2 Responses to “Responding to Young Earth Creationist arguments”

  1. rentafriend2000 April 28, 2016 at 1:27 pm #

    Dear Logical Gal,
    KUDOS to you for taking the time to understand a different position! I will be making you the praiseworthy focus of an upcoming vlog on my youtube channel. Not long ago I had someone start a conversation with me, and when presented with a logical case against their position immediately resorted to name calling and cussing me out. Suffice it to say, your response was a welcome change from that norm. You’re not just a logical gal- you are a role model.

    Points 1-11 up there seem good. I think you have summarized all of those points well.
    #8- A Clarification: Uniformatarian assumptions are not only unprovable, but can be proven with observation to be false. Just one common example- the age of the grand canyon is calculated by measuring the rate at which the Colorado river is eroding it’s banks, and then assuming it has always worked at that rate, and calculated back to the number of years it would take the river, at today’s rate, to dig a hole that deep. But most recently and dramatically Engineer’s Canyon at Mt St Helens (1/40th the size of Grand Canyon) formed in a single DAY. Many other examples are available all around the world of something happening VERY quickly which deep time assumes to be slow and gradual. Once again for that I recommend checking out videos by Ian Juby, Wazooloo on Youtube.

    As for your questions: We aren’t told anything more specific about the light on day 1, such as its source or color, etc. So naturally, anything we speculate would be, well, speculation. However- Because the text tells us that it was followed by the declaration of the first evening and morning, it can easily be assumed that it was at a fixed point in local space, standing in for what would- four days later- be the sun.

    Now, this is pure speculation, but I have wondered if maybe it was an angel holding some God appointed light source for those days. The reason is that “Lucifer,” Satan’s name before his fall, means Light Bearer. Consider if the greatest of angels, made glorious by God, came to consider his own beauty and position of importance in those few days, but then three days later was replaced by the sun, and then a few days later was shown a being made of dirt which he was supposed to bow before. Again, I would never say this is a thing we know, as the Bible does not attempt to tell it to us, but it is something to think about. After all, why is he called Light Bearer is he didn’t have the job of bearing the light at some point?

    What we do know is, light is the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum which is quantized in packets called Photons, which behave both like a particle and like a wave. It can literally emanate from ANYTHING under the right conditions. We just normally don’t see it because, at lower temperatures, so little is released.

    It is true that the text does not specify that the light was not diffused, but it does not tell us that it was. And I think we can reason that it could not have been, for without the sun, and with light everywhere present, how would the author of the text justify naming evening and morning? Once again from common usage throughout the OT (Or any other language I am sure), it only makes sense that we must assume that evening means evening- the sky going dark for the night, and morning meaning the opposite- the ending of a period of darkness. And that could only happen if the light is emanating from some local source, whatever it may have been.

    As for the plants, because they needed only to survive until day four for the sun, even if the light was insufficient to maintain a maximal environment for them, we needn’t worry. But again, we have no cause to believe the light on days 1-3 was insufficient. Only that it was not originating from the sun. Any plant will last for 24 hours in the dark.

    If you have any other questions, please let me know. I am here to help. And thanks again for being your logical best!

    • Maria May 1, 2016 at 3:33 pm #

      I appreciate your thoughtful and kind remarks and suggestions. I like your possible Lucifer example. I had never imagined that as a possible explanation. I still don’t agree that ‘evening and morning ‘ have to always refer to 24 hour day markers, so we’ll leave it at that. And I’ve seen the references to Mt Saint Helena and the aftermath and that’s a valid source of argumentation. Thanks again for taking the time to respond in detail. You, too, are modeling healthy and respectful dialogue!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: