Bryan Fischer: We Don’t Know the Age of the Earth Because There Were No Witnesses

What’s better than Marco Rubio saying “I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that” when it comes to the age of the earth?

Hearing Christian fundamentalists Bryan Fischer and Terry Mortenson (of Answers in Genesis) explaining that of course no one can answer that question since no one was there to witness it!

But the Bible is completely true. Because all eyewitnesses are 100% reliable.

I guess we should also set free from jail all those murderers who were proven guilty because of forensic evidence even though there were no witnesses to their crimes…

The logic of Christians like this is so absurdly easy to debunk that it’s amazing how many millions of people take them seriously. There have never been good intellectual arguments supporting religious belief, but people like this just make that point so incredibly clear.

Since we’re talking about Rubio, though, it’s worth pointing out that President Obama once said something about the age of the earth that sounds very close to Rubio’s…:

Campbell Brown: If one of your daughters asked you — and maybe they already have — “Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?

Barack Obama: I’m trying to remember if we’ve had this conversation. What I’ve said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it — it may not be 24-hour days. And that’s what I believe. I know there’s always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don’t, and that I think is a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I’m a part. You know, my belief is that the story the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live, that that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible? That, you know, I don’t presume to know.

Granted, Obama wasn’t asked what the age of the earth was — he was asked how he would respond to his daughters — it’s still not a scientifically sound answer.

But here’s the difference in my mind. No one is worried that Obama would support schools teaching Biblical notions of the age of the earth. No one is worried that Obama is anti-science and pro-Bible. His mind isn’t that warped. He would support science. He has supported science. He will continue to support science, even if his budget decisions aren’t very promising in that regard. It’s not like he’s eagerly pushing for the Bible to become the only textbook kids need. (Plus, he was probably just pandering to a religious audience, saying what they wanted to hear even if he didn’t believe it himself.)

You need to look no further than the Texas board of education, Rep. Todd Akin, Rep. Paul Broun, Senator James Inhofe and just about every other elected GOP official to see how seriously that party takes scientific truth.

Rubio fits right into that mold. When he says there’s a debate regarding the age of the earth and that we ought to teach both sides, he means it. He wants the false controversy to be taught in schools, not just at home.

That’s why his comments are worth taking seriously and Obama’s are easy to dismiss.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • x jeremy jarratt

    Hell, the universe most likely never came into being in the first place then. Nobody saw it! So that more or less solves all of this.

  • Heartfout
  • Piet Puk

    I love how he quickly goes over the part where nobody witnessed his god creating the universe or creating Adam.

  • machintelligence

    I think the most useful answer to someone who uses the “How do you know? Were you there?”  argument is “Yes, as a matter of fact I was.”
    When they respond that that you couldn’t possibly have been, just respond “How do you know? Were you there?”

  • articulett

    At least the earth has an age… the question is “what is the best way to determine that age?” Creation stories don’t agree. But scientists do.

    The better question is “how do you know god exists when there is no more evidence for your god than there is for all the gods you reject?”

  • John Evans

    That’s elegant. I love it!

  • John A. Anderson

    There was indeed a witness. Genesis was written (so says the Catholic Church) by Moses. He must have been there. Case closed. Next question.

  • Pedro Lemos

    Reminds me of a brazilian song by Raul Seixas, where he says he was born 10.000 years ago and witnessed things like jesus being crucified, moses crossing the red sea, dracula attacking people and Babylon being destroyed.
    In the end he says “If you prove I´m lying, I´ll take my hat off to you.”

  • John of Indiana

    Ahh, the “Baron Munchhausen” defense.
    Baron Munchhausen was a character from a 30′s radio show portrayed  by Jack Pearl, who, when somebody would call bullshit on on of his preposterous tales would reply “Vos you dere, Chollie?”

