Friday, December 6, 2019

Is There Really Evidence for a Young Earth? - Part I

No scientific method yet developed can prove the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones that science claims can do so. Although age indicators are called ‘clocks’ they aren’t, because all ages result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about the past. Always the starting time of the ‘clock’ has to be assumed as well as the way in which the speed of the clock has varied over time. Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed.
These three issues are extremely important:
1. Starting time;
2. Speed of the time;
3. Clock never disturbed.
When we look at these points with an unemotional, mind-made-up attitude, we can see the fallacy of such ideas. As an example:
1. What were the conditions 4.55 billions years ago when the clock started? What were the conditions 100 millions years ago? What were the conditions 1 millions years ago or ten thousand? Simply put, no one can say what the conditions, environment, temperatures, atmosphere, gasses, oxygen, etc., was before man was around to record such information and, especially, record it so we could make comparisons between then and now. Simply put, there is no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested.
    For example, the amount of cratering on the moon, based on currently observed cratering rates, would suggest that the moon is quite old. However, to draw this conclusion we have to assume that the rate of cratering has been the same in the past as it is now. And there are now good reasons for thinking that it might have been quite intense in the past, in which case the craters do not indicate an old age at all.
2. At what pace has the clock progressed? The 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.
However, this automatically eliminates any catastrophic event, not only such things as Noah’s Flood, which scientists, geologists, paleontologists, etc., all fervently deny occurred, but also it eliminates localized events, since no one was around to record them and not always is there an observable occurrence left.
Location of the impact of the Chicxulub meteor impact that supposedly wiped out all the Dinosaurs around the World 65 million years ago

Like most major claimed craters on Earth, the Chicxulub crater cannot be seen, because it has been covered over by Earth’s incredibly active biosphere, but with modern-day technology, it can be viewed as a gravitational anomaly map. The crater underneath the Chesapeake Bay, near Washington, D.C., is likewise invisible, though it may be responsible for the much later formation of the Bay, 18,000 years ago. Other impacts have been the 118- mile radius Vredefort Dome, Free State, South Africa; or the 81-mile diameter crater Sudbury Basin, Ontario, Canada; or the 56-mile diameter Acaman Crater, South Australia; or the 53-mile wide Chesapeake Bay Crater, 125-miles from Washington, D.C.
On June 30, 1908, a mysterious object producing the same anomalous sounds as heard from meteors detonated a Siberian forest in a 25-mile radius. Referred to now as the “Tunguska event,” it flattened 770 square miles of trees. From its effects, the energy released in the blast is believed to have been several orders of magnitude greater than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Unusual growth patterns have been observed near the blast epicenter, and along the observed flight path of the object.
    Such events have always impacted the Earth in one manner or another, and obviously has changed the course of geological levels and remains, but despite a growing acceptance of such historic events, the scientific consensus, which by the way changes from time to time, accepts that while such events have occurred, they were explicable and extreme examples of natural processes which can occur.
    Thus, in the concept of uniformitarianism (sometimes described as gradualism), nothing occurs suddenly, therefore nothing can have happened at any time in the past that could have had an impact on the geologic column or anything else involved in the geologic scale. Yet events did happen, scientists and geologists acknowledge that fact, but geologically speaking, everything was localized and therefore could not have affected the overall structure of the past.
    Prior to the 19th century, Catastrophism was the accepted view of geologic science, which held that geological epochs ended with violent and sudden natural catastrophes such as great floods and the rapid formation of major mountain chains. Once science accepted the depth of geological time, however, to be in the millions and billions of years, Catastrophism was eliminated in favor of Uniformitarianism.
    This, as said above, is then based on the belief that 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—which, even evolutionary geologists claim have been affected from time to time with the opposite occurrences.
    The point of all of this, however, is to remind us that 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.
    Thus, since nothing in the geological time scale can possibly be spoken of by human observation of actual (as opposed to believed) experiences, i.e., by a reliable witness who observed the events, it is simply not reliable. Therefore, we have to take science’s believed views of the past when dealing with their geologic scale.
    On the other hand, a written history of events does exist in the biblical writings of Moses, a very reliable recorder of historic events claimed by him to have been dictated to him by the Lord. Said differently, 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.
    As for the scientific means of measurement, the humorous part of this is that 90% of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists.
    This is true with the most popular, Carbon-14 radiometric dating, which shows an atmosphere not in equilibrium which, according to the inventor of the clock, Willard Libby’s own experiments showed an Earth under 10,000 years of age.
It is also true with such things as Earth folding, claimed to take millions of years, but the radical folding at Eastern Beach, near Auckland, New Zealand, indicates that the sediments were soft and pliable when folded, inconsistent with a long time for their formation. Such folding can be seen world-wide and is consistent with a young age of the earth.
(See the next post, “Is There Really Evidence for a Young Earth?-PtII,”for a continuation of these three assumptions and specifically assumption #3)

1 comment:

  1. Carbon 14 dating assumes equalibrium-- the same amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere now as at the time the sample was alive.

    Carbon 14 is understood to form in the atmosphere with the bombardment of cosmic rays. So equilibrium assumed that cosmic ray bombardment in our atmosphere has always been the same, but there is nothing observable to back that up. In fact, cosmic ray levels have been observed to fluctuate based on solar wind activity (which fluctuates) and have also been measured as increasing since we started measuring them. Our shielding from cosmic rays is provided by solar wind, the Earth's electromagnet field, and our atmosphere. If any of those changes, so does the level of cosmic ray exposure, which changes the level of carbon 14 in the atmosphere.

    If cosmic ray exposure was lower in the past (let's say pre-flood) because of better shielding, then there was less carbon 14 in the past. That lower level would skew any sample taken today to show a much "older" age. The older the actual sample, the more exaggerated the results would appear.

    Also see studies on cosmic ray effects on telomeres in our DNA which effects aging. Astronauts get "older" just by being in space where they are unshielded from cosmic rays.

    That could hint that pre flood conditions had an Earth much better shielded from cosmic rays. Thus lower Carbon 14 levels and longer life spans (unaltered DNA telomeres). Just throwing that out there. Non equilibrium explains a lot, just like catastrophism explains a lot. Both are denied by uniformitarian thinking.