Help me respond to a sceptical friend =)

[nightbringer]

Yo.

Myself and a good friend of mine who's of the very sceptical persuasion have been debating Christianity since we met at the start of university. A lot of this time has been spent discussing creation/evolution. We're approaching the end of our time at university and he's sent me a message on facebook expressing a desire to spend our last couple months debating our 'basic assumptions' so as to settle the matter or something. He posed many questions to me, most are philosophical. I feel I've answered all those to a decent degree but I lack the expertise to address some of the science. In particular questions about the global flood. He linked me to these two videos which aim to 'debunk' the flood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfSvk...eature=related

I'll attempt to summarise the contents but I can't promise I've got the terms or arguments down correctly. If you could spare the time to watch the videos I'd appreciate it (together they are just under 20 mins).

In part 1:

- He argues that floods do not produce layered deposits and so cannot account for the geological column.
- He criticises a guy called Hovind (I don't know who he is) and says that the Mt. St. Helens event which produced layers concerned not mud flow but ash and pyroclast and thus is irrelevant to supporting the flood (there’s also apparently some deception over the simultaneity of the events).
- He says that simple experiments demonstrate a flood only produces one graded layer and not many distinctive layers.
- He argues that chalk cannot be deposited quickly because it is made of the shells of marine algae which accumulate at the bottom of the sea at a rate of 2 inches every thousand years.
- He critiques an answer to this problem apparently found at AIG which claims that these algae proliferated during the flood because of they got more nutrients from the flood detritus. He finds this preposterous because it would have had to increase the rate by 18 million times to account for the amount of chalk we see. He says it's chemically impossible and breaks the laws of thermodynamics (though he doesn't specify how) and also says that even if this were true it wouldn't explain how there isn't any of that flood detritus mixed with the chalk.
- He says also that fossilised coral is another problem for the flood for it obviously isn’t a flood deposit (he doesn’t state how) yet it is found wedged between supposed flood deposits and we even find coal above the coral reefs.
- He says that creationists have utterly failed to perform any actual experiments demonstrating how a flood can produce the kind of layering we see in the column.

Part 2:

- He criticises Don Patton’s claim (not sure I’ve spelt the name correctly, at any rate I don’t know who he is) that the flood buried the animals where they stood which was supposed to explain the layered nature of the fossil record. Apparently creationists have mostly abandoned this claim.
- He says the nature of the layers are such that even if the animals lived in the same place they couldn’t have lived at the same time because they are neatly buried on top of each separated by different sediments.
- He asked how creationists can explain that distinct creature types are separated into their own layers.
- He criticises the interpretation of the fossil sequence that claims the creatures are buried according to their buoyancy. Apparently no experiment has been published to verify this and it isn’t surprising because animals either float or sink. Apparently even if that were possible it still doesn’t match the fossil sequence.
- He criticises the claim that the fossil sequence can be explained by order of animal intelligence (hence having mammals and humans at the top). This is apparently ridiculous because it doesn’t take much intelligence for an animal to run away from a flood. Even if this was true it apparently still wouldn’t explain the fossil distribution because we find primates buried below lizards.

From where I’m standing the videos seem mostly very persuasive. I’m trusting there’s some potentially good responses to be had however. If you can help me out with this it would be much appreciated, for the sake of my own peace of mind and faith as well as the hopeful future faith of my friend’s. Please only response if you are sympathetic to the YEC view. I have enough contrary data to be working with so I don’t need further ‘problems’ hurled my way. I’m sure if I were switch my views from YEC to something else you’d rather I’d do it via an honest assessment of the data than through fear inspired via having to access a billion claims at once. I’m willing to admit that this stuff may be irrefutable. Anyway thanks in advance for any helpful comments.

[fm93]

Yo.

I'm no expert in the creation/evolution debate, so I probably won't be able to help you with issues about the finer details of evolution and geology, but I actually started a thread last July on this topic. If you decide that the old-earth view is correct, here are a few articles you could peruse that I think may help you.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF12-97Morton.html
http://www.answersincreation.org/art...d_location.htm
http://sites.google.com/site/noahsfloodsite/

Btw, you can read through that entire thread by clicking here.

Also, if you find yourself with further questions, I suggest you ask a moderator to please move this thead to the Cosmogony 201 section. Applied Protology evidently isn't that attractive to TWebbers.

[nightbringer]

Hey thanks for the links. I've made some headway on this since I first posted it but they're still useful resources.

[fm93]

Hey thanks for the links. I've made some headway on this since I first posted it but they're still useful resources.

I'm glad to know that.

[oxmixmudd]

Yo.

Myself and a good friend of mine who's of the very sceptical persuasion have been debating Christianity since we met at the start of university. A lot of this time has been spent discussing creation/evolution. We're approaching the end of our time at university and he's sent me a message on facebook expressing a desire to spend our last couple months debating our 'basic assumptions' so as to settle the matter or something. He posed many questions to me, most are philosophical. I feel I've answered all those to a decent degree but I lack the expertise to address some of the science. In particular questions about the global flood. He linked me to these two videos which aim to 'debunk' the flood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfSvk...eature=related

I'll attempt to summarise the contents but I can't promise I've got the terms or arguments down correctly. If you could spare the time to watch the videos I'd appreciate it (together they are just under 20 mins).

In part 1:

- He argues that floods do not produce layered deposits and so cannot account for the geological column.
- He criticises a guy called Hovind (I don't know who he is) and says that the Mt. St. Helens event which produced layers concerned not mud flow but ash and pyroclast and thus is irrelevant to supporting the flood (there’s also apparently some deception over the simultaneity of the events).
- He says that simple experiments demonstrate a flood only produces one graded layer and not many distinctive layers.
- He argues that chalk cannot be deposited quickly because it is made of the shells of marine algae which accumulate at the bottom of the sea at a rate of 2 inches every thousand years.
- He critiques an answer to this problem apparently found at AIG which claims that these algae proliferated during the flood because of they got more nutrients from the flood detritus. He finds this preposterous because it would have had to increase the rate by 18 million times to account for the amount of chalk we see. He says it's chemically impossible and breaks the laws of thermodynamics (though he doesn't specify how) and also says that even if this were true it wouldn't explain how there isn't any of that flood detritus mixed with the chalk.
- He says also that fossilised coral is another problem for the flood for it obviously isn’t a flood deposit (he doesn’t state how) yet it is found wedged between supposed flood deposits and we even find coal above the coral reefs.
- He says that creationists have utterly failed to perform any actual experiments demonstrating how a flood can produce the kind of layering we see in the column.

Part 2:

- He criticises Don Patton’s claim (not sure I’ve spelt the name correctly, at any rate I don’t know who he is) that the flood buried the animals where they stood which was supposed to explain the layered nature of the fossil record. Apparently creationists have mostly abandoned this claim.
- He says the nature of the layers are such that even if the animals lived in the same place they couldn’t have lived at the same time because they are neatly buried on top of each separated by different sediments.
- He asked how creationists can explain that distinct creature types are separated into their own layers.
- He criticises the interpretation of the fossil sequence that claims the creatures are buried according to their buoyancy. Apparently no experiment has been published to verify this and it isn’t surprising because animals either float or sink. Apparently even if that were possible it still doesn’t match the fossil sequence.
- He criticises the claim that the fossil sequence can be explained by order of animal intelligence (hence having mammals and humans at the top). This is apparently ridiculous because it doesn’t take much intelligence for an animal to run away from a flood. Even if this was true it apparently still wouldn’t explain the fossil distribution because we find primates buried below lizards.

From where I’m standing the videos seem mostly very persuasive. I’m trusting there’s some potentially good responses to be had however. If you can help me out with this it would be much appreciated, for the sake of my own peace of mind and faith as well as the hopeful future faith of my friend’s. Please only response if you are sympathetic to the YEC view. I have enough contrary data to be working with so I don’t need further ‘problems’ hurled my way. I’m sure if I were switch my views from YEC to something else you’d rather I’d do it via an honest assessment of the data than through fear inspired via having to access a billion claims at once. I’m willing to admit that this stuff may be irrefutable. Anyway thanks in advance for any helpful comments.

The difficulty here is that scientifically, the videos you have referenced are pretty much accurate. The physical evidence is not consistent with a Global flood. If the flood was truly global, then it occurred in such a way as to not leave evidence of its occurance -or evidence of a kind as to be completely unexpected. It is far more likely, however, that the language of the text is not as literal as one might suppose, more phenomenal, speaking from the perspective of the Author in terms of describing its extent.

This is, of course, a difficult thing to process if one has been taught there is some connection between the global extent of the flood and the validity of scripture (I would add that I am an evangelical and conservative Christian who does not think that connection exists) But to the point, those that claim one can scientifically validate that a global flood (single event in the last 10,000 years) occurred are mistaken. Indeed, it is quite the opposite - the evidence is almost exclusively contrary to that hypothesis.


Jim

[KBertsche]

Yo.

Myself and a good friend of mine who's of the very sceptical persuasion have been debating Christianity since we met at the start of university. A lot of this time has been spent discussing creation/evolution. We're approaching the end of our time at university and he's sent me a message on facebook expressing a desire to spend our last couple months debating our 'basic assumptions' so as to settle the matter or something. He posed many questions to me, most are philosophical. I feel I've answered all those to a decent degree but I lack the expertise to address some of the science. In particular questions about the global flood. He linked me to these two videos which aim to 'debunk' the flood.

...

From where I’m standing the videos seem mostly very persuasive. I’m trusting there’s some potentially good responses to be had however. If you can help me out with this it would be much appreciated, for the sake of my own peace of mind and faith as well as the hopeful future faith of my friend’s. Please only response if you are sympathetic to the YEC view. I have enough contrary data to be working with so I don’t need further ‘problems’ hurled my way. I’m sure if I were switch my views from YEC to something else you’d rather I’d do it via an honest assessment of the data than through fear inspired via having to access a billion claims at once. I’m willing to admit that this stuff may be irrefutable. Anyway thanks in advance for any helpful comments.

I haven't had time to view the videos, but I would trust Jim's (oxmixmudd's) assessment of them.

I would recommend that you NOT get bogged down in the details of YEC vs OEC. If your friend wants to emphasize the philosophical, that's probably a better direction to go.

And if you are open to reexamining issues of biblical interpretation, I would recommend the booklet "Understanding the Biblical Creation Passages" by Marston.

[Catholicity]

if I were you, I'd start also by researching Basic Hebrew, The Strongest Strong's Concordance is really good, it may help you out with philosophy,

[greentwiga]

Yo.

Myself and a good friend of mine who's of the very sceptical persuasion have been debating Christianity since we met at the start of university. A lot of this time has been spent discussing creation/evolution. We're approaching the end of our time at university and he's sent me a message on facebook expressing a desire to spend our last couple months debating our 'basic assumptions' so as to settle the matter or something. He posed many questions to me, most are philosophical. I feel I've answered all those to a decent degree but I lack the expertise to address some of the science. In particular questions about the global flood. He linked me to these two videos which aim to 'debunk' the flood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfSvk...eature=related

I'll attempt to summarise the contents but I can't promise I've got the terms or arguments down correctly. If you could spare the time to watch the videos I'd appreciate it (together they are just under 20 mins).

In part 1:

- He argues that floods do not produce layered deposits and so cannot account for the geological column.
- He criticises a guy called Hovind (I don't know who he is) and says that the Mt. St. Helens event which produced layers concerned not mud flow but ash and pyroclast and thus is irrelevant to supporting the flood (there’s also apparently some deception over the simultaneity of the events).
- He says that simple experiments demonstrate a flood only produces one graded layer and not many distinctive layers.
- He argues that chalk cannot be deposited quickly because it is made of the shells of marine algae which accumulate at the bottom of the sea at a rate of 2 inches every thousand years.
- He critiques an answer to this problem apparently found at AIG which claims that these algae proliferated during the flood because of they got more nutrients from the flood detritus. He finds this preposterous because it would have had to increase the rate by 18 million times to account for the amount of chalk we see. He says it's chemically impossible and breaks the laws of thermodynamics (though he doesn't specify how) and also says that even if this were true it wouldn't explain how there isn't any of that flood detritus mixed with the chalk.
- He says also that fossilised coral is another problem for the flood for it obviously isn’t a flood deposit (he doesn’t state how) yet it is found wedged between supposed flood deposits and we even find coal above the coral reefs.
- He says that creationists have utterly failed to perform any actual experiments demonstrating how a flood can produce the kind of layering we see in the column.

Part 2:

- He criticises Don Patton’s claim (not sure I’ve spelt the name correctly, at any rate I don’t know who he is) that the flood buried the animals where they stood which was supposed to explain the layered nature of the fossil record. Apparently creationists have mostly abandoned this claim.
- He says the nature of the layers are such that even if the animals lived in the same place they couldn’t have lived at the same time because they are neatly buried on top of each separated by different sediments.
- He asked how creationists can explain that distinct creature types are separated into their own layers.
- He criticises the interpretation of the fossil sequence that claims the creatures are buried according to their buoyancy. Apparently no experiment has been published to verify this and it isn’t surprising because animals either float or sink. Apparently even if that were possible it still doesn’t match the fossil sequence.
- He criticises the claim that the fossil sequence can be explained by order of animal intelligence (hence having mammals and humans at the top). This is apparently ridiculous because it doesn’t take much intelligence for an animal to run away from a flood. Even if this was true it apparently still wouldn’t explain the fossil distribution because we find primates buried below lizards.

From where I’m standing the videos seem mostly very persuasive. I’m trusting there’s some potentially good responses to be had however. If you can help me out with this it would be much appreciated, for the sake of my own peace of mind and faith as well as the hopeful future faith of my friend’s. Please only response if you are sympathetic to the YEC view. I have enough contrary data to be working with so I don’t need further ‘problems’ hurled my way. I’m sure if I were switch my views from YEC to something else you’d rather I’d do it via an honest assessment of the data than through fear inspired via having to access a billion claims at once. I’m willing to admit that this stuff may be irrefutable. Anyway thanks in advance for any helpful comments.

Once you buy into the interpretation that the flood was regional, you have to deny most science to defend the interpretation. If you accept the interpretation that the flood was regional, you can still be a fundamentalist Christian and accept all the science that these videos quote. Telling him that the flood could have been regional allows you to set aside this problem and focus on the heart of Christianity; that Jesus died for us and we must receive the free pardon. I am a fundamentalist Christian who has worked in an isotope lab and as a soil scientist. The science presented in these videos is very good. The Creationists arguments that he mentions are very bad science. Do not be caught defending them. You will just drive people away from Jesus.

[jordanriver]

The Creationists arguments that he mentions are very bad science. Do not be caught defending them. You will just drive people away from Jesus.

Excuse me if I am wrong, but I thought this forum was for Creationists.

jr

[greentwiga]

Excuse me if I am wrong, but I thought this forum was for Creationists.

jr

Is it only for Young Earth Creationists or can one who believes in the Bible absolutely but in old earth creation speak up?