# New YEC book



## ChristianTrader (Nov 17, 2008)

Coming To Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth

Coming to Grips with Genesis | Old Testament Studies

I think it looks quite interesting.


----------



## sastark (Nov 17, 2008)

ChristianTrader said:


> Coming To Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth
> 
> Coming to Grips with Genesis | Old Testament Studies
> 
> I think it looks quite interesting.



I have another one of Terry Mortensen's books: The Great Turning Point

Thanks for the head's up on this new one!


----------



## panta dokimazete (Nov 17, 2008)

Saw this comment at the second books Amazon site.

Ignoring the ad hominum ravings - what is the YEC answer for the points below:



> Carl Flygare says:
> Wombatty,
> 
> \"The Great Turning Point: The Church's Catastrophic Mistake on Geology - Before Darwin\" a five star book, according to your haphazard review anyway, implicitly champions a young earth creationist (YEC) worldview. Since you believe that the earth is between 6,000 - 10,000 years old the ragtag 'research' of the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) group should be familiar to you. John Baumgardner (occasional collaborator with author Terry Mortenson at the dunghill website and abstruse apologetics ministry disingenuously known as Answers in Genesis) and the RATE group recently accepted $2.5 million in private donations to conduct YEC research at the same time that Baumgardner was publishing old-earth and old-moon papers in mainstream scientific journals. This is fact, not assertion - and nicely illustrates the intellectual and ethical poverty endemic to the YEC community. This is particularly relevant since Baumgardner's first slide at a recent RATE conference shouted \"News Flash: paradigm overturned; textbooks need to be rewritten, earth is young, etc.\"
> ...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 17, 2008)

Wit hall do respect to Jd that Blasphemy needs to be moderated out.


----------



## Seb (Nov 17, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Wit hall do respect to Jd that Blasphemy needs to be moderated out.





Do we really need this God-hating diatribe on the PB?


----------



## Zenas (Nov 17, 2008)

The amount of words that man spends on something he supposedly believes is utter stupidity is amazing. Whereas atheist commercials on a bus get a passing laugh from me, despite the depth of foolishness it displays, he thinks it necessary to write, at length, about something so inherently stupid he has to tell us it is: several times. 

Webster's Dictionary:

entry: _"idiot"_

_See generally: _That guy above.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 22, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> Saw this comment at the second books Amazon site.
> 
> Ignoring the ad hominum ravings - what is the YEC answer for the points below:
> 
> ...



A couple quick comments:

1)It seems that the author believes that if one cannot or does not answer his inquiry to his satisfaction in five minutes or less, then there is no answer from the opposition.

2)So what if a miracle is invoked? God exists and is able to sustain the world in any way that He sees fit. If that means the he interacts differently than he did, yesterday etc., then so be it.

3)The author also seems to really be ignorant of the problems of naturalism.

Here is a great paper on these points and more.

http://www.owenanderson.net/reviews/ZygonLyellArticle.pdf

*CHARLES LYELL, UNIFORMITARIANISM, AND INTERPRETIVE PRINCIPLES*
by Owen Anderson

Abstract. I examine the development of Charles Lyell’s principle of uniformity and its influence on the development of modern geology and biology and argue that distinguishing between philosophical starting points and empirical findings is essential for clarity in the discussion between science and religion. First, I explore Lyell’s arguments against catastrophism and how these were both empirically and religiously motivated. I then consider how David Hume’s empiricism, theory of causation, and rejection of miracles influenced Lyell. Using these insights, Lyell formulated his principle of uniformity, which he believed was based on current empirical findings, and rejected explanatory hypotheses that used the biblical Flood or other catastrophist accounts as violations of uniform causation and introductions of theological concepts into empirical science. I next examine the influence of Lyell’s principle on Charles Darwin. Although Lyell opposed Darwinism for most of his life, Darwin relied heavily on Lyell, as is evidenced by references throughout The Origin of Species. I contend that the most important aspect of Lyell’s principle for Darwin is that it makes natural evil (the struggle for survival) a process that has always been occurring rather than something introduced after the Fall as recorded in Genesis. Finally, I discuss the role that uniformity plays for Lyell, Darwin, and modern science as an interpretive principle rather than as an inference from empirical data, and I conclude by noting that keeping the distinction in mind between interpretive principles and empirical findings will help clarify debates between science and religion.


----------

