Some of the other blogs in the South Dakota blogosphere have, predictably, expressed disagreement with the contention that the earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Because men who deny the existence of God and have letters after their names say it's 4.5 billion years old, that has to be true.
It apparently matters little that the things upon which these men base their theory that the earth is 4.5 billion years old have been scientifically proven to be error-prone and unreliable.
The geologic column is a construct based on conjecture; useful as a theory but not much more.
The rest is based on radiometric dating, which is completely unreliable. How can rocks that we know by observation in New Zealand are only a few decades old come back with readings of .27 to 3.5 million years old...and we still consider that reliable? The same with the 26 year old lava dome at Mount St. Helens, giving a reading of something like 2.8 million years? And many other samples around the earth give similar unreliable results. Also, the various dating methods scientists use to date rock usually disagree with one another; if they were scientifically sound, they should agree. Further, numerous C14 samples of organism that we know lived recently, yet return wildly inaccurate dates thousands of years old, and we consider this "scientific?"
Radiometric dating, like the geologic column, is based on a lot of assumptions. If any of those assumptions fall through, you get erroneous readings.
I can't prove the earth is 6,000 years old any more than atheistic scientists can prove it's 4.5 billion years old. But it is established scientific fact that the dating methods of these scientists are radically error prone.
And a study of the original language of the Bible reveals that when God said a "day" in Genesis, he was referring to a 24 hour period. It's true that God uses parables, symbolism and other linguistic devices in the Bible. But just as you would if your sweetheart wrote you a love letter, you have to read things according to what the words mean and read contextually (If he or she said, "It kills me to be without you" would you assume she was physically dying? Or if he said, "I'll see you in two days," would you assume he meant he'd see you in 2 million years--or even 2 weeks?). The Bible is no different.
And theologically, you cannot reconcile theoretically symbolic vast ages into the "days" in Genesis without completely undermining foundational elements of Christian theology. If these elements are wrong, then so be it. But there is no evidence they are, and they can't be made to agree with vast ages. When you understand them both, you have to believe one or the other; it's impossible to believe both.
It's understandable that many would believe in evolution and vast ages; after all, we've been spoon-fed this stuff for over 100 years by men who supposedly are "objective" and know what they're talking about.
But objective, intelligent men once told us you could drain a person's blood and cure illness. Objective, intelligent men once told us the earth was the center of the solar system. Objective, intelligent men once told us the earth was flat. Objective, scientific men told us there would be too many people on earth by the 21st Century. Objective, intelligent men told us 30 years ago that we were entering into a new Ice Age. Just because someone has an education and says they're objective doesn't mean their conclusions are correct...or that they're objective.
I once believed in evolution and vast ages. But when I took the time to examine the evidence on both sides, the evidence didn't support that contention. It was just a house of cards, with no strength or integrity. These theories contain far too many elements that are scientifically impossible (within the bounds of naturalism and materialism), and the evaluation methods themselves are far too flawed to render any meaningful conclusions.
To be ignorant is one thing. But to continue believing in a fatally flawed idea, simply because you don't want to examine evidence to the contrary, is like someone who refuses to get off a sinking ship.
Such intellectual and scientific obtuseness undermines ones credibility in a lot of areas.
Featured Article
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Predictable Scientific Ostriches
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
That was a great read, thanks! I see you’ve written about opposition to AiG’s Creation Museum but what's sad is a group called DefCon (defending the Constitution, defconblog.org) is setting up petitions to stop the "war on science". Their petition starts "As concerned Americans, we join together to express our opposition to the "Creation Museum," an institution built by Answers in Genesis (AiG) and designed to promote the falsehood that science supports the notion of a 6,000 year old Earth.”
They go on to say they support freedom of speech for groups like AiG but oppose campaigns that institutionalize a lie. However, because their science is inaccurate and agenda driven, it is also not up for debate and anyone that opposes them is sought to be silenced.
Post a Comment