November 3, 2007

Debunking A Young Earth 101

Potholer54 has only made 6 videos on Youtube so far. Each of them are gems. They are concise and very easy to understand especially for someone who appreciates science but who hasn't taken a post secondary school science class (like me).
Here is an excellent video on geology and how it pertains to figuring out the age of the earth, and more importantly, the embarrassing stance that 45% of Americans have regarding an earth that is less than 10,000 years old. The video is only 9 minutes long, and I guarantee you, you will most likely learn a lot:

Click here to check out his other videos:
History of the Universe Made Easy (Part 1 and 2)
The Origin of Life made easy
Re: Re: The Origin of Life made easy
God and DNA made easy

Another topic:

I'm still perplexed why Digg has banned my blog URL. I'm thinking it had something to do when I did a post on Joseph Cohen, an orthodox Jew turned raving lunatic Muslim. I have sent them 6 or 7 emails and have yet to get a response.

Blog Rush also gave me the boot. Why? I have no idea. I don't do much advertising. I don't blog for money. I do think the quality of this blog is A1, though I'm a little biased:) I did put this blog under the religion category, because I wanted the religious folk to view my blog. Maybe that was a mistake.


  1. BEAJ:

    Via your Scoop widget: BlogRush adds "Atheism" category (AtheistRevolution.blogspot).

    Time to resubmit, I say...

  2. Really disturbing that 45% of Americans could believe that. Funny how you can believe in atomic theory when it comes to nuclear bombs but not carbon dating.

  3. What I find more disturbing is that 20% of Physicists believe in God. I just don't get it. If you see how well science explains nature, why would you want to interpret it with recourse to God. Why would a scientist do it when faced with two options, to interpret scientific facts with God or with naturalism - like when faced with the constants used in the fine-tuning argument.
    This makes following scientific authority confusing for us atheistic simple folk - when scientists believe in God is it their science speaking or their personal religious convictions?

  4. Ari:

    There's several ways of believing/not believing in God (and yes, it's a tad confusing).

    In the Abrahamic tradition, God isn't only the creator, but also an interventionist entity, capable of doling out eternal salvation for instance (or punishing "lewd behaviour" by snuffing out cities like New Orleans by means of "divine farts", aka hurricanes - lol).

    I think you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist that actually believes in God the Saviour, as all empirical evidence point to the fact that that's a man-made fairytale.

    But on the creator side, things are a little more complicated. There is a scientific school of thought known as scientific anthropocentrism and exemplified by an excellent popular book on the subject, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle that posits that the Universe is the way it is because otherwise we couldn't be here to marvel at it. This is an old but interesting idea found also in certain Eastern philosophies, as well as Hellenic thinking and Catholic theology.

    It isn't easy to argue against (but not impossible).

  5. Gert, I reapplied under atheism. We will see what happens.

    Paul, atomic theory doesn't contradict the literal bible or the works of Usher who proved that the earth is just over 6000 years old, and that includes the 900 plus years Noah was on the planet:)

    Ari, belief in God can be at arms length to science. If 20% of physicists believed the earth was less than 10,000 years old, I would have a problem.
    I am convinced that we have evolved the susceptibility to believe in the supernatural as a way to cope with our mortality and things we can't readily explain. I think one has to fight this to become an atheist in most cases. At least that is the way it is today, perhaps down the road, the susceptibility genes will be a thing of the past.

    Gert, what I find amazing is Dr. Ken Miller who is a Catholic. I can see someone being a theist who is an expert in biology, but someone who buys into the Judeo-Christian religions like Miller?
    He is the one who was the main witness to debunk ID in the Dover courts. He wrote a book which I haven't read that expand on his religious versus science views called Finding Darwins God.

  6. BEAJ:

    Let me know how you get on with BlogRush (I see the widget is back in town...)

    As regards Catholic scientists, perhaps we're also hardwired to compartmentalise conflicting world-views. It's true that some religious universities have produced some of the finest scientific work ever.

  7. Blog Rush went through their meticulous approval process and I passed. Praise Jeebus.

  8. I'd be encouraged by the 45% figure, but my impression is that the figure's too high. By 45% of "Americans" is the reference only to 45% of Americans in the USA or to 45% of USA, Latin America, and Canada as well?

    Paul, I and other Young Earth Creationists I know do believe in carbon dating, as well as its limitations.

    Glad you passed Blog Rush Beaj, you're blog is excellent.

    Hi gert.

  9. Orde, here is one link. This only has to do with Americans.

    Here is a Wikipedia link as well.

    Orde, since you believe in a young earth, how do you explain dinosaurs?

  10. Orde:

    Carbon dating doesn't reach much beyond 45,000 years. For determining the true age of the Earth, it's pretty useless.

    Overview of radio dating methods, by a Christian.

  11. Carbon dating wouldn't be useless if the earth was less than 45,000 years old Orde.
    Here is a link for you to read. It explains the methods of dating used by scientists.

    Again, how do you explain dinosaurs?

  12. Thanks beaj and gert for the links, particularly beaj the first link breaking down the Gallup poll--I can see a bit more how maybe 45% of US Americans believe in a Young Earth, it reminded me to get beyond my educational/economic/racial group to see how it could be. This is really an encouragement for me.

    As for carbon dating, like I mentioned before, I am aware of its limitations, that was my point, in fact. So many Christians cave to the educational system's evolution indoctrination because they hear so much about "carbon dating" and assume it just has to support evolution since that it's scientific and since that's the only dating method most are familiar with, so not even realizing the mathematical limitations due to half-life, they just blindly believe in evolution and try to twist scripture to reconcile their Christianity with evolution. But the message has got to get out that carbon dating is on our side and totally compatible with a Young Earth!

    It's really a shame scientists are under such pressure from the evolutionists, it must be really hard to "come out" or even question the Darwinian traditions, but their are a few courageous Copernicuses around, my geophysicist brother not one of them. *sigh*

    As for the dinosaurs, the first thing I'd say it's a good idea to throw out uniformitarian assumptions and to allow for the biblical explanation of a global catastrophe that changed the earth and the climate and consequently the life on the planet. There were dinosaurs, there was a global flood, most though not necessarily all of the dinosaurs drowned, the ark dinosaurs probably couldn't survive for long in the new conditions or maybe some of "their kind" (since that's all that was required to be taken) did survive--maybe there still are a few animals around that qualify for dinosaur "kind" status, don't know. I live in Florida, we have lots and lots of gators, they look kinda dinosaurish--I like their smiles and would like to pet one, but I'm holding off on that.

  13. Orde, carbon dating is not the only dating method used. Forget about it.
    But the fact is that it has limitations of more than 10,000 years, even by using the method the earth can be proved to be at least as old as the method's limitations.
    There is no science that is compatible with a young earth.
    There is no science that is compatible with idea that evolution is bunk.
    Science is not under pressure at all. You really don't understand how science works. It is apparent in your post.
    Did you watch the video in the post? If there was a worldwide flood, there would be loads of scientific evidence to confirm it. There is none.

    I just don't get why you have to take all the evidence in the world and only allow for the evidence that could possibly fit into the bible, but ignore or slough off the evidence that doesn't...and that is all evidence that confirms evolution and an ancient earth.

    In fact, I find it pathetic.

  14. Orde:

    "It's really a shame scientists are under such pressure from the evolutionists, it must be really hard to "come out" or even question the Darwinian traditions, but their are a few courageous Copernicuses around, my geophysicist brother not one of them. *sigh*"

    This is crapola of the highest order. As BEAJ pointed out, there is no such "pressure". Science goes where the evidence leads it, period. Evolutionary Biology didn't come into existence to try and refute Scripture or Biblical Creation. The geological record (yeah, the one that your geophysicist brother knows so much about) shows in itself though that Biblical Creation and the "Flood" simply cannot be literally correct.

    Ask yourself why in Europe this so-called "debate" between "Creationists" and "Evilutionists" simply doesn't exist. Here, Evolutionary Biology is accepted as a completely valid theory by just about everyone, including the religious. In fact, we have quite a few religious scientists that have made strong contributions to the body of evidence of EB. Darwin was a Christian. They must all be in Satan's pocket of course.

    Frankly, what you're saying with regards to this "pressure" is about as absurd as "Jooooooos control the world".

  15. gert, you are probably right that Satan is involved somewhat, but there are possible nonreligious explanations--such as fear (losing job means no paycheck), pride (need for approval of men (getting published, grants, etc), or benign misplaced trust (evolutionists are authorities fallacy).

    But oppression, persecution, and persistent conspiracy theories against Jews I find more difficult for me to explain outside of Satan, though. Stop Annapolis now.

  16. Orde:

    Ask yourself again why this ridiculous "debate" only takes place in the US? Why some of your Creationist brethren are willing to embrace ID, when ID states quite clearly that evolution (as a speciation mechanism) exists? ID has little in common with Creationism, apart from its belief in God the Meddler, yet these people support it.

    Over in Holy Land II, this whole kerfuffle is nothing but a Culture [ahem...] War, politicised through and through by both sides. This way the truth will never be accepted of course, as "political pressures" can always be invoked. And the wayward angel, Satan (lol).

    Do you believe that all this scientists that have developed this enormous and complex methodology, euphemistically referred to as "radiometric dating" is a giant conspiracy, designed to create the conditions for an Atheist take-over? No? Yet that's what you're implying.

    Talking to you is like talking to a member of the Flat Earth Society...

  17. Well that's pretty weird gert, since as a Bible-believer, I don't believe in a flat Earth, but a "vaulted" Earth suspended over emptiness (yeah, of course space has matter), so why you would choose to link me with unscientific, fringe wacko flat Earthers whose beliefs are totally nonrepresentative of what Christians believe I don't know. It kind of makes you look like an irrational bully devoid of constructive debate on issues who has to resort to ad hominems--that's my impression anyway.

  18. Does carbon dating lead to carbon marriage? Just curious!

  19. I didn't see an answer to the "What about the dinosaurs" question, so here's my 2 cents.

    Whether one is an evolutionist or accepts the Bible’s account of history, the evidence for dinosaurs is the same. All scientists have the same facts—they have the same world, the same fossils, the same living creatures, the same universe.
    If the facts are the same, then how can the explanations be so different? The reason is that scientists have only the present—dinosaur fossils exist only in the present—but scientists are trying to connect the fossils in the present to the past. They ask, “What happened in history to bring dinosaurs into existence, wipe them out, and leave many of them fossilized?”
    If one begins with an evolutionary view of history (for which there were no witnesses or written record), then this way of thinking will be used to explain the evidence that exists in the present. Thus, we have the evolutionary explanation for dinosaurs.
    But if one begins with the biblical view of history from the written record of an eyewitness (God) to all events of history, then a totally different way of thinking, based on this, will be used to explain the same evidence. Thus, we have the biblical explanation.
    Evolutionists claim dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. But it is important to realize that when they dig up a dinosaur bone it does not have a label attached showing its date. Evolutionists obtain their dates by indirect dating methods that other scientists question, and there is much evidence against the millions of years.
    The Bible states that God made all things in six normal days. He made the land animals, including dinosaurs, on Day 6 (Genesis 1:24–25), so they date from around 6,000 years ago—the approximate date of creation obtained by adding up the years in the Bible. So, since T. rex was a land animal and God made all the land animals on Day 6, then God made T. rex on Day 6.

  20. Mark1123. The Bible does NOT say that the world was created in 6 normal days. That is your incorrect interpretation of it. Learn Hebrew, look at what was original written by Moses, not at the modern English translation, then you will find out the Young Earth position is a farce. God and science are not opposing viewpoints.

  21. "the ark dinosaurs probably couldn't survive for long in the new conditions or maybe some of "their kind" (since that's all that was required to be taken) did survive"

    This is one of the funniest things I have ever read on the internet. Your magical boat just gets bigger and bigger. Of all the bits of science that are open to criticism due to complexity and peoples ignorance, archeology and geology are probably the safest. We teach it to small children in schools. Its tangible. you can step out of your front door and see, and touch it. Its not exactly quantum mechanics.
    The idea that we should keep the biblical explanation in mind because Moses saved the crocodile is hilarious, when my five year old understands that asteroids hit the earth and can point out crates from books. maybe by the time shes six we can cover the effects of Krakatoa, who knows?