What is the theory of evolution? The term evolution basically means alterations through time – typically very slow changes over a very long time interval. Strictly speaking, the theory of evolution refers to the development of all of the species of plant and animal life on earth, in the past and present. However, a leading evolutionary biologist, Douglas J. Futuyma, in his book “Evolutionary Biology” Sinauer Associates gives a much wider definition: Evolution is often casually used to refer to a person’s change during their lifetime; e. Some people confuse Darwinism with Evolution.
The Grand Canyon and the Age of the Earth
Brief Bio of – Paul Abramson Editor of: He has a B. Paul has done a lot of traveling in the world and he has lived in Europe for about 3 years, and in Japan for 5 years during which time he became conversational in Japanese, altogether living about 8 years of his adult life outside of the U. And the third foreign country that he has lived in was the Peoples Republic of Berkeley, California – where for 5 years he resided and taught Creation Theory to anyone who would listen.
Paul is the founder and editor of: Helens, 7 Wonders Museum , and Dr.
· In contrast, various scientific dating methods place the age of the earth around billion years and the age of the universe around billion years. The options to solve the apparent conflict are as follows: the Bible is wrong, the Bible is being interpreted incorrectly, or the scientific data is being interpreted ://
Two Responses And a Few Good Lessons If a student ever challenges you with criticisms of the reliability or validity of geological age-dating methods, point out that Provide a copy of Evidence for Ancient Earth links and introductions for two articles, one by Christian physicist Roger Wiens, the other by radiochronologist G. Then tactfully and gently challenge that person to bring you a link to any empirical study pointing to a young Earth.
After all, this is the way scientists test alternative ideas. For a broader perspective, for students who have deep conflicts between their religious views and the scientific findings of modern geology, recommend this book: The Bible, Rocks and Time. This excellent book provides an in-depth Christian perspective of the history and various interpretations of biblical accounts of creation vs the solid geological evidence of an ancient Earth.
Special attention is given to the many assertions by Young-Earth Creationists and how those views simply do not fit real world observations and their most rational interpretations. Any student or teacher wanting to find resolution to perceived conflicts between their Young-Earth views and modern geology should read this book. It also includes an excellent historical review of the development of geology and paleontology.
1. Rate of Decay
Reference to a case where the given method did not work This is perhaps the most common objection of all. Creationists point to instances where a given method produced a result that is clearly wrong, and then argue that therefore all such dates may be ignored. Such an argument fails on two counts: First, an instance where a method fails to work does not imply that it does not ever work. The question is not whether there are “undatable” objects, but rather whether or not all objects cannot be dated by a given method.
The fact that one wristwatch has failed to keep time properly cannot be used as a justification for discarding all watches.
· Radiometric dating or radioactive dating is a technique used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, in which trace radioactive impurities were selectively incorporated when they were formed. The method compares the abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope within the material to the abundance of its decay products, which form
Young Earth Creation Science Argument Index The purpose of this index is to list all the claims of young earth creationists, and provide rebuttals to those claims. Although the idea for this index came from the TalkOrigins. Many arguments will have additional arguments against the young earth claims which do not appear on the Talk Origins site. In addition, some arguments used on the Talk Origins site will not be used here. This list will also add many arguments not addressed in the Talk Origins listings, and links will be added to other websites of interest, giving the reader more opportunity to research the topic.
The list will grow as new arguments are indexed and addressed, thus it is a fluid document.
How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
Both old earth creationism and young earth creationism seek to solve the apparent conflict between science and the Bible in regard to the age of the earth. What is the apparent conflict? If the book of Genesis is interpreted strictly literally, it seems to indicate that the earth and the universe are around 6, years old. In contrast, various scientific dating methods place the age of the earth around 4.
The options to solve the apparent conflict are as follows:
Most of my family are young earth creationists and think that the carbon-dating method is invalid or doesnt work right. They always say that we
Radiometric dating In , shortly after the discovery of radioactivity , the American chemist Bertram Boltwood suggested that lead is one of the disintegration products of uranium, in which case the older a uranium-bearing mineral the greater should be its proportional part of lead. Analyzing specimens whose relative geologic ages were known, Boltwood found that the ratio of lead to uranium did indeed increase with age. After estimating the rate of this radioactive change, he calculated that the absolute ages of his specimens ranged from million to 2.
Though his figures were too high by about 20 percent, their order of magnitude was enough to dispose of the short scale of geologic time proposed by Lord Kelvin. Versions of the modern mass spectrometer were invented in the early s and s, and during World War II the device was improved substantially to help in the development of the atomic bomb. Soon after the war, Harold C.
