Category Archives: Origins and Science

YEC and Nuclear Decay Rates

Posted on by

YEC’s tell me God changes the laws of physics in various ways and at numerous times. This seems to be a basic tenet of YEC belief.

This is demonstrated by a statement in RATE 2 as follows:


The quote was taken from the RATE2 statement. Here is the URL for RATE2: https://www.icr.org/rate2

The author suggest that YEC must question whether the laws of physics are constant. Basic laws of physics include speed of light, gravitational constant, and rate of nuclear decay. But there are also others. Strong forece, weak force, electromagnetic force, gravitational force all depend on basic laws of physics. When these change so does chemistry and biochemistry. And life.

Where did I find this? Virginia Peterson pointed this out on her comment to a post in Answers to Answers in Genesis. https://www.facebook.com/groups/answers2aig and her comment took place around July 19, 2026 in a post by Jeff Reichman.

This summer I had a discussion with YEC Chris Coatney about what do YEC advocates believe. Chris Coatney insisted God changes the laws of physics for special purposes and has done so capriciously from time to time in response to human behavior.

Chris specifically mentioned the laws of nature changing instantaneously at the fall of man, and again at the flood. And possibly more times.

These changes are allegedly a massive supernatural event that affects the entire universe, not just the earth. These ideas align with the statement in the image above taken from RATE2.

Virginia Peterson didnt identify which specific RATE2 document containing the quote. I will have to search for that in the RATE documents. The reader is invited to do so as well.

Why did this come up?

There is an AiG article by Andrew Snelling:

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/when-did-dinosaurs-live/review-dinosaur-blood-age-of-the-earth/dinosaur-blood-review-3/

And Jeff Reichman made a post with his take on it. And that led to a discussion where Virginia Peterson shared the RATE statements.

Also Riley Barton had written about it.
https://theevidenceisplain.blogspot.com/2026/07/the-carbon-14-paradox-why-we-trust.html

I have been following radiometric dating arguments from ICR since I was a college student. I had basically just started ignoring YEC because I decided it was a scam. Why? The image shown above which admits to old earth unless the laws of physics are vary over time.

Getting YECs to admit they believe laws of nature are variable is like pulling teeth. If they do believe it then I don’t believe them. I just don’t like being lied to. They say they care about truth. well, then they need to tell some.

What about Dino Bone Dating?

Andrew Snelling wrote articles in 2026 about this, claiming dinosaur bones have be carbon 14 dated to be recent.

Snelling references Vance Nelson and Brian Thomas in a 2015 article as follows:

Thomas, Brian, and Vance Nelson, “Radiocarbon in Dinosaur and Other Fossils,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 51 (Spring 2015): 299–311.

Here is a result of their research. Typical measurement, 3rd from the bottom, a horn of a Triceratops, dated at 40,000 BC. Does not support a 6000 year old earth.

One of my goals is to more fully understand how bones become fossilized so that carbon dating applies to their fossils.

I am frustrated that nothing is mentioned about the strata the bones were found in because if the strata is far older than the bones then this indicates an anomaly.

What minerals are in fossils?

To make fossils the following minerals can be involved.

Common minerals that replace or crystallize within ancient organic remains include:

Silica (SiO₂): Often found in petrified wood and agate. Replaces organic tissues in exquisite detail.

Calcite / Aragonite (CaCO₃): The primary building block for many marine fossils, such as ancient shells and coral.

Pyrite (FeS₂): Also known as “fool’s gold,” it can replace soft tissues and shell structures, resulting in brilliant, metallic golden fossils.

Phosphate (Apatite): Frequently replaces shark teeth and bone, giving the specimens a jet-black coloration.

Hematite / Goethite (Iron minerals): These produce rich red, brown, and orange colorations within the fossil matrix.

Sorry, I don’t have any reason to think C14 dating works on any of the fossils made of these materials.

What about anthracite (coal?). It is all carbon.

Some counter comments about Andrew Snelling.


Jeff Reichman writes, “Dr. Snelling’s entire argument hinges on a fundamental logical contradiction: he treats the presence of carbon-14 as an objective “clock” to date fossils, while simultaneously arguing that the dating system used to interpret that carbon-14 is a deceptive, “uniformitarian” construct.”

“Snelling posits that finding C-14 in dinosaur bones proves they are “only thousands of years old.” To arrive at this conclusion, he must rely on the stability of the radioactive decay constant. He needs this constant to be an immutable law of nature so that the presence of C-14 implies a specific, limited age. Yet, in the same breath, he attacks the “uniformitarian practitioners” who established that very constant, labeling their calibration curves as “biased, overinflated, and thus useless.” Snelling is caught in a trap of his own making: if the methodology and the framework established by mainstream science are truly “useless,” then by what authority does he declare the existence of C-14 to be evidence of any age? He is “borrowing” the authority of the physics he claims to reject to provide his own conclusion with a veneer of scientific legitimacy.”

“Snelling claims that the results of 30,000 to 40,000 years produced by laboratories are “inflated” and “inaccurate” due to magnetic field decay and the global Flood. By creating these ad hoc explanations to “correct” the data down to his preferred 4,500 years, he effectively admits that the machine’s output is not an objective measurement of time, but a blank slate upon which he can project his own desired history. If the clock must be adjusted by thousands of years to align with a theology, then the clock is not measuring time, it is being manipulated”

“Snelling’s argument collapses into a logical vacuum. He asserts that:

— The raw detection of C-14 is “significant” and “valid evidence.”

— The dating interpretation of that same C-14 by the scientific community is “dishonest” and “erroneous.”

This is the peak of his logical inconsistency. He demands that we trust the fact of the detection while rejecting the method of the measurement. If Snelling is right, and the dating community’s assumptions about the past are “erroneous,” then he has no grounds to claim that the detection of C-14 is “significant.” A measurement from a system that is “useless” (his own words) for obtaining true ages is, by definition, useless for his argument as well. By rejecting the framework that gives the data its meaning, Snelling renders his own “evidence” scientifically vacuous. He is not using science to date a fossil; he is using an instrument as a prop to confirm a bias, then breaking the instrument the moment it fails to provide the exact answer he requires.”

Reichman next mentions something I had noticed about YEC Chris Coatney.

“Ultimately, articles like Dr. Snelling’s are far from a pursuit of truth; they are an exercise in rhetorical misdirection designed to bypass the rigor of the scientific method. By simultaneously claiming that the radiocarbon dating framework is a “biased” and “useless” uniformitarian invention while using that same framework’s physical constants to interpret trace carbon-14 as “evidence” of a young earth, Snelling engages in a profound logical fallacy. These arguments are inherently misleading because they function as a closed-loop system: they treat the machine’s sensitivity floor as a legitimate age when it supports their worldview, but dismiss the entire system as fraudulent the moment it produces a date that contradicts their theology. By rejecting the integrity of the very tools they rely upon to generate their data, such authors are not performing science; they are performing a performative dismissal of deep time, substituting an internally inconsistent “borrowed authority” for the objective search for truth.”












About DIID and EC.

Posted on by

Matt McClure mentioned something I didn’t know before:

The DI describes ID as “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection”.

Here is the part I didn’t know: That natural selection is 100% undirected.

What they mean by undirected is “Unperturbed. No perturbations.” How can they know? Lets think slightly deeper. What if there is/was a perturbation? Is it natural or unnatural? How could they know? If it was natural how do they know there was an intelligent cause versus an unintelligent cause? Again, how can they know?

What has happened is DI has made assumptions, and rolled these assumptions into the definition of DIID. And I didn’t previously know this.

I conclude that DIID is totally metaphysical because it has no epistemological basis. Therefore it cannot be scientifically falsified.

This is not my understanding of what ID was supposed to be.

What made me think about all this? The following discussion.

Matt McClure said:

I make no arguments against Divine Design because I believe it’s true. However, the problem with Discovery Institute Intelligent Design (DIID) is that it claims to be something it is not.

To be considered science, it must lend itself to empirically testable (i.e., falsifiable) hypotheses from which conclusions can be made, and no scientific conclusion can be made without the gathering and analysis of data. In contrast, Ben Stein’s quote above is an attempt to make a conclusion based on the lack of data.

The reason DIID is not science is that it begins with an unsupportable presupposition. The DI describes ID as “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection”. Immediately we see the problem: How do they know that a transcendent intelligent designer cannot or will not direct natural selection? How do they know that a transcendent intelligent designer cannot or will not direct ordinary natural processes in scientifically undetectable ways? How do they know? Answer: They don’t know it. They only assume it, and yet this assumption is completely unsupportable. So how can DIID possibly be science when its primary assumption is empirically unfalsifiable?

Given that the transcendent intelligent designer is God (i.e., the God of the Bible), then everything is designed whether it looks designed or not and whether it has a “naturalistic” explanation or not. So how can intelligent design possible be empirically testable when there is nothing un-designed for which to objectively compare?

The problems with DIID go beyond scientific veracity. Given that the transcendent intelligent designer is God then we can consult the Scriptures about God, and Hebrews 11:3 says “by faith we know” God did it. It does not say “by empirically based methods of inquiry we know”. Therefore, the premise that science can affirm God as Creator is inseparable from the premise that science can replace faith, and that premise is scientism. Despite the claims of Dawkins and Meyer, God is not a testable scientific hypothesis. Someone very important once said “thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test” and then later said “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”.

ID (not necessarily DIID) is true, but ID is not science because the Designer is transcendent of nature and science is limited to the study of natural things. DIID falsely positing itself as science is the reason DIID has lost in the courts, and it is the reason why it will lose in the evangelical field as well.

My thoughts:

Here is the central question poses by the above:

“How do they know that a transcendent intelligent designer cannot or will not direct natural selection?

They don’t.

Also,
How do they know that a transcendent intelligent designer cannot or will not direct ordinary natural processes in scientifically undetectable ways?

This is a separate question because it is more general than just natural selection. It extends to all natural processes.

And the answer again is, they don’t.

To me there is yet a third question. How do they know that an intelligent designer will not perturb ordinary natural processes so they give a different outcome than ordinary natural unperturbed processes would have given?

They don’t.

So, How do they know? Answer: They don’t know it. They only assume it, and yet this assumption is completely unsupportable.

Also, how can DIID possibly be science when its primary assumption is empirically unfalsifiable?

We do know one thing. Natural processes, left to themselves, are not likely to produce the physical results we see. It would take a lot of faith to believe it could or did. And it still would not explain the non physical aspects of the universe. Love, hate, justice, fairness, etc. The intangibles which have no natural explanation but nevertheless are real.

So DIID defeats atheism. But it does not defeat EC or TE.


Matt McClure also said:

DIID does not do what science does. You need to go back and read my comment because DIID still begins on the unsupportable, unfalsifiable presupposition that a transcendent intelligent designer cannot or will not divinely guide natural processes in scientifically undetectable ways, which is especially problematic for believing Christians because that presupposition is clearly contradicted by such scriptures as Psalm 139:13-15, Proverbs 16:33, and Acts 1:26.

What about this presupposition? That DIID posits that a transcendent intelligent designer cannot or will not divinely guide natural processes in scientifically undetectable ways?

How do they know? They cannot. So they have made a terrible mistake.

Stated slightly differently, what they also cannot know is this: How is it that an intelligent designer, employing just the laws of the universe, could not perturb ordinary natural processes so these perturbed processes give a different outcome than ordinary unperturbed natural processes would have given?

Again, they cannot know. But they dismiss the idea anyway without giving a reason.

Seems to me DIID actually would support both DIID and EC equally well if they would allow that God, being in the universe can perturb natural processes.

Matt gives Psalm 139:13-15, Proverbs 16:33, and Acts 1:26 for consideration.


Psalm 139:13-15 speaks of God’s ongoing creation activity. That which takes place after the beginning.


Matt McClure Also said:

DIID does not do what science does. You need to go back and read my comment because DIID still begins on the unsupportable, unfalsifiable presupposition that a transcendent intelligent designer cannot or will not divinely guide natural processes in scientifically undetectable ways, which is especially problematic for believing Christians because that presupposition is clearly contradicted by such scriptures as Psalm 139:13-15, Proverbs 16:33, and Acts 1:

Cant Be A Christian Without YEC?

Posted on by

A letter from an anonymous person raised an issue over her kids. Here is her letter and some responses.

Hi All,

I am looking for resources to share with my kids (oldest is 12 but they all can handle middle-grade type stuff – my oldest loves to read pretty advanced tech books, has read the Jurassic Park novel, etc.).

Long story short – I am divorced and since the divorce the ex has taken a very deep dive into AiG, among other troubling things, and is doing his best to indoctrinate the kids. He subscribes to AiG TV (or whatever it is) and the kids have tablets at his house with all the media on it. He “homeschools” them on the weekends (they go and have always gone to public school) with AiG materials.

One of my bigger concerns is that he’s planning on taking the kids to the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter next Summer. From what I have gleaned about it from YouTube videos, etc., it just sounds traumatizing for my more sensitive (and ND) kids.

So I think I have this school year to try to inoculate the kids as best I can in preparation of that trip, and of course long term I want my kids to not be afraid to ask questions, to feel free to think for themselves and make their own decisions. A big concern is that the kids are being taught that anyone who doesn’t embrace YEC isn’t a Christian (and really is evil) – and I don’t want them to be worried about my salvation if/when I speak openly to them about my own concerns with AiG, or their own salvation as they grow and hopefully start to ask their own questions.

So I’m looking for media of all types that can gently and gradually influence/open their minds to know it’s ok to have doubts, to want to think twice, or even to learn more about evolution (right now they can recite all the reasons why evolution, and those who think it is correct, is stupid and wrong – in their words). I will support them whatever they belive – but I want them to decide for themselves, and I’m not ok with the extremist take of YEC (us vs. them, and that the denial of YEC is the root of all evils in the world) that AiG promotes!

They will outright reject anything that blatantly states anything but the YEC viewpoint (and, for that matter, any children’s bible that has a “bathtub”ark in it…) so it really does have to be a subtle, gentle approach.

Books are great, podcasts are even better, and videos, too, although we don’t have tons of time to sit and watch but we do do a lot of driving so listening is great!

And if this isn’t the best group to post this question in, I appreciate references to other groups that would be helpful, too!

Thank you in advance!!!

One person answered:
You’re in a difficult spot. I’d probably advise letting them know that you don’t agree on everything they’re being told and many fine Christians have a different viewpoint.

Another answer:
Know that your children probably see YEC as the bedrock on which their entire faith is grounded. Attacking YEC head on will be seen as an attack on Christianity itself. This tends to be based on the following arguments: 1. If the earth wasn’t created in 6 days, then God is lying; 2. Jesus can’t be the second Adam if there was no first Adam, 3. Life comes through Jesus as death came through Adam, 4. There was no death before sin. I’m sure you’re aware that those are all straw man arguments and don’t hold up, so I won’t go into detail unless you ask. So what I would recommend is teaching them about other interpretations outside of a YEC context. Show them the importance of context. Let them know that we can disagree charitably with other viewpoints and calling people names for disagreeing is not christ-like.

As for exposing them to real science, try to avoid (for now) making it “science vs YEC”. If they ask why they should learn about “wrong things”, explain that we should always try to understand ideas we disagree with and make sure we’re disagreeing with things others are actually claiming and that even those with the best intentions have trouble presenting strong versions of other viewpoints. Maybe show them videos of people non-charitably presenting YEC or Christian positions to illustrate the point.

Resources:


https://docs.google.com/document/d/120YkDporc_xK8o655_dT6ENmN2Aemjs1lWsgkMRjHZU/edit#heading=h.780c1iaa3j9v

https://docs.google.com/document/d/15R4uQpASz-UL-d2Jd46nlBm5PUQq9nIyB7qBndLUTFQ/edit#heading=h.xfu9qm91oycp

My response:
I go to a Baptist church that does not have a worldwide global flood as part of it’s statement of faith. It also does not hold to any particular doctrine of origins. So this AiG/YEC idea stands outside church doctrine and is something that is added on as an extra. My church is not fundamentalist either. The church is, as far as I know, in line with the Fundamentals. But as Stackhouse points out, fundamentalism took the name but only the name and did not take the principles of the Fundamentals, and is just a cultural movement.
So a church can endorse the principles of the Fundamentals but not be fundamentalist.

This idea of adding onto scripture bothers me. I see Answer in Genesis as non-Christian. Just like Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian. The doctrine is different. The ontology is different. The epistemology is different. It has a different concept of knowledge than Christianity. And a different concept of science. And many of the AiG followers destroy the work of the blood of Christ by requiring belief in things which have nothing to do with Christ as a condition of salvation. So to me it is like voodoo. Or the Mormons. Or the Moonies. It is a religion based on the bible. It is a Christian-like religion. But it is different than Christianity. It has a lot of philosophical and logical mistakes involved in it. And it distorts the bible. I would not call it a heresy but it would be fair if the catholic church were to declare it a heresy.

The pharisees were a non-Christian religion, but they were based on the bible. What about the Arians? The Donatists? Both bible-based heresies. Most heresies are bible based.

AiG is a big faith killer for millions of people. Perhaps it is a cult?

Look at Mark Chapter 7. Verse 6. What is the foundation of faith? Is it a crowd of people? Is it a teaching? Is it a status? A way of life? Is it a doctrine or an understanding of Genesis? Why are people so vested in one particular interpretation of Genesis to the exclusion of all others?


Why Do Christians Ignore Lexicography?

Posted on by

One sane man explains  YEC, Concordism, and Answers In Genesis  in a nutshell.

Paul A. Miller

As a retired linguist, these types of discussions as to whether the sun is a star remind me of similar examples like whether or not a tomato is a vegetable. As lexicographers would say, a tomato is a CULINARY fruit but it is a BOTANTICAL vegetables. That is, it suits the purposes of chefs to include the tomato among the vegetables even while it suits the purposes of botanists to call it a fruit because it is a reproductive product containing seeds. Neither is more “correct” than they other, because tomatoes don’t care what humans call them. Accordingly, tomatoes will continue to do what tomatoes do and be what tomatoes are. The labels don’t change them. Indeed, labels and classifications/groupings are about human convenience.

To state another way: Humans have countless labelling systems which involve groupings of similar things. It is a matter of communication and convenience—but naming does NOT somehow control ontology.

Likewise, to an astronomer, the sun is just another star. But to a poet or a painter, the sun is unique in beauty and significance for human experience. It is clearly “set apart” from stars, which are mere pinpoints in the sky. Indeed, that is how the Hebrew language of Genesis reflects its culture: the sun is the greater light and the moon is the less light—and the stars are far less significant. Nothing erroneous about that. It is a matter of perspective.

By the way, Genesis 1 is clearly not meant to be a scientific treatise, so we can’t make dogmatic arguments that it requires a “separate” creation for the sun and moon versus the stars. The main theme of Genesis 1 is “God made everything” and it uses the literary form of that culture and era to declare that message. The Answers in Genesis dogma on Genesis entails all sorts of anachronistic impositions of modern cultural notions (including scientific ones) on a text from an ancient culture.

My Response:
I am not a linguist. But I have never met a Christian who is one. But they often tell you what words mean. Because they KNOW.   Or do they?

David Buddrige says,

I agree (with Reverend Graham) on this point.Genesis isn’t talking about biological life, but rather spiritual life.You can see this by observing that God promised Adam that on the very day he ate of the fruit that he would “die”.The day he ate the fruit, he didn’t (physically) drop dead, but what *did* happen was that he was thrown out of Eden, and lost his friendly relationship with God.Consequently, what “death” *means* in the Bible is to be thrown out of God’s place and out of relationship with God.If “death” means to lose one’s relationship with God, then to be alive means to gain the relationship with God.Therefore when the Genesis creation account says that God breathed the breath of life into Adam, he is describing that moment in history when the biological human creature first became aware of their special relationship with God and the promise of blessing and life with him – if only they would look to God for the definition of good and bad.It is for this reason that Paul could – with a straight face – tell the Ephesians that they were previously “dead”, and had now been made alive in Christ.

Excellent! This is another point where a linguist can tell us how words work.

My take on the subject is the concordists are wrapped around the axel on the topic of death in the world before Adam sinned. But the bible isn’t talking about biological death. it is talking about spiritual death. The concordists actually have a DOCTRINAL DISPUTE with other Christians.

Return of the God Hypothesis

Posted on by

An interesting review I saw on amazon.com

“A comprehensive and lucid argument for theism as the best explanation for the scientific evidence. Stephen Meyer has a true gift for conveying complex concepts clearly.” — Dr. Robert Kaita, former Principal Research Physicist, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

“A meticulously researched, lavishly illustrated, and thoroughly argued case against the new atheism. Even if your mind is made up—especially if it is—Meyer’s refreshing take on the origins of the Universe is a joy to read. You may not come away convinced, but you’ll be richer for the journey.” — Dr. Brian Keating, Chancellor’s Distinguished Professor of Physics, University of California, San Diego, and author of Losing the Nobel Prize.

“Scientist and philosopher Meyer has discussed intelligent design previously but has not gone as far as he does here in terms of making the case for God. He does so citing new evidence from cosmology, physics, and biology, especially as it applies to DNA research. Meyer knows how to take readers’ hands and lead them through the history before showing how new discoveries can be used to undermine the cases made by anti-design theorists such as Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and even Bill Nye the Science Guy. Agree or disagree, there’s lots to ponder here.” — Booklist

“Meyer’s book is a masterclass, lucidly exploring every alternative from multiple points of view, while persuasively showing that the God Hypothesis is the best explanation of our finely-tuned, information-rich universe. It does irreparable damage to atheist rhetoric.” — John C. Walton, PhD, DSc, Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Research Professor of Chemistry, University of St. Andrews

“No one in my experience can explicate such complex material with the grace and clarity that seem so effortless to Stephen Meyer. With meticulous rational analysis of the latest discoveries in cosmology, physics, and biology, Meyer confirms a truth ideologues find too frightening to consider. Their ad hominem attacks on his brilliant work, confirm its importance.” — Dean Koontz, New York Times #1 bestselling author

“Reviewing all relevant evidence from cosmology to molecular biology, Meyer builds an irrefutable ‘case for God.’ The logic throughout is compelling and the book almost impossible to put down. A masterpiece. Easily the best, most lucid, comprehensive defense of the ‘God hypothesis’ in print. A unique tour de force. ” — Michael Denton, M.D., Ph.D., former Senior Research Fellow, Biochemistry, University of Otago, Author, Nature’s Destiny

“More than 400 pages of straightforward, engrossing prose, close reasoning, intellectual history, and cosmology, all in the interest of asking the most important questions about existence itself. An astonishing achievement.” — Peter Robinson, Murdoch Distinguished Policy Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and former White House speechwriter

“With this book, Stephen Meyer earns a place in the pantheon of distinguished, non-reductive natural philosophers of the last 120 years, from the great French savant Pierre Duhem, through A.N. Whitehead, to Michael Polanyi…A profound, judicious book of great value bringing to bear advanced, scientific expertise and philosophical, integrative wisdom.” — Dr. Michael D. Aeschliman, emeritus professor Boston University, author The Restoration of Man: C.S. Lewis and the Continuing Case Against Scientism.

“Meyer masterfully summarizes the current evidence from cosmology, physics and biology showing that the more we learn about the universe and nature, the more relevant the ‘God hypothesis’ becomes.”  — Dr. Anthony Futerman, Joseph Meyerhoff Professor of Biochemistry, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel

“This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science.” — Brian Josephson, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge, Fellow of the Royal Society Nobel Laureate in Physics

“When you don’t understand living systems, ignorance permits discounting a Creator.  But when the scientific details are thrust upon you, you’re forced to ask: How on Earth did that happen? Thus, the God hypothesis returns.  Stephen Meyer convincingly drives the point home: How could it be this way?  Only God!” — James M. Tour, Ph.D., T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry and Professor of Nano-Engineering, Rice University.

“Stephen Meyer is a genuine renaissance person.  His work tears down many purported barriers between science, philosophy, and religion.  An important book of both breadth and depth.” — Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III, Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry, Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, University of Georgia

“Dr. Meyer does a superb job in accurately describing the physics and cosmology that show the universe had a beginning. He also convincingly shows that quantum mechanics will not eliminate a cosmological singularity.” — Dr. Frank Tipler, Professor of Physics, Tulane University; Co-Author, The Anthropic-Cosmological Principle (Oxford University Press)

“A truly superb analysis of the relevant evidence.Stephen Meyer convincingly demonstrates that the God hypothesis is not just an adequate explanation for the origin of our fine-tuned universe and biosphere: it is the best explanation.” — David J Galloway, MD DSc FRCS FRCP, Honorary Professor of Surgery at College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences University of Glasgow; Former President, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow.

“A pleasure to read, [Meyer’s] inviting voice brings light to bear on complicated and profoundly influential subjects. With this abundantly rich book, Meyer completes a compelling trilogy which refutes the prevailing materialism of the intelligentsia.”  — Terry Scrambay, journalist and reviewer for New Oxford Review

“I commend Meyer’s book to those who believe science and religion are in conflict, and indeed to anyone seeking answers to the ultimate questions.” — The Claremont Review of Books

Todays YEC Rumors

Posted on by


A friend posted this:

I wrote to her the following:


My friend David Rhoads tells me the YEC people claim the laws of physics change (when it is convenient for their viewpoint). I dont know if thats true. It seems to be. He has studied this for years. So, let us assume its true. God changes the laws of physics. OK, so then tell me why God cannot tweak the DNA of 100 organisms in a species to cause 50 reproducing pairs to suddenly exist to make a new species?

If God can and does change the laws of physics WHY cant he spawn a new species every day of the week?

Keep in mind the YEC claim is that the ENTIRE COSMOS had the laws of physics changed the first few days of creation and also changed the day Adam sinned.

Their claim is the speed of light everywhere changed.

Well, thats waaaaaaayyyyyy bigger of an effect on the universe than making a new species would be on tiny little earth.

So I am having a hard time understanding why god cannot do macroevolution.

I dont believe in naturalistic macro-evolution. I believe in theistic-macro-evolution. So to me what we seen in the natural world and what we see in the bible is One-Seamless-Truth.

So….”Evolution requires a lot more faith than the Creator view”… why do the YEC people limit God’s power? They believe God cannot do evolution. He is constrained to only being able to do creative acts at the beginning. Even if it means he changed all the physical laws of the universe. But during history? Oh, well, he is not allowed to tweak biology.

So I think this evolution versus theology idea seems to be a false dichotomy invented in the middle of the 19th century.

If we believe God can heal people and can resurrect people, why cant he make new species? I don’t get it. I used to go visit Henry Morris at his school in San Diego. I believed his world view. But now it doesnt make any sense.

Origins and Science Note 1.

Posted on by

The mobile version removes background colors and images. Then in the facebook app they edit the words. They remove links so you cannot click them.

On November 28, 2023 I made a note of a discussion on origins, below. It has to do with YEC.

David Rhoads and Susan Haywood. Off topic of what the OP was….but …. I am puzzled by the theology of anyone who claims God can and did alter cosmological constants like the speed of light willy nilly and they think that is perfectly proper. But God cannot tweak mutations in DNA. For example, in a population of organisms God cannot invoke a mutation in two individuals or in 100 individuals all at the same time in order to make a new species that can reproduce with itself. That is too much for God to do, yet he can alter the physics of the entire universe! Are they serious?

I also do not see where the bible makes any claim about physics or about biology or DNA or species. Seems to me beliefs about these topics are conclusions jumped to by fallible humans. They are contrived notions or fabricated notions. Where does the bible say God cannot be involved in the evolution of biological organisms? Why do YEC’s believe God is forbidden to do any such interaction with biology in the universe? And yet he can snap His fingers and the speed of light changes “just like that” based on some decision some human made 6000 years ago. It makes no sense to me as a theology.

Here is the link: [Facebook users copy and paste into a URL in a browser to go to web page]
https://randomraindrops.com/2023/11/28/origins-and-science-note-1/