The Bible is Right!

Creation Took Place 4,000 Years Before Christ

THE HUMANIST'S CLAIM: The third chapter of Luke contains a genealogy tracing Christ’s ancestry back only 76 generations to Adam. According to Genesis chapter 1, Adam was created along with the rest of the universe during the course of one week.

They got one right! We Agree!

It is good the humanists can see that the Bible plainly teaches the earth is about 6,000 years old. Many Christians don’t see that, and try to twist scripture to fit millions of years into Genesis In addition, even the plain scientific facts point to the earth being no more than about 6,000 to 10,000 years old, with the evidence supporting a young earth growing almost weekly.

Although they should be using the genealogies in Genesis chapters 1-11 instead of Jesus' genealogy, they come to the right conclusion about what the Bible implies... that the earth is thousands not millions of years old. They did get something wrong, however. Christians do not risk damnation for believing in deep time, and never have. It is not a salvation issue.

This is a major topic with a huge amount of evidence supporting a young earth. Much more than I can discuss here . Notice that the humanists provide no proof of their claim. I could just reply by saying, “Humanists, you are wrong. The earth is about 6 thousand years old, and God created every kind of life during the first six days.” I have done as much as they have in their accusation, and have completely countered it. A general rule of thumb is that if you make an assertion, you need to support that assertion. The humanists rarely do that.

Why do humanists believe the earth is billions of years old? Because, billions of years are required for the magic of evolution to work. HOWEVER, based on science and mathematics, even billions of years is not enough time for the “forces” of random chance and natural selection to create life from non-life. Unfortunately for humanists, it’s impossible to stretch the age of the earth any further, so 4-1/2 billion years is the best they can do.

What is the primary “scientific” evidence used to come up with this age? Radiometric dating. This involves using the known decay rates of long-lived radioactive materials. The problem with this is that, although we are very good at measuring radioactive decay products, many assumptions need to be made in order to arrive at a date. However, we do not need to get into the geology and physics of radiometric dating, there is an easier way to show radiometric dating is not accurate.

As an engineer, I learned that my instruments must be calibrated against a known standard. Yes, we can measure radioactive decay rates and daughter isotopes very accurately using calibrated instruments. However, that does not calibrate the system used to measure the age of rocks. The entire system used to date rocks must be calibrated using rocks of known ages. For example, date the rocks that came from Mt. St. Helens in 1980. We know when those rocks formed, and so the dating should give us a very young age.

Have Mt. St. Helens rocks been dated? Yes. And radiometric dating failed this calibration test. Here are the results of dating a variety of rocks of known ages:

• Mt. St. Helens rocks are dated as being 2.8 million years old
• Mt. Etna rocks are dated as 25 million years old (erupted 2,100 years ago)
• Haulalai Basalt (Hawaii), erupted 200 years ago, and is dated to be 1.4 to 22 million years old.
• A lava flow the goes over the lip of the Grand Canyon, and was observed by Native Americans when it erupted, using radioactive dating methods it is dated to be 1.3 billion years old, much older than lava flows it covers.

There are many other evidences that the earth is thousands, not billions of years old. I suggest the following:

Online Articles

Here are links to three good articles about the age of the earth:

1 - Ten Best Evidences for a Young Earth

2 - Age of the Earth

3 - Evidence for a Young World

Two Online Videos

Scientific evidence supporting a recent creation..

This one is from CMI: How Old is the Earth?

I'd like to add that we've made a fun little web site called Dinosaurs For Jesus, in which dinosaurs present evidence that they lived recently.

Conclusion:

The humanists have presented nothing to support their claim, so there is nothing to refute. In addition, their primary method for measuring the age of the earth, radioactive dating, is unreliable.

NEXT Accusation:

Matthew chapter 2 avers that shortly after the birth of Jesus, King Herod ordered the massacre of all male children two years of age or under in Bethlehem and its vicinity. In the book of Luke, which contains the only other New Testament story of Jesus’ birth, there is no mention of this horribly cruel order. It’s also not recorded in any secular histories from the time – not even by writers who carefully described many far less wicked deeds of Herod. The lack of corroboration means Matthew’s account was fabricated.

It's another empty arguement from silence... click here...