Re: [asa] RATE's Radioactive Thorium Plot (was Ancient Universe)

From: Robert Schneider <>
Date: Sun May 20 2007 - 11:35:23 EDT

Iain, I fully agree that YECs generally make distorted interpretations of the Bible to fit their theories. In my forthcoming essay on YEC, I make that point in detail. Far more than exposing the distortions in their scientific assertions, we need to expose the way they manipulate and distort Scripture. They show no respect for the literal sense of biblical texts, and thus they do a great disservice to the Bible that they claim to be defending.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Iain Strachan
  To: Robert Schneider
  Cc: Steven M Smith ; George Murphy ; Michael Roberts <> ;
  Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 4:10 AM
  Subject: Re: [asa] RATE's Radioactive Thorium Plot (was Ancient Universe)

  On 5/20/07, Robert Schneider <> wrote:
    Thanks, Steve for this detailed response to our comments, and thanks to you, too, Iain, for the informative graphs. The RATE team has explained why the 6,000 year date is not a hypothesis to be tested, because we have God's word on the matter. However, a careful reading of Genesis 1:1-8 yields no information that God produced accelerated radioactive decay during creation days 1 and 2. Thus, it seems to me hypothetical to claim that this happened. How would they test this hypothesis?

  On a more general point, it seems to me that Young Earthers have to make up arbitrary hypotheses and distorted interpretations of the Bible to make their theories fit. One that I've swapped emails with recently has suggested that he is "Old Earth/Young life" - that the radioisotope records suggest an old earth (I'd challenged him on Oklo), but that life and creation week were 6000 years ago. I pointed out that "Let there be light" was a command issued on Day 1, but if there had been just rocks decaying merrily away for billions of years then light must have existed before that ( glowing molten larva, and also Cerenkov radiation whenever radioactive decay particles pass through water giving a blue glow). His response was astonishing. He said that the interpretation of "Let there be light" was that God created THAT bit of light for the purpose of illuminating the earth. Apparently I was being too literal in my interpretation of "Let there be light". He therefore had no problems with light existing for billions of years before Day 1.

  For my self, I prefer to stick to the literalist interpretation. "Let there be light" (just two simple words in Hebrew- yehiy awr) really does mean what it says. It doesn't say "let there be some light (before we get the sun-reactor online)". In providing their own twisted interpretation, they have robbed the text of so much of its meaning ( e.g. the beginning of the continuing metaphor between light and enlightenment, going right through to Rev 21:23).


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun May 20 11:36:01 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun May 20 2007 - 11:36:03 EDT