Thursday, September 22, 2011


Hello fellow creation science lovers and those who are curious. Hopefully these next three questions will answer some of your inquiries! If you are just starting with my blog, you might want to go to the very first question posted  September 12th? Somewhere around there anyways! That is an important question and an even more important answer, one you have to make for yourself. May our Lord bless and keep you all!

1.)    Name one of the biggest arguments that the science community (evolutionists) has against the creation theory and why the argument doesn’t work.

       There are many big arguments that the secular science community has against the creation theory depending on which branch of science you are referring to. However, probably the most well known debate revolves around macroevolution and intelligent design.
       First let us establish the difference between micro and macro evolution. Microevolution is, through the processes of mutation, selection, and sexual recombination the production of a variation within its kind (species or genus). Creationists refer to this as adaptation or variety within a kind. In other words, when a dog breeder is selecting different traits in a type of dog (i.e. for smaller and smaller Chihuahuas, or faster and faster greyhounds and so on) they may get a smaller Chihuahua or faster greyhound, but they are still a dogs. (note – Darwin’s finches are still used in text books as an example of macroevolution. Though some finches had curved, small or long beaks, they are, never the less, all still finches.)
       Macroevolution is changes from a simpler to a more complex form, such as a fish changing into an amphibian, and amphibian into a reptile etc. this can occur either through a slow (many transitional forms with incremental changes) or rapid (a few transitional form with large changes) process.  
       Now let us define intelligent design. This concept states “certain features” of living things were designed by an “intelligent cause” as opposed to being formed through purely ‘natural’ means. Meaning the structure of life and even non-life was made with a purpose. The intelligent design conception not only affirms that living things are designed, but that they demonstrate irreducible complexity. In other words, once a dog is bred to its extreme (teacup Chihuahua), breeding more teacup Chihuahuas will not make it larger or change it into a wolf. That DNA information has now been lost, and can be demonstrated. Continual breeding of teacup Chihuahua’s will produce nothing but teacup Chihuahuas
       The question is, can the macroevolution processes be extrapolated to explain the presumed evolutionary theory.
       Like wise, is there evidence to confirm the creation theory?
       Let us start with the macroevolution theory. Mutation has long been the solution secular scientists have used as the key to promote transitions between one species and another. However, a person cannot logically extrapolate from mutation-selection to evolution. There are a series of logical and observational limits to gross over-extrapolation.  The textbooks and television shows illustrate small mutations, slowly selected over time, producing elaborate evolution. These statements, given as facts are, quite frankly, false.
       There have been many, many examples used in our textbooks (and in some cases are still being used), that the secular scientific community has openly refuted for decades.  A few examples are:
·        The pepper moth hypothesis
·        Lightning in the primitive atmosphere producing the chemical building blocks of life.
·        Similar embryonic morphologies during the earliest stages.
·        Archaeopteryx: the missing link.
·        Piltdown man transitional form.
       The fossil record has yet to give up a transitional form.  Darwin himself stated if a transitional form was not found within fifty years of the printing of his book, the theory of evolution should be considered false.
       Many more “facts” being taught in textbooks have holes in their hypothesis.
       Holes that the creation theory can explain. Secular science books and articles are filled with terminology such as , possibly, is thought to, scientists believe, could have, may have, is thought to believe, and imagine. A true scientist whether a Christian believer or not, must discern what is fact and what is fiction.
       For example, let’s look at the ape to man theory.  Every transitional form has been proven to be either a monkey, ape, human or false. So what is true about the theory? Well, we know monkey, apes, and humans exist. We see them alive today, and there are fossils of extinct species of monkeys and apes. So we can extrapolate with confidence that monkeys, apes, and humans exist. Anything else is left to the artists imagination (did you ever read the footnotes on the text book illustrations? ‘Artists rendition’!)  and we can count is as false information.
       The creation theory states that an intelligent designer (God) placed all the information into the first created kinds. Diversity came naturally as environments changed. DNA lost can not be regained. Evidence for this abounds everywhere. Every farmer knows this when he selects for hybrids. They may be selecting for a tougher skinned tomato, but they have no doubt that the seeds they plant will still produce tomatoes.
       And, of course, the fact that there is no true transitional forms, fully supports the creation theory.
       God created vegetation on day three, and creatures of the waters and fowl of the air on the fifth day. Every living thing that moveth upon the earth and man were created on the sixth day. God even commands that everything is to multiply after their own kind.
       Isn’t that what we see today?  If evolution is true why aren’t there still ape men evolving and roaming the earth.  Do we see half cat, half dogs anywhere? Or half cat anythings? Why not? Has evolution suddenly stopped? Or did it never exist to begin with.

2.)    How accurate is carbon dating?

            Before we get into the accuracy of radiometric dating, let’s define what it is.  Radiocarbon dating uses the unique properties of carbon, especially the rare form of carbon-14.  Carbon-14 is fourteen times as heavy as hydrogen atoms.  People assume rocks are dated “millions of years old” based on radiocarbon dating. But it can only be used to date things that contain the element carbon and were once alive like fossils. Carbon-14 can actually only yield dates of thousands of years before it breaks down.

         Radiocarbon forms continually today in the earth’s upper atmosphere.Cosmic rays from outer space are continually bombarding the upper atmosphere of the earth, producing fast-moving neutrons (subatomic particles carrying no electric charge).1 These fast-moving neutrons collide with atoms of nitrogen-14, the most abundant element in the upper atmosphere, converting them into radiocarbon (carbon-14) atoms.

CARBON-14 IS CREATED: When cosmic rays bombard the earth’s atmosphere, they produce neutrons. These excited neutrons then collide with nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere, changing them into radioactive carbon-14 atoms.

CARBON-14 IS ABSORBED: Plants absorb this carbon-14 during photosynthesis. When animals eat the plants, the carbon-14 enters their bodies. The carbon-
14 in their bodies breaks down to nitrogen-14 and escapes at the same rate as new carbon-14 is added. So the level of carbon-14 remains stable.

CARBON-14 IS DEPLETED: When an animal dies the carbon-14 continues to break down to nitrogen-14 and escapes, while no new carbon-14 is added. By comparing the surviving amount of carbon-14 to the original amount, scientists can calculate how long ago the animal died.”

            The accuracy of this dating method is affected by several assumptions and factors. The first factor is you cannot assume the cosmic rays reaching the earth have always been the same.  In fact, we know the amount reaching the earth varies with the sun’s activity and our planets passage through the solar systems magnetic clouds.
            Another factor is Noation flood. Huge amounts of carbon, in the form of plants and animals (and people) were buried during the global flood. “Therefore the carbon 14 level relative to carbon 12 [levels] increases after the flood. This means that the C14 to C12 ratio had to be lower before the flood than it is now.” If this is not taken into consideration during radiocarbon dating, fossils formed during the flood would give a much older date than they really are. 
            A third factor one must understand and compensate for when using this method to date, is volcanic activity.  Since much volcanism occurred right after the flood, and volcanoes emit a lot of carbon dioxide, early post-flood fossils and carbon based objects (such as wood carvings), would have readings much older than their true age.
            In answer to the question “the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully.” radiocarbon dating does not give dates of millions of years, but rather thousands. When the factors mentioned above are compensated for, this dating method fits well with the creation theory biblical flood. 

3.)    There is some scripture in the Bible that identifies many truths about the earth before man “discovered” them, such as the shape of the earth, etc. Can you quote a few scriptures describing the earth as we know it?

            In fact, there are quite a few truths/natural laws recently discovered by man, that are in written in scripture since much earlier times. For example, starting in the first book of Genesis, God states that for plants, and animals to produce after their own kind (Gen 1:11,12, and 24, 25. This not only taxonomically places plants and animals in specific categories (the scientific ‘genus’ follows most closely with God’s animal kinds category), but also first states the Law of Biogenesis (that is that life always comes from life) in Gen 1:22, and 28 (be fruitful and multiply). Both plant and animal reproductive systems are programmed with biochemical genetic code (DNA). Other than mutations, both natural and those produce in a laboratory, the genetic code is identical generation after generation.
            Another very important fact scientists  recently realized, are the uniformity of the laws of nature. These laws apply to past, present, and future, and are one of the most basic suppositions of all science.  If any of the laws of nature where to arbitrarily change or stop, then all past experimental results would be of little significance. They could tell us nothing about the future, or even the present. There would be no order or consistency throughout the universe. Thankfully, that is not the case. The laws of nature were put into place a long time ago because our God is a God of order and has put the ordinances of heaven and earth into place since the beginning. The prophet Jeremiah reveals this to us in chapter 33 verse 25.
            One more example is the reference to the earth being round, rather than flat.  We all know the sailors (and kings!) of Columbus’s time thought the world was flat. I guess they did not read their bibles very well. Isaiah 40:22 speaks of the ‘circle of the earth’. Job 26:10 and proverbs 8:27 both refer to the Hebrew khug which is translated compass, or circle and is in reference to the oceans. 
            Additional discoveries confirm the authenticity of the bible, including; things yet unseen (at that time), and now we are able to see. We can view microscopic substances even to the minutest scale of atoms. The trade winds and ocean currents are also mentioned in the bible, both being discovered by men of God, who logically derived a conclusion; the words of God are true, so it must be out there. The laws of planetary motion, physics and mathematics all confirm God’s character of order and structure throughout the universe.


The New Defender’s Study Bible, Understanding the Critical Issues of the Faith from a Literal Creationist ViewPoint, Dr. Henry M. Morris, 1995.
Answers Magazine, Oct. – Dec. 2006, Vol. 1 No. 2, God and Natural Law, Lisle, Jason,         Ph.D., pg 75 – 78.
Creation Research Society Quarterly, volume 48, Summer 2011, No. 1, “Geotheory”:   Past and Present, Reed, John K., pgs. 20 – 27.
The Revised and Expanded Answers Book, Ham, Ken; Sarfati, Jonathan; Wieland, Carl; 2000, pgs, 75 – 102.

No comments:

Post a Comment