teddyv

The ad hoc nature of creationism, especially from Answers in Genesis, is super frustrating because they contradict themselves all the time. No attempt at any coherent story - every branch of science is compartmentalized to find the so-called cracks, but then do not apply those across all disciplines. As well, continue to proclaim certain hypotheses when their own people say it's impossible without some magical physics.

I will address some of this but don't have time at the moment. The only reason I might be construed as "demanding" you view it through my perspective is because so many creationists here and elsewhere demonstrably do not understand what they criticize. As I said previously, many arguments are strawman, or arguments from incredulity, and for some here (not you), just random ad hoc explanations with no Scriptural basis and no physical evidence.

So how much did the Koch brothers dump into Republican candidates? Was is "madsive"?

Science can neither prove nor disprove the truly supernatural. That is a category error. If there was an event that was supernatural and it left some evidence, then yes, the scientific process would look for a naturalistic mechanism to explain. In that case it would be wrong in it's conclusion. So far, in my career as a geologist, I have not seen compelling evidence for a global flood, nor for any reason to deny the earth is quite ancient. Scripture does not demand a literalistic approach, and I would argue, doing so is a modern contrivance. This is a rather small subset of people, and an even smaller subset of actual working scientists. My goal would be that Christians be well-informed on those matters they take issue with rather than make terrible arguments, build strawmen, or outright falsehoods. That requires having a good understanding of the various branches of science. You know, I am an active part of this thread. You can say this straight to my "face". Lastly, still waiting on those Scriptural references.

I am pretty certain every single person in that country has a cutlass. Lots of shotguns, too.

Science does not complicate it. Science is a human construct to understand the created order. I don't call the Biblical account wrong because it is not a scientific discourse (as we define it now) on the history of the universe and planet. Sure, let's see those Scriptural references please. Maybe, but this sounds like "secret knowledge".

Of course we disagree. I realize that the snippet you quoted would be the most controversial statement I wrote, but I don't get the sense that you have contemplated the ramifications of your position, since you did not quote anything else. I will restate it: such a position as you stated implies that modern scientific knowledge is actually correct based on the evidence. There is no way to verify it's young, but was created to be old. Why overcomplicate it?

This creates problems. Certainly God can make it how he wants. I don't dispute that. I do have a problem with an effectively deceitful God because that is what is being implied by such a view. This is Biblically problematic and I am surprised that it is suggested. It would also mean that we are, in fact, correct that the earth is old, because God made it (appear) old, and all the physics, chemistry and geology are consistent with that view. So the science is correct - there is no evidence left that tells us it is young. I feel this overcomplicates matters. Also, such a view also would be challenged by the YEC's out there because they are looking at the world and saying that the evidence suggests the world is only a couple thousand years old. They believe the world attests to this. Your view says they are wrong as well. The young earth belief is a purely faith-based position. It's fine with me if you hold to it, as I understand the Scriptural basis for it, but I think it is a poor reading and interpretation of the Scriptures in light of the historical context, culture and audience of the time. We should not confuse God's general revelation of the created world with his special revelation to us through his Word. Nor should we build our faith's foundation upon Genesis, but on Christ alone. We can quibble the details on the other stuff.

I'll bite, but I need some clarification. Is this an allusion to the idea that God created the world to look ancient, even though it is not?

How could you possibly assume that I am not looking at the bigger picture? On what basis can you even make that claim? That I don't agree with the YEC interpretation of Scripture? Anyway... Let's talk specifics then. The country of Ghana is well-endowed with gold resources. I worked for about 6 months on a project there hosted with the Birimian metasediments. These sediments were primarily multiple sequences of greywacke, sandstone to siltstone, sometimes well-bedded, other times more disturbed. These finer sediments were overlain by conglomerates of the Tarkwaian formation. Overprinting both these units, in the deposit I worked on, was a metamorphic event that produced garnets. The interesting thing was in the upper conglomerates, instead of garnets, it was magnetite. As we would log down the drill core, the magnetite would suddenly transition into the garnets. This is due to a metamorphic reaction creating "skarn". Further into the sediments, sulphides would appear indicating hydrothermal action. Our gold deposit was located in a rich skarn zone (or zones) of large pink garnets, green amphiboles and pyrrhotite (a sulphide), along with quartz veins that were often mineralized with visible gold. As work progressed it was understood that the deposit was structurally hosted within a steep thrust fault. In these sediments, no fossils are found, either in the fine sediments (which would have been conducive to preservation) or the conglomerates (less so). The finer sediments were deposited likely on a coastal shelf, with the later conglomerates overlain during uplift of the area. They also show multiple sequences of various fineness of the sediments. So, I need to have a good idea of how to explain all these issues, for one small gold deposit, within the 1 year Flood event. If you go with "it was created that way" well, that's fine, I guess. We need disposition of the finer sediments, uplift, deposition of the coarse conglomerates, structural deformation including folding and faulting, metamorphism, hydrothermal processes. We like to know the timing of these events because it can (and has) led to the identification of additional deposits with the same characteristics. I'm sure the good folk at AiG would quote me "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics" but even their own people concede that they cannot deal with the heat problem that process involves. Dr. Todd Wood is a creationist who believes fairly the same as you. As far as I am concerned he has credibility to criticize or object evolutionary theory because he actually understands it, and probably far better than me, not being a biologist. You have a lot of work ahead of you to demonstrate this. We do not find jumbles of different species of fossils in the rocks. Certain fossils are expressly limited to certain formations. Around my home are ammonites and bivalves in the Jurassic-aged rocks. There is also a fossiliferous outcrop containing fish, wasps, and metasequoia from an ancient Eocene lake. We do not find intermixing of any of these fossils and they almost literally on top of each other.

I have simply not seen the evidence for this in my work in various places around the world, be it the Proterozoic greenstones of West Africa, the sediments of the Rocky Mountains, the island arc sequences of volcanics, sediments and granitoid intrusives of western British Columbia. That quote is from Dr. Todd Wood, a Creationist biologist, holding a Ph.D. who is attempting to create an alternate model for the earth's biodoversity. You are now talking about geology, not biology.

Matthew Taylor was the one who did the extensive documentary on the NAR that I alluded to earlier.

I found a legible one, but I won't link here as it is rather graphic. It's sourced from some very old website and called the SRA (Satanic Ritual Abuse) Calendar, which means it's most likely made up.

No argument from me there.

And I just checked that, yes, Aztecs performed child sacrifice as part of their rituals.

Of course it is, but you are bringing up an argument no one has made.

I am assuming that is an Aztec temple, as they practiced human sacrifice, but I don't recall if that meant children. The year 1515 seems close to time of the Conquistadors.

"[T]here are evil people engaged in evil practices." can be easily applied to the church as well, looking at the amount of predators, groomers, abusers and hypocrites that keep getting exposed. In face, churches are a far more likely place for these things to happen. Schools have actual processes, ethical standards and regulation s0 it is much harder to protect the abusers. For the record, our kids attend a Christian school.

Well, I don't think I've ever seen this really promoted, even on YEC sites, as an interpretative lens on Genesis 1-11. Can you offer a specific example?

As I mentioned, its a bit of a deep dive to really understand it and I can't say I fully do. It is intimately tied to the current rise of Christian Nationalism. The architect, if you will, is C. Peter Wagner. I am going to likely get some things misstated here. His view was that the role of apostle as the head/leader of the church had been ignored and that there needed to be a renewal in that role of apostleship (and prophets). He gathered around a few people that built on this idea, including the idea of the Seven Mountain Mandate, the idea that Christians should be dominant in the seven "spheres" of human activity - such as politics, education, science and technology, business and some others I don't remember). The huge rise in so-called prophets is likely also related to this teaching. The whole idea of prayer warriors and spiritual warfare comes out of this ideology as well. Bear in mind, this is not an organization as such - you won't find a head office or something under that name. It is a loose group of highly influential pastors and prophets. There has been much written on this group more recently. I can give you a link to an extensive podcast series in a PM if you want that lays out the history and it's impact in more recent times. (As an aside, from my Dutch Reformed perspective, the idea of Christians being involved in all aspects of human endeavor is also important, but the idea of dominating those fields is not the goal, rather to bringing and being the "salt and light" of the gospel.")

OK. Fair enough.

I have not heard that phrase before. A quick look seems to link it to Kabbalah, which is considered a false doctrine, but I have not looked that deeply. If it is nothing more than pseudo-gnostic teachings, then I don't see much of a point. Anyway, I am not sure how this relates to the hard dating of Creation to 4004 BC, which is what I was relating to.

He said nothing about speciation here. Strawman.

Haha! New Apostolic Reformation. That's a long deep hole to go down.

His ties to the NAR seem problematic.