Here's a great article on the affirmation of that great book, The Bible. The bible is supernatural in origin and has held up against great scrutiny in it's day. As Lee Stroble once said, and I paraphrase "the great thing about Christianity and the claims the bible makes is that we have truth on our side, lets play that card!" I hope for those who are reading this and have not trusted scripture and what it says and teaches, this will give you a whole new look at the validity and credibility of what it teaches. Personally I can say the bible has made me a better man, husband and father. It's my prayer that God will give you the hunger for his word that he has given me. I can't get enough of his book and am finding that scripture is being fulfilled when it says "I will inscribe my law upon their hearts". David said this "How can a young man keep his ways pure, by living according to your word". Enjoy the article.
A great resource I highly recommend is Lee Strobel's book "The Case For Christ" it's full of all kinds of facts about Christ, Christianity, and other various claims that scripture makes.
Is the Bible True? - A Remarkable Book
Is the Bible true? Certainly the Bible is a remarkable book -- unquestionably the world's all-time bestseller with countless millions of copies in print. A single Bible distribution organization reported delivering over 627,000,000 Bibles worldwide in one year alone (United Bible Societies, 1999). Actually, the Bible is a compilation of 66 books written by over 40 separate authors from a variety of backgrounds (from lowly peasants to noble kings) over a period of at least 1,600 years. These 66 books are divided in two principle parts, the "Old Testament" (39 books) and the "New Testament" (27 books). The Bible was completed in its entirety nearly 2,000 years ago and stands today as the best-preserved literary work of all antiquity with over 24,000 ancient New Testament manuscripts discovered thus far. Compare this with the second best-preserved literary work of antiquity, Homer's Iliad, with only 643 preserved manuscripts discovered to date.
Is the Bible True? - "…By inspiration of God"
So, is the Bible true? If the Bible is indeed what it claims to be, the implications for us are considerable. The Bible candidly claims to be "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). Of course, the Bible is not the only book to claim divine inspiration, but it is unique in that it offers substantial evidence to back its claims. It even goes so far as to challenge its readers to put it to the test, exhorting us to "Test all things" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).
Is the Bible True? - The Test of Prophecy
Is the Bible True? Unquestionably, the single greatest evidence lending to the veracity of the Bible's claims of divine inspiration is the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Consider this: if man were able to clearly and consistently foresee the future, would the billion-dollar Las Vegas gambling industry exist? We're willing to bet it wouldn't. As man by himself is unable to foresee future events, prophecy is a reasonable indicator of supernatural inspiration. The Bible purports to contain more than a thousand inspired prophecies. The vast majority of these prophecies have already come to pass and can be verified by secular history. Consider, for example, Ezekiel's prophecies concerning God's judgment against the ancient Phoenician capital of Tyre (Ezekiel, chapter 26). The prophecy states that Tyre would first be razed by Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar.
Later, it would be utterly destroyed by a coalition of nations, flattened like the top of a rock, its ruins (and even its dust) scraped and thrown into the sea, becoming a place for fishermen to spread their nets. The surrounding nations would witness Tyre's fate and surrender without a fight. It's a rather odd prophecy. Amazingly, the conditions of Ezekiel's prophecy were fulfilled, even to the tiniest detail. Nebuchadnezzar sacked Tyre. Later, Alexander the Great led a coalition of nations against Tyre, demolished it, scraped it to bedrock and threw its ruins into the sea. The ancient site became (and remains to this day) a place for local fishermen to spread their nets to dry. (For secular confirmation, see General History for Colleges and High Schools, Boston, Ginn & Co., p. 55). Prophecy is not just a phenomenon of the ancient past.
Bible prophecy is being fulfilled today before our eyes. Consider the nation of Israel. The Jews were "the least of all peoples" (Deuteronomy 7:7), without a homeland and without freedom, serving as slaves in Egypt. At the time, Egypt was the dominant world power. However, because of a promise God made to a man named Abraham, his son Isaac, and his grandson Jacob centuries earlier, God rescued the Israelites from their bondage "with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with great terribleness, and with signs, and with wonders" (Deuteronomy 26:8). God gave the Israelites a homeland of their own, made a covenant with them, and entrusted them with the Bible. Israel was a nation set apart for God -- God's testimony to a world that turned its back on the One who created them. Sadly, Israel's history, like that of the world's, was one of constant rebellion against God. Over and over, the Jewish people would rebel, suffer God's wrath, humble themselves, regret their rebellion and turn back to God, and receive God's blessing again - then start the process all over again… Finally, God sent nations upon them (like He did with ancient Tyre) and drove the Jews from their homeland. In 70 AD, Roman legions decimated Israel, dispersed the Jews throughout the world, and banned them from ever reentering their homeland. The Jews were without a homeland for 1,900 years! Nevertheless, God promised the Jews that though He would remove them from the land, they would remain an identifiable people and would return to their land again. (see, for example, Leviticus 26:13-16; Nehemiah 1:8-9; Deuteronomy 30:1-5). It is a miracle in itself that the Jews have survived and remained an identifiable people without a homeland for 1,900 years. All other nations who have ever lost their homeland became assimilated into the surrounding nations and lost their identity within a few hundred years. Yet the Jews have remained and miraculously returned to Israel as their official homeland in 1948.
Is the Bible True? - Archaeology
Is the Bible true? Not only does the Bible miraculously foretell the future, it also recounts the distant past with great accuracy. As such, archaeology has been a source of great vindication for the Bible. In Josh McDowell's classic treatise on the historical evidences supporting the Bible's veracity, renowned archaeologist Nelson Glueck is quoted as saying, "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference." (McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Here's Life Publishers Inc., 1979, p. 65.) Consider, for example, the biblical account of Israel's exodus from Egypt. Pharaoh, Egypt's monarch, chased the Israelites with an army of chariots, cornering Israel at the Gulf of Aqaba (the Red Sea). God miraculously parted the Red Sea allowing Israel to pass through over a land bridge. The Egyptians followed in close pursuit, but after the last Israelite made it across, God released the parted water and drowned the Egyptian army. Archaeologists have discovered a number of evidences vindicating the Bible's exodus account, including chariot wheels embedded in coral along the land bridge at the bottom of the Red Sea. (Exodus Revealed, video documentary by Discovery Media Productions.)
Is the Bible True? - The Authors
Is the Bible true? Consider the integrity of the Bible's authors -- men who claimed to be inspired by God. Take for example Luke, who authored approximately one-quarter of the entire New Testament. Luke is regarded as an authoritative historian -- one of the greatest of antiquity. Dr. John McRay, Professor of New Testament and Archaeology at Wheaton University in Illinois, explains, "The general consensus of both liberal and conservative scholars is that Luke is very accurate as a historian. He's erudite, he's eloquent, his Greek approaches classical quality, he writes as an educated man, and archaeological discoveries are showing over and over again that Luke is accurate in what he has to say." (John McRay, quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ, Zondervan, 1998, p. 129.) Sir William Ramsey, one of the greatest archaeologists of modern times, declared, "Luke is a historian of the first rank." (Sir William Ramsey, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 1915, p. 222.) Now, let's consider the martyrdom of many of these authors. According to sources and traditions outside the Bible, many of the Bible's writers died brutal and horrible deaths in defense of their written testimony. In fact, all but one of the New Testament's authors were executed for proclaiming and defending their testimonies (John was spared, but forced into exile by Roman Emperor Titus). Of course, martyrdom in itself is not unique -- many people throughout history have died willingly for their beliefs. What makes the New Testament authors' martyrdom special is that these men were in a position to know the truth of their written accounts. Think about it -- no one knowingly dies for a lie! For example, the September 11th suicide hijackers may have sincerely believed in what they died for, but they weren't in a position to know whether their beliefs were absolutely true. The hijackers put their faith in religious traditions passed down over many generations. In contrast, the Bible's martyrs were in a position to know the truth. They were eyewitnesses to the historical events they recorded. Either they saw what they claimed to see or they didn't -- plain and simple. Nevertheless, these men clung to their testimonies, even to their brutal deaths at the hands of their persecutors, and despite being given every chance to recant their stories. Why would so many men knowingly die for a lie? They had nothing to gain for lying… and everything to lose.
Is the Bible True? - Judge For Yourself…
Is the Bible true? For those of us who don't believe that God inspired the Bible, how do we explain it? What compelling reason do we have to reject the Bible as God's divine revelation to man? We should lay aside our philosophical disposition, examine the evidence objectively, and weigh the facts for ourselves… And then ask: Is the Bible true?
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
So What About Carbon Dating?
Often someone will come up to me and say "Well what about carbon dating?" as to say because a majority of secular scientist believe it's accurate so we must too. Well first off, the "majority" of scientist don't believe this. And secondly, if this were the case, the "majority" could be wrong" Lets not forget that when Piltdown man was discovered it was tuaght as a missing link for 40 years before it was discovered to be a hoax. The big question would be, how many people lost their faith because they thought this was a missing link and that evolution must be true, therefore showing there was no god? One can only imagine. Here's an article I have enclosed yet again from one of my favorite trusted sources Answers in Genesis. I hope it will equip many of you to defend your faith and have the answers for the hope that you believe in. Thanks be to God who has supplied all the answers we need for now, we only need to have a healthy interest in them . Enjoy
How does the carbon ‘clock’ work? Is it reliable? What does carbon dating really show? What about other radiometric dating methods? Is there evidence that the earth is young?
People who ask about carbon-14 (14C) dating usually want to know about the radiometric dating methods that are claimed to give millions and billions of years—carbon dating can only give thousands of years. People wonder how millions of years could be squeezed into the biblical account of history.
Clearly, such huge time periods cannot be fitted into the Bible without compromising what the Bible says about the goodness of God and the origin of sin, death and suffering—the reason Jesus came into the world.
Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said, ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6). This only makes sense with a time-line beginning with the creation week thousands of years ago. It makes no sense at all if man appeared at the end of billions of years.
We will deal with carbon dating first and then with the other dating methods.
How the carbon clock works
Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in ‘lead’ pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon.
Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14C. Unlike common carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes it radioactive.
Ordinary carbon (12C) is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf or a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When the 14C has been formed, like ordinary carbon (12C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (14CO2), and so it also gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.
We can take a sample of air, count how many 12C atoms there are for every 14C atom, and calculate the 14C/12C ratio. Because 14C is so well mixed up with 12C, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body.
In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a ‘clock’ which starts ticking the moment something dies.
Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.
The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the ‘half-life.’ So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.
However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.
Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s. This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.
Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the ‘clock’ is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.
Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible.
Other factors affecting carbon dating
The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth’s atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun’s activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.
The strength of the earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing, so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.
Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.
Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.
Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood. Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very discordant ‘dates’ for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.
Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism, fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.
In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.
Other radiometric dating methods
There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of millions or billions of years for rocks. These techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. For example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. These techniques are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the time since solidification.
The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:
The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
Decay rates have always been constant.
Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.
There are patterns in the isotope data
There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years. However, there are still patterns to be explained. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older ‘ages.’ Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but not by millions of years. Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating critique of radioactive dating, points out that there are other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay.
‘Bad’ dates
When a ‘date’ differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain ‘bad’ dates.
For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils. Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was ‘too old,’ according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today.
A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470. This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which, according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans ‘weren’t around then’). Various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was settled upon because of the agreement between several different published studies (although the studies involved selection of ‘good’ from ‘bad’ results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above).
However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope with a skull like 1470 being ‘that old.’ A study of pig fossils in Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull was much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Ma—again several studies ‘confirmed’ this date. Such is the dating game.
Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is not questioned—it is a ‘fact.’ So every observation must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers, who are supposedly ‘objective scientists’ in the eyes of the public, select the observations to fit the basic belief system.
We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present. A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely accurately. However, the ‘age’ is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven.
We should remember God’s admonition to Job, ‘Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?’ (Job 38:4).
Those involved with unrecorded history gather information in the present and construct stories about the past. The level of proof demanded for such stories seems to be much less than for studies in the empirical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, molecular biology, physiology, etc.
Williams, an expert in the environmental fate of radioactive elements, identified 17 flaws in the isotope dating reported in just three widely respected seminal papers that supposedly established the age of the earth at 4.6 billion years. John Woodmorappe has produced an incisive critique of these dating methods. He exposes hundreds of myths that have grown up around the techniques. He shows that the few ‘good’ dates left after the ‘bad’ dates are filtered out could easily be explained as fortunate coincidences.
What date would you like?
The forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the sample is expected to be. Why? If the techniques were absolutely objective and reliable, such information would not be necessary. Presumably, the laboratories know that anomalous dates are common, so they need some check on whether they have obtained a ‘good’ date.
Testing radiometric dating methods
If the long-age dating techniques were really objective means of finding the ages of rocks, they should work in situations where we know the age. Furthermore, different techniques should consistently agree with one another.
Methods should work reliably on things of known age
There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are wrong for rocks of known age. One example is K-Ar ‘dating’ of five historical andesite lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. Although one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the ‘dates’ range from less than 0.27 to 3.5 Ma.
Again, using hindsight, it is argued that ‘excess’ argon from the magma (molten rock) was retained in the rock when it solidified. The secular scientific literature lists many examples of excess argon causing dates of millions of years in rocks of known historical age. This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below the earth’s crust. This is consistent with a young world—the argon has had too little time to escape. If excess argon can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age?
Other techniques, such as the use of isochrons, make different assumptions about starting conditions, but there is a growing recognition that such ‘foolproof’ techniques can also give ‘bad’ dates. So data are again selected according to what the researcher already believes about the age of the rock.
Geologist Dr Steve Austin sampled basalt from the base of the Grand Canyon strata and from the lava that spilled over the edge of the canyon. By evolutionary reckoning, the latter should be a billion years younger than the basalt from the bottom. Standard laboratories analyzed the isotopes. The rubidium-strontium isochron technique suggested that the recent lava flow was 270 Ma older than the basalts beneath the Grand Canyon—an impossibility.
Different dating techniques should consistently agree
If the dating methods are an objective and reliable means of determining ages, they should agree. If a chemist were measuring the sugar content of blood, all valid methods for the determination would give the same answer (within the limits of experimental error). However, with radiometric dating, the different techniques often give quite different results.
In the study of the Grand Canyon rocks by Austin, different techniques gave different results.18 Again, all sorts of reasons can be suggested for the ‘bad’ dates, but this is again posterior reasoning. Techniques that give results that can be dismissed just because they don’t agree with what we already believe cannot be considered objective.
In Australia, some wood found in Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was ‘dated’ by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was ‘dated’ by potassium-argon method at 45 million years old!
Isotope ratios or uraninite crystals from the Koongarra uranium body in the Northern Territory of Australia gave lead-lead isochron ages of 841 Ma, plus or minus 140 Ma. This contrasts with an age of 1550-1650 Ma based on other isotope ratios, and ages of 275, 61, 0,0, and 0 Ma for thorium/lead (232Th/208Pb) ratios in five uraninite grains. The latter figures are significant because thorium-derived dates should be the more reliable, since thorium is less mobile than the uranium minerals that are the parents of the lead isotopes in lead-lead system. The ‘zero’ ages in this case are consistent with the Bible.
More evidence something is wrong—14C in fossils supposedly millions of years old
Fossils older than 100,000 years should have too little 14C to measure, but dating labs consistently find 14C, well above background levels, in fossils supposedly many millions of years old. For example, no source of coal has been found that lacks 14C, yet this fossil fuel supposedly ranges up to hundreds of millions of years old. Fossils in rocks dated at 1–500 Ma by long-age radioisotope dating methods gave an average radiocarbon ‘age’ of about 50,000 years, much less than the limits of modern carbon dating (see pp. 65–69 in The Revised and Expanded Answers Book for why even these radiocarbon ages are inflated). Furthermore, there was no pattern of younger to older in the carbon dates that correlated with the evolutionary/uniformitarian ‘ages’.
This evidence is consistent with the fossil-bearing rock layers being formed in the year-long global catastrophe of the biblical Flood, as flood geologists since Nicholas Steno (1631–1687) have recognized.
Even Precambrian (‘older than 545 Ma’) graphite, which is not of organic origin, contains 14C above background levels. This is consistent with Earth itself being only thousands of years old, as a straightforward reading of the Bible would suggest.
Many physical evidence contradict the ‘billions of years’
Of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth, 90 percent point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them follow.
Evidence for a rapid formation of geological strata, as in the biblical flood. Some of the evidence are: lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many millions of years; lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (which traverse several rock layers vertically—these could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried); thick layers of ‘rock’ bent without fracturing, indicating that the rock was all soft when bent; and more. For more, see books by geologists Morris and Austin.
Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists.
The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the Flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster.
Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. The total amount in the atmosphere is 1/2000th of that expected if the universe is really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it has not had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.
A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 1) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic Clouds. This is just what we would expect for ‘young’ galaxies that have not existed long enough for wide expansion.
The moon is slowly receding from the earth at about 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year, and this rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance from the earth. This gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual age. This is far too young for evolutionists who claim the moon is 4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks.
Salt is entering the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not be more than 62 Ma years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by the evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.
Dr Russell Humphreys gives other processes inconsistent with billions of years in the pamphlet
Evidence for a Young World.
Creationists cannot prove the age of the earth using a particular scientific method, any more than evolutionists can. They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific arguments—evolutionists have had to abandon many ‘proofs’ for evolution just as creationists have also had to modify their arguments. The atheistic evolutionist W.B. Provine admitted: ‘Most of what I learned of the field [evolutionary biology] in graduate (1964-68) school is either wrong or significantly changed.
Creationists understand the limitations of dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use processes observed in the present to ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old. In reality, all dating methods, including those that point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions.
Creationists ultimately date the earth historically using the chronology of the Bible. This is because they believe that this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which bears the evidence within it that it is the Word of God, and therefore totally reliable and error-free.
Then what do the radiometric ‘dates’ mean?
What do the radiometric dates of millions of years mean, if they are not true ages? To answer this question, it is necessary to scrutinize further the experimental results from the various dating techniques, the interpretations made on the basis of the results and the assumptions underlying those interpretations.
The isochron dating technique was thought to be infallible because it supposedly covered the assumptions about starting conditions and closed systems.
Geologist Dr Andrew Snelling worked on dating the Koongarra uranium deposits in the Northern Territory of Australia, primarily using the uranium-thorium-lead (U-Th-Pb) method. He found that even highly weathered soil samples from the area, which are definitely not closed systems, gave apparently valid ‘isochron’ lines with ‘ages’ of up to 1,445 Ma.
Such ‘false isochrons’ are so common that a whole terminology has grown up to describe them, such as apparent isochron, mantle isochron, pseudoisochron, secondary isochron, inherited isochron, erupted isochron, mixing line and mixing isochron. Zheng wrote:
Some of the basic assumptions of the conventional Rb-Sr [rubidium-strontium] isochron method have to be modified and an observed isochron does not certainly define valid age information for a geological system, even if a goodness of fit of the experimental results is obtained in plotting 87Sr/86Sr. This problem cannot be overlooked, especially in evaluating the numerical time scale. Similar questions can also arise in applying Sm-Nd [samarium-neodymium] and U-Pb [uranium-lead] isochron methods.
Clearly, there are factors other than age responsible for the straight lines obtained from graphing isotope ratios. Again, the only way to know if an isochron is ‘good’ is by comparing the result with what is already believed.
Another currently popular dating method is the uranium-lead concordia technique. This effectively combines the two uranium-lead decay series into one diagram. Results that lie on the concordia curve have the same age according to the two lead series and are called ‘concordant.’ However, the results from zircons (a type of gemstone), for example, generally lie off the concordia curve—they are discordant. Numerous models, or stories, have been developed to explain such data. However, such exercises in story-telling can hardly be considered as objective science that proves an old earth. Again, the stories are evaluated according to their own success in agreeing with the existing long ages belief system.
Andrew Snelling has suggested that fractionation (sorting) of elements in the molten state in the earth’s mantle could be a significant factor in explaining the ratios of isotope concentrations which are interpreted as ages.
As long ago as 1966, Nobel Prize nominee Melvin Cook, professor of metallurgy at the University of Utah, pointed out evidence that lead isotope ratios, for example, may involve alteration by important factors other than radioactive decay. Cook noted that, in ores from the Katanga mine, for example, there was an abundance of lead-208, a stable isotope, but no Thorium-232 as a source for lead-208. Thorium has a long half-life (decays very slowly) and is not easily moved out of the rock, so if the lead-208 came from thorium decay, some thorium should still be there. The concentrations of lead-206, lead-207, and lead-208 suggest that the lead-208 came about by neutron capture conversion of lead-206 to lead-207 to lead-208. When the isotope concentrations are adjusted for such conversions, the ages calculated are reduced from some 600 Ma to recent. Other ore bodies seemed to show similar evidence. Cook recognized that the current understanding of nuclear physics did not seem to allow for such a conversion under normal conditions, but he presents evidence that such did happen, and even suggests how it could happen.
Anomalies in deep rock crystals
Physicist Dr Robert Gentry has pointed out that the amount of helium and lead in zircons from deep bores is not consistent with an evolutionary age of 1,500 Ma for the granite rocks in which they are found. The amount of lead may be consistent with current rates of decay over millions of years, but it would have diffused out of the crystals in that time.
Furthermore, the amount of helium in zircons from hot rock is also much more consistent with a young earth (helium derives from the decay of radioactive elements).
The lead and helium results suggest that rates of radioactive decay may have been much higher in the recent past. Humphreys has suggested that this may have occurred during creation week and the flood. This would make things look much older than they really are when current rates of decay are applied to dating. Whatever caused such elevated rates of decay may also have been responsible for the lead isotope conversions claimed by Cook (above).
Orphan radiohalos
Decaying radioactive particles in solid rock cause spherical zones of damage to the surrounding crystal structure. A speck of radioactive element such as Uranium-238, for example, will leave a sphere of discoloration of characteristically different radius for each element it produces in its decay chain to lead-206. Viewed in cross-section with a microscope, these spheres appear as rings called radiohalos. Dr Gentry has researched radiohalos for many years, and published his results in leading scientific journals.
Some of the intermediate decay products—such as the polonium isotopes—have very short half-lives (they decay quickly). For example, 218Po has a half-life of just 3 minutes. Curiously, rings formed by polonium decay are often found embedded in crystals without the parent uranium halos. Now the polonium has to get into the rock before the rock solidifies, but it cannot derive a from a uranium speck in the solid rock, otherwise there would be a uranium halo. Either the polonium was created (primordial, not derived from uranium), or there have been radical changes in decay rates in the past.
Gentry has addressed all attempts to criticize his work. There have been many attempts, because the orphan halos speak of conditions in the past, either at creation or after, perhaps even during the flood, which do not fit with the uniformitarian view of the past, which is the basis of the radiometric dating systems. Whatever process was responsible for the halos could be a key also to understanding radiometric dating.
Conclusion
There are many lines of evidence that the radiometric dates are not the objective evidence for an old earth that many claim, and that the world is really only thousands of years old. We don't have all the answers, but we do have the sure testimony of the Word of God to the true history of the world.
How does the carbon ‘clock’ work? Is it reliable? What does carbon dating really show? What about other radiometric dating methods? Is there evidence that the earth is young?
People who ask about carbon-14 (14C) dating usually want to know about the radiometric dating methods that are claimed to give millions and billions of years—carbon dating can only give thousands of years. People wonder how millions of years could be squeezed into the biblical account of history.
Clearly, such huge time periods cannot be fitted into the Bible without compromising what the Bible says about the goodness of God and the origin of sin, death and suffering—the reason Jesus came into the world.
Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said, ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6). This only makes sense with a time-line beginning with the creation week thousands of years ago. It makes no sense at all if man appeared at the end of billions of years.
We will deal with carbon dating first and then with the other dating methods.
How the carbon clock works
Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in ‘lead’ pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon.
Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14C. Unlike common carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes it radioactive.
Ordinary carbon (12C) is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf or a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When the 14C has been formed, like ordinary carbon (12C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (14CO2), and so it also gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.
We can take a sample of air, count how many 12C atoms there are for every 14C atom, and calculate the 14C/12C ratio. Because 14C is so well mixed up with 12C, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body.
In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a ‘clock’ which starts ticking the moment something dies.
Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.
The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the ‘half-life.’ So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.
However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.
Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s. This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.
Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the ‘clock’ is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.
Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible.
Other factors affecting carbon dating
The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth’s atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun’s activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.
The strength of the earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing, so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.
Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.
Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.
Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood. Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very discordant ‘dates’ for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.
Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism, fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.
In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.
Other radiometric dating methods
There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of millions or billions of years for rocks. These techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. For example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. These techniques are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the time since solidification.
The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:
The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
Decay rates have always been constant.
Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.
There are patterns in the isotope data
There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years. However, there are still patterns to be explained. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older ‘ages.’ Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but not by millions of years. Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating critique of radioactive dating, points out that there are other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay.
‘Bad’ dates
When a ‘date’ differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain ‘bad’ dates.
For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils. Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was ‘too old,’ according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today.
A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470. This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which, according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans ‘weren’t around then’). Various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was settled upon because of the agreement between several different published studies (although the studies involved selection of ‘good’ from ‘bad’ results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above).
However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope with a skull like 1470 being ‘that old.’ A study of pig fossils in Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull was much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Ma—again several studies ‘confirmed’ this date. Such is the dating game.
Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is not questioned—it is a ‘fact.’ So every observation must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers, who are supposedly ‘objective scientists’ in the eyes of the public, select the observations to fit the basic belief system.
We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present. A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely accurately. However, the ‘age’ is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven.
We should remember God’s admonition to Job, ‘Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?’ (Job 38:4).
Those involved with unrecorded history gather information in the present and construct stories about the past. The level of proof demanded for such stories seems to be much less than for studies in the empirical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, molecular biology, physiology, etc.
Williams, an expert in the environmental fate of radioactive elements, identified 17 flaws in the isotope dating reported in just three widely respected seminal papers that supposedly established the age of the earth at 4.6 billion years. John Woodmorappe has produced an incisive critique of these dating methods. He exposes hundreds of myths that have grown up around the techniques. He shows that the few ‘good’ dates left after the ‘bad’ dates are filtered out could easily be explained as fortunate coincidences.
What date would you like?
The forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the sample is expected to be. Why? If the techniques were absolutely objective and reliable, such information would not be necessary. Presumably, the laboratories know that anomalous dates are common, so they need some check on whether they have obtained a ‘good’ date.
Testing radiometric dating methods
If the long-age dating techniques were really objective means of finding the ages of rocks, they should work in situations where we know the age. Furthermore, different techniques should consistently agree with one another.
Methods should work reliably on things of known age
There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are wrong for rocks of known age. One example is K-Ar ‘dating’ of five historical andesite lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. Although one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the ‘dates’ range from less than 0.27 to 3.5 Ma.
Again, using hindsight, it is argued that ‘excess’ argon from the magma (molten rock) was retained in the rock when it solidified. The secular scientific literature lists many examples of excess argon causing dates of millions of years in rocks of known historical age. This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below the earth’s crust. This is consistent with a young world—the argon has had too little time to escape. If excess argon can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age?
Other techniques, such as the use of isochrons, make different assumptions about starting conditions, but there is a growing recognition that such ‘foolproof’ techniques can also give ‘bad’ dates. So data are again selected according to what the researcher already believes about the age of the rock.
Geologist Dr Steve Austin sampled basalt from the base of the Grand Canyon strata and from the lava that spilled over the edge of the canyon. By evolutionary reckoning, the latter should be a billion years younger than the basalt from the bottom. Standard laboratories analyzed the isotopes. The rubidium-strontium isochron technique suggested that the recent lava flow was 270 Ma older than the basalts beneath the Grand Canyon—an impossibility.
Different dating techniques should consistently agree
If the dating methods are an objective and reliable means of determining ages, they should agree. If a chemist were measuring the sugar content of blood, all valid methods for the determination would give the same answer (within the limits of experimental error). However, with radiometric dating, the different techniques often give quite different results.
In the study of the Grand Canyon rocks by Austin, different techniques gave different results.18 Again, all sorts of reasons can be suggested for the ‘bad’ dates, but this is again posterior reasoning. Techniques that give results that can be dismissed just because they don’t agree with what we already believe cannot be considered objective.
In Australia, some wood found in Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was ‘dated’ by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was ‘dated’ by potassium-argon method at 45 million years old!
Isotope ratios or uraninite crystals from the Koongarra uranium body in the Northern Territory of Australia gave lead-lead isochron ages of 841 Ma, plus or minus 140 Ma. This contrasts with an age of 1550-1650 Ma based on other isotope ratios, and ages of 275, 61, 0,0, and 0 Ma for thorium/lead (232Th/208Pb) ratios in five uraninite grains. The latter figures are significant because thorium-derived dates should be the more reliable, since thorium is less mobile than the uranium minerals that are the parents of the lead isotopes in lead-lead system. The ‘zero’ ages in this case are consistent with the Bible.
More evidence something is wrong—14C in fossils supposedly millions of years old
Fossils older than 100,000 years should have too little 14C to measure, but dating labs consistently find 14C, well above background levels, in fossils supposedly many millions of years old. For example, no source of coal has been found that lacks 14C, yet this fossil fuel supposedly ranges up to hundreds of millions of years old. Fossils in rocks dated at 1–500 Ma by long-age radioisotope dating methods gave an average radiocarbon ‘age’ of about 50,000 years, much less than the limits of modern carbon dating (see pp. 65–69 in The Revised and Expanded Answers Book for why even these radiocarbon ages are inflated). Furthermore, there was no pattern of younger to older in the carbon dates that correlated with the evolutionary/uniformitarian ‘ages’.
This evidence is consistent with the fossil-bearing rock layers being formed in the year-long global catastrophe of the biblical Flood, as flood geologists since Nicholas Steno (1631–1687) have recognized.
Even Precambrian (‘older than 545 Ma’) graphite, which is not of organic origin, contains 14C above background levels. This is consistent with Earth itself being only thousands of years old, as a straightforward reading of the Bible would suggest.
Many physical evidence contradict the ‘billions of years’
Of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth, 90 percent point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them follow.
Evidence for a rapid formation of geological strata, as in the biblical flood. Some of the evidence are: lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many millions of years; lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (which traverse several rock layers vertically—these could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried); thick layers of ‘rock’ bent without fracturing, indicating that the rock was all soft when bent; and more. For more, see books by geologists Morris and Austin.
Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists.
The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the Flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster.
Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. The total amount in the atmosphere is 1/2000th of that expected if the universe is really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it has not had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.
A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 1) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic Clouds. This is just what we would expect for ‘young’ galaxies that have not existed long enough for wide expansion.
The moon is slowly receding from the earth at about 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year, and this rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance from the earth. This gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual age. This is far too young for evolutionists who claim the moon is 4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks.
Salt is entering the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not be more than 62 Ma years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by the evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.
Dr Russell Humphreys gives other processes inconsistent with billions of years in the pamphlet
Evidence for a Young World.
Creationists cannot prove the age of the earth using a particular scientific method, any more than evolutionists can. They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific arguments—evolutionists have had to abandon many ‘proofs’ for evolution just as creationists have also had to modify their arguments. The atheistic evolutionist W.B. Provine admitted: ‘Most of what I learned of the field [evolutionary biology] in graduate (1964-68) school is either wrong or significantly changed.
Creationists understand the limitations of dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use processes observed in the present to ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old. In reality, all dating methods, including those that point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions.
Creationists ultimately date the earth historically using the chronology of the Bible. This is because they believe that this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which bears the evidence within it that it is the Word of God, and therefore totally reliable and error-free.
Then what do the radiometric ‘dates’ mean?
What do the radiometric dates of millions of years mean, if they are not true ages? To answer this question, it is necessary to scrutinize further the experimental results from the various dating techniques, the interpretations made on the basis of the results and the assumptions underlying those interpretations.
The isochron dating technique was thought to be infallible because it supposedly covered the assumptions about starting conditions and closed systems.
Geologist Dr Andrew Snelling worked on dating the Koongarra uranium deposits in the Northern Territory of Australia, primarily using the uranium-thorium-lead (U-Th-Pb) method. He found that even highly weathered soil samples from the area, which are definitely not closed systems, gave apparently valid ‘isochron’ lines with ‘ages’ of up to 1,445 Ma.
Such ‘false isochrons’ are so common that a whole terminology has grown up to describe them, such as apparent isochron, mantle isochron, pseudoisochron, secondary isochron, inherited isochron, erupted isochron, mixing line and mixing isochron. Zheng wrote:
Some of the basic assumptions of the conventional Rb-Sr [rubidium-strontium] isochron method have to be modified and an observed isochron does not certainly define valid age information for a geological system, even if a goodness of fit of the experimental results is obtained in plotting 87Sr/86Sr. This problem cannot be overlooked, especially in evaluating the numerical time scale. Similar questions can also arise in applying Sm-Nd [samarium-neodymium] and U-Pb [uranium-lead] isochron methods.
Clearly, there are factors other than age responsible for the straight lines obtained from graphing isotope ratios. Again, the only way to know if an isochron is ‘good’ is by comparing the result with what is already believed.
Another currently popular dating method is the uranium-lead concordia technique. This effectively combines the two uranium-lead decay series into one diagram. Results that lie on the concordia curve have the same age according to the two lead series and are called ‘concordant.’ However, the results from zircons (a type of gemstone), for example, generally lie off the concordia curve—they are discordant. Numerous models, or stories, have been developed to explain such data. However, such exercises in story-telling can hardly be considered as objective science that proves an old earth. Again, the stories are evaluated according to their own success in agreeing with the existing long ages belief system.
Andrew Snelling has suggested that fractionation (sorting) of elements in the molten state in the earth’s mantle could be a significant factor in explaining the ratios of isotope concentrations which are interpreted as ages.
As long ago as 1966, Nobel Prize nominee Melvin Cook, professor of metallurgy at the University of Utah, pointed out evidence that lead isotope ratios, for example, may involve alteration by important factors other than radioactive decay. Cook noted that, in ores from the Katanga mine, for example, there was an abundance of lead-208, a stable isotope, but no Thorium-232 as a source for lead-208. Thorium has a long half-life (decays very slowly) and is not easily moved out of the rock, so if the lead-208 came from thorium decay, some thorium should still be there. The concentrations of lead-206, lead-207, and lead-208 suggest that the lead-208 came about by neutron capture conversion of lead-206 to lead-207 to lead-208. When the isotope concentrations are adjusted for such conversions, the ages calculated are reduced from some 600 Ma to recent. Other ore bodies seemed to show similar evidence. Cook recognized that the current understanding of nuclear physics did not seem to allow for such a conversion under normal conditions, but he presents evidence that such did happen, and even suggests how it could happen.
Anomalies in deep rock crystals
Physicist Dr Robert Gentry has pointed out that the amount of helium and lead in zircons from deep bores is not consistent with an evolutionary age of 1,500 Ma for the granite rocks in which they are found. The amount of lead may be consistent with current rates of decay over millions of years, but it would have diffused out of the crystals in that time.
Furthermore, the amount of helium in zircons from hot rock is also much more consistent with a young earth (helium derives from the decay of radioactive elements).
The lead and helium results suggest that rates of radioactive decay may have been much higher in the recent past. Humphreys has suggested that this may have occurred during creation week and the flood. This would make things look much older than they really are when current rates of decay are applied to dating. Whatever caused such elevated rates of decay may also have been responsible for the lead isotope conversions claimed by Cook (above).
Orphan radiohalos
Decaying radioactive particles in solid rock cause spherical zones of damage to the surrounding crystal structure. A speck of radioactive element such as Uranium-238, for example, will leave a sphere of discoloration of characteristically different radius for each element it produces in its decay chain to lead-206. Viewed in cross-section with a microscope, these spheres appear as rings called radiohalos. Dr Gentry has researched radiohalos for many years, and published his results in leading scientific journals.
Some of the intermediate decay products—such as the polonium isotopes—have very short half-lives (they decay quickly). For example, 218Po has a half-life of just 3 minutes. Curiously, rings formed by polonium decay are often found embedded in crystals without the parent uranium halos. Now the polonium has to get into the rock before the rock solidifies, but it cannot derive a from a uranium speck in the solid rock, otherwise there would be a uranium halo. Either the polonium was created (primordial, not derived from uranium), or there have been radical changes in decay rates in the past.
Gentry has addressed all attempts to criticize his work. There have been many attempts, because the orphan halos speak of conditions in the past, either at creation or after, perhaps even during the flood, which do not fit with the uniformitarian view of the past, which is the basis of the radiometric dating systems. Whatever process was responsible for the halos could be a key also to understanding radiometric dating.
Conclusion
There are many lines of evidence that the radiometric dates are not the objective evidence for an old earth that many claim, and that the world is really only thousands of years old. We don't have all the answers, but we do have the sure testimony of the Word of God to the true history of the world.
Dinosaurs And The Bible
An aura of mystery surrounds the dinosaurs. Where did they come from? Did they evolve? Did they really live millions of years ago? What happened to them? Are there any living today? Has any human being ever seen a live dinosaur?
Children and adults alike are absolutely fascinated by these mysterious monsters. Numerous books and movies have been produced to satisfy a seemingly insatiable hunger for information on these puzzling creatures. The truth of the matter, however, is that there are no real mysteries at all, once you have key information that is not generally known and is withheld from the public.
Come with me as we take a walk through history and uncover some amazing facts that will answer many of your questions about these ‘terrible lizards.’
Did Dinosaurs Really Exist?
Dinosaurs certainly did roam the Earth in the ancient past! Fossils of dinosaurs have been found all over the world, and their bones are displayed in museums for all to see. Scientists have been able to reconstruct many of their skeletons, so we know much about how they may have looked.
When Were Dinosaurs Found?
The story of their discovery began back in the 1820s, when Gideon Mantell, an English doctor, found some unusual teeth and bones in a quarry. Dr Mantell realized there was something very different about these animal remains, and believed that he had found an entirely new group of reptiles. By 1841, about nine types of these different reptiles had been uncovered, including two called Megalosaurus and Iguanodon.
At this time, a famous British scientist (and creationist), Dr Richard Owen, coined the name ‘Dinosauria,’ meaning ‘terrible lizard,’ for this is what the huge bones made him think of.
What Makes Dinosaurs Different?
Other than the huge size of some dinosaurs, the major feature that really distinguishes dinosaurs from other reptiles (such as crocodiles) is the position of their limbs. Dinosaurs had posture that was fully erect, similar to that in mammals. Most other reptiles have limbs in a sprawling position. For instance, compare the way a crocodile ‘walks’ with that of, say, a cow. Dinosaurs would have moved like a cow, with the limbs supporting the body from beneath. Crocodiles ‘waddle,’ as their limbs project sideways from their body.
How Big Were Dinosaurs?
Some were as small as chickens, and others were even smaller. Of course, some dinosaurs were very large, weighing in at an estimated 80 tons and standing 40 feet high! The average size of a dinosaur, however, was probably about that of a small horse.
When Did Dinosaurs Live?
The story we have all heard from movies, television, newspapers, and most magazines and textbooks is that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. According to evolutionists, the dinosaurs ‘ruled the Earth’ for 140 million years, dying out about 65 million years ago. However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (i.e., their bones), and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are. The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists’ story about the past. No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist observed dinosaurs die. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view.
Other scientists, called creation scientists, have a different idea about when dinosaurs lived. They believe they can solve any of the supposed dinosaur mysteries and show how the evidence fits wonderfully with their ideas about the past, beliefs that come from the Bible.
The Bible, God’s very special book (or collection of books, really), claims that each writer was supernaturally inspired to write exactly what the Creator of all things wanted him to write down for us so that we can know where we (and dinosaurs) came from, why we are here, and what our future will be. The first book in the Bible—Genesis—teaches us many things about how the universe and life came into existence. Genesis tells us that God created everything—the Earth, stars, sun, moon, plants, animals, and the first two people.
Although the Bible does not tell us exactly how long ago it was that God made the world and its creatures, we can make a good estimate of the date of creation by reading through the Bible and noting some interesting passages:
God made everything in six days. He did this, by the way, to set a pattern for mankind, which has become our seven day week (as described in Exodus 20:11). God worked for six days and rested for one, as a model for us. Furthermore, Bible scholars will tell you that the Hebrew word for day used in Genesis 1, can only mean an ordinary day in this context.
We are told God created the first man and woman—Adam and Eve—on Day Six. Many facts about when their children and their children’s children were born are given in Genesis. These genealogies are recorded throughout the Old Testament, up until the time of Christ. They certainly were not chronologies lasting millions of years.
As you add up all of the dates, and accepting that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth almost 2000 years ago, we come to the conclusion that the creation of the Earth and animals (including the dinosaurs) occurred only thousands of years ago (perhaps only 6000!), not millions of years. Thus, if the Bible is right (and it is!), dinosaurs must have lived within the past thousands of years.
Where Did Dinosaurs Come From?
Evolutionists claim that dinosaurs evolved over millions of years. They imagine that one kind of animal slowly changed over long periods of time to become a different kind of animal. For instance, they believe that amphibians changed into reptiles (including dinosaurs) by this gradual process. This would mean, of course, that there would have been millions of creatures during that time that would be ‘in between,’ as amphibians evolved into reptiles. Evidence of these ‘transitional forms,’ as they are called, should be abundant. However, many fossil experts admit that not one unquestionable transitional form between any group of creatures and another has been found anywhere. If dinosaurs evolved from amphibians, there should be, for example, fossil evidence of animals that are part dinosaur and part something else. However, there is no proof of this anywhere. In fact, if you go into any museum you will see fossils of dinosaurs that are 100% dinosaur, not something in between. There are no 25%, 50%, 75%, or even 99% dinosaurs—they are all 100% dinosaur!
The Bible tells us that God created all of the land animals on the sixth day of creation. As dinosaurs were land animals, they must have been made on this day, alongside Adam and Eve, who were also created on Day Six (Genesis 1:24-31). If God designed and created dinosaurs, they would have been fully functional, designed to do what they were created for, and would have been 100% dinosaur. This fits exactly with the evidence from the fossil record.
Evolutionists declare that no man ever lived alongside dinosaurs. The Bible, however, makes it plain that dinosaurs and people must have lived together. Actually, as we will soon see, there is a lot of evidence for this.
What Did Dinosaurs Eat?
The Bible teaches (in Genesis 1:29-30) that the original animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian. There were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there was no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and animals (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only plants.
Sadly, it did not stay this way for very long. Adam rebelled against his Creator, bringing sin into the world (Genesis 3:1-7; Romans 5:12). Because of this rebellion, Adam, and thus all of his descendants (you and me), gave up the right to live with a Holy (sinless) and just God. God therefore judged sin with death.
The Bible plainly teaches from Genesis to Revelation that there was no death of animals or humans before Adam sinned. (Consider just a few of the many passages, such as: Romans 5:12; Genesis 2:17; Genesis 1:29-30; Romans 8:20-22; Acts 3:21; Hebrews 9:22; I Corinthians 15; Revelation 21:1-4; Revelation 22:3.) This means there could not have been any animal fossils (and no dinosaur bones) before sin.
After Adam’s sin, animals and people started to die. It was now a different world, one of death and strife. A world that was once beautiful now suffered under the curse placed upon it by the Creator (Genesis 3:14-19). But a promise was given (Genesis 3:15) that God would provide a way for the penalty of sin to be paid so there would be a way for man to come back to God.
Why Do We Find Dinosaur Fossils?
In Genesis 6, we read that all flesh (man and animals) had ‘corrupted his way upon the Earth’ (Genesis 6:12). Perhaps people and animals were killing each other; maybe dinosaurs had started killing other animals and humans. In any case, the Bible describes the world as ‘wicked.’
Because of this wickedness, God warned a godly man named Noah that He was going to destroy the world with a Flood (Genesis 6:13). God therefore commanded him to build a great ship (the Ark) so that all the kinds of land animals (which must have included dinosaurs) and Noah’s family could survive on board while the Flood destroyed the entire Earth (Genesis 6:14-20).
Some people think that dinosaurs were too big, or there were too many of them, to go on this Ark. However, there were not very many different kinds of dinosaurs. There are certainly hundreds of dinosaur names, but many of these were given to just a bit of bone or skeletons of the same dinosaur found in other countries. It is also reasonable to assume that different sizes, varieties, and sexes of the same kind of dinosaur have ended up with different names. For example, look at the many different varieties and sizes of dogs, but they are all the same kind-the dog kind! In reality, there may have been fewer than 50 kinds of dinosaurs.
God sent two of every (seven of some) land animal into the Ark (Genesis 7:2-3; 7:8-9)—there were no exceptions. Therefore, dinosaurs must have been on the Ark. Even though there was ample room in the huge ship for large animals, perhaps God sent young adults into the Ark that still had plenty of room for them to grow.
Well, what happened to all the land animals that did not go on the Ark? Very simply, they drowned. Many would have been covered with tons of mud as the rampaging water covered the land (Genesis 7:11-12,19). Because of this quick burial, many of the animals would have been preserved as fossils. If this happened, you would expect to find evidence of billions of dead things buried in rock layers (formed from this mud) all over the Earth. This is exactly what you do find.
By the way, the Flood of Noah’s day probably occurred just over 4,500 years ago. Creationists believe that this event formed many of the fossil layers around the Earth. (Additional fossil layers were formed by other floods as the Earth settled down after the great Flood.) Thus, the dinosaur fossils which were formed as a result of this Flood were probably formed about 4,500 years ago, not millions of years ago.
Have Dinosaurs Lived in Recent Times?
If the different kinds of dinosaurs survived the Flood, then they must have come off the Ark and lived in the post-Flood world.
In the Bible, in Job 40:15-24, God describes to Job (who lived after the Flood) a great beast with which Job was familiar. This great animal, called ‘behemoth,’ is described as ‘the chief of the ways of God,’ perhaps the biggest land animal God had created. Impressively, he moved his tail like a cedar tree! Although some Bible commentaries say this may have been an elephant or hippopotamus, the description actually fits that of a dinosaur like Brachiosaurus. Elephants and hippos certainly do not have tails like cedar trees!
Actually, very few animals are singled out in the Bible for such a detailed description. Contrary to what many may think, what we know now as dinosaurs get more mention in the Scriptures than most animals! So dinosaurs—all the different kinds—must have lived alongside of people after the Flood.
Are Dinosaurs Mentioned in Ancient Literature?
Interestingly, the word ‘dragon’ is used a number of times in the Old Testament. In most instances, the word dinosaur could substitute for dragon and it would fit very nicely. Creation scientists believe that dinosaurs were called dragons before the word dinosaur was invented in the 1800s. We would not expect to find the word dinosaur in Bibles like the Authorized Version (1611), as it was translated well before the word dinosaur was ever used.
Also, there are many very old history books in various libraries around the world that have detailed records of dragons and their encounters with people. Surprisingly (or not so surprisingly for creationists), many of these descriptions of dragons fit with how modern scientists would describe dinosaurs, even Tyrannosaurus. Unfortunately, this evidence is not considered valid by evolutionists. Why? Only because their belief is that man and dinosaurs did not live at the same time!
However, the more we research the historical literature, the more we realize there is overwhelming evidence that dragons were real beasts, much like our modern reconstructions of dinosaurs, and that their existence has been recorded by many different people, even just hundreds of years ago.
What Happened to Dinosaurs?
Evolutionists use their imagination in a big way in answering this question. Because of their belief that dinosaurs ‘ruled’ the world for millions of years, and then disappeared millions of years before man allegedly evolved, they have had to come up with all sorts of guesses to explain this ‘mysterious’ disappearance.
When reading evolutionist literature, you will be astonished at the range of ideas concerning their supposed extinction. The following is just a small list of theories:
Dinosaurs starved to death; they died from overeating; they were poisoned; they became blind from cataracts and could not reproduce; mammals ate their eggs. Other causes include-volcanic dust, poisonous gases, comets, sunspots, meteorites, mass suicide, constipation, parasites, shrinking brain (and greater stupidity), slipped discs, changes in the composition of air, etc.
It is obvious that evolutionists don’t know what happened and are grasping at straws. In a recent evolutionary book on dinosaurs, ‘A New Look At the Dinosaurs,’ the author made the statement:
‘Now comes the important question. What caused all these extinctions at one particular point in time, approximately 65 million years ago? Dozens of reasons have been suggested, some serious and sensible, others quite crazy, and yet others merely as a joke. Every year people come up with new theories on this thorny problem. The trouble is that if we are to find just one reason to account for them all, it would have to explain the death, all at the same time, of animals living on land and of animals living in the sea; but, in both cases, of only some of those animals, for many of the land dwellers and many of the sea-dwellers went on living quite happily into the following period. Alas, no such one explanation exists’ (Alan Charig, p. 150).
But, one such explanation does exist. If you remove the evolutionary framework, get rid of the millions of years, and then take the Bible seriously, you will find an explanation that fits the facts and makes perfect sense:
At the time of the Flood, many of the sea creatures died, but some survived. In addition, all of the land creatures outside the Ark died, but the representatives of all the kinds that survived on the Ark lived in the new world after the Flood. Those land animals (including dinosaurs) found the new world to be much different than the one before the Flood. Due to (1) competition for food that was no longer in abundance, (2) other catastrophes, (3) man killing for food (and perhaps for fun), and (4) the destruction of habitats, etc., many species of animals eventually died out. The group of animals we now call dinosaurs just happened to die out too. In fact, quite a number of animals become extinct each year. Extinction seems to be the rule in Earth history (not the formation of new types of animals as you would expect from evolution).
Will We Ever See a Live Dinosaur?
The answer is probably not … but, then again? There are some scientists who believe a few dinosaurs may have survived in remote jungles. We are still discovering new species of animals and plants today in areas that have been too difficult to explore until now. Even natives in some countries describe beasts that fit with what might be a dinosaur.
Creationists, of course, would not be surprised if someone found a living dinosaur. However, evolutionists would then have to explain why they made dogmatic statements that man and dinosaur never lived at the same time. I suspect they would say something to the effect that this dinosaur somehow survived because it was trapped in a remote area that has not changed for millions of years. You see, no matter what is found, or how embarrassing it is to evolutionists’ ideas, they will always be able to concoct an ‘answer’ because evolution is a belief. It is not science—it is not fact!
What Lessons Can We Learn From the Dinosaur?
When we see the bones of dinosaurs, we can be reminded that death was not a part of the original creation. Death is actually an intruder, entering when the first man disobeyed God. The Bible tells us that because we are all descendants of Adam, we too have sinned: ‘Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned’ (Romans 5:12); ‘For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God’ (Romans 3:23). We need to recognize that the wickedness in the world is because of sin, because man rebelled against God.
We can also be reminded that God, who made all things, including the dinosaurs, is also a judge of His creation. He judged Adam’s rebellion by cursing the world with death. Adam was warned about what would happen if he disobeyed God’s instruction not to eat the fruit of one particular tree. ‘But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die’ (Genesis 2:17).
Dinosaurs can also remind us that God judged the rebellion in Noah’s day by destroying the wicked world with water, resulting in the death of millions of creatures. The Bible teaches us that He will again judge the world, but next time by fire: ‘But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the Earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up’ (2 Peter 3:10).
We can also be reminded that after this judgment by fire, God will make a new heaven and Earth: ‘Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new Earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness’ (2 Peter 3:13). And what will it be like in this new Earth? ‘And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away’ (Revelation 21:4).
But we are also warned that many will not be allowed into this new Earth but will suffer for eternity: ‘But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death’ (Revelation 21:8).
Humans, who are all sinful from conception (Psalm 51:5), cannot live with a Holy God, but are condemned to separation from God. But, God provided a wonderful means of deliverance from sin. The Bible teaches that God offered the perfect sacrifice needed to pay the penalty for man’s sin. God’s own Son, the one who in fact created the world (Colossians 1:16), came to Earth as a man, as a descendant of Adam, to suffer the death penalty for sin. ‘But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive’ (I Corinthians 15:20-22).
The Lord Jesus Christ died on a cross, but on the third day, rose again, conquering death, so that anyone who believes in Him and accepts Him into his or her life, is able to come back to God and live for eternity with the Creator. ‘For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life’ (John 3:16); ‘If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness’ (I John 1:9).
For those who do not accept by faith what Christ has done for them and do not recognize their sinful nature and need for redemption, the Bible warns that such people will live forever, but will be separated from God in a place of torment that the Bible calls Hell. But for those who commit their lives to the Lord—what a wonderful message! What a wonderful Savior! What a wonderful salvation in Christ the Creator!
If you, the reader of this web page, want to know more about how you can spend eternity with the God of creation, please click here.
- Dr. Ken Ham
Children and adults alike are absolutely fascinated by these mysterious monsters. Numerous books and movies have been produced to satisfy a seemingly insatiable hunger for information on these puzzling creatures. The truth of the matter, however, is that there are no real mysteries at all, once you have key information that is not generally known and is withheld from the public.
Come with me as we take a walk through history and uncover some amazing facts that will answer many of your questions about these ‘terrible lizards.’
Did Dinosaurs Really Exist?
Dinosaurs certainly did roam the Earth in the ancient past! Fossils of dinosaurs have been found all over the world, and their bones are displayed in museums for all to see. Scientists have been able to reconstruct many of their skeletons, so we know much about how they may have looked.
When Were Dinosaurs Found?
The story of their discovery began back in the 1820s, when Gideon Mantell, an English doctor, found some unusual teeth and bones in a quarry. Dr Mantell realized there was something very different about these animal remains, and believed that he had found an entirely new group of reptiles. By 1841, about nine types of these different reptiles had been uncovered, including two called Megalosaurus and Iguanodon.
At this time, a famous British scientist (and creationist), Dr Richard Owen, coined the name ‘Dinosauria,’ meaning ‘terrible lizard,’ for this is what the huge bones made him think of.
What Makes Dinosaurs Different?
Other than the huge size of some dinosaurs, the major feature that really distinguishes dinosaurs from other reptiles (such as crocodiles) is the position of their limbs. Dinosaurs had posture that was fully erect, similar to that in mammals. Most other reptiles have limbs in a sprawling position. For instance, compare the way a crocodile ‘walks’ with that of, say, a cow. Dinosaurs would have moved like a cow, with the limbs supporting the body from beneath. Crocodiles ‘waddle,’ as their limbs project sideways from their body.
How Big Were Dinosaurs?
Some were as small as chickens, and others were even smaller. Of course, some dinosaurs were very large, weighing in at an estimated 80 tons and standing 40 feet high! The average size of a dinosaur, however, was probably about that of a small horse.
When Did Dinosaurs Live?
The story we have all heard from movies, television, newspapers, and most magazines and textbooks is that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. According to evolutionists, the dinosaurs ‘ruled the Earth’ for 140 million years, dying out about 65 million years ago. However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (i.e., their bones), and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are. The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists’ story about the past. No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist observed dinosaurs die. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view.
Other scientists, called creation scientists, have a different idea about when dinosaurs lived. They believe they can solve any of the supposed dinosaur mysteries and show how the evidence fits wonderfully with their ideas about the past, beliefs that come from the Bible.
The Bible, God’s very special book (or collection of books, really), claims that each writer was supernaturally inspired to write exactly what the Creator of all things wanted him to write down for us so that we can know where we (and dinosaurs) came from, why we are here, and what our future will be. The first book in the Bible—Genesis—teaches us many things about how the universe and life came into existence. Genesis tells us that God created everything—the Earth, stars, sun, moon, plants, animals, and the first two people.
Although the Bible does not tell us exactly how long ago it was that God made the world and its creatures, we can make a good estimate of the date of creation by reading through the Bible and noting some interesting passages:
God made everything in six days. He did this, by the way, to set a pattern for mankind, which has become our seven day week (as described in Exodus 20:11). God worked for six days and rested for one, as a model for us. Furthermore, Bible scholars will tell you that the Hebrew word for day used in Genesis 1, can only mean an ordinary day in this context.
We are told God created the first man and woman—Adam and Eve—on Day Six. Many facts about when their children and their children’s children were born are given in Genesis. These genealogies are recorded throughout the Old Testament, up until the time of Christ. They certainly were not chronologies lasting millions of years.
As you add up all of the dates, and accepting that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth almost 2000 years ago, we come to the conclusion that the creation of the Earth and animals (including the dinosaurs) occurred only thousands of years ago (perhaps only 6000!), not millions of years. Thus, if the Bible is right (and it is!), dinosaurs must have lived within the past thousands of years.
Where Did Dinosaurs Come From?
Evolutionists claim that dinosaurs evolved over millions of years. They imagine that one kind of animal slowly changed over long periods of time to become a different kind of animal. For instance, they believe that amphibians changed into reptiles (including dinosaurs) by this gradual process. This would mean, of course, that there would have been millions of creatures during that time that would be ‘in between,’ as amphibians evolved into reptiles. Evidence of these ‘transitional forms,’ as they are called, should be abundant. However, many fossil experts admit that not one unquestionable transitional form between any group of creatures and another has been found anywhere. If dinosaurs evolved from amphibians, there should be, for example, fossil evidence of animals that are part dinosaur and part something else. However, there is no proof of this anywhere. In fact, if you go into any museum you will see fossils of dinosaurs that are 100% dinosaur, not something in between. There are no 25%, 50%, 75%, or even 99% dinosaurs—they are all 100% dinosaur!
The Bible tells us that God created all of the land animals on the sixth day of creation. As dinosaurs were land animals, they must have been made on this day, alongside Adam and Eve, who were also created on Day Six (Genesis 1:24-31). If God designed and created dinosaurs, they would have been fully functional, designed to do what they were created for, and would have been 100% dinosaur. This fits exactly with the evidence from the fossil record.
Evolutionists declare that no man ever lived alongside dinosaurs. The Bible, however, makes it plain that dinosaurs and people must have lived together. Actually, as we will soon see, there is a lot of evidence for this.
What Did Dinosaurs Eat?
The Bible teaches (in Genesis 1:29-30) that the original animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian. There were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there was no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and animals (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only plants.
Sadly, it did not stay this way for very long. Adam rebelled against his Creator, bringing sin into the world (Genesis 3:1-7; Romans 5:12). Because of this rebellion, Adam, and thus all of his descendants (you and me), gave up the right to live with a Holy (sinless) and just God. God therefore judged sin with death.
The Bible plainly teaches from Genesis to Revelation that there was no death of animals or humans before Adam sinned. (Consider just a few of the many passages, such as: Romans 5:12; Genesis 2:17; Genesis 1:29-30; Romans 8:20-22; Acts 3:21; Hebrews 9:22; I Corinthians 15; Revelation 21:1-4; Revelation 22:3.) This means there could not have been any animal fossils (and no dinosaur bones) before sin.
After Adam’s sin, animals and people started to die. It was now a different world, one of death and strife. A world that was once beautiful now suffered under the curse placed upon it by the Creator (Genesis 3:14-19). But a promise was given (Genesis 3:15) that God would provide a way for the penalty of sin to be paid so there would be a way for man to come back to God.
Why Do We Find Dinosaur Fossils?
In Genesis 6, we read that all flesh (man and animals) had ‘corrupted his way upon the Earth’ (Genesis 6:12). Perhaps people and animals were killing each other; maybe dinosaurs had started killing other animals and humans. In any case, the Bible describes the world as ‘wicked.’
Because of this wickedness, God warned a godly man named Noah that He was going to destroy the world with a Flood (Genesis 6:13). God therefore commanded him to build a great ship (the Ark) so that all the kinds of land animals (which must have included dinosaurs) and Noah’s family could survive on board while the Flood destroyed the entire Earth (Genesis 6:14-20).
Some people think that dinosaurs were too big, or there were too many of them, to go on this Ark. However, there were not very many different kinds of dinosaurs. There are certainly hundreds of dinosaur names, but many of these were given to just a bit of bone or skeletons of the same dinosaur found in other countries. It is also reasonable to assume that different sizes, varieties, and sexes of the same kind of dinosaur have ended up with different names. For example, look at the many different varieties and sizes of dogs, but they are all the same kind-the dog kind! In reality, there may have been fewer than 50 kinds of dinosaurs.
God sent two of every (seven of some) land animal into the Ark (Genesis 7:2-3; 7:8-9)—there were no exceptions. Therefore, dinosaurs must have been on the Ark. Even though there was ample room in the huge ship for large animals, perhaps God sent young adults into the Ark that still had plenty of room for them to grow.
Well, what happened to all the land animals that did not go on the Ark? Very simply, they drowned. Many would have been covered with tons of mud as the rampaging water covered the land (Genesis 7:11-12,19). Because of this quick burial, many of the animals would have been preserved as fossils. If this happened, you would expect to find evidence of billions of dead things buried in rock layers (formed from this mud) all over the Earth. This is exactly what you do find.
By the way, the Flood of Noah’s day probably occurred just over 4,500 years ago. Creationists believe that this event formed many of the fossil layers around the Earth. (Additional fossil layers were formed by other floods as the Earth settled down after the great Flood.) Thus, the dinosaur fossils which were formed as a result of this Flood were probably formed about 4,500 years ago, not millions of years ago.
Have Dinosaurs Lived in Recent Times?
If the different kinds of dinosaurs survived the Flood, then they must have come off the Ark and lived in the post-Flood world.
In the Bible, in Job 40:15-24, God describes to Job (who lived after the Flood) a great beast with which Job was familiar. This great animal, called ‘behemoth,’ is described as ‘the chief of the ways of God,’ perhaps the biggest land animal God had created. Impressively, he moved his tail like a cedar tree! Although some Bible commentaries say this may have been an elephant or hippopotamus, the description actually fits that of a dinosaur like Brachiosaurus. Elephants and hippos certainly do not have tails like cedar trees!
Actually, very few animals are singled out in the Bible for such a detailed description. Contrary to what many may think, what we know now as dinosaurs get more mention in the Scriptures than most animals! So dinosaurs—all the different kinds—must have lived alongside of people after the Flood.
Are Dinosaurs Mentioned in Ancient Literature?
Interestingly, the word ‘dragon’ is used a number of times in the Old Testament. In most instances, the word dinosaur could substitute for dragon and it would fit very nicely. Creation scientists believe that dinosaurs were called dragons before the word dinosaur was invented in the 1800s. We would not expect to find the word dinosaur in Bibles like the Authorized Version (1611), as it was translated well before the word dinosaur was ever used.
Also, there are many very old history books in various libraries around the world that have detailed records of dragons and their encounters with people. Surprisingly (or not so surprisingly for creationists), many of these descriptions of dragons fit with how modern scientists would describe dinosaurs, even Tyrannosaurus. Unfortunately, this evidence is not considered valid by evolutionists. Why? Only because their belief is that man and dinosaurs did not live at the same time!
However, the more we research the historical literature, the more we realize there is overwhelming evidence that dragons were real beasts, much like our modern reconstructions of dinosaurs, and that their existence has been recorded by many different people, even just hundreds of years ago.
What Happened to Dinosaurs?
Evolutionists use their imagination in a big way in answering this question. Because of their belief that dinosaurs ‘ruled’ the world for millions of years, and then disappeared millions of years before man allegedly evolved, they have had to come up with all sorts of guesses to explain this ‘mysterious’ disappearance.
When reading evolutionist literature, you will be astonished at the range of ideas concerning their supposed extinction. The following is just a small list of theories:
Dinosaurs starved to death; they died from overeating; they were poisoned; they became blind from cataracts and could not reproduce; mammals ate their eggs. Other causes include-volcanic dust, poisonous gases, comets, sunspots, meteorites, mass suicide, constipation, parasites, shrinking brain (and greater stupidity), slipped discs, changes in the composition of air, etc.
It is obvious that evolutionists don’t know what happened and are grasping at straws. In a recent evolutionary book on dinosaurs, ‘A New Look At the Dinosaurs,’ the author made the statement:
‘Now comes the important question. What caused all these extinctions at one particular point in time, approximately 65 million years ago? Dozens of reasons have been suggested, some serious and sensible, others quite crazy, and yet others merely as a joke. Every year people come up with new theories on this thorny problem. The trouble is that if we are to find just one reason to account for them all, it would have to explain the death, all at the same time, of animals living on land and of animals living in the sea; but, in both cases, of only some of those animals, for many of the land dwellers and many of the sea-dwellers went on living quite happily into the following period. Alas, no such one explanation exists’ (Alan Charig, p. 150).
But, one such explanation does exist. If you remove the evolutionary framework, get rid of the millions of years, and then take the Bible seriously, you will find an explanation that fits the facts and makes perfect sense:
At the time of the Flood, many of the sea creatures died, but some survived. In addition, all of the land creatures outside the Ark died, but the representatives of all the kinds that survived on the Ark lived in the new world after the Flood. Those land animals (including dinosaurs) found the new world to be much different than the one before the Flood. Due to (1) competition for food that was no longer in abundance, (2) other catastrophes, (3) man killing for food (and perhaps for fun), and (4) the destruction of habitats, etc., many species of animals eventually died out. The group of animals we now call dinosaurs just happened to die out too. In fact, quite a number of animals become extinct each year. Extinction seems to be the rule in Earth history (not the formation of new types of animals as you would expect from evolution).
Will We Ever See a Live Dinosaur?
The answer is probably not … but, then again? There are some scientists who believe a few dinosaurs may have survived in remote jungles. We are still discovering new species of animals and plants today in areas that have been too difficult to explore until now. Even natives in some countries describe beasts that fit with what might be a dinosaur.
Creationists, of course, would not be surprised if someone found a living dinosaur. However, evolutionists would then have to explain why they made dogmatic statements that man and dinosaur never lived at the same time. I suspect they would say something to the effect that this dinosaur somehow survived because it was trapped in a remote area that has not changed for millions of years. You see, no matter what is found, or how embarrassing it is to evolutionists’ ideas, they will always be able to concoct an ‘answer’ because evolution is a belief. It is not science—it is not fact!
What Lessons Can We Learn From the Dinosaur?
When we see the bones of dinosaurs, we can be reminded that death was not a part of the original creation. Death is actually an intruder, entering when the first man disobeyed God. The Bible tells us that because we are all descendants of Adam, we too have sinned: ‘Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned’ (Romans 5:12); ‘For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God’ (Romans 3:23). We need to recognize that the wickedness in the world is because of sin, because man rebelled against God.
We can also be reminded that God, who made all things, including the dinosaurs, is also a judge of His creation. He judged Adam’s rebellion by cursing the world with death. Adam was warned about what would happen if he disobeyed God’s instruction not to eat the fruit of one particular tree. ‘But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die’ (Genesis 2:17).
Dinosaurs can also remind us that God judged the rebellion in Noah’s day by destroying the wicked world with water, resulting in the death of millions of creatures. The Bible teaches us that He will again judge the world, but next time by fire: ‘But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the Earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up’ (2 Peter 3:10).
We can also be reminded that after this judgment by fire, God will make a new heaven and Earth: ‘Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new Earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness’ (2 Peter 3:13). And what will it be like in this new Earth? ‘And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away’ (Revelation 21:4).
But we are also warned that many will not be allowed into this new Earth but will suffer for eternity: ‘But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death’ (Revelation 21:8).
Humans, who are all sinful from conception (Psalm 51:5), cannot live with a Holy God, but are condemned to separation from God. But, God provided a wonderful means of deliverance from sin. The Bible teaches that God offered the perfect sacrifice needed to pay the penalty for man’s sin. God’s own Son, the one who in fact created the world (Colossians 1:16), came to Earth as a man, as a descendant of Adam, to suffer the death penalty for sin. ‘But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive’ (I Corinthians 15:20-22).
The Lord Jesus Christ died on a cross, but on the third day, rose again, conquering death, so that anyone who believes in Him and accepts Him into his or her life, is able to come back to God and live for eternity with the Creator. ‘For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life’ (John 3:16); ‘If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness’ (I John 1:9).
For those who do not accept by faith what Christ has done for them and do not recognize their sinful nature and need for redemption, the Bible warns that such people will live forever, but will be separated from God in a place of torment that the Bible calls Hell. But for those who commit their lives to the Lord—what a wonderful message! What a wonderful Savior! What a wonderful salvation in Christ the Creator!
If you, the reader of this web page, want to know more about how you can spend eternity with the God of creation, please click here.
- Dr. Ken Ham
Hasn't Evolution Been Proven True?
I read an excellent article on AiG's site that i would like to share with everyone. I hope it will be a useful tool as it was for me to defend your faith and keep you informed. Enjoy and as always comments are welcome
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/hasnt-evolution-been-proven
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/hasnt-evolution-been-proven
Friday, December 28, 2007
Did Dinosaurs and Man Live At The Same Time?
One of my favorite things to read about in all the creation vs evolutionism books and debates I follow is the intriguing subject of Dinosaurs. Did dinosaurs and man coexist? Or are they 65 million years older than us? I must admit, growing up I too believed Dino's were millions of years old simply because this is what was taught to me in school. Our culture has been so branded on the fact that Dino's are millions of years old that no one even bothers to dare question it. My own wife looked at me funny when I told her that they were not that old and there may even be some smaller dinosaurs in remote parts of the world (this comes from dino and dragon legends all over the world) I find it astonishing that in text books you will read that this is fact and at the same time you hear nothing about geological finds which disprove this fairy tale of millions of years old. Did you know that there is much evidence that Dino's are not millions of years old? Did you know that we find human foot prints in the same layer beds as dinosaurs? Did you know we have found dinosaur bones that have not been fossilized and still have red blood cells present? Did you know that there are drawings of dinosaurs by people in caves and on stones long before we even discovered Dino bones? And there pictures were extremely accurate. This can only be possible if they have actually saw them with their own eyes. And how about Bishop Bell’s brass behemoths? A tomb of Bishop Richard Bell in the 1400's in which the brass had Dinosaurs engraved on it;
"Bishop Bell’s tomb shows the clear signs of heavy wear and tear after several centuries of shuffling feet. Skeletons of dinosaurs have been accurately reconstructed only in the last 100 years or so. Prior to this, scientists classifying these reptiles incorrectly pieced together their bones making the first artistic representations wildly inaccurate. It seems highly improbable that an artist in the 15th century accurately portrayed a creature which he had never seen. Rather, it is more likely that these renditions were all creatures which had been observed. Clearly, the only reason modern researchers would fail to identify them as dinosaurs is their antibiblical bias that humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist." - AiG
Why are these facts and finds not making it into secular science books? I would like to suggest the reason is because if such finds are published, what will this say about most secular scientist today? Most likely it will say that they were wrong and therefore their data cannot be trusted. I have wanted to do a post on Dinosaurs for a while but couldn't find the time. In a future post I will do a more in dept study on the topic. I have a lot of great info and resources for everyone looking to defend their faith in this area. Did you know the scriptures talk about Dinosaurs? They are God's creation also and the Lord mentions them in his word. I would also like, in a future blog to go more in depth on the various dating methods and why often dinosaurs are dated so old? These dates are based largely on many assumptions and in conjunction with the Geologic column, which doesn't exist and was made by man. Why is it that when a dinosaur bone is brought for dating the scientist dating them asks "what is it?" When people have mentioned "this is a dinosaur bone" they automatically say they can't use a certain method to date it because it's too old. They are making a major assumption right off the bat. In contrast, when someone has brought in a dinosaur bone and has not revealed what the bone is or where it is from the date often comes out to be thousands of years old not millions. In addition, why has various animal parts submitted for carbon dating and other methods come with one part of the animal extremely older than another part? Or why is it that live shells come out to be 26,000 years old? It's because Carbon dating is inaccurate. But we will get into that in another posting. For now I want to share with you a good site which shows the various trails in which Dino tracks and human tracks are found together. I would like to hear the evolutionists explain this away! This proves that Dinosaurs are not millions of years. The site is a little bland and cheesy but the info is accurate and one of the sites in which I could find a variety of data I was looking for all in one place. There are hundreds of sites from creationist and millions of books to read on the subjects. Science and the Bible are not in conflict folks, but rather they compliment each other.
Ken Ham - Dinosaurs in the Bible
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1424792103455692481&q=ken+ham&total=159&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
Evidence that Dinosaurs and Humans co-existed
This is a great site - I urge you to explore it. There are also Dinosaur art in which people drew long before we discovered dinosaurs even existed.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm
"Bishop Bell’s tomb shows the clear signs of heavy wear and tear after several centuries of shuffling feet. Skeletons of dinosaurs have been accurately reconstructed only in the last 100 years or so. Prior to this, scientists classifying these reptiles incorrectly pieced together their bones making the first artistic representations wildly inaccurate. It seems highly improbable that an artist in the 15th century accurately portrayed a creature which he had never seen. Rather, it is more likely that these renditions were all creatures which had been observed. Clearly, the only reason modern researchers would fail to identify them as dinosaurs is their antibiblical bias that humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist." - AiG
Why are these facts and finds not making it into secular science books? I would like to suggest the reason is because if such finds are published, what will this say about most secular scientist today? Most likely it will say that they were wrong and therefore their data cannot be trusted. I have wanted to do a post on Dinosaurs for a while but couldn't find the time. In a future post I will do a more in dept study on the topic. I have a lot of great info and resources for everyone looking to defend their faith in this area. Did you know the scriptures talk about Dinosaurs? They are God's creation also and the Lord mentions them in his word. I would also like, in a future blog to go more in depth on the various dating methods and why often dinosaurs are dated so old? These dates are based largely on many assumptions and in conjunction with the Geologic column, which doesn't exist and was made by man. Why is it that when a dinosaur bone is brought for dating the scientist dating them asks "what is it?" When people have mentioned "this is a dinosaur bone" they automatically say they can't use a certain method to date it because it's too old. They are making a major assumption right off the bat. In contrast, when someone has brought in a dinosaur bone and has not revealed what the bone is or where it is from the date often comes out to be thousands of years old not millions. In addition, why has various animal parts submitted for carbon dating and other methods come with one part of the animal extremely older than another part? Or why is it that live shells come out to be 26,000 years old? It's because Carbon dating is inaccurate. But we will get into that in another posting. For now I want to share with you a good site which shows the various trails in which Dino tracks and human tracks are found together. I would like to hear the evolutionists explain this away! This proves that Dinosaurs are not millions of years. The site is a little bland and cheesy but the info is accurate and one of the sites in which I could find a variety of data I was looking for all in one place. There are hundreds of sites from creationist and millions of books to read on the subjects. Science and the Bible are not in conflict folks, but rather they compliment each other.
Ken Ham - Dinosaurs in the Bible
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1424792103455692481&q=ken+ham&total=159&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
Evidence that Dinosaurs and Humans co-existed
This is a great site - I urge you to explore it. There are also Dinosaur art in which people drew long before we discovered dinosaurs even existed.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm
Sir Isaac Newton
This is excellent! You think this would knock a little sense or at least be food for thought to the Atheist? Not to be mean, but as scriptures says "The fool in his heart says there is no God" This is but one example (the argument in the story below) which could be used to show proof of a creator. You would never look at a painting and say that there was no painter. You would never look at a building and say there is no builder would you? I could argue "but you have never seen the painter or builder have you? Would you then change your mind? No, you would still conclude that there was a builder and painter because the painting and the building is proof that they exist. It is no different with our extremely complex universe. There are millions of man made things on this planet, some we know how they were made and other's we don't. Yet we marvel at how complex, organized and designed they are. We Look at things like the Taj Mahal or Stonehedge to give a couple of examples. If this is what mere man could do, how much more can God do? Remember that our world is spinning at about 65,000 mph in it's proper orbit and on it's designed axis. Do you really think there isn't someone sustaining just these few components of many in which keep human life alive and possible? What about the oxygen content in the atmosphere, the "just so right" distance of the sun etc.... God is omniscient and he loves human kind, we are made in his image. We are his favorite, if you will. And he makes sure that our planet does what it's supposed to do each and every day. Enjoy the story, I think it's brilliant.
Sir Isaac Newton is considered one of the two greatest scientists of the last 500 years. He clearly saw the implications of celestial mechanics and the intricately designed wonders in the sky.
“One day, as Newton sat reading in his study with his mechanism on a large table near him, a friend, who saw things differently than he did, stepped in. Scientist that he was, he recognized at a glance what was before him. Stepping up to it, he slowly turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched the heavenly bodies all move in their relative speed in their orbits.
“Standing off a few feet he exclaimed, ‘My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?’ Without looking up from his book, Newton answered, ‘Nobody.’
“Quickly turning to Newton, his friend said, ‘Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this?’ Looking up now, Newton solemnly assured him that nobody made it, but that the apparatus had just happened to assume the form it was in.
“The astonished man replied with some heat, ‘You must think I am a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I’d like to know who he is!’
“Laying his book aside, Newton arose and said, ‘This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system, whose laws you know,—and here I am not able to convince you that this mere toy before you is without a designer and maker!
” ‘Yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken, with its more massive and complicated orbital motions, has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such a conclusion?’ “—The Minnesota Technolog, October 1957.
Sir Isaac Newton is considered one of the two greatest scientists of the last 500 years. He clearly saw the implications of celestial mechanics and the intricately designed wonders in the sky.
“One day, as Newton sat reading in his study with his mechanism on a large table near him, a friend, who saw things differently than he did, stepped in. Scientist that he was, he recognized at a glance what was before him. Stepping up to it, he slowly turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched the heavenly bodies all move in their relative speed in their orbits.
“Standing off a few feet he exclaimed, ‘My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?’ Without looking up from his book, Newton answered, ‘Nobody.’
“Quickly turning to Newton, his friend said, ‘Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this?’ Looking up now, Newton solemnly assured him that nobody made it, but that the apparatus had just happened to assume the form it was in.
“The astonished man replied with some heat, ‘You must think I am a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I’d like to know who he is!’
“Laying his book aside, Newton arose and said, ‘This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system, whose laws you know,—and here I am not able to convince you that this mere toy before you is without a designer and maker!
” ‘Yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken, with its more massive and complicated orbital motions, has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such a conclusion?’ “—The Minnesota Technolog, October 1957.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Creation vs Evolutionism
During my study this week I came across some really good videos on God Tube. I just wanted to share them with some of you. They are all very short videos. I think it's very important to constantly stay in the word of God in order to "give an answer for the hope that we have" (1st Peter 3:15) when someone tries to challenge your faith. Paul said in Acts 17:11 "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." We must test everything against the word of God. The Lord gave us this wonderful gauge in which we can use to seek out his will and filter out that which tries to cause doubt in our hearts. The word of God can be trusted whole heartily. It is an accurate account and description from the One who was there when it happened, because He did it!
I have recently had the opportunity to speak to a couple of guys at my new job about creation and evolution. I was just sitting and minding my own business when the guy next to me starting talking about church and other events. Some how I think he sensed that I was a "religious person" if I may use that term. So he asked me what religion I was and where did I go to church? We spoke for a while and the Lord opened up a great door for me to share and witness to him. I started sharing my testimony with him. Though when he found out my family and I gave 10% tithes not including offerings to our church from each of our pays his eyes opened wide with extreme surprise. He, like most people who don't know the Lord couldn't understand why we would give our hard earned money away to the church.
I began to tell him God blesses us and has met every single one of our needs. I explained how when my daughter was in the hospital and we needed money for food, gas, tolls, parking etc.. I told him of how God provided through people in our church who began sticking envelopes of money in our pockets, not to mention the countless family members who were there for us. I told him we give God 10% but it's all his to start with. He then blesses the 90% and provides all of our needs. This new job is just one of many ways God has provided for us. It opened a few more doors for me to speak to him and then, of coarse, the next question came; "So what do you think about evolution?" I promise you I did not provoke this conversation, the Lord just opened the way and we had an ok discussion as I brought some major flaws up in the evolutionary theory. He seemed hesitant and pretty much dismissed everything I said because of what he was taught in Catholic school. (the catholic church taught him that God used evolution) Another employee then came over and joined the argument, he is actually a friend of mine. He was sort of on the fence but leaned more towards evolution. However, when I asked him for the evidence he had to support evolution he quickly brought up something he was taught in college (Peppered Moths) I was actually shocked that he would bring up this weak old disproved theory. This only showed me that 1. he was teaching something he was taught and most likely did not look into the supporting evidence of this claim. And 2. I couldn't believe he payed a university all that money that in turn taught him a direct lie. Since science is to be observable, demonstrable and repeatable I told him that evolution was none of these things. I could tell he wasn't quite prepared for this argument. Well, long story short, I didn't want to neglect my new job so I didn't prolong the conversation much, I just answered some of there questions. In addition one of my pet peeves I must admit, is when someone asks you a question but does not allow you to finish your sentence. So I tend not to argue much with others when it's like that. It only proves to be frustrating and you don't want to witness to others in frustration but rather in love and with grace so to win them over when combined with how you act. Though I have been guilty of the latter. Anyway, I hope you will all enjoy these and that they will help prepare you when your asked and challenged on your faith, and as always comments are welcome.
Accuracy In Prophecy Of Scripture
(I listen to Pastor Greg Laurie's Podcast also, I would highly recomend it)
Scientific Foreknowledge In The Bible
Someone Is Trying To Make A Monkey Out Of You
The Wood Pecker - Something Evolution Could Not Produce
Four Crisis Evolution Faces
How Old Is The Earth?
A Little Humor For You
Summary
I have also enclosed a great article called "Does God Exist?" in the chance that someone out there is reading this but just isn't sure if there really is a God. I would say, please consider all that you have come across on these blogs and take them in with an open mind. One thing for sure is this: On judgment day man will not be able to stand in front of an Almighty God and tell him "I didn't know God" Jesus has left ample evidence of his existence and surely his word which allows us to dive into the mind of God. Therefore, scripture is right in Romans 1:20 when it says "we will be without excuse"
Does God exist? Is there proof of God? The following offers candid, straight-forward reasons to believe in the existence of God...
Just once wouldn't you love for someone to simply show you the evidence for God's existence? No arm-twisting. No statements of, "You just have to believe." Well, here is an attempt to candidly offer some of the reasons which suggest that God exists.
But first consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.
When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God.1 On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you."2 Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him? Here then, are some reasons to consider...
1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:
The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.
And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4
Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:
It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.
Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5
Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.
Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.
Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.
Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.6
2. Does God exist? The human brain's complexity shows a higher intelligence behind it.
The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.
The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. A brain that deals with more than a million pieces of information every second, while evaluating its importance and allowing you to act on the most pertinent information... did it come about just by chance? Was it merely biological causes, perfectly forming the right tissue, blood flow, neurons, structure? The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people. How does one explain the human brain?
3. Does God exist? "Chance" or "natural causes" are insufficient explanations.
The alternative to God existing is that all that exists around us came about by natural cause and random chance. If someone is rolling dice, the odds of rolling a pair of sixes is one thing. But the odds of spots appearing on blank dice is something else. What Pasteur attempted to prove centuries ago, science confirms, that life cannot arise from non-life. Where did human, animal, plant life come from?
Also, natural causes are an inadequate explanation for the amount of precise information contained in human DNA. A person who discounts God is left with the conclusion that all of this came about without cause, without design, and is merely good fortune. It is intellectually wanting to observe intricate design and attribute it to luck.
4. Does God exist? To state with certainty that there is no God, a person has to ignore the passion of an enormously vast number of people who are convinced that there is a God.
This is not to say that if enough people believe something it is therefore true. Scientists, for example, have discovered new truths about the universe which overruled previous conclusions. But as science has progressed, no scientific discovery has countered the numerical likelihood of an intelligent mind being behind it all. In fact, the more science discovers about human life and the universe, the more complex and precisely designed we realize these to be. Rather than pointing away from God, evidence mounts further toward an intelligent source. But objective evidence is not all.
There is a much larger issue. Throughout history, billions of people in the world have attested to their firm, core convictions about God's existence--arrived at from their subjective, personal relationship with God. Millions today could give detailed account of their experience with God. They would point to answered prayer and specific, amazing ways God has met their needs, and guided them through important personal decisions. They would offer, not only a description of their beliefs, but detailed reports of God's actions in their lives. Many are sure that a loving God exists and has shown himself to be faithful to them. If you are a skeptic, can you say with certainty: "I am absolutely right and they all are wrong about God"?
5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.
I was an atheist at one time. And like most atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people...to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life.
I didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.
I am not the only one who has experienced this. Malcolm Muggeridge, socialist and philosophical author, wrote, "I had a notion that somehow, besides questing, I was being pursued." C.S. Lewis said he remembered, "...night after night, feeling whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all of England."
Lewis went on to write a book titled, "Surprised by Joy" as a result of knowing God. I too had no expectations other than rightfully admitting God's existence. Yet over the following several months, I became amazed by his love for me.
6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God pursuing us.
Why Jesus? Look throughout the major world religions and you'll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others. He said God exists and you're looking at him. Though he talked about his Father in heaven, it was not from the position of separation, but of very close union, unique to all humankind. Jesus said that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father, anyone who believed in him, believed in the Father.
He said, "I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."8 He claimed attributes belonging only to God: to be able to forgive people of their sin, free them from habits of sin, give people a more abundant life and give them eternal life in heaven. Unlike other teachers who focused people on their words, Jesus pointed people to himself. He did not say, "follow my words and you will find truth." He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me."9
What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can't do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people...blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects...created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature...walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I'm telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you're seeing.10
Jesus Christ showed God to be gentle, loving, aware of our self-centeredness and shortcomings, yet deeply wanting a relationship with us. Jesus revealed that although God views us as sinners, worthy of his punishment, his love for us ruled and God came up with a different plan. God himself took on the form of man and accepted the punishment for our sin on our behalf. Sounds ludicrous? Perhaps, but many loving fathers would gladly trade places with their child in a cancer ward if they could. The Bible says that the reason we would love God is because he first loved us.
Jesus died in our place so we could be forgiven. Of all the religions known to humanity, only through Jesus will you see God reaching toward humanity, providing a way for us to have a relationship with him. Jesus proves a divine heart of love, meeting our needs, drawing us to himself. Because of Jesus' death and resurrection, he offers us a new life today. We can be forgiven, fully accepted by God and genuinely loved by God. He says, "I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you."11 This is God, in action.
Does God exist? If you want to know, investigate Jesus Christ. We're told that "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."12
God does not force us to believe in him, though he could. Instead, he has provided sufficient proof of his existence for us to willingly respond to him. The earth's perfect distance from the sun, the unique chemical properties of water, the human brain, DNA, the number of people who attest to knowing God, the gnawing in our hearts and minds to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known through Jesus Christ. If you need to know more about Jesus and reasons to believe in him, please see: Beyond Blind Faith.
If you want to begin a relationship with God now, you can.
This is your decision, no coercion here. But if you want to be forgiven by God and come into a relationship with him, you can do so right now by asking him to forgive you and come into your life. Jesus said, "Behold, I stand at the door [of your heart] and knock. He who hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him [or her]."13 If you want to do this, but aren't sure how to put it into words, this may help: "Jesus, thank you for dying for my sins. You know my life and that I need to be forgiven. I ask you to forgive me right now and come into my life. I want to know you in a real way. Come into my life now. Thank you that you wanted a relationship with me. Amen."
God views your relationship with him as permanent. Referring to all those who believe in him, Jesus Christ said of us, "I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand."14
So, does God exist? Looking at all these facts, one can conclude that a loving God does exist and can be known in an intimate, personal way. If you need more information about Jesus' claim to divinity, or about God's existence, or if you have similar important questions, please email us.
- Marilyn Adamson
I have recently had the opportunity to speak to a couple of guys at my new job about creation and evolution. I was just sitting and minding my own business when the guy next to me starting talking about church and other events. Some how I think he sensed that I was a "religious person" if I may use that term. So he asked me what religion I was and where did I go to church? We spoke for a while and the Lord opened up a great door for me to share and witness to him. I started sharing my testimony with him. Though when he found out my family and I gave 10% tithes not including offerings to our church from each of our pays his eyes opened wide with extreme surprise. He, like most people who don't know the Lord couldn't understand why we would give our hard earned money away to the church.
I began to tell him God blesses us and has met every single one of our needs. I explained how when my daughter was in the hospital and we needed money for food, gas, tolls, parking etc.. I told him of how God provided through people in our church who began sticking envelopes of money in our pockets, not to mention the countless family members who were there for us. I told him we give God 10% but it's all his to start with. He then blesses the 90% and provides all of our needs. This new job is just one of many ways God has provided for us. It opened a few more doors for me to speak to him and then, of coarse, the next question came; "So what do you think about evolution?" I promise you I did not provoke this conversation, the Lord just opened the way and we had an ok discussion as I brought some major flaws up in the evolutionary theory. He seemed hesitant and pretty much dismissed everything I said because of what he was taught in Catholic school. (the catholic church taught him that God used evolution) Another employee then came over and joined the argument, he is actually a friend of mine. He was sort of on the fence but leaned more towards evolution. However, when I asked him for the evidence he had to support evolution he quickly brought up something he was taught in college (Peppered Moths) I was actually shocked that he would bring up this weak old disproved theory. This only showed me that 1. he was teaching something he was taught and most likely did not look into the supporting evidence of this claim. And 2. I couldn't believe he payed a university all that money that in turn taught him a direct lie. Since science is to be observable, demonstrable and repeatable I told him that evolution was none of these things. I could tell he wasn't quite prepared for this argument. Well, long story short, I didn't want to neglect my new job so I didn't prolong the conversation much, I just answered some of there questions. In addition one of my pet peeves I must admit, is when someone asks you a question but does not allow you to finish your sentence. So I tend not to argue much with others when it's like that. It only proves to be frustrating and you don't want to witness to others in frustration but rather in love and with grace so to win them over when combined with how you act. Though I have been guilty of the latter. Anyway, I hope you will all enjoy these and that they will help prepare you when your asked and challenged on your faith, and as always comments are welcome.
Accuracy In Prophecy Of Scripture
(I listen to Pastor Greg Laurie's Podcast also, I would highly recomend it)
Scientific Foreknowledge In The Bible
Someone Is Trying To Make A Monkey Out Of You
The Wood Pecker - Something Evolution Could Not Produce
Four Crisis Evolution Faces
How Old Is The Earth?
A Little Humor For You
Summary
I have also enclosed a great article called "Does God Exist?" in the chance that someone out there is reading this but just isn't sure if there really is a God. I would say, please consider all that you have come across on these blogs and take them in with an open mind. One thing for sure is this: On judgment day man will not be able to stand in front of an Almighty God and tell him "I didn't know God" Jesus has left ample evidence of his existence and surely his word which allows us to dive into the mind of God. Therefore, scripture is right in Romans 1:20 when it says "we will be without excuse"
Does God exist? Is there proof of God? The following offers candid, straight-forward reasons to believe in the existence of God...
Just once wouldn't you love for someone to simply show you the evidence for God's existence? No arm-twisting. No statements of, "You just have to believe." Well, here is an attempt to candidly offer some of the reasons which suggest that God exists.
But first consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.
When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God.1 On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you."2 Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him? Here then, are some reasons to consider...
1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:
The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.
And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4
Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:
It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.
Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5
Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.
Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.
Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.
Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.6
2. Does God exist? The human brain's complexity shows a higher intelligence behind it.
The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.
The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. A brain that deals with more than a million pieces of information every second, while evaluating its importance and allowing you to act on the most pertinent information... did it come about just by chance? Was it merely biological causes, perfectly forming the right tissue, blood flow, neurons, structure? The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people. How does one explain the human brain?
3. Does God exist? "Chance" or "natural causes" are insufficient explanations.
The alternative to God existing is that all that exists around us came about by natural cause and random chance. If someone is rolling dice, the odds of rolling a pair of sixes is one thing. But the odds of spots appearing on blank dice is something else. What Pasteur attempted to prove centuries ago, science confirms, that life cannot arise from non-life. Where did human, animal, plant life come from?
Also, natural causes are an inadequate explanation for the amount of precise information contained in human DNA. A person who discounts God is left with the conclusion that all of this came about without cause, without design, and is merely good fortune. It is intellectually wanting to observe intricate design and attribute it to luck.
4. Does God exist? To state with certainty that there is no God, a person has to ignore the passion of an enormously vast number of people who are convinced that there is a God.
This is not to say that if enough people believe something it is therefore true. Scientists, for example, have discovered new truths about the universe which overruled previous conclusions. But as science has progressed, no scientific discovery has countered the numerical likelihood of an intelligent mind being behind it all. In fact, the more science discovers about human life and the universe, the more complex and precisely designed we realize these to be. Rather than pointing away from God, evidence mounts further toward an intelligent source. But objective evidence is not all.
There is a much larger issue. Throughout history, billions of people in the world have attested to their firm, core convictions about God's existence--arrived at from their subjective, personal relationship with God. Millions today could give detailed account of their experience with God. They would point to answered prayer and specific, amazing ways God has met their needs, and guided them through important personal decisions. They would offer, not only a description of their beliefs, but detailed reports of God's actions in their lives. Many are sure that a loving God exists and has shown himself to be faithful to them. If you are a skeptic, can you say with certainty: "I am absolutely right and they all are wrong about God"?
5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.
I was an atheist at one time. And like most atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people...to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life.
I didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.
I am not the only one who has experienced this. Malcolm Muggeridge, socialist and philosophical author, wrote, "I had a notion that somehow, besides questing, I was being pursued." C.S. Lewis said he remembered, "...night after night, feeling whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all of England."
Lewis went on to write a book titled, "Surprised by Joy" as a result of knowing God. I too had no expectations other than rightfully admitting God's existence. Yet over the following several months, I became amazed by his love for me.
6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God pursuing us.
Why Jesus? Look throughout the major world religions and you'll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others. He said God exists and you're looking at him. Though he talked about his Father in heaven, it was not from the position of separation, but of very close union, unique to all humankind. Jesus said that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father, anyone who believed in him, believed in the Father.
He said, "I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."8 He claimed attributes belonging only to God: to be able to forgive people of their sin, free them from habits of sin, give people a more abundant life and give them eternal life in heaven. Unlike other teachers who focused people on their words, Jesus pointed people to himself. He did not say, "follow my words and you will find truth." He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me."9
What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can't do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people...blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects...created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature...walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I'm telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you're seeing.10
Jesus Christ showed God to be gentle, loving, aware of our self-centeredness and shortcomings, yet deeply wanting a relationship with us. Jesus revealed that although God views us as sinners, worthy of his punishment, his love for us ruled and God came up with a different plan. God himself took on the form of man and accepted the punishment for our sin on our behalf. Sounds ludicrous? Perhaps, but many loving fathers would gladly trade places with their child in a cancer ward if they could. The Bible says that the reason we would love God is because he first loved us.
Jesus died in our place so we could be forgiven. Of all the religions known to humanity, only through Jesus will you see God reaching toward humanity, providing a way for us to have a relationship with him. Jesus proves a divine heart of love, meeting our needs, drawing us to himself. Because of Jesus' death and resurrection, he offers us a new life today. We can be forgiven, fully accepted by God and genuinely loved by God. He says, "I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you."11 This is God, in action.
Does God exist? If you want to know, investigate Jesus Christ. We're told that "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."12
God does not force us to believe in him, though he could. Instead, he has provided sufficient proof of his existence for us to willingly respond to him. The earth's perfect distance from the sun, the unique chemical properties of water, the human brain, DNA, the number of people who attest to knowing God, the gnawing in our hearts and minds to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known through Jesus Christ. If you need to know more about Jesus and reasons to believe in him, please see: Beyond Blind Faith.
If you want to begin a relationship with God now, you can.
This is your decision, no coercion here. But if you want to be forgiven by God and come into a relationship with him, you can do so right now by asking him to forgive you and come into your life. Jesus said, "Behold, I stand at the door [of your heart] and knock. He who hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him [or her]."13 If you want to do this, but aren't sure how to put it into words, this may help: "Jesus, thank you for dying for my sins. You know my life and that I need to be forgiven. I ask you to forgive me right now and come into my life. I want to know you in a real way. Come into my life now. Thank you that you wanted a relationship with me. Amen."
God views your relationship with him as permanent. Referring to all those who believe in him, Jesus Christ said of us, "I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand."14
So, does God exist? Looking at all these facts, one can conclude that a loving God does exist and can be known in an intimate, personal way. If you need more information about Jesus' claim to divinity, or about God's existence, or if you have similar important questions, please email us.
- Marilyn Adamson
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Dinosaur Mummy Another Flood Artifact?
As a young boy, Tyler Lyson grew up with a playground that scientists could only dream of – his backyard contained a treasure of dinosaur bones. And in 1999 at the age of just seventeen, he stumbled upon an extremely rare find while out searching for bones on his family’s North Dakota farm. What he accidentally discovered is a piece of history, a mummified dinosaur, which he fittingly named Dakota.
Lyson actually unearthed a hadrosaur - and one of only six mummified dinosaurs ever found. But the finding is even more remarkable because it is the remains of an entire dinosaur – skin and bones, petrified into stone. Evolutionary philosophy dates Dakota to nearly sixty-seven million years.
But are sixty-seven million years really necessary? Paleontologists studying Dakota say this rare preservation of skin and mummification means that the creature had to be buried very rapidly, in flash flood conditions, to petrify in this way. The common-sense, biblical worldview would agree. Not millions of years, though; but yet another result of the Flood in the days of Noah just 4,400 years ago.
If the Flood happened as the Bible says, we should see many leftover artifacts. Rock layers, Grand Canyon, the formation of oil, and even these petrified dinosaur bones are more evidence that God’s Word is scientifically accurate. For more on proving the harmony of science and the Bible, view our newest resource, Is the Bible Scientifically Accurate?
The Golden Compass
After months of controversy, the fantasy film The Golden Compass finally opens this weekend. Some fans of Philip Pullman’s books have been tying themselves in knots over this. They have expressed their hope that the film will keep Pullman’s original anti-God message. But at the same time they were declaring that Christians were being ridiculous for saying that there was any anti-God message at all!
So now for the $64,000 question: Is the movie openly anti-religious?
Hanna Rosin wrote in the Atlantic Monthly that New Line Cinema has “stripped out [Pullman’s] theology and replaced it with some vague derivative of the Force.” In a sense, that is true. New Line, as Rosin recounts, has been keeping a “nervous” eye on the bottom line, knowing that blatant atheism in the movie would hurt sales. Besides, if the film would have delved fully into all of the complexities of the books’ belief system, it would have come to a screeching halt.
In short, Pullman’s anti-God, anti-religion message has been toned down a little in the movie. But it is still there.
The main villain in the movie is a mysterious organization called the Magisterium—a word that will be familiar to Catholics. The organization’s headquarters bears a remarkable similarity to famous religious landmarks, and some of their buildings have pictures of saints on them. Their goal, we are told by various characters, is to “tell people what to do” and to put an end to “free will.” The Magisterium tries to force obedience and stifle thought. And it goes to violent lengths to try to prevent children from reaching puberty and having what Nicole Kidman’s character euphemistically calls “nasty thoughts and unhappy feelings.”
The somewhat simplistic message that emerges is, “Question authority.” But as the Ignatius Press blog points out, it comes across more like “Question authority. Just not our authority.” That is, we are supposed to accept the film’s assertions about what religion is like as, well, the gospel.
But it is just a story, isn’t it? Of course, it is. But as Philip Pullman himself once wrote, “‘Thou shalt not’ might reach the head, but it takes ‘Once upon a time’ to reach the heart.” That is exactly the point made in the new book The Pied Piper of Atheism, which draws the connection between Pullman’s fantasy tales and the legendary figure who stole children away by playing music that appealed to their emotions.
No matter what the filmmakers meant to do, Pullman certainly intended to capture children’s hearts and plant the seed of doubt there. And the film, watered-down as it may be, cannot help but reflect that—as will future films, for in the second and third books in Pullman’s trilogy, the hatred of God is expressed much more clearly and strongly than in the first. (Despite the film’s PG-13 rating for violence, which is justified, parents took younger children to the preview screenings, and more children will undoubtedly be going when the film officially opens.)
In fact, Christian parents are already being bashed by some for not wanting to take their kids to hear this anti-God message. To those parents I say, good for you. Keep questioning the culture’s authority.
Listen to the Audio Podcast:
http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=7292
For further information and reading:
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/the_golden_compass_movie.html
So now for the $64,000 question: Is the movie openly anti-religious?
Hanna Rosin wrote in the Atlantic Monthly that New Line Cinema has “stripped out [Pullman’s] theology and replaced it with some vague derivative of the Force.” In a sense, that is true. New Line, as Rosin recounts, has been keeping a “nervous” eye on the bottom line, knowing that blatant atheism in the movie would hurt sales. Besides, if the film would have delved fully into all of the complexities of the books’ belief system, it would have come to a screeching halt.
In short, Pullman’s anti-God, anti-religion message has been toned down a little in the movie. But it is still there.
The main villain in the movie is a mysterious organization called the Magisterium—a word that will be familiar to Catholics. The organization’s headquarters bears a remarkable similarity to famous religious landmarks, and some of their buildings have pictures of saints on them. Their goal, we are told by various characters, is to “tell people what to do” and to put an end to “free will.” The Magisterium tries to force obedience and stifle thought. And it goes to violent lengths to try to prevent children from reaching puberty and having what Nicole Kidman’s character euphemistically calls “nasty thoughts and unhappy feelings.”
The somewhat simplistic message that emerges is, “Question authority.” But as the Ignatius Press blog points out, it comes across more like “Question authority. Just not our authority.” That is, we are supposed to accept the film’s assertions about what religion is like as, well, the gospel.
But it is just a story, isn’t it? Of course, it is. But as Philip Pullman himself once wrote, “‘Thou shalt not’ might reach the head, but it takes ‘Once upon a time’ to reach the heart.” That is exactly the point made in the new book The Pied Piper of Atheism, which draws the connection between Pullman’s fantasy tales and the legendary figure who stole children away by playing music that appealed to their emotions.
No matter what the filmmakers meant to do, Pullman certainly intended to capture children’s hearts and plant the seed of doubt there. And the film, watered-down as it may be, cannot help but reflect that—as will future films, for in the second and third books in Pullman’s trilogy, the hatred of God is expressed much more clearly and strongly than in the first. (Despite the film’s PG-13 rating for violence, which is justified, parents took younger children to the preview screenings, and more children will undoubtedly be going when the film officially opens.)
In fact, Christian parents are already being bashed by some for not wanting to take their kids to hear this anti-God message. To those parents I say, good for you. Keep questioning the culture’s authority.
Listen to the Audio Podcast:
http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=7292
For further information and reading:
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/the_golden_compass_movie.html
What Christ Did For The Atheist
I came across this video when I was watching a video produced in defense of Atheism. I then checked to see what some of the responses where to it from believers. When I watched this video it really touched me. I know most of you have watched the Passion of the Christ, and for some maybe it's been a while. The movie really sends things home especially for the believer. One reason being is that Mel Gibson did his home work on what a real crucifixion was like. And when you read about it in the scriptures it's one thing but when it's told or shown in detail in how it actually happened in the days when the Romans implemented this practice it's another thing, certainly an eye opener. I hope the video gets you thinking about what Christ did for us, even the atheists. Romans 5:8 says this "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)