Question by tylertxan: Creationist who use answers in genesis, what do you think of this?
Pastor Biker utilized many of these worthless arguements–trying to convince someone by subtrafuge is the same thing as lying so I wouldn’t think a good christian would print such trash–but at any way–Bikers arguements refuted and a good kick in the seat to answers in genesis.
The Australia based Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/intro.as… is one of the more strident of the young earth creationist organizations. It is a repository of a zillion (and growing) or so articles “proving” that the earth is young. As an antidote for such nonsense, try the alternate site No Answers in Genesis (http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/defau…
As for Evidence for a Young World (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/400… it’s not only typical of the creationist “shotgun” approach (list so many “evidences” that it’s too much work to bother answering), but also pretty stupid. Just look at some of Humphreys’ “evidences” for a young earth: Agriculture is too recent and History is too short. Those are supposed to have something to do with the age of the earth? That’s so stupid it’s unbelievable that somebody with a post grade school education would even suggest it, let alone somebody who really does have a PhD in physics.
As for the “scientific” reasons, they are for the most part, easy to refute, if you know enough about the science to get past the creationist fluff.
Galaxies wind themselves up too fast is known as the “winding dilemma” in astrophysics, but it has long since been solved. The dilemma goes away as soon as you realize that spiral arms are not rigid structures, but traveling waves. The stars don’t move to create spiral arms, but the waves travel through the stars to create the spiral pattern. The solution is ignored by creationists who don’t want you to know that there is a solution.
Comets disintegrate too quickly would be a problem if there was no source for new comets to replace the old ones. Creationists simply assume without reason that there cannot be such a source. But astronomers continue to find evidence that both the Kuiper belt and Oort cloud are where they are expected to be (see A Response to the Short Period Comets Argument (http://www.tim-thompson.com/resp9.html))…
Not enough mud on the sea floor and Not enough sodium in the sea are bogus arguments that have nothing at all to do with the age of the earth. Both are examples of highly variable geologic processes. Creationists try to argue that sea water sodium would build up to its present level in a mere 42 million years, so the earth can’t be much older. But if you use the same argument for aluminum, the maximum age for the earth turns out to be 100 years. That should ring a bell somewhere, but creationists can’t hear it.
The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast is an argument that is too circular. the only way to support such an argument is to presuppose a young earth, and ignore just about everything anybody knows about magnetohydrodynamics. Bogus pseudo-science (see On Creation Science and the Alleged Decay of the Earth’s Magnetic Field (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfield…
Many strata are too tightly bent was written by a physicist who flunked geology I guess, or didn’t take a course in continuum mechanics. Rock under pressure is plastic and bends without cracking. Duh. So far as I can tell, the injected sandstone argument is another example of the same fallacy.
Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic ‘ages’ to a few years, except that the polonium halos aren’t actually polonium halos (see the Polonium Halo FAQS (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos…
Helium in the wrong places isn’t quite as bad as the others, but it’s still pretty lame. They do not in fact account for loss of ionized helium around the earth’s magnetic poles, and the helium outgassing & loss rates are not constant with time anyway.
Not enough stone age skeletons is based on the rather shakey asumption that there must be 4 billion of them (why?). It’s also based on the equally shakey assumption that we should have found them (where would you dig?). It’s just an invention.
So much for Answers in Genesis. Young earth creationism is about as scientifically bogus as it is possible to be, just one made up tale after another. But they could at least try to be more imaginative.
Answer by ???????? Mother Nature ????????
Give your answer to this question below!