Science vs. Bible 5 Arguments for and Against Creationism From the Ken Ham, Bill Nye Debate

History[ edit ] Biblical dates for creation[ edit ] The first major comprehensive draft of Genesis was composed by the Yahwist in the late 7th or the 6th century BC, during the Babylonian captivity , with later additions made by the priestly source in the post-exilic period. The poor world is almost 6, years old. In particular, discoveries in geology required an Earth that was much older than thousands of years, and proposals such as Abraham Gottlob Werner ‘s Neptunism attempted to incorporate what was understood from geological investigations into a coherent description of Earth’s natural history. James Hutton , now regarded as the father of modern geology, went further and opened up the concept of deep time for scientific inquiry. Rather than accepting that the Earth was deteriorating from a primal state, he maintained that the Earth was infinitely old. As these processes were very gradual, the Earth needed to be ancient, in order to allow time for the changes to occur. While his ideas of Plutonism were hotly contested, scientific inquiries on competing ideas of catastrophism pushed back the age of the Earth into the millions of years — still much younger than commonly accepted by modern scientists, but a great change from the literalist view of an Earth that was only a few thousand years old. The energetic advocacy and rhetoric of Lyell led to the public and scientific communities largely accepting an ancient Earth. By this time, the Reverends William Buckland , Adam Sedgwick and other early geologists had abandoned their earlier ideas of catastrophism related to a biblical flood and confined their explanations to local floods.

What about Creationist radiometric dating

Senior research scientist Alexander Cherkinsky specializes in the preparation of samples for Carbon testing. He directed the pretreatment and processing of the dinosaur bone samples with the Accelerator Mass Spectrometer, though he did not know the bones were from dinosaurs, and he signed the reports. Carbon dating at this facility is certainly the very best.

Nov 24,  · Dating Ice Cores. This problem is recognized by those who date ice cores and so they use a number of other methods to find the annual layers. However most articles do not make a distinction between these so called annual layers and the visible layers.

Are you sure you want to delete this answer? Yes Sorry, something has gone wrong. The short answer to your question is no, these things are not ignored by evolutionists. All of these processes HAVE been studied by scientists using the same instruments they use to study a variety of other things. I should clarify that none of the “dating methods” you list are radiometric.

Not only that, none of them are even dating methods, and cannot be used to accurately date anything. They are not “alternatives” to radiometric dating, they are arguments that creationists have contrived to provide “evidence” for a young earth. The argument for each of them generally goes like this: If we make an incredibly simplistic assumption that the rate of production of X is equal to Y and has been constant throughout the history of the earth, and then extrapolate this backward through time, we arrive at an age of the earth of Z, which is younger than scientists claim.

We will ignore the fact that Z is also much older than creationists claim, and focus on the fact that we found a contrived way of coming up with a number less than 4. In fact, calculations of the age of the earth based on heat loss of the earth and decay of radioisotopes HAVE been done, and guess what The ones that have not been fully worked out give a variety of different results, and we don’t trust these results because there must be processes and factors that are not taken into account.

For instance, we cannot assume that the decay of the earth’s magnetic field, or the rate of dispersal of galaxies, has been constant for the entire history of the solar system. Drawing conclusions based on these assumptions is foolhardy.

evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe

Updated 8 January c Introduction In a related article on geologic ages Ages , we presented a chart with the various geologic eras and their ages. In a separate article Radiometric dating , we sketched in some technical detail how these dates are calculated using radiometric dating techniques. As we pointed out in these two articles, radiometric dates are based on known rates of radioactivity, a phenomenon that is rooted in fundamental laws of physics and follows simple mathematical formulas.

Common Creationist Criticism’s of Mainstream Dating Methods By Chris Stassen Part of Stassen’s FAQ file The Age of the Earth, which also deals with many other young-Earth assertions besides radiometric dating. Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale – Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools.

In each case, an effort is made to indicate the major creationist contributions that have been made in exposing the errors of evolutionary dogma. Preparations for the work and the actual expedition itself were noted by global publicity regarding the expected, positive, evolutionary implications. A sequel to this paper will examine preliminary research data consistent with significant and recent biological isolation of Shiva and the implications this has for the age of the Canyon itself.

NORTHRUP The concept of plate tectonics with its corollary, continental drift, have been espoused by various creationists who have adapted them to fit the short time-span of young-earth catastrophism-Northrup , , , , , Austin Nevins , Tippetts , Elliott , and Hansen Dwelling on the evidence that the continents at first were united, with the sea floor later spreading, these workers and I have envisioned an abrupt continental drifting and separation occurring much more rapidly than our uniformitarian colleagues would allow.

My conclusion is that the physical evidences for rapid plate movement are found practically universally. Since the writer is a geologist, questions to authors are principally geological in nature. Also, observation, falsification, and repetition are not meaningful in a universe ruled by chance. Creationism offers the best philosophy of science. No neutral definition of science can be maintained. Data for solar shrinkage is analyzed using the derived relationships for a hypothetical radial density variation.

The effect of non-uniform density on the energy generated by solar contraction is presented.


Creationist Geologic Time Scale: Should the scientific community continue to fight rear-guard skirmishes with creationists, or insist that “young-earthers” defend their model in toto? Introduction This manuscript proposes a new approach for science’s battle against the rising influence in America of pseudo-science and the Creationist movement. The framework of Creationist Bible-based earth history, focusing on Genesis and the Noachian flood, can be assembled into a single geologic time scale Figure 1 , enlarged by addition of many geologic facts, difficult for Creationists to explain.

Figure 1 is an abbreviated version of the time scale outlined in the following paragraph which was redrawn and published by the American Scientist. Some of the items are so absurd that all but the most dedicated fundamentalists will see the overall picture as scientific nonsense, even bordering on humor, a most rare commodity in Creationist literature.

The methods they use are flawed, but so too is radioactive dating. This is not true, radiometric dating is a well established method in geology. One of the ways to find out whether a certain measurement technique is valid is to calibrate it against other, similar measurement techniques by using the .

If a layer, say 0. Considering that good satellite data on meteoritic influx were available before Morris 92 and Slusher published their papers, they obviously have been highly selective in their choice of obsolete data. A more fundamental point, however, is that such calculations are based on faulty premises, including the erroneous assumptions that the meteoritic influx has remained constant for 4.

Apparently, Morris and Parker 97 have credited Slusher with a calculation that he did not do. Table 10 , no. Morris 92 notes that intrusive rocks are much more common than lava flows: Thus, the entire crust could have been formed by volcanic activity at present rates in only million years, which would only take us back into the Cambrian period.


Therefore it should come as no surprise that creationists at the Institute for Creation Research ICR have been trying desperately to discredit this method for years. They have their work cut out for them, however, because radiocarbon C dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods. This article will answer several of the most common creationist attacks on carbon dating, using the question-answer format that has proved so useful to lecturers and debaters.

How does carbon dating work? Cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere are constantly converting the isotope nitrogen N into carbon C or radiocarbon.

Burchfield even butchers some of the creationist objections to radiometric dating. The real creationist arguments is that these methods make assumptions, including amount of initial material, that rocks are closed systems and that the constant decay rates.

Reference to a case where the given method did not work This is perhaps the most common objection of all. Creationists point to instances where a given method produced a result that is clearly wrong, and then argue that therefore all such dates may be ignored. Such an argument fails on two counts: First, an instance where a method fails to work does not imply that it does not ever work. The question is not whether there are “undatable” objects, but rather whether or not all objects cannot be dated by a given method.

The fact that one wristwatch has failed to keep time properly cannot be used as a justification for discarding all watches. How many creationists would see the same time on five different clocks and then feel free to ignore it?

Creation Science Rebuttals, Answers in Genesis Daily Feature, How Old Is The Earth

The Radiometric Dating Game Radiometric dating methods estimate the age of rocks using calculations based on the decay rates of radioactive elements such as uranium, strontium, and potassium. On the surface, radiometric dating methods appear to give powerful support to the statement that life has existed on the earth for hundreds of millions, even billions, of years. We are told that these methods are accurate to a few percent, and that there are many different methods.

We are told that of all the radiometric dates that are measured, only a few percent are anomalous. This gives us the impression that all but a small percentage of the dates computed by radiometric methods agree with the assumed ages of the rocks in which they are found, and that all of these various methods almost always give ages that agree with each other to within a few percentage points.

Since there doesn’t seem to be any systematic error that could cause so many methods to agree with each other so often, it seems that there is no other rational conclusion than to accept these dates as accurate.

May 06,  · AIG: All Scientific Dating Methods Are Wrong Posted on 6-May | 16 Comments W e have a real winner for you today from Answers in Genesis (AIG), one of the major sources of young-earth creationist wisdom.

Radiometric Dating Creationism vs. Science From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science Jump to: Wong’s article radiometric dating doesn’t need to be answered in detail. Most will simply be given a link to another CreationWiki page. Wong starts off the article refuting a e-mail sent to him. In reply to the first point, which the Young Earth creationist claims that the decay rate isn’t a constant, he claims that This is tantamount to claiming that the gravity of the Earth might have been 5 times stronger in medieval times, or that the boiling point of water might have been a thousand degrees a century ago.

The decay rates of radioisotopes are driven by the quantum mechanics of barrier tunneling and the relative strengths of coulomb repulsion and nuclear binding energy which drive all nuclear interactions. If they were to change, this would mean that the characteristics of fundamental particles and forces are changing, which means that the behavior of all matter in the universe is in a state of flux.

Moreover, since they claim the Earth is just 6, years old, these sweeping changes would have been occurring right before our eyes, during recorded history! First, much of this a straw man. Creationist have proposed models for accelerated decay during certain periods in time. Such as the creation and the Flood.

Radiometric back flips; How solid are those dates? (Creation Magazine LIVE! 5-10)