Young-Earth Creationist Gives us “Evidence” for a Young-Earth

deconversionmovement:

johnnyis:

1) The age of the earth is almost always ascertained by methods which rely on unproven and tenuous assumptions. For instance, for radiometric dating results to be accurate, the sample must have remained in a closed system so that the mother and daughter isotopes could not have been affected. This is unlikely. 

2) The methods used to achieve various dates contradict each other. Helium dating methods contradict Potassium/Argon dating methods, etc. This means that one or both methods is unreliable. 

Regurgitating creationist websites doesn’t prove anything.  Radiometric dating methods work.  Here, go educate yourself:

• Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods -Fossil dating is accurate since the method follows strict scientific guidelines: the age of rocks around a fossil can be considered, mathematical calculations are used, the state of decay, carbon-14, and isotopes figure in calculations and tree of life relationships often help sort the dates
• How fossils support the stages of evolutionary history
• Quality of the fossil record: Data bases and software for studying the quality of the fossil record.
• The basics of Radiometric dating methods
• Good overview with response to critiques by religious fundamentalists.
  

I Googled “helium dating contradicts potassium/argon dating” and the first two results were answers2prayer.org and creationism.org.  Like I said, you’re just regurgitating the hogwash you’ve been fed.

There are many more reasons to reject the age of the earth provided by poor dating methods. Are there any reasons to accept the young-earth view, however? I think there are a few. My personal favorite is that DNA and organic matter has been recovered from dinosaur bones and other fossils generally dated to be millions of years old. Why is this significant? Because organic matter like this couldn’t survive past 20,000 years of age. It’s just not possible. 

David Plaisted is a computer scientist for crying out loud!  So, here’s where I’ll insert a non-fallacious genetic argument.  If he isn’t a paleontologist or at the very least an archaeologist, he has no business writing essays on radiometric dating; he does not have the qualifications.  Put it this way:  would you want a non-Christian preaching this Sunday?  I rest my case!  Oh, by the way, everyone of Plaisted’s claims have been refuted by geologist Kevin R. Henke (read here).  Please, some due diligence for once; have both sides of an argument prior to drawing a conclusion.  I shouldn’t have to remind an honest person of that.

“My personal favorite is that DNA and organic matter has been recovered from dinosaur bones…”  This sentence is grossly exaggerated; that claim was made twice aside from Mary Schweitzer.  Both of those claims crumbled when scrutinized and peer reviewed.  Thus, you are left with Schweitzer’s claim.  She made her discovery in 2006.  Since then, there has been some research regarding her findings.

• Kaye, Thomas G.; Gary Gaugler, Zbigniew Sawlowicz (July 30, 2008). “Dinosaurian Soft Tissues Interpreted as Bacterial Biofilms”. PLoS ONE 3 (7): e2808. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002808. PMC 2483347. PMID 18665236. Retrieved 2012-10-06.

This paper refutes her findings.

• Peterson, JE; Lenczewski, ME; Reed, PS (October 2010). Stepanova, Anna. ed. “Influence of Microbial Biofilms on the Preservation of Primary Soft Tissue in Fossil and Extant Archosaurs”. PLoS ONE 5 (10): 13A. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013334.  Retrieved 2012-10-06.

This paper supports her findings.

My point:  you can’t go around drawing such conclusions.  There isn’t enough evidence to support it.

Ultimately, I accept creation and a young earth because Christ did. Since He rose from the dead, I trust what He had to say about the matter. 

The resurrection is a faith-based claim; it isn’t a factual historical event.  I would much rather trust them who are searching for answers.  I can’t trust people who draw conclusions without evidence.