Further Devastation of a Deep Time Icon

Every once in a while, I need to share material that is a bit more specialized. Some folks do not cotton to information involving mathematics, but the two articles linked below (actually, Part 1 and Part 2 of the same subject) further thwart the astronomical (Milankovitch) Ice Age theory that is used to justify deep time assertions. Even if you're not interested in the mathematics part, there is some excellent information for your consideration. Feels like an Ice Age is beginning as I write this on December 17, 2017, but that's just me.

Credit: Freeimages / miguel ugalde

I'll allow that algebra is not my strong suit. If it's not something you care for but have a basic understanding of it, the articles show how us reg'lar folk can use a calculator (or even the one that ships with Windows as well as free calculators online like this one) to see how the Milankovitch theory is kaput. Even though this theory has been refuted before, secularists protect it because Papa Darwin requires deep time, so they keep using faulty data to cling to long ages.

An interesting fact about the astronomical theory is that it is not only used to prop up long age assertions that are based on numerous assertions an circular reasoning, but it is used to support global climate change alarmism. This is not surprising, since there are many reports of bad and even faked data to promote the concept of anthropogenic climate change. Like leftists detest what is called "alternative media" because their mainstream news media are hopelessly biased and agenda-driven, and other sources give inconvenient truth, secularists loathe creationists for refuting evolutionary and deep time claims. Here, a creationary scientist answers fools according to their folly (using their own data) so they are not legitimately justified in their own eyes. Clearly, Earth was created — and far more recently than these owlhoots want to admit.

In a scientific controversy, how do laypeople evaluate the merits of each side’s arguments when those arguments involve technical details? Unfortunately, many people simply assume that the majority’s arguments and conclusions are correct. This is certainly true in the creation-evolution debate, where most scientists make claims that clearly contradict Scripture.

However, a situation occasionally arises in which it is possible for laypeople to verify for themselves whether a claim is true or not. Creation scientists are delighted when this happens since Christians should be testing our claims, as well as those of other teachers, to see if they are true (Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21).

This article shows how you can confirm for yourself, using a simple pocket calculator, that an iconic old-earth claim about past “climate change” has long been invalid.1 Although understanding this argument may take some effort, remember the words of Ecclesiastes 7:19: “Wisdom strengthens the wise more than ten rulers of the city.” It is my prayer that you’ll feel greatly empowered by your ability to verify these results for yourself without having to take anyone’s word for it—including mine!

 To read the rest of this article and the next, here are the links:

• Testing Old-Earth Climate Claims, Part 1
• Testing Old-Earth Climate Claims, Part 2 
• ADDENDUM 1: Dr. Hebert is doing further research on the numbers and calculations, see "Wrapping Up Seafloor Sediment Research".
• ADDENDUM 2: The “Pacemaker of the Ice Ages” Paper Revisited: Closing a Loophole in the Refutation of a Key Argument for Milankovitch Climate Forcing