Exposing PseudoAstronomy

May 2, 2012

Key Topics for a Young-Earth Creationism Talk on Geology, Astronomy, and Phyiscs

Filed under: astronomy,creationism,geology,physics — Stuart Robbins @ 4:07 pm

This Saturday, May 5 (as in, in 3 days), I’ll be giving a half-hour talk entitled, “GAPs Young-Earth Creationists Must Believe or Ignore (Geology, Astronomy, Physics.” I’ve written a lot about YEC on this blog, so narrowing topics down to be explained well within a half-hour window is a bit difficult.

I’ve already given a talk before where I talked about radiometric dating, Earth’s magnetic field, comets, spiral galaxies, and universal constants. But, these were more targeted mini-topics and didn’t really tell a cohesive story. I’d like to make this talk more a top-down picture hitting large, broad topics that creationists use … rather than the bottom-up “let’s pick a bunch of random topics and discuss them” approach of my previous talk.

I’m having a brain freeze at the moment, so I’m soliciting ideas from you. I think, if nothing else, I do need to tie in the Magical Noah’s Flood that is used to explain fossil layers, craters and water on Mars, Earth’s magnetic field, old radiometric ages, etc. Maybe that could be used as a branching point?

Please feel free to leave some ideas in the comments section!



  1. Browse talk.origins Index to Creationist’ Claims http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html and something will pop into your brain.

    I know you said top-down but the vertical whale fossil is too good to pass up as an example of creationist dishonesty.

    Comment by Chew Bird — May 2, 2012 @ 4:56 pm | Reply

  2. I like the firmament, that invisible barrier that separates the waters above from the waters below. Some (but not all) interpret this to mean that the earth was encapsulated in a layer of water which was held above the atmosphere by some sort of invisible force field. Some creationists believe that the “waters above” were the cause of Noah’s flood which neatly kills two birds with one stone, it explains where all that water came from and why we don’t see it up there today. The down side to this hypothesis is the implication that god was planning on flooding the earth from the get go. Why else would he have all that water floating up there?

    Comment by andrew chase — May 3, 2012 @ 10:21 am | Reply

  3. Thank You for all your work. I have a few questions. Do you understand what faith is? If you believe in science protocol, to study all aspects of a theory, then have you read and actually studied the Bible? If not, what is stopping you? It has sold more copies than any other book you have studied. Even Einstein read it. I challenge you to read it. After that any questions can be directed to the Website below. Bless you my friend. Did you know the bible says God Created light?

    Ge 1:1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
    2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
    3 ¶ Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

    All you see my friend is what God created. Enjoy because it was for you he created it. It is all around you and it’s beauty is His handy work. Ask him to show this to you, a little faith and He will show you it is true.


    Comment by BM — May 30, 2012 @ 8:49 pm | Reply

    • That is a strange link to add to your comment BM since it doesn’t really support your point. And even IF it had, whether or not Einstein believed in a god really isn’t relevant. It is a basic Argument from Authority fallacy to suggest that “Einstein thought there was a god, therefore it must be true”

      Comment by Chris — June 6, 2012 @ 5:28 pm | Reply

      • Your right, lets ignore all the really smart guys from the past and make all new ones. That solves a lot of problems.
        Thanks for your insight.

        Comment by BM — June 6, 2012 @ 6:05 pm

      • So applying that logic, you must believe in Alchemy since Isaac Newton did.

        And the fallacy of the Argument from Authority is not “my insight” – it is a logical and widely held belief

        Comment by Chris — June 6, 2012 @ 6:21 pm

      • No sir. I do not know all the different facets of all the different beliefs. After some years of studying the Bible I became aware of some personal beliefs that had to be taken by faith in order to trust God and His personal involvement in my life. I rejected the thought of a spiritual relationship with any God before that. I don’t argue with science because Science like everything else has a place and logic often is a better choice than not. When it comes to explaining the beginning of the universe, I have to choose who has the better argument, and I have to either trust what man has come up with so far or what the Bible says. First being logical to hear all the different versions, as many as I find, and then try to see if they can truly be founded on facts. I found the Bible on this subject has some really hard evidence and like all the other theories require some faith to accept. I chose the Bible because it is the best deal, having an eternal life rather than that, life that comes from nothing and goes to nothing. It was a no brainier. Einstein and many other scientist have come to that conclusion, that there is a God. I hope you try to read the Bible just for the sake of fairness because we are human and have a great tendency to think too much of ourselves and want to control everything. I find controlling everything, like my death, to be an illusion. When I look at the complexity of the Universe and life I just see the wonder and majesty of a creator. Thank You for exposing some of the Creationist wild concepts where as long as someone wants to be heard we will continue to hear many versions. The Bible does not change and never did. I believe it is God’s love letter to the human race and that is something nobody else has provided. Take care my friend and keep up the good work.

