Re: [asa] YEC--What can we offer them?

From: Gregory Arago <>
Date: Sat Jun 30 2007 - 17:48:37 EDT

Thank you Michael for your answer, from a professional
geological perspective. As you are surely aware, I was
not suggesting that the earth is 'young.' Of course,
you were making sure that I was not and am not
suggesting that and now because of what I've just
written you are confirmed.

That being said, you only addressed one part of a
three part question of mine that you quoted. The
'young birth' and 'interventions' parts are also very
important for dialogue with YECs. Don't you agree? Is
it because they are not only geological or theological
questions that you refrained from offering an opinion?
Is it because they are much more difficult than the
age of earth question?

"so we can say that there is no possibility that the
earth is young." - M. Roberts

I disagree. We can say there is a very low
probability. We could even repeat 'very' several
times. But we cannot (read: should not) say 'no
possibility.' That would be excessive and there is no
need to be excessive and frankly, 'science' does not
pretend to that mantle. There are extra-geological
views that can impact our probabilities and
possibilities. We are all here who are discussing
these things humans, after all (except perhaps if
infiltrated by a chat-bot!).

This reflects a similar grievance I take with
'universal evolutionism.' It is just excessive and not
responsible to posit such a thing as 'science' or as


--- Michael Roberts <>

> >
> > > Christine, are you really asking how 'we' can
> > >
> > For example, as a geologist, Christine, is there
> > possibility you would consider either a 'young'
> > earth,' a 'young' birth of Adam and Eve (within
> the
> > last 10,000 years) or a view of 'science' that
> > accomodates (or at least doesn't disqualify)
> > 'interventions' by (a) creator God in 'natural
> > processes'? In other words, are you 'closed' on
> the
> > viewpoint of an 'old' earth? Further, what are you
> > willing to do to either avoid or appease conflict?
> >
> > >
> > G. Arago
> I will answer Gregory. A geologist as a scientist
> should have a questioning
> and quizzical attitude to the age of the earth and
> thus must be "open".
> One of the joys of doing the history of geology is
> that you can see how this
> open attitude worked itself out over 350 years or
> so. They began with a
> young earth - in an open way - as there was no
> evidence against it and by
> 1680 because of open minds many realised that the
> earth was older than young
> i.e 6000 years. The evidence convinced them.
> During the 18th century more evidence convinced
> these open minded geologists
> Christian or not and so by 1800 it was seen to be
> either 100000 yrs or so or
> even millions. By the 1820s when geology was
> dominated by devout clergy
> millions or "trillions" was the order of the day.
> (trillions from Conybeare
> an evangelical) In 1905 radioactivity was applied to
> dating coming up first
> with 2 billion and since 1946 the age has remained
> constant at 4.6 billion.
> So today can I or anyone else consider a young earth
> . Well theoretically
> YES, but there have to be good arguments that
> geologists have been wrong for
> the last 300odd years and good evidence put in its
> place. So far all the arguments against an old earth
and for a young earth have been shown too be
fallacious or even fraudulent, so we can say that
there is no possibility that the earth is young.
> We could apply much the same type of argument to
> consider the possibility that the earth is flat. The
answer again is NO for reasons which should be so
> This frankly is why any suggestion that the earth is
> young - 10000yrs - is
> simply absurd
> Michael

      Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jun 30 17:49:17 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jun 30 2007 - 17:49:17 EDT