googlef87758e9b6df9bec.html A Sure Word: Talking Rocks

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Talking Rocks

I saw an interesting quote online the other day:
When the rocks say they are 4 billion years old and the Bible says they are less than 10,000 years old; who do you believe: the author of the Bible or the author of the rocks?
I thought it was odd. My family is from eastern KY and I grew up my whole life visiting the hills of Appalachia. I've literally seen mountains of rocks. In all my life, I've never heard one of them "say" anything.

When we dig up a rock, it doesn't come with a label. It doesn't tell us how old it is. What we can do is observe the rock, take measurements, and speculate about its age. For example, scientists can measure the ratio of uranium/lead in a rock. Uranium decays into lead at an observed rate. By knowing the ratio, scientists believe they can calculate how long it took for that ratio to be reached. They then say that is the age of the rock. But as the scientists are doing these tests, the rock itself says nary a word.

So scientists often wax eloquent about what the rocks tell us. But they're just dumb rocks - that is, they don't speak. So what we're really hearing is only what the scientists are telling us about the rocks. Rather than the quote above, I think it would be more accurate if a scientist said, "When I say the rocks are 4 billion years old, and the Bible says they are less than 10,000 years old, who do you believe: me or the Bible?"

I believe there is a lot of scientific evidence against evolution. But if I had to decide who to believe between the secular scientists and the Bible, then the Bible wins hands down. Call me a zealot if you wish but we have the written revelation of the One who created the rocks. I trust the clear reading of His word over what the dumb rocks say because ROCKS DON'T TALK!


NP said...

Rocks don't talk, but neither do serpents or donkeys.

Ben Donahue said...

Considering the fact that the scriptures were written entirely anonymously (not a single book has an attributable author) during the bronze age, and the fact that scientists have observable, repeatable, testable evidence to back up their claims AS YOU YOURSELF ADMITTED, I'll trust the scientist every time, hands down.

RKBentley said...


Thanks for your comments and for visiting my blog.

I'm sorry to say but your understanding of origin of the Bible seems to be largely in error. You do understand that the NT was written around 2,000 years ago? Was that the bronze age? And you might want to watch the video I posted under the title, "Agnostic Owns Atheist." There, an agnostic historian said he knows of no scholar who doubts that Paul wrote Galatians, for example. Where did you get the idea that "not a single book has an attributable author"?

Now regarding your claim that scientists have "observable, repeatable, testable evidence," I suggest you spend a little more time browsing my blog. I've addressed this many times. In this post, I did say that scientists can conduct tests on rocks and repeat the tests; however, they cannot test, observe, or repeat the MILLIONS OF YEARS! They are only observing the radioactive isotopes in the rocks. They are not observing "millions of years." The millions of years, then, is their conclusion - not the evidence.

Thanks again for visiting.

God bless!!


Todd Williams said...

It's really disturbing how many people like Ben Donahue above are led to believe assertions such as the one about Biblical authors, without any desire to scrutinize the sources. It's more likely that Ben does not WANT to believe in being accountable to a higher authority, and therefore will collect any naive notion to the contrary to bolster his justification for doing so.