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

From: Iain Strachan <>
Date: Sun May 20 2007 - 12:11:10 EDT

On 5/20/07, Robert Schneider <> wrote:
> 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.

Yes, this is the supreme irony of the whole thing! This friend of mine
wants to be a biblical literalist, and yet it appears I'm much more of a
biblical literalist than he is. Or at least I want to read the intended
meaning of the text. My understanding is that "Yehiy awr w'yehiy awr" means
something like BE - light and WAS - light. With it stripped down to the
bare bones, just a repeated two word phrase in the Hebrew connected by a
"w" (and) , it's hard to see how you're meant to take it other than that
light came into existence at that point.

> Bob
> ----- 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).
> -----

After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun May 20 12:11:32 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun May 20 2007 - 12:11:33 EDT