Christopher,
In my recent response to your original email, I wrote,
"I don't think I can add much to what I've already said. However, when
you ask me to 'please elaborate' on my suggestion that 'such structures
('strips of basalt...radiogenic lead in uranium deposits...etc) might
well fulfil some other, necessary, function in the divine scheme of
things', you are clearly asking the impossible. Such possibilities can
only be known to God."
You have now written,
"I didn't say that, I think you must have confused me with someone else.
I talked about white dwarfs, if I remember correctly, where I pointed
out that they are the endpoint of evolution of stars like the sun. Even
the most massive stars that end up as white dwarfs still take several
10s of millions of years before reaching that stage. No YEC has yet
offered an alternative explanation for their formation."
You are, of course, correct in believing that white dwarfs figured in
your posting, but wrong in respect of the question to which I allude (as
you will see from the attached copy of your original). Here is the
relevant section (about two-thirds the way down):
I had written,
"Chuck, you have drawn particular attention to 'strips of basalt,
...radiogenic lead in uranium deposits and Ar-40 in K-feldspar',
implying that God has behaved deceitfully - putting these in place to
lead us to believe the earth is older than it really is. Has it not
occurred to you, (a) that such structures might well fulfil some other,
necessary, function in the divine scheme of things..."
You wrote,
"What other function, please elaborate?"
Sincerely,
Vernon
attached mail follows:
In a message dated 2/7/01 3:25:33 PM Pacific Standard Time,
vernon.jenkins@virgin.net writes:
> Hi Chuck,
>
> Herewith a somewhat belated response to your posting of Tue, 23 Jan.
> which, you may remember, ran as follows:
>
> > Vernon,
>
> > You wrote, "I believe the whole terrestial scenario was changed at the
> > time of the Flood and, to a lesser extent thereafter. You have to
> > remember that God was in control of the operation. I therefore suggest
> > that it should not beggar the belief of the Christian that such events
> > might well proceed at supernatural rates. (Ater all, who can assess
> > the magnitude of the forces that were unleashed when He 'created the
> > stars also'!). In other words, as I have previously intimated, when
> > God is directly involved in a process, it would be foolish to rule
> > miracle 'out of court'."
>
> > This was in response to my question to you about the "gigantic forces"
> > that were required to move continents over thousands of kilometres in
> > the space of a few years. I had expected an answer that would be
> > scientifically satisfying but you now shift the ground from under our
> > feet by pointing to miracles. That gets us right back to a deceiving
> > God who would not only suspend the natural laws by allowing continents
> > to move at breakneck speed but who would also, very cleverly, disguise
> > what he did by laying down strips of basalt on the ocean floor with
> > alternating magnetic signatures.
>
> > You've raised the spectre of miracles. Now, pray tell, what is God
> > trying to show us by disguising his handiwork? Would it not have been
> > much more convincing if he had not tried to disguise things by not
> > laying down those strips of basalt and by not placing radiogenic lead
> > in uranium deposits and Ar-40 in K-feldspar?
>
> > Please enlighten me.
>
>
> My response:
>
> Let me first say that whilst my acceptance of the Scriptures as the
> Inspired, Inerrant and Infallible Word of God has never been based upon
> the remarkable numerical phenomena found associated with Gen.1:1, with
> the Creator's name, and with the riddle of Rev.13:18 (for my awareness
> of these truths came much later), they nevertheless encourage me to
> reach out to others with tangible evidence of the truth of what I
> believe. Any Christian in my position cannot but be a YEC - as I shall
> now endeavour to explain from 'first principles'.
YECism is a paradox because it contradicts the truth. I've noticed that
YECs more than anybody else like throwing around the word "truth", yet
conveniently ignore the empirical and objective evidence of an ancient
universe.
> (1) In a NT reading list recently suggested by George Murphy (Fri.02
> Feb) we find, in the J.B.Phillips translation, "As the Lord's prisoner,
> then, I beg you to live lives worthy of your high calling...We are not
> meant to remain as children at the mercy of every chance wind of
> teaching, and of the jockeying of men who are expert in the crafty
> presentation of lies. But we are meant to speak the truth in love, and
> to grow up in every way into Christ, the head." (Eph.4:1, 14 and 15)
> The Apostle Paul is here touching on a highly significant matter - one
> which the Christian must ever keep in mind, viz the essential nature of
> post-Edenic man, forcibly expressed elsewhere in the words, "The heart
> is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
> (Jer.17:9). The Lord Jesus was, of course, well aware of this mortal
> defect for we read "(He) needed not that any should testify of man: for
> he knew what was in man." (Jn.2:25) The Scriptures further make clear
> the fact (if it were not already apparent from our experience of the
> world - and ourselves) that man is, by nature, an enemy of God (eg
> Ps.2). Here, in these clear statements, we find the raison d'etre of
> Incarnation and Cross.
>
> It may be readily inferred from the foregoing indictment of man, (a)
> that the Bible will ever be a primary object of attack from many
> quarters - its opening chapters, in particular; clearly, if these can be
> rubbished or suitably 'interpreted', then the whole will have been dealt
> a significant blow, and (b) that with respect to origins, the
> extrabiblical observations, interpretations and opinions of such
> obviously fallible creatures as ourselves can never be fully guaranteed
> to be truthful or unbiased.
Yet man's interpretation of the Bible is also fallible.
> Chuck, I suggest this is the reality that we have to live with.
>
> (2) GM further draws our attention to Romans 4 where we read "Abraham
> believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness." (v.3)
> Clearly, this principle is central to the Gospel of Christ! It is
> important, therefore, that, as Christians, we make ourselves aware of
> what it was that Abraham believed concerning God. I find no evidence to
> suggest that it was anything less than a wholehearted acceptance of His
> Being and Sovereignty, accompanied by a ready obedience to do His will.
> Is it really conceivable that such a God would have the Apostle Paul
> instruct Timothy thus, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
> and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
> instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect,
> thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2Tim.3:16,17), if this were
> untrue? For me, this one verse ratifies the whole of the Bible and
> vindicates the YEC position. Those who wilfully ignore such a clear
> message - or seek to 'interpret' it to their own advantage - are merely
> providing further confirmation (as if any more were needed) of man's
> sorry condition. On the other hand, if we believe it to be true, we are
> on a collision course with modern ideas concerning origins.
>
> Those Christians whose principal concern appears to be that of appeasing
> the high priests of science are open to the sober warning "...they could
However science clearly shows empirical and objective evidence of the
universe and the earth being billions of years old rather than a few thousand.
> not enter in because of unbelief." (Heb.3:19) - the writer drawing a
> parallel between those who, having left Egypt, were unable to enter the
> promised land, and those Christians who, through lack of faith, fall
> short of the mark. Further, the Lord himself comments, "He that
> overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall
> be my son. But the...unbelieving,...shall have their part in the lake
> which burneth with fire and brimstone..." (Rev.21:7,8).
>
> Chuck, where do you stand in respect of these observations? You appear
> to be numbered among those who are selective in what they believe. Can
> you please outline the principles underlying the operation of your
> 'biblical filter'?
>
> (3) Following the pattern established by our Lord, we pray "...lead us
> not into temptation..." (Mt.6:13) What is surely implied is that God
> might well lead us into temptation! Our prayer is that He will not do
> so. To reinforce our understanding of this truth, we read in Gen.22:1
> that God tempted Abraham (to protest and question the seemingly
> illogical demand that he sacrifice his son Isaac - sole heir to the
> promises). As we know, Abraham meekly obeyed (Heb.11:17-19); he was
> prepared to do just that! Again, concerning Job: here was a man -
> described as leading a devout and blameless life - as righteous a life
> as any man could lead, yet, suddenly, his comfortable world
> disintegrates. Understanding God to be Sovereign, he knew that his
> misery was directly attributable to Him. Thus, we can well understand
> that he must have been tempted to think and say "How unjust He is! I
> have lived a good life - better than most! Why should such things happen
> to me, of all people!?" Job instead - realising that all things work
> together for good to them that love God - accepts his reduced
> circumstances as being somehow necessary for his eternal well-being.
>
> Many Christian believers today are tempted to believe what others claim
> to be watertight truths - 'truths' that compromise the Word of God. As
> lovers of truth, by definition (Jn.18:37), we are each committed to
> carefully examine and weigh all such claims. Inevitably, they will
> involve assumptions. For example, man pretends that his knowledge of the
> inner workings of the atom is so complete that he is justified in
> believing radioactive decay rates to remain constant over deep time.
There is every reason to believe that the radioactive decay rates remain
constant with time and over large ranges of temperatures, pressures etc.
They depend on fundamental constants for which there is no evidence that
these constants have changed in the last few billion of years. Moreover,
by examining the decay of isotopes in distant supernovae we have direct
evidence that these rates remain constant. If you wish to argue against
this, then please provide the evidence and a testable theory.
The only exception of constant decay rates I know is for electron capture,
and even for beryllium-7 for which the effects are largest and depend on the
compound beryllium is combined in, the effects are only a few percent.
In any case this isotope has a half like of 53 days, so is irrelevant for
radiometric dating.
> Surely, such an article of faith - for it is scarcely anything less -
> cannot be allowed to dictate the manner by which we read and understand
> the Word of God!
>
> (4) Rather than God 'deceiving us' with 'appearance of age' constructs,
> it is we who deceive ourselves. In a biblical 'ex nihilo' creation it is
> surely logical that we accept the principle of 'apparent age'. To accuse
> God of being somehow underhand in the matter is to deny all reason.
> Thus, concerning those layers of the earth's crust which are accessible
> to man, and which provide evidence of earlier forms of life, we may well
> (and do) interpret them in a manner which suggests that it is wrong to
> read the early chapters of Genesis literally. We are thus 'tempted' to
> disbelieve Paul who says 'All scripture' is inspired by God. Is God
> really incapable of providing every generation with the truth regarding
> this matter? After all, he has provided us with an account of origins;
> the fact that we decide to ignore this, and look elsewhere for an
> explanation, is surely no fault of his!
White dwarf stars are the burned out remains of stars that have
completed their evolution. Practically all stars similar to the sun,
excluding perhaps some stars in close binaries, eventually end up as
white dwarfs. The physics are well known, and there is absolutely no
way to form white dwarfs in less time than it takes the most massive
stars (about 8 solar masses) that can end up as white dwarfs to end
up as white dwarfs, which is at least a few 10s of millions of years.
More massive stars end up as neutron stars or black holes. Stars with
the mass of the sun take about 10 billion years to end up as white
dwarfs. Many such stars are known, and it's completely absurd to
claim that they are a few thousand years old. If you do, then you have
to provide an alternative explanation for their formation that is testable.
Creation of a fully functional universe with the appearance of age
doesn't work because white dwarfs have no function, none can be seen
without a telescope and used for signs and seasons, so if God created
them with the appearance of age you are implying a deceptive God.
Also by invoking the appearance of age argument you are contradicting
one of the most important aspects of being a Christian by denying an
objective truth.
> Chuck, you have drawn particular attention to 'strips of
> basalt,...radiogenic lead in uranium deposits and Ar-40 in K-feldspar',
> implying that God has behaved deceitfully - putting these in place to
> lead us to believe the earth is older than it really is. Has it not
> occurred to you, (a) that such structures might well fulfil some other,
> necessary, function in the divine scheme of things and, (b) that any
What other function, please elaborate?
> deceit there may be lies with us in that the platform of assumptions
> from which we interpret such data is built on sand?
Please give us your alternative assumptions that fit in with the evidence.
> (5) To conclude this defence of my YEC stance, I here reproduce 'Echoes
> of Eden: a word of caution for Christians' - prepared some years ago for
> adult Bible study:
>
>
> "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden
> thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and
> evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof
> thou shalt surely die." (Gen.2:16,17)
>
> "...and he (the serpent) said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye
> shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the
> serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden: but of the
> fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye
> shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the
> serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:..." (Gen.3:1-4)
>
> "And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast
> done?" (Gen.3:13)
>
>
> Every age has raised its own echoes of the serpent's lie, but none more
> so than our own. It is clear that for many Christians nowadays
> interpretation of Holy Scripture has taken the place of the simple
> literal acceptance of what God has to tell us. Man's 'Eden' experience
> is wilfully ignored, as too are the stern warnings of 2Tim.3:15,16 and
> 2Pet.3:16. It is therefore pertinent to ask why so many are persuaded
> that, poetry and parables excepted, the Bible is not to be understood
> literally? Indeed, the onus is surely upon them to explain to us why
> they behave so.
>
> Is it perhaps the voice of the 'old man' from within that overrides
> God's word? The Lord has provided us with the unpalatable information
> that "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked -
> - - ." (Jer.17:9). Are we able to bear this? Is it not so obviously
> true, now that we are the Lord's? Will we then trust our heart to rule
> on matters of eternal truth and falsehood? Heaven forbid!
>
> Or maybe it is a voice from without. The voice of a David Attenborough,
> or of a Charles Darwin, or some scientist whose theories change from one
> year to the next. But these too are mere mortals, and subject to the
> same divine stricture. Will we trust these (many declared atheists) to
> tell us what is or is not true? Heaven forbid!
Do you trust a physics textbook that says that the ionization potential of
hydrogen is 13.6 electron volts, even if it was written by an atheist?
> My dear brother, can you not see that we follow in the tradition of Eve
> when we give our attention to the voice that says "Yea, hath God said -
> - - ?"? Will we really indulge in a recapitulation of the error that
> provoked God's intense wrath upon man and severed his relationship with
> Him? Dare we doubt the word of God? In view of the debacle of Eden,
> dare we believe that He will not, one day, put the same question to us:
> 'What is this that thou hast done?'?
>
> Chuck, you've accused me of raising the 'spectre of miracles'. I have,
> in fact, done more! I've demonstrated a miracle! However, few seem
> willing to acknowledge the fact or, indeed, have the 'bottle' to attempt
> a rebuttal of my claim. Should I be surprised? Hardly!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Vernon
>
> Vernon Jenkins MSc
> [musician, mining engineer, and formerly Senior Lecturer in Maths and
> Computing, the Polytechnic of Wales (now the University of Glamorgan)]
>
> www.otherbiblecode.com
Christopher Sharp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 14 2001 - 17:17:13 EST