Selective use of evidence for the age of the earth
A final example of that deceitfulness is their selective use of evidence for the age of the earth. Rationalist media articles invariably assert that the earth is 4.6 billion years old. They ignore the evidence for a young earth. Why?
Evolutionists select the evidence that gives the oldest possible age of the universe because the probabilities of even their own speculations are impossibly low. We have already seen what Sir Fred Hoyle had to say about the statistical impossibility of their hopes.
Rationalists hope that if the earth is 4.6 billion years old that might have been enough time for processes unknown to science to have increased information in some mutations and thus made species more complex. Of course, such a hope flies in the face of the evidence that all observed mutations lose information. It also relies on unknown processes every bit as miraculous as creation.
However, in 1966 even the vain hope that 4.6 billion years might be enough was dashed in an article in the Journal of Theoretical Biology by Dr Michael Hasofar.
4.6 billion years is nowhere near enough time to “evolve” humans
Hasofar constructed a model of the way chromosomes break and re-form in building the cell structure. He showed that the time needed for one cell to ‘evolve’ into a human being far exceeds 4.6 billion years even if the length of a generation is assumed to be only a fraction of a second.
Of course, whether the earth is ancient, as evolutionists claim, or much younger is a matter of belief, not scientific knowledge. The estimate of 4.6 billion years, for example, depends on uniformitarian assumptions about the rate at which uranium decays into lead and on assumptions about the initial quantities of uranium and lead. Glossing over such assumptions and treating 4.6 billion years as a fact is just more evidence of deceit.
Recent Comments