tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5909650308906447461.post7057447918264484903..comments2023-04-10T07:51:42.950-04:00Comments on Reformed Reactions: A Response From an Embarrassingly Ignorant Young Earth CreationistJim Pembertonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5909650308906447461.post-37732172487153499372016-06-16T10:42:35.766-04:002016-06-16T10:42:35.766-04:00Actually, there is reason to doubt the accuracy of...Actually, there is reason to doubt the accuracy of dating techniques. They rely on some pretty significant assumptions. Just to name a few of the bigger ones:<br /><br />1. It requires the assumption that the resultant ion was not present at the inception of the substance being radiometrically dated. If there were any resultant ion present in the sample, than all bets are off.<br /><br />2. It requires a relative continuity of the passage of time on a subatomic level. There are problems with this as quantum physics is based on massive temporal shifts on the quantum level.<br /><br />3. The statistics are dubious given the extremely small sample size represented as a relatively short period of time extrapolated out to millions of years. Any small deviation would throw the date off significantly.<br /><br />4. We have to assume that God created only using natural processes. In other words, in order to claim that the results are in any way revealing, we have to claim that God didn't work a miracle to create the universe. Lets say we test the wine that Jesus made at the wedding at Cana. What would it reveal as far as the age of the wine? Good wine is well-aged. Yet this was created in a moment. You can't detect a miracle using only natural means.<br /><br />Therefore, the "appearance" of age is actually not based on a rock-solid scientific foundation. Having said that, you have to define what it means to appear old. Is the science adequate to give us that definition?Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5909650308906447461.post-37863891511591269342016-06-16T09:39:56.917-04:002016-06-16T09:39:56.917-04:00"What difference does Craig see in the scienc..."What difference does Craig see in the science that he feels supports an old earth and the science that is used to support evolution? From a scientific standpoint, they are equally unscientific if for no other reason than they have not been observed and cannot be tested."<br /><br />How can mere measurements be unscientific? Do you have reason to doubt the accuracy of the dating techniques in this age of technology and great scientific advances. The earth appears old. Even the YEC affirm that. Maybe it's because it is old. After all, why would God trick us with a creation that appears old when it isn't. This seems grossly out of character. BTW, I am a Christian and do not believe in macroevolution. I also find Bill Dembski's these quite compelling on the retroactive view of the fall of Adam. I do believe in a literal Adam and Eve and original sin. Stan Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02621350687225137626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5909650308906447461.post-46965652983705548882016-06-16T05:49:12.767-04:002016-06-16T05:49:12.767-04:00It also seems that many old-earth creationists for...It also seems that many old-earth creationists forget that General Revelation or God's 'Book of Nature', is limited to observations that are the same for all people through all of time. So while all can wonder and learn from the night sky as seen by the human eye, scientific observations from the Hubble telescope in the 21st century don't count.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15120119828800352044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5909650308906447461.post-44136559336623426982015-09-01T13:09:08.072-04:002015-09-01T13:09:08.072-04:00The good news is that I don't have to re-inven...The good news is that I don't have to re-invent the wheel here. Here are a couple of lists:<br /><br />The first, from Creation Ministries is a <a href="http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth" rel="nofollow">fairly long list</a>.<br /><br />Not all of those are the best evidences. Answers in Genesis has a <a href="https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/the-10-best-evidences-from-science-that-confirm-a-young-earth/" rel="nofollow">short list of the best evidences</a>.<br /><br />There is value in evidence. However, evidence is necessarily limited epistemologically to likelihoods. One's initial assumptions govern the method for calculating the likelihood of any scientific test or analysis of data. Unless one is capable of analyzing the data from all possible points of view, then one must mitigate confidence in the figures based on his or her own bias. If one were able to calculate likelihoods from all possible biases, then one's confidence would be mitigated by the uncertainty of which bias is the correct one. The only one who doesn't need an epistemology of discovery is the One who generates all knowledge.<br /><br />The honest thing is to be explicit about one's bias. My personal bias is that I start with the One who gives us both a special revelation of himself that is approached only through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the known historical context of the human authorship of that revelation, as well as natural revelation that can be approached through scientific and similar organic enterprises. The former is limited only by our level of sanctification and the latter is limited as I have outlined above.Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5909650308906447461.post-91993501522892184152015-09-01T12:23:39.836-04:002015-09-01T12:23:39.836-04:00Where is the scientific evidence for a young earth...Where is the scientific evidence for a young earth?Stan Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02621350687225137626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5909650308906447461.post-80164261837397890862013-08-20T14:09:54.921-04:002013-08-20T14:09:54.921-04:00IssacharLogos,
Condescending much? Why do non-YEC ...IssacharLogos,<br />Condescending much? Why do non-YEC ignore the fact that there is a consistent hermeneutic that easily answers the questions you ask?Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5909650308906447461.post-51510258511582254002013-08-19T17:27:10.201-04:002013-08-19T17:27:10.201-04:00Jim why do YEC ignore the fact the earth is alread...Jim why do YEC ignore the fact the earth is already created and present in verse two of Genesis? There is never a creation day described for the creation of the earth or all of the chemical elements and molecules that it consists of. Also in Job 38 God describes the angels singing as he makes the earth using a process of measuring and laying a cornerstone. Thus, the angels were created and eath was fashioned before the first day "let there be light" ever occurs. This renders the discussion about solar days irrelevant. It also discredits the attempt to add genealogies up to set a date for creation. So the embarrassing is part is that YEC seem to prefer a tradition to the scripture, you don't need science to see the error of young earthism - it is an embarrassment.IssacharLogoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09561504832085586498noreply@blogger.com