        Comment by BM — June 6, 2012 @ 7:20 pm

  4. a)Using coolness of the earth to compute its age with the presumption that the earth would be in molten state:
    Using coolness to compute the age of the earth might not be reliable for the fact that its computation has presumed this earth could be in molten state or in other words, it could be in liquid form.
    However, the initial stage of earth could be either in solid state that would be fully or partially covered with or without water. The water might be either warm or cold and that I do not like. If the earth would be in solid state that would cover with or without water, it would not take much time for the earth to cool down. Thus, the computation of the age of the earth by means of its coolness would not be feasible since the earth might be in solid state cover with water.
    b)Benoit de Maillet (1656-1738), a French anthropologist and diplomat, measured declining sea level and arrived the conclusion that the earth would be 2 billion years.
    His computation would not be feasible since sea level could rise as shown in the website address:
    The rise of sea level has caused his computation of the age of the earth to be unreliable.
    c)Radioactive dating method has been used to test the same stratum of rock and yet the same results (within the margin of error) would produce. The reason to explain this is simple. Using the same isotope to test on the same stratum of rock would produce almost the same result due to the same rock would produce the same unstable atomic nucleus of ionizing particles and electromagnetic radiation in spite of its spontaneous emission.
    The following is the list of some isotopes that are used for dating:
    Parent daughter half-life
    Samarium-147 Neodymium-143 106 billion years
    Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 50 billion years
    Uranium-238 Lead-206 4.47 billion years
    Potassium-40 Argon-40 1.3 billion years
    Uranium-235 Lead-207 704 million years
    Uranium-234 Thorium-230 80,000 years
    Carbon-14 Nitrogen-14 5,730 years
    Question has to be raised. If all the materials as mentioned above would have been created ever since the beginning of this earth, how could the scientists compute the half life of decay rate for Lead-206 from Uranium-238 to be 4.47 billion years? The reason is simply that the half life of decay rate for, let’s say, Lead-206 from Uranium-238, should be 0 if they would have been created at the same time in the very beginning. As the decay could be 0 if these materials would have been created in the very beginning, how could the Scientists be sure of its reliability and to use it to compute the age of the earth to be billion years?
    Besides, even if one material could be the transformation from another, how do the Scientists compute the figure of half life decay rate? For instance, how could the Scientist get 4.47 billion years or not 4 thousand years or others for Uranium-238 to decay to Lead-206? This half year decay rate that has been established by Scientists has pushed the age of the earth and even fossils, i.e. dinosaurs, to billion years. Whenever they use this isotope to test a rock to guess its age, it would give them billion of years since the decay rate has already set by them in the first place to push up to billion years.
    Thus, radioactive dating method is rather subjective and not accurate since the half year decay rate is indeed questionable.

    Comment by zuma — August 25, 2012 @ 4:49 am | Reply

  5. Some evolutionists might insist the existence of only one living thing, i.e. DNA or genetic material or etc., to survive in the very beginning as a result of natural selection and competition among multiple living things. Discuss.
    Let’s assume that evolution is true and to proceed with the discussion below so as to determine whether it is justifiable to support this theory:
    When the environmental condition and factors that would appear and deem fit for the generation of living thing in the beginning, it is irrational to support that there could be only one living thing, i.e. DNA or genetic material or etc., to be formed. This is due to the entire environment around the earth would have provided a condition to suit and even to ease the generation of living thing.
    As there would be many living things that would be formed as a result of the environmental condition and factors would deem fit for the generation of lively thing in the beginning, there should be multiple generation of living things everywhere in the earth whether it would be in the North or West or South or East. As the environmental condition and factors would deem fit for the generation of living things in the beginning, there would turn up to be more than billions of living things, i.e. lively molecules or DNAs or genetic materials or etc., to be formed at that time.
    It is irrational to suggest that all the living things (that would be generated at the same time whether in the North or South or West or East) would turn up to be only one left with the excuse of general selection or competition among them especially they might be very far distance apart and would have lost contact without any influence or relationship. Let’s give you an example. A specific kind of tigers, that would have turned up to be extinct in America due to its natural selection and competition among the living things, would not have any influence upon the tiger in Africa. This is by virtue of the place, in which the tiger in America is located, is so far distance apart from the same kind of tiger in Africa. As a result of the far distance between them, the tiger in America would not have any influence or connection with that is in Africa. It would turn up to be that the natural selection or competition, that would have affected the tiger in America, would not cause any influence for that would be in Africa. This has ended up that the tiger in America would have gone extinct and not so in Africa due to they are far distance apart. Let’s apply this to the generation of billions of living things in the beginning when environmental condition and factors that would deem fit for the generation of lively things. How could the living thing that would be generated in the very North of the earth would knock out the living thing that would be generated in the very South especially they are so far distance apart and their inability to contact with each other due to the far distance?
    The above have placed evolution into query about its reliability and its existence.

    Comment by zuma — August 31, 2012 @ 6:47 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: