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)

 

 

Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham

Video


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.

Origin of Life…From a Comet?


As I mentioned from the previous post on the Oort Cloud there are some scientists who are proposing that the components of life traveled on a comet from somewhere deep in the universe, possibly from the Oort Cloud, and then the comet collided with the earth generating a ton of power, and Bang! life was born. As cool as this sounds, it seems pretty science fictiony to me.

First, science has almost proven that the right kind of oxygen was not readily available in the universe to form life. Second, even if it was, I have a hard time seeing a bunch of precious molecules and atoms riding on the front of the comet surviving. Comets are super cold. Plus they go very near the sun and are exposed to extreme heat (granted if it hit the earth before it started swinging around the sun…). Then if the comet runs into small rocks and such, the life particles may have a hard time avoiding them.

Third, even if they did survive the odds of a comet hitting the earth are super low. One of the most probable rocks in space that could hit the earth is a rock that has a 99.99% chance of missing the earth. And that is one of the few things that will come close to the earth.* It would take billions of years just for a comet to hit the earth let alone for life to evolve…

Finally, if the comet did hit earth how would the life survive the impact? Not only that, but how would the earth respond. Scientists today say that if a large mile wide rock were to hit the earth the results would be devastating. Even if it were smaller (which reduces the odds of it hitting the earth) the result would be a lot greater than the effects of an atom bomb. How would simple life survive these results?

As you can see, I think it a very outlandish idea much similar to Michael Ruse’s explanation that life rode on the back’s of crystals** This is just one of the many ideas that Atheists are having to postulate in order to maintain their belief that there cannot be a God and that life must have originated by spontaneous generation and then evolved.

 

*-http://www.express.co.uk/news/science-technology/437733/The-end-of-the-world-IS-nigh-Huge-asteroid-will-hit-earth-in-2032-claim-astronomers

**- See explanation for the origin of life from Michael Ruse in the movie Expelled.

The Story of Evolution


Here is my version of the story of evolution:

Once upon a time, there was nothing. But then there was something, a great wave of energy all at once (and where did that come from?) . And that great wave of energy just so happened (or more like obviously) made a little twig. That little twig over millions of years evolved into a stone, and then that stone evolved into a sundial. Then over the coarse of billions of years (and may I ask when in this span was Time created?) that little sundial evolved into watch. And that watch was very complex having many functions, gears, and buttons. And then this watch over the coarse of billions of years evolved into a computer. And this computer was even more advanced with light functions and the ability to store lots of data, almost to the point where it can act, almost think on its own (almost like an ape which has its ability to act on instinct, or program). And then this computer over the coarse of millions maybe even billions of years, slowly evolved into a mind. A mind that was able to think for its own. A mind able to make choices, to feel emotions. A mind that was far superior over its computer counterpart. But, somehow that mind was not able to evolve further (and if that was the case was not the computer more advanced being that it could alter itself to become better?). The mind was stuck at where it was and therefore thought itself the most advanced. And thus this mind reproduced, died, and the family of minds continued on… until the world on which they lived ended. And the lives (if I can even call them that) were lost in the depths of Time (and for all we know the process was recreated and another set of minds somewhere was evolved, and then eventually terminated and then again…) happily ever after.