Can anyone help me... A creationist sent me tons of information about how scientists and creationists have the same evidence but see it differently...I know it's all bogus but he won't listen to my point of view unless I debunk this "evidence he sent me." Do any of you believe in this?
In this case, my point about the interpretation of the evidence being different between people with a Christian (creationist) world view and a naturalistic (molecules to man) evolutionary view (it is not between religious and non-religious--even some evolutionists are religious; for example, theistic evolutionists) could apply to most anything. For example, the evidence for a young earth where methods of radiometric dating failed on rocks of known age, or gave conflicting results, geochronologists claim that one or more of the assumptions were invalid in this case. But then it should be acceptable to question these assumptions whenever a "date" contradicts the biblical time frame. If the facts do not support the premise (whether it be the premise of uniformity--that the earth is billions of years old, or the premise of a catastrophic, world-restructuring global flood) , the premise is abandoned; yet, when evolutionists obtain results not consistent with the evolutionary time frame, do they abandon the premise of their cherished evolutionary paradigm? You bet your sweet bibby, they don’t. Instead, they reject and discard radiometric dating results not consistent with the evolutionary time frame . If evolutionists can do this, then scientists who believe in a young earth should have the same right at least to question the assumptions whenever a “date” contradicts a biblical time frame.
Read the information I gave (via references above) on the assumptions of the Geological Column and Radiometric Dating. There are many examples where these dating methods give "dates" that are wrong for rocks of known historical age. One example is a rock from a dacite lava dome at Mount St. Helens volcano. Although we know the rock was formed in 1986, the rock was dated by the potassium-argon (K-Ar) method as 0.35 plus or minus 0.05million years old. Another example is K-Ar "dating" of five andesite lava flows from Mt. Ngauruhoe in New Zealand. The "dates" ranged from less than 0.27 to 3.5 million years--but one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954 and one in 1975. What happened was the excess radiogenic argon (40 Ar*)from the magma (molten rock)was retained in the rock when it solidified. The secular scientific literature also lists many examples of excess radiogenic argon (40Ar*) causing "dates" of millions of years in rocks of known history. This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below the earth's crust. This is consistent with a young earth--the argon had too little time to escape.
Question: If excess radiogenic argon (40AR*) can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age? Another problem is the conflicting dates between different methods. If two methods disagree, then at least one of them must be wrong. For example, in Australia, some wood was buried by a basalt lava flow, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was "dated" by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was "dated" by the K-Ar method at c.45 million years old. Other fossil wood from the upper Permian rock layers has been found with carbon 14 still present. Detectable carbon 14 would have all disintegrated if the wood was really older than 50,000 years, let alone the 250 million years that evolutionists assign to these upper Permian rock layers. According to the Bible's chronology, great age cannot be the true cause of the observed isotope ratios. Anomalies like the above are good supporting evidence ( See conclusions of research on radiometric and carbon-14 dating by Dr. Paul Giem in his book, "Scientific Theology", La Sierra University Press, 1997). In the words of atheistic evolutionist W.B. Provine: "Most of what I learned of the field in graduate (1964-1968) school is either wrong or significantly changed." Creationists understand the limitations of these dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use certain present processes to "prove" that the earth is billions of years old. In reality, all age-dating methods, including those which point to a young earth, rely on non-provable assumptions. John Woodmorappe has just published a detailed study demonstrating the fallacy of radiometric "dating", including the "high-tech" isochron method: The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999). Evolutionist William Stansfield, Ph.D., California Polytech State, has stated: "It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'."Evolutionist Frederick B. Jueneman candidly summarizes the situation: "The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such 'confirmation' may be short lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man."
