Kathy Petersen’s Blog

A C.S.I. moment

Posted in creation, Uncategorized by Kathy on April 7, 2008

I used to watch CSI all the time, especially when it first came out, and I liked the catch-phrases “What does the evidence say?” and “Follow the evidence.” It is important to know what the evidence actually says. And not just what people say the evidence says.

For instance, when you talk about creation vs. evolution, those who hold to the latter theory like to portray the theory of creation as being based solely on the Bible, or even on mythical, fictitious accounts; whereas the theory of evolution is portrayed as being based solely on science. But is that what the evidence shows?

Recently there have been some posts, and comments on those posts, about creation vs. evolution. Some evolutionists have (politely or rudely) proudly proclaimed that their belief system is based on science, and point to the number of scientists who accept the theory of evolution. Of course, “majority rules” is fine for the playground, but science is held to a slightly higher standard. So, what does science show?

Some talk about the “science” that demonstrates that the world is millions of years old. Does it? Actually, no. That is the presupposition, and all evidence is skewed to “support” that theory, or else it is ignored. For instance, the various methods of dating objects all produce different ages, many of them multiple millions of years difference. How can we be sure that any of these dating methods are accurate? Also, they are all based on a couple of suppositions — the first being that the rate of decay is constant, so what we see now is the way it has always been; and the second is the starting amount of a certain element in the rock (or whatever is being measured).

So that is not strictly science, but rather, supposition.

Another supposition is that what we see now is the way it has always been, including the rate of sedimentation. That is a huge assumption, and one that cannot be tested. Using this assumption, “scientists” say (I’m making up numbers, because I don’t know the current rate of sedimentation), “If it takes 5 years for an inch of sediment to form, and we’ve got a column that’s a mile high, then it’s taken 315,000 years for that column to form. Therefore, those fossils that are at the bottom of the pile must be at least 315,000 years old.” (Except they usually have this in the order of millions of years.) Only problem is that we don’t know if that is correct. Also, if it takes 5 years for an inch of sediment to form, how did any fossils get created? When animals die, they begin to decompose and scavengers eat their bodies as well. This process begins almost immediately. Yet many fossils show whole creatures (whether plant or animal), which shows that the animal was either buried alive or buried immediately after it died. The only known way for this to happen would be for the animal to have been caught in a flood of water and/or mud. All fossils had to be created in a flood, and not in some slowly-accumulating sediment. Therefore the whole basis and premise is wrong. Yet “scientists” refuse to acknowledge this basic problem. They continue to deny the scientific basis for creation and a global flood, while all around them the evidence shows that the only way for fossils to develop would be to do so in floods. So, you see, it doesn’t really matter what the current or past rate of sedimentation is, because animals begin to decompose within a few days — far too fast for any sedimentation, other than flood or mud. And who can say with certainty how much mud a local flood deposited at any point in time. Think of the mud slides that happen in California and other places. How much mud is deposited during those? It’s enough to destroy houses, so each mud slide could likely deposit several inches of mud. And these can happen more than once a year.

Did you know that the “fossil column” that is shown in all the science books doesn’t exist anywhere in the world? In some of the fossil columns that exist, the idealized order is reversed in some areas. So “science” then declares that this segment of earth (some of these places are huge, involving an area at least a mile high and a mile wide) must have somehow been dislodged from its proper spot and tumbled over onto its head, and was then covered over by more sediment in the intervening millions of years. But there isn’t one hint of evidence anywhere to show activity this massive. The only “evidence” is the dogmatic belief in evolution.

Having been raised to believe the Bible, I don’t give evolutionists any credence. Having been educated in a Christian school whose science textbooks presumed the Bible to be true, I was taught the fallacies of evolution, and the lack of a scientific basis. However, this upbringing did not give much scientific basis for creation or the flood, except for the fact that the only alternative (evolution requiring millions and/or billions of years) was scientifically untenable. So I was pleased to find a website which supplied that which was lacking: The Center for Scientific Creation. In addition to exposing the many scientific faults with evolution (most of these are admitted by scientists which believe in evolution, simply because the only alternative is creation, which they reject), this website provides a scientific basis for creation, and also for the flood. It really is a fascinating theory. I’m quite certain that it is not 100% accurate or infallible, yet it is quite amazing. It solves most of the problems that “science” has with the world as we know it, and shines a spotlight on many of the problems that the theory of evolution creates for scientists who cling to it.

Advertisements

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Nimravid said, on April 7, 2008 at 11:55 pm

    “Some talk about the “science” that demonstrates that the world is millions of years old. Does it? Actually, no.”

    You’re right! It shows the earth is *billions* of years old, 4.54 billion to be exact.

    You want all radiometric dating methods to return 4.54 billion years, but this is physically impossible. For instance, carbon dating is limited to a maximum age of about 50,000 years, 60,000 with some machines. Attempting to date an ancient sample will, in the absence of contamination or regeneration of C-14 by radioactive decay in the surrounding rock, return an age of “>50,000 years”. And indeed, 4.54 billion years is greater than 50,000 years.

    Testing of ancient rock samples with various methods appropriate (according to the laws of physics) to ancient ages return consistent ages.

    You are mistaken on your other objections as well. We can observe a record of past radioactive decay rates in starlight, and they have been constant for billions of years. And the modern dating methods used most on ancient samples are not prone to mistakes from excess initial isotopes or escape of a daughter isotope, because these types of events are detectable by the method.

    “Another supposition is that what we see now is the way it has always been, including the rate of sedimentation.”

    Heavens no. Even way back in Darwin’s day Darwin (see Origin of Species) knew that sedimentation rates were not constant, but two layers of rock adjacent to each other could sometimes be separated by millions of years of time. And that takes care of that entire paragraph right there.

    “So “science” then declares that this segment of earth (some of these places are huge, involving an area at least a mile high and a mile wide) must have somehow been dislodged from its proper spot and tumbled over onto its head, and was then covered over by more sediment in the intervening millions of years.”

    That would be “geology” specifically. This is called an overthrust, and is a well-understood result of plate tectonics. To my knowledge there are no areas where a layer of strata is flipped upside down, just where older rock is raised and slipped over younger rock.

    “However, this upbringing did not give much scientific basis for creation or the flood”

    Preach it, sister! It’s interesting that scientists (you’ve got a bone to pick with physicists and geologists as well as biologists and geneticists, which is why I don’t say “evolutionists” here) spend a lot of time discovering evidence and fitting it into an explanatory framework that provides a model of the past. Creationists . . . spend their time writing creationist propaganda and referencing old sources, sometimes being more than a decade behind the times in referencing the literature (see AiG’s lies about the supposed missing pelvis of Ambuloctus–found and published in 1996).

    “The Center for Scientific Creation”

    Sadly, but unsurprisingly, more propaganda.

  2. Kathy said, on April 8, 2008 at 1:12 am

    Ah, yes, sarcasm. Known to win so many arguments. The author of this website and book has a standing offer to debate anyone who disagrees with him. If you’re so sure you’re right, I hope you let me know when you’re going to debate him, so I can get a copy of it.

    Maybe after you actually read what is written you may understand it and can cogently comment on it.

  3. Nimravid said, on April 8, 2008 at 1:21 am

    I note you responded to none of my points.

  4. Kathy said, on April 8, 2008 at 12:21 pm

    Because the author of the website has already dealt with what you’ve said. Therefore, it would take too much of my time, not to mention space on this post, to repeat what has already been so well said elsewhere.

    The website mentioned above has a search feature on it. You can look up “dating” or “young earth” or “old earth” or any other term you’re interested in and quickly see pertinent information.

  5. Nimravid said, on April 8, 2008 at 1:33 pm

    If we’re proceeding by directing links toward each other, I’ll refer you to Talk Origin’s page on the age of the earth.

    There is much more information on my blog about evolution, covering a range of different topics.

  6. Kathy said, on April 8, 2008 at 2:14 pm

    And here are some links for you to consider as well:

    Young sun: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences10.html
    Young Milky Way: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences52.html
    Young Comets: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences47.html
    Dating techniques: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences32.html (although some of the techniques mentioned here include those that you raise objections to on your website, there are some interesting implications in here, even if your objections to the dating techniques are valid; namely, the problem with a molten earth)
    Young Moon craters: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences45.htm
    “old” elements in a “young” galaxy: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ120.html
    “The discovery of a giant planet amid a cluster of primitive stars is challenging one of astronomers’ pet notions. … [The planet would have to have been] born billions of years before most astrophysicists thought the universe had spawned the raw materials needed to make them.” Robert Irion, “Ancient Planet Turns Back the Clock,” Science, Vol. 301, 11 July 2003, p. 151.: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ211.html
    The problem with the moon’s effect on the earth/tides, and the moon’s recession from the earth: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes2.html

    Happy reading! 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: