Someone recently sent me an internet post of a critic who thinks he has disproved the ASC solution to the distant starlight issue. Peter offered thirteen propositions in an attempt to support his conclusion. Amazingly, not even one of them is correct. We will examine his errors here. Actually, if Peter has posed his claims as questions instead, they would have been good questions. So, hopefully my response here will help people get up to speed on this fascinating area of physics.
“My back hurts a lot more than it did when I was younger. Well, I guess that’s the second law of thermodynamics at work.” Actually, it isn’t. Misconceptions of the second law of thermodynamics abound, even within the creationist community. Such misconceptions include the idea that the second law (1) is the tendency of any ordered system to go to disorder, (2) is the same as the curse associated with Adam’s sin, or at least began at the fall, (3) disallows order spontaneously arising from disorder, and (4) would obviously make Darwinian evolution impossible. None of these are true. But the second law is relevant to origins and can be powerful when used properly. To understand the second law, we need some background information in the field of thermodynamics.
In our previous article, we investigated the standard model (the big bang) on scientific grounds. We found that the big bang is not scientific in the sense that none of its major steps have been verified by the scientific method. However, there are things that are reasonable and true that cannot be verified by science. So we must ask, is the big bang reasonable? Are there good reasons to believe it despite its lack of scientific verification?
Last week, I had the privilege of attending the eighth International Conference on Creationism (ICC). This conference is a “meeting of the minds” in which several hundred creation scientists, Bible scholars, and other creation advocates can present and critique their research in various fields, including biology, geology, astronomy, physics, archeology, and biblical studies.
Our critic this week responded to my recent article on radiometric dating. He made a number of assertions. Does this critic make any good, rational points? Or does he exhibit the typical ignorance of science and creation technical literature along with fallacious reasoning?
“Science has proved that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.” We have all heard this claim. We are told that scientists use a technique called radiometric dating to measure the age of rocks. We are also told that this method very reliably and consistently yields ages of millions to billions of years, thereby establishing beyond question that the earth is immensely old – a concept known as deep time. Has science therefore disproved the Bible?