Monday, June 1, 2009

Evidence for a Young Earth?

Following on from the 'Evidence for an Old Earth' post, I thought I'd give the opposing side a chance (teach the controversy and all that).

Ok, here are 7 evidences that, I think, would back up the idea that the whole earth was flooded by the Deluge of Noah's day.

We should be able to find;

* a single, gigantic sedimentary layer containing the fossilized remains of all the animals killed in the flood along with a mix of human artifacts from pre-history right the way up to the day the first raindrop fell.

* Many, if not all, of these animals should show signs of either drowning and/or suffocating through ingesting mud.

* The animals should be found in no discernible grouping or order because they've been swirling around in muddy flood-waters for weeks. You would not expect any mother/infant fossil finds, for instance.

* If any order is to be found, we would expect to see the heavier animals near the bottom of this sedimentary layer as they would be more likely to sink sooner. Conversely, the lighter animals could be expected to survive longer by holding on to floating vegetation. This goes for high-altitude animals versus lowland 'kinds' too.

* We should not find, throughout the layer of sediment, any evidence of burrows, nests, droppings or other easily-destroyed remnants of life. These should all be washed away by the intense pressures and currents

* The sedimentary layer should be found globally. Sediment would have been carried, globally, for a long time before settling so we should see a fairly consistent sedimentary layer around the earth

* There should be no evidence of human societies that existed before and after the Flood event, that show no signs of being flooded.

These are by no means exhaustive, so if you have any others that are relevant, please include them. But, be honest about it - present hypothetical evidence that you would expect to see if you were going out into the field as the world's first geologist, don't just say; "I'd expect to see the Grand Canyon - yup, there it is!"

And feel free to refute the evidences I've presented if you don't think they're appropriate; explain why though.

I hope I'm being fair here, so let's see what you have to say.




ExPatMatt said...


Da Bomb said...

It doesn't look like you gave evidences?
They look more like..."if we found this evidence."
The other post on old earth looks like it gives actual evidence.

Sorry if I mis-understood.


ExPatMatt said...

Hey man,

Well, to be honest, I couldn't think of any actual evidences, so I just wrote down the things I could think of that would be evidence if we found them.

Feel free to suggest any actual evidence or comment on the ones I've posted here.


Timm said...

Here are some I was able to dig up. Take em' or leave em'.

1. Population statistics. If man appeared over one million years ago, the present world population would be thousands of times greater than it actually is. In fact, our entire galaxy could not provide the needed space for so many.

The present world population is around 4.3 billion. Assuming the average life span to be seventy years and the average generation length to be thirty-five years, then starting with one family, the present world population would result in about thirty doublings. These doublings would carry us back in history from today to around 3500 b.c. This date is suggested by several creationist scientists to mark the time of the Flood.

Thus, the creation model dovetails beautifully with known world population statistics. But what of the evolutionary model? Morris writes:

"Now, if the first man appeared one million years ago, and these very conservative growth rates applied during that period, the world population would be at present 10 (27000 zeros following) people. However, no more than 10 (with 100 zeros) people could be crammed into the known universe!" (Scientific Creationism, p. 154)

2. The amount of helium-4 in the atmosphere. This suggests that our atmosphere is less than 15,000 years old.

3. The absence of meteorite dust. Some fifteen million tons of nickel meteorite dust settle to earth each year. If the earth has indeed existed for five billion years, then there should now be a layer of this dust at least 200 feet thick all over the planet. Of course, no such layer is found.

4. The decay of earth’s magnetic field. This field, it has been shown, has a half-life of 1400 years. This means it is weakened by 50 percent each fourteen centuries. It also means the magnetic field was twice as strong 1400 years ago as it is now, four times as strong 2800 years ago, and so on. Only 7000 years ago it must have been thirty-two times as strong. It is very doubtful that it could have been much stronger than this.

5. The imbalance of carbon-14 and carbon-12. It can be shown that it would take a period of 30,000 years to attain an equilibrium between these two. However, at present C-14 still exceeds C-12 by some 50 percent.

I'm no scientist, not do I claim to understand most of this stuff. This is just what I was able to dig out of one of my textbooks.

ExPatMatt said...

Thanks Timm, I appreciate your contribution.

1 Populations.

"The present world population is around 4.3 billion. Assuming the average life span to be seventy years and the average generation length to be thirty-five years,".

The current world population is around 6.7 billion.

The average lifespan of a human in the 1950s was around 45 and it's only in the past 50 years that this has increased (and only really in the developed world)

The average generation length is more like mid-20s.

So all three starting assumptions are incorrect. Is it worth going any further? I'd love to have a look at the sources for this though, if you have them handy?

2 Helium

I'll see your Morris and raise you;

"Banks and Holzer (12) have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of (2 to 4) x 106 ions/cm2 /sec of 4He, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 +/- 1.5) x 106 atoms/cm2/sec. Calculations for 3He lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the estimated production flux." ( Dalrymple 1984, p. 112 )

3 Meteorite Dust

I believe this argument is usually directed at dust on the Moon, no?