  • Willy Occam

    Obama: “I’m trying to remember if
    we’ve had this conversation [oh shit,
    I've got to buy some time on this one!]. What I’ve said to them is that I
    believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may
    not be six days as we understand it — it may not be 24-hour days. And that’s
    what I believe [OK, that should help placate
    the people who think I’m a Muslim]. I know there’s always a debate between
    those who read the Bible literally [who
    are idiots, and won’t be voting for me anyway] and those who don’t [which I need to work on winning over],
    and that I think is a legitimate debate [not
    really] within the Christian community of which I’m a part [I’d better
    make that clearer for the morons who still insist I’m a Muslim]. You know,
    my belief is that the story the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent
    Earth on which we live, that that is essentially true, that is fundamentally
    true [ugh, did I really just say that?
    This better all be worth it to beat that geezer McCain]. Now, whether it
    happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible? [OK, planting that kernel of doubt should buy
    me a little wiggle room with the non-Christians.] That, you know, I don’t
    presume to know [although my brain tells
    me that it’s all just a big fairy tale. Vote Obama ’08—Yes We Can!].”

  • C Peterson

    The logic of Christians like this is so absurdly easy to debunk that
    it’s amazing how many millions of people take them seriously.

    Clearly, it is not at all easy to debunk Christian nonsense. Yes, anybody who is functionally intelligent gets the arguments, but anybody who is functionally intelligent doesn’t need the arguments in the first place.

    The problem is, those who believe in the fundamental truth of the bible are not functionally intelligent. They have something broken. Their minds work like that of denialists in general: no argument can ever convince them. Quite the opposite, the more rational, effective, and devastating the argument is towards their views, the more they entrench themselves in their own beliefs, the more they push back against that argument.

    I don’t think that the mental aberration that is biblical fundamentalism can ever be addressed by rational argument. Some of the fix may be pharmacological, but in terms of what we can reasonably do, I think that is limited to exposing young people to the truth whenever possible, in an effort to help their minds form properly before their fundie parents and church leaders ruin them largely beyond repair. At least with the Internet, this is now a real possibility… and there’s some evidence that it might be working.

  • SeekerLancer

    I like how they basically admit there’s no real eye-witness account of Genesis without actually saying it.

  • Sven2547

    This is what I dislike most about Creationism.  It’s not just un-intellectual.  It’s actually ANTI-intellectual.  It discourages people from getting out there and employing the scientific method to learn more about the universe.  When you reject the notion that you can learn about the past from anything other than eyewitness account, you also reject all the other things learned from those methods.

  • articulett

     No, he wasn’t there… I think god told himthe story when he was in his shape-shifting mode as a burning bush many years after he poofed the world into existence.

  • smrnda

    Going with the crime example, eyewitness testimony can be pretty unreliable, but forensic evidence gives a much better clue as to what went on, and can be available even in cases where there were no eyewitnesses.  Does Bryan Fischer even realize what he’s saying? It’s like saying if you find the murder victim’s DNA on a knife and the suspect’s fingerprints on it, there’s no case since there’s no eyewitness, but any jackass claiming to be an eyewitness should be trusted?

  • Doug


    While the answer provided was fairly weak, let me offer one reason you and even scientists may not know. You most likely subscribe to the theory of uniformatarianism. Yep, big word. Simply means that you believe that as things are today, they have always been… Rate of carbon breakdown in organic and non- organic objects, amount of ultra-violet light reaching the earths surface, and a host of other presuppositions.

    This belief prevents you in many ways from analyzing data and being open to a wider array of conclusions. One of which is that the earth is in fact younger than you believe the evidence you are examining tells you.

    Consider this… If indeed the material that makes up the earth was made by God, is it not feasible that the instant it was made, it could have all the properties to suggest it has age? In other words if God makes a rock that looks like it is 1000 years old, it is in truth, but a second old when it is first made.

  • RobMcCune

    Well he would have had to have been a baby back in 4004 BC and remained that way until he was place[d] in a basket among the reeds ca. 1500 BC, or the baby in the basket is really a story about a dirty old man and his diaper fetish.

  • A3Kr0n

    Wouldn’t it be funny if we found out guys like this make their living from people debunking them, and not from actual believers?

  • Coyotenose

     That’s two different things though. It IS easy to debunk their arguments. It is virtually impossible to convince them through argumentation.

  • Baby_Raptor

    No, he thinks we’re supposed to trust the christian god to be his own eye witness.  After all, didn’t god tell Moses what happened so he could write Genesis-Numbers?

  • Baby_Raptor

    So your god is a liar. Why would he do that? 

  • Baby_Raptor

    Oh, wow. That video actually allowed comments. I’m surprised. 

  • Andrew Ayers
  • Bdole

    Now THIS is a demonstration of intellectual dishonesty. By this logic, we couldn’t have assumed the moon was not actually made of cheese until we landed on it. There’s an epistemological sleight of hand that certain believers engage in to hoodwink their flocks.

  • Bdole

    Well parsed.

  • Coyotenose

     So you’re arguing that God deliberately made the Earth AND universe look ancient down to every last detail. That implies three things (well, more than two, but I consider these the most important.)

    First, that since he’s an all-knowing being, he’s lying to people on purpose in order to trap them into eternal damnation.

    Second, that people who claim that things like the rate of radioactive decay change for no explicable reason in defiance of all evidence are anti-intellectual and arrogant in their ignorance.

    Third, if the universe appears to be ancient after all possible efforts to determine its age, there is no reason to act as if it is not ancient. To argue otherwise is to claim that the Matrix should not only be considered a plausible theory, but that one should at all times hedge their bets during all thoughts and activities by assuming it is true and everyone should know about it. How can anyone not see that as fucking ridiculous?

    I know some writers in a “shared world” in which a large group of people are kidnapped and transported to an uninhabited world as an apparent sociology experiment, and their leadership spends time talking about how they, with no technology beyond the rocks, sticks and vines they can scrounge up, are going to balk their captors’ presumed efforts to monitor the abductees. The writers are completely oblivious to the concept that if the alien abductors have a technological advantage that huge and are aware that their captives are sapient, there is simply no point in looking for their version of wildlife cameras. This “God made everything look old on purpose” theory is far, far less tenable than postulating alien spy gear that might not even be on your planet or even made out of matter.

    Oh, and geological strata disprove said theory anyway. They don’t just show age, they show relative age between species. Ta da.

  • Coyotenose

    NB: You’d have to look hard around here to find someone who doesn’t know what uniformitarianism is, or that scientists don’t tend to hold to the absolutist version of it that Creationists like to describe.

  • phantomreader42

     I don’t have the link handy, but Cuttlefish on Freethought Blogs actually wrote a poem (and an easily-singable one) about the “were you there” idiocy, showing how it utterly demolishes the bible. 

  • Marco Conti

    As far as the “pharmacological fix”, do you figure a strong laxative would work? 
    I think it would help them get rid of a lot of shit. Not exactly bullshit but a close analogous.

  • JoeBuddha

    As my son would say: There were no whitnesses. I made sure of that.

  • Marco Conti

    It is a Right Wing Watch video. I never know if I should approve because it is their channel or disapprove because of what’s in the video.

  • Sven2547

    I have a rock that looks a million years old, according to every test I can perform on it.

    Explanation 1: This rock is a million years old.
    Explanation 2: This rock is 5000 years old, but it was created by an invisible almighty being who made it indistinguishable from million-year-old rock.

    One of these explanations makes sense.
    The other is complete nonsense, and you should be embarrassed for suggesting that it has any merit whatsoever.

  • JoeBuddha

    Witnesses. Whatever…

  • machintelligence

    I think this is what you are looking for:
    Don’t let the cuttlefish catch you calling them poems, though. They are just verse (poems require much more effort.)

  • Godlesspanther

    RWW posted an article about that. Does one rate the video according to the fact that RWW has exposed the crazies for what they are — a positive rating? Does one rate the video according to the message that comes from the crazy — a negative rating? 

    There is no official policy on that, we are free to interpret that whichever way we choose. 

  • phantomreader42

    No, this was the one I was thinking of, and it’s explicitly billed as a song.  

  • kaydenpat

    Ha!  Would be funny if they answered “yes”.

  • Godlesspanther

    The idea that some magical creature made the universe to appear to be much older than it actually is is based on the assumption that there is a magic book that is always right no matter what. Is there such a thing as a magic book containing absolute and indisputable truth from beginning to end, such that, the information contained with in must take precedence over all conflicting information? And that the magic book never needs to be revised to include knowledge that has been gained since its original writing? Is that possible? 

    The only way that such a possibility can be considered to to invoke a supernatural explanation. That the words in such a book were directly inspired by a magical creature that knows everything and is always right. Does such a creature exist? Is it possible? 

    Then you create a scenario in which the question has to be explained — why in the flying, singing, bouncing rat’s ass would such a creature create a universe to appear, by all testable means to be a whole lot older than it really is? What purpose could this possibly serve? 

    All the assumptions that make such an absurd claim remotely possible are, in and of themselves, impossible. 

    The answer to your question is an unequivocal NO. End of story. The verdict is in, the case is closed. 

  • Willy Occam

    Occam’s Razor.

    You’re welcome.

  • Doug

    Let’s take God out of the picture for a brief moment and return to the Mt St. Helen volcanic eruption. Newly formed igneous rocks were tested by scientists for their “age”. The test results ranged from 1000 years old to as high as 100,000 years Of course the actual age was less than a month. Your faith in the scientific method applied in this case is not s well placed. It would lead you to error not truth.

  • Doug

    You are missing the simple point by assuming God would deceive you. Look, the Christian view and that of Jesus is this… God made the universe from nothing… A void. Then He fasined a man from what was made named Adam. I know you you are not so arrogant as to believe yourself smarter than Jesus, do you?

    That being said, the moment Adam is made…picture in your mind what he looks like. Ok, does he look like a fertilized cell or a twenty something male? Though only seconds old, he appears twenty.

    That is the simple point.

    God is not trying to deceive your mind, but accommodate its limitations.

  • Doug

    Please read Mt St. Helen’s comment below. Your faith is misplaced… Or should I say overly placed on science alone.

  • Nox

    It’s always baffled me that young earth creationists have such an affinity to ‘were you there’.

    Their entire schtick is literal belief in the creation story in Genesis 1. But humans don’t really show up until around the end of that story.  So there couldn’t have been any witnesses before the 6th day.

  • Yoav

    I was there, or at least the atoms I’m currently using to make what is commonly defined as me.

  • HughInAz

    Another way to argue that you were there:

  • RobMcCune

    Adam being a adult serves a purpose, namely that adults are much more capable than a single cell. What is the purpose of filling a rock with the byproducts of uranium decay in the quantities that would be predicted if the rock were ancient?  What is the purpose of removing carbon from plants, animals and people? Why did god arrange the geology of the earth to look old?

    Doing that has no discernible impact on the way people live, other than making them believe in an old earth. If you are right then god could have created an earth looked like it came into being only a few thousand years ago based on the laws of physics and chemistry. If he wants people to believe in and worship him he could start there rather than appearing to a couple people for 30 years in an obscure corner of the globe a couple thousand years ago. He does understand the limitations of our minds, after he built the damn thing.

  • Baby_Raptor

    If god made the universe to look old because we supposedly cannot understand it having been created in 6 days by him, why does the bible specifically claim that was what happened? And why are there people who completely buy into that belief? 

    And how do you explain the other groups of people who believed other creation myths that the creation story in Genesis is ripped from?

  • Baby_Raptor

    I missed that. Thanks for enlightening me.

  • RobMcCune

    Do you have a link? I’m curious because different radiometric tests work better over different timescales. If those scientists chose a test that is used for rocks that are millions of years old then 100,000 years is not a bad margin of error, and the test is not sensitive enough to be accurate for new rocks. Just because your bathroom scale won’t accurately weigh a feather doesn’t mean you could really weigh an ounce.

  • Antinomian

    W.C. Fields was right when he said; “You can never wise up a chump”.

  • Sven2547

    Yeah I’m gonna go ahead and say [citation needed] for your comment.

    But even beyond that: science is self-correcting.  Science is a PROCESS of rigorously testing and retesting observations to gain empirical knowledge.  In stark contrast, creationism/theology is untestable.  It’s just the repetition of ancient fables, and the extrapolation of the silliness therein.

  • Antinomian

    Instead of creationist navel gazing Doug, please read C Peterson’s post above for your personalised diagnosis. You’ve shown a penchant for the use of multi-syslable words, so you may be able, with a little introspection, to see the lies you’ve been fed and fallicies you’ve come to believe by being fed the low hanging fruit of uniformartianism that anything mysterious has always been the work of a supernatural being. A little extra intellectual work on your part is worth the freedom of being able to think for yourself instead of letting your preacher(charlatan) do it for you. Either thator as I stated above W.C. Fields is right.

  • Antinomian

    Apparently, even god knows that the only way to keep a secret amongst three people is to kill the other two.

  • Godlesspanther

    Read the article from the above link. Contrary to the ideology of young earth stupidity, things can be looked up. Information can be verified. Argument from; “because I said so” is never sufficient in any case, ever. 

  • Godlesspanther

    I provided the link above. I’m sure it will come as no surprise that the claim, just like every single claim that is spouted by creationists — is absolute bullshit. 

  • Godlesspanther

    No — you have entirely missed what the simple point is and posted an absurd, convoluted, nonsensical, illogical pile of shit. 

    I will provide for you exactly what the simple point that you missed is: the book of Genesis is a collection of ancient mythologies. It is based on myths that were passed on by oral tradition and finally written down. Ancient myths do not supplant real world evidence. Ever. That is not an opinion, that is a fact. Real world evidence always, and without exception, takes precedence over idiotic superstitious bullshit. 

    Case closed. 

  • TnkAgn

    Couple of things:
    1.  Fischer and Mortenson employ one of the most easily identified logical fallacies: The argument from ignorance. They might as well posit that, as portrayed in the film PROMETHEUS, we are alien spawn. After all, who knows?2.  As to the “crime analogy” (and I will admit that both Fischer and Mortensons’ arguments amount to criminal negligence):  I wager that “circumstantial evidence” is nearly alway more reliable in court, and that more of the  incarcerated, and residents of death rows across the country owe their current housing to such evidence, rather than “eye-ball” witnesses. The massive geological and biological records are our “circumstantial evidence” in the case against Creationism.

  • Anna

    The people who wrote down the Genesis story weren’t “there” when it supposedly happened, either. Why do they get a free pass?

  • machintelligence

    Much better. I had forgotten about that one.

  • Drakk

    “I know you you are not so arrogant as to believe yourself smarter than Jesus, do you?”

    Jesus probably didn’t exist, so yes, yes I am.

  • Adam Patrick

    Because it’s the Bible, and the Bible is true. It says so right there in the Bible.

  • Coyotenose

     Hmm, interesting comic. Gonna have to give the archives a chance later.

  • midnight rambler

     Doug, you are truly deluded.  The universe was in fact created last Thursday.  It only has the appearance of age, including our imagined memories implanted by God.

  • Anna

    I’ll never understand how these people can accept such circular reasoning. I mean, I know childhood indoctrination must do a number on them, but it’s like they’re simply unable to step back and evaluate the Bible the same way they would any other book.

  • noblegiftfrommars

    To Bryan Fischer:
    We haven’t witnessed a full orbit of the dwarf planet Pluto, yet we know that it takes 246 earth years to complete.
    What’s more, define WITNESS.

  • phantomreader42

    That is an old, long-debunked creationist lie.   You are LYING.  Your cult can’t stop lying, because the truth is your mortal enemy.  Isn’t that imaginary god of yours supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness? 

  • phantomreader42

    Is there a single creationist on the planet who isn’t a pathological liar?  Your cult has made your god in your own image, so it’s no surprise that your imaginary friend lies constantly, just like you.

  • brianmacker

    Nice spin on the Obama quote,  Hemant 

    Obama wasn’t asked his opinion.  He was asked what he would or what he had already told his daughters on the subject.     He replied that he had the conversation already.   “What I’ve said to them is that I believe that …”  – Obama   That is the past tense.    So if we are to believe him then in private he is teaching his daughters creationist nonsense.  Either that or he is a liar.

    “Plus, he was probably just pandering to a religious audience, saying what they wanted to hear even if he didn’t believe it himself.”

    This was a CNN event to be consumed by their audience.   This was not some speech for a closed audience of fundamentalists.   CNN viewership is not known for being a bunch of creationists.  So this speculation by you about the nature of the audience is false.

    Do I think Obama is going to institute creationist teachings in the classroom?  No.   Do I think Romney, or Rubio would?   The answer is again no.   Reagan didn’t.  Bush I & II didn’t.     It is all hot air designed to placate a large proportion of both the Republican and Democrat base.      Although there are more such morons in the Republican base they are in significant quantities in the Democrat party too.   That’s why Obama pandered.   

    Remember that William Jennings Bryan was a member of the liberal wing of the Democrat party.  In the south there is still a very large Democrat base of baptists and the like.

    Obama definitely did the wrong thing here.   Just as bad as Rubio who also was pandering to both sides with his implication that the question was one he wasn’t qualified to answer because he wasn’t a scientist.   A pander to those in Rubio’s base who are knowledgeable about science.

    In both cases the pander was explicit in the direction of the morons with an subtle undercurrent of support for science.   The more intelligent are expected to read between the lines in both cases, as you have implied is the case only with Obama.   Nope, Rubio was also pandering in both directions.

  • brianmacker

    I don’t buy your inner narrative.  It makes no sense.
    ” [OK, that should help placate the people who think I’m a Muslim]“” [who are idiots, and won’t be voting for me anyway]”
    Why placate these two classes of people who are not going to vote for him anyway?
    “[not really]“So his inner narrative is that he knows that he is lying to the liberal CNN audience about his true position?  Why do that?”
    “[although my brain tells me it’s all just a big fairy tale.”
    What evidence do you have that Obama is a secret atheist?   How are you any better than those you criticize for thinking Obama a secret Muslim.   Why shouldn’t I take Obama at his word that he is a Christian and that he actuall believes the statement, “You know, my belief is that the story the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live, that that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true.”

  • brianmacker

    Not really.   Does it make sense to pander to a group that you think are not going to vote for you anyway?

  • brianmacker

    Don’t forget Obama.   He claimed ignorance and acted as if that made things equal between not only literal bible believers and non-literal but also scientists.  

  • brianmacker

    You are an ignoramus.   You can’t use radiological dating on newly formed rocks.   The error margins are too large.  It’s like trying to measure atomic scale distances with a tape measure.

  • brianmacker

    So Obama is easy to dismiss when he opens his mouth because he is a lair, but Rubio is an honest man?   Not exactly the way to win over supporters.

  • TnkAgn

     I have heard that, but I have yet to see the exact statements – in context.
    Perhaps you can supply me with that, or should I just go directly to Rev. Wright?

  • brianmacker

    That only works if they claim to know the actual age because they were there.

    For example, the creationist could claim that god fashioned Eve from Adams rib.  You could say, “How do you know?  Were you there?” which is a perfectly reasonable question, which requires some kind of intelligent response.    The response of the creationist of “Yes, as a matter of fact I was [in the garden of eden.] is of course unreasonable as it is supposed to be even in your example.    However, if you reasonable object that the creationist couldn’t have possibly been there [because he obviously is not old enough] then it would NOT be reasonable for him to say to you “How do you know?  Were you there?”

    I did like your comment but it doesn’t actually apply here.   Their reply would be, “No I wasn’t there but I didn’t claim to be.   I know because God was there and it is written in the bible.”   The correct answer to “How do you know [the scientific age of the Earth].  Were you there?” is to bring on the science, not to make an obviously false claim that will only get you in trouble later.

  • brianmacker

    Try it on me.   I’ll play devils advocate.   Here we go.

    “The earth is four trillion one hundred forty sevel billion years old.”

  • brianmacker

    You’d be screwed if they did because now it is just one crazy claim against another.    You are even screwed if they say “No, but I know you weren’t either, because you are too young.”   Good luck backing out of that.

  • brianmacker

    Well, because if it is true then there is no problem with the circular reasoning.    Don’t you see that? :)    Also if it is true that for true statements that circular reasoning is not a problem then any objection you may have is not a problem.   If you don’t understand that last sentence then you just aren’t sophisticated enough to discuss this.   Religion isn’t simplistic you fool.

  • brianmacker

    Implying I’m a moron?   I guess the gloves are off.  Just read the above article, moron.   Or follow through the links to Obama actually speaking the words on video.

  • brianmacker

    Your Mt. St. Helen’s comment was as ignorant as you rejection of uniformism.

    Would you find it reasonable for me to claim that,  “The bible teaches that God finds homosexuality to be the most honorable of behaviors.   Why?   Because you falsely assume that over time the meaning of the word “abomination” has remained constant.   In fact, in the past the word abomination meant the exact opposite, something to be admired and emulated.   You need to interpret the bible with its original meaning.  In fact, the words male and female had opposite meanings too.  It is actually the male that was made from a rib and tempted the female. “? 

    Uniformism can also lead to non-uniform behavior.  For example the earths rate of rotation changes over time because the laws of the universe are uniform at a more fundamental level, not at the level of preserving the rates of rotation for planetary sized bodies.   That doesn’t mean we can estimate the rate of decay for either orbits or spins due to various factors.

    The problem you have is that there are multiple methods that can be used to estimate the age of the earth and they all come out with a number way older than what the Creationists claim.     We can count sediment layers at the bottom of lakes, and ice layers in glacial sheets.   It is easy to come to counts much greater than the 6000 years (as claimed by Creationists) on processes we understand.    Assuming non-uniformity makes thinks worse for you when counting because if snow doesn’t fall one year then we are actually undercounting the age.   

    Plus all these methods agree.   If things are not uniform then how is that possible?    If radioactive decay was much faster in the past then why don’t tests on items with ages known to be very close to early biblical dates come up looking like they are tens of thousands of years older?   

    From wiki:  “Libby estimated that the steady state radioactivity concentration of exchangeable carbon-14 would be about 14 disintegrations per minute (dpm) per gram. In 1960, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for this work. He demonstrated the accuracy of radiocarbon dating by accurately estimating the age of wood from a series of samples for which the age was known, including an ancient Egyptian royal barge of 1850 BCE.[2][3]”  

    So Libby is testing an item known to be 3862 years old and came up with a dating of around 3862 years.   That’s a good two thirds of the way back to the beginning of creationist history.    If radiocarbon can date back to  26,000  years ago then a young earther claiming a change of uniformity must be claiming that carbon dating misreads 6,000 as 26,000.   So how come there is no significant error out to around two thirds of the way to 6000? The error is no more that plus or minus 16 years for historical periods.   Worse yet,,why do other methods match carbon dating out to 26,000 years?   Did everything speed up back then except for bibilcal years?   Why the exception?