Re: ICR/AIG claims

From: Dick Fischer (
Date: Sat Sep 13 2003 - 11:27:56 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: My daughter is a YEC"

    Bill Payne wrote:

    >I don't know much about oil, but I am studying coal. I am collecting
    observations of geologists from the literature which cannot be explained
    within the swamp model for coal, but do fit the transported (flood) model.

    You miss the point. You need the raw material from which coal and oil can
    be derived. You can't get 400 million years of organic material in 1600 years.

    >Incidentally, your "observation" re coal and oil is an interpretation,
    not an observation. Observations are things we can see, and you cannot see
    what might have accumulated "between the creation and the flood."

    We can observe the rate of growth of vegetation and impute that rate over
    1600 years. Perfectly legitimate.

    >But let me give you a few real observations, and you respond with the
    swamp model explanation.

    "Waterworn pebbles of banded coal often occur in the base of the overlying
    sandstone and, according to a few specimens which were examined for
    microfossil content, they appear to have been derived from the Pittsburgh
    coal itself. It is very difficult to explain how such coal pebbles could
    have been loosened from a coal seam, then so recently deposited, and become
    waterworn and then have been redeposited in the first sandstone to be laid
    down such a short time later. By the time of reworking, the peat deposit
    must have been advanced in rank at least to the stage of lignite for the
    pebbles are normal banded, have well developed cleat and usually retained
    their basic shape even though they very often lie at some angle to the
    bedding plane of the underlying coal or shale."

    From: Cross, A.T., 1952. The geology of the Pittsburgh coal: stratigraphy,
    petrology, origin and composition, and geologic interpretation of mining
    problems. Second Conference of the Origin and Constitution of Coal, 75.

    This is typical YEC obscuration. You can't refute the issue, so you cloud
    the issue. What I gave were ten reasons the earth had to be ancient and
    could not be a recent creation. If you want to play you should find ten
    reasons why the earth has to be young and can't be old. Can't find
    ten? Okay, find one. Can't find any? Okay, reflect, recant and repent.

    This is why YEC appears to be a cult. No amount of irrefutable data will
    defer committed YEC's from their mission of misinformation.

    This is what I said in my book, <>The Origins Solution:

    "Why not reach out to those dear ones in brotherly love, and show them
    gently the abundant evidence for an old earth? If we just present all the
    data, they will see the errors of their ways and come to
    enlightenment. Right? Try it!

    If you tell them about the speed of light and the billions of light years
    between earth and distant galaxies, they will tell you the speed of light
    may have changed. Demonstrate that radiometric dating confirms the ages of
    rocks to billions of years, and they respond there is no way to know how
    much decay element God put in when He created the earth in the first place.

    Explain that it takes millions of years for caves to form stalactites and
    massive columns, and they will contend there are stalactites under the
    Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. Show young earthers 150 million
    years of dinosaur history, and you will learn about the angler in South
    Africa who landed a coelacanth in 1938.

    Talk about the layers worn by water erosion in the red wall of the Grand
    Canyon where those particular layers were once on the earth's surface, and
    prepare to hear that sub-aqueous water seepage could have caused it.

    Point out that there are layers of salt evaporite deposits, hundreds of
    feet thick, well beneath the earth's surface, covered by sedimentary rock
    they say was laid down by the flood, and they will respond that underground
    volcanoes may have boiled the water beneath the earth's surface,
    evaporating the salt out of the sea water in the midst of a raging, global

    Get the pattern? No matter what evidence, or what bit of data, or what
    undeniable fact is presented proving the earth is old - and any answer, no
    matter how incongruous, or how cockamamie, or how illogical, will suffice."

    Look in the mirror, Bill, this is you.

    Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
    Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 13 2003 - 11:32:08 EDT