Wasserburg applied the mass spectrometer to the study of geochronology. This device separates the different isotopes of the same element and can measure the variations in these isotopic abundances to within one part in 10, By determining the amount of the parent and daughter isotopes present in a sample and by knowing their rate of radioactive decay each radioisotope has its own decay constant , the isotopic age of the sample can be calculated.
However, rather than dealing with this issue and critically evaluating Austin’s other procedures including the unacceptable mineral and glass impurities in his ‘fractions’ , YECs loudly proclaim that the results are discrepant with the AD eruption. They then proceed to assault the validity of the K-Ar method. Therefore, it’s not surprising that some of Austin’s dates, such as the result for the amphiboles, etc.
· A tract by Matt McClure showing the negative effect of young earth
How does radiometric dating fit with the view of a young earth? Radiometric dating is a method which scientists use to determine the age of various specimens, mainly inorganic matter rocks, etc. How do these dating techniques work? Uranium U , for example, is an unstable radioactive isotope which decays into Lead Pb naturally over time it goes through 13 unstable intermediate stages before it finally stabilizes into Pb In this particular case, it takes 4, , , years for half of a sample of U to decay into Pb The measurements involved can be quite accurate.
The question is what are the underlying key assumptions and how reliable are they? If any of these assumptions are wrong, the method cannot accurately determine the age of a specimen. While the second and third assumptions have always been a bit troublesome, especially the third assumption, which considers the original constitution of a particular specimen, the first assumption was thought to be a pretty safe bet since scientists were not able to vary the decay rates much in a lab.
Recently, however, new research has revealed that the decay rates may have been drastically different in the unobservable past.
Biblical Young Earth Creationism
Jim Mason What does nuclear physics have to do with the age of the earth? How can that be? That sounds like unclear physics — but it will be made “crystal” clear during this session.
· The foundation of old age dating methods, upon which the assumption of an old Earth (and evolution) rest, is radiometric dating. Culminating this lecture is the astounding and seemingly irrefutable evidence showing how radiometric methods are misinterpreted to give erroneously old
The Carbon 14 dating method reveals a young earth! Libby discovered the carbon dating method in the s. He discovered the atmosphere contains a certain concentration of radioactive carbon to normal carbon. The radioactive carbon 14 atoms are generated within the earth’s atmosphere as illustrated below: Living things take in carbon 14 as well as normal carbon 12 in the atmosphere through the process of photosynthesis or by animals and man eating the vegetation, as illustrated below: However, carbon 14 is unstable radioactive and will start to change back into Nitrogen.
Carbon 14 has a half live of only 5, years. Therefore, given assumptions about how much carbon 14 was in something when it died, we can determine approximately how long the buried thing has been dead by the amount of carbon 14 still remaining in the sample. However, given the carbon 14 half-life of 5, years, no measurable amount would remain after even just several hundred thousand years at the most.
This contradicts findings all over the earth. Carbon 14 can be detected in coal, wood, natural gas, fossils, and etc.
Methods of detecting exoplanets
Carbon 14 is used for this example: This nullifies the carbon method as well as demonstrating that the earth is less than 10, years old. The above is offered as a simple fact of research. Knowing how faulty creationist “facts” can be, let’s do a little research of our own.
The above questions and more are answered in chapter 8 of the book, Young Earth Creation: Evidence that Demands an Audience. Answers in Genesis has just recently (summer of ), opened up a life-sized replica of the ark as described in chapters 6, 7, and 8 of ://
The sun, moon, and stars 2. The fish and the birds 3. The fertile earth 6. The land animals and humans 7. Rest and satisfaction In light of these correspondences, Kline interprets days one and four as different perspectives on the same event, and likewise days two and five, and three and six. He concludes that while the creation account is historical, historicity and narrative sequence are not the same thing, so the account need not—indeed, should not—be read as chronological at all.
And, of course, this nicely addresses Origen’s observation that days one, two and three could not be literal days before the sun, moon and stars existed to mark them and it also obviates the anachronistic modern question, relevant to all six days if they are literal, of the time zone by which God measured his evenings and mornings Garden of Eden Standard Time? Of course, Kline’s interpretation can be disputed. For instance, Collins , while recognizing the validity of the parallel structure in the days of creation and appreciating the implication that the precise lengths of time involved and the precise historical ordering of events was not the author’s focus and is not a matter of deep biblical importance, nonetheless resists Kline’s effort to condense the divine “workweek” into three days told from two different perspectives rather than six.
The fourth commandment in Exodus Furthermore, use of the Hebrew wayyiqtol verb form is prevalent in Genesis 1 and, since its ordinary narrative use is to indicate sequential events Collins , the implication seems to be that some sort of sequence—whether logico-metaphysical, teleological, or chronological—is intrinsic to the author’s portrayal.
Adopting this viewpoint, however, leaves Collins with the problem of interpreting how the fourth day of creation fits into this sequence.