Quote# 85067(Article title: 101 evidences for a young earth.)
Ages of millions of years are all calculated by assuming the rates of change of processes in the past were the same as we observe today—called the principle of uniformitarianism. If the age calculated from such assumptions disagrees with what they think the age should be, they conclude that their assumptions did not apply in this case, and adjust them accordingly. If the calculated result gives an acceptable age, the investigators publish it.
Examples of young ages listed here are also obtained by applying the same principle of uniformitarianism. Long-age proponents will dismiss this sort of evidence for a young age of the earth by arguing that the assumptions about the past do not apply in these cases. In other words, age is not really a matter of scientific observation but an argument about our assumptions about the unobserved past.
The assumptions behind the evidences presented here cannot be proved, but the fact that such a wide range of different phenomena all suggest much younger ages than are currently generally accepted, provides a strong case for questioning those accepted ages (about 14 billion years for the universe and 4.5 billion years for the solar system).
Also, a number of the evidences, rather than giving any estimate of age, challenge the assumption of slow-and-gradual uniformitarianism, upon which all deep-time dating methods depend.
Many of these indicators for younger ages were discovered when creationist scientists started researching things that were supposed to “prove” long ages. The lesson here is clear: when the evolutionists throw up some new challenge to the Bible’s timeline, don’t fret over it. Sooner or later that supposed evidence will be turned on its head and will even be added to this list of evidences for a younger age of the earth. On the other hand, some of the evidences listed here might turn out to be ill-founded with further research and will need to be modified. Such is the nature of science, especially historical science, because we cannot do experiments on past events (see “It’s not science”).
Science is based on observation, and the only reliable means of telling the age of anything is by the testimony of a reliable witness who observed the events. The Bible claims to be the communication of the only One who witnessed the events of Creation: the Creator himself. As such, the Bible is the only reliable means of knowing the age of the earth and the cosmos. See The Universe’s Birth Certificate and Biblical chronogenealogies (technical).
In the end the Bible will stand vindicated and those who deny its testimony will be confounded. That same Bible also tells us of God’s judgment on those who reject his right to rule over them. But it also tells us of his willingness to forgive us for our rebellious behaviour. The coming of Jesus Christ, who was intimately involved in the creation process at the beginning (John 1:1–3), into the world, has made this possible (see Good news).
Don Batten, Creation Ministries International 33 Comments
[12/27/2011 3:57:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 51
Unfortunately Don Batten's argument falls over at 'The Bible claims...'
12/27/2011 4:11:17 AM
Science is based on verifiable observation. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously fallible, but reproducable results, on the other hand, make for verifiable evidence.
12/27/2011 4:25:01 AM
"If the age calculated from such assumptions disagrees with what they think the age should be, they conclude that their assumptions did not apply in this case, and adjust them accordingly. If the calculated result gives an acceptable age, the investigators publish it."
No. Cherry-picking evidence is, however, exactly what you creationists love to do. You're the ones who have decided your views before looking at the evidence, and chosen to ignore said evidence because it doesn't agree with your presuppositions.
"The Bible claims to be the communication of the only One who witnessed the events of Creation: the Creator himself. As such, the Bible is the only reliable means of knowing the age of the earth and the cosmos."
Just because something is claimed does not mean it's automatically reliable. Since the claim that the Bible is the word of god is actually only found in the Bible itself, it's practically the definition of an unreliable claim.
Your "scientific" evidence for a young earth is laughable. Your "scientists" have no scientific training. If they had even the faintest fragment of an iota of an atom of scientific knowledge, they would be able to see that the idea of a 6000 year old Earth is one of the stupidest beliefs you can hold in this day and age.
12/27/2011 5:11:03 AM
So, he's saying that evidence supports him, except when it doesn't, but in those cases it's probably just that evolutionists are interpreting data incorrectly in order to reject God.
12/27/2011 5:14:14 AM
I see he's also claiming graptolites are 'living fossils'and proof of a young earth too. As the graptolites were extinct long before the first dinosaurs were even a twinkle in an archosaur's eye I wonder where he pulled that little nugget from?
12/27/2011 5:26:03 AM
Percy Q. Shunn
12/27/2011 5:26:30 AM
The Bible claims eh?
Well I claim that I can fly, travel at the speed of light, and change into my holy banana form to phase through walls. I also claim that the sole reason the world isn't swarming with zombies is that I stopped them myself, and that I will only stop them the next time if Don Batten gives me plenty of money!
You have to believe it, because I claim so, and that alone makes it infinitely reliable!
12/27/2011 5:34:33 AM
Don makes up shit a lot.
"In the end the Bible will stand vindicated"
it's already a well-known forgery you lying shitstain.
12/27/2011 5:44:27 AM
Coming from the God did it commando. Talk about double standards
12/27/2011 5:55:52 AM
The point is that lots of independent processes all point to the same ages, yet no creationist can answer why radioactive decay rates should have been higher in the past by exactly the same proportion as rates of erosion of rock, or tree ring growth, or accumulation of sediments, or pole shift, or seafloor spreading, or geological uplift, or a dozen others?
Why would the rates of all these processes increase and decrease in unison? All a YEC can say is that God is testing us, or is being mysterious, or must have a reason. Which all boil down to "God has lied and made the world look really old."
Apply Occam's razor and you arrive at "the world looks really old."
12/27/2011 6:28:22 AM
your argument completely falls apart when one considers the bible for what it is, a collection of fairy tales and made up moral fables written by male nomadic desert dwellers and goat herders to reenforce their claim to special status as "god's chosen."
It isn't an eyewitness account to history, it's bullshit.
12/27/2011 7:41:44 AM
There used to be a webcomic that said, in essence, "You think your job is hard? Try being a creation scientist. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a test tube full of faith?" I really wish I'd kept a copy of that one.
12/27/2011 7:48:45 AM
Many of these indicators for younger ages were discovered when creationist scientists started researching things that were supposed to “prove” long ages.
Translation: "These indicators for younger ages were completely made up by creationists who wanted to try to disprove the idea of an old earth by any means and grasping at any straw they could."
The Bible claims to be the communication of the only One who witnessed the events of Creation: the Creator himself. As such, the Bible is the only reliable means of knowing the age of the earth
And we know that the bible is true because it says so in the bible.
12/27/2011 7:53:11 AM
Wow, this starts off weird, and just runs off the rails further and further as it goes on. By the end it's just preaching and GodDidIt.
12/27/2011 8:15:15 AM
The food in your fridge has expiration dates, assigned through scientific calculations of how long that food will last before becoming unsafe to eat. You didn't see that food being processed, there may have been a pig slaughtered or a cow milked 20 minutes before you walked into the store. Ignore those dates!
12/27/2011 8:42:50 AM
Garble, garble, little twink
What the Hell you are? I think.
12/27/2011 11:53:21 AM
1. There is no evidence to support the idea that the fundamental laws of the Universe were different at any point in time so scientists don't assume so. Radiometric dating is done by cross-examining samples from the same layer with multiple different isotopes from multiple different laboratories. If the majority of the results all correspond to the same time within an acceptable margin of error, than that is the correct date. Sorry, but there is none of the circular assumptions that you creationists lie about.
2. Eye-witness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence, especially if said evidence is contradicted by repeatable scientific data. Sorry, but "while the Bible says so" doesn't help if all the data says the Bible is wrong.
12/27/2011 1:16:36 PM
Creation scientists? Are they like compassionate conservatives?
12/27/2011 1:56:01 PM
I think I found the problem. There's no such thing as "creationist scientists" so any suppositions made based on the use of those conflicting terms is bollocks.
Just for a bonus:
There are a few, very few, places on this planet that have never been covered by water while those areas of dry land which have been covered by water were covered at different times. That's a very simple scientific fact that blows the Genesis myth clear out of said water.
12/27/2011 2:04:51 PM
Cosmic Microwave Background.
Black Hole Mega-Masers.
And finally, the nuclear fine-structure constant, which shows that the speed of light has indeed been constant to better than a part per million for the entire age of the universe. If it weren't, stars would shine differently.
Your Argument Is Invalid.
How can these people deny the entire visible universe?
12/27/2011 3:26:56 PM
Uniformitarianism may have been used in the earliest days of geology, but has been discarded based on scientific advances. If you have opened a science textbook published in the last 50 years you would have known this.
12/27/2011 3:44:15 PM
This is just all kinds of ridiculous.
12/27/2011 3:57:23 PM
geologists (real ones) had a good model of the geologic column based on fossils and relative dates in the early 1800s. They had to wait for radiometric dating to stick some real dates on things.
Yes uniformitism did give an idea of how long deposition and erosion may have taken , but they also had examples of catastorphism as counter examples.
yay for geologists !
12/27/2011 5:43:44 PM
There is no such thing as a "Creationist Scientist". Those terms are mutually exclusive. They don't 'research'. They look at data, and they can't make sense of it, they use GODDIDIT or "everyone else is wrong."
As for "The Bible Claims"... it also claims bats are birds, the world is flat, and insects have 4 legs. If your precious bible fucked these simple things up, anything else 'the bible claims' is equally erroneous.
12/27/2011 5:47:06 PM
12/27/2011 6:36:16 PM