Premier Radio on the Flood

Many Christians do not believe that Scripture supports the Young Earth Creationist position. This moderated forum is for good natured scholarly debate.

Moderator: Moderators

Premier Radio on the Flood

Postby Michael » Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:14 pm

Just been interviewed by Premier Radio on the Flood alongside the SF expert Paul Garner (his works on S are F)

I dont know whether it was useful but I will be prayed for tonight

Michael
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Postby Michael » Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:20 pm

When I challenged Garner on whether there were any YEC geologists he drew my attention to a Crationsit Geology Conferecne at Cedarville Coll Ohio where many YEC geologsits gave papers - about a dozen noe employed as geologists but some claiming to teach geology in YEC colleges

Here is one abstract. All about Noah's poooper scopper

Proceedings of the First Conference on Creation Geology, Cedarville University
http://cedarville.edu/geologyconference ©CRSEF
48
G-07
The Housing and Care of the Cargo
on Noah’s Ark
John Woodmorappe
Private Researcher
There is no doubt that Scripture teaches the
universality of the Flood (Whitcomb and Morris
1961). For the longest time, one of the main
arguments adduced against the validity of
Noah’s Ark and the global Flood has been the
one about the Ark having insufficient space to
house all the necessary animals. An examination
of Scripture, however, limits the cargo to all live
(and now extinct) terrestrial reptiles, birds, and
mammals (Woodmorappe, 1996; 2007).
Modern baraminological studies tend to
reinforce the view that the family unit of
conventional Linnaean taxonomy most closely
approximates the original created kind.
However, this author has taken the more
conservative view that the genus comes closest
to the created kind. This means that
approximately 16,000 land-breathing animals
must have been on the Ark. This is based on
nearly 8,000 pairs, and several hundred multiple
pairs of clean animals.
The distribution of the 16,000 animals on the
Ark is very strongly skewed towards small sizes.
In fact, the median animal was the size of a large
rat (200 grams body weight)! The mention of the
media is solely for purposes of illustration.
Using the floor-space requirements of animals of
all applicable sizes (albeit juveniles of larger
animals), and based on laboratory animal
housing and the like, I account for the space
necessary to house all of the animals. Even if
small-animal enclosures were not arranged in
tiers, there was plenty of room on the Ark to
spare.
I have conducted detailed research on timetravel
studies of the non-mechanized care of
animals. It is evident that 8 people could have
fed, watered, and disposed of the waste of
16,000 animals, and have done so with time to
spare for other tasks. Moreover, animals that
needed extra attention were few in number and
did not require a large amount of time.
According to several indicators (Woodmorappe,
1996; Lovett, 2007), the Ark was a seaworthy
vessel. For instance, it possessed considerable
stability against overturning. There is ongoing
research being conducted on the structural
strength of the Ark against wave-induced
bending and twisting.
Further Reading
Lovett, T. 2007, Thinking outside the box: Answers,
v. 2(2), p. 25-30.
Whitcomb, J., and Morris, H. M., 1961, The Genesis
Flood. Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Company, Philadelphia, 518p.
Woodmorappe, J., 1996, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility
Study: Institute for Creation Research, San
Diego, 298p.
—, 2007. Caring for the animals on the Ark.
Answers, v. 2(2), p. 36-38.
John Woodmorappe has a BA in Biology, a BA
in Geology, and an MA in Geology; all from
midwestern universities. He is the author of
three books: Noah's Ark: a Feasibility Study,
The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, and
Studies in Flood Geology. He is also the author
of numerous scientific creationist papers, most
of which are published in the Creation Ex Nihilo
Technical Journal and its successor journal. He
is a science educator by profession.
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Postby Chris Hyland » Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:25 pm

Couple of things:

Although I think there are a few young earth geologists there are no young earth geochronologists.

Using the median as a measurement for the average size of animal is bogus maths it should be the mean which will be much bigger.

My Bible says "Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal".
Chris Hyland
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:23 pm

Postby Michael » Wed Aug 01, 2007 9:03 pm

Chris Hyland wrote:Couple of things:

Although I think there are a few young earth geologists there are no young earth geochronologists.

Using the median as a measurement for the average size of animal is bogus maths it should be the mean which will be much bigger.

My Bible says "Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal".


Garner will tell you not to take the bible literally!

Actually there are young earth YECs who reckon the earth is 6000 yrs old

And old earth YECs who may go to 10,000

They also disagreee when the Flood ended , some say after the Creataceous others after the Tertiary

I am supposed to take all this seriously.

Michael
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Postby Peter Henderson » Wed Aug 01, 2007 9:58 pm

Just been interviewed by Premier Radio on the Flood alongside the SF expert Paul Garner (his works on S are F)


When is this interview to be broadcast Michael ? Is it Unbelievable on Saturday afternoons by any chance ?

When I challenged Garner on whether there were any YEC geologists he drew my attention to a Crationsit Geology Conferecne at Cedarville Coll Ohio where many YEC geologsits gave papers - about a dozen noe employed as geologists but some claiming to teach geology in YEC colleges


This appeared on the AiG website todaY:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... cedarville

Andrew Snelling apparently publishes in mainstream geology journals from an evolutionary perspective but doesn't say that he is in fact a young Earth creationist.

There's also Steve Austin, who's well known in YEC circles and a qualified geologist. I think Austin wrote the geology section on Tom Vaile's book "The grand Canyon, a different view"

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... austin.asp

I've been encouraged by Glenn Morton's testimony though:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

who, while not being a qualified geologist (he was a qualified physicist), was a YEC who went to work for the oil industry. What he observed in the field shocked him so much that he abandoned his YEC beliefs and very nearly became an atheist !
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4340
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Postby jon_12091 » Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:54 am

John Woodmorappe wrote:There is no doubt that Scripture teaches the
universality of the Flood (Whitcomb and Morris 1961).


Is it just me or is a bit strange that he has to quote a secondary reference for that statment rather than the primary source material? Surely if your a bible-believing christian with literalist-bent you don't need Whitcomb and Morris to tell you the bible is true?

"http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/07/31/creation-geologists-meet-at-cedarville"
Couldn't resist a look, and really wish I hadn't bothered, someone has resurected radiohalos and there is really rubbish on ice cores.
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Aug 02, 2007 1:41 pm

Michael wrote:When I challenged Garner on whether there were any YEC geologists he drew my attention to a Crationsit Geology Conferecne at Cedarville Coll Ohio where many YEC geologsits gave papers - about a dozen noe employed as geologists but some claiming to teach geology in YEC colleges



The precise question is whether there are any practising YEC geologists and, as far as I am aware, there are none. Snelling gave up geology in the 1980s and was also subsequently fired by CMI/AiG. he did do some consulting work in the 1980s but lost all credibility when he told the professional orld that certain rocks were millions of years old and the rest of the world that all rocks were no more than 6,000 years old. Woodmoorape, as far as I am aware, has never practicised as a geologist. He is a former school teacher. Woodmoorape, who, again as far as I am aware, has never sailed a dingy, set himself as a world class expert on naval architecture, which speaks volumes about his judgement. McIntosh fancies himself as geologist but doesn't even have an O level in either geology or geography. Garner has, IIRC, a 1st degree in geology but has never used it.

It seems to me that geology is far more dangerous to YECers that biology because the case is so obvious and easy to handle. Especially in the UK it doesn't take far to travel to see the geological features that can't be explianed by YECers without monumental contortions and denials.

How do the YECers explain the contradiction between the observation that the older rocks are, the less frequent/common they appear to be and the obvious prediction from fllod geology that the newest strata, being nearest or on the surface, would be the least common as they would be the first to erode since 4,400 BC.

I was also wondering whether any of them have any knowledge whatsoever of micro-fossils (the paleontology I did in my yout didn't cover them much). My understanding is that with forams, there is a pretty continuous geological record over millions of years in many strata which can be interpreted to suggest that we do know most (and, in some cases, perhaps, all) of the intermediate species down to the point that we even know the rate of evolution of them. Correct me if I am wrong.

Or, is it that the YECrs avoid forams because the evidence is so overwhelming?
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6160
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby Peter Henderson » Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:24 pm

Couldn't resist a look, and really wish I hadn't bothered, someone has resurected radiohalos and there is really rubbish on ice cores.


