Is There Scientific Evidence for Young Earth Creationism?

by Max Andrews

To answer the question, “Is it surprising that scientific evidence supports a young earth perspective?” I would respond saying that I would almost consider this a loaded question.  I don’t think I can find no evidence for a young earth; however, I find the record of nature to support the proposition that the universe is old (billions of years) by overwhelming evidence.  There is hardly any evidence for a young earth, if indeed there is any at all.

Before getting to the geologic record of nature one needs to address the cosmological record of nature (the earth cannot be older than the universe).  I initially gained my interest in cosmology (and I must say I really enjoy discussing cosmology) was the Kalam cosmological argument, which is an apologetic argument for a beginning of the universe.[1]  I’ll put aside the mathematical and philosophical arguments for a beginning of the universe for that would be off topic and I’ll stick with the scientific evidence.  If one were to analyze an extrapolation of space and time then that initial singularity for the universe would take us back 13.73 GYA (giga, billion years ago).  There are many models of the universe such as the steady state, oscillating, quantum fluctuation, and other string theory models that coincide with former.[2]  The most prominent model with the most philosophical, mathematical, and scientific evidence is the standard model (due to cosmic inflation, the big bang).  Prominent cosmologist Paul Davies comments,

If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero.  An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe.  We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity.  For this reasons most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe.  On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.[3]

In 2003, Arvind Borde, Alex Vilenkin and Alan Guth crafted a theorem that extrapolates the universe to the date of the big bang and predicts an eternal expansion of the universe without any assumptions other than accepting Einstein’s theory of general relativity (GR) as true.[4]  Even prior to Planck Time (10-43 seconds post creation when all physics break down) Quantum Gravity Models goes well with the standard model.  According to Vilenkin, “The picture presented by quantum cosmology is that the universe starts as a small, closed 3-geometry and immediately enters the regime of eternal inflation, with new thermalized regions being constantly formed.  In this picture, the universe has a beginning but no end.”[5] Today, astronomers have performed more than a dozen independent tests of GR and have confirmed the reliability of GR to descrive the dynamics of the universe to better than 0.000000000001 percent precision.[6]  Roger Penrose, mathematical physicist and coauthor of the first spacetime theorem, said, “”This makes Einstein’s general relativity, in this particular sense, the most accurately tested theory known to science.”[7]

Other than general relativity, another way of measuring the age of the universe is measuring the spectral lines [and red shift] of stars and galaxies.  The fact can be shown three ways but primarily I’ll discuss the Tolman test.

The Tolman test is robust because of its independence from other cosmological “interference” factors.  Surface brightness is simply an astronomical object’s luminosity divided by its radius squared.  Any “distorting” geometric effects, such as space curvature, would impact the luminosity and radius measures identically.  Thus, all such effects cancel each other out.  Another reason the Tolman test is robust is because it predicts an enormous difference in results between an expanding universe and a nonexpanding universe.  The surface brightness of identical object in an expanding universe would be far less than that of identical objects in a nonexpanding universe.  (It would be less by [1 + z] cubed.  The “z” in each case is the red shift of an astronomical object.)[8]

The red shift and star light distances are extremely convincing for a standard big bang model.  Many young earth creationists concede that the stars we see actually are billions of light years away.  However, if these stars are indeed that far away, there has to be an extrapolation of that light from when it reached our eyes back to the star itself.  Many young earth creationists opt for the position that those shafts of light that God created independently of the stars [that seemingly arise from them] never in fact happened.  God placed the light “in transit” (as advocated by Henry Morris).  This makes the past quite illusory and God a deceiver because what we see are merely pictures and not an actual history.  For instance, if human astronomers see what appears to be a supernova exploding in a galaxy millions of light-years away means that the supernova never exploded at all![9]

I know that the red shift is discussed in the textbook but the argument is countered by Barry Setterfield’s calculations that just don’t add up (as well as a misunderstanding of special/general relativity) and Russell Humphrey’s failed model.  Setterfield’s argument attempts to resolve Morris’ problem of a bogus universe.  Setterfield’s proposal creates huge problems.  Setterfield’s c-decay proposal will completely change the universe and would violate the Weak Anthropic Principle.  The fundamental constants of nature are so finely tuned that even small changes in values would fundamentally disrupt the universe (that means preventing the formation of stars, planets, galaxies, or life).[10] C-decay, from Einstein’s E=mc2, is the proposition that the speed of light (c=speed of light in a vacuum) has grown tired.  Einstein’s formula shows that energy is proportional to the speed of light.  Thus, given a vastly increased speed of light in times past, chemical and physical reactions would have been much more energetic.  It follows that increasing the speed of light would upset the fine-tuning of the universe.[11]

Humphrey’s model doesn’t work either.  Humphrey model radically changes the universe as well.  His model states that what looks like 6,000 years on earth may correspond to billions of years elsewhere in the universe.  The problem is that he has been unable to get his numbers to come out right.[12]  University of Sydney mathematician Edward Fackerell comments:

One of the major scientific challenges to young earth creationism… has been the difficulty of reconciling this view with the tremendous size of the universe.  If the universe is 13 billion light years across, in the sense that there are objects 13 billion light years from earth, then any straightforward scientific theory of the propagation of light leads to the conclusion that the universe is at least 13 billion years old.  Nevertheless, many young earth creationists are of the opinion that reconciliation of a six [24-hour]-day creationism with general relativistic cosmology has been carried out successfully by D. Russell Humphreys in his little book Starlight and Time… His goal is to reconcile general relativistic cosmology with a short time scale for the universe, essentially by claiming that cosmological models exist in which differential aging takes place between nonequivalent fundamental observers.  Humphreys has used three different approaches to substantiate this claim of differential aging. (And then proceeds with refutations of Humphreys three approaches).[13]

Humphrey’s model could be permitted in an Einsteinian universe even if he could get his numbers to work, however, to support a young earth, Humphreys requires a bounded, spherical, symmetric, pressureless, and dust filled universe.  Again, even if he could get his numbers right, we would still be a long way from confirming that this model accurately reflects the true state and history of the universe.[14]

We have good reason to accept the constancy of nature for in the very act of questioning one must hold constant the backdrop against which the question is posed.  Questioning nature’s constancy in general would deny this backdrop and thus be self-defeating.[15]  Questioning nature’s constancy has far greater implications that are more deleterious than young earth creationists would expect.  Nature’s constancy is crucial to the resurrection.  Dembski continues,

If at different times in human history people who experienced violent deaths spontaneously revived and returned to business as usual, the unique significance of Christ’s resurrection would be lost.  Precisely because nature is constant regarding death (dead people stay dead apart from divine intervention), Christ’s resurrection assumes its significance for salvation, showing that God in Christ has decisively conquered death.  Apart from nature’s constancy, that conclusion could not be drawn.[16]

To answer the question about being surprised if scientists believe in a literal Genesis I would say, “No, I’m not surprised.”  In previous posts I’ve stated that an old earth interpretation of the Genesis account of creation is a literal interpretation.  Now, I understand that the way I answered that question probably wasn’t the implied notion of literal (“literal” somehow only means one preferred definition of YOM, even though it’s been demonstrated otherwise in previous posts [not be me but by the scholarship I cite]), meaning 24-hour days.  I’m not surprised there either because I think it’s easy for people to misinterpret the biblical text.  In doing so, young earth creationists must absolutely butcher the record of nature.

In the end, to try to jam a young earth interpretation of the scientific evidence creates more problems than it solves.  I know this has been a lengthy post, but I hope I’ve been heard out.[17]  By YEC filling in a hole of a proposed problem, that explanation then creates many more holes and creates more problems than it solves.  Young earth creationism just doesn’t work and the attempts to reconcile have been shown to be more deleterious than expected.

“Thus says the Lord, ‘If My covenant for day and night stand not, and the fixed patterns of heaven and earth I have not established, then I would reject the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, not taking from his descendants rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  But I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them.’” –Jeremiah 33.25-26


[1] 1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2) The universe had a cause. 3) Therefore, the universe began to exist.

[2] These other models listed failed scientific scrutiny.  The steady state model fails mathematically and philosophical as an actual infinite universe and fails to explain the expanse of the universe.  The oscillating model attempts to circumvent an actual beginning by claiming that the universe eventually collapses back in on itself and spawns another universe.  However, this doesn’t get around the Kalam due to more problems like the steady state, the problems of an actual infinite.  The quantum fluctuation models assume a necessity to physical laws and for that quantum fluctuation to take place there must be something to create that violent vacuum, and thus does not get around Kalam.  Other string theory models coincide with the QF model and the oscillating model (brane collisions) and incorporate a Multiverse model.  The Multiverse, though it has many problems in the theory, is possible, but doesn’t get around Kalam either.

[3] PCW Davies, “Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology,” in The Study of Time III, ed. JT Fraser (Berlin:  Springer Verlag, 1978), 78-79.

[4] Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, “Inflation Is Not Past-Eternal,” http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110012v1 (Accessed February 8, 2010), updated in January 2003.

[5] Perhaps one of the biggest paradoxes in modern cosmology is reconciling quantum mechanics and general relativity.  Prior to Planck time all physics break down and the two become seemingly incompatible.  The latest research in theoretical physics is attempting to form a quantum gravity model (most pursued by string theorists). With Vilenkin’s model there is no incompatibility with the imminent return of Christ for it’s possible that a flux in quantum mechanics [vacuums perhaps] could cause a universal “hiccup” and cause the universe to cease to exist and as Isaiah says, “be rolled up like a scroll.”  I may add on a more personal note, how incredible it is for physics to be able to witness that quite soon, the edge of the universe (in a manner of speaking) will be moving faster than the speed of light.  That is, space [due to inflation] will be moving faster than light!  Alexander Vilenkin, “Quantum Cosmology and Eternal Inflation,” http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0204061v1 (Accessed February 8, 2010).

[6] Hugh Ross, More Than a Theory (Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker 2009), 97.

[7] Roger Penrose, Shadows of the Mind (New York, NY:  Oxford University Press 1994), 230.

[8] Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days (Colorado Springs, CO:  NavPress, 2004), 151.

[9] William Dembski, The End of Christianity (Nashville, TN:  B&H 2009), 66-67.

[10] See Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards’ The Privileged Planet (Washington DC:  Regnery, 2004), Chapter 10.

[11] Dembski, The End of Christianity, 67.

[12] Ibid., 69.

[13] Edward Fackerell, “Analysis of ‘Starlight and Time,’” as cited in The End of Christianity, 69.

[14] Ibid., 70.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid., 62.

[17] This is just a small fraction of scientific evidence for an old universe and I’m more than willing to discuss other issues if desired or prompted.


21 Responses to “Is There Scientific Evidence for Young Earth Creationism?”

  1. Thank you for this article. It has always amazed me that so many people are willing to ignore the overwhelming evidence for an age for the earth and the universe measured in the billions, not thousands, of years. For more of my views on the subject, see this, from my blog:

    http://ourdreamsawake.blogspot.com/2012/01/dembski-on-science-and-theology.html

  2. Hey man!
    Thanks for getting back to me with that awesomely detailed e-mail. I have already read it and have been going over it in my head to make sure I understand it all hah.

    I had one question about this post though. I thought one of the things that made the BVG so powerful was that did NOT even assume that GTR was the accurate. But yet, in your post you said that the ONLY thing it assumed was that GTR was correct.

  3. Evolutionary theory is in question if we would compare the orderliness of animals and plants. You would discover that all animals would have their heads on top and follow by their chest and abdomen and even legs. For instance, if all the animals have their derivation from evolution, there would be a possibility of the disorderliness that would occur that some animals would have their heads to be formed at their abdomens or their chests to be formed above their heads or some might have one eye or more than two eyes. It seems to be that all animals are in orderly manner that all have two pairs of eyes and the eyes are always located at the heads instead of in the bodies. Besides, all have even number of legs or hands instead of some have odd number of hands. Small creatures, such as insects, would have all their heads to be in front and their tails or bodies to be behind. There is indeed orderliness among living creatures.
    For instance, if all living things have been come about through evolution, there would be disorderliness since it would not give warranty an initial single lively molecule would develop into creatures with orderliness. There would be a possibility that an insect would be formed with the head at their body or only an eye or more than two pairs of eyes to be formed.
    Consideration has also need to taken into the accounts that there would be more than a lively molecule to be formed in the beginning due to the environmental factors and condition that would deem best for the formation of living thing. As that would be so, there would be the liveliness that animals would be created in disorderliness in which some animals would have their heads be formed at the bodies and some even be formed.
    As there is orderliness in the formation of living things, there seems to be something that controls it to cause it to be so. Religious people call it, God.