It is based on an erroneous data collection by Hans Pettersson who stood on a mountaintop collecting smog data. He assumed that all nickel that he collected was meteoritic in origin. That assumption was wrong and caused his published figures to be a vast overestimate.

4 Magnetic Fields

The Earth's magnetic field is not unidirectional and as such any extrapolation is useless without a reliable model of the 'geodynamo' and we don't have one.

A number of YEC (inc. Humphreys) have abandoned this line of attack.

5 C-14

I know a guy who does carbon dating for a living and he's got no idea what this is even supposed to mean!

Any thoughts on the evidences we'd expect to see if a global Flood had occurred?


Da Bomb said...

Interesting Timm,

Could you give the link or title to that text book?

I am no scientist aswell, sometimes it seems that whatever any scientist says is convincing :)



Timm said...

Willmington's Guide to the Bible

Like I said, Matt. I'm no scientist. In fact, I'm rather ignorant about a lot of this stuff. I'll freely admit that you are probably more intelligent than I am. That being said, I suspect you could find many scientists to pick apart old earth evidences as well.

I'll try to dig up some flood evidences if you'd like. Then you can get to immediately shooting them down too. :)

ExPatMatt said...

Hey man, I don't claim to be intelligent either - I had to go to multiple sources to have a proper look at the points you raised (although I had heard the 'dust' one before).

I won't apologize for shooting down bad evidence though. A coupe of these have been thoroughly debunked for years and it's worrying that they're still being touted as sound evidence.

It's all good reading material though!


Timm said...


You may not claim to be intelligent, but it's obvious in reading your stuff that you are quite intelligent.

I'm just a young guy who is getting pretty heavy into studying the Bible. I've heard a lot of evidence for the truth of God's word before, but to be honest, I've never looked too in depth into any of it. I believe I've told you this before, but I haven't found it a very wise use of my time getting into these types of discussions in the past. You just seemed discouraged that no one was putting anything out there for you. I gave it a shot, but I figured you would not be impressed with what I brought from the get go.

ExPatMatt said...


I'll give anything a fair read - I love finding out stuff I didn't know and there's nothing better than being proven wrong. Da Bomb will attest to the fact that I give credit where it's due (re: 12 stones of Jerusalem), no matter which 'side' it's on, but if something doesn't stand up to logic or other evidence then it has to go.

If it's your belief that all this is just fluff and that the only way to convert someone is with the Gospel, then that's fine - no problemo.

However, a number of people have asserted that the earth is young, the Flood happened etc. and if that's true, I'd like to know what backs that position up.

It shouldn't be too much to ask...if it's right.

Cheers and thanks for tossing me a frickin' bone here!

Timm said...

No problem, Matt.

I toss you a bone because from what I can tell, you are respectful and respectable.

I don't think it's fluff. It's just not something I've devoted a lot of time and energy to. I am learning more about it as my classes continue, so I MAY get to the point where I can put up a decent debate, but for now, as you say, I will just keep preaching the gospel.

Thanks, Matt. Like I said, I should be running across some evidence for a world-wide flood soon. I'll get back to you with it.

On that note, one evidence for a worldwide flood that I've heard recently is that nearly every tribe/civilization has a story handed down throughout the generations of a catastrophic flood, regardless of it's exposure to the Bible. I have done no fact checking, what-so-ever on this, but I find the thought of it very interesting.

ExPatMatt said...

Thanks Timm, let me know what you dig up.

As for the myriad flood stories. I would suggest that water is such a major element in human life (along with fire, earth and air) that it's bound to feature in most mythologies at some point.

The story of prometheus stealing fire from the gods is repeated in many separate cultures across the world and this, that I know of, has no Biblical equivalent.

It certainly is an interesting thought and one that is worth investigating.

Thanks for your input!

Da Bomb said...


That generations study is interesting. I can point you guys to a book where a guy apparently (I have not read it) traced the history of early post-flood Europe back to Noah!

The book is "After The Flood" by Bill Cooper. Apparently he spent 25 years researching.

Food for thought.

I'll vouch for Matt, he does give credit where due. Maybe a little skeptical of the supernatural for my liking :) LOL. No offence EPM!

ExPatMatt said...

You're banned! Call me skeptical, will you? I'd like to see you back that up with evidence....

...oh yeah.

Bill Cooper, eh? I'll look into that.


ExPatMatt said...

I LOVE the internet!

ExPatMatt said...

Ok, I'm only skimming and reading Chapters with interesting titles but this;

"In all, a comprehensive and somewhat horrifying picture of Grendel emerges from the pages of Beowulf, and I doubt that the reader needs to be guided by me as to which particular species of predatory dinosaur [tyrannosaur] the details of his physical description fit best."

He thinks that Grendel is a T-Rex.

Seriously? Oh boy!

The guy has clearly done a lot of work - but it looks very much like he's finding what he wants to find by making all kinds of odd leaps and assumptions that aren't ever really justified, especially with the translations of names.

I've bookmarked it though, and will give it a more in-depth look soon.


Da Bomb said...


"You're banned! Call me skeptical, will you? I'd like to see you back that up with evidence...."

I thought you were serious when I first read that :)



Da Bomb said...

