Throughout the previous blogs, evolution was identified as ultimately declaring that we are nothing, having no worth, and ultimately no future. How arrogant of us to think that we have a special and important role within the incomprehensible vastness of the universe. How foolish to think that the stars and planets were hung so that that events in the sky would be arranged to have meaning from this tiny view hole in the cosmos. Important evolutionists officiously proclaim that we humans should be satisfied with being merely a blip on the screen of evolution.
Creationism, especially backed up by the personal visit of God Himself and of His coming to be one of us, maintains that we have extraordinary value within the scheme of a plan that will culminate as we stand before God’s throne and dwell in His house forever. This gives us the ability to see the stars, constellations, conjunctions and other phenomena, not as dictators of our lives, but rather as the great drawing board for the Jehovah of Covenant to display His prophecies, HIS-Story, and His Glory.
But if we discount evolution as the tool God used by which to create, what about the long ages that the earth has existed? Perhaps this should be touched on.
All around is supposed to be evidence of great age. But do we ever ask, “Who says so?” We usually do not. Is there not unmistakable and undeniable proof of these ages? After all, this is scientific truth, isn’t it? Actually, the answer may surprise you! For the moment consider the following news clipping:
In the valley called Neander in the mountainous region…there was a very important historical find today. During construction … ancient bones [were] accidentally unearthed. … They were declared to be the bones of a prehistoric type of man who lived over 60,000 years ago.
Thus begins the first newspaper account of the discovery of what has come to be called the Neanderthal Man. The story ran September 9, 1856 in a German newspaper, Barmer Burgerblat… [Michael Iachetta, “Meet ‘Papa Neanderthal'” New York Daily News, no date available]
Often people believe these dates come from some laboratory test. That is not true – there is no laboratory test that can deal with that interval of years other than radioactive decay (radiometric) dating (which can have its problems). But the year of the German newspaper report, 1856, is forty-two years before Marie and Pierre Curie discovered radium, which ushered in the “radioactive age”!
ED medications contain prescription drugs so they should be taken under the guidance of a doctor. The process secretworldchronicle.com cialis uk is completely different from IVF or In Vitro Fertilization for infertility treatment. This way the impotent men are able to achieve an erection for intercourse. Ovulation may not go well due to many different health problems across America. Then how were these dates arrived at? It is not on whether the rock is on top or bottom. One would think that the bottom would be deposited first, therefore is older, but such is not the case in many parts of the world. For instance, the top rock of Chief Mountain in Glacier-Waterton International Park, Montana-Alberta, is said to be “Algonkian,” about two or so billion years old; while the base of the mountain is “Cretaceous,” only 200 million years old.
So the date is not by position in relation to other rocks. It is not by the composition of the rock. Even if one did have radiometric tests in 1856, it does not help in dating sedimentary rock, because one could not be sure whether he was dating the sedimentary stone or the original stone from which the sand or silt had come.
The point is, when the setting of the geological epochs was done, it was long before there was any “empirical data” (laboratory-type evidence) to support such dates.
From the early 1800’s (before Darwin!), the pattern was set: to remove God from science, the theory was gradually established that life progressed from “goo” to man (or, from “soup” to “nuts”). Arbitrary spans of time were assigned to each step in the progression to give it a safely unchallengeable length of time for its transition to the next step. Then fossils were placed within the steps (epochs) according where they should “logically” fit. The basis was upon an mandated artificial “logical” progression and not upon any actual physical dating of the specimens.
Were the spans of time realistic? When they were fit into the framework of evolution, Gregor Mendel had not yet published his significant work on heredity in 1866 (even then it was not really accepted until 1900 [Ruth Moore, Evolution, Life Nature Library (NY: Time Incorporated,1964)]), therefore essential exploration into “genes” had not yet been done, which also meant that even “rates of mutations” could not be estimated. There was nothing guaranteeing that the long time frames had any connection to reality.
Literally, there was no evidence to establish realistic epoch ages – or, said differently, epoch ages were determined entirely upon guesswork, a conjecture that lacked crucial scientific information. Yet these dates have been maintained now for two hundred years without real challenge. That is a most remarkable coincidence for something that was based entirely upon uninformed speculation!