An Israeli physicist recently shocked the world by confirming that the universe did have a beginning. The headline screamed–Physicist: Big Bang Breakthrough “Confirms Creation.” Scientists were profuse in their enthusiastic responses; so those few scientists who still hold to the “steady state theory” (believing that the universe has always existed) can now be lumped with flat-earthers, phrenologists, and Elvis hunters.
All creationists and all thinking people (but then I repeat myself) have always believed that “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” That is settled; however, when the universe and Earth were created has not been settled for many people. Was it billions of years ago or less than 10,000 years ago? That is the question and it is a fact that most Americans believe in a young universe and Earth but almost half do not.
In Matt. 19 Christ said that man was made at “the beginning.” So, no matter what the myth-makers in their ivory towers declare, whenever the beginning was, man was there. That fact alone negates all kinds of evolution! That settles the origins issue for believers but now we must convince the weak, the wavering, and the wrong souls that the Earth is young.
A recent column by one of my favorite columnists, Lord Monckton at World Net Daily declared, “One should no longer believe that a bishop [Archbishop Ussher] was correct in calculating that the world began 6,000 years ago.” (Famous historian Josephus believed the same as Ussher!) Even some creationists accept the columnist’s erroneous conclusion. What about the science to support an ancient Earth? It is not sufficient to say, “But every sane person knows that the Earth is billions of years old.” After all, in ancient times some men said, “Everyone believes that the world rests on the back of a giant elephant,” (some said a giant turtle) or “Any fool can see that the Earth is flat.”
It seems that few creationists have taken on the highly qualified scientists with counter arguments to demand some answers about the age of the Earth and Universe. I will do so even though my doctorate is not in science.
When discussing the age of the Earth, the ancient-earther always supports his position with modern dating methods, but that dog won’t hunt and can’t hunt because it is crippled in two legs! Modern dating methods are not reliable! It seems necessary for me to declare that rocks and fossils are not found stamped with a date of origin! Their ages are assumed by using various “clocks,” which I will cover in this series. Some of the “clocks” indicate a young age for the Earth. It depends on what “clock” is being used and what assumptions are being made.
While Archbishop Ussher’s Bible dates are not inspired, they are rather accurate when compared to other “clocks.” The fact is the Earth and the universe are very young–not very ancient–much to the consternation of the evolutionists who must have long periods of time to develop their cockamamie story of macro-evolution.
Dr. Stephen Moorbath, an evolutionist associated with the University of Oxford, wrote: No terrestrial rocks closely approaching an age of 4.6 billion years have yet been discovered. The evidence for the age of the earth is circumstantial, being based upon . . . indirect reasoning.” I can assure you that most evolutionists are astute at “indirect reasoning,” and are experts in circular reasoning. Some evolutionists are Professors of Tautology.
Evolutionist Fredreck B. Jeaneman declared: “The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such ‘confirmation’ may be short-lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic [dinosaur age] to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man.” Wow, that from an evolutionist!
Criticism of modern dating methods continues to grow and many evolutionists run from confusing, comical, and contradictory decay rates like a mythical vampire flees the morning sun! One reason is that fossil rock may be contaminated. Many other contingencies are possible that might affect the date. Furthermore, a “global disaster” would disturb the status of the rocks. Do you think maybe that a worldwide flood qualifies as a “global disaster”? So the world Flood could reset all the radiometric clocks because of the swirling waters, volcanic eruptions, the atmospheric pressure, vast temperature fluctuations, magnetic reversals at the poles, etc., thus producing the long dates evolutionists must have–or get new jobs that might require them to work.
NASA hired the famous John (Jack) Eddy to write a book which enabled him to do research in the great astronomy libraries such as Harvard and the Naval Observatory. He used those facilities to do research on the Maunder Minimum (unexplained period of drastically reduced sunspot activity between 1645 and 1715) and his findings were published in the journal Science as a cover story. National Geographic also documented his work. That public exposure led to radio and television shows and lectures.
At a scientific conference at Louisiana State University Dr. Eddy, an ancient-earther, shocked the audience when he said, “I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.” Another kick in the teeth for evolutionists by an evolutionist!
So, maybe Archbishop Ussher was not nuttier than a Snicker’s Bar after all, but evolutionists are!
(Four more columns will follow dealing with modern dating methods.)
http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”
Fact, Fraud or Faith?
by Don Boys, Ph.D.
Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution or creation can be proved scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support our position. In every debate I’ve had with evolutionary scientists, the arrogant, asinine accusation is made, “Well, evolution is scientific while creationism is religion.” Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster plucking ceremony in Haiti. Almost.