Why Young Earth Creationists are WRONG, Part II

In the first part I showed how tree rings prove the earth is not 6,000 years old, but instead must be at least 11,300. Meaning the Young Earth Creationists are off by a factor of 2. Here I describe one radiometric dating technique, the Potassium-Argon Method. Data from this technique also proves the earth is not 6,000 years old (remember, in science you can always prove something wrong), but now points to the age at around 4,500,000,000 years. Meaning the Young Earth Creationists are off by almost a factor of a million. As Richard Dawkins put it (and I confirmed the calculation), this is like claiming the distance from New York to Los Angeles is 28 feet!

Each of the dating techniques has its strengths and weaknesses. For example, if rock is heated long after it originally cooled (transformed into metamorphic rock) it can lose some of its Argon. This is actually used by some geologists to date meteorite impact craters. Since the age given by the rock at the bottom of the crater will not be the age of the rock, but the age of the impact which reset the clock to zero. Another weakness is that certain Potassium minerals are water soluble and therefore can be leached out of the rock. Rocks containing these minerals are not used. The last two, Xenoliths and parentless Argon, are discussed in the video.

Suffice it to say, there is a ton of independent data from multiple techniques that all confirm each other. They all point to an earth that is a million times older than the young earth creationists believe. But why would they listen to data, evidence, and facts. I remind you of a quote from part 1.

. "...when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it's the interpretation of the data that is at fault."

A message to creationists:

If you believe the world was created by god, then why do you close your eyes to it? Put down the words of men, and yes the bible was written by men (god does not distribute through Amazon.com). And though these men claim to be divinely inspired we know humans have a history of not being trustworthy (even creationists). Look at the world around you, and study it, learn from it. If god created the rocks and they say they are 4.5 billion years old, and man wrote a book that says they are 6,000 years old, who should you believe. I think that's an easy one. God has routinely altered his position as humans have matured to accept it. "Eye for an eye" in the time of Moses while "turn the other cheek" in the time of Jesus. Maybe god simplified creation in Genesis because he knew people could not accept the truth, it was too far out there. But now science has advanced to reveal the truth, and humans have matured to accept that truth. Have you? So I say again, put down the words of men, and open you eyes to the world around you.

To download this video go to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?5nttz3yb51y

If you wish to translate this video you can download the PowerPoint file from:
http://www.mediafire.com/?zyjgtykmcwx

Learn the facts, spread the truth, and most importantly, Think About It.

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• Age
• Earth
• Radiometric
• Potassium
• Argon
• Evolution
• Intelligent
• Design
• ID
• Creation
• Hovind
• Debate
• Education
• Evidence
• Facts

[Mogley52]

ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)

[Mogley52]

NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.

[Mogley52]

GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!

[Mogley52]

NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

[Mogley52]

WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.