Dinosaur with feathers and scales?

[Wormwood]

The funny thing is how Dr. Lisle tries to back up his argument about "no new genetic information"......by quoting other creationists' assertions! Well done.

You are so funny River. If he had quoted an evolutionist, he would have been misusing his quote or trying to take his views in a way he didn't intend them. Who is left to quote? You will never be satisfied.

An argument for creationism for which there is no rebuttal? Wow. What is this argument?

Obviously you didn't watch the whole video if you thought the first 20 min contained the argument he was referring to.

 

[River Jordan]

You are so funny River. If he had quoted an evolutionist, he would have been misusing his quote or trying to take his views in a way he didn't intend them. Who is left to quote? You will never be satisfied.

If you truly think an "irrefutable argument against evolution" is one creationist quoting other creationists....well, let's just let that speak for itself.

Obviously you didn't watch the whole video if you thought the first 20 min contained the argument he was referring to.

Oh I watched the whole thing (there's 50 minutes I'll never get back ). Most of the rest was a repeat of AiG's "two different worldviews" thing, which is a giant straw man (it assumes Christianity and evolution are absolutely incompatible). It also spent a lot of time describing AiG's approach to defending Christianity and the Bible, which further demonstrates that his arguments are rooted in religion, not science. But if this amazing, irrefutable argument was something I missed, then it must have been pretty short. So maybe you could post it here in your own words?

 

[Wormwood]

If you truly think an "irrefutable argument against evolution" is one creationist quoting other creationists....well, let's just let that speak for itself. Oh I watched the whole thing (there's 50 minutes I'll never get back ). Most of the rest was a repeat of AiG's "two different worldviews" thing, which is a giant straw man (it assumes Christianity and evolution are absolutely incompatible).

It seems you watched the video with the same attentiveness you have when you read my posts. Ha! First, his "irrefutable proof" had nothing to do with creation science or the quotes of creation scientists. Second, he wasn't referring to not merely the "evolutionist" but evolutionist who is a "secularist." Maybe in your mind they are one and the same. Again, need to pay more attention to detail here River and maybe you could learn something from someone....even if you don't agree with their conclusions.

 

[River Jordan]

First, his "irrefutable proof" had nothing to do with creation science or the quotes of creation scientists.

Then it must have been incredibly quick. I saw him make the same "evolution can't add genetic information" argument, but the only support he gave for that argument was to quote Lee Spetner, a Jewish creationist (and physicist, not a geneticist). If I missed the additional support he gave for this argument, what was it?

Second, he wasn't referring to not merely the "evolutionist" but evolutionist who is a "secularist." Maybe in your mind they are one and the same.

Well of course they're not the same. An "evolutionist" doesn't have to be a "secularlist" anymore than a chemist. So are you saying Lisle's arguments don't apply to people like me, and the entire latter 3/4 of the video is only relevant to atheists?

 

[UppsalaDragby]

As I said to Wormwood...

Where I sit, the issue seems pretty straightforward. A creationist parrots the argument that "evolution can't add new genetic information". To me, a functional genetic sequence that wasn't there previously constitutes "new genetic information". It's new because it wasn't there before and it's "genetic information" because it's a functional sequence. Thus, the observation of the evolution of functional genetic sequences that weren't there before falsifies the creationist argument. It really is that simple.

Well, where "you sit", all you are doing is parroting the evolutionists claims whereby what you call "new gentic information" is evidence of evolution, without providing an ounce of evidence that it is. WHERE do distortions of information

To me, a functional genetic sequence that wasn't there previously constitutes "new genetic information". It's new because it wasn't there before and it's "genetic information" because it's a functional sequence. Thus, the observation of the evolution of functional genetic sequences that weren't there before falsifies the creationist argument. It really is that simple.

I have already addressed that "simple" argument. Why are you stubbornly clinging on to a strawman of the "creationist argument" and ignoreing it?

However, with you guys "new genetic information" seems to be "whatever I think hasn't been observed and can't happen", which gives us things like cows turning into whales and "genetic information" being determined by taxonomy. And from that, somehow in creationist world a challenge to demonstrate the evolution of new genetic information is thought of as the same thing as a challenge to demonstrate universal common ancestry!

Another desparate strawman! If what I consider "new genetic information" to be is "whatever I think hasn't been observed and can't happen" then feel free to use the quote boxes to demonstrate your completely biased opinions. I have already pointed out several times what is meant by "new" information, and have also described the context in which it should be used. Your ploy is to pretend that anything beneficial to an organism is some kind of newly constructed "function" put there due to the benevolance of evolution, rather than something that was inherently designed...

