AIG: All Scientific Dating Methods Are Wrong

We have a real winner for you today from Answers in Genesis (AIG), one of the major sources of young-earth creationist wisdom. AIG is the online ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the creationist Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia. He also brought you the infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum.

We’ve had a few prior posts about AIG’s reasoning as to why the earth and the whole universe are only 6,000 years old. For example, see Creationism: How Old Is the Earth? But today’s article sums it all up rather neatly.

It’s titled Dating Techniques. No, despite the tantalizing title, the article isn’t a listing of helpful creationist pick-up lines. It’s AIG’s response to this question someone sent them:

You say the Universe is 6000 years old and that current scientific dating techniques are incorrect. How incorrect are they? Are they off by 10%, 90%? Because even if they are off by an incredible 90% the universe is still roughly 1.4 billion years old..So your position is that all techniques used in Geology, cosmology and Physics are wrong..And not just off but a little, but by an incredibly large error..How do you reconcile that position?

That’s an excellent question. How does AIG answer it? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

In a nutshell, yes, we are saying that almost all current scientific dating techniques are incorrect, because God as the almighty Creator has told us the age of the universe by direct revelation in His Word. He has told us the universe is only about 6,000 years old, and we accept that on His authority.

That’s rather straightforward. One must admire their doctrinal tenacity. Let’s read on:

So our position is that all the dating techniques used in geology, cosmology, and physics are wrong when they claim that the universe is 13–15 billion years old and the earth about 4.5 billion years old. All the dating techniques are based on assumptions, and the main assumption is the constancy of the process rates used to calculate those ages. Since that assumption is used in all the dating techniques of geology, cosmology, and physics, then if that assumption is wrong, then so are all the dates.

Geology, cosmology, and physics are wrong — all wrong! You want evidence? Creationists don’t need evidence! We continue:

According to God’s Word that assumption of constancy of process rates is wrong. Not only has He told us in the book of Genesis of His creation of the universe and everything in it in six normal-length days (emphasized again in Exodus 20:11), but geologic and other processes were accelerated during the catastrophic global Flood in the days of Noah

If that doesn’t convince you, then there’s no hope. Here’s more:

That’s how we reconcile our position that the secular scientists are wrong in making the assumption of constancy of process rates. Yes, the age estimates made by the scientists using the assumption of naturalism are off by almost 100%!

Does AIG know what “off by almost 100%” means? No, and they don’t care. The article goes on and on, but it keeps saying the same thing. Here’s one more excerpt:

Whom then do we trust, and where do we put our faith? In God or man? Our position is that we trust God and believe His Word as our authority. Man’s interpretation of the evidence is wrong because it is based on the wrong assumption.

There you are, dear reader. Deal with it. Do you want to be in heaven, with ol’ Hambo, or would you rather endure eternity in the Lake of Fire? The choice is yours.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

16 responses to “AIG: All Scientific Dating Methods Are Wrong

  1. Hmmm, how does this square with the “finely tuned physical constants” arguments made in support of the design of creation?

  2. New creationist game: Rock, Reality, Bible. Bible always wins.

  3. Well, what do you expect when you’re dealing with professional con-persons who are sociopaths and pathological liars.

    The irony is that nowhere in the Bible is written anything they claim, including and most especially the 6,000 year old earth. That age is an ASSUMPTION based on the ESTIMATED ages of an incomplete lineage of people not all of whom were directly related. This chronology was published in 1650 by Bishop Ussher of Ireland.

    Shame on AIG for claiming that the age of the earth was God’s word because it isn’t. It’s Ussher’s word and he didn’t get the “word” through divine revelation. No, he figured it out.

    Not only do the denizens of AIG, and I mean all of them, lie persistently about science but they lie pathologically about their own cult!

  4. waldteufel

    So, the AiG cult teaches little children that we should base all of our knowledge on a book cobbled together from myths of Iron Age goat herders.
    An unholy alliance has evolved between the vile carnival barkers at AiG, and the ignorant, pasty-faced parents who want to drag their children back to the eleventh century via the Creation “Museum” dinysore show.

  5. geologic and other processes were accelerated during the catastrophic global Flood in the days of Noah

    I must’ve missed the Genesis verse mentioning accelerated physical processes during the flood. Is that in Genesis 6:6, 6:7, 6:8, 6:9, or 6:pulledoutofourbuttocks?

    One wonders how those early folk kept stone and wooden furniture around when physical processes were accelerated by a factor of a million.

  6. So, the AiG cult teaches little children that we should base all of our knowledge on a book cobbled together from myths of Iron Age goat herders.

    Sort of. The meta-message is that my ancestors were too stupid to be able to write or understand allegory.

  7. So this means that while the animals were babies when they got on the ark (of course there would be no other way to fit in all those dinosaurs), they were [calculating…] roughly 29,999,960 years old after the first 24 hours of rain. Okay, I might have picked a few figures out of the air there, but I’m just getting into the spirit of things.

    I’m pretty sure my arithmetic was correct though, so the whole thing is on pretty solid ground scientifically.

  8. It’s pretty simple … Ham worships Coyote, the trickster god.

  9. In the article, the writer quote-mines the bible to assert that the bible specifically addresses the dating issue.

    There is also a specific statement about this issue in 2 Peter 3. The Apostle Peter, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, warned that there would be scoffers who deny that God created the world by His supernatural activity and then intervened catastrophically at the time of the Flood to judge the earth by engulfing it in a watery cataclysm. The basis of their deliberate rejection of God’s Word is their declaration that “all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation” (2 Peter 3:4). In other words, they would declare that natural process rates as we measure them today have always occurred at the same rates. This is exactly the assumption behind all the dating techniques used in geology, cosmology, and physics to arrive at the secular estimate of the ages for the earth and the universe. But the Apostle Peter reminds us that the scoffers are wrong due to their willful ignorance and deliberate rejection of God’s testimony as the Creator in His Word.

    Let’s see how the writer lifted those words from the actual verse (this is the NIV, not KJV). I’ve highlighted the passage:

    3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

    What the writer fails to mention is that the writer of Peter was not talking about dating methods at all – in fact, the verse doesn’t apply to genesis but only to a period since the reader’s ancestors died. Peter is addressing the issue that folks have been told time and time again that Jesus is coming back, but he has never shown up, and a few are beginning to scoff. Those ancestors referred to presumably lived in Jesus’ time.
    The next verse is very unlikely to be quoted by AiG, since it directly addresses their assumption that a day of creation is a literal 24 hour day.

    8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

    It’s so much fun to look up creationists’ quotes.

  10. waldteufel

    “Do you want to be in heaven, with ol’ Hambo, or would you rather endure eternity in the Lake of Fire?”

    I’d rather be in hell with my neck broken than spend a microsecond with that intellectual child abuser and his sky fairy.

  11. Ol Hambo is just a poo flinging monkey in a time warp.

  12. New creationist game: Rock, Reality, Bible. Bible always wins.

    But what if it’s “Rock, Reality, Bible, Lizard, Spock”?

  13. “… or would you rather endure eternity in the Lake of Fire?”

    Sounds like a party; all my friends will be there.

  14. The Bible also says, several times, that the Sun goes around a fixed Earth. And I’m not just making this up, for everybody, up until the year 1500 or so, thought that the Bible said that. (While there certainly were Christians, such as Augustine, who didn’t think that the Bible told us that the Earth was made in six days about 4000 years before Christ. A date for Creation Week is not as straightforwardly given in the Bible as the motion of the Sun around a fixed Earth.)

    I’m assuming that they are not geocentrists, of course. Have they told us anywhere what they think of geocentrism? If they are not geocentrists, what kind of evidence do they accept that over-rides the straightforward reading of geocentrism in the Bible?

  15. TomS: “I’m assuming that they are not geocentrists, of course. Have they told us anywhere what they think of geocentrism? If they are not geocentrists, what kind of evidence do they accept that over-rides the straightforward reading of geocentrism in the Bible?”

    Like most modern creationists who don’t like the ID strategy, they try to have their Omphalos cake and eat it too (i.e. fall back on the Bible when “scientific” arguments fail, but recycle them on the next unsuspecting audience).

    That said, I would not “assume” that AiG rejects geocentrism, but rather seek to find out for sure. A debate between Ken Ham and Tony Pagano would be ideal. Let’s not stop demanding it until it happens – or they both frantically run away from it.

  16. TomS says:

    The Bible also says, several times, that the Sun goes around a fixed Earth.

    I’m working on something like this. It may be ready for posting today. My gnomes are still doing research.