A Question for Creationists?

Question

Science has determined the age of the earth at 4.5 billion years through radio-isotopic date, that is the decay of one element isotobe into another element.

This science is fundamental Atomic Science, the same science that brings you atomic energy and atomic weapons, it works the same way.

If the science is flawed the all nuclear technology must be flawed which is good news for the people of Hiroshima.

If this is the case how can the earth only be 6000 years old or is nuclear science unworkable and we have nothing to fear from nukes?

Hey Scruff what about the Precambrain soft bodied Ediacaran fossils that are 600 million years old, found in south australia wouldn't you say they would be transitional forms? Soft Bodied organism to hard bodied?

Answer 1

Not quite Pal.
There is Plenty of evidence AGAINST EVOLUTION:.
First, the 'Cambrian explosion'; the millions of fossil types in Cambrian rock (oldest fossil bearing rocks) appear suddenly and fully formed and without any previous forms...IOW, there are no transitional forms.

Most well educated evolutionists when forced to ...will admit it, but very unwillingly, and even then they always want to seem to make new excuses for it. Usually they just don't say anything about it and hope noone finds out.

"From the beginning of the Creation God made them male and female..."-- Jesus (Mk. 10:6)
Therefore Jesus believe in a literal 6 day creation...He ought to know!

" By the Word of the Lord were the heavens created, and all the host by the breath of His mouth. For HE SPAKE AND IT WAS DONE; HE COMMANDED AND IT STOOD FAST". (psalm 33:9)

Doesn't sound like evolution to me!

Answer 2

Radio-isotopic dating has been around for a while. There are several different elements that can be used for this dating method, the most common one cited is carbon 14. Carbon 14 has a fairly short half-life, so it's results can be double-checked for accuracy by other known historical facts. However, since the half life of Carbon 14 is so short, it is only good for about 50,000 years. After that amount of time, there are no detectable amounts of radio-carbon in the material being tested.

There are other radioactive elements that have much longer half-lives (I think Radon? not sure of all the other ones). These are the ones that tend to get thrown out as "accurate" ways to measure things as millions or billions of years old. The problem with this is that many times an artifact that is measured as billions of years old still has detectable amounts of carbon 14, something that would never be detectable in a 50,000 year old artifact, much less a billion year old artifact. This is a problem for even the best scientific minds.

I've also pulled out my World Book Encyclopedia's so I can offer there point of view on the age of things. It is quite interesting. Unfortunately, my volume is from 1988. I've checked a later edition (around 1995) and it had the exact same information. I figure the World Book Encyclopedia will shed some light on this scientific idea on the age of things.

Under Paleontology: (Page 102, Volume "P")
"Paleontology is important in the study of geology. The age of rocks may be determined by the fossils in them."

Under Fossils: (Page 422, Volume "F")
"Scientists determine when fossils were formed by finding out the age of the rocks in which they lie."

I think this is called "Circular Reasoning", and is not very good for creating a solid argument.

So, I would say that the radio-isotopic dating still has some unanswered questions, and that the scientific community is not fully ready to put forth a flawless theory for the age of the earth.

Answer 3

That's only if u beleive the days were 24 hour periods which we know they couldn't have been cause a day can mean a period of time such as a thousand years or more. I honestly don't know how old the earth is , but your figure could be correct. Man , however, has only been around for 6000 years and there's no evidence , written or otherwise to say he goes back further than that, most early civilizations only starting 3000 or so years ago.

Answer 4

For that to work, you'd have to assume that things have always decayed at the same rate that they currently do. I have a hard time putting my faith in science, because it's not constant. Not too long ago, the best science of the time believed the world was flat. Now the best science of our time believes the earth to be 4.5 billion years old. Science is nothing more than a man's best guess. It may be educated, but it is still only a guess. Or rather, a decision made based on observations. The same can be said for believing in God. And personally, if given a choice between the two, I'd rather put my trust in a constant and never changing God.

Answer 5

We know science is right because it is exact, verifiable, and precise. It is not based on faith, it is based on measurements. Numbers can't and don't lie... people lie all the time, but the numbers can't.

Made-up faith-based science lies because the logic behind their numbers is faulty.... their numbers don't lie, but the logic behind them and the reasoning for the patterns is not true.

To other answerers: Please remember, just because we don't have a specific transitional fossil right now doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Our knowledge is constantly growing and scientists are constantly finding new things. That is a standard argument from creationists... "this specific thing appeared fuly formed, no transitional fossil, so it must be put there by god." They have a finite frame of reference because the bible is finite and can never be changed, therefore SCIENCE must follow the same (misguided) logic and it's not that way at all. We know things in science now that we didn't know 100 years ago because it's a living field of study, constantly changing. We may or may not find the interim fossils... but because we don't have them now doesn't mean they don't exist.

Answer 6

Who says the age of the earth is only six thousand years old? Some people see it that way, but I don't limit God like that. He could have (A) created everything in literal 24 hour days (6) and created everything aged or He could have measured time as a million years for each "day" Doesn't matter to me, nor does it discredit creationism.

Answer 7

What is your question?

As far as atomic energy is concerned it is nothing but a fancy and somewhat dangerous way to boil water. I for one am not impressed.

As for scientific dating it has fluxuated all over the place. In the final analysis it is a concensus based on the latest accepted method. (In other words a temporary educated guess).

As for Hiroshima: It is one of the many "blessings" which the scientific children of death have brought to mankind.

As for man being only 6,000 years old; that is the over educated guess of a church Bishop named Usher. Many Christians seem to think this idea is Bibical. In fact the Bible says nothing directly about the age of the earth or the universe.

To believe what Usher said is to misinterpret the Bible; as Usher did not take into account the two creations recorded in Genesis.

Usher decided all he had to do was lay out the genealogies in the Bible. That done, he tacked on the average life span of "modern" man and the given ages of the ancients. Next he tacked the 6,000 years onto the wrong creation story and those who hear of his work tack on another five days. Ergo the age of the earth!

So to answer your question. The earth is not 4.5 billion years old and it is not 6,000 years old. These are both incomplete finite measurements of time; which in truth, has yet to be defined.

Time may turn out to be an illusion of the dimension we live in. At last count the mental giants were playing with ten or eleven dimensions. I think there are twelve.

To use the mistakes of one group of people to correct the mistakes of another is a waste of time.

Answer 8

Ummm? Have you been to University and studied science?
You would know that estimate came from Darwin, a biologist. Maybe you should read about Lord Kelvin idea for how old the is, hes the one who invented temperature scale that has absolute zero.

Also, ask yourself how natural selection, which eliminates weak individuals would add to the DNA on the molecular basis of any organism. Also search through all the science material you can find about how the cell was first generated. (I bet you won't find it).

"I am innocent of deeds you do, while you are innocent of the deeds that I do"

Answer 9

Not all creationists believe in the "young earth" theory. In fact, not all creationists deny evolution. I can't honestly say that I know the answer, but I can tell you that there is much we don't go... and the more you research, the deeper the hole goes. Have fun!!

Answer 10

Whats a A-bomb got to do with it. Nuclear Science when used in dating is merely a theory. A hypotheses can only be proven by seeing the beginning and end result. So I guess we will not really know for tousands of year and by then we probably will have blown up the planet so no one will really care.