This is why creationists are not at all taken seriously in the scientific community. Your arguments are just plain ridiculous.

And THAT is exactly why YOUR arguments are not taken seriously by creationists and considered ridiculous. So what is your point?

They were copied and then rearranged to make "on Monday".

Really, and your scientific evidence that sequences are copied and rearranged in a meaningful fashion, rather than being inherrent functions is what, exactly?

You are obviously what can be referred to as a creationist/evolution denialist

From my perspective so are you. So what does name-calling prove?

where you have formed some pretty strong opinions about the subject of evolutionary biology.

I haven't formed any stronger opinions than you have. So again, what is your point?

Yet in reading your posts on the subject, it's extremely evident that you don't have a very good understanding and grasp of the science behind evolutionary biology.

Well I have been prompting you for quite a while now to enlighten me where my "understanding" falls short of accepting your faith-based claims, or somehow causes me to reject mine, but all you seem to do is throw out strawmen and paint me out to be a geocentrist.. or something like that.
So here is the challenge River Jordan. Show me where my "grasp of the science behind evolutionary biology" is lacking in such a way that it does what YOU claim it does!

Thus your opinions and position cannot be rooted in the actual science of evolutionary biology

Why not? What is the "actual science of evolutionary biology" that my opinions cannot be rooted in?

if it were, you would be able to discuss much more thoroughly.

What, in the context of our discussion, needs to be discussed more thoroughly?

if your opinions and position on evolutionary biology aren't rooted in the actual science, what are they rooted in? IMO, the answer is as obvious as can be. They are rooted in your religious beliefs, and more specifically, the way in which you interpret scripture.

OK, I can accept that to a certain degree. So why don't you start off by explaining how my "religious" beliefs are contradicted by "scientific" And when you are done with that, please explain in detail why MY religios beliefs inferior to YOUR beliefs, religious or otherwise.

Give me the "scientific" answer to that question River.

First, evolution is a means of generating variation

Oh.... and HOW exactly does that reduce my argument to an "embarrassingly stupid and ignorant argument"????

second you've been given examples of the evolution of new species multiple times

No I HAVEN'T! The fact that YOU interpret everything from the perspective of an evolutionist has NO effect on MY arguments. That's what I would call "embarrassingly stupid and ignorant".

So why throw out red herrings like this? What I expect from you is an explicit answer to the question posed in the comment you quoted. How are "changes in the genome are evidence of evolution, rather than just variations".

Insults, and ad-hominems, are not answers!

How would you propose we falsify erosion?

Who said anything about erosion???

Why are you trying to change the subject?

If you think the debate between creationists and evolutionist is equivalent to the debate between erosionists and anti-erosionists then state your case in detail, rather than just trying to be a smart allec.

Apealing to things such as erosion, gravity, geocentrism, and so on, is an incredibly LAZY way of dealing with the creation/evolution discussion.

You're not paying attention to what I wrote. I said if something piques my interest, I make every effort to check it out for myself. Obviously I don't read every paper ever written, nor does everything I read pique my interest to that level.

Well, that proves my point beyond a doubt, because YOU seem to be making the claim that whatever "piques your interest" is pivotal to whatever is true or false in this discussion, an issue that you seem to be trying to cloud by saying that I am "not paying attention".

My original comment was that "You obviously don't base your opinions exclusively on the scientific papers you read."

So who cares what "piques YOUR interest"???

Unless you can show me where what piques your interest is a valid rebuttal to my argument then you are obviously the one who isn't paying attention!

"Again you're dodging a question like a guilty defendant in court. You stated, "I think at least there should be some kind of alternative explanation available" when it comes to college science courses. All I'm asking is if you have a specific "alternative" in mind, and if so, what it is."

I haven't "dodged" anything! What in the QUOTED words "I'm not concerned with trying to figure out a way to radically change the education system" don't you understand????

And I addressed the "alternative explanation" question just before that by saying:

"I think at least there should be some kind of alternative explanation available, so that people aren't constantly given the false impression that evolution is the only explanation".

I think that intelligent design would fit nicely in that "category", so why are you dishonestly trying to paint me out as being a "guilty defendant"? What is the ACCUSATION????

"You said exactly that."

