Evidence of the Age of Planet Earth

By Bob Ellis on June 4th, 2009

(Credit: Harman Smith and Laura Generosa nee Berwin, NASA)

(Credit: Harman Smith and Laura Generosa nee Berwin, NASA)

Need a reason not to buy into the mountain of assumptions upon which the theory of evolution is based? How about 101 of them?

Creation Ministries International just published 101 evidences for a young age of the earth.

If you’re used to accepting all the “wisdom” that comes from most of the “scientific” community, from news outlets, from Hollywood, and from every major corner of society today, you may consider it a foregone conclusion that the earth is billions of years old.  You might consider it laughable to even think of anything to the contrary.

But have you ever stopped to ask your self why you believe this?  Have you ever stopped to ask yourself how scientists can know the earth is 4.5 billion years old?  Have you ever stopped to ask yourself if this assertion is based on objective, unimpeachable fact…or merely based on a lot of assumptions?  When you “assume” something, you accept it without knowing for certain, don’t you?  And you know what they say happens when you ass-u-me, right?

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself if there might be some genuine, logical reasons why some people don’t accept the assumption that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, why they in fact believe it is only a few thousand years old?  Have you ever stopped to ask yourself if they might have some reasons based not just on the Bible, but on scientific data itself?

Whether you have or haven’t, I invite you to do so for a few minutes right now.

Here are just a few of the 101 reasons from CMI:

  • DNA in “ancient” fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
  • The data for “mitochondrial Eve” are consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago.
  • Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels, proteins (hemoglobin, osteocalcin, collagen) are not consistent with their supposed age, but make more sense if the remains are young.
  • Thick, tightly bent strata without sign of melting or fracturing. E.g. the Kaibab upwarp in Grand Canyon indicates rapid folding before the sediments had time to solidify (the sand grains were not elongated under stress as would be expected if the rock had hardened). This wipes out hundreds of millions of years of time and is consistent with extremely rapid formation during the biblical Flood. SeeWarped earth.
  • Polystrate fossils—tree trunks in coal (Auracaria spp. king billy pines, celery top pines, in southern hemisphere coal). There are also polystrate tree trunks in theYellowstone fossilized forests and Joggins, Nova Scotia and in many other places. Polystrate fossilized lycopod trunks occur in northern hemisphere coal, again indicating rapid burial / formation of the organic material that became coal.
  • Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, oil forms quickly; it does not need millions of years, consistent with an age of thousands of years.
  • The amount of salt in the world’s oldest lake contradicts its supposed age and suggests an age more consistent with its formation after Noah’s Flood.
  • Observed examples of rapid canyon formation; for example, Providence Canyon in southwest Georgia, Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington, and Lower Loowit Canyon near Mount St Helens. The rapidity of the formation of these canyons, which look similar to other canyons that supposedly took many millions of years to form, brings into question the supposed age of the canyons that no one saw form.
  • Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
  • Incongruent radioisotope dates using the same technique argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years.
  • Incongruent radioisotope dates using different techniques argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years.
  • Evidence of a period of rapid radioactive decay in the recent past (lead and helium concentrations and diffusion rates in zircons) point to a young earth explanation.
  • Lifetime of long-period comets (orbital period greater than 200 years) that are sun-grazing comets or others like Hyakutake or Hale–Bopp means they could not have originated with the solar system 4.5 billion years ago. However, their existence is consistent with a young age for the solar system. Again an AD hoc Oort Cloud was invented to try to account for these comets still being present after billions of years. See, Comets and the age of the solar system.
  • Human population growth. Less than 0.5% p.a. growth from six people 4,500 years ago would produce today’s population. Where are all the people? if we have been here much longer?
  • Common cultural “myths” speak of recent separation of peoples around the world. An example of this is the frequency of stories of an earth-destroying flood.

Is any of this conclusive proof that the claims of the Bible are correct, and that the earth is only 6,000-10,000 years old?  No.

But then, nothing proffered by evolutionist and materialists is conclusive proof that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, either.  No one living now was around at the beginning of the earth, and there is no clear, verifiable record of what happened and when it happened.

The truth is, whether you believe in creation, intelligent design or evolution/materialism, you’re making a lot of assumptions.  The real question is: how closely does the evidence fit your assumptions?

Interestingly, materialists and evolutionist typically make a lot of claims that are impossible with in the framework of their own theory.  A fundamental assumption of materialism and evolution is that the universe came about through completely unguided, naturalistic events and that no supernatural force was involved anywhere along the way, from the beginning to today.  This requires everything that has happened in the theoretical 14 billion year age of the universe to have come about without supernatural causation, in full compliance with the laws of science.  The problem is, several pivotal assumptions of materialism and evolution are impossible according to the laws of nature: matter coming from nothing, stellar matter defying entropy and spontaneously organizing into higher forms, life from lifelessness, etc.

Meanwhile, creationism and intelligent design are completely possible within the framework of their own theories.   Unlike evolution/materialism, there is no fundamental reason why creation or intelligent design are impossible according to their own key assumptions.

What’s more, as CMI’s list of only 101 items points out, the evidence tends to fit creation theory much better than evolution theory.

I used to believe in evolution…until I realized its weaknesses and all the insurmountable problems it faces within itself. And when I became aware of how well the evidence fits the Genesis account, and of the multitude of highly technical creationist studies and theories which have examined the evidence in detail, I ended up becoming a young earth creationist.

If you aren’t afraid to admit you’ve been wrong, if you aren’t afraid to go beyond what people have been feeding you all your life, if you aren’t afraid to confront the facts head on and weigh them objectively, if you aren’t afraid of the possibility that your worldview could shift radically, I invite you to do as I did several years ago and take an honest look at the strengths and weaknesses on both sides of this argument.  You can start by going to CMI and reading all 101 reasons; see what you think.

