Breakthrough of 2009: Paleontology

Posted: January 6th, 2010 under Institute for Creation Research.
Tags: ,

ICR is doing its end of year victory dance by claiming that soft tissue finds in 2009 prove that the earth is young.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Click here for more.

NOTE:  Anyone can comment without registering.  All comments are held pending review, and will not be immediately visible.  Off-topic comments (especially those with non-related links) will be deleted.

8 Comments

  • Comment by Ashley Hayes — January 9, 2010 @ 2:13 pm

    1

    I’m concerned about you stating geological forces that buried fossils are well understood. We can’t reproduce this and observe this, so how can it be well understood?

    And, you mention that rock layers take long periods to form (without doubt)…. really? I doubt that it always requires long periods of time.

    And, radiometric dating is well understood. Surely you are aware of the many assumptions and adjustments made in dating something radiometrically.

    True, I’m only a chemistry/biology major with doctorate degrees in dentistry and natural health (not in paleontology, geophysics, or cosmology), and I’m trying to research all sides of the young/old controversy. But, why do both sides seem to feel that the other side is “far from the truth?” Has God made things so complex that no human truly knows or can know how things came about? I find it distasteful when either side “puts down” the other side.


  • Comment by Ashley Hayes — January 10, 2010 @ 10:51 am

    2

    In an Oct. 16, 2008 blog you said that you’re 100 per cent certain that the earth is billions of years old. I’m not 100 per cent certain that I’m 57 years old since I don’t remember my first few years. I’m fairly certain of my age because of what people have told me, birth certificate, general appearance, etc., but they could all be wrong. I believe you’re way out on a limb with that statement. It’s a faith statement, just like faith in a future with Jesus.


  • Comment by b allen — January 14, 2010 @ 4:43 pm

    3

    In responding to the first few comments, I will try to be brief. I think the previous blogger may be unaware or uninformed of the obvious principles of geology, paleontology, and natural sciences. We see geological processes constantly that can be measured be they long or short periods of time. (Sedimentation, volcanism, erosion, etc). As far as radiometric dating goes, it is a complicated field but well aware of discrepancies or contamination and as such accounts for it. It is a well established field.

    The problem is when we try to blend and bend modern understanding into an ancient biblical account written by men and women with a totally different world view culture. This is where the true misunderstanding comes from. The earth clearly shows its age as does the universe. We must examine our biblical interpretations but first from an ancient near eastern understanding.


  • Comment by Ezra — January 14, 2010 @ 9:03 pm

    4

    Ashley, I hope you are aware that you are making an assumption that scientists make many assumptions and adjustments when radiometrically dating something.

    P.S. Yes, it is possible your family members are wrong about your age. But they have suitable evidence that indicates that your age is accurate – taking into account the time your mother went into labour, how long she was in labour, etc; they’re not simply making a guess based on any assumptions or uncertain hypotheses.


  • Comment by Ashley Hayes — January 17, 2010 @ 10:36 pm

    5

    Yes, my family members have suitable evidence about my age, they are eye-witnesses. Humans are not eye-witnesses to the ancient past…. God is.


  • Comment by Ashley Hayes — January 18, 2010 @ 8:50 am

    6

    Looks like I’ll have to stick with Eccl. 3:11; but, I’ll keep on reading.


  • Comment by Stephen — January 19, 2010 @ 4:58 am

    7

    I cant help but think that the confidence displayed in this article is exaggerated and based on more assertion than actual scientific foundations.

    Science cannot ever be certain. That isnt how it works. When I see such sweeping claims and indubitable confidence it usually signifies lack of scientific backing and weakening arguments.

    I don’t mean to sound utterly dismissive as many articles here make sense and are clear challenges to YEC (I myself lean towards YEC primarily for theological reasons). This just seems out of place. I almost always see only fundamentalist atheists making science or current scientific knowledge sound as if infallible.


  • Comment by Justin — April 16, 2010 @ 8:52 am

    8

    Even the most ardent Darwinian evolutionist will tell that there’s not a whole lot of certainty in science. Go pick up a biology text book used 25 years ago in schools…go pick up one from today. You won’t find that there’s much in agreement. I’m not posting this to discredit evolution, I’m saying this to warn you against your “certainty” that the earth is 100 million (or billion) years old. No one was around to observe the amount of molecular breakdown of geological formations millions of years ago so how can you be certain?

    Sounds like you fall prey to uniformitarianism.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.