If you have not read Stories Versus Truth, you may want to read that before reading this.
Science is not fabricated stories (evolutionism, old-Earthism, big-bangism, bibilcal-erroism, etc.) that are based on arbitrary assumptions (naturalism, materialism, uniformitarianism) and rationalizations.
We have taken the logical sequence that is used to defend/sell claims of deep time and laid it out in outline form so it can be examined objectively. The outline begins with the starting point of the logical construct. That starting point is the foundational premise or the base premise on which everything else is built. A logical construct cannot be any stronger than its foundation.
The case for prehistory/deep time:
- Assumption 1: Only testimony (e.g. written accounts), and physical evidence can be used to know history. (This is arbitrary and thus irrational.)
- Assumption 2: Physical nature is all that there is. (This is a statement of the belief of Naturalism. Naturalism is self-refuting as documented further down this page.)
- Assumption 3: There is pre-history. (This is arbitrary and thus irrational.)
- Assumption 4: God does not sustain the material world in an orderly way so that the laws of science, logic, and order work. (This is arbitrary and thus irrational.)
- Assumption 5: There was no global catastrophic flood as God says there was. (This is arbitrary and thus irrational.)
- Based on the authority of these assumptions and especially since it is assumed that there is pre-history, testimony is not available. (Why is this not true?)
- Since testimony is not available, only physical evidence can be used. (Why is this not true?)
- Since only physical evidence can be used, matter is all that matters. (Why is this not true?)
- Assume that science is the best way to know about matter. (This assumption is refuted later on this page.)
- Since matter is all that matters and science is the best way to know about matter, science is the only method that can be used to know anything. (Why is this not true?)
- Assumption 1: The observed rates of certain natural processes are constant through time.(This cannot be known through science.)
- Assumption 2: Though several instances are now known where natural processes are not constant over time, in any instance where there is still room to argue that natural processes are constant, we will assume that natural processes are constant over time. (This is contrary to the evidence.)
- Assumption 3: We will assume an initial reading of any indicator of the age of the Earth that supports deep time. (This cannot be known through science.)
- Assumption 4: We will assume that the process rate remained constant throughout time. (This cannot be known through science.)
- Assumption 5: We will assume that the behavior of history is the same thing as science that it is repeatably constant, ignoring the fact that the past cannot be repeatably verified—that stories are just stories. (This is unscientific.)
- Arbitrary rejection of data: We will ignore the fact that various indicators of the age of the Earth give different results using the same assumptions, which would indicate that assumptions don’t make sense. (This is unscientific.)
- Arbitrary rejection of data: We will ignore indicator of the age of the Earth and any data that does not support deep time. (This is unscientific.)
- Faulty reasoning: We can use these methods in the present, so this proves that we can apply them to deep time. (This is irrational and unscientific.)
- Assumption 6: Though dating methods are not objective, we can treat them as if they were objective. (This is irrational and unscientific.)
- If we interpret the observations of science using these assumptions and this logic, we prove the existence of deep time and pre-history (This is circular reasoning because we are assuming the existence of pre-history to prove pre-history.)
Here are the assumptions of theists who believe in deep time and why they are irrational:
- Assumption 1 (arbitrary and thus irrational): Some of the events of the past were caused by miracles.
- Assumption 2 (arbitrary and thus irrational): Some testimony is acceptable while some must be rejected.
- There is no way to determine what to accept and what to reject
- Acceptance or rejection is arbitrary/irrational.
- There is no way to determine the when, where, and who related to the miracles.
- Any statements regarding when, where and who are arbitrary/irrational.
- We can’t know what God did in pre-history unless He tells us.
- If He tells us, then it is no longer pre-history.
- There is no reason to trust deep-time history if miracles are allowed in pre-history.
- There is no way to say anything for certain about specific events in pre-history if miracles are allowed in pre-history but testimony is sometimes arbitrarily rejected.
- Miracles in pre-history undermine Naturalism.
- Miracles in pre-history undermine the reliability of Naturalistic science.
- No discoveries of Naturalistic science can then be trusted.
(We are not dogmatically claiming to know that the Earth is 6,000 years old. We know that God created the Heavens and the Earth in six days and we know the number of generations between Adam and Christ. That's about it. Even though a plain reading of Scripture seems to indicate a young Earth; even though there is zero observed evidence and only circular reasoning and speculations that support old Earth stories, we can't even deny the possibility that God could have done something that Scripture doesn't hint at and that has left no scientific evidence. It is possible. It just is not worth the time to think about it.)
The reasons Naturalists give for believing in Naturalism:
- Naturalism is obvious.
- However, this is just a claim without any evidence. There is no evidence that can be shown to others and there is no evidence that can be known by the person making the statement. If you ask, "How do you know this is true," the Naturalist cannot answer coherently. In fact, it is one of many ways to use language to pre-suppose Naturalism. Presupposing something may make it seem to be true but presupposing does not make something true.
- There is nothing but the natural world. We know this because we don't observe anything that is outside of the natural world.
- However, this is an argument from ignorance. Arguments from ignorance are irrational/insane. The reason that this is not rational is that not knowing about something is not proof that something does not exist. If you have never seen an microscopic life form, that doesn't mean that microscopic life forms do not exist. This is the problem of the naturalistic paradigm. When confronted with anything that is outside of that naturalistic paradigm, the naturalist must dismiss it as an illusion, an anomaly, a lie, something having a natural explanation, or some other defense mechanism. Just as heat is obvious and air is obvious, God is obvious in all of creation, and we can all know about Him through the things that He created. Followers of Christ have always been led by Christ as Jesus said, "My sheep hear My Voice." And so they do, but the Naturalist refuses to give God the glory and to acknowledge Him, so they refuse to face the facts.
- There is nothing but the natural world.
- However, this is a declaration of a universal negative. Universal negatives are irrational/insane. The reason that this is not rational is that the person is actually claiming to be all-knowing of all things natural and spiritual throughout everything that exists anywhere and that they have determined that there is nothing but the natural world.
Why is Naturalism self-refuting:
Here are two assumptions of Naturalism.
- The assumption that physical nature is all that there is. (This is the simple belief known as Naturalism)
- The assumption that the mind is the brain. (This is one of the logical consequences of the belief known as Naturalism)
Proof that Naturalism is self-refuting and therefore irrational:
- If Naturalism is fact, then a person’s belief in Naturalism is produced purely by the workings of inanimate nature.
- Therefore, the Naturalist’s brain chemistry made the Naturalist believe in Naturalism.
- Therefore, the Naturalist didn’t reason to belief. Reason could not have anything to do with it because of Naturalism.
- Therefore, the Naturalist's brain could be fooling them to keep them alive and they would never know the difference.
- Therefore, there is no reason to trust in reason because of Naturalism.
- Therefore, Naturalism is self-refuting and therefore irrational.
Why Methodological Naturalism is Irrational:
One starting point for Methodological Naturalism: "Science can only explain what happens in the universe in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms"
- However, this is merely an assumption so it is arbitrary and thus irrational. It is also self-refuting.)
Another starting point for Methodological Naturalism:: "If there are any supernatural beings, they never interfere directly in nature, and especially in prehistory."
- However, if nature acted as if it were all there is, it would be more likely to be chaotic than ordered and our minds would not be dependable for telling whether or not is was ordered because they could be fooling us to keep us alive.
- Therefore, Naturalism is an incoherent answer to the question: “Why is nature predictable?”
Why Methodological Naturalism is self-refuting:
- There is no reason that God (or any spiritual entity) could not do miracles in prehistory (if prehistory were to exist).
- Therefore the only way we could know whether or not God did any miracles in prehistory would be if God (or spiritual beings) told us and if they were reliable.
- Therefore, if God (or spiritual beings) told us, then there would not be prehistory.
- Therefore, the notion of prehistory is self-refuting, arbitrary, and thus irrational.
The trouble with Scientism and why it is irrational and self-refuting:
- Science is the only way to know anything.
- However, this statement, "Science is the only way to know anything," cannot be known through science.
- Therefore to state that science is the only way to know anything is a self-refuting statement..
- Science cannot provide absolute truth.
- Therefore, to state that science is the only way to know anything is a self-refuting statement.
- Science is the ultimate authority in knowing anything.
- However, this statement, "Science is the ultimate authority in knowing anything," cannot be known through science.
- Therefore, to state that science is the ultimate authority in knowing anything is a self-refuting statement.
- Science cannot provide absolute truth.
- Therefore to state that science is the ultimate authority in knowing anything is a self-refuting statement.
Science was born not in Greece, China, India, or Islam, but in Christian Europe in the Middle Ages
Science blossomed in the reformation as soon as the Bible’s ultimate authority and the fall of mankind into sin was acknowledged.
These outlines provides a breakdown of how knowledgeable old-earthers rationalize their standpoint. Most old-earthers would not be able to articulate this, though. They just go with the flow of whatever crowd they are in.
Mapping out the logic in outline form makes it plain that every claim for an old Earth and Universe rests firmly on arbitrary assumptions. Calling them axioms doesn't make them any less arbitrary. This is why unbelievers react so violently when they hear anyone speak of how they were led by God or how God performed a miracle in the present. The Christian has real revelation of the power and presence of God. The unbeliever has arbitrary/irrational assumptions.
You see, the only alternative to starting with arbitrary assumptions and unsupported claims is to start with revelation. God does reveal. Jesus Christ is not a theory but a Person Whom we really know in reality.
Chart explaining how time from the Creation to the present can be calculated using Scripture?
Last updated: Aug, 2013
Answers for Witness
Stories Versus Revelation
Creation, Flood, Etc.
The Age of the Earth
Deep Time Logic
Toons & Vids
Does Pure Science Prove the Earth to be Billions of Years Old?
What Does the Bible Say About the Age of the Earth?
How could there be light on the first day when the Sun wasn't created until the fourth day?
Does the Story about Deep Time and Billions of Years Make Sense?
Examples Of Old-Earth Deception
Thermodynamics And The Dying Universe
What About The Bible--doesn't It Say The Earth Is About 6,000 Years Old?
What Is Wrong With Believing That The Earth Is Billions Of Years Old If There Is A Way That You Can Reconcile That With Scripture, Even Though Such A Reconciliation Requires Some Amazingly Complex And Strange Assumptions?
How Could There Have Been Enough People From the Eight on the Ark to the Tower of Babel?
Answer to Critic
Appeal to Possibility
Argument to the Future
Love Between a Man and Woman
Righteousness & Holiness
Proof by Atheism
Scriptures About Marriage
The Reason for Rejecting Truth
Witness on the Internet
Flaky Human Reasoning
How Do You Know?
The Real Purpose of the Church
The Real Purpose of Life
From Glory to Glory
REAL Faith--What it IS & IS NOT
REAL Love--What it IS & IS NOT
How to be Led by God
How to Witness
Wisdom: Righteousness & Reality
Holiness & Mind/Soul
Redemption: Free From Sin
Stories Versus Revelation
Circular Reasoning-Who is Guilty?
How Can We Know Anything?
Mind Designed to Relate to God
Answers for the Confused
Fossil Record Says: "Creation"
Avoid These Pitfalls
Public School's Religion
Public School Failures
How can we know anything about anything?
That's the real question