You might just be amazed…

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: Commentary
Tags: , ,

  • Brian Rutledge
    Bob-- Just one question. Where or what scientific postulate claims that matter came from nothing ?I can't find it.
  • The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy (and, by implication, matter) cannot be created or destroyed. Thus, for the universe to come into existence without precedent cause violates this law. This is just one of many problems that I have with origin theories that deny a creator. Evolution runs into similar problems since it would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I know the argument about a net increase in entropy when the reaction of the sun is considered, but in no other circumstance can we find decreased entropy in a closed system without the input of information, i.e., control mechanisms.

    You cannot place all the materials for building a house in the sun and expect the sun's energy to organize the wood, pipes, wires, etc. into a house. It takes information in the form of design, plans, execution and organization to accomplish that.
  • It had to. Everything comes from something; what did the universe come from? The universe had to begin somewhere at some time. Unless you or someone else is postulating that there was something in existence prior to the formation of the universe (God? **GASP!**), then it had to come from nothing...and something coming from nothing has not been seen, has not been recorded (except in that Bible that evolutionists find so icky), and has not been demonstrated in the lab or any experiments.

    Therefore, the universe coming into existence from nothing (which is what had to happen, if one refuses to consider supernatural causation) is counter to scientific laws and principles. So the chain of materialist and evolutionist assumptions falls flat on its face in impossibility...right at the starting gate.
  • Jason
    Why would it matter if science supported an old earth or a young earth? Science deals with nature and the natural world, it does not and cannot deal with the supernatural world. For argument's sake say that science pinpointed the age of the earth at exactly 6,000 years, or whatever age best agrees with biblical creationism. Where is the logical connect between the science and the supernatural events described in Genesis? Science cannot test or examine the supernatural realm, therefore applying science to creationism is a complete non-sequitur. It's the natural world versus the supernatural world; the former we live in every day and the latter merely a philisophical concept of mankind.
  • Science cannot measure the supernatural world, but if there is a written record that states certain supernatural events occurred and that the effects of those events were of a nature and magnitude that they should have left an effect on the physical world, then science should be able to examine those effects to some extent.

    For instance, the Bible claims the earth was created, along with the sun, moon, stars and the rest of the cosmos--and science can observe the effects of those supernatural creations. The Bible also claims God created all the plant and animal life on earth, and created human beings to be intelligent and supreme over all other creations--and we science can observe the effects of those supernatural acts.

    What becomes more controversial are other supernatural acts, with the biggest probably being the global flood of Noah's time. In fact, most creation scientists believe the current state in which we see the earth and its geology are largely due to the global flood. Such an event would have had cataclysmic effects on the entire planet (and the word "cataclysmic" hardly does justice to the scope and depth of those effects). Creation scientists believe that event--which was initially kicked off by supernatural causation but which played itself out pretty much according to the subsequent effects of the laws of nature--is responsible for the vast layers of sediment we see across the globe, the jagged upset of other geological layers, was responsible for the deposition of most of the fossils being found, and for the initial formation of the coal and oil deposits found around the world.

    So no, whatever supernatural act God performed to kick off that flood cannot be measured by science (since it by definition superseded natural laws), but science can measure those effects...and see how closely the evidence lines up with the Biblical claims. And it matches up remarkably well.

    But evolutionists cannot measure most of these ancient elements and events any better. No one was around when the dinosaurs lived, so science has no way (other than the multitude of assumptions made about the geological column, assumptions made about radiometric dating, etc) of testing or knowing just how Fossil X died, ended up preserved as it was, and so on.

    In the end, there's a lot of guesswork on both sides. The best one can do is to see which theory best matches the evidence (and which theory is workable within its own framework).
  • Jason
    How does a written record of alleged supernatural events lead to your conclusions? You say the old earth theory is based on assumptions, which I will agree because no science is exact, but are you not making the grandest assumption of all... attributing the natural world to supernatural cause? What shred of evidence is there to support supernatural causation? Some ancient texts are not proof of anything, unless of course you are a "believer."

    It's pointless to debate the accuracy of science when it is not relevant to creationist argument. Science is testable, therefore it is fallible. On the other hand creationism has to be accepted as infallible theory (fact) because there is simply no way to test the theory. Myself, like most people, want to believe in the truth, and for something to be considered truthful it needs to be testable.

    I find most people who argue science in favour of a young earth are carrying out an agenda. These people are not actually interested in objective scientific debate but rather they are occupied with making the science fit preconceived ideas. If they can plant the seed of doubt and destroy the credibility of science they think it will make minds more receptive to creationist theory and return authority to God.

    Darwin was a very religious man early in life but what he studied made him ask questions, and when he asked those questions the answer "God did it" simply wasn't enough for him....
  • Several key things support supernatural causation. Perhaps the primary one is that according to the laws of science, everything requires a cause in order to have an effect...so the universe could not have come into existence (a) from nothing (this violates the laws of nature) and (b) without a cause (if there was nothing in existence before the universe, there was nothing in existence to cause the universe to come into existence.

    So elementary logical deduction in light of the laws of nature points to a supernatural cause.

    There is also the matter of the vast complexity of even some of the most simple elements in the universe--how does such incredible complexity come from a random, unordered chain of events (that shouldn't have initiated in the first place)?

    There is also the matter of the information behind so many facets of the universe, DNA being one of them. Information has coherence, and strongly (to put it mildly) points to intelligent design).

    What's more, the written record of creation (i.e. the Bible) and its account of creation bears a striking resemblance to the universe we observe.

    Science is testable...but most of evolution theory is not testable, and is built almost entirely on assumptions. We cannot test the scientific principle of something coming from nothing...except to affirm that it cannot happen and is thus a violation of the laws of nature. We cannot test the scientific principle of life springing from lifeless materials...except to affirm that it cannot happen and is thus a violation of the laws of nature. We cannot test the scientific principle of matter coalescing itself into higher states of order without the aid of intelligent force...except to affirm that it cannot happen without intelligent direction. We cannot test the age of various fossils without relying on the geological column (which is itself an assumption) or radiometric dating (which relies on several unprovable assumptions).

    So in the end, evolution and materialist theory involves at least as much assumption and guesswork as creation science. The most meaningful test then becomes: which works best within its own framework of assumptions, and which most closely matches the objective scientific evidence (not the assumptions about the evidence, but the evidence itself?

    I have found that most people who favor the belief system of evolution have a theological agenda. They tend to find it more comfortable not being accountable to a creator who sets the standard of right and wrong--especially when there's a good chance they're on the wrong side of that standard. They also tend to find it more appealing to the ego to consider themselves (i.e. human beings) the most intelligent force around; this feeds the hunger for pride and self-esteem all humans feel, and it also helps feed that hope that there is no higher accountability for moral behavior.

    I'm most interested in knowing the truth, and I somewhat abhor the idea of believing in a myth or poorly thought out supposition. Which is why I stopped believing in evolution and began to believe in the creation account: it became clear that evolution theory was impossible according to its own claims and had too many weaknesses and blind spots, and that the creation account was completely workable within its own framework, and fit the evidence much better.
  • "is that according to the laws of science, everything requires a cause in order to have an effect..."


    What is the cause for a God? What was the cause for a heaven and hell?

    I love the theory that scientist are in some great conspiracy to fool everyone. 99% of scientists are extremely competitive and would do anything to refute or disprove anothers work. Evolution and the age of the universe have been studied and peer reviewed many times. Unlike creationsim, which makes outlandish claims with a fictional book written by man.
  • The cause for heaven was that God created it, as he did Hell to serve as a place for those who refuse to listen to him. As for God's cause, he exists outside the universe and is thus not subject to its laws, including the universe's law of cause and effect.

    Evolutionists aren't so much in a "great conspiracy to fool everyone" as they are in a concerted effort to keep themselves believing in a flawed and unworkable theory; keeping everyone else fooled is just a means to the end of keeping their own faith in their theology shored up.

    Besides, the "peer review" that you and so many other evolutionists place so much faith in is akin to the accountability of one fox to another with regards to activity in the henhouse. Evolution theory renders itself impossible by its own assumptions (the laws of science must be violated at key points in order for the theory to ever get off the ground in the first place...and evolutionists deny the possibility that those laws can be violated--that would constitute supernatural influence...something they abhor considering).

    Peer review that can't recognize such an elementary flaw in the entire machine isn't much peer review at all.
  • erinzdad
    Evolutionists rarely address the issues. Instead they make personal attacks. Just as in the debates. Evolutionists soundly lose as a rule. Their debating formula seems to be to attack the messenger, or religion, or God, or all of the above. Isn't it quite mad to hate and rail against a God you profess to not believe in? Certifiable!

    If "evolution is a fact" as they love to say, then why don't they ever bring the facts to dispute the damaging evidence against their wonderful theory?

    Many of the points in your article above are show stoppers for evolution and they know it. They will never admit it, but they know. If they were intellectually honest they would never resort to ad hominem attacks and instead use the power of the facts to take you on.

    Bob you are doing an excellent job here. Your communication skills are superb! As far as I can see you dusted all comers. They lost the skirmishes they started and had no rebuttal worthy of being called the truth.

    Excellent site.

    Thank you
    Steve
  • Jeff
    So you link sources that are based on the conclusions you want to hear. None of them are scientific fact. The one that gets me the most is population growth. You cannot possibly extrapolate what population growth "should" be for any creature on Earth once humans became societized. Too many factors change based on starvation, disease, war, wiping out resources and continually decimating natural ecologies. I'm a Christian and am embarrassed by how some people in our religion (and Muslims etc) just make up things to fit their own view instead of embracing science. There should be no fear that the writer of Genesis was not smart enough to calculate 1 year = 1 billion years in God's terms. No human up until recently could possible start to understand the cope and immensity of the Universe, Time, and Infinity.

    I'm also disappointed this website exists to try and nullify theories of global warming. Go live in China for a few years like my sister did and come back and tell me Coal fired plants are not a problem and global warming doesn't exist. Really, I'm disgusted by how selfish some Christians can be, because those that dismiss the mountains of evidence that shows the devastating effects Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gasses don't care about their fellow humans or their children's children. They (You) just don't want to make any sacrifices to make this world last. I don't have children myself and I care more about what's going on that many Republican Christians because they're too wrapped up in safe-guarding their pocketbooks. But why should you care? You'll be gone as global warming really starts to change the planet to make things much more miserable here.

    I am just so disappointed some of the Christian groups are becoming stupider instead of wiser. This does not bode well for the future of Christianity. The ignorance and selfish corruption of Middle Ages Popes hurt Christianity, and Protestant "Christian' groups have continually had extremely evil segments such as the KKK and those against civil liberties. It's so far against what Jesus taught I can't beleive how people can live with themselves and it continues today...
  • Jeff, you may be a Christian, but you have obviously embraced the fallacious, myopic and biased ideas and assumptions of flawed human beings over what your God has told you.

    The population example is, admittedly, one of the weaker arguments. However, evolutionists tend to take a uniformatarian view which implies no major changes or upsets over the course of history. So by one of their own key assumptions, population growth should have been fairly steady. Even under a pessimistic scenario, it should be incredibly higher than it has been.

    And your math of 1 year=1 billion years also doesn't add up. Is 1 billion years supposed to equal 1 creation day? Evolutionists and materialists claim the earth is 4.5 billion years old, so you're a day and a half short somewhere.

    It's also interesting that you state things are so dirty in China. No one is seriously expecting the Chinese--or any other similarly developed nation--to adhere to any of these economically devastating global warming plans like Kyoto, but in the U.S. where things are vastly cleaner, we are supposed to shoulder the burden of saving the planet from a mythical threat? Hopefully even you can see the inconsistency here.

    Ultimately, if you claim to be a Christian, you should start putting your faith in what God has told you and not a bunch of assumptions and biased guesswork coming from people that are frankly very hostile toward the religion you claim to adhere to.

    You should also learn to separate assumption from fact. Were you to do so, you would understand that what you call "science" is nothing but assumptions made by flawed men with a predisposition to embrace a belief system that provides them autonomy from the moral authority of God.

    The ability to distinguish assumption from fact. That is what is so woefully absent from almost every adherent to the religion of evolution, and what is so desperately needed before any intellectual honesty can truly characterize this debate.
  • tossup
    I'll quote you: "I used to believe in evolution…until I realized its weaknesses and all the insurmountable problems it faces within itself. And when I became aware of how well the evidence fits the Genesis account, and of the multitude of highly technical creationist studies and theories which have examined the evidence in detail, I ended up becoming a young earth creationist."

    I'm guessing you "used to believe" because you were not thinking on it, just going along with the program. I'm guessing that somewhere in your life, you thought religion gave you a satisfaction you found no where else, and because evolution was inconsistent with the religion, you cashiered your "belief" in evolution, such as it was, for belief in a religion that rewarded you with something of value. I'm guessing that, because you got something of value from religion, you threw yourself into the literature of a young earth with a zeal you never knew when you "believed in evolution," which in comparison gave you nothing you valued. Frankly, I'm skeptical about how knowledgeable you are about evolution, now or when you had your "belief" about it, and suspect the conversion from one belief to the other is a pretense and a pose, wrought from a misguided sense of ministry.
  • My rejection of evolution came as a result of in-depth study of biology and medicine. I was a devoted Darwinist until I came to realize, like Mr. Ellis, that the whole theory was untenable in light of what we know about life. Evolutionists have not proposed, much less demonstrated, any mechanism for the generation of new information in the genetic code; yet all of the biological sciences have demonstrated the incredible diversity of life that exists with encoded information that exceeds all the accumulated knowledge of man from the beginning of time.

    Information can only come from intelligence. You can not cite any evidence to the contrary, because it doesn't exist. Remember when the SETI program detected a rhythmic signal from deep space several years ago and all the excitement and speculation that that stimulated? Why was Carl Sagan so excited? Because he thought they had detected a signal containing INFORMATION, which could only mean an intelligent source. Scientists know the first law of information theory but disregard it when it comes to evolution, just like they do the first and second laws of thermodynamics
  • tossup
    The premise that evolution is bankrupt because it doesn't explain life, is
    one that I cannot see is relevant to what evolution purports to be. Why
    make "life" the determining factor for taking a position one way or another
    about evolution? Evolution, not just biological evolution, is a fact of
    life, instantiated in every aspect of the cosmos. . Why require, to
    determine its correctness, that a fact of life also explain itself? I don't see
    the necessity or the logic any more than I see another fact of life, beliefs,
    as being untenable because it doesn't explain the phenomenon of beliefs.

    Both your stories of conversion have a familiar theme. Of course, how can
    anybody say it is wrong to believe as you do? I certainly wouldn't. But
    what I can be found taking issue with is the notion that the beliefs are to
    be debated, just as I would take issue with talking about the right or
    wrong of an emotion or feelings. Beliefs are so tied to emotional dividends
    and reward that I could not separate them, except by a cognitive effort. So,
    in that it takes effort, there's something "unnatural" about
    intellectualizing positions of belief.

    Having said that it has struck me that intellectual positions are crafted,
    honed and tailored to defend beliefs. I "believe" theological systems,
    philosophical systems, rules of logic deductive logic, have only one purpose,
    and that is to justify belief in whatever guise adhered to. So adherence
    and conviction precede intellectual positions and viewpoints. The
    overriding determinant, then, when beliefs are discussed are the mechanism(s) by
    which belief becomes important, relevant, meaningful to an individual to the
    point of conviction and adherence. What makes one belief more attractive
    than another, so that a person is convinced by one and left indifferent by
    another? What goes on in the subjective life of an individual so that he
    can be found declaring his persuasion, his allegiance, to one belief system
    or another. What's so important about beliefs that so much cerebral energy
    is budgeted for their defense? What are the mainsprings of adherence?

    In trying to find answers to such questions, I've come to recognize that
    tales of conversion for reasons lodged in intellectual, philosophical
    correctness are so much "just so" rationalizing (which is okay mind you, so long
    as you don't make more of it than that) and don't address what really is
    going on inside a person to make of him an adherent of a belief system.

    Why, for example, was the question of "life" so important for you, such
    that you gravitated to a belief system that protected life? It would not
    surprise me if you said its importance is too obvious to warrant further
    comment, after all you took the Hippocratic oath, to which I would reply that
    you are not acknowledging the power over choice being exerted by valuative
    systems operating in you as a biological organism that are outside and
    beyond your control. Homeostasis and the organism's commitment to biological
    viability and survivability are extremely powerful influences over choice,
    actions, and viewpoints. Under threat of physical danger, people don't defend
    themselves with arguments and belief systems. "Life" is so important to
    you, that you could no more act inconsistently with it than you could resist
    gravity itself. In fact, you might be horrified at the mere possibility,
    however improbable, of a planet that, like the surface of our sun, had no
    place in it for life.

    The phenomenon of adherence to a belief system, as an aspect underlying
    all intellectual positions, applies whether one is an atheist or a theist.
    And under either banner, there are the fundamentalists, the moderates, and
    in-betweens, and so forth.

    I ask these questions because I've been hammering out the answer over the
    last 50 years. I've got an answer, and it allows me to make the following
    statement: theists are dead wrong who say god exists, and atheists are dead
    wrong who say god isn't real. This is a truth that makes more sense to me
    than all the banter between viewpoints that typically passes for
    enlightenment among christians and atheists. It's an observation based on the
    central nervous system and the developmental path it takes in infancy. Anyway,
    good day gentlemen.


    In a message dated 6/6/2009 9:43:21 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
    writes:

    dr. theo wrote, in response to tossup:

    My rejection of evolution came as a result of in-depth study of biology
    and medicine. I was a devoted Darwinist until I came to realize, like Mr.
    Ellis, that the whole theory was untenable in light of what we know about
    life. Evolutionists have not proposed, much less demonstrated, any mechanism
    for the generation of new information in the genetic code; yet all of the
    biological sciences have demonstrated the incredible diversity of life that
    exists with encoded information that exceeds all the accumulated knowledge
    of man from the beginning of time.



    Information can only come from intelligence. You can not cite any
    evidence to the contrary, because it doesn't exist. Remember when the SETI
    program detected a rhythmic signal from deep space several years ago and all the
    excitement and speculation that that stimulated? Why was Carl Sagan so
    excited? Because he thought they had detected a signal containing
    INFORMATION, which could only mean an intelligent source. Scientists know the first
    law of information theory but disregard it when it comes to evolution, just
    like they do the first and second laws of thermodynamics



    Link to comment:
    http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/evidence-of-...

    --
    You may reply to this email to post your response. To turn off
    notifications, go to your Disqus settings at:
    http://disqus.com/settings/notifications/

    **************Stay connected and tighten your budget with a great mobile
    device for under $50. Take a Peek!
    (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1221845...)
  • Of course believes are to be debated; they should be debated. If our beliefs are based on weak evidence or on assumptions contrary to the best available information, we should be made aware that our beliefs lack a firm foundation. No rational person should enjoy ignorance or remaining in error, so any rational person should want to know about erroneous for unfounded beliefs they hold. I know that, despite the discomfort of realizing how wrong I had been to believe in the theory of evolution, knowing about its weakness and it's very unworkability was welcome.

    I try very hard to base my beliefs on the best information possible. When I encounter facts--not suppositions, not assumptions, but facts--which prove something I have believed in was false, I adjust my beliefs. When I encounter facts that seriously undermine something I believe in--without completely disproving it--I place those beliefs into kind of a mental holding pattern or box for further consideration; in the meantime, I don't continue to dogmatically push or advocate them, just like I wouldn't drive a car on the road that seemed unreliable.

    To answer a question or two that you posed, I didn't gravitate toward a belief system that protected life because life was important to me; the inverse is true. I came to value life because the "belief system" I came to trust through investigation, research, and a good amount of critical thought values life. On my own, I might as well end any life I deem to be an impediment to my own goals...but the belief system I have found to be reliable and characterized by a high degree of veracity and logic says that is wrong, so based on the confidence I have developed in that belief system (based on its impeccable record of veracity) I also accept the value of human life, even when some of that human life is an impediment to me personally.

    I would have to say that your supposition that both theists and atheists are wrong is illogical and merely an attempt to avoid taking sides in a debate where you find distasteful implications on both sides. Either there is some sort of deity out there (regardless of who he is and who is right) ,or there is none. Both sides cannot be right, and both sides cannot be wrong. One is right and one is wrong.

    You shouldn't be afraid to take sides...just do the homework and be sure that you know you're on the right side when you do. And contrary to postmodernist thinking, it really isn't too hard to figure out which is the right side, if you're willing to do some honest, objective research.
  • Actually I was not very knowledgeable about evolution when I was an evolutionist--which put me about average or perhaps a little above the knowledge of most Americans. I now know far more about the theory than when I actually believed it.

    That's a nice guess about why I abandoned belief in evolution, but far from the mark. You see, I've always had a thirst for knowledge and a desire to know the truth. At various points in my life that thirst has centered in certain areas of interest, and at other times centered in other areas. I don't like not knowing something I wish to know, and I don't relish the prospect of being wrong.

    In fact, I value knowing the truth and having accurate information so much that, when I came to realize I had been believing in a weak, unworkable theory, I had a choice: admit I had been wrong....and embrace the truth and a superior theory, OR continue insisting I was right while embracing a theory I knew deep down was a dog that doesn't hunt.

    I chose to admit I had been wrong. Even now, if I found something to indicate I had been wrong about creation theory, I would abandon it for what was clearly the more compelling evidence. The thing is, the more I learn about evolution theory, the more its weaknesses are exposed.

    No one likes to admit they were wrong. But intellectual integrity demands we do that when the facts indicate we have. As Lord John Maynard Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?"
  • cmb
    Oddly enough, there is evidence for evolution in almost every science that even barely impinges on biology, and no real evidence against it. When you trace creationist claims to their sources, not one is a valid research program or research institution.

