p10    The Creation Model
            1. Supernatural origin of all things.  Design, purpose, interdependence, information.
            2. Net basic decrease in complexity over time.  Limited horizontal change.
            3. Earth history dominated by catastrophic events.

Scientific Creation:  Each basic category of life appeared abruptly, without descending from an ancestor of a different sort.  Much variation within a category is expected, but each possessed genetic limits to its variability, and thus exhibited stasis.

Stasis:  The tendency of types of organisms to remain unchanged over time, "static," or "stationary" with respect to evolutionary   progress.

Catastrophism:  There have been episodes in the past which occurred at rates, scales, and intensities far greater than those possible today, or which were of an entirely different nature than those of today.

        The Evolution Model
            1. Naturalistic origin of all things.  Chance, random, mutation, natural selection.
            2. Net basic increase in complexity over time.  Unlimited vertical change.
            3. Earth history dominated by uniform events.  Neo-catastrophism.

Evolution:  The idea that all of life has come from a common ancestor through a process of modicication over time.  Thus man and apes are thought to have descended from an ape-like common ancestor.  All vertebrates came from fish, which in turn came from an invertebrate.  All life descended from a single-celled organism which arose spontaneously from non-living chemicals.  Changes occurred through natural processes, including mutations, natural selection, and genetic recombination.

Macro-evolution:  Large hypothetical changes which occur in an individual or in a population of organisms which produce an entirely new category or novel trait.  These changes have never been observed to occur within living populations.

Micro-evolution:  Small adaptations within a population of organisms which allow a certain trait to be expressed to a greater or lesser degree than before; variation within a given category.  These are regularly observed to occur within living populations.

Mutations:  Changes in the genetic material of an organism, potentially expressed in offspring.  Many times a single mutation affects more than one trait.  While some are neutral, many are lethal.  No beneficial mutations have been observed.

Natural Selection:  The process observed within populations of organisms which selects those traits best suited for a given environment.  This conservative process tends to maintain the status quo, and never produces new genetic material.

Punctuated Equilibrium:  Macro-evolution on a rapid pace.  Invoked to explain and allow for evolution in the absence of fossil transitional forms.

p11
Uniformitarianism:  There have never been episodes occurring in the past of a dramatically different rate or character than processes possible today.  "The present is the key to the past."

Geologic Column:  Hypothetical column of fossils, with ancient ones on the botton, more recent ones on top.  Does not exist in complete form in nature, except as a trend.  Index fossils are thought to be unique to individual eras, periods, and systems.  Sometimes called the Geologic Time Scale, it's a statement of evolutionary dogma.

Index Fossils:  While almost every stratum of rock contains many of the same basic fossil types, i.e., clams, coral, etc., certain individual organisms or variations are thought to have existed in only a brief period of supposed geologic time, and thus can be used to determine the layer's age.

Neo-catastrophism:  Natural catastrophes occurred in the past, which, while of great intensity and scale, were no different in character from processes possible today.  These catastrophes were episodic, separated by long periods of uniformity.  Popular among geologic thinkers today.

Evolutionism:  The application of evolutionary ideas in the public arena.  Includes concepts such as social Darwinism, man is an animal, animal rights equivalent to human rights, low view of human life, etc.

p13    Chapter 1:  What Do the Rocks Say?
p15    ... the fossils date the rocks, and the fossils are dated by evolution.
... This is the way it's usually done.  An interpretation scheme has already been accepted as truth.  Each dating result must be evaluated - accepted or rejected - by the assumptionn of evolution.  And the whole dating process proceeds within the backdrop of the old-earth scenario.  No evidence contrary to the accepted framework is allowed to remain.  Evolution stands, old-earth ideas stand, no matter what the true evidence reveals.  An individual fact is accepted or rejected as valid evidence according to its fit with evolution.

p16    ... "And this poses something of a problem:  If we date the rocks by the fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?" (Niles Eldridge,  Time Frames, 1985, p.52)

    ... "A circular argument arises:  Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory.  Well, it would, wouldn't it?"  (Tom Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record,"  New Scientist, Vol. 108; Dec. 5, 1985; p. 67)

p17    ... How should a scientist of any persuasion react to circular reasoning?  Obviously, with skepticism and even rejection ... Circular reasoning has no place in science.  ...
    ... The key is understanding our assumptions held at the start.  Is the assumption of evolution necessary to do science?  ... obviously not!  Are other assumptions possible?  Yes!  Can good science be done without an exclusive commitment to naturalism?  Certainly!  ...
    ... How can we determine which assumption set is correct?
    ... Science operates in the present, and in a very real sense is limited to the present.  Scientific theories must involve, ... the observation of data and process which exist in the present. ... The scientific method is an enterprise of the present. ...
    ... Theories must also be testable and potentially falsifiable, (i.e., there must be some conceivable test which coujld prove them wrong).  But who could disprove an idea about the past?
    ... Another requirement for good science is reproducibility.  ... some events, which occurred only once (such as the origin of the earth), may not have been observed at all.  When scientists have only the results of an event or its after-effects to study, a full reconstruction of the one-time event (sometimes called a singularity) is lacking.

p18    Studying the nature of existing rocks and fossils and the processes which produce or alter them - that's science.  Predictions of the future of the rock are another matter.  Likewise, historical geology - the reconstruction of the unobserved past of rocks and fossils - that's also another story.  The samme difficulty exists in biology, ecology, astronomy, archaeology, etc.
    ... Major changes (macro-evolution) have never been scientifically observed, and thus the theory of evolutionary descent from a common ancestor has not been and could never be proven scientifically.
    ... Evolution is a belief system some scientists hold about the past, and they use this view of history to interpret the evidence in the present.
   ... Likewise, creation, if it ever occurred, did so in the unobserved past.  It is not going on today.  No human observer has ever seen creation take place.  Thus creation has not been, nor could it ever be, scientifically proven.  It, too, is a belief some scientists have about the past.
    ... Thus both evolution and creation are outside the realm of empirical science, inaccessible to the scientific method.  Neither is observable or repeatable.  They are in the category of singularities, one-time events.  ... no historical reconstruction can be proven (or disproven).  Any view of origins must be held ultimately by faith.

p21    ... Until a person is willing to talk on an assumption or presuppositional level, there can be little movement on this issue.  The facts are roughly compatible with both models of history.  Good science can be done by both groups, and the resulting interpretations can be consistent within each model, althought quit different from each other.

p22    ... I have found that most evolutionists believe in evolution simply because that's the only concept they've ever been taught.  ... They've never heard a credible case for creation, and so they perpetrate the lie that evolution is the only legitimate view.  This fallacy is furthered by the redefinition of science as naturalism, which denies the possibility of creation.

p23    ... I make three claims for the creation model.  I don't claim it is scientifically proven, but I do claim that:
                1. It handles the data in an internally consistent fashion; it does not contradict itself;
                2. It does so in a way clearly superior to the evolution model;
                3. It forms the basis of a life which satisfies and works.

p25    ... We must get away from thinking of evolution as a science.  It's a philosophical world-view about the past, loaded with religious implications, which historically and presently exists in a frantic attempt to explain the fact that we are here without a Creator/God.  It results in bad science, a denial of true history, and much misery to people and nations who have adopted it.

p37    Chapter 3:   The Two Views Contrasted.

p38    ...The Evolutionary View of History
                1. Most recent "Big Bang,"  10-20 billion years ago.
                2. Our Solar System, 5 billion years ago.
                3. Single-celled organisms, 3-4 billion years ago.
                4. Multi-celled organisms, 1 billion years ago.
                5. Humankind, 1-3 million years ago.
                6. Modern Civilization, 5-10 thousand years ago.

        ... (The Creation View of History)
                The Bible ... places creation in six literal days only a few thousand years ago, with man, the "Image of G od," the goal from the very start.  This date derives mostly from summing up the time spans given in Scriptural genealogies.

p39    ... we can derive a "most probable" range of dates, all of which fall into the "young-earth" position
 
                From Creation to the Flood    1656    to    2400
                From the Flood to Abraham     300    to    4000
                From Abraham to Christ        2000    to     4000
                From Christ to Present           2000    to    2000
                        Total Range of Dates     6000    to    12,000 years ago

    ... Suffice it to say that if the Bible is right, the old-earth concept is wrong.  And vice versa.  If the earth is old, the Beble is wrong.

p40    ... While neither can be proven or disproved, these two views can be compared to see which one fits the data better and is therefore more likely correct.

p60    AGE OF METEORITES / EARTH
        The lead-lead method of analysis holds a very prestigious, if obscure, reputation among chronologists, for this method, more than any other, is thought to date the earth itself.
    The accepted age for the earth now rests in the neighborhood of 4.6 billion years.  Did you ever stop to think where this number came from?  Obviously, from some form of radioisotope technique, but what rock was dated?  What rock was here at the formation of the earth, such that it could give the earth's age?
    Theories on the formation of the earth vary, but all (except special creation) hold that the earth was at one time, either during or after its formation, a molten fireball.  No solid material was present.  Even early rocks underwent intense metamorphism, so that no dating effort could see back to its formation.  Some rocks are now claimed to yhield dates of 3.8 or so billion years, but where did 4.6 billion years come from?
    The answer?  Meteorites!  Rocks that fall from the sky.  Sometimes these meteorites date at 4.6 billion yhears or so, usually by using the lead-lead isochron method.  This age is then transferred to the earth.
    Theories on the origin of the solar system propose that the sun and its planets condensed out of interstellar star dust at about the same time.
    Meteorites are thought by most to be remnants of a planet which broke up after condensing.  Therefore, meteorites are of the same age as the earth.  To date a meteorite is to date the earth, or so it is claimed.  Now, obviously, some things are being assumed here, things that are not known.
    The meteorite that has received the most attention is a stony meteorite called "Allende".  This extra-terrestrial rock has perhaps been studied more than any other rock on earth.  Numerous radioisotope techniques have been employed in determining its age, but it's the lead-lead dating result which has yielded the date of 4.6 billion years for the meteorite, and thus for the earth.  But what does this meteorite really teach?  Do the different determinations agree?  As you might suspect, NOT AT ALL.
    Perhaps the most extensive dating effort (Tatsumoto, M., Unrch, D., and Desborough, G., "U-Th-Pb and Rb-Sr Systemetics of Allende and U-Th-Pb systematics of Orgueil,"  Geochemica et Cosmochimica Acta,  Vol. 40, 1976, pp. 616-634.) studied the results from several radioisotope methods, including  pb-206/U-238,  Pb-207/U-235,  Pb-207/Pb-206, Pb-208/Th232 and Sr-85/Sr-86.
    For each of these methods (and others which did not give meaningful data), the authors identified the "ages" of the "whole rock" of at least 50 different "inclusions" (local concentrations of a particular chemistry different from the general matrix of the meteorite), and of the rock "matrix" itself.
    The U-Th-Pb suite of tests on the inclusions yielded much scatter, from 3.9 billion years to 11.7 billion years.  The matrix results varied from 4.49 to 16.49 billion years with 13 out of 18 "ages" being impossibly high, even though estimates of the amount of original daughter isotopes were subtracted out.  Ghis subtraction amount was based on the lead content of another important meteorite, the "Canon Diablo" troilite.  No isochron was possible.

p61    The "Canon Diablo" troilite has been accepted as containing a representative ratio of radiogenic to non-radiogenic lead, and thus establishes the amount of original daughter material to be subtracted from the total.  Of course, the individual atoms are identical and cannot be differentiated by simple inspection.
    The theoretical amount of original daughter material in all meteorites is thus derived form the "Canon Diablo" meteorite ratio, the "correct" ratio in turn determined by its concordance with the accepted age of the solar system.
    But the fact remains, there is a seeming excess of lead in meteorites, or a deficiency of uranium and thorium.  Typically, there is too much lead to have been derived from decay of the uranium and/or thorium present.  Thus, some estimate of the original daughter material must abe made.  Unfortunately, meteorites still tend to give excessively high "ages."
    Similarly, the Rb-Sr suite of techniques yielded differing results.  (The Sr-87/Sr-86 was the only technique discussed - the results of other methods were deemedd too unreliable and were not reported.)  The inclusions yielded ages from .70 billion years to 4.49 billion years, with most being significantly lower than expected.  The matrix ages were reported as 4.60 and 4.84 billion years, even though the best estimates of original daughter material were taken into account.  No isochron was possible.
    Although the dating of mineral inclusions is considered standard procedure, and the results accepted on many occasions, it is conceivable that discrepancies might arise.  Thus, the "whole rock" model age would take precedence.  As can be seen from the accompanying table, no agreement was reached, with most values being greater than the assumed age of the solar system, an impossibility.

Age of Allende Table:            Pb-207/Pb-206    =    4.50  billion years
                                    Pb-207/U-235       =    5.57  billion years
                                    Pb-206/U-238        =    8.82  billion years
                                    Pb-208/Th-232        =   10.4  billion years
                                    Sr-87/Sr-86            =    4.48   billion years

    In the discussion portion of the article, the authors gave reasons for the varied results, including anomalous concentrations in the original solar nebula, removal or enrichment of certain isotopes by later sisturbance events, movement of mobile elements Rb and Pb from the matrix into the inclusions, large variations of isotope ratios in the individual inclusions, ratios affected by impact on earth, original isolation from the solar nebula.
    Need I go on?  If the results don't fit, explain them away.  But how could a 20th-century investigator possibly know what was happening in an isolated corner of the solar nebula five billion years ago?  How could anyone have confidence in the few dates "accepted".  Perhaps they too are contaminated, and the true date is unknown.
    As it stands, the dates are accepted or rejected based on their agreement with an unprovable view of solar-system formation.  The scatter, which is very real, seems more impressive and important than the forced agreement with the theory.
    Furthermore a potassium-argon investigation of "Allende" yielded no help.  This study (T. Kirsten, 1980; The Chemical Evolution of the Atmosphere and Ocean; by Heinrich D. Holland, 1984; Princeton University Press, p.6) of similar inclusions gave apparent ages averaging 5.29 billion years, again older than the assumed age of the solar system.  The suspected cause? - potassium loss in the solar nebula.

    At the very least we can say that the isotope ratios which do exist do NOT demonstrate conclusively that the earth's age can be known from these methods as presently understood.  Even some evolutionists are inclined to agree.  Note this concluding quotation:
    "We suspect that the lack of concordance [scatter in the data] may result in some part from the choice of isotope ratios for primitive lead, [the original amount assumed for daughter material based on the "Canon Diablo" troilite], rather than from lead gain or uranium loss.  It therefore follows that the whole of the classic interpretation of the meteorite lead isotope data is in doubt and that the radiometric estimates of the age of the earth are placed in jeopardy (Gale, N.,; "Uranium-Lead Chronology of Chondrite Meteorites,"; Nature (Physical Sciences), Vol. 240, Nov. 20, 1972; p.57

p62    But, as we have seen, there is also much selectivity in reporting the data.  Many results are discarded, but to the extend that "independent" methods show similar isotope ratios (interpreted as the same age), this could mean that the universe is all the same "young" age, all created at about the same time, fully functional, with a God-ordained "very good" array of isotopes.

p67    ... The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious.  Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation.  Continuing use of the methods depends on a "fis-it-as-we-go" approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible.  It should be no surprise, then that fully half of the dates are rejected.  The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted.  No matter how "useful" it is, though, the radiocarbon methods is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results.  There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.
(Lee, Robert E.  "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error,";  Anthropological Journal of Canada; Vol. 19, No.3; 1981, pp.9, 29 (Assistant Editor).

... don't get the impression that radioisotope dating techniques have been disproven, because they sometimes do yield results which are consistent ...However, as we have seen, there is much that indicates that the radioisotope dating methods are not as accurate as we are told, and need not be intimidating to the advocate of the young earth.  This is especially true as we recognize the basic assumptions of all such techniques, which in essence involve denial of the Biblical facts of Creation and Flood.  Our distrust of these methods even increases when we recognize that the methods frequently give discrepant, discordant, or fictitious dates, and are frequently, if not usually, discarded.