Here we go...they've come back with a whopper.
Looks to me as though their logic does not include the possibility that Genesis isn't literal. Everything has to be filtered through Genesis or discarded. Nothing new there.
Quote:Amino acid racemization: Basically it looks like carbon dating, if I’m not mistaken. In short, it seems that there is a point that the page capitulates under: That amino acids undergo different rates of change. I don’t know this science enough to go in-depth, but I want to point out the page’s main argument. They say it would need great humidity, temperature change, and acidity. How about the dreaded Great Flood? Great humidity, and the Earth would probably be thrown off its normal climate routine, and some other wonderful weather phenomena. I want to keep my original answer short, though, so I’ll stop here.
Baptistina asteroid family: Okay, I don’t know enough of the family, but I am questioning the collision. We must make the assumption that some collision made this thing around 80 million years ago. How did they prove that? Just a question for right now…
Continental drift: No, it’s fast. Didn’t you see that new Ice Age 4 trailer? Just kidding… That was a joke… If I remember correctly, according to evolutionists, supervolcanic activity caused the drift to start VERY quickly. It was not slow at first at all to them either. But again, we look to the Flood. Erosion is a wonderful, and quick, thing my friend.
Coral: I don’t know whether the Flood could have done something or not, but I know in many instances that coral reef building can be very quick. It is not always so slow.
Cosmic nuclide dating: Nothing against a young earth theory. It CAN be estimated up to millions of years, but that doesn’t prove that the universe is millions and billions of years.
Dendrochronology: This research varies in climate? Again, we look to the Flood’s effects. Something like that would shake up the climate by A LOT. Am I getting this right?
Distant starlight: Ahh, the ol’ light speed issue. Yes, according to Albert Einstein, light goes at about some 3,000,000 miles per hour, but there is a different point we must think about. Light has no mass. According to Einstein, less mass = less effect on time, thereby spacetime. Since light has no mass, time would therefore have little or no effect on it. Einstein also was confused on whether light immediately goes somewhere or travels for a while. AIG had an article on it, but the article escapes my memory. Basically, this issue is left up to personal belief in either light going from one place to another or traveling a while.
Erosion: I don’t agree with Mr. VenomFang’s idea that the Grand Canyon would have been made in 5 minutes. That’s ludicrous not only scientifically but also that, since the Flood lasted much longer after that, the canyon would today be much grander, know what I mean? The Flood lasted a whole year, not 40 days and 40 nights. Erosion actually works against millions of years. Here’s something from a debate website called Question Evolution. “At the current rate, the continents should have eroded much more than they have. The White Cliffs of Dover, for instance, are falling into the ocean at the alarming rate of 1 meter every six years and should have disappeared long ago.” Let’s not forget, we’re talking more than 65 million years. I guess I can’t even understand cause the human brain turns off the largeness of something at more than 900,000, or something like that.
Fission track dating: Nothing was on here to say that uranium was old in the way of millions of years. But in order to do that, if I’m not mistaken, uranium and other radioactive materials would have been in humongous deposits.
Geomagnetic reversals: Actually, there’s a problem with the current view of Earth’s magnetism. In some instances, the current research on some magnetic views is off in reality by factors of 100,000.
Helioseismology: The article doesn’t give enough details to provide an accurate response. What, you think I should know this already? I don’t know everything. I need more. If I can say one thing, it is that the age of the sun can be INFERRED, not determined.
Y-Chromosome: This argument wouldn’t matter in the least if the Y-Chromosome was already created at around 6000-10000 years ago. Wouldn’t matter how much research and time you put into it, it wouldn’t be right.
I’m tired of going through all of these. That’s a long list, I tell ya! I’ll go into some selected points.
Lack of DNA in fossils: It’s a wonder that there are any fossils at all. Most in them, either in the case of the asteroid or Flood, would be gone from the Earth. While the soft tissue thing was shown to be mistaken, it does give some insight that there is probably something that could show the DNA there.
Length of Prehistoric Day: Wouldn’t matter a bit if the Earth were moving at 24 hour, 365 days speed at the creation. Wouldn’t matter in the least.
Permafrost: “To be consistent with the young earth creationist model, which states that all sediment was deposited by the global flood, there would have to be absolutely no permafrost present at the end of the flood, because any permafrost that was present at the moment of creation would have been melted during the flood.” O_o Did I miss something or did that make no sense? It basically said that, in order for current permafrost to be around, there couldn’t be any existing permafrost at the end of the Flood. Then it said that the Flood would have melted any preexisting permafrost. Am I missing something here?
I know that’s not all of them, but some I can’t answer and would rather you ask someone who knows this more than I do. I’m simply am answering the ones I know are flawed or are compatible with Genesis.
There is at least one thing I know is incompatible with billions of years, which as you said, in other terms, was necessary for evolution to come up into OUR stage. (I actually had more but now I can’t remember them. :p)
What about entropy? According to thermodynamics, the equation for the 2nd Law is: ∆S(universe) > or = 0
Scientists have now jumped into saying that the universe is at least 13.2 billion years old. Has anyone yet produced a mathematical equation saying about how much destruction the universe is going through? What is the ∆S? By now, it should far exceed anything we’ve come up to. I know that 4.6 billion years (the last popular number for the age of the universe) was walking on the border of defying entropy in the means that the universe still has materials. Everything’s working back to being energy. My question should be can the universe hold itself together from collapsing for 13.2 billion years? Without a mechanism to answer the question positively, I highly doubt that the age can be that long.
Now you may say that I’m ignoring the fact of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, but I’m not. According to most views, the universe will eventually become so disorganized that it collapses and becomes energy. This can be shown by our sun’s fusion reactions, in which the newly made helium atoms are smaller than they should be because the some mass turned into energy. Everything is doing this thanks not so much by fusion but by entropy. So my question still stands: Can the universe hold out 13.2 billion years?
There is doubt in billions of years but yet inerrancy in the Bible. In fact, there are many scientific facts in the Bible that can be spotted if you pay attention. If we cannot see billions of years, we cannot have evolution to our point.
Looks to me as though their logic does not include the possibility that Genesis isn't literal. Everything has to be filtered through Genesis or discarded. Nothing new there.
