Tag: Theory of Evolution

photo credit: nasa.gov

creationsciences.com

Short, quick, logical reads
with meaningful content.

You’re probably thinking that your child’s science class is conducted with the teacher having an open mind. You also, most likely, assume your child is being taught proven fact as just that proven fact and those ideas that are only theories will be taught as what they are just theories. Unfortunately, that is not the case in the overwhelming majority of classrooms across the United States.

When it comes to the subject of evolution, the discussion of proven facts seems to be ignored in most classrooms today. The age of the earth and the universe are integral to the explanation of the theory of evolution.

Therefore, if the documentation for the age of the earth is based on flawed science the entire theory of evolution falls apart. And the key methodology for dating the age of the earth is radiometric dating. This link will take you to my blog regarding the fallacy of this dating methodology. After reading that blog, it’s clear to see how critical it is to understand the underlying assumptions of any scientific statement.

The proponents of evolution spend an inordinate amount of time presenting complex formulas and performing numerous complex calculations. However, these same evolution champions spend almost no time explaining what assumptions must be accepted for any of those mathematical gymnastics to have any meaning at all.

It’s important that you know what your child is being taught in school. Like any religion, evolution should be either taught outside of public school systems or taught alongside Biblical accounts of creation. Both understandings of how the universe came into existence should be explained to students so that they can evaluate the teachings and make their own decision as to which account they believe.

A good way for you to know what your child is being taught is to ask your children to bring their science books home. That way you can look through them to see for yourself what they are being taught. If you find questionable content you can arrange for a meeting with your child’s science teacher. You don’t need to be concerned about being confrontational as all you need to do is ask questions to determine how your child’s science teacher approaches the subject of evolution. Does he/she just assume evolution is true or is the topic presented in an objective manner? Or you can suggest to the teacher that both theories require faith. Evolution requires faith in a couple of critical areas.

The first area where faith is necessary is in the area of where did the matter come from that created the universe. Both evolutionists and creationists accept by faith that matter existed in the beginning. Evolutionists believe it just somehow appeared while creationists believe that God created it.

Also, both viewpoints must accept the fact that “life” happened. Evolutionists take by faith that a single celled organism just appeared out of nowhere while creationists take by faith that God created “life” by creating plants, animals, and Adam and Eve.

As you can see, both the theory of evolution and the creation viewpoint require faith. Evolution would most appropriately be categorized as a religion. Therefore, both evolution and creationism could appropriately be taught outside of the public school system or within it as different viewpoints of faith. Clearly this approach would not be an establishment of a religion, but merely the study of what already exists.
Both viewpoints are religious in nature. In fact, any viewpoint that relates to how the world was created is a religious or faith based view. Yes, in 1957 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Secular Humanism is a non-theistic religion within the meaning of the First Amendment!

Disclosure: This website contains quick links to affiliates. If you follow a link on this website and purchase something, we will in most instances, receive a small commission which will not increase the cost of the purchase. The merchant links presented on this site will help ensure I can continue shedding light on important topics. The blogs that I do are a result of compiling information gathered from sources considered reliable and of course the Bible which is totally reliable.
Thank you.

photo credit: nasa.gov

creationsciences.com

Short, quick, logical reads
with meaningful content.

The topic I want to discuss in this blog is a scientific theory and I want to be clear that this is a “theory!” Because something is a theory does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that the theory has been proven or that it is a scientific fact. However, it also does not mean it has been disproven using the scientific method. For information on the scientific method, please see my earlier blog titled “What is science anyway.”

The theory is that if the universe is billions of years old, as the Darwin theory of evolution would indicate, there should be an incredible amount of dust on the moon if certain calculations done by a scientist in 1960 were correct. Enough in fact that when the astronauts landed on the moon they should have been enveloped in dust. However, there were others’ calculations performed in 1993 which disagreed with the 1960 findings. There were some disagreements about what was included as dust and what elements were included in the dust among other variables.

Now, the blogs that I write are certainly not fit for a scientific journal nor are they based on pure science. I am guided by my faith in Christ, but I like to study topics of interest and try to approach these topics in an objective manner even though that approach may not meet the strict standards of the scientific method.

Thejerusalemgiftshop.com - Discover Christian Gifts from the Holy Land

When I think about dust it just doesn’t make any sense to me that it is possible to accurately measure the amount of dust “scientifically.” I think about all of the variables that affect the amount of dust that might fall in any given area that is being measured. There is no wind on the moon, but there is solar activity that according to some authorities can affect the amount of dust that falls on the moon. Also, there is disagreement as to what size particles constitute dust.

footprint on the moon – photo credit: nasa.gov

As you can see there is disagreement regarding details concerning calculations about the rate of dust accumulation on the moon. Therefore, in cases such as this it’s my opinion that logic and reason are more reliable than dubious calculations. Therefore the way to settle this disagreement is to use logic and reason to arrive at an estimate that makes sense.

Since calculating the rate of dust accumulation on the moon is difficult, it seems better to use a quantifiable small measurement that can be known and work outward expanding the small known amount to the larger unknown quantity. For example, generally particles of dust have been estimated at approximately .3 microns (also known as a micrometer, one millionth of a meter) to 10 microns in size.

Anyone who doesn’t do daily house cleaning knows that in one week’s time a layer of dust accumulates. It takes 25,400 microns to equal one inch. Therefore, using a rational approach without all the professional jargon and caveats I will choose the .3 microns to represent the thickness of a layer of dust that can accumulate in one week. Therefore, dividing one inch thickness of dust (25,400 microns equals one inch) by .3 microns (thickness of particles of dust accumulated in one week estimated at .3 microns) yields 84,667 weeks or 1,628 years to accumulate one inch of dust. If say there are 3 inches of dust on the moon using the earth’s estimated rate would yield and age of 4,885 years. Obviously this is not a scientific estimate, but it is a rational way to arrive at an estimate that is just as valid as some scientific guesstimate without all the fancy jargon.

Now, it is critical that I state emphatically this is not a scientific analysis. It is merely an amateur’s effort to use a simple easy to understand rationale for arriving at a ballpark estimate for dust accumulation and using this estimate to make a ballpark estimate of the age of the universe. Are there flaws … of course! Any attempt to try and estimate dust accumulation is suspect at best. I used the smallest amount for the dust accumulation in one week as this would produce the largest estimate and avoid criticism that I was trying to make the estimate of years low. Instead of using one of the lowest found estimates of .3 microns, had I used .03 microns this would have resulted in an estimate of 48,000+ years. Had I used .003 microns this would have resulted in an estimate of 488,000+ years. And had I used .00003 microns, the estimate would have been just shy of 49,000,000 years. As anyone can see, billions of years does not seem to be a reasonable estimate.

I am interested in your opinion on this topic. Please leave your comments below. Whether you agree or not I’d like to know what your reasoning is for your opinion. Thanks for stopping by.

Tag: Theory of Evolution

Danger: Your Child’s Science Class!

Dust on the Moon Revisited