum.

3. YOUR POINT: Biological evolution and the conclusion that the earth is ancient are methodologically related but evidentially distinct.

I completely agree.

4. “Theistic evolutionists” and “crypto-evolutionists” were Allan’s terms. I used them in response to his original questions. Regarding those who hold those positions as “undesirable characters” was implicit in Allan’s question (“…worse, crypto-evolutionists…”), but I regret using the term and apologize to anyone who was offended by it.

5. YOUR POINT: “Evolutionism” and “evolution” are distinct.

I totally agree. I have no objection to the assertion of change within the narrower phylogenic groupings such as families or genera—that is to say, I do not object to “evolution” per se. Speciation is demonstrable (although when observed instances of speciation are presented, as anyone who has read the pertinent Talk-Origins FAQ will attest, they are pretty disappointing). It is easy to show that most of the popular presenters of evolution—Dawkins, Dennett, Gould, Ruse, going back to Tielhard de Chardin—are in fact committed to philosophical naturalism: in effect, to the religion of evolutionism. It is evolutionism, not evolution, which these people are working so zealously to protect from serious scrutiny. True science, and the truly scientific findings which support limited change within families or genera, are not contrary to the teachings of scripture. Evolutionism and the creature-worship which is its teleos are idolatry, and they are contrary to the teachings of scripture.

6. Finally, to the main point: you claim that “biological evolution does not imply behavioral determinism.” I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “behavioral determinism,” but the way you pursue your argument implies that you mean, “biological evolution does not imply amorality.” Technically, you may have a tiny ledge on which to stand. Practically, I think you are completely mistaken.

Your tiny ledge is the possibility that there is a non-deterministic potential for individual choice, analogous to the non-deterministic nature of quantum physics: group behaviors may be determined by evolution, while individuals remain “free,” because behavior is statistical in the same sense that action among physical particles is statistical. But this “technicality” is irrelevant; it is being swept like a dry leaf before the overwhelming flood of the influence of evolutionism in the behavioral sciences.

The evolutionists themselves have understood this point for some time. Only lately have they been willing to say it out loud. Here is Douglas Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology:

“Darwin showed that material causes are a sufficient explanation not only for physical phenomena, as Descartes and Newton had shown, but also for biological phenomena with all their seeming evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Together with Marx's materialistic theory of history and society and Freud's attribution of human behavior to influences over which we have little control, Darwin's theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism --- of much of science, in short --- that has since been the stage of most Western thought.”

Here is Daniel Dennett in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea:

“Darwin's idea had been born as an answer to questions in biology, but it threatened to leak out, offering answers-- welcome or not--to questions in cosmology (going in one direction) and psychology (going in the other direction). If [design in biology] could be a mindless, algorithmic process of evolution, why couldn't that whole process itself be the product of evolution, and so forth all the way down? And if mindless evolution could account for the breathtakingly clever artifacts of the biosphere, how could the products of our own ‘real’ minds be exempt from an evolutionary explanation? Darwin's idea thus also threatened to spread all the way up, dissolving the illusion of our own authorship, our own divine spark of creativity and understanding.”

I can supply more quotes if you want, but I trust those are sufficient to show what they are preaching in the church of Darwin. What else is Darwinism about? If material causality suffices to account for all morphological features of living things, why will it not suffice to account for all behavioral features as well? What is the difference, in materialistic principle, between the mating dance of an insect and the dating behavior of a human being? Evolutionists claim, “absolutely none.” If they are right about Darwinism, they are right about that point as well. It is naïve of anyone to think this is not exactly where they are headed. It is naïve of anyone to think this perspective has not affected our legislators, our jurists, and popular perspectives on everything from adultery to divorce to homosexuality. And it is particularly naïve to think that, going forward, this effect is not going to become more and more pronounced, until and unless evolutionism is identified properly as a religion, its underlying suppositions are exposed and examined logically, and the stranglehold it has on the intellectual culture of the Western world is broken.

Evolutionary behavioral science says questions of “right” and “wrong” concerning behavior are as irrelevant and meaningless as if we asked them about physical characteristics. It isn’t “right” or “wrong” for humans to have two nostrils; they just do. It isn’t “right” or “wrong” for men to rape women; they just do. Furthermore, as the fellows who wrote the book referenced in my previous post argued, rape is somehow associated with the survival of the human race. Perhaps suppressing sexual assault is a mistake. Our species may depend on it. And if you allow the assumptions on which Darwinism is based, I can’t see that you have any contrary case to argue. Todd, find me one materialistic evolutionist—just one—who will deny the following proposition: “if morality interferes with racial survival, then morality has to go.”

Certainly Dawkins—who has a financial stake in being “popular”—may claim to “make clear distinctions between what is in terms of scientific examination of the nature of reality (especially in the context of biological evolution) and what ought to be in the context of human values and human relationships.” He can make that claim, but he is either reasoning in a very tight circle, or hoping you and I won’t notice (or he is being wicked--but I'd rather not consider that possibility). Do you think Dawkins would deny the proposition at the end of my previous paragraph?

Your comment: “To say that evolutionists (whether theistic or atheistic) are wedded to a particular kind of moral (or amoral) perspective because of their acceptance of the idea of biological evolution is totally incorrect. Where is the implication? Where is the connection? This is a complete non sequitur. This would be like saying, ‘Well, a hurricane is a law of nature, so if it kills my sister, it's supposed to be that way. Indeed, if the hurricane comes, we should not try to get out of its way because it is the fate that has been determined.’”

You’re right: comparing a hurricane to human behavior is a non sequitur ... unless Darwinism is true. Then it’s completely logical, and the non sequitur is that you don’t see it. Todd, please explain to me how a materialist can argue that the concept of God is a behavioral adaptation with a completely naturalistic cause, and then, with logical consistency, turn around and say, “Men shouldn’t rape women because it is morally wrong.”

By the way, C.S. Lewis’ book The Abolition of Man is an excellent treatment of this issue. So is Phillip Johnson’s Reason in the Balance.

Let’s not kid ourselves. Evolutionism is a faith, and its evangelists intend to bury all other faiths which proclaim allegiance to the Supernatural and replace those with faith in blind material causality; and, in the process, to bury all morality which is dependent on faith in the Supernatural and replace it with the imperative of racial survival. Todd, if you agree with that previous sentence, you can’t claim that biological evolution is morally neutral. And if you don’t agree with that sentence, you had better start trying to convince Dennett, Dawkins, Ruse, Futuyma et al; you’re disagreeing with them, not just with me!

Your brother,
Tom

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allanita
1-27-00
Re: Facts on the table--comments on Allan's Response

Tom,

No clairvoyance was involved. The "10 facts" you placed on the table receive their force from the assumptions of classic uniformitarianism. What was I supposed to think? I'm not trying to offend you in this. I'm just trying to honestly engage you and your ideas, attempting to demonstrate that, without your uniformitarian assumptions, the "10 facts" aren't nearly as compelling as you and other OECs seem to think.

You're demanding that I demonstrate "exactly" how the flood produced "the phenomenon observed." However, isn't "exactly" a bit too much to ask of either catastrophism or uniformitarianism, as neither explains all phenomena, and both continue to exhibit a constant state of flux? Nevertheless, John Baumgardner, who I mentioned in a previous post, with his runaway subduction theory, seems like a good candidate for doing what you ask. In addition, and I'm sure you know this, YECs have been effectively, although not completely, shut out of the scientific establishment. This happens because many evolutionists are understandably reluctant, from their standpoint, to sponsor creationist Ph.D. candidates for fear of the professional embarrassment that might result under certain circumstances. So, it is interesting to me that while creationists are still being looked upon with disdain by many of the gatekeepers of the educational/scientific establishment, you ask for a unified creationist theory that explains all the data, something even uniformitarianism has failed to do. When, and if, YECs are given time and opportunity, they may still produce a catastrophic explanation that will satisfy even your exacting standards. But for the many OECs who believe the term "scientific creationism" is an oxymoron, such could never happen, not even in 4.6 billion years! Incidentally, I see the current debates taking place among creationists as healthy, as it shows a maturing that should be welcomed as a positive, rather than a negative, thing. Lastly, your charge that most YECs have a "blind-faith adherence to a single deluge as the explanation for all of geology" needs to be documented. Frankly, I believe it to be just one of those baseless charges that always seem to float around in discussions of this sort.

Now, in the space remaining, I'll make a few selected comments about your response to my original reply.

1. THE SEDIMENTARY ROCKS

If you've read Baumgardner, you know that he is not arguing that all geological history was created in a "single year." In fact, he writes of changes that would have taken place over attendant centuries. So, cutting-edge YECs are not claiming everything took place in a single year, and informed OECs ought to know it. I notice that you demand from me "a detailed explanation" of all these things. Am I to do this before, or after, you do the same thing?

2. RIVER MOUTH SEDIMENTS

Again, you now ask for a "detailed flood-dependent explanation for the river-mouth sediments." Again, I ask, am I to do this before or after you do the same? If I were to do so, would you not continue to critique the whole process from your uniformitarian time perspective, and if so, what good would it do?

3. CORAL REEFS

I'm glad you're willing to concede the possibility that reefs could be younger than classical geology maintains. However, you are then careful to point out that the catastrophic explanation does not resolve "all the issues." And uniformitarianism does?

4. CLAY VARVES

No one is claiming that quick deposition is the only way fossilization may take place, only that it is the most reasonable explanation for much of the fossil record. The theoretical scenario you propose might be possible, but we don't know it's happened, do we? Unless, of course, the Green River Formation is an example, and if I were a die-hard uniformitarian, that's what I'd be claiming. On the other hand, if I were a reluctant OEC, I might be inclined to think there might be something fishy here (and yes, the pun is intended). I know what uniformitarians think about the formation of the varves (if that's what they really are) at the Green River Formation, and I think I made this clear in my first reply. Nevertheless, the attendant fossils of the Green River Formation, like polystrates elsewhere, seem to speak to a much more rapid process than classical geologists suppose.

5. EVAPORITE VARVES

It may be that I'm totally confused about evaporites. It was my understanding that, by the classical definition, evaporites occurred by long-continued evaporation from inland seas or lakes containing saline waters. Are we to assume that all this evaporation would have taken place without a dry, dusty climate for thousands of years? In other words, these lakes or seas didn't exist apart from the rest of the world, did they? Therefore, a remark about climate seemed appropriate. If it's not, then I stand ready to admit my misunderstanding of the supposed process. However, several alternatives have been set forth. I mentioned one in my previous reply, which you reject, so I'll give you another one to think about. The possibility of direct precipitation of evaporites has been shown in laboratory experiments (Omar H. Roup, "Brine Mixing: An Additional Mechanism for Formation of Basin Evaporites," Bulletin, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Vol. 54, December 1970, p. 2258):

 "The following conclusions are based on the results of three brine experiments and their relations to a geologic model.
1.Salt precipitation can occur in a marine evaporite basin by mixing brines of different compositions and specific gravity.
2.Precipitation occurs without further loss by evaporation.
3.Precipitation can occur from brines that were undersaturated before mixing."
 

8. IGNEOUS ROCK INTRUSIONS

Again, the it-must-have-all-taken-place-in-a-single-year argument is, I think, just not valid.

9. SEA FLOOR SPREADING

John Baumgardner, I think, is on the right track, and even though Hill doesn't think much of his tectonic computer model, claiming he's just trying to make pigs fly, it occurs to me that OECs are pretty good at putting wings on their own pigs.

10. RADIOISOTOPIC DATING

Yes, if all the assumptions you've made about the uniformitarian assumptions of a steady decay rate are correct, then Earth would have been a very unpleasant place for the sons and daughters of Eve, as you've pointed out. The question is: Are your assumptions correct? Frankly, the erratic results of this form of dating does not bode well for your position.

OTHER STUFF

You are absolutely correct that a statement about the earth being 4.6 billion years old is not really a statement about evolution. This is what was so amusing to me when the evolutionist I mentioned told me that this was the one thing he knew to be true about evolution. In other words, in making this statement, he was admitting that there was not even one thing he knew to be true about macroevolution. However, in the creation/evolution controversy, billions of years have been seen as necessary for macroevolution to take place. As creationists, you and I know that even billions of years does not aid the evolutionists' argument. Nevertheless, because of the evolutionists' propaganda, creationists have felt the necessity of attacking the billions of years history of the earth. This, I think, is one of the major reasons YECs have erroneously seen OECs as being in league with the evolutionists. This is a mistake, and I've tried to make it clear from the very beginning of this discussion that I did not think OECs are in league with macroevolutionists. To my knowledge, not one YEC on this discussion board has made such a charge. Therefore, and contrary to what you seem to think, the YECs posting on this thread did not need to "grasp that point," as you put it. However, the crux of this discussion has been over the validity of claims by you OECs that earth history "is" billions of years old. To me, the "is" sounds like a very bold assertion, whether it comes from an evolutionist or an OEC.

ON THE AGE OF THE EARTH AS A TEST OF FELLOWSHIP

I have clearly stated my hope that this issue, per se, will not become a test of fellowship. However, I have no doubt that it will continue to be a hotly contested subject among God's people for many more years.

Brotherly,
Allan

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Couchman
1/27/00
Re: Facts on the table--comments on Allan's Response

Allan:

Thank you for the further response (to my response, etc...). I am not going to respond further to your further response to my ... oh, never mind! I think you deserve to have the "last word" on the current thread of this discussion. Those who are interested in weighing the facts can consider your arguments and those of other YECs, and what the OECs have had to say, and decide which do a better job of accounting for the facts.

I did want to make two points, not to "respond" but to explain. First, as to why I challenged you to account for the phenomena as the result of a one-year flood. Your original response to the ten points of evidence contained this sentence:

"If you claim, as many do, that these fossils are plainly the result of localized catastrophic events, then why can't you entertain the idea that these may be the result of one catastrophic event—the Flood?"

So I assumed that your position was the same as many YECs--that "flood geology" accounts for all the geological history of the earth. Obviously the YEC position is much stronger if geology is concluded to be the result of many catastrophes--and a few million years instead of a few thousand would make the YEC position even more credible, without giving up much to the evolutionists.

Second, there are "detailed explanations," and then there are "detailed explanations"... if you know what I mean. It is unreasonable to expect anybody to explain something that happened when no one was around to see it down to the last grain of sediment. Yet, a whole lot of YEC explanations have amounted to this: "The flood did it ... somehow." That doesn't give me anything to work with, as I'm sure you can see. And when the YECs do get down to detail, their details don't seem to interpret the facts very well--see my other post on the difference between fact and interpretation. On the other hand, when OECs do supply detailed explanations of phenomena, the YEC riposte is: "How can you make such bold statements about things nobody ever saw."

I do very deeply appreciate your constructive attitude, your willingness to engage contrary discussions, and your management of this forum. I am thankful to have a chance to participate in these discussions. Please keep up the good work!

Your brother,
Tom

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Vondracek
(2/12/00 5:12:37 pm)
The Age of the Earth

Perhaps all of us who have taken an interest in this discussion out to stop, step back and consider that while God was creating the physical universe (Gen 1-2), He was also creating TIME...day by day (yom).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
allanita
(2/14/00 9:40:21 pm)
Final Remarks

I have decided it is time to close this thread to any further posts. This means the forum will still be available for reading, but the lock will prevent any further posting.

From my perspective, the discussion was interesting and informative. Admittedly, it was not exactly the discussion I had intended. I thought more young earth creationists (YECs) would show up, as they had been invited to do so. Perhaps they did not like the framework in which the discussion was cast, which was that old earth creationists (OECs), by definition, are not theistic evolutionists, and should not be referred to as such by YECs.

Although I remain convinced that OECs are wrong on the age of the earth, and in some cases have stepped over the line in their defense of their doctrine and, therefore, ought to repent, nevertheless, I believe OECs ought to be fairly and accurately represented by YECs. As we all know, it is far too easy to construct theoretical straw men and then rip them to shreds with the force of our arguments, but there is certainly nothing right nor honorable about doing so.

Not once have I said or implied that OECism per se is heresy. For some radical YECs, my determination not to make OECism a test of fellowship may itself be suspect. Those who read here must come to their own conclusions, but I remind you of your obligation to judge righteous judgment (John 7:24).

Hill Roberts makes excellent and powerful arguments against biological evolution and I am pleased he does so. However, I remain convinced his uniformitarianism is flawed, causing him to make forced interpretations of Scripture that make me very uncomfortable. I believe his approach, although intellectually honest, is fraught with danger for those who hear him, as some of these may lose confidence in the Scriptures as the infallible Word of God. Hill Roberts' attempt to equate "natural revelation" and "special revelation" exalts his and other scientists' interpretation of "natural revelation" to the status of the 67th book of the Bible. I know he denies doing this, but I remain convinced that this is exactly what he does. The rea