    No findings have ever been made in either the fossil or geological record which contradict evolution. In the meantime, creationists cover this up by claiming the ToE is "not falsifiable", whien in reality all sorts of evidence - from fossils out of sequence in undisturbed rock to problems with atomic decay - would have the power to falsify evolution if they were ever found.

    They never have been, and so creationists label anyone disputing their fables as "closed-minded." Fact is, creationists simply don't have the goods. That's why they keep losing court cases, and it's why they created "intelligent design theory" (actually just some guys picking a number out of thin air and declaring that anything more complex had to be created) - they have NO legitimate science on their side.

    As far as the 101 "proofs" are concerned, they're propagandistic crap. If the author would like to choose one, I'll be happy to demonstrate.
  • cmb, I think you're making the typical mistake made by most evolutionists: you're confusing assumptions about evidence with the evidence itself.

    There has been nothing in the fossil record that directly contradicts the theory of evolution...but then, there has been absolutely nothing from the fossil record which proves it either. And if one is going to proffer a theory, the burden of proof is on the one making the offer.

    It's interesting that you claimed fossils out of the evolutionist-preferred sequence in the geological column and problems with radiometric decay would, and I quote, "have the power to falsify evolution if they were ever found." That's interesting because plenty of both have been found. Fossils are frequently found at locations within the geological column where evolutionists claim they shouldn't be, as well as polystrate fossils which cross more than one geological stratum. What's more, radiometric dating readings are frequently found to be erroneous on rock that we know the age of through observation...yet we are supposed to somehow believe that the readings of millions of years obtained from rock which cannot be verified by observation are somehow accurate? Go pull my other leg.

    Since you are obviously wrong about evolution and have been proven so by your own criteria, are you now willing to stop and give the "propaganda" you so cavalierly dismissed a serious look and some objective thought?
  • Finding oil is a very high-stakes issue for oil companies. Trillions of dollars are riding on it. When they need to find the most likely spots to drill, do they use Flood geology, or mainstream? Which one actually delivers the goods?

    If the Earth is only 6000 years old, where did the oil come from? If it was created in the ground, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it really did form from plankton, but 10,000 times faster than any chemist thinks it could? A young Earth and a Flood would imply some interesting questions to ask, some extremely valuable research programs to start. How come nobody's actually pursuing such research programs?

    Why don't creationists put together an investment fund, venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why is no one doing this?
  • Ray, I don't think you took the time to read the information presented on oil and coal formation, and how it doesn't take nearly the time evolutionists claim it does. Also, the C14 content of oil and coal--which has a relatively short half-life--indicates it can't be nearly as old as evolutionists claim.

    Neither creation theory nor evolution theory is responsible for "delivering the goods." They can develop ideas about how and when the oil was formed, but are of little use in actually determining the location of deposits. And as I previously indicated, the ideas proffered by evolutionists don't really line up with the evidence, do they?

    I would encourage you again to take the time to thoughtfully read the material presented by CMI. Then try to actually give it some serious, objective consideration.
  • DCM
    I'm sure evolutionists have responses to all 101 of these items. I also sure that they're all entirely hypothetical, entirely inadequate, or both. Evolutionists are good at having an "answer" for everything, but that's not the same as having the truth.

    At any rate, I don't even consider things like these "101" to be among the strongest evidences for creation and against evolutionism. There are much tougher questions that can, and should, be asked of evolutionists about the things they blithely assume must have happened. They cannot show, with anything resembling a factual basis, how even one feature or function of any living thing could have come into being by an unguided process over eons. There is not one definite half-feature or half-function to be seen in any fossilized or living thing, and there should be innumerable ones. And that's just the beginning.

    To those who don't accept creation: I challenge you to stop unthinkingly listening to the "experts" (and to the transparent lie that they "all" endorse evolutionism) and start honesty looking at things with a mind to know the truth, even if it's a truth you're not comfortable with.

    When evolutionists have public scientific debates with creationists, guess who inevitably wins? There's a reason that evolutionists don't subject themselves to that very much anymore, you know!
  • Good points, DCM.

    Like you, I know that many evolutionists try to make (more assumption-filled) arguments against these 101 items. When you're emotionally and theologically invested in maintaining a belief in evolution theory, it can be very hard to identify and separate actual evidence from the assumptions and suppositions surrounding that evidence.

    Call me crazy, but I have this optimistic belief that there might be just a few evolutionists out there (and we probably aren't even hearing from them in this comments section) who just might examine what they believe, and why they believe what they believe, and reach some startling conclusions. A few of them might even have the courage to do as Lord John Maynard Keynes challenged: "When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?"

    It's tough work, trying to lead people to thoroughly examine what they believe, and why they believe what they believe, but that's the primary reason Dakota Voice is here.
  • bobxxxx
    "If you'd like to refute these 101 reasons in a substantive, thoughtful manner, feel free."

    Why don't you present your nonsense to the scientific community?

    Perhaps you won't do that because you know they will laugh at your stupidity and dishonesty.
  • Sadly so many in the "scientific community" are either too obtuse or too fearful to give them a fair hearing, like yourself obviously.

    This information is continually presented to the "scientific community," but like obstinate little children they think they know everything and are profoundly blind to their own ignorance and biases. And when the slightest shred of realization that they might be wrong surfaces in their minds, they run in fear, simply falling back on the comfortable old assumptions for consolation.

    As they say, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
  • Haggs
    At least you admit that you're making an assumption along with the rest of us. But then you present what you think is evidence and dismiss any hard science evidence that you disagree with.