"I've bookmarked it though, and will give it a more in-depth look soon."

Sweet, don't forget to look for the good/interseting points aswell :)

ExPatMatt said...

Will do...

ExPatMatt said...

Oh, this guy

Is doing a chapter-by-chapter review of Cooper's book.

He's not looking too favourably on it so far...

Geds said...

Howdy. Just figured I'd wander in and look around...

One of the things about population statistics, and which ExPatMatt started to get in to, is that there is no stable growth and to assume that conditions now are the same as they've always been is a horrible, horrible idea. Since the entire assumption that there's not enough room on the planet is based on the idea that everyone lives to the average age of a First World person in the modern age, with similar levels of infant mortality, the argument is reduced to nothing but hand-waving and sophistry.

For one thing, there is the issue of increased lifespan. As ExPatMatt pointed out, this has been noticeably increased within the last century. During the Roman Empire, the average life expectancy was somewhere around 25 years. A lot of the drag on the statistics is because of infant and child mortality. The death of a pre-pubescent child drags population by far more than one, since that death takes the individual out of the population and that individual has not and will not reproduce.

On a similar note there's the issue of death during childbirth. It happens at a fairly low rate in First World countries today, but it happened an awful lot before the advent of modern medicine. If a mother dies during childbirth there is no net gain to the population. If that child dies (which, again, was likely), then there's actually a net loss in population.

Furthermore, there are the overall issues that create a net loss of population. War, famine, plague, and natural disaster still can take a horrendous toll in lives today. In the past the dangers were often magnified, since there were no international relief organizations in place and in a lot of cases the infrastructure of civilizations was far less robust.

For instance, the Black Plague killed something close to 45% of the European population. The lesser-known Third Pandemic of Bubonic Plague broke out in central Asia in the mid-19th Century and wasn't regarded as being taken care of until the 1950s. That pandemic killed millions. Today we have a cure for the Y.pestis bacteria, so there wouldn't be another Black Plague epidemic. Also, there was the outbreak of Spanish Flu in 1918 that killed somewhere in the neighborhood of 50-100m worldwide, which was significantly more than the number of deaths from World War I which killed 15 million.

This brings us to the artificial selection of war. WWI was said to have killed off an entire generation of British men. The statement is substantively true. While epidemics tend to kill the weak and, therefore, we see a larger number of deaths among the very old and the very young, war has a bad habit of killing men who are in the prime of their lives. In many cases these men are sent to war before they reproduce and then never get the chance.

I would also assume, although this is mere speculation, that there is an additional drag on selection following wars, since the men who procreate are more likely to be the ones who were infirm to begin with or too old. This would, I speculate, have a chilling effect on the gene pool.

Also, I have now written way more than I planned. If you want, though, you can go here to get a more useful statistical analysis of the theoretical human population complete with methodologies.

Oh, and the idea that Homo sapiens, appeared a million years ago is patently absurd. We've been around for maybe 200,000 years, a mere blip in time. This means that the statistics in the link I posted above are probably off by a bit, but their time frame starting 50,000 years ago would be fairly consistent with the migration from Africa. Considering that civilization is only about 10,000 years old and the shift from nomadic hunter-gatherers to sedentary city dwellers would probably create a drastic shift in birth rates that the statistics do not account for, we can probably take the PRB's numbers fairly seriously from 8000 BCE on.

ExPatMatt said...

Thanks Geds!

I remember reading a pretty vicious dissection of the population dynamics argument a while back and wondering how on earth someone could possibly get away with some of the assumptions that were made.

Not factoring in war and plagues and using an average life expectancy/generational gap like the ones proposed here is patently absurd.

Thanks for stopping by!

Da Bomb said...

Hey Matt,

I did a google search and found this

Have fun pulling that one apart :)

I read up to:
"Liquefaction During the Compression Event"

Me being ignorant thought it sounded interesting. Either the person who wrote it is lying (as you accuse most creationists) or seriously mislead.

There is even below a
"Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter".

I don't have time at the moment to read that part. I thought you might be interested the link.

Da Bomb said...

Sorry I didn't read up to...I read "Liquefaction During the Compression Event" and the topic before it.

Da Bomb said...

Matt are you going to check out that debate between Dawkins and Lennox?

I am intersted as to what you think?

ExPatMatt said...

Sorry Dan,

I'll get 'round to it eventually!

I'm also looking into the Flood Geology link you posted (I need to learn about 'liquefaction' before I can comment because the author relies on it pretty heavily)

I'm heading home (to the UK) for the weekend so my posting will be sporadic over the next few days.

Have a good one!


Da Bomb said...

That's cool,

Have a great time in England!

ExPatMatt said...

Da Bomb, I'm back from the UK and ready to get back into it!

So, I read up on liquefaction and it looks like the guy is talking out of his backside on this one, I'm afraid.

For one thing, liquefaction is where dry solids behave like liquids - he seems to think that solids covered by water become 'liquified' and this just isn't the case.

The process he proposes does not explain the evidence and, in many cases, flat-out contradicts it.

I still haven't watched that interview, sorry, but I will do this week.


Da Bomb said...

Ok :),

How was the UK?

It is winter here in NZ and we are having a bit of a cold snap...brrr. I can expect a frost tomorrow.

Da Bomb said...

I think when I have time that I would like to do a bit of study on geology and strata etc.

It is so funny/weird sitting in the middle of non-christian scientists and christian scientists LOL.

Both accuse each other of being rediculous.

Is it because lots of people on either side are down right willful liars? or is it simply because it is a little more interpretable than people make out.
Eg, there is room and evidence for a Flood and evidence for there not being a Flood?

hmmm. I do prefer philosophy/theology :)

As I said before I might have a snoop around and see what I can find. I wonder what RtB believe?



P.S. Thanks for our talks! It's good to have someone willing to reason...unlike poeple like Dimensio etc :)

Da Bomb said...

I had never looked into a large localised view of the flood of Noah. RtB gave bit of a talk on it. Interesting...
I don't know what to think about it, but it is more plausable than I first thought.

These RtB guys seem to be quite...hmmm down your line of their view of modern science, regarding old earth and evidences for the Flood.
Of course, except for regarding evolution :) that is, macroevolution.

I'm keeping you busy aren't I? LOL:) I like sharing what I find interesting.

Da Bomb said...

How was the UK? I have never been there. it would be an exciting place I could imagine. Lots of old castles and buildings.

NZ is only a few hundreds years old...nothing ancient. Israel was a trip of a lifetime though! Seeing archeological sites being thousands of years old!



Brazen Hussey's said...

@ ExPatMatt:

Hey-I just wanted to stop by because my 15-yr-old daughter "Lissie" informed me you'd invited me to this forum. I see I'm a bit late!

The problem with the issue of flood evidence is at the very least 3-fold.

First, the issue of time. A lot has happened since then, obviously. Plate techtonics, for instance. I'm not sure if the evidence as we have it can be deemed "beyond a shadow of a doubt" for either side of the debate.

Secondly, the issue of flood hydrodynamics and the singularly biggest cataclysm our world has faced, to our knowledge. Sure, there are those pesky asteroids and all, but the difficulty of re-creating the hydrodynamic model of what happened during Noah's time is abysmal.

The third issue is uniformitarianism vs. catastrophism. There have been posited a number of explanations from both sides of the debate, and on the YEC side of things, we're as bad as a Darwinist denying or compensating for the falsifiable claims of Darwin. The more technology improves and the scientific community plays catch up with the latest tech, and the more evidence is gained or perhaps lost to simple erosion and decaying forces, we're just reacting to more data.

Lastly, I'll point you to this site, of which you may or may not be familiar.

I've gone directly to the technical paper I think is at issue here.

I'm neither a scientist nor an evidentialist insofar as apologetic methodology, but at root is this difference between us:

I trust God, and take Him at His Word. I have experienced real grace, psychological effects and helps, from His hand. Certainly, that doesn't prove the matter of His existence, it's anecdotal evidence, which does you no good.

I don't know enough about the observable scientific disciplines to form an intelligent answer to your original query, but find the points made here educational and informative nonetheless. Thanks for inviting me to check it out.

It will prove interesting, however, to see how the evidence unfolds or doesn't. The skeptic in me says the cards will always be stacked against the Christian, for it was Christ who told Thomas the Apostle, after His resurrection, that "You believe because you have seen; blessed are they who believe and have not seen." And the verse in Hebrews which states, "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (New International Version, I think, Hebrews 11:1) To which I wince, and wish it were otherwise.

I don't think the evidence trail will ever be as complete as either of us would hope.

ExPatMatt said...

Sorry guys, I've been neglecting my own blog!

Da Bomb,

The UK was great, it was my mum's birthday so we all had a BBQ and a merry time was had by all.

PS. Whenever I think my country has a lot of history, my girlfriend reminds me that her ancestors were making pottery while mine were farming mud and hiding from the moon - there's always an older people....

"Is it because lots of people on either side are down right willful liars? or is it simply because it is a little more interpretable than people make out.
Eg, there is room and evidence for a Flood and evidence for there not being a Flood?"

There's nothing to interpret. There is zero evidence that points to a global flood. Zero. If a global flood had happened, there would be lots and you'd be laughing at the the silly old-earthers who were constantly coming up with excuses to explain away the very obvious evidence.

As it happens, it's the young-earthers who constantly have to make excuses and move the goal posts to keep their beliefs at the table. Because, at the end of the day, the Global Flood is a faith-based event - people believe that it happened so much that they're willing to got to any lengths to support it.

Sorry to come on strong like that, but it's frustrating to see people clinging to demonstrably false claims when alternative explanations are available and well-evidenced.

Not only would you have to find the Ark, to open up the possibility of the Global Flood, but you'd also have to throw out everything (and I do mean everything) that we know about geology and a dozen other fields of science. I just can't see any evidence turning up that would do this. It would be like someone finding evidence that shows that the earth doesn't go 'round the sun - it's possible, but it's hard to imagine what it could possibly be.


ExPatMatt said...


Welcome my friend, glad you could make it.

