Box , Port Huron, MI , fbns wayoflife. There are many organizations and publishers that promote the creationist viewpoint, including The Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis founded in Australia in the s as the Creation Science Foundation. Though ID proponents typically are not Bible believers and might even claim to be agnostic in regard to the identity of the Designer, they argue that the Darwinian mechanisms of natural selection and random mutations are insufficient to explain life. Intelligent Design proponents point to the intricate design that we see everywhere, from the DNA molecule and the living cell to the perfectly balanced conditions on earth and beyond that allow life to exist. This is the first purpose of creation science materials. Young people, particularly, need to be fortified against Darwinist propaganda. Creation science materials teach analytical thinking and sound argumentation.
Radiometric Dating Does Work!
Young Earth Creation Science Argument Index The purpose of this index is to list all the claims of young earth creationists, and provide rebuttals to those claims. Although the idea for this index came from the TalkOrigins. Many arguments will have additional arguments against the young earth claims which do not appear on the Talk Origins site. In addition, some arguments used on the Talk Origins site will not be used here. This list will also add many arguments not addressed in the Talk Origins listings, and links will be added to other websites of interest, giving the reader more opportunity to research the topic.
The list will grow as new arguments are indexed and addressed, thus it is a fluid document.
It’s the Evolution and Creation discussion. Do you know of any good websites, books, magazines or anything that could help my case out for Creation? Or Carbon dating I know that’s a big topic. Please see our “Creation Science” section on this website. This is a very comprehensive list of the premiere sources for creation science information.
I also make purchase recommendations for the most impactful videos and books available from these sources there. You can find information on carbon dating from most of these sources. The gist of this issue of dating is that a number of assumptions have to be made to get a date, many of which can be dramatically wrong. When most people refer to Carbon dating they really mean radiometric dating in general.
Creationism and Creation Science The belief in the account of the creation of the universe as presented in Genesis. Some creationists consider the theory of creation described in Genesis to be a scientific account and the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution to be false. Advocates of creation science have campaigned to have the biblical version of creation taught as a science in U.
The state of Arkansas passed a law requiring the teaching of creationism in public schools. In , the law was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge who declared creationism to be religious in nature. A similar Louisiana law was overturned in
Years ago, a group of creation scientists set out to explore the question of why radiometric dating methods give inflated age estimates. We know they do because of the aforementioned tests on rocks whose origins were observed.
At the time that Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was published, the earth was “scientifically” determined to be million years old. By , it was found to be 1. In , science firmly established that the earth was 3. Finally in , it was discovered that the earth is “really” 4. In these early studies the order of sedimentary rocks and structures were used to date geologic time periods and events in a relative way.
At first, the use of “key” diagnostic fossils was used to compare different areas of the geologic column. Although there were attempts to make relative age estimates, no direct dating method was available until the twentieth century. However, before this time some very popular indirect methods were available. For example, Lord Kelvin had estimated the ages of both the Earth and the Sun based on cooling rates.
The answer of 25 million years deduced by Kelvin was not received favorably by geologists. Both the physical geologists and paleontologists could point to evidence that much more time was needed to produce what they saw in the stratigraphic and fossil records. As one answer to his critics, Kelvin produced a completely independent estimate — this time for the age of the Sun. His result was in close agreement with his estimate of the age of the earth.
How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
Theodosius Dobzhansky We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.
Sep 20, · Creation Ministries International (CMI) exists to support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability .
Religious basis[ edit ] Creation science is based largely upon chapters 1—11 of the Book of Genesis. These describe how God calls the world into existence through the power of speech “And God said, Let there be light,” etc. Creation science attempts to explain history and science within the span of Biblical chronology , which places the initial act of creation some six thousand years ago. Modern religious affiliations[ edit ] Most creation science proponents hold fundamentalist or Evangelical Christian beliefs in Biblical literalism or Biblical inerrancy, as opposed to the higher criticism supported by Liberal Christianity in the Fundamentalist—Modernist Controversy.