  4. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey conducted an experiment for the discovery of the formation of lively molecule that would have the potentiality to be developed into future living creatures. Question has to be raised. It would not be possibility that only on that particular time in which it was so special that it would deem fit for the creation of new lively molecule as environmental factors and condition permit. If the creation of primitive living thing could occur in the beginning, there could be some new lively molecules to be developed nowadays if the environmental factors and condition would appear again. How could it be that the recent scientist has not discovered any lively molecules to be formed nowadays on earth that would have the potentiality to be developed into complex creatures? Does this mean that environmental factors and condition that deem fit for the creation of new lively molecule could only appear once and not more than that? If the environmental factors and condition that deem fit does appear in modern days or 1000 or even 10,000 years ago, there should be some primitive creatures to be found on this earth. Why is it that scientist could not find any primitive creatures on this earth nowadays? All these have put evolutionary theory to be in doubt too.

  5. During Stanley Miller and Harold Urey ‘s experiment, many complex lively molecules were formed instead of one, how could evolutionists conclude that all living things would have a common ancestor? Unless his experiment has shown that only one lively molecule, it is then rational for evolutionists to conclude that all living things would have a common ancestor.
    The formation of the lively molecule during his experiment did not live for numerous years. Unless the lively molecule that had been created had survived up to now, it is then rational for evolutionists to conclude that all living things might be formed through the process as suggested by him through experiment. How could evolutionists be certain that primitive creatures were formed through this process?
    His experiment can only conclude that temporary living thing could only be formed through the process instead of one that was created could exist and be generated and be multiplied from years to years.

  6. Using Muller/Urey’s experiment, many molecules had been created initially. As there would be many molecules to be generated, evolution would be in question since all the living things would not have a common ancestor since more than one identical molecule with identical feature, i.e. DNAs and genes, could be generated in the beginning of life in which they could have the potentiality to be developed into creatures with identical DNAs and genes. Thus, it is irrational to conclude that one living thing would have any relationship with another especially the worse, even the DNAs could transfer from one to another.
    Now a question has to be raised. How could it be that different molecules that have been generated in the beginning of life could turn up to be that there is orderliness of features among animals and insects? The following are some of the extract about the orderliness among living things: Despite insects might have two or three body parts, their heads are always located in front and that all of them have a pair of eyes instead of one or more than that. The same as for animals and flying creatures. All the heads of the animals and flying creatures are located at the front part of their bodies. Besides, the digestive system between animals, flying creatures and insects are the same. The food should go into their mouths that are located at the head and passing out from their backs. All animals and insects have even number of legs or hands, i.e. 2 hands, 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 legs. It would not be possible if living things would be generated through evolution since there would not be orderliness in the generation of living things. To allow evolution to generate by themselves when there were many molecules that would have existed in the beginning, it might turn up to have disorderliness among living things especially they were not from the same origin, i.e. lively molecule, initially. This would turn up to be that some might develop into creatures with odd number of eyes or hands or legs. Some might not have their heads to be located in front. All animals would not have the identical digestive system.
    As there is orderliness of among living things, the reliability of evolution is in doubt.

  7. The following are the various methods that are adopted by scientists to assess the age of the earth:
    a)Using sea composition to compute the age of the earth:
    Scientists used sea composition to derive the age of the earth. This method has its derivation from Edmond Halley (1656-1742). In his opinion, the rain would have dissolved all salt from the ground and would bring down to the sea with the assumption that there would be no salt in the sea initially.
    In 1910, George F. Becker found the age of the earth to be between 50 and 70 million years by means of salt clock method.
    However, the measurement by means of seawater composition does not give an accurate age of the earth on the condition if the sea might have been formed initially with much salt in the beginning. If that would be so, it is irrational to measure sea composition to determine the age of earth since much salt would have been in the sea already during its creation.
    b)Lord Kelvin in 1862 did compute the age of earth through the estimation of the coolness of the earth from its original molten state in which he concluded that the age of the earth was between 20 to 400 million years ago.
    However, its assumption that the earth would be in the molten state might not be accurate on the condition if the earth would have been formed in solid state initially instead of in molten. If that would be so, the computation of the age of this earth that is by means of the computation of the time taken for earth to be cooled down would not be reliable.
    c)Erosion method: The assessment of the age of the earth is by means of the observation with presumption that erosion would take place at about 1 ft every 5,000 years. With this method, they assess Canyon would start out flat and it would take 30,000,000 years for the Colorado river to erode 600 ft of the Grand Canyon.
    The computation above suffers a shortfall with the assumption that it would start up flat. What if the place does not start up flat or it would be that the place has already been created nearer to current condition in the beginning of its creation, the computation would not give the accurate period of erosion.
    Another query is why the erosion rate should be consistent at 1 ft every 5,000 years and not 1 ft every 4,000 years or otherwise.
    Thus, the computation of the earth by means of erosion method would be subjective and not reliable.
    d)Using radiometric dating methods to compute the age of the earth:
    The derivation of radiometric dating methods or radioactive dating methods came in the late 1940s and 1950s. These methods focus on the decay of atoms of one chemical element into another. This technique is based on a comparison between the measured amount of a naturally occurring radioactive element and its decay product, assuming a constant rate of decay – known as half-life.
    Using this technique, scientists could analyze the rock to assess the age of the earth through uranium and lead, plug those values along with the half-life into a logarithmic equation. They have arrived with the conclusion that the age of the earth should be 4.5 to 4.6 billion years.
    However, what if both the parent isotopes, i.e. Samarium-147, Rubidium-87, Rhenium-187, Lutetium-176, Thorium-232,Uranium-238, Potassium-40, Uranium-235, Beryllium-10, Chlorine-36, Carbon-14, Uranium-234 and Thorium-230, that have been commented by Scientists to be the products (daughter) of Neodymium-143, Strontium-87, Osmium-187, Hafnium-176, Lead-208, Lead-206, Argon-40, Lead-207, Boron-10, Argon-36, Nitrogen-14, Thorium-230, and Radium-226 respectively, might have co-existed in the beginning of the world during its formation, it is erroneous to comment that there would be relationship among them and to use them to assess the decay rate of half life in order to use it to compute the age of the earth or fossils since all these materials might have been created ever since the beginning of the earth. As that could be so, it is erroneous to use it to compute the age of the earth to be billion years.

