Trust Me?

At a souvenir store in Australia, I saw a T-shirt that had a picture of a crocodile with its mouth open and the words “trust me” on it. Well, in this fallen world, I wouldn’t trust a crocodile—they have been known to kill many people, including American tourists!


I thought of this when an item was brought to my attention titled “7 things that are older than Ken Ham’s universe.”


The blogger listed seven items that are supposedly dated at much older than the 6,000 years biblical creationists put on the age of the universe—based on the Bible’s recorded history. The blogger smugly presents this list as proven fact that shows biblical creationists, like me, are wrong.


The blogger, however, doesn’t even attempt to present the various (fallible) dating methods used to support each item—though there is a link to a news item about each. But even then, I noticed that (1) sometimes there is a vague reference to the dating method used such as “radioactive dating,” (2) the actual dating methods are not even mentioned at all, or (3) a passing reference to radiocarbon dating method is mentioned.


Really, this blogger is illustrating the fact that high school and college students today have not been taught critical-thinking skills and have not been taught the difference between historical (origins) science and observational (operational) science. Thus they are prone to be very gullible, and ignorance abounds—they seem to have no clue that all dating methods are based on assumptions about the past. None of the items on the list came with labels attached to them giving their dates! One would have to do a lot of research to find out what specific dating method or methods were used for each item and then research the assumptions behind each method to even begin to understand how the dates were obtained.


At AiG, our scientists have conducted many thousands of hours of research, enabling them to teach other people how to think correctly about dating methods. Our scientists’ research helps others not to be so gullible in trusting the secularists (who expect them just to take the word of fallible humans who are attempting to reconstruct the past, when they were not there).


Of course biblical creationists were not there either, but consider the following points:



We have a written record from the One who has always been there and has given us a record of history, enabling us to work out a date for the age of the universe (God’s Word).
Observational science confirms over and over that God’s Word is what it claims to be—the Word of the One who knows everything and who has always been there.
Our scientists admit the assumptions behind all dating methods, and they teach people to think critically about fallible dating methods.
Our scientists admit their starting point is the Word of God—secular scientists often refuse to admit their starting point that God’s Word cannot be trusted or that there is no God.
The majority of dating methods actually contradict the billions of years for the supposed age of the universe.

AiG has many articles on its website that discuss various dating methods in detail. I suggest you do a search on the AiG website. See this page, which is the start of many pages.


The secularist blog post referred to above can be found at this link.


Where do you put your faith and trust? Is it in the words of fallible humans who weren’t always there and don’t know everything (who, in fact, know hardly anything compared to what there is to know), or is it in the Word of the One who knows everything, who has always been there and has given us a record of the history of the universe?


“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.” (Job 38:4)


We all need to get to the same place Job did:


Then Job answered the Lord and said: “I know that You can do everything, And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You. You asked, “Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge?’ Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. Listen, please, and let me speak; You said, “I will question you, and you shall answer Me.’ “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, But now my eye sees You. Therefore I abhor myself, And repent in dust and ashes.” (Job 42:1–6)


“Trust me,” says the secularist?


It is better to trust in the Lord Than to put confidence in man. (Psalms 118:8)


Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,


Ken


 •  5 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on March 15, 2013 09:49
Comments Showing 1-5 of 5 (5 new)    post a comment »
dateUp arrow    newest »

message 1: by Dave (new)

Dave Godfrey Trust Ken Ham? Only if you're really stupid enough to do so. So AiG scientists are honest enough to admit that they reject any fact that they can't twist, distort or misrepresent to fit their ancient book of fantasy stories. We know that. We've known that for a long time, and we've known that they know that's what they do. Admitting it is no more impressive than doing it.


message 2: by Kevin (new)

Kevin Murphy Who do you trust, Dave? The opinion of products of accidents (humans) caused by a big explosion billions of years ago, or the Word of an Almighty Creator God who loved mankind enough to make the ultimate sacrifice to provide a way for anyone to be with Him for eternity? Fact is, if you are the product of evolution, you cannot trust any of the chemical reactions taking place in your brain right now. Everything is random and a product of chance. Besides, it doesn't matter anyway. If it all happened by chance, and there is no God, then there is no meaning to life. So it doesn't matter what Ken Ham or anyone else says or does. When an asteroid finally hits the earth and wipes out humanity, the skin rash on mother earth will be gone, and the rest of the universe will carry on as it had been. Our brief existence and demise will go unnoticed by the universe. So who cares if some guy who happened to live at the same time you did, says something you don't agree with? Seriously, I don't get it.

If you really cared that people are listening to Ken Ham, I would think you would rebut these articles with something more substantive. I would think that you would do some research and counter the information presented with facts that contradict the assertions. I would think that you would attempt to educate potential readers with new information that might actually be persuasive, and in so doing, "rescue" them from the "evil" notions of Ken Ham. I don't think you really care. Either that, or you are simply incapable of producing such factual or logical arguments. Your sophomoric brand of chatter is tiresome at best.

p.s. - I look forward to hearing about your research on dating techniques that will instill confidence in the readers that the techniques that are used today to support deep time are sound and completely objective (not at all based on any presuppositions).


message 3: by Dave (new)

Dave Godfrey We all come at life with presuppositions, Kevin. Yours is that ancient myths and superstitions are the ultimate truth. Mine is that the universe is far more complex than that. If you don't get that, your conditioning has worked. You seem to have a great deal to say to somebody you find tiresome and nothing more than a series of chemical reactions. Is it because, deep down, you want to be convinced?

If you really want to argue the facts about carbon dating, I suggest you consult an expert. I completely admit that I'm not one.


message 4: by Kevin (new)

Kevin Murphy You aren't an expert on anything except stating your opinions. Opinions that you can't even defend. I question everything. Everything. You don't want to look beyond the surface of anything. You don't need to, because you've already convinced yourself that you know everything you need to know, that you are right, and everyone who doesn't agree is wrong... nay stupid.

"Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him." -- Proverbs 26:12


message 5: by Dave (new)

Dave Godfrey I never claimed to be an expert on anything. But that is no reason for me not to have and express opinions. Please continue to share yours with me.


back to top

Ken Ham's Blog

Ken Ham
Ken Ham isn't a Goodreads Author (yet), but they do have a blog, so here are some recent posts imported from their feed.
Follow Ken Ham's blog with rss.