[_ Old Earth _] Edward F. Blick, Ph.D -Regarding: Biblical idea of creation

[Relic]

.

Don't know if anyone placed any quotes here from Edward F. Blick, PH.D. but I found this particular excerpt from one of his books to to be Very interesting 8-)

===============================================



from the web site:http://www.siteskins.net/troytaft/4.html

Creation

The Bible says that the earth was made in 6 days, hasn’t this been proven to be wrong?
No, it hasn't been proven wrong scientifically.

Those who believe in the theory of evolution, and others who wish to accommodate some of it doubt the Biblical idea of creation taking place in 6 days. The evidence, however, suggests that the earth is young enough to have been created in 6 days.

Dr. Edward F. Blick, a professor from the University of Oklahoma in his book A Scientific Analysis of Genesis says this:

“There are over eighty scientific indicators of a young earth. Yet, there is no mention of these in most high school biology books. Instead they state that the earth is billions of years old.â€Â1

Because of this, I want to share with you some of these scientific indicators.

Blick says that atomic clocks have been recording a slowdown in the earth’s spin of one second per year. If you could re-wind time, speeding up the earth by one second each year for billions of years you would start to cause distortions in the shape of the earth because it would be moving so fast.2

This physical fact makes it hard to believe that billions of years were possible because we have no evidence to suggest that the earth ever wasn’t slowing down at this rate. Who knows what other kinds of problems might result if the earth had been spinning that much faster. But this is only one of the issues to consider.

The earth's magnetic field provides evidence of the youthfulness of the universe as well. Measurements of this field have been made for about 150 years now. According to Blick, these measurements show that this magnetic field has been steadily diminishing. If we were to re-wind time again we would also find that at about 25,000 years ago, the magnetic field would have been so strong that it would produce a significant amount of heat. It would've produced so much that the earth wouldn’t be able to take it.3

Erosion of the earth’s surface is also something that can be measured today as well, and once again, this makes it difficult to believe that the earth is very old. Here’s what he says about it:

“Evolutionists believe that continents have existed for at least one billion years. However, the continents are being eroded at a rate that would level them in a relatively short fourteen million years.â€Â4

How high would the mountains have to be to even 1 billion years ago to account for this fact? I have not been provided the figures, but roughly they would have been twice what they are now. It doesn't seem likely at all.



1) Edward F. Blick, Ph.D., A Scientific Analysis Of Genesis (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone Publishing, 1991), pg. 27
2) Blick, pg. 23
3) Blick, pg. 23-24
4) Blick, pg. 24

===============================================


.

 

[Barbarian]

The Bible says that the earth was made in 6 days, hasn’t this been proven to be wrong?
No, it hasn't been proven wrong scientifically.

Turns out Blick has no training in geology; he was an engineer. And he's wrong, of course, as people often are, when they make pronouncements about things they don't know.

Dr. Harold Coffin, a YE creationist, and a geologist, testified at the Arkansas creationism trial that without his religious beliefs, the evidence would lead him to believe that the world was very old.

(transcript from McLean vs. Arkansas)
Harold Coffin, of Loma Linda University stated "No, creation science is
not testable scientifically." The following is part of Coffin's
testimony...

Q: You have had only two articles in standard scientific journals since
getting your Ph.D. in 1955, haven't you?

A: That's correct.

Q: The Burgess shale (a geological formation in the Canadian Rockies
with exceptionally well preserved marine fossils) is said to be 500
million years old, but you think it is only 5,000 years old, don't
you?

A: Yes.

Q: You say that because of information from the scriptures, don't you?

A: Correct.

Q: If you didn't have the Bible, you could believe the age of the Earth
to be many millions of years, couldn't you?

A: Yes, without the Bible.

Coffin is an honest and informed creationist. And a truthful one.

Dr. Edward F. Blick, a professor from the University of Oklahoma in his book A Scientific Analysis of Genesis says this:

“There are over eighty scientific indicators of a young earth. Yet, there is no mention of these in most high school biology books. Instead they state that the earth is billions of years old.â€Â1

Because of this, I want to share with you some of these scientific indicators.

Blick says that atomic clocks have been recording a slowdown in the earth’s spin of one second per year. If you could re-wind time, speeding up the earth by one second each year for billions of years you would start to cause distortions in the shape of the earth because it would be moving so fast.2

Blick is simply ignorant on this one. The Earth's rotation is slowing down by about 1.5 milliseconds a day, per century. In one hundred years, it will have slowed by 1.5 milliseconds (a millisecond is one-thousandth of a second)

The earth's rotation is slowing at a rate of about 0.005 seconds per year per year. This extrapolates to the earth having a fourteen-hour day 4.6 billion years ago, which is entirely possible.

The rate at which the earth is slowing today is higher than average because the present rate of spin is in resonance with the back-and-forth movement of the oceans.

