Here’s a problem: Modern science tells us the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, but this “science” is flaky. “No way!” you say. Do you want proof?
Are you interested in reading something more in-depth that explains why, and produces compelling evidence to support this claim? In layman’s language, but also with numbers, charts, tables, and formulas?
This article takes an in-depth look at the assumptions and measurements from the recent Spanish Cave Painting “discovery.”
The staff at Science Against Evolution digs out the supplementary materials from the Science Magazine database attached to the research paper and examines them underneath the lens of science. To quote an excerpt:
Of course, the ages of these paintings have nothing to do with evolution, so we don’t really care what they are. All we care about is that the measurements ranged from 164 years to 40,800 years, which hardly inspires confidence in the method.
The article explains the findings in ways that are easy for the layman to understand. The central problem, he explains, is that, in order to derive the old ages of the cave paintings, the research team brought forth evidence that brings the assumptions of old earth into question.
They didn’t discuss those implications in their paper. The results are typical; there are generally-accepted ways of dealing with them. The earth needs to be billions of years old for evolution to be plausible — and, therefore, for their explanations of “neanderthals” to be plausible. Their jobs and research careers depend on it; they won’t shake up such an established, well-funded industry. It’s easy to replace a dissenter with someone who is more pliable. So, the researchers apply the generally-accepted explanations without giving any (written) consideration to their validity.
If you make an assumption, you should test it for plausibility. What their evidence shows is that the actual data are out of line with their old-earth assumption. If they really were in search of facts, they would address these discrepancies and refine their methodologies.
What they would really do is admit that they don’t know the initial conditions, so they can’t truly solve their age-equations. Instead, they would admit that they are speculating instead of presenting the evidence as if it were absolutely certain. And we know their intent is focused: to push God out of the universe.
They do their hand-waving and roll right on through, even substituting more favorable numbers for the measured numbers in some places to produce results more in line with their expectations.
What is going on here? Since the actual evidence is inconsistent with the theory, they substitute preferred numbers for actual numbers to produce results that are consistent with the theory. This isn’t science.
RELIGIOUS PRESUPPOSITIONS INFLUENCE SCIENCE
Facts aren’t matching the theories. Underlying assumptions are contradicting each other. Paul wrote about these problems long ago — the problems of the darkened reasoning of man’s fallen mind:
They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. (Ephesians 4:18 ESV)
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. (Romans 1:18-19 ESV, emphasis added)
Obviously, this is good news for some people and bad news for others. But who would be the winners and the losers, especially when all we are talking about are facts and truth? Why would anyone want to ignore the facts and abandon the scientific quest for truth to produce a desired result or to go along with the “consensus”?
Now, obviously we at Rebuild America’s Biblical Worldview are biased in this debate. We believe we are on the side of Truth. (Genesis 1)
If you remain undecided, however, then to answer this question for yourself, you must look at the dividing line: Who is in favor of “old earth”? Who is against “old earth”? What’s at stake for each side?
If rebellious, unregenerate man is correct, then there is no final judgment. If he is wrong, then he faces eternal damnation for his ethical disobedience. The science must support his belief.
There is a fundamental truth that cannot be ignored: religious presuppositions influence science. Neutrality is a myth. One man’s idea of “unbiased science” is the suppression of another man’s beliefs.
THE BEGINNING OF KNOWLEDGE
Science should not begin with the scientific method. Science should begin with God. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Proverbs 1:7) and wisdom (Proverbs 9:10). Science is the pursuit of knowledge. To pursue science-based knowledge without respecting the Lord and his revealed truth leads to distorted theories and perverted wisdom.
Secular humanism is a religion: the religion of man as god; the pursuit of knowledge based on the reasoning abilities of man’s mind alone. Just because it has been defined as “neutral” in the US Constitution (and reinforced continuously throughout the years by the Supreme Court) by men who substituted the “voice of the people” for the sovereignty of God does not make it so.
It is at odds with Christianity. It is a religion that is (almost) as old as dirt:
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’? ” (Genesis 3:1)
Eve was tempted with a proposition: neutrality. “A truly enlightened person would choose to test all possibilities, not just take God’s word for it.” In doing so, her and Adam became rebellious, ethically disobedient children. For that, they — and all of creation — were cursed.
Read the full article here: