Mars Is Obviously Young, and So Is the Earth

This brilliant article just appeared at the website of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the granddaddy of all creationist outfits, the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. It’s titled Ancient Rivers on Mars.

It was written by one of ICR’s top creation scientists — Jake Hebert. They say he has a Ph.D. in physics, and joined ICR as a research associate the same year that degree was awarded. Here are some excerpts from Jake’s article, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Geologists have used high-resolution images obtained by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter to infer the existence of past rivers on the Martian surface. Geologist Francesco Salese of Ultrecht University in the Netherlands led the team that analyzed the images of a sedimentary outcrop in the northwest rim of Hellas Planitia, an impact basin in Mars’s southern hemisphere.

A couple of months ago, PhysOrg had an article about the discovery of those old rivers — see Ancient river systems on Mars seen in unparalleled detail. Here’s one brief excerpt:

A high-resolution satellite has captured detailed images of a rocky Martian cliff face revealing that it was formed by rivers more than 3.7 billion years ago. That is roughly the same time that life was starting to begin on Earth.

Okay, let’s get back to Jake. He says:

Geologists and planetary scientists have long believed that liquid water existed on Mars in the past, and that Mars even shows evidence of catastrophic flooding. However, the team of scientists said this is the first time that they have been able to infer the date and duration for which this river system existed. They said this river system flowed for hundreds of thousands of years about 3.7 billion years ago.

Egad — how can that be? Every creation scientist knows the universe began only 6,000 years ago. Jake tackles the issue head-on. He tells us:

Of course, creation scientists reject this “deep time” age estimate. [Right!] Relative dates are often inferred from the number of craters on a planetary surface. However, radioisotope dating methods for meteorite, Earth, and lunar rocks are used to translate these relative dates into absolute ones. Although uniformitarian scientists [who think the laws of nature don’t change] had already accepted the idea of “millions of years” before the invention of radioisotope dating methods, radioisotope dating is arguably the main “proof” for deep time.

Jake explains why creationists reject radioisotope dating methods:

But creation scientists have found good reasons to question the method’s underlying assumptions, including the assumption that radio-decay rates have always been slow. For instance, different radioisotope dating methods used on the same rock unit give different age estimates, even when analytical uncertainties are taken into account. [Egad! Age estimates bounce around all over the place!] Interestingly, creationists have noticed a pattern: the heavier the particular radioisotope being used for the dating process, the larger the age estimate. [Huh?] This discrepancy can be explained if something caused different radioisotopes to decay at different rates at some time or times in the past. [It was Adam’s sin, and then the Flood!] Creation scientists are still working to resolve unanswered questions involving accelerated nuclear decay (mainly concerning the safe removal of the excess heat generated) [Hee hee!], but the evidence for past accelerated nuclear decay is strong, which invalidates the ages calculated from those nuclear decay rates.

It’s not easy, making all the evidence point to a 6,000 year-old universe, but creationists are working on it. Jake continues:

Creationists have long noted the irony in the fact that uniformitarian geologists have no problem with catastrophic flooding on Mars, a world which today has no liquid water on its surface, yet reject that possibility for Earth! [Maybe it’s because they see flood evidence on Mars?] Unlike Mars, the Earth is a watery world, with more than seventy percent of its surface still submerged. [“Still” submerged!] Most of the land surface is covered by water-deposited sedimentary rocks that contain the remains of billions of fossilized plants and animals. Moreover, many cultures throughout the world have recollections of a cataclysmic Flood like the one described in the Bible, precisely what one would expect if the Flood were a real historical event. Yet uniformitarian scientists say that there’s “no evidence” for a global Flood on this planet!

We don’t want to interrupt Jake’s argument, but later on you may want to look at our Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology. Meanwhile, let’s return to Jake’s article:

It is also striking that uniformitarian geologists [The hell-bound fools!] think canyons on Mars were carved extremely rapidly by water. Even though scientists have observed water rapidly carve canyons here on Earth, and even though the field evidence strongly favors a rapid origin for the Grand Canyon, secular scientists insist on claiming that the Grand Canyon was slowly carved out over millions of years!

Jake is right. If one canyon got carved out rapidly, then they all did. Now brace yourself, because the conclusion of Jake’s article is absolutely crushing! Here it comes:

If it weren’t for the fact that the Bible testifies of the global Flood in the days of Noah, would uniformitarian scientists have any objection to the idea of a global Flood here on Earth? Probably not. There is an old saying, “People will believe anything so long as it’s not in the Bible.”

Are you one of those crazy people, dear reader? Then study Jake’s article carefully. It’s just what you need to make you accept The Truth.

Copyright © 2020. 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

13 responses to “Mars Is Obviously Young, and So Is the Earth

  1. Obvious answer — God took all the water off of Mars (probably as a punishment for a multitude of Martian sins), and dumped it all on earth.

  2. Laurette McGovern

    Perhaps I am crazy (the jury is still out). But I am tired! Tired of all this BS coming from the creationist camp. I am tired of having to come up with logic against delusion. Of reality against myth. Of intelligence against insanity.

    Problem is, if we stop, they win. So we can NOT cease our efforts. So, all of you much more knowledgeable in these arguments than I could ever be, keep up the good fight!

  3. And other great disappointment. I really do want to learn from creationists, but have only rarely been successful.

    The proferred “evidence for pass accelerated nuclear decay” in this article consists of Snelling’s polonium halos, and the usual nonsense about diffusion of helium. Most people here will be very well aware that radioactive decay constants are calculable from fundamental physical constants, which must have been similar to today’s values for rocks to have formed at all, but creationists persist in regarding constancy of decay rates as an arbitrary assumption.

  4. “Geologist Francesco Salese of Ultrecht University.”
    Weird – I’ve never heard of the city Ultrecht in my native country, let alone of its university.

    You can read the original paper via this link and check if Jake is right that Salese’s dating involved radiometry. Me being lazy, I apply that trusty principle: Jake is a creacrapper and hence lying until someone shows me that Salese indeed did.

  5. Laurette McGovern says: “I am tired! Tired of all this BS coming from the creationist camp.”

    Relax! It’s fun! If we didn’t have creationists to amuse us, what would we do — shriek about politics?

  6. Michael Fugate

    “There is an old saying, “People will believe anything so long as it’s not in the Bible.””

    Creationists are a case in point; most of what they believe is not in the Bible and they will believe almost anything.

  7. We have been informed that if the parameters of physics were just slightly different, the universe would be vastly different, certainly incapable of supporting life. Young Earth Creationism demands that things be different by factors of many thousands, far beyond the limit of a few percent imposed by the Anthropic Principle.

  8. chris schilling

    “People will believe anything so long as it’s not in the Bible.”

    Oh, if only the biblical scribes could have gone all meta, and included that peerless insight into their canonical texts — what an irrefutable means of forestalling any poisonous doubts future readers would inevitably bring!

    I guess they thought “The fool hath said in his heart…” would be enough to stop any sceptics dead in their tracks.

  9. @LauretteMcG: “I am tired of having to come up with logic against delusion.”
    Highly understandable. The antidote is provided by our dear SC over and over again: mockery. Mock creationists mercilessly. Be mean. In a perverted way that’s great fun.

    “keep up the good fight”
    All hands are needed on board, so please stay.

  10. LauretteMcG:
    “I am tired of having to come up with logic against delusion.

    Problem is, if we stop, they win. So we can NOT cease our efforts.”

    … and this goes for so many more areas than just creationism vs. evolution. So much of our problem stems from a general lack of science literacy in society, at least in the US.

    I can’t speak for how science education is handled in other countries, but I have a problem with how science has been taught in the US.

    Frankly, public schools in the US are not funded in a way that would attract the “best & brightest” to the teaching profession. Yes, there are very intelligent and highly dedicated teachers, but at the elementary level, the passion of many of these teachers is not in the area of science.

    When we look at secondary education, many “science” teachers are in fact football and basketball coaches first, science teachers second. Their passion is the sport, not the science. And for decades, high schools have concentrated their science efforts in biology, chemistry, and physics; and at that, mostly for the college-bound. What used to be called “General Science”, which would include the earth sciences of geology, meteorology, astronomy, etc. was taught mostly to the non-college bound.

    The last grade levels where all students may have learned anything about geological dating methods, climatology, astronomy, and what fossils tell us about evolution has traditionally been junior high or middle school — 6th, 7th, and 8th grades. How much do you remember about your jr. high subjects? To make matters worse, almost all school districts have changed their junior highs to middle schools, where an elementary-certified or licensed teacher can teach any subject, such as science, regardless of his or her special knowledge of the subject. Formerly, Junior High teachers needed to be certified in their subject matter. In other words, a General Science certified teacher (at least in Ohio, where I taught) needed to have college credits in biology, chemistry, physics, and most importantly, geology. No longer. Principals wanted the flexibility to assign any teacher to any classroom, and they got it.

    To top it all off, in order to avoid controversy so many schools don’t even mention the word “evolution” at all.

    We can do better, but without the funding to attract more capable people to the teaching profession, I don’t know how.

  11. @Retiredsciguy, I would add the spirit in which science is often taught, with emphasis on the correct regurgitation of facts rather than evidence or reasoning, and where something called “scientific method” is taught, with no relationship to reality, and with the dreadful assertion that a theory is rejected when it makes an incorrect prediction. This plays into the hands of creationists, who point out that scientists change their minds about what evolution implies, and go on to claim that having made incorrect predictions invalidates their theory.

  12. Michael Fugate

    Which is why conservatives oppose curricula like the Next Generation Science Standards and why they opposed the Biological Sciences Curriculum Studies in the 1960s – they want to tell students what to think not how to think.

  13. “The proferred “evidence for pass accelerated nuclear decay” in this article consists of Snelling’s polonium halos,”

    I thought that the halos proved instantaneous creation of granite and not that decay rates had changed. Indeed, you have to believe that the decay rates are the same to identify the Polonium, another case where creationist arguments shoot each other in the foot.