Calling Young-Earth Creationism Demonic

It seems that I am not alone in drawing the conclusion that young-earth creationism is better labeled “demonic” than “Christian.” Blogger Rebecca Trotter left a comment on my blog, indicating that an encounter with the Institute for Creation Research led her to draw that conclusion. In the blog post describing what happened, she also shared this nice little image (originally found at Thinking Sci-Fi):

I know that some people consider this sort of rhetoric too harsh. But let’s be honest. If Christians are to use the term demonic at all, then would not a movement that (1) lies about science, (2) lies about the Bible, (3) sows division among Christians, (4) demeans those Christians who actually do serious scholarly work in science or Biblical studies, (5) gets Christians to waste incredible amounts of money combating mainstream science when there are so many genuine needs, and, perhaps worst of all, (6) persuades Christians that they are doing God’s work by arrogantly and misguidedly fighting science, instead of learning  humility, charity, compassion, and appreciation of the Bible for what it is and of science for what it can help us understand – if organizations that do all of that do not deserve the label “demonic” then presumably nothing does. I would have no objection to discarding such terminology. But until we give up using such labels, at least let’s use them aptly.

  • http://theupsidedownworld.com/ Rebecca Trotter

    Thanks for the link-up! Calling people or ideas demonic isn’t usually my thing, but seeing a “devotional” telling people how scary God is was kind of the last straw for me. I homeschooled my two oldest kids for 9 years, so I am intimately familiar with the bad fruit – both theological and personal – created by creationist propaganda. I saw too many kids who were brought up to believe that one could not accept evolution while still remaining a Christian leave their faith behind when they went out into the world and encountered evidence for evolution. It’s just a terrible, terrible lie which destroys faith, our witness and has done nothing but harm to the body.

  • Mary

    While the label “demonic” may be harsh terminology I do agree that there is a dark side to Christianity that comes out in the creationist point of view. The reasons why they push this nonsense (or non-science) on others has nothing to do proving the glory of God (in fact why would God need us to defend his existance anyway?). It has to do with the very human (not Godly) desire to be “right” and make everyone else wrong.
    Creationists like to promote themselves as being among the most faithful. But in fact they are the among the most fearful people on the face of the earth. If a few scientific facts are enough to derail their belief system and conclude that science = no God then what can be said about their faith (or lack thereof)?
    Science can’t prove or disprove God. All that science can do is prove or disprove a theory, in this case meaning the exact creation events recorded in the Bible. I am convinced that the reason why people are get so upset about this issue is because they want simple answers and a simple God. Instead of looking at the Bible as a guide and as something that points us towards the Divine, they instead make it an object of idolitry. And when they do that great evil sprouts forth.
    This evil dictates that everyone has to agree with them and do everything their way. “Religious freedom” is only for those who agree with their definition of the term. If your definition of God differs from theirs then you are a heretic and don’t deserve any rights at all. Since this attitude leads to emotional and physical violence against those who are different then yes, I do believe that the term “demonic” can be discriptive of the results of the “anti-science” form of Christianity.
    Doesn’t the Bible say that we “shall know them by their fruits”?

  • Gordon Clason

    It’s not just “young-earth” creationism which is based on lies. Anyone who cannot see that Genesis 1 is a poem is ignorant of the characteristics of Hebrew poetry. And anyone who says that God is not allowed to put non-factual genres in HIS Bible is a liar and an arrogant half-wit. Psalm 1 says men are trees. Are we to accept that literally? There is such a thing as poetic imagery and Genesis 1 is full of that as well as other non-factual statements like personifications and metaphors.

    Job 38 gives a creation account which involves measurement, foundations, building and constructing. The entire idea of God saying the magic word and things popping into existence “ex nihilo” is medieval magic based and NOT theologically sound. It’s a POEM, people.

  • http://www.facebook.com/troy.britain.5 Troy Britain

    A friend of mine was once invited to give a talk to a class at Azusa Pacific University on misinformation and distortions promulgated by YEC. At the end of his lecture the professor got up and said (I’m paraphrasing only slightly here): “As we’ve seen YEC are spreading lies, and we know who the father of lies is…”

    My jaw was on the floor that a professor at a Christian university would make this forceful a statement regarding YEC.

  • T. Webb

    Gordon, regarding Genesis 1 as poetry, do you read Hebrew? I do, and the nature of the genre of Genesis 1 isn’t cut & dried. I’m not a young earth creationist by any means, but please be aware that defining the genre of Genesis 1 is much more complicated than just calling is “poetry” or “narrative” or “myth” or whatnot.

  • T. Webb

    Dr. McGrath, doesn’t someone have to believe in demons to call someone ‘demonic’? I’m sure none us here believe in demons. Thus, isn’t it muckraking to call someone ‘demonic’? Perhaps better to call them ‘insane’? Just wondering. Thanks, Tim

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      I don’t think that “demonic” and “insane” are necessarily the same thing, although there is obviously a large overlap between what ancient people thought of as demon possession and what we would call mental illness. There have been authors, such as Walter Wink, who have done helpful work on demythologizing the “powers” and “demons” of the New Testament. And so there are ways in which liberal Christians might want to use this terminology, to indicate that evil can be supra-human, not in the sense that it is found in supernatural persons, but in the sense that it comes to have a cultural, institutional, and/or systemic component which makes it a force greater than any one individual.

      As I said in the post, I would happily do without such language. But to the extent that anyone wishes to use it, in any sense, it seems to me that it makes more sense to call young-earth creationism “demonic” than to join the young-earth creationists in using the label for evolution or any science. That, and that alone, was my point.

      • T. Webb

        Dr. McGrath, that helped. Thanks for the clarification.

  • http://twitter.com/bmk bmk

    About a week ago, some thoughtful blogger wrote that, “some Christians are gung-ho about the notion of being in a battle against the forces of darkness. And what they do is take their own personal enemies and assume that the appropriate thing to do is to wage holy war against them in Jesus’ name.”

    I’m wondering if there isn’t some of that at play here, and that we’re succumbing to the same kind of ego-driven temptation to inflate the stakes of our disagreement.

    That said, I’m not sure how to reconcile that with the fact that our other means of persuasion and argument have been ineffective in countering the lies of YEC.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      Thanks for applying my own words to this post of mine! Even when we try to be introspective and reflective, we don’t always succeed – at least, not consistently!

  • http://www.dregstudios.com Brandt Hardin

    Here in TN, they have taken steps though new legislation to
    allow creationism back into the classroom. This law turns the clock back
    nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply
    embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than
    that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic
    Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual
    response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at
    http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/04/pulpit-in-classroom-biblical-agenda-in.html
    with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.

  • Dr. David Tee

    The question for those opposing Genesis 1 is: Why would a God who wants His creation to believe and follow Him, lie to them and then let a person who has rejected Him ‘find the truth’ and let that person spread the word?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      Your question does not seem to make sense – perhaps you knew what you were talking about, but it isn’t clear to me.

      But there are three options: 1) God lied in Genesis but told the truth in creation, 2) God lied in creation and told the truth in Genesis, or 3) as all interpreters before the modern era acknowledged, Genesis 1 is not a statement of scientific truth but an affirmation of the fact of creation, not the details, in a manner that people in the Ancient Near East could comprehend.

      The real question is why you are open to all options but that of the historic Christian faith.

    • Mary

      My question is: Why is it necessary to take everything in the Bible literally? There are many stories in the Bible that make more sense as a parable than a true story. For instance, the Tower of Babel. In this story God is very concerned that this tower being built will reach heaven so he intervenes to make sure it doesn’t happen. Does that make any sense given we know that heaven is not directly above us? Most modern Christians believe that heaven is in a different dimension rather than physically in space.
      Perhaps the Bible is meant to raise questions for us in order to get a deeper understanding of it.

  • jclp

    You are in great error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God! Repent and believe the good news of Jesus Christ!

    • rmwilliamsjr

      There is an extraordinary arrogance in such drive by postings. How do you know our host here or even the regular posters aren’t Christians? If you had taken the time to read Dr McGrath’s blog you would see he is a Christian, although maybe not your kind.

      This kind of posting is akin to walking into a strangers living room during a party and jumping up on the couch and loudly declaring “You are in great error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God! Repent and believe the good news of Jesus Christ!”, then before anyone can react running out the front door to the next house down the block.

      i find it a bit impolite and not at all Christlike. In any case you are unlike to make any converts or even to stimulate thought in that direction with such tactics.

  • RJ (TO)

    Ha! Excellent!

  • Elvenfoot

    As a former 7-day creationist (from birth to young adulthood), I have to say that this article is unjustifiably harsh, perhaps even slanderous. It assumes that creationists purposely do the things the article accuses them of, which is completely untrue. In fact, I could almost argue that these accusations are of a demonic nature, but that is too harsh, as well. What is really happening here, I believe, is a lack of true understanding and good communication on the part of both sides.

    • The_L1985

      As a fellow ex-YEC, I am still furious at having been lied to for so long by the same people who also taught me not to bear false witness.

  • zuma

    Scientists have accepted the use of half-life decay rates to be in millions or billions years for radiometric dating method or radioactive dating method. Some would suggest that Noah’s ark should have caused the rocks to have accelerate decay and that would have caused the age of the earth to be misled in millions or billions years. Discuss.
    Noah’s ark that had appeared in the past might not cause the rocks to decay accelerate for the following reasons:
    a)Some rocks that have been created in the very beginning would be as hard as diamond so much so that it is impossible for these rocks to decay. As these rocks would be impossible to decay, the appearance of Noah’s ark would not cause any damage of these rocks. As these rocks could be as hard as diamond, it is irrational to suggest their decay rates to be in millions or billions of years since it would be impossible for them to decay in the first place and that the decay rate for them should be set at 0. To give the high value of decay rates, such as, billion years, for hard rocks in which they are impossible to decay, Scientists have indirectly pushed the age of fossils and the earth to billions years unrealistically.
    b)Only the soft rocks that would have created in the very beginning would decay rapidly instead of the hard one. Scientists might have observed the change of shape of the rocks and comment that they should be the cause of decaying rocks. However, they should consider also the change of shape of rocks could be the result of soft rocks instead of hard since the hard would be impossible for them to decay. Besides, the hard rocks that could have been created initially would look like the current shape. As these hard rocks could never decay since they are as solid as diamond, there is no way for Noah’s ark or wind or whatever to cause them to decay. As these hard rocks could not decay, it is irrational to suggest that the incidence of Noah’s ark would have any influence upon the shape of hard rocks.
    The reliability of radiometric dating method that has been adopted by scientists to determine the age of fossils as well as the earth would be in question on the condition of the possible existence of rocks that would be as hard as diamond so much so that there is no way for them to decay. If that would be so, there should be no reason for scientists to suggest that the decay rates of the rocks should be million or billion years since they would have been created in the beginning in such a way that there is no way for them to decay. If that could be so, to insist the value of decaying rates for hard rocks with millions or billions of years would simply be unrealistic and unreliable.
    The following is the list of isotopes that have been used by scientists to estimate the age of the earth as well as fossils:
    Samarium-147 (parent); Neodymium-143 (daughter); decaying rate: 106 billion years
    Rubidium-87 (parent); Strontium-87 (daughter); decaying rate: 50 billion years
    Uranium-238 (parent); Lead-206 (daughter); decaying rate: 4.47 billion years
    Potassium-40 (parent); Argon-40 (daughter); decaying rate: 1.3 billion years
    Uranium-235 (parent); Lead-207 (daughter); decaying rate: 704 million years
    Uranium-234 (parent); Thorium-230 (daughter); decaying rate: 80,000 years
    Carbon-14 (parent); Nitrogen-14 (daughter); decaying rate: 5,730 years
    Using radioactive dating method to date the age of fossils and the earth would be unreliable. Let’s take Samarium-147 (parent) and Neodymium-143 (daughter) to be one of the examples from above for illustration.
    a)What if Neodymium-143 would have been created in the very beginning instead of it would be the result of decaying from Samarium-147, it is irrational to link up the relationship between them and to comment that Neodymium-143 was the transformation of Samarium-147 and to establish its half-life decaying rate to be 106 billion years.
    b)What if both Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 would have been created as hard as diamond that it would be impossible for them to decay, it is irrational to conclude that Neodymium-143 should be the daughter of Samarium-147 and to suggest that the decaying rate for Neodymium-143 from Samarium-147 to be 106 billion years. This is by virtue of the half life decay rate for Neodymium-143 from Samarium-147 should be set at 0 at the absence of the possibility of decaying.
    c)How could scientists have established the relationship between these items and comment that Neodymium-143 should have decayed from Samarium-147 instead of other source or material or substance? There would be a possibility that Neodymium-143 might decay and turn into another form of material instead of Samarium-147.
    d)How do the scientists derive the decay rate for each material and to ensure its accuracy of decay rate? For instance, the Scientists have suggested the half-life decay rate for Neodymium-143 from Samarium-147 to be 106 billion years. Why should the decay rate be 106 billion years instead of a few thousand years? How do they get this figure or whether they would have plucked from sky since nobody could live so long so as to witness this would come true for the transformation?
    e) When the scientists suggested the decay rates for various materials, such as, from Argon-40 to Potassium-40 or from Samarium-147 to Neodymium-143, how do they arrange in such a way that the decay rate for Argon-40 to Potassium-40 would be lower than Samarium-147 to Neodymium-143 and not the other way round?
    d)As nobody could live millions or billions of years to witness whether Samarium-147 would turn up to be Neodymium-143, the reliability of radioactive dating method by means of the use of isotopes is questionable.
    All the above have placed the reliability of radioactive dating method into question especially the setting of decay rate in million or billions years have indirectly pushed the age of fossils and the earth unreasonably to billion years.
    Refer to the website site address http://asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html pertaining to the mathematical formula in which it indicates how the age of fossils and the earth to be computed:
    t = h x ln[1+(argon-40)/(0.112 x (potassium-40))]/ln(2)
    where t is the time in years, h is the half-year, also in years, and ln is the natural logarithm.
    Examine the formula carefully. t, the age of the fossils or the rock or the earth, corresponds with h, that is the half-year decay rate. If the scientists intentionally push the half-year decay rate to millions of years, t, that is the age of the fossils or the rock or the earth, would be pushed up by them to millions or even billions of years.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      Noah’s ark caused decay? What did precisely? The dilithium crystals in its warp core?

      Either this is a spoof or a prank. I cannot believe that you wrote such nonsense and intended it seriously.

  • zuma

    Let’s furnish another mathematical formula below for the computation of age of fossils and the earth that could be located at the website address http://education.gsfc.nasa.gov/ess/Units/Unit4/U4L31A.html :
    t = 1/delta In (1+D/P)
    where t is the age of a rock or mineral specimen, D is the number of atoms of a daughter product today, P is the number of atoms of the parent product today, ln is the natural logarithm (logarithm to base e), and delta is the appropriate decay constant.
    In order that the formula could apply for the computation of the age of fossils or rocks or the earth, the substance or objects or whatever must have established the relationship that one object must be the daughter of another. If the relationship between them could not establish to be one as parent and another as daughter, the above mathematical formula could not be used to compute the age of fossils or rocks or the earth.
    Let’s use Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 as examples for elaboration since scientists have linked up these two objects as parent-daughter relationship that would lead to the decay rate of 106 billion years. The following are the reasons why the computation by means of the above mathematic formula could not be used to compute the age of fossils or rocks or the earth:
    a)What if Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 would have been created in the very beginning and Neodymium-143 would not be the result of decaying from Samarium-147, the relationship between them to be parent and daughter could not be established. As the relationship could not be established in case if they would have been created simultaneously in the very beginning, the above mathematical formula could not apply. This is by virtue of the above formula could only be applicable when two objects have established with the parent-daughter relationship.
    b)What if Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 would be as hard as a diamond that there could be no way for them to decay, the formula could not be applicable to this condition since Both of these items could not be established to be parent-daughter relationship as one could not be the transformation from another.
    c)Even if Samarium-147 could decay, how could scientists be so firmly that it could turn up to be Neodymium-143 instead of otherwise since nobody could live billion of years to witness the end-result of transformation for Samarium-147 to be Neodymium-143? As that could be so, to comment Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 to be parent-daughter relationship and to use them to compute the age of fossils or rocks or the earth would lead to wrong age since they could have no relationship between them in the first place.
    d)What if Samarium-147 could decay to Neodymium-143 and yet the decay rate could not be established to be billion of years instead, it could only be a few thousand years, it would certainly affect the figure that has to be used for delta. This is by virtue of the unreliable decay rate would affect the decay constant figure that has to be used in the formula above. As the unreliable decay rate of the above substance would affect the decay constant to be used in the formula above, the end-result of the computation of the age of fossils or rocks or the earth would not be reliable.
    As it is hard to jump into the conclusion that one material or substance or whatever could be the daughter of another, this makes the computation to be unreliable and it is irrational to use radioactive dating method to jump into the conclusion that the age of fossils or the earth or rocks could be in billion years.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      i must insist that you make an effort to gain at least a basic grasp of radiometric dating and radioactive decay. Posting long comments with things that do not make sense or are mere assertions does nothing whatsoever to help your case. Anyone can claim anything is true by simply saying “I don’t accept” this or that scientific point, but that doesn’t make what they say persuasive, and indeed, in pretty much every case it makes them look incredibly foolish. But perhaps that is your aim, and you are in fact a person out to make Christians look foolish by posting nonsense?

  • aregerg

    fact is very very simple. If there is no proof that my english teacher is elf, I wont believe it. The fact that she is very pretty, smart and have weird ears is NOT direct proof of her being elf. Same goes for god. Just because you, average joe, from 21st century cant understand or imagine how can something come out of nothing, does NOT directly prove that something created us. So creationist believe in something for which there is no direct proof. It is by definition delusion and delusions is mental illness.

  • zuma

    Detailed examination about the reliability of half life value as spelt out by radioactive dating method or radiometric dating method.
    The following is the extract from the 3rd paragraph under the sub-title, Half-life, from the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life:
    (Half-life (t½) is the time required for a quantity to fall to half its value as measured at the beginning of the time period. In physics, it is typically used to describe a property of radioactive decay, but may be used to describe any quantity which follows an exponential decay.)
    As the phrase, half life (t½) is the time required for a quantity to fall to half its value, is mentioned above, it gives the implication that radioactive decay would cause the value of substance to reduce to half of its value. Or in other words, the value of substance would turn up to be zero upon another half life period has passed.
    Let’s examine the list of isotopes that has been adopted by scientists to assess the age of rocks or fossils or the earth. The following is the list of isotopes extracted from the website address, http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html, and, http://anthro.palomar.edu/time/table_of_isotopes.htm:
    Parent Isotope; Stable Daughter Product; Half-Life Values
    Lutetium-176; Hafnium-176; 37.8 billion years
    Uranium-238; Lead-206; 4.5 billion years
    Uranium-235; Lead-207; 704 million years
    Thorium-232; Lead-208; 14.0 billion years
    Rubidium-87; Strontium-87; 48.8 billion years
    Potassium-40; Argon-40; 1.25 billion years
    Samarium-147; Neodymium-143; 106 billion years
    Carbon-14; Nitrogen-14; 5730 +/-40
    The above list shows that Carbon-14, Potassium-40 and Uranium-235 would turn up to be Nitrogen-14, Argon-40 and Lead-207 in 5730 years +/- 40, 1.25 billion years, 704 million years respectively in order to achieve the half life values. As we know scientists have assessed the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years, all these Carbon-14, Potassium-40, Uranium-235 would currently be turned up to be Nitrogen-14, Argon-40, Lead-207 since the current age of the earth ever since its creation, i.e. 4.5 billion years as computed by means of radioactive dating method, should have exceeded 5730 years +/- 40, 1.25 billion years, and 704 million years respectively since their creation. As all the Carbon-14, Potassium-40 and Uranium-235, that have existed since the creation of this earth, should have been turned up to be Nitrogen, Argon-40 and Lead-207 currently, there should not be any of these isotopes be available in this modern society. The current existence of Carbon-14, Potassium-40 and Uranium-235 has placed the reliability of radioactive dating method into question. If Carbon-14, Potassium-40 and Uranium-235 could have turned up to be Nitrogen-14, Argon-40 and Lead-207 after 5730 +/-40 years, 1.25 billion years and 704 million years and that the age of the earth should be 4.5 billion years, none of the above substances, i.e. Carbon-14, Patassium-40 and Uranium-235, could be found available in this modern society since they should have been turned up to be Nitrogen-14, Argon-40 and lead-207 currently. The above have placed the reliability of the rest of the isotopes that have been established by scientists into question due to nobody could live billion years to witness the actual transformation of materials from one to another. The unreliability of radioactive dating method would simply falsify the age of fossils, rocks and the earth into billion years. As radioactive dating method is unreliable, the age that has been derived from this method could not be used to assess the age of fossils. As it is not accurate to compute the age of fossils by means of radioactive dating method, the order of fossils that has been set by radioactive dating method could not be accurate. Thus, it is irrational to use this method to comment that dinosaurs and apes should have existed earlier than the origin of human beings so as to support evolutionary theory.
    Would there be any existence of radioactive after full complete radioactive decay?
    The following extract from the 1st paragraph under the sub-title, What Is Radioactive Material And How Does It Decay?, from the website address, http://ohioline.osu.edu/rer-fact/rer_20.htm, has placed the reliability of radioactive dating method into question:
    (All materials are made of atoms. Radioactive atoms are unstable; that is, they have too much energy. When radioactive atoms release their extra energy, they are said to decay. All radioactive atoms decay. After releasing all their excess energy, the atoms become stable and are no longer radioactive.)
    The phrase, All radioactive atoms decay…the atoms become…no longer radioactive, as mentioned above implies that radioactive would lose its effectiveness upon the complete atoms decay after the entire process. Besides, the phrase, no longer radioactive, as mentioned in the later part of the extract gives the proof the substance would lose its radioactive after the entire radioactive atoms decay.
    As listed among the isotopes, Carbon-14, Potassium-40 and Uranium-235 would turn up to be Nitrogen-14, Argon-40, Lead-207 in 5730 years +/- 40, 1.25 billion years, 704 million years respectively in order to achieve the half life values by means of radioactive decay. Or in other words, after transforming into Nitrogen-14, Argon-40 and Lead-207, it would need another 5730 years +/-40, 1.25 billion years and 704 million years for Nitrogen-14, Argon-40 and Lead-207 respectively to cause another reduction of half life values so as to cause the ultimate annihilation of radioactive decay. Once a full reduction of value has been stretched over the process, there should not be any radioactive decay remains at the end.
    As mentioned above that radioactive decay would become ineffectiveness after the entire process and it would take 11460 years (i.e. 5730 * 2), 2.50 billion years (i.e. 1.25 billion years * 2) and 1.408 million years (704 million years * 2) for Carbon-14, Potassium-40 and Uranium-235 to achieve full complete lives of decay. A question has to be raised. As scientists have used radioactive dating method to assess the current age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years and these computed years should have exceeded the number of years in which Carbon-14, Argon-40 and Lead-207 would have completed their decay in radioactive atoms, the current Carbon-14, Argon-40 and Uranium-235 should have lost their radioactive after their entire atoms decay. Yet we could locate Carbon-14, Argon-40 and Uranium-235 currently that would emit radioactive decay. This has placed the unreliability of radioactive dating method into question. There is a question about the reliability on how scientists would link up one material to be the daughter isotope of another. Besides, the unreliability of the use of isotopes would place the reliability of the age of fossils, rocks and the earth that has been computed by scientists to be in question. The unreliability of the age of fossils, rocks and the earth through radioactive dating method has placed a question about the reliability of the order of fossils, i.e. dinosaurs should have existed before the origin of human beings, since we could no longer trust the figures that have been computed through this method. It seems to be that radioactive dating method should not be used to support evolution.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      OK, I know it can be hard trying to understand scientific material reading in a language not your own. If you let me know what your native language is, perhaps I cam recommend something in it. But you have clearly misunderstood the notion of half life. At the end of a given period, half of the radioactive element will have decayed. If that same period passes again, half of the half that is left will decay. And so on.

      Ken Miller’s book Finding Darwin’s God has a nice chart with which elements are found in nature, and what their amounts tell us about the age of the Earth,


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X