Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8973 total)
76 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle, WookieeB (6 members, 70 visitors)
Newest Member: dad
Post Volume: Total: 875,573 Year: 7,321/23,288 Month: 1,227/1,214 Week: 239/303 Day: 36/43 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Could asteroids lead to the extinction of YECism ?
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 5 of 137 (722267)
03-19-2014 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by vimesey
03-19-2014 9:36 AM


Origin of asteroids in the Flood
My first thought when I saw this thread was something connected with the Flood (I had heard there was some sort of connection but I've never studied it so didn't know what), so I pictured the upheaval of the Flood also affecting the Solar System somehow, maybe an exploding planet was involved etc., and its debris crashed into Earth as well as the Moon and whatever planets have craters. This would imply a blizzard of asteroid impacts in a relatively short time, then, not some kind of periodic crashing of asteroids over millions of years. Turns out the mass of the asteroids wouldn't even add up to our Moon, so it wasn't an exploding planet.

I just googled this subject and found quite a bit of creationist thinking on the source of asteroids: Google "Asteroids Creationism"

I found one creationist website attributing the origin of the asteroids to Earth itself, specifically to what is described as a very explosive opening of the "fountains of the deep" as mentioned in the Bible, shooting rock into space. Here's a discussion of that theory

I've read some of the article but not enough to have a very clear idea of it. Just wondering what you'll all say about it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by vimesey, posted 03-19-2014 9:36 AM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Taq, posted 03-19-2014 3:36 PM Faith has responded
 Message 10 by vimesey, posted 03-20-2014 7:50 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 16 by Diomedes, posted 03-20-2014 11:18 AM Faith has responded
 Message 18 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-20-2014 12:28 PM Faith has responded
 Message 23 by saab93f, posted 03-20-2014 3:13 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 7 of 137 (722303)
03-19-2014 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Taq
03-19-2014 3:36 PM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
I don't have a position on the view I referenced, thought perhaps others here might. The point is mainly that the view presented earlier in this thread as the creationist view isn't representative. If nobody has an opinion then nobody has an opinion, but the creationist view appears to be something other than previously presented.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Taq, posted 03-19-2014 3:36 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 03-19-2014 11:51 PM Faith has responded
 Message 24 by Taq, posted 03-20-2014 3:27 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 9 of 137 (722312)
03-20-2014 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Coyote
03-19-2014 11:51 PM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
That Google page seems to suggest that the Flood as the source of the asteroids is a pretty representative creationist viewpoint although there may be variations. Volcanoes on the moon is not even hinted at.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 03-19-2014 11:51 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by JonF, posted 03-20-2014 8:01 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 27 of 137 (722426)
03-21-2014 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Taq
03-20-2014 3:27 PM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
What I am saying is that we would prefer to see some scientific theories based on evidence, not "views". You know what they say about elbows and assholes? Everyone has them. The same for views. What we are interested in is the evidence, not what some creationists website professes as their beliefs.

Perhaps someone will come along with the scientific theories based on evidence that you would prefer to see, but all I was doing was pointing out that there are creationist views that hadn't been mentioned in this thread so far. I understand you'd prefer I had done something else, so all I can say is that I'm sorry to have disappointed you and hope your fondest dreams come true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Taq, posted 03-20-2014 3:27 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 28 of 137 (722427)
03-21-2014 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Diomedes
03-20-2014 11:18 AM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
That's an interesting observation about the dark side of the moon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Diomedes, posted 03-20-2014 11:18 AM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 29 of 137 (722428)
03-21-2014 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by vimesey
03-19-2014 11:45 AM


Craters on the dark side of the moon
Yeah, it's funny how the moon, that well-known hotbed of volcanic activity, could have produced calderas, evenly distributed across its entire surface . . .

Interestingly, there is volcanic activity on the moon. Lava flows are mentioned in this Scientific American article about the
multiple small craters on the dark side of the moon

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by vimesey, posted 03-19-2014 11:45 AM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by vimesey, posted 03-21-2014 5:24 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 32 of 137 (722431)
03-21-2014 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by vimesey
03-21-2014 5:24 AM


Re: Craters on the dark side of the moon
Oh, OK.

But you weren't saying it to me because I hadn't yet posted on this thread.

By the way I do find this topic interesting but don't have the time or energy to put into it right now. You'd asked if anyone knew what creationist theories are out there about the asteroid impacts and I didn't know but managed to find out that there are some creationist ideas floating around. I've got too many things on my mind to get into this very deeply although it does interest me. So far only you and a couple others have even said anything about the particular theories involved, the others being more interested in the usual ridicule and debunkery. Unfortunately I think I'm the only YEC here but I'd like to see someone come along and argue one of the YEC theories. Guess it isn't likely to happen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by vimesey, posted 03-21-2014 5:24 AM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by vimesey, posted 03-21-2014 8:33 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 33 of 137 (722433)
03-21-2014 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dr Adequate
03-20-2014 12:28 PM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
Wow, is there anything the Flood can't do?

Yes, I agree it seems quite farfetched to try to explain the asteroid craters in relation to the Flood, which is probably why I haven't spent any time on it. Perhaps it's not as silly as it sounds but I guess I'm not going to find out.

But then you go on to the usual arguments that only sound farfetched after you've caricatured them to make it so:

* It can deposit sedimentary rocks in such a way as to accord perfectly with the expectations of geologists, to the extent, even, of perfectly mimicking subaerial deposition.

* It can give igneous rocks the appearance of age in such a way as to accord perfectly with the expectations of geologists.

* It can arrange fossils within the rocks in such a way as to accord perfectly with the expectations of biologists.

Of course what I find absolutely astonishing is how phenomena that could only be the result of a one-time event involving a huge quantity of water, which laid down SEPARATE DIFFERENT SEDIMENTS with DEAD THINGS buried in them, get explained as enormously long eras of time in which ONLY those sediments were laid down (as if the Mississippian period was the period of Redwall Limestone or whatever its sediment happens to be and only redwall limestone was ever laid down in those multiplied millions of years) and ONLY those creatures buried in that sediment were alive during that "time period" and so on. Now THAT is true magic for you.

* It can create asteroids to age the face of the Moon and the planets in such a way as to accord perfectly with the expectations of astronomers.

Once a scientist is committed to a particular theory of age then that's what the scientist "sees" wherever he or she looks. Perfectly understandable. Also perfectly understandable that a person committed to the time table of the Bible "sees" it all quite differently.

Me, I don't know yet what to make of the asteroids. It makes sense to me that they would be connected with the Fall or the Flood in some way because they are a destructive phenomenon, but how they came about I haven't studied yet. On the Biblical timetable the craters would have had to have been created in a relatively short period of time, and a time when few were around to witness it. That makes the Flood period the best time, even perhaps over a few hundred years. And its being a time of general upheaval adds to that likelihood.

And it does all this without God mentioning it in the Bible, because although he agrees with YECs he also wants them to look like idiots. So he carefully gave the waters of the Flood these miraculous powers to fake the appearance of an old Earth and of evolution, but didn't mention this anywhere in his Word...

What's really amazing is that you can swallow the utterly stupendously ridiculous status quo theory while ridiculing the Flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-20-2014 12:28 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Pressie, posted 03-21-2014 6:57 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Tangle, posted 03-21-2014 7:17 AM Faith has responded
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-21-2014 9:50 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 36 of 137 (722438)
03-21-2014 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Tangle
03-21-2014 7:17 AM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
Pretty much all 19th century Western scientists believed what you believe about the age of the earth. They only very grudgingly changed their collective minds over time when they were presented with the overwhelming evidence. That's what science does and faith doesn't.

James Hutton was eighteenth century. While it took a while for his purely subjective speculative interpretation of the age of Siccar Point in millions of years to take hold, thanks to Lyell it had pretty much taken hold by the time Darwin came along in the middle of the 19th century, which Darwin found very useful for his thinking on evolution. There were still some creationists around, but what they were presented with was hardly "overwhelming evidence," it was still that purely subjective speculative interpretation, which by then had acquired a few more millions of years, also purely subjective and speculative, and far from "overwhelming evidence." Eventually you got radiometric dating which seemed to make it all objective and factual but the discrepancies and errors have to be rationalized away to maintain that illusion. All you guys have for any of it remains speculation, hypothesis and theory although you just LOVE to call it "overwhelming evidence." Perhaps you even believe it, that's even sadder.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Tangle, posted 03-21-2014 7:17 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Tangle, posted 03-21-2014 9:52 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 41 by JonF, posted 03-21-2014 10:34 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 48 of 137 (722523)
03-21-2014 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by kbertsche
03-21-2014 1:06 PM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
Not true. The age of the earth was fairly well accepted in the 19th century, at least from the middle of the century onward.

Which I also said so we agree on this much, meaning of course the OLD EARTH notion of the age of the earth.

Even conservative Christians generally accepted the evidence for the age of the earth.

I'm sure some did, again meaning for the millions-of-years age of the earth, and they had the Bible-twisting effects of the Tubingen school of theology to push them in that direction too, the whole Liberal Christian movement that got underway about that same time; but those who continued in the traditional understanding of the Bible and its inerrancy could not accept the Old Earth, and that remains the same to this day.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by kbertsche, posted 03-21-2014 1:06 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by kbertsche, posted 03-21-2014 9:03 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 50 of 137 (722527)
03-21-2014 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tangle
03-21-2014 7:24 PM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
There's a hundred years in a century. At the beginning of the century by far the majority view was that the earth was young. It took time and a lot of evidence to change that position amongst an almost universal Christian scientific community.

It took time and a lot of ARGUMENT in the scientific societies, NOT evidence. All they had was the subjective speculations of Hutton for starters and Lyell's arguments for Hutton's speculations, and other speculations that piled on top of those. NOT EVIDENCE, just speculation. "Gee it sure seems to me that it must have taken a lot longer than six thousand years..." That's about the extent of your "evidence" in those days.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tangle, posted 03-21-2014 7:24 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Tangle, posted 03-22-2014 3:47 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 52 of 137 (722535)
03-22-2014 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by kbertsche
03-21-2014 9:03 PM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
And can you point me to the actual evidence that those on your list supported the Old Earth? I'd be particularly interested in Spurgeon, Boice, Machen, Warfield and Hodge.

ABE: This Wikipedia article lists these:

Proponents of this form of creationism have included Oral Roberts, Cyrus I. Scofield, Harry Rimmer, Jimmy Swaggart,[8] G. H. Pember, L. Allen Higley,[4] Arthur Pink, Peter Ruckman, Finis Jennings Dake, Chuck Missler, E. W. Bullinger, Donald Grey Barnhouse and Clarence Larkin.,[9]

Not my favorites, except Arthur Pink, who got it wrong about the Antichrist too.

If you are right it seems a lot of the best succumbed to this easy way out of a dilemma, at the expense of the Bible in my opinion. Very sad if so.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by kbertsche, posted 03-21-2014 9:03 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by kbertsche, posted 03-22-2014 4:30 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 57 of 137 (722552)
03-22-2014 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Tangle
03-22-2014 3:47 AM


the so called evidence
The problem is that the evidence was just people's speculations about geological formations. Hutton's evidence was simply his ponderings about how Siccar Point must have been formed which in his estimation would have taken millions of years. OK that's all the evidence they had and one can't fault them for that, but it's the usual problem: there is no way to prove this stuff, it starts out as speculation and it remains speculation because there is simply no way to prove any of the hypotheses about age. It gets established purely on the basis of persuasion, but everybody eventually forgets that and starts thinking of it as established fact and upbraiding anyone who refuses to accept it as fact.

Hutton looked at Siccar Point, a famous angular unconformity, and decided that the lower vertical layers were laid down first and then they were tilted and eroded and some time later the upper horizontal layers were then laid on top of the lower. Well, it's a possible theory but that's all it is, yet it is accepted as dogma now. All angular unconformities, including the Great Unconformity at the base of the Grand Canyon, are understood to follow this pattern and this time scale as hypothesized by Hutton, though now expanded to even more enormous quantities of time.

One thing that's interesting is that most such formations show a very paltry one or two horizontal layers remaining over the buckled lower layers. But I guess I shouldn't get into the reasons NOT to accept Hutton's view here. The point should be recognized that it is only a hypothesis, that all they had in the end and still have is the idea that it looked to them like it must have taken more than 6000 years, and eventually others got persuaded and that's the so-called "evidence" you have.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Tangle, posted 03-22-2014 3:47 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by JonF, posted 03-22-2014 2:50 PM Faith has responded
 Message 65 by Tangle, posted 03-22-2014 4:00 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 58 of 137 (722553)
03-22-2014 1:55 PM


Back to the asteroids
Somebody brought up some other threads on this topic of the asteroids. Apparently the theory I found is THE main creationist theory, by a Walter Brown? I have to say it doesn't sound very plausible to me either although I haven't spent any time on it to know how he argues the case. It would be nice if there were other creationist ideas about the asteroids to think about but maybe there aren't any.

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by JonF, posted 03-22-2014 2:48 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 64 by dwise1, posted 03-22-2014 3:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 61 of 137 (722558)
03-22-2014 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by JonF
03-22-2014 2:50 PM


Re: the so called evidence
Well that takes care of THAT, doesn't it?

No, I still think my explanation is way better than Hutton's. It doesn't take any knowledge other than the ability to recognize how forces would affect layers.

{ABE: And by the way, your "argument" I'm answering here is the lowest kind of ad hominem. Shouldn't a serious scientist be above such stuff?}

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by JonF, posted 03-22-2014 2:50 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 03-22-2014 3:12 PM Faith has responded
 Message 66 by JonF, posted 03-22-2014 4:00 PM Faith has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020