How Old Is The Earth?
There are many indicators of the age of the Earth. One of the problems in using them is the fact that every method used to determine the age of the Earth uses circular reasoning. What that means is that certain assumptions must be made in order to do the mathematical calculations to determine the age of the Earth. These assumptions are just pulled out of the air. They are simply rational-lie-zed speculations, otherwise known as SSWAAFTs. One set of assumptions could be used just as well as any other.
One type of SSWAAFT is to use an unproven formula to calculate. Now the pseudo scientist can plug in known values into the formula and come up with an answer. The answer is as bogus as the day is long, but the pseudo scientist can fool a lot of people with his or her phony formula. This method can be used to "prove" everything from age-of-earth to hole-in-ozone to warming-of-globe to who-knows-what-they'll-think-of-next.
Uniformitarianism is one of the assumptions that evolutionists like to use. The fact is that evolutionists need this assumption. Basically, uniformitarianism is the incorrect assumption that there was no flood and there was no creation. Now, any good evolutionist, must remember not to mention the fact that he or she is assuming the very thing that he or she is trying to prove. They just keep that a secret. If someone asks them about it, they pretend that person is closed-minded. If that person who questions the evolutionist is a student in the evolutionist's class, guess what is going to happen to the grade point average. If you're an evolutionist, you don't really want anyone to think about your loopy logic. You don't want them to ponder the fact that your logic starts by assuming the answer that you want, and then it works the problem backwards to arrive back at the same answer as your original assumption.
Anyway, ignoring, forgetting, and hiding the fact that the evolutionists are assuming the things they are trying to prove, uniformitarianism has another serious problem. Uniformitarianism doesn't hold up to a simple test. If the assumption were not false, then you could take one set of assumptions and apply that set of assumptions to the many indicators of the age of the earth and come up with the same age. The problem with uniformitarianism is that if you take one indicator of the age of the Earth, you will get one age. If you take another indicator, you will get a wildly different age. The differences are not small. They are huge. That exposes the fact that the SSWAAFT of uniformitarianism is wrong. Face it; uniformitarianism is a fib.
If we plug a great flood into the equation about 4,000-5,000 years ago, all the data begins to make sense. If we plug a creation into the equation a little before that, then everything starts to make even more sense. The SSWAAFT of uniformitarianism is, however, widely used, because using it will make it possible to come up with scientific sounding calculations that say the Earth is very old. Evolutionists have to remember to keep certain pieces of information hidden, though. The evolutionists tell people that the calculations are very hard to understand. In this case they aren't really lying. The calculations actually are hard to understand, because they don't make any sense. However, evolutionist's calculations do serve the important role of confusing people, which is the real basis of the evolutionary paradigm. Besides, when someone is having so much fun sinning, who wants to think about a God who judges sin and a nasty old flood anyway? And, for those who like to do their own thing, who wants to think about a God who wants obedience?
More
Evolution isn't science.
Author/Compiler: Bob Stenson (unless otherwise noted)
Last updated: 2008-10-18 08:35:14
|
Previous - Next
 |
How Old Is The Earth? |
Want more?
. . . or self-satisfied?
Featured Articles:
The Real Purpose of Life.
The Real Purpose of the Church.
|
Truth
How Old Is Earth?