I would at least ask that it not be shot down because it involves God or a religion in order to work. I don't shoot down Evolution because it doesn't involve God, I don't even shoot down the Hindu theory of creation, or any other creation theory, I respect their views and hope that everyone else respects mine.


It doesn't get shot down because it involves God. It gets shot down because there is no objective evidence to support it and quite a lot of evidence that contradicts it.

Do you know how geologists date rocks? There's a sort of hourglass in every rock made up of isotopes that decay at some rate. The decayed isotopes are like sand grains that have fallen to the lower chamber. The undecayed ones are in the upper chamber. Based on the ratio of decayed product to undecayed product - and plugging in the rate of decay, you can figure out how long the clock has been running. The exception is metamorphic rocks - rocks that have been re-formed through application of high temperature and pressure. Metamorphism tends to "reset" the clock.

So based on this we can calculate with fair precision the age of formation of many things (rocks and bones for instance). Doing a lot of dating and correlating a lot of other related evidence, we figure the earth is around 4.5 billion years old. We have a preponderance of evidence that supports this. Radio dating, the fossil record, simulation, and so forth. Its not just a theory. Its a theory with basis in observation.

As recently as the late 1700's, bibles were printed with dates in the margins going back to around 4000 BC (courtesy of Archbishop James Ussher). Analysis of the bible gives us an earth that is just a bit over 6000 years old. And that's the entire basis of the creation argument. This story in this book and this analysis by this Archbishop. I believe that the analysis is probably quite good. By all accounts he was a smart guy. Although he had a pretty low opinion of Catholics. He wrote:

The religion of the papists is superstitious and idolatrous; their faith and doctrine erroneous and heretical; their church ... apostatical; to give them therefore a toleration, or to consent that they may freely exercise their religion ... is a grievous sin.


Sound familiar? Regardless - his analysis is probably solid - which leads me to the conclusion that the story in the book itself has issues.

So its not God that hurts creationism - its geology and archaeology that pretty well clobber it as a viable explanation.