Welcome, Believers!Young Earth, Old Earth (Forward)
I am most certainly a new "young earth" believer, but with one major difference from many; I truly believe that I could be wrong, and have plenty open mindedness to see just about anything being possible, even evilution, (pun, not a typo) as remote a chance as that could be.I have read hundreds of pages of "proofs" for old earth, and for new earth. What I find is that neither typically have any solid actual proof, but conjecture at best. HOWEVER, and this is a big however, the OLD earth theories, never really disprove the YOUNG earth theories (worst case, they usually just point out that there is supposition, yet of course, they never mention that ALL of their theories do the same, of course), yet they DO MOST OFTEN contradict the Bible, while the NEW earth theories (also still only theories), both 1) agree with the Bible, and 2) tend to dismiss the concepts as being old-earth.
Note: the gray type is quoted from other authors.
The Status of Creation Science
One basic difference between conventional science and creation science is in the area of falsification. Mainline scientists always believe that their conclusions may be proven incorrect in the future*. A biologist might base her/his entire life's work on the assumption that the theory of evolution is accurate. But they always consider the possibility that some future finding will prove that species did not evolve. Creation scientists do not accept falsification; their fundamental belief in the inerrancy of Genesis is fixed, non-negotiable, and unshakable. They refuse to consider that the Bible might be proven false. For this reason, many scientists and jurists believe that creation science is not a true science.**In opposition, creation scientists generally regard the Bible as inerrant. Because creation science is based on the Bible, there are no disagreements between it and the book of Genesis; creation science is thus true . Because the theory of evolution clearly disagrees with the history of the earth as described in Genesis, evolution cannot be true.
Reference*Untrue; most scientists preach (since evolution is a religion, the word applies perfectly) that evolution is fact. There is so much 'on the line' that is must be treated as fact, and ALL work that tries to prove otherwise, no matter how logical, MUST be summarily dismissed, for the "system" to go on. A lot of money and pride is at stake. And history laughs at the church for saying that the sun revolved around the earth; NOTHING compared to the mistake of the evolution MYTH!
** Creation science is not a true science in the context above, however, science can still be true within the confines of scripture. GOD put no laws of physics in motion in HIS universe that will be broken by scripture. If we come to some wrong conclusions, then that's OUR fault, not God's. We can use PURE science, and it will never find holes in scripture. This is what drives the evolutionist NUTS; because we can claim to be scientific, but we like to use our 'teachers edition' with the answers at the back to make SURE we are right. They just see this as 'cheating', but the problem is that is makes sure that EVERY TIME, we are RIGHT.
Some Problems in Old-Earth Thinking
- Radio carbon-dating; a method for testing the age of organic material (doesn't work on rocks), is only known to be accurate to as far back as 10,000 years, although some may say 50,000; NOTHING in the terms of 4.5B years! Along the lines of young-earth, there is an amazing coincidence of a HUGE spike of death in the organic life (plants AND animals, and WORLDWIDE) that corroborates with the Noahic flood!
- Population growth; NO old-earth theories can hold any water; I've read a dozen arguments on either side of this one: If it only took us 2000 years, including a couple devastating plagues to populate the earth from 300M to 6 billion, there is NO theory that holds any water to explain how as few as two people a million years ago can ONLY be 300M over a MILLION years, sorry, Charlie! Not a chance. (it's interesting to note that when a formula is developed to try to estimate the current population backwards to 8 people, it corroborates with the Biblical viewpoint of the flood!) It's also interesting to note that the latest data shows that the earth's 'equilibrium' population should be around 11 Billion people, so logic dictates that the concepts some will try to use to say that the food supply couldn't have supported more than 300M over the first Million years can't be true. Of course, technology plays a role, but it's NOT that big a role.
- Rock strata; ever since Darwin's infamous book ca. 1830, people have come to believe that the evolutionary process was a fact, and that to make that happen, the 'imaginary' geologic column must also be a fact. There are so many holes in that theory, that even the evolutionists skirt the issue. Here's the biggest monkey-wrench that's ever been thrown into the evolution machine: Rock Strata, the basis of the evolutionary geologic column: It has been PROVEN as FACT, both in a laboratory, and since, in nature, that rock strata is formed in a catastrophic event in a very short period of time. Since we weren't around to SEE the Grand Canyon formed in a year, we can't say that this new evidence is proof that it happened that way, but we can CERTAINLY say that there is NO longer ANY proof that it didn't. Again, when this concept is tied to the biblical explanation of the possible cause of the Grand Canyon is obvious.
- Coal, oil; created in millions of years in nature (evolutionists say), yet in minutes in a lab. Even the most strict scientists must take note that it happens, they will say things like "oh, yeah, with perfect conditions, and a catalyst, oh, yeah, then it MIGHT happen. Who is to say these conditions DIDN'T exist in nature? NOBODY. The evolutionist must AGAIN, take it on FAITH with their Godless religion, that it DIDN'T happen; something AGAIN, that they absolutely can't prove.
- Dust on the moon?; this one is a bit flimsy, but It made several NASA astronauts convert to Christianity upon the discovery. The LEM was designed to touch down on many meters of fine powder that was expected to be on the moon (from the billions of years of star dust). Listen carefully to the first words of the first man to step on the moon; Armstrong didn't first say the famous line "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind"; the FIRST thing ever said from the moon was a surprised "It's SOLID". Those worldly scientists getting ahead of God again... Another note; the Second man ever to walk on the moon read from Genesis when they first got there; HE (as well as many NASA engineers) KNEW who PUT the moon there, and were giving HIM credit!
- Sun problems; now, I've heard reports of the sun shrinking; shot down of course by the evolutionists, but originally discovered by them. Exactly in the mannor that the 'age' of the earth has grown from a few hundred thousand years (in 1830) (when it jumped from 6000 years to 200,000), to the 4.5Billion that is the 'standard' of today. The main claim of the 'creation scientist' is that the sun is shrinking at a rate that would make it boil the oceans certainly within a hundred thousand years ago if the rate is constant (and why wouldn't it). There is logic to that thought, but I can't say i've seen scientific proof of it. HOWEVER, There is scientific proof of the sun aging; within two decades, MAJOR issues have developed within our sun that haven't been seen in history; it lost it's magnetic poles about two decades ago, and since then has developed rings of sun spots unlike any seen before.
- Dating methods; very flawed. There are 10 or so normal methods; the 'scientists' must pick and choose the most reliable (read "give the right results") for their particular experiment. The evolutionists and creationists will go back-and-forth on this one, and there is NO DOUBT that the results of many of the testing methods vary by millions or even billions of years. There is LOTS of theory there, and unfortunately, never enough true scientific proof to show anything either way without error. I want to avoid the typical 'listing of an example' here. Suffice it to say, the examples ARE there, and there is no flawless method to test the date of a tree a rock or anything else. I wouldn't bet the farm on a date on a birth-certificate, much less a stone that is 'evidenced to be 4.5B years old!'
- Time is of the essence; The estimates that I've read recently point at a 100 BILLION year time-span to explain evolution, do to the fact, (and any evolutionist will back this up) that the odds of a change going in right direction are so infinitesimal, that it would literally take millions of changes to make a significant improvement. Hence, sooner or later, the earth is going to have to get a LOT older, AGAIN. I guess we're going to have to find some DNA evidence to get these evolutionists to fess up.
Evolutionary estimates of the age of the earth have constantly changed and lengthened with the passing of time (it currently stands at 5 billion years). But the scientific evidence remains constant and, as new authentic evidence emerges, it only fastens down the dates even more firmly. It all points to a beginning for our planet about 6,000 years ago. The evidence points most distinctly toward a date of about 4,000 B.C. for the origin of our planet. The evidence for an early earth is not only solid, it is scientific. Thus we have seen, from a variety of different scientific measurements and techniques, that the geologic and physical evidence of the world is quite compatible with the Biblical doctrine of the young earth
- Fossil discord; Here (gray) is a ridiculous quote from an evolutionist.
While creationists should expect the oldest strata of sedimentary rock to yield fossils of very complex life forms (like mammals) -- since their God presumably created all life within a short period of time -- evolutionists specifically expect the fossil record not to. Thus, had God wished to supply evidence refuting evolution and proving His status as Creator, He could have easily done so by depositing, preserving, and later exposing to paleontologists numerous mammalian fossils in the oldest rock strata In fact, a God powerful enough to create an entire universe would surely find it a trifle to invert the whole sequence of fossils, placing the simplest life forms in the most modern strata and the most complex life forms in the earliest strata, thereby disproving evolution.
God doesn't WANT to PROVE with fossils that we weren't evolved. We chose to make up this thought-process. A way for us to factor God out of the creation-equation. God showed so many proofs for his creation, WE are BLIND if we choose to ignore them. Refer to rock strata above; even though it's not proof that rock MUST be created instantly everywhere, it is proof, with NO DOUBT, that it could be that way. Now, think about the concept of reasonable doubt. NOW we have strong evidence of reasonable doubt that evolution can be, with NO reasonable doubt evidence against Creation. I know the truth; God created the Earth, in a literal sense, the Bible tells me that and I believe it. It was written, Jesus corroborated it, I therefore have NO cause to find anything else to be true.