    I'll tell you waht I believe. I'm an Old Earth Creationist. I believe God created our universe, just like you do. But I believe He has used tools like the Big Bang and evolution to get us to this point. Because He planned out how physics and chemistry and biology and how all of that would work together. So I believe He set everything in motion and now here we are.

    I also believe that the Creation story in Genesis is a parable just like a lot of other stories in the Bible. It was an illustration God used for the people back then to understand. Would people 5000 years ago have understood what a billion years is? God gave us these brains so we could figure out the mysteries of His Creation and we're still learning all the time.

    I'm willing to admit that we don't know enough right now to say for a fact how God created the universe. Everyone has their beliefs and theories and evidence. It's possible that we'll discover something in the future that will make us discard the Big Bang Theory. Until then I think we should continue thinking about and searching for answers.
  • It would be wonderful if more than 1 out of 50 evolutionists would admit that their theory is almost entirely assumptions, but as has been proved over and over and over at Dakota Voice, they either can't or won't admit it.

    Where is any "hard science evidence" that I've dismissed because I disagree with it? You'll find I dismiss quite a bit of assumptions about scientific evidence that doesn't measure up, and I dismiss quite a bit of interpretations of scientific evidence...but what you still seem to be missing is that probably over 90% of what tries to pass itself off as "scientific fact" in the evolution debate is just an interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence itself.

    You can believe in an old earth and evolution and still be a Christian...if you're ignorant about both evolution/age of the earth and the Bible. I was once such a person, ignorant of so much.

    But when you take an objective look at the impossible claims of materialists and evolutionists, that idea really starts to look pretty unworkable and downright silly. And if you're a Christian who (ostensibly) believes the Bible (and the Genesis account presents itself not as allegory, not as parable, but clearly as a factual narrative), then you have a problem believing both the claims of evolution and the claims of the Bible, once you understand them both. Because they are completely incompatible.

    The Bible clearly teaches the creation account as a historical record, not parable or allegory; the context is very clear here. The genealogies are also quite clearly presented as a historical record, and even with a bit of wiggle room come out at 6,000-10,000 years. The Bible also--in both Old and New Testaments--clearly teaches that there was no sin, no death, no corruption of any kind in the world prior to the sin of Adam and Eve, and that it was through them that the curse of sin and death came on all humanity and caused the fallen, damaged state of all creation, which was under man's dominion.

    Now if you believe the Bible--and it clearly teaches these things whether you enjoy believing them or not--then you have a problem, because evolution assumes millions of years of biological evolution, and millions of years of death, conflict and destruction from Day One. I hope you can see that you have a very obvious and very major conflict here. They cannot both be correct. And if Genesis is wrong, then Christ who quoted Genesis as an authoritative, historical record was also wrong, which means he wasn't the Savior and the Son of God, which means as a Christian you're wasting your time believing in a poorly constructed fable. And all that Paul wrote on the same subject in Romans was a load of garbage as well.

    I won't hold my breath, but I really wish you'd take the time to study what evolution teaches, what it's implications are, along with what the Bible teaches and what it's implications are. It wasn't easy to accept that I had been wrong when I took the time to do this, but it was well worth it, in changing to a much better, much more logical theory that fits the evidence much better than I had accepted with evolution.

    I hope you will take the time to seriously consider these things.
  • Haggs
    I think that reply was very arrogant, Bob, but I'll humor you and take a look at this "evidence" you are presenting.

    Right off the bat I'm suspicious of it. This "evidence" comes from the creation.com website. It's a website designed to push the Young Earth Creationst viewpoint. Looking over the "101 evidence" list, they all have links back to articles on the creation.com website. And those articles are taken from the Creation Magazine and other publications from Creation Ministries International. And a couple of the "evidences" on that list also link to other Young Earth Creationist websites.

    If you look closer at the articles, most have a references section. They cleverly mix in facts from reputable scientific journals and books with assumptions from their own articles or other Young Earth Creationist articles. It makes it look convincing, like it could be true. But the facts they use usually don't prove anything. Their article on Niagara Falls has the "American Journal of Science and Arts" as a source, but the only info is uses deals with the history of the Falls. They source their own articles to try to prove their creationist point of view.

    They pick and choose the sources that support their beliefs. You won't find a source the disagrees with them, even though there are many.

    And they seem too eager to put their own assumptions into their articles. One article I saw about instant wood petrification came close to actually being factual. It talks about an article in "Popular Science" about how wood can become petrified very quickly, and the article actually presents several good examples of the phenomena.. And scientists have tested this out in the lab and found that they are able to petrify wood with certain chemicals very very quickly. But the article goes off the rails at the end because it jumps to its own assumption. It assumes that the evidence presented in the article means that no wood has ever been petrified slower than that. And they also assume that it means wood couldn't be petrified millions of years ago. But there was no evidence to support those assumptions in the rest of the article.

    So after examining your "evidence" I find that I have yet to be convinced that your Young Earth Creationist beliefs are correct and my Old Earth Creationist beliefs are wrong. Sorry, Bob.
  • That reply wasn't arrogant; you probably only thought it was because you're insecure about what you believe, and the fact that you don't really understand why you believe what you believe.

    Let me point out something very interesting about your reply. Right off the bat, rather than examining the substance of the ideas and information presented, you started criticizing the source of the information.

    "Oh, this can't be credible; it's from a creationist source." Did you know the reverse could also be said of anything put out by evolutionists who believe strongly in their religion? "That can't have any credibility; that guy is an evolutionist."

    You once got close to actually examining some evidence when you mentioned petrification...but then you fell into the same old way of thinking. The point of the information about rapid petrification was not to state or imply that things cannot or do not petrify over long periods of time, but to illustrate to those who think petrification ONLY takes place over millions of years that millions of years are NOT necessary.

    You flirted with some actual critical thought, so I encourage you to try it again. If you can get that close to actually examining the evidence, if you can get that close to actually getting beyond simply dismissing the source, then there's hope you can actually open your mind and be objective.

    Obviously it won't happen in a day, maybe not for a week. But I encourage you to keep trying. You've shown more promise than almost every other evolutionists who's commented or tried to comment here.
  • Haggs
    Insecure? That's interesting coming from a guy who writes on a blog that seems desperate to find proof that your ideology is correct. Half the post on Dakota Voice scream of insecurity. You're always trying to find proof that justifies your beliefs, forgetting that faith doesn't need to be proven true for it to have meaning.

    And the arrogance that I saw was you assuming I don't have a strong faith or that I don't know the Bible just because I disagree with you. That's arrogance.

    This is my responce to your main point:

    Of course it matters what the source is! If I posted a link to an article on BobEllisIsALiar.com proving that you lie, you would be smart to be critical of that source. You should take into account the source when deciding if the info that source provides can be trusted. That goes for sources that promote ideology I agree with such as an Old Earth Creationist website. If I had linked to a website the refutes the Creation.com evidence, you would probably be critical of that website.

    I try to be careful of the sources I'm getting information from, especially on the internet. These days, college professors will give you a poor grade if you source you papers from the internet (believe me, I've tried). So I've become very wary of internet sources whether or not I agree with what they say.

    I will give Creation.com credit for sourcing their articles. I think they do a pretty good job in that area. Unfortunately, I think they make some bad assumptions based on the facts they source. Reading through their articles, the Young Earth Creationist assumptions they make are not changing my mind... probably just how I wouldn't change your mind by linking to an Old Earth Creationist website. We're both pretty stubborn.

    The last two paragraphs of your reply I found to be insulting, so I'm going to ignore them. But I am glad I looked at the website because that instant petrified wood information was pretty cool.

    Have a good weekend, Bob!
  • Again you are mistaken, Haggs. I have more than enough proof that my ideology is correct. What you mistake for a search for proof for me is intended to help you and others find the truth. Perhaps that misperception on your part is why you still remain oblivious to the truth after I have presented it to you so many times in so many ways; you just didn't realize the message was for you.

    I'm reasonably assured that you have a fairly strong faith, though in what your faith rests is the question. You have demonstrated ad museum that your faith is not primarily in God, nor is it in the Bible. You continually demonstrate that your faith is primarily in the ideas of fallen, myopic humans who have an agenda which runs counter to God's truth. It is quite clear where you err and to what degree you err; that clarity is what you mistake for arrogance.

    You are right that sources can be reputable or disreputable. But what still flies over your head at the speed of sound is that you are basing your estimation of the reliability of the source not on objective evidence but on your preconceived biases. In other words, you dismiss it out of hand without giving the information a fair and objective hearing because you've come to believe that those same fallen, myopic people I mentioned before are more reliable than the God you claim to believe in or the message from God that you claim to believe in. If you could even manage for a moment to view both sources on an equal footing (I'm not even asking you to give preferential treatment to the Bible you claim to believe in, here; just give both theories a fair and objective hearing), you might just take a huge step forward in making a transparent examination of what you believe and why you believe it, and become able to more objectively weigh the evidence.

    Please, don't ignore the the last two paragraphs you found offensive. The truth is frequently very offensive until we can reach the point where we can accept it, but it's worth it. And the issues I identified about the incompatibility of evolution and the Bible are of critical, foundational importance to you as a professing Christian. If you will diligently research and study both the claims and implications of evolution theory, and the claims and implications of creation theory (in Genesis, in the Gospels, and in Romans), and do so until you understand them both fully, I guarantee that you will never see things the same way again, and your life will irrevocably change for the better.

    I can tell you're having a very hard time being able to separate objective facts from assumptions about those facts, and in weighing two sets of assumptions objectively, but I encourage you to keep at it. If you keep at it until you succeed, you will be richly rewarded by the results.
  • It's good to see the rejection of "intelligent design" creationism by good old-fashioned Young Earth creationists. Giving up on the pseudoscience of intelligent design creationism and straightforwardly accepting the creation mythology of Genesis is much more honest - and this honest scientific illiteracy is refreshing. Just remember, you still can't teach creationism in the public schools, per a 1987 US Supreme Court decision
  • Fizzmick_paChee
    10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours...
  • Blah, blah, blah.

    Why didn't you take my advice, simply read the material, give it some thoughtful, objective consideration and see whether it makes any sense or not?

    Why was it too much to ask that you simply think?

    Why was it too much to ask that you engage your mind before you engage your emotions and not get all wacked out that I offended your religion of evolution?

    Yours is the fourth or fifth nonsensical comment of the evening that obviously didn't consider or even read the material, but just broadcasted ignorance at full volume. I deleted the others because frankly I'm tired of talking to shallow evolutionists who don't have either (a) the intellect to examine their own assumptions or (b) the courage to do so.

    If you'd like to refute these 101 reasons in a substantive, thoughtful manner, feel free. But the empty, head-in-the-sand blah blah blah is going to continue being deleted.
  • There is no model of water erosion that can account for the cutting of the Grand Canyon through solid rock in the billions of years in which it supposedly happened. Besides, if it did happen by slow erosion as some geologists insist, where did all the sediment go? There should be a huge delta system many times the size of the Mississippi delta at the mouth of the Colorado River. The present day flow of the Colorado is relatively slow at the mouth, so it can't be claimed that it was rapidly washed out to deep ocean. Hundreds of cubic miles of sediment just disappeared.
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »