Archive for January, 2013

Many scientific facts point to a younger age for the earth than evolutionists want to believe. In many mountain areas, multiple rock layers have been bent and folded without fracturing. This is evidence that all the layers were deposited before any of them hardened. If this had taken place after the layers had hardened, they would either have been crumbled, or the heat and pressure would have transformed them into metamorphic rock.

Some fossils, found in these rock layers believed to be millions of years old, can actually be dated by radiocarbon dating. When this is done, the ages are shown to be only thousands of years. If the earth were as old as evolutionists claim, the radiocarbon should have disappeared long ago from fossils, coal, diamonds, oil, and such. Likewise, there should be more helium in the atmosphere, and much less in the earth’s crust.

I would like to furnish the long list of evidences for a young earth, but I don’t have much time right now. They can be found scattered throughout creationist literature. As is the case with all science, you have to be careful of outdated or incorrect information.

The Oct.- Dec. 2012 edition of Answers magazine gives what they believe to be the 10 best evidences for a young earth. The Answers magazine also shows the weakness of some of the evolutionary arguments against the evidences. The following is not on the Answers magazine’s list, but I think one of the most important evidences for a relatively young earth is the slowing of its rotation. Simultaneously, the moon is receding from the earth. This can’t have been going on for billions of years.

You’ll find a lot of conflicting, and confusing, information if you research this. The following quote is from the article “Earth,” in a 1971 set of Encyclopedia Britannica’s. Later estimates show a larger rate of slowing. Referring to three factors contributing to a slowing of the earth’s rotation, the article says, “This effect amounts to an aggregated time change of about 30 sec. per century. However, if this phenomenon is assumed to have existed throughout the earth’s lifetime, the earth must once have rotated much more rapidly than it does now.”

That doesn’t mean that at the end of a century, each day is 30 seconds shorter than before. Each day averages only a small fraction of a second shorter, yet over enough time the effect would be tremendous. I haven’t given precise numbers because there’s so much conflicting data.

Most evolutionists argue that these effects have not been as great in the past, and that the changes don’t add up that much overall. They say the same thing about the recession of the moon. I think it can be proven however, that the earth would have been more prone to a major catastrophe if the forces balancing the earth and moon were much different from today. The jumble of details found in the geological column is evidence of such a catastrophe. All of this gives credibility to the biblical record of a global flood.

There are too many unanswered questions about dating methods for evolutionary scientists to reasonably conclude that life is millions of years old. If events within the sun affect the half-life of radioactive substances on earth (ref. my previous post), could certain activity within the earth likewise affect radiometric dating?

What about the effects of piezoelectricity that would be generated by a major slide of the earth’s continental plates? Piezoelectricity is thought by some to be the explanation for “earthquake lights.” Scientists aren’t certain of the cause.

Extreme pressures have been shown to slightly affect radioactive decay rates, but there are many levels of “extreme.” What effect would the pressures generated by a major slide of a continental plate have upon decay rates? We know that pressure increases the rate of nuclear fission in radioactive elements. Tremendous amounts of material has been transported thousands of miles under very extreme pressures, and many kinds of “sorting,” and chemical reactions, occur under such conditions.

I’m not saying that either of these things accounts for the discrepancies of the dating methods, but these areas would be worth further study. The Bible says that whenever we think we know anything, we still don’t understand it as well as we should (1st. Corinthians 8:2). That is true of the scientist, as well as the preacher. It is true of all of us.

If someone isn’t wanting to use science as a tool for deception, it would be wise to avoid the absolute statements that evolutionists make about the age of life on the earth. Evolutionary scientists should be honest about their time tale. With their level of talent, they could build a case for a young earth as easily as for an old. Why don’t they tell us that?

The old computer that I typed this on has a weak battery. It often reverts to a date in the past when the electricity goes off, but it assigned this writing a date of 9/4/2084. I’m sure there is a scientific explanation.

Read Full Post »

I once assumed that when science made an absolute statement, it could be depended upon to be true. Science possesses a great deal of knowledge, and there was a time when I would have bet my soul on evolution, except that I had been taught that we don’t have a soul. Evolutionary thinking can lead us to question whether we should have to obey standards set by any authority.

I continue to question many of our conflicting standards, but today I doubt science rather than God. I have now come to believe, to the depths of my soul, that individual scientists have a moral responsibility to God, and will have to answer to him.

Over time, science has been found to be wrong, or only partially right, in many areas. Science has shifted its position accordingly, but often the damage is irreparable. Sometimes a falsehood survives longer than the people who believe it. Beliefs, especially those deemed to be scientific, greatly affect our lives.

It’s impossible to keep pace with the ever-shifting beliefs of science. You may be debating a particular aspect of a scientific issue, and suddenly learn that science doesn’t believe that anymore. Now they follow a slightly different theory, even though out-dated school textbooks might retain the discarded theories for some time. It’s like trying to hit a running target.

Our knowledge is limited even though we have multiple specialists in every field. Who can argue with a specialist though? We have to possess a certain amount of understanding of a particular subject before we can ask a relevant question. One reason my writing is proceeding so slowly is that I’m studying, and attempting to remain current. I personally believe there are no “dumb” questions, but there are questions that won’t be taken seriously.

I have learned to look for assumptions when reading scientific literature, and also to look for honest statements that indicate an area of doubt, or uncertainty. Scientific research inevitably involves  assumptions, theories and such. Research should be not be limited by assumptions however, which is often the very thing that happens. Science too often speaks in terms of absolutes, when they know very well that there is practically always some exception. At the point that I began to believe God, I began to question science. I have a great deal of respect for science, but science does not possess omniscience.

Uniformitarianism, the cornerstone of modern geology, assumes that millions of years were required for the formation of the earth’s rock layers (ref. my post, “The Geological Time Scale,” from this December). The assumption is made that “the present is the key to the past,” in spite of the fact that we know the earth’s geological past was very different from today.

The following statement is from an article on geology from an old set of Britannica Junior Encyclopedias. “Uniformitarianism paved the way for the theory of evolution… because it forced scientists to think of the Earth as being very old.” This statement probably wouldn’t be worded so honestly today. The assumption of uniformitarianism led some scientists to further assume that evolution had taken place. Radiometric dating then seemed to verify that the earth was even older than uniformitarians had guessed. The dating methods themselves however, rely heavily upon assumptions.

Most of us have been taught that the rate of decay of radioactive atoms is unalterable. That assumption is outdated, but is yet being defended because observed variations have amounted to very small percentages. There is still some debate over the recent discovery that the decay rate of isotopes fluctuates in sync with the rotation of the sun’s core. It will be very difficult for science to admit its huge fundamental error in assuming decay rates to be constant. My guess is that the world would have to end before mainstream science would admit to such a colossal mistake.

Scientists have known for some time of three technical instances where the half-life of radioactive atoms are altered: 1. The decay of an artificially produced isotope has been shown to be affected by as much as 1.5% by its chemical environment. 2. Material existing as plasma within stars experiences a different kind of decay. 3. Decay rate is affected when matter is moving at great speed, as demonstrated by “atomic clocks” in very fast moving spacecraft.

Besides these things, I read in a Wikipedia article recently that slight increases have been noted in decay rates of materials subjected to extreme pressures. I’ve verified this from other sources. That contradicts the older teaching that radioactive decay isn’t affected by pressure. I have long wondered why pressure would not affect these things. The Wikipedia article is written from an evolutionary viewpoint, and very critical of creation science, but it is informative. The bottom line is that science is certain of neither the original ratio of “parent” to “daughter” isotopes in a dated sample, nor the overall rate of decay.

Because of the assumptions of science, there are many people who believe that we are a product of evolution. I have to wonder how many people, emboldened by the teachings of science, have ultimately rejected Jesus. If we believe that everything has been created by chance, then the struggles of life further alienate us from the only one who can save us.

Read Full Post »