Search This Blog

Saturday, May 15, 2010

Listen to the Humbugs sing...That there is no evidence for a young earth!

Two posts on the age of the Earth and then, for dessert, another post on actual genetics! In the case of the AIG posts the writing is really aimed at Christians first and Darwinists second. Many Christians part ways over this subject and I think we need not part ways but rather share information and find areas of agreement. Enjoy!

From Answers in Genesis - Six Evidences of a Young Earth

Geology: Radiocarbon in Diamonds

Far from proving evolution, carbon-14 dating actually provides some of the strongest evidence for creation and a young earth. Radiocarbon (carbon-14) cannot remain naturally in substances for millions of years because it decays relatively rapidly. For this reason, it can only used to obtain “ages” in the range of tens of thousands of years.

Scientists from the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) project examined diamonds that evolutionists consider to be 1–2 billion years old and related to the earth’s early history. Diamonds are the hardest known substance and extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange.

Yet the RATE scientists discovered significant detectable levels of radiocarbon in these diamonds, dating them at around 55,000 years—a far cry from the evolutionary billions!

Evidence 2Astronomy: Recession of the Moon

The gravitational pull of the moon creates a “tidal bulge” on earth that causes the moon to spiral outwards very slowly. Because of this effect, the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past. Based on gravitational forces and the current rate of recession, we can calculate how much the moon has moved away over time.

If the earth is only 6,000 years old, there’s no problem, because in that time the moon would have only moved about 800 feet (250 m). But most astronomy books teach that the moon is over four billion years old, which poses a major dilemma—less than 1.5 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth!

Evidence 3Geology: Earth’s Decaying Magnetic Field

Like other planets, the earth has a magnetic field that is decaying quite rapidly. We are now able to measure the rate at which the magnetic energy is being depleted and develop models to explain the data.

Secular scientists invented a “dynamo model” of the earth’s core to explain how the field could have lasted over such a long period of time, but this model fails to adequately explain the data for the rapid decay and the rapid reversals that it has undergone in the past. (It also cannot account for the magnetic fields of other planets, such as Neptune and Mercury.)

However, the creationist model (based on the Genesis Flood) effectively and simply explains the data in regard to the earth’s magnetic field, providing striking evidence that the earth is only thousands of years old—and not billions.

Evidence 4Biology: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

In recent years, there have been many findings of “wondrously preserved” biological materials in supposedly ancient rock layers and fossils. One such discovery that has left evolutionists scrambling is a fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex femur with flexible connective tissue, branching blood vessels, and even intact cells!

According to evolutionists, these dinosaur tissues are more than 65 million years old, but laboratory studies have shown that there is no known way—and likely none possible—for biological material to last more than thousands of years.

Could it be that evolutionists are completely wrong about how recently these dinosaurs lived?

Evidence 5Anthropology: Human Population Growth

It’s amazing what basic mathematics can show us about the age of the earth. We can calculate the years of human existence with the population doubling every 150 years (a very conservative figure) to get an estimate of what the world’s population should be after any given period of time.

A biblical age of the earth (about 6,000 years) is consistent with the numbers yielded by such a calculation. In contrast, even a conservative evolutionary age of 50,000 years comes out to a staggering, impossibly high figure of 10 to the 99th power—greater than the number of atoms in the universe!

Clearly, the claim that humans have inhabited the earth for tens of thousands of years is absurd!

Evidence 6Geology: Tightly Folded Rock Strata

When solid rock is bent, it normally cracks and breaks. Rock can only bend without fracturing when it is softened by extreme heating (which causes re-crystalization) or when the sediments have not yet fully hardened.

There are numerous locations around the world (including the famous Grand Canyon) where we observe massive sections of strata that have been tightly folded, without evidence of the sediments being heated.

This is a major problem for evolutionists who believe these rock layers were laid down gradually over vast eons of time, forming the geologic record. However, it makes perfect sense to creationists who believe these layers were formed rapidly in the global, catastrophic Flood described in Genesis.

Does the age of the earth really matter?

While each of these evidences reveals reasons why the earth cannot be billions of years old, the real issue is not the age of the earth. Instead, the real issue is authority. God’s infallible Word must be our ultimate authority, not the unstable foundation of human reasoning. Are we trying to fit our interpretations of the world (e.g., evolution) into Scripture, or will we simply let God speak for Himself through His Word?

If we can’t trust the first chapters of Genesis, why should we believe when Scripture says that faith in Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation? (Romans 10:9; Acts 4:12; John 14:6)

But when we take Scripture as written, it’s clear that the earth can’t be more than a few thousand years old—and from a biblical worldview, the scientific evidence agrees!

~

Thank you Ken Ham! By the way, studying the Sun also reveals that it would only be hospitable to life on earth for a short time, certainly not for billions of years! I already posted about those slippery helium atoms sneaking out of zircons in granitic rock at a rate that identifies the Earth at being around six thousand or so years old. The so-called falsifications of this finding are hilarious! (One contends that those rocks must have been at near absolute zero for millions of years hahahahahha)!

Be sure not to miss the part about the folded rocks, readers!!

~

Ken Ham also opined thusly: A Young Earth - It's not the issue!


By Ken Ham

First published in:
January 1998 AiG-USA Newsletter

Time and time again I have found that in both Christian and secular worlds, those of us who are involved in the creation movement are characterized as ‘young Earthers.’ The supposed battle-line is thus drawn between the ‘old Earthers’ (this group consists of anti-God evolutionists as well as many ‘conservative’ Christians) who appeal to what they call ‘science,’ versus the ‘young Earthers,’ who are said to be ignoring the overwhelming supposed ‘scientific’ evidence for an old Earth.

I want to make it VERY clear that we don’t want to be known primarily as ‘young-Earth creationists.’ AiG’s main thrust is NOT ‘young Earth’ as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing in a relatively ‘young Earth’ (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator.

Recently, one of our associates sat down with a highly respected world-class Hebrew scholar and asked him this question: ‘If you started with the Bible alone, without considering any outside influences whatsoever, could you ever come up with millions or billions of years of history for the Earth and universe?’ The answer from this scholar? ‘Absolutely not!’

Let’s be honest. Take out your Bible and look through it. You can’t find any hint at all for millions or billions of years.

For those of you who have kept up with our lectures and our articles in Answers magazine, you will have heard or read quotes from many well-known and respected Christian leaders admitting that if you take Genesis in a straight-forward way, it clearly teaches six ordinary days of Creation. However, the reason they don’t believe God created in six literal days is because they are convinced from so-called ‘science’ that the world is billions of years old. In other words, they are admitting that they start outside the Bible to (re)interpret the Words of Scripture.

When someone says to me, ‘Oh, so you’re one of those fundamentalist, young-Earth creationists,’ I reply, ‘Actually, I’m a revelationist, no-death-before-Adam redemptionist!’ (which means I’m a young-Earth creationist!).

Here’s what I mean by this: I understand that the Bible is a revelation from our infinite Creator, and it is self-authenticating and self-attesting. I must interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside! When I take the plain words of the Bible, it is obvious there was no death, bloodshed, disease or suffering of humans or animals before sin. God instituted death and bloodshed because of sin—this is foundational to the Gospel. Therefore, one cannot allow a fossil record of millions of years of death, bloodshed, disease and suffering before sin (which is why the fossil record makes much more sense as the graveyard of the flood of Noah’s day).

Also, the word for ‘day’ in the context of Genesis can only mean an ordinary day for each of the six days of Creation [see Q&A Genesis: Days of Creation for more information].

Thus, as a ‘revelationist,’ I let God’s Word speak to me, with the words having meaning according to the context of the language they were written in. Once I accept the plain words of Scripture in context, the fact of ordinary days, no death before sin, the Bible’s genealogies, etc., all make it clear that I cannot accept millions or billions of years of history. Therefore, I would conclude there must be something wrong with man’s ideas about the age of the universe.

And the fact is, every single dating method (outside of Scripture) is based on fallible assumptions. There are literally hundreds of dating tools. However, whatever dating method one uses, assumptions must be made about the past. Not one dating method man devises is absolute! Even though 90% of all dating methods give dates far younger than evolutionists require, none of these can be used in an absolute sense either. [See Q&A: Radiometric dating and Q&A: Young age evidence for more information.]

Question: Why would any Christian want to take man’s fallible dating methods and use them to impose an idea on the infallible Word of God? Christians who accept billions of years are in essence saying that man’s word is infallible, but God’s Word is fallible!

This is the crux of the issue. When Christians have agreed with the world that they can accept man’s fallible dating methods to interpret God’s Word, they have agreed with the world that the Bible can’t be trusted. They have essentially sent out the message that man, by himself, independent of revelation, can determine truth and impose this on God’s Word. Once this ‘door’ has been opened regarding Genesis, ultimately it can happen with the rest of the Bible.

You see, if Christian leaders have told the next generation that one can accept the world’s teachings in geology, biology, astronomy, etc., and use these to (re)interpret God’s Word, then the door has been opened for this to happen in every area, including morality.

Yes, one can be a conservative Christian and preach authoritatively from God’s Word from Genesis 12 onwards. But once you have told people to accept man’s dating methods, and thus should not take the first chapters of Genesis as they are written, you have effectively undermined the Bible’s authority! This attitude is destroying the church in America.

So, the issue is not ‘young Earth’ versus ‘old Earth,’ but this: Can fallible, sinful man be in authority over the Word of God?

A ‘young-Earth’ view admittedly receives the scoffing from a majority of the scientists. But Paul warned us in 1 Corinthians 8:2, ‘And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.’ Compared to what God knows, we know ‘next door to nothing!’ This is why we should be so careful to let God speak to us through His Word, and not try to impose our ideas on God’s Word.

It’s also interesting to note that this verse is found in the same passage where Paul warns that ‘knowledge puffeth up.’ Academic pride is found throughout our culture. Therefore, many Christian leaders would rather believe the world’s fallible academics, than the simple clear words of the Bible.

At Answers in Genesis, we believe this message needs to be proclaimed to the Church as a challenge to return to Biblical authority, and thus stand tall in the world for the accuracy of God’s Word. Ultimately, this is the only way we are going to reach the world with the truth of the Gospel message.

Let’s start the year by putting more and more pressure on our Christian leaders to take a long, hard look at how they are approaching the question of the authority of the Bible! Please help us fulfill our mission statement: to bring about reformation in the Church!

~

So lately we have published articles from CMI, from Rocky Mountain Fellowship and now from Answers in Genesis, many of which also link to the Institute for Creation Research, other creationist sites and also non-creationist sites. SO now we have one from Apologetic Press:

Apologetics Press :: Sensible Science

Evolution Can’t Explain “Smart” Plants
by Kyle Butt, M.A.


Printer version | Email this article

Lisa Krieger recently wrote an article titled, “How Do Flowers Know to Bloom in Spring? Now Humans Know, Too.” She reported about research on flower blooming that is being done by plant molecular geneticist Jose Luis Riechmann from the California Institute of Technology, published in Science magazine. Riechmann’s research centers on the ability of flowers to know when to bloom to take advantage of the proper weather conditions to reproduce. It turns out that for plants to survive, timing is everything. As plant biologist Jorge Dubcovsky of UC Davis stated: “Flowering time is one of the most important traits in breeding because it affects the yield of crops. Too early and you are killed by frost; too late and you are killed by heat” (as quoted in Krieger, 2010).

Reichmann believes he has identified the tiny protein that is responsible for setting blooming in motion. The protein is named APETALA1, or AP1. This tiny wonder “regulates more than 1,000 genes” and “serves as the door that opens the way to flowering” (2010). Without this amazing protein, the plant world as we know it would not exist. The importance of this single protein becomes clear, when we realize that “almost everything we eat is a plant, or something that just ate a plant” (2010).

This petite protein poses a powerful problem for the theory of evolution. According to the theory, all plants and animals evolved over billions of years by chance, random processes that were not directed by any intelligence. Although evolution has been repeatedly shown to be false (see Butt and Lyons, 2009), research like Reichmann’s continues to add more weight to the fact that evolution is scientifically impossible.

First, it should be noted that no research ever done has shown us how random processes can produce a protein like AP1. Second, even if random processes produced AP1, which they cannot, how many times of trial and error would we need to grant the evolutionary process to allow it to finally strike upon the perfectly timed sequence to bloom? If the plants that were supposedly evolving bloomed at the wrong time, they would die or fail to reproduce. While that would be bad for those individual plants, it would also be devastating for the alleged evolutionary process, since evolution would have to start over trying to randomly assemble protein AP1 after every failure. Since all evolutionary scenarios are imaginary, and not backed by real scientific evidence, it is easy to propound a scenario by which natural selection somehow “chose” the plants that happened to bloom at the right time and have the proper protein sequence. But in reality, the first wrong turn would have sent plant evolution (although there really is no such thing) back to the drawing board, as would each additional wrongly timed blooming.

In truth, there never have been millions of years of gradual, chance mutations and natural selections that produced the “intelligent” flowering plants that we see today. The intricate design of plants, as manifested by tiny proteins like AP1, testifies to the fact that an intelligent Designer created flowering plants. Plants “know” exactly when to bloom simply because, when God created them, He endowed them with the ability to perpetuate their kind. As Genesis 1:11 states: “Then God said, ‘Let all the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth’; and it was so” (emp. added).

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle and Eric Lyons (2009), “Darwin in Light of 150 Years of Error,” Reason & Revelation, 29[2]:9-15, February, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240057.

Krieger, Lisa (2010), “How Do Flowers Know to Bloom in Spring? Now Humans Know, Too,” [On-line], URL: http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_14803818?source=rss.



Copyright © 2010 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Sensible Science" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org



18 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

"Geology: Radiocarbon in Diamonds"

Explainable by lab contamination and experimental error

"Recession of the Moon"

A simpleminded and error-filled analysis produces an incorrect result. Wow, what a surprise.

"Earth’s Decaying Magnetic Field"

The third kind of lie: statistical doubletalk.

"Dinosaur Soft Tissue"

So all those hundreds of thousands of completely mineralized fossils are the aberration, and this one fossil that produced traces of organic materials is the trustworthy standard. Brilliant!

"Human Population Growth"

The Bunny Blunder.

"Tightly Folded Rock Strata"

Learn some geology. Yes, rock can bend.

radar said...

1-Facts presented in detail
2-Woolf denies without content
Rinse and Repeat.

There is not just one fossil find with tissue. Recently the fossil salamander with tissue made the news. But even one kills millions of years off. The rest of your answers are along the line of saying NOT!

That is just fine. I will keep presenting actual science and linking with other people who do the same. I am a member of scientific consortiums and get technical journals and am upping my game.

Take your "learn some geology", turn it around and physician, heal thyself. Go ahead and tell us how that big Grand Canyon fold happened without either being superheated or (because of the flood) being somewhat elastic.

radar said...

"Geology: Radiocarbon in Diamonds"

Explainable by lab contamination and experimental error


Nope. It happens often and under very controlled conditions. The RATE team didn't just find one diamond and radiocarbon has been famously misused by Darwinists from the get-go. How is is that a volcanic eruption can produce rocks and a few years later the rock is dated at over two million years?

creeper said...

"1-Facts presented in detail
2-Woolf denies without content
Rinse and Repeat."


You can hardly blame Jon for being succinct when you run from one subject to the next.

Obviously it takes a lot less time to paste some articles than it does to explain in detail why they are wrong. If you're willing to go through the subjects one at a time, a more reasonable discussion can be had.

-- creeper

radar said...

creeper, none of you had anything of substance to say as we journeyed to the center of the cell. I understand that. Okay Jon, here ya go!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n2/folded-not-fractured

Like I said, it is simple once you free your mind of the restraint of Darwinist propaganda.

Jon Woolf said...

"But even one kills millions of years off."

No. One incident of incomplete fossilization, when compared to hundreds of thousands of events of complete fossilization, is explainable as a freak event.

"The rest of your answers are along the line of saying NOT!"

Oh, so that tactic's okay for you but not for me.

"1-Facts presented in detail
2-Radar denies without content
Rinse and Repeat."

Fixed that for you.

AiG's blather about "you can't fold rock" is just that: ignorant blather. With the right combination of pressure and heat, you can fold any solid.

"How is is that a volcanic eruption can produce rocks and a few years later the rock is dated at over two million years?"

If the rocks solidified two million years ago but didn't reach the surface until recently.

Earth is not young. The no-young-isotopes phenomenon proves that beyond a reasonable doubt.

scohen said...

"Anthropology: Human Population Growth"

Radar, you claim to be a smart guy, why not investigate this claim for yourself? Determine if the model proposed makes any sense in terms of real population growth.

Why not trying to plug in numbers for different eras and see if it jibes.
I know I have.

