NOT ASSUMPTIONS When faced with lack of evidence to support their faith system, the evolution of molecules to man,the evolutionist will always fall back on the argumentoftime.Give us enough time,they say,and evolution will occur.And so the evolutionists publish dates of billions of years for the age of the universe. Thesebillions and billions of yearsare emphasized from our childhood days. As little children, we hear famous people andcredentialedscience writers in white lab coats over and over again and again refer to these long ages of time. News broadcasters and public television nature programs refer to billions of years as a matter of fact. Repetition is essential to brainwashing;andbrainwashing is essential to belief in one-cell-to-man evolution, since there is no factual science (science not based on assumptions)toback it up. Most creationists would say that the universe is somewhere btwn 6-10000 yrs old. A young universe isnt a problem for creationists because our God, theCreator-God of the Bible,is also the Creator of time. He does not need time. He can and did create fully mature people, plants n animals. The evolutionists make major assumptions during the course of determining a dateofseveral millionorbillion years 4 the age of a pieceofrock. Ifanyoftheir assumptions are invalid, then it is impossible 2 use that technique2find a correct age fortherock. Here is how these dating techniques work: Let us say we find a rockandthen wanttodetermine how old itis. We decidetoanalyzetherock by looking for certain elementsorcompounds which break down over time into certain other elementsorcompounds. We might look for a special isotopeofuraniumandtheelement it eventually breaks down (decays) into, whichisa special isotopeoflead. In our rock specimen, we find someofthisspecial uraniumandsomeofthelead it decays into (thedaughterelement).Theleadiscalledthedaughter element because it comesfromthebreakdownofits mother element, uranium. We can measure how much leadisintherock,andbecause we think we know how fast (orslowly)theuranium woulddecayintothelead,theamountofthisspecial lead intherock should then tell us how oldtherockis. In other words,theamountoflead present intherock would have resultedfroma certain amountofuranium decaying over X numberofyears into lead. For allofthistoyield a specific time frame in millionsorbillionsofyears, certain assumptions are made. ASSUMPTION ONE: NO CONTAMINATION First, itisassumed bythescientist datingtherock that his specimenofrock had never been contaminated. Nothing could havecomeintooroutoftherock that could alterthedating techniquetogive an erroneous date.Thiswould demand aclosed systemfortherocks environment. As Dr. Henry Morris says inScientific Creationism,[1]thereisno such thing in nature as a closed system.Theclosed systemisan ideal concept convenient for analysis, but non-existent inthereal world. Morris mentions thattheideaofa system remaining closed for millionsofyears becomes an absurdity. Some evolutionists claim that every molecule intheuniverse has been in at least four different substances sincetheBig Bang. But evolutionists cannot have both; they cannot have molecules jumping aroundfromone substancetoanotherandmolecules steadfastandimmovable, as they would havetobeintheclosed system. Therefore,thefirst assumption neededtoaffix old datestorocksisnot valid. Rocks do get contaminated as things seep into them,androcks change their constituents as things leech outofthem. A closed system sounds goodandmustbeassumedtohave accuracy in dating rocks, but it does not occur in nature. ASSUMPTION TWO: NO DAUGHTER COMPONENT Thesecond assumptionoftherock-dating expertisthatthesystemmusthave initially contained noneofits daughter component. In ordertocalculatetheageofour rock specimen, for example, there canbeno lead intheoriginal rock. Let us say it takes l,000,000 years for one milligramofleadtobeproduced bythedecayofuranium. We then analyze a rockanddiscover it has one milligramoflead in it.Thearticle we publish would state, with full conviction,Thisrock was l,000,000 years old as scientifically dated using high-tech procedures by Dr. Credentials who has a double Ph.D. in rock dating.Who will doubt how oldtherockis? Almost no one. But hold on for a minute. Suppose God created that rock with someofthelead already in it.Orsuppose some lead leaked into it somehoworwas formed by some other reactionorprocess. How cantheexpert differentiate betweenthelead that God put there (orwas formed in some other way)andthelead that camefromuraniumdecay? Obviously, no one can know how much lead was theretobegin with. Consequently, for laboratoryaccuracytheevolutionistmustarbitrarily decide,There was no lead (daughter element) theretobegin with; I cant prove it, but I will pretend (assume)thistobetrue. Every time you are told that a rockisseveral millionorbillionoreven tensofthousandsofyears old,thescientist doingthedating has assumed no pre-existing daughter compound.
Posted on: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 04:14:14 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015