However, there are also examples of Islamic and Jewish scientific creationism that conform to the accounts of creation as recorded in their religious doctrines. This dates back to George McCready Price , an active Seventh-day Adventist who developed views of flood geology,  which formed the basis of creation science. The Pontifical Gregorian University has officially discussed intelligent design as a “cultural phenomenon” without scientific elements.
The Church of England’s official website cites Charles Darwin’s local work assisting people in his religious parish. Objections to evolution and List of scientific bodies explicitly rejecting intelligent design Creation science rejects evolution’s theory of the common descent of all living things on the Earth. Young Earth creationists also reject current estimates of the age of the universe and the age of the Earth , arguing for creationist cosmologies with timescales much shorter than those determined by modern physical cosmology and geological science , typically less than 10, years.
The scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected the ideas put forth in creation science as lying outside the boundaries of a legitimate science. Scientists also deem creation science’s attacks against biological evolution to be without scientific merit.
No Results Found
This table does not show any experimental uncertainties associated with any of the data points. This is the manner in which Barnes presents the data, and nowhere in his book is the subject of experimental uncertainty mentioned at all. From these data Barnes has determined that the Earth’s magnetic field is decaying exponentially. Throughout his book, whenever he mentions this exponential decay, he points the reader to section II-D, page 36 to view the justification.
On that page of his book, he justifies the exponential decay conclusion as follows, the emphasis is mine. B0, as referred to by Barnes, is the equatorial magnetic field strength, which is included in his tables, but omitted from mine.
Evolutionists have concluded the age of the earth to be billions years – based on using radiometric dating methods as a clock. In fact, over the past three centuries evolutionists have been doubling the age of the earth every 15 years.
Radiometric Dating Does Work! Radiometric dating of rocks and minerals using naturally occurring, long-lived radioactive isotopes is troublesome for young-earth creationists because the techniques have provided overwhelming evidence of the antiquity of the earth and life. Some so-called creation scientists have attempted to show that radiometric dating does not work on theoretical grounds for example, Arndts and Overn ; Gill but such attempts invariably have fatal flaws see Dalrymple ; York and Dalrymple Other creationists have focused on instances in which radiometric dating seems to yield incorrect results.
In most instances, these efforts are flawed because the authors have misunderstood or misrepresented the data they attempt to analyze for example, Woodmorappe ; Morris HM ; Morris JD Only rarely does a creationist actually find an incorrect radiometric result Austin ; Rugg and Austin that has not already been revealed and discussed in the scientific literature.
The creationist approach of focusing on examples where radiometric dating yields incorrect results is a curious one for two reasons. First, it provides no evidence whatsoever to support their claim that the earth is very young. If the earth were only —10 years old, then surely there should be some scientific evidence to confirm that hypothesis; yet the creationists have produced not a shred of it so far.
Where are the data and age calculations that result in a consistent set of ages for all rocks on earth, as well as those from the moon and the meteorites, no greater than 10 years? Glaringly absent, it seems. Second, it is an approach doomed to failure at the outset. Creationists seem to think that a few examples of incorrect radiometric ages invalidate all of the results of radiometric dating, but such a conclusion is illogical.
Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. He is blocked, but I was included in the reply because he was attacking me as well as other creationists.
Literally hundreds of dating methods could be used to attempt an estimate of the earth’s age, and the vast majority of them point to a much younger earth than the billion years claimed by secularists.
Now such a closed system does not really exists, but open system affects can’t be determined easily, so it is hoped that they about balance out. These methods all have the same basic assumptions. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotope. Known amounts of daughter isotope at start. Realizing the difficulty of dealing with assumptions 2 and 3 above Isochron Dating was developed in an attempt to solve this problem.
According to theory the sample starts out with daughter isotopes ratio with other isotopes of the same element at a constant value, but with the parent isotope is arbitrary. As a result is forms a strait horizontal line on a graph. As parent decays to daughter, the ratios change and the straight line remains but becomes angled. The slope of the line equals the number of half-lives of the parent isotope has passed sense solidification.
Given this when one looks at an Isochron plot how can one really tell where the true Isochron line should be. Sufficient contamination can produce any Isochron pattern regardless of the true Isochron. It is even possible to get a negative slope, this would be equivalent to a negative or future date. When you look at actual isochron plots such as the ones at above link, there seems to be room for subjectivity.
Does carbon dating prove the earth is millions of years old?
Carbon 14 is used for this example: This nullifies the carbon method as well as demonstrating that the earth is less than 10, years old. The above is offered as a simple fact of research. Knowing how faulty creationist “facts” can be, let’s do a little research of our own. One suspects that the scientific world would not be using the carbon method if it were so obviously flawed.
Radiometric Dating and Creation Science The topic of radiometric dating has received some of the most vicious attacks by young earth creation science theorists. However, none of the criticisms of young earth creationists have any scientific merit.
Bruce Malone gave his life to Christ over 20 years ago, as the Lord miraculously preserved him through a close call with death. Since that time Bruce has looked for a deeper purpose in life and realized that rejection of Biblical truth, justified by belief in evolution, is the acid which is eating away at the moral foundation of our culture.
Bruce spent 27 years working as a research leader for the Dow Chemical Corporation, has a degree chemical engineering, and is responsible for key innovations which have resulted in 18 patents. But his passion is sharing the relevance and evidence for creation, so he retired early to become full time Director of Search for the Truth Ministries http: Bruce has spoken extensively at Colleges and Charities in 12 countries.
Since Bruce has spoken over times to more than 20, people and over 30, books have been distributed to students and prisoners.
Introductory Statement We thank our God for the blessings of the last two years. We have found a profound unity among ourselves on the issues of vital importance to our Reformed testimony. We believe that the Scriptures, and hence Genesis , are the inerrant word of God.
For many people, radiometric dating might be the one scientific technique that most blatantly seems to challenge the Bible’s record of recent creation. For this reason, ICR research has long focused on the science behind these dating techniques.
Contact Me Dating Methods Science uses many dating methods to determine the age of the earth, of the layers in the earth, and of fossils. We will discuss some of those on this page. The Geologic Column Kent Hovind has made himself wealthy and wound up in jail for tax evasion and ” structuring cash transactions ” by claiming that “there is only one place in all the world to see the standard geologic column. That’s in the textbook! The fact is, the geologic column is found many places around the earth.
Note on that page that drilling led to one more place being found in Strata in the Geologic Column Mr. Hovind is also fond of saying that geologists use fossils to date the layers of the geologic column, but they also use the layers of the geologic column to date the fossils. Amazingly, this claim of Mr. Hovind’s is true; however, there’s a good reason why. There are also some amazing consistencies in the geologic column that cannot be explained except by the fact that our dating methods are accurate.
Take a look at the figure below. This figure shows the smoking gun. Smoking gun evidence of what? Figure from AlReheji et al.
All dating methods are based on assumptions about age, not measurements of age. And you can make the result come out to anything you like depending on the assumptions that you make. Further, comparing results based on one set of assumptions with results based on another set of assumptions does not make the results objective.
It’s great to see a place that teenagers can appreciate. Click here for a map of how to get here, then get here! It would appear that we are seeing the fruit of our labours. In , our grand opening spurned two national surveys, one of those by Angus-Reid. One year later, they repeated the poll to see the effect and change in opinion across the nation after Canada’s first Creation museum BVCSM opened its doors.
The results of that poll were surprising – click here to read about it. Read an Expose on the teachings of Dr. Lamoreux Mike Biehler has written an excellent response to the anti-biblical, anti-creation teachings of “evolutionary christian” Dr. Click here to read Mike’s website “The Emporer has no clothes. Click here to download it or if you’re on dial up and don’t want to wait for the hour long download, you can download the 2 meg, low-res version by clicking here.
We get a lot of hate mail and phone calls to the museum.