Quote# 85067

(Article title: 101 evidences for a young earth.)

Ages of millions of years are all calculated by assuming the rates of change of processes in the past were the same as we observe today—called the principle of uniformitarianism. If the age calculated from such assumptions disagrees with what they think the age should be, they conclude that their assumptions did not apply in this case, and adjust them accordingly. If the calculated result gives an acceptable age, the investigators publish it.

Examples of young ages listed here are also obtained by applying the same principle of uniformitarianism. Long-age proponents will dismiss this sort of evidence for a young age of the earth by arguing that the assumptions about the past do not apply in these cases. In other words, age is not really a matter of scientific observation but an argument about our assumptions about the unobserved past.

The assumptions behind the evidences presented here cannot be proved, but the fact that such a wide range of different phenomena all suggest much younger ages than are currently generally accepted, provides a strong case for questioning those accepted ages (about 14 billion years for the universe and 4.5 billion years for the solar system).

Also, a number of the evidences, rather than giving any estimate of age, challenge the assumption of slow-and-gradual uniformitarianism, upon which all deep-time dating methods depend.

Many of these indicators for younger ages were discovered when creationist scientists started researching things that were supposed to “prove” long ages. The lesson here is clear: when the evolutionists throw up some new challenge to the Bible’s timeline, don’t fret over it. Sooner or later that supposed evidence will be turned on its head and will even be added to this list of evidences for a younger age of the earth. On the other hand, some of the evidences listed here might turn out to be ill-founded with further research and will need to be modified. Such is the nature of science, especially historical science, because we cannot do experiments on past events (see “It’s not science”).

Science is based on observation, and the only reliable means of telling the age of anything is by the testimony of a reliable witness who observed the events. The Bible claims to be the communication of the only One who witnessed the events of Creation: the Creator himself. As such, the Bible is the only reliable means of knowing the age of the earth and the cosmos. See The Universe’s Birth Certificate and Biblical chronogenealogies (technical).

In the end the Bible will stand vindicated and those who deny its testimony will be confounded. That same Bible also tells us of God’s judgment on those who reject his right to rule over them. But it also tells us of his willingness to forgive us for our rebellious behaviour. The coming of Jesus Christ, who was intimately involved in the creation process at the beginning (John 1:1–3), into the world, has made this possible (see Good news).

Don Batten, Creation Ministries International 34 Comments [12/27/2011 3:57:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 51

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom


So, in other words, this is just a fancy way of saying "Bible says so, so it's true".

12/27/2011 7:01:50 PM

That was a lot of words to say nothing at all.

12/27/2011 9:05:11 PM


I see what you did there. You got some scientific sounding dressing to add to your word salad.

12/28/2011 3:20:52 AM

Godless heathen

So, which creation story is true? Genesis chapter 1 or 2?

12/28/2011 3:48:35 AM


No credible scientist bothers to challenge the Bible's timeline, anymore than they bother to challenge the transformation process, from prince to frog and back again, with a kiss.

Every creditable scientific evidence says that the Earth is about 4 billion years old.
There are no "evolutionists", there are only realists and fairy-taleists.

Eye-witness acounts are not particularly reliable, people forget what they have seen, don't observe all they have seen and misinterpret what they have seen. Carbon dating, tree-ring dating and other measurable means of dating things are much more reliable.

12/28/2011 5:22:49 AM


Yeah, Don Batten...I remember him.

12/31/2011 12:09:16 AM


A lot of word salad, masking the fact that you have no acceptable evidence whatsoever that God did anything, or that the earth is 6000 years old (which - trust me - it assuredly is not).

Just the same old the-bible-is-true-because-the-bible-says-its-true routine, dressed up in enough bullshit to fertilize half of Texas. Well, it would be, wouldn't it? These idiots have absolutely nothing else to "back" their creationist myths with.

12/31/2011 12:23:00 AM

Quantum Mechanic





6/27/2012 11:32:40 AM

Quantum Mechanic


9/19/2014 1:02:04 AM

1 2 | top: comments page