Milo

This outline attempts to show that the evolutionary theory, based on naturalistic principles, leads to purposelessness.
Purpose is indicative of a purpose giver, a designer. I propose that God gives us purpose. Also, with this outline, I am trying to show that the best the naturalist position can offer is an illusion of purpose.

Premise – from an Atheistic Perspective.

The universe exists.

The universe has principles and laws inherent in its properties of matter, energy flow, chemical reaction, etc.

Any derivative principles based upon the laws must be consistent with the inherent laws.

These inherent, natural laws cannot be violated.

Any apparent violation of these laws is only a display of our lack of understanding of all the laws and is consistent with more complex inherent laws.

Life is the product of these inherent natural laws of the universe.

That is, due to the properties of matter and energy, life necessarily arose since we exist.

Life can only develop in harmony with the natural laws in the universe.

Life is limited to and governed by these inherent principles since life is a product of the inherent laws and cannot violate them.

Therefore,

Human existence, thoughts, feelings, etc., are merely the end result of the inherent universal laws and principles of matter, energy flow, chemical reaction, etc. that has resulted in life.

Question: From an atheistic point of view, what purpose does Mankind have for existence?

Since the laws of the universe are immutable and cannot be violated, any reason given by an atheist for claiming purpose in existence can be properly attributed to be the result of chemical reactions in his/her brain leading him to say he has purpose.

The atheist, therefore, is nothing more than the product of your environment and naturals laws.

He is guided and lead by these Laws and react, plot, hope, and will only in agreement with these Laws.

Any purpose thus offered is still nothing more than the product of natural Laws of matter, chemistry, and energy flow. In other words, the atheist is nothing more than the result of naturals laws inherent in the natural universe.

If the atheist admits that his mind is the derivative product of these natural Laws, but that his mind and will have “risen above” these laws and that he is now able to escape the limitations of the natural laws and give himself purpose…

Then it can still be asserted that his reasoning is nothing more than the result of chemical reactions in his brain causing him to say and believe this.

Then he has violated principle 5 above which is.

Life can only develop in harmony with the natural laws in the universe.

If the atheist states that the natural laws are not exhaustively known and that they can produce truly “free-will” creatures,

Then he is making his point based upon what we do not know about the natural laws and stating that since we do not know what they can do, therefore, I am free to not be bound by the natural laws.

Then it is, essentially, an argument from silence.

Therefore, from the atheist perspective, he is not independent, autonomous, nor does he possess a free will.

Conclusion

Therefore, the Concept of “Having a Purpose” becomes meaningless because

The atheist has no purpose beyond the programming inherent in himself.

Therefore, he has no independence and no free will.

If he claims he is thinking in harmony with the limitations imposed by Natural Laws and that the sum of his evolution is greater than those individual Natural Laws, then he has again violated principle 5 above.

Principle 5: Life can only develop in harmony with the inherent laws in the universe.

If life only develops in harmony with the laws then it is restricted to those laws and cannot exceed them.

Also, it can still be said that the atheist claim of independence is nothing more than the chemical reactions in his brain.

If the atheist says he has purpose not derived from or that is beyond the mere derivation of life from the original, inherent natural Laws, then….

This implies the existence of the supernatural.

If the supernatural exists, then it is certainly possible that God exists.

The atheist is denying the principles from which evolution is derived.

This would mean that evolution is not true, and/or

If the atheist acknowledges that his mind, will, hopes, desires, etc., are nothing more than the product of the natural universe, then…

He has no self-determined purpose.

He has no will other than that which is governed by the natural laws and programmed within him.

He serves nothing more than natural laws.

Therefore, the atheist has no freely chosen, self intended purpose for existence.

If there is a God, then I have purpose, since I have a will and my purpose is given to me by God.

Since I claim to have a purpose, not derived from natural Laws, it follows that I claim there is a God.

Since, to claim purpose outside the natural is to conclude that purpose is derived from something beyond the natural.

Since I determine I have a purpose and I deny the limitations of the boundaries set by Natural Laws, it is reasonable to assume that I believe in God and that there is a God.

Otherwise, we are merely bags of chemicals reacting to stimuli. I believe man is more than that.

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 year 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:

1. 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.
2. 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 be come 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!

In his book, A brief history of Time, the well-known British physicist, Stephen W. Hawking, identifies the ultimate question behind everything. ‘Today we still yearn to know why we are here and where we came from.’1

In the last chapter of his book he says:

‘We find ourselves in a bewildering world. We want to make sense of what we see around us and to ask: What is the nature of the universe? What is our place in it and where did it and we come from? Why is it the way it is?’2

Hawking concedes that the important question of why the universe exists cannot be answered by means of equations and theories.

‘Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?’3

Nevertheless, he concludes his book by limiting himself to the equations, instead of looking for their Author.

‘However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable … by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all … be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would know the mind of God.’4

Like so many other astronomers and physicists, Hawking tries to explain the universe without acknowledging its Creator. But Isaac Newton (1642–1727), possibly the greatest physicist of all time, and a predecessor of Hawking in the same chair at Cambridge University, firmly believed that the solar system was created by God.

The idea that the solar system emerged from a swirl of matter began with Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). Many present-day cosmologists describe the cosmos in terms of evolutionary development and most of them accept the so-called big bang theory.

According to this theory, the universe began about 10 to 20 thousand million [10–20 billion—Ed.] years ago as an inconceivably small volume of space (or a single point of vast energy) which has been expanding ever since. The most important observation supporting the concept of an expanding universe is the ‘red shift’ of light from distant stars.

This inferred expansion cannot be observed directly, but light coming from distant galaxies seems to have longer wavelengths (i.e. gets ‘redder’) as the distance increases. This is attributed to either the Doppler effect (that the wavelengths of light are ‘stretched out’ when galaxies move away from one another) or the relativistic stretching of the space between the stars as the universe expands. The big bang theory suggests that the cosmos was originally compressed into a hot and dense ‘cosmic egg,’ and as the universe aged, it expanded.

Space does not permit a full discussion of the evidence for and against the big bang. However, many discoveries made in recent years with improved instruments and improved observational methods have repeatedly shaken this theory.5 Interpretations of the available facts in terms of currently held cosmological models very quickly lead to unresolvable inconsistencies. There is an increasing number of astronomers who raise substantial arguments against the theory.

If the universe came from a big bang, then matter should be evenly distributed. However, the universe contains an extremely uneven distribution of mass. This means that matter is concentrated into zones and planes around relatively empty regions. Two astronomers, Geller and Huchra, embarked on a measuring program expecting to find evidence to support the big bang model. By compiling large star maps, they hoped to demonstrate that matter is uniformly distributed throughout the cosmos (when a large enough scale is considered).

The more progress they made with their cartographic overview of space, the clearer it became that distant galaxies are clustered like cosmic continents beyond nearly empty reaches of space. The big bang model was strongly shaken by this discovery.

It should be added that the visible galaxies do not contain enough mass to explain the existence and distribution of these structures. But the big bang model was not discarded. Instead, the existence of a mysterious, unknown, and unseen form of matter (‘dark matter’) was postulated. Without any direct evidence for its existence, this ‘dark matter’ is supposed to be 10 times the amount of visibly observed mass.

A critic of the big bang theory, Ernst Peter Fischer, a physicist and biologist of Constance, Germany, reflects on its popularity. He refers to the:

‘… warning given by [physicist and philosopher] Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker … namely that a society which accepts the idea that the origin of the cosmos could be explained in terms of an explosion, reveals more about the society itself than about the universe. Nevertheless, the many observations made during the past 25 years or so which contradict the standard model, are simply ignored. When fact and theory contradict each other, one of them has to yield.’6

Another critic of the big bang theory, Halton C. Arp, was attached to the world-famous Mount Wilson Observatory near Pasadena, USA, and to the Las Campanas Observatories in California. He explains the reasons for rejecting the big bang model in a notable article, ‘Der kontinuierlicher Kosmos’ (The continuous cosmos).

‘Since antiquity, ideas of the universe have varied widely, depending on assumptions about factual observations. The current idea of a big bang has been the standard model for about 60 years. But, in the mean time, the number of observations that negate the assumption that the red shift of the light of distant galaxies can be explained by recessive motions, is increasing.’7

In other words, even the idea that the universe is expanding is under attack by some astronomers.

Arp continues his criticism of the big bang theory and calls for it to be rejected by the scientific community.

‘In my opinion the observations speak a different language; they call for a different view of the universe. I believe that the big bang theory should be replaced, because it is no longer a valid theory.’8

Professor Hans Jörg Fahr of the Institute for Astrophysics at Bonn University, Germany, writes of the demise of the big bang theory in his book, Der Urknall kommt zu Fall (The Demise of the Big Bang).

‘The universe originated about 20 thousand million years ago in a cosmic explosion (the big bang), it has been expanding ever since, and it will continue to do so until the end of time … This sounds convincing, and it is accepted by all present-day mainstream “natural philosophers.” But it should be obvious that a doctrine which is acclaimed noisily, is not necessarily close to the truth. In the field of cosmology the widely supported big bang theory is not more convincing than other alternatives. In fact, there are surprisingly many alternatives.’9

Dr James Trefil, professor of physics at Mason University, Virginia, accepts the big bang model, but he concedes that a state of emergency exists regarding fundamental aspects of explaining why the universe exists.

‘There shouldn’t be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are.’ He later continues: ‘The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists.’10

It is a great pity that many Christians are willing to ‘re-interpret’ the infallible Word of God to fit a fallible, man-made theory like the big bang. Such ideas are ultimately devised to counter the biblical record, which is firmly against cosmic evolution over billions of years. Those who urge trying to harmonize the big bang with Scripture find it only natural to go on to other evolutionary ideas, such as a ‘primitive earth’ gradually cooling down, death, and struggle millions of years before the Fall, and so on.

My considered opinion is that as long as we try to explain the universe apart from the Creator and without regard to biblical affirmations given by him, we will continue to be dazzled by a succession of ingenious cosmological ideas, none of which will remotely resemble the truth.11

This article was adapted from Dr Gitt’s book Stars and their Purpose: Signposts in Space.

Stars could not have come from the ‘big bang’

Evolutionists generally believe that stars formed by the collapse of gas clouds under gravity. This is supposed to generate the millions of degrees required for nuclear fusion.

But most clouds would be so hot that outward pressure would prevent collapse. Evolutionists must find a way for the cloud to cool down. One such mechanism might be through molecules in the cloud colliding and radiating enough of the heat away.

But according to theory, the ‘big bang’ made mainly hydrogen, with a little helium—the other elements supposedly formed inside stars. Helium can’t form molecules at all, so the only molecule that could be formed would be molecular hydrogen (H2). Even this is easily destroyed by ultraviolet light, and usually needs dust grains to form—and dust grains require heavier elements. So the only coolant left is atomic hydrogen, and this would leave gas clouds over a hundred times too hot to collapse.

Abraham Loeb of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics says: ‘The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level.’1

Reference

Marcus Chown, ‘Let there be light’, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998.

On 28 September 1976, the following telegram was received at the World Health Organization Headquarters in Geneva:

A SERIOUS EPIDEMIC OF NATURE STILL UNKNOWN IS GOING ON IN THE REGION OF TWO OF OUR PLANTATIONS IN BUMBA ZONE, YAMBUKU COLLECTIVITY. WE THINK IT POSSIBLE FULMINATING TYPHOID OR YELLOW FEVER. SAMPLES HAVE … BEEN SENT TO I.T.M. [Institute of Tropical Medicine] IN ANTWERP TO BE ANALYZED. WE WOULD BE INTERESTED TO KNOW THE DIAGNOSIS BY TELEX AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. IN THIS WAY, WE WILL BE ABLE TO ORGANIZE A CAMPAIGN OF VACCINATION FOR OUR EMPLOYEES.
SIGNED /
DR. BUSQUET, KINSHASA1

This was the first information to come out of Zaïre (now Republic of the Congo) regarding the Ebola viral epidemic that killed hundreds of infected Africans living in and around the Yambuku hospital, near the headwaters of the Ebola River.2 The nuns at the Yambuku mission hospital wereusing five unsterilized needles to give injections

The deadly African Ebola virus
Among the more deadly and incurable of viruses is the Ebola virus, named after the Ebola River region in the African Congo, where it was first identified. It has since been found elsewhere in Africa with the same deadly effects.

The onset of infection is accompanied by non-specific symptoms such as severe abdominal pains and diarrhoea. Soon the victim is bleeding from many orifices as internal organs liquefy.

Doctors suspect that the virus, which equally affects all primates, may have originated in rats. Strangely, some people are totally unaffected by the virus. Outbreaks come in waves and then seem to subside completely.

While research continues, little is known for certain of the virus’s origin and mechanisms of infection.

to hundreds of people each day. Epidemiologists have concluded that this caused the outbreak that occurred simultaneously in 55 villages surrounding the hospital.

The first to die were those who received the injections. Then the disease moved through families, killing mainly those who had prepared the dead for burial. It also swept through the hospital’s staff, killing nurses and midwives who had contact with patient blood and vomit. It is believed that the Ebola disease may have been transmitted through sexual contact as well.

Ebola is only one of a number of newly-emerging killer pathogens that are gaining a foothold throughout the world. Viral diseases such as Lassa fever, Rift Valley fever, hantavirus and dengue are also striking panic and alarm worldwide. Old diseases that had been considered to be no longer health problems are re-emerging in importance. The jet plane and increasing international travel have created the situation in which someone with one of these diseases can travel around the world spreading it even before noticing any symptoms.3 What is worse, there is no cure or vaccine for many of these deadly diseases.

On the positive side, the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, provide tremendous insight and relief concerning disease prevention. Remarkably, the Pentateuch is regarded as the earliest evidence we have of sound public health and sanitary practices.4 These ancient writings, when used in conjunction with modern medicine, can break the mode of transmission of virtually every scourge known to humanity.

What follows is a brief summary of the biblical instructions pertaining to public health and sanitation. Bear in mind that these regulations were practised some 3,500 years before the germ concept of disease was discovered (mainly by the creationist Louis Pasteur5)!

Wound, skin and discharge precautions

The instructions recorded in Leviticus 15 are strikingly similar to modern disease-prevention techniques.

For example, anyone touching a person with a ‘running issue’ (that is, a bodily discharge), or anything upon which that person sat or lay, became ‘unclean’. In addition, should the ‘toucher’ touch someone without first having washed his hands, uncleanness would be transferred to the person he touched as well.

Just a little more than 100 years ago, these precautions were instituted in modern medical facilities to prevent diseases from spreading. ‘No touch’ surgical and dressing techniques are now used.6 Gloves are necessary for persons touching infected areas and careful hand washing is observed before and after patient care. In addition, ‘universal precautions’ require that all bodily secretions be treated as potentially infectious agents.

Waste disposal

The Israelites were instructed to bury their waste material away from the camp (Deuteronomy 23:12–14). Intestinal diseases such as cholera, amebic dysentery and E. coli enteritis continue even today to take a heavy toll on lives where similar sanitary practices are not observed.

The Israelites were also admonished to burn used dressings. Garments that contained a growth (perhaps a fungus) were to be washed. If the fungus/growth was removed, the garment was to be rewashed before using again. If not, it was to be burned (Leviticus 13:47–58). Note that a first wash could germinate hardy spores. The new growth could then be removed by rewashing. Objects that were touched by an infected person were to be washed. If the object was pottery, however, washing was insufficient (perhaps due to its porous nature). It was to be destroyed (Leviticus 11:33, 15:12).

Today’s health practices are quite similar. Objects and dressings contaminated with bodily discharges are removed for incineration. Whenever possible, disposable needles, syringes, eating utensils, dishes and other items are used. Non-disposable items are washed, bagged and sterilized.

Isolation

The Israelites took great care before diagnosing a person as having leprosy or a similar condition. If there was any doubt as to the certainty of a diagnosis, the person was to be isolated for observation (Leviticus 13:1–14:57). Once a person was diagnosed with a contagious condition, he was to be quarantined outside of the camp ‘all the days wherein the plague shall be in him.’ He was also required to wear a covering over his mouth, and to warn others by shouting, ‘Unclean, unclean!’ (Numbers 5:2–4 and Leviticus 13:45–46).

Modern hospitals also follow special isolation procedures for persons who have, or are suspected of having, contagious infections. For example, ‘strict isolation’ requires a private room with an independent air supply. The door to this room must be kept closed. Gowns, gloves and masks must be worn by all who enter the room. In addition, a sign must be placed on the patient’s door to warn others of his condition.

Burial precautions

Direct contact with the dead (human or animal) brought defilement and required the washing of body and garments (Numbers 19:11, 19, 22 and Leviticus 11:24–28, 40). Contact with objects that had come in direct contact with the dead (such as garments, swords, pots and graves) also resulted in ‘defilement’ and required cleansing or destruction.

Furthermore, when someone died in a tent, all who came into the tent, and all that was in the tent (including every ‘open vessel’) was declared unclean (Leviticus 11 and Numbers 19:14–16).

Until the late 1800s, it was common practice for physicians and medical students to examine their living patients immediately after participating in autopsies.7

Of course, the pathogens that were present in the bodies of those in the morgue were spread to the hospital wards. When doctors began practising procedures similar to those found in the first five books of the Bible, mortality rates were drastically reduced.8

Food and drinking water safety

If the carcass of an animal was found in drinking water, use of the water was forbidden as ‘unclean’. If, however, the water source had a continual supply of fresh water, such as a spring, it would remain ‘clean’ because of the tendency of such water to renew itself (Leviticus 11:34–36). In addition, all food and water within a vessel that came in contact with a dead animal or an infected person was declared unclean (Leviticus 11:34, 15:12).

Today, we know that failure to heed any one of these precautions could result in the transmission of infectious microorganisms.

Unlawful lifestyles and disease

The Israelites were clearly forbidden to have any sexual relationships outside of marriage (Leviticus 18:22, 20:10–16 and Exodus 20:14). The biblical plan of husband and wife constituting an exclusive married unit (Genesis 1:27, 2:23–25; Matthew 19:3–6) certainly prevented the spread of venereal diseases.

Because of man’s failure to heed this admonition, sexually transmitted diseases continue to be the world’s leading contagious diseases.9

God’s prescription

The biblical record clearly indicates that diseases are communicable and that the best protection against them is to prevent their spread. It is noteworthy that these ancient records do not contain a single medical misconception! I don’t claim that Moses understood the basis of modern medicine, but that God, who inspired Moses’ writings (including the outline of the world’s true history given in Genesis), certainly did.

More importantly, the Bible deals with the most deadly disease ever to plague mankind—sin (Genesis 2:17; Romans 6:23). Like every good physician, God offers the prescription for this killer disease as well: a personal saving relationship, through faith, with His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ (John 3:16).

‘But He was wounded for our transgressions; He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was on Him; and with His stripes we ourselves are healed … Yet it pleased the LORD to … put forth His soul as a guilt-offering’ (Isaiah 53:5, 10a).

David Wise

People who ask about carbon-14 (14C) dating usually want to know about the radiometric1 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.2

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.3 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.4

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,5 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.6 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.7

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,8 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.9

For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.10 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 1470.11 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.12 John Woodmorappe has produced an incisive critique of these dating methods.13 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.14

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.15 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.16 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,17 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!19

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.20 This contrasts with an age of 1550-1650 Ma based on other isotope ratios,21 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.22 The ‘zero’ ages in this case are consistent with the Bible.

More evidence something is wrong—14C in fossils supposedly millions of years old
Carbon dating in many cases seriously embarrasses evolutionists by giving ages that are much younger than those expected from their model of early history. A specimen older than 50,000 years should have too little 14C to measure.

Laboratories that measure 14C would like a source of organic material with zero 14C to use as a blank to check that their lab procedures do not add 14C. Coal is an obvious candidate because the youngest coal is supposed to be millions of years old, and most of it is supposed to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old. Such old coal should be devoid of 14C. It isn’t. No source of coal has been found that completely lacks 14C.

Fossil wood found in ‘Upper Permian’ rock that is supposedly 250 Ma old still contained 14C.23 Recently, a sample of wood found in rock classified as ‘middle Triassic,’ supposedly some 230 million years old, gave a 14C date of 33,720 years, plus or minus 430 years.24 The accompanying checks showed that the 14C date was not due to contamination and that the ‘date’ was valid, within the standard (long ages) understanding of this dating system.

It is an unsolved mystery to evolutionists as to why coal has 14C in it,25 or wood supposedly millions of years old still has 14C present, but it makes perfect sense in a creationist world view.

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 Morris26 and Austin.27

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.28

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.29

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.30

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.31

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.32

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.33

Dr Russell Humphreys gives other processes inconsistent with billions of years in the pamphlet Evidence for a Young World.34

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.’ 35

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.37

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.38 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.39 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.40 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-206.41 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.42

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.43 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.44

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.