Ref Feedback: So Old You Can See It

I cant speak for creationists, but Im sure I speak for scientifically-minded Christians when I say that, yes, we do groan when you publish well-meaning but inaccurate emails. Of course the main problem is that you rarely, if ever, publish accurate emails.

For example, I could draw your attention to the rock formations at Siccar Point in Scotland, which inspired James Hutton. These conclusively show, along with thousands of other features on every continent, that the worldwide flood theory is false.

I could further point out that geologists had established that the Earth is millions of years old before Darwin published his theory, and long before radioactivity was discovered. However, if I did that, you wouldnt publish my email.

—D.E., England

---

Thanks for writing. Please note my comments below are said in kindness.

I cant speak for creationists, but Im sure I speak for scientifically-minded Christians

Why do you assume that creationists are not scientifically minded Christians? As a scientifically minded Christian who developed a new method of production of submicron titanium diboride, I am a creationist. I believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. Such are not mutually exclusive.

when I say that, yes, we do groan when you publish well-meaning but inaccurate emails.

Sadly, these are representative of real emails that we get, and many do show a lack of knowledge, civility, etc. of many who argue against a biblical position. Considering the tens of thousands of emails we get a year, imagine the number of these emails we get and have to groan when reading them.

Of course the main problem is that you rarely, if ever, publish accurate emails.

Such as this one? Consider the false dichotomy (stated already) that creationists cannot equal scientifically minded Christians as well as the fallacies below. Consider also the implication that we are dishonest in what we choose to publish as not being representative of our email pool.

For example, I could draw your attention to the rock formations at Siccar Point in Scotland, which inspired James Hutton. These conclusively show,

This is the fallacy of personification. Rock formations do not “conclude and show,” nor do they “refute” (i.e., they cannot think). This is falsely applying human-like attributes to something inanimate. From a logical perspective, this is absurd and fallacious.

James Hutton mistakenly interpreted these formations as evidence of long ages. However, others, such as creationists, have interpreted them from a different perspective—the Flood—in light of what God says on the subject in Genesis 6–8. Such rock layers were formed, deformed, tilted, and eroded, and more sediment came and covered them. Such can easily be explained by the catastrophic Flood without appealing to millions of years of slow processes.

Keep in mind that not a single experiment has been run over millions of years. But there are observable scientific examples of rapidly formed rock layers and sedimentation, rapid rock cementation, rapid canyon formation, etc. within short periods of time (see The New Answers Book 2: “Are Millions of Years Required for Geological Processes?”).

So this becomes a question of authority—is a fallible, sinful James Hutton’s interpretation correct, or is a perfect infallible God wrong about a global Flood? To anyone claiming to be a Christian, there should be no question—God is correct about a worldwide Flood.

along with thousands of other features on every continent,

This is an elephant hurl—another logical fallacy. I could make the same statement about thousands of other features as evidence of a global Flood. But the fact remains: the evidence isn’t the issue; it is the interpretation of the evidence that matters.

that the worldwide flood theory is false.

Let me get this straight, as one who claimed to be a Christian above, are you really saying that God was in error here? He’s the one who said it was worldwide in His own inspired Word. Look for yourself:

Genesis 7:19–20
And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. [Emphasis added.]

So, this cannot be a local flood. The Bible says it is impossible for Him to lie in Hebrews 6:18. Paul says

Romans 3:4
Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: “That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged.”

I could further point out that geologists had established that the Earth is millions of years old before Darwin published his theory, and long before radioactivity was discovered. However, if I did that, you wouldnt publish my email.

How do you know that? We certainly agree that many secular geologists believed the earth was millions of years old long before Darwin and his ideas, and long before Arthur Holmes used radiometric dating in 1916. In fact, we have published this both on our website, in books, and other resources:

 

• How old is the earth?
• The origin of old-earth geology and its ramifications for life in the 21st century
• The Historical Development of the Old-Earth Geological Time-Scale
• The Great Turning Point
• Origin of Old-Earth Geology and Christian Compromise