Skip to comments.Science and a Young Earth - Evolution Vs Creationism – Christian Perspective on Science
Posted on 07/31/2006 8:33:32 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
Haven't geologists proved from scientific dating methods that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? Doesn't astronomy prove that the universe must, at least, be billions of years old since it would have required billions of years for light from the nearest stars to reach the Earth? Don't all qualified scientists, including geologists, believe in Darwinian evolution and a billions of years old Earth and universe? The simple answer is "no".
Both evolutionists and creationists have certain built-in assumptions in interpreting and using scientific data when it comes to the Earth's age. The issue many times comes down to which assumptions are more reasonable. Dating rocks is not a hard (no pun intended) science.
For example, many times one radiometric dating method will give a vast difference in age from another radiometric dating method used on dating the same rock! Radiometric dating methods have also been severely faulty when tested with the actual historical age of certain rock. For example, Hawaiian lava flows that were known to be no more than two centuries old were dated by the potassium-argon method to be up to three billion years old! (Science 141 : 634).
The reason for these huge discrepancies is that these methods are based on assumptions that no major changes have occurred in the Earth's atmosphere in the past which could have affected the initial amounts and even the rates of decay of the substances involved (Industrial Research 14 : 15). If, for example, a world-wide flood the Bible describes in Genesis had actually occurred then it would have, indeed, altered the initial conditions so as to make radiometric dating less than an exact science, to say the least. The Carbon -14 dating method has been known to have fifty percent accuracy, but it is only accurate up to thousands (not millions or billions) of years and can only be used on things that were once living.
Complicated as the subject of the Earth's age may be, a main reason for why evolutionists believe the earth is many millions of years old is because of their belief concerning how the fossil layers were deposited. What one believes about the deposition of the fossils in the Earth will, indeed, determine one's view of the earth's age.
Fossils of animals, for example, are formed when animals are buried quickly and under tremendous pressure, so that their bones, remains, and imprint are preserved in rock. If living things are not buried quickly and under enormous pressure their remains will decay rather than become preserved or fossilized. Most of the many billions of fossils in the Earth are found in rock that has been affected by water (Sedimentary Rock). Therefore, most of of the billions of fossils in the earth were formed as a result of the animals and plants being buried suddenly and quickly under tremendous water pressure.
Geologists who are evolutionists believe that local geographical floods over a period of many millions of years deposited these animals and plants and preserved their remains in the earth's crust. This is only one view.
Geologists who are creationists believe that a one world-wide cataclysmic flood, otherwise known as the Genesis Flood, buried most of these animals and preserved them as fossils in the Earth. Obviously, if it was one world-wide flood that deposited these animals and preserved them as fossils in the Earth it would not have taken very long. But, if the fossils were caused by local and limited geographical floods then it would, indeed, have required many millions of years before such local floods could have produced the billions of fossils and deposited them in various layers all over the Earth.
There are many problems, however, with the local flood theory as the cause behind the fossils. Even today local floods are not known to be able to generate the type of tremendous pressure and force necessary to fossilize creatures in rock. Among other arguments, it is difficult to explain how local floods could have carved out such majestic and geographical wonders as the Grand Canyon which is thousands of square miles and packed with billions of fossils and was clearly formed by the cataclysmic action and force of water. Yet, evolutionary geologists are content in believing that the Colorado River merely overflowing its banks, now and then, over millions of years was capable of performing such a feat!
The Bible in Genesis 7 says that much of the water that flooded the whole world came from under the ground. We know even today of vast reservoirs of water that are under the Earth. Obviously, if the Genesis account is true, there was much greater amount of water underground in the Earth's past. Genesis 7 says that this water burst through the surface of the Earth and, consequently, covered and changed the entire topography of the Earth.
Passages in the Old Testament Book of Psalms describe God as raising high mountains from the earth after the world-wide flood so that the water would recede into the ocean basins. The tremendous velocity and pressure from such receding water is what most likely caused the formation of the majestic Grand Canyon with its billions of fossils.
The fossils in the Earth are found to exist in various layers of the Earth's crust. Evolutionary geologists claim that each layer was formed and deposited by local flooding over many millions of years. However, in various parts of the Earth there are fossils of trees that protrude through several layers! This indicates that these layers were deposited and formed almost simultaneously and not over millions of years. Otherwise, the tops of these trees would have decayed a long time ago. The tops of these trees could not wait millions of years to become deposited and fossilized so there is no other explanation except that these layers were deposited in quick succession under cataclysmic forces and conditions.
Furthermoree, evolutionary geologists believe that the lowest layers contain only fossils of simple organisms while the higher layers contain only fossils of complex organisms. This, according to him/her, is evidence that complex organisms evolved from simpler ones over many millions of years. As a result of this view, the evolutionary geologist dates fossils according to the layer of rock in which they are found and, in turn, dates rocks according to the type of fossils they contain (circular reasoning!). Thus, the evolutionary geologist simply assumes that rocks which contain fossils of simple organisms must be very old (because of his/her assumption that those organisms evolved first) while the rocks containing fossils of complex organisms must be younger (because of his/her assumption that those organisms evolved more recently) even when there is no actual physical differences between the rocks themselves!
Besides the many assumptions involved, there are other problems with this view. First, there are no actual transitional stages to connect the so-called progression of simpler organisms in the fossil record to more complex ones. Second, this idea that the lower layers contain fossils of only simpler organisms exists only on paper, in evolutionary textbooks, and not in the real world. There are many areas in the world where fossils of complex organisms are found way beneath layers containing fossils of simpler organisms with no evidence of any shifting of these layers. Of course, if a world-wide flood did occur, then in many cases the lower layers would contain fossils of simpler organisms because these would naturally be the first to be deposited.
Many have insisted that our world and universe must be billions of years old because it would have required billions of years for light from the nearest stars to reach the Earth. This is assuming that the stars, galaxies, and universe were not created complete and fully mature from the beginning, with the light already reaching the Earth from the moment of creation. Creationists believe that because God created a mature universe from the beginning, it naturally has the appearance of being much older than it actually is. For example, when God created the first man and woman they were mature adults and complete from head to toe. If we had observed them five minutes after they were created we would have thought from their appearance that they had been on earth for many years, even though they were freshly created from the hand of God.
Highly respected sientist and physicist Dr. Thomas G. Barnes has shown that according to the rate of decay of the Earth's magnetic field the earth is only thousands of years old and not billions.
According to evolutionists, the Moon is nearly as old as the Earth and, from the rate of unimpeded meteors hitting the Moon's surface over billions of years, there should have been many feet of lunar dust on the Moon. But, when we landed on the Moon we discovered only a thin layer of dust. The Moon has no atmosphere to burn up such meteors as the earth does so such collection of dust was a major concern for scientists before the astronuts landed there.
There is much more to say on this subject, and there are many positive evidences for a young earth and universe not covered in this article. Excellent articles and books have been written by highly qualified scientists, including geologists, who are creationists showing scientific evidences for a young earth and universe. M.I.T. scientist Dr. Walt Brown provides considerable information on the topic at his site www.creationscience.com. Also, considerable information on the subject is provided by scientists of the Institute for Creation Research at www.icr.org.
The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, is an experienced Christian writer. He has his B.A. with academic concentrations in Bible and Biology. As a religion and science writer he has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The East. The author has a website at: www.religionscience.com
Someone call? Of course I wouldn't know, because I was referred to but not pinged...
Greenwich time most likely.
WOW! This certainly declares that "the earth doesn't move". //sarcasm//
It was a continuation of #118. Pay attention.
It was an accurate answer. You wanted to know what could bury a large number of fossils at once. Landslides & mudslides are especially good at that. (It certainly wasn't a global flood - geological evidence doesn't match that presumption).
You're the one who asked.
I thought his comment was apt. It was just his way of saying you needn't waste any more of your time on him.
And the Spartans.
Of course, we live in a virtual universe (because that's more cost-efficient than a real one, it's also right-side up.) For example, things you don't need on your desk are just swapped out. When you look, they're not there. Later they get swapped in and you see them in plain sight.
I wouldn't know. I don't have access to 43 year old magazine articles to check it out.
How about clarifying the following: "If you define yourself by what you believe, and define others based on what you believe, then you are limited in your ability to conduct rational thinking." Is there some favored exclusion of that assertion which precludes application to those defending evolution, at least in your mind?
Ah, that explains where those missing socks are and how these extra coathangers get in the closet ... thanks. I was beginning to think there was some symmetry breaking regarding the second law of thermodynamics.
Understanding TToE is not a "belief," any more than understanding mathematics, chemistry, physics or astronomy is a "belief." They are scientific studies which are based on rational thinking and rigorous procedures.
They are certainly not a lens used to view the world.
Wasn't there a great TV episode of somethig (Night Gallery?) that featured blue men that built the future and somehow Our Heros slip forward into that timeframe?
It was presented as a reason why your keys sometimes aren't where you left them (because the Blue Guys missed them).
And you haven't explained why you pinged JR.
That is very strange behavior and indicative of a massive complaint.
I ask because it could just as easily been me who posted the post you reacted so strongly to.
One of my favorites.
That pretty much wraps this one up.
I bow to your superior reasoning, logic and writing skills.
That is INCREDIBLE that you would know that!!
Thanks for the info! :)
Behold the power of Google ;-)
"And you haven't explained why you pinged JR." You are mistaken, the very first sentence of my post #210 and following addressed that notion. And I wasn't reacting 'strongly' to JS's post until the ad hom occurred. Giving a small exegesis on a scripture passage isn't what I would call 'reacting strongly' to someone's post. When someone accuses me of 'perhaps' calling my Savior a liar and tries to substantiate that accusation with a tortured meaning for a Bible passage, THEN I react strongly.
I would say overreact, but it is your reaction.
Just wated to know the thickness of the kids gloves to use with you. I think you have provided clear orientation.
Well, we now return you to your regularly scheduled CREVO thread subject.
Even then, to know what search phrase to use -- Impressive.
I don't define anyone by what they believe. I am quite comfortable with people having all kinds of beliefs and all kinds of politics. It's only when they take action that I become concerned.
One of the things I don't do is post science on religion forums. I would ask the same courtesy of religious people in science classes. Demanding equal time for religion in science class is just heckling.
As for my quoting the Bible on this or some related thread, I did so to make a very simple point. People cherry pick which passages they wish to be literal and which they wish to be figurative. It's not based on anything in the text. It's based on convenience. Believing historical absurdities has little cost. All you have to do is mouth the words. Loving your enemies and giving what you have to the poor is hard. Must be some wiggle room there.
Eden Central Time, of course!!!!
Who mentioned a global flood? The vast, near unimaginable numbers of fossil trilobites spread across vast areas of limestone formations could hardly have been buried by a landslide or mudslide, and limestone does not appear to consist lithologically of consolidated mud, as in "mudslide."
I did ask, and my question remains unanswered.
Which was a continuation from #116 which you still have failed answer. Evasion is not a substitute for not paying attention.
I mentioned the purported global flood this morning.
I don't know what that has to do with trilobites and limestone though. The flood is reported to be at 2350 BC, a time period represented by dirt, not rock.
Its easy to find dirt about that old; it can be virtually on the surface in many areas.
Many of the Indian sites I deal with have much greater soil buildup because of human activity; they can have the 2350 BC layer within a couple feet of the surface, or even less sometimes.
Never seen a sign of a flood in the areas where I work at that time period. In fact on the west coast there is an individual with a particular mtDNA haplotype dated to over 10,000 years, while other individuals with the same haplotype are still living. No sign of a break and replacement by eastern Mediterranean mtDNA.
So forget trilobites and limestone and geology. Start studying soils and sedimentology and archaeology. (Still no flood, but at least you would understand the technical terms.)
>>In every case but one physicians are spoken of in derogative terms by the Lord, the exception being when he spoke of himself as the 'physician.' Our healing is to come from the Lord, not from men. There is not a single instance in the word where healing is the result of a physician. Luke, for example is never found practicing his prior arts after following the Lord<<
1. Medicine wasn't nearly as effective back then.
2. Paul referred to Luke as beloved physician.
3. You could argue that the health aspects of keeping kosher constituted respect for medical practices with regard to germs and dietary health.
>>WOW! This certainly declares that "the earth doesn't move". //sarcasm//<<
Well, it may move more for some than for others... :)
I can hardly believe that an intelligent person could seriously deny the advances in Science and Medicine over the last couple of centuries.
I mean, where would be be without the contributions of Pasteur, Snow, Salk, and the countless number of Doctors, Scientists, and researchers who have uncovered so much of the world's mysteries for the benefit of us all.
Good grief, does this person have any idea what simple chlorination of water has done for civilization?
Even in Genesis one of the first Commandments was to "..subdue and replenish the Earth and have dominion over it."
It is one thing to espouse Intelligent Design and contest Evolution but it is another matter entirely to wallow in complete ignorance and poorly reconciled illogical dogma that is inconsistent with biblical teachings.
Yes. Perhaps, some people would prefer us to return to a time of unrestrained smallpox, diphtheria, and tuberculosis. And a 30% childhood death rate.
So who's opinion is it that every genetic marker found in both pigs and cows is also found in hippos and whales? Is there any explanation for this extraordinary fact other than common descent?
That's explanation, not rationalization. "Well the hypothetical designer could have done things that way" doesn't get us very far - it offers no guide for making future predictions.
Using the theory of common descent, biologists have made many predictions of this sort. So far, they've been right. Neither the creationist faction nor the ID-st faction of the anti-evo movement has done so or is able to do so.
Please tell me of these methods that can date back millions and billions of years. I honestly have never heard of such a method.
Could you be picking your way through the trees but ignoring the forest?
Being 'kosher' was obeying God's commandments, which in turn kept one from eating things that destroyed one's health. That clearly was the reason for the commandments, and it still is; men knew nothing of bacteria then, but cooking, and eating a diet based in God's commandments will still prevent the diseases that are caused by diet: heart disease, type 2 diabetes, gout, gaul bladder attacks, etc. The rest of our diseases are related to our relationship with God, and our fellow men, and cannot be cured without correcting those relationships. Hatred, jealousy, bitterness, and cruelty can and do leave us susceptible to horrific disease.
