Are the creation ministries shooting straight with us (200 dpi)

Are the Young Earth
Creation Ministries
Shooting Straight
With Us?
Tim Helble
March 2, 2015

 God is creator of everything
 Jesus is still God in the flesh
 He lived among us and died
for our sins on the cross
 He was raised from the dead,
and was seen by many
witnesses
 He ascended into heaven and
sits at the right hand of God

Twelve ways the young earth
creation (YEC) ministries are
presenting deceptive and
false information
7.
Young earth advocates often commit the fallacy of
assuming the conclusion in their arguments.
8. YECs often engage in “science by exceptions”
9. Young earth advocates provide ad hoc
explanations when basic scientific principles are in oppo
10. YECs will sometimes quote each other’s errors,
showing a lack of original research
11. A YEC will sometimes provide an argument which
contradicts something he/she said earlier.
12. Some YECs will tell you that science is simply an
encyclopedic accumulation of observational
“facts.”
1. YECs often knowingly or unknowingly provide
false and deceptive information
2. YECs often don’t practice what they preach.
3. YECs will make it sound like you are less of a
Christian (or not a Christian at all) if you believe
the Earth is old
4. Young Earth leaders sometimes modify history to
suit their purposes.
5. Young earth scientists will tell you almost all of
Earth’s fossil-bearing sedimentary rock layers
were deposited during Noah’s Flood
6. YECs will argue that they use the same data as the
“evolutionists,” they just come to different
conclusions.

1.
YECs (and YEC supporting pastors)
often knowingly or unknowingly provide
false and deceptive information

False and Deceptive Information
A typical Mt. St. Helens argument
Mt. St. Helens seems to be a popular topic
for young earth advocates. Lets look at a
popular but very deceptive argument…

Are Mt. St. Helens layers the same as lake couplets?
Watch the following video clip of Dr. John Morris of
the ICR, speaking about Mt. St. Helens…
Note how he states at time = 0.59, ”When we look at these layers
up close, we see that they’re layered just like Grand Canyon, and
look at them really closely, we’ll see that there’s paper-thin little
layers in these and, you know, when I went to graduate school in
geology, I was taught that these little laminations like that, those
are the result of yearly deposits, maybe a winter/summer couplet,


and so a geologist, to study this region here, the way that they
would answer the question ‘How long did it take for this deposit to
accumulate,’ they would go in there and count those layers, and
there are millions of these layers in there, all of them deposited
rapidly, but they would conclude that those are yearly deposits,
and so they would say ‘Oh, this deposit took long periods of time
to accumulate,’ when in reality, it accumulated rapidly.”
John Morris (video): A Walk Through History

Spreading false information to a wide audience
serious question by the explosion of Mount St. Helens in the state of
Washington on the 18th
of May, 1980. Massive energy equivalent to 20
million tons of TNT, destroyed 400 square kilometers of forest in six
minutes, changing the face of the mountain and digging out depths of
earth and rock leaving formations not unlike parts of the larger Grand
Canyon. Recent studies of the Mount St. Helens phenomenon indicate
that if attempts were made to date these structures which were formed in
1980 on the basis of uniformitarian theory, millions of years of formation
time would be necessarily postulated. Ironically, one of the center pieces
used to demonstrate uniformitarian chronology, the geologic column on
closer inspection actually witnesses to catastrophism.’ And so it goes.”
“Douglas Kelly, writing in his book Creation and Change,
says ‘the uniformitarian assumption that millions of years of
geological work extrapolating from present, slow, natural
processes would be required to explain structures such as
the American Grand Canyon, for instance, is called into
Full text
Sermon clipJohn MacArthur, “The How, Why, and
When of Creation, Part 2,” April 25, 1999

 Mt. St. Helens isn’t the first volcano to blow its top. Geologists
can instantly recognize layers seen around volcanoes such as
Mt. St. Helens as being composed of ash, and know they
accumulate rapidly.
 Geologists know how to recognize the light and dark layers
formed through the seasonal accumulation of organic and non-
organic material. Simple tests can be done to determine the
varying composition of such layers.
 Annual lake layers, or couplets – the kind that might have formed
over millions of years at certain locations – are very different.
 Any geology professor who couldn’t see the difference between
volcanic ash layers and lake couplets would be summarily fired
(or never hired in the first place).
Click here for more information
Background: Michael Collier –
Earth Science World Image Bank

 Dr. Morris knows the difference between volcanic ash layers and
lake couplets and is willfully misleading his Christian audience.
 Dr. MacArthur and other pastors should know better than to
repeat nonsense such as “Recent studies of the Mount St. Helens
phenomenon indicate that...millions of years of formation time
would be necessarily postulated.” We should expect our best
preachers to employ the best possible scholarship.
 Scientists who flaunt their “Christian credentials” should do the
same.
Background: Michael Collier –
Earth Science World Image Bank

A typical Mt. St. Helens argument
Lets look at another popular but very deceptive
argument regarding Mt. St. Helens…

The case of the bogus age for the Mt. St. Helens dome
After Mt. St. Helens erupted in 1980, a new lava dome began to rise
in the crater formed when a massive portion of the volcano’s north
face collapsed and a huge pyroclastic flow flattened vegetation and
buildings over a 230 square mile area.
In June 1992, YEC geologist Dr. Steve Austin collected a seven-
kilogram sample of dacite from just above the talus apron on the
farthest-north slope of the lava dome, which formed in 1986.
He sent his sample to Geochron Laboratories – a lab that
performs radiometric analyses of rocks. Austin states that he
requested to have the amount of argon in the sample measured.
Geochron’s literature, freely available to Austin, stated at that time
that they didn’t have the technology available to date young
samples.
See:
Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano

 Austin states the report from Geochron stated that, using the
Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dating method, they found:
 A whole rock age of 350,000 ± 50,000 years.
 An age for a feldspar-glass mineral concentrate taken from the
dacite of 340,000 ± 60,000 years.
 An age for a pyroxene mineral concentrate taken from the dacite
of 2,800,000 ± 600,000 years.
 Austin’s conclusion: “These ‘ages’ are, of course, preposterous”.
See:
http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm

 Austin used the wrong tool for the situation.
 The dating technique used (potassium-argon) has long been
recognized by geologists to yield inaccurate results for recent
lava flows – not because “it doesn’t give the right answer,” but
because of known processes at work in lava flows produce
excess argon.
 Geologists now use the Argon40
/Argon39
method for dating young
lava flows. For example, the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in AD 79,
which destroyed Pompeii, was accurately dated to a few years
using this method.
 What he did was like using a baby thermometer to determine the
temperature of meat in an oven.
See:

Lying about Data From Eniwetok Atoll
Let’s consider a statement
by well-known young earth
scientist Dr. John Whitmore
about the coral content in
drill cores taken at Eniwetok
Atoll in the Pacific Ocean…
Taken right from
Answers in Genesis’
Answers Magazine

“Hypothesis for Rapid Reef-Building: Geothermal Endo-Upwelling
How was one of the world’s thickest “reefs,” the 4,050-foot (1,230 m) Eniwetok Atoll
in the Pacific Ocean, built so quickly after the Flood? A process called “geothermal
endo-upwelling” could be the answer. The underwater volcano provided heat to
draw cold, nutrient-rich water into a growing mound of limestone. Microbes helped
to precipitate lime out of the water until it got near the surface, when reef animals
began to live on the mound.
Whitmore, J. H., 2012, Massive Modern Reefs – Finding Time
to Grow. Answers, Vol. 8, No. 1, p. 72-75. Click here to read
Drilling showed that the mound consists
mostly of ‘chalky’ limestone material, not coral reef organisms.”

We can check out Whitmore’s statement about what was
found in the drill cores by going right to the source, freely
available on the web, where the data is provided:
Schlanger, Seymour. O., 1963,
Subsurface geology of Eniwetok Atoll.
USGS Professional Paper 260-BB,
p. 991-1066, see especially p. 1011-1038.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0260bb/report.pdf

Drill Hole E-1
Depth Range Selected Remarks in Report
10-30 ft …worn and polished fragments of coral and coralline algae.
70-140 ft Angular chips of massive coral and pieces of delicate branching
types are abundant…
590-1070 ft From 590 through 650 feet angular pieces of both branching and
massive coral dominate the fauna…
1658-2003 ft Cuttings from this interval are a mixture of partly recrystallized-rock
chips and fragments of slightly altered to unaltered fossils, largely
pelecypods, gastropods, corals, and Foraminifera.
2028-2290 ft More than 90 percent of the cuttings are discrete fragments of
fossils, or whole fossils.
2540-2780 ft Several genera of coral are represented and include both delicate
branching and massive types. The coral is slightly chalky, but the
structure is well preserved and the interseptal spaces are open.
4078-4100 ft …highly recrystallized dolomitic limestones containing numerous
molds of massive corals as much as several inches in length and
mollusks, dominantly disarticulated pelecypod valves.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0260bb/report.pdf

So what do you think? Was Whitmore honest when he
stated:
“Drilling showed that the mound consists mostly
of ‘chalky’ limestone material, not coral reef
organisms.”
Note that Whitmore had access to the 1963 USGS
Professional Paper by Seymour Schlanger. He even
referred to one of Schlanger’s papers in his Answers
article.

Do rocks harden the same way as concrete?
“A young man came up to me
during a break after one of my
presentations and said ‘Don’t
you know that sediments take
thousands and thousands of
years to lithify (turn to rock)?’
So I said to him – have you
ever heard of concrete?”
– Ken Ham, February 14, 2009
– See also:
https://www.truelife.org/videos/was-there-a-global-flood

• Wet sediment doesn’t turn into rock the
same way concrete or bricks harden
• Hoover Dam concrete had to be poured
into small boxes and specially cooled US Bureau of Reclamation
• For just this one dam, concrete poured in one huge mold the size of the
dam would grow large cracks and take 125 years to dry!
US Bureau of Reclamation

 For most sedimentary rocks to form, already solidified sediment
grains must be cemented together by the precipitation of
microlayers of minute crystals around the solid particles
 The substances for forming these microlayers must be carried in
ionic form by circulating water to the surface of the sediment
grains
 Common cementing substances: calcium carbonate, silicon
dioxide, and various types of iron oxide
 “…Each type of rock layer – whether it be sandstone, siltstone,
graywacke, or one of the different types of limestone – during the
time it was being cemented, had to be receiving its own proper
kind of ion-bearing pore water.” A global flood laying down
dozens of layers at the same time could not accomplish this.
Source: Daniel E. Wonderly – Neglect of Geologic Data: Sedimentary Strata Compared to
Young-Earth Creationist Writings http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/Wonderly2006.pdf

2.
YECs often don’t practice
what they preach.

 2003: Ken Ham writes article urging YECs to stop
looking for “the magic bullet”
 Instead, they should try to understand the right way to
think about “the same evidence the evolutionists use”
 However… YEC books, web pages, and conferences
as well as Ken Ham continue to use young earth
proofs – even Ham’s own Creation Museum…
“Magic bullet” (young earth proof):
Single, isolated argument in an
attempt to “win all the chips”
Answers in Genesis and “Magic Bullets”
Do they practice what they preach?

Wow –
that’s a lot
of magic
bullets!
Here’s Dr. Tommy Mitchell
giving a presentation at the
Creation Museum in 2009,
showing a list of several
dozen “magic bullets,” six
years after Ham’s statement

“Glacier Girl” P-38 found under 268 feet of ice
Anthony Gow, USACE CRREL
“And see, another example would be up
in Greenland, when in 1942, there was
bombers and fighter plans that were
landed because they ran out of fuel and
when they came to look for them about
40 years later, they couldn’t find them,
and found them about two miles from
their original location 250 feet deep in
the ice – the ice had accumulated on top
of them. There’s observational science –
we see rapid accumulation.”
Ken Ham, The Great Debate Between Science and
the Bible, John Ankerberg Show, 2005
Click here
to view

 Much more precipitation
occurs near Greenland’s
southeast coast where
“Glacier Girl” was found
than in the central plateau
where the GISP2 ice cores
were taken
“Glacier Girl”
found here
GISP2 ice cores
taken here
X
X
Observed annual accumulation of
ice and snow (cm of water)Michael Morrison, GISP2 SMO
From Chen, Bromwich, and Bai, 1993
Problems With the “Lost Squadron Proof”

 Recent snow layers aren’t very compacted, since there isn’t
much weight above them, so you have to go fairly far down
to reach snow from 50 years ago. Deeply buried snow is
compressed into thin ice layers, but annual bands remain.
Near
top
Mid-
depth
Deep
U.S. National Ice Core Laboratory