"...a fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex femur with flexible connective tissue..."

Question for you: Do you think the flexible 'tissue' was found in situ?

radar said...

scohen, I did the math on the population and posted a graph and the formula put together by a mathhead about two months ago. Whether by Ken Ham or the statistician the population of humanity only seems to go back to within 200 years or so of the date of the Flood. The population figures we have perfectly fit the graphs presented. Did you miss that one? As a man who likes math, you cannot really imagine mankind being around more than a few thousand years considering our population now and the curve we have faithfully followed for recorded history. Can you?

radar said...

Woolf you are allowed to lie if you wish. You say I do not post CONTENT? Good grief, man, in the last year I have taught a college level course on cellular biology and genetics among other things on this blog (and taught a class in real life during that time as well on YEC science basics).

Again, there is no sign that any heat was associated with the folding in the Canyon so that dog won't hunt. Furthermore the layers are plainly water-laid and the size of the layers means a massive event such as we have never seen.

radar said...

Oh, and that double talk about the magnetic field? That is one process we have a long time of documenting, one of the oldest processes regularly measured. Go look things up before you make silly statements.

scohen said...

So you're on board with there only being 633,652 people on the planet when Julius Caesar was emperor of Rome?

Seems odd, since the census of Rome indicated over 2 million people *in rome*. That's a mighty big error, no?

Also, when Jesus was born (3 ad) there were 805,765 people on the planet.

Something is very wrong with the assumptions Mr. Ham made, no?

scohen said...

"As a man who likes math, you cannot really imagine mankind being around more than a few thousand years considering our population now and the curve we have faithfully followed for recorded history"

The assumptions that you and Ham make are very silly. So yes, they could have easily been around for hundreds of thousands of years. Unchecked exponential growth is not normal.

Again, was the flexible tissue found in situ?

scohen said...

"in the last year I have taught a college level course on cellular biology and genetics among other things"

God help us all.

Seriously, what unbridled arrogance allows you to think you could teach a college level course on either of those subjects? I have 80% of a microbiology major completed and I wouldn't think I'm anywhere near qualified.

Jon Woolf said...

You say I do not post CONTENT?

Yup. Your answers to points raised by me, Canucklehead, Creeper, and others consist almost entirely of table-pounding mixed with evangelism and copypasta (an excellent word, Creeper!) from creationist sites. None of those qualifies as useful content in a scientific discussion.

creeper said...

"copypasta (an excellent word, Creeper!)"

I can't claim credit for that one.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"I have taught a college level course on cellular biology and genetics among other things on this blog"

Someone who teaches is generally required to understand the subject at hand. You've cut-and-pasted a bunch of articles that you think support the outcome you want to see, and in your own accompanying commentary made it clear that you have massive gaps in your basic knowledge of the subject.

For example, on facilitated variation - aside from missing a key point in your claims, which Jon tried to point out to you - you've made it plain that your understanding of modern biology is so vastly deficient that you thought the authors of the original article on facilitated variation (which incidentally isn't at all incompatible with the theory of evolution, so it's unclear why you think this is some kind of slam-dunk for YEC) claimed that life would have to "jump domains" several/eight/eleven times, a claim that you were obviously unable to back up when called on it.

No, Radar, to claim that you are "teaching" anything on this subject is risible.

"(and taught a class in real life during that time as well on YEC science basics)."

What was the content of the class, and who were the lucky recipients of your instruction?

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Yet the RATE scientists discovered significant detectable levels of radiocarbon in these diamonds, dating them at around 55,000 years—a far cry from the evolutionary billions!"

A perfect example of YECs refusing to go where the evidence leads. They don't say, huh, this indicates the world is at least 55,000 years old, which is completely at odds with what we've interpreted from the Bible about the world being less than 6K years old, therefore we should re-examine our interpretation of that part of the Bible.

Nor do they even conclude that their experiment must still be completely wrong, because 55K years is a far cry from 6K years, after all.

No, at that point instead they start cheering because they think they've put a chink in the armor of that evil global old Earth conspiracy.

Ah... creation "science". Not propaganda at all, nuh-uh.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Good grief, man, in the last year I have taught a college level course on cellular biology and genetics among other things on this blog (and taught a class in real life during that time as well on YEC science basics

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lava