Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Science and a Young Earth - Evolution Vs Creationism Christian Perspective on Science
Best Syndication ^ | July 31, 2006 | Babu Ranganathan

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 [1963]: 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 [1972]: 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 Also, considerable information on the subject is provided by scientists of the Institute for Creation Research at

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:

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: afoolandhismoney; bewarefrevolutionist; buymybooks; commonscold; creation; creationism; creationist; creationists; crevo; crevodebates; crevolist; enoughalready; evolution; evolutionist; foolishness; frevolutionist; geology; id; idiocy; idiot; intelligentdesign; mythology; pavlovian; pigignorant; scam; science; sendmemoney; spam; trash; videosforsale; wasteoftime; youngearth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 341-343 next last
To: Coyoteman

actually, the data in the article are scientific observations; such as the thin layer of meteor dust on the moon. You guys don't own the science market place. Please open your mind just a little bit.

81 posted on 07/31/2006 11:12:02 PM PDT by fabian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: skip_intro
"The author intentionally presented false information in an effort to make his point. That's all this is about."

What was false? He submitted a rock to the lab and it came back with an old date. And he's not the only one and this isn't the only mountain where this has been done.

If you read up on the difference between radiometric dating and isochron dating, you will see that isochron dating was implemented to try to overcome the problem that you can't reliably predict the initial amount of daughter elememt. But even isochron dating is still based on an assumption of the initial ratio of daughter to daughter-daughter.

The following link and excerpt is from the extremely biased and unreliable Talk Origins site. I don't trust anything they say, but I assume you do. The link bashes a Creationist and falsely claims he must have sampled incorrectly and accuses him of lying (although he is not the only scientists to do this test and get similar results) and then the talk origin site goes on to tell on themselves with the following paragraph, admitting that scientists abandoned K-Ar in favor of isochron dating. If the Creationist was lying and K-Ar was so reliable, then why did they abandon it? Do you see why I don't trust

Talk Origin admits K-Ar was abandoned

"2. Morris's complaints are dated in that, for the most part, geologists no longer use the K-Ar dating technique as was practiced in 1974. Instead, K-Ar dating has been largely replaced by the related 40Ar/39Ar dating technique. " -

82 posted on 07/31/2006 11:27:09 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
This article is pure apologetics, not science.

Unlike evolution which is pure speculation.

83 posted on 08/01/2006 12:35:26 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Let's hear of a specific claim by science that is not well supported.

That the world is billions of year old.

84 posted on 08/01/2006 12:36:41 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: js1138
How much time in science class should be devoted to Hindu and Muslim and Native American opinions on the age of the earth.

All the time that is now devoted to teaching evolution.

85 posted on 08/01/2006 12:37:56 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Sorry, but if there was a young earth with a global flood at ca. 2350 BC, don't you think archaeologists all over the world would be finding evidence in 2350 BC dirt?

What's the difference between 2350 BC dirt and 4 billion year old dirt? Ask a democrat since they are always digging it up.

86 posted on 08/01/2006 12:41:24 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Comment #87 Removed by Moderator

To: taxesareforever

Why do you feel that the Earth being billions of years old isn't well supported by science?

88 posted on 08/01/2006 12:57:20 AM PDT by RFC_Gal (It's not just a boulder; It's a rock! A ro-o-ock. The pioneers used to ride these babies for miles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: RFC_Gal
Why do you feel that the Earth being billions of years old isn't well supported by science?

Anyone can say a rock is a billion years old. Prove it isn't. Hopefully this will answer your question.

89 posted on 08/01/2006 1:03:47 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

"Cherokee Creation Story"

.....sounds as reasonable as anyone else's story.

Why not?

90 posted on 08/01/2006 4:08:43 AM PDT by taxed2death (A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Junior


91 posted on 08/01/2006 5:00:14 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (The Enlightenment gave us individual rights, free enterprise, and the theory of evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: balrog666; DaveLoneRanger
There is an interesting article which mentions Dr. Barnes' research here: The earth's magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young.

Oh, come on, TontoDave. How many times has that crap been debunked here on FR just in the last year?

At least once

In 1835 the German physicist, K.F. Gauss, made the first measurement of the earthÕs magnetic dipole moment, that is, the strength of earthÕs internal magnet. Additional evaluations have been carried out every decade or so since then. Since 1835, global magnetism has decreased 14 percent! On the basis of facts obtained from 1835 to 1965, this magnetic field appears to have a half-life of 1400 years.
On this basis, even 7000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger than it now has. Just 20,00 years ago, enough Joule heat would have been generated to liquify the earth. One million years ago the earth would have had greater magnetism than all objects in the universe, and it would have vaporized! It would appear that the earth could not be over 6000 to 7000 years old. This magnetic decay process is not a local process, but worldwide; it affects the entire earth.
326 posted on 10/24/2005 1:49:03 PM PDT by American in Israel
"Leesten very carefully, I say thees only weence"

Thomas Barnes crackpot theory sounds plausible to the easily plaused.
And this is how it is presented

Notice anything? No data points (and Barnes never gave any)

Here they are

Not quite a clear expontential curve, is it? In fact a straight line is a slightly better fit

The acutal line of best fit is

Doesn't event look like a uniform decay function

Now Creatiods only take the direct field meaurments over the last 130 years.

But we have older data. When magnetic particles are heated to high temperature, they lose their magnetisation

And when demagnetised particles are cooled in a magnetic field they take on the magnetisation of the field. This means every piece of pottery and brick made over the last several thousnd years is preserving (as on magntic tape) a record of the earth's field strenght at the time it was fired.

And further back we can use lava flows in a similar fashion

The result

ergo the Creationist "problem with a old earth" jus isn;t there.

373 posted on 10/24/2005 7:36:46 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Paging Nehemiah Scudder:the Crazy Years are peaking. America is ready for you.)

92 posted on 08/01/2006 5:42:55 AM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Never apologixe. It;s a sign of weakness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


hey if the poles swap again...does that mean my toilet water will spin in the opposite direction as opposed to before?(snicker!)

93 posted on 08/01/2006 6:04:07 AM PDT by mdmathis6 (Proof against evolution:"Man is the only creature that blushes, or needs to" M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I think it would be a fairly simple procedure. All you would have to do is gather together Intelligent Design research that is acceptable to the spectrum of Intelligent Design proponents and present that as the the uncontested state of Intelligent Design today.

Do you suppose the Discovery Institute hasn't tought of that? Why do you suppose they keep saying they need a research program, or at least some ideas for research? Perhaps you could at least explain what kind of research would be performed.

94 posted on 08/01/2006 6:49:13 AM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
That the world is billions of year old.

And is spherical and is revolving around the sun. Amidst all the nonsense out there, how do you decide which nonsense to believe? After all, the Bible says the earth does not move.

95 posted on 08/01/2006 6:53:05 AM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6

I don't know, does your toilet flush on a magnetic system or because of gravity and is your toilet north of the equator or south of the equator? ... When the pole flips, will all the musice coming out of your radio be backwards?

96 posted on 08/01/2006 7:40:23 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Danny, there is a real world application of strong magnetic field in which a frog is made to literally float in the air because of the water content of its body. Does that test prove that gravity doesn't exist? By finding a way to create an exception to a generalized process, does the biased results prove the general rule is wrong? When you figure that one out, you will have a little bit better handle on what scientific method is all about rather than falling prey to 'gotcha games' by strained, biased snake oil salesmen.

97 posted on 08/01/2006 7:54:05 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

"By finding a way to create an exception to a generalized process, does the biased (?) results prove the general rule is wrong? "

Ok, finding the signature of quick reversals captured in rock, doesn't absolutely prove the evo's "generalized" rule of long slow flips wrong. It does prove that flips don't always occur long and slow. And it is evidence that matches a prediction of a creationist model, corroborating the creationist model, and once again rebutting the false claim of evo's that creationist models never predict anything.

98 posted on 08/01/2006 8:18:37 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"After all, the Bible says the earth does not move."

The earth hasn't moved any significant amount out of it's orbit in my lifetime.

99 posted on 08/01/2006 8:21:14 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Another Bob Jones University graduate who misrepresents the science involved.

I appreciate that he converted from Hinduism, though.

100 posted on 08/01/2006 8:23:58 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 341-343 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson