Creationist Shoots Down Old Earth Icon

Creationary scientists have to keep secular scientists honest. Or at least, to point out their errors. It seems that one of the guidelines for both common-ancestor evolution and old Earth concepts is, "If it supports our view, valid". One of the icons of uniformitarian geology used to support deep time is the Milankovitch (astronomical) theory. The basic idea is that secular views of multiple ice ages in Earth's past were caused by changes in it's orbit and rotation over long periods. However, these owlhoots are assuming long ages to prove long ages, and making a passel of assumptions in the process. That's neither logical nor scientific, old son.

Assembled with graphics from Clker clipart

Secularists ignore a wagon-load of evidences for a young Earth (they don't fit the paradigm), preferring dubious radiometric dating methods instead. Milankovitch's work has been used in support of not only their credenda for deep time, but also to support climate change. A scientific paper was used in support of Milankovitch's ideas was "Variations in the Earth’s Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages", back in December 1976. Dr. Jake Hebert of the Institute for Creation research gave this paper some serious examination, and found it to be fundamentally flawed — it should have been discarded long ago.

In three rather technical articles. Dr. Hebert explains the Milankovitch theory, how the Genesis Flood is the best explanation for the Ice Age and Earth's magnetic field reversals, and more. He also furnishes links to his very technical articles on the "Pacemaker" paper.

• Milankovitch Meltdown: Toppling an Iconic Old-Earth Argument, Part 1
• Milankovitch Meltdown, Part 2
• Milankovitch Meltdown, Part 3
• ADDENDUM, with heavy science and math: The “Pacemaker of the Ice Ages” Paper Revisited: Closing a Loophole in the Refutation of a Key Argument for Milankovitch Climate Forcing
• ADDENDUM 2, also with technical information: "A broken climate pacemaker? — part 1" and "A broken climate pacemaker? — part 2"

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!