thecountryshrink
dwilli58In Part II, I gave a basic summary of the view of Young Earth Creationism. In this section, I’ll discuss some of the controversies.
Catastrophe versus Uniformitarianism
That naturalist viewpoint is that the rate at which geological and other natural processes occur today, is the rate at which these things have always occurred (geological changes, formation of strata layers, formation of fossils, and so forth). The YEC viewpoint is that many of these things can be explained by global catastrophic processes, and specifically the Great Flood, as described in the Bible.
Plate Tectonics
After naturalistic scientists finally came to a point of resolution about plate tectonics, it became possible to measure the speed of continental drift (.5 to 6 inches per year). (1) And by the uniformitarian view of geology, the separation of the continents from the original single land mass was estimated to have taken 1 billion years. (2) Evidence for the YEC perspective is presented at Answers in Genesis, and computer models related to the catastrophic hypothesis have been developed. (1)
According to AIG,
… a 3-D supercomputer model of processes in the earth’s mantle has demonstrated that tectonic plate movements can indeed be rapid and catastrophic when a realistic deformation model for mantle rocks is included.10 And, even though it was developed by a creation scientist, this supercomputer 3-D plate tectonics modeling is acknowledged as the world’s best.11
Radiometric Dating
The uniformitarian view receives support from examining evidence pertaining to the rate of decay of radioactive elements. Radiometric dating is used in the dating of the formation of igneous rocks.
Which are defined as,
formed by solidification of cooled magma (molten rock). (3)
So, this type of dating is confined to only certain types of rocks.
Types of igneous rocks include granite and basalt (lava). Sedimentary rocks, which contain most of the world’s fossils, are not commonly used in radioisotope dating. These types of rocks are comprised of particles from many preexisting rocks which were transported (mostly by water) and redeposited somewhere else. Types of sedimentary rocks include sandstone, shale, and limestone. (4)
Different elements are seen to have different “half lives.” Radioactive elements decay into other elements that is extremely consistent in current observations of radioactive decay. YEC challenges the assumptions of the rate of radioactive decay and provides support for their position that the Earth is young (thousands of years) instead of old (billions of years). (5) Additional evidence is provided in book and DVD form. (6) (7)
The RATE group has been criticized by naturalists. ( 8 )
This post is getting rather long, so I will continue in Part IV.
(1). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/catastrophic-plate-tectonics
(2). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
(3). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igneous
(4). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove
(5). http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp
(7). Radioisotopes & the Age of the Earth (DVD)
(8). http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm
Filed under: Creationism, Intelligent Design, evolution, science | Tagged: creation science, Creationism, evolution, geology, naturalism, radiometric, radiometric dating, science, uniformitarian
“That naturalist viewpoint is that the rate at which geological and other natural processes occur today, is the rate at which these things have always occurred….”
Only when the evidence supports it. You can use an assumption as a starting point, but then you have to demonstrate it with EVIDENCE,.
“The YEC viewpoint is that many of these things can be explained by global catastrophic processes, and specifically the Great Flood, as described in the Bible.”
And many of these things can be explained by the impetuous actions of Marduk in the Gilgamesh epic. Or by invisible purple fairies. Where is the EVIDENCE??
Like naturalists do with what happened before the big bang? Like ’scientists’ do with Dark Energy? Like naturalistic evolutionists do with abiogenesis?
From a Christian perspective, all the evidence is there and available for you. Yet, you choose to blind yourself to the evidence. I hope you’ll open yourself to the evidence.
“Like naturalists do with what happened before the big bang? Like ’scientists’ do with Dark Energy? Like naturalistic evolutionists do with abiogenesis?”
If you really do read the primary sources, you’ll see that scientists have many hypotheses about what happened in the Plank-instant between the beginning of the universe and the Big Bang. None of them amounts to a “theory” as yet.
BUT THE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE is that scientists are working on the problem, formulating models, trying to fit them to already-known data, designing experiments to provide additional evidence. In the meantime, creationists sit on their thumbs and smile smugly in a gathering darkness of faith..
“From a Christian perspective, all the evidence is there and available for you. Yet, you choose to blind yourself to the evidence. I hope you’ll open yourself to the evidence.”
Yes. And from a Hindu perspective, a different set of evidence is available. And for a Pastafarian, it’s all about pirates. The joy of science is that the evidence is the same for everyone, regardless of his religious faith. (If this has no other advantage, at least it prevents a lot of wars.)
Maybe you should tell that to cosmologists.
If you think so, then I don’t think you’re very familiar with the intellectual side of the creationist movement. I’d agree with you that a vast majority of creationist bury their heads in the sand (brains included!), but you’d be wrong to attribute that to all. I also think that many folks who hold a truly naturalist perspective do the same thing. They come up with sci-fi theories that are completely unverifiable, but feel smug and certain in their positions. They tend to look at creationists as uneducated people who believe in ‘invisible purple fairies.” Or “hobgoblins” as Dawkins likes to say.
Indeed! Scientific consensus is well known, is it not? Data is one thing, interpretation is another. As for wars, the nature of the human heart will not likely ever change. How has science contributed to preventing war?