  8. a)Using coolness of the earth to compute its age with the presumption that the earth would be in molten state:
    Using coolness to compute the age of the earth might not be reliable for the fact that its computation has presumed this earth could be in molten state or in other words, it could be in liquid form.
    However, the initial stage of earth could be either in solid state that would be fully or partially covered with or without water. The water might be either warm or cold and that I do not like. If the earth would be in solid state that would cover with or without water, it would not take much time for the earth to cool down. Thus, the computation of the age of the earth by means of its coolness would not be feasible since the earth might be in solid state cover with water.
    b)Benoit de Maillet (1656-1738), a French anthropologist and diplomat, measured declining sea level and arrived the conclusion that the earth would be 2 billion years.
    His computation would not be feasible since sea level could rise as shown in the website address:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/01/us-climate-sealevel-idUSBRE8600EG20120701
    The rise of sea level has caused his computation of the age of the earth to be unreliable.
    c)Radioactive dating method has been used to test the same stratum of rock and yet the same results (within the margin of error) would produce. The reason to explain this is simple. Using the same isotope to test on the same stratum of rock would produce almost the same result due to the same rock would produce the same unstable atomic nucleus of ionizing particles and electromagnetic radiation in spite of its spontaneous emission.
    The following is the list of some isotopes that are used for dating:
    Parent daughter half-life
    Samarium-147 Neodymium-143 106 billion years
    Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 50 billion years
    Uranium-238 Lead-206 4.47 billion years
    Potassium-40 Argon-40 1.3 billion years
    Uranium-235 Lead-207 704 million years
    Uranium-234 Thorium-230 80,000 years
    Carbon-14 Nitrogen-14 5,730 years
    Question has to be raised. If all the materials as mentioned above would have been created ever since the beginning of this earth, how could the scientists compute the half life of decay rate for Lead-206 from Uranium-238 to be 4.47 billion years? The reason is simply that the half life of decay rate for, let’s say, Lead-206 from Uranium-238, should be 0 if they would have been created at the same time in the very beginning. As the decay could be 0 if these materials would have been created in the very beginning, how could the Scientists be sure of its reliability and to use it to compute the age of the earth to be billion years?
    Besides, even if one material could be the transformation from another, how do the Scientists compute the figure of half life decay rate? For instance, how could the Scientist get 4.47 billion years or not 4 thousand years or others for Uranium-238 to decay to Lead-206? This half year decay rate that has been established by Scientists has pushed the age of the earth and even fossils, i.e. dinosaurs, to billion years. Whenever they use this isotope to test a rock to guess its age, it would give them billion of years since the decay rate has already set by them in the first place to push up to billion years.
    Thus, radioactive dating method is rather subjective and not accurate since the half year decay rate is indeed questionable.

  9. Scientists have accepted the use of half-life decay rates to be in millions or billions years for radiometric dating method or radioactive dating method. Some would suggest that Noah’s ark should have caused the rocks to have accelerate decay and that would have caused the age of the earth to be misled in millions or billions years. Discuss.
    Noah’s ark that had appeared in the past might not cause the rocks to decay accelerate for the following reasons:
    a)Some rocks that have been created in the very beginning would be as hard as diamond so much so that it is impossible for these rocks to decay. As these rocks would be impossible to decay, the appearance of Noah’s ark would not cause any damage of these rocks. As these rocks could be as hard as diamond, it is irrational to suggest their decay rates to be in millions or billions of years since it would be impossible for them to decay in the first place and that the decay rate for them should be set at 0. To give the high value of decay rates, such as, billion years, for hard rocks in which they are impossible to decay, Scientists have indirectly pushed the age of fossils and the earth to billions years unrealistically.
    b)Only the soft rocks that would have created in the very beginning would decay rapidly instead of the hard one. Scientists might have observed the change of shape of the rocks and comment that they should be the cause of decaying rocks. However, they should consider also the change of shape of rocks could be the result of soft rocks instead of hard since the hard would be impossible for them to decay. Besides, the hard rocks that could have been created initially would look like the current shape. As these hard rocks could never decay since they are as solid as diamond, there is no way for Noah’s ark or wind or whatever to cause them to decay. As these hard rocks could not decay, it is irrational to suggest that the incidence of Noah’s ark would have any influence upon the shape of hard rocks.
    The reliability of radiometric dating method that has been adopted by scientists to determine the age of fossils as well as the earth would be in question on the condition of the possible existence of rocks that would be as hard as diamond so much so that there is no way for them to decay. If that would be so, there should be no reason for scientists to suggest that the decay rates of the rocks should be million or billion years since they would have been created in the beginning in such a way that there is no way for them to decay. If that could be so, to insist the value of decaying rates for hard rocks with millions or billions of years would simply be unrealistic and unreliable.
    The following is the list of isotopes that have been used by scientists to estimate the age of the earth as well as fossils:
    Samarium-147 (parent); Neodymium-143 (daughter); decaying rate: 106 billion years
    Rubidium-87 (parent); Strontium-87 (daughter); decaying rate: 50 billion years
    Uranium-238 (parent); Lead-206 (daughter); decaying rate: 4.47 billion years
    Potassium-40 (parent); Argon-40 (daughter); decaying rate: 1.3 billion years
    Uranium-235 (parent); Lead-207 (daughter); decaying rate: 704 million years
    Uranium-234 (parent); Thorium-230 (daughter); decaying rate: 80,000 years
    Carbon-14 (parent); Nitrogen-14 (daughter); decaying rate: 5,730 years
    Using radioactive dating method to date the age of fossils and the earth would be unreliable. Let’s take Samarium-147 (parent) and Neodymium-143 (daughter) to be one of the examples from above for illustration.
    a)What if Neodymium-143 would have been created in the very beginning instead of it would be the result of decaying from Samarium-147, it is irrational to link up the relationship between them and to comment that Neodymium-143 was the transformation of Samarium-147 and to establish its half-life decaying rate to be 106 billion years.
    b)What if both Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 would have been created as hard as diamond that it would be impossible for them to decay, it is irrational to conclude that Neodymium-143 should be the daughter of Samarium-147 and to suggest that the decaying rate for Neodymium-143 from Samarium-147 to be 106 billion years. This is by virtue of the half life decay rate for Neodymium-143 from Samarium-147 should be set at 0 at the absence of the possibility of decaying.
    c)How could scientists have established the relationship between these items and comment that Neodymium-143 should have decayed from Samarium-147 instead of other source or material or substance? There would be a possibility that Neodymium-143 might decay and turn into another form of material instead of Samarium-147.
    d)How do the scientists derive the decay rate for each material and to ensure its accuracy of decay rate? For instance, the Scientists have suggested the half-life decay rate for Neodymium-143 from Samarium-147 to be 106 billion years. Why should the decay rate be 106 billion years instead of a few thousand years? How do they get this figure or whether they would have plucked from sky since nobody could live so long so as to witness this would come true for the transformation?
    e) When the scientists suggested the decay rates for various materials, such as, from Argon-40 to Potassium-40 or from Samarium-147 to Neodymium-143, how do they arrange in such a way that the decay rate for Argon-40 to Potassium-40 would be lower than Samarium-147 to Neodymium-143 and not the other way round?
    d)As nobody could live millions or billions of years to witness whether Samarium-147 would turn up to be Neodymium-143, the reliability of radioactive dating method by means of the use of isotopes is questionable.
    All the above have placed the reliability of radioactive dating method into question especially the setting of decay rate in million or billions years have indirectly pushed the age of fossils and the earth unreasonably to billion years.
    Refer to the website site address http://asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html pertaining to the mathematical formula in which it indicates how the age of fossils and the earth to be computed:
    t = h x ln[1+(argon-40)/(0.112 x (potassium-40))]/ln(2)
    where t is the time in years, h is the half-year, also in years, and ln is the natural logarithm.
    Examine the formula carefully. t, the age of the fossils or the rock or the earth, corresponds with h, that is the half-year decay rate. If the scientists intentionally push the half-year decay rate to millions of years, t, that is the age of the fossils or the rock or the earth, would be pushed up by them to millions or even billions of years.