I've not much to add to what I wrote above (re: Flood) but yes I am familiar with AiG.

I remember a forum a while back where a sceptic challenged a theist to point to an AiG article that didn't contain any factual mistakes, lies or fallacies. The poor theist kept coming back with articles and the sceptic kept pointing out (on average) a dozen or so of the above per article.

The fact is, they are not scientists. What they practice is not science and they don't care that it's not science.

Their stated position is that any evidence (of any kind) that contradicts their interpretation of the Bible is automatically wrong by definition. If that's your standard for evidence then it's no wonder that all the evidence they present (or try to) backs up the Bible, is it?

As I said to Da Bomb, you're better of wit RtB - at least they're willing to accept new data and see where it leads.


Da Bomb said...

I have found a video that claims to have found a possible ark on Mt Ararat. I mean to talk to a friend's dad who has actually visited the site. They found a boat like structure that had kind of formed part of the ground (it had decayed mostly but a structure could be made out of a boat loking from the top). Exactly the length of the one in the Bible account. As they used metal detectors they found consistancies along the area of the boat (under the ground) showing alot of the support beams (I don't know what they are called). Nearby they found anchor stones much larger than the ones ordinarily found on ancient ships. These were very much like ones made in the thousands BC, although it was in EASTERN TURKEY?!

Hmmm I want to look into it more to see if it is actually true. I will try to talk to my friend's father, maybe it is just a hoax.

Da Bomb said...

LOL, I thought you were sick of us!

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ ExPM:

Whoa, Nellie! You do come off a bit like a garlic festival participant: a wee bit strong.

"Not scientists" requires a bit of backing up. Define "scientist" and why the AiG or YEC's aren't that.

2) Why do you assume that there is no evidence to back the flood? Sounds an awful lot like a universal negative, which, last I checked (except conveniently on an atheist blog, of course!) was logically a fallacy.

3) Why do you claim, if YEC is true, that we would have to toss out all of what we "know" of geology/paleontology etc.? And, speaking of epistemology, isn't that sort of what happened to the Roman Catholics during the Copernican revolution? Does the same possibility of fallibility not reside in the perfectly fallible science community?

Just questions, my friend. I would like some "evidence to the contrary" from your P.O.V., as I'm not familiar with the argument against Noah.


ExPatMatt said...

Da Bomb,

I'd love to hear more about this Noah's Ark find, if you have any more details.



I was making up for lost time after not commenting here for a while; I'm a bit more chilled now...

Define scientist and why AiG aren't it? I would have thought my last comment would have made that clear - they reject any evidence that doesn't agree with their preconceived notions; in whose world does that count as science?

2) Perhaps my wording was a bit generic. I didn't mean to say that there 'is no evidence and there never will be' [laughs manically] I was merely stating that there is no evidence, at present, to suggest a global flood and an awful lot of evidence that directly contradicts a global flood.

3) we'd have to throw out what we know, because all the evidence in every field that deals with these things is in agreement that the world is very old. Seriously, there is no 'controversy' within the scientific community about the age of the earth, and there hasn't been for some time, because the mutually corroborating lines of evidence from so many fields of study line up so well (see my last post for an abridged list).

How many oil companies, do you think, base their drilling decisions on a 'Global Flood Model' and how many base their drilling decisions on 'Old-Earth Geology'? The old earth model works because it is right.

It could, possibly, be wrong, of course. As you note, the scientific community is made up of fallible men and women and as such their individual interpretations and research methods are susceptible to error. This is what peer review is for.

Whenever a scientist thinks they've made a valuable and valid discovery, they publish their research. Then, other scientists from around the world try and rip that research to shreds - they test and re-test all the assumptions, experiments, observations and analysis until they're happy that everything is in order - this is how (most) errors are weeded out (imagine having your novel proof-read by 10,000 English teachers; you wouldn't expect many spelling mistakes by the end of it, would you?)

Guess how many YEC articles have been put forward for peer-review. None (that I know of). You'd think that if there was valid science going on that someone would be trying to get this science published, right?

Ever wonder why this is?

Everything in science is tentative. We can only say that the evidence found so far indicates that; germs are responsible for diseases, or that matter is made up of atoms, or that gravity is generated by the distortion of space-time, or that the Earth is approx. 4 billion years old.

However, just because the answers thus far are tentative, doesn't mean that every other possibility is still viable. I don't know what I'm going to have for dinner with absolute certainty, but that doesn't mean that shit might be on the menu...


Da Bomb said...

Hey EPM,

I have done some research into it and it was not as probable as I first thought. But still a possibility. Interesting though.

Not as probable as the mount Sinai and Red sea crossing videos.

Wiki talks about it:

And another site is very interesting that I found:

I didn't get to talk to that guy.



Brazen Hussey's said...

@ Ex:

Guess how many YEC articles have been put forward for peer-review. None (that I know of). You'd think that if there was valid science going on that someone would be trying to get this science published, right?

Ever wonder why this is?

The "None (that I know of)" argument falls flat due to the parenthetical. There may be good reasons, such as the fact that old earthers simply don't take Ken Ham et al seriously. That such is the case on the lay level is quite plain.

Do you know, for a fact, that Ken Ham or other YEC-ers has/have *never* put forward articles for peer review?

Have you seen "Expelled" the movie? I don't think many of the Darwinists show themselves to be open to the debate. Like Al Gore on global change (that's generic enough!): "the science is settled." How does one argue for opposing views when things such as university tenure and job security are at stake?

Ever wonder?

ExPatMatt said...

Da Bomb,

Yeah, that Wiki link is categorized under 'pseudoarchaeology' for a reason...

Sorry bud!

ExPatMatt said...


"Do you know, for a fact, that Ken Ham or other YEC-ers has/have *never* put forward articles for peer review?".

Well, I do keep pretty close tabs on the Evo-Creation debate and would have heard if anything had been mentioned in the popular circles. Of course, that's not definitive - so I shall do some research and get back to you...

Haha! You mentioned Expelled in an online discussion and automatically lose the debate (just kidding!)

Seriously though, that film is a collection of lies, based on a lie, made by liars and funded by more liars. For more info, see they have a full accounting of all the ethically dubious dealings, misinformation and downright falsehoods that are presented in that film.

Did you know that they were pretending to make a film called 'Crossroads: Where Science and Faith Meet'?
And yet they say ID isn't religiously-motivated...hmmmm....

Did you know that none of the scientists that were supposedly Expelled were actually expelled? One of them is still working at his former job (or was when the film was released, at least), one of them had already left (because his short-term, part-time contract had run out) before the magazine came out that contained his ID article (which, by the way he had not submitted to his editors for review before publication - a sack-worthy offense for anyone in scientific circles) goes on and on.

Did you know that Richard Dawkins never said that he believes that aliens seeded planet Earth? From the way Ray Comfort and his ilk have been milking it, you'd certainly get that impression, wouldn't you?

Let me ask you, that film was about intelligent design, right? At any time during the film did they ever actually spell out what intelligent design was, what science backed it up and why it was a valid proposition?

'Things look designed, therefore they are' is not a valid substantiation, btw.

It was a propaganda piece. They know that Creationism won't fly any more, they know they don't have the science to have ID accepted the normal way (ie the honest way), so they try to sneak this stuff in the back door by pretending there's some controversy about evolution in the scientific community (there isn't) or by suing to get their textbooks into schools - essentially, they're cheating at science.

I'm, frankly, shocked that you hold any stock in that film at all.


Brazen Hussey's said...

@ EPM:

Actually, no, I didn't know about all that fun stuff on the Expelled movie. I am curious if the YEC camp has "ever" tried to put out anything for peer review, if not in recent history, I'm curious as to why (thanks to you!).

It's a valid query, one worth getting an answer to (not challenging you to do my homework, just thinking it was a good question you posed).

ExPatMatt said...


I think it is a valid question. If I was a supporter of ID as science then I'd want to know why my donations to the Discovery Institute weren't being spent on research but rather on press releases and advertising!

Here's a bit of my homework assignment;

Looks like there's around 10 papers and none of them support Intelligent Design....

And for fairness, here's what CSC says;

Many more references but the first three were published by 'Darwinism, Design, & Public Education' which is run by the people who wrote the articles!

Most of the rest are books that are published through Creationist publishers.

So no peer review articles to, say, Science or Nature magazines or other reputable scientific journals...

When you think about it though, what science can you really do with ID? 'Yep, that looks designed. Yep, that too. This looks designed as well...'

It doesn't help to further understanding of anything, so what's the point!?


Da Bomb said...

"When you think about it though, what science can you really do with ID? 'Yep, that looks designed. Yep, that too. This looks designed as well...'"

John Lennox pointed out that with ID we can trust that our universe is ordered and able to be tested and consistent.

The early scientists knew they could DO science based on the knowledge that it had a law-Giver.

Atheism destroys science in the way that it has no authority to have any bearings on whether they are close to truth about the universe or not.

They try to proport rationality out of irrationality.

ExPatMatt said...

Da Bomb,

"John Lennox pointed out that with ID we can trust that our universe is ordered and able to be tested and consistent".

And yet it's IDers who claim that the speed of light used to be faster than it is today...

Science generally assumes uniformatism; that things will behave in a predictable way (for the most part). Of course, this isn't actually true in our universe - quantum mechanics tells us that the universe is far from ordered and consistent, in fact it is quite chaotic and only appears ordered when we look at small bits of it over small periods of time.

In fact, it is IDers who have failed to put forward any tests or claims about the universe that can actually be checked. Aside from Irreducible Complexity and that has been thoroughly debunked.

Science is agnostic by necessity. Any one scientist's philosophical or religious views are (or should be) irrelevant when conducting scientific research because the only thing that matters is the data. You can know that you are approaching a 'truth' about the universe when your theories accurately predict real-world phenomena. We will never - in my opinion - get an Absolute Truth about the universe because there are just too many variables and unknowns.

I remember Kent Hovind being asked in a radio discussion about what the value of Creationism was, in terms of scientific endeavor. Kent replied [paraphrasing]; "Well, you know, I think it would be useful to know that the appendix is always on the same side of the human body because that's where God put it."

(of course, in rare cases the appendix is on the left not the right. Evolutionary biologists can explain why this happens, what gene is responsible etc - there's no ID reason for it though because ID is inherently unscientific and non-conducive to scientific research)


Brazen Hussey's said...

Da Bomb:

Actually, you stole the words out of my mouth.

I was going to posit the same notion: the early and foundational thinkers of modern science were, by and large, Christians. They believed the laws of the universe were knowable, because God is orderly and has made us in His image.

Logic is possible because Jesus is THE "Logos" or "word"--from which we get the term "Logic" in the first place.

"It is in Him that we live and move and have our being."

As to the contrary, that is: the "science" and possibilities that Darwinianism has offered mankind...hmmm...

Let's see:

Hitler's Eugenics program
Hitler's idea of the "super race"
Planned Parenthood
A Constitution that is a "living and evolving" document (oh, what fun! No place for static truth!) and no longer that archaic 200 year-old document of funny, outdated laws (freedom is so yesterday!)

Oh! And let's not forget how it's now a litmus test for positions of respect in academia.

I'll try not to mention "Expelled" the movie...

As far as morality and ethics are concerned, Darwinianism plainly sucks eggs. Unless you're a Darwinist, of course...

Da Bomb said...

EPM, here is a cool blog site, check it out!

ExPatMatt said...


When did you turn into a walking fallacy-generator?!

The early founders of modern science probably did think that the universe was knowable because it came from the mind of God - that doesn't necessarily make it true, does it? It doesn't even matter.

Science is based on the idea that things will behave in predictable ways once their mechanics are understood - it doesn't matter how they got to be this way when it comes to understanding how they work (ie, you don't have to assume that God created the world for you to calculate the acceleration due to gravity and assume that this will remain constant within given parameters).

Now, I'll move on to the truly stupid part of your comment. Yes, I said 'stupid' because that's what it is; I expected better from you, Brazen...

"Hitler's Eugenics program
Hitler's idea of the "super race"
Planned Parenthood
A Constitution that is a "living and evolving" document (oh, what fun! No place for static truth!) and no longer that archaic 200 year-old document of funny, outdated laws (freedom is so yesterday!)

Oh! And let's not forget how it's now a litmus test for positions of respect in academia"

I could refute this in a couple of ways;

1. Christianity has given us;

The Crusades
Witch Hunts
The Westboro Baptist Church
The Holocaust
Pedophile Priests

Therefore Christianity is untrue.

If you don't accept this as a valid, logical argument against Christianity, then why do you think your argument against Darwinism is valid?

2. The Constitution?! You think that a legal/political document is affected in any way by a biological theory? WTF!

3. Science is descriptive not prescriptive. It wouldn't matter if people misused Darwin's work for evil ends, that doesn't make the work invalid. I'm sure the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima consider the A-Bomb to be a pretty horrific invention, but they can't deny that Atomic Theory is valid science, can they?

4. It is highly debatable that Darwin had any influence on the actions of Hitler (Origin of Species was burnt in Nazi Germany, whereas the Bible was distributed...) whereas Martin Luther...

5. Eugenics/super race/Planned Parenthood etc, are examples of artificial selection. Darwinism revolves around natural selection; two different things. Humans have been using artificial selection for thousands of years - practically every fruit, vegetable and meat product you eat is the result of artificial selection and it is mentioned in the Bible. Power-hungry or misguided people using these tried and tested methods to exert control over others is nothing new in human civilization and has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution being correct or not.

6. An understanding of evolution is not a prerequisite for acceptance into academia. It is a prerequisite if you're looking to teach biology, however, and with good reason - it is the best (most evidenced) explanation for the biodiversity we see on our planet.

I don't know why you guys keep doing this to yourselves. This constant barrage of asinine and fallacious arguments against evolution, why bother?

Why not just admit that the reason you disagree with evolution is because you do not find it compatible with your interpretation of the Bible and so, for you, it must be wrong. That's all there is to it really, isn't it?


PS. Darwinism is not a source of morality or ethics and nobody I know of thinks this (yet another strawman to add to the pile...)

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ EPM:

Re: the Constitution and biology:

Read up, my friend: the Constitution is now treated as a living, evolving document. YES, Darwinist theory is being applied vastly beyond it's intended boundaries: even literature.

I'm sorry you think that the taxonomy of scientific categories and disciplines would mean anything to a world clamoring to move beyond God's authority, but there you have it.

As to the rest of the comments on Hitler's eugenics program, etc.: true enough, I'll give you the fact that simply abusing a principle or theory doesn't mean that the theory is bunk. Guilty by association isn't cause enough to throw out a theory.

On that note I stand corrected.

Re: the Crusades (of course I notice you don't mention Jihad: the Crusades were a response to Jihad, and stopped centuries ago, Jihad? Not so much....), the witch hunts (which shouldn't have stopped, but I think we debate nowadays...), etc.: I take your point.

The Holocaust wasn't a Christian idea, friend, it was influenced by Nietzsche more than Luther. His eugenics program? Oh, yeah! Darwin. As to Luther: he was wrong, plainly, to be so anti-semitic.

