How Old is the Earth?

No one knows, except the One who created it. The scientific establishment gives us a few guesses. Several “billions of years”, they assert with great confidence. Their conclusion is based on the “big bang” theory I suppose. That and the fact that they assume that it created itself somehow, since considering that there’s a real Creator isn’t considered kosher in their definition of “science”. So, they had to come up with something.

We seem to have a basic understanding of how light travels, at least currently. Assuming that it also “created itself”, you can feel somewhat confident that light will behave this way forevermore. Light travels currently at the “speed of light”, or does it? That may be true when referenced to it’s point of origin, let’s say a flashlight. Tiny “particles” called “photons” as shed by a heated tungsten filament and shoot out into the air traveling away from the flashlight at a “the speed of light” give or take a little depending.

Now, what if you place two flashlights back to back and turn them on? The “photons” leaving the one flashlight would be moving 2X the “speed of light” from the “photons” leaving the other flashlight facing the opposite direction. So, the “speed of light” is only relative to the object emitting it.

Based on a 6.5 billion year old universe “big bang” creation story or “theory”, you would predict that all objects over 6.5 billions “light years” away would not yet be visible from our vantage point. Their light “photons” would not have reached us yet. Of course that would depend on the location of the “epicenter” of the “big bang”. If it was 5.5 billion light years away, then the light from almost half of the universe hasn’t made it here yet.

Based on a “natural theology”, that is, “nature did it”, you are forced to imbue nature with the powers needed to get the job done. Pushing the event way out somewhere in the far distant past helps to conceal your uncertainties especially when nature is lacking in smarts and isn’t allowed to have any intelligence per se.

The tale of the self-created universe! How did I ever take that stuff seriously? So, how old is the earth anyway? Pretty old is my guess.

Wayne Hollyoak

The Origin of Genera?

The scientific establishment has been using “scientific names” for creatures for a long time. This “binomial nomenclature” has served well in helping us to develop universal names understandable by people around the world. If you wanted to talk to a person who doesn’t speak english about a conehead grasshopper. Using the common name, “conehead grasshopper” probably wouldn’t be helpful so the latin sounding, Conocephalus disicolor name is used instead.

Conehead Grasshopper

This “scientific” name is also refered to as the, “species name”. It refers to a very specific type of coneheaded grasshopper. But, there several other sorts of coneheaded grasshoppers including the familiar “katydid”. Each having their own “species name”. Each of these names has two parts, the “genus” and the “species”. The genus refers to the group of similar species the creature has been placed in. The “katydid” is also placed in the “Conocephalus” genus, because of certain similarities, IE the cone-shaped head. Still they are different enough to give each a different species designation, usually they must be shown to not be interbreeding in order to warrant a seperate species name.

If you will notice, in most discussions about evolution(ism) and creationism, you will know that the supposed proof of evolution lies in the multitude of examples of “speciation” or new species forming. This was the main idea behind Darwin’s famous book, “The Origin of Species”.

A well designed creature would be adaptable to some extent. You might expect that a species would need to allow some variation and flexibility in form, physiology and behavior as it’s environment changes over time and generations. How much change can take place is debatable and would be different from species to species. That’s where the term, “genus” fits in. Species that show similarity, but are unique enough to be given a grouping of their own are paced in their own genus.

The genus grouping represents several species that are very likely related to common ancestors. The changes that cause the development of the various species are not difficult to account for. The process is referred to as, “speciation”. But what about the creation of different enough species to justify puting them into a new “genus” grouping? Do you ever hear anything about “genusiation” or the formation of a more unique kind of creature justifying a new “genus” designation. For all I know there isn’t even a term to express such an event.

Only very minor stable changes in creatures have been documented!

So far, the upper limit of change that has been documented remains at the species level. We can feel confident that new species may emerge from time to time. The scientific establishment assumes that speciation will eventually lead to more diverse forms of life and justify the establishment of a new genus, but this has never been documented in real time.

Evolutionists offer all sorts of “speciation” as “proof” of their theory. But, what about the “origin of genera”(distinct groups of species), the “origin of families”(distinct groups of genera), the “origin of orders”(distinct groups of families) and so on. These more diverse groupings of creatures exist, but no one has ever witnessed their formation in real time. To say that all these diverse groups are related is a guess and it represents the core of the theory of evolution. There certainly is no empirical evidence whatsoever at this time and to assume they ARE RELATED in common ancestory is a matter of faith.

Wayne Hollyoak