Another meme about the most interesting God in the world

The-Most-Interesting-God-in-the-World meme

The idea that the universe is 6,000 years old is 100-percent wrong. It’s not a question of “different starting points.” It’s a question of whether we can trust absolutely any of the evidence we find in creation, because basically all of it points to the world being very, very old.

If this confuses you, I beg you to read this very straightforward and easy-to-understand infographic by BioLogos, which demonstrates the various, extremely reliable methods scientists use to determine the age of the earth. And just for fun, here’s a list of the many branches of science that are subverted and undermined by the belief in a recent creation.

Stay thirsty.

Creative Commons License
This work by is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

  • ashleyhr

    It might not surprise you that the Biologos infographic has previously been attacked by Creation Ministries International:
    There’s the usual garbage aimed at spreading scepticism such as “The fact is that a person can obtain any age that they like depending on the assumptions that they make”. They then protest “Nevertheless, using this same approach to ‘dating’ as BioLogos accepts, a
    vast array of methods and indicators suggest a much younger age for the
    earth” but the links offered are from their own biased website.
    These contemptible people think it is OK to lie to try and disprove arguments by other Christians who are not being sufficiently biblical (about secondary issues). Thus:
    “The above claim, that “faster decaying isotopes have already gone” from
    older rocks, is not true. The short-lived isotope carbon-14 is
    consistently found in samples that are supposed to be hundreds of
    millions of years old, providing objective evidence against the eons of
    The first sentence is a total lie (see also ‘The Greatest Show on Earth?: The Evidence for Evolution’). The second sentence is deliberately misleading as it attempts to justify the false statement that precedes it – carbon 14 is continually replenished in the atmosphere as cosmic rays bombard Earth’s atmosphere (the infographic could perhaps have mentioned this) but otherwise it would doubtless be missing in nature by now if it was only in the atmosphere when Earth first had carbon dioxide in its atmosphere (more than 6,000 years ago).
    The article then quotes from another sentence on the infographic – “The short lived isotopes are “missing” because the Earth is old enough for them to have decayed away”. This time Walker and Doyle trot out that favourite YEC chestnut when they have run out of ‘arguments’ – “When we read claims like this we should always ask ourselves, “Where
    were these scientists standing when they observed this?” If they did not
    observe it we know they are telling a story. It is just their
    subjective opinion”. Disgusting, hypocritical lying for Jesus.
    I dealt with an attempt by Jonathan Sarfati to refute what Dawkins said on this topic in his 2009 book in my review here (see the comments on chapter 11 page 195):
    Their colleague Sarfati – who had no choice – did not dispute the accuracy of what Dawkins wrote about the absence of short-lived radionuclides, but tried to wriggle out of the clear old Earth (older than 6,000 years) implications. Whereas these writers choose to lie and dissemble instead, hoping readers have not seen the Dawkins book!
    “All these techniques suffer from the same problem in that they ignore the effects of Noah’s Flood.” What specific effects did this fictional event (the ‘worldwide’ thing) have on sediment layers, tree rings, and ice cores? Did they skew uniformitarian-based calculations in just the right way to confirm the biblical timescales that adhere to (doubtless they did in the minds of Walker and Doyle though we are not told)?
    These people are writing for fundamentalist Christians who hate science or who are stupid or both.
    “Further, the past climate patterns after the Flood were significantly
    different from what we have today, causing major uncertainty in tree
    ring dating. This is precisely what is inferred for the biblical Ice Age.
    Early in the Ice Age, the extremes between different seasons were muted
    and the environment was in general much wetter, which would have
    produced faster growth rates. Therefore, growth rings would not have
    been correlated with seasonal extremes, but more likely with individual
    storm surges.” Trees would have grown more slowly, not faster, during an ice age. Trust me.
    “The evidence from so-called varves is consistent with the biblical timescale of thousands of years.” Another total lie for Jesus! Layers and layers of lies is what you get on young Earth creationist websites. How appropriate that the authors are discussing mud.
    “The interpretation of the cores, driven by the long-age philosophy, has
    many problems. They are better interpreted as forming after Noah’s Flood
    during the Ice Age and beyond.” Total lying garbage.
    “The climate changed considerably after the Flood.” Now the lying hypocritical Bible fanatics are being unbiblical as well! See Genesis 8:22 (the promise after the Flood, no mention of ice ages or drastic climate change but the fanatics require’ an imaginary ‘recent’ – and weird – ice age to account for visible reality such as large glaciers and ice caps, even though the Bible never ever mentions any such thing).
    Disgusting pile of falsehoods.

    • ashleyhr

      Sarfati quoted what Dawkins wrote about short-lived radionuclides in his chapter 4. Which included “Among all the elements that occur on Earth are 150 stable isotopes and 158 unstable ones … of the 158 unstable ones 121 are either extinct or exist only because they are constantly renewed like carbon 14. Now, if we consider the 37 that have not gone extinct … every single one of them has a half-life greater than 700 million years. And if we look at the 121 that have gone extinct, every single one of them has a half-life less than 200 million years.”
      He then accepted this fact but wrote: “this commits the fallacy of arguing from silence from the absence of certain nuclides…” and “Dawkins’ argument … presupposes that these short-lived isotopes would have been created in the first place”. This shows to me that when outright deception will not work (because the audience already knows too much) YECs are left with lame arguments that lack scientific evidence or credibility. Sarfati speculates wildly that either God did not create “dangerous radioactive waste” or that “accelerated nuclear decay” caused these short-lived radioisotopes to all “disappear during Creation Week before life was formed”. That is NOT science.

      • ashleyhr

        Message as sent to Biologos via their website:

        “This is more a Comment than a Question.

        Please see this blog and my own comments underneath it:

        I am certain that CMI are out to deceive Christians about science. The writers exploit the fact that you unfortunately don’t mention carbon-14, so as to pretend that what you really meant is ‘false’. You wrote: “Experiments that collide atoms at high speed have allowed scientists to determine what isotopes would have been formed in stars and supernova events. Looking for these isotopes in nature, we find only the very long-lived varieties. The short lived isotopes are “missing” because the Earth is old enough for them to have decayed away”. Essentially this is true not false. But they wrongly refer to all this as a “subjective opinion”. They are anti-science imho.

        I am sure that the readers of the CMI article will have misunderstood and that the writers are hoping that they did. After all, in response to your other comment that “faster decaying isotopes have already gone” they write “The short-lived isotope carbon-14 is consistently found in samples that are supposed to be hundreds of millions of years old, providing objective evidence against the eons of time”. Aside from the fact that this may well be contamination, the sentence is totally misleading. They fail to mention that carbon-14 is, and has previously been, constantly replenished in Earth’s atmosphere. Thus implying that Earth is 6,000 years old after all and there is an exception to the rule that “faster decaying isotopes have already gone”. They of course also fail in this article to cite the half-life of carbon-14 – which is less than 6,000 years. Thus it could not possibly be ‘gone’ in a 6,000 year old universe.

        Radiocarbon dating is not used for approximately dating very ancient rock samples anyway (or indeed any rocks).

        But none of this is explained. These people are anti-science.

        These Christians are liars pure and simple.”

    • Thanks, Ashley!

  • Freakin hilarious graphic 🙂

    On that note, I like you posted on this annoying meme a few months back, if it’s ok to share the link –

    • Yeah, I knew that. Of course it’s OK. Thanks, Heather!