Does no harm to look at YEC literature Jon especially with regard to post and pre - flood deposits etc. This is a very good article by Donald U. Wise. Should be on the BCSE resource list :

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wise.htm

While Creationists regard this as a holy war worthy of their almost undivided attention, most scientists have given it short shrift, either by ignoring it or by laughing at such pretensions of "science." As a result, most scientists remain so unfamiliar with the claims, methods, and arguments of Creationists that they are unprepared for participation in any public confrontation.

For those without the time or access to such resources, this article is intended as a "crash-course" introduction to Creationist history, ideas, and methods as well as some factual tools to oppose Creationist claims and a few of the best cartoons to inject a bit of humor into any discussion

In reading such literature, a traditional geologist has difficulty keeping the time scale in order. Time and again, I found myself confusing pre- and post-flood events or mixing creation week events with flood events. One version (Froede, 1995) has a rudimentary scale with major eras being Creation Week, Antediluvian Ages, Flood Event, Ice Age, and Present. Another by Walker (1994) splits geologic time into eras and stages, based largely on numbers of days during creation week and the flood event. In order to minimize my confusion and get the overall Biblical chronological sequence in order, I found it necessary to go through conflicting ideas in many Creationist papers before being able to build my own version of their geologic column. Once this framework of Creationist geologic time was in place, many of their speculations could be added to other valid geologic observations which they generally ignore to produce


All I have to do is to take a look at the environment around me. In Ni many of the rocks are igneous, evidence of past volcanism. There are a number of extinct volcanoes (Slemish mountain for example):

http://www.ehsni.gov.uk/landscape/count ... 17-geo.htm

If the YEC's are correct then there were active volcanoes in NI just a few thousand years ago. Somehow I don't think so ????? :?: :

http://www.habitas.org.uk/escr/geologyni.htm#top

McIntosh fancies himself as geologist but doesn't even have an O level in either geology or geography.


Makes me better qualified than him in both geolgy and geography at least Roger :P !
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4340
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Postby Michael » Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:54 pm

McIntosh's geology is atrocious. His scientific (sic) appendices to his Geology for Today contains so many errors that they must be deliberate.

Michael
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Postby Peter Henderson » Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:00 pm

Have you done any astro-geology Michael ?

Both the Astronomy courses that I did with the OU (I sucessfully passed one of them. Illness disrupted the second one unfortunately) covered the subject. For example, different temperatures, pressures, and gravity, means that magma can behave in an entirely different way especially with regard to cooling and how far it can travel etc. compared to the Earth. I also found out that the most common rock in the solar system was primitive basalt. Apparently this is very similar in composition to MORBS (mid - ocean ridge basalts)

There was also quite a lot on crater morphology, not only lunar but terrestrial as well (there was an interesting video on the Ries impact Crater in Germany which is around 14.7 million years old (is this pre-flood or post flood ?). Crater density can act as a chronometor, and it's possible to estimate the age of the lunar surface using this method. I think it compared very well with the radiometric dates obtained from rock samples brought back from the apollo missions. Gene Shoemaker's ground breaking work was also mentioned in the course.

Also fascinating was the subject of cryovolcanism. On the colder icy satelites, the ice is so cold that it behaves very nuch like rock. Tidal forces can result in the formation of icy volcanoes. An interesting prospect .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryovolcano

When you look at this new and interesting scientific field YECism becomes even more ridiculous !
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4340
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Premier Radio on the Flood

Postby Dave Oldridge » Mon Aug 06, 2007 5:35 am

On 2 Aug 2007 at 16:54, Michael wrote:

McIntosh's geology is atrocious. His scientific (sic) appendices
to his Geology for Today contains so many errors that they must
be deliberate.

I'm not too prone to attributing to malice what may just be the
result of stupidity. But a great deal of creationist apologetics
leaves one with the unavoidable conclusion that the apologists
are lying, either about the science or about knowing anything
about it.

--

Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
VA7CZ
Dave Oldridge+
Dave Oldridge
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm


Return to Scripture Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron