RE: [asa] Apparent age - why rely on science?

From: George Cooper <>
Date: Mon Mar 30 2009 - 18:49:44 EDT

I suspect the YEC scientific claims are more meant to sew doubt in the credibility of mainstream science, as opposed to be fully convinced their scientific interpretation of the evidence is all that correct. Demonstrating alternatives that create confusion opens the door to plausibility for their religious position. Plausibility is what is important. A religious position can not afford to look silly, at least not for very long. Ask Zeus. :) Building a museum that articulates their views takes it up a notch, at least in their mind, no doubt.

They "know" their religious view is right, so mainstream science has to be wrong. How often will they say their view is an "interpretation" of scripture? Not often, unfortunately.

No one is responding to my earlier gently thrown gauntlet, I see.


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Jon Tandy
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 4:26 PM
Subject: [asa] Apparent age - why rely on science?

I was thinking about this last week, after all this talk about "apparent age". Gosse's Omphalos in the 1800's gave appearance of age as an unapologetic doctrine, as I've heard it explained. Many YEC theories still advance apparent age without any apology, in order to explain things that are clearly not a young age according to known physical properties and processes. Yet most of their current arguments hinge on "scientific" explanations for why other things may truly be young, with only the appearance of age -- multiple tree rings per year, fossil layers, white holes, rapid radioactive decay. Anything in science that disagrees with young earth is anathema, while their admitted theological/scientific theory (young earth) is never allowed to be questioned.

I wonder why they don't just go with Phillip Gosse, and admit that the appearance of age is intentional. There were tree rings on the first trees in the Garden, because that's how God created them. There was starlight in the sky because God placed the light in transit. In the same way, there were multiple layers of fossils in the earth and evidence of radioactive decay because God created a "fully formed" universe for us to inhabit. Why don't they just admit to it, and just smile smugly whenever science discovers another evidence of age, saying "Yup, that's another evidence that God created a fully formed universe and earth for us to live in." It would be much easier than having to twist science in knots to fit their desired outcome.

I believe the answer is, they and their followers wouldn't find such an answer credible. It's one thing to admit to a fully formed tree in Eden with rings, but it's quite another when taken to include things like evidence of fossil progression from bacteria to man. What they ought to answer is why should their alternative science (with its conflicting and often evidence-lacking suggestions that are falsifiable, and have been falsified over and over) be considered any more "credible" scientifically than simply admitting the straightforward conclusion? I suppose it's because the unapologetic "appearance of age" is a theology, and most Christians consider bad science more credible than bad theology (i.e. God-as-deceiver).

Jon Tandy

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Yes -- the YECs are still winning

I was one at one time, until I discovered that I had been lied to. What forced me to first change was discovering that radioactive dating could not be off by much, and that the atomic bomb and other phenomena depended on the same science as dating. An error in dating meant that Hiroshima and Nagasaki couldn't have happened. I have read a good deal of the YEC literature and discovered that the "authorities" advance incompatible explanations for different phenomena at times, and at other times produce "explanations" that are impossible. For example, the guy who was an outstanding plant breeder (can't think of his name) said the reason there were more tree rings in the bristle cone pines than years back to the Flood was that some years produced more than one ring. Honest appraisal recognized that the pines are more likely to skip rings on bad years, fairly common under the extreme conditions of the area. The extension of the tree ring data now requires that there be two rings m!
 ost years. Tree ring data in Europe goes back about 12Ky. But can you point to anything in ICR or AiG or other YEC sites that recognizes this?

George mentioned Oklo. Now comes RATE, placing almost all the energy from radioactive disintegration into a couple days at the time of creation and during the year of the Flood. This means that the temperature during the Flood would vaporize the most refractive materials on earth, but it is blandly stated that the temperature did not rise above 150 F. Should I respect those who peddle impossibilities as Biblical truth?
Dave (ASA)

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Mar 30 18:50:38 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 30 2009 - 18:50:38 EDT