I have a friend who routinely sends me emails from an organization that calls itself "Creation Moments." Each one begins with a Bible verse and ends with a prayer. I don't have a problem with that so much as I do the creationist nonsense that comes in between the two. Take, for example, a newer posting which I have retrieved from their website.
http://www.creationmoments.com/radio/transcripts/simple-math-hard-questions
In "Simple Math, Hard Questions," the anonymous author seems to cleverly "prove" that even operating under the uniformitarianist thinking of modern geology, the earth cannot be nearly as old as it is claimed to be. However good his math may be (and for the first example he doesn't provide the numbers for replication here), the thinking behind it is faulty at best. This person purports to say that given the volume of the continents and the constant rate of erosion, it should take 14 million years for everything to erode to sea level. The author further asserts that "evolutionary geologists" believe that the last mountain-building episode happened 65 million years ago, so there shouldn't be mountains by this point, right?
But the problem is that geologists do not assert that mountain-building has stopped. In fact, it continues well apace, as the Himalayas rise. This is what he seems not to understand, that nothing has "stopped," that it is a continual process of erosion, sedimentation and mountain-building.
He further asserts that if it is true that the first "woman" existed 200,000 years ago, at an average of 3-4 children, "the world's population should have reached 3.5 billion in 4,000 years." He exposes his ignorance of history at this point too in that, until fairly recently, many children did not survive to adulthood. He underestimates the impact of disease and war, to say nothing of starvation that has all-too frequently asserted itself upon humanity. Population in the pre-industrial age rose and fell roughly in tandem with the amount of food produced, sometimes rising a little but also dropping precipitously at times.
The author, having asserted that there are many more such examples he could give where "the facts don't add up" for evolution, considers creationism triumphant. But he has demonstrated no such error; the only error is in his own thinking and his complete lack of understanding, perhaps willful, of geology and history.
http://www.creationmoments.com/radio/transcripts/simple-math-hard-questions
In "Simple Math, Hard Questions," the anonymous author seems to cleverly "prove" that even operating under the uniformitarianist thinking of modern geology, the earth cannot be nearly as old as it is claimed to be. However good his math may be (and for the first example he doesn't provide the numbers for replication here), the thinking behind it is faulty at best. This person purports to say that given the volume of the continents and the constant rate of erosion, it should take 14 million years for everything to erode to sea level. The author further asserts that "evolutionary geologists" believe that the last mountain-building episode happened 65 million years ago, so there shouldn't be mountains by this point, right?
But the problem is that geologists do not assert that mountain-building has stopped. In fact, it continues well apace, as the Himalayas rise. This is what he seems not to understand, that nothing has "stopped," that it is a continual process of erosion, sedimentation and mountain-building.
He further asserts that if it is true that the first "woman" existed 200,000 years ago, at an average of 3-4 children, "the world's population should have reached 3.5 billion in 4,000 years." He exposes his ignorance of history at this point too in that, until fairly recently, many children did not survive to adulthood. He underestimates the impact of disease and war, to say nothing of starvation that has all-too frequently asserted itself upon humanity. Population in the pre-industrial age rose and fell roughly in tandem with the amount of food produced, sometimes rising a little but also dropping precipitously at times.
The author, having asserted that there are many more such examples he could give where "the facts don't add up" for evolution, considers creationism triumphant. But he has demonstrated no such error; the only error is in his own thinking and his complete lack of understanding, perhaps willful, of geology and history.
Nothing is as simple as it seems, and no mathematical equation will provide those kinds of answers; there are simply too many variables. I find it easy to believe in an old earth, but impossible to put stock in any sort of number. If I may simply quote my SoCal friends, it must be "Hella old."
ReplyDelete