AIG: Not Enough Time for Evolution

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.

David continues:

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.

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

15 responses to “AIG: Not Enough Time for Evolution

  1. So how come the hundreds (thousands?) of “kinds” on the Ark 4,400 years ago evolved so quickly into thousands (millions?) of current species? Some extreme cognitive dissonance going on in that article.

  2. Samtphire beats me. A bit more than 3 billion years is not enough for evolution, but a couple of thousands years is enough for AIG’s hyper accelerated pseudo-evolution after the Great Flood.

  3. 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.
    The latest age cited from Wikipedia is 4,54 billion years as of 2013. If it doubled every 20 years since 1976, we would expect:
    1996 : 9.2 billion
    2016: 18.4 billion
    Is there a contemporary age of the Earth over 18 billion years?
    It seems that one of the rare predictions of a creationist failed.

  4. @Samphire and mnb0
    There was a whole lot of hanky-panky going on in them early biblical days post flood. Even humans somehow changed from middle eastern “race” to oriental, African, latino, etc., etc. If we all descended from Noah’s kin, I wonder how all that diversity came about.

  5. Steven Thompson

    TomS, I have at home a copy of the Columbia-Viking desk encyclopedia, from 1952. It gives an age for the Earth of between two and five billion years — from a bit older than the oldest know terrestrial rock to a bit older than the measured age of meteorites. What has changed since the dawn of radio metric dating is not the age assigned to the Earth but the margin of error in that age. At least since the 1970’start, the same is true of the age of the universe: it has remained within (an increasingly narrowing) range between nine and twenty billion years.

  6. Height of hypocrisy to rubbish improving knowledge of science (age of the earth) when creos avail themselves of improving science (surgery, medicines) to cure their ills. I wonder how many believers have died in agony over the centuries praying to their god for relief instead of welcoming our growing knowledge?

  7. 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.

    Will someone please shoot this spavined old creationist nag and put it out of our misery?

    Creationists keep assuming that without God’s intervention atoms would interact purely randomly. This is nonsense, and I can’t help suspecting that at least some of those who make this argument know it’s nonsense but hope their audiences won’t. There are such things as laws of physics and chemistry, under which atoms actually combine in orderly fashion.

    Now, if creationists want to argue that God created the laws of nature specifically to allow wonderful us to exist, they’re free to do so. But that argument stands upon an assumption: that the whole point of the universe is to support human life. I suppose one can make the claim, but it comes down to a statement of faith.

  8. Skeptical Servant

    How idiotic even if that was the case we would move on to a new theory not creationism it is not science the people at biologos even though religious are hell a lot smarter than these idiots.

  9. @ErickL: “”Creationists keep assuming that without God’s intervention atoms would interact purely randomly. This is nonsense.”
    Worse. It’s deliberate ambiguity. The guys never (want to) recognize the difference between probability and random chance (1/n, with n meaning the amount of options), suggesting that evolution depends on the latter, which is blatantly false.

  10. Highly-recommended article in today’s Observer, at least for giving a British perspective: Would you Adam and Eve it? Why creation story is at heart of a new spiritual divide

    It neatly illustrates the harm done by fruitcakes like Hambo to public discourse. A few gems:

    72% of atheists polled believe that someone who is religious would not accept evolutionary science. In fact, only 19% of religious respondents in the poll rejected Darwinian thinking in favour of a literal reading of the Book of Genesis.

    According to the research, nearly two-thirds of Britons – as well as nearly three-quarters of atheists – think Christians have to accept the assertion in Genesis that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. But just 16% of believers accept the creation myth – according to which, in the words of the questionnaire, “humans and other living things were created by God and have always existed in their current form”. Only 9% of all Britons reject evolutionary theory.

    “The number of mainstream Christians – certainly in this country – who have qualms about evolutionary theory is very small indeed,” said [former Archbishop of Canterbury] Williams. “But perceptions are different, and the presence of US-style fundamentalism in the popular imagination means that a growing number who know nothing of the actual history of intellectual discussion of these questions assume that all religious believers must be committed to combating scientific accounts of the universe’s beginnings.”

    Well worth the read, for those interested in how America’s evo-crevo cultural war is perceived internationally

  11. @mnbo
    Yes, but even worse, the supposed solution to the supposed probability problem only makes it worse.
    If we calculate the probability of something happening by chance, only being limited by the laws of nature. And then calculate the probability of something happening not even limited by the laws of nature – we have no idea about what God would do, why he would do it, how he would do it. Introducing God does not make the calculation of the probability greater – it makes it less, it makes it one divided by infinity, the possibilities for God being infinite.
    If one wants to make an explanation for something more probable, the way to do that is to limit the possibilities, not increase them. As long as we have no idea of the ways of the Lord, we cannot appeal to them to explain a particular outcome. To explain is to appeal to our knowledge of limits.

  12. “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.”

    I suspect that he is right about these being the most widely used methods. Once you’ve got a good set of index fossils, you will mostly not have to bother with more expensive dating methods. Obviously, in establishing the age ranges of the index fossils, other methods had to be used.

  13. Creacrap claims that “goddiddid” guarantees a probability of exactly 1. As we Dutch like to say: every creacrapper has a gigantic plate before his pate.

  14. Michael Fugate

    Apologetics need not be consistent – only need be able to prevent doubt turning into apostasy.

  15. @mnbo
    I’d like to see the guarantee of the probability of exactly 1.
    The probability of what?
    The probability that there is life on Earth? The probability that the human body is closest to chimps and other apes among living bodies?