  10. Let’s furnish another mathematical formula below for the computation of age of fossils and the earth that could be located at the website address http://education.gsfc.nasa.gov/ess/Units/Unit4/U4L31A.html :
    t = 1/delta In (1+D/P)
    where t is the age of a rock or mineral specimen, D is the number of atoms of a daughter product today, P is the number of atoms of the parent product today, ln is the natural logarithm (logarithm to base e), and delta is the appropriate decay constant.
    In order that the formula could apply for the computation of the age of fossils or rocks or the earth, the substance or objects or whatever must have established the relationship that one object must be the daughter of another. If the relationship between them could not establish to be one as parent and another as daughter, the above mathematical formula could not be used to compute the age of fossils or rocks or the earth.
    Let’s use Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 as examples for elaboration since scientists have linked up these two objects as parent-daughter relationship that would lead to the decay rate of 106 billion years. The following are the reasons why the computation by means of the above mathematic formula could not be used to compute the age of fossils or rocks or the earth:
    a)What if Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 would have been created in the very beginning and Neodymium-143 would not be the result of decaying from Samarium-147, the relationship between them to be parent and daughter could not be established. As the relationship could not be established in case if they would have been created simultaneously in the very beginning, the above mathematical formula could not apply. This is by virtue of the above formula could only be applicable when two objects have established with the parent-daughter relationship.
    b)What if Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 would be as hard as a diamond that there could be no way for them to decay, the formula could not be applicable to this condition since Both of these items could not be established to be parent-daughter relationship as one could not be the transformation from another.
    c)Even if Samarium-147 could decay, how could scientists be so firmly that it could turn up to be Neodymium-143 instead of otherwise since nobody could live billion of years to witness the end-result of transformation for Samarium-147 to be Neodymium-143? As that could be so, to comment Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 to be parent-daughter relationship and to use them to compute the age of fossils or rocks or the earth would lead to wrong age since they could have no relationship between them in the first place.
    d)What if Samarium-147 could decay to Neodymium-143 and yet the decay rate could not be established to be billion of years instead, it could only be a few thousand years, it would certainly affect the figure that has to be used for delta. This is by virtue of the unreliable decay rate would affect the decay constant figure that has to be used in the formula above. As the unreliable decay rate of the above substance would affect the decay constant to be used in the formula above, the end-result of the computation of the age of fossils or rocks or the earth would not be reliable.
    As it is hard to jump into the conclusion that one material or substance or whatever could be the daughter of another, this makes the computation to be unreliable and it is irrational to use radioactive dating method to jump into the conclusion that the age of fossils or the earth or rocks could be in billion years.

  11. What is radiometric decay or radioactive decay? Radioactive decay is a spontaneous disintegration of a radionuclide accompanied by the emission of ionizing radiation in the form of alpha or beta particles or gamma rays.
    Some might argue that radiometric decay could not cause any decay in the rocks or substance or etc.. If radiometric decay could not cause any influence upon the rock or substance. The parent isotope, such as, Rubidium-87, could still remain to be Rubidium-87 after 50 billion years, instead of turning up to be Strontium-87 (daughter). As the parent isotope, such as Rubidium-87, would turn up to be Strontium-87, in 50 billion years later, it implies that there would be a change of quality as a result of the influence of radioactive decay.
    Do environmental factors have any influence upon radiometric decay? Yes, there is. If environmental factors could not have any influence upon radiometric decay, there should not be any reason for scientists to assume that the half year decay rate from Parent isotopes to Daughter to be constant in the first place.
    The following are the number of websites that have indicated that environmental factors could alter radioactive decay rate despite the assumption that has been established through radiometric dating method to be constant and unchanged:
    http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5076971/description.html; http://creation.com/radioactive-decay-rate-depends-on-chemical-environment; http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j14_1/j14_1_04-05.pdf; http://wavewatching.net/2012/09/01/from-the-annals-of-the-impossible-experimental-physics-edition/; http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/decay.htm
    As the decay rate that has been assumed by scientists in the computation of the age of fossils or rocks or whatever to be in constant rate and yet the actual decay rate might not be constant as a result of the influence of environment, the ages of fossils or rocks or the earth that have been computed by scientists to be in billion years would not be reliable. This is by virtue of radiometric dating method has presumed a perfection for decay rate and yet it could be accelerated in reality. As the decay rate could be accelerated, the age of the fossils or rocks or the earth could never be accurate.
    What if the parent isotopes, such as, Samarium-147, so hard that it could resist radiometric decay that it would not cause any change of quality to turn up to be the daughter isotopes, such as, Neodymium-143, the mathematic formula that has been used to compute the age of the fossils or rocks or the earth could not be applicable. This is by virtue of the objects that have been used to measure the ages of the fossils or rocks or the earth have to be established to have parent-daughter relationship. Or else, insisting the use of radioactive dating method would simply give false information about the ages of fossils or rocks or the earth.
    What if the parent isotopes, such as, Uranium-235, or whatever, could be so weak that any environmental factors, such as, sun, wind, Noah’s ark and whatever, could accelerate radioactive decay rate and yet it could restore to its original rate at the absence of the influence, the ages of the fossils or rocks or the earth would be falsified as a result of great influence from environment.
    What if the objects that have been presumed by Scientists would not have parent-daughter relationship in reality, the ages of fossils or rocks or the earth would be falsified through computation.
    Let’s give you an illustration. The parent isotope, Samarium-147, has found to be the daughter of Neodymium-143 just because they both emit alpha particles instead of physical witness of the transformation of Neodymium-143 from Samarium-147. What if Samarium-147 could be so hard to resist radioactive decay so much so that it could not be transformed into Neodymium-143, the insisting to place these two items together and to establish them to be parent-daughter relationship and to compute the decay rate to be 106 billion years would certainly turn up to be unreliable. What if the parent isotope, let’s say, Samarium-147, would change in quality as a result of radioactive decay, yet it would not turn up to be Neodymium-143 but other source. The insisting to establish these two isotopes to have parent-daughter relationship would falsify the computation of the ages of fossils or rocks or the earth. Anyway, nobody could live in billion of years to witness whether the isotopes, let’s say, Samarium-147, could transform into Neodymium-143. Scientists simply establish their relationship through observing the similarity of emission instead of seeing physical transformation. Thus, the ages of fossils or rocks or the earth that have been computed by scientists to be in million or billion years through radiometric dating method would not be reliable.
    From the above analysis, it is irrational to conclude the earth or fossils or rocks to be in million years or billions years as a result of the uncertainty of radiometric decay rate and the questionability whether one substance could be the daughter isotope of another.

  12. The following are the extracts to show the orderliness of the galaxies.
    a)The formation of each new galaxy would follow the same pattern that each orbits around its own centre base:
    Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy, The second paragraph of the subtitle, Galaxy, mentions with the phrase, each orbiting their galaxy’s own center of mass. Or in other words, when a first galaxy was formed in this universe in the beginning, it orbits its own centre of mass despite their irregular shapes of design. When the second galaxy was formed, the same pattern would appear that each would orbit each own centre base. And so on and so forth. For instance, if the first galaxy would be generated by Big Bang theory, it would not be possible that each galaxy would orbit each own centre base from the beginning ever since the first galaxy was generated. Indeed, the first galaxy, that would be formed, would be moving in the mess with disorderly manner without guidance instead of orbiting its own centre base if nothing would be controlling the formation of the universe. The outcome (that each galaxy would not be created in such a nice manner that each would orbit its own base) is there would be a possibility that the stars or planets or whatever within each galaxy, that were created, would fly all around the universe without guidance and even to the extent that the stars or planets or whatever in each galaxy, would crash with each other to cause ultimate devastation of the universe so much so that our earth would turn up to be not in secure place. How could Big Bang Theory be able to create the first galaxy in the beginning so much so that it could orbit its centre base especially nothing should have existed before? How could Big Bang theory be able to create the second galaxy to follow suit the first galaxy to oribt its centre base?
    The orderliness of the formation of galaxies ever since its first formation to be that each would orbit each own centre mass, gives the signal that something must have existed in the creation of the universe. Religious people call it God.
    b)Each time when a new galaxy has formed, the same pattern would occur that something would hold this galaxy together so that it would not turn the whole universe into a mess and scientists call it to be gravitational force.
    The following is the extract from the third paragraph of the category, Milky Way from the above website:
    In 1750 the English astronomer Thomas Wright in his An original theory or new hypothesis of the Universe, speculated (correctly) that the galaxy might be a rotating body of a huge number of stars held together by gravitational forces, akin to the solar system but on a much larger scale. The resulting disk of stars can be seen as a band on the sky from our perspective inside the disk
    If nothing would control the entire universe, there would not be any force that would hold the entire galaxy to be in perfect order when a new galaxy would form. If this universe were created by Big Bang theory, the first set of galaxy would turn up to be in the mess that it would not give any warranty that it would orbit its own centre of mass. When the second set of galaxy was formed in the beginning, it would not give any warranty that the universe would hold these two sets of galaxies together in continuity. And so on and so forth. If this universe were created by Big Bang theory, the first set of galaxy would turn up to be in the mess in hitting against each other. The second set of galaxy, that would be created, would be worse than the first without revolving around its own centre of mass but flying around the universe with random order and nothing would hold these two together. And so on and so forth. There must be something that is in control for the creation of this universe. Religious people call it God.
    c)When a new spiral galaxy is formed, spiral arms would rotate its own centre with angular velocity. Despite there would be some step-back to alter its own velocity, it would still return to its original velocity and yet the same pattern, angular velocity, maintains to beautify the universe. Besides, most importantly it would return to its own velocity whenever something has caused it to accelerate its speed.
    The following is the extract from third paragraph under the sub-title of Spirals in the same website address as mentioned above:
    In spiral galaxies, the spiral arms do have the shape of approximate logarithmic spirals, a pattern that can be theoretically shown to result from a disturbance in a uniformly rotating mass of stars. Like the stars, the spiral arms rotate around the center, but they do so with constant angular velocity…As stars move through an arm, the space velocity of each stellar system is modified by the gravitational force of the higher density. (The VELOCITY RETURNS TO NORMAL after the stars depart on the other side of the arm.)
    If the spiral galaxy was created by Big Bang theory, it would not give any warranty that the first creation of the existence of spiral galaxy would result in velocity to return to its original speed after its acceleration due to some influence before. What if the spiral galaxy would not return to its original velocity, the spiral galaxy would keep on increasing its speed whenever it is influenced by external factor. The whole spiral galaxy would turn up to be in disaster since it keeps on increasing its speed non-stop since forever increasing speed would cause the heat to rise up and even be burnt up eventually.
    The above show that the nature reflects the existence of God.

  13. Let’s examine all the common isotopes that are used by scientists so as to determine their acceptability in radiometric dating method.
    The following is the list of isotopes extracted from the website address, http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html, and, http://anthro.palomar.edu/time/table_of_isotopes.htm:
    Parent Isotope; Stable Daughter Product; Half-Life Values
    Lutetium (Lu)-176; Hafnium (Hf)-176; 37.8 billion years
    Uranium-238 (U); Lead (Pb)-206; 4.5 billion years
    Uranium-235; Lead-207; 704 million years
    Thorium-232 (Th); Lead-208; 14.0 billion years
    Rubidium-87 (Rb); Strontium-87 (Sr); 48.8 billion years
    Potassium-40 (K); Argon-40 (Ar); 1.25 billion years
    Samarium-147 (Sm); Neodymium-143 (Nd); 106 billion years
    Carbon (C)-14; Nitrogen (N)-14; 5730 +/-40
    The analyses of the above-mentioned isotopes are as follows:
    a)Lutetium-176 (Parent Isotope) to Hafnium-176:
    The following is the extract of the article, Neutron-Deficient Nuclides of Hafnium and Lutetium, from the website address, http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v122/i5/p1558_1:
    (New neutron-deficient nuclides of lutetium and hafnium were produced by bombarding lutetium oxide with 300- to 400-Mev protons. The genetic relationships and mass assignments were established by means of high-purity chemical separations and a series of chemical isolation experiments in which the daughter activity was determined as a function of time.)
    The above was the only piece of evidence that scientists have used it to prove that lutetium-176 could turn up to be Hafnium-176 in a half life.
    The phrase, New neutron-deficient nuclides of lutetium and hafnium were produced by bombarding lutetium oxide, as mentioned above implies the immediate transformation from lutetium oxide to hafnium. If lutetium-176 would take 37.8 billion years for it to be transformed into Hafnium-176, why is it that the transformation as mentioned in the above example could take immediate effect instead of a half life? Or in other words, it did not take a half life (37.8 billion years) for lutetium-176 to be transformed into Hafnium-176 and this has put radioactive dating method into question. As the formation of hafnium was by means of lutetium oxide as mentioned above instead of through a pure lutetium, it gives no ironic evidence whether the formation of hafnium could be by means of a pure lutetium. What if the formation of hafnium could only be done through the compound of lutetium, i.e. lutetium oxide, the result of the experiment would not serve as evidence that lutetium could turn up to be hafnium in a half life. Besides, a question has to be raised what other substance has been used by this scientist to assist in the explosion. What if this scientist would have added other substance to cause the explosion and that the substance, that would have added, would assist in the transformation of lutetium oxide to hafnium, relating lutetium to be the parent isotope of hafnium might not be appropriate unless with the help of other substance for its explosion. If that could be so, radioactive dating method by means of lutetium is in question since radioactive decay might not cause lutetium to be transformed into Hafnium unless certain substance has been added for explosion.
    Refer to he sequence of pictures in website address, http://www.elementsales.com/re_exp/re20071121.jpg, pertaining to lutetium. Lutetium would turn up to vanish in the 3rd year. As lutetium could not remain alone and would vanish in the air, it is irrational to assume that lutetium would exist throughout a half life (37.8 billion years) to be transformed into Hafnium since it would vanish in the air within 3 years. This has put radiometric dating method by means of lutetium-176 into question due to the possible vanish within 3 years and yet radiometric dating method gives assurance that it would last until 37.8 billion years for the transformation. How could lutetium be the parent isotope of Hafnium as it might vanish in the air within 3 months when it has been left alone in contacting with air and could not be transformed into Hafnium?
    b)Uranium (Parent Isotope) to Lead (Daughter Isotope):
    The following is the extract from the website address, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf14.html:
    (The Earth’s uranium (chemical symbol U) was apparently formed in supernovae up to about 6.6 billion years…)
    As mentioned in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism, that scientists have accepted the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years and yet have computed the age of uranium through radioactive dating method to be about 6.6 billion years. As the age of uranium is higher than the earth, this has put the reliability of radioactive dating method into question.
    Could uranium be able to transform into lead?
    The following is the extract from the website address, http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_6.htm:
    (Uranium-thorium-lead dating, based on the disintegration of uranium and THORIUM into radium, helium, etc., and finally into LEAD.)
    The process above shows that uranium has to pass through Thorium in order to be transformed into lead.
    Could Thorium be able to transform into Lead?
    The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph under the sub-title, Abstract, from the website address, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1914Natur..93..479L:
    (THE work of Boltwood and Holmes some years ago on the occurrence of lead and uranium in minerals rendered it very improbable that the end product of thorium could be lead. From recent generalisations, however, in respect to radio-elements and the periodic law, it is to be expected that the end products of the radio-active elements should all be isotopic with lead.)
    The phrase, uranium in minerals rendered it very improbable that the end product of thorium could be lead, as extracted above implies that scientists have no physical witness that thorium could turn up to lead. Besides, it is by no means for them to transform thorium into lead ultimately. As thorium could be by no means to turn up to lead currently, how could scientists assure the transformation would come true in a half life and would be in 14.0 billion years later? This has indeed placed the reliability of radiometric dating method into question. The reason why they put these two together is simply due to they meet radio-elements and the periodic law instead of seeing the physical transformation from Thorium-232 to Lead-208.
    c)Thorium-232 (Parent isotope) to Lead-208 (Daughter Isotope):
    As explained in clause b) above the impossibility of the transformation of Thorium to Lead. It has placed reliability of radiometric dating method into question.
    d)Rubidium-87 (Parent Isotope) to Strontium-87 (Daughter Isotope):
    The following is the extract from the 3rd paragraph under the sub-title, Isotopes, from the website address, http://www.chemistryexplained.com/elements/P-T/Rubidium.html:
    (Rubidium-87 is used to estimate the age of very old rocks. Many kinds of rocks contain two rubidium isotopes, rubidium-85 and rubidium-87. When rubidium-87 breaks down in the rock, it changes into a new isotope, strontium -87. Any rock that contains rubidium-87 also contains some strontium-87. )
    As the phrase, When rubidium-87 breaks down in the rock it changes into a new isotope strontium-87, is mentioned above, it implies the immediate transformation from rubidium-87 to strontium-87. Or in other words, it does not take a half life (or 48.8 billion years) for rubidium-87 to be transformed into strontium-87. The transformation is simply immediate and this has put the reliability of radioactive dating into question. For instance, if radiometric dating method is a truth, it should follow the rule of half life in which rubidium-87 should take 48.8 billion years for it to be transformed into strontium-87. As it would take an immediate transformation from rubidium-87 to strontium-87, the reliability of the computation of age by means of radiometric dating would be in question.
    e)Potassium-40 (Parent Isotope) to Argon-40 (Daughter Isotope):
    The following is the http://www.ehow.com/way_5229579_fossil-dating-techniques.html
    (Unfortunately, only 11 of 100 decayed K-40 atoms become argon-40, and only one of every 10,000 potassium atoms is the K-40 isotope; fortunately, potassium is one of the most abundant minerals on the Earth’s surface.)
    The phrase, 11 of 1000 decayed K-40 atoms become argon-40, as mentioned above implies the immediate transformation from K-40 to argon-40. As there is an immediate transformation from K-40 to argon-40 despite the amount is small as 11 out of 1000 decayed K-40, the reliability of radiometric dating method is in question. This is by virtue of it is mentioned that it would take a half life (or 1.25 billion years) for K-40 to turn up to be argon-40 and yet in reality it would take an immediate effect for the transformation. Even if one would suggest that 11 out of 1000 would turn up to be argon-40 and would take 1.25 billion years to process the balance of 989 (1000-11) atoms, how could the scientists account for 11 to be immediate and the balance of 989 atoms to 1.25 billion years not proportionally?
    f)Samarium-147 (Parent Isotope) to Neodymium-143 (Daughter Isotope):
    The following is the extract from the 6th paragraph from the website address, http://www.chemicool.com/elements/samarium.html:
    (It wasn’t until 1885 that Carl Auer von Welsbach established that ‘didymium’ was actually composed of two distinct, new elements: neodymium and praseodymium.)
    The above extract mentions that didymium consists of neodymium and praseodymium and yet didymium was found in Samarium. With the discovery, they conclude that Samarium could turn up to be Neodymium in 106 billion years. Their conclusion that Samarium could turn up to be Neodymium is not based on seeing the physical transformation from one to another, but the substance, Neodymium, was found in Samarium. That has caused us in doubt about the reliability of radiometric dating method.
    Could Samarium be able to isolate itself in the air without influence? No, it could not since the website address, http://www.elementsales.com/re_exp/index.htm, shows the immediate chemical reaction upon Samarium when it has contacted with air. The following is the extract from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samarium:
    [Samarium ( /səˈmɛəriəm/ sə-MAIR-ee-əm) is a chemical element with symbol Sm and atomic number 62. It is a moderately hard silvery metal which readily oxidizes in air. Being a typical member of the lanthanide series, samarium usually assumes the oxidation state +3. Compounds of samarium(II) are also known, most notably monoxide SmO, monochalcogenides SmS, SmSe and SmTe, as well as samarium (II) iodide. The last compound is a common reducing agent in chemical synthesis. Samarium has no significant biological role and is only slightly toxic.]
    The phrase, Samarium…hard silvery metal which ready oxidizes in air, as mentioned above implies the ease to respond to air in chemical reaction. The ease in chemical reaction with the contact of air would certainly affect the quality of Samarium and even the radioactive decay since it would not be solely Samarium but other elements that would form a new compound with it to increase or reduce its decay. This certainly would put radioactive dating method into question.
    Could scientists be able to separate Neodymium from Samarium? The following is the extract under the sub-title, Abstract, from the website address, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003267094002746:
    (A separation scheme for strontium and light rare earth elements and its application to the isotopic analysis of strontium and neodymium in silicate rocks are presented. This method benefits from the selectivity and high capacity of two newly introduced extraction Chromatographic materials, referred to as Sr.Spec and TRU.Spec, respectively. These afford a straightforward separation of Sr and Sm + Nd with high yield, good purity and satisfactory blank levels, on very small (0.25 ml) columns using small volumes of solutions of a single mineral acid, HNO3.)
    The phrase, These afford a straightforward of Sr and Sm + Nd…using small volumes of… HNO3, gives the information that scientists could separate Samarium and Neodymium through mineral acid, HNO3.
    Could Neodymium be able to stand alone from scientific point of view? Let’s observe the sequence of pictures of Neodymium in direct contact in air as shown in the website address, http://www.elementsales.com/re_exp/index.htm. For instance, if Samarium would turn up to be Neodymium-143 in a half life and that is 106 billion years, there would not be another half life for it since it would corrode in the air and ultimately vanish since it could not be isolated itself in the air. The computation of Samarium-Neodymium isotopes by means of radiometric dating method presumes Neodymium still retains for another half life and yet in reality, it could not. This has put the accuracy of radiometric dating method by means of Samarium-147 due to the possible corrosion of Neodymium-143 to its ultimate vanishing in the beginning of another half life. The computation of age through isotope by means of samarium has presumed that neodymium would continue for another half life once samarium has turned up to be neodymium after the initial half life. Yet in reality, neodymium would vanish instead of continuing its existence. As the reality is different from the assumption that is set up in radioactive dating method, the accuracy of the age that would have computed through this method is in question.

  14. This is written in response to a singular, or nearly singular, viewpoint held by only the more ignorant young-earthers. Furthermore, your retort is based almost solely on the fact that since the universe is old, the earth, then, must also be old. Your theistic referrences do not reflect the bleiefs of those who could sufficiently defend the young-earth standpoint. So, unless 1). your logic states that, since the Earth is billions of years old (or even my 10000 years old) then New York must also be old. 2). the apologists who hold the addressed beliefs represent the most knowledgeable young-earthers, and/or 3). you were possibly mistaken in your way of going about your rebuttal, tell me how your argument holds acceptable weight. I do not feel that the article is a logical stand against Young-Earth Theory.

    • I’m sorry, your question doesn’t make any sense. What does New York have to do with the age of the earth/universe? I love that one of the most common objections is that I really don’t know YEC. The thing is that I’ve taken several university courses on YEC corresponding with many of their texts. I guess I failed those classes. I’m using the material from those courses and texts. All you say is that I’ve created a straw man without addressing how I’ve done so. You’ve straw manned your straw man.

  15. I apologize. I did not make my question clear. I was merely stating that the fact that the universe is old doesn’t contradict the earth being old. I don’t even mean the earth as a heavenly body, I agree that Earth very well may have been here since shortly after the genesis of the universe. My point was that this article seemed to tackle a stand that I did not hold, so I assumed it was not comprehensively believed. I was relating the unrelation of New York’s age and the earths, just as I believe the age of the earth (as a planet with life) is not the same as the age of the universe. I may be wrong, but I don’t believe old-earthers believe the world to have existed since the dawn of the universe. I think the use of a universal age argument in an earth age argument is unneeded, as there is not (or should not be) any argument about the universe’s age.

    Another thing is that I failed to mention that I don’t represent all young-earthers. My beliefs are my own and probably don’t reflect other creationists’ views.

  16. *doesn’t contradict the earth being young

  17. My brother suggested I may like this website. He used to be entirely right. This publish actually made my day. You cann’t imagine just how a lot time I had spent for this info! Thanks!

  18. The YEC view seems to prevent onefrom using the Cosmological Arguments, since they reject the scientific position.

  19. Trackbacks

Leave a Reply