The Importance and Significance of Creation Assumptions

(God's comments --- the Bible --- in Red)

While going through a newsgroup, I came across the following jab by someone who was probably an atheist, or in effect so, against a Believer:

> Have you ever spent time in a lab 
> where rocks were actually dated?

Because this is an utterly un"scientific," and atheistic remark, I had to jump in, with the following:


Regarding "where the rocks were actually dated" is a  claim that needs to be understood.  If the "scientific  method" tells us anything, in general, the first thing it  will tell us is that such a claim is an absurdity.  Why?  Because, for one thing, the "scientific method," of  necessity, is filled with assumptions.     What is an assumption?  It is a made up "fact." 

Every scientific "Law" is an assumption. A Law regards a  phenomena that has been repeatedly and consistently observed, and has never been observed to fail  (eg the "Law  of  Gravitation").  The  assumption, which becomes laid down  as a LAW, is that this  phenomenon always has occurred, and  always will occur. It can always be trusted to occur.  It can always be relied upon, and therefore used as a fact to predict the outcome of an experiment, to guide production of a good,  - - - or, determine the history of things or the future of things, to reason further scientific "facts," etc.

WHICH ASSUMPTION CONSTITUTES, OBVIOUSLY, THE  ASSERTION THAT  GOD DOES NOT EXIST! It is a fiat denial of Creation.  He did not create the universe at some point in time; He did not bring that "law" into existence at some point in time (eg, The Curse, in  Genesis 3); He will not change that Law in the future.  This is precisely the assumption referred to, in 2 Peter 3:4 ---     "There shall come scoffers, saying: . . . 'for since the patriarchs died, all things have followed the same laws that  are the laws that have been in effect throughout all time"  (--- a valid paraphrase of the passage).  

However, He does exist; He did bring the "Law" into existence at some point in time (before which that law wasn't operative); He will end that "Law" at some time in the future.   Which tells us, right there:  "so much for man's 'science," when it purports to tell us about the past or about the future. True science cannot do this, because one of the primary fundamental things every science student is taught is that SCIENCE IS BASED ON OBSERVATION; and no one has any observations regarding the great past, nor any future whatsoever.  

This "science" is simply, in philosophy, atheism. And to repeat the above, it is not science, at all.  EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE, by definition!  And of course; neither is Creation. They are both "religious" in nature, involving men's assumptions about God.  Evolution assuming that God can be left out of the picture, and Creation assuming that God's Revelation is Truth.  This is SO IMPORTANT to recognize.  It is then no wonder that they thus are discovered to be mutually incompatible.


We find a rock, containing Uranium and Lead:    

ASSUMPTION #1: God didn't know how to make lead, originally, when He made rocks: He only knew how to make Uranium.    

CONCLUSION #1: Therefore, all the lead in the present rock came from the original uranium in the original rock.     

ASSUMPTION #2: The Uranium had been producing the lead according to the present laws of nature that are in effect today, since the beginning of the rock.     

CONCLUSION #2: The rock is millions of years old; God lied to us when He implied it was only a few thousand years old, in the Bible.  Creation 'scientists' are lying ignoramusses; their PhD degrees are ridiculous, and should be ignored, as they are, by all "REAL scientists."


If the above sounds too silly, you need to understand something  about ANY "scientific dating method:"  It MUST involve,  essentially, those two assumptions.  More precisely:

1.    We must ASSUME the original state of the artifact being dated.

2.    We must ASSUME that _all_ the processes and  their rates which changed the artifact from its original state to its present state are known.

Neither of these assumptions is possible to know, obviously,  since no one was there to make any measurements (except God,  and of course we reject at the outset everything He has told  us --- that's great science, isn't it? --- Luke 16:31); there is no observation available.  And  since the "scientific method" term you are throwing all over the place, involves observation and measurement, it should be  obvious that "scientific  dating methods" are not  "scientific" at all. 

In fact, regarding "scientific dating," there is no way to "scientifically" PROVE that we weren't all created 5 seconds ago, with our books of history that never happened, knowledge we never learned, hair we never grew, computers we never invented, schools we never went to, etc.  God tells us plainly that that in fact is somewhat the state Adam found himself in when he was created something less than 10,000 years ago.  (And Genesis 1:3-4 tells of light coming  from we presume, sun, moon and stars, which didn't even exist until 3 days later).  And even if God had not told us these things, logic would tell us of them, once we accept creation as a fact and reason about what the nature of that original creation must have been.  This, of course, man (meaning "scientists") does not do: certainly not in state universities (Psa. 2, 2 Pet. 3:3-10, etc).  And since most of the methods give results contradicting  recorded history, as well as each other, it should be obvious that  they are not only unscientific ("science," incidentally,  simply means "knowledge"), but utterly absurd. 


The almost universal application of Assumption #1 is that "scientists" assume the ideal "zero age state" for  every  artifact, which gives the longest possible age conclusion.  The rock originally contained no lead. The oceans began without any of the present mineral content.  (and there was never a world-wide flood which the Bible tells about --- as do over 250 legends from all over the earth --- which would have drastically increased the mineral content). There was  originally no C14 in the atmosphere [that is, if they are  dating the age of the atmosphere itself --- on the other  hand, if they are doing C14 dating of some artifact, then the  usual assumption is that the C14 in the atmosphere has always  been the same as today]. Adam was created at age zero (an  embryo, instead, as the Bible claims, as a full grown man).  Etc^2. 

This means that any incorrect assumption for  #1 (that the  artifact was originally in zero age state) will result in a  LONGER age conclusion than what is true.  And that means, that the tendency of #1 is that those "dating methods" which give the shortest ages are the more significant methods. 

Simply, it means that, as far as assumption #1 is concerned, "dating methods" are more correctly "age limiting methods." 

Every dating method, in other words, does not give an actual age, but rather a MAXIMUM POSSIBLE AGE.

To put it mathematically:      

     If x < 1,000,000 years is a true statement, and,  
     if x < 10,000 years is also a true statement,  (notice the 2nd does not contradict the first, it only modifies the first)

Then x < 10,000 years is THE statement of  significance; the first statement has been rendered pointless by the truth of the second.

Example: if that rock containing uranium and lead [see endnote 1], "dated" at 10^8 years is found in the same strata  as a fossil of an animal which lived in an atmosphere "dated" at 10^4 years (Dr. Robert Whitelaw's interesting study), then the whole shebang, rock and fossil and all, can not be dated at more than the 10^4 years.

(and the atheist came back with):

> Stupid!  You apparently don't even know the difference between  igneous and sedimentary rocks.

Yes, I do; of course, and believing Genesis 7, I know something about them that you don't:  "In that same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up (igneous, right?) and the windows of Heaven were opened (sedimentary causing, right?).  Igneous and sedimentary, according to the Bible, appear to be quite contemporary.  "Radioactive dating methods," as in so many other cases, notwithstanding. And when we find wood screws and coke bottles in "strata" dated at 10^6 years, we should properly ask whether the "scientists" would not better spend the rest of their lives in truck driving, instead of calling God a liar.


Not only does the assumption of original zero age state result in absurd age length conclusions, but it is also absurd on the face of it: 

An original ocean of pure water, original creatures all mere fertilized eggs, original  atmosphere who knows what?, do not match any model any scientist would accept, since the continued existence of the whole system requires a functioning mature state of every essential part of it.  (as a matter of fact, there is no  "theory of evolution" any scientist accepts, when you press him very far into its essential details)  [Endnote 2].

As with every other area of "science," man is simply "in way over his head" in this area.  Except for those men who simply believe God, Who implies  that  He made it all, somewhat less than 10,000 years ago, in  a  condition which was _not_ zero age state (Isa. 45:18, Gen.  1:14, etc), and  some time _after_ He made it, as a result of  sin which  appeared, He _changed_ the natural laws to those  that man sees operating today (Gen. 3:17-19); and He tells  us that as a result of the  Cross, those laws will soon be  changed again (Rom. 8:18-22) (back to the  original laws  He created?). 


Christ Died to Save You


Endnote 1 ---    

Yes, I know the difference between an igneous rock and sedimentary strata.     But if we are going to communicate at all, please keep in mind where I'm coming  from: I believe the Bible.  And the Bible makes it pretty evident, just what we see, also evident in the field: sedimentary rocks and igneous rocks appear to be contemporary.  "the same day were all the fountains of the great abyss broken up [igneous], and the windows of heaven were opened"  [sedimentary].  (Genesis 7:11-12).  The evidence of this is TREMENDOUS over all the globe, contrary to the outright lies we are being given all over the globe.        

Incidentally, a problem I have not yet seen discussed is how a rock could   even exist for even 1 million years, let alone the 300+ million years the "oldest rocks on the earth" are supposed to be, in Greenland.  I seriously doubt the possibility --- certainly not, for any rock near the surface of  the land.  And when you start to think about it, you will also doubt that possibility.  I have asked scientists about it, and with a little thought, they also expressed doubt at the possibility.  The conclusion is obvious to me: "scientists" who prate about millions of years have no concept of what "millions of years" would do to a rock!  (erosion, grinding, crushing pressures, dissolving, chemical decay, radioactive decay, thermal agitation, volcanism, etc, etc, etc.  Any of these needs some real study and research, which appears as yet to be seriously lacking.  And ALL of  these destructive phenomena were theoretically, and very evidently, more severe in the past than at present.)

Endnote 2 ---    

The only thing more stupid than that "theory" is the "Theistic Evolution"  which buys that theory, hook, line, sinker, boat, motor and the whole lake, and then on top of it, still claims to believe in Christ, Who plainly told us that anyone who does not believe the Genesis account of Creation does not believe in Him, either (Luke 16:31).        

And obviously, no believer in "the theory of evolution" believes in the Genesis account of creation.  I have verified this again and again and again in the debates I have gotten into in the various newsgroups for at least the past 15 years.  They are totally incompatible; and it is quite easy to anyone who really understands either evolution or Christ to see that.