 Ice crystal characteristics are known
to vary from summer to winter
 Dust concentrations vary seasonally
 Electrical conductivity varies from
summer to winter
 The 18
Oxygen/16
Oxygen ratio varies
from summer to winter
 Dating of volcanic ash from certain
layers verify that annual layers are
being counted correctly.
200,000 annual layers can be reliably identified
in ice cores from central Greenland because:
Anthony Gow, USACE CRREL
Reto Stöckli, NASA GSFC
See: The GISP2 Ice Core: Ultimate Proof that Noah’s Flood Was Not
Global at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf

3.
YECs will make it sound like you are
less of a Christian (or not a Christian
at all) if you believe the Earth is old

Less of a Christian
YEC leaders pass judgment on “compromisers”
“If you believe the Earth is old, then Jesus didn’t die
for your sins!”
Ken Ham, Around the World With Ken Ham,
November 3, 2010
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2010/11
– Ken Ham, May 21, 1994,
Answers in Genesis Conference,
Trinity Assembly of God,
Lutherville, MD
“…I do not say, and have never said, that a person has
to believe in a young earth to be a Christian.”

Less of a Christian
“His (someone who wrote a letter to the editor of Home
School Enrichment Magazine whose name is abbreviated
P. S.) most egregious error was in declaring that Ken
believes that ‘requisite to salvation is a detailed knowledge
of the book of Genesis.’ That is a horribly wrong assertion.
Ken has never stated such a thing.”
– Mark Looy, Answers in Genesis
Feedback: Home School Enrichment Magazine
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/02/24/feedba

Less of a Christian
“It is compromisers like (Francis) Collins who cause people to
doubt and disbelieve the Bible—causing them to walk away from
the church… How we need to pray that Collins and his group will
repent of their compromise and return to biblical authority.”
– Ken Ham, Around the World With Ken Ham,
May 11, 2009
“Sadly, we are seeing more and more “false prophets” arising in
the church today. These teachers deny the literal Fall and dismiss
a sin nature inherited from a real Adam. Thus they ultimately deny
the true, saving gospel that everyone needs to heed.”
– Ken Ham, The Door’s Still Open,
March 19, 2012

Less of a Christian
Interviewer: “Back in 2001, you published a book, The Battle
for the Beginning, on the creation account in Genesis. Why?”
John MacArthur: “During nearly two decades as president of
The Master’s College, I had been watching the erosion of belief
in Genesis among the Christian colleges in the national
Christian College association. Many of these were supposedly
conservative in their biblical beliefs, but they were quietly,
tacitly denying the authority of God’s Word in exchange for
worldly academic esteem.”
Defending the Authority of Scripture,
Creation 32(4) 2010,
http://www.gty.org/media/PDF/Blog20100713.pdf
How does he
know that?

Less of a Christian
“And this man (Hugh Ross) and the progressive creationist
movement says, that is a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Well, let’s see, does that statement agree with God’s Word?
Well, let’s take a look at what the Bible says. Genesis 1:16 –
‘And God made the two great lights to rule the day and the
lesser light to rule the night; He made the stars also.’ That
settles it right there, doesn’t it? That should settle it right
there, but it doesn’t for some of these people. They want to
believe the evolutionist’s model, because they want to be
friends with the world.”
Mike Riddle, Creation/Evolution:
Does It Matter What We Believe?
October 2003, Bellevue, WA
http://www.nwcreation.net/
How does he
know that?

Less of a Christian
Q: “Do you believe that you can be a committed
biblicist and come up with an old age view…?”
A: “It’s kind of like asking: ‘Can you be a Christian
and an adulterer.’”
Dr. Henry M. Morris III of the ICR,
answering a question from the
audience at a debate with Christian
geologist Glenn Morton at Le
Tourneau University - Nov. 13, 2006
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/3132/

4.
Young Earth leaders
sometimes modify
history to suit their
purposes.

Consider the
following example
of some liberties
Answers in Genesis
took with a Charles
Spurgeon sermon…

“First, the Spirit has manifested the omnipotence of his power in creation
works… In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, "And the
earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the
deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." We know
not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be – certainly
many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed
through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have
lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before
that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the
Creator gave up the world to confusion. He allowed the inward fires to
burst up from beneath, and melt all the solid matter, so that all kinds of
substances were commingled in one vast mass of disorder. The only name
you could give to the world, then, was that it was a chaotic mass of matter;
what it should be, you could not guess or define. It was entirely “without
form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” The Spirit
came…
Revising History
Excerpt from original Spurgeon’s Sermon #30 “The Power of the Holy Ghost”
See: http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0030.htm

works… In Ge 1:2, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and
darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon
the face of the waters.” Our planet has passed through various stages in
creation, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of
which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, when man
should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator initially created the
world as a chaotic mass on the first day of creation. It was entirely without
form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. The Spirit
came…
Revising History
Answers in Genesis’ Initial Revised Version of Spurgeon’s Sermon #30
See: http://johnscorner.blogspot.com/2009/02/honesty-its-such-lonely-word.html
Notice anything different? Check back to the previous
slide and note the sentences that are missing or changed.

(a) [We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe
may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our
planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds
of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by
God. But before that era came, when man should be its principal tenant
and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion. He allowed the
inward fires to burst up from beneath and melt all the solid matter, so that
all kinds of substances were commingled in one vast mass of disorder; the
only name you could give to the world then was, that it was a chaotic mass
of matter; what it should be, you could not guess or define.] Bracketed text
removed from the sermon. As brilliant as Spurgeon was, even he did not
understand the age issue. –Editor
Revising History
Answers in Genesis Changes to Initial Sermon After Being Caught by Bloggers
A few days later, the following footnote mysteriously appeared…
**Please also note that this footnote was intended to be in the original
posting, but was lost somehow in the transition of these files for web
publication. Thanks to our astute readers for finding and reporting this error.
See: http://www.beyondcreationscience.com/index.php?pr=Why_Doesnt_Answers_in_Genesis_Tell_You_the_Truth

works… In Ge 1:2, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and
darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon
the face of the waters.” [We do not know how remote the period of the
creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the
time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence,
and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have
been fashioned by God. But before that era came, when man should be its
principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion.
He allowed the inward fires to burst up from beneath and melt all the solid
matter, so that all kinds of substances were commingled in one vast mass
of disorder; the only name you could give to the world then was, that it was
a chaotic mass of matter; what it should be, you could not guess or
define.]1
It was entirely without form, and void; and darkness was upon the
face of the deep. The Spirit came…
Revising History
How the Same Excerpt to Spurgeon’s Sermon Now Reads on the AiG Website
See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/02/26/power-of-holy-ghost
Footnote
1. Bracketed text indicates that as brilliant as Spurgeon was, even he did
not understand the age of the earth issue. Editor.

Revising History
Some Closing thoughts on AiG’s revisions to Spurgeon’s sermon
See the video: C. H. Spurgeon calls
“Answers in Genesis” to repentance:
http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/video/ch-spurgeon-calls-answers-in
Do you think the “sanitized” version
of Spurgeon’s sermon would still be
on Answer in Genesis’ website today
if the change hadn’t been caught by
bloggers?
Do you think Ken Ham’s pattern of
leadership created a climate whereby
the person providing the versions of
the sermons for Answers in Genesis’
web site thought it was o.k. to edit out
text that acknowledged an old earth?

Revising History
”I used to be an evolutionist”
Have you ever noticed how a young earth speaker
will say “I used to be an evolutionist” or “I used
to teach evolution in [college, high school, etc.]?”
A bit of healthy skepticism is probably a good
idea in such cases. Let’s check the record of
young earth advocate Dr. Steve Austin…

Revising History
Watch the following video clip of Dr. Austin speaking
on Mt. St. Helens…
Note how he states at time = 4:38 “If I had not known
about Mt. St. Helens and I’d ventured on this canyon,
I might assume that that canyon was formed one sand
grain at a time as it was eroded slowly by that stream”


Revising History
(You may recall that the first eruption of
Mt. St. Helens occurred on May 18, 1980)
While giving a tour of the Institute for Creation Research
(ICR) to a group of 25 skeptical geologists on Jan. 9, 1998,
Dr. Austin stated that he had once been an evolutionist,
but that his observations after the Mt. St. Helens eruption
had converted him to catastrophism and creationism.
But it turns out Dr. Austin had been writing young earth
creationist articles under the pen name of Stuart Nevins
since at least 1972. Click here, here, and here, for
examples. See also note #36 at the following URL:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/GrandCanyon17.html

5.
Young earth ministries will tell you
almost all of Earth’s fossil-bearing
sedimentary rock layers were
deposited during Noah’s Flood

Note: this is covered in a separate presentation entitled
Were Most of Earth’s Fossil-Bearing Sedimentary Rock
Layers Deposited by Noah’s Flood? Click here to view
that presentation.

Using arguments and data provided
by the young earth advocates, a few
simple calculations clearly show the
young earth creation ministries are
giving us false information when they
say Earth’s fossil-bearing rock layers
were deposited during Noah’s Flood.
For more information, see: Sediment Transport and the Coconino
Sandstone: A Reality Check on Flood Geology by Timothy K. Helble,
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Journal of the American
Scientific Affiliation, Vol. 63, No. 1, March 2011 (Click here to read)

6.
YECs will argue that
they use the same data
as the “evolutionists,”
they just come to
different conclusions.
After Austin, Grand Canyon,
Monument to Catastrophe, 1994
Evolutionist
Conclusions
Creationist
Conclusions
Two interpretive
frameworks:

You be the judge – does the previous
presentation on the Coconino
Sandstone really look like the young
earth creationists are looking at the
same data as the “evolutionists?”
If that is not sufficient, let’s look at
another example – from Mammoth
Cave, Kentucky.
Same Data, Different Conclusions?

 In 1980, young earth geologist Dr. Steve Austin wrote
an article entitled Origin of Limestone Caves for the
Institute for Creation Research’s Arts and Facts
magazine (Arts & Facts 9(1), http://www.icr.org/article/161)
 In this article, Austin sought to:
Present an alternate hypothesis to that of “uniformitarian
geologists” for the formation of limestone caves
Present an argument that refutes the “uniformitarian”
explanation (a “young earth proof” – more on that later).
 Let’s summarize Dr. Austin’s argument and see if it
really illustrates how creationists use the same data as
“evolutionists,” but just come to different conclusions.

 The Mammoth Cave Area of Kentucky averages 1.22 meters
(48 inches) of rain per year.
 It is reasonable to assume 1.0 meters of that rainfall (which
contains weak carbonic acid) goes into groundwater.
 Data collected by a geologist named John Thrailkill indicate
the mean calcium and magnesium ion concentrations in the
area’s groundwater are 49 and 9.7 milligrams/liter
respectively.
 This works out to 59 m3
of limestone and dolomite being
dissolved each year per every square kilometer of area.
 Assuming present rates and conditions, this means a layer
of limestone well over 100 meters thick could be completely
dissolved off of the entire state of Kentucky in the assumed
age of caves (2 million years).
Summary of Austin’s Mammoth Cave Argument

 Who says “it is reasonable to assume” 1.0 of the 1.22 meters of
rainfall goes into groundwater?
 Does Thrailkill’s data for one well represent the entire
Mammoth Cave area?
 Most water enters and rapidly leaves the Mammoth Cave
system during high flow events – allowing much less time to
dissolve calcium and magnesium to Thrailkill’s concentrations.
 Assumed the stream water is pure when it enters the cave
system from the surface - no accounting for pre-existing
concentrations of calcium and magnesium.
NWS
24-hr
rainfall
ending
4-04-08
”Mammoth” Holes in the Argument

An exact copy of Table 2 from Thrailkill’s paper in the Journal of Hydrology
49 9.7 ◄─ Austin used these data
to calculate an average
A stream flowing
underground in a
cave
Dr. Austin’s selective use of data

An exact copy of Table 2 from Thrailkill’s paper in the Journal of Hydrology
49 9.7
29 5.3
◄─ Austin used these data
to calculate an average
◄─ But not these data!
A stream flowing
underground in a
cave
A surface stream
flowing into a
sinkhole
Dr. Austin’s selective use of data

More than half of the calcium and
magnesium in Dr. Austin’s averages
was measured in the water before it
even went underground!
The end of
Sinking Creek:
a cave entrance
(Near Hays, Kentucky)
Sinkhole plain, KY Sinking Creek, KY

So what do you think – does it look like Dr. Austin
was using the same data as the “evolutionists,”
just coming to a different conclusion?
Alapaha River flowing into sinkhole (USGS)

7.
Young earth ministries
often commit the
fallacy of assuming the
conclusion in their
arguments.

Assuming the Conclusion
“This fallacy is committed when a person merely
assumes what he or she is attempting to prove or
when the premise of an argument actually depends
upon its conclusion.”
Example – Lisle’s conversation with a 4-year old boy
at his telescope party. “I asked this young budding
astronomer if he believed in alien spaceships.”
“Of course,” he said… “How else would the aliens
get here?” (click here to view Lisle’s article)
See also Wikipedia
According to Dr. Jason Lisle, now with the ICR:
Halfblue on en.wikipedia

In his previous argument about
Mammoth Cave, did you catch
where Dr. Austin assumed the
conclusion?
Here it is…

Geologists say that with time,
caves grow wider and their
network becomes more extensive,
gradually increasing the surface
area from which calcium and
magnesium can be dissolved.
Sinkholes.org
Winona State University
Formation
of Caves
When Dr. Austin stated “assuming present rates and conditions,”
he was assuming his own conclusion because he treated it as a
given that caves don’t start small and grow larger with time.

Let’s look at an example pertaining to an
important question faced by young earth
advocates – where did all the sediments
come from which most of Earth’s fossil-
bearing rock layers were formed from “in a
matter of days” during the global Flood?

In 1994, Six well-known young earth advocates
tackled this and related questions in an often
cited paper entitled Catastrophic Plate Tectonics:
A Global Flood Model of Earth History, published
in the Proceedings of the Third International
Conference on Creationism, pages 609-621

1. Biologically optimum terrestrial and marine environments
would require that at least a small amount of sediment of
each type had been created in the creation week;
2. Archean (probable pre-Flood) and Proterozoic sediments
contain substantial quantities of all types of sediments;
and
3. It may not be possible to derive all the Flood sediments
from igneous and/or metamorphic precursors by physical
and chemical processes in the course of a single, year-
long Flood.”
On page 611, the six authors stated:
“We believe that there was a significant thickness of all types
of sediments already available on the earth by the time of the
Flood. We have three reasons for this position:
See: http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Catastrophic-Plate-Tectonics-A-Global-Flood-Model.pdf

Did you catch how the conclusion was
assumed in #3?
• The authors were effectively saying that it
wouldn’t be possible for the global Flood to
erode all the required sediments from existing
rock
• But in their minds, it’s a given that Noah’s Flood
was a global event, and was responsible for
depositing almost all of Earth’s sedimentary rock
layers
• So of course, all the sediment must have already
been sitting around at the start of the Flood, just
waiting to be transported!

If you are a young earth believer, you
may agree with the six authors’ position,
but you can’t deny that they committed
the fallacy of assuming the conclusion in
their 1994 paper.
Have you ever considered that the young
earth leaders might always be assuming
the conclusion in their arguments?
Note: observe how Answers in Genesis wiggles out of this problem in
responding to some recent feedback on their website:
http://www. answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/03/04/feedback-logical-fallacies

8.
YECs often engage in
“science by
exceptions”

Science by Exceptions
Think of all the young earth arguments you’ve ever heard of…
Carbon 14 in diamonds
Salt in the sea
Rapid formation
of stalactites
Polonium radiohalos
Decay of earth’s magnetic field
Recession of the moon
Soft dinosaur tissue found
See Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe
See also: Is There Really Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth?
Tightly folded strata
Erosion at Niagara Falls
Sediment on sea floors
Rapid canyon formation
Salt in Lake Eyre
Sediment stratification
in flumes
River delta growth rate
Underfit streams
Erosion of continents
Inter-tonguing of strata
of different ages
Coal forms quickly
Flat contact planes
between layers
Discordant radiometric dates
Short life of comets

Is that the way
science should
be conducted?
Way back in 1954, Baptist theologian
Bernard Ramm warned us against
thinking of science in terms of
exceptions, citing 7th
Day Adventist
George McCready Price, the founder
of 20th
Century creationism…
Did we listen to him?

Which do
I go with? Science by
Exception
“The so-called strength of Price’s work is his effort to
poke holes into the uniformitarian geology of Lyell as it
is taught in standard books on geology. We must be
careful of a logical fallacy at this point… If by analogy
Price’s principle were followed in other sciences it is
obvious that chaos would result. Medicine would be
impossible of serious practice if doctors conducted their
practice on the guidance obtained from the exceptions
rather than from the averages. Physics, chemistry,
physiology and psychology would all be impossible.”
Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (1954), p 126
 Elevated to an art form by
George McCready Price
 Presented as science by
modern YEC ministries

Definitely don’t use:
• Moon dust thickness proves
a young moon
• Paluxy River (Texas) tracks
prove that humans and
dinosaurs co-existed
• Gaps exist in genealogies of
Gen. 5 and 11, so the earth
may be 10,000+ years old
• Missing solar neutrinos
prove the sun shines by
gravitational collapse
Inadvisable to use:
• There was a vapor canopy
before the flood
• There was no rain before the
flood
• The speed of light has
decreased over time
• There are no transitional
fossils
• The gospel is in the stars
• Plate tectonics is fallacious
How many more “young earth proofs” will the YECs
have to repudiate in the coming years?

Click here to view entire list
Some of the young Earth Arguments Answers in
Genesis Says Creationists Should NOT use
(Science by Exceptions that you should NOT cite!)

9.
Young earth ministries provide ad hoc
explanations when basic scientific
principles are in opposition to the
young earth interpretation

Ad hoc hypothesis (explanation) – something added to a
theory in order to save it from being falsified. Ad hoc
hypothesis are neither required or supported by any
observational data whatsoever..
Ad-Hoc Explanations
For example, if someone wants to believe in
leprechauns, they can avoid ever being proven
wrong by using an ad hoc explanation for why
no unbiased observer has ever been able to
see or photograph one.

The distant starlight problem is the first that comes to mind.
We know that the speed of light is fixed, so light from distant galaxies
(and even light from distant stars within our own galaxy) takes much
longer to get here than the age of the earth/universe specified by the
young earth creation ministries (6 to 10 thousand years). For example,
the M31 Galaxy (Andromeda) is over 2 million light-years away.
Therefore, young earth advocates have tried to come up with all kinds
of ad hoc explanations for how we could see light from stars that are
greater than 10 thousand light years away. Here’s a few…

 The speed of light (c) was
over a million times faster
in the past. Problems:
James P. Dawson
Ad Hoc Explanations
The Distant Starlight Problem
 God created the light
in transit. Problem:
When distant stars go
supernova, which light
was created, the point of
light we used to see or the
explosion and expanding
nebula we now see?
NASA, ESA, J. Hester and A. Loll (Arizona St Univ.)
“Guest Star,” 1054 A.D.
Dr. Christopher Burrows,
ESA/STSci and NASA
Setterfield, the man who originated this
idea, used rather creative curve fitting
Early values of c were faster because
measurement techniques were primitive
c is a fundamental constant of physics

D. Russell Humphreys
Ad Hoc Explanations
 There was an enormous distortion of space-time near
the earth – a long period of time elapsed in the universe
while a very short period elapsed on earth. Problems:
If correct, distant starlight should
be blue shifted, but it’s red shifted
Can’t account for 2nd
generation
stars like the sun which have heavy
elements from 1st
generation stars
Periodic objects (e.g., Cepheid
variable stars) all indicate the same
“clock” regardless of their distance
Conflicts with laws of physics as we
know them

Ad Hoc Explanations
From Lisle (2010)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/ articles/arj/v3/n1/an
 Light travels at different
speeds depending on its
direction or position relative
to an observer (Jason Lisle’s
new anisotropic synchrony
convention). Problems:
Again, c is a fundamental constant
– e.g., does this mean the relation-
ship between energy and mass
varies all over the universe?
There is no observational data
supporting this convention – by
definition, it is ad hoc
What about disposal of heat and
deadly radiation from accelerated
nuclear decay (see next slides)?

 Age of universe: 13.7 billion
years, based on precise
measurements of background
radiation and expansion of the
universe
 Age of the earth: 4.54 billion
years, based on radiometric
dating of meteorites, the actual
building blocks of inner planets
 Oldest rock found on earth:
Acasta Gneiss in NW Canada –
4.0 billion years
Ad Hoc Explanations
Dispersal of heat and radiation from rapid radiometric decay

 Young earth advocates argue that radiometric dating
of rocks is unreliable, claiming that nuclear decay
rates were much higher in the past
 Nuclear decay releases heat and deadly radiation –
if it was confined to a short period of time as required
by the young earth scenario, all living things would
receive lethal doses of radiation and be incinerated.
See RATE: http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf, page 8
Ad Hoc Explanations

Ad Hoc Explanations
 The RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth)
Project tasked Dr. Russ Humphreys to come up with
explanation for how rapid decay could occur without
all life forms being obliterated
 Humphrey’s solution: “volume cooling” – appealing
to cosmic expansion associated with his “white hole”
cosmology as the mechanism for getting rid of the
heat and deadly radiation.
(See RATE: http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf, pages 364-374)
 Dr. Brian Pitts (Univ. of Notre Dame) mathematically
demonstrated that cosmic expansion is irrelevant to
terrestrial physics because the static gravitational
field on Earth conserves terrestrial energy.
(see: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2009/PSCF3-09Pitts.pdf)

Don DeMaria – Florida FWCC
Canada Fisheries and Oceans
Peter Parks / Imagequest3d.com
Upside-Down Jellyfish Portuguese Man ‘O War
Nematocyst (Stinging Cell)
Ad Hoc Explanations
What did jellyfish do with their killing mechanisms before the Fall?
What did jellyfish eat before the fall? Young earth writer
David Catchpoole took on this topic in Creation magazine:
 “So God probably designed the complex information for these stinging
cells to be switched on at the Fall.”
 “Some jellyfish are said to get nourishment from phytoplankton,” and he
then goes on to cite the upside down jellyfish.
 “…most poisons have benefits in small amounts, e.g. the deadly
botulinum toxin is used in modern beauty treatments (botox)…”
See: http://creation.com/skeptics-challenge-a-god-of-love-created-a-killer-jellyfish

Ad Hoc Explanations
Notice a pattern here? The young earth advocates keep having
to come up with ad hoc explanations to cover themselves…
Starlight travel time?
No problem!
We can just say light traveled faster
in the past, was created in transit,
etc., or invent something like “white
hole cosmology” or the anisotropic
synchrony convention
Heat and radiation from
accelerated nuclear decay?
No problem!
We can say cosmic expansion made
it disappear, nuclear forces were
different in the past, etc., and ignore
findings of people like Brian Pitts –
they’re not ‘true believers’ anyway
Animal prey and
defense mechanisms?
No problem!
We can say God designed them to
be switched on at the Fall, a little bit
of poison can be a good thing, etc.

Ad Hoc Explanations
What about the sediment transport problem described In
section 5, where we used simple math and numbers
provided by prominent young earth creationists to show
there was no way the Flood could have formed the heavily
cross-bedded Coconino Sandstone in a matter of days?
Are we going to come up with an ad hoc explanation for
that too? Like…
 Multiplication tables were different in the past?
When will we stop and think: “Hey, maybe I need to
reconsider my position about this young earth stuff.”

10.
YECs will sometimes quote each
other’s errors, showing a lack of
original research

Consider the following
egregious example…

7000 ft
1800 ft
2800 ft
8000 ft
The
snow
line tells
the
story.
Grand
Canyon
is a
breach
in a giant
dam, the
Kaibab
uplift.
An actual slide from a YEC presentation…
Dr. Thomas Kindell

7000 ft
1800 ft
2800 ft
8000 ft
The
snow
line tells
the
story.
Grand
Canyon
is a
breach
in a giant
dam, the
Kaibab
uplift.
He has the Colorado River flowing uphill!
There – that’s better.
But the argument to
the left is still flawed.
Dr. Thomas Kindell
North
Rim
South Rim

6900+ feet
2800 feet
8500+ feet
After Russ Miller
The elevations tell the story.
The Kiabab Upwarp was a large
dam until it was breached.
*Apparently, Miller has since
corrected the problem – see him
on Carl Baugh’s show:
Part 1, Part 2 Sure took a while!

6900+ feet
2800 feet
8500+ feet
After Russ Miller
The Breached Dam
Theory
The elevations tell the story.
The Kiabab Upwarp was a large
dam until it was breached.

7000 ft
1800 ft
2800 ft
8000 ft
After Chris Ashcraft

After Chris Ashcraft
Hmmm… the same error occurs in
slides from multiple YEC speakers… I
wonder what’s going on here?

Quoting the Errors of Other YECs
The “Uphill Colorado River” Slides
The
Source:
Dr. Dino!
(Kent Hovind)
Karen Fernandez
Karen Fernandez
Redrawn by Tim Helble from photos
Kent Hovind

Remember Austin’s double graph
procedure for the Coconino and
other sandstones? It was thoroughly
debunked on the
Answers in Creation website in 2003.
However, young earth advocates
such as Andrew Snelling still use it
today as if it supports a global Flood.

• At least ten different locations on the web, some of
which are recent posts,
• Four books by young earth advocates in addition to
Grand Canyon Monument to Catastrophe,
• Two videos from young earth organizations,
• Two secular journal articles (Russian), and
• One young earth journal article
Austin’s two Flood current speeds and/or his
double graph procedure have been found in:
Books: J. Morris, The Young Earth, page 101; A. Snelling, “What Are Some of the Best Flood Evidences?” in
The New Answers Book 3, page 289; A. Snelling, Earth’s Catastrophic Past, pages 506–508, 1081, and T. Vail,
Grand Canyon: A Different View, page 42.
Videos: Answers for Darwin—Refuting 200 Years of Evolution, The Word for Today, 2009; and Grand Canyon:
Testimony to the Biblical Account of Earth’s History, Answers in Genesis, 2009.
Secular Journals: G. Berthault, “Analysis of Main Principles of Stratigraphy on the Basis of Experimental
Data,” Lithology and Mineral Resources 37, no. 5 (2002): page 445 and G. Berthault, “Sedimentological
Interpretation of the Tonto Group Stratigraphy (Grand Canyon Colorado River),” Lithology and Mineral
Resources 39, no. 5 (2004): page 507.
YEC Journals: G. Berthault, “Time Required for Sedimentation Contradicts the Evolutionary Hypothesis,”
Creation Research Society Quarterly 46 (Spring 2010): page 266.
See:

At a later point in time, when a second young earth
advocate cites that young earth argument in a book
or article, he/she may actually try to make it look like
the “rip and run” argument came from one or more
mainstream sources (e.g., “scientists say” or “studies
show”) rather than the original young earth advocate.
In a type of young earth argument known as a “rip and run”
proof, a young earth advocate will take data or a finding from
a scientific book or paper (rip) and extrapolate from it in an
unintended way (run) to try to show the earth couldn’t
possibly be old.
Making it appear scientific sources support a young earth

For example, let’s look at what young earth advocate
Roger Patterson did with Steve Austin’s rip and run
argument in #6 on formation of caves. In his book
Evolution Exposed: Earth Science, Patterson stated:
“Studies on limestone caves in
Kentucky have shown that a volume
59 meters long by one meter square
can be dissolved in one year at
current rates. So, at the present rate,
long ages are not required to create
large caverns” (pages 140-141).

Problem is, no “studies” were done. The only “study”
was done at a desk by Austin when he was writing an
article in an Institute for Creation Research magazine
(Origin of Limestone Caves, Arts & Facts 9 (1)). And that
was done by “ripping” one group of data from a table in
a 1972 paper by geologist John Thrailkill and “running”
with it in a way which totally ignored all other data and
research on water chemistry of caves (as shown earlier
under #6: Same Data, Different Conclusions).
Don’t Christians deserve better
scholarship than this?

And what happens when inter-
nationals start writing their own
young earth literature based on
material from the U.S. ministries?
Consider the following regrettable
example…

 Here’s the problem: nobody ever claimed
a Mississippian layer is located under a
Cambrian layer in Grand Canyon!
English translation:
An obvious example occurs where the Mississippian
layer (250 million years old according to evolution) is
located under the Cambrian layer (500 million years
old according to evolution)! (page 28)
In reference to the Grand Canyon, William C. Ho
wrote in Evolution? Degeneration? Creation?:

“We admit that much of the material has been
collected from several prominent creationist
organizations such as the Institute for Creation
Research (San Diego, CA) and Answers in Genesis,
and we hereby acknowledge the tremendous work
they have done towards the cause of Biblical
creationism.”
In the preface to the second English
edition of Evolution? Degeneration?
Creation?, Dr. William C. Ho states:

What happens when an international is
led to Christ through this kind of young
earth literature, but finds out later that
the information he/she was given was
false? Same goes for our own children.
Do you think it’s likely they would stay in
the Church?

11.
A YEC will sometimes provide an
argument which contradicts
something he/she said earlier.
It’s almost as if they’re hoping nobody will notice…

“I believe in the global Flood of Noah. I am wondering how to explain the
frequency of large fragments of sedimentary rock ( e.g. the size of a house
or car) which include strata yet are broken from a parent rock, also cliff
faces bearing horizontal strata which also have vertical fissures where two
different slabs of sedimentary rock meet. Obviously the strata was laid by
the flood but for large pieces to be broken and repositioned during the
flood would require that sedimentary rock can harden whilst under water
within less than a year.
The existence of folded strata shows that hardening had begun underwater
and that uplifting processes happened during the flood, but is there
sufficient evidence to conclude that 100% hardening can be achieved
underwater or is a drying out process also required?
If a drying process is required then the fragments could best be explained
by a post flood uplifting catastrophe, but of course the scriptural evidence
for this is wanting.”
See:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/03/26/feedback-tough-questions-about-the-flood
Answers in Genesis received the following
question on their feedback page:

Here are some excerpts from Andrew Snelling’s
response to the feedback:
 “…the objective in this instance is to understand how rocks may have
hardened during the Flood year, sometimes sufficiently to then be eroded
and broken up for pieces of rock laid down earlier in the Flood to be
included in later rock layers.”
 “As with man-made Portland cement, water is often an important ingredient
in the natural cementing process in rocks. In the case of man-made cement,
the water actually triggers the reaction in the mixture of dry cement and
sand so that the cementing process not only relies on water, but can take
place underwater. Many natural cements are somewhat similar in that they
can achieve sufficient hardening under water without needing to dry out.”
 “…there would have been periods when the water levels may have dropped
hundreds of meters and exposed recently deposited sediment layers. If this
exposure was for several hours between high and low tides, then there
could have been sufficient time for these rocks that had already begun to
harden as a result of the cementing process to now begin to dry out.”
 “So, we can’t simply assume that after deposition, rock layers were always
underwater during much of the Flood.”

