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.


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).


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).


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).


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


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)




Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham


Last night in classy performance, Bill Nye debated Ken Ham over the viability of the creation account. Both relied heavily upon their assumptions of the past in the debate, however Ken Ham admitted to this fact many times. Bill Nye provided some very good arguments against the creation account [most however, can be explained]; some arguments however, were ridiculous and beneath him. Ken Ham presented many arguments that could be problematic for the scientific community who accept evolution; however, many of these arguments will never be accepted by a scientist who assumes a human is no more than an animal.

I encourage you to watch the entire debate, however, you may not be willing to watch a 2 1/2 hr debate. If not, watch the first hour for a synopsis of the Christian view of interpreting science and the Secular Humanist view of interpreting science. The last hour and a half is true debate in which each debater is able to counter the other’s arguments.

Childbirth Proof of Creationism

The title may have surprised many of you. It certainly surprised me when I found out about this. Childbirth is generally only painful among human beings. Carl Sagan acknowledges that the Genesis account does provide an accurate view  on a number of things including the fact that, “childbirth is generally painful in only one of the million species on Earth: human beings.”¹ This amazed me when I first read it! Recall Genesis 3:16a where God says to Eve, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. [NIV]” The thought that our sin causes this pain is incredible. I just assumed that all creatures experienced this. Not true, just female human beings. Wow! Carl Sagan, who does not believe the Bible to be true, does postulate a theory as to why this is true. He says, “Childbirth is painful because the evolution of the human skull has been spectacularly fast and recent.”² Ok, whatever. I would think an elephant’s skull would cause pain too. Anyways, this is just another problem with the theory of evolution that atheists don’t have an answer to.

¹  –  Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden, 92

²  – Ibid, 93