Let’s examine this first claim. In his The Answers Book, Ken Ham et al. claim that light was created in transit (pp. 192-94). What this means is that the earth was created “mature” and light was created “on the move”. To understand why this argument fails, we first have to understand that we can measure the age of the universe and the distance of stars and galaxies by the travel of light to the earth. Light travels at 186,000 miles per seconds. Think about the sun. it is about 93 million miles from the earth. Given the speed of light, it takes about 8 minutes for light to reach the earth. If the sun suddenly went dark, we wouldn’t know it for 8 minutes. So, when we see the sun, we basically see what it looked like 8 minutes ago. Therefore, because the distances in space are so vast, we use the speed of light to measure these distances. Thus, if light from a distant object takes 5 years to reach the earth, we say that that the object is 5 light years away.
Other stars and their galaxies are extremely far away. Even YEC’s agree with how vast the universe is. The light from these stars and galaxies takes million or even billions of years to reach us, so if this is the case, then the universe must be at least that old. If light was created in transit, how do we explain that stars we see exploding that are millions of light years away? If the YEC’s are right, then basically these stars never even existed. In order to do this, God would have had to create a burst of light around 10k light years away that would look like an exploding star. This burst of light would just now be reaching us. So, I ask the question, what is the point? From a scientific point of view, the star is millions of light years away, which is why it looks millions of light years away.
“To make the “light in transit” argument work, we have to invent an encyclopedia full of separate explanations to make sense of what we observe and why it is not the way it looks. It is far better to simply acknowledge that the universe is as it appears, rather than to propose that God created all manner of optical illusions in the heavens to fool us.” – Karl W. Giberson & Francis Collins, The Language of Science and Faith.
Here, I invoke Albert Einstein and a little bit of common since. We are all familiar with his famous equation E=mc2. The “c” stands for the speed of light, the “E” energy, and the “m” mass. Now, if energy equals mass multiplied by the speed of light squared, then there would have been a lot more energy in the past than there is now. So, what does that mean and why does it matter? It violates the law of the conservation of energy. This law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only change form. For example, this happens when the chemical energy in gasoline is transferred into our cars: it moves the car. The conservation of energy is probably the best established law in all of science. If a hypothesis breaks this law, it shouldn’t be taken seriously at all.
Let’s move on to the second claim: all the fossils were made by Noah’s flood. Before we start to refute this claim, let’s talk for a moment about what geologist call the “geological column.” Looking at the picture below (which is very basic), you will notice that if we have four major geological divisions. Starting from the bottom (oldest) to the top (youngest), we have Precambrian, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic. Another fact about the geological column is that whether you are drilling in New Mexico or New Zealand, these layers will look relatively the same. Furthermore, the fossils that we find at these geological levels are consistent as well. For example, you get dinosaurs in the Mesozoic, and none in the younger Cenozoic.
Below, Mark Isaak lists some more insurmountable evidences that cripple the claim of flood geology. In asking the question of why is it that the fossil record is sorted in such a convenient order, he states:
"Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and differential escape fail to explain:
- the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
- the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)
- why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.
- why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.
- why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?
- how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.
- why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
- why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992]
- why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?
- why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].
- why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer? "(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord)
In talking about surface features, he states:
"Deep in the geologic column there are formations which could have originated only on the surface, such as:
- Rain drops. [Robb, 1992]
- River channels. [Miall, 1996, especially chpt. 6]
- Wind-blown dunes. [Kocurek & Dott, 1981; Clemmenson & Abrahamsen, 1983; Hubert & Mertz, 1984]
- Beaches.
- Glacial deposits. [Eyles & Miall, 1984]
- Burrows. [Crimes & Droser, 1992; Thackray, 1994]
- In-place trees. [Cristie & McMillan, 1991]
- Soil. [Reinhardt & Sigleo, 1989; Wright, 1986, 1994]
- Desiccation cracks. [Andrews, 1988; Robb, 1992]
- Footprints. [Gore, 1993, has a photograph (p. 16-17) showing dinosaur footprints in one layer with water ripples in layers above and below it. Gilette & Lockley, 1989, have several more examples, including dinosaur footprints on top of a coal seam (p. 361-366).]
- Meteorites and meteor craters. [Grieve, 1997; Schmitz et al, 1997]
- Coral reefs. [Wilson, 1975]
- Cave systems. [James & Choquette, 1988]
I find this evidence very decisive. If these layers were all laid down at once during “creation week”, why are there surface features in these columns? The only answer is that of on old earth. For more evidence against flood geology, click the link above and read Isaak’s article under point 7.
This now leads to the third claim that dinosaurs and humans lived together. In his book, Dinosaurs of Eden, Ken Ham boasts a photo of Adam and Eve riding dinosaurs. The YEC’s used to claim Dr. Carl Baugh’s “Paluxy footprints” as evidence that dinosaurs and humans lived together, until it was disproven.
With that being said, what are we to make of this carving?
This says it best:
“[T]he main evidence for the Stegosaurus interpretation consists of a row of lobes along the back of the carving animal. Although superficially resembling the bony back plates of stegosaurs, there are a number of alternate explanations, including the possibility that they merely represent background vegetation or decorative flourishes, similar to many others on and around other carvings on the temple. The lobes may also represent exaggerated dorsal spines of a chameleon or other lizard. When all features and factors are considered, the carving is at least as compatible with a rhinoceros or chameleon as a stegosaur. Moreover, even if it represents a stegosaur, the carving could have been based on fossil remains rather than the artist seeing a live stegosaur.”- Glen J. Kuban
When it comes to talking to my kids, the three things that I have addressed in this article are the ones we have talked about the most. When it comes to the issue of light, I use the example of the sun. My kids get that. They also get the fact that light doesn’t exist without a light source. Even spiritual light has a source- God.
The thing I spend the most time on with them is the geological column and dinosaurs. This is because Answers in Genesis and YEC’ are usually pretty militant about these two areas, so it comes up often. What I do is very basic- I show them a picture of the geological column and relay very simply the information I have relayed to you in these last two points. My kids get it. And you know the amazing thing? Their faith isn’t threatened, and yours shouldn’t be either.
In the next and final post, I will talk a little more about how I interact with my kids on the subject, along with giving some final thoughts.