Cdbren, a young-earth creationist commenter who was caught engaging in dishonest practices on this blog a while back, has made a reappearance, this time to (among other things) complain about my focusing on chalk deposits like the famous White Cliffs of Dover as counter-evidence to young-earth creationism.
But as commenter Ian pointed out, it is a case that gives young-earth creationism a wonderful opportunity to show whether or not it can use science to demonstrate the validity of its claims. As Ian wrote,
Oh look a testable prediction – one that can be done simply with raw materials from a regular biological stockist, and a domestic pressure cooker and stove. You can buy E huxleyi in bulk pretty cheaply, and it is easy to make nutrient and sediment rich brine in your kitchen.
So go ahead and generate a 320 foot column of chalk in one year, either as a whole, or find a combination of conditions that can generate 10 inches of chalk stone per day. You’re often telling scientists they need to replicate their claims. So you’re going to replicate yours?
It would cause quite a stir. Since there is no known mechanism that could do that, you’d have a bona fide scientific breakthrough on your hands, and rewrite the science of chalk deposits at the same time.
Go on cdbren, you can do it. Show us how science is supposed to be done!
The continuing conversation indicates that this young-earth creationist charlatan is happy to refer to sources about coccoliths as though they support his claims, but neither to do the research that could prove he is right, nor accept that all previous studies show he is wrong.
A recent reference to “two centuries of research” by young-earth creationists suggests that the relatively short-term investigation proposed here ought not to be too daunting – if young-earth creationists really did something that deserved to be called research.
The blog God of Evolution provides another example of the stark choice a Christian has to make – between young-earth creationists being liars, or God being a liar. Here’s one of the points made there – click through to read the rest!
The Bible says, “God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind.” And yet, at the heart of young-earth creationism lies a deceptive God, a deity who appears to have far more in common with the trickster Loki than the savior I’ve come to know.
The Vredefort crater in South Africa is the largest confirmed impact crater ever discovered on earth; it’s nearly 200 miles across — about the width of the state of Massachusetts. Scientists believe the asteroid that caused it was as much as 6.2 miles in diameter (i.e., about 6.0 more miles than the amount of miles I can run).
Under the young-earth model, this asteroid never could have struck. We know that, because if it did plow into the earth some time in the last 10,000 years, history most definitely would have recorded it, and we would still see the effects of its impact today. In fact, most likely, it would have caused mass extinctions and life would not have yet come close to recovering.
And so, if we must accept the young-earth position that either this planet is absurdly young or the Bible is not true, then we’re left with one option: God created the world with Vredefort and dozens of other large craters already in it, for no other reason than to make us think the earth had been hit by massive asteroids when in fact, it never was.
And it’s not just craters. There’s radiometric dating, ice layering, continental drift, human Y-chromosomal ancestry, the fact that we can see starlight that took billions of years to reach earth, and much more — all of which points to a very, very old earth…
Speaking as a Christian, I think these facts are pretty overwhelming. And I decided it made a lot more sense to believe in a God who first revealed himself in a document meant to convey theological — not scientific or historical — truth, rather than a God who told the literal truth in Genesis but lied in creation.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In