The Westboro Baptist church: not familiar, they sound kooky.

Priests? Agreed. They ought to be executed, but that's because I have 6 kids and one more cooking.

I forget the name of the fallacy, but my point is simply that Darwinism isn't the great answer to society and science everyone makes it out to be.

Just what, exactly, is the "good side" of Darwinism? I fail to see it.

Brazen Hussey's said...

@ EPM:

BTW, evolutionary theory has effected morals, ethics, the genesis of Planned Parenthood, and the post modern thinking on literature.

It started out as a biological theory, but at bottom was Darwin's attempt to give a cogent atheist response to the origin of species. As such, it has become a Trojan Horse that effects other disciplines and worldview components.

As such, and because at every level it opposes the Bible, oh, yeah I'll admit it must be cast down. First off, it has never shown to be true (though you claim evidence to such): no species has evolved into a new species. Sorry, but a finch with a longer beak or shorter beak is a finch.

3 For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. 5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ 2 Corinthians 10:3-5

As a Christian, every argument and lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God is to be destroyed, torn down, fought against. It is not the Christian's place to lay down like a nice welcome mat and play the quiet game.

The two systems are at odds, incompatible, and Christians aren't called to live as mute non-player-characters while the world marches toward the edge of the cliff.

ExPatMatt said...


If people are trying to apply biological theories to the interpretation of legal/political documents then I will join you in calling them eejits.

If, however, the word 'evolving' is being used in the colloquial sense of 'change over time' then that's just life, my friend. Things change and laws need to be amended to reflect that; if you want to call that evolution, fine, but it's not the Theory of Evolution.

We're cool on eugenics. Word.

My point in raising the Crusades and the Holocaust was that they have as little to do with Christianity as eugenics has to do with evolution. I don't actually think that they're the fruits of Christianity. I was attempting to parody your list with things that were equally tenuous (and even outright wrong). So, I think we're cool there too.

"I forget the name of the fallacy, but my point is simply that Darwinism isn't the great answer to society and science everyone makes it out to be".

I couldn't agree more. There really isn't any Darwinism anymore anyway, except in a historical context. Dawkins calls himself a Darwinist but that's more of a publicity/provocative label than anything else.

What we actually have these days is far beyond Darwinism, in terms of our understanding of evolution and many of his ideas have been shown to be in error. The modern theory of evolution encompasses so many lines of evidence that Darwin didn't know existed that it wouldn't be fair to contemporary evolutionary biologists to call it 'Darwinism' at all.

"Just what, exactly, is the "good side" of Darwinism? I fail to see it".

What's the 'good side' of Newtonian Physics? The good thing about both is that they are the most accurate descriptions of how the world works for their individual field of study. Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth and Newtonian physics is the best explanation for the motion of bodies (as long as they're not very big or very small!).

As I said before; science is descriptive not prescriptive. It isn't intended to tell people how they aught to live, if people take it that way then that's their own fault.

ExPatMatt said...


"BTW, evolutionary theory has effected morals, ethics, the genesis of Planned Parenthood, and the post modern thinking on literature".

Again, you're committing the (whateverit'scalled) fallacy of thinking that it matters if a scientific theory has caused some individuals to think in a certain way. Science describes reality, it doesn't tell people what to do in that reality.

"First off, it has never shown to be true (though you claim evidence to such): no species has evolved into a new species"

If that's true then the scientists who recorded the Observed Instances of Speciation will be extremely surprised.

Are you saying that every species alive today has been in its current state since the creation of the world? That's a bold, and demonstrably wrong, claim.

But it doesn't matter, does it?


"As a Christian, every argument and lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God is to be destroyed, torn down, fought against".

So you basically share the AiG stance that [paraphrasing] 'any evidence that goes against a literal reading of Genesis must be wrong by definition'?

If so then there's no need to continue the discussion (on science) because you are beholden to your doctrines of faith, which is fair enough, and there's no common ground to be found. But please, don't pretend that you're arguing against evolution because it isn't good science.

Now morality, on the other hand....

Chris Geiser said...

Are you an actual scientist or not? Because if you were actually be a scientist you'd find God to be true and that the Bible is true. In the book Creation by Grant Jeffry, he states that many scientists are finding out that evolution is not true and that it is losing face in the scientist community. He said that many scientists hang on to evolution because they don't want to accept the alternative to why the universe is here. Intelligent design. He also states that many scientists regard evolution as a religion now than actual science.

ExPatMatt said...


Grant Jeffrey isn't a scientist either, he's a Biblical apologist; you might as well have told me that Ken Ham wrote all that stuff you mentioned.

Despite what he might say in his book, evolution is not losing face in the scientific community. Yes, many religious folk are rejecting and denying evolution because of their literalistic interpretation of Genesis, but no scientists are dismissing evolution based on scientific research. If they were, there would be numerous papers about it in biology journals.

Also, you're equating evolution with the origin of the universe - you do know what's wrong with that, right?

If you're going to claim (or repeat claims) that evolution is a religion then you're going to have to provide a definition of 'religion'.