Re: YEC refutation

From: David Bradford <>
Date: Wed Jun 15 2005 - 17:16:01 EDT

When Young Earth Creationists read the first creation account in Genesis,
they put all the emphasis on 'what God did', rather than what God created
man to do. In doing so, they ignore the key piece of information that is
right at the heart of the description of the sixth 'day'. Within Genesis
1:28, are God's words to mankind: FILL THE EARTH AND SUBDUE IT; (I'm not
shouting, I've just lost my formatting toolbar and the ability to apply
italic). To subdue the earth is a tall order, and the only realistic way for
man to achieve it is by the kind of knowledge that is hard-won through
science. That is proper science; the kind that operates within the 'rigorous
scientific methodology' that Randy Isaac has recently written about (Bias in
Science, Parts 1 to3).

For me, one of the most convincing aspects of real science is the way it
often permits of reasoned extrapolation to describe additional behaviours
that have not been, and cannot be experienced directly. There are many
examples, but the one that impresses me more than most is the calculated
forecast that certain fissile materials will have a critical mass sufficient
to sustain a chain reaction of neutron-induced nuclear fission. The results
were, of course, both useful power generation and nuclear weapons. Nobody
had ever seen either before, and it took real science to recognise the
possibility. This then is one approach you could take to refute the YEC
position. I mean, has a practising YEC ever contributed new knowledge by
rationalising and correctly forecasting something that cannot be experienced
directly? As far as I am aware, the YEC approach is generally either to
misrepresent the work of others, or to insist the text of the Bible is
infallible. They could, of course, ask the Jews how to interpret Genesis. It
is after all in their stewardship and written in their language.

There is another argument. If man is to subdue the earth by acquiring
knowledge, why would God pave every step of the way with false leads? Why
would He give man a perceptive mind equal to the task, only to pull the rug
out from under him at every opportunity? He wouldn't. God is not only not
that malicious, He is not malicious at all. Scientific truth is exactly what
is appears to be according to the scientific method. I know it has been said
before, but the Bible is not primarily a science text. It is a set of
guidelines on how we are meant to behave within the context of the creation
and the self-enforced withdrawal of the Creator.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Carol or John Burgeson" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 4:37 PM
Subject: YEC refutation

> I've been thinking (a painful process) more about the YEC claims in my
> last post.
> The problem is -- the typical person has no way to evaluate them. To him
> (or her) it comes down to two opposing "scientific" viewpoints. One has
> the appearance of being biblically supported. No contest.
> Is there ONE argument that can be used to show clearly and convincingly
> to a nonscientific person that the earth really really is much older than
> a few thousand years?
> Something that can be looked up -- verified?
> One such argument goes something like this:
> 1. Almanacs give data on coal and oil production over the past -- say --
> 100 years.
> 2. This is business data. It is verifiable. Factual. No arguments
> possible.
> 3. All coal and oil deposits ever found and analyzed show that they
> originate with organic (pre-living) plants and animals. No exceptions.
> 4. There is a way to measure the biomass that produced these deposits.
> 5. There is too much biomass to have been produced in only a few thousand
> years.
> 6. Therefore (1) either God produced the deposits and made them look like
> biomass had produced them, or (2) many more years than a few thousand
> took place to produce them.
> 7. Since (1) is sort of flaky (like the Gosse theory), (2) must be true.
> 8. Therefore the earth is much more than a few thousand years old.
> Comments? I tried once to quantify the above argument; it seemed
> reasonable at the time.
> Burgy
> 2.9979 x 10**8 m/s, is not just a good idea, it's the law.
Received on Wed Jun 15 17:18:02 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 15 2005 - 17:18:07 EDT