Origin of the Earth
An unsuccessful attempt to correct an error
|The cause of creation science would benefit, because the invalid
"proof" of a young earth would be withdrawn. Their credibility would
increase in the minds of the public.
|The cause of evolution would benefit, because the creation scientists would have one fewer "proof" of a young earth.|
On 2002-JAN-3, the author E-mailed the webmasters responsible for 15 creation science essays which contained the deceleration "proof."
|"The Age of the Earth I," at:
|"The Age of the Earth - 2: Evidence from the Globe," Proof 1
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse. This is from a cached copy retained
by www.Google.com. It is not currently
|"Creationism vs. Evolution Debate," at:
|"Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 1: Chapter Six: The Age of the Earth," Proof 32, at: http://www.evolution-facts.org/|
|"Evolutionists are wrong! The earth is young," Chick
|"Evidence for a Young Earth," Proof #20, at:
|"Evolution vs Creation," Proof 4, at:
|"The Final Frontier: Creation," The earth is slowing down
|"Handout given to the congregation of Horizon Christian Fellowship,"
|"How old is the Earth?," at:
|"Old Earth?," at:
|"The Seed Sower: Age of the earth," at:
|"What's Wrong with Evolution," at:
is from a cached copy retained by
www.Google.com. It is not currently online. *
|"Young Earth," Proof 4, at: http://www.angelfire.com/|
Unfortunately, by mid-2005, many of the URLs have since been broken. Some websites have been closed down; others have been reorganized with different file names. So, many of the hyperlinks are not valid today.
You can still find them by Googling pancake earth rotation. On 2005-JUL we found about 2,750 hits. A bunch of them are young-earth creationist websites. On 2011-FEB we repeated the search and found about 20,400 hits. In spite of the belief being clearly in error, it seems to be becoming more widespread.
|2002-JAN-4: One webmaster thanked us for our interest.
However, they will not change their website because it is an archive of
previously published materials. Thus, accuracy is unimportant.
|2002-JAN-7: A second webmaster responded, but said that there
are no inaccuracies in Scott Huse's book.|
|2002-JAN-9: A third webmaster responded, asking for
information on our identity and motivation. They also asked for more
information about the error.|
|2002-JAN-14: A fourth webmaster thanked us for our E-mail.|
|2002-MAY-16: The remaining 11 webmasters had not replied to
|2002-JUL-12: Dr Luke Randall of WasDarwinRight.com responded to our query. However, his site leaves the original error in place. 1 He wrote that he has many quotes from scientists which suggest that many dating methods are equivocal. "It is not a crime to present a differing viewpoint."|
As of 2011-FEB, no further responses have been received; none are expected.
None of the 15 websites has been changed. Persuading the webmasters of these creation science websites to correct their error appears to be quite impossible. In fact, dialog seems to be as hopeless as attempting to herd cats.
One author, a supporter of an old earth, commented on the continuing use of the deceleration/pancake "proof" by creation scientists, even though their error has been pointed out to them many times. It seems applicable here:
"I really don't blame them for making this mistake initially. We are all entitled to a few mistakes. But this does not justify keeping this claim going for years and years. My question is, why is this claim still being made?" 2
The author honestly expected that some level of sincere dialog would occur. He hoped that this project would be successful, and that a number of webmasters would delete their earth-slowing "proof" from their web sites. If that had happened, then his intention was to attempt continue the process by trying to convince creation science webmasters to remove other false "proofs" of a young earth. Among the most popular are indicators based on:
|The decay of the Earth's magnetic field.|
|The recession of the Moon from the Earth.|
|The age of trees.|
|The temperature of the earth's core.|
|The second law of thermodynamics.|
The experiment has convinced the author that meaningful dialog is probably impossible. Supporters of creation science -- at least the 15 contacted -- seem to be totally resistant to change. Further attempts to correct these websites are probably not worth pursuing.
The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.
Copyright © 2002 to 2011 by Ontario Consultants on Religious
Originally written: 2002-JAN-3
Latest update: 2011-JUL-28
Author: B.A. Robinson
This page translator works on Firefox,