Being a Young Earth Creationist is Not a Privilege I'm Asking For

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: AiG, Good on Flood Topic, Less Good on Soteriology · Continuing with Sam Burns Who Seems Unaware of What Creationist Sites Actually Say · New blog on the kid: Being a Young Earth Creationist is Not a Privilege I'm Asking For

No, rather than a privilege I'm asking for, it's the common right of everyone.

Sam Burns obviously doesn't see it like that.

As obviously he doesn't see the debate as a debate.

He sees it as him playing mental caretaker or sth.

Now, if I were begging him, pretty please, for the right to be Young Earth Creationist, he could obviously do what he tried to do after I told him I didn't want his company after he had been unpleasant.

He could take up one aspect I hadn't answered or that the article I referred to hadn't fully answered (I honestly didn't check, the article was about the other part of his question but did mention the river he asked about). And if I didn't produce that, he could do what he did, pretend I hadn't earned the right to be a Young Earth Creationist.

Geology is NOT my speciality. There are Geologists on CMI and AiG, if he needs one, he doesn't need me to be that one.

I also don't need me to be that one. The fact that I dispute the position of CMI on a few points and of AiG on a few points doesn't disqualify myself from relying on them in many other respects, including how a lava flow during the Flood got a river carved into it.

I also don't need to be, for exactly the same reason, an all round expert to have the right to be a Young Earth Creationist writer. I have my few areas of choice, where I think I contributed sth which CMI missed. Like on carbon 14 dating. Like saying plainly and simply that Flood water cooled down lava quickly and trapped Argon thereby offsetting the K/Ar dates, and that this happened more the earlier and the deeper the volcanic eruption was, like it had more and cooler water to cool the lava quickly. Like saying that any given area, we are likely to find one level of land creatures from the Flood, even if that level counts as a "different layer" from the one level 500 yards away.

Or like defending, in connection with my carbon 14 tables, Göbekli Tepe being Nimrod's Babel, a clear tendency outweighing by far vaccillations, and therefore a translation from carbon dates to real Biblical dates being possible, including that whatever year you place Genesis 14, it has a carbon date of 3500 BC, or that Neanderthals carbon date to before the Flood.

Or, for that matter, that the Distant Starlight problem is best answered by Geocentrism and refusing to take Deep Space seriously. Andromeda is a classical name, but the stars in the Andromeda constellation are not in the Andromeda Galaxy (which is only "one of them") and pose no problem to the Biblical chronology. Taking Messier 31 as "another galaxy" and therefore "outside our galaxy" does. That's not warranted by the evidence as a Geocentric can interpret it. Only Heliocentrism triggers a chain reaction to this supposed problem.

I know my limits. Sam Burns had no need to demonstrate them. He has no right to draw the kind of conclusions he wants to draw about them either. My Young Earth Creationism is a position, not a "mental condition", and my claim to write on the topic has validity within the limits I respect. And yes, a real scientist would be so much better equipped to make a carbon 14 table, on the one hand tracing the rise of it as it affects uncalibrated carbon dates, and then taking the calibration into account, for each little available wiggle. But as real scientists refuse to do the work, even answer when I ask them, I have a job. I'd like to get better paid for it, and people like Sam Burns are getting into the way.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
King St. Lewis IX of France
25.VIII.2026

Apud Carthaginem sancti Ludovici Noni, Regis Francorum et Confessoris, vitae sanctitate ac miraculorum gloria praeclari, cujus ossa postmodum Lutetiam Parisiorum sunt relata.