Tag Archives: scientist

Steven Ball – Chapter 3

Posted on by
6
Not an actual picture of Dr. Ball

In Chapter 1 of his book, Age of the Earth, Dr. Steven Ball tried to build a case for accommodating the modern academic paradigm into Christianity. I analyzed his claims here. In Chapter 2, he presented evidence that he thinks is persuasive to believe that the Bible is compatible with old Earthism. Here’s some cross-examination of chapter 2.

We’ve got 2 more chapters to go through. In chapter 3, Dr. Ball took the opportunity to look at some evidence (that in the past) was presented to support a young earth. What happens when a scientist, who believes in evolution, views evidence through their lens of evolution? You guessed it, they see evolution and deep time everywhere. Let’s looks specifically at Dr. Ball’s statements about evidences for a young Earth. His comments are in red, with my reply following directly in the default black

At this point, it may appear to the reader that conspicuously missing from the list of scientific evidences are the evidences for a young Earth. I can assure you that it isn’t an oversight.

I addressed this kind of thinking in my article which scrutinized Dr. Ball’s work in Chapter 2. Essentially, there’s no “evidences for an old Earth” or “evidences for a young Earth”. There’s just evidence. Everyone interprets evidence in accordance with their worldview. For Dr. Ball, his worldview is that the Bible is pliable to whatever the latest conclusions from the modern academic paradigm tell him. For Young Earth Creationists, we hold the Bible to be the highest authority, and we view the evidence through the lens that what God has revealed in the Bible as true.

Short Period Comets

Short period comets appear to suggest that the solar system is only a few thousand years old, since comets actually burn away each time they pass close to the Sun, where they interact with the solar wind in producing the fiery tails we observe

Yes, I covered this in Chapter 2. And as expected, Dr. Ball proposes an unseen hypothesized ring of extra solar system objects. Unscientific.

Thickness of Lunar Dust

estimates (if billions of years old) of dust accumulation both on the Earth and on the Moon had been made as early as 1960, using mountain measurements of nickel dust fall [31], which suggested that there may well be an extensive layer of Moon dust, as much as 145 feet…In fact, only about two inches of Moon dust was found at the landing site…This was then hailed as evidence for a young Moon (since accumulation would have only been happening for about 6000 years)…This was then hailed as evidence for a young Moon

This argument has not been used by young Earth creationists in over 30 years. In 1993 (a decade BEFORE Dr. Ball wrote his book), the preeminent young Earth creation organization, Answers in Genesis, wrote an article telling Christians not to use this argument, as it is flawed. Since Dr. Ball considers himself a man of science, there’s no reason that in the next edition of his book, he will have been able to address the latest and most advanced arguments from AIG, Creation.com, and ICR.org rather than trying to defeat an argument that has not been used since before Al Gore invented the internet.

Decay of the Earth’s Magnetic Field

At the present rate of decay, the magnetic field may actually go to zero in a few tens of thousands of years from now…Since the field appears to dying, one can attempt to extrapolate backwards in time to some plausible upper limit to the field strength to calculate an age for the Earth. As expected, such estimates lead to an age for the Earth no more than 10,000 years

Dr. Ball cites the work from Paul Taylor, p50 in the Illustrated Origins Answer Book in 1992. Much work has been done regarding this field of research since 1992. This article from CMI directly addresses Dr. Ball’s objections and shows that rather than the conclusions to which Ball came to, the conclusions of a young Earth are more appropriate. Another from AIG shows that the problems of the old earth models persist given the assumptions that Dr. Ball takes. Dr. Ball’s primary objection to the conclusion of a young Earth with regards to the Magnetic decay relies on radiometric dating, which as we discussed in Chapter 2, are both filled with assumptions and are wildly inaccurate

The rock layers can also be radiometric dated, so that we can determine when the magnetic north pole was near which geographic pole

There’s no reason to accept the conclusions about magnetic decay from Dr. Ball as they are both discordant with the biblical timeline and the conclusions from scientific evidence

Radio Halos in Primordial Rock

Dr. Ball explains the reason why young Earth creationists think that the decay of Polonium in granite is evidence for YEC

The discovery of radio halos by Oak Ridge laboratory scientist Robert Gentry was touted as a clear counterexample to the claims of antiquity made for the oldest primordial rock layers in the Earth. Such halos were claimed be formed from the decays of Polonium-218, which has a halflife of only 3 minutes. They can only form in hardened or crystallized rock. If such halos were found in the oldest rock layers, which as we’ve discussed in the last chapter required a long period of time to cool off sufficiently before solidifying, then how did the Polonium-218 get inside of the rock after it formed? Young Earth proponents claim this is clear evidence that God instantly formed the rock layers of the Earth

Then Dr. Ball explains why he doesn’t like this evidence:

To examine this evidence properly is difficult, since the discovery of various types of halos in rock is still being investigated

Of course it is still being investigated. Those, like Ball, who hold to an old Earth belief, do not like the obvious implications of the rapid cooling of pre-Cambrian rock and the presence of halos from fast-decaying radioactive elements. In the same way that Dr. Mary Schweitzer did not like the implications of finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones, so she repeated the experiment SEVENTEEN times before finally accepting the results. To protect their worldview, they have to try to find a rescue device. Dr. Ball continues with the proposed rescue devices:

Geologist Jeffrey Richard Wakefield carefully examined the locations indicated by Gentry and concluded that each one was actually a younger infusion of igneous rock into the older primordial rock layers…At least one recently discovered mechanism involves a slow gradual process, favoring a much longer period of time in their development

The panic is real. Dr. Ball says that the location is particularly a problem and there might be other ways to explain the data…though he gives no details. Dr. Ball continues:

But the bigger problem I see here is the attempt at using some complex phenomena, without the benefit of a more thorough investigation into its mechanisms, to support a particular age of the Earth

I’ve been told that creationists aren’t REAL scientists, yet Dr. Ball says here that Dr. Gentry is examining “complex phenomena” to make conclusions. Dr. Ball may not like the conclusions, but the research is definitely being done my qualified scientists with qualified investigative methods. I also find it somewhat rich for an old Earther to criticize a scientist making conclusions about the age of the Earth based on the perceived lack of “thorough investigations” considering the failed evolutionary arguments from the last few decades given thorough investigations:

I realize that Dr. Ball wrote this book in 2003, but his final sentence in this section has not aged well for his claims:

True evidence should only grow stronger under careful scrutiny, not weaker as in this case

Again, Dr. Ball could not have known this in 2003 at the time of his writing, but the old Earth claims continue to be shown to be false, and the Polonium radio halos continues to be valid as is shown by Dr. Andrew Snelling in 2008. With every new discovery, YEC is more strongly affirmed.

Starlight and Time

It is a common question of young Earth creationists: “how did light get to Earth in only 6000 years if the light source is billions of light years away?” Dr. Ball asks this question without a very careful investigation of the 1 possibility he critiques or the other possible solutions

Finally, we consider a recent cosmological model claiming support for a young Earth, a model proposed by Gerald Humphries in 1996 in his book, “Starlight and Time”

“Gerald Humphries”?!!?!? Perhaps he means Dr. Russell Humphreys, who wrote the book in question.

Dr. Ball was critical of Dr. Humphrey’s model, but he used arguments, that if applied consistently to his own Big Bang model, would have destroyed it. He didn’t mention how he solves the problems:

Obviously, Dr. Ball could not have known about the fulfilled YEC prediction that was confirmed by the James Webb Space Telescope in 2022 since Dr. Ball wrote his book in 2003. But I added it to the list a a further complication for his foundational assumptions for this article. Dr. Humphreys has been met with fierce opposition to his proposal and has answered many of his critics with technical papers. Dr. Ball may not have known that the answers to many objections have been forthcoming since he didn’t even know Dr. Humphrey’s name.

Neither did Dr. Ball address the many other solutions to the light time travel “problem” that have been proposed by creationists:

Again, I will note that Dr. Ball couldn’t have known about all of these proposals since many of them have emerged as valid solutions in the last few years. The point is that scientists, who hold the Bible as the highest authority, have done and continue to do real scientific work without compromising the fidelity of the specially-revealed Word of God

Here lies the problem with Creation Science. It is not an attempt to understand the physical universe through application of basic laws and principles

This is not the problem, but the foundation. While the shifting conclusions from naturalistic assumptions will constantly change as new paradigms come and go, the eternal word of God will never change. It doesn’t need to change. Because God knows everything, his revelation cannot be overturned. The comment from Dr. Ball could be better said as: “Here lies the beauty of Creation Science. It is not an attempt to understand the physical universe through the eyes of unbelievers, but by accepting the history of the universe that God revealed in his word, creation scientists employ the application of basic laws and principles to make discoveries and solve problems.” As this graphic the humorously represents this principle, the universe has aged faster than the “speed of light”. Notice that the believed age (according to the reigning paradigm of the time) of the universe has changed through the decades and most times, the changes have been outside the previous supposed “error bars”:

Final Thoughts

Perhaps Dr. Ball would like to re-investigate his claims and tackle any of the more current discoveries made by young Earth creationists. I’d also be interested in hearing from him, if ALL of the evidence can be easily interpreted in light of a young Earth/universe as the Bible clearly teaches, why should Christians try to redefine the Bible to accommodate the worldliness that is so prevalent today?

Looking through the lens of evolution and the modern academic paradigm, Dr. Ball and other old Earthers will always see old Earth. When we look at the world through the lens of the Bible, we will be able to make sense of what God intended. Reality makes sense and the evidence is fully affirming of the YEC view. There is no logical reason for Christians to think that the constantly-changing theories/stories from old Earthers need to be used as counterfeit authorities to redefine the clear teaching of the highest authority: the Bible.