This is the second in a four-part series by AAH Contributing Writer, Indy-based author, counselor and blogger, Dr. Phillip D. Sparks.
Yes, we still welcome your comments, challenges, agreements, monkey wrenches, doubts, rants and questions.
Old Verses Young Earth: The Evolution-Creation Debate, Part II
By Dr. Phillip D. Sparks
– – –
Most discoveries that support a young earth never make it to the current media sources. One of the most reputable journals is Science and this piece of evidence was published in a 2003 issue. It reported soft tissue being discovered in the femur of the dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex. This dinosaur has been dated at about 65 million years ago. But if the date is true the soft tissues would have long disappeared. Similar discoveries in fossils dating to millions of years have also been found. One of these was in salamander fossil supposedly dated 18 million years ago. Proteins just do not survive that long.
We know the sun is getting smaller every day.
If the world was several billions years old, when we project back that far, the sun would have to have been so big and so hot no living thing could have survived when the first live formed, let alone allow proteins to exist within the organic soup.
Oil supposedly was trapped in the earth several million years ago. This oil is under pressure so that when it is tapped by a drill it comes to the surface with great force. However these oil basins leak and the pressure slowly leaks out. If the world was even several million years old, the pressure would have all leaked out. This is not what the research shows.
We can date unfossilized dinosaur bones as a few thousand years old using carbon 14 not the 60 million years that evolutionists tell us. Due to the half life of carbon 14 it would all be decayed unless the world is much younger than evolutionists tell us.
For natural selection to explain life forms as we know them, advantageous mutations must have occurred. We know that most all mutations are harmful, so the best explanation is that God created the kinds of organisms that we see on earth today less than 10,000 years ago.
– – –
Next post in the series:
Evolution – Science Says No
Previous post: Old Verses Young Earth: the Evolution-Creation Debate, Part I
– – –
To read the biographies of Dr. Sparks and our other contributing writers, and to find links to their posts at AAH, go here.
– – –
References for further reading:
Science (journal)
Sun’s protective ‘bubble’ is shrinking, The London Telegraph
Michael Brown’s Mike’s Origins Resource
Michael E Conner
I presume that you are not deliberately trying to deceive with the pseudo science and ‘conspiracy theory’ approach of this blog post, but to anyone who knows anything about science it comes across that way. That then tells them that Christians are deceitful, and so they won’t listen to what we actually have to say about things that are important. As St Augustine wrote:
“It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of the Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation…the shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scriptures are criticised and rejected as unlearned men”
Your response to my blog is nothing more than name calling. You imply that I misuse scripture. I did not quote any scripture in this blog. Are you saying I am misinformed? I am not. Are you saying that flesh in dinosaurs will be preserved for 65 million years. That is bad science. We find Carbon 14 in dinosaur bones. How do you propose the C 14 got there becasue the 1/2 life of carbon does not permit it to last 65 million years.
If flesh is found on dinosaurs, what would be the scientific approach to the issue? It would be to try to understand how and why that might have happened to see what could be learnt from the information. It would not be to say “oh, all of our laws of physics, based on many other observations must be wrong”.
The only reason that I can imagine a Christian having for suggesting that the body of scientific theory is wrong is a literal interpretation of Genesis.
My comment was not intended as a personal attack, since I don’t know you. But I know the damage that dismissing science does to the name of Christianity, and to the chances of those who are not Christian being interested in finding out more. Imagine the thought train of an on-looker who is not a Christian:
An onlooker would ask why such an interpretation is being defended so vigorously. Why is the body of scientific knowledge being dismissed in favour of the first book of the Bible? It must be because the Christian faith and religion hangs on the first book of the Bible being taken literally. Therefore they would conclude that to become a Christian you have to dismiss the majority of science, view it as an enemy, and believe something that was written over 4000 years ago instead. I think very few people are going to go for that option. I suggest that very few people choose Christianity through being convinced by posts such at this that the earth is as young as you claim.
Christianity is life blood to people. In my view we should be doing all we can to allow people to become Christian, and striving to avoid putting up unnecessary barriers. An in-depth look at science shows us a remarkable God, and a purposeful universe. A proper understanding of what science is shows that there should be no competition between science and God. That’s why I may have come across as aggressive in response to your post.
What I have researched is the huge body of evidence that main line science does not talk about because it does not fit the science approved theory of evolution. There will be a couple of more blogs that will address this principle about these hidden scientific discoveries. I would suggest that you read the book Synchronized Universe by Claude Swanson, A truly facinating piece of work. Yes, there is room for some revision of our laws of physics.
Phil, I totally agree that there is MUCH that science doesn’t talk about and that there is a lot that we still don’t, and that we never will know. Have you come across “The Science Delusion” by Rupert Sheldrake for instance?
A few years ago I started researching too – was there really a conflict between God and science, or is science just discovering more about God’s universe? Is Dawkins right that we are deluded? And I began to wonder why most correspondence on the topic is so aggressive. I’d be very interested to hear what you think of my conclusions.
– Everyone relies on faith.
– Science describes an incredible universe.
– The universe exhibits design and purpose.
– Not everything can be explained by science
– Reason leads to a sound definition of God
– Jesus lived and spoke for God.
– God has a purpose for each of us
I’ve been lucky enough that a publisher wanted to publish the book where i describe them. “The Big Picture – an Honest examination of God Science and Purpose”