No I didn't. Reread what I said and give me evidence that you have understood the entire issue, rather than trying to boil everything down to a silly strawman that you have no possible way to decouple from your own argumenets. Because keep in mind that it was YOU who started speaking about "population A" and "population B" in order to defend YOUR stance concerning new information, so don't try to throw the burden back on me!

 

[aspen]

This topic has been beaten into a corner. river, i think your comments regarding evolution have been compelling, but it has been awhile.......lately, all you have been trying to prove is how ignorant certain creationists on this board are - they will never see it. i think it would be a lot more interesting if you talked about your own faith and how you have reconciled evolution and Christianity or educate us on principles of evolution without challenging creationists understanding of science even when you are getting dragged into stupid arguments. all that is just noise and distraction

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Such as......?

Wormwood, I fully understand your frustration here.

 

[River Jordan]

Uppsala,

I'm not sure it's even possible for you and I to discuss this subject in a reasonable manner any more. I mean, when you start disputing whether I've posted examples of speciation, when I think just about everyone here who's read my posts since I joined has to know that I have (remember all the discussion about Goatsbeard, my post #69 in this thread, and this thread I started for that exact reason).

Or when you say "it isn't evolution of new genetic information unless you can show that population B is can no longer be classified in any of the biological classifications to which that organism belongs" and now dispute that it means "genetic information" is dependent on taxonomy. I honestly don't know what else to say to that.

Or when with the "My mom went to the dairy store on Monday" analogy, you actually ask for "scientific evidence that sequences are copied and rearranged in a meaningful fashion" even though I provided you with exactly that (in post #124).

Then we've probably reached (or passed) the point of no return. It looks to me like you're in a spot now where you're going to just reflexively dispute everything I post, no matter what. Thanks for your time.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Aspen,

You hit it right on the head. We're all ignorant in far more subjects than we're knowledgeable in...that's just an obvious fact of life. I don't know much of anything about cardiac surgical techniques, paving a highway, the development of Chinese culture, or any number of subjects. But you know what? I don't go around making definitive statements about those subjects either. If I encountered a heart surgeon I would never think to start proclaiming his entire profession a mistake and/or a giant conspiracy.

Oh, but apparently when it comes to biology even people who haven't studied the subject beyond high school, have zero experience in it, and who's main means of "learning" about it is "I lurk in internet forums"...suddenly such people have deemed themselves qualified to declare entire fields of science to be mistaken on an enormous scale. I find that both funny and sad.

But I think the bigger issue here is something Christian Juggernaut touched on a few months ago. When I asked him how, when faced with conflicting arguments from creationists and scientists, he decided which one to accept and which one to reject, he basically expressed that it came down to trust. Since he didn't have the scientific expertise necessary to evaluate the competing arguments scientifically, he still sided with the creationists because they seem like good Christians who are advocating a Biblical worldview, whereas the scientists are at least in part composed of atheists and secularists.

And I think that's the core, fundamental dynamic at play here. Several members here simply trust the creationist organizations to tell them the truth, and they don't trust much of anything from the scientific community. Of course I'm sure some of them will accuse me of the same thing, only in reverse, and in a sense they'd be correct. However, the key difference is I will go to a creationist webpage, read through it, and respond with specific problems with their material. I can do that because I have the necessary education and experience. OTOH, I think for the most part when some of the members here click on one of the scientific papers I link to, it mostly reads like Greek. So then they fall back on that trust thing again.

In my experiences with the youth ministry, the process of opening someone's eyes to reality on this issue requires getting a person to recognize and appreciate all that. But as we've seen in this thread, there are some people who absolutely refuse to concede even the most obvious of facts. So what do we do with them in threads like this? That's my weakness I guess....I just can't let ridiculous arguments from creationists go without responding. That's my competitive nature showing itself. I guess I played too many sports!

 

[Wormwood]

Im not saying the latter half of the video doesn't apply to you. I think you have embraced secularist presuppositions, though you claim to not be one. Anyway, I thought it would just be an interesting video in light of the discussion. I apologize it was so meaningless to you. I never realized that someone who encouraged Christians to share their faith and reject secularism would be so offensive.

 

[aspen]

I hear you, it is frustrating, hard to watch, and accurate. you are actually demonstrating serveral important habits of educated people - avoiding absolute statements, questioning other peoples absolute statements, and rejecting logical fallicies. Unfortunately, it is too much to expect it from others outside academia. i know, i get hook by it too

No one wants their belief in the Emperors fine clothes exposed

 

[River Jordan]

Im not saying the latter half of the video doesn't apply to you. I think you have embraced secularist presuppositions, though you claim to not be one.

Like what?

Anyway, I thought it would just be an interesting video in light of the discussion. I apologize it was so meaningless to you.

Actually I found it to be extremely informative, in that it is very indicative of what I posted to Aspen earlier today.

See, Dr. Lisle starts off with a very exciting sounding claim; he claims to have an irrefutable argument against evolution for which there is no rebuttal. So I'm sure everyone in the audience is eagerly waiting for this argument...I know I was. Then he gives it..."evolution can't add genetic information". And what does he offer in support of this argument? He quotes a Jewish creationist who is not a professional geneticist. That's it. He then goes on to "interpreting things through different worldviews" as we talked about earlier.

But notice what's missing? No definition of "new genetic information", no means of measuring it, or no actual data. Nothing beyond an empty assertion supported by another empty assertion from another creationist. If we applied that same format to a different argument, it would look like...

I have an irrefutable argument against the whole moon landing thing.

The moon is made of spelch, and humans--let alone spacecraft--cannot walk on spelch. No human has ever walked on spelch.

Dr. Smith has stated: "The moon is composed of spelch, which cannot support any weight beyond a couple of ounces."

Now, let's talk about different worldviews.

Looks pretty ridiculous, doesn't it? Most people would laugh at that and walk away. So why is it when Dr. Lisle does the same thing with "genetic information" and evolution, suddenly usually intelligent people suspend their critical thinking and give him such a broad benefit of the doubt? It's what CJ described earlier...trust. Dr. Lisle is a conservative Christian, a creationist, and has a PhD, so when he says "I have an irrefutable argument against evolution" because a lot of people want that to be true, they eat it up.

And then you know what happens? People in the audience and watching online go out into the world, brimming with confidence, and repeat this irrefutable argument against evolution. After all, they trust Dr. Lisle. More often than not when they repeat this argument they do so to people who are just like them...Christians who don't really know whether or not that's a scientifically valid argument, but they all nod in agreement. And when they repeat it to non-Christians, most of them don't know if it's true or not. So far so good. Ah, but what happens when they repeat it to someone who knows a thing or two about biology? You get what happened in this forum. All I have to do is ask "What do you mean by new genetic information and how are you measuring it?" Well, Dr. Lisle didn't tell you that, did he? But you don't want to cede even one inch to someone like me, so you spend several days sputtering and spinning your wheels trying to come up with something. Of course you also know (being an intelligent person yourself) that you'd better define it out of the realm of what I might present, so "new genetic information" becomes cows turning into whales and universal common ancestry. And then all of us on the science side get a good laugh at the silly creationists.

Naturally that whole process irritates you and makes you somewhat angry at me. But what you're missing is that you were set up. Dr. Lisle doesn't have an irrefutable argument against evolution. If he did, he'd publish it and become the most famous scientist in 100 years, not to mention the great things it would do for AiG, Ken Ham, and creationism. But he knows that, and he also knows that while he doesn't have a genuine scientific argument, he does have a scientific-sounding apologetic argument for creationism. He also knows who his audience is. It's not me or the rest of the scientific community; it's the conservative Christian laypeople in the audience and watching online. They have no idea if evolution can increase genetic information..shoot, they don't even know what genetic information is! But if the good Dr. Lisle says it can't happen and he quotes another PhD (and conceals the fact that he's a physicist, not a geneticist) saying so, then that's good enough. Everyone goes away feeling good and confident that God's Word is true and those smug atheistic scientists just refuse to admit it. Yay.

I have no idea if you'll ever see this process for what it is. In order for you to do that, you first have to truly admit to yourself that you haven't been thinking critically about this and have been allowing your sense of loyalty and tribalism to cloud your judgement.

I never realized that someone who encouraged Christians to share their faith and reject secularism would be so offensive.

What does that have to do with "an irrefutable argument against evolution"? The answer of course is, nothing. What you just posted very clearly shows exactly what I described above. You're evaluating this from a "team Christian vs. team secularism" standpoint, rather than objectively evaluating what Dr. Lisle is telling you. And thus you are exactly the sort of person he's talking to.

I hear you, it is frustrating, hard to watch, and accurate. you are actually demonstrating serveral important habits of educated people - avoiding absolute statements, questioning other peoples absolute statements, and rejecting logical fallicies. Unfortunately, it is too much to expect it from others outside academia. i know, i get hook by it too

No one wants their belief in the Emperors fine clothes exposed

Reminds me of a study I read where they found that people of a more liberal bent valued objectivity and accuracy, whereas conservatives valued loyalty and sanctity more. It's two very different ways of thinking.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Reminds me of a study I read where they found that people of a more liberal bent valued objectivity and accuracy, whereas conservatives valued loyalty and sanctity more. It's two very different ways of thinking.

Considering it's Leftists who are more often at variance with the facts and more able to concoct a delusional alter reality that prevails against the real thing, I'd like to see that study.

 

[aspen]

river - i watched the video and came to the same conclusion - i think the speaker never defined his terms because he didnt have to. Creationists are just happy to hear truthy words supporting their preconcieved ideas about creation.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Yep. Evolutionists are like that too.

 

[Wormwood]

See, Dr. Lisle starts off with a very exciting sounding claim; he claims to have an irrefutable argument against evolution for which there is no rebuttal. So I'm sure everyone in the audience is eagerly waiting for this argument...I know I was. Then he gives it..."evolution can't add genetic information".

Well, I can tell you that if I were grading your review of the video, you would not receive a passing grade. His "irrefutable argument" had nothing to do with the issues on comets or "genetic information." I have said this already, but you seem determined to read what you want to read and nothing else. I have a sneaking suspicion you read the first few words of a post, determine your response, and start writing without even the common courtesy of trying to understand the other person. This is why I find these conversations with you so pointless. At first, I thought maybe it was my writing style that was hard for you to follow. But after seeing your take-aways from the video, I realize that you are simply either too impatient to hear someone out, or are incapable of following the presented material.

 

[aspen]

maybe i should watch the youtube again. i appreciate your posts wormwood - i always have so i will give it another try.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Me too Aspen. It's a 50 minute commitment, but I think probably well worth it.

Ok, having watched the video, I've concluded RJ is correct in his assessment of it. I found myself being highly critical of the video because it is advertised dramatically as promising to reveal the "ultimate proof" of creation, but instead, after talking about comets and adding information, it goes in a completely different direction, laying out a critique of the logic process of evolutionists. So from the start it's misleading, setting an expectation for a vein of discussion that ultimately never materialized.

But I have more criticisms. It also balks at the notion of meeting evolutionists on neutral ground, claiming there is no neutral ground, which is absurd. It frames the whole discussion as "unless he's a Christian, he can't possibly understand." The most direct refutation of this is ID scientists themselves who are of multiple faiths including agnosticism, which is why for the sake of unity, they refuse to define who exactly the Intelligent Designer is and simply focus on the science. To say that faith in Christ is necessary for belief in creationism is to say that Ben Stein, a Jew, cannot be a creationist.

And then from the start, it sets the wrong tone by making "young earth" a necessary component of creationism. Quite frankly, I don't blame evolutionists for turning a deaf ear to a creationist apologist when they begin the argument with "the earth is only thousands of years old" which proves beyond doubt that the Bible is their science book, not real science. They might as well start the discussion by saying, "I'm an idiot" because they assert their interpretation of the Bible over the oceans of scientific and geological evidence that our earth is indeed 65 million years old.

And ultimately that makes YEC's indictable with all the failures in logic that Dr. Lisle drones indefatigably about.

Sorry, but in respect to this video, I think RJ is right.

 

[Wormwood]

I appreciate everyone looking at the video again. My point was to say that the presenter needs to be represented correctly. I certainly never anticipated that everyone would agree with his claims. He makes some interesting points, and yes, he may overstate his claims in his title. Yet my point was that comets and DNA were not his "irrefutable evidence." If that is what you are understanding from the video, then you don't understand his point.

His point is that one cannot defend their position by giving their position up. His argument is that the proof of creation is not in examining comets, DNA and so forth, because worldviews shape how people see the data. Rather, he claims that the "laws of logic, uniformity of nature, and absolute morality" are based upon creationist assumptions, not secularist assumptions. I don't know what he would say about a Jewish creationist in this regard, and maybe that is an issue he doesn't handle properly....id have to watch it again. Yet, his "irrefutable evidence" is that science is based on logic and the uniformity of nature...neither of which can be assured apart from a creator. Culture that permits security, inquiry and respect for the views of others is based on moral codes that are impossible to define or defend apart from a creator. He is arguing that there can be no confidence in human logic, the uniformity of nature or culture if the assumptions of a natural order based on created natural and moral laws are stripped away.

Again, I am not expecting everyone to accept his rationale, but I do think his material should be presented properly. To say that his "irrefutable evidence" is about DNA information, comets that should all be burnt up, etc. displays a complete misunderstanding of his point. It is about the necessity of secular evolutionists to base their rationale and cultural order on presuppositions that do not coincide with their claims. So whether you agree or disagree with his point is a different matter. But a person should at least properly understand his point before attacking it.

 

[River Jordan]

Well, I can tell you that if I were grading your review of the video, you would not receive a passing grade. His "irrefutable argument" had nothing to do with the issues on comets or "genetic information." I have said this already, but you seem determined to read what you want to read and nothing else. I have a sneaking suspicion you read the first few words of a post, determine your response, and start writing without even the common courtesy of trying to understand the other person. This is why I find these conversations with you so pointless. At first, I thought maybe it was my writing style that was hard for you to follow. But after seeing your take-aways from the video, I realize that you are simply either too impatient to hear someone out, or are incapable of following the presented material.

As you can see, not everyone agrees with you on this.

His point is that one cannot defend their position by giving their position up. His argument is that the proof of creation is not in examining comets, DNA and so forth, because worldviews shape how people see the data. Rather, he claims that the "laws of logic, uniformity of nature, and absolute morality" are based upon creationist assumptions, not secularist assumptions.

Which is a pretty poor argument IMO.

Yet, his "irrefutable evidence" is that science is based on logic and the uniformity of nature...neither of which can be assured apart from a creator. Culture that permits security, inquiry and respect for the views of others is based on moral codes that are impossible to define or defend apart from a creator. He is arguing that there can be no confidence in human logic, the uniformity of nature or culture if the assumptions of a natural order based on created natural and moral laws are stripped away.

If we have no confidence in human logic, then why are we listening to this guy..a human...present what he claims to be a logical argument? Oops.

It is about the necessity of secular evolutionists to base their rationale and cultural order on presuppositions that do not coincide with their claims.

Except as has been noted several times, he doesn't really make any distinction between "evolutionist" and "secularist", and argues as if the two are one and the same. IOW, he's making that classic creationist error of not differentiating between methodological naturalism (science) and philosophical materialism (atheism).

 

[Wormwood]

If we have no confidence in human logic, then why are we listening to this guy..a human...present what he claims to be a logical argument? Oops.

I think this is why he feels his argument is "irrefutable." Logic, according to him, can only be reliable under the banner of creationism...and everyone (even non-creationists) accept logic as trustworthy to a large degree. Thus, they are basing their work, and debates, on the foundations of creationism, not secularism. As he illustrates, if someone claims they don't believe in air, they still have to use air to make their case, thus proving their case to be wrong (whether they recognize it or not).

Except as has been noted several times, he doesn't really make any distinction between "evolutionist" and "secularist", and argues as if the two are one and the same. IOW, he's making that classic creationist error of not differentiating between methodological naturalism (science) and philosophical materialism (atheism).

I have listened to other lectures of his. I think he has good reason for this. He would claim that methodological naturalism should not be assumed when it comes to origins..and to assume that is to fall prey to the assumptions of philosophical materialism. This is the concession of worldviews he is talking about when he says there is no common ground. For instance, he would argue, that if a scientist walked up to Adam the day after he was created, the scientist would calculate by his size, language, intelligence, etc. that Adam was 30 or so years old. However, the scientist would be wrong because he is assuming methodological naturalism (all large adults were once babies and it takes 20-30 years for a baby to grow and mature). Likewise, the same could be said of Eve, and the same could be said of the planets, etc. If God did create Adam distinctly from the animals, as Genesis indicates, then naturalistic assumptions are faulty. Again, if the earth formed naturally from a Big Bang, then yes, it would likely take millions/billions of years for the earth to form as we see it today (assuming chemical evolution, etc were possible (which is another assumption naturalism must accept on faith)). However, if it was created by an act of God, then such naturalistic assumptions are faulty. Your presupposition will determine how you count. If you assume naturalism them you will count backward to a Big Bang and tiny dot of condensed hydrogen (or whatever) that exploded and then took billions of years to form the universe as we see it today. If you assume creation, you will not try to infer such dates by such presupposed points of origins. your presupposition determines your assessment of the data. Its also why he takes issue with OEC. Does this make sense?

PS. Im not saying he is right or wrong...just trying to clarify what I think he would argue.