The John Ankerberg Debate: Young-Earth Vs. Old-Earth with Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Kent Hovind, Moderated by John Ankerberg

This debate is timeless – it is relevant more so today than it was in the year 2000.Dr. Ross claims the 6000 mile wide radiotelescope array is resolute to one ten thousanth (1E-4) arcseconds. Now 6000 miles = 6000*1.609344 = 9656 kilometers = 9656/299792.4564 = 0.03221 light-seconds = 0.03221/(3600*24*365.256) = 1.02063E-9 light-years. And 1E-4 arcseconds = 1E-4/3600 = 2.778E-8 degrees. And sin(2.778E-8) = 4.848E-10 equals x/y = (1.02063E-9)/y. So y = (1.02063E-9)/(4.848E-10) = 2.1 light-years resolution distance, where x is the observation diameter. Instead of a single measurement, we may take two measurements six months apart using earth’s 998 light-second orbital diameter. Now 998 light-seconds equals 998/(3600*24*365.256) = 3.1624E-5 light-years, therefore y = (3.1624E-5)/(4.848E-10) = 65230 light-years resolution distance. As Dr. Hovind points out, we really don’t know where we were six months ago (our earth, sun, and galaxy are moving) – it is necessary to interpolate year after year. So when Dr. Ross claims the radiotelescope array can triangulate 6 billion light years out, Dr. Hovind calls this a snow job – putting it mildly. Besides, how would they keep the telescope alignments calibrated given the massive plate tectonics? This is how we may test the spirits.Having been told the earth is 4.6 billion years old, most are unaware it was never measured. The [proportional] parent/daughter ratios on an isochron chart have wildly different ages in a sample of rock specimens – yet it is reasonable to assume they are all the same age. Because the scatter plot is somewhat linear, a straight line least squares fit is made of the data. It is further assumed this linearity is related to the common age of the sample. The consequence of this assumption is to declare that some of the daughter isotope comes from the parent while the remaining daughter comes from elsewhere, so to make the sample of parent/daughter ratios equal. However, we must now declare this to be an open system to account for the remaining daughter isotope. By contrast, should we expect a rock specimen to remain sterile for the 4.6 billion years purported age? This is problematic because the system must be closed in order to claim the old age measurement. Furthermore, the mass spectrometer (the instrument that measures [rock] material proportions) is not calibrated against any age dating clock.During the Q&A, Dr. Hovind was asked when the laws of physics became stable. It is unfortunate that Dr. Ross was not expected to answer, because relativists are not consistent describing the stabilization of space [and time]. Was it fully formed apart from the [hypothetical] singularity, or was it compressed within the singularity (and presently expanding)? This is relevant because Dr. Ross claims the age of the universe is determined by our distance from the farthest observable stars given a constant speed of light [through space] from the outer distances. The narrative of a singularity is pure conjecture.Dr. Hovind stopped short of claiming that radiocarbon dating was not valid, but given the wildly discordant dates it produces, how can it be valid?. How was this method validated? In his CSE (Creation Science Evangelism) seminar, Dr. Hovind provides a straightforward explanation of the method without straying from the fundamental concepts, but that level of detail could not be presented in this debate.Dr. Ross’ statements are subject to greater scrutiny because he aligns himself with secularism, so his claims are compared here separately to those in Alex Filippenko’s “Understanding the Universe: An Introduction to Astronomy, 2nd edition”, The Great Courses, 2007. In the form of Ross versus Filippenko [with lecture number]: relativity ranks as the best proven principle in all of physics [note the relativism here] versus general relativity and quantum mechanics are mutually incompatible with one another [89] and it could be general relativity is wrong [94], radiotelescope triangulation is precise to six billion light years distance versus 100 parsecs (326 light years) [43], scientists have observed the farthest stars versus the universe is much larger than we can see [93]. In his lecture series, Dr. Filippenko places much emphasis on the temperature/luminosity chart to extrapolate cosmic distances over 100 parsecs (calibrated within 100 parsecs – note that certified instruments may only be used within their calibration range), as well as stages in stellar life. In his seminar, Dr. Hovind references ancient writings describing the star Sirius as red, where now it is a white dwarf – supposedly changing over millions of years.We can recognize different writing styles for their similes, metaphors, poetry, literal content, abstractions, etc.. Dr. Hovind reads a literal account of creation whereas Dr. Ross reads it like a parable (“... the kingdom of heaven is like...” in its seventh day). Dr. Ross builds his ministry not by rejecting a literal six day creation week, rather by the consideration of long ages – that if the days can be interpreted as long ages, then they were. Death as a consequence of sin is foundational to young earth doctrine. Did Dr. Ross claim that death before sin had a different consequence? In one segment he claims Adam would eventually die had he not sinned, yet states later that sin brought death to man (not the animals).The young earth creation credits our Creator for the supernatural initial conditions of the universe. The humanist denies the existence of our Creator by seeking a naturalistic explanation – a narrative. The notion of an old earth creation invokes supernatural intervention to cover the many problems humanists encounter, namely that our existence is impossible (e.g. the probability that nature could correctly assemble 3.5 billion nucleotides in the human DNA using four of twenty amino acids) without God. The danger in Dr. Ross’ teaching (“science” and “theology” clashes) is he adopts the humanist narrative, denies all young earth defenses, and denies God’s omnipotence. For example, Dr. Ross invokes God’s intervention replenishing extinct species but no intervention for the canopy model. Also, “the sum of all things is zero” symmetry is satisfied by claiming that all atoms contain matter and anti-matter in equal amounts (leading to “everything from [chaotic] nothing”), as Dr. Filippenko does [94]. These are things we cannot observe. Dr. Hovind [properly and with emphasis] distinguishes facts from the interpretation of facts. Dr. Ross claims that [the cursed] nature is the 67th book of the bible, yet ignores or dismisses Dr. Hovind’s observations of nature. This is selective relativism.In context, Dr. Filippenko’s [93] lecture statement “... physicists like there to be a natural explanation for nearly everything, not just saying ’let it be so’ ... [which] leaves us with an uncomfortable feeling ...” suggests supernatural creation as an alternate and different explanation for what we observe. And [96], “... over time, natural processes increased the concentration of organic matter in ancient ponds on earth, and somehow, somewhere, self replicating organisms formed in the primeval broth, and they began to evolve ...”. And [94], “maybe general relativity is wrong” [explaining inflation by dark matter] could knock out much of the latter forty percent of his lecture series which invokes Einstein’s relativity. Some of his lecture series content is covered by Dr. Hovind’s “Lies in the Textbooks”.In his seminar, Dr. Hovind identifies at least 25 limit problems that validate a young earth (and has expanded to over 100 going into the Ken Ham / Bill Nye debate). Mr. Ankerberg scrutinizes two of these problems (moon dust level and the receding moon). This is a divide-and-conquer tactic that points out the weaknesses in each argument while ignoring the validating strength of the collective (and better) arguments. If the moon dust level were the only defense for a young earth model, it would fail. Perhaps Mr. Ankerberg was leveling the debate field. In this debate, Dr. Ross appeals to a single argument, a constant speed of light from the edge of the universe, to determine its age, with no supernatural intervention. Dr. Ross’ appearance on the 700 Club April 3rd 2018 imposes the same conditions on our Creator.The moment a window fan is powered off, the angular deceleration of the blade is greatest, and is zero the moment the blade stops. Otherwise, a constant deceleration would result in the blade reversing direction and continue accelerating. Likewise, the angular deceleration of earth’s rotation was greater in the past (caused mainly by tidal oscillations). Dr. Filippenko [27] claims earth’s initial rotation period was eight hours (and is presently slowing at one second per 100,000 years) – these are assumptions. Between 1972 and 2015, 26 leap-second adjustments were made to the standard atomic clock due to earth’s rotational deceleration. The average adjustment was 0.6 seconds per year. Depending on the actual rate of deceleration, it is necessary to occasionally adjust the standard clock rate, but such adjustments have not been publicly disclosed.[this paragraph updated May 10th 2018] If the leap-second adjustment fully accounts for the present deceleration rate (0.6 x 2 = 1.2 seconds per year squared), and we use a linear declining deceleration, then we calculate the eight hour rotation at 38.5 million years ago. In order to obtain 4.6 billion years for the age of the earth, we must reduce the [present] leap-second deceleration to 0.01 seconds per year squared. However, such a low deceleration would cause a clock delay of approximately one second in the first fourteen years, nine seconds in 43 years, fifteen seconds in 55 years, and fifteen minutes in 423 years (Kepler variation is approximately +/– 15 minutes), the latter adding only 0.01 seconds to earth’s rotation period (compare this to 1/100,000 – past versus future). Why the 26 unnecessary [and disruptive] adjustments? Try finding an official deceleration (my best source is 0.095 seconds per year squared, not necessarily accurate, limiting the earth’s age to 488 million years). This is one of the better limit problems identified by Dr. Hovind in his creation seminar. The earth cannot be 4.6 billion years old.The shortest limit problem (helium diffusion) places the age of the earth at 6000 years. I recommend {Vardiman, Larry; DeYoung, Don; Baumgardner, John R.; Austin, Steven A.; Snelling, Andrew A.; Chaffin, Eugene F.; Humphreys, Russel D.;Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research (ICR), 2000} and the companion “...Results” book. From Ken Ham’s “Answers...” seminar, “If there was a global flood, what would you expect to find? Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. And you know what you find? Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth.” - the Genesis flood 4362 years ago.Several times in his lecture series Dr. Filippenko [26, etc.] described the initial [molten] formation of the earth with heavier materials sinking to the middle. This concept is in error because gravity at the center of earth is zero. We expect it to be hollow (even though seismic instruments show it is not). Likewise, there should be a large void at the center of the universe where matter moves outward, and the edge of the universe collapsing inward (assuming the galaxies are not orbiting the universe), forming a collapsing shell. Yet the universe appears uniform (homogeneous and isotropic) given the “age” distribution.Such mistakes may be forgivable, but we must question if this error (and more) extends into the theories of [invisible] dark matter and dark energy (negative gravity). In the fourth hour of Stephen Hawking’s “Genius” series, “Where Did the Universe Come From?” (2016), a cone section [of the shell] is illustrated with matter and space both expanding outward. This concept erases consideration of the center of gravity, allowing for the introduction of dark matter and dark energy. Like the probability that nature could correctly assemble a DNA molecule, this is another example of altering, even simplifying, a fundamental concept. These theories are built upon such constructs that Dr. Ross teaches. In his lecture discussing expansion applying string theory framework, Dr. Filippenko [90] states, “maybe it’s forces from the outside pulling us out rather than some dark energy pushing us out from within.”. Relativism appeals to the invisible.Perhaps the best standard of science comes from John chapter 5, where Christ Yahusha (Yeshua) states “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true ... But I have a greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.”. The Son of man who walked on water, healed the sick, and raised the dead had many witnesses - He established His authority by these works, which were not invisible. His scripture was written for us in our language. When describing the kingdom of heaven, it is identified as such.