Re: Re: YEC defined

Allen Roy (
Mon, 22 Mar 1999 22:43:19 -0700

> And tell me why was Abel keeping flocks prior to the command to Noah
> eating meat? Not just for wool and milk I'd venture since it's pretty
> that Cain and Abel are presenting YHWH with their produce. This little
> anomaly is hard to explain if Genesis is a solely unitary account. If
it's a
> disparate document then there's no conflict within the sources, just
> them, a conflict the Redactor didn't seem overly fussed by.

Only Cain was trying to present to God the results of his work. That is
why his offering was not accepted. Able presented the lamb because it
represented the substitution of a life for a life which was required by the
demands of sin. Cain was trying to place his own works are par with the
life for a life. He was trying to earn salvation, rather than accept it as
a gift. Not only is Genesis a unitary account, the whole of the BIble is a
unitary account by the Holy Spirit, teaching the same thing from begining
to end. Salvation is by faith in God who provides a life for a life. This
is the unifying tread that ties the Bible together.

Eating meat may have occured and become more widespread over time after the
fall. At the time of Cain and Able it may not have even yet been
considered. The presentation of the offerings had nothing to do with food
but rather with accepting God's salvation or trying to do it on your own.

> Eh? How is this relevant to animal predation? And there's no Biblical
> support for that animal's death being a sacrifice - that's a later
> and it makes no difference to the symbolism that might've been.

Symbolism is the primary thing! The covering up of their nakedness was
symbolism of their sinfulness and the need to put on the righteousness of
their substitute sacrifice. The death of that sacrifice showed the horror
of the results of sin. If death was a common, ordinary thing in nature at
that time then the sacrifice would have had little significance.

> Talk about non-literal... isn't any of Genesis real History? This is a
> classic case of building on a reading back into the text. What animal
> for their s[k]ins? The Bible is silent. Was it a lamb? Unknown.

Of course it is real history, but the sacrifice of the animal (most likely
a lamb because of consistancy in the Bible), while real, had very important
symbolic significance. The sacrifice of Jesus was a very real historical
event, by which we obtain life by the symbolic substitution of Jesus life
for our own sinful life.

> > Because the parents have a broken relationship with God, the
> >children will also, automatically have a broken relationship with God.
> Contra Ezekiel's fulminations against such a view. "The soul that sins
> die" NOT "the father drinks vinegar and the children's teeth ar set on
> edge". From a Genesis view it's because they don't eat the Tree that they
> die.

This is not contrary to Ezekiel at all. Ezekiel is saying that each person
is responsible for his own relationship with God and no one elses. This
has nothing to do with the lack of a relationship with God which we all
inherit simply because we are human. We all start out as sinners and we
are all responsible only for ourselves in accepting or rejecting the life
for a life salvation offered. The father may accept, the son reject. The
father may reject and the son accept. Each is his own person. Choosing to
eat from the Tree was simply symbolic of the choice they had already made.
Just as baptism is simply a symbolic, outward show of the choices one has
already made in their heart (mind).

> Don't be ridiculous. The Bible gives very little detail so we've got to
> at the rocks. What's seen? Features exactly consistent with known
> not global cataclysms. It's worthless arguing this point with you because
> you can always go back to the taunt of "you weren't there so you can't
> know - nyah!"

The point is that just because a feature seems to fit current processes,
that does not mean that that is the ONLY explanation for that feature. Our
experience has not been one of global catastrophes, so how can we say that
global catastrophes cannot also produce such features.

> >While it is logical to compare the present with the past, that does not
> >mean that the past can only be explained in terms of the present
> >situations.
> >
> Of course not. Catastrophes have occurred and no one sensibly can claim
> other wise, but that they caused the entire Phanerozoic geological record
> a year is hardly reasonable and thermodynamically absurd - as our own
> Morton has shown at his web-site and in various papers to the CRSQ.

As I just posted on another topic, most thermodynamic proposals do not take
into consideration enough information and therby likely overlook features
which would reduce the proposed problems.

> >If only the earth were hit at a certain time, then you would be right.
> >However, I reject all radiometric dating as pseudo-science.
> >
> On what basis? All YEC arguments against it are known to be fallacious.

On the basis that the data obtained invalidates the assumptions required
for the hypothesis to work:

"[assumption 3] The radiogenic argon measured in a sample was produced by
in situ decay of 40K in the interval since the rock crystallized or was
recrystallized. Violations of this assumption are not uncommon."

"[assumption 5] The sample must have remained a closed system since the
event being dated. ... Departures from this assumption are quite common,
particularly in areas of complex geological history,..."

Geochronology and thermochronology by the 40Ar/39Ar Method, by Ian
McDougall, 1988. pp. 11, 12.

These are shortened quotes. I am working on a paper which deals in detail
with the full text of these quotes to be published and likely posted here

The point is, that despite the falsification of the assumptions of the
hypothesis of radiometric dating, the hypothesis remains unscathed. And,
as is illustrated so well in this book, the data is modified to fit the
hypothesis. I call that pseudo-science.

> >You're kidding! Right?! If one assumes Special Creation rather than
> >abiogenesis, why would anything change? The exploration of RNA and how
> it works would still be a fascinating and exhaustive study.
> It would never have started. Assume evolution can't happen and you won't
> look for it in RNA. It does happen and they found it because they
> it MUST have evolved.

All Creationist accept genetic variation, which is based upon DNA, RNA and
all that. Learning how genetic variation works would have been just as
much of a driving force as any other.

> How many times have I heard YECs rave on about "variations being already
> present in the species" and "no bebeficial mutations are known". You're a
> big surprise.

When breeders develop new strains, to who's benefit are they concerned.
The benefit of the species or their for their own benefit?

> Those species represent major transitions between 2 classes of
> and two primate families. Would anyone have bothered looking for such
> without evolution? No.

These fossil finds are interpreted to be transitions because of the
evoutionism. Would they have been looked for as interpreted transitions in
a Catastrophist scenerio? No. Would they have been interpreted as further
representatives of interesting life forms that lived prior to the flood?
Yes. It is a matter of focus.

> Raymond Dart would've dismissed _Australopithecus_ as
> just an ape,

Just an ape? Is any of God's creatures JUST anything. It would still have
been an inportant, interesting find.

> Gingerich wouldn't have got a grant to dig around ancient
> Tethyan shores

The Tethyan shores would likely be interpreted as part of the intricate
deposition of the Flood catastrophe. It would have been just as important
to explore that stage of the Flood as any other. Grants by Creationary
philanthropic organizations would likely be just as forcoming.

> and Jenny Clack would never have wondered much about an odd
> amphibian.

An odd amphibian would be a facinating study on variation on a theme by the

> If a bat is just a bat, or a fish is just a fish, with no order
> then it wouldn't matter much where it was dug up.

Perhaps so, in terms of supposed phyologentic order. But they might help
in interpreting the events of the flood catastrophe.

> Really? Mercury's precession has no Newtonian explanation now that
> and solar asymmetries have been ruled out by observation. It is perfectly
> consistent with General Relativity though, as are a multitude of other
> observations without any possible Newtonian explanation. The red-shift,
> elemental abundancies and so on have [currently] no viable non-Big Bang
> explanation.

This is astronomy, it has nothing to do with evolution.

> Research is guided and interpreted by the leading paradigm, and
> every competitor must explain what the old already covers, as well as
> explain the anomalies that have cast doubt on the old, to truly replace
> YECism generally does no such thing for many phenomena.

Research is guided and interpreted by the paradigm of the researcher. That
paradigm may or may not be in accord with the leading paradigm. The
interpretation should indeed explain what is known and provided explantion
for anomalies. However, that interpretation may be quite contrary to the
leading interpretations.

> It has less
> explanatory power - how does it explain the radiometric data? Those
> isotopic ratios are real, but there's no consistent and broad-ranging YEC
> alternative, and no real explanation of supposed anomalies.

I have no problem with the fact that radiometric elements decay into
'daughter' elements. Nor, with the deriving of ratios of those elements
from a sample. The question comes, 'What do these ratios mean?' Where as
the evolutionist interprets those ratios as meaning the lapse of time, the
Creationist simply recognize them as constituent elements in an
igneous rock which may be of use in connecting rocks with sources.