A Problem of Age


Quite presumably, one of the most important ‘facts’ that cause evolution to be a viable theory for the development of creatures is the age of the earth. If the earth were to be known to be younger than a couple billion years of age, it would cause the validity of the Theory of Evolution to be greatly scrutinized. As it stands, there are many different cases that seem to suggest the earth can only be, at most, 32 million years. This is far to young for evolution to have occurred on the grand scale that many scientists call for.

Let it be said that one of the key assumptions that the Theory of Evolution makes, is the Principle of Uniformity which states that the Earth as we observe today has been working at the same constant rate since the beginning of time. Therefore, we will continue to assume such an assumption to be accurate when we discuss some key issues below.

SALT IN THE OCEAN:

The amount of salt that is accumulating in the ocean is due to rivers flowing into the ocean, volcanic ash, and waves pounding on shores. This salt has been measured, ocean20acidificationpresently, to accumulate at a specific rate. Using this rate, scientists have measured that the present “salt content would accumulate within 32 million years” (A Question of Origins, 98).

DECAY OF THE EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD:

Since 1835, the earth’s magnetic field strength has been measured. It has been observed from these measurements that the earth’s magnetic field is decaying, becoming less strong over time. However, the present rate suggests that if the earth were billions of years old, there would be no magnetic field. In fact, estimates suggest that the earth’s magnetic field would have produced so much heat at 20,000 years that no life would be possible (A Question of Origins, 99).

SHORT PERIOD COMETS:

Currently there are about 100  short period comets still in existence. Yet studies show that these comets could not be in existence currently if the solar system were older than ikeya-zhang10,000 years. Unless scientists discover a Comet Cloud belt, these comets provide a critical argument to the age of the earth. *

*- Please note that scientist believe that the Scattered Disc to be a supplier of short period comets, although I have not found evidence that this hypothesis is proven (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattered_disc).

SUPERNOVA REMNANTS:

Supernovas are stars that explode at the end of their lives. This explosion causes a great expanding cloud of dust to travel through space; this cloud is called a Supernova Remnant (SNR). After about 300 years, the SNR has a blast wave occur which emits radio waves and causes the SNR to continue to expand. Then, after about 120,000 years there would be a third stage. Scientists have been able to measure, based on these constant stages of SNRs approximately how many SNRs occur in a given amount of time, based on the age of the earth.

So, scientists did a prediction of how many SNRs would have occured/been observed had the galaxy been 120,000+ years old, and also did a similar prediction with the galaxy age being around 7000.

Stage   #SNRs (120,000+ earth)   #SNRs(7000 earth)    Actual #SNRs observed

1.                        2                                             2                                    5

2.                    2,260                                        125                                200

3.                       >0                                               0                                    0

The study shows that the Supernova Remnants support a solar system that is around 7,000 years old.8x10.ai

CONCLUSION:

Although many scientists have suggested the earth to be billions of years old, there is an ample amount of evidence that suggests otherwise. How are we to know which things we should apply the Principle of Uniformity towards? Is it fair for scientists to apply the Principle of Uniformity only towards geographic rocks and not the salt levels in the ocean? I think not. Therefore, we must come to the conclusion that interpreting science is much more complex than what most scientists give it credit for. Truly, our interpretation comes down to how much faith we have in our assumptions.

And I’m putting my faith into the assumption that God’s Word is completely true.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” – John 1:1 (New International Version)

 

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Education, Science and tagged , , , , , , , by Hudson. Bookmark the permalink.

About Hudson

I live in Indiana. I enjoyed playing soccer all four years of high school. I co-captained and won the MVP award my senior year. I also have created many film projects, the most extensive of which won a film festival award for Best Cinematography during my senior year. It is a 10-minute short film called Café Encounter and can be watched on YouTube. I have been actively involved in my youth group and am a leader for a middle school boys group on Sunday mornings. I was also blessed to go on two mission trips to Belize and Ecuador respectively. Belize really awakened my faith in Christ and pushed me towards active obedience and love for God. Ecuador gave me a life-changing perspective on missionary work and has helped me to view myself as a missionary in my every day life, but especially with the intent of being a missionary to my work industry.

13 thoughts on “A Problem of Age

  1. Hey, Hudson. You’ve got a great blog and this post opens up some interesting questions. If you never have, I’d suggest looking into Francis Collins’ book Language of God. He is a believer (Head of the Human Genome Project, and current director of the NIH) who came to faith through God’s fingerprints in science. Full disclosure, the book is not in the traditional “Creationist” worldview that you present here, but offers quite a bit of good insight about the interplay of science and religion.

  2. Why 32 million and not six thousand as suggested in the family tree in Mathew’s Gospel. I think you are hedging your bets. Bold enough to dispute science but not quite happy with young earth Chistianity.

    • Thank you for your comment, I stated 32 million as the oldest possible date of the beginning of the earth by taking the oldest date from the examples I list (salt in ocean). This is because I have not looked up all the counter-arguments so I wanted to give a safe estimate of the oldest, with the intent of knowing that it could indeed be very much younger, especially as stated by the Super Nova example. I personally do believe in a young earth, but was only giving proof from a scientific standpoint and therefore did not include arguments from the Bible. Please also note, that 32 million years – though it is certainly not a young earth – is FAR to young for evolution to have occurred on the scale that scientists propose. Therefore, this not so young, young earth argument doesn’t help prove that the earth is a literal 6 day creation with the earth only being 6000 years… but it does shed quite a bit of uncertainty on the evolutionary perspective… that is why I used it.

      • Yes evolution envolves perhaps two or three billion years.
        I understand where you are coming yfrom your seeking a scientific refutation of evolution fully aware that Bible statements will hold no water with unvelievers.
        There are many believers who hold evolution to be true. The ‘Reasons to Believe’ site is very scientific in its outlook. Many main line churches have accepted evolution without too much trouble. The Bible is a very old book and times have vastly changed and I see nothing wrong with updating or reappraising some of its claims.
        Having said that we are all free to decide our own veiw but I think the consencous is against you.

      • Glad we understand each other, and that I could clear that up a little. Yes you are correct in suggesting this article was specifically a scientific refutation of evolution. However, I would propose that the authority of Scripture does make it possible to argue a case against evolution to both a Christian, and a non-Christian. Yet as I say this, I mean to say that a person should not only use science to refute evolution, but uses scripture as well. In this particular article I was taking a scientific stance.

        I would encourage you to be careful in your assessment of the Bible. It is possible that I am misunderstanding your statement, “The Bible is very old… times have vastly changed…nothing wrong with updating or reappraising some of its claims.” However, when I read that statement, it sounded to me very similar to how God describes adding and subtracting from His Word. We are told that “updating” God’s word is a very dangerous game,

        “18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
        19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:19)

        So I would be suggest being careful about saying there is nothing wrong with updating or reappraising some of the Bible’s claims. Now if you were merely suggesting “updating” the interpretation of the Bible’s claims, that would be different than suggesting the Bible to be with error.

      • I think you would be hard-pressed to make a case against evolution from scripture. Many Christians would deny your assertions since they have a different interpretation of the Bible.
        I know there are no absolutes and everything depends on interpretation. Each and every person is entitled to their own interprrtation; gone are the days when the Bible was only permitted to be read and copied in latin.
        For centuries the Catholic church kept interpretation to themselves; but then came the reformation.

      • Let me be more specific when I state that I could make a case against evolution from scripture… I could make a case against the evolution of humans from scripture. I do not have much of a problem that God created all the animals through evolution… although I do not think this to be the case, I do not see this as much of a problem and do not care to debate about it. However, once one asserts that God created HUMANS through evolution… I think this is a much more serious matter.

        Actually there are absolutes. In fact, all of God’s characteristics are absolutes. A person is not entitled to their own interpretation on every matter, because on many more doctrinal positions, only one interpretation can be right. Some individuals will “interpret” the Bible to mean that Jesus Christ was only a good human, but certainly not God. They are wrong. Jesus Christ is both perfectly human and God, and this is an absolute that is not established based on interpretation. Now, on matters such as “will Jesus return before or after the tribulation”, there is much more leeway. Obviously, on most of these too there is only one correct answer, Jesus cannot come back for the first time both before or after, but how one interprets them does not interfere with scripture.

      • There is a group of Christians who believe only the King James Bible is a valid interpretation, and now the argument has got so hot they have been declared a sect by some Christians. Its called King James onlyism. If the Bible was clear why have experts argued about it for centuries far more than all the aguments about evolution.
        If these theologians are experts why do they not agree?
        The truth is that the Bible is not clear on many points , probably so it can be fitted to many alternative veiws and extended as it has been in our modern era. Take same sex marriage and women preachers. Many churches now accept both.
        The Pope has recognised the big bang, mind you what will he do if it is superceeded by another theory.

      • You bring up an interesting point, but an unfounded one. The arguments you are referring to are directly related to the ENGLISH translation of the Bible. This has nothing to do with the ACTUAL Word of God. The original Word of God was written in Greek and Hebrew, with a little Aramaic. The KJB onlyism is specifically debating the translation of the Bible into English… nothing to do with the actual Word in the Bible. This is a debate about translation and not about the meaning within the word of God.

        You are correct that the Bible is not clear on many points, but these unclear points are not points that greatly effect the Christian faith and believing one or the other does not contradict scripture. Now, take the examples you gave… not so much about the women preachers because the Christian faith is not compromised by believing one side or the other on that one. But do take the same sex marriage point. Yes many churches now accept that… UNBIBLICALLY. Just because a church accepts a point does not mean that they are correct in doing so. They, as a church, have chosen to incorrectly interpret the Scriptures to mean something completely contradictory to rest of the Bible. This does not mean that the Bible is unclear, but rather that we humans are flawed and do not always choose to agree with the Bible.

        As it stands, Scripture is somewhat unclear about Evolution; however, the evolution of animals does not greatly contradict the Bible so I do not see a major problem with Christians believing this. I DO have a problem when Christians believe that evolution is how humankind was formed… as this greatly contradicts Scripture. Just because the Bible allows room for interpretation on small matters does not necessarily mean that they are all right. God has absolute authority on the matter.

      • Thankyou for your replies you make your position crystal clear. Things change as time rolls on and we tend to change with them. I am no scholar or scientist and as a layman I have to look to the experts and try to make sense of it all.
        The cry from the Christian church on what to do about migrants is not consistent, but as you say humans are flawed.

  3. This is very good. You have done a lot of reading and thinking! Love, Daddad

    On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 11:46 AM, YdoUbelieve wrote:

    > sunblade8 posted: “Quite presumably, one of the most important ‘facts’ > that cause evolution to be a viable theory for the development of creatures > is the age of the earth. If the earth were to be known to be younger than a > couple billion years of age, it would cause the val” >

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s