- Dinosaurs and the Flood; When the Bible talks about the flood, and Noah saving two of each "kind", there have been many arguments for and against the concept of the practicality of the ark, and holding all these 'kinds'. I have seen enough on the 'for' side, to tell you the math works just fine; EVERY species that is alive today, and all those, including the dinosaurs that have become extinct since the flood had plenty of space to fit in the ark, and survive for the year they needed to be in the ark. What happened to the Dinosaurs? We know (because it's scriptural) that at the time of the flood, God imparted a change to the life-span of man, and it only makes sense that whatever it was that cause the change would affect lower forms of life as well. Think about this; the evidence in paleontology shows, that like the crocodile, it's likely that dino's grew their entire life. If they lived, like Adam, for close to 1000 years, it makes perfect sense for them to be huge, however, if their life-span dropped to 100ish years, and they started with only TWO of each 'kind' of dinosaur, imagine that since God said that man was now allowed to eat them, and they might be quite interested in hunting the new food; less work to hunt one dinosaur than the dozens of smaller animals; wouldn't take long for us to make them extinct by eating them alone; imagine if somebody decided to eat ONE of them right-off-the bat!
- Moving continents; I have seen evidence that indicates that the continents MOST CERTAINLY were one at some time in the past, however, that they DON'T seem to be moving in a continuous sense; the way it's taught in school (i.e. 3 cm/year). There is less and less evidence each year to support this theory. HOWEVER, and this is a big however, Somebody recently came up with a model of the earth that not only explains the motion of the continents, but that they moved in a time-frame that correlates with the great flood. Supposing that the continental plates, when they start moving, actually make it much easier to move, because they heat the mantle, and end up with far less friction because the viscosity breakdown, the model worked with something like 17 variables on each of the several million or, even billion cells contained within describing the earth. It took a very powerful supercomputer to run the model, but it showed the continents spread in the time-frame of 9 months. I realize this is a big WOW, but NOTHING in the grand scheme of things. (GOD).
- Building a better hell-trap; Why do we (humans) try to come up with a better way? It is clearly stated in scripture what happened, until about 200 years ago with the INVENTION of the geo-column, the only belief was about creation, or nothing, why did Mankind have to INVENT this other possibility? Because he wanted to remove God from the equation. Another insight I had the other day: I was pondering the whole "if we are the only ones here, it sure seems like an awful waste of space". The impression I got was that it was Gods way of MAKING A POINT. If we really like something, we put it in the best place in the house, when God really loves something, he puts it in the "center" of an unimaginably huge universe for us to be in awe! There is a lot of cool scripture regarding this topic, and some quite humorous anecdotes from those trying to turn scripture upside down.
Some Creation Science Links
Creation Science Ministry (Doctor Dino)
Scientific Proofs of God and Creation Science
Richard's Creation Science LinksHeaven.net Creation Science Links
(These links were all found on altavista with the following link; I only looked at a dozen or so of the 4105 pages found). If you have an afternoon or weekend to kill, start with the following link, and have a day of it!) Altavista Creation Science Search
Recent REAL WORLD Evidence
Mt. St Helen's was and is one of the most powerful evidence of God, and the literal creation event. There are MANY a geologist who has become a strong Christian out of scientific exploration of the mountain, and it's surrounding devastation and re-growth.
Key Points:
- Re-growth post eruption; immediately following the eruption, the best scientists of the day proclaimed that it would be 100 years before the forest would be inhabitable by the least creature, even ants, and especially higher animals like frogs (VERY sensitive to environment), and mice, and the like. To the amazement of the scientific world, within TWO years, the forest had not only taken root, itself with trees re-growing with amazing speed, but it was repopulated, not only with insects, but frogs, fish, birds, and rodents! Considering the so-called experts said that nobody alive at the time of eruption would ever see it happen in their lifetimes, obviously very off on their initial conclusions.
- Peat is being formed in Spirit lake faster than anybody had ever expected, and on a larger scale, it is now seen that this would create large beds of coal, exactly like those found on the west side of the Appalachian mountains. This process was theorized in a masters thesis of a (now) famous geologist, who proposed this process when he discovered that virtually all of the goal beds in the eastern US had petrified BARK in them. He theorized that this was caused by millions of floating trees rubbing against each other, scrubbing bark off them, which piled below, turned into peat, and then into coal. This theory was also backed up by the discovery of what is called 'multi-strata' formations, such as a tree who paradoxically was buried instantly, and crosses thousands or millions of years of 'strata' in the rock formations. See next point
- Multi-strata formations. The same geologist theorized, that the multi-layered forest famous from Yellowstone park was yet another quickly formed event, based on a few simple clues, like that the trees, although vertical, and on many different levels, had NO ROOT systems. When he saw that Sprit lake had 2,000,000 trees floating it it after the blast of Mt. St Helen's, he waited a couple years for the pH to be safe to dive, and went into the lake. Not only was his theory above (peat) proven, he saw the trees slowly sinking to the bottom and being buried in the peat, and landing at different times, creating the appearance of many levels, and in TWO years, NOT 150 Million years, as the signs in Yellowstone will have you believe!
- Mini-Grand-Canyon; When St. Helen's exploded, part of the devastation included dramatic mud-flows, and log-jammed rivers. etc. One of the major events that happened created a mud-slide that filled a valley with mud, leveling off a rather large ravine, but also plugging a river with an earthen dam. The interesting thing happened a couple years later, when that earth dam broke, and the now, lake, formed from the dammed river caused a catastrophic flood through the same (now plain), and cut a canyon, in a matter of 90 minutes, that to the minutest detail, looks like the Grand Canyon; stratified layers of rock, tall rock formations, the perpendicular arms, and even the soft riverbed, that now contains the relatively squeaky little river. (ie. the river no longer touches the EDGE of the canyon, hence NONE of the canyon is being carved by the river within, EXACTLY like the Grand Canyon. I'm not making this up. I know I will never look at the grand canyon in the same way again.
- POWER! The amount of energy released during the eruption was the equivalent of the nuclear power of the bombs we dropped on Japan, 1 per second for the duration of the entire eruption (9 or 12 hours, can't remember). To me, that's some solid evidence of God, our creator, and the power he put into his creation, just to humble us. For some of us it works, others it doesn't. Do you know there are friends of mine that still believe that we humans have the power to control things like volcanoes. What a ridiculous concept. We don't have anything within 100 orders of magnitude of the simple 'act of nature' we call a volcano!
Closing with a Quote
Evolution is a beliefThe evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of such a statement! Evolution is simply a religious belief, regardless of if you see it that way or not. I heard a great quote the other day: "The truth still stands whether or not you believe it". Fortunately for many of my fellow believers, you aren't required by God to believe in creation to be saved, since roughly 1/2 of the people who consider themselves Christian believe in evolution. Refer to the paragraph 'better hell trap' to see where I stand on that issue.
Tom Beal's Feb. 15 column titled "Evolution is a fact'' reveals a need to be educated on what a theory actually is.In over 140 years, no proof of the evolutionary theory has been put forth. Therefore evolution must qualify merely as a belief - or at best, poor science.
A scientific theory must be supported by observation and testing - otherwise, an interpretation of evidence must be made, the same evidence that is available for creation science. Unfortunately, the majority of evidence (especially the fossil record) fails to support evolution.
Besides the dozens of systems that can be used to estimate the age of the earth - indicating generally a young age (which precludes evolution), the second law of thermodynamics stands firmly against evolution. Even the much touted radioisotope dating methods all fail since the assumptions necessary to make them useful are too significant to be overlooked.Beal needs to forego his prejudices for evolution and against creation science and study the matter with an open mind to truly evaluate the available evidences. It takes initiative and a lot of honesty to do that.
Doug Priore
The major problem of course that I have always had with evolution and will until the end is that for NO GOOD REASON, it is a theory that was invented with no clear purpose, and ONLY stands to discredit GOD, and Jesus with the CREATION that is HIS. What good can possibly come from such a theory? Sounds exactly like a theory, that God is 'within us', and we are all God; both are just as 'wrong'
The biggest thing for me in my studies of Creation Science is NOT that there is undeniable proof either way, but that there is NO solid proof to persuade me to believe ANYTHING other than the literal Word of GOD that is the Holy Bible. That's pretty powerful stuff to me.
God Bless everybody for listening! Please try to find anything you can from my writings and use it for the Glory of GOD, especially for the promotion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Our time is surely running short, and it is OUR DUTY to help grow the body of Christ through witnessing to others, including our children. Go forth and proclaim the Gospel to anybody you can. Be careful not to BLIND them with too much too soon (Read Good Guys #4), and as always, pray for wisdom through the Holy Spirit to guide you in whatever you do.
Andrew Wynn Rouse, humble servant of Jesus, my LITERAL creator, my and LITERAL savior!