Evidence from geology.Erosion of continents: Continents are being eroded so rapidly that they should have been worn away completely over billions of years. The problem is more acute in mountainous regions, and there are huge plains with hardly any erosion. Some scientists try to address the continental wearing problem by positing that uplift balances the erosion. But this fails to explain the existence of erosion surfaces that are “dated” as very ancient. Moreover, uniformitarian explanations of slow and gradual deposition/erosion over millions of years fail to offer a reasonable explanation for such important geological features and formations as the Tibetan Plateau (thousands of feet thick and over three miles high above sea level), the incredible lava Columbia Plateau in northwestern United States (approximately 200,000 square miles) and the flat, featureless Colorado Plateau. They do not explain the rise of mountain chains several times faster than erosion; yet, they contain much “ancient” sedimentary rock. Evolutionists allow enough time to erode the continents many times over; yet, they are nearly everywhere covered with sediments--evidence that they were shaped by a lot of water over a little time, not a little water over a lot of time.
Vast thickness of sedimentary rocks (used as evidence for vast age) could conceivably be produced by a little water over a long period of time, or a lot of water over short periods of time. Different biases can result in different interpretations of the same data, in this case, the rock layers. It is a philosophical decision, not a scientific one, to prefer the former interpretation (a little water over millions/billions of years). Because sedimentation occurs slowly, it is assumed it always did in the past, but that is not necessarily true. For example, witness the tremendous geological work done in minutes or hours by local floods (never mind a catastrophic earth-restructuring global flood) in New Orleans and other recent local catastrophic phenomena (tsunami that hit India and Sri Lanka).
What about the Mount St. Helens explosion (May 18, 1980) that devastated 400 square kilometers of forest in six minutes and washed over 1 million logs into Spirit Lake, resulting in an organic deposit of peat with essentially the same make-up and geometry as coal--consisting mostly of tree bark and decayed woody materials, and containing volcanic ash at the bottom of the lake. Also, it created a vertical sediment pile up to 600 feet thick which, within five years had hardened into rock and the right conditions for rapid petrificationof wood--ground water from rapid melting and descent of the mountain’s glacier percolating through hot volcanic ash, which typically is full of silica--a process which was thought to require millions of years to form. What about flat features or formations? Kangaroo Island in southern Australia is about 87 miles (140 km long) and 37 (60 km ) wide and is extremely flat. But it is “dated” at over 160 million years old, based on the fossil content and radiometric daying. Yet, one would expect that exposure to 160 million years of rain would result would result in some sort of channelization of the landscape, but there is very little.
There are precise and well defined boundaries that always exist between geological strata in real life. If the theory of evolution (uniformitarianism) is correct, certainly one would expect a gradual blending of one layer into the next, but this often is not the case. What we often see in the geologic record is one rock stratum abruptly and immediately overlying another, with no soils between (because these 'missing" soils never existed in the first place) and frequently two formations of totally different rock types (ie. the dark-coloured Hermit shale beneath the Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon), lying one on top of the other with a "knife-edge' bedding plane between them (again no soil layers). This speaks against the passage of long periods of time between their depositions, regardless of their index fossils. If anything, they speak either of continuous, rapid deposition with perhaps a near-instantaneous shift in current direction and sediment load, or of rapid deposition of the Coconino after an episode of "sheet erosion," due to massive volumes of water flowing rapidly at equal depth over a wide area--in short, a earth-shattering, earth-restructuring flood on the scale of the genesis flood.
The amount of salt in the sea. Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old--far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age. Geologist, physicist, and pioneer of radiation therapy, John Joly (1857-1933), estimated that the oceans were 80-90 million years old at the most. But this was far too young for evolutionists to accept. More recently, the geologist Dr. Steve Austin and physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys analyzed figures from secular geoscience sources for the quantity of sodium (Na’) in the ocean, and its input and output rates. The slower the input and faster the output, the older the calculated age of the ocean would be. Every kilogram of seawater contains about 10.8 grams of dissolved sodium. (Na’). This means that there is about 14,700 million million tons of Na’ in the ocean. Austin and Humphreys calculated that about 457 million tons of sodium enter the sea every year and 122 million tons of sodium leave the sea every year. The maximum possible amount, even if the most generous assumptions about sodium loss rate are granted to evolutionists, is 206 million tons/year. Granting the most generous assumptions to evolutionists, Austin and Humphreys calculated that the ocean must be less than 62 million years. It’s important to stress that this is not the actual age, but a maximum age. That is the evidence is consistent with any age up to 62 million years, including the biblical age of about 6,000 years. This calculation assumes the lowest plausible input rates and the fastest plausible output rates , sustained throughout geologic time. Another assumption favourable to long-agers is that there was no dissolved salt to start with. If we assume more realistic conditions in the past (the sea had some salt content when it was created, so that saltwater fish could live comfortably in it, and the Genesis global flood would have dissolved large amounts of sodium from land rocks, then this would further reduce the maximum age.
Missing “Old” Supernova Remnants (SNRs). A supernova is an explosion of a massive star--the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs , and a few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic Clouds. This is just what we would expect if the galaxies had not existed long enough for wide SNR expansion (Dr. J. Sarfati, “Exploding Stars Point to a Young Universe: Where Are All the Supernova Remnants?” Creation 19 (3): 46-48 (June-Aug. 1997) Also read pages 346-347 of “Refuting Compromise” by J. Sarfati.
The Presence and Age of Comets in our Solar System. Comets lose so much mass every time they pass near the sun in their orbit that they should have evaporated after billions of years . Instead, evolutionists have proposed ad hoc sources to replenish the comet supply. But observations of the region of the proposed Kuiper Belt fail to confirm it as a cometary source. And there is a total absence of observational evidence for the Oort Cloud, among other scientific difficulties for both notions. Astronomer Hugh Ross published explanation that comets have an interstellar origin was discredited by secular astronomers long ago.
Recession Rate of the Moon.The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 4 cm (i½ inches) per year, and at the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon--not the actual age. This is far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric “dates” assigned to moon rocks).
Dinosaur Blood Cells and Hemoglobin. Red blood cells and haemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur (T-rex) bone. Recently (April 29, 2007), the Discovery Channel special science documentary appropriately entitled T-Rex, New Science, New Beast disclosed on the basis of a report in 2005 that shocked the scientific community how Dr. Mary Schweitzer at Montana State University’s lab uncovered soft-fibrous connective tissue, branching blood vessels, osteocytes (bone cells), as well as visible red blood cells and positive immunological evidence of the blood protein haemoglobin in a no fossilized portion of a femur (thigh bone) from a Tyrannosaurus rex believed to be 68 million years old. Of course, to claim that bone could remain intact for millions of years without being fossilized (mineralized) stretches credibility beyond the limit. Dr. David Menton, who holds a Ph.D in cell biology from Brown University, wrote at that time it “certainly taxes one’s imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history. “ This would be a tall order, even if they were kept frozen in liquid nitrogen in a lab. But such is the stifling effect of the evolutionary dogma that scientists can be blinded to the clear implications of their own data. Accordingly, when a co-worker, a professional pathologist, first noticed blood cells in T-rex bone under the microscope, Dr. Schweitzer’s startled reaction was to question the evidence, not the dominant long-age paradigm, quote, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it..the bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive for millions of years ?” Of course, the obvious, sensible, logical answer based on the scientific evidence is that they couldn’t. Her boss, famous paleontologist “Dinosaur” Jack Horner insisted that Dr. Schweitzer prove they were not red blood cells, but to date she and her team have been able to do so. In fact, she has since found similar soft tissue in several other dinosaur specimens! At the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) held in St. Louis, Missouri in 2006, as recorded by National Geographic, she explained that “traditional ideas of how fossils form do not allow for the preservation of soft, perishable organic tissue,” though she will not re-think her view that dinosaurs are 65 million years old. She states, “we felt comfortable claiming that these dinosaur tissues contained heme,; however, haemoglobin is more than just heme--there are peptide chains as well. And other proteins contain heme units, for example, cytochromes, which are found in all living organisms including microbes. So to rule out contamination, Schweitzer sent samples to an expert immunologist, who injected extract from the T-rex bones into rats. The rats’ immune system generated antibodies, which showed that it was homing in on some protein fragments. Heme itself is too small to produce an immune response. Then the rats’ blood was filtered to leave only the antibodies , forming an antiserum. This was shown to bond to haemoglobin from modern creatures, including birds, crocodiles, and mammals. A control sample, that is, rat serum extracted from before they were injected with T-rex substances did not bond to the modern haemoglobin. This means that there is enough of the hemoglobin protein in the T-rex structures for the rats’ immune system to develop antibodies specific to haemoglobin. Such a specific response shows that there must have been a substantial amount of the haemoglobin protein remaining in the T-rex bone. Hemoglobin would not be the only well-preserved protein from dinosaur fossils or fossils of the same assumed age.
The protein osteocalcin has been identified in hadrosaur (duck-billed dinosaur) bones from Alberta, Canada (Muyzer et al., Geology 20:871-874 (1992). This is a protein specific to bones, so cannot be due to contamination from outside microbes. And ligaments have been found in fossils “dated” to the same evolutionary “age” as the dinosaurs. Mud Springs on the edge of the “market town” of Wootton Bassett, near Swindon, Wiltshire, England, are “pumping up” fossils that are supposed to be 165 million years old. Dr. Neville Hollingworth, paelontologist with the Natural Environmental research Council in Swindon, noted: “There are the shells of bivalves which still have their original organic ligaments and yet they are millions of years old” (M. Nuttall, “Mud Springs a Surprise after 165 Million Years,” Times, London, p.7 (May 2, 1996). A more rational scientific conclusion based on the evidence to Schweitzer’s question about how blood cells could possibly survive 65 million years is: “I can see the blood cells and detect the chemical and magnetic signatures--in the present! Also, protein and DNA can be seen to break down so fast that they couldn’t survive for more than a few tens of thousands of years. So how could they possibly be 65 million years old.”. Also, DNA from 28 different families of trees, herbs, and mosses, as well as the wolly mammoth and other extinct mammals, has been found in the frozen sediments of Siberia, “dated” up to 400,000 years old (see Willerslev E. and Hansen, AJ..et al., Diverse plant and animal genetic records from Holocene and Pleistocene sediments, Science 300 (5620): 791-795, 2003. And under sterile laboratory operating procedures, dormant bacteria have been revived from within salt crystals said to have been formed 250 million years ago (see Vreeland, R.H.., Rosenzweig, W.D., Powers, D. W.., Isolation of a 250 million-year-old halo tolerant bacterium from a primary salt crystal, Nature 407 (6806): 897-900, 2000). So how do we explain this apparent contradiction--that biological molecules like DNA are much too fragile to remain intact beyond some thousands of years, yet entire cells (complete with DNA) have been revived after millions of years--if no contamination from/by living organisms have occurred? Experts say there shouldn’t even be any DNA remaining after 100,000 years, let alone the entire intact machinery (entire cells complete with DNA) which make up a living organism. This evidence flies in the face of the imagined evolutionary (millions-of-years) history, but is perfectly compatible with the age derived from the Bible of the earth’s sediments during or after the global Flood about 4,500 years ago (about 6000 years.
I could give many more examples.Well, all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true for both creationists and evolutionists, but the creationist is in very good stead when it comes to the evidence and should be optimistic about the future.
Catch-22 situation: It is interesting that Teaching About Evolution, an educator’s guidebook published by the National Academy of Sciences claims that the proposals of creation have been examined and found unsupportable, then they claim that the “basic proposals of creation science are not subject to test and verification." So how could its proposals have been examined (tested!) if they are not subject to test and verification?
