The creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — are once again reprinting something from 1994, because their stuff is timeless. Its title is The Dating Game.
The author is David Menton — that’s a link to AIG’s bio page about him. And this is his write-up at the Encyclopedia of American Loons: David Menton. Okay, here are some excerpts from his oldie-goldie essay, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
Much of the controversy between evolutionists and creationists concerns the age of the earth and its fossils. Evolution, depending as it does on pure chance [Hee hee!], requires an immense amount of time to stumble upon anything remotely approaching the integrated complexity we see in even the simplest living things. For over 100 years, geologists have attempted to devise methods for determining the age of the earth that would be consistent with evolutionary dogma.
Creationists have escaped the burden of devising such methods, because the bible tells them the age of the world. Their creationist dogma is secure. David says:
At the time Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was published, the earth was “scientifically” determined to be 100 million years old. By 1932, it was found to be 1.6 billion years old. In 1947, geologists firmly established that the earth was 3.4 billion years old. Finally in 1976, they discovered that the earth is “really” 4.6 billion years old. These dates indicate that for 100 years, the age of the earth doubled every 20 years. If this trend were to continue, the earth would be 700 thousand-trillion-trillion-trillion years old by the year 4000 AD.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Isn’t this great? After that he tells us:
As we will see, selected data and unprovable assumptions are a problem with all methods for determining the age of the earth, as well as for dating its fossils and rocks. It has all become something of a “dating game” in which only the evolutionarily correct are allowed to play.
The most widely used method for determining the age of fossils is to date them by the “known age” of the rock strata in which they are found. On the other hand, the most widely used method for determining the age of the rock strata is to date them by the “known age” of the fossils they contain. … In this “circular dating” method, all ages are influenced by evolutionary assumptions about the date and order in which fossilized plants and animals are believed to have evolved.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We debunked that ancient clunker in The Lessons of Tiktaalik, where we said:
That fossil wasn’t an accidental discovery. It was found by predicting that a transition occurred approximately 360 to 380 million years ago, before which, according to the fossil record, there were no four-legged vertebrates living on land. Relying on geology, an appropriately aged and conveniently exposed rock stratum was located in the Canadian Arctic that had once been an ancient shoreline. That’s where the search commenced.
[A]s the discovery of Tiktaalik so strikingly demonstrates, the fossil find isn’t what caused the rock stratum to be arbitrarily declared of the proper age, merely to suit the theory of evolution. The geological information was separately developed by geologists, using their own methods, and that information was relied upon as a guide to the proper location for the fossil hunt.
Also, The TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims has a few things to say about this alleged circularity issue — see Fossils are dated from strata; strata are dated from fossils.
Most people are surprised to learn that there is, in fact, no way to directly determine the age of any fossil or rock. The so-called “absolute” methods of dating (radiometric methods) actually only measure the present ratios of radioactive isotopes and their decay products in suitable specimens — not their age. These measured ratios are then extrapolated to an “age” determination. This extrapolation is based on the fact that an unstable (radioactive) chemical element, called the parent isotope, breaks down at a presently known rate to form a more stable daughter isotope.
Yeah. Who knows how rapidly those isotopes may have decayed in the past? The Darwinists are just guessing! Let’s read on:
As far as the plausibility of evolution is concerned, it really doesn’t make any difference if the earth is 10 billion years old or 10 thousand years old. Indeed, if the whole of evolution were reduced to nothing more than the chance production of a single copy of any one biologically useful protein, there would be insufficient time and material in the known universe to make this even remotely likely.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Ah yes, the “odds” are against evolution. But the odds against everything are enormous — see Creationism’s Fallacy of Retrospective Astonishment. The TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims also discusses that clunker — see The odds of even one simple protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10113, and thousands of different proteins are needed to form life..
We’re getting near the end now. Here’s another excerpt:
Time by itself simply does not make the hopeless evolutionary scenario of chance and natural selection more reasonable. Imagine if a child were to claim that he alone could build a Boeing 747 airplane from raw material in 10 seconds, and another were to claim he could do it in 10 days. Would we consider the latter less foolish than the former, simply because he proposed spending nearly a million times more time at the task?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That appears to be an early version of the old creationist standby, Fred Hoyle’s Junkyard tornado. David finishes his essay with an irrefutable scripture quote:
Our Creator tells that “the fool has said in his heart, there is no God.”
So there you are, dear reader. Once again, the creation scientists at AIG have shown you that evolution is impossible. Isn’t it time you came to your senses and stopped clinging to Darwinism?
Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.