Creation or Evolution
Introduction
As we start this study I’d like for you to watch this first clip, pay close attention to the introduction, for it’s here we hear the words of Charles Darwin. His writings are to the evolutionist as the Bible is to Christians. For they all make reference to his book, “Origin of the Species” considered to be the foundation of Evolutionary Biology Later in today’s study we will look at
I’d like to start with a couple of questions, could something intelligent or what appears to be intelligent evolve from something inert and simple to active and complex without intervention?
Could an inanimate object change to a living functioning life form? I bring this up because of three theories, Darwin’s theory of evolution or simple to more complex and what he called natural selection, Abiogenesis – from nonliving matter to living matter, and punctuated equilibrium the theory of Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould– putting it in plain English, Great leaps in time.
The answers to creation are shrouded in antiquity, as Paul said
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
We look at the history of creation through an abstract, its theoretical, conceptual, and intangible, its like driving down a dark road with swirling fog, at times we see clearly and other times we barely see the road ahead of us but with the help of scripture and science I believe we can roll back a portion of that fog, we can through the light of Gods word and real science open a small window and take a look back in time to see the wonders of God’s creation. We will never know and understand the completed creation but I believe we can learn enough to cast a long shadow and create enough doubt so that those who believe in evolution will take a second and third look.
While working on this study I wrestled with how to start the series. At first I thought we’d jump right in by looking at the evidence, but the issue that really bothered me was, will those reading my notes or participating in this study really understand what the concept of evolution really is and what is being taught?
Evolution goes beyond the realms of science as well as philosophy; evolution is a religion of the intellectual elite with out a god. To understand the teaching we must understand the teachers and the truths they hold as self-evident and the theories they espouse.
How to start this study
1. Did you ever wonder about creation?
2. Did you ever have a conversation about it?
3. Did you ever wonder how to converse with someone about what you believe and why?
4. Did you ever wonder why you believe what you believe?
5. Did you ever have any doubts?
6. Did you ever wonder about science, the educational system, and the entertainment industry?
They didn’t get it then just as they don’t get it now, because Christianity was and is viewed as a philosophy and not a spiritual issue, but they at least looked at it and tried to understand it.
When I started my own series of novels I came to the realization just how little I knew about creation/evolution and that started a search for answers. I wanted more than the Sunday school lesson and the occasional Sunday morning sermon, but I wasn’t prepared for what I came across. In my search I found that the debate was not friendly, matter-of-fact most were down right hateful. The evolutionist was quick to respond to my questions and arguments and the Creationist never answered my email, they sent a form letter referring me to their website.
While researching some of the proponents of evolution I came across a piece written by
(1) Eugenie C. Scott's book, “Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction”
(2) "Perhaps someday schools in the
And I quite agree we do need to understand the controversy, and let me tell you, it’s a big one.
There are two scriptures we need to look at. The first is Romans 1:20 where Paul speaks and then in Job 38:4-7 where God speaks.
Romans 1:20 “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”
Job 38:4-7 How did I lay the foundation for the earth? Were you there? Doubtless you know who decided its length and width. What supports the foundation? Who placed the cornerstone, while morning stars sang, and angels rejoiced?
First of all, did you know that creation like evolution is a theory?
Neither evolution nor creation in it self can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt even though both sides produce reams of information to back the theories.
Evolution in one hand and creation in the other, both you take by faith, both on the scales waiting on the evidence.
We have faith in the creation story in Genesis because we believe in God. But there are those who believe in science and believe that evolution is the only way it could have happened.
The following is a website if you’re interested in a lecture by Stephan Hawking. He uses plain and simple words so it’s easy to understand and quite interesting. What I want you to read is just the first part, if we have time we’ll cover more of what he has to say in a later lesson.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/03/16_hawking_text.shtml
Lecture in Physics, delivered March 13, 2007, by Stephen Hawking, professor of mathematics at
(1) The motivation for believing in an eternal universe was the desire to avoid invoking divine intervention, to create the universe, and set it going. Conversely, those who believed the universe had a beginning, used it as an argument for the existence of God, as the first cause, or prime mover of the universe.
Darwinian evolution is by definition unguided and purposeless, and such evolution cannot in any meaningful sense be theistic. For evolution to be genuinely theistic it must be guided by God, whether this means that God programmed the process in advance or stepped in from time to time to give it a push in the right direction.
To Darwinists evolution guided by God is a soft form of creationism, which is to say it is not evolution at all.
So what is their thinking?
To repeat, this goes to the very heart of Darwinist thinking. Allow a preexisting supernatural intelligence to guide evolution, and this omnipotent being can do a whole lot more than that.
There are three definitions that cover the mind set of evolution
(1) Philosophical Naturalism is the concept that human beings have no soul or spirtual body, that there is no after life or heaven or hell, and that all supernatural phenomena, causes or beings are merely figments of human imagination
(2) Moral naturalism rejects divine revelation as the source of ethics, holding that morals emerged from the emergence of the best course for survival as a society, much as instincts emerge as the best course for survival among animals in the wild
(3) Naturalism (i.e.naturalistic evolution) is often desirable, for it seemingly frees us from the authority of a Creator God. Without a God to whom we are accountable, we are free to live as we choose. High school and College students are particularly ripe for wrong thinking often finding themselves surrounded by a pleasure-seeking crowd.
The assumptions of naturalism (Usually atheists) that underlie the scientific method have led some scientists, especially naturalists to question whether the ultimate reason or source for the universe to exist can be answered in a scientific fashion.
With this is mind we switch from science to philosophy. Now the question, what does philosophy have to do with evolution. Paul said in
Slide 13 Romans 2:12-16
Those people who don't know about God's Law will still be punished for what they do wrong. And the Law will be used to judge everyone who knows what it says. God accepts those who obey his Law, but not those who simply hear it. Some people naturally obey the Law's commands, even though they don't have the Law. This proves that the conscience is like a law written in the human heart. And it will show whether we are forgiven or condemned, when God appoints Jesus Christ to judge everyone's secret thoughts, just as my message says.
Let’s look at philosophy,In particular the principle of sufficient reason (also called the Causal Doctrine which states that anything that happens does so for a definite reason. Sound familiar?
In some form or another the principle of sufficient reason goes all the way back to Plato and before. It is mans attempt to get his arms around the question, where did we come from. Plato was both a writer and a teacher. In the Allegory of the Cave, Plato described symbolically the predicament in which mankind finds itself and proposes a way of salvation. The allegory is this, if you take people at birth and chain them to a cave wall so that all they see are the shadows of people and objects from outside the cave that is their reality. Now one of those people gets loose and goes outside the cave and for the first time times sees what the real world is about, rushes back in and says wow this is what I saw. The people in the cave get mad because he has told them something that contradicts their reality
.
2Timothy 4:3-4
The time is coming when people won't listen to good teaching. Instead, they will look for teachers who will please them by telling them only what they are itching to hear. They will turn from the truth and eagerly listen to senseless stories.
The principle of sufficient reason seems to indicate that there should be an explanation, but whether a satisfactory explanation can be obtained through scientific inquiry is debatable, thus we have the philosophical debate.
There are four recognized laws of thought for “The principle of sufficient reason or the Causal Doctrine. Simply stated, for every event, whatever its nature, there exists a cause of that event, which sufficiently explains the event in question.
1. Principle of Sufficient Reason of Becoming - If a new state of one or several real objects appears, another state must have preceded it upon which the new state follows regularly.
2. Principle of Sufficient Reason of Knowing - If a judgment is to express a piece of knowledge, it must have a sufficient ground. By virtue of this quality, it receives the predicate true. Truth is therefore the reference of a judgment to something different there from.
3. Principle of Sufficient Reason of Being - The position of every object in space and the succession of every object in time is conditioned by another object's position in space and succession in time.
4. Principle of Sufficient Reason of Acting - Every human decision is the result of an object that necessarily determines the human's will by functioning as a motive.
For those of you who don’t understand… First of all we use it every day in common sense and in science as well as in philosophy and theology. Let me give you an illustration. We have a lot of roaches in South East Texas so assume If we saw a roach suddenly appear at the dinner table, would we would casually ask, "Hey roach did you come from nowhere?" No, we would look for a cause, assuming there has to be one, or maybe two. Did the roach fall from the ceiling, crawl up from the floor? Did someone put it there when we weren't looking? Maybe its fake, its not! If there seems to be no physical cause, we look for a psychological cause: perhaps someone hypnotized us. As a last resort, we look for a supernatural cause, a miracle. But there must be some cause. We never deny the Principle of Sufficient Reason itself. No one believes that roaches just pop into existence for no reason at all.
Now let me give you a real live first cause. Annette and I were at the movie. In front of us and crawling across the back of the seat in front of us was a roach. Since Annette is violently allergic to these little bugs I snapped it. Where do think in landed. Three rows up in a ladies hair. I was the first cause for that ladies reaction and the following reactions that took place a short time later
It’s the same with the universe; it just didn’t appear or pop into existence. But does the universe as a whole have a cause? Is there a first cause, an uncaused cause, a transcendent cause of the whole chain of causes and there are billions of them. After all you were caused by your parents and they theirs. Why must there be a first cause, because if there isn't, then the whole universe is unexplained, and we have violated our Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything.
So does the Universe as a whole have a cause? If it does it has to be an eternal, necessary, independent, self-explanatory being with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it. It would have to explain itself as well as everything else, for if it needed something else as its explanation, its reason, its cause, then it would not be the first and uncaused cause. Such a being would have to be God, of course. If we can prove there is such a first cause, we will have proved there is a God. Which we will do later in this study, for if we can’t than as Paul said, we are men most miserable.
It would appear that between scripture and human thought there is a bit of confusion, but look again at Romans 2:12-16.
Some people naturally obey the laws commands, even though they don’t have the law. This proves that the conscience is like a law written in the human heart.
From “Reasons to Believe” Jeff Zweerink PH.D
The Bible accurately described at the time it was written this property of the universe known as causality. The Bible clearly states that the universe, and time in particular had a beginning. Recent advances by scientists seeking to understand how space and time form and interact provide additional support for the biblical notion that causality arises from a Creator. The implications of this research are far-reaching. The arrow of time that allows us to distinguish the past from the future derives from something outside of space and time. Stated another way, something beyond this universe encoded cause and effect into the very fabric of space-time. Causality’s significance for humanity is staggering. Without causality life becomes a mechanical existence devoid of any hope, joy, or intrigue. Furthermore although our past influences our future, it does not dictate future events. We can choose among a number of different paths for our future. Though sometimes taken for granted: a universe with such features rouses wonder and gratitude. A totally different view than that of Doctor Will Provine whom we heard from a little earlier
My point is this, the more in-depth into evolution thinking you go the more confused, and for me depressed you become, and you’ll soon learn as I did that evolution is not a battle of science and religion, but a battle for the mind and soul of man. As you will see evolution is a religion of the Secular Humanists. Darwin being their prophet and his writings their scripture, for you will see that all evolutionists refer back to
At the time
We’re 149 years later now and the fossil record is complete with billions of fossils and multiple museums and we still have no definitive species in transition, we have only fully formed fossils in the fossil records. There are not any fossils that show bumps, little appendages, or slight changes as
So to counter this the Neo-Darwinian theorists have said you’re right, the fossil records don’t match traditional Darwinism which is a slight change over time, so now we have huge punctuated events in history that are not seen in the fossil records. So now instead of slight change over time you have an event every million years or so that makes drastic changes in the evolutionary cycle.
To match science with the Bible there are some who believe God used evolution to create the universe and man and it’s called theistic evolution. So… we have theistic evolution, Darwinian evolution, cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, macroevolution, microevolution, and chemical evolution and the list goes on.
Most atheistic evolutionists (not all) believe that the universe started with a “Big Bang,” a huge explosion that created the universe. They do not know where this energy came from or why it took place. They believe after a long period of time rocks were formed out of that explosion.
Many evolutionists believe that after the “Big Bang” there was a “primordial soup” for millions of years, and out of that primordial soup a simple life form developed. After millions and millions of years that simple life form progressed to more “complex” life forms through series of mutations into where we are today.
So how do we convince others that they’re wrong, that’s what this study is about.
We will never convince anyone that they’re wrong. Our job is to tell them the truth and allow the Holy Spirit to deal with them. John 8:31-32 Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
In the early years of this church I could say that I’ve known Most of you for a long time, you’re washed in the blood, Spirit filled, born again believer. Should I care what you believe about creation or evolution? I don’t think it’s essential to your salvation but do you think it could be essential to the salvation of that college student you come in contact with, a co-worker at work, or a neighbor. For many people the age of the earth is irrelevant. It neither helps or hinders when explaining the gospel message to some, while to others it has become an unavoidable roadblock on the path to salvation, and that we should care about. Remember one thing, you cannot change the way a person thinks, it’s your job to plant the seed and let God do the rest. But in order to plant the seed you first have to understand how. Was it all by chance?
If we are to be able to converse with those that believe in evolution we need to know what it is that they believe. How much do they actually know? It may be your job to guide them through all the miss-information that’s out there before you can bring them to the truth. So how do we converse with them? How do we get their attention? How do we talk to them without sounding preachy, this study is about doing just that?
There are three requirements
(1) We who believe are commanded to take up the sword of the spirit which is the word of God (Eph 6:17), Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
(2)Study it to show ourselves approved, rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15) Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who doesn't need to be ashamed, correctly teaching the word of truth.
(3) So that we may go and teach all nations (Matthew 28:19). Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost
Psalms 19:1-4 “The heavens keep telling the wonders of God, and the skies declare what he has done. Each day informs the following day; each night announces to the next. They don't speak a word, and there is never the sound of a voice. Yet their message reaches all the earth, and it travels around the world.” Have you looked lately?
Isaiah 45:18 “ For thus says the Lord, Who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who has established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited.”
Psalms 147:4 “He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name.”
Psalm 104:2 “He wraps himself in light as with a garment; he s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-s out the heavens like a tent”
Romans 1:20 “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”
Isaiah 45:12, "It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.
Job 9:8 NIV He alone s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-s out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea
But before we can discuss creation and evolution we have to decide if God actually fits into the process. Now I know that sounds a little facetious or tongue in cheek, but understand when talking to an unbeliever or one who questions the existence of God we have to give them good sound reasoning, not the old clichés such as “God said it so I believe it.” Understand they don’t believe in God. We have to be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves as the scripture says. When you’ve had the dribble and the pabulum that is served up in schools today you’re not going to win the argument, all you’re going to do is turn them off. So as a computer hacker would say, you have to go in by the back door. You have to have a lead in question that gets their interest and causes them to think. When you do that you allow the Holy Spirit access to not only your train of thought, it also allows the Holy Spirit entrance into their thought processes where He can do what he does best. So where do we start? The simplest way, by allowing them to assume they are in control of the discussion, after all you’re not there to argue, you’re waiting on the Holy Spirit to provide an opening… Now understand you’re going to be talked down to… you’re not on the same level as they are… you’re uneducated… a simpleton…an idiot… a religious nut… your politically, scientifically, and socially incorrect, misinformed and probably maladjusted having had trouble since childhood. So the first thing you’re going to have to do is define God, not to them but to yourself… do you really know who he is? It cannot be from a theological standpoint because they’ve heard it all, or at least they think they have. It can’t be from a philosophical point of view… they’ve heard that too, as for science… science says there is no God, so how? From personal experience and using all the arguments they have learned at the feet of Darwinian thinkers against them. When you do that you begin to clear away the fog and allow them to focus, doing that allows the Holy Spirit access to their thought processes, after all this is not a battle of wits or intelligence, but a spiritual battle
Darwinist propaganda states that the only persons who have any doubts about Darwinism are creationists who are always portrayed as rejecting the clear and convincing evidence of science to preserve a religious prejudice. The implication is that citizens of modern society are faced with a choice that is really no choice at all. Either they reject science altogether and retreat to a pre-modern worldview, or they believe everything the Darwinists tell them.
For me, by definition -
A creationist is simply a person who believes in the existence of a creator, who brought about the existence of the world and its living inhabitants in furtherance of a purpose.
If God brought about our existence for a purpose, then the most important kind of knowledge to have is knowledge of God and of what He intends for us. (What is man’s purpose?) With that being said we now must have a definition for creation which will also raise the following question…Is creation in that broad sense consistent with evolution?
The answer is absolutely not, when "evolution" is understood in the Darwinian sense. With that being said our definition for creation would be…
Creation is not external to God but is the very essence of who God is, for it is out of who He is that all came to be.
Going back to the principle of sufficient reason
St. Thomas Aquinas said it best; "There must also be a first cause of perfection or goodness or value. We rank things as more or less perfect or good or valuable. Unless this ranking is false and meaningless, unless souls don't really have any more perfection than slugs, there must be a real standard of perfection to make such a hierarchy possible, for a thing is ranked higher on the hierarchy of perfection only insofar as it is closer to the standard, the ideal, the most perfect. Unless there is a most-perfect being to be that real standard of perfection, all our value judgments are meaningless and impossible. Such a most-perfect being, or real ideal standard of perfection, is another description of God."'
Now listen to but listen to how Stephen J. Gould put it,
“In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory an intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory.
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual (uninterrupted) truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.”
So that is the challenge for this study, to seek out the truth where ever it lies and piece it together so that in the end we do have a theory that is factual and part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to truth. The object is not to argue, but to intelligently debate the issue leaving the need for more information rather than how Stephen J. Gould put it “then attack us falsely”. The thing to remember when debating the issue, you will never convince anyone that they’re wrong, only the Holy Spirit can.
What we want to do here is verify whether scripture has anything to say on the age of the earth and its creation other than Genesis.
(1) Radiometric dating relies on half-life decay of radioactive elements to allow scientists to date rocks and materials directly.
Dr. Wiens (a Mennonite and a Christian) teaches that the earth is indeed very old. However, there are those that disagree with him, one person that does is Dr. Tasman B. Walker.
This is what he says,
“There have been many attempts by many people to reinterpret the Scriptures to incorporate eons of time into the Bible, but no method works (which is why there are so many).We’ll come back to this statement
Before we continue with his statement I have to say this, if radiometric dating was the only method then I might agree with him. The question I have is this, are we compromising our faith when we agree with true science? He continues…
Every compromise position undermines the authority of Scripture and damages the biblical world view. Like a blow to the heart, millions of years destroy the Gospel by placing the fossil record, with its death and suffering, before sin entered the world through Adam and Eve. Thus, the issue is crucial for the Christian, indeed for all people, because the Bible is true and its messages have consequences for everyone.
For those who are unfamiliar with the concept of nuclear decay and how scientists use daughter elements to determine the age of rocks, it is useful to begin with a brief primer.
There are currently 115 known elements and more than 2,000 different varieties of these elements called isotopes. Most elements are stable and do not change. However, some elements are unstable and change through a process of nuclear, or radioactive, decay. Over time, the atoms emit particles and the element (called the parent element) changes to a new element (called the daughter element).
Scientists believe nuclear decay occurs at a constant rate. The time it takes for half the atoms of the parent isotope to decay into the daughter isotope is known as the half-life of that parent isotope. By measuring the quantity of parent and daughter isotopes of an element in a rock and applying the half-life, scientists can determine the age of the rock. This is the process known as radiometric dating. Scientists have measured the half-lives of more than 40 radioactive isotopes (or radioisotopes), giving them over 40 different radiometric dating methods.
Scientists believe they know the present decay rate. Thus, if a rock contains both uranium-238 and lead-206, the ratio of the two elements will be used to estimate the age of the sample.
It is conceded, however, that in order for this method to be valid, certain assumptions must be granted.
It must be assumed that no lead-206 was in the rock at the time of its formation. But what if lead-206 was a part of the original creation? That would invalidate the accuracy of the age-estimate.
It must be assumed that neither the parent nor the daughter element has been altered in mass since the beginning. However, there is an increasing body of evidence which indicates that both parent and daughter elements, under the proper conditions, can migrate in the rocks, thus radically affecting any result that might be obtained.
The assumption is made that decay rates have remained constant. Again, though, recent research has shown that while these decay rates appear to remain constant within narrow limits, under special circumstances they may be altered considerably.
Let me add a disclaimer - If the decay rate has varied significantly over time then any data based on radioactive decay is worthless and that is where two theories by young earth creationists come in to play, they are called RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) and C come in.
However there are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago.
Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods which we will cover.
Dr. Wiens
Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.
Arguments over the age of the Earth have sometimes been divisive for people who regard the Bible as God's word. Even though the Earth's age is never directly mentioned in the Bible, it is an issue because those who take a strictly literal view of the early chapters of Genesis can calculate an approximate date for the creation by adding up the life-spans of the people mentioned in the genealogies.
Assuming a strictly literal interpretation of the week of creation, even if some of the generations were left out of the genealogies, the Earth would be less than ten thousand years old.
Radiometric dating techniques indicate that the Earth is thousands of times older than that--approximately four and a half billion years old.
Before we continue let me say this, if radiometric dating was the only method of dating I might agree with those that believe in young earth but when other methods are used as well and they all agree than we must take a serious look. And we must look to see what scripture has to say and we will.
Other dating methods
The carbon-14 dates have been carefully cross-checked with non-radiometric age indicators, and here are but a few.
(1) Dendrochronology - growth rings in trees, if counted carefully, are a reliable way to determine the age of a tree. Growth ring patterns based on wet and dry years can be correlated between living and long dead trees, extending the continuous ring count back to 11,800 years ago. Tree rings do not provide continuous chronologies beyond 11,800 years ago because a rather abrupt change in climate took place at that time, which was the end of the last ice age.
(2) Ice Cores - A continuous count of layers exists back as far as 160,000 years
Ages of 40,000 years or less are estimated to be off by 2% at most. Ages of 60,000 years may be off by up to 10%, and the uncertainty rises to 20% for ages of 110,000 years based on direct counting of layers.
Varves - Another layering technique uses seasonal variations in sedimentary layers deposited underwater. Regular sequences of varves have been measured going back to about 35,000 years.
Cosmic-ray exposure dating - This dating method relies on measuring certain isotopes produced by cosmic ray impacts on exposed rock surfaces. Because cosmic rays constantly bombard meteorites flying through space, this method has long been used to date the ' flight time' of meteorites--that is the time from when they were chipped off a larger body (like an asteroid) to the time they land on Earth.
The Age of the Earth
We now turn our attention to what the dating systems tell us about the age of the Earth. The most obvious constraint is the age of the oldest rocks. These have been dated at up to about four billion years. But actually only a very small portion of the Earth's rocks are that old. From satellite data and other measurements we know that the Earth's surface is constantly rearranging itself little by little as Earthquakes occur. Such rearranging cannot occur without some of the Earth's surface disappearing under other parts of the Earth's surface, re-melting some of the rock. So it appears that none of the rocks have survived from the creation of the Earth without undergoing re-melting, metamorphism, or erosion, and all we can say--from this line of evidence--is that the Earth appears to be at least as old as the four billion year old rocks.
RATE - (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth)
From a creationist perspective, through Rate they have determined that the most likely times for accelerated decay were the first 2.5 days of the creation week, and during the Flood and shortly there after.
The RATE scientists sought to answer a key question: Why do most rocks look far older than the Bible says that the earth is--and why do many rocks look demonstrably older than they really are?
In the first phase of the project, the RATE team set out to challenge the proposition that billions of years of nuclear or radioactive decay have occurred in earth history. What they expected to find was the quantity of daughter elements on the Earth was far less than scientists claim and consistent with thousands, rather than billions, of years of nuclear decay. Instead, they found the quantity of daughter elements is thousands of times greater than the young-earth model would predict.
To explain the abundance of daughter elements on the Earth, the RATE team surmised that nuclear decay must have been accelerated at some time in the past, resulting in the production of large quantities of daughter elements in a short period of time. Not to be critical but it sounds a lot like P.E.
How does RATE work? In a nut shell, the researcher’s extracted small crystals called zircons from several samples and measured the quantity of uranium and lead in them as well as the quantity of helium. They discovered by comparing these two values 17 to 58 percent of the helium produced by uranium decay was still in the zircons. In their opinion they believed it was impossible for zircons to retain that much helium if the rocks were billions of years old. Thus, they concluded this was evidence the rocks were instantaneously created.
To measure the helium diffusion rate they heated the zircons to various temperatures and measured the rate at which the helium was "baked" out of the zircons.
Quote from 2004 from the RATE team
Thus our new diffusion data supports the main hypothesis of the RATE research initiative: that God drastically accelerated the decay rates of long half-life nuclei during the earth's recent past. The helium indeed could not have remained in the zircons for even a million years, much less the alleged 1.5 billion years. Even more exciting, the most recent experiments give a helium diffusion age of 6,000 ± 2,000 years, which resonates strongly with the date of creation we get from a straightforward Biblical chronology.
The theory of C
In 1989 evidence suggesting that the velocity of light, C, had been slowing down throughout history for some years after the universe was born reported Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman. The theory is that the speed of light may have been far faster than its present-day value of 186,000 miles per second.
They now believe that it has been slowing down ever since. One mystery that it seems to explain is why the universe is so uniform and why opposite extremes of the cosmos that are too far apart to have ever been in contact with each other appear to obey the same rules of physics and are even at about the same temperature. It would only be possible for light to cross from one side to the other if it had traveled much faster than today moments after the universe was created between 10 billion and 15 billion years ago. Their hypothesis suggests it was so fast that it could have been traveling at 186,000 miles a second multiplied by a figure with 70 zeroes after it!
One of the key pieces of evidence that cosmologists use to indicate universal expansion is the redshift of light from distant galaxies. The redshift is an astronomical term that describes the shifting of the spectral lines or the electromagnetic spectrum towards the red end of the spectrum when compared with a laboratory standard here on earth.
Its been pointed out that if the fabric of space was itself expanding, then photons of light in transit should have their wavelengths stretched in a manner proportional to the expansion.
The redshift of galaxies exists because their light waves are stretched as space is stretched, and therefore their wavelength is increased
The key issue for the Christian, in the long run however, is whether or not the Bible has anything to say on any particular issue. This issue of an expanding or static cosmos is no different. It may seem strange to think the Bible might have a word on whether the universe is static or continues to expand, but it is always necessary to check.
Evolution contends the universe is still expanding while creation says the universe is static.
In this case, there does appear to be some evidence supporting a universe that was expanded out to its current size quickly at the time of creation and was then held at that size so that it is now static. Look at the following quotes:
This is what God the Lord says
He who created the heavens and s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d them out,
Who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it,
Who gives breath to its people
And life to those who walk on it.
Isaiah 42:5 NIV
I am the Lord who has made all things,
Who alone s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d out the heavens,
Who spread out the earth by myself.
Isaiah 44:24 NIV
It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it.
My own hands s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d out the heavens;
I marshaled their starry hosts.
Isaiah 45:12 NIV
The nest question that needs to be asked is, where did the singularity come from that created the big bang?
Dr. Robert H. Gowdy, Associate Professor, Chair of the Physics Department at
From the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, Dr. Darren Devine states the 1st Law of Thermodynamics as, “In any physical or chemical reaction, energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be changed from one form to another.”
From Dr. Richard B. Hallick at The University of Arizona he describes the first Law of Thermodynamics as, “Energy cannot be created or destroyed; different forms of energy are interconvertible.”
So here did the energy come from? Remember our definition of creation? Creation is not external to God but is the very essence of who God is, for it is out of who He is that all came to be.
There are three possible causes for the origin of energy:
1) From nothing,
2) From something natural.
3) From something supernatural.
The supernatural choice is the most rational. Why? First, there are no experiences or justifications for concluding that something comes from nothing. The FLT was formulated to state this fact.
Second, something from nothing is contrary to the first law of thermodynamics of science. Such a claim contradicts the established law of thermodynamics
Third, it is justifiably applied to the origin of energy. Reasonable explanations must have some rational basis for the interpretation. Credible explanations do not contradict laws of science. Claiming that something can come from nothing is a serious violation of common sense, experience, and scientific law.
We can be fairly sure that the Big Bang and the Bible agree on one thing: the universe expanded. The Big Bang postulates an internal energy giving rise to this expansion. The Bible says God did it. The Big Bang says it continues, but the Bible seems to say it was in the past. If the context is examined in these passages as well as others which talk about the stretching of the heavens, it can be seen that the action is being paired with other actions which are in the past and long since completed: the earth has been spread out, the stars have been formed, mankind has been created, and so forth. The indication is that all these things were fully completed long ago.
According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as a "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. Now the question that arises is, what is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. The big bang singularity is a point of zero volume, but very high mass, which makes the density infinite. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure and exist in the center of a galaxy.
The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.
That means the cause of the universe must be something beyond nature, it means
There was no space because it created space
There was no time because it created time.
There was no matter because it created matter
There was Power because it created out of nothing
There must be intelligent because the creation event and the universe was precisely designed
There must be Personality because it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something. Impersonal forces don’t make choices.
Evolutionist Frederic B. Jueneman declares:
The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such “confirmation” may be short-lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences.
My thoughts are this, no matter what dating process is used it’s just a tool. But if we lay science alongside scripture Genesis 1:1 – 1:2 we see it is possible for an ancient earth and an even older universe. Some may contend that God accelerated decay rates supernaturally, so the evidence lies beyond the limits of scientific inquiry. That is possible. As the Creator, God is certainly capable of altering the laws of nature. And we will discuss this more in detail later, but just let me add, for God to make the universe appear older than what it really is, wouldn’t that make God a liar?
To paraphrase the great Christian theologian Augustine, how can we expect unbelievers to trust our statements about spiritual things if we make outlandish statements about worldly things? Obviously, we can't. Thus, it is our public witness we should be most concerned about, not promoting our sectarian views of the age of the earth.
As I thought about all that I had found, my first thought was, just as evolution has punctuated equilibrium so the Young earth creationists have RATE and C to support their theory. Then as I always do I sort through all that I have written to make sure that what I have written is true, that I have all the facts. One thing bothered me, all the data in RATE and C couldn’t be all wrong.
These men who developed Rate are a lot smarter than I am, they’re brothers in Christ, should I not give them the benefit of the doubt, or maybe it’s just they can’t see the forest for the trees?
As I went back and re-read the data for RATE and C and the hypothesis for both it struck me… Both the evolutionist, old earth creation and young earth creation are both right!
As Holmes said "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
The evidence provided by both theories proves, there were two creations, the original in Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:2
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Do you remember last week when we said Should I care what you believe about creation or evolution? I don’t think it’s essential to your salvation but do you think it could be essential to the salvation of that college student you come in contact with, a co-worker at work, or a neighbor. For many people the age of the earth is irrelevant. It neither helps or hinders when explaining the gospel message to some, while to others it has become an unavoidable roadblock on the path to salvation, and that we should care about.
I spent nearly a year debating the issues with three men. A professor of biology at USC, a Christian turned secular humanist, and an atheist. Through all the philosophy, science, theology, and atheistic reasoning do you know where I received the most interest, The Odds?
Here is what I asked. What are the odds that I’m right and you’re wrong, or I’m wrong and you’re right? They replied incalculable.
I said, you’re wrong, it’s 50/50. If I’m right than my life has been planned, just as creation was planned as indicated by the following scripture,
(1) Ephesians 1:4-6 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.
You see I believe that before I was conceived and the world was created I was because he knew me.
(2) Psalm 139:16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
You know what the odds are as to whether I’m right or wrong. 50/50. Sound strange. Let me explain. When I draw my last breath I believe I go to meet God, for Paul said to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. If there is no God and you’re right I’ll still die happy believing I go to meet God. If there is no God I’ll never know it, either way it’s 50/50. But if I’m right than my life has really just begun, God is real and creation was and is a fact. What are the odds for creation, 50/50.
Now let’s look at the odds for you. If you’re right, you’re life ends just as mine did. If you’re right there’s nothing to worry about, but if you’re wrong there’s hell to pay. What are the odds that you’re wrong, 50/50 just like me.
And evolution… well let’s look at the odds for that
What are the odds? I’m sure we’ve all heard that. How many here have pulled the arm of the one arm bandit, placed a bet on a horse, or played the lottery?
The odds
The chance that the jackpot image will land on one reel is 1 in 32. For all three for the jackpot
(1) 1 in 32 = 32x32x32 = 1 in 32,768 (32 positions on each wheel)
(2) 1 in 64= 64 x64x64 =1 in 262,144
(3) 1 in 256 = 256x256x256 = 1 in 16,777,216
(4) 1 in 512 = 512x512x512 = 1 in 134,217,728
In a typical 6 from 49 lotto, 6 numbers are drawn from 49 and if the 6 numbers on a ticket match the numbers drawn, the ticket holder is a jackpot winner - this is true regardless of the order in which the numbers are drawn. The odds of being the jackpot winner are approximately
(5) 1 in 14 million or 13,983,816 to be exact.
Mega Millions is a very popular multi-state lottery in the
(6) 1 chance in 175,711,536.
The SuperEnalotto of Italy is supposedly the most difficult where players try to match 6 numbers out of 90. The odds in making the jackpot:
(7) 1 chance in 622,614,630.
In preparing for this portion of the study I was curious as to what the odds were for our universe to suddenly appear and then what are the odds that the earth developed as it did, and then for life to form as it did. To find out we turn to Dr. Emile Borel, who first formulated the basic Law of Probability.
basic Law of Probability
He determined that the occurrence of an event where the chances are beyond
(1) 1 chance in 1050 or the 200th power used for scientific calculations is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, regardless of the time allotted or how many opportunities could exist for the event to take place. (50 Zeros)
(2) The odds of a flat universe - the one we are in now are about 1 in 5 be 50 zeroes there)
While surfing the net I found this example using just the 206 bones of the human body.
How many combinations could we randomly make out of the 206 bones in the human body? If this experiment could be completed every second for every single second available in some evolutionary cycle using the estimates of 10 billion years, that would be somewhere around 10 to the 18th power worth of seconds to work with. This produces a probability of 10 to the 370 power. The chance of getting the bones all in their correct position is less than one chance in 10 billion years.
Dawkins, 1996, pp. 282–283,
...no life, no biology, only physics and chemistry, and the details of the Earth’s chemistry were very different. Most, though not all, of the informed speculation begins in what has been called the primeval soup, a weak broth of simple organic chemicals in the sea? Nobody knows how it happened but, somehow, without violating the laws of physics and chemistry, a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying—a replicator. This may seem like a big stroke of luck... Freakish or not, this kind of luck does happen... and it had to happen only once... What is more, as far as we know, it may have happened on only one planet out of a billion billion planets in the universe. Of course many people think that it actually happened on lots and lots of planets, but we only have evidence that it happened on one planet, after a lapse of half a billion to a billion years. So the sort of lucky event we are looking at could be so wildly improbable that the chances of its happening, somewhere in the universe, could be as low as one in a billion billion billion in any one year. If it did happen on only one planet, anywhere in the universe, that planet has to be our planet—because here we are talking about it
Take a look at this clip, I think you will enjoy it for it’s a parody on Dawkins.
This kind of probability “progression into absurdity” is the very reason Borél devised his single law of chance—to show that beyond a certain point some things will never happen. For example, what are the odds that computers will evolve into humans? There are none, no matter how much time we allow for the event to occur. But this is essentially what evolutionists ask us to believe, such as the case of the theory of Abiogenesis
That dead matter plus time plus chance produces life.
However, once again the evolutionist is right. For if you read Genesis 2:7 The LORD God took a handful of soil and made a man. God breathed life into the man, and the man started breathing.
A clay statue in a brief second, not millions of years turned pink as the blood begin to flow and he took his first breath and opened his eyes. Dead matter, time, and divine intervention produces life, not dead matter, time, and a stroke of luck.