Fossil rugose corals preserve daily and yearly growth patterns and show that the day was about 22 hours long 370 million years ago, in rough agreement with the 22.7 hours predicted from a constant rate of slowing
(talk.origins)

Doc Blick seems to lack an understanding of metric units, among other important things.

The earth's magnetic field provides evidence of the youthfulness of the universe as well. Measurements of this field have been made for about 150 years now. According to Blick, these measurements show that this magnetic field has been steadily diminishing.

Actually, measurements by geologists show that the Earth's magnetic field has been fluctuating over time. Sometimes, it has even reversed. Blick has made the error of extrapolating a short term fluctuation. It's like measuring your baby's growth, and extrapolating that he will be 30 feet tall when he's 40.

As remarkable as these changes sound, "they're mild compared to what Earth's magnetic field has done in the past," says University of California professor Gary Glatzmaier.

Sometimes the field completely flips. The north and the south poles swap places. Such reversals, recorded in the magnetism of ancient rocks, are unpredictable. They come at irregular intervals averaging about 300,000 years; the last one was 780,000 years ago. Are we overdue for another? No one knows.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003 ... cfield.htm

Erosion of the earth’s surface is also something that can be measured today as well, and once again, this makes it difficult to believe that the earth is very old. Here’s what he says about it:

“Evolutionists believe that continents have existed for at least one billion years. However, the continents are being eroded at a rate that would level them in a relatively short fourteen million years.â€Â4

But Blick has completely forgotten (or never learned) that mountain-building processes counter erosion. Volcanism, plate tectonics, and other processes raise them up, and are doing so today. The Himalayas are continuing to rise, by a measureable amount every year.

Amazing ignorance, for a man who supposedly has a PhD.

 

[Fnerb]

I have very little scientific knowledge regarding evolution, etc. However in reference to the post above, in a biblical sense, I don't find the fact that we have a "mature" earth unhinges creation. God just created a mature earth.

Let the stone throwing begin. :

 

[Relic]

.

The Barbarian,

I don't have time right now to post counter comment on your rebuttal against professor Blick's statements. I am not that sharp on geological studies, but I will peruse your rebuttal as best as I can (in laymans terms) and come back with feedback to what you have posted, sometime this weekend.

For now, I can present this much about the credentials of Professor Blick, he IS trained in geological engineering.

Note an excerpt from the preface written about him in an article on global warming I have and hope to place in another thread within the forum, sometime soon.

Dr. Edward F. Blick, Ph.D., has been a professor of aerospace and a professor of mechanical and nuclear engineering at the University of Oklahoma from 1959 to 1981. From 1981 to 1992, he served at the same institution as a professor of petroleum and geological engineering, and also served as adjunct in the School of Meteorology and an adjunct professor in the College of Medicine. From 1951 to 1954 he was United States Air Force Weatherman, providing weather information for A-bomb and H-bomb tests. He has written some 150 scientific articles and publications, and has authored an engineering textbook, and co-authored another engineering textbook. ...

.

 

[jwu]

I have very little scientific knowledge regarding evolution, etc. However in reference to the post above, in a biblical sense, I don't find the fact that we have a "mature" earth unhinges creation. God just created a mature earth.

It would be a mature one with signs of a false history which it never had then.

That'd be like creating a "mature" Adam with false memories of a childhood that he never actually had, with scars from injuries that he never actually suffered and so on. The geological counterparts would be remains of asteroid impacts and volcano eruptions that never actually happened, and so on.

 

[Relic]

Barbarian,

I didn't find much more of Blick's articles on the internet. And considering his writings I agree he did leave out the fact that the earth shifts, and his writing on the rate of it's erosion is bogus, in that he left out the many variables including those of the effects of wind and water upon the earth throughout time. Has he looked at the Grand Canyon? It's getting deeper as the river erodes the floor of it. Why he failed to consider the many other variables is beyond my understanding. But then, those were only excerpts from out of his book.


I never did say I agreed with him, nor did I say he was wrong. What I did say was I found his article interesting. :


Thanks for setting the facts straight.


I am not a proponent of Evolution in it's full sense. However, I do believe the bible does not lie and that there is a viable interpretation of the verse in which some people think the earth was created in 6 literal days. 2 Peter 3:8


Also, I believe, as stated in Genesis 1:2 that "the earth was without form and void".

But if you think about it... How could there be a description of the earth if the earth was not already in existence? I believe that the earth was already created, but was not complete, it was void of light and human life as we know it.


Before God formed the earth into planet full of life as we know it, I believe it was not much different than some of the planets in outer space being mounds of space debri from the big bang. Another controversial topic amongs creationists and evolutionists.


.

 

[Barbarian]

I find it astounding that anyone trained in geology would not know such basic facts about the earth.

Blick's statements are simply incomprehensible, if he truly did study geology.