I've been thinking a lot about the fallacy of evolution. The theory of evolution has probably done more damage to the human race than any other belief system ever created by man. The Jewish holocaust was a direct result of Darwin's theory of evolution.Hitler's goal was to speed up the process of evolution believing that blond hair, blue eyes and fair skin was the epitome of evolution.
Today, evolution is directly responsible for the death of millions of unborn babies and moral degradation in our society. "How is that?" you might ask. Evolution stands in direct contrast to what the Bible teaches. In short, if evolution is true, then the Bible is not. If the Bible is not true, then there are no moral absolutes and the idea of right and wrong becomes relative to the interests of the individual. When that happens, chaos ensues.
"Hasn't evolution been proven to be true?" The short answer is "no!"
In order for evolution to be true, the earth would have to be millions or billions of years old. Now you're thinking, "Wait a minute, I know that the earth is at least millions of years old because I see them talking about it on Discovery and History channel all the time. They've done tests, right?"
Scientists have developed tests that they claim can reveal the age of various test subjects. The theories they put forth sound great and on the surface are very convincing, but once you look into how the tests are done, what the results really show and most importantly what they don't tell you, you begin to see what a hoax they really are.
Suppose I asked you to tell me how long it would take to fill my bathtub. I told you that my tub will hold 50 gallons of water and my faucet produces a flow rate of 25 gallons a minute. With that information, you would conclude that the tub would be filled in 2 minutes time. Sounds correct, right? What I didn't tell you is how much water was already in the tub to begin with.
Let's look at Carbon 14 radiometric dating. That is what you hear about most on those "educational" channels. Carbon 14 degrades by half every 5730 years (+/- 40 years). So given that predictable rate, the test shouldn't be able to date anything older than 50,000 years. So theoretically, if a sample for dating has carbon 14, it can't be millions of years old.
Even given that information and supposing that radio carbon dating could detect millions of years, you would still need to know how much carbon 14 was in the sample to begin with. Scientists, in order to come up with these dates, have to make certain assumptions. For example, they have to assume that the amount of carbon 14 in the environment then was the same as it is now. They have to assume that nothing in that time frame has effected the deterioration rate of the Carbon 14. We know that the amounts of Carbon 14 has varied over the centuries. Volcanic eruptions, for example, causes an increase of Carbon 14 in the environment.
When the Carbon 14 is created, it also combines with oxygen to create carbon dioxide which is then absorbed by plant life which is then eaten by animal life. When the subject dies, it no longer absorbs the carbon 14 and the decay begins. Supose that death occurs at a period of time when carbon 14 is depleted relative to what we know today. When tested, that organism would appear older than it truly is because it has less carbon 14 than was expected. Now, scientists will tell you that they can make assumptions to account for that based on how old they think the specimen is. Did you catch the key words there? Assumptions and think. Any time you have to make an assumption when testing something, you can not rely on the results and given that there was no test equipment in place to evaluate the amount of carbon 14 at the time of death, they can only guess at best, and a guess, even an educated guess, is not good enough.
There are other forms of radiometric dating that in theory should be able to give ages in the millions of years. These tests measure isotope concentrations and can be used to test rocks (unlike carbon 14). If these tests were truly accurate and the assumptions were true (yes, the same assumptions apply), then each of these tests should bear the same results when applied to the same sample, yet they don't. Not only do different tests show different results for the same sample, but even the same test done multiple times to the same subject will give multiple results. So, how can scientist claim that the earth is millions or even billions of years old? When a test result comes back outside the expected date range, they claim an anomoly or contamination of the specimen and throw out the result.
Why go to all of that trouble? Why not just be honest about the results? Because, in my opinion, their goal is to "prove" that there is no God. At a minimum, they don't want to validate the truthfulness of the Bible. If they admitted that the total of all of the evidence supported the Bible, then the people of every other belief system would be alienated and would revolt. We could actually see wars start over that kind of revolation. Ultimately, though, I don't think they care about whether or not wars start, they're not that noble. My opinion, based on people I have met of that belief system, is that they just can't stand the idea that there is a being greater than they are. That there is a being that will have ultimate say over their future. And ultimately, that they may have to answer to that being for the life that they chose to live.
I believe that I have laid out enough doubt here to sufficiently discredit, or at least cast some serious doubt on the idea that the earth is millions of years old. So how do we determine the age of the earth? We go back to the only document on earth that has stood the test of time and is being proven every day that it is a truly reliable resource. The Bible. Using the geneological record of the Bible, we can determine the age of the earth to be approx. 6000 to 8000 years. Believe it or not, there is actually evidence to support this claim that I will touch on in future blogs. This will likely be the first of many on this subject.
Today, evolution is directly responsible for the death of millions of unborn babies and moral degradation in our society. "How is that?" you might ask. Evolution stands in direct contrast to what the Bible teaches. In short, if evolution is true, then the Bible is not. If the Bible is not true, then there are no moral absolutes and the idea of right and wrong becomes relative to the interests of the individual. When that happens, chaos ensues.
"Hasn't evolution been proven to be true?" The short answer is "no!"
In order for evolution to be true, the earth would have to be millions or billions of years old. Now you're thinking, "Wait a minute, I know that the earth is at least millions of years old because I see them talking about it on Discovery and History channel all the time. They've done tests, right?"
Scientists have developed tests that they claim can reveal the age of various test subjects. The theories they put forth sound great and on the surface are very convincing, but once you look into how the tests are done, what the results really show and most importantly what they don't tell you, you begin to see what a hoax they really are.
Suppose I asked you to tell me how long it would take to fill my bathtub. I told you that my tub will hold 50 gallons of water and my faucet produces a flow rate of 25 gallons a minute. With that information, you would conclude that the tub would be filled in 2 minutes time. Sounds correct, right? What I didn't tell you is how much water was already in the tub to begin with.
Let's look at Carbon 14 radiometric dating. That is what you hear about most on those "educational" channels. Carbon 14 degrades by half every 5730 years (+/- 40 years). So given that predictable rate, the test shouldn't be able to date anything older than 50,000 years. So theoretically, if a sample for dating has carbon 14, it can't be millions of years old.
Even given that information and supposing that radio carbon dating could detect millions of years, you would still need to know how much carbon 14 was in the sample to begin with. Scientists, in order to come up with these dates, have to make certain assumptions. For example, they have to assume that the amount of carbon 14 in the environment then was the same as it is now. They have to assume that nothing in that time frame has effected the deterioration rate of the Carbon 14. We know that the amounts of Carbon 14 has varied over the centuries. Volcanic eruptions, for example, causes an increase of Carbon 14 in the environment.
When the Carbon 14 is created, it also combines with oxygen to create carbon dioxide which is then absorbed by plant life which is then eaten by animal life. When the subject dies, it no longer absorbs the carbon 14 and the decay begins. Supose that death occurs at a period of time when carbon 14 is depleted relative to what we know today. When tested, that organism would appear older than it truly is because it has less carbon 14 than was expected. Now, scientists will tell you that they can make assumptions to account for that based on how old they think the specimen is. Did you catch the key words there? Assumptions and think. Any time you have to make an assumption when testing something, you can not rely on the results and given that there was no test equipment in place to evaluate the amount of carbon 14 at the time of death, they can only guess at best, and a guess, even an educated guess, is not good enough.
There are other forms of radiometric dating that in theory should be able to give ages in the millions of years. These tests measure isotope concentrations and can be used to test rocks (unlike carbon 14). If these tests were truly accurate and the assumptions were true (yes, the same assumptions apply), then each of these tests should bear the same results when applied to the same sample, yet they don't. Not only do different tests show different results for the same sample, but even the same test done multiple times to the same subject will give multiple results. So, how can scientist claim that the earth is millions or even billions of years old? When a test result comes back outside the expected date range, they claim an anomoly or contamination of the specimen and throw out the result.
Why go to all of that trouble? Why not just be honest about the results? Because, in my opinion, their goal is to "prove" that there is no God. At a minimum, they don't want to validate the truthfulness of the Bible. If they admitted that the total of all of the evidence supported the Bible, then the people of every other belief system would be alienated and would revolt. We could actually see wars start over that kind of revolation. Ultimately, though, I don't think they care about whether or not wars start, they're not that noble. My opinion, based on people I have met of that belief system, is that they just can't stand the idea that there is a being greater than they are. That there is a being that will have ultimate say over their future. And ultimately, that they may have to answer to that being for the life that they chose to live.
I believe that I have laid out enough doubt here to sufficiently discredit, or at least cast some serious doubt on the idea that the earth is millions of years old. So how do we determine the age of the earth? We go back to the only document on earth that has stood the test of time and is being proven every day that it is a truly reliable resource. The Bible. Using the geneological record of the Bible, we can determine the age of the earth to be approx. 6000 to 8000 years. Believe it or not, there is actually evidence to support this claim that I will touch on in future blogs. This will likely be the first of many on this subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment