Age of the earth part 1

My last post attracted some comments. As I posted some time ago, I allow unmoderated comments here but I don’t guarantee to reply to them-or even read them all. I have a complex and busy life and can devote no more than 1, maximum 2 hours a week to this blog. However, honest questions deserve a response (although abuse does not. All I can say to haters is that your words are being recorded).

I was asked to give some examples of the biological nanomachinery which I assert has abundantly falsified Darwinism’s central mechanism (natural selection acting on random mutations). I have already done so in many previous posts, and I certainly can’t budget time to repeat myself, but I have offered some particular examples and three science books in which these and other biological systems are discussed in the context of Darwinian mechanisms. Others are detailed on linked sites including Uncommon Descent and Darwin's God. 'Say something once, why say it again?' as David Byrne wrote.

However, I have also been asked to state my views on the age of the earth and evidence for such views.  I will make some initial observations about the question.

1)      My special area of scientific interest is biology and I use biological examples (for example, the genetics of Xeroderma Pigmentosum and melanoma cncer in recent posts) to argue against Darwinism. No comments on those recent posts about that other than from the father of an XP victim. No attempt to criticise my reasoning on that, and no surprise. So, since I mainly argue from biology, why challenge me on the age of the earth? My last post touched on the age of the earth but was essentially about misrepresentation and tactics used by evolutionists.

2)      A very old (e.g. many millions of years) is a NECESSARY but not a SUFFICIENT condition for the unguided origin of life and Darwinian evolution to have occurred. Its also a very convenient place to hide missing evidence. A standard evolutionist response when asked about lack of intermediate forms, fixity of species within the genomic envelope, the law of biogenesis, harmful nature of mutations, irreducible complexity, origin of meaningful information etc is to assert that the evidence is buried in deep time and that given billions of years the impossible must have happened. In other words, we don’t see genuinely new species emerging today, but 'Deep Time must have done it!' However, this is no different to saying ‘God could have done it!’. Creationists and evolutionists both appeal to unseen entities and distant past events that cannot be directly observed. God (if any) has a mind and can do 'impossible' things by virtue of supernatural wisdom and power, Deep Time has no mind and cannot break the laws of physics.

3)      God could have done it. A Deity who was capable of raising Jesus from the dead, and there is no alternative explanation for the origin and spread of the Church (under severe persecution for the first 300 years) that makes more sense than the physical resurrection of The Lord, is capable of anything. If God decided to make man, then there needed to be a MATURE creation, which would have had the appearance of age from the first day. If Adam was created near-instantaneously from the dust of the earth, he would of necessity had to have been created as a sentient adult. When Jesus turned water into wine (John chapter 2) it happened instantaneously, but the wine would have had to have the appearance of age. This creating of new things which seemed old does not make God a deceiver, it’s just that that’s how it would have to be if the created thing was to be fit for purpose.

 

There is more to be written but I have to have some breakfast and go to work.