But look at what Snelling says in another
article (Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured):
 “…Do we see evidence in the walls of the Grand Canyon that the
sedimentary layers were all laid down in quick succession? Yes,
absolutely!”
 “This article explores evidence that the entire sequence of
sedimentary strata was still soft during subsequent folding, and the
strata experienced only limited fracturing. These rock layers should
have broken and shattered during the folding, unless the sediment
was still relatively soft and pliable.”
 “Herein lies an insurmountable dilemma for uniformitarian geologists.
They maintain that the Tapeats Sandstone and Muav Limestone were
deposited 500–520 million years ago; the Redwall Limestone, 330–340
million years ago; then the Kaibab Limestone at the top of the
sequence, 260 million years ago. Lastly, the Kaibab Plateau was
uplifted (about 60 million years ago), causing the folding.”
See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n2/folded-not-fractured

Snelling’s explanation in another article
(Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured) cont.
 “That’s a time span of about 440 million years between the first
deposit and the folding. How could the Tapeats Sandstone and Muav
Limestone still be soft and pliable, as though they had just been
deposited? Wouldn’t they fracture and shatter if folded 440 million
years after deposition.”
 “The only logical conclusion is that the 440-million-year delay
between deposition and folding never happened! Instead, the
Tapeats-Kaibab strata sequence was laid down in rapid succession
early during the year of the global cataclysmic Genesis Flood,
followed by uplift of the Kaibab Plateau within the last months of the
Flood. This alone explains the folding of the whole strata sequence
without appreciable fracturing.”
See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n2/folded-not-fractured

Loads of Contradictions
 If “we can’t simply assume that after deposition, rock layers were
always underwater during much of the Flood,” that takes away from
the time for deposition of all the Flood layers, which in turn makes the
sediment transport problem described in Section #5 even worse!
 In Grand Canyon, the Redwall Limestone is considered by both
Austin and Snelling to be an early Flood layer. Carved into its top is
an extensive channel network up to 400 feet deep filled by the Surprise
Canyon Formation. Conglomerate rock is part of the Surprise Canyon
Formation, and the large rocks in the conglomerate are chunks of
Redwall Limestone. This means the Redwall Limestone had already
hardened when the Surprise Canyon Formation was formed.
G. H. Billingsley, USGS
Brian F. Gootee,
Arizona Geological Survey
National Park Service,
Billingsley and Beus, 1999

Loads of Contradictions
 In Snelling’s response to the feedback on the Answers in Genesis website,
he says newly deposited layers could have been exposed at most any time
during the Flood, allowing rock layers to harden during the Flood, but…
 In Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured, Snelling states that the existence of
folds is proof in itself that the rock layers were still soft when they were
folded. Many other young earth advocates say the same thing.
 But given given the clear evidence that the Redwall Limestone had already
hardened during the early Flood period along with the fact that it is found
between the Tapeats and Kaibab in the strata sequence, how could it have
been folded without fracturing?
Background courtesy of Tom Vail
So what will it be? Did the Redwall Limestone harden early in the flood, or
did it harden later in the flood after it was folded? If you’re a young earth
advocate, it’s apparently whatever is convenient at the time.

12.
Some YECs will tell you that science is
simply an encyclopedic accumulation
of observational “facts.”

No!
“…science is a dynamic
process with the continual
construction and revision
of theories based on new
discoveries. It is that
dynamic process which
makes science so
inherently exciting.”
Is Science Just An Accumulation of Facts?
Christian geologist Keith B. Miller,
http://www.scifaithkansas.net/

Understand difference between
Knowledge and Science
 Knowledge ≠ Science
 Knowledge – the fact or condition of
knowing something with familiarity
gained through experience or
association
 Science – an enterprise that builds
and organizes knowledge in the
form of testable explanations and
predictions about the natural world
- Science is a process

 Science is knowledge based on observed
facts and tested truths arranged in an
orderly system that can be validated and
communicated to other people.
Understand difference between
Engineering and Science
 Engineering is the creative application of
scientific principles used to plan, build,
direct, guide, manage, or work on systems
to maintain and improve our daily lives.
According to the National Society of Professional Engineers:
 Engineering ≠ Science

“‘Facts’ are neutral.
However, there are
no such things as
‘brute facts’; all facts
are interpreted.”
- Ken Ham

Does Truth Matter?
A False Dilemma…
We don’t like the first option, but lying or bearing false
witness doesn’t sound very appealing either. We take
the Bible seriously – what should we do?
There are other options!
Sit on the fence and the YEC ministries speak for you.



If we oppose the
teachings of the YEC
ministries, they say
we’ve compromised,
sold out to liberalism,
made science a god,
etc.
If we side with the YEC
ministries and spread
their teachings about
“a young earth,” we’re
providing false
information
???

For more information on young earth creationism and how
you can stop believing in it and still be a Christian, see:
The Bible, Rocks and Time
Davis A. Young and
Ralph F. Stearley
Coming to Peace with Science
Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology
Darrel R. Falk
When Faith and Science Collide
G. R. Davidson

And look for a new book
on this subject to be
available later in 2015:
Grand Canyon: Monument
to an Ancient Earth
Can the Grand Canyon
Be Explained by Noah’s
Flood?

Some good online resources are:
American Scientific Affiliation: http://www.asa3.org/
The GeoChristian Blog: http://geochristian.wordpress.com/
Old Earth Ministries: http://www.oldearth.org/
Age of Rocks: http://ageofrocks.org/
Naturalis Historia: http://thenaturalhistorian.com/
Letters to Creationists Blog: http://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/
Beyond Creation Science: http://www.beyondcreationscience.com/
Affiliation of Christian Geologists: http://www.wheaton.edu/ACG/
Old Earth Creation Society: http://oldearthcreationsociety.org/

Some excellent online books describing the
errors of young-earth creationism (particularly
Flood geology), are:
NEGLECT OF GEOLOGIC DATA: Sedimentary Strata Compared
with Young-Earth Creationist Writings by Daniel E. Wonderly
God’s Time-Records in Ancient Sediments by Daniel E. Wonderly
A New Look at an Old Earth by Don Stoner

Are the creation ministries shooting straight with us (200 dpi)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to Are the creation ministries shooting straight with us (200 dpi)

Similar to Are the creation ministries shooting straight with us (200 dpi) (12)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Are the creation ministries shooting straight with us (200 dpi)

Editor's Notes