Creationist Wisdom #724: Arizona Young-Earther

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Daily Courier of Prescott, Arizona. It’s titled Creation science, and the newspaper has a comments section.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is David. We’ve written about one of his letters before — see #691: Jonathan Wells Fan. Excerpts from his new letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

Many people have lost their Christian faith because they realized that the Bible declares a young earth and universe. When you add up the dates given in the genealogies, you come to 4004 B.C., which makes the universe about 6,020 years old.

And many Christian denominations are doing just fine because they aren’t young-Earthers. David apparently doesn’t think about them. He says:

But they are told in their science classes and by the culture in general, that the universe is billions of years old and that we evolved from pond scum. This is presented to students as a fact, but there are thousands of scientists who say that real science is a Christian’s best friend, because it supports the Bible’s every contention.

Thousands of scientists? Hardly. After that he tells us that radiometric dating techniques are flawed, because they’re “based on assumptions that cannot be known.” Expanding on that, he says:

There are hundreds of times indicators for the earth that are much more reliable, but never make it into the text books as they show a young age for the earth. A few of these include: the amount of dust on the moon; the size of the sun; the amount of salt in the ocean; and the decline of the earth’s magnetic field. To see hundreds more, go to [link to a creationist website]:

All of David’s “science” is debunked at the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims. You can find each of his arguments there if you need to. He continues:

I organize free quarterly creation science seminars in the Prescott area. Our last seminar speaker has a Ph.D. in microbiology and taught at major secular universities. The speaker for the fall seminar has a Ph.D. in physics, and has done major work at Sarnia nuclear labs [Huh?] and has written many books. These scientists are at the top of their fields [Hee hee!], and there are thousands of others like them, so why do we indoctrinate and brainwash our students in the government schools by presenting only one side of this issue as a fact?

Why indoctrinate and brainwash students? Because Darwinists are child molesters, and they want your children to be with them in the Lake of Fire.

David finishes with details of his next “science seminar”:

Come find out the science that shows the universe to be young and why it is important to Christians at the fall seminar on Oct. 15 from 9 to noon at the Hillside Community Church [details omitted].

Well, dear reader, if you’re going to be in Prescott this weekend, this is your big chance. Don’t miss it!

Copyright © 2016. 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

8 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #724: Arizona Young-Earther

  1. Unfortunately, I have a tennis game that day, so I can’t make it. (end sarcasm)

  2. One of the comments to McNabb’s letter is well worth attention, though (my emboldening):

    Blind faith? You mean the kind of blind faith it takes to believe in the uniformity of nature (the future will be like the past) apart from the truth of Christian Theism? Or the kind of blind faith it takes to believe in non-physical, abstract and absolute entities like laws of math and logic apart from the truth of Christian Theism? Or the kind of blind faith it takes to believe the evolutionary fairy tale in which hearts, kidneys, lungs, blood cells, livers, etc. ad infinitum ALL develop independent of each other, but are then magically introduced to each other one day by the evolution fairy at a dinner party unveiling “man”? Or the kind of blind faith it takes to believe matter-in-motion can be bound by moral obligations. You mean THAT kind of blind faith?

    The poster has the moniker Balaams_Ass.

  3. “These scientists are at the top of their fields…”

    A better description is that these scientists are out, standing in their field.

  4. Sarnia is an isolated island inhabited by creationists like this writer. Sandia National Labs is a U.S. government lab, but hopefully he’d never get near it.

  5. After that he tells us that radiometric dating techniques are flawed, because they’re “based on assumptions that cannot be known.”

    That’s a standard creationist line.

    I posted a thread on EvC,


    where I challenged creationists to list and defend their contention that “assumptions” undermine all forms of radiometric and particularly radiocarbon dating.

    The response has been underwhelming. They can parrot the line but they can’t come up with anything to support their claim. Creation “science” as usual, eh?

  6. I looked into the seminar and it’s our old friend, D. Russell Humphreys. According to Wikipedia, Humpheys has a B.S. from Duke University and a Ph.D in physics from Louisiana State University. He has worked for General Electric and Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics. From 2001-2008, he was an associate professor at ICR. He currently works for Creation Ministries International (USA) and has a bio and articles at AiG. He’s got some theories, all YEC approved, concerning the distant starlight problem based on relativity, a YEC replacement theory for the Big Bang as well as one that is supposed to be more accurate than the dynamo theory for the magnetic fields of the planets of the solar system…….

  7. Coyote, your comment got stuck in the spam filter. I don’t know why. Sorry about the delay.

  8. While there is a lot of nuclear work done at Sandia, there is a lot like solar power and quantum computing that is not nuclear.

    However, there are a lot of creationists with PHD’s though.

Make a comment

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

You are commenting using your 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