I apologize, I meant to say the Chaos Theory of Origin. Which attempts to explain that the earth was created from a series of random or chaotic events happening over billions of years eventually leading to the presence of a viable ecosystem and the life it contains.
I would like to be able to cite the article here, but it has been over a decade since I read it. There was an article in Discover Magazine in the mid 90's. The author was a leading scientist in the field of chaos theory and he basically stated that the scenario from the first paragraph is essentially impossible. That there had to be some sort of intervention for the extraordinary complexities of not only our planet but the life that lives on it as well. I want to say that the article was from some time in 1996, but can't be sure, I'll try to get it.
What he didn't dispute in his article was either the age of the earth or things like evolution. He actually stated that thest things are well known and that he doesn't dispute them. He was merely stating that something interevened in the "creation" of our ecosystem and the life within it.
And although I can't say difinitively, I am pretty sure the guy isn't a Scientologist.
The ignorance is yours. Bible teaching tells us to depend on the Lord for all our healing, and not to ever turn to men.
Science? Deadly prescription drugs marketed through deceptive television commercials intended to make people fear that they have diseases that don't even exist are science? You're pathetically ignorant, and apparently willfully so.
See post #235 for the rest of your drivel.
The opinion comes in when you stretch such an innocuous bit of information past the breaking point to say that it proves evolution. The clear explanation is the one that the Lord gave us: he created them.
Couldn't permaflow from a volcano cause something similar? Basically instantly killing something and then covering it with searing hot mud and ash that would later become fossilized?
Sorry, but you are wrong on that. Nice-sounding, but wrong.
I don't dispute these theories at all. They are excellent explanations based on loads of physical and empirical evidence for the origin of our Universe. And, to be quite honest, my original post on the matter (objectivity in science education) really wasn't directed at any one or a number of sciences, just how the subject is taught and the unquestionable attitude of some of the instructors I have had.
The subject is paramount to education, and the subject matter, IMO, is fine. My issue is the way children are taught. And honestly it is not just the sciences, it could be math, literature, or any number of subjects. Our children are not taught to think they are presented information and expected to memorize it. If our educational systems would examine this pedagogy they might discover that a foundation of analysis and critical thinking might produce more prepared students for higher learning.
Teaching "how to think" is a good idea, but not at the cost of learning the foundation information.
I picked up a book called "Don't know nothin' about History" which was one of the most engaging books I have ever read. It invited the reader to consider the information and the context to come to conclusions. But it still presented the facts and it provided an appropriate framework.
I think you zigged somewhere while I was zagging. But it is good to see we have landed in the same general area.
>>Could you be picking your way through the trees but ignoring the forest?<<
That's easy to do sometimes.
>>Being 'kosher' was obeying God's commandments, which in turn kept one from eating things that destroyed one's health. That clearly was the reason for the commandments, and it still is; men knew nothing of bacteria then<<
But as we have explored God's creation and learned such things, its hard to imagine he would not want us to apply them. Look at the technology available in Roman times that the Jews did not have in Abraham's but Jesus didn't speak against using technology to help people.
>>Hatred, jealousy, bitterness, and cruelty can and do leave us susceptible to horrific disease.<<
I hope you are not expecting me to disagree.
Just curious - what do you mean by "round aggregate". That's too generic a term for me to get my hands around.
I think that he made it abundantly clear that the way to 'help' people was to introduce them to his gospel, not to direct them to the false wisdom of men. Technology helps us (me too) to do a better job of being 'modern' men, but none of that is relevant to his kingdom, which is the total objective. Our reliance on technology is no virtue, it is a weakness to which we are addicted to one degree or another.
Smooth rocks that are shaped like eggs, marbles, kidney beans, etc. They are found in the darnedest places too.
Aw, gee, can babies that can't yet talk, pray for healing? Or does it work no matter who does the praying?
Let's cut to the chase, does praying defeat measles? Anthrax? Smallpox? Syphilis?
Ding, ding, ding! That would seem to be the point, wouldn't it?
>>Technology helps us (me too) to do a better job of being 'modern' men, but none of that is relevant to his kingdom, which is the total objective.<<
This has been a debate/discussion among Christians since the beginning.
I don't completely share your opinion but I respect it. I think there is more to this world than being allowed into Heaven.
What did Paul say, "To live is Christ, to die is gain?"
Living a Godly life does.The diseases that you mentioned are among those that prey upon people with weakened immune systems, and all the ways i know of to weaken your immune system involve disobeying